^ w« Sltfologfr#/ PRINCETON, N. J. BX 5133 . B4 5 S4 1838 Bentley, Richard, 1662-1742 Sermons preached at Boyle's shelf.... lecture * W- ' I THE WORKS OF RICHARD BENTLEY, D.D. COLLECTED AND EDITED m BY THE REV. ALEXANDER DYCE. VOL. III. THEOLOGICAL WRITINGS. LONDON PRINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY, AND FRANKI.YN, 46 St. Martin’s Lane. » SERMONS PREACHED AT BOYLES LECTURE ; REMARKS UPON A DISCOURSE OF FREE-THINKING ; PROPOSALS FOR AN EDITION OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT; ETC. ETC. / BY RICHARD BENTLEY, D. D. EDITED, WITH NOTES, BY THE REY. ALEXANDER DYCE. LONDON: FRANCIS MACPHERSON, MIDDLE ROW, IIOLBORN. 1838. THE EDITOR’S PREFACE. In reprinting the pieces which constitute the present volume, I have adopted the text of the following editions : I. Eight Sermons Preach'd at the Honourable Robert Boyle's Lecture, in the First Year mdcxcii. By Richard Bentley, M.A. The Sixth Edition. To which are added, Three Sermons: One at the Public Commencement, July 5, 1696. when he proceeded Doctor in Divinity ; another before the University , Nov . 5,1715. and one before his late Majesty King George I. Feb . 3, 17tt. Cambridge, mdccxxxv. 8vo. The Boyle Lectures were originally put forth each as a distinct publication, the first six in 1692, the last two in 1693, London, 4to : and during the latter year a general title-page was prefixed to them — The Folly and Unreasonableness of Atheism de¬ monstrated from The Advantage and Pleasure of a Reli¬ gious Life, The Faculties of Human Souls, The Structure of Animate Bodies, and The Origin and Frame of the VI PREFACE. World, &c. Ill the fourth ed. London, 1699, 4to, the author made various important corrections and alterations. Before sending to press the seventh and eighth of these Lectures, Bentley addressed several letters to Sir Isaac (then Mr.) Newton, respecting the use to which he had there turned the discoveries of that great philosopher. The answers of Newton, first published by Richard Cumberland, Four Letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Doctor Bentley. Containing Some Arguments in Proof of a Deity, London, 1756, 8vo, are now appended to the Lectures. Of the three Sermons on different subjects the original editions are : Of Revelation and the Messias. A Sermon Preached at the Publick Commencement at Cambridge. July 5th, 1696. London, 1696, 4to. A Sermon upon Popery : Preach'd before the University of Cambridge, November vth, mdccxv. Cambridge, 1715, 8 vo. A Sermon Preach'd before His Majesty King George, at his Royal Chapel of St. James's, on Sunday, Februai'y 3, 1 7tt. Publish'd by His Majesty's Special Command. London, 1717, 8vo. II. A Speech by Dr. Bentley , Archdeacon of Ely, to the Clergy of that Diocese, at his Visitation held in Cambridge, December 13, 1716. In The St. James's Evening Post, {Numb. 246.) From Thursday, De¬ cember 20, to Saturday, December 22, 1716. PREFACE. Vll III. Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free- thinking : in a Letter to F. H., D.D. By Phileleu- therus Lipsiensis. Est genus hominum, qui esse primos se omnium rerum volunt, Nec sunt - - An ancles Personam formare novam ? Servetur ad imum Qualis ah incepto processerit, et sibi constet. The eighth edition. With further Additions from the Author's MS. ( Part the Second. The eighth edition. — Part the Third. The second edition .) Cambridge, 1743, 8 vo. The First and Second Parts came forth separately in 1713, 8vo. In an “ Advertisement” to ed. 1743, (see p. 473 of the present vol.) we are told, that two half-sheets of the Third Part were first added to the seventh edition of the two former Parts, 1737. In some copies of the fourth edition of the Second Part, 1714, those two half-sheets are found, the addition probably having been made in 1737. A few pages more of the Third Part originally appeared in the ed. of 1743. IV. Dr. Bentley's Proposals for Printing a New Edition of the Greek Testament , and St. Hierom's Latin Version. With a full Answer to all the Re- Vlll PREFACE. marks of a late Pamphleteer. By a Member of Tri¬ nity College in Cambridge. Cunarum labor est Angues superare mearum . Ovid. Tollentemque minas 8? sibila colla tumentem Dejice. Virgil. London, 1721, 4to. Two editions of the Proposals , each consisting of two leaves in folio, had previously appeared in 1720. V. Richardi Bentleii, cum septem in Theologia Doctores crearet, Oratiuncula ; Cantabrigice in Comitiis habita, Jidii vi. mdccxxv. Prefixed by Bentley to his editions of Terence, Cantab. 1726, Amstel. 1727, 4to. The present volume comprehends all the pub¬ lished theological writings of Bentley. The Boyle Lectures which he delivered during the year 1694, a defence of Christianity against the objections of infidels, were unfortunately never committed to the press (see Monk’s Life of B. vol, i. p. 56) ; and though copies are mentioned as extant by Kippis in his ed. of the Biog. Brit. (vol. ii. p. 243, 1780), no traces of them are now to be discovered : the late Dean Vincent, (as I am informed by the truly learned Mr. Kidd,) was of opinion that they have been irre- PREFACE. IX trievably lost. Concerning another unprinted piece by Bentley, a Prselection on the disputed verse of St. John, see p. 485. It may be necessary to apprise some readers * that La Friponnerie Laique des Pretendus Esprits- Forts d’ Angleterre, which has furnished me with a considerable number of notes for the Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free-thinking, is a French trans¬ lation of that work, by Armand de la Chapelle, pub¬ lished at Amsterdam in 1738. ALEXANDER DYCE. y ; ' . - * - . , . ’ ; . , ’ . - , \ . . . . ■ ♦ . - « . rV-lnVl '■ , Ri, PRIHGETO i, THEQLQGICS L# CONTENTS. PAGE EIGHT BOYLE LECTURES . 1 THE FOLLY OF ATHEISM, AND (WHAT IS NOW CALLED) DEISM, EVEN WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT LIFE. Psalm xiv. 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. ... 1 SERMON II. MATTER AND MOTION CANNOT THINK : OR, A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM FROM THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. Acts, xvii. 27. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him ; though he be not far from every one of us : for in him we live, and move, and have our being . 27 SERMONS III. IV. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM FROM THE STRUCTURE AND ORIGIN OF HUMAN BODIES. Acts, xvii. 27. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him ; though he be not far from every one of us : for in him we live, and move, and have our being . 51, 73, 96 SERMONS VI. VII. VIII. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM FROM THE ORIGIN AND FRAME OF THE WORLD. Acts, xiv. 15, &c. That ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein ; who in Xll CONTENTS. PAGE times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Neverthe¬ less, he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness . 119, 146, 173 FOUR LETTERS FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON TO DR. BENTLEY . 201 THREE SERMONS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS ... 217 I. OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. Preached at the Public Commencement, July 5, 1696. 1 Peter, iii. 15. Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you . 219 II. UPON POPERY. Preached November 5, 1715. 2 Cor. ii. 17. For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sin¬ cerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. . . . 241 III. BEFORE KING GEORGE I. Preached Feb. 3, 1716-7. Rom. xiv. 7. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. . . 263 VISITATION CHARGE . 279 REMARKS UPON A DISCOURSE OF FREE-THINKING 287 PROPOSALS FOR PRINTING A NEW EDITION OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT . 475 ORATIUNCULA 539 EIGHT SERMONS VREACIIED AT THE HON. ROBERT BOYLE’S LECTURE, IN THE YEAR MDCXCII. (From ed. 1735.) ♦ TO MY MOST HONOURED PATRONS, TRUSTEES, APPOINTED BY THE WILL OF THE HONOURABLE ROBERT BOYLE, ESQ., THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD THOMAS, LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN,* SIR HENRY ASHURST, Kt. and Baronet, SIR JOHN ROTHERAM, Serjeant at Law, JOHN EVELYN, Senior, Esquire. Most Honoured, God having disposed the heart of that incomparable person, the Honourable Robert Boyle, Esquire, lately deceased, the glory of our nation and age, whose charity and goodness were as universal as his learning and fame ; ‘To settle an annual salary for some divine or preaching minister, who shall be enjoined to perform the offices following: 1. To preach eight Sermons in the year, for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels, viz. Atheists, Deists, Pagans, Jews, and Mahometans ; not descending to any con¬ troversies that are among Christians themselves : thef lectures to be on the first Monday of the respective months of January, February, March, April, May, September, October, November ; in such church as the trustees shall from time to time appoint : 2. To be assisting to all companies and encouraging them in any undertaking for pro¬ pagating the Christian religion : 3. To be ready to satisfy such real scruples as any may have concerning those matters ; and to answer [* Dr. Thomas Tenison. — D.] [f the ; 1st ed. “ these.” — D.] XVI DEDICATION. such new objections or difficulties as may be started, to which good answers have not yet been made You have been pleased to believe me able in some measure to perform these offices, and to command this first essay to be made public. I am very sensible of the great honour, as well as the great extent and difficulty of the task ; and shall endeavour, to the utmost of my poor ability, to answer the re¬ ligious and generous design of that excellent person, and the good opinion you have entertained of. My most honoured Patrons, Your very obliged and humble servant, R. BENTLEY. March 17, 1692.* [* Not in 1st ed. — D.] ^^mfy of' PRINCETON THEOLOGIC& s&wnabS »*VV„ ▼vrvv «r» THE FOLLY OF ATHEISM, AND (WHAT IS NOW CALLED) DEISM, EVEN WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT LIFE. SERMON I. Preached March the 7th, 169 Psalm xiv. verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart , There is no God. They are corrupt , they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. I shall not now make any inquiry about the time and occasion and other circumstances of composing this Psalm ; nor how it comes to pass, that, with very little variation, we have it twice ovei’, both here the 14th, and again number the 53d. Not that these and such like are not important con¬ siderations in themselves ; but that I think them improper now, when we are to argue and expostulate with such per¬ sons as allow no divine authority to our text, and profess no greater, or, it may he they will say, less veneration for these sacred hymns, than for the profane songs of Anacreon or Horace. So that although I myself do really believe, that all such as say in their hearts , There is no God, are foolish and corrupt, both in understanding and will, because I see* [* sec ; 1st ed. “ see that.” — D.] VOL. III. n 2 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. Infinite Wisdom itself* has pronounced them to he so ; never¬ theless this argument would at present have no force upon these men, till in due time and method we have evinced the sufficient authority of holy Scripture. But, however, there are other books extant, which they must needs allow of as proper evidence ; even the mighty volumes of visible nature, and the everlasting tables of right reason ; wherein, if they do not wilfully shut their eyes, they may read their own folly written by the finger of God, in a much plainer and more terrible sentence than Belshazzar’sa was by the hand upon the wall. And as the impious principles of these persons do pre¬ clude any argumentation from the revealed word of God, so they prevent us also from speaking at present to the second part of the text. The whole verse hath apparently two pro¬ positions : the one denoting the folly of Atheism ; The fool hath said in his heart , There is no God : the second declaring the corruption and flagitiousness of life whichf naturally attend it ; they are corrupt , they have done abominable works , there is none that doeth yood. Now, this latter part to a genuine Atheist is mere jargon , as he loves J to call it ; an empty sound of words without any signification. He allows no natural morality, nor any other distinction of good and evil, just and unjust, than as human institution and the modes and fashions of various countries denominate§ them. The most heroical actions or detestable villanies are in the nature of || things indifferent to his approbation, if by secrecy they are alike concealed from rewards or punishments, from ignominy or applause. So that, till we have proved, in its proper place, the eternal and essential difference between virtue and vice, we must forbear to urge Atheists with the corruption and abominableness of their principles. But I presume the first part of the text, the folly and sottishness [* itself; Is# ed. “ himself.” — D.] 8 Dan. v. 5. [f which; Is# ed. “ that.” — D.] [J he loves ; Is# ed. “ they love.” — D.] [§ denominate; Is# ed. “ do denominate.” — D.] [|| of ; Is# ed. “ of the.” — D.] SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. Q U of Atheism (which shall be the subject of this discourse) will be allowed to come home to their case, since they make such a noisy pretence to wit and sagacity ; and I believe several of them first engage in that labyrinth of nonsense and folly, out of an absurd and preposterous affectation of seeming wiser than their neighbours. But, before I proceed any farther, it will be necessary to clear and vindicate this expression of the Psalmist, The fool hath said in his heart , There is no God. For I know not any interpreters that will allow it to be spoken of such as flatly deny the being of God; but of them that, believing his existence, do yet seclude him from directing the affairs of the world, from observing and judging the actions of men. I suppose they might be induced to this from the commonly received notion of an innate idea of God, imprinted upon every soul of man at their creation, in characters that can never be defaced. Whence it will follow, that speculative Atheism does only subsist* in our speculation ; wrhereas really human nature cannot be guilty of the crime : that, indeed, a few sensual and voluptuous persons may for a season eclipse this native light of the soul; but can never so wholly smother and extinguish it, but that at some lucid intervals it will recover itself again, and shine forth to the conviction of their consciences, f And therefore they believed, that the words would not admit of a strict and rigorous interpreta¬ tion ; but ought to be so tempered and accommodated to the nature of things, as that they may describe those profane persons, who, though they do not , nor can,% really doubt in their hearts of the being of God, yet§ openly deny his provi¬ dence in the course of their lives. Now, if this be all that is meant by the text , I do not see how we can defend, not only the fitness and propriety, but the very truth of the expres¬ sion. As to that natural and indelible signature of God, which human souls in their first origin are supposed to be [* does only subsist ; 1st ed. “ doth subsist only.” — D.] [f consciences ; 1st ed. “ conscience.” — D.] [J can; 1st ed. “ cannot." — D.] [§ yet; 1st ed, “ yet do.” — D.] 4 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. stamped with, I shall shew, at a fitter opportunity, that it is a mistake, and that we have no need of it in our disputes against Atheism. So that, being free from that prejudice, I interpret the words of the text in the literal acceptation, which will likewise take in the expositions of others. For I believe that the royal Psalmist in this comprehensive brevity of speech. There is no God, hath concluded all the various forms of impiety ; whether such* as excludes the Deity from governing the world by his providence, or judging it by his righteousness, or creating it by his wisdom and power; because the consequence and result of all these opinions is terminated in downright Atheism. For the divine inspection into the affairs of the world doth necessarily follow from the nature and being of God. And he that denies this doth implicitly deny his existence : he may acknowledge what he will with his mouth, but in his heart he hath said, There is no God. A God, therefore a Providence, was a general argu¬ ment of virtuous men, and not peculiar to the Stoics alone. And again, No Providence, therefore no God, was the most plausible reason, and the most frequent in the mouths of atheistical men. So that it seems to be agreed on all hands, that the existence of God and his government of the world do mutually suppose and imply one another. There are some infidels among us that not only disbelieve the Christian religion, but oppose the assertions off Provi¬ dence, of the immortality of the soul, of an universal judg¬ ment to come, and of any incorporeal essence ; and yet, to avoid the odious name of Atheists, would shelter and screen themselves under a new one of Deists, which is not quite so obnoxious. But I think the text hath cut them short, and precluded this subterfuge ; inasmuch as it hath declared, that all such wicked principles are coincident and all one in the issue with the rankest Atheism : The fool, that doth exempt the affairs of the world from the ordination and disposal of God, hath said in his heart, There is no God at all. It was [* such j ls< ed. “ of such.” — D.] [f oppose the assertions of j ls< ed. “ impugn the assertion of a.” — D.] SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. the opinion of many of the ancients., that Epicurusb intro¬ duced a Deity into his philosophy, not because he was per¬ suaded of his existence, (for, when he had brought him upon the stage of nature, he made him only muta 'persona , and interdicted him from bearing any part in it,) but purely that he might not incur the offence of the magistrate. He was generally, therefore, suspected* verbis reliquisse Deum, re sustulisse ; to have framed on purpose such a contemptible paltry hypothesis about him, as indeed left the name and title of God in the world, but nothing of his nature and power. Just as a philosopher0 of our own age gave a ludi¬ crous and fictitious notion about the rest of the earth , to evade the hard censure and usage which Galileo had lately met with. For my own part, as I do not exclude this reason from being a grand occasion of Epicurus’s owning a God,t so I believe that he and Democritus too were compelled to it likewise by the necessity of their own systems. For see¬ ing they explained the phenomena of vision, imagination, and thought itself, by certain thin fleeces of atoms, that flow incessantly from the surfaces of bodies, and by their subtilty and fineness penetrate^ any obstacle, and yet retain the exact figures and lineaments of the several bodies from which they proceed; and in this manner insinuating themselves through the pores of human bodies into the§ contexture of the soul, do there excite || sensation and perception of them¬ selves : in consequence of^| this hypothesis they were obliged to maintain, that we could have no fancy, or idea,** or con¬ ception of any thing, but what did really subsist either entire or in its several parts. Whence it followed, that mankind b Posidon. apud Ciceron. Plutarch. &c. [* magistrate. He was generally, therefore, suspected ; ls£ ed. “ govern¬ ment. Wherefore he was generally suspected.” — D.] c Mr. Des Cartes. [f owning a God ; Is* ed. “ Deism.” — D.] [J penetrate; 1st ed. “do penetrate.” — D.] [§ through the pores of human bodies into the ; 1st ed. “ into the eyes and the.” — D.] [|| there excite; Is/ ed. “ there produce and excite.” — D.] [^f of ; 1st ed. “ therefore of.” — D.] [** fancy, or idea; 1st ed. “ phantasie, idea.” — D.] 6 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. could have no imaginations* of Jupiter or Mars, of Minerva or Isis, if there were not actually such beings in nature to emit those effluvia, which, gliding into the soul, must beget such imaginations. t And thence it was, that those philoso¬ phers adapted their description of the Deity to the vulgar apprehensions of those times ; gods and goddesses innu¬ merable, and all of human figure, because otherwise the conceptions of mankind about them could not possibly be accounted for byj their physiology. So that if Epicurus and Democritus were in earnest about their philosophy, they did necessarily and really believe the existence of the gods. But then, as§ to the nature and authority of them, they bereaved that Jupiter of his thunder and majesty; forbidding him to look or peep abroad, so much as to inquire what news in the infinite space about him ; hut to content himself and be happy with an eternal laziness and dozing, unless some ram¬ bling troops of atoms , upon the dissolution of a neighbouring world, might chance to awake him. Now, because no Israelite in the days of the Psalmist is likely to have been so curious about natural knowledge, as to believe the being of a God 1 1 for such a quaint and airy reason as this, when he had once boldly denied his dominion over the world ; and since^f there is not now one infidel living so ridiculous as to pretend to solve the phenomena of sight, fancy, or cogita¬ tion, by those fleeting superficial films of bodies ; I must beg leave to think, both that** the fool in the text was a thorough confirmed Atheist, and that the modern disguised Deists do only call themselves so for the former reason of Epicurus, to decline the public odium and resentment of the magistrate, and that they coverfit the most arrant Atheism under the mask and shadow of a Deity ; by which they understand no [* imaginations ; ls2 ed. “ imagination.” — D.] [f imaginations ; lii ed. “ an imagination.” — D.] [| by; 1st ed. “ from.” — D.] [§ But then, as ; lsi ed. “ But as.” — D.] [|| of a God ; 1st ed. “ of God.” — D.] [^[ since ; lsi ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [** think, both that; 1st ed. “think that.” — D.] [ft and that they cover ; 1st ed. “ and do cover.” — D.] SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 7 more than some eternal inanimate matter, some universal nature, and soul of the world, void of all sense and cogita¬ tion, so far from being endowed* with infinite wisdom and goodness. And therefore, in this present discourse, they may deservedly come under that character which the text hath given of them, of fools, that have said in their hearts, There is no God. And now, having thus far cleared our way, in the next place we shall offer some notorious proofs of the gross folly and stupidity of Atheists. If a person that had a fair estate in reversion, which in all probability he would speedily be possessed of, and of which he might reasonably promise to himself a long and happy enjoyment, should be assured by some skilful physi¬ cian, that in a very short time he would inevitably fall into a disease whichf would so totally deprive him of his under¬ standing and memory, that he should lose the knowledge of all things without him, nay, all consciousness and sense of his own person and being: if, I say, upon a certain belief of this indication, the man should appear overjoyed at the news, and be mightily transported with the discovery and expectation, would not all that saw him be astonished at such behaviour ? would they not be forward to conclude, that the distemper had seized him already, and evenj then the miserable creature was become a mere fool and an idiot ? Now, the carriage of our Atheists or Deists is infinitely more amazing than this ; no dotage so infatuate, no frenzy so ex¬ travagant as theirs. They have been educated in a religion that instructed them in the knowledge of a supreme Being ; a Spirit most excellently glorious, superlatively powerful, and wise, and good. Creator of all things out of nothing ; that hath endued the sons of men, his peculiar favourites, [* so far from being endowed ; ls£ ed. “ endued with none at all, much less.” — D.] [f which ; Is< ed. “ that.” — D.] [J and even ; Is* ed. “ and that even.” — D.] 8 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. with a rational spirit, and hath placed them as spectators in this noble theatre of the world, to view and applaud these glorious scenes of earth and heaven, the workmanship of his hands ; that hath furnished them in general with a sufficient store of all things, either necessary or convenient for life ; and, particularly to such as fear and obey him, hath pro¬ mised a supply of all wants, a deliverance and protection from all dangers :* that they that seek him shall want no manner of thing that is good.A Who,t besides his muni¬ ficence to them in this life, hath soj loved the world, that he sent his only-begotten Son,e the express image of his sub¬ stance, and partaker of his eternal nature and glory, to bring life and immortality to light, f and to tender them to mankind upon fair and gracious terms ; that if they submit§ to his easy yoke and light bur den, e and observe || his command¬ ments, which are not grievous fi he then gives^f them the pro¬ mise of eternal salvation; he hath** reserved for them in heaven an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away he hath ft prepared for them an unspeak¬ able, unconceivable perfection of joy and bliss, things that eye liath%% not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man .k What a delightful and ravishing hypo¬ thesis of religion is§§ this ! And in this religion they have had their education. Now let us suppose some great pro¬ fessor in Atheism to suggest to some of these men, that j 1 1| all this is mere^Hf dream and imposture ; that there is no such excellent Being, as they suppose, that created and preserves them ; that all about them is dark senseless matter, driven [* from all dangers ; ls£ ed. “ from dangers.” — D.] d Ps. xxxiv. 9 [10]. [f Who; lsi ed. “And.” — D.] [ X hath so; 1st ed. “ he so.” — D.] e John, iii. 16. f 2 Tim. i. 10. [§ submit; 1 st ed. “ submitted.”— D.] s Matt. xi. 30. [|| observe; 1 st ed. “ observed.” — D.] h 1 John, v. 3. [^[ gives; ls< ed. “ gave.” — D.] [** bath; 1st ed. “had.” — D.] * Heb. v. 9. 1 Pet. i. 4. [ff hath; ls£ ed. “ had.” — D.] [+t hath; 1 st ed. “had.” — D.] k 1 Cor. ii. 9. f [§§ is; so 1st ed. ; ed. 1735, “in.” — D.] [|||| these men, that; ls£ ed. “ these, that.” — D.] [^|^| mere ; 1st ed. “ a mere.” — D.] SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 9 on by the blind impulses of fatality and fortune ; that men first sprung up, like mushrooms, out of the mud and slime of the earth ; and that all their thoughts, and the whole of what they call soul, are only various action and repercussion of small particles of matter, kept awhile a-moving by some mechanism and clock-work, which finally must cease and perish* by death. If it be true, then, (as we daily find it is,) that menf listen with complacency to these horrid sugges¬ tions ; if they let go their hope of everlasting life with will¬ ingness and joy; if they entertain the thoughts of final per¬ dition with exultation and triumph ; ought they not to be esteemed most notorious fools} even destitute of common sense, and abandoned to a callousness and numbness of soul ? What then, is heaven itself, with its pleasures for ever¬ more, to be parted with so unconcernedly ? Is a crown of righteousness, a crown of life,m to be surrendered with laugh¬ ter ? Is an exceeding and eternal weight of gloryn too light in the balance against the hopeless death of the Atheist, and utter extinction ? ’Twas a noble saying of the Emperor Marcus, That he would not endure to live one day in the world, if he did not believe it to be under the government of Providence. Let us but imagine that excellent person con¬ futed and satisfied by some Epicurean of his time, that all was but atoms, and vacuum, and necessity, and chance : would he have been so pleased and delighted with the con¬ viction ? would he have so triumphed in being overcome ? Or rather, as he hath told us, would he not have gone down with sorrow and despair to the grave ? Did I but once see an Atheist lament and bewail himself, that, upon a strict and impartial examination, he had found, to his cost, that all was a mistake; that the prerogative of human nature was [* must cease and perish ; 1st ed. “ ceases and perishes.” — D.] [f men; 1st ed. “ they.” — D.] 1 vA0e ov kclI &\oyov taxi a.va.lcrQr]rov yevos. Max. Tyr. Diss. 1. [= Diss. xvii. ed. Markl. &Qeov, . . . teal avaurOes ylvos . . . &Koyov, ic. r. A.. — D.] m 2 Tim. iv. 8. Jam. i. 12. n 2 Cor. iv. 17. VOL. III. C 10 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. vanished and gone ; those glorious hopes of immortality and bliss, nothing but cheating joys and pleasant delusions ; that he had undone himself by losing the comfortable error, and would give all the world to have better arguments for reli¬ gion : there would be great hopes of prevailing upon such an Atheist as this. But, alas ! there are none of them of this temper of mind; there are none that understand and seek after God;0 they have no knowledge , nor any desire of it;* they thrust the word of God from them , and judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life ;P they willingly prefer darkness before light ; and obstinately choose to perish for ever in the grave, rather than be heirs of salvation in the resurrection of the just. These certainly are the fools in the text, indocile intractable fools, whose stolidity can baffle all arguments, and bet proof against demonstration itself; whose end (as the words of St. Paul do truly describe them), whose end and very hope isj destruction , an eternal deprivation of being ; whose God is their belly, the gratification of sensual lusts; whose glory is in their shame, in the debasing of§ mankind to the condition of beasts ; who mind earthly things ; 9 who, if (like that great Apostle) they were caught up to the third heaven, r would (as the spies did of Canaan) bring down an evil report s of those regions of bliss. And I fear, unless it please God by extraordinary methods to help their unbelief, and enlighten the eyes of their understanding j they will carry their Atheism with them to the pit ; and the flames of hell only must convince them of their error. This supine and inconsiderate behaviour of the Atheists is so extremely absurd, that it would be deemed incredible, if it did not occur to our daily observation ; it proclaims aloud, that they are not led astray by their reasoning, but ° Ver. 2 and 4 of this Psalm. [* it; 1st ed. “instruction.” — D.] p Acts, xiii. 46. [f he; 1st ed. “is.” — D.j [J end and very hope is ; 1st ed. “ end is.” — D.] [§ debasing of; 1st ed. “ debasing and villanizing of.” — D.] i Phil. iii. 19. r 2 Cor. xii. 2. s Numb. xiii. 32. 1 Mar. ix. 24. Eph. i. 19 [18]. SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 11 led captive by their lusts to the denial of God. When the very pleasures of paradise are contemned and trampled on, like pearls cast before swine, there’s small hope of reclaim¬ ing them by arguments of reason. But however, as Solo¬ mon adviseth, we will answer these fools not according to tlieir folly, lest we also be like unto them.'1 It is expedient that we put to silence the ignorance of these foolish men, that believers may be the more confirmed and more resolute in the faith. Did religion bestow heaven without any terms or condi¬ tions indifferently upon all ; if the crown of life was here¬ ditary, and free to good and bad ; and not settled by cove¬ nant upon the elect of God only, such as live soberly , and righteously , and godly, in this present world? I believe there would be no such thing as an infidel among us. And, without controversy, ’tis the way and means of attaining to heaven, that makes profane scorners so willingly let go the expectation of it. ’Tis not the articles of the creed, but the duty to God and their neighbour, that is such an incon¬ sistent incredible legend. They will not practise the rules of religion, and therefore they cannot believe the promises and rewards of it. But, however, let us suppose them to have acted like rational and serious men; and, perhaps, upon a diligent inquisition, they have found, that the hope of immortality deserves to be joyfully quitted, and that either out of interest or necessity.* I. And first, one may conceive, indeed, how there might possibly be a necessity of quitting it. It might be tied to such terms as would render it impossible ever to be obtained. For example; if it should be required of all the candidates of glory and immortality, to give a full and knowing assent to such things as are repugnant to common sense, as contra¬ dict the Koival evvoiai, the universal notions and indubitable maxims of reason ; if they were to believe, that one and the u Prov. xxvi. 4. v Tit. ii. 12. [* necessity ; lit eel. “ necessity , which is both.” — D.] 12 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. same thing may be and not be at the same time and in the same respect ; if, allowing the received ideas and denomina¬ tions of numbers, and figures, and body, they must seriously affirm, that two and two do make a dozen, or that the diameter of a circle is as long as the circumference, or that the same body may be all of it in distant places at once : I must confess, that the offers of happiness, upon such articles of belief as these, would be mere tantalising of rational crea¬ tures ; and the kingdom of heaven would become the inhe¬ ritance of only idiots and fools. For, whilst a man of com¬ mon capacity doth think and reflect upon such propositions, he cannot possibly bribe his understanding to give a verdict for their truth. So that he would be quite frustrated of the hope of reward, upon such impracticable conditions as these ; neither could he have any evidence of the reality of the pro¬ mise, superior to what he is conscious to of the falsity of the means. Now, if any Atheist can shew me, in the system of Christian religion, any such absurdities and repugnancies to our natural faculties, I will either evince them to be inter¬ polations and conniptions of the faith, or yield myself a captive and a proselyte to his infidelity. II. Or, 2dly, they may think ’tis the interest of mankind that there should be no heaven at all, because the labour to acquire it is more worth than the purchase ; God Almighty (if there be one) having much overvalued the blessings of his presence. So that, upon a fair estimation, ’tis a greater advantage to take one’s swing in sensuality, and have a glut of voluptuousness in this life, freely resigning all pretences to future happiness ; which, when a man is once extinguished by death, he cannot be supposed either to want or desire ; than to be tied up by commandments and rules so contrary* to flesh and blood ; to take up one’s cross, to deny himself jw and refuse the satisfaction of natural desires. This, indeed, is the true language of Atheism, and the cause of it too. Were not this at the bottom, no man in his wits could con- [* so contrary; Is# ed. “ so thwart and contrary.” — D.] Mark, viii. 34. SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 13 temn and ridicule the expectation of immortality. Now, what power or influence can religion have upon the minds of these men, while not only their affections and lusts, but their supposed interest shall plead against it ? But, if we can once silence this powerful advocate, we shall without much diffi- culty carry the cause at the bar of impartial reason. Now, here is a notorious instance of the folly of Atheists, that while they repudiate all title to the kingdom of heaven, merely for the present pleasure of body, and their boasted tranquillity of mind, besides the extreme madness in running such a desperate hazard after death (which I will not now treat of), they* deprive themselves here of that very plea¬ sure and tranquillity they seek for. For I shall now endea¬ vour to shew, that religion itself gives us the greatest delights and advantages even in this life also, though there should prove in the event to be no resurrection to another. Her ways are ivays of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace .x But, before I begin that, I must occur to one specious objection both against this proposition and the past part of my discourse ; namely, that religion doth perpetually haunt and disquiet us with dismal apprehensions of everlasting burnings in hell ; and that there is no shelter orf refuge from those fears, but behind the principles of Atheism. (1.) First, therefore, I will freely acknowledge to the Atheists, that some part of what hath been said is not directly conclusive against them, if they say that, before they revolted from the faith, they had sinned away all expec¬ tation of ever arriving at heaven ; and, consequently, had good reason so joyfully to receive the news of annihilation by death, as an advantageous change for the everlasting tor¬ ments of the damned. But, because I cannot expect that they will make such a shameless and senseless confession, and supply us with that invincible argument against them¬ selves, I must say again, that to prefer final extinction before a happy immortality does declare the most deplorable stu- [* they ; 1st ed. “ they unwittingly.” — D.] x Prov. iii. 17. [t or; ed. “nor.” — D.] 14 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. pidity of mind. Nay, although they should confess that they believed themselves to be reprobates before they disbe¬ lieved religion, and took Atheism as a sanctuary and refuge from the terrors of hell ; yet still the imputation of folly will stick upon them, inasmuch as they chose Atheism as an opiate to still those frightening apprehensions, by inducing a dulness and lethargy of mind, rather than they would* make use of that active and salutary medicine, a hearty repent¬ ance ; that they did not know the richness of the goodness , and forbearance, and long-suffering' of God fi and that a sin¬ cere amendment of life was never too late,t Jesus Christ being the Saviour of all men, and a propitiation for the sins of the ivhole world ; who came into the world to save sinners, even the chief of them all ; and died for the ungodly, and his bit¬ terest enemies .z (2.) And, secondly, as to the fears of damnation : those terrors are not to be charged upon religion itself, which pro¬ ceed either from the want of religion, or superstitious mis¬ takes about it. For as an honest and innocent man doth know the punishments which the laws of his country de¬ nounce against felons, and murderers, and traitors, without being terrified or concerned at them ; so a Christian, in truth as well as in name, though he believe the consuming ven¬ geance prepared for the disobedient and unbelievers, is not at all dismayed at the apprehensions of it. Indeed, it adds spurs and gives wings to his diligence ; it excites him to work out his salvation with fear and trembling ;a a religious and ingenuous fear, that is tempered with hope, and with love, and unspeakable joy. But he knows that, if he fears Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hellf he needs not fear that his own soul or body shall ever go thither. I allow, that some debauched and profligate wretches, or [* they would; ls< ed. “ to.” — D.] 7 Rom. ii. 4. [t to° late ; ed. “ too late nor in vain.” — D.] 1 1 Tim. iv. 10. 1 John, v. 14 [ii. 2]. 1 Tim. i. 15. Rom. v. 6, 10. * Phil. ii. 12. b Mattb. x. 28. SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 15 some designing perfidious hypocrites, that are religious in outward profession, but corrupt and abominable in their works, are most justly as well as usually liable to these horrors of mind. *Tis not my business to defend or excuse such as these ; I must leave them, as long as they keep their hardness and impenitent hearts , to those gnawing and excru¬ ciating fears, those whips of the divine Nemesis, that fre¬ quently scourge even Atheists themselves. For the Atheists* also can never wholly extinguish thosef horrible forebodings of conscience. They endeavour, indeed, to compose and charm their fears, butj; a thousand occasions daily awaken§ the sleeping tormentors. Any slight consideration either of themselves, or of any thing without ; whatsoever they think on, or whatsoever they look on ; all|| administer some rea¬ sons for suspicion and diffidence, lest possibly they may be in the wrong ; and then Tis a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.c There are they in great fear, as Jtis in the fifth verse of this Psalm, under terrible presages of judgment and fiery indignation .d Neither can they say, that these terrors, like tales about spectres, may disturb some small pretenders and puny novices, hut dare not ap¬ proach the vere adepti, the masters and rabbies of Atheism : for Jtis well known,e both from ancient and modern experi¬ ence, that the very boldest of them, out of their debauches and company, when they chance to he surprised with soli¬ tude or sickness, are the most suspicious, and timorous, and despondent wretches in the world : and that the boasted happy Atheist in the indolence of body, and an undisturbed calm and serenity of mind, is altogether as rare a creature as the vir sapiens was among the Stoics ; whom they often met with in idea and description, in harangues and in books, [* the Atheists ; Is# ed. “ they.” — D.] [f those ; Is# ed. “ these.” — D.] [J They endeavour, indeed, to compose and charm their fears, but ; not in Is# ed. — D.] [§ daily awaken ; Is# ed. “ do awake.” — D.] [|| all j Is# ed. “ all do.”— D.] c Heb. x. 31. d Heb. x. 27. e Cic., Plutarch, &c. 16 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. but freely owned that he never had or was like to exist actu¬ ally in nature. And now', as to the present advantages which we owe to religion, they are very conspicuous ; whether we consider mankind, first, separately ; or secondly, under society and government. 1. And first, in a single capacity. How is a good Chris¬ tian animated and cheered by a stedfast belief of the pro¬ mises of the Gospel ; of an everlasting enjoyment of perfect felicity, such as after millions of millions of ages is still youthful, and flourishing, and inviting as at the first ! no wrinkles in the face, no grey hairs on the head of eternity ; no end, no diminution, no satiety of those delights. What a warm and vigorous influence does a religious heart feel from a firm expectation of these glories ! Certainly this hope alone is of inestimable value ; ’tis a kind of anticipa¬ tion and pledge of those joys ; and at least gives him one heaven upon earth, though the other should prove a delu¬ sion. Now, what are the mighty promises of Atheism in competition with these ?* let us know the glorious recom¬ penses it proposes. f Utter extinction and cessation of being ; to be reduced to the same condition as if we never had been born. O dismal reward of infidelity ! at which nature does shrink and shiver with horror. What some of the learnedest doctorsf among the Jews have esteemed the most dreadful of all punishments, J and have assigned for the portion of the blackest criminals of the damned; so interpreting Tophet, Abaddon, the Vale of Slaughter, and the like, for final exci¬ sion and deprivation of being ; this Atheism exhibits to us as an equivalent to heaven. ’Tis well known § what hath been disputed among schoolmen to this effect. And ’tis an observation of Plutarch, £ that the generality of mankind, 7 rav- [* in competition with these ; not in lsi ed. — D.] [f proposes ; ls£ ed. “ proposeth.” — D.] f Vide Pocockii Notas ad Portam Mosis, p. 158, &c. [J punishments ; lsi ed. “ punishment.” — D.] [§ ’Tis well known ; 1st ed. “ We all know.” — D.] e Plutarch, "On ovSe (rju, & c. p. 1104, 1105. edit. Ruald. [= Mor. t. v. p. 339. ed. Wyttenb. — D.] SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM, 17 Te 9 teal TTaaat, as well women as men, chose rather to endure all the punishments of hell, as described by the poets, than part with the hope of immortality, though immortal only in misery. I easily grant, that this would be a very hard bar¬ gain ; and that not to be at all, is more eligible than to be miserable always; our Saviour himself having determined the question : Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed l good were it for that man if he had never been born .h But, however, thus much it evidently shews, that this desire of immortality* is a natural affection of the soul ; Jtis self -preservation in the highest and truest meaning ; Jtis interwoven in the very frame and constitution of man. How, then, can the Atheist reflect on his own hypothesis without extreme sorrow and dejection of spirit ? Will he say, that, when once he is dead, this desire will be nothing ; and that he that is not cannot lament his annihilation ? So, indeed, it would be hereafter, accordingf to his principles. But nevertheless, for the present, while J he continues in life (which we now speak of), that§ dusky scene of horror, that || melancholy prospect of final perdition, will frequently occur to his fancy ; the sweetest enjoyments of life will often be¬ come flat and insipid, will be damped and extinguished, be bittered and poisoned, by the malignant and venomous quality of this opinion. Is it not more comfortable to a man to think well of himself, to have a high value and conceit of the dignity of his nature, to believe a noble origination of his race, the off¬ spring and image of the great King of Glory, rather than that men first proceeded, as vermin are thought to do, by the sole influence of the sun, out of dirt and putrefaction ? Is it not a firmer foundation for contentment and tran¬ quillity, to believe that all things were at first created, and h Matth. xxvi. 24. [* immortality; 1st ed. “ existence.” — D.] [f would be hereafter, according; 1st ed. “ will be according.” — D.] [+ nevertheless, for the present, while ; ed. “ notwithstanding, while.” -D.] [§ that ; Is* ed. “ this.” — D.] von. hi. JO [|| that; 1st ed. “ this.” — D.] 18 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. are since continually* ordered and disposed for the best; and that principally for the benefit and pleasure of man, than that the whole universe is mere bungling and blundering; no art or contrivance to be seen in’t; nothing effected for any purpose and design ; but all ill-favouredly cobbled and jumbled together by the unguided agitation and rude shuffles of matter? Can any man wish a better support under affliction, than the friendship and favour of Omnipotence, of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness, thatf is both able and willing, and knows how to relieve him ? Such a man can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth him : * he can patiently suffer all things with cheerful submission and resignation to the Divine will. He has a secret spring of spiritual joy, and the con¬ tinual feast of a good conscience within, that forbid him to be miserable. But what a forlorn, destitute creature is the Atheist in distress ! He hath no friend in extremity, but poison, or a dagger, or a halter, or a precipice. A violent death is the last refuge of the Epicureans, as well as the Stoics. This, says Lucretius, J is the distinguishing character of a genuine son of our sect, that he will not endure to live in exile, and want, and disgrace, out of a vain fear of death ; but despatch himself resolutely into the state of eternal sleep and insensibility. And yet, for all this swaggering, not one of a hundred of them hathj boldness enough to follow the direction. The base and degen erous saying of one of them is very well known : That life is always sweet, and he should still desire to prolong it ; though, after he had been maimed and distorted by the rack, he should lastly be condemned to hang on a gibbet. k And then, as to the practical rules and duties of religion. As the miracles of our Lord are peculiarly eminent above the [* are since continually ; 1st ed. “ are continually.” — D.] [t that; Is* ed. “ who.” — D.] ' Phil. iv. 13. 3 Lib. iii. [+ hundred of them hath ; ls£ ed. “ hundred hath.” — D.] k Mecaenas apud Senec. Ep. ci. Debilem facito manu, Debilem pede, coxa, & c. SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 19 lying wonders of demons, in that they were not made out of vain ostentation of power, and to raise unprofitable amaze¬ ment, but for the real benefit and advantage of men, by feeding the hungry, healing all sorts of diseases, ejecting of devils, and reviving the dead; so likewise the commands which he hath imposed on his followers are not like the absurd ceremonies of pagan idolatry, the frivolous rites of their initiations and worship, that might look like incantation and magic, but had no tendency in their nature to make mankind the happier. Our Saviour hath enjoined us a rea¬ sonable service} accommodated to the rational part of our nature. All his laws are in themselves, abstracted from any consideration of recompense, conducing* to the temporal interest of them that observe them. For what can be more availing to a man’s health, or his credit, or estate, or security in this world, than charity and meekness, than sobriety and temperance, than honesty and diligence in his calling ? Do not pride and arrogance infallibly meet with contempt ? Do not contentiousness, and cruelty, and study of revenge, sel¬ dom fail of retaliation ? Are not envious and covetous, dis¬ contented and anxious minds tormentors to themselves ? Do not we see, that slothful, and intemperate, and incontinent persons destroy their bodies with diseases, their reputation + with disgrace, and their families with want? Are adultery and fornication forbidden only by Moses and Christ ? or do not heathen lawgivers punish such enormities with fines or imprisonment, with exile or death ? ’Twas an objection of Julian the Apostate,m that there were no new precepts of morality in our religion : Thou shall not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife • why, all the world, says he, is agreed about these commandments ; and, in every country under heaven, there are laws and pe¬ nalties made to enforce all the ten, excepting only the sab- 1 Rom. xii. 1. [* conducing; 1st ed. “ conducible.” — D.] [f reputation; ls< ed. “ reputations.” — D.] m Julianus apud Cyrillum, p. 134. 20 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. bath, and the worship of strange gods. We can answer him another way; but he may make our infidels ashamed to complain of those ordinances as hard impositions, which the sense of all nations has thought to be reasonable ; which not only the philosophers of Greece and Italy, and the learned* world, but the Banians of Mogul, the Talapoins of Siam, the Mandarins of China, the moralists of Peru and Mexico, all the wisdom of mankind, have declared to be necessary duties. Nay, if the Atheists would but live up to the ethics of Epi¬ curus himself, they would make few or no proselytes from the Christian religion. For nonef revolt from the faith for such things as are thought peculiar to Christianity: not because they must love and pray for their enemies, n but because they must not poison or stab them ; not because they must not look upon a woman to lust after her,0 but because they are much more restrained from committing the act. J If wanton glances and lascivious § thoughts had been permitted by the Gospel, and only the gross act for¬ bidden, || they would have apostatised nevertheless. This we may conjecture from what Plato P and others have told us, that it was commonly arcpdreLa i)8ovcov teal iTnOv/Juwv, im¬ moderate^ affections and lusts, that, in the very times of paganism, induced men to be Atheists. It seems their im¬ pure and brutal sensuality was too much confined by the religion of those countries where even Venus and Bacchus had their temples. Let not, therefore, voluptuous Atheists lay all the fault of their sins upon the infirmity of human nature ; nor plead that flesh and blood cannot resist those temptations which have all their force and prevalence from long custom and inveterated habit. What enticement, what [* learned; ls< ed. “ ancient.” — D.] [f For none; lsi ed. “ None.” — D.] n Matth. v. 44. ° Verse 28. [+ committing the act; 1st ed. “the perpetration of their lusts.” — D.] [§ lascivious; ls£ ed. “ libidinous.” — D.] [|| and only the gross act forbidden; not in Is* ed.-— D.] v Plato de Legib. lib. x. p. 886. edit. Steph. [= t. viii. p. 464. ed. 1826. — D.] [If immoderate; 1st ed. “ their immoderate.” — D.] SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 21 pleasure is there in common profane swearing ? Yet neither the fear of God nor of the law will persuade men to leave it. 5Tis prevailing example that hath now made it fashion¬ able ; but it hath not always been so, nor will be hereafter. So other epidemical vices, they are rife and predominant only for a season, and must not be ascribed to human nature in the lump. In some countries, intemperance is a necessary part of conversation ; in others, sobriety is a virtue universal, without any respect to the duties of religion. Nor can they say, that this is only the difference of climate that inclines one na¬ tion to concupiscence and sensual pleasures, another to blood¬ thirstiness and desire of revenge. It would discover great igno¬ rance in history, not to know that, in all climates, a whole people has been overrun with some recently invented or newly imported kind of vice, which their grandfathers never knew. In the latest accounts of the country of Guiana, we are told, that the eating of human flesh is the beloved pleasure of those savages : two nations of them, by mutual devouring, are reduced to two handfuls of men. When the Gospel of our Saviour was preached to them, they received it with glad¬ ness of heart ; they could be brought to forego plurality of wives, though that be the main impediment to the conversion of the East Indies. But the great stumbling-block with these Americans, and the only rock of offence, was the for¬ bidding them to eat their enemies : that irresistible temptation made them quickly to revolt and relapse into their infidelity. What must we impute this to ? to the temperature* of the air, to the nature of the soil, to the influence of the stars ? Are these barbarians of man-eating constitutions, that they so hanker after this inhuman diet,f which we cannot imagine without horror? Is not the same thing practised in other parts of that continent ? Was it not so in Europe of old, and is it not now so in Africa ? If an eleventh command¬ ment had been given. Thou shalt not eat human flesh; would [* What must we impute this to? to the temperature; 1st ed. u What, must we impute this to the temperature.”' — D.] [f this inhuman diet; Is? ed. “ this diet.” — D.] 22 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. not these cannibals have esteemed it more difficult than all the ten ? And would not they have really had as much reason as our Atheists to plead the power of the temptation, and the propensity of flesh and blood ? How impudent, then, are the Atheists,* that traduce the easy and gracious conditions of the Gospel, asf unreasonable and tyrannical impositions ! Are not God's ways equal, O ye children of destruction, and are not your ways unequal ? II. Secondly and lastly, for the goodj influence of reli¬ gion upon communities and governments, habemus conjitentes reos ; Tis so apparent and unquestionable, that Tis one of the objections of the Atheists, that it was first§ contrived and introduced by politicians, to bring the wild and straggling herds of mankind under subjection and laws. Out of thy own mouth shalt thou be judged, thou wicked servant .‘t Thou sayest that the wise institutors of government, souls elevated above the ordinary pitch of men, thought religion necessary to civil obedience. Why, then, dost thou endea¬ vour to undermine this foundation, to undo this cement of society, and to reduce all once again to thy imaginary state of nature and original confusion ? No community ever was or can be begun or maintained, but upon the basis of reli¬ gion. What government can be imagined without judicial proceedings ? and what methods of judicature without a religious oath? which implies and supposes an omniscient Being, as conscious to its falsehood or truth, and a revenger of perjury. So that the very nature of an oath (and there¬ fore of society also) is subverted by the Atheist, who pro- fesseth to acknowledge nothing superior to himself, no omni¬ present Observer of the actions of men. For an Atheistr to compose a system of politics is as absurd and ridiculous as [* then are the Atheists; 1st ed. “ are they then.” — D.] [f as; 1st ed. “ for.” — D.] [J for the good; Is* ed. “ as to the benign.” — D.] [§ the objections of the Atheists, that it was first ; 1st ed. “ the wise objec¬ tions of the Atheist, that it first was.” — D.] i Luke, xix. 22. r Hobbes de Cive, Leviathan. SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 23 Epicurus’s sermons were about sanctity and religious wor¬ ship.* But there was hope, that the doctrine of absolute uncontrollable power, and the formidable name of Leviathan, might flatter and bribe the government into a toleration of infidelity. We need have no recourse to notions* and sup¬ position ; we have sad experience and convincing example before us, what a rare constitution of government may be had in a whole nation of Atheists. The natives of Newfound¬ land and New France in America,11 as they are said to live without any sense of religion, so they are known to be desti¬ tute of its advantages and blessings ; without any law, or form of community ; without any literature, or sciences, or arts ; no towns, no fixed habitations, no agriculture, no navi¬ gation. And ’tis entirely owing to the power of religion, that the whole world is not at this time as barbarous as they. And yet I ought not to have called these miserable wretches a nation of Atheists. They cannot be said to be of the Atheist’s opinion, because they have no opinion at all in the matter : they do not say in their hearts, There is no God; for they never once deliberated, if there was one or no. They no more deny the existence of a Deity, than they deny the Antipodes, the Copernican system, or the Satellites Jovis; about which they have had no notion orf conception at all. ’Tis the ignorance of those poor creatures, and not their impiety: their ignorance, as much to be pitied as the impiety of the Atheists toj be detested and punished. ’Tis of mighty importance to the government to put some timely stop to the spreading contagion of this pestilence that walketh by day, that dares to disperse its cursed seeds and principles in the face of the sun. The fool in the text had only said in his heart, There is no God: he had not spoken it aloud, nor openly blasphemed, in places of public resort. There’s too much reason to fear, that some of all orders of men, even * Tlepl 'Oo-drriTos. Laert. De sanctitate et de pietate adversus Deos. Cic. [* notions; 1st ed. “ notion.” — D.] u De Laet, p. 34, 47, 50. Voyage du Sieur de Champlain, p. 28 et 93. [f or; ls< ed. “ nor.” — D.] [t to; 1st ed. “ is to.” — D.] 24 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. magistracy itself, have taken the infection ; a thing of dread¬ ful consequence, and most imminent danger. Epicurusv was somewhat* wiser than ordinary, when he so earnestly ad¬ vised his disciples against meddling in public affairs : he knew the nature and tendency of his own philosophy ; that it would soon become suspected and odious to a govern¬ ment, if ever Atheists were employed in places of trust. But, because he had made one great rule superior to all, that every man’s only good was pleasure of body and content¬ ment of mind, hence it was, that men of ambitious and tur¬ bulent spirits, that were dissatisfied and uneasy with privacy and retirement, were allowed by his own principle to engage in matters of state : and there they generally met with that fortune which their master foresaw. Several cities of Greece,™ that had made experiment of them in public concerns, drove them out, as incendiaries and pests of commonweals, by severe edicts and proclamations. Atheism is by no means tolerable in the most private condition; but if it aspire to authority and power, if it acquire the command of an army or a navy, if it get upon the bench, or into the senate, or on a throne; what then can be expected but the basest cowardice and treachery, but the foulest prevarication in justice, but betraying and selling the rights and liberties of a people, but arbitrary government and tyrannical oppres¬ sion ? Nay, if Atheism were once, as I may say, the national religion, it would make its own followers the most miserable of men ; it would be the kingdom of Satan divided against itself; and the land would be soon brought to desolation. Josephus, x whof knew them, hath informed us, that the Sad- ducees, those Epicureans among the Jews, were not only rough and cruel to men of a different sect from their own, but perfidious and inhuman one towards another. This is the genuine spirit and the natural product of Atheism. No v Plutarch. Aade fiiaxras. Lucret. &c. [* somewhat; 1st ed. “ not a little.” — D.] w Plutarch. "Otj ovSe rjSe'us £fjv. Cicero, Atlienaeus, iElian, &c. x Josephus de Bello Judaico, 1. ii. c. 12. [f who; 1st ed. “ that.” — D.] SERM. I. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 25 man; that adheres to that narrow and selfish principle, can ever be just, or generous, or grateful, unless he be sometime overcome by good nature and a happy constitution. y No Atheist, as such, can he a true friend, an affectionate relation, or a loyal subject. The appearance and shew of mutual amity among them is wholly owing to the smallness of their number, and to the obligations of a faction. 5Tis like the friendship of pickpockets and highwaymen, that are said to observe strict justice among themselves, and never to defraud a comrade of his share of the booty. But, if we could ima¬ gine a whole nation to be cut-purses and robbers, would there then be kept that square dealing and equity in such a monstrous den of thieves ? And if Atheism should be sup¬ posed to become universal in this nation (which seems to he designed and endeavoured, though we know the gates of hell shall not be able to prevail), farewell all ties of friendship and principles of honour ; all love for our country and loyalty to our prince ; nay, farewell all government and society itself, all professions and arts, and conveniencies of life, all that is laudable or valuable in the world.* y Si sibi ipse consentiat, et non interdum naturae bonitate vincatur. Cic. de Offic. i. 2. [* world; after this word the lsf ed. has the following paragraph : — “ And now having in the first place explained the words of the text, and secondly detected the mere Deists of our age to be no better than disguised Atheists, seeing they have now no pretence to the deism of Epicurus ; and afterwards having shewn that willingly to entertain the hypothesis of Atheism (which is literally to choose death and evil before life and good, and to love dark¬ ness rather than light1) is the most absurd and inconsiderate folly ; and that there is nothing to excuse so silly a choice : not any necessity of it ; for religion doth not impose any articles of faith that are repugnant to our faculties, and incre¬ dible to natural reason: not interest; because religion itself is, even in this present life, the truest and best interest, as well of every single person (for a Christian’s belief is the most comfortable, and his hope the most glorious, of all men’s, and the practical duties he is obliged to are in themselves agreeable to his nature and conducible to his temporal happiness,) as of communities and governments ; because religion is not only useful to civil society, but fundamen¬ tally necessary to its very birth and constitution : having, I say, competently x Deut. xxx. 15 ; Joh. iii. 10. [19.] VOL. III. E 26 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. I. May the Father of mercies and God of infinite wisdom reduce the foolish from their errors, and make them wise unto salvation; confirm the sceptical and wavering minds 5 and so prevent us, that stand fast, in all our doings, and further us with his continual help, that we may not be of them that draw hack unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. Amen . proved these particulars, as far as the usual brevity of such discourses will allow ; I shall conclude all with one short reflection, That if Atheism or modern Deism he evinced to be folly, how great must that folly be ! It must not be bare folly, but madness and distraction. Nor do we need to recur to the stoical pa¬ radox, that all fools are mad ; nor to that saying of one of their own party, who (not out of derision, as some would have it, but out of compliment to the public) called it insanientem sapientiam, the mad philosophy of Atheism. For so sot- tishly to lose the purest pleasures and comforts of this world, and forego the expectation of immortality in another; and so desperately to run the risk of dwelling with everlasting burnings ; it plainly discovers itself to be what it is ; it is manifestly the most pernicious folly and deplorable madness in the world.” — D.] MATTER AND MOTION CANNOT THINK : OR, A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM FROM THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. SERMON II. Preached April the 4th, 1692. Acts, xvii. 27. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him; though he be not far from every one of us : for in him we live , and move, and have our being. These words are a part of that discourse which St. Paul had at Athens. He had not been long in that inquisitive and pragmatical city, but we find him encountered by the Epicureans and Stoics, a two sorts of people that were ill* qualified for the Christian faith : the one, by reason of their carnal affections, either believing no God at all, or that he was like unto themselves, dissolved in laziness and ease ;b the other, out off spiritual pride, presuming to assert, % that a wise man of their sect was equal, and in some cases supe¬ rior, to the majesty of God himself.0 These men, corrupted a Acts, xvii. 18. [* ill; 1st ed. “very ill.” — D.] b ’Apybv Kal a/xeAes. [f out of; 1st ed. “through their.” — D.] [J assert; lit ed. “ declare.” — D.] c Arriani Epictet. 1. i. c. 12. 'f! s nard ye rbu \6yov ovSe xeipcov t u>v ®eu>v, ovSe /uKpdrepos. Seneca, Ep. 53. Est aliquid quo sapiens antecedat Deum : ille naturae beneficio, non suo sapiens est. 28 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. II. through philosophy and vain deceit , took our Apostle, and car¬ ried him unto Areopagus ,d (a place in the city whither was the greatest resort of travellers and strangers, of the gravest citizens and magistrates, of their orators and philosophers,) to give an account of himself and the new doctrine that he spoke of: For, say they, thou bringest strange things to our ears ; we would know therefore what these things mean.e The Apostle, who was to speak to such a promiscuous assembly, has with most admirable prudence and art so accommodated his discourse, that every branch and member of it is directly opposed to a known error and prejudice of some party of his hearers. I will beg leave to be the more prolix in explaining the whole, because it will be a ground and introduction not only to this present, but some other subsequent discourses. From the inscription of an altar to the Unknown God, which is mentioned by heathen authors, Lucian, Philo stratus,* and others/ he takes occasion (v. 24) to declare unto them that God that made the world, and all things therein. This first doctrine, though admitted by many of his auditors, is directly both against ■ Epicureans, thatf ascribed the origin and frame of the world not to the power of God, but the for¬ tuitous concourse of atoms ; andj Peripatetics, that supposed all things to have been eternally as they now are, and never to have been made at all, either by the Deity or without him. Which God, says he, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in the temples § made with hands, neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things .& This is opposed to the civil and vulgar religion of Athens, which d Ver. 19. e Yer. 20. [* Lucian, Pliilostratus ; 1 st ed. “ as Lucian, and Philostratus.” — D.] f Lucianus in Philopat. Philostrat. de Vita Apol. lib. vi. c. 2. Pausan. in Eliacis. [f directly both against Epicureans, that; 1st ed. “ expressly against the Epicureans, who.” — D.] [J and ; ls£ ed. “ and to the.” — D.] [§ in the temples ; 1st ed. “ in temples” — D.] s Ver. 25. SERM. II. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 29 furnished and served the Deity* with temples and sacrifices, as if he had reallyf needed habitation and sustenance. And that the common heathen had such mean apprehensions!, about the indigency of their gods, appears plainly, to name no more, from Aristophanes’s Plutus and the Dialogues of Lucian. But the philosophers were not concerned§ in this point : all parties and sects, even the Epicureans11 them¬ selves, || did maintain (to avTctp/ce 9) the self-sufficiency of the Godhead ; and seldom or never sacrificed at all, unless in compliance and condescension^ to the custom of their coun¬ try. There’s a very remarkable passage in Tertullian’s Apo¬ logy, Who forces a philosopher to sacrifice ?'1 & c. It appears from thence, that the philosophers, no less than the Chris¬ tians, neglected the pagan worship and sacrifices ; though what was connived at in the one was made highly penal and capital in the other. And hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth ; and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bound[s ] of their habitation J This doctrine about the beginning of human race, though agreeable enough to the Platonists and Stoics, is apparently levelled against** the Epicureans and Aristote¬ lians : one of whom producedff their primitive men from mere accident or mechanism ; the other denied that man had any beginning at all, but had eternally continued thus by suc¬ cession and propagation. Neither were the commonalty of [* furnished and served the Deity; ] it ed. “ worshipped God.” — D.] [f he had really; 1st ed. “ he really.” — D.] [I heathen had such mean apprehensions ; 1st ed. “ heathens had such a mean apprehension.”— D.] [§ concerned ; ed. “ touched.” — D.] h Lucret. ii. Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri. [v. 649. — D.] [I| themselves ; ls£ ed. “ forsooth.” — D.] [^J unless in compliance and condescension ; 1st ed. “ unless in conde¬ scension.” — D.] > Tertull. Apol. cap. 46. Quis enim philosophum sacrificare .... com- pellit ? Quinimmo et deos vestros palam destruunt, et superstitiones vestras commentariis quoque accusant. 1 Ver. 26. [** is apparently levelled against ; 1st ed. “doth apparently thwart.” — D.] [ff produced; 1st ed. “ did produce.” — D.] 30 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. II. Athens unconcerned in this point. For although, as we learn from Isocrates, Demosthenes, and others of their country¬ men^ they professed themselves to be avTO'yfove^, aborigines , not transplanted by colonies or otherwise from any foreign nation, but born out of their own soil in Attica, and had the same earth for their parent, their nurse, and their countiy ; and though some perhaps* might believe, that all the rest of mankind were derived from them,1 and so might apply and interpret the words of the Apostle to this foolish tradition ; yet that conceit of deriving the whole race of men from the aborigines of Atticat was entertained but by a few ; for they generally allowed that the Egyptians and Sicilians, and some others, were aborigines also, as well as themselves.111 Then follow the words of the text : That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him , and find him ; though he be not far from every one of us : for in him we live , and move , and have our being. n And this he confirms by the authority of a writer that lived above three hundred years before : as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.' This indeed was no argument to the Epicurean auditors, who undervalued all argument from authority, and especially from the poets.0 Their master Epi¬ curus had boasted, that in all his writings he had not cited one single authority out of any book whatsoever.? And the poets they particularly hated, because on all occasions they introduced the ministry of the gods, and taught the separate existence of human souls. ButJ it was of great weight and k Isocrates in Paneg. Demosth. in Epitaph. Cic. Orat. pro Flacco. Euri¬ pides, &c. [* and though some perhaps; ls£ ed. “and perhaps some few.” — D.] 1 Diog. Laert. in Prsef. [f of deriving the whole race of men from the aborigines of Attica ; not in 1st ed. — D.] m Thucyd. lib. vi. Herodot. &c. n Verse 27, 28. ° Plutarch, de Aud. Poet, et contra Colot. p Laert. in Vita Epicuri. [J who undervalued all argument from authority . and taught the separate existence of human souls. But; 1st ed. “ who particularly had a con¬ tempt of and spite against the poets, because on all occasions they introduced SERM. II. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 31 moment to the common people, who held the poets in mighty esteem and veneration, and used them as their masters of morality and religion. And the other sects too of philoso¬ phers* did frequently adorn and confirm their discourses by citations out of poets. Forasmuch then as we are the off¬ spring of God , we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold , or silver, or stone, graven by art and-\ man’s device .9 This is directly levelled against the gross idolatry of the vulgar (for the philosophers are not concerned in it), that believed the very statues of gold, and silver, and other mate¬ rials, to be God, and terminated their prayers in those images ; as I might shew from many passages of Scripture, from the apologies of the primitive Christians, and the hea¬ then writers themselves. And the times of this ignorance God winked at, (the meaning of which is, as upon a like occasion the same Apostle hath expressed it, that in times past he suffered all nations to walk in their own ways,r) but now commandeth every one to repent: because he hath ap¬ pointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.a Hitherto the Apostle had never contra¬ dicted all his audience at once : though at every part of his discourse some of them might be uneasy, yet others were of his side ; and all along a moderate silence and attention was observed, because every point was agreeable to the notions of the greater party 4 But when they heard of the resurrec¬ tion of the dead, the interruption and clamour became uni- the ministry of the gods, and taught the separate existence of human souls : and their master Epicurus had bragged, that in all his writings he had not cited one single authority out of any book whatsoever. But.” — D.] [* sects too of philosophers; Is* ed. “sects of philosophers likewise.” — D.] i Ver. 29. r Acts, xiv. 16. 8 Ver. 30, 31. [f and ; lsi ed. “ or.” — D.] [J all his audience at once . the notions of the greater party ; 1st ed. “ the opinions of all his hearers at once : so that although at every part of his discourse some of them might be uneasy and nettled, yet a moderate silence and attention was still observed, because it was agreeable to the notions of the rest.” — D.] 32 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. II. versal ; so that here the Apostle was obliged to break off, and depart * from among them.* What could be the reason of this general dissent from the notion of the resurrection, since almost all of them believed f the immortality of the soul ? St. Chrysostom hath a conceit, that the Athenians took Avdaraat^ (the original word for resurrection) to he preached to them as a goddess, and in this fancy he is followed by some of the moderns. The ground of the conjecture is the 18th verse of this chapter, where some said, Wliat will this babbler say ? other some. He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods (fevcov Saipovlorv, strange deities , which com¬ prehends both sexes), because he preached unto them, 'lyaovv ical TTjV Avaaracriv, Jesus and the Resurrection. Now, say they, it could not be said deities in the plural number, unless it be supposed that ’AvacrTacris is a goddess, as well as Jesus a God. But we know such a permutation of number is fre¬ quent in all languages. We have another example of it in the very7 text ; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring :u and yet the Apostle meant only one, Aratus the Cilician, his countryman, in whose astro¬ nomical poem this passage is now extant.v So that although he preached to the Athenians Jesus alone, yet, by a common mode of speech, he might be called a setter forth of strange gods. JTis my opinion, that the general distaste and clamour proceeded from a mistake about the nature of the Christian resurrection. The word resurrection ( dvao-ryaacrdcu and avdaraaL^) was well enough known amongst the Athenians, as appears at this time from Homer, iEschylus, and Sopho¬ cles :w they could hardly then possibly imagine it to signify [* was obliged to break off, and depart ; ls2 ed. “ broke off his discourse, and departed .” — D.] 1 Ver. 33. [t since almost all of them believed ; ed. “ seeing that almost all of them did believe.” — D.] u Ver. 28. v Arati Phaen. v. 5 . Tvavrp 5e A ibs KexpvpcQa. irdvres, T ov -yap Kcd ylvos icrp.lv. w Horn. II. Cl. 55 1. OvSe piv dvcnpcrtis, &c. jEsch. Eumen. 655. [650. ed. Stan. — D.] ’AvSpbs 5’ ineiSav dtp ’ dvacricacrri kSvis, " Aica £ Oavovros ovtis cctt SERM. II. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 33 a goddess. But then it always* denoted a returning from the state of the dead to this present world ; to eat and drink and converse uponf earth ; and so, after another period of life, to die again as before. And Festus, a Roman, seems to have had the same apprehensions about it : for, when he declares the case of St. Paul his prisoner to King Agrippa, he tells him, that the accusation was only about certain questions of the Jewish superstition ; and of one Jesus ivhich was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.x So that when the Athe¬ nians heard him mention the resurrection of the dead, which, according to their acceptation of the word, was a contradic¬ tion to common sense, and to thej experience of all places and ages, they had no patience to give any longer attention. His words seemed to them as idle tales J as the first news of our Saviour’s resurrection did to the apostles themselves. All interrupted and mocked him, except a few, that seem to have understood him aright, which said they would hear him again of this matter. Just as when our Saviour said in an allegorical and mystical sense. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,7- the hearers understood him literally and grossly : The Jews there¬ fore strove among themselves , saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? This is a hard saying ; who can hear it ?& And from that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with himP I have now gone through this excellent discourse of the apostle, in which many most important truths are clearly and succinctly delivered ; such as the existence, the spiritu¬ ality, and all-sufficiency of God ; the creation of the world ; the origination of mankind from one common stock, accord- dvdcrrams. [/« ls< ed. the passage is pointed, ’AvS. S’ eir. at. av. k6vis "Air a£ Oav&VTOS, otir. ear av. — D.] Soph. Electra, 136. ’AAA’ ovroi rSv y' «’| atda irayicolvov \lpvas Trarep' dvardcrtts, otfre yioicriv , ou Atrats. [* they could hardly then possibly imagine it to signify a goddess. But then it always ; 1st ed. “ (so that it could hardly possibly be imagined to be a goddess) but it always.” — D.] [f upon j ls£ ed. “ upon the.” — D.] * Acts, xxv. 9. [19.] [J and to the ; ls< ed. “ and the.” — D.] y Luke, xxiv. 11. 1 John, vi. 53. a Ver. 60. b Ver. 66. VOL. III. F 34 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. II. ing to the history of Moses ; the divine Providence in over¬ ruling all nations and people ; the new doctrine of repentance by the preaching of the Gospel ; the resurrection of the dead ; and the appointed day of an universal judgment. To all which particulars, by God’s permission and assistance, I shall say something in due time. But at present I have confined my¬ self to that near and internal* and convincing argument of the being of God, which we have from human nature itself ; and which appears to be principally here recommended by St. Paul in the words of the text. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him , and find him ; though he he not far from every one of us : for in him (that is, by his power) we live, and move, and have our being . The proposition, which I shall speak to from this text, is this : that the very life, and vital motion, and the formal essence and nature of man, is Avholly owing to the power of God; and that the consideration of ourselves, of our own souls and bodies, both directly and nearly conduct us to the acknowledgment of his existence. And, 1. I shall prove, that there is an immaterial substance in us, which we call soul and spirit, essentially distinct from our bodies ; and that this spirit doth necessarily evince the exist¬ ence of a supreme and spiritual Being. And, 2. That the organical structure of human bodies, where¬ by they are fitted to live and move, and be vitally informed by the soul, is unquestionably the workmanship of a most wise, and powerful, and beneficent Maker. But I will reserve this latter part for the next opportunity; and my present undertaking shall be this, to evince the being of God from the consideration of human souls. (1.) And first, I say, there is an immaterial substance in us, which we call soul, essentially distinct from our bodies. I shall lay it t down as self-evident, that there is something in our composition that thinks and apprehends, and reflects and deliberates ; thatj determines and doubts, consents and [* internal; 1st ed. “intrinsical.” — D.] [f it; 1st eel. “ this.” — D.] [t that ; not in 1st ed. — D.] SERM. II. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 35 denies ; that wills, and demurs, and resolves, and chooses, and rejects ; that receives various sensations and impressions from external objects, and produces voluntary motions of several parts of our bodies. This every man is conscious of ; neither can any one be so sceptical as to doubt of or deny it ; that very doubting or denying being part of what I would suppose,* and including several of the rest in their ideas and notions. And in the next place, Tis as self-evident, that these faculties and operations of thinking, and willing, and perceiving, must proceed from something or other as their efficient cause ; mere nothing being never able to produce any thing at all. So that if these powers of cogitation, and volition, and sensation, are neither inherent in matter as such, nor producible in matterf by any motion and modi¬ fication of it, it necessarily follows, that they proceed from some cogitative substance, some incorporeal inhabitant within us, which we call spirit and soul. 1.) But first, these faculties of sensation and perception are not inherent in matter as such ; for, if it were so, what monstrous absurdities would follow ! every stock and stone would be a percipient and rational creature. We should - have as much feeling upon clipping a hair of the head, as upon pricking a nerve. Or rather, as men, that is, as a§ complex being, compounded of many vital parts, we should have no feeling nor perception at all. For every single atom of our bodies would be a distinct animal, endued with self- consciousness and personal sensation of its own. And a great number of such living and thinking particles could not possibly, by their mutual contact and pressing and striking, compose one greater individual animal, with one mind and understanding, and a vital consension of the whole body, [* part of what I would suppose ; 1st ed. “ each of them mentioned and sup¬ posed before.” — D.] [f producible in matter ; 1st ed. “acquirable to matter.” — D.] [J clipping a hair of the head, as upon pricking a nerve ; 1st ed. “ the clip¬ ping off a hair, as the cutting of a nerve.” — D.] f§ as aj 1st ed. “ a.” — D.] 36 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. II. any more than a swarm of bees, or a crowd of men and women, can be conceived to make up one particular living creature, compounded and constituted of the aggregate of them all. 2.) It remains, therefore, secondly, that seeing matter in general, as matter, has not any sensation or thought; if it have them at all, they must be the result of some modifica¬ tion of it : it must acquire them by some organical disposi¬ tion ; by such and such determinate motions, by the action and passion* of one particle upon another. And this is the opinion of every Atheist and counterfeit Deist of these times, that believes there is no substance but matter, and excludes all incorporeal nature out of the number of beings. Now, to give a clear and fullf confutation of this atheis¬ tical assertion, I will proceed in this method. I. First I will give a true notion and idea of matter; whereby it will again J appear that it has no inherent faculty of sense and perception. II. I will prove, that no particular sort§ of matter, as the brain and animal spirits, j| hath any power of sense and perception. III. ^I will shew, that motion in general superadded to matter cannot produce any sense and perception. IV. I will demonstrate, that no particular sort of^[ mo¬ tion, as of the animal spirits** through muscles and nerves, can beget sense and perception. V. I will evince, that no action and passionft of the animal spirits, one particle uponJ| another, can create any sense and perception. [* passion ; ls< ed. “ reaction.” — D.] [f clear and full ; 1st ed. “ clearer and fuller.” — D.] [+ again ; not in ls£ ed. — D.] [§ sort ; ls< ed. “ species.” — D.] [|| spirits; 1st ed. “spirit.” — D.] [^[ particular sort of; 1st ed. “ determinate.” — D.] [** spirits ; Is£ ed. “ spirit.” — D.] [ff passion ; ls< ed. “ percussion.” — D.] [++ spirits, one particle upon ; 1st ed. “ spirit, one particle against.” — D.] SERM. II. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 37 VI. I will answer the Atheist’s argument of matter of fact and experience in brute beasts, which, say they, are allowed to be mere matter, and yet have some degree of sense and perception. And first I will give a true notion and idea of matter ; whereby it will appear that it has no inherent faculty of sense and perception. And I will offer no other but what all competent judges, and even Atheists themselves, do allow of ; and which, being part of the Epicurean and Democri- tean philosophy, is providentially one of the best antidotes against their other impious opinions ; as the oil of scorpions is said to be against the poison of their stings. When we frame in our minds any notion of matter, we conceive nothing else but extension and bulk, which is impenetrable, and divisible, and passive ; by which three properties is un¬ derstood, that any one* particular quantity of matter doth hinder all other from intruding into its place till itself be removed out of it ; that it may be divided and broken into numerous parts, of different sizes and figures, which by various rangingf and disposing may produce an immense diversity of surfaces and textures ; that, if it once be f bereaved of motion, it cannot of itself acquire it again ; but it either must be impelled § by some other body from without, or (say we, though not the Atheist) be intrinsically moved by an imma¬ terial self-active substance, that can penetrate and pervade it. Wherefore in the whole nature and idea of matter we have nothing but substance with magnitude, || and figure, and situation, and a capacity of being moved and divided. So that no parts of matter, considered by themselves, are either hot or cold, either white or black, either bitter or sweet, or [* any one ; Is* ed. “ any.” — D.] [f ranging; 1st ed. “ ranking.” — D.] [I once be ; Is* ed. “ be once.” — D.] [§ but it either must be impelled ; Is* ed. “ nor till it be thrust or struck.” -D.] [|| but substance with magnitude ; Is* ed. “ but magnitude.”— D. 38 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. II. betwixt those* extremes. All the various mixtures and con¬ jugations of atoms do beget nothing but new inward texture, and alteration of surface. No sensible qualities, as light, and colour, and heat, and sound, can be subsistent in the bodies themselves absolutely considered, without a relation to our eyes, and ears, and other organs of sense. These qualities are only the effects of our sensation, which arise from the different motions upon our nerves from objects without, according to their various modification and position. For example : when pellucid colourless glass or water, by being beaten intof powder or froth, do acquire a very intense whiteness, what can we imagine to be produced in the glass or water but a new disposition of parts ? nay, an object under the self-same disposition and modification, when ’tis viewed by us under differing proportions, doth represent very differing colours, without any change at all in itself. For that very same opake and whitej powder of glass, when ’tis seen through a good microscope, doth exhibit all its little fragments pellucid and colourless, as the wrhole appeared to the naked eye before it was pounded. So that whiteness, and redness, and coldness, and the like, are only ideas and vital passions in us that see and feel ; but can no more be conceived to be real and distinct qualities in the bodies themselves, than roses or honey can be thought to smell or taste their own sweetness, or an organ be conscious of§ its music, or gunpowder of || its flashing and noise. Thus far, then, we have proved, and ’tis agreed on all hands, that in our conception of any quantity of body there is nothing but figure, and site, and a capacity of motion : which motion, if it be actually excited in it,^[ doth only cause a new order and contexture of parts : so that all the [* those; 1 st ed. “ the.” — D.] [f into; lsi ed. “ into a.” — D.] [| that very same opake and white; Hi ed. “that same opake, white.” — D.] [§ of; 1st ed. “ to.”' — D.] [|| of; 1st ed. “to.” — D.] of motion: which motion, if it be actually excited in it; Is* ed. “ of mo¬ tion, either of the whole, or the insensible parts : which motion, if it be actually impressed upon it.” — D.] SERM. II. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 39 ideas of sensible qualities are not inherent in the inanimate bodies, but are the effects of their motion upon our nerves, and sympathetical and vital passions produced within our¬ selves. II. Our second inquiry must be, what it is in the consti¬ tution and composition of a man that hath the faculty of receiving such ideas and passions ? Let us* carry in our minds this true notion of body in general, and apply it to our own substance, and observe what prerogatives this ra¬ tional machine (as the Atheists would make us to be) can challenge above other parcels of matter. We observe, then, in this understanding piece of clock-work, that thist body, as well as other senseless matter, has colour, and warmth, and softness, and the like. But we have proved it before, and ’tis acknowledged, that these qualities are not subsistent in those bodies, but are ideas and sensations^ begotten in something else : so that ^tis not blood and bones that can be conscious of their own hardness or§ redness ; and we are still to seek for something else in our frame and make, that must receive these impressions. Will they say that these ideas are performed by the brain ? But the difficulty returns upon them again ; for we perceive that the like qualities of softness, whiteness, and warmth, do belong to the brain itself ; and since || the brain is but ao-t rolvvv Alyvirnoi Kara t^v apxys tuu SAoov yevecriv TTparous robs avdpccirovs yevecrOcu Kara ryv Atyvirrov, Sid. re tV evKpacrlav rys xd>pa.s> tal 5ia tV tyvtnv rov N elXov, &c. [t. i. p. 13. ed. Wessel. — D.] d Vitruvius, lib. ix. cap. 4. Lucret. lib. v. Ut Babylonica Chaldseam doc- trina, &c. [v. 726. In ls« ed. Bentley gives “ Chaldaeum:” and see his Epist. ad Mill. vol. ii. p. 295. — D.] Apuleius de Deo Socratis: Seu ilia (luna) pro- prio et perpeti fulgore, ut Chaldaei arbitrantur, parte luminis compos, parte altera cassa fulgoris. [Sive ilia proprio seu perpeti candore, &c. : vide Ap- puleii Opp. t. ii. p. 117. ed. Ouden. — D.] SERM. III. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 69 that carried Phrixus, and the bull that carried Europa. Now which of these is the copy, and which the original ? Were the fables taken from the influences, or the influences from the fables ? the poetical fables more ancient than all records of history; or the astrological influences, that were not known to the Greeks till after Alexander the Great ? But, without question, those fabulous tales had been many a time told and sung to lull children asleep, before ever Berosus set up his intelligence-office at Cos.* And the same may be said of all the other constellations. First, poetry had filled the skies with asterisms and histories belonging to them ; and then astrology devises the feigned virtues and influences of each, from some property of the image, or allusion to the story. And the same trifling futility appears in their twelve signs of the zodiac, and their mutual relations and aspects. Why no more aspects than diametrically opposite, and such as make equilateral figures ? Why are the masculine and feminine, the fiery and airy, and watery and earthlyf signs all placed at such regular distances ? Were the virtues of the stars disposed in that order and rank on purpose only to make a pretty diagram upon paper ? But the atheistical astrologer is doubly pressed with this absurdity. For, if there was no counsel at the making of the world, how came the asterisms of the same nature and energies to be so har¬ moniously placed at regular intervals ? and how could all the stars of one asterism agree and conspire together to consti¬ tute an universal ? Why does not every single star shed a separate influence, and have aspects with other stars of their own constellation ? But what need there many words ? as if the late discoveries of the celestial bodies had not plainly detected the imposture of astrology ? The planet Saturn is found to have a great ring that encircles him, and fivej lesser planets that move about him, as the moon doth about the earth : and Jupiter hath four satellites, which by their inter- [* Cos; ls< ed. “ Coos.” — D.] [f earthly; 1st ed. “ earthy.” — D.] [J five; \st ed. “ three.” — D.] 70 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. III. position between him and us make some hundreds of eclipses every year. Now the whole tribe of astrologers, that never dreamed of these planets, have always declared, that when Jupiter and Saturn come about again to any given point, they exert (considered singly by themselves) the same influ¬ ence as before. But ’tis now manifest, that when either of them return to the same point, the planets about them, that must make up an united influence with them, have a different situation in respect of us and each other from what they had the time before ; and consequently the joint influence must be perpetually varied, and never be reducible to any rules and observations. Or, if the influences be conveyed hither distinct, yet sometimes some of the little planets will eclipse the great one at any given point, and by that means* inter¬ cept and obstruct the influence. I cannot now insist on many other arguments deducible from the late improvements of astronomy, and the truth of the Copernican system jt for, if the earth be not the centre of the planetary motions, what must become then of the present astrology, which is wholly adapted to that vulgar hypothesis ? And yet nevertheless, when they lay under such wretched mistakes for many myriads of years, if we are willing to believe them, they would all along, as now, appeal to experience and event for the con¬ firmation of their doctrines. That’s the invincible demon¬ stration of the verity of the science. And indeed, as to their predictions, I think our astrologers may assume to them¬ selves that infallible oracle of Tiresias, O Laertiade, quicquid dico, aut erit, aut non 4 There’s but a true and a false in any telling of fortune ; and a man that never hits on the right side cannot be called a bad guesser, but must miss out of design, and be notably skilful at lighting on the wrong. And were there not for¬ merly as great pretensions to it from the superstitious obser- [* by that means; 1st ed. “therefore.” — D.] [t and the truth of the Copernican system ; not in ed. — D.] [J Hor. Serm. ii. 5. 59. Eds . dicam . . . . — D.] SERM. III. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 71 vation of the entrails of cows, of the flying of vultures, and the pecking of chickens ? Nay, the old augurs and soothsayers had better reason to profess the art of divining than the mo¬ dern astrological Atheist ; for they supposed there were some demons that directed the indications. So likewise the Chal¬ dean and Egyptian astrologers were much more excusable than he. It was the religion of their countries to worship the stars, as we know from unquestionable authority. They believed them intelligent beings, and no other than very gods f and therefore had some reason to suspect that they might govern human affairs. The influence of the stars was in their apprehensions no less than divine power. But an Atheist, that believes the planets to be dark, solid, and sense¬ less bodies, like the brute earth he treads on ; and the fixed stars and the sun to be inanimate balls of fire ; what reasons can he advance for the credit of such influences ? he acknow¬ ledged nothing besides matter and motion ; so that all that he can conceive to be transmitted hither from the stars must needs be performed either by mechanism or accident ; either of which is wholly unaccountable, and the latter irreconcil¬ able to any art or system of science. But, if both were allowed the Atheist, yet, as to any production of mankind, they will be again refuted in my following discourse. I can preserve a due esteem for some great men of the last age, before the mechanical philosophy was revived, though they were too much addicted to this nugatory art. When occult quality, and sympathy and antipathy, were admitted for satisfactory explications of things, even wise and virtuous men might swallow down any opinion that was countenanced by antiquity. But at this time of day, when all the general powers and capacities of matter are so clearly understood, he must be very ridiculous himself that doth not deride and explode the antiquated folly. But we may see the miserable e Maimonides, More Nevochim de Zabiis et Chaldaeis. Plato in Cratylo. Diodorus, lib. i. cap. 2. Eusebius, Demonst. [Praepar.] Evangel, lib. i. c. 6. Qolvucas Toiyapov-' /cal Alyvirriovs npdrovs airavToiv Kwrex* 1 Aiov /cal treA.'^t'Tjv /cal acrrepas &eobs aTrotprjvai. 72 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. III. shifts that some men are put to, when that which was first founded upon, and afterwards supported by idolatry , is now become the tottering sanctuary of Atheism : if the stars be no deities, astrology is groundless ; and if the stars be deities, why is the astrologer an Atheist ? He may easily be no Christian ; and ’tis difficult, indeed, to be both at once : because, as I have said before, idolatry is at the bottom ; and by submitting human actions and inclinations to the influ¬ ence of the stars, they destroy the very essence of moral virtue, and the efficacy of divine grace ; and therefore astrology was justly condemned by the ancient fathers and Christian emperors.f An astrologer, I say, may very easily be no Christian ; he may be an idolater or a pagan : but I could hardly think astrology to be compatible with rank atheism, if I could suppose any great gifts of nature to be in that person who is either an Atheist or an astrologer. But,* let him be what he will, he is not able to do much hurt by his reasons and example ; for religion itself, according to his principles, is derived from the stars. And he owns, ’tis not any just exceptions he hath taken against it,f but ’tis his destiny and fate: ’tis Saturn in the ninth house, and not judgment and deliberation, that made him an Atheist. f Concil. Laod. can. 36. Cone. 6. in Trullo, can. 61. Cod. Just. lib. ix. tit. 18. Cod. Theodos. lib. ix. tit. 16. BacnMKuv lib. lx. tit. 39. [* to be in that person who is either an Atheist or an astrologer. But ; lit ed. “ to be where either do reside. But.” — D.] [f it ; 1st ed. “ Christianity.” — D.] A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM FROM THE STRUCTURE AND ORIGIN OF HUMAN BODIES. PART II. SERMON IV. Preached June the 6th, 1692. Acts, xvii. 2 7. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him; though he he not far from every one of us : for in him we live, and move, and have our being. In the former part of this inquiry I have examined and refuted two atheistical notions opposed to the great* doctrine of the text, that we owe our living and being to the power of God : the one of the Aristotelian Atheists, who, to avoid the difficulties of the first production of mankind without the intervention of almighty wisdom and power, will have the race to have thus continued without beginning, by an eternal succession of infinite past generations ; which assertion hath been detected to be mere nonsense, and contradictory to itself : the other of the astrological undertakers, that would raise men like vegetables out of some fatf and slimy soil, well digested by the kindly heat of the sun, and impregnated with the influence of the stars upon some remarkable and pe¬ riodical conjunctions ; which opinion hath been vamped up [* great; 1st ed. “grand.” — D.] [f fat; so 1st ed. and other eds. ; ed. of 1735. “ flat.” — D.] VOL. III. L 74 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. of late by Cardan and Cesalpinus, and other newsmongers from the skies ; a pretence as groundless and silly, as the dreaming oneirocritics of Artemidorus and Astrampsychus, or the modern chiromancy and divinations of gipsies. I proceed now to the two remaining paradoxes of such sects of Atheists, as, laying aside astrology and the unintel¬ ligible influence of heavenly bodies, except that which pro¬ ceeds from* their gravity, and heat, and light, do either produce mankind mechanically and necessarily from certain connexions of natural causes; or more dully and supinely, though altogether as reasonably, resolve the whole business into the unaccountable shuffles and tumults of matter, which they call chance and accident. But at present I shall only take an account of the supposed production of human bodies by mechanism and necessity. The mechanical or corpuscular philosophy, though per- adventure the oldest as well as the best in the world, had lain buried for many ages in contempt and oblivion, till it was happily restored and cultivated anew by some excellent wits of the present age.-j* But it principally owes its re¬ establishment and lustre to Mr. Boyle,]; that honourable person of ever-blessed memory, who hath not only shewn its usefulness in physiology above the vulgar doctrines of real qualities and substantial forms, but likewise its great ser¬ viceableness to religion itself. And I think it hath been com¬ petently proved in a former discourse, how friendly it is to the immateriality of human souls, and consequently to the ex¬ istence of a supreme spiritual Being. And I may have occasion hereafter to shew further, that all the powers of mechanism are entirely dependent on the Deity, and do afford a solid argument for the reality of his nature. So far am I from the apprehension of any great feats that this mechanical Atheist can do against religion. For, if we consider the phenomena of the§ material world with a due and serious attention, we [* except that which proceeds from ; Is/ ed. “ more than by.” — D.] [t age ; not *» ed. — D.] [J Mr. Boyle ; not in 1st ed. — D.] [§ the ; Is/ ed. “ that.” — D.] SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 75 shall plainly perceive, that its present frame and system, and all the* established laws of nature, are constituted and pre¬ served by gravitation alone. That is the powerful cement which holds together this magnificent structure of the world, which stretcheth the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing ;a if we may transfer the words of Job from the first and real cause to the secondary agent. Without gravity,-)- the whole universe, if we suppose an undetermined power of motion infused into matter, would have been a confused chaos, without beauty or order, and never stable and permanent in any condition. Now it may be proved, in its due place, that this gravity, the great basis of all mechanism, is not itself mechanical, but the immediate fiat and finger of God, and the execution of the divine law ; and that bodies have not the power of tending towards a centre, either from other bodies or from themselves : which at once, if it be proved, will undermine and ruin all the towers and batteries that the Atheists have raised against heaven. For, if no compound body in the visible world can subsist and continue without gravity, and if J gravity do immediately flow from a divine power and energy, it will avail them nothing, though they should be able to explain all the particular effects, even the origination of animals, by mechanical principles. But, however, at present I will for¬ bear to urge this against the Atheist. For, though I should allow him, that this catholic principle of gravitation is essen¬ tial to matter without introducing a God; yet I will defy him to shew, how a human body could be at first produced naturally, according to the present system of things, and the mechanical affections of matter. And because this Atheist professeth to believe as much as we, that the first production of mankind was in a quite dif¬ ferent manner from the present and ordinary method of nature, and yet affirms nevertheless that that was natural [* system, and all the ; lsf ed. “ constitution and the.” — D.] s Job, xxvi. 7. [f gravity; 1st ed. “that.” — D.] [J if ; not in 1st ed. — D.] 76 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. too, which seems at the first sight to be little less than a contradiction; it should lie upon him to make out, how matter by undirected motion could at first necessarily fall, without ever erring or miscarrying, into such a curious for¬ mation of human bodies ; a thing that, by his own confession, it was never able to do since, or at least hath not done for some thousands of years : he should declare* to us what shape and contexture matter then had, which it cannot have now ; how it came to be altered by long course of time, so that living men can no longerf be produced out of putrefac¬ tion in the primary way ; and yet the species of mankind, that now consists of and is nourished by matter so altered, should continue to be the same as it was from the beginning. He should undertake to explain to us the first steps and the whole progress of such a formation; at least, by way of hypothesis, how it naturally might have been, though he affirm notj that it was actually so : whether he hath a new notion peculiar to himself about that production, or takes up with some old one, that is ready at hand : whether that most witty conceit of Anaximander,b that the first men and all animals were bred in some warm moisture, enclosed in crus- taceous skins, as if they were§ various kinds of crabfish and lobsters; and so continued till they arrived || at perfect age, when their shelly prisons growing dry and breaking, made way for their liberty : or the no less ingenious opinion of the great Empedocles,*5 that mother earth first brought forth vast numbers of legs, and arms, and heads, and the other members of the body, scattered and distinct, and all at their full growth ; which coming together and cementing, (as the [* he should declare ; 1st ed. “ to declare.” — D.] [f longer ; 1st ed. “ more.” — D.] [t he affirm not ; 1st ed. “ he did not affirm.” — D.] b Plutarch, de Plac. Phil. lib. v. c. 19. et Sympos. 1. viii. c. 8. Censorinus de Die Natali, cap. 4. [§ as if they were; 1st ed. “as it were.” — D.] [|| and so continued till they arrived ; 1st ed. “ and so they continued till they had arrived.” — D.] c Plutarch, de Plac. Phil. lib. v. cap. 19. Censorin. ibidem. SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 77 pieces of snakes and lizards are said* to do, if one cuts them asunder,) and so configuring themselves into human shape, made lusty proper men of thirty years age in an instant : or, rather, the divine doctrine of Epicurus and the Egyptians/ that there first grew up a sort of wombs, that had their roots in the earth, and attracted thence a kind of milk for the nou¬ rishment of the enclosed foetus, which at the time of matu¬ rity broke through those membranes, and shifted for them¬ selves. I say, he ought to acquaint us which of these he is for, or bring a new explication of his own ; and not require us to prove the negative, that a spontaneous production of mankind, neither warranted by example, nor defended by reason, nevertheless may not possibly have been true. This is a very unreasonable demand, and we might justly put him off with such an answer as this : that there are several things which all men in their wits do disbelieve, and yet none but madmen will go about to disprove. But, to shew him how much we endeavour to satisfy and oblige him, I will venture once for his sake to incur the censure of some persons for being elaborately trifling ; for, with respect to the most of mankind, such wretched absurdities are more wisely con¬ temned than confuted; and to give them a serious answer may only make them look more considerable. First, then, I take it for granted by him, that there were the same laws of motion, and the like general fabric of the earth, sea, and atmosphere, at the beginning of mankind, as there are at this day. For if any laws at first were once settled and constituted; like those of the Medes and Persians, they are never to be reversed. To violate and infringe them, is the same as what we call miracle, and doth not sound very philosophically out of the mouth of an Atheist. He must allow, therefore, that bodies were endowed with the same affections and tendencies then as ever since ; and that if an axe-head e be supposed to float upon water, which is [* are said ; 1st e.d. “ have been said.” — D.] d Censorinus, ibid. Lucret. lib. v. Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. cap. 2. ' 2 Kings, vi. 5. 78 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. specifically much lighter than it, it had been supernatural at that time, as well as in the days of Elisha. And this is all I* desire him to acknowledge at present. So that he may admit of those arguments as valid and conclusive against his hypo¬ thesis, that are fairly drawn from the present powers of matter, and the visible constitution of the world. Now, that we may come to the point; all matter is either fluid or solid, in a large acceptation of the words, that they may comprehend even all the middle degrees between ex¬ treme fixedness and coherency, and the most rapid intestine motion of the particles of bodies. Now, the most cavilling Atheist must allow, that a solid inanimate body, while it remains in that state, where there is none or a very small and inconsiderable change of texture, is wholly incapable of a vital production. So that the first human body, without parents and without creator,! if such an one ever was, must have naturally been produced in and constituted by a fluid. And because this Atheist goes mechanically to work, the uni¬ versal laws of fluids must have been rigidly observed during the whole process of the formation. Now this is a catholic rule of statics/ that if any body be bulk for bulk heavier than a fluid, it will sink to the bottom of that fluid, and if lighter, it will float upon it ; having part of itself extant, and part immersed to such a determinate depth, as that so much of the fluid as is equal in bulk to the immersed part be equal in gravity to the whole : and consequently, if several portions of one and the same fluid have a different specific gravity, the heavier will always (in a free vessel) be gradually the lower, unless violently shaken and blended together by external concussion. But that cannot be in our present case. For I am unwilling to affront this Atheist so much, as to suppose him to believe, that the first organical body might possibly be effected in some fluid portion of matter, while its hetero¬ geneous parts were jumbled and confounded together by a [* all I; 1st ed. “all that I.” — D.] [f creator; 1st ed. “a creator.’’ — D.] f Archimedes de Insidentibus Humido, lib. i. Stevin, des Elemens Hydro- statiques. SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 79 storm, or hurricane, or earthquake. To be sure he will rather have the primitive man to be produced by a long pro¬ cess in a kind of digesting balneum , where all the heavier lees may have time to subside, and a due (equilibrium be main¬ tained, not disturbed by any such rude and violent shocks,* that would ruffle and break all the little stamina of the em- bryon, if it were a-making before. Now, because all the parts of an undisturbed fluid are either of equal gravity, or gradually placed and storied according to the differences of it, any concretion that can be supposed to be naturally and mechanically made in such a fluid, must have a like structure of its several parts ; that is, either be all over of a similar gravity, or have the more ponderous parts nearer to its basis. But there need no more concessions than this to extinguish these supposed first-born of nature in their very formation. For, suppose a human body to be a-fo ruling in such a fluid in any imaginable posture, it will never be reconcilable to this hydrostatical law. There will be always something lighter beneath, and something heavier above ; because bone, or what is then the stuff and rudiments of bone, the heaviest in specie , will be ever in the midst. Now, what can make the heavier particles of bone ascend above the lighter ones of flesh, or depress these below those, against the tendency of their own nature ? This would be wholly as miraculous as the swimming of iron in water at the command of Elisha ; and as impossible to be, as that the lead of an edifice should naturally and spontaneously mount up to the roof, while lighter materials employ themselves beneath it; or that a statue, like that in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, whose head was of fine and most ponderous gold, and his feet of lighter ma¬ terials,! iron and clay, should mechanically erect itself upon them for its basis. Secondly, because this Atheist goes mechanically to work, he will not offer to affirm, that all the parts of the embryon [* shocks ; ls< ed. “ shogs.” — D.] [f lighter materials ; not in 1st ed. — D.] 80 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. could, according to his explication, be formed at a time. This would be a supernatural thing, and an effectual refuta¬ tion of his own principles. For, the corpuscles of matter having no consciousness of one another’s acting (at least before or during the formation, as will be allowed by that very Atheist that attributes reason and perception to them when the formation is finished), they could not consent and make a compact together to carry on the work in several places at once, and one party of them be forming the brain, while another is modelling the heart, and a third delineating the veins. No, there must be, according to mechanism, a successive and gradual operation : some few particles must first be united together, and so by apposition and mutual connexion still more and more by degrees, till the whole system be completed ; and a fermentation must be excited in some assignable place, which may expand itself by its elas- tical power, and break through where it meets with the weakest resistance ; and so, by that so simple and mechanical action, may excavate all the various ducts and ventricles of the body. This is the only general account, as mean as it appears to be, that this machine of an Atheist can give of that fearful and wonderful production. Now, to confute these pretences, first, there is that visible harmony and symmetry in a human body, such a mutual communication of every vessel and member of it, as gives an internal* evidence that it was not formed successively, and patched up by piece-meal. So uniform and orderly a system, with innumerable motions and functions, all so placed and constituted as never to inter¬ fere and clash one with another, and disturb the economy of the whole, must needs be ascribed to an intelligent artist; and to such an artist, as did not begin the matter unprepared and at a venture, and, when he was put to a stand, paused and hesitatedf which way he should proceed ; but he had [* internal ; Is* ed. “ intrinsic.” — D.] [f a stand, paused and hesitated; Is* ed. “ a nonplus, pause and hesitate.” -D.] SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 81 first in his comprehensive intellect a complete idea and model of the whole organical body, before he entered upon the work. But, secondly, if they affirm that mere matter, by its mechanical affections, without any design or direction, could form the body by steps and degrees ; what member, then, do they pitch upon for the foundation and cause of all the rest ? Let them shew us the beginning of this circle, and the first wheel of this perpetual motion. Did the blood first exist, antecedent to the formation of the heart ? But that is to set the effect before the cause ; because all the blood, that we know of, is made in and by the heart, having the quite dif¬ ferent form and qualities of chyle before it comes thither. Must the heart, then, have been formed and constituted before the blood was in being ? But here, again, the sub¬ stance of the heart itself is most certainly made and nourished by the blood which is conveyed to it by the coronary arteries. And thus it is through the whole system of the body ; every member doth mutually sustain and supply one another ; and all are eoetaneous, because none of them can subsist alone. But they will say, that a little ferment first making a cavity, which became the left ventricle of the heart, did thence farther* expand itself, and thereby delineate all the arteries of the body.s Now, if such a slight and sorry business as that could produce an organical body, one might reasonably expect, that now and then a dead lump of dough might be leavened into an animal; for there a like ferment makes notable tumours and ventricles, besides longt and small channels, which may pass tolerably well for arteries and veins. But, I pray, in this supposed mechanical formation, when the ferment was expanded to the extremities of the arteries, if it still had any elastical force remaining, why did it not go on and break through the receptacle, as other fer¬ ment must be allowed to have done, at the mouth and the nostrils ? There was as yet no membranous skin formed, that [# farther; Is# ed. “ further.” — D.] £ Cartesius de Formatione Foetus. [f long; 1st ed. “ sundry long.” — D.] VOL. III. M 82 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. might stop and repel it. Or, if the force of it was spent, and did not wheel about and return, what mechanical cause, then, shall we assign for the veins ? for this ferment is there sup¬ posed to have proceeded from the small capillary extremities of them to the great vein and the heart ; otherwise it made* valves, which would have stopped its own passage. And why did that ferment, that at first dispersed itself from the great artery into infinite little ramifications, take a quite con¬ trary method in the making of the veins, where innumerable little rivulets have their confluence into the great vein, the common channel of the blood ? Are such opposite motions both equally mechanical, when, in both cases, the matter was under the same modification ? And again, when the first fer¬ ment is excited, and forms the left ventricle of the heart, f if the fluid matter be uniform and of a similar texture, and therefore on all sides equally resist the expansion, then the cavity must continue one, dilated more and more till the expansive force and the uniform resistance be reduced to an equality, and so nothing at all can be formed by this ferment but a single round bubble. And, moreover, this bubble (if that could make a heart), by reason of its comparative levity to the fluid that encloses it, would necessarily ascend to the top ; and consequently we should never find the heart in the midst of the breast. But, if the fluid be supposed to consist of heterogeneous particles, then we cannot conceive how those dissimilar parts should have a like situation in two several fluids when the ferment begins. So that, upon this supposi¬ tion, there could be no species of animals, nor any similitude between them : one would have its lungs where another hath its liver, and all the other members preposterously placed ; there eould not be a like configuration of parts in any two individuals. And again, what is that which determines the growth of all living creatures ? What principles of mecha¬ nism are sufficient to explain it ? Why do not all animals continually increase in bigness during the whole space of [* made; 1 steel. “ had made.” — D.] [f of the heart ; not in 1st eel. — D.] SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 83 their lives, as it is reported of the crocodile ? What sets a bound to their stature and dimensions ? Or,* if we suppose a hound and ne plus ultra to be mechanically fixed ; but, then, why so great f a variety in the bulk of the several kinds ? Why, also, such constancy observed in that manifold variety ? For, as some of the largest trees have seeds no bigger or even lessj than some diminutive plants, and yet every seed is a perfect plant, with trunk and branches and leaves enclosed in a shell ; so the first embryon of an ant is supposed by inqui¬ sitive naturalists to be as big as that of an elephant, and to promise as fair, at its primitive formation, for as spacious a body;h which, nevertheless, by an immutable decree, can never arrive to the millionth part of the other’s bulk. And what modification of the first liquid matter can vary so much as to make one embryon capable of so prodigiously vast aug¬ mentation, while another is confined to the minuteness of an insect ? Is not this manifestly a divine sanction, that hath fixed and determined the shape, the stature, the appetites, and the duration of all creatures in the world ? Hither must we have recourse in that great and mysterious affair of an organical formation ; and I profess that I cannot discern one step in the whole, that is agreeable to the natural laws of motion. If we consider the heart, which is supposed to be the first principle of motion and life, and divide it by our imagination into§ its constituent parts, its arteries, and veins, and nerves, and tendons, and membranes, and|| innumerable little fibres, that these secondary parts do consist of, we shall find nothing here singular, but what is in any other muscle of the body. JTis only the site and posture of these several parts, and the configuration of the whole, that give it .the form and functions of a heart. Now, why should the first [* Or ; ls£ ed. “ and.” — D.] [t fixed; but, then, why so great; 1st ed. “ fixed; why again so great.” — D.] [+ or even less ; ls£ ed. “ or less.” — D.] h Swammerdam, Histor. Insect, p. 3. [§ and divide it hy our imagination into ; 1st ed. “and mentally divide it into.” — D.] [|| and ; 1st ed. “ and the.” — D.] 84 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. single fibres in the formation of the heart be peculiarly drawn in spiral lines, when the fibres of all other muscles are made by a transverse rectilinear motion ? What could determine the fluid matter into that odd and singular figure, when as yet no other member is supposed to be formed, that might direct the course of that fluid matter ?* Let mechanism here make an experiment of its power, and produce a spiral and turbinated motion of the whole moved body without an external director. When all the organs are once framed by a supernatural and divine principle, we do willingly admit of mechanism in many functions of the body ; but that the organs themselves should be mechanically formed, we con¬ ceive it to be impossible and utterly inexplicable. And, if any Atheist will give a clear and philosophical account of the things that are here touched upon, he may then hear of many more, and perhaps more difficult, than these ; which their unfitness for a popular auditory, and the remaining parts of my subject that press forward to be treated of, oblige me now to omit. But, as the Atheist, when he is put to it to explain how any motion of dead matter can beget thought and perception, will endeavour to defend his baffled impiety with the instance of brutes, which he calls thinking machines ; so will he now also appeal from the arbitration of reason, in the case of animal productions, to example and matter of fact. He will declaim to us about the admirable structure of the bodies of insects ; that they have all the vital parts which the largest of quadrupeds, and even man himself, can boast of ; and yet they are the easyf and obvious products of unintelligent nature, that spontaneously and mechanically forms them out [* direct the course of that fluid matter. Let; 1st ed. “ design the orbit of its course. Let.” — D.] [f and even man himself, can boast of ; and yet they are the easy ; Isf ed. “ and even man himself can boast of; whose fabric they the rather excel, in his opinion, for that very minuteness that makes them contemptible : and that one would be apt to imagine that these elegant and elaborate little engines were all now propagated by generation, and at first produced by some divine wisdom and power ; if we did not find by experience that they are the easy.” — D.] SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 85 of putrefied carcasses and the warm moisture of the soil ; and (which is mightily to his purpose) the insects* so begotten without parents, have nevertheless fit organs of generation and difference of sex, and can propagate their own kinds, as if themselves had been hegottenf so too : and that if mother earth, in this her barrenness and decrepitness of age, can procreate such swarms of curious engines, which not only themselves enjoy their portion of life, but by a most won¬ derful instinct impart it to many more, and continue their species ; might she not, in the flower of her youth, while she was succulent and fertile, have produced horses and ele¬ phants, and even mankind itself, the largest and perfectest animals, as easily as, in this parched and sterile condition, she can make a frog or an insect? Thus he thinks he hath made out, from example and analogy, that at the beginning of things every species of animals might spring mechanically out of the soil, without an intelligent Creator. And, indeed, there is no one thing in the world which hath given so much countenance and shadow of possibility to the notion of Atheism as this unfortunate mistake about the equivocal generation of insects ; and, as the oldest remains of atheistical writings are full of thisj comparison, so it is the main refuge of those that in this and the last age have had the folly and impudence to appear in so wretched a cause. Now, to this last subterfuge of the mechanical Atheists we can occur several ways. And at present we affirm, first, ex abundantly that though we should allow them the spontaneous production of some minute animals, yet a like primitive ori¬ gination of mankind could not hence§ be concluded ; because they first tacitly suppose, that there is an universal decay of moisture and fertility in the earth. And they cannot avoid the necessity of so doing : for, if the soil be as fruitful now [* and (which is mightily to his purpose) the insects; 1st ed. “and yet (which is mightily to his purpose) that these insects.” — D.] (f begotten; \st ed. “ born.” — D.] IX are full of this ; 1st ed. “ are charged full with that.” — D.] [§ hence; 1st ed. “ thence.” — D.] 86 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. as it was in the beginning, why would it not produce men, and the nobler kind* of beasts, in our days too, if ever it did so ? So that, if that supposition be evinced to be erroneous and groundless, all the arguments that they build upon it will be subverted at once. Now, what more easily refuted, than that old vulgar assertion of an universal drought and exsiccation of the earth ? as if the sun could evaporate the least drop of its moisture, so that it should never descend again, but be attracted and elevated quite out of the atmo¬ sphere. ’Tis now a matter agreed and allowed by all com¬ petent judges, that every particle of matter is endowed with a principle of gravity, whereby it would descend to the centre, if it were not repelled upwardf by heavier bodies. So that the smallest corpuscle of vapour, if we suppose it to be exhaled to the top of the atmosphere, thence it must come down again, or at least must there remain incumbent upon others ; for there’s either nothing, or nothing heavier, above it to protrude it any higher; neither can it spontaneously mount any more against the tendency of its nature. And, lest some ignorant Atheist should suspect that peradventure there may be no such top of the atmosphere, but that it may be con¬ tinued on to the sun, or to indefinite space ; he must vouchsafe to be instructed, that the whole weight of any column of the atmosphere, and likewise the specific gravity of its basis, are certainly known by many experiments ; and that by this com¬ putation (even making allowance for its gradually larger ex¬ pansion, the higher we go), the very top of any pillar of air is not one hundred miles distant from the surface of the earth. So that hence it is manifest, that the whole terra¬ queous globe, with its atmosphere, cannot naturally have lost the least particle of moisture since the foundation of the world. But still they may insist, that, although the whole globe cannot be deprived of any of its moisture, yet the ha¬ bitable earth may have been perpetually the drier, seeing it is assiduously drained and exhausted by the seas. But to [* kind; 1st ed. “ kinds.” — D.] [f upward; ls£ ed. “ upwards." — D.] SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 87 this we reply, that the very contrary is demonstrable ; that the longer the world shall continue, the inoister the whole aggregate of the land will be.* For (to take no notice of the supply of its moisture by rains and snow and dews and con¬ densation of vapours, and perhaps by subterraneous passages), the tops of mountains and hills will be continually washed down by the rains, and the channels of rivers corroded by the streams ; and the mud that is thereby conveyed into the sea will raise its bottom the higher ; and consequently the declivity of rivers will be so much the less ; and therefore the continents will he the less drained, and will gradually increase in humidity from the first period of their duration to the final consummation of all things ; if the successive production of plants and animals, which are all made up of and nourished by water, and perhaps never return to water again, do not keep things at a poise ; or if the divine powerf do not inter¬ pose and change the settled course and order of nature. But, let us allow their supposition, that the total of the dry land may have been robbed of some of its moisture which it had at its first constitution ; yet still there are some parts of the earth sufficiently soaked and watered to produce men and animals now, if ever they did at all. ForJ do not the Nile, and the Niger, and the Ganges, and the Menam, make yearly inundations in our days, as they have formerly done ? And are not the countries so overflown still situate between the tropics, under the direct and most vigorous rays of the sun, the very place where these mechanical Atheists lay the scene of that great transaction ? so that, if mankind had ever sprung naturally out of the soil, the experiment would suc¬ ceed now every year in .Ethiopia and Siam, where are all the requisite qualifications that ever have been for such a pro- [* the whole aggregate of the land will be ; 1st ed. “ will be the whole aggregate of the land.” — D.] [f to the final consummation of all things . or if the divine power ; ls< ed. “to their [the] final consummation of all things : if a divine power.” — D.] [J to produce men and animals now, if ever they did at all. For; 1st ed. “ to produce, if ever, those sensitive and locomotive and intelligent plants. For.”— D.] 88 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. duction. And again, if there hath been such a gradual di¬ minution of the generative faculty of the earth, that it hath dwindled from nobler animals to puny mice and insects ; why was there not the like decay in the production of vege¬ tables ? We should have lost by this time the whole species of oaks and cedars, and the other tall and lofty sons of the forest, and have found nothing but dwarfish shrubs, and creeping moss, and despicable mushrooms. Or, if they deny the present spontaneous production of larger plants, and confine the earth to as pigmy births in the vegetable king¬ dom as they do in the other, yet surely, in such a supposed universal decay of nature, even mankind itself, that is now nourished (though not produced) by the earth, must have degenerated in stature and strength in every generation. And yet we have certain demonstration from the Egyptian* mummies, and Roman urns and rings, and measures and edifices, and many other antiquities, that human stature is not diminished at all for the lastf two thousand years. Now, if the decay hasj not been constant and gradual, there has§ been no decay at all; or at least no natural one, nor what may be accounted for by this mechanical Atheist. I con¬ clude, therefore, that, although we should allow the spon¬ taneous production of insects, yet no argument can he de¬ duced from thence for a like origination of mankind. But, secondly, we affirm, that no insect or animal did ever proceed equivocally from putrefaction, unless in mira¬ culous cases, as in Egypt by the divine judgments ; but all are generated from parents of their own kind, male and female; a discovery of that great importance, that perhaps few inventions of this age can pretend to equal usefulness and merit ; and which alone is sufficient (if the vices of men did not captivate their reason) to explode and exterminate rank Atheism out of the world. For, if all animals be pro- 11* from the Egyptian; 1st ed. “ from Egyptian.” — D.] [f is not diminished at all for the last ; ls< ed. “ has not diminished for above.” — D.] [J has ; 1st ed. “ hath.” — D.] [§ has; 1st ed. “hath.” — D.] SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 89 pagated by generation from parents of their own species, and there be no instance in nature of even a gnat or a mite, either now or in former ages, spontaneously produced ; how* came there to be such animals in being, and whence could they proceed ? There is no need of much study and deliberation about it : for either they have existed eternally by infinite successions already gone and past, which is in its veryf notion absurd and impossible or their origin must be ascribed to a supernatural and divine power, that formed and created them. Now, to prove our assertion about the seminal production of all living creatures, that we may not repeat the reasons which we have offered before against the first me¬ chanical formation of human bodies, which are equally valid against the spontaneous origin of the minutest insects j we appeal to observation and experiment, which cany the strongest conviction with them, and make the most sensible and lasting impressions. For, whereas it hath been the general tradition and belief, that maggots and flies breed in putrefied carcasses, and particularly bees come from oxen, and hornets from horses, and scorpions from crabfish,! &c., all this isj now found to be fable and mistake. That saga¬ cious and learned naturalist, Francisco Redi,k made innu¬ merable trials with the putrid flesh of all sorts of beasts and fowls, and fishes and serpents, with corrupted cheese, and herbs, and fruits, and even insects themselves ; and he con¬ stantly found, that all those kinds of putrefaction did only afford a nest and aliment for the eggs and young of those insects that he admitted to come there, but produced no animal of themselves by a spontaneous formation : for, when he suffered those things to putrefy in hermetically sealed glasses, and vessels close covered with paper ; and not only so, lest the exclusion of the air might be supposed to hinder [* produced; how; 1st ed. “ produced de novo ; how.” — D.] [f very ; 1st ed. “ own.” — D.] 1 See the former Sermon. i "l7T7rot fiev av yeveans, ravpoi de fxeAic rcr&v. Nicander. \Ther. 741. — D.] [J all this is ; 1st ed. “ all is.” — D.] k Redi de Generatione Insectorum. VOL. III. N 90 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. the experiment^ but in vessels covered with fine lawn, so as to admit the air and keep out the insects ; no living thing was ever produced there, though he exposed them to the action of the sun, in the warm climate of Florence, and in the kind¬ est season of the year. Even flies crushed and corrupted, when enclosed in such vessels, did never procreate a new fly; though there, if in any case, one would have expected that success. And when the vessels were open, and the insects had free access to the aliment within them, he diligently ob¬ served that no other species were produced hut of such as he saw go in and feed, and deposit their eggs there ; which they would readily do in all putrefaction, even in a mucilage of bruised spiders, where worms were soon hatched out of such eggs, and quickly changed into flies of the same kind with their parents. And was not that a surprising trans¬ formation indeed, if, according to the vulgar opinion, those dead and corrupted spiders spontaneously changed into flies ? And thus far we are obliged to the diligence of Redi : from whence we may conclude, that no dead flesh, nor herbs, nor other putrefied bodies, nor any thing that hath not then actually either a vegetable or animal life, can produce any insect. And if we should allow, as he did, that every animal and plant doth naturally breed and nourish by its substance some peculiar insect, yet the Atheist coidd make no advan¬ tage of this concession as to a like origination of mankind. For surely ’tis beyond even an Atheist’s credulity and im¬ pudence, to affirm that the first men might proceed out of the galls and tumours of leaves of trees, as some maggots and flies are supposed to do now ; or might grow upon trees, as the story goes about barnacles ; or perhaps might be the lice of some vast prodigious animals, whose species is now ex¬ tinct. But, though we suppose him guilty of such an extra¬ vagant folly, he will only shift the difficulty, and not wholly remove it ; for we shall still expect an account of the spon¬ taneous formation of those mountainous kind of animals and men-bearing trees. And, as to the worms that are bred in the intestines and other inward parts of living creatures, their SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 91 production is not material to our present inquiry, till some Atheist do affirm, that his own ancestors had such an ori¬ ginal. I say, if we should allow this concession of Redi, it would do no service to our adversaries : hut even here also they are defeated by the happy curiosity of Malpighi and others,1 who observed and discovered, that each of those tumours and excrescences of plants, out of which generally issues a fly or a worm, are at first made by such insects, which wound the tender buds with a long hollow trunk, and deposit an egg in the hole with a sharp corroding liquor, which causeth a swelling in the leaf, and so closeth the orifice : and within this tumour the worm is hatched, and receives its aliment, till it hath eat its way through. Neither need we recur to an equivocal production of vermin in the phthiriasis and in Herod’s disease, who was crKwXy/cofipcoTO*;, eaten of worms, m or maggots. Those horrible distempers are always accompanied with putrefying ulcers ; and it hath been observed by the most accurate Lewenhoeck,11 that lice and flies, which have a most wonderful instinct and acuteness of sense to find out convenient places for the hatching and nourishment of their young, do mightily endeavour to lay their eggs upon sores ; and that one will lay above a hundred eggs, and may naturally increase to some hundreds of thou¬ sands in a quarter of a year : which gives a full and satisfac¬ tory account of the phenomena of those diseases. And whereas it is said, Exod. xvi. ver. 20, that some of the Israelites left of the manna until the morning, and it bred worms and stank ; which an Atheist may make an objection, as either against us, or against the truth of the Scriptures ; I understand it no otherwise, than that the manna was fly¬ blown. It was then the month of October, which in that southern climate, after the preceding autumnal rains, doth afford a favourable season and copious nutriment for infinite swarms of insects. Neither do I ascribe it to a miraculous 1 Malpighius de Gallis. Swammerdam de Gen. Insect. Lewenhoeck Epistol. m Acts, xii. 23. Continuat. Epistol. p. 101. 92 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. power, that some of the manna should breed worms, but that all the rest should be preserved sound and untainted. And, if any one shall rigidly urge from that passage* the literal expression of breeding , he must allow Moses to speak-j¬ in the language of the vulgar in common affairs of life. We do now generally believe the Copernican system ; yet I sup¬ pose, upon ordinary occasions, we shall still use the popular terms of sunrise and sunset, and not introduce a new pe¬ dantic description of them from the motion of the earth. And then, as to the vulgar opinion, that frogs are made in the clouds, and brought down by the rains, it may be thus easily refuted : for at that very instant when they are sup¬ posed to descend, you may find by dissection not only their stomachs full of meat, but their intestines full of excrement ; so that they had lurked before in the day-time in holes and bushes and grass, and were then invited abroad by the fresh¬ ness of a shower. And by this time we may understand what credit and authority those old stories ought to have about the monstrous J productions in Egypt after the inun¬ dation of the Nile, of mice and frogs and serpents, half flesh and half mud ; nay, of the legs, and arms, and other limbs of men, et quicquid Grcecia mendax ; altogether as true as what is seriously related by Helmont,0 that foul linen, stopped in a vessel that hath wheat in it, will in twenty-one days’ time turn the wheat into mice : which one§ may guess to have been the philosophy and information of some house¬ wife, who had not so carefully covered her wheat hut that the mice could come at it, and were there taken napping, just when they had made an end of their cheer. || Corn is so innocent from this calumny of breeding of mice, that it doth not produce the very weevils that live in it and consume it ; [* from that passage; not in 1st ed. — D.] [f he must allow Moses to speak ; 1st ed. “ he must give leave to speak.’' -D.] [J about the monstrous ; 1st ed. “ about monstrous.” — D.] ° Helmont, Imago Ferment. &c. p. 92. edit. 1652. [§ which one; 1st ed. “ which, without conjuring, one.” — D.] [|| their cheer; 1st ed. “ their good cheer.”— D.] SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 93 the whole course of whose generation and periodical changes hath been curiously observed and described by the ingenious Lewenhoeck. And, moreover, that we may deprive the Atheist of all hopes and pretensions of argument from this baffled opinion of equivocal insects, we will acquaint him, from the most accurate observations of Swammerdam, that even the supposed change of worms into flies is no real transmutation ; but that most of those members, which at last become visible to the eye, are existent at the beginning, artificially complicated together, and covered with mem¬ branes and tunicles, which are afterwards stript off and laid aside : and all the rest of that process is no more surprising than the eruption of horns in some brutes, or of teeth and beard in men at certain periods of age. And, as we have established our assertion of the seminal production of all kinds of animals, so likewise we affirm, that the meanest plant cannot be raised without seed by any formative power residing in the soil. To which assertion we are encouraged, first, from the known seeds of all vegetables, one or two only excepted, that are left to future discovery ; which seeds, by the help of microscopes, are all found to be real and perfect plants, with leaves and trunk curiously folded up and enclosed in the cortex ; nay, one single grain of wheat, or barley, or rye, shall contain four or five distinct plants under one common tunicle ; a very convincing argument of the providence and goodness of God, that those vegetables, that were appointed to be the* chief sustenance of mankind, should have that multiplied fecundity above any others. And, secondly, by that famous experiment of Malpighi, who a long time en¬ closed a quantity of earth in a vessel, secured by a fine cloth from the small imperceptible seeds of plants that are blown about wfth the winds ; and had this success of his curiosity, to be the first happy discoverer of this noble and important truth, that no species of plants can be produced out of earth withoutf a pre-existent seed ; and consequently they [* the ; so 1st ed. and other eds. ; not in ed. 1735. — D.] [f out of earth without ; 1st ed. “ out of earth de novo without.” — D.] 94 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. IV. were all created and raised at the beginning of things by the almighty gardener, God blessed for ever. And, lastly, as to those various and elegant shells, that are dug up in conti¬ nents, and embodied in stones and rocks at a vast distance from any sea, which this Atheist may possibly allege for an instance of a plastic faculty of nature; *tis now generally agreed by the most diligent inquirers about them, that they are no sportful productions of the soil, as was formerly be¬ lieved, but that all did once belong to real and living fishes ; since each of them exactly resembles some shell of the seas,* both in its outward lineaments, and inward texture, and spe¬ cific gravity, and all other properties : which therefore are so far from being subservient to Atheists in their audacious attempts against God and religion, that they rather afford an experimental confirmation of the universal deluge. And thus we have competently shewn, that every species of living creatures, every small insect, and even the herbs of the field, give a casting vote against Atheism, and declare the necessity of a supernatural formation. If the earth in its first constitution had been left to itself, what horrid de¬ formity and desolation had for ever overspread its face ! Not one living inhabitant would be foundf on all its spacious sur¬ face; not so much as a worm in the bowels of it, nor one single fish in the vast bosom of the sea; not a mantle of grass or moss to cover and conceal the nakedness of nature. An eternal sterility must have possessed the world, where all things had been fixed and fastened everlastingly with the adamantine chains of specific gravity ; if the Almighty had . not spoken and said. Let the earth bring forth grass , the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind ; and it was so. ’Twas God that then created the first seminal forms of all animals and vegetables, that coTnmanded the waters to bring forth abundantly, and the earth to pro- [* since each of them exactly resembles some shell of the seas ; 1st ed. “ seeing that each of them doth exactly resemble some other shell on the sea¬ shore.” — D.] [f inhabitant would be found; 1st ed. “ inhabitant found.” — D.] SERM. IV. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 95 duce living creatures after their kind ; that made man in his own image after his own likeness ; that by the efficacy of his first blessing made him be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth ; by whose alone power and conservation we all live, and move, and have our being. May the same most glorious God of his infinite mercy grant, that, as we have sought the Lord, and felt after him, and found him in these works of his creation ; so now that we have known God, we may glorify him as God, both now and for evermore. Amen. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM FROM THE STRUCTURE AND ORIGIN OF HUMAN BODIES. THE THIRD AND LAST PART. SERMON V. Preached September the 5th, 1692. Acts, xvii. 27. That they should seek the Lord , if haply they might feel after him, and find him ; though he he not far from every one of us : for in him we live, and move, and have our being. In my former discourses I have* endeavoured to prove, that human race was neither (1.) from everlasting without begin¬ ning ; nor (2.) owes its beginning to the influence of hea¬ venly bodies ; nor (3.) to what they call nature, that is, thef necessary and mechanical motions of dead senseless matter. I proceed now to examine the fourth and last plea of the enemies to religion and their own souls, that mankind came accidentally into the world, and hath its life and motion and being by mere chance and fortune. We need not much wonder, that this last opinion should obtain almost universally among the Atheists of these times. For, whereas the other require^ some small stock of philo- [* discourses I have ; Is* ed. “ discourses, to which I must refer you, I have.” — D.] [f that is, the ; ls< ed. “ or to the.” — D.] [J require j lsi ed. “ do require.” — D.] SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 97 sophy to understand or maintain them, this account is so easy and compendious, that it needs none at all ; and conse¬ quently is the more proper and agreeable to the great industry and capacity of the most numerous party of them. For what more easy to say, than that all the bodies of the first ani¬ mals and plants were shuffled into their several forms and structures fortuitously , that is, these Atheists know not how, nor will trouble themselves to endeavour to know ? For that is the meaning of chance; and yet this is all that they say, or can say, to the great matter in question. And indeed this little is enough in all reason ; and, could they impose on the rest of mankind, as easily as delude them¬ selves, with a notion that chance can effect a thing, it would be the most expedite and effectual means to make their cause victorious over virtue and religion. For if you once allow* them such an acceptation of chance, you have pre¬ cluded yourself, they think, from any more reasoning and objecting against them. The mechanical Atheist, though you grant him his laws of mechanism, is nevertheless inex¬ tricably puzzled and baffled with the first formation of ani¬ mals ; for he must undertake to determine all the various motions, and figures, and positions, and combinations of his atoms, and to demonstrate that such a quantity of motion, impressed upon particles so shaped and situated, will neces¬ sarily range and dispose them into the form and frame of an organical body ; an attempt as difficult and unpromising of success, as if he himself should make the essay to produce some new kinds of animals out of such senseless materials, or to rebuild the moving and living fabric out of its dust in the grave. But the Atheist that we are now to deal with, if you do but concede to him that fortune may be an agent, presumesf himself safe and invulnerable, secure above the reach of any further disputes. For, if you proceed to ask questions, and bid him assign the proper causes and determi¬ nate manner of that fortuitous formation, you thereby deny [* allow; 1st ed. “ do allow.” — D.] [f presumes; 1st eel. “cloth presume.” — D.] O VOL. TTI. 98 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. him what you granted before, and take away the very hypo¬ thesis and the nature of chance, which supposeth that no certain cause or manner of it can possibly be assigned. And as the stupidity of some libertines, that demand a sight of a spirit or human soul to convince them of its existence, hath been frequently and deservedly exposed ; because whatsoever may be the object of our sight must not be a soul or spirit, but an opaque body ; so this Atheist would tax us of the like nonsense and contradiction, if, after he hath named to us fortune or chance, we should expect from him any particular and distinct account of the origin of mankind ; because it is the very essence and notion of his chance to be wholly unac¬ countable ; and if an account could be given of it, it would then no longer be chance, but mechanism, or a necessary production of certain effects from certain causes, according to the universal laws of motion. Thus we are to know, that if once we admit of fortune in the formation of mankind, there is no further inquiry to be made, no more difficulties to be solved, and no account to be demanded. And who then can admire, if the inviting easiness and compendiousness of this assertion should so dazzle the eyes of our Atheist, that he overlooks those gross absurdities that are so conspicuous in it? (1.) For, first, if this Atheist would have his chance or fortune to be a real and substantial agent ; as the vulgar seem to have commonly apprehended, some making it a divinity, others they do not conceive what ; he is doubly more stupid and more supinely ignorant than those vulgar ; in that he assumes such a notion of fortune as, besides its being erroneous, is inconsistent with his Atheism. For since,* according to the Atheists, the whole universe is corpus et inane , body and nothing else, this chance, if it do really and physically effect any thing, must itself be body also. And what a numerous train of absurdities do attend such an assertion ! too visible and obvious to deserve to be here [* since ; Is/ ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM, 99 insisted on. For, indeed, it is no less than flat contradic¬ tion to itself. For, if this chance be supposed to be a body, it must then be a part of the common mass of matter ; and consequently be subject to the universal and necessary laws of motion ; and therefore it cannot be chance, but true me¬ chanism and nature. (2.) But, secondly, if he forbear to call chance a real agent, and is content to have it only a result or event ; since* all matter, or some portion of it, may be naturally exempt from these supposed mechanical laws, and be endowed with a power of spontaneous or fortuitous motion, which power, when it is exerted, must produce an effect properly casual, and therefore might constitute the first animate bodies acci¬ dentally, against the supposed natural tendency of the parti¬ cles of those bodies ; even this second assertion is contrary to common sense, as well as common observation. For how can he conceive that any parcel of dead matter can sponta¬ neously divert and decline itself from the line of its motion, without a new impulse from external bodies ? If it can intrinsically stir itself, and either commence its motion or alter its course, it must have a principle of self-activity, which is life and sense. But sense I have proved formerly*1 to be incompatible with mere bodies, even those of the most compound and elaborate textures, much more with single atoms or solid particles of matter, that, having no intestine motion of parts, are destitute of the first foundation and capacity of life. And moreover, though these particles should be supposed to have this internal principle of sense, it would still be repugnant to the notion of chance ; because their motions would not then be casual, but voluntary, not by chance, but choice and design. And again, we appeal to observation, whether any bodies have such a power of for¬ tuitous motion. We should surely have experiment of it in the effects of nature and art : no body would retain the same constant and uniform weight according to its bulk and sub- [* since; 1st cd. “ seeing that.” — D.] a Serm. II. 100 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. stance, but would vary perpetually, as that spontaneous power of motion should determine its present tendency. All the various machines and utensils would now and then play odd pranks and capricios, quite contrary to their proper structures, and designs of the artificers. Whereas, on the contrary, all bodies are observed to have always a certain and determinate motion according to the degrees of their external impulse, and their inward principle of gravitation, and the resistance of the bodies they occur with ; which therefore is without error exactly foreseen and computed by sagacious artists. And if ever dead matter should deviate from this motion, it could not proceed from itself, but a supernatural agent ; and ought not to be called a chance, but a miracle. For chance is but a mere name, and really nothing in itself; a conception of our own minds, and only a com¬ pendious way of speaking, whereby we would express, that such effects as are commonly attributed to chance were verily produced by their true and proper causes, but without their designing to produce them. And in any event called casual, if you take away the real and physical causes, there remains nothing but a simple negation of the agents intending such an event; which negation being no real entity, but a con¬ ception only of man’s intellect wholly extrinsical to the ac¬ tion, can have no title to a share in the production. As in that famous example, (which Plutarchb says is the only one where fortune is related to have done a thing artificially,) when a painter having* finished the picture of a horse, ex¬ cepting the loose froth about his mouth and his bridle, and, after many unsuccessful essays, despairing to do that to his satisfaction, in a great rage threw his sponge at it, all be¬ smeared, as it was, with the colours, which fortunately hit¬ ting upon the right place, by one bold stroke of chance most exactly supplied the want of skill in the artist : even here it is manifest, that, considering the quantity and determination of the motion that was impressed by the painter’s hand b Plutarch, nept Tvxv *• \_Mor. t. i. p. 268. ed. Wyttenb. — D.] [* when a painter having; ed. “ of a painter that having.” — D.] SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 101 upon the sponge, and resistance* of the air, the sponge did mechanically and unavoidably move in that particular line of motion, and so necessarily hit upon that part of the picture ; and all the paint that it left there was as certainly placed by true natural causes, as any one stroke of the pencil in the whole piece. So that this strange effect of the sponge was fortuitous only with respect to the painter, becausef he did not design nor foresee such an effect ; but in itself, as{ to its real causes, it was necessary and natural. In a word, the true notion of fortune (tt)? tu^?) denoteth no more than the ignorance of such an event in some knowing agent con¬ cerned about it. So that it owes its very being to human understanding, and without relation to that is really nothing. How absurd then and ridiculous is the Atheist, that would make this fortune the cause of the formation of mankind ; whereas manifestly there could be no such thing or notion in the world as fortune, till human nature was actually formed ! It was man that first made fortune, and not fortune that pro¬ duced man. For, since § fortune in its proper acceptation supposeth the ignorance of something, in a subject capable of knowledge, if you take away mankind, such a notion hath no existence, neither with relation to inanimate bodies, that can be conscious of nothing, nor to an omniscient God, that can be ignorant of nothing. And so likewise the ade¬ quate meaning of chance (rod avrojidrov), (as it is distin¬ guished from fortune, in that the latter is understood to befail only rational agents, but chance to be among inanimate bodies,) is a|| bare negation, that signifies no more than this, that any effect among such bodies ascribed to chance is really^ produced by physical agents, according to the esta¬ blished laws of motion, but without their consciousness of concurring to the production, and without their intention of [« the sponge, and resistance ; ed. “ the sponge, compounded with the specific gravity of the sponge, and the resistance.” — D.] [f because ; 1st ed. “ seeing.” — D.] [J as; \st ed. “ and as.” — D.] [§ since; 1st ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [|| isa; 1st ed. “is really a.” — D.] ptf really; 1st ed. “verily.” — D.] 102 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. such an effect. So that chance , in its true sense, is all one with nature; and both words are used promiscuously by some ancient writers,0 to express the same thing. And we must be wary, lest we ascribe any real subsistence or per¬ sonality to this nature or chance ; for it is merely a notional and imaginary thing ; an abstract universal, which is properly nothing ; a conception of our own making, occasioned by our reflecting upon the settled course of things ; denoting only thus much, that all those bodies move and act accord¬ ing to their essential properties and qualities, without any consciousness or intention of so doing. So that in this genuine acceptation of chance here is nothing supposed that can supersede the known laws of natural motion : and thus to attribute the formation of mankind to chance, is all one with the former atheistical assertion, that ascribes it to nature or mechanism ; and consequently it hath received a prolix and sufficient refutation in my preceding discourse. (3.) But, thirdly, *tis likely that our Atheist may willingly renounce the doctrine of chance as a thing differing from nature, and may allow it to be the same thing, and that too no real and substantial agent, but only an abstract intellectual notion : but still he hath another expedient in reserve, which is a middle and safe way between the former rigorous me¬ chanism and the extravagancies of fortuitous motion: viz. that at the beginning, all things, ^tis true, proceeded neces¬ sarily and fatally according to the mechanical powers and affections of matter : but nevertheless the several kinds of animals were not formed at the first trial and effort without one error or miscarriage, (as strict mechanism would sup¬ pose), but there was an immense variety of ferments, and tumours, and excrescences of the soil, pregnant and big with foetuses of all imaginable shapes and structures of body;d c Plato, x. de Legibus. [Opp. t. viii. p. 471-2. ed. 1826. — D.] Tlvp /cal vSa tp /cal yfjv Kal ae'pa, (pvaei irdvra eivai /cal Tu%p aAA.a & \4yop.ev (pvtrei Kal d Bovyevrj dvSp6irpa>pa. Emped. [apud Plutarch. Adv. Colot., Mor. t. v. p. 390. ed. Wyttenb. — D.] SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 103 millions of which were utterly uncapable of life and motion, being the molce, as it were, and the abortions, of mother earth : and many of those that had life and powers to pre¬ serve their own individuals, yet wanted the due means of propagation, and therefore could not transmit their species to the following ages : and that those few only, that we now find in being, did happen (for he cannot express it but by the characters of a chance) to have all the parts necessary not only for their own lives, hut for the continuation of their kinds. This is the favourite opinion among the Atheists, and the most plausible of all; by which they think they may elude that most formidable argument for the being of God, from the admirable contrivance of organical bodies, and the exquisite fitness of their several parts for those ends and uses they are put to, and seem to have been designed for. For, say they, since* those innumerable instances of blunder and deformity were quickly removed out of knowledge and being, it is plain that no animals ought now to be found but such as have due organs necessary for their own nourishment and increase of their kinds : so that this boasted usefulness of parts, which makes men attribute their origination to an in¬ telligent and wise agent, is really no argument at all, be¬ cause it follows also from the AtheisFs assertion. For, sincef some animals are actually preserved in being till now, they must needs all of them have those parts that are of use and necessity : but that at first was only a lucky hit without skill or design, and ever since is a necessary condition of their continuation. And so, for instance, when they are urged with the admirable frame and structure of the eye ; which consists of so great a variety of parts, all excellently adapted to the uses of vision ; that (to omit mathematical considera¬ tions with relation toj optics) hath its many coats and hu¬ mours transparent and colourless, lest it should tinge and sophisticate the light that it lets in, by a natural jaun- [* since ; ls< ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [f since ; ls< ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [+ with relation to; ed. “ more proper for.” — D.] 104 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. dice ; that hath its pupil so constituted as to admit of con¬ traction and dilatation according to the differing degrees of light and the exigencies of seeing; that hath eyelids so commodiously placed, to cleanse the ball from dust, to shed necessary moisture upon it through numerous glandules, and to be drawn over it like a curtain for the convenience of sleep ; that hath a thousand more beauties in its figure and texture never studied nor admired enough : they will briskly reply, that they willingly concede all that can be said in the commendation of so noble a member ; yet notwithstanding they cannot admit for good reasoning, He that formed the eye , shall not he see?e for it was blind nature alone, or matter mechanically moved without consciousness or direc¬ tion, that made this curious organ of vision. For the short of the matter is this : this elegant structure of the eye is no more than is necessary to life ; and consequently* is included in the very suppositionsf of any animals living and continu¬ ing till now ; though those be but the very few that at the beginning had the good fortune to have eyes, among many millions of monsters that were destitute of them, sine vultu caeca reperta ,f and therefore did fatally perish soon after their birth. And thus, when we insist on other like arguments of divine wisdom in the frame of animate bodies ; as the arti¬ ficial position of many myriads of valves, all so situate as to give a free passage to the blood and other humours in their due channels and courses, but not permit them to regurgi¬ tate and disturb the great circulation and economy of life ; as the spiral, and not annulary, fibres of the intestines, for the better exercise of their functions ; as the provident fur¬ nishing of temporary parts for the foetus during the time of gestation, which are afterwards laid aside ; as the strange c Psal. xciv. 9. [* necessary to life ; and consequently ; 1 st ed. “ necessary to seeing; and this noble faculty of seeing is no more than is necessary to life ; and conse¬ quently.” — D.] [f suppositions ; 1st ed. “ supposition.” — D.] 1 Lucret. lib. v. [839. — D.] 105 SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. sagacity of little insects in choosing fit* places for the exclu¬ sion of their eggs, and for the provision of proper food, when the young ones are hatched and need it ; as the ardent crTopyr], or natural affection, in those animals, whose offspring cannot at first procure their own sustenance, but must in¬ fallibly perish if not fed by the parents ; as the untaught instincts and impresses upon every species, directing them, without imitation or deliberation, to the ready knowledge of proper food, to one and the best way of their preservation and defence, and to the never-failing propagation of their own kind : whatever considerations of this nature you pro¬ pose to this Atheist, as, indeed, such instances are innumer¬ able, all evidently setting forth the Almighty’s wisdom and goodness to such as are able to judge, and will judge impar¬ tially ;f he hath this one subterfuge from them all, that these things are mistaken for tokens of skill and contrivance, though they be but necessary consequences of the present existence of those creatures. For he that supposeth any animals to subsist, doth by that very supposition allow them every member and faculty that are necessary to subsistence ; such as are those we have just now enumerated. And therefore, unless we can prove a priori and independent of this usefulness, now that things are once supposed to have existed and propagated, that among ahnost infinite trials and essays at the beginning of things, among millions of mon¬ strous shapes and imperfect formations, a few such animals as now exist could not possibly be produced, these after¬ considerations are of very little moment; because, if such animals could in that way possibly be formed, as might live, and move, and propagate their beings, all this admired and applauded usefulness of their several fabrics is but a neces¬ sary condition and consequence of their existence and pro¬ pagation. This is the last pretence and sophistry of the Atheists [* choosing fit ; ls£ ed. “ choosing of fit.” — D.] [f judge impartially lit ed. “judge indifferently and impartially.” — D.] VOL. III. P 106 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. against the proposition in my text, that we received our life and being from a divine wisdom and power. And, as they cannot justly accuse me of any ways concealing or balking their grand objection, so I believe these following considera¬ tions will give them no reason to boast that it cannot receive a just and satisfactory answer. (1.) First, therefore, we affirm that wre can prove, and have done it already by arguments a priori (which is the challenge of the Atheists), that these animals, that now exist, could not possibly have been formed at first by mil¬ lions of trials. For, since* they allow by their very hypo¬ thesis (and, without standing to theirf courtesy, we have proved it before), that there can be no casual or spontaneous motion of the particles of matter, it will follow that every single monster, among so many supposed myriads,^ must have been mechanically and necessarily formed according to the known laws of motion, and the temperament and quality of the matter that it was made of. Which is suffi¬ cient to evince, that no such monsters were or could have been formed. For, to denominate them even monsters, they must have had some rude kind of organical bodies; some stamina of life, though never so clumsy; some system of parts compounded of solids and liquids, that executed, though but bunglingly, their peculiar motions and functions. But we have lately shewn it impossible for nature unassisted to constitute such bodies, whose structure is against the law of specific gravity. So that she could not make the least endeavour towards the producing of a monster, or of any thing that hath more vital and organical parts than we find in a rock of marble or a fountain of water. And, again, though we should not contend with them about their mon¬ sters and abortions, yet sincej they suppose even the per¬ fect animals, that are still in being, to have been formed [* since ; 1st ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [f their; 1st ed. “ that.” — D.] K Multaque turn tellus etiam portenta creare, &c. Lucret. lib. v. [835. — D.] [+ since ; 1st ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] SERMi V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 107 mechanically among the rest, and only add some millions of monsters to the reckonings they are liable to all the difficul¬ ties in the former explications and are expressly refuted through the whole preceding sermon ; where it is abundantly shewns that a spontaneous production is against the catholic laws of motion, and against matter of fact ; a thing without example, not only in man and the nobler animals, but in the smallest of insects and the vilest of weeds ; though the fer¬ tility of the earth cannot be said to have been impaired since the beginning of the world. (2.) Secondly, we may observe that this evasion of the Atheist is fitted only to elude such arguments of divine wis¬ dom as are taken from things necessary to the conservation of the animal, as the faculties of sight, and motion, and nutrition, and the like ; because such usefulness is, indeed, included in a general supposition of the existence of that animal : but it miserably fails him against other reasons from such members and powers of the body as are not necessary absolutely to living and propagating, but only much conduce to our better subsistence and happier condition. So the* most obvious contemplation of the frame of our bodies ; as that we all have double sensories, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, is an effectual confutation of this atheistical sophism. For a double organ of these senses is not at all compre¬ hended in the notion of bare existence ; one of them being sufficient to have preserved life, and kept up the species ; as common experience is a witness. Nay, even the very nails of our fingers are an infallible token of design and contriv¬ ance; for they are useful and convenient to give strength and firmness to those parts in the various functions they are put to, and to defend the numerous nerves and tendons that are under them, which have a most exquisite sense of pain, and without that native armour would continually be exposed to it ; and yet who will say that nails are absolutely neces¬ sary to human life, and are concluded in the supposition of [* So the ; 1st ed. “ So that the.” — D.] 108 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. simple existence ? It is manifest, therefore, that there was a contrivance and foresight of the usefulness of nails antece¬ dent to their formation. For the old stale pretence of the Atheists, that things were first made fortuitously, and after¬ wards their usefulness was observed or discovered,11 can have no place here ; unless nails were either absolutely requisite to the existence of mankind, or were found only in some individuals or some nations of men, and so might be ascribed to necessity upon one account, or to fortune upon the other. But, from the Atheist’s supposition, that, among the infinite diversity of the first terrestrial productions, there were ani¬ mals of all imaginable shapes and structures of body, all of which survived and multiplied, that, by reason of their make and fabric, could possibly do so ; it necessarily follows, that we should now have some nations without nails upon their fingers ; others with one eye only, as the poets describe the Cyclops in Sicily, and the Arimaspi in Scythia ; others with one ear, or one nostril, or, indeed, without any organ of smelling, because that sense is not necessary to man’s sub¬ sistence ; others destitute of the use of language, since* mutes also may live : one people would have the feet of goats, as the feigned Satyrs and Panisci ; another would resemble the head of Jupiter Ammon, or the horned statues of Bacchus ; the Sciapodes, and Enotoccetae,1 and other mon¬ strous nations would no longer bef fables, but real instances in nature ; and, in a word, all the ridiculous and extravagant shapes that can be imagined, all the fancies and whimsies of poets, and painters, and Egyptian idolaters, if so be they are consistent with life and propagation, would be now actually in being, if our Atheist’s notion were true ; which, therefore, may deservedly pass for a mere dream and an error, till they please to make new discoveries in terra incognita , and bring h Lucret. lib. iv. [832. — D.] Nil ideo quoniam natum est in corpore, ut uti Possemus : sed quod natum est, id procreat usum. [* since ; lsf ed. “ seeing that.”— D.] 1 Plinius et Strabo. [f no longer be ; ls< ed. “ be no longer.” — D.] SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 109 along with them some savages of all these fabulous and mon¬ strous configurations. (3.) But, thirdly, that we may proceed yet further with the Atheist, and convince him, that not only his principle is absurd, but his consequences also as absurdly deduced from it, we will allow him an uncertain extravagant chance against the natural laws of motion ; though not forgetting that that notion hath been refuted before, and therefore this concession is wholly ex abundanti. I say, then, that though there were really such a thing as this chance or fortune, yet nevertheless it would be extremely absurd* to ascribe the formation of human bodies to a cast of this chance. For let us consider the very bodies themselves. Here are confessedly all the marks and ch^acters of design in their structure that can be required, though one suppose a divine Author had made them : here is nothing in the work itself unworthy of so great a Master : here are no internalf arguments from the subject against the truth of that supposition. Have we, then, any capacity to judge and distinguish what is the effect of chance, and what is made by art and wisdom ? When a medalj is dug out of the ground, with some Roman empe¬ ror’s image upon it, and an inscription that agrees to his titles and history, and an impress upon the reverse relating to some memorable occurrence in his life ; can we be sure that this medal was really coined by an artificer, or is but a product of the soil from whence it was taken, that might casually or naturally receive that texture and figure ; as many kinds of fossils are very oddly and elegantly shaped accord¬ ing to the modification of their constituent salts, or the cavities they were formed in ? Is it a matter of doubt and controversy, whether the pillar of Trajan or Antoninus, the [• nevertheless it would be extremely absurd ; Is? ed. “ notwithstanding it is downright madness.” — D.] [f internal ; Is? ed. “ intrinsical.” — D.] [J what is the effect of chance, and what is made by art and wisdom? When a medal ; Is? ed. “ what is by chance, and what by art and wisdom ? Can we be sure, when a medal.” — D.] 110 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. ruins of Persepolis, or the late temple of Minerva, were the designs and works of architecture ; or, perhaps, might origin¬ ally exist so, or be raised up in an earthquake by subterra¬ neous vapour ? Do not we all think ourselves infallibly cer¬ tain, that this or that very commodious house must needs have been built by human art; though perhaps a natural cave in a rock may have something not much unlike to parlours or chambers ? And yet he must be a mere idiot, that cannot discern more strokes and characters of work¬ manship in the structure of an animal (in an human body especially) than in the most elegant medal or edifice in the world. They will believe the first parents of man¬ kind to have been fortuitously formed without wisdom or art; and that for this sorry* reason, because it is not simply impossible but that they may have been formed so. And who can demonstrate (if chance be once admitted of) but that possibly all the inscriptions and other remains of antiquity may be mere lusus naturae , and not works of human artifice ? If this be good reasoning, let us no longer make any pretences to judgment, or a faculty of discerning between things probable and improbable ; for, except flat contradic¬ tions, we may, upon equal reasons, believe all things, or nothing at all. And do the Atheists thus argue in common matters of life ? Would they have mankind lie idle, and lay aside all care of provisions by agriculture or commerce, be¬ cause possibly the dissolution of the world may happen the next moment ? Had Dinocrates really carved Mount Athos into a statue of Alexander the Great,J and had the memory of the fact been obliterated by some accident, who could afterwards have proved it impossible but that it might casu¬ ally have been formed so ? For every mountain must have some determinate figure, and why then not an human one as possibly as another? And yet I suppose none could [• sorry; 1 sted. “solid.” — D.] J Lucret. lib. v. [105. — D.] - dictis dabit ipsa fidem res Forsitan, et graviter terrarum motibus orbis Omnia conquassari in parvo tempore cernes. SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. m have seriously believed so, upon this bare account of possi¬ bility. *Tis an opinion that generally obtains among philo¬ sophers, that there is but one common matter, which is diversified by accidents ; and the same numerical quantity of it, by variation* of texture, may constitute successively all kinds of bodies in the world. So that ’tis not absolutely impossible, but that, if you take any other matter of equal weight and substance with the body of a man, you may blend it so long till it be shuffled into human shape and an organical structure. But who is he so abandoned to sottish credulity, as to think, upon that principle, that a clod of earth in a sack may ever, by eternal shaking, receive the fabric of man’s body ? And yet this is very near akin, nay, it is exactly parallel to the reasoning of Atheists about for¬ tuitous production. If mere possibility be a good foundation for belief, even Lucian’s True History may be true upon that account, and Pakephatus’s Talesk may be credible in spite of the title. It hath been excellently well urged in this case, both by ancients and moderns, that to attribute such admirable struc¬ tures to blind fortune or chance, is no less thanf to suppose, that, if innumerable figures of the twenty-four letters be cast abroad at random, they might constitute in due order the whole AEneis of Virgil or the Annates of Ennius.1 Now, the Atheists may pretend to elude this comparison ; as if the case was not fairly stated. For herein we first make an idea of a particular poem, and then demand, if chance can pos¬ sibly describe that ; and so we conceive man’s body thus actually formed, and then affirm that it exceeds the power of chance to constitute a being like that : which, they may say, is to expect imitation from chance, and not simple produc¬ tion. But at the first beginning of things there was no copy to be followed, nor any pre-existent form of human bodies to [* variation j 1st ed. “ variations.” — D.] k Palaeph. Vlepl 'Anlcrraiy, De Incredibilibus. [f less than; ls< ed. “ less absurd than.” — D.] 1 Cicero de Natura Deorum, lib. ii. cap. 37. 112 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. be imitated : so that, to put the case fairly, we should strip our minds and fancies from any particular notion and idea of a living body or a poem ; and then we shall understand, that what shape and structure soever should be at first casually formed, so that it could live and propagate, might be man ; and whatsoever should result from the strewing of those loose letters, that made any sense and measures, might be the poem we seek for. To which we reply, that if we should allow them, that there was no pre-existent idea of human nature till it was actually formed, (for the idea of man in the divine intellect must not now be considered,) yet, because they declare that great multitudes of each species of animals did fortuitously emerge out of the soilm in distant countries and climates, what could that be less than imitation in blind chance to make many individuals of one species so exactly alike ? Nay, though they should now, to cross us and evade the force of the argument, desert their ancient doctrine, and derive all sorts of animals from single originals of each kind, which should be the common parents of all the race ; yet surely, even in this account, they must necessarily allow* two at least, male and female, in every species : which chance could neither make so very nearly alike, without copying and imitation ; nor so usefully differing, without contrivance and wisdom. So that, let them take whether they will, if they deduce all animals from single pairs of a sort, even to make the second of a pair is to write after a copy; it is, in the former comparison, by the casting of loose letters to compose the pre-existent particular poem of Ennius. But, if they make numerous sons and daughters of earth among every species of creatures, as all their authors have supposed, this m Lucret. lib. v. [805. — D.] Hinc ubi quaeque loci regio opportuna dabatur, Crescebant uteri, &c. Et ibidem, [789. — D.] • - - inde loci mortalia saecla creavit, Multa modis multis varia ratione coorta. [* allow; 1st ed. “constitute.” — D.] SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 113 is not only, as was said before, to believe a monkey may once scribble the Leviathan of Hobbes, but may do the same fre¬ quently by an habitual kind of chance.* Let us consider how next to impossible it is, that chance (if there were such a thing) should, in such an immense variety of parts in an animal, twice hit upon the same struc¬ ture, so as to make a male andf female. Let us resume the former instance of the twenty-four letters thrown at random upon the ground. ^Tis a mathematical demonstration, that these twenty-four do admit of so many changes in then- order, that they may makej such a long roll of differently ranged alphabets, not two of which are alike, that they could not all be exhausted, though a million million§ of writers should each write above a thousand alphabets a-day for the space of a million million || of years.11 What strength of ima¬ gination can extend itself to embrace and comprehend such a prodigious diversity ? And it is as infallibly certain, that suppose any particular order of the alphabet be^[ assigned, and the twenty-four letters be** cast at a venture, so as to fall in a line ; it is so many million of millions odds to one against any single throw, that the assigned order will not be cast. Let us now suppose there be only a thousand consti¬ tuent members in the body of a man (that we may take few enough), it is plain that the different position and situation of these thousand parts would make so many differing com¬ pounds and distinct species of animals. And if only twenty- four parts, as before, may be so multifariously placed and ordered as to make many millions of millions of differing rows, in the supposition of a thousand parts, how immense [* by an habitual kind of chance ; 1st ed. “ by an habitual kind of chance, even above the number of all the impression.” — D.] [f and; 1st ed. “ and a." — D.] [+ order, that they may make ; 1st ed. “ order, may make.” — D.] [§ million ; 1st ed. “ millions.” — D.] [|| million ; 1st ed. “ millions.” — D.] “ Tacquetti Arithmet. cap. de Progressione. [If be ; 1st ed. “ to be.”— D.] [*# be ; 1st ed. “ to be.” — D.] VOL. III. Q 114 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. must that capacity of variation be ! even beyond all thought and denomination, to be expressed only in mute figures, whose multiplied powers are beyond the narrowness of lan¬ guage, and drown the imagination in astonishment and con¬ fusion ! especially if we observe that the variety of the alpha¬ bet considered above was in mere longitude only, hut the thousand parts of our bodies may be diversified by situation in all the dimensions of solid bodies ; which multiplies all over and over again, and overwhelms the fancy in a new abyss of unfathomable number. Now, it is demonstratively certain, that it is all this odds to one, against any particular trial, that no one man could, by casual production, be framed like another (as the Atheists suppose thousands to be in several regions of the earth) ; and I think ’tis rather more odds than less, that no one female could be added to a male, inas¬ much as that most necessary difference of sex is a higher token of divine wisdom and skill, above all the power of fortuitous hits, than the very similitude of both sexes in the other parts of the body. And again , we must consider that the vast imparity of this odds against the accidental likeness of two casual formations is never lessened and diminished by trying and casting. ’Tis above a hundred to one against any parti¬ cular throw, that you do not cast any given set of faces with four cubical dice, because there are so many several combina¬ tions of the six faces of four dice. Now, after you have cast all the hundred trials* but one, ’tis still as much odds at the last remaining time as it was at the first ; for blind insensible chance cannot grow cunning by many experiments, neither have the preceding casts any influence upon those that come after. So that if this chance of the Atheists should have essayed in vain to make a species for a million milliont of ages, Tis still as many millions odds against that formation as it was at the first moment in the beginning of things. How incredible is it, therefore, that it should hit upon two productions alike, within so short duration of the world, ac- [* all the hundred trials; Isted. “all the trials.” — D.] [f million; lsi ed. “ millions.” — D.] SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 115 cording to the doctrine of our Atheists ! 0 How much more, that it should do so within the compass of a hundred years, and of a small tract of ground, so that this male and female might come together ! If any Atheist can be induced to stake his soul for a wager against such an inexhaustible dis¬ proportion, let him never hereafter accuse others of easiness and credulity. (4.) But, fourthly, we will still make more ample conces¬ sions, and suppose, with the Atheist, that his chance has actually formed all animals in their terrestrial wombs. Let us see now how he will preserve them to maturity of birth. What climate will he cherish them in, that they be not inevitably destroyed by moisture or cold ? Where is that equability of nine months’ warmth to be found ? that uniform warmth, which is so necessary even in the incubation of birds, much more in the time of gestation of viviparous ani¬ mals ? I know his party have placed this great scene in Egypt, or somewhere between the two tropics.P Now, not to mention the cool of the nights, which alone would destroy the conceptions; ’tis known that all those countries have either incessant rains every year for whole months together, or are quite laid under water by floods from the higher grounds ; which would certainly corrupt and putrefy all the teeming wombs of the earth, and extinguish the whole brood of embryons by untimely abortions. (5.) But, fifthly, we will still be more obliging to this Atheist, and grant him his petition, that nature may bring forth the young infants vitally into the world. Let us see now what sustenance, what nurses, he hath provided for them. If we consider the present constitution of nature, we must affirm, that most species must have been lost for want of fostering and feeding. ’Tis a great mistake, that* man 0 Lucret. v. [331. — D.] Verum, ut opinor, liabet novitatem summa, recensquc . Natura est imindi neque pridem exordia cepit. i' Cesalpin. Berigard. [* mistake, that ; b# ed. “ mistake that, that.” — D.] 116 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. only comes weak and helpless into the world ; whereas ’tis apparent that, excepting fish and insects (and not all of them neither), there are very few or no creatures that can provide for themselves at first without the assistance of parents. So that, unless they suppose mother earth to be a great animal, and to have nurtured up her young offspring with a conscious tenderness and providential care, there is no possible help for it but they must have been doubly starved both with hunger and cold. (6.) But, sixthly, we will be yet more civil to this Atheist, and forgive him this difficulty also. Let us suppose the first animals maintained themselves with food, though we cannot tell how. But then, what security hath he made for the pre¬ servation of human race from the jaws of ravenous beasts ? The divine writers* have acquainted us, that God at the be¬ ginning gave mankind dominion (an impressed awe and au¬ thority) over every living thing that moveth upon the earths But in the Atheist’s hypothesis there are no imaginable means of defence ; for ’tis manifest, that so many beasts of prey, lions, tigers, wolves, and the like, being of the same age with man, and arriving at the top of their strength in one year or two, must needs have worried and devoured those forlorn brats of our Atheist’s, even before they were weaned from the foramina terra, T or at least in a short time after ; sincef all the carnivorous animals shouldj have multiplied exceedingly, by several generations, before those children that escaped at first could come to the age of puberty. So that men would always lessen, and their enemies always increase. But some of them will here pretend, that Epicurus was out in this matter ; and that they were not born mere infants out of those wombs of the earth, but men at their full growth, and in the prime of their strength. But, I pray, what should [* writers; 1st ed. “writings.” — D.] q Gen. i. 28. r Lucret. lib. v. [809. — D.] [f since ; ls< ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [t should; 1st ed. “would.” — D.] SERM. V. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 117 hinder those grown lusty infants from breaking sooner those membranes that involved them ; as the shell of the egg is broken by the bird, and the amnion * by the foetus? Were the membranes so thick and tough, that the foetus must stay there till he had teeth to eat through them, as young mag¬ gots do through a gall ? But let us answer these fools accord¬ ing to their folly. Let us grant, that they were born with beards, and in the full time of manhood. They are not yet in af better condition ; here are still many enemies against few, many species against one ; and those enemies speedily multiplying in the second and third and much lower genera¬ tions ; whereas the sons of the first men must have a tedious time of childhood and adolescence, before they can either themselves assist their parents, or encourage them with new hopes of posterity. And we must consider withal, that (in the notion of Atheism) those savages were not then what civilised mankind is now, but mutum et turpe pecus, without language, without mutual society, without arms of offence, without houses or fortifications, an obvious and exposed prey to the ravage of devouring beasts ; a most sorry and miserable plantation towards the peopling of a world. And now that I have followed the Atheists through so many dark mazes of error and extravagance, having, to my knowledge, omitted nothing on their side that looks like a dif¬ ficulty, nor proposed any thing in reply but what I myself really believe to be a just and solid answer ; I shall here close up the apostle’s argument of the existence of God from the consideration of human nature. And I appeal to all sober and impartial judges of what hath been delivered, whether those noble faculties of our souls may be only a mere sound and echo from the clashing of senseless atoms, or rather indubitably must proceed from a spiritual substance of a heavenly and divine extraction ? whether these admir¬ able fabrics of our bodies shall he ascribed to the fatal mo- [* amnion; 1st ed. “ amnios.” — D.] [f a; 1st ed. “ any.” — D.] 118 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. V. tions or fortuitous shufflings of blind matter; or rather, beyond controversy, to the wisdom and contrivance of the almighty Author of all things, who is wonderful in counsel , and excellent in working ?a To whom, &c. s Isaiah, xxviii. 29. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM FROM THE ORIGIN AND FRAME OF THE WORLD. PART I. SERMON VI. Preached October the 3d, 1692. Acts, xiv. 15, &c. That ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God , who made heaven , and earth , and the sea, and all things that are therein : who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless, he left not himself without witness , in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. All the arguments that can be brought, or can be demanded, for the existence of God, may, perhaps not absurdly, be re¬ duced to three general heads ; the first of which will include all the proofs from the vital and intelligent portions of the universe, the organical bodies of the various animals, and the immaterial souls of men. Which living and understanding substances, as they make incomparably the most considerable and noble part of the naturally known and visible creation, so they do the most clearly and cogently demonstrate to philosophical inquirers the necessary self-existence, and om¬ nipotent power, and unsearchable wisdom, and boundless be¬ neficence of their Maker. This first topic, therefore, was very 120 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. fitly and divinely made use of by our apostle in his confer¬ ence with philosophers and that inquisitive people of Athens; the latter spending their time in nothing else, but either to tell or hear * some new thing;*- and the other in nothing butf to call in question the most evident truths that were delivered and received of old. And these arguments we have hitherto pursued in their utmost latitude and extent. So that now we shall proceed to the second head; or the proofs of a Deity from the inanimate part of the world ; sincej even natural reason, as well as§ holy Scripture, assures us, that the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shewetli his handy -work ; b that he made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding ;c that he com¬ manded, and they were created ; he hath also established them for ever and ever ;d he covereth the heavens\\ with clouds, he prepareth rain for the earth,* he crownetli the year with his goodness J These reasons for God’s existence, from the frame and system of the world, as they are equally time with the for¬ mer, so they have always been more popular and plausible to the illiterate part of mankind ; insomuch as the Epi¬ cureans/ and some others, have observed, that men’s con- [* or hear ; 1*2 ed. “ or to hear." — D.] a Chap. xvii. ver. 21. [f in nothing hut ; not in ls£ ed. — D.] [| since; 1st ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [§ as; ed. “ as the.” — D.] b Psal. xix. 1. c Jer. li. 15. d Psal. cxlviii. 5. [|| heavens; 1st ed. “ heaven .” — D.] e Psal. cxlvii. 8. f Psal. Ixv. 11. e Lucret. lib. v. [1182. — D.] Praeterea, coeli rationes ordine certo, Et varia annorum cernebant tempora verti. and lib. vi. [57. — D.] Nam bene qui didicere Deos securum agere sevum, Si tamen interea mirantur, & c. Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. ii. [cap. 38. ed. Dav. — D.] Quis hunc hominem dixerit, qui cum tam certos cceli motus, tarn ratos astrorum ordines, &c. Plutarch, de Plac. Phil. i. 6. \_Mor. t. iv. p. 361. ed. Wyttenb. — D.] 0eoD yap ivvoiav ecrxov dirb ran' cpaivopevaiv affrepuv, Spdn/res tovtovs peyd\y]s avpeptav'ias out as alrlovs, Ka\ Terayp.il/as Tjpepav re xat vvKTtt, x*1 pdiva re /ca! Oepos, avaro\ds re nal Suer pas. SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 121 templating the most ample arch of the firmament, the innu¬ merable multitude of the stars, the regular rising and setting of the sun, the periodical and constant vicissitudes of day and night, and seasons of the year, and the other affections of meteors and heavenly bodies, was the principal and almost only ground and occasion that the notion of a God came first into the world ; making no mention of the former proof from the frame of human nature, that in God we live , and move, and have our being . Which argument being so natural and internal* to mankind, doth nevertheless (I know not how) seem more remote and obscure to the generality of men, who are readier to fetch a reason from the immense distance of the starry heavens and the outmost walls of the world, than seek one at home, within themselves, in their own faculties and constitutions. So that hence we may per¬ ceive how prudently that was waved, and the second here insisted on by St. Paul to the rude and simple semi-barba¬ rians of Lycaonia : he left not himself without witness , in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful sea¬ sons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. Which words we shall now interpret in a large and free acceptation; so that this second theme may comprehend all the brute inani¬ mate matter of the universe, as the former comprised all visible creatures in the world, that have understanding, or sense, or vegetable life. These two arguments are the voices of nature, the unanimous suffrages of all real beings and sub¬ stances created, that are naturally knowable without revela¬ tion. And if, lastly, in the third place, we can evince the divine existence from the adjuncts and circumstances of human life ; if we find in all ages, in all civilised nations, an universal belief and worship of a divinity ; if we find many unquestionable records of supernatural and miraculous effects ; if we find many faithful relations of prophecies punctually accomplished ; of prophecies so well attested, above the sus¬ picion of falsehood ; so remote, and particular, and unlikely [* internal; Is* ed. “ intrinsical.”— D.] R VOL. III. 122 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. to come to pass, beyond the possibility of good guessing, or the mere foresight of human wisdom ; if we find a most war¬ rantable tradition, that at sundry times and in divers manners God spake unto mankind by his prophets, and by his Son , and his apostles, who have delivered to us in sacred writings a clearer revelation of his divine nature and will; if, I say, this third topic from human testimony be found agreeable to the standing vote and attestation of nature, what further proofs can be demanded or desired ? What fuller evidence can our adversaries require, since* all the classes of known beings are summoned to appear? Would they have us bring more witnesses than the all of the world ? and will they not stand to the grand verdict and determination of the universe? They are incurable infidels that persist to deny a Deity; when all creatures in the world, as well spiritual as cor¬ poreal, all from human race to the lowest of insects, from the cedar of Libanus to the moss upon the wall, from the vast globes of the sun and planets to the smallest particles of dust, do declare their absolute dependence upon the first author and fountain of all being, and motion, and life, the only eternal and self-existent God ; with whom inhabit all majesty, and wisdom, and goodness, for ever and ever. But, before I enter upon this argument from the origin and frame of the world, it will not be amiss to premise some particulars that may serve for an illustration of the text, and be a proper introduction to the following discourses, f As the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, were preaching the Gospel at Lystra,h a city of Lycaonia in Asia the Less, among the rest of their auditors there was a lame cripple from his birth, whom Paul commanded, with a loud voice, to stand upright on his feet ; and immediately, by a miraculous energy, he leaped and walked. Let us compare the present circumstances with those of my former text, and observe the remarkable difference in the apostle’s proceedings. No [* since; Is* ed. “ seeing.” — D.] [t to the following discourses; Isi ed. “ to our discourse thereupon.” — D.] h [Acts, xiv.] ver. 8. • SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 123 question but there were several cripples at Athens, so very- large and populous a city ; and, if that could be dubious, I might add, that the very climate disposed the inhabitants to impotency in the feet : Atthide tentantur gressus, oculique in Achceis Finibus 1 — are the words of Lucretius ; which ’tis pro¬ bable he transcribed from Epicurus, a Gargettian and native of Athens, and therefore an unquestionable evidence in a matter of this nature. Neither is it likely that all the Athe¬ nian cripples should escape the sight of St. Paul, since* he disputed there in the market daily with them that met him .k How comes it to pass, then, that we do not hear of a like miracle in that city; which, one would think, might have greatly conduced to the apostle’s design, and have converted, or at least confuted and put to silence, the Epicureans and Stoics ? But it is not difficult to give an account of this seeming disparity, if we attend to the qualifications of the lame person at Lystra, whom Paul stedfastly beholding, and perceiving that he had Faith to be healed, said, with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet -1 This is the necessary con¬ dition that was always required by our Saviour and his apostles : And Jesus said unto the blind man, Receive thy sight, thy Faith hath saved thee ;m and to the woman that had the issue of blood, Daughter, be of good comfort ; thy Faith hath made thee whole: go in peaces ’Twas want of Faith in our Saviour’s countrymen, which hindered him from shedding among them the salutary emanations of his divine virtue : And he did not many mighty works there , because of their unbelief.0 There were many diseased per¬ sons in his own country, but very few that were rightly dis¬ posed for a supernatural cure. St. Mark hath a very obser¬ vable expression upon the same occasion : And he could do no mighty works f there, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed thpmJ Kal ov/c HATNATO e’/cet * Lucret. lib. vi. [1114. — D.] k [Acts, xvii.] ver. 17. ” [Luke,] viii. 48. [4 works; 1st ed. 11 work.” — D.] [* since ; ed. “ seeing.” — D.] 1 Ver. 9. ra Luke, xviii. 42. 0 Matt. xiii. 58. p Mark, vi. 5. 124 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. ovheplav Svvafuv iroigaai. We read in St. Luke, v. 17 : And the power ( Bvvafus ?) of the^Lord was present to heal them. And chap. vi. ver. 19: And the whole multitude sought to touch him ; for there went virtue ( Svva/ju $) out of him , and healed them all. Now, since hvva/M^ and rjhvvaro are* words of the same root and signification, shall we so interpret the evangelist, as if our Saviour had not power to work miracles among his unbelieving countrymen ? This is the passage which that impious and impure Atheist Lucilio Vanino^ singled out for his text, in his pretended and mock apology for the Christian religion ; wickedly insinuating as if the prodigies of Christ were mere impostures, and acted by confederacy ; and therefore, where the spectators were incre¬ dulous, and consequently watchful and suspicious, and not easily imposed on, he could do no mighty work there ; there his arm was shortened, and his power and virtue too feeble for such supernatural effects. But the gross absurdity of this suggestion is no less conspicuous than the villanous blasphemy of it. For,f can it be credible to any rational person, that St. Mark could have that meaning? that he should tax his Lord and Saviour, whom he knew to be God Almighty, with deficiency of power ? He could do no mighty works ; that is, he would do none, because of their unbelief. There’s a frequent change of those words in all languages of the world. And we may appeal with St. Chrysostom1" to the common custom of speech, whatever country we live in. This, therefore, is the genuine sense of that expression : Christ would not heal their infirmities, because of the hardness and slowness of their hearts, in that they believed him not. And [* Now, since hvvapis and ijSvvaro are; ls£ ed. “Seeing then that rjSvvaro and 5iWju.cs are.” — D.] Vanini Dial. p. 439. [f But the gross absurdity of this suggestion is no less conspicuous than the villanous blasphemy of it. For; ls£ ed. “ But the gross absurdity is no less conspicuous than the villanous blasphemy of this suggestion. For.” — D.] r Chrys. ad locum : tovto 5e /cal iv icoivrj (Tvvrjdtia. v is ttA.tjo’Ioi' &\\ov. [Horn. II. ii. 271. — D.] [* silently; ls£ ed. “ tacitly.” — D.] [f noised; ls£ ed. “ noise.” — D.] [X were; ls£ ed. “ are.” — D.] [§ ran; ls< ed. “ run.” — D.] [|| expostulated; lif ed. “ expostulate.” — D.] “ [Acts, xiv.] ver. 15. 0 Mortales sumus similes vobis homines. So ef rt naOu, if I die ; a common expression in Greek writers. p - - - - at yap iywv &s E2V adavaros Ka\ ayfipaos tf/Aara irdvTa. Horn. [/£. viii. 538. — D.J [^[ and we preach; 1st ed. “ and preach." — D.] VOL. III. S 130 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. edvrj), all the Gentiles, 9 distinguished from the Jews; as the same words are translated Rom. xv. 11, and 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; and ought to have been so, Rom. i. 5, and xvi. 26; but much more in our text, which according to the present version seems to carry a very obscure, if not erroneous meaning; but by a true interpretation is very easy and intelligible : that hitherto God had suffered all the Gentiles to walk in their own ways ; and excepting the Jews only, whom he chose for his own people, and prescribed them a law, he permitted the rest of mankind to walk by the mere light of nature, without the assistance of revelation : but that now, in the fulness of time, he had even to the Gentiles also sent sal¬ vation, and opened the door of faith, and granted repentance unto life. So that these words of our apostle are exactly coincident with that remarkable passage* in his discourse to the Athenians : And the (past) times of this ignorance (of the Gentile world) God winked at (or overlooked1-) ; hut now com- mandeth all men every where to repent .s And nevertheless, says our text,f even in that gloomy state of heathenism, he left not himself without witness , in that he did good, dya- doTTOLMV ef ovpavov, always doing good from heaven, (which seems to be the genuine punctuation, and is authorised by the Syriac interpreters,1) and gave us rain and% fruitful sea¬ sons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. Even the very Gentiles§ might feel after him and find him; since the|| admirable frame of heaven, and earth, and sea, and the muni¬ ficent provision of food and sustenance for his creatures, did competently set forth his eternal power and Godhead; so 'i See Acts, iv. 27 ; xiv. 5; xxvi. 17. Gal. ii. 14. [* that remarkable passage ; Is* ed. “ that so much controverted passage.” ~D'3 1 xnrep&div. s Acts, xvii. 30. [f says our text; not in ls£ ed. — D.] * N222 win] nrrai p «nnta ■pnb win 1237 12 so that they read ay ad oiroicbv e| ovpavov, Kal verbv S. Horat. [^at. i. 5. 102. — D.] Nec, si quid miri faciat natura, Deos id Tristes ex alto cceli demittere tecto. [J rain and ; \st ed. “ rain from heaven and." — D.] [§ the very Gentiles ; l$f ed. “ the Gentiles.” — D.] , [|| since the ; la/ ed. “ seeing that the.” — D.] SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 131 that stupid idolaters and profane Atheists were then and always without excuse.* Our adversaries have used the same methods to elude the present argument from the frame of the world, as they have done to evade the former from the origin of mankind. Some have maintained, that this world hath thus existed from all eternity in its present form and condition ; but others say, thatf the forms of particular worlds are generable and cor¬ ruptible ; so that our present system cannot have sustained an infinite duration already gone and expired : but however, say they, bodyj in general, the common basis and matter of all worlds and beings, is self-existent and eternal ; which, being naturally divided into innumerable little particles or atoms, eternally endued with an ingenite and inseparable power of motion, by their omnifarious concursions, and com¬ binations, and coalitions, produce§ successively (or at once, if matter be infinite) an infinite number of worlds ; and amongst the rest there arose|| this visible complex system of heaven and earth. And thus far they do agree ; but then they differ about the cause and mode of the production of worlds, some ascribing it* to fortune, and others to mechanism or nature. 5Tis true, the astrological Atheists will^[ give us no trouble in the present dispute ; because they cannot form a peculiar hypothesis here, as they have done before about the origina¬ tion of animals. For though some of them are so vain and senseless, as to pretend to a thema mundi, a calculated scheme of the nativity of our world; yet it exceeds even their absurdity, to suppose the zodiac and planets to be effi¬ cient of, and antecedent to, themselves; or to exert any influences before they were in being. So that, to refute all [* without excuse; 1st ed. “without excuse: which is the scope of these discourses.” — D.] [| say, that; 1st ed. “do as stiffly affirm that.” — D.] [J however, say they, body ; Is* ed. “ however, that body.” — D.] [§ produce; Is* ed. “there emergeth.” — D.] [|| amongst the rest there arose ; 1 st ed. “ among the rest arose.” — D.] [^[ ’Tis true, the astrological Atheists will ; ls< ed. “ Indeed, as for the as¬ trological Atheists, they will.’' — D.] 132 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. possible explications that the Atheists have or can propose, I shall proceed in this following method : I. First, I will prove it impossible that the primary parts of our world, the sun and the planets, with their regular motions and revolutions, should have subsisted eternally in the present or a like frame and condition. II. Secondly, I will shew, that matter abstractly and absolutely considered, cannot have subsisted eternally ; or, if it has, yet motion cannot have coexisted eternally with it, as* an inherent property and essential attribute of the Atheist’s god. Matter. III. Thirdly, though universal matter should have enduredf from everlasting, divided into infinite particles in the Epicu¬ rean way ; and though motion should have been J coeval and coeternal with it ; yet those§ particles or atoms could never of themselves, by omnifarious kinds of motion, whether for¬ tuitous or mechanical, have fallen or been disposed into this or a like visible system. || IV. And, fourthly, a posteriori, that the order and beauty of the inanimate parts of the world, the discernible ends and final causes of them, the to /3e\rLov, or a meliority above what was necessary to be, do evince, by a reflex argument, that it is the product and workmanship, not of blind mecha¬ nism or blinder chance, but of an intelligent and benign Agent, who by his excellent wisdom made the heavens and earth , and gives rain% and fruitful seasons for the service of man* [* cannot have subsisted eternally ; or, if it has, yet motion cannot have coexisted eternally with it, as ; ls£ ed. “ cannot have borne an infinite duration now past and expired; as also that motion cannot have coexisted eternally, as.” — D.] [f Thirdly, though universal matter should have endured ; ls< ed. “ Thirdly, that though we allow them, that universal matter hath endured.” — D.] [t and though motion should have been ; 1st ed. “ and that motion hath been.” — D.] [§ those ; lstf ed. “ these.” — D.] [|| system ; ls< ed. “ system ; though a supposed infinite duration of the atoms and their motions should already be expired and gone.” — D.] [^[ rain; 1st ed. “ rains.” — D.] SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 133 I shall speak to the two first propositions in my present discourse ; reserving the latter for other opportunities.* I. First, therefore :f that the present or a like frame of the world hath not subsisted from everlasting. We will readily concede, that a thing may be truly eternal, though its duration be terminated at one end. For so we affirm human souls to be immortal and eternal, though rjv ore ovtc riaav, there was a time when they were nothing ; and therefore their infinite duration will always be bounded at one extreme by that first beginning of existence. So that, for ought appears as yet, the revolutions of the earth and other planets about the sun, though they be limited at one end by the present revolution, may nevertheless have been infinite and eternal without any beginning. But then we must consider, that this duration of human souls is only . potentially infinite. For their eternity consists only in an endless capacity of continuance without ever ceasing to be, in a boundless futurity that can never be exhausted, or all of it be past and present. But their duration can never be positively and actually eternal; because it is most manifest, that no moment can ever be assigned, wherein it shall be true, that such a soul hath then actually sustained an infinite duration. For that supposed infinite duration will, by the very supposition, be limited at two extremes, though never so remote asunder, and consequently must needs be finite. Wherefore the true nature and notion of a soul’s eternity is this : that the future moments of its duration can never be all past and present , but still there will be a futurity and potentiality of more for ever and ever. So that we evidently perceive from this instance, that! whatever successive dura¬ tion shall be bounded at one end, and be all past and present , for that reason must be finite. § Which necessarily evinceth, [* I shall speak to the two first propositions in my present discourse; re¬ serving the latter for other opportunities ; not in lsf ed. — D.] [f First, therefore ; lsf ed. “ And first.” — D.] [J instance, that; lsf ed. “ instance of a soul, that.” — D.] [§ for that reason must be finite; 1st ed. “must come infinitely short of infinity.” — D.] 134 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. that the present or a like world can never have been eternal, or that there cannot have been infinite past revolutions of a planet about a sun. For this supposed infinity is terminate* at one extreme by the present revolution, and all the other revolutions are confessedly past ; so that the whole duration is bounded at one end, and all past and present ; and there¬ fore cannot have been infinite, by what was proved before. And this will shew us the vast difference between the false successive eternity backwards, and the real one to come. For, consider the present revolution of the earth as the bound and confine of them both. God Almighty, if he so pleaseth, may continue this motion to perpetuity in infinite revolutions to come ; because futurity is inexhaustible, and can never be all spent orf run out by past and present moments. But then, if we look backwards from this present revolution, we mayj apprehend the impossibility of infinite revolutions on that side; because all are already past, and so were once actually present , and consequently are finite, by the argument before. For surely we cannot conceive a pre- teriteness (if I may say so) still backwards in infinitum, that never was present, as we can an endless futurity that never will be present. So that though one is potentially infinite, yet nevertheless the other is actually§ finite. And this|| reasoning doth necessarily conclude against the past infinite duration of all successive motion and mutable beings : but it doth not at all^[ affect the eternal existence of God,** in whose invariable nature there is no past orff future ; who is omnipresent not only as to space, but as to duration ; and with respect to such omnipresence, it is certain and manifest, that succession and motion are mere impossibilities, and re¬ pugnant in the very terms. [* terminate ; 1st ed. “ terminated.” — D.] [f or; 1st ed. “ and.” — D.] [J may; Is* ed. “ do.”- — D.] [§ actually; 1st ed. “positively.” — D.] [|| And this ; 1 st ed. “ And though this.” — D.] [^j hut it doth not at all ; 1st ed. “ yet it doth not all.” — D.] [** God ; 1st ed. “ the adorable Divinity.” — D.] [ft or; 1st ed. “ nor.” — D.] \ SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 135 And, secondly, though what hath been now said hath given us so clear a view of the nature of successive duration, as to make more arguments needless ; yet I shall here briefly shew how our adversaries’ hypothesis, without any outward opposition, destroys and confutes* itself. For let us suppose infinite revolutions of the earth about the sun to be already gone and expired ; I take it to be self-evident, that, if none of those past revolutions has been infinite ages ago, all the revolutions put together cannot makef the duration of infinite ages : it follows, therefore, from this supposition, that there may be some one assignable revolution among them, that was | at an infinite distance from the present. But it is self- evident likewise, that no one past revolution could§ be in¬ finitely distant from the present; for then an infinite or unbounded duration may be bounded at two extremes by two annual revolutions; which is absurd and a contradiction. And again, upon the same supposition of an eternal past duration of the world, and of infinite annual revolutions of the earth about the sun ; I would ask concerning the monthly revolutions of the moon about the earth, or the diurnal ones of the earth upon its own axis, both which, by the very hypo¬ thesis, are coeval with the former, whether these also have been finite or infinite ? Not finite to be sure ; because then a finite number would be greater than an infinite, as 12 or 365 are more than an unit. Nor infinite neither ; for then two or three infinites would exceed one another, as a year exceeds a month, or both exceed a day. So that both ways the supposition is repugnant and impossible. And thirdly, the arguments already used,u from the gradual increase of mankind, from the known plantations of most countries, from the recent invention of letters and arts, &c. do conclude as forcibly against the eternity of the world as against infinite generations of human race. For if [* without any outward opposition destroy^ and confutes; 1st ed. “doth without any outward opposition destroy and confute.”— D.] [f make; Is* ed. “ make up.”— D.] [+ was; ls£ ed. “ is.” — D.] [§ could; 1st ed. “ can.” — D.] " Serm. iii. 136 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. the present frame of the earth be supposed eternal, by the same notion they make mankind to have been coeternal with it. For otherwise this eternal earth, after she had been eternally barren and desolate, must at last have sponta¬ neously produced mankind, without new cause from without, or any alteration in her own texture ; which is so gross an absurdity, that even no Atheist hath yet affirmed it. So that it evidently follows, since mankind had a beginning, that the* present form of the earth, and therefore the whole system of the world, had a beginning also. Which being proved and established, we are now enabled to give answers to some bold queries and objections of Atheists; that sincef God is described as a being infinitely powerful and perfectly good ; and that these attributes were essential to him from all eternity; why did he notj by his power, for the more ample communication of his goodness, create the world from eternity, § if he created it at all ? or at least many millions of ages ago, before this short span of duration of five or six thousand years ? To the first we reply, that since we have discovered an internal|| and natural impossibility that a successive duration should be actually eternal; ’tis to us a flat contradiction, that the world should have been^j created from everlasting. And therefore it is no affront to the divine omnipotence, if by reason of the formal incapacity and repugnancy of the thing we conceive,** that the world could not possibly have been made from all eternity, even by God himself. Which gives an answer to the second question. Why created so lately ? For, if it could [* since mankind had a beginning, that the ; Is* ed. “ that if mankind had a beginning, the.” — D.] [f since; ls< ed. “seeing.” — D.] [J he not; 1st ed. “ not he.” — D.] [§ from eternity ; lsf ed. “ eternally.” — D.] [|| since we have discovered an internal ; lsJ ed. “ seeing we have discovered an intrinsical.” — D.] [H ’tis to us a flat contradiction, that the world should have been; 1st ed. “ it is no less than a contradiction to itself, that the world should be.” — D.] [** conceive ; ls< cd. “ aver.” — D.] SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 137 not be created from eternity,* there can no instant be as¬ signed for its creation in time, though never so many myriads and millions of years since, but the same query mayf be put, Why but now, and Why so late ? for even before that remoter period God was eternally existent, and might have made the world as many myriads of ages still backwards before that: and consequently this objection is absurd and unreasonable. For else, if it was good and allowable, it would eternally hinder God from exerting his creative power, because he could never make a world so early, at any given moment, but it mayj truly be said, he could have created it sooner. Or if they think there§ may be a soonest instant of possible creation, yet, since|| all in¬ stants have an equal pretence to it in human apprehension, why may not this recent production of the world, according to sacred authority, be supposed to be that soonest ? At least it may make that claim to it that cannot be baffled by their arguments, which^[ equally conclude against all claims, against any conceivable beginning of the world. And so, when they profanely ask. Why did not this sup¬ posed Deity, if he really made the heavens, make them boundless and immense, a fit and honourable mansion for an infinite and incomprehensible being ; or at least vastly more ample and magnificent than this narrow cottage of a world ? we may make them this answer : First, it seems** impos¬ sible, and a contradiction, that a created world should be infinite ;f f because it is the nature of quantity! £ and motion, that they can never be actually and positively infinite : they have a power indeed §§ and a capacity of being increased [* it could not be created from eternity ; ls£ ed. il it be impossible to have been created eternally.” — D.] [f may; ls£ ed. “ might.” — D.] [J may; 1st ed. “might.” — D.] [§ there ; ls2 ed. “that there.” — D.] [|| since ; 1st ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [^f their arguments, which ; Is# ed. “ such arguments as.” — D.] [** it seems ; ls£ ed. “ that it is.” — D.] [ft infinite; Is* ed. “ immense.” — D.] [JJ quantity; 1st ed. “ space.” — D.] [§§ indeed; 1st ed. “ only,”— D.] VOL. III. T 138 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. without end; so as no quantity* can be assigned so vast, but still a larger may be imagined ; no motion so swift or languid, but a greater velocity or slowness may still be con¬ ceived; no positive duration of it so long, than which a longerf may not be supposed: but even that very power hinders them from being actually infinite. | From whence, secondly, it follows, that though the world was a million of times more spacious and ample than even astronomy sup¬ poses it, or yet another million bigger than that, and so on in infinite progression, yet still they might make the same exception world without end. For since§ God Almighty can do all that is possible, and quantity|| hath always a possi¬ bility of being enlarged more and more,^[ he could never create so ample a world, but still it would be true, that he could have made a bigger; the fecundity of his creative power never growing barren, nor ever to be** exhausted. Now what mayft always be an exception against all possible worlds, can never be a just one against any whatsoever. And when they scoffingly demand, Why would this imagi¬ nary Omnipotence make such mean pieces of workmanship ? what an indigent and impotent thing is his principal crea¬ ture man ! would not boundless beneficence have communi¬ cated his divine perfections in the most eminent degrees ? they may receive this reply ; that we are far from such arrogance, as to pretend to the highest dignity, and be the chief of the whole creation : we believe an invisible world, and a scale of spiritual beings all nobler than ourselves : nor yet are we so low and base as their Atheism would depress us ; not walking statues of clay, not the sons of brute earth, [* as no quantity; ls£ ed. “ that no space.” — D.] [f longer ; ls< ed. “ more lasting.” — D.] [X but even that very power hinders them from being actually infinite ; not in ls£ ed. — D.] [§ since ; ls2 ed. “ seeing that.” — D.] [|| quantity ; ls< ed. “ space.” — D.] [^f more and more ; 1st ed. “ indefinitely.” — D.] [** nor ever to be ; lsi ed. “ nor being.” — D.] [If may; 1st ed. “ might.” — D.] SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 139 whose final inheritance is death and corruption : we carry the image of God in us, a rational and immortal soul ; and, though we be now indigent* and feeble, yet we aspire after eternal happiness, and firmly expect a great exaltation of all our natural powers. But whatsoeverf was or can be made, whether angels or archangels , cherubims or seraphimS, whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers, all the glo¬ rious host of heaven, must needs be finite, and imperfect, and dependent creatures : and God, out of the exceeding greatness of his power, is still able, without end, to create higher classes of beings. For where can we put a stop to the efficacy of the Almighty ? or what can we assign for the highest of all possible finite perfections ? There can be no such thing as| an almost infinite ; there can be nothing next or second to an omnipotent God : Nec viget quicquam simile aut secundum, v as the heathen poet said excellently well of the supposed father of gods and men. The infinite distance between the Creator and the noblest of all creatures can never be measured nor exhausted by endless addition of finite degrees. So that no actual creature can ever be the most perfect of all possible creation. Which shews the folly of this query, that might always be demanded, let things be as they will ; that would impiously and absurdly attempt to tie the arm of Omnipotence from doing any thing at all, because it can never do its utmost. II. I proceed now to the second proposition, that neither matter universally and abstractly considered, nor motion, as its attribute and property, can have existed from all eternity. § And to this I shall speak the more briefly, not only because it is an abstruse and metaphysical speculation, but because it is of|| far less moment and consequence than the rest: [* indigent; ls< ed. “miserable.” — D.] [f But whatsoever ; 1st ed. “ But farther we affirm, that whatsoever.” — D.] [J thing as ; Is* ed. “ thing or notion as.” — D.] v Horat. Car. i. 12. [§ nor motion, as its attribute and property, can have existed from all eter¬ nity ; 1st ed. “ nor motion can have endured a past eternity.” — D.] [|| but because it is of; 1st ed. “but also of.”— I).] 140 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. since* without this we can evince the existence of God from the origin and frame of the universe. For if the present or a like system of the world cannot possibly have been eternal ;f and if without Godw it could neither naturally nor fortuit¬ ously emerge out of a chaos ;X we must necessarily have recourse to a Deity,x as the contriver and maker of heaven and earth ; whether we suppose he created them out of nothing, or had the materials ready eternally to his hand. But nevertheless, because we are verily persuaded of the truth of this article, we shall briefly assign some reasons of our belief, in these following particulars. First, It is a thing possible , that matter may have been§ produced out of nothing. It is urged as an universal maxim, that nothing can proceed from nothing . Now this we readily allow ; and yet it will prove nothing against the possibility of creation. For, when they say, nothing from nothing, they must so understand it, as excluding all causes, both material and efficient. In which sense it is most evidently and infallibly true ; being equivalent to this proposition, that nothing can make itself ; or, nothing cannot bring its no¬ self out of nonentity into something. Which only expresses|| thus much, that matter did not produce itself, or, that all substances did not emerge out of an universal nothing. Now, who ever talked at that rate ? We do not say, the world was created from^[ nothing and by nothing ; we assert an eternal God to have been the efficient cause of it. So that a creation of the world out of nothing by something, and by that something that includes in its nature a necessary existence and perfection of power, is certainly no contradic- [* than the rest: since ; 1st ed. “ to us than the others: seeing that.” — D.] [f eternal; lsf ed. “ eternal, by the first proposition.” — D.] w By the first proposition. [J chaos ; lsf ed. “ chaos, by the third proposition.” — D.] x By the third proposition. [§ a thing possible, that matter may have been; lsf ed. “no contradiction, that matter should be.” — D.] [|| expresses; lsi ed. “ proves.” — D.] cm say, the world was created from; Is* ed. “create the world from.” — D.] SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 141 tion, nor opposes that common maxim. Whence it mani¬ festly follows, that since* God may do any thing that implies not a contradiction ; if there be such an essence as God, he may have created matter out of nothing, that is, have given an existence to matter, whichf had no being before. And, secondly, It is very probable, that matter has been% actually created out of nothing. In a former discourse we have proved sufficiently/ that human souls are not mere modification of matter, but real and spiritual substances, that have as true an existence as our very bodies themselves. Now, no man, as I conceive, can seriously think that his own soul hath existed from all eternity. He cannot believe the stuff or materials of his soul to have been eternal, and the soul to have been made up of them at the time of his conception. For a human soul is no compound being; ’tis not made of particles, as our bodies are, but his one simple homogeneous essence : neither can he think that the person¬ ality of his soul, with its faculties inherent in it, has existed eternally; this is against common sense, and it needs no refutation. Nay, though a man could be so extravagant as to hold this assertion, that his soul, his personal self, has been from everlasting, yet even this in the issue would be destructive to Atheism, since it supposes an eternal Being, endued with understanding and wisdom. We will take it then as a thing confessed, that the immaterial souls of men have been produced out of nothing. § But if God hath [* since; Is# ed. “ seeing.” — D.] [f that is, have given an existence to matter, which ; 1 st ed. “ or given that an existence, that.” — D.] [+ And, secondly, It is very probable, that matter has been ; lsf ed. “ Secondly, some things have been.” — D.] y Serm. ii. [§ Now, no man, as I conceive, . that the immaterial souls of men have been produced out of nothing ; Isi ed. “ Now, no man in his wits can seri¬ ously think, that his own soul hath existed from all eternity ; not the stuff or matter of it, for it is no compound being; not the personality of it, as I appeal to common sense : and if a man could believe that his personal soul hath been 142 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. actually created those intelligent substances that have such nobility and excellency of being above* brute senseless matter, ’tis pervicaciousness to deny that he created matter also : unless they’ll say, necessary existence is includedf in the very essence and idea of matter. But! matter doth not include in its nature a necessity of existence. For human§ souls, as is proved before, have been actually created, and consequently have not necessary exist¬ ence included in their essence. Now can any man|| believe, that his^[ spiritual soul, that understands, and judges, and invents, endowed with those divine faculties of sense, memory, and reason, hath a dependent and precarious being created and preserved by another ; while** the particles of this dead ink and paper haveff been necessarily eternal and uncreated?!! ^Tis against natural reason; and no one, while he contemplates an individual body, can discern that necessity of its existence. §§ But men have been taught to believe that extension or space, and body, are both the|||| selfsame thing. So that because they cannot imagine, how space can either begin or cease to exist, they presently con¬ clude, that extended infinite matter must needs be eternal. But I shall fully prove hereafter,2 that body and space or dis- from everlasting, such an opinion would be as destructive to atheism, as to concede the contrary now. So that the spiritual souls of men have confessedly been produced out of nothing.” — D.] [* excellency of being above ; 1st ed. “ excellency above.” — D.] [f unless they’ll say, necessary existence is included; lit ed. “ unless neces¬ sary existence be included.” — D.] [J But; lit ed. “ Thirdly.” — D.] [§ For human; lit ed. “ Human.” — D.] [|| any man ; lit ed. “ I.” — D.] [^[ his ; 1st ed. “ my.” — D.] [** and invents ; endowed with those divine faculties of sense, memory, and reason; hath a dependent and precarious being created and preserved by another ; while ; lit ed. “ and invents, &c. ; hath notwithstanding a dependent and precarious being ; while.” — D.] [ft have; so other eds. ; ed. 1735. “hath.” — D.] [IJ uncreated ; 1st ed. “ uncreate.” — D.] [§§ that necessity of its existence. But; 1st ed. “such a necessity. But.” — D.j [|||| are bpth the ; 1st ed. “ are the.” — D.j [1f*|f be eternal; 1st ed. “ eternally have a being.” — D.] z Scrm. vii. SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 143 tance are quite different things, and that a vacuity is inter¬ spersed among the particles of matter, and such a one as hath a vastly larger extension than all the matter of the universe. Which now being supposed, they ought to* abstract their imagination from that false infinite extension, and con¬ ceive one particle of matter surrounded on all sides with vacuity, and contiguous to no other body. And whereasf formerly they fancied an immense boundless space, as an homogeneous one, which great individual they believed might deserve the attribute of necessary existence ; let them now please to imagine one| solitary atom that hath no dependence on the rest of the world, and is no more sus¬ tained in being by other matter, than it could be created by it; and then I would ask the question,§ whether this poor atom, sluggish and unactive as it is, doth involve necessity of existence, the first and highest of all perfections, in its particular nature and notion ? I dare presume for the nega¬ tive in the judgments of all serious men. And I observe the Epicureans take much pains to convince us,a that in natural corruptions and dissolutions, atoms are not reduced to nothing ; which surely would be needless, if the very idea of atoms imported self-existence. And yet if one atom do not include so much in its notion and essence, all atoms put together, that is, all the matter of the universe, cannot|| include it. So that, upon the whole matter, since^f creation is no contradiction; since** God hath certainly created nobler substances than matter ; and sincett matter is not necessarily eternal; it is most reasonable to believe, that [* ought to ; 1st ed. “ must.” — D.] [f body. And whereas ; 1st ed. “ body. So that all other matter is divided and distinct from it by the very supposition. And hence it appears, that whereas.” — D.] [+ let them now please to imagine one ; 1st ed. “ now the whole question is about one.” — D.] [§ and then I would ask the question ; not in 1st ed. — D.] » Lucret. lib. i. [II cannot; 1st ed. “ does not.” — D.] [^[ since; 1st ed. “ seeing that.”— D.] [** since; 1st ed. “ that.” — D.] [ft since; 1st ed. “that.” — D.] 144 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VI. the eternal and self-existent God created the material world,* and produced it out of nothing. f And then, as to the last proposition, that motion, as an attribute or property of matter, cannot have been from eter¬ nity. That we may wave! some metaphysical arguments, which demonstrate that local motion cannot be positively eternal ; we shall only observe, in two words, that if matter be not essentially eternal, as we have shewed before, much less can motion be, that is but the adjunct and accident of it. Nay, though we should concede an eternity to matter; yet why must motion be coeval with it ? which is not only not inherent and essential to matter, but may be produced and destroyed at the pleasure of free agents ; both which are flatly repugnant to an eternal and necessary duration. I am aware how some have asserted, that the same quantity of motion is always kept up in the world ; which may seem to favour the opinion of its infinite duration : but that asser¬ tion § doth solely depend upon an absolute plenum ; which being refuted in my next discourse, || it will then appear how absurd and false that conceit is, about the same quantity of motion; how easily disproved from that power in human souls to excite motion when they please, and from the gradual^ [* world; 1st ed. “ world also.” — D.] [f nothing; after this word the 1st ed. has the following paragraph : “ And fourthly, it will be allowed as true by all those that can reach these speculations, That whatsoever hath not necessarily an eternal self-existence included in its very nature and definition (which we have proved matter hath not), cannot have been actually self-existent from eternity: so that finally there is not only a great inducement from its probability and reasonableness, but a downright necessity of admitting the creation of the world.” — D.] [I And then, as to the last proposition, that motion, as an attribute or pro¬ perty of matter, cannot have been from eternity. That we may wave ; 1st ed. “ And then fifthly, as to motion, that we may wave.” — D.] [§ assertion; 1st ed. “ fancy.” — D.] [|| next discourse ; 1st ed. “ next.” — D.] [^[ that conceit is, about the same quantity of motion ; how easily disproved from that power in human souls to excite motion when they please, and from the gradual ; 1st ed. “ that conceit is, how easily disproved from the motive power of souls embodied, and the gradual.” — D.] SERM. VI. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 145 increase of men and other animals, and many arguments besides. Therefore let this also be concluded, that motion has not been eternal* in an infinite past duration : which was the last thingf to he proved. [# lias not been eternal ; 1st ed. “cannot have subsisted.” — D.] [f the last thing ; ls£ ed. “ the thing.” — D.] vol,. in- u CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM FROM THE ORIGIN AND FRAME OF THE WORLD. PART II. SERMON VII. Preached November the 7th, 1692. Acts, xiv. 15, &c. That ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, who made heaven and earth , and the sea, and all things that are therein : who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless, he left not himself without witness , in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. When we first entered upon this topic, the demonstration of God’s existence from the origin and frame of the world, we offered to prove four propositions. I. That this present system of heaven and earth cannot possibly have subsisted from all eternity. II. That matter considered generally, and abstractly from any particular form and concretion, cannot possibly have been eternal; or, if matter could be so, yet motion cannot have coexisted with it eternally, as an inherent property and essential attribute of matter. These two we have already established in the preceding discourse ; we shall now shew, in the third place, III. That, though we should allow the Atheists, that SERM. VII. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 147 matter and motion may have been from everlasting ; yet if (as they now suppose) there were once no sun, nor stars, nor earthy nor planets, but the particles that now constitute them were diffused in the mundane space in manner of a chaos, without any concretion or* coalition ; those dispersed particles could never of themselves, by any kind of natural motion, whether called fortuitous or mechanical, have con¬ vened into this present or any other like frame of heaven and earth. 1. And first, as to that ordinary cant of illiterate and puny Atheists, the fortuitous or casual concourse of atoms, that compendious and easy despatch of the most important and difficult affair, the formation of a world (besides that in our next undertaking it will be refuted all along) ; I shall now briefly despatch it, from what hath been formerly said concerning the true notions of fortune and chance.b Whereby it is evident, that in the atheistical hypothesis of the world’s production, fortuitous and mechanical must be the self-same thing. Because fortune is no real entity nor physical essence, but a mere relative signification, denoting only this ; that such a thing said to fall out by fortune was really effected by material and necessary causes, but the person, with regard to whom it is called fortuitous, was ignorant of those causes or their tendencies, and did not design orf foresee such an effect. This is the only allowable and genuine notion of the word fortune. But thus to affirm, that the world was made fortuitously , is as much as to say, that before the world was made, there was some intelligent agent or spectator, who, designing to do something else, or expect¬ ing that something else would be done with the materials of the world, there were some occult and unknown motions and tendencies in matter, which mechanically formed the world beside his design or expectation. Now the Atheists, we may presume, will be loath to assert a fortuitous formation in this proper sense and meaning, whereby they will make [# or; 1st ed. “ and.” — D.] b Serm. v. [f or; 1st ed. “nor.” — D.] 148 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VII. understanding to be older than heaven and earth. Or if they should so assert it, yet, unless they will affirm that the intelligent agent did dispose and direct the inanimate matter (which is what we would bring them to), they must still leave their atoms to their mechanical affections ; not able to make one step toward the production of a world beyond the necessary laws of motion. It is plain, then, that fortune , as to the matter before us, is but a synonymous word with nature and necessity. It remains that we examine the adequate mean¬ ing of chance ;c which properly signifies, that all events called casual, among inanimate bodies, are mechanically and natu¬ rally produced according to the determinate figures, and textures, and motions of those bodies ; with this negation only, that those inanimate bodies are not conscious of their own operations, nor contrive and cast about how to bring such events to pass. So that thus to say, that the world was made casually by the concourse of atoms, is no more than to affirm, that the atoms composed the world mechani¬ cally and fatally; only they were not sensible of it, nor studied and considered about so noble an undertaking. For if atoms formed the world according to the essential proper¬ ties of bulk, figure, and motion, they formed it mechanically ; and if they formed it mechanically without perception and design, they formed it casually. So that this negation of consciousness being all that the notion of chance can add to that of mechanism, we, that do not dispute this matter with the Atheists, nor believe that atoms ever acted by counsel and thought, may have leave to consider the several names of fortune , and chance , and nature , and mechanism , as one and the same hypothesis. Wherefore, once for all to over¬ throw all possible explications which Atheists have or may assign for the formation of the world, we will undertake to evince this following proposition : 2. That the atoms or particles which now constitute heaven and earth, being once separate and diffused in the mundane space, like the supposed chaos , could never, without c Serm. v. SERM. VII. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 149 a God, by their mechanical affections, have convened into this present frame of things, or any other like it. Which that we may perform with the greater clearness and conviction, it will be necessary, in a discourse about the formation of the world, to give you a brief account of some of the most principal and systematical phenomena that occur in the world now that it is formed. (1.) The most considerable phenomenon belonging to ter* restrial bodies is the general action of gravitation, whereby all known bodies in the vicinity of the earth do tend and press towards its centre ; not only such as are sensibly and evidently heavy, but even those that are comparatively the lightest, and even in their proper place and natural ele¬ ments (as they usually speak) ; as air gravitates even in air, and water in water. This hath been demonstrated and experimentally proved beyond contradiction, by several in¬ genious persons of the present age ; but by none so perspicu¬ ously, and copiously, and accurately, as by the honourable founder of this Lecture, d in his incomparable Treatises of the Air and Hydrostatics. (2.) Now this is the constant property of gravitation, that the weight of all bodies around the earth is ever pro¬ portional to the quantity of their matter : as, for instance, a pound weight (examined hydrostatically) of all kinds of bodies, though of the most different forms and textures, doth always contain an equal quantity of solid mass or cor¬ poreal substance. This is the ancient doctrine of the Epicu¬ rean physiology,6 then and since very probably indeed, but yet precariously asserted : but it is lately demonstrated and put beyond controversy by that very excellent and divine theorist, Mr. Isaac Newton/ to whose most admirable saga¬ city and industry we shall frequently be obliged in this and the following discourse. I will not entertain this auditory with an account of the d Mr. Boyle’s Physicom. Exp. of Air, Hydrostat. Paradoxes. e Lucret. lib. i. 1 Newton. Philos. Natur. Princ, Math. lib. iii. prop. 6. 150 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VII. demonstration ; but referring the curious to the hook itself for full satisfaction, I shall now proceed and build upon it as a truth solidly established, that all bodies weigh according to their matter ; provided only that the compared bodies be at equal distances from the centre toward which they weigh. Because the further they are removed from the centre, the lighter they are ; decreasing gradually and uniformly in weight, in a duplicate proportion to the increase of the dis¬ tance. (3.) Now since gravity is found proportional to the quan¬ tity of matter, there is a manifest necessity of admitting a va¬ cuum, another principal doctrine of the atomical philosophy. Because if there were every where an absolute plenitude and density, without any empty pores and interstices between the particles of bodies, then all bodies of equal dimensions would contain an equal quantity of matter, and conse¬ quently, as we have shewed before, would be equally pon¬ derous ; so that gold, copper, stone, wood, &c., would have all the same specific weight, which experience assures us they have not : neither would any of them descend in the air, as we all see they do ; because, if all space was full, even the air would be as dense and specifically as heavy as they. If it be said, that, though the difference of specific gravity may proceed from variety of texture, the lighter bodies being of a more loose and porous composition, and the heavier more dense and compact ; yet an ethereal subtile matter, which is in a perpetual motion, may penetrate and pervade the minutest and inmost cavities of the closest bodies, and adapting itself to the figure of every pore, may adequately fill them, and so prevent all vacuity, without increasing the weight : to this we answer, that that subtile matter itself must be of the same substance and nature with all other matter, and therefore it also must weigh propor¬ tionally to its bulk; and as much of it as at any time is comprehended within the pores of a particular body must gravitate jointly with that body ; so that if the presence of this ethereal matter made an absolute fulness, all bodies of SERM. vn. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 151 equal dimensions would be equally heavy : which being re¬ futed by experience, it necessarily follows, that there is a vacuity ; and that (notwithstanding some little objections, full of cavil and sophistry) mere and simple extension or space hath a quite different nature and notion from real body and impenetrable substance. (4.) This, therefore, being established ; in the next place, it’s of great consequence to our present inquiry, if we can make a computation, how great is the whole sum of the void spaces in our system, and what proportion it bears to the corporeal substance. By many and accurate trials^ it manifestly appears, that refined gold, the most ponderous of known bodies (though even that must be allowed to be porous too, because it’s* dissoluble in mercury, and aqua regis, and other chymical liquors, and because it’st natu¬ rally a thing impossible that the figures and sizes of its con¬ stituent particles should be so justly adapted as to touch one another in every point), I say, gold is in specific weight to common water as 19 to 1 ; and water to common air as 850 to 1 : so that gold is to air as 16,150 to 1. Whence it clearly appears, seeing matter and gravity are always com¬ mensurate, that (though we should allow the texture of gold to be entirely close, without any vacuity) the ordinary air in which we live and respire is of so thin a composition, that 16,149 parts of its dimensions are mere emptiness and nothing, and the remaining one only material and real sub¬ stance. But if gold itself be admitted, as it must be, for a porous concrete, the proportion of void to body in the texture of common air will be so much the greater. And thus it is in the lowest and densest region of the air near the surface of the earth, where the whole mass of air is in a state of violent compression, the inferior being pressed and consti¬ pated by the weight of all the incumbent. But, since the air is now certainly known to consist of elastic or springy s Mr. Boyle, of Air and Porosity of Bodies. [* because it’s ; 1st ed. “ being.” — D.] [f because it’s ; 1st ed. “ being.” — D.] 152 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VII. particles,11 that have a continual tendency and endeavour to expand and display themselves ; and the dimensions, to which they expand themselves, to be reciprocally as the compression ; it follows, that the higher you ascend in it, where it is less and less compressed by the superior air, the more and more it is rarefied. So that at the height of a few miles from the surface of the earth, it is computed to have some million parts of empty space in its texture for one of solid matter. And at the height of one terrestrial semi¬ diameter (not above four thousand miles), the ether is of that wonderful tenuity, that, by an exact calculation,1 if a small sphere of common air of one inch diameter (already 16,149 parts nothing) should be further expanded to the thinness of that ether, it would more than take up the vast orb of Saturn, which is many million million times bigger than the whole globe of the earth. And yet, the higher you ascend above that region, the rarefaction still gradually in¬ creases without stop or limit : so that, in a word, the whole concave of the firmament, except the sun and planets and their atmospheres, may be considered as a mere void. Let us allow, then, that all the matter of the system of our sun may be 50,000 times as much as the whole mass of the earth ; and we appeal to astronomy, if we are not liberal enough and even prodigal in this concession. And let us suppose further, that the whole globe of the earth is entirely solid and compact, without any void interstices ; notwithstanding what hath been shewed before, as to the texture of gold itself. Now, though we have made such ample allowances, we shall find, notwithstanding, that the void space of our system is immensely bigger than all its corporeal mass. For, to proceed upon our supposition, that all the matter within the firmament is 50,000 times bigger than the solid globe of the earth; if we assume the diameter of the orbis magnus (wherein the earth moves about the sun) to be only 7,000 times as big as the diameter of the earth, (though the h Mr. Boyle, ibid. ‘ Newton. Philos. Nat. Principia Math. p. 503. SERM. VII. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 153 latest and most accurate observations make it thrice 7>000), and the diameter of the firmament to be only 100,000 times as long as the diameter of the orbis magnus (though it can¬ not possibly be less than that, but may be vastly and un¬ speakably bigger), we must pronounce, after such large concessions on that side, and such great abatements on ours, that the sum of empty spaces within the concave of the firmament is 6,860 million million million times bigger than all the matter contained in it. Now, from hence we are enabled to form a right concep¬ tion and imagination of the supposed chaos, and then we may proceed to determine the controversy with more certainty and satisfaction, whether a world like the present could possibly without a divine influence be formed in it, or no ? 1. And first, because every fixed star is supposed by astronomers to be of the same nature with our sun, and each may very possibly have planets about them, though, by reason of their vast distance, they be invisible to us ; we will assume this reasonable supposition, that the same pro¬ portion of void space to matter, which is found in our sun’s region within the sphere of the fixed stars, may competently well hold in the whole mundane space. I am aware that in this computation we must not assign the whole capacity of that sphere for the region of our sun, but allow half of its diameter for the radii of the several regions of the next fixed stars ; so that, diminishing our former number, as this last consideration requires, we may safely affirm, from certain and demonstrated principles, that the empty space of our solar region (comprehending half of the diameter of the firmament) is 8,575 hundred thousand million million times more ample than all the corporeal substance in it. And we may fairly suppose, that the same proportion may hold through the whole extent of the universe. 2. And secondly, as to the state or condition of matter before the world was a-making, which is compendiously expressed by the word chaos ; they must either suppose, that VOL. in. x 154 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VII. the matter of our solar system* was evenly , or well-nigh evenly, diffused through the region of the sun, whichf would represent a particular chaos ; or that all matter universally was so spreadj through the whole mundane .space, which would truly exhibit a general chaos ; no part of the universe being rarer or denser than another. And this is agreeable to the ancient description of chaos,§ that the heavens and earth had jilav ISeav, yblav /xopcprjv, one form , one texture and constitution ;J which could not be, unless all the mun¬ dane matter were uniformly and evenly diffused. ’Tis in¬ different to our dispute, whether they suppose it to have continued a long time or very little in the state of diffusion. For, if there were|| but one single moment in all past eter¬ nity, when matter was so diffused, we shall plainly and fully prove, that it could never have convened afterwards into the present frame and order of things. 3. It is evident from what we have newly proved, that in the supposition of such a chaos, or such an even diffusion either of the whole mundane matter, or that of our system (for it matters not which they assume), every single particle would have a sphere of void space around it 8,575 hundred thousand million million times bigger than the dimensions of that particle. Nay, further, though the proportion already appear so immense, yet every single particle would really be surrounded with a void sphere eight times as capacious as that newly mentioned, its diameter being compounded of the diameter of the proper sphere, and the semi-diameters of the contiguous spheres of the neighbouring particles. [* they must either suppose, that the matter of our solar system ; 1st ed. “ they must suppose, that either all the matter of our system.” — D.] [f which ; lit ed. “ this.” — D.] [+ or that all matter universally was so spread ; lit ed. “ or all matter uni¬ versally so spread.” — D.] [§ And this is agreeable to the ancient description of chaos ; lit ed. “ Which is agreeable to the ancient description of it.” — D.] i Diod. Sicul. lib. i. [t. i. p. 10. ed. Wessel. — D.] Karci apxys ruv S\a>v ffvtTTaffiv p.'iav exeiv ‘SeW ovpaviv re Kal yr\v, p.ep.iyp.evr)s avrCbv rrjs (pvffews. Apoll. Rhodius, lib. i. [496. — D.] “'HetSev 8’ ws yata Kal ovpavbs rjSe 6d\affcra, T8 trplv eV a\\4\\oi Lucret. [v. 204. — D.] Et mare, quod late terrarum distinct oras. 192 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VIII. incredible at first hearing/ that all the blood in our bodies should circulate in a trice, in a very few minutes ; but I believe it would be more surprising, if we knew the short and swift periods of the great circulation of water, that vital blood of tbe earth, which composeth and nourisheth all things. If we could but compute that prodigious mass of it that is daily thrown into the channel of the sea from all the rivers of the world, we should then know and admire how much is per¬ petually evaporated and cast again upon the continents, to supply those innumerable streams. And, indeed, hence we may discover, not only the use and necessity, but the cause too of the vastness of the ocean. I never yet heard of any nation that complained they had too broad, or too deep, or too many rivers ; or wished they were either smaller or fewer; they understand better than so, how to value and esteem those inestimable gifts of nature. Now, sup¬ posing that the multitude and largeness of rivers ought to continue as great as now, we can easily prove that the extent of the ocean could be no less than it is. For itJs evident and necessary, (if we follow the most fair and probable hypo¬ thesis, that the origin of fountains is from vapours and rain) that the receptacle of waters, into which the mouths of all those rivers must empty themselves, ought to have so spa¬ cious a surface, that as much water may be continually brushed off by the winds, and exhaled by the sun, as (besides what falls again in showers upon its own surface) is brought into it by all the rivers. Now the surface of the ocean is just so wide, and no wider ; for, if more was evaporated than returns into it again, the sea would become less ; if less was evaporated, it would grow bigger. So that, because since the memory of all ages it hath continued at a stand, without considerable variation, and if it hath gained ground upon one country, hath lost as much in another ; it must consequently be exactly proportioned to the present constitution of rivers. How rash, therefore, and vain are those busy projectors in speculation, that imagine they could recover to the world many new and noble countries, in the most happy and temperate climates, without any damage to the old ones, could this same mass of SERM. VIII. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 193 the ocean be lodged and circumscribed in a much deeper channel, and within narrower shores ! For, by how much they would diminish the present extent of the sea, so much they would impair the fertility, and fountains, and rivers of the earth ; because the quantity of vapours, that must be exhaled to supply all these, would be lessened proportionally to the bounds of the ocean ; for the vapours are not to be measured from the bulk of the water, but from the space of the surface. So that this also doth infer the superlative wisdom and good¬ ness of God, that he hath treasured up the waters in so deep and spacious a storehouse, the place that he hath founded and appointed for them.0 X. But some mend are out of love with the features and mien of our earth ; they do not like this rugged and irregular surface, these precipices and valleys, and the gaping channel of the ocean. This with them is deformity, and rather car¬ ries the face of a ruin, or a rude and indigested lump of atoms that casually convened so, than a work of divine artifice. They would have the vast body of a planet to be as elegant and round as a factitious globe represents it; to be every where smooth and equable, and as plain as the Elysian fields. Let us examine what weighty reasons they have to disparage the present constitution of nature in so injurious a manner. Why, if we suppose the ocean to be dry, and that we look down upon the empty channel from some higher region of the air, how horrid, and ghastly, and unnatural would it look ! Now, admitting this supposition, let us suppose too that the soil of this dry channel were* covered with grass and trees in c Psal. civ. d Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatam Naturam rerum, tanta stat praedita culpa. Principio, quantum cceli tegit impetus ingens, Inde avidam partem montes sylvaeque ferarum Possedere ; tenent rupes, vastaeque paludes, Et mare, quod late terrarum distinet oras. — Lucret. lib. v. [199. — In the first line of this passage the vulgar reading is ... , “esse para- lam.” Bentley gives “ creatam ” from lib. ii. 180. where the line occurs with that variation. — D.j (_* were ; ls< ed. “ is.” — D.] VOL. III. 2 c 194 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VIII. manner of the continent, and then see what would follow. If a man could be carried asleep and placed in the very mid¬ dle of this dry ocean, it must be allowed that he could not distinguish it from the inhabited earth. For if the bottom should be unequal, with shelves, and rocks, and precipices, and gulfs ; these, being now apparelled with a vesture of plants, would only resemble the mountains and valleys that he was accustomed to before. But very probably he would wake in a large and smooth plain : for though the bottom of the sea were gradually inclined and sloping from the shore to the middle, yet the additional acclivity, above what a level would seem to have, would be imperceptible in so short a prospect as he could take of it : so that, to make this man sensible what a deep cavity he was placed in, he must be carried so high in the air till he could see at one view the whole breadth of the channel, and so compare the depression of the middle with the elevation of the banks. But then a very small skill in mathematics is enough to instruct us, that before he could arrive to that distance from the earth, all the inequality of surface would be lost to his view; the wide ocean would appear to him like an even and uniform plane, (uniform as to its level, though not as to light and shade,) though every rock of the sea was as high as the Pico of Teneriff. But, though we should grant that the dry gulf of the ocean would appear vastly hollow and horrible from the top of a high cloud, yet what a way of reasoning is this, from the freaks of imagination and impossible suppositions ! Is the sea ever likely to be eva¬ porated by the sun, or to be emptied with buckets ? Why then must we fancy this impossible dryness, and then upon that fictitious account calumniate nature as deformed and ruinous, and unworthy of a divine Author ? Is there then any physical deformity in the fabric of a human body, because our ima¬ gination can strip it of its muscles and skin, and shew us the scragged and knotty backbone, the gaping and ghastly jaws, and all the skeleton underneath ? We have shewed before, that the sea could not be much narrower than it is, without a great loss to the world : and must we now have an ocean SERM. VIII. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 195 of mere flats and shallows, to the utter ruin of navigation, for fear our heads should turn giddy at the imagination of gaping abysses and unfathomable gulfs ? But however, they may say, the sea-shores at least might* have been even and uniform, not crooked and broken, as they are, into innu¬ merable angles, and creeks, and inlets, and bays, without beauty or order, which carry the marks more of chance and confusion than of the production of a wise Creator. And would not this bef a fine bargain indeed ? to part with all our commodious ports and harbours, which, the greater the inlet is, are so much the better, for the imaginary pleasure of an open and straight shore, without any retreat or shelter from the winds ; which would make the sea of no use at all as to navigation and commerce. But what apology can we make for the horrid deformity of rocks and crags, of naked and broken cliffs, of long ridges of barren mountains, in the con- venientest latitudes for habitation and fertility, could but those;]; rude heaps of rubbish and ruins be removed out of the way? We have one general and sufficient answer for all seeming defects or disorders in the constitution of land or sea ; that we do not contend to have the earth pass for a paradise, or to make a vei'y heaven of our globe ; we reckon it only as the land of our 'peregrination , and aspire after a better and a celestial country. e *Tis enough, if it be so framed and constituted, that by a careful contemplation of it we have great reason to acknowledge and adore the divine wisdom and benignity of its Author. But, to wave this general reply, let the objectors consider, that these supposed irregularities must necessarily§ come to pass from the established laws of mechanism and the ordinary course of nature. For, suppos¬ ing the existence of sea and mountains, if the banks of that [* But however, they may say, the sea-shores at least might ; 1st ed. “ But, however, the sea-shores at least should.” — D.] [f Creator. And would not this be ; Is* ed. “ Creator. This would be.” — D.] [ X could but those ; Is* ed. “could those.” — D.] * Heb. xi. [§ must necessarily ; Is* ed. “ must have necessarily.” — D.] 196 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VIII. sea must never be jagged and torn by the impetuous assaults or the silent underminings of waves ; if violent rains and tempests must not wash down the earth and gravel from the tops of some of those mountains, and expose their naked ribs to the face of the sun ; if the seeds of subterraneous minerals must not ferment, and sometimes cause earthquakes and furi¬ ous eruptions of volcanos, and tumble down broken rocks, and lay them in confusion ; then either all things must have been overruled miraculously by the immediate interposition of God, without any mechanical affections or settled laws of nature, or else the body of the earth must have been as fixed as gold, or as hard as adamant, and wholly unfit for human* habitation. So that if it was good in the sight of God,f that the present plants and animals, and human souls united to flesh and blood, should be upon this earth under a settled constitution of nature ; these supposed inconveniences, as they were foreseen and permitted by the Author of that nature, as necessary consequences of such a constitution, so they cannot infer the least imperfection in his wisdom and goodness : and to murmur at them is as unreasonable as to complain that he hath made us men, and not angels ; that he hath placed us upon this planet, and not upon some other, in this or another system, which may be thought better than ours. Let them also consider, that this objected deformity is in our imaginations only, and not really in thingsf them¬ selves. There is no universal reason (I mean such as is not confined to human fancy, but will reach through the whole intellectual universe,) that a figure by us called regular, which hath equal sides and angles, is absolutely more beautiful than any irregular one. All pulchritude is relative ; and all bodies are truly and physically beautiful under all possible shapes and proportions, that are good in their kind, that are fit for their proper uses and ends of their natures. We ought not then to believe that the hanks of the ocean are really deformed, because they have not the form of a regular bulwark ; nor [* human ; 1st ed. “ our.” — D.] 1 Gen. i. [t in things; Is* ed . “in the things.” — D.] SERM. VIII. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 197 that the mountains are out of shape,* because they are not exact pyramids or cones ; nor that the stars are unskilfully placed^ because they are not all situated at uniform distance. t These are not natural irregularities, but with respect to our fancies only ; nor are they incommodious to the true uses of life and the designs of man’s being on the earth. And let them further consider,! that these ranges of barren moun¬ tains, by condensing the vapours, and producing rains, and fountains, and rivers, give the very plains and valleys them¬ selves that fertility they boast of ; that those hills§ and moun¬ tains supply us and the stock of nature with a great variety of excellent plants. If there were no inequalities in the sur¬ face of the earth, nor in the seasons of the year, we should lose a considerable share of the vegetable kingdom : for all plants will not grow in an uniform level and the same temper of soil, nor with the same degree of heat. Nay, let them lastly consider, || that to those hills and mountains we are ob¬ liged for all our metals, and with them for all the conveniences and comforts of life. To deprive us of metals is to make us mere savages ; to change our corn or rice for the old Arca¬ dian diet, our houses and cities for dens and caves, and our clothing for skins of beasts ; ’tis to bereave us of all arts and sciences, of history and letters ; nay, of revealed religion too, that inestimable favour of heaven : for, without the benefit of letters, the whole Gospel would be a mere^[ tradition and old cabbala, without certainty, without authority. Who would part with these solid and substantial blessings for the little fantastical pleasantness of a smooth uniform convexity [* out of shape ; 1st ed. “ mishapen.” — D.] [f distance; 1st ed. “ distances.” — D.] [J earth. And let them further consider; 1st ed. “earth. Let them con- , sider.” — D.] [§ boast of; that those hills; 1st ed. “boast of. Let them consider that those hills.” — D.J [|| heat. Nay, let them lastly consider; 1st ed. “ heat. Let them con¬ sider.” — D.] [^| heaven ; for, without the benefit of letters, the whole Gospel would be a mere; 1st ed. “by making the whole Gospel a mere.” — D.] 198 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VIII. and rotundity of a globe ? And yet the misfortune of it is, that the pleasant view of their* imaginary globe, as well as the deformed spectacle of ourf true one, is founded upon im¬ possible suppositions. For thatj equal convexity could never be seen and enjoyed by any man living. The inhabitants of such an earth could have only the short prospect of a little circular plane about three miles around them ; though neither woods, nor hedges, nor artificial banks, should intercept it ; which little, too, would appear to have an acclivity on all sides from the spectators j so that every man would have the displeasure§ of fancying himself the lowest, and that he always dwelt and moved in a bottom. Nay, considering that in such a constitution of the earth they could have no means nor in¬ struments of mathematical knowledge, there is great reason to believe, that the period of the final dissolution might over¬ take them, ere they would have known or had any suspicion that they walked upon a round ball. Must we, therefore, to make this convexity of the earth discernible to the eye, sup¬ pose a man to be lifted up a great height in the air, that he may have a very spacious horizon under one view ? But then, again, because of the distance, the convexity and gibbousness would vanish away ; he would only see below him a great cir¬ cular flat, as level, to his thinking, as the face of the moon. Are there then such ravishing charms in a dull, unvaried flat, to make a sufficient compensation for the chief things of the ancient mountains , and for the precious things of the last¬ ing hills Nay, we appeal to the sentence of mankind, if a land of hills and valleys has not more pleasure too, and beauty, than an uniform flat ? which flat, if ever|| it may be said to be very delightful, is then only, when ’tis viewed from [* their; lit ed. “ this.” — D.] [f our; lit ed. “ the.” — D.] [J that; lit ed. “ this.” — D.] [§ displeasure; lit ed. “ satisfaction.” — D.] e Deut. xxxiii. 15. [|| valleys has not more pleasure too, and heauty, than an uniform flat ? which flat, if ever; lit ed. “valleys, with an infinite variety of scenes and prospects, besides the profit that accrues from it, have not more of heauty too, and plea¬ santness, than a wide uniform plain ; which if ever.” — D.] SERM. VIII. A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. 199 the top of a hill. What were the Tempe of Thessaly,11 so celebrated in ancient story for their unparalleled pleasantness, but a vale divided with a river and terminated with hills ? Are not all the descriptions of poets embellished with such ideas, when they would represent any places of superlative delight, any* blissful seats of the Muses or the Nymphs, any sacred habitations of gods or goddesses ? They will never admit that a wide flat can be pleasant, no, not in the very Elysian fields but these, f too, must be diversified with de¬ pressed valleys and swelling ascents. They cannot imagine even Paradise to be a place of pleasure, k nor heaven itself to be heaven without them.1 Let this, therefore, be another argument of the divine wisdom and goodness, that the sur¬ face of the earth is not uniformly convex, (as many think it would naturally have been, if mechanically formed by a chaos,) but distinguished with mountains and valleys, and fur¬ rowed from pole to pole with the deep channel of the sea ; and that, because of the to /3eA/rtW, it is better that it should be so. Give me leave to make one short inference from what has been said, which shall finish this present discourse, and with it our task for the year. We have clearly discovered many final causes and characters of wisdom and contrivance in the frame of the inanimate world ; as well as in the organical fabric of the bodies of animals. Now, from hence ariseth a new and invincible argument, that the present frame of the h Vide A21ian. Var. Hist. lib. iii. [cap. i. — D.] [* any ; lit ed. “ and.” — D.] * At pater Anchises penitus convalle virenti. Virg. A2n. vi. [679. — D.] Et ibid. [676. — D.] Hoc superate jugum. Et ibid. [754. — D.] Et tumulum capit. [f these ; lstf ed. “ those.” — D.] k Flowers worthy of paradise, which not nice art In beds and curious knots, but nature boon Pour’d forth profuse on hill, and dale, and plain. Paradise Lost, lib. iv. [241, — D.] 1 For earth hath this variety from heaven Of pleasure situate in hill and dale. Ibid. lib. vi. [640. — D.] 200 A CONFUTATION OF ATHEISM. SERM. VIII. world hath not existed from all eternity. For such an use¬ fulness of things, or a fitness of means to ends, as neither proceeds from the necessity of their beings, nor can happen to them by chance, doth necessarily infer that there was an intelligent Being, which was the author and contriver of that usefulness. We have formerly demonstrated,111 that the body of a man, which consists of an incomprehensible variety of parts, all admirably fitted to their peculiar functions and the conservation of the whole, could no more be formed fortui¬ tously than the JEneis of Virgil, or any other long poem with good sense and just measures, could be composed by the casual combinations of letters. Now, to pursue this compa¬ rison ; as it is utterly impossible to be believed, that such a poem may have been eternal, transcribed from copy to copy without any first author and original ; so it is equally incre¬ dible and impossible, that the fabric of human bodies, which hath such excellent and divine artifice, and, if I may so say, such good sense, and true syntax, and harmonious measures in its constitution, should be propagated and transcribed from father to son without a first parent and creator of it. An eternal usefulness of things, an eternal good sense, cannot possibly be conceived without an eternal wisdom and under¬ standing. But that can be no other than that eternal and omnipotent God, that by wisdom hath founded the earth , and by understanding hath established the heavens :n to whom be all honour, and glory, and praise, and adoration, from hence¬ forth and for evermore. Amen. Serm. v. n Prov. iii. FOUR LETTERS FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON TO DOCTOR BENTLEY: CONTAINING SOME ARGUMENTS IN PROOF OF A DEITY. {First printed, 1756.) D VOL. HI, 9 ■ > * . » LETTERS, &c. LETTER I. To the Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley, at the Bishop of Wor¬ cester's house, in Park-street, Westminster. SIR, When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity ; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose. But if I have done the public any service this way, it is due to nothing but industry and patient thought. As to your first query, it seems to me that if the matter of our sun and planets, and all the matter of the universe, were evenly scattered throughout all the heavens, and every par¬ ticle had an innate gravity towards all the rest, and the whole space throughout which this matter was scattered was but finite ; the matter on the outside of this space would, by its gravity, tend towards all the matter on the inside, and, by consequence, fall down into the middle of the whole space, and there compose one great spherical mass. But if the matter was evenly disposed throughout an infinite space, it could never convene into one mass ; but some of it would con¬ vene into one mass, and some into another, so as to make an infinite number of great masses, scattered at great distances from one to another throughout all that infinite space. And thus might the sun and fixed stars be formed, supposing the matter were of a lucid nature. But how the matter should 204 LETTERS FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON divide itself into two sorts, and that part of it which is fit to compose a shining body should fall down into one mass and make a sun, and the rest which is fit to compose an opaque body should coalesce, not into one great body, like the shining matter, but into many little ones ; or if the sun at first were an opaque body like the planets, or the planets lucid bodies like the sun, how he alone should be changed into a shining body, whilst all they continue opaque, or all they be changed into opaque ones, whilst he remains unchanged ; I do not think explicable by mere natural causes, but am forced to ascribe it to the counsel and contrivance of a voluntary Agent. The same Power, whether natural or supernatural, which placed the sun in the centre of the six primary planets, placed Saturn in the centre of the orbs of his five secondary planets, and Jupiter in the centre of his four secondary planets, and the earth in the centre of the moon’s orb ; and therefore, had this cause been a blind one, without contrivance or design, the sun would have been a body of the same kind with Sa¬ turn, Jupiter, and the earth, thak is, without light and heat. Why there is one body in our system qualified to give light and heat to all the rest, I know no reason, but because the Author of the system thought it convenient ; and why there is hut one body of this kind, I know no reason, but because one was sufficient to warm and enlighten all the rest. For the Cartesian hypothesis of suns losing their light, and then turn¬ ing into comets, and comets into planets, can have no place in my system, and is plainly erroneous ; because it is certain, that as often as they appear to us, they descend into the system of our planets, lower than the orb of Jupiter, and sometimes lower than the orbs of Venus and Mercury, and yet never stay here, but always return from the sun with the same degrees of motion by which they approached him. To your second query, I answer, that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone, but were impressed by an intelligent Agent. For since comets descend into the region of our planets, and here move all manner of ways, going sometimes the same way TO DR. BENTLEY. 205 with the planets, sometimes the contrary way, and sometimes in cross ways, in planes inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, and at all kinds of angles, Jtis plain that there is no natural cause which could determine all the planets, both primary and secondary, to move the same way and in the same plane, without any considerable variation : this must have been the effect of counsel. Nor is there any natural cause which could give the planets those just degrees of velocity, in proportion to their distances from the sun and other central bodies, which were requisite to make them move in such concentric orbs about those bodies. Had the planets been as swift as comets, in proportion to their distances from the sun, (as they would have been, had their motion been caused by their gravity, whereby the matter, at the first formation of the planets, might fall from the remotest regions towards the sun,) they would not move in concentric orbs, but in such eccentric ones as the comets move in. Were all the planets as swift as Mercury, or as slow as Saturn or his satellites ; or were their * several velocities otherwise much greater or less than they are, as they might have been, had they arose from any other cause than their gravities ; or had the distances from the centres about which they move been greater or less than they are, with the same velocities ; or had the quantity of matter in the sun, or in Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth, and, by con¬ sequence, their gravitating power, been greater or less than it is ; the primary planets could not have revolved about the sun, nor the secondary ones about Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth, in concentric circles, as they do, but would have moved in hyper¬ bolas, or parabolas, or in ellipses very eccentric. To make this system, therefore, with all its motions, required a cause which understood and compared together the quantities of matter in the several bodies of the sun and planets, and the gravitating powers resulting from thence; the several dis¬ tances of the primary planets from the sun, and of the second¬ ary ones from Saturn, Jupiter, and the earth; and the velo¬ cities with which these planets could revolve about those quantities of matter in the central bodies ; and to compare 206 LETTERS FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON and adjust all these things together, in so great a variety of bodies, argues that cause to be, not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in mechanics and geometry. To your third query, I answer, that it may be represented that the sun may, by heating those planets most which are nearest to him, cause them to be better concocted, and more condensed by that concoction. But, when I consider that our earth is much more heated in its bowels below the upper crust by subterraneous fermentations of mineral bodies than by the sun, I see not why the interior parts of Jupiter and Saturn might not be as much heated, concocted, and coagu¬ lated by those fermentations as our earth is ; and therefore this various density should have some other cause than the various distances of the planets from the sun. And I am confirmed in this opinion by considering, that the planets of Jupiter and Saturn, as they are rarer than the rest, so they are vastly greater, and contain a far greater quantity of mat¬ ter, and have many satellites about them; which qualifications surely arose not from their being placed at so great a distance from the sun, but were rather the cause why the Creator placed them at great distance. For, by their gravitating powers they disturb one another’s motions very sensibly, as I find by some late observations of Mr. Flamsteed; and had they been placed much nearer to the sun and to one another, they would, by the same powers, have caused a considerable disturbance in the whole system. To your fourth query, I answer, that, in the hypothesis of vortices, the inclination of the axis of the earth might, in my opinion, be ascribed to the situation of the earth’s vortex before it was absorbed by the neighbouring vortices, and the earth turned from a sun to a comet; but this inclination ought to decrease constantly in compliance with the motion of the earth’s vortex, whose axis is much less inclined to the ecliptic, as appears by the motion of the moon carried about therein. If the sun by his rays could carry about the planets, yet I do not see how he could thereby effect their diurnal motions. TO DR. BENTLEY. 207 Lastly, I see nothing extraordinary in the inclination of the e art It's axis for proving a Deity, unless you will urge it as a contrivance for winter and summer, and for making the earth habitable towards the poles ; and that the diurnal rota¬ tions of the sun and planets, as they could hardly arise from any cause purely mechanical, so by being determined all the same way with the annual and menstrual motions, they seem to make up that harmony in the system, which, as I explained above, was the effect of choice rather than chance. There is yet another argument for a Deity, which I take to be a very strong one ; but till the principles on which it is grounded are better received, I think it more advisable to let it sleep. I am your most humble servant to command, IS. NEWTON. Cambridge, Decemb. 10, 1692. LETTER II. For Mr. Bentley , at the Palace at Worcester. SIR, I agree with you, that if matter evenly diffused through a finite space, not spherical, should fall into a solid mass, this mass would affect the figure of the whole space, provided it were not soft, like the old chaos, but so hard and solid from the beginning, that the weight of its protuberant parts could not make it yield to their pressure : yet, by earth¬ quakes loosening the parts of this solid, the protuberances might sometimes sink a little by their weight, and thereby the mass might by degrees approach a spherical figure. The reason why matter evenly scattered through a finite space would convene in the midst, you conceive the same with me ; but that there should be a central particle, so accu¬ rately placed in the middle as to be always equally attracted on all sides, and thereby continue without motion, seems to 208 LETTERS FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON me a supposition fully as hard as to make the sharpest needle stand upright on its point upon a looking-glass. For if the very mathematical centre of the central particle be not accu¬ rately in the very mathematical centre of the attractive power of the whole mass, the particle will not be attracted equally on all sides. And much harder it is to suppose all the par¬ ticles in an infinite space should be so accurately poised one among another, as to stand still in a perfect equilibrium. For I reckon this as hard as to make, not one needle only, but an infinite number of them (so many as there are particles in an infinite space) stand accurately poised upon their points. Yet I grant it possible, at least by a divine power; and if they were once to be placed, I agree with you that they would continue in that posture without motion for ever, unless put into new motion by the same power. When, therefore, I said that matter evenly spread through all space would con¬ vene by its gravity into one or more great masses, I under¬ stand it of matter not resting in an accurate poise. But you argue, in the next paragraph of your letter, that every particle of matter in an infinite space has an infinite quantity of matter on all sides, and, by consequence, an in¬ finite attraction every way, and therefore must rest in equili- brio, because all infinites are equal. Yet you suspect a para¬ logism in this argument ; and I conceive the paralogism lies in the position, that all infinites are equal. The generality of mankind consider infinites no other ways than indefinitely ; and in this sense they say all infinites are equal; though they would speak more truly if they should say, they are nei¬ ther equal nor unequal, nor have any certain difference or proportion one to another. In this sense, therefore, no con¬ clusions can be drawn from them about the equality, propor¬ tions, or differences of things ; and they that attempt to do it usually fall into paralogisms. So, when men argue against the infinite divisibility of magnitude, by saying, that if an inch may be divided into an infinite number of parts, the sum of those parts will be an inch ; and if a foot may be di¬ vided into an infinite number of parts, the sum of those parts TO DR. BENTLEY. 209 must be a foot ; and therefore, since all infinites are equal, those sums must be equal, that is, an inch equal to a foot. The falseness of the conclusion shews an error in the pre¬ mises ; and the error lies in the position, that all infinites are equal. There is, therefore, another way of considering infi¬ nites used by mathematicians, and that is, under certain defi¬ nite restrictions and limitations, whereby infinites are deter¬ mined to have certain differences or proportions to one another. Thus Dr. Wallis considers them in his Arithmetica Infinitorum , where, by the various proportions of infinite sums, he gathers the various proportions of infinite magni¬ tudes : which way of arguing is generally allowed by mathe¬ maticians, and yet would not be good were all infinites equal. According to the same way of considering infinites, a mathe¬ matician would tell you, that though there be an infinite num¬ ber of infinite little parts in an inch, yet there is twelve times that number of such parts in a foot ; that is, the infinite num¬ ber of those parts in a foot is not equal to, but twelve times bigger than the infinite number of them in an inch. And so a mathematician will tell you, that if a body stood in equilibrio between any two equal and contrary attracting infinite forces, and if to either of these forces you add any new finite attract¬ ing force, that new force, how little soever, will destroy their equilibrium, and put the body into the same motion into which it would put it were those two contrary equal forces but finite, or even none at all : so that in this case the two equal infinites, by the addition of a finite to either of them, become unequal in our ways of reckoning ; and after these ways we must reckon, if from the considerations of infinites we would always draw true conclusions. To the last part of your letter, I answer, first, that if the earth (without the moon) were placed any where with its centre in the orbis magnus , and stood still there without any gravitation or projection, and there at once were infused into it both a gravitating energy towards the sun, and a trans¬ verse impulse of a just quantity moving it directly in a tan¬ gent to the orbis magnus ; the compounds of this attraction VOL. in. 2 E 210 LETTERS FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON and projection would, according to ray notion, cause a circu¬ lar revolution of the earth about the sun. But the transverse impulse must he a just quantity ; for if it be too big or too little, it will cause the earth to move in some other line. Secondly, I do not know any power in nature which would cause this transverse motion without the divine arm. Blon- del tells us somewhere in his book of Bombs, that Plato affirms, that the motion of the planets is such, as if they had all of them been created by God in some region very remote from our system, and let fall from thence towards the sun, and so soon as they arrived at their several orbs, their motion of falling turned aside into a transverse one. And this is true, supposing the gravitating power of the sun was double at that moment of time in which they all arrive at their seve¬ ral orbs ; but then the divine power is here required in a double respect, namely, to turn the descending motions of the falling planets into a side motion, and, at the same time, to double the attractive power of the sun. So, then, gravity may put the planets into motion, but, without the divine power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the sun ; and therefore, for this, as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this system to an intelligent Agent. You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray, do not ascribe that notion to me ; for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it. I fear what I have said of infinites will seem obscure to you ; but it is enough if you understand, that infinites, when considered absolutely without any restriction or limitation, are neither equal nor unequal, nor have any certain propor¬ tion one to another ; and therefore the principle, that all infi-* nites are equal, is a precarious one. Sir, I am your most humble servant, IS. NEWTON. Trinity College, Jan. 17, 1692-3. TO DR. BENTLEY. 211 LETTER III. For Mr. Bentley, at the Palace at Worcester . SIR, Because you desire speed, I will answer your let¬ ter with what brevity I can. In the six positions you lay down in the beginning of your letter, I agree with you. Your assuming the orbis magnus 7000 diameters of the earth wide, implies the sun’s horizontal parallax to be half a minute. Flamsteed and Cassini have of late observed it to be about 10", and thus the orbis magnus must be 21,000, or, in a rounder number, 20,000 diameters of the earth wide. Either computation, I think, will do well ; and I think it not worth while to alter your numbers. In the next part of your letter you lay down four other positions, founded upon the six first. The first of these four seems very evident, supposing you take attraction so generally as by it to understand any force by which distant bodies en¬ deavour to come together without mechanical impulse. The second seems not so clear; for it may be said, that there might be other systems of worlds before the present ones, and others before those, and so on to all past eternity, and, by consequence, that gravity maybe coeternal to matter, and have the same effect from all eternity as at present, unless you have somewhere proved that old systems cannot gradually pass into new ones ; or that this system had not its original from the exhaling matter of former decaying systems, but from a chaos of matter evenly dispersed throughout all space ; for something of this kind, I think you say, was the subject of your Sixth Sermon ; and the growth of new systems out of old ones, without the mediation of a divine power, seems to me apparently absurd. The last clause of the second position I like very well. It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, with¬ out the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, 212 LETTERS FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON as it must be, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be es¬ sential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum , without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe . no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers. Your fourth assertion, that the world could not be formed by innate gravity alone, you confirm by three arguments. But, in your first argument you seem to make a petitio prin- cipii ; for whereas many ancient philosophers and others, as well theists as atheists, have all allowed that there may be worlds and parcels of matter innumerable or infinite, you deny this, by representing it as absurd as that there should be positively an infinite arithmetical sum or number, which is a contradiction in terminis ; but you do not prove it as absurd. Neither do you prove, that what men mean by an infinite sum or number is a contradiction in nature ; for a contra¬ diction in terminis implies no more than an impropriety of speech. Those things which men understand by improper and contradictious phrases may be sometimes really in nature without any contradiction at all : a silver inkhorn, a paper lantern, an iron whetstone, are absurd phrases, yet the things signified thereby are really in nature. If any man should say, that a number and a sum, to speak properly, is that which may be numbered and summed, but things infinite are numberless, or, as we usually speak, innumerable and sum¬ less, or insummable, and therefore ought not to be called a number or sum; he will speak properly enough, and your argument against him will, I fear, lose its force. And yet, if any man shall take the words number and sum in a larger TO DR. BENTLEY. 213 sense, so as to understand thereby things which, in the proper way of speaking, are numberless and sumless, (as you seem to do, when you allow an infinite number of points in a line) I could readily allow him the use of the contradictious phrases of innumerable number or sumless sum, without inferring from thence any absurdity in the thing he means by those phrases. However, if by this or any other argument you have proved the finiteness of the universe, it follows that all matter would fall down from the outsides, and convene in the middle. Yet the matter in falling might concrete into many round masses, like the bodies of the planets, and these, by attracting one another, might acquire an obliquity of de¬ scent, by means of which they might fall, not upon the great central body, but upon the side of it, and fetch a compass about, and then ascend again by the same steps and degrees of motion and velocity with which they descended before, much after the manner that the comets revolve about the sun ; but a circular motion in concentric orbs about the sun they could never acquire by gravity alone. And though all the matter were divided at first into seve¬ ral systems, and every system by a divine power constituted like ours, yet would the outside systems descend towards the middlemost; so that this frame of things could not always subsist without a divine power to conserve it; which is the second argument : and to your third I fully assent. As for the passage of Plato, there is no common place from whence all the planets being let fall, and descending with uniform and equal gravities (as Galileo supposes), would, at their arrival to their several orbs, acquire their several ve¬ locities with which they now revolve in them. If we suppose the gravity of all the planets towards the sun to be of such a quantity as it really is, and that the motions of the planets are turned upwards, every planet will ascend to twice its height from the sun. Saturn will ascend till he be twice as high from the sun as he is at present, and no higher; Jupiter will ascend as high again as at present, that is, a little above the orb of Saturn ; Mercury will ascend to twice his present 214 LETTERS FROM SIR ISAAC NEWTON height, that is, to the orb of Venus; and so of the rest; and then by falling down again from the places to which they as¬ cended, they will arrive again at their several orbs with the same velocities they had at first, and with which they now revolve. But if, so soon as their motions by which they revolve are turned upwards, the gravitating power of the sun, by which their ascent is perpetually retarded, be diminished by one half, they will now ascend perpetually, and all of them at all equal- distances from the sun will be equally swift. Mercury, when he arrives at the orb of Venus, will be as swift as Venus ; and he and Venus, when they arrive at the orb of the earth, will be as swift as the earth ; and so of the rest. If they begin all of them to ascend at once, and ascend in the same line, they will constantly, in ascending, become nearer and nearer together, and their motions will constantly approach to an equality, and become at length slower than any motion assignable. Suppose, therefore, that they as¬ cended till they were almost contiguous, and their motions inconsiderably little, and that all their motions were at the same moment of time turned back again ; or, which comes almost to the same thing, that they were only deprived of their motions and let fall at that time ; they would all at once arrive at their several orbs, each with the velocity it had at first ; and if their motions were then turned sideways, and, at the same time, the gravitating power of the sun doubled, that it might be strong enough to retain them in their orbs, they would revolve in them as before their ascent. But if the gravitating power of the sun was not doubled, they would go away from their orbs into the highest heavens in paraboli¬ cal lines. These things follow from my Princ. Math. lib. i. prop. 33, 34, 36, 37. I thank you very kindly for your designed present, and rest Your most humble servant to command, IS. NEWTON. Cambridge, Feb. 25, 1(392-3. I TO DR. BENTLEY. 215 LETTER IV. To Mr. Bentley , at the Palace at Worcester. SIR, The hypothesis of deriving the frame of the world by mechanical principles from matter evenly spread through the heavens, being inconsistent with my system, I had con¬ sidered it very little before your letters put me upon it ; and therefore trouble you with a line or two more about it, if this comes not too late for your use. In my former I represented that the diurnal rotations of the planets could not be derived from gravity, but required a divine arm to impress them. And though gravity might give the planets a motion of descent towards the sun, either di¬ rectly or with some little obliquity, yet the transverse motions by which they revolve in their several orbs required the divine arm to impress them according to the tangents of their orbs. I would now add, that the hypothesis of matter’s being at first evenly spread through the heavens, is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the hypothesis of innate gravity, without a supernatural power to reconcile them ; and therefore it infers a Deity. For if there be innate gravity, it is impossible now for the matter of the earth and all the planets and stars to fly up from them, and become evenly spread throughout all the heavens, without a supernatural power ; and certainly that which can never be hereafter without a supernatural power, could never be heretofore without the same power. You queried, whether matter evenly spread throughout a finite space, of some other figure than spherical, would not, in falling down towards a central body, cause that body to be of the same figure with the whole space ; and I answered, yes. But in my answer it is to be supposed that the matter de¬ scends directly downwards to that body, and that that body has no diurnal rotation. This, sir, is all I would add to my former letters. I am your most humble servant, IS. NEWTON. Cambridge, Feb. II, 1093. ' • / f- : ■ ' ■ ' ■ . > ■ ■ . , ■ - : . .,,(g . _ '• . • • • • ■■ ' • SERMONS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS. {From ed. 1735.) , . OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS : A SERMON PREACHED AT THE PUBLIC COMMENCEMENT AT CAMBRIDGE, July 5th, 1696. 1 Pet. iii. 15. Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. By the hope that is in us, we do understand here, as in other places of Scripture, not only the bare hope strictly so called, but the faith too of a Christian. Whence it is that in the Syriac version of the text, and in some ancient Latin copies, the word faith is added to the other ; the hope and the faith that is in you. And indeed, if we consider hope as a natu¬ ral passion, we shall find it to be always attended and ushered in by faith. For, *tis certain there is no hope without some antecedent belief that the thing hoped for may come to pass ; and the strength and steadiness of our hope is ever propor¬ tional to the measure of our faith. It appears, therefore, why the word hope in the text may, with sufficient propriety of speech, comprehend the whole faith of a Christian ; and that, when the apostle exhorts us to be ready always to answer every man that asks the reason of our hope, "tis the same as if he enjoined us to be never unprepared nor unwilling to reply to any doubts or questions about the grounds of the Christian faith. At the date of this epistle the whole world (with relation 220 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. to the text) might be considered under one general division, Jews and Gentiles. First, the Jews, to whom, the oracles of God were committed ,a and who from thence had the informa¬ tion and expectation of the Messias. These, when they asked a Christian the reason of his hope, were themselves already persuaded that the Messias would come ; and the only con¬ troversy between them was. Whether Jesus was he ? ac¬ cording to the message of John the Baptist, Was Jesus he that should come, or must they look for another Secondly, the Gentiles, who having no means of knowledge besides mere natural reason, could have no notions nor notices of this ex¬ pected Messias : these, therefore, when they demanded the reason of a Christian’s hope, were first to be acquainted with the purpose and promise of God to send the Messias ; were to be instructed about the reasons and designs of that great embassy; about his quality and office, and all the circum¬ stances of his person : and then was the proper time to shew that Jesus was he ; that the description of the Messias was truly exhibited and represented in his character, and the ancient prophecies all accomplished in his actions and events. ’Tis not for nothing that the apostle so presseth this ad¬ vice in the text. Be ready always to give a reason of the hope that is in you : as if he had foretold, that there would be no age of the Christian world wherein this preparation would be superfluous. It hath pleased the divine wisdom never yet to leave Christianity wholly at leisure from opposers; but to give its professors that perpetual exercise of their industry and zeal. And who can tell, if, without such adversaries to rouse and quicken them, they might not in long tract of time have grown remiss in the duties, and ignorant in the doctrines of religion ? Perhaps before this time even some of the records of it might have perished by men’s negligence ; as the Jews had like to have lost their Law, if divine Providence had not preserved one copy of it in the Temple. It is while men sleep, c while they live in peace and security, and have no enemies to contest with, that the great enemy comes and sows tares among * Rom. iii. 2. b Luke, vii. 19. c Matth. xiii. 25. OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 221 the wheat. But, of all the ages since the coming of Christ, I suppose this present has least reason to complain for want of 'work and employment in defence of religion. Here are not only the two parties in the text, Jews and Gentiles, still in the world to engage with ; but even in the midst of Chris¬ tianity are the most dangerous designs formed against it ; as if our Saviour’s prediction of particular families were to be verified too of the whole Church, that its worst enemies should be they of its own household .d There are a sort of persons baptised indeed into the Chris¬ tian faith, and educated in the profession of it ; but in secret, I wish I might say so, nay, even openly, they oppose and blaspheme it, repudiating at once the whole authority of revelation, and debasing the sacred volumes to the rank of ordinary books of history and ethics. The being of God and a providence they profess to believe ; to acknowledge a dif¬ ference between good and evil; to be verily persuaded of another life to come ; and to have their expectations of that state as their behaviour is in this. Nay, even the whole system of Christian morals they can willingly embrace ; but not as a collection of divine statutes and ordinances sent us by an ex¬ press from heaven, but only as useful rules of life, discover¬ able by plain reason, and agreeable to natural religion. So that they cannot see the mighty occasion that should invite even the eternal Son of God from the bosom of the Father to act so mean and calamitous a part upon the stage of this sorry world. What need of so great a master to read man¬ kind lectures of morals, which they might easily learn without any teacher ? ’Tis true, they are often told of some sublime mysterious doctrines delivered by him, which they own would ne’er have been thought of by natural reason. But then, that is so far from recommending to them the importance of his errand from heaven, that for that very reason they deny the truth of his message. For whatever comes imperiously in the name of divine mystery, and soars above the pitch of human knowledge; whatsoever things they cannot fathom d Matth. x. 36. 222 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. and grasp through all the causes* designs* modes* and rela¬ tions of them* as the notion of the Messias* his incarnation* mediation* satisfaction ; all these they reject and explode* as incomprehensible to pure reason* which they set up as the only principle and measure of belief. In all this* these persons act the part and place them¬ selves in the condition of Gentiles* whom we may imagine* in the text* to ask the reason of a Christian’s hope ; since the whole body of these men’s religion is no more than what even heathens attained to ; the modern Deism being the very same with old philosophical Paganism* only aggravated and damned with the additional crime of apostasy from the faith. But, besides this* these very persons will* on other occasions* per¬ sonate the Jews too, those other inquirers supposed in the text* and dispute with Jewish objections against the Christian religion ; though they no more believe the matter of those objections than the thing they object against; like Celsus and Julian of old* that gathered arguments against the Chris¬ tians from all the different sects and hypotheses of philosophy* though inconsistent one argument with another ; and brought objections too from the Old Testament* which they did not believe* against the New one, which they were engaged by all methods to oppose. In our present discourse* therefore, we shall endeavour to refute these modern adversaries under their double shape and character : First* as they are mere Deists or Pagans* renoun¬ cing all revelation, and the very notion of the Messias : and* secondly, as they fight under Jewish colours ; so as* admitting there be a promised Messias* the Saviour of the world* yet men ought to reject the person of Jesus, and still to wait for another. I. And* first* we shall consider them in the quality of Deists and disciples of mere natural reason. We profess our¬ selves as much concerned* and as truly as themselves are* for the use and authority of reason in controversies of faith. We look upon right reason as the native lamp of the soul, placed and kindled there by our Creator* to conduct us in the whole OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 223 course of our judgments and actions. True reason, like its divine Author, never is itself deceived, nor ever deceives any man. Even revelation itself is not shy nor unwilling to as¬ cribe its own first credit and fundamental authority to the test and testimony of reason. Sound reason is the touch¬ stone to distinguish that pure and genuine gold from baser metals, revelation truly divine from imposture and enthu¬ siasm : so that the Christian religion is so far from declining or fearing the strictest trials of reason, that it every where appeals to it, is defended and supported by it, and indeed cannot continue, in the apostle’s description, pure and unde- filede without it. 5Tis the benefit of reason alone, under the providence and Spirit of God, that we ourselves are at this day a reformed orthodox church ; that we departed from the errors of popery, and that we knew too where to stop, neither running into the extravagancies of fanaticism, nor sliding into the indifferency of libertinism. Whatsoever, therefore, is in¬ consistent with natural reason, can never be justly imposed as an article of faith. That the same body is in many places at once, that plain bread is not bread ; such things, though they be said with never so much pomp and claim to infalli¬ bility, we have still greater authority to reject them, as being contrary to common sense and our natural faculties ; as sub¬ verting the foundations of all faith, even the grounds of their own credit, and all the principles of civil life. So far are we from contending with our adversaries about the dignity and authority of reason ; but then we differ with them about the exercise of it, and the extent of its province. For the Deists there stop, and set bounds to their faith, where reason, their only guide, does not lead the way further, and walk along before them. We, on the contrary, as Moses was shewn by divine power a true sight of the promised land, though himself could not pass over to it so we think reason may receive from revelation some further discoveries and new prospects of things, and be fully convinced of the reality of them, though itself cannot pass on, nor travel those regions, e James, i. 27. f Deut. xxxiv. 224 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. cannot penetrate the fund of those truths, nor advance to the utmost bounds of them. For there is certainly a wide differ¬ ence between what is contrary to reason, and what is superior to it and out of its reach. To give an instance in created nature : how many things are there whose being we cannot doubt of, though unable to comprehend the manner of their being so ? That the human soul is vitally united to the body by a reciprocal commerce of action and passion, this we all consciously feel and know, and our adversaries will affirm it ; let them tell us, then, what is the chain, the cement, the mag¬ netism, what they will call it, the invisible tie of that union, whereby matter and an incorporeal mind, things that have no similitude nor alliance to each other, can so sympathise by a mutual league of motion and sensation ? No, they will not pretend to that ; for they can frame no conceptions of it. They are sure there is such an union, from the operations and effects, but the cause and the manner of it are too subtle and secret to be discovered by the eye of reason ; *tis mystery, ?tis divine magic, ’tis natural miracle. If, then, in created beings they are content with us to confess their ignorance of the modes of existence, without doubting of things them¬ selves ; have not we much more reason to be humble and modest in speculations about the essence of God, about the reasons of his counsels, and the ways of his actions ? Yes, certainly; under those circumstances we may believe with reason even things above and beyond reason. For example : If we have sure ground to believe that such a book is the revelation of God ; and we find in it proposi¬ tions expressed in plain words, of a determinate sense with¬ out ambiguity, so as they cannot be otherwise interpreted, by any just metaphor or fair construction allowed in coirpnon language ; we say we have sufficient reason to assent to those propositions, as divine doctrines and infallible truths, so far as they are declared there, though perhaps we cannot our¬ selves comprehend, nor demonstrate to others, the reasons and the manner of them. Neither is this an easy credulity, or unworthy of the most cautious and morose searcher of OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 225 truth. For, observe, we do not say, any thing incomprehen¬ sible to reason is, separate and alone, a proper object of belief ; but as it is supported and established by some other known and comprehensible truth : as, if Abraham had been told by some ordinary man, that in his and Sarah’s decrepit age he should be blessed with a son ; this promise, so alone, without its basis to stand on, could not have challenged his assent, because the thing was impossible in the way of nature ; but since it was God Almighty, with whom all things are possible, e that was the author of that promise, by the mediation of that certain truth, the veracity and omnipotence of God, without hesitation he believed, and so obtained the glory to be father of the faithful .f And upon the same grounds the blessed Virgin gave credit to the salutation of the angel, though the message in itself seemed impossible to reason. So true it is, that reason itself warrants us to proceed and advance by faith even beyond the sphere and regions of reason. We agree, then, with our adversaries about the authority of rea¬ son ; but we dissent about the exercise of it, and the bounds of its jurisdiction. We believe even the abstrusest mysteries of the Christian religion ; of which mysteries, perhaps, we can assign no reasons ; but for our belief we assign a good one, because they are plainly taught in the word of God, who can neither err nor deceive. And this we affirm to be a reason¬ able conclusion, though it carry us even to the confines of heaven, beyond the limits of reason. But, if the Deists think to oblige us to give a natural account of those mys¬ teries, -Cvithout the authority of Scripture, for that we must beg their excuse. We will argue from strict reason, as much as they can pretend to ; but we must not submit that our ad¬ versaries shall confine us to improper topics and impossible ways of proof. It appears, therefore, that though we should decline and despair to give any account at all of the reasons and methods of God’s counsel in the mission of his Son, and only appeal to the sentence of Scripture, yet the Deists ought to be satis- e Matt. xix. 26. f Rom. iv. 11. 2 G VOL. III. 226 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. fied with that proof, since the doctrine is so expressly taught in the oracles of God. But, besides this, what if even natu¬ ral light shall discover to us some faint, but yet certain views of that mysterious instance of divine wisdom and goodness, and exhibit to us a rational account why the Son of God should condescend to be our Mediator and Redeemer ? But, before we engage in this attempt, let it be lawful to implore the candour of our friends ; if, while we endeavour to win over our enemies, we may seem to some to do too little; or, perhaps, to others, to venture too far, and to advance beyond our lines. To discern, then, some reason* of this wonderful mystery, we must take our prospect from the highest moun¬ tain of nature, from the first creation and origin of human race. God, who at the beginning viewed all the works of his hands, and behold, all things were very good,s made man also upright and complete, without any defect in his whole com¬ position ; without any original perverseness of soul, or false bias of will or judgment ; without any natural obliquity or enormity of inclinations. He made him an intelligent being, to know God and himself; to understand and feel present happiness, and to secure it by consideration and contrivance for the future. He endowed him with liberty of mind, that he might act, not of necessity, nor blind instinct, like the brutes, but with consciousness and voluntary choice. He implanted in him diverse appetites and affections, all useful instruments of his happiness, if fitly employed; and none vicious and culpable radically, and in their whole nature, but then only, when they are applied to wrong objects, or in right ones are raised or sunk beside their due temper and measure. I say it again, for the justification of our Creator, that not one of the simple affections of the soul, no, not con¬ cupiscence, hatred, anger, revenge, are in themselves criminal and sinful. Some of the affections, Jtis true, have very bad names ; but those are either mere excesses of simple passions, or else mixed and compound ones, which have no proper real [* reason; ls< cd. “ reasons.” — D.j « Gen. i. 31. OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 227 essence, but are only notional terms ; as envy, for example, a very bad thing indeed, but ’tis an evil of our own product, and not of God’s creating. For the real constituent parts of it are hatred and grief, very useful and lawful affections ; but the evil of it is our own, when we entertain that hatred and grief at the good that befals others ; which is what we express by the complex name of envy. God, therefore, having so created man, in every capacity pure and perfect, might justly require of him that he should maintain and preserve this original rectitude ; that in all his desires, designs, and actions, he should constantly adhere to the dictates of reason and nature ; so as the least deviation would make him obnoxious to God’s displeasure, and nothing less than complete obedience recommend him to his favour ; according to the terms proposed to Cain, If thou dost well, shalt thou not he accepted ? and if thou dost not well, sin lies at the door.h God, I say, might expect and require of man such a perfect obedience to the law of nature, because it was both reasonable and possible for man to perform it. Reason¬ able it was, because every statute of that law promotes the true interest and felicity of mankind even in the very performance. ’Tis true, in the present posture of human affairs, a man’s duty is frequently inconsistent with his temporal interest. But from the beginning it was not so ; neither would it be now, if the whole world at once could be just and innocent. For ’tis not my keeping the law, but another’s transgressing it, that involves me in any misery. The scope and tendency of the law itself is always mine and every man’s advantage. For ’tis not a thing foreign and alien to our nature, imposed on us purely to try our obedience ; but it all results from our very frame and constitution. The general preservation of man’s natural good is the sole root and fountain of the moral : the universal profit and pleasure, the public happiness of human life, gives being and denomination to every virtue and vice ; and the true rules and directions to preserve and secure that happiness make up the whole volume, the code and pan- h Gen. iv. 7. 228 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. dect of the law of nature. Without doubt, then, it was rea¬ sonable to obey, where nothing was commanded us but to pursue our own interest ; nothing forbidden us hut not to do ourselves harm. And, secondly, it was possible for man to perform that entire obedience. For since, as we have proved before, all his natural faculties are right and good, and the law itself accommodated and proportioned to those faculties, there appears no necessary intrinsic impediment why he may not adequately observe it. If every particular precept be possible to be done, Jtis not absolutely impossible to fulfil the universal. And, methinks, they that, on other accounts, ac¬ knowledge that God requires such perfect obedience upon the terms of the law of nature, should be very averse from believ¬ ing that there is a natural and fundamental insufficiency in man to perform it. For certainly the just God cannot be so importune and unreasonable a master as to enjoin us what is physically impossible ; to expect to reap where he has not sown , to require bricks without allowance of straw. But then, though there was no such original and natural disability in man, yet there arose a moral and circumstantial one ; an accidental incapacity supervening to his nature, an impossibility from event, that ever any person from the be¬ ginning of the world to the last period of it (always excepting the man Christ Jesus) should be wholly pure and free from the contagion of sin. For, our first parents having fallen from their native state of innocence, the tincture of evil, like an hereditary disease, infected all their posterity: and the leaven of sin having once corrupted the whole mass of man¬ kind, all the species ever after would be soured and tainted with it, the vicious ferment perpetually diffusing and propa¬ gating itself through all generations. For, let us but con¬ sider the state of human life ; first, a perpetual conversation among evil examples, and the strongest principle of our na¬ ture, imitation ; and then, the ignorance and prejudices of childhood, the fervour and temerity of youth, the force and the frequency of temptations, and the narrow dubious con¬ fines between virtue and vice ; and we may pronounce it im- OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 229 possible that any man should so govern his steps through all the lubricous paths of life, as never once to slip and fall from his duty. Agreeably to the testimony of Scripture, which hath concluded all under sin, Gal. iii. 22. ; and again, If we say ice have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us } and again. Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin ; all have sinned , and come short of the glory of God.k Every mouth then he stopped; and all the world must plead guilty before the tribunal of God ; for by the deeds of the law (the law of nature, as well as of Moses) no flesh can be justified in his sight} It is evident, then, from the principles of pure reason, beside the authority of Scripture, that upon the Deist’s hypo¬ thesis, upon the terms of natural religion, no salvation can be obtained; no life and immortality can be expected; for, that being the free offer and favour of God, he might justly set what price he pleased upon it, even the greatest that we can possibly pay ; nothing less than entire obedience, than un¬ spotted innocence, than consummate virtue. Tlius far, then, even reason evinceth, and holds the lamp to revelation. Some means of reconciliation between God and man, the judge and the offender, must be contrived ; some vicarious satisfaction to justice, and model of a new covenant ; or else the whole bulk of mankind are for ever unhappy. And surely to prevent that, to retrieve a perishing world, was a weighty concern ; even of greater importance than the very creating it, and more worthy of the care and consult of Hea¬ ven. I say, the care of Heaven ; for, alas ! here on earth what expedient could man find out ? How could dust and ashes take upon him to speak unto the Lord ? Could any of the sons of Adam presume to be advocate for the rest, himself one of the criminals, himself in want of another advocate ? And what friend knew we at the court of heaven, of that high power and favour with God as to offer his intercession ? or so wonderfully kind to us as to pay our satisfaction ? We must freely own to the Deist, that here reason was at a stand ; even nature herself languished between hope and despair; ■ 1 John, i. 8. k Rom. iii. 9, 23. 1 Rom. iii. 19. 230 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. and, in the style of the apostle, the whole creation groaned and travailed in pain together ;m when behold, (what revelation hath informed and assured us of,) the eternal Son of the Al¬ mighty, the brightness of the paternal glory , and the express image of his substance, n even he vouchsafed to be our patron and mediator; to take our nature upon him, and to dwell among men ; to fulfil that law of righteousness wherein we were deficient ; to bear our guilt and our burden upon him¬ self, and to offer his most precious blood as an expiation for our offences, as the seal of a new covenant, better than the law of nature ; a covenant of more gracious terms, terms of repentance and remission of sins ; so that if we truly believe in him, and sincerely endeavour to observe his commands, our imperfect righteousness, through the merits of his suffer¬ ings, shall be imputed, accepted, and rewarded, as if it were an entire obedience to the strict law of works and of natural perfection . And now I dare presume to ask even our adversaries themselves, what flaws or fallacies they can shew in all this. If it be true, then, that reason itself discovers such absolute necessity of some way of reconciliation between God and man ; and if it was necessary for man, as being the party concerned, to know the particular way that God did approve and accept of ; and if mere reason could never find that out, but revelation alone must and ought to inform us; and, lastly, if such revelation be actually made, attested, and promulgated to the world ; what pretence is there left, why we should not believe and acquiesce in it ? if, upon examination, it bear all the marks of true revelation, if it contain nothing unworthy of itself, and of the wisdom and goodness of its Author. And is not the economy of man’s salvation, as it is set forth in holy Scriptures, every way agreeable to that divine character ? No, if we ask our adversaries, ’tis an improper and unequal method ; ’tis inconsistent with the justice and impartiality of God. Rex Jupiter omnibus idem.* God, say they, if he had designed such an universal benefit for man- m Rom. viii. 22. 11 Heb. i. 3. [* Virg. iEn. x. 112. — D.] OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 231 kind, would have exhibited it equally and indifferently to every age and nation alike : but the conditions of salvation proposed in the Gospel are incompetent and much too nar¬ row, being restrained to those times and countries alone that can hear of the fame of Jesus, and believe in his person. And what becomes, then, of all the former ages of men, before he was horn ? what of those remote nations ever since, that could have no intelligence of him, nor hear the least tidings of Judea and Jerusalem? Must all those myriads of souls perish for invincible ignorance, for want of impossible faith ? For how could they believe on him of whom they had not heard? and how could they hear without a preacher ?° And why should the God of the whole earth , the God that is no respecter of persons, no, nor of nations, be so unaccountably kind, so unjustly fond and partial, to any single country, much less to a little obscure people, the Jews, scarce heard of in the rest of the world till they were captives and slaves in it ; and withdraw his paternal love from so many other nations, much more considerable, and more worthy of his providence ? Is he God of the Jews only ? is he not also of the Gentiles ?? This way of discourse we may expect from the Deists ; and I hope, according to the advice of the text, we are both able and ready to give a reply. For, first, as to that imagined partiality of God, in preferring any one country before the rest of the world to be the land of Christ’s nativity ; what a poor and contemptible cavil ! for, upon supposition that the Messias of God was to take human nature upon him, and he born of a woman, must he not of necessity be born in some one particular country, exclusively to all the rest ? And is not that, then, a ridiculous objection against any single coun¬ try, that may equally be urged against all whatsoever ? Neither was it mere fondness in the Deity, that he chose the obscure land of Palestine for the birthplace of his Son, rather than Greece, or Italy, or Asia, the theatres of art and learning, and the seats of empire : for, not to mention Abra¬ ham and the patriarchs, whose singular faith and piety justly p Rom. iii. 29. 0 Rom. x. 14. 232 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. obtained of God that their posterity should have the adoption , and the glory, and the covenants, and the promises, and the con¬ sanguinity of Christ it appears also from event, that the circumstances of that nation were of all others the most suit¬ able to the design of the Messias. For, since it was fit and necessary that prophecies should foretel of him long before his coming; that his pedigree and extraction should be ac¬ curately deduced through a long series of ancestors, and other such marks be assigned of him, that men might know this was he ; what more proper to those purposes than the state of the Jews, that peculiar people, secluded and distinguished one tribe from another, and the whole from all the rest of mankind, by the very frame of their polity ? so that the genea¬ logies were less confused, the histories and prophecies more faithfully recorded, and the accomplishment of all more cer¬ tain and illustrious, than they could have been in any other nation upon earth ; all of which, within that long compass of time, were blended together by mutual commerce and mutual conquest, and other omnifarious causes of mixture and con¬ fusion. And then, as to that other surmise, that God would have proposed fair and equal means of general salvation, and not upon such narrow and insufficient terms as an actual faith in the person of Jesus, a condition impossible to the much greater part of mankind; we acknowledge it to be true, infallibly true; faith in Christ Jesus, the only way to salvation since the preaching of the Gospel; so as whosoever rejects that, when it is duly declared to him, and refuses his assent and obedience to it, can have no portion in the kingdom of hea¬ ven. But, for those that never once heard of the Lord of life, that’s, an undecided case, which we do not determine. For who has authority to give sentence, where God and Scripture are silent ? Thus far we are assured there, that let the future condition of those be as God pleases, at least he will not condemn them for invincible ignorance : for there is no re¬ spect of persons with him ; but as many as have sinned without (i Rom. ix. 4. OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 233 law shall perish without law.r The meaning whereof is, that the Gentile world shall not be judged and condemned for the breach of the law of Moses, which never was given them ; but for sins against the law of nature, and the common light of conscience. We may infer, then, by parity of argument, that as many as shall sin without the Gospel shall perish with¬ out the Gospel; that is, not because they believed not in Jesus, whom they had not the least notice of; but they will be tried and sentenced for sins against natural reason, for things within their power and capacity ; because when they knew God , they glorified him not as God; because they held the truth in unrighteousness, so that they are without excuse .s But if the Deist shall still insist, that, though we have justified God from the calumny, as if he would condemn the Gentiles for want of impossible faith, yet still he maintains it to be unjust and incredible, that while one small part of man¬ kind enjoys the favour of the Gospel, all under the state of nature shall have the hard measure of summumjus, must be all damned by rigid inflexible justice, without equity or mercy, without any act of pardon, or the least room for repentance : if he will rather obstinately believe, or hope, or wish, that the God of tender compassions, who loveth all things that he hath made, who will not require much where little has been given, cannot be so extreme with the Gentile world as to mark all that is done amiss, and yet to slight and overlook those shining examples of virtue not unfrequent among them : if this be all he sticks at, God forbid that on this single account he should exclude himself from the communion of faith. We can allow him this opinion, as at worst a charitable error ; as some indication of a large heart, and a generous love of man¬ kind. But then he must always remember, that even those virtuous heathens, whom he would so gladly place in some part of heaven, can be saved on no other account than by the merits and mediation of Jesus their Saviour. For with¬ out his satisfaction there is no remission of sins nor accepta- r Rom. ii. 11, s Rom. i. 18, 20, 21. 2 H VOL. III. 234 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. tion of repentance ; and without remission of sins, by the deeds of the law and natural righteousness no flesh can be justified in the sight of God.t They are saved, therefore, if they be saved at all, by the sole benefit of Christ, though in this life they could not know nor thank their benefactor. For though they lived in the earliest ages of time, long before his incarnation, yet even then they might he purified by the blood of the Lamb , manifested indeed in latter times , but pre¬ ordained before the foundation of the world :u so that from the first origin of it he might extend and impart, to all that were worthy, the efficacy of his merits, and the privileges of faith and grace, and a share in the inheritance of glory and immortality. II. And now we may expect that our adversaries will put off the garb and character of Deists, and make a new attempt for the fortune of the day, under the arms and conduct of the Jews. It must be granted on all hands, that the Messias, when¬ soever he is manifested to the world, must appear in that very manner as the Jewish prophets describe him. All the characters must hit and correspond one to another ; the same features, the same lineaments visible in both ; the one the shadow and picture, and the other the substance. Now, say they, it is evident from the prophets, that the Messias is to be a temporal prince, to sit on the throne of David his royal ancestor, and to make Jerusalem the seat of an universal and perpetual empire. But the character of Jesus is as different from this description as a stable from a palace. JTis true, we Christians endeavour to shew a similitude between them by figurative interpretations of Scripture, which we call the spiritual and mystical sense ; but they call arbitrary and pre¬ carious, as having no foundation in the native and naked letter, which is not to be racked and wrested from its obvious meaning, little credit being to be given to such extorted confessions. ' Rom. iii. 20. “ 1 Pet. i. 20. OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 235 Thus far our objectors. But I suppose the prophetic lan¬ guage and character is better understood than that this sur¬ mise should pass without a just answer. Indeed, if it were in this case alone that the expressions of the prophets need a figurative interpretation, the exception might appear fair and plausible : but it cannot be denied, that on many other occa¬ sions, besides the matter of the Messias, their discourse (after the genius of the eastern nations) is thick set with metaphor and allegory : the same bold comparisons and dithyrambic liberty of style every where occur. Which is an easy and natural account (besides the more secret reasons that the Holy Spirit might have) why the kingdom of the Messias,* though really spiritual and not of this world, is so often dressed and painted by them with the glories of secular em¬ pire. For when the Spirit of God came upon them , and breathed a new warmth and vigour through all the powers of the bodyf and soul ; when by the influx of divine light the whole scene of Christ’s heavenly kingdom was represented to their view, so that their hearts were ravished with joy, and their imaginations turgid and pregnant with the glorious ideas ; then surely, if ever, their style would be strong and lofty, full of allusions to all that is great and magnificent in the kingdoms of this world. But then, in other passages of the same prophets, as it were on purpose to hint to us the true meaning of the former, the Messias is described plainly, without poetical colours, to be a person of low condition ; to have no form nor comeliness in him; a man acquainted with sorrows , and numbered among transgressors ; and by other characters so clear and express, that some of the Jewish rabbies, to elude so strong a conviction, have maintained and propagated an absurd opinion, as if two Messiahs were fore¬ told by the prophets ; the one a triumphant monarch, the J other an unfortunate and afflicted person. What will not [* of the Messias ; ls< ed. “ of Messias,” — D.] [f of the body ; ed. “ of body.” — D.] [} the ; Is* ed. “ and the.” — D.j 236 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. perverse and refractory minds take hold of, rather than submit to an unwelcome truth ? It is evident, then, that the kingdom of Christ, so magni¬ fied in the prophetic style, is a spiritual kingdom. And yet, to be free and ingenuous, we must own that the whole nation of the Jews mistook the meaning of those passages. Even our Saviour’s own disciples were not exempted from the common error. And the whole posterity of that people are pertinacious in it to this day ; which to many is a mighty prejudice against the credit of the Gospel. What ! as if it were such a matter of astonishment, that they obstinately adhere to the literal sense, which promises them a temporal kingdom, with worldly honours and pleasures ! an interpre¬ tation both specious in itself, and agreeable to their proud hopes and carnal apprehensions, which are miserably de¬ feated and disappointed in Jesus. There seems to be nothing so very unnatural and unaccountable in this. But then that very disappointment, so far is it* from being an objection, that, to a sagacious mind and uncorrupt judgment, itself is a convincing proof that he was truly the Messias. For let us reflect upon the state of those times. ’Tis certain, in fact, that the whole nation was possessed with an inveterate per¬ suasion that the Messias was then a-coming ; and Jtis as cer¬ tain, that Jesus the son of Mary professed himself that Messias. Let us argue now upon human reasons, and the common principles of action. If he was not the true Mes¬ sias, we are then to consider him as an ordinary Jew, of mean quality and education. Now, to give any tolerable account why such a one should pretend himself to be the Messias, there are but two ways possible : either he was acted by ambitious designs, which he hoped to compass by that imposture ; or by a complexional and natural enthusiasm, verily imagining himself to be the Messias. I suppose I scarce need to say, that both these suppositions are fully confuted by every word and action of his life. But what I now observe is this, that upon either of those principles, [* is it ; ed. “it is.” — D.] OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 237 whether ambition or enthusiasm, he would certainly have acted the part of the Messias in such a character as men then ascribed to him ; according to the popular expec¬ tation, and the received notion of those times. Now the whole nation expected that the Messias was to be a great general, to rescue them from the Roman power, and to re¬ store the kingdom to Israel. *Tis certain, then, that upon either of these two motives* he would have blown the trumpet to rebellion, and attempted their deliverance. Am¬ bition would have animated him to it, as the only way to his hopes and wishes. Or, if enthusiasm had inspired him, what would he not have promised and assumed to himself? To fight the battles of the Lord ; to execute vengeance upon the heathen ; to bind their kings with chains , and their nobles with fetters of iron. Such were the designs of Barcocab and some other impostors of old : setting up to be the Messias, they put their followers in arms, and proclaimed liberty to the people. Not so the blessed Jesus : but, when the multi¬ tude would have made him their king, he withdrew himself even by miracle to avoid it. He did not summon to arms, but to repentance and newness of life. He had a kingdom indeed ; but not of this earthly Jerusalem , but of that which is”above. He was truly their deliverer ; but not from the Roman yoke, but from the more slavish yoke of the law, from the more wretched bondage to sin and death. Was this the air and language of ambition ? Was this the mien and spirit of enthusiasm ? Nay rather, does not nature herself cry out and declare, that for one of his low condition and vulgar education to profess himself the Messias in so surprising a manner, in a character so unthought of, by an interpretation of prophecies so spiritual and divine, so infinitely better than the literal meaning, against the universal prejudice of the nation, and the hopes and solicitations of his very followers, was certainly a thing more than human ; an invincible testi¬ mony that he was really the Christ, and his doctrine from God , and not of men. [* these two motives ; ls< ed. “ those motives.” — D.} 238 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. But our adversaries have another objection still behind ; and our answer thereto will put an end both to it and to the present discourse. And this objection is borrowed from the law of Moses ; which, say they, having a promise of eternity annexed to it, to be an everlasting covenant , a perpetual sta¬ tute, a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, ought of neces- . sity to be continued and confirmed by the true Messias : whereas Jesus endeavoured to abolish it, and thereby wholly subverted the credit of his own pretensions. But we answer in our Saviour’s declaration, that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.v We are to distinguish, then, between the moral part of the Mosaic law, and the political and cere¬ monial. As to the rites and ceremonies, ’tis apparent they had no intrinsic nor moral holiness in them, no natural tend¬ ency to promote the happiness of men ; nay rather, they were inconvenient and grievous, a yoke of bondage and servile discipline, which none were able to bear. Even the rewards and penalties, which enforced their observation, did not natu¬ rally flow and result from them, as effects from proper causes j but they were miraculously added to them by the sole virtue of the divine promise. ’Tis true, they were fit and proper for the ends of their institution ; to be types and shadows of better things to come ; to preserve the people from idolatry, by allowing no intercourse nor commerce with other nations. But ’tis evident, for that very reason, as well as many more, that those ceremonies were neither calculated for eternity, nor modelled for mankind in common : so that when the reasons of their sanction no longer continued; when the things they typically represented were come to pass ; when the wall of partition was to be removed, and, ac¬ cording to the prophecies, all nations to be called to Christ, and the ends of the earth to be his possession ; they must needs be antiquated and abolished, like scaffolds that are re¬ moved when the buildings are finished ; since under that new state none of them had any further use, and several of them became impossible to be observed. And so for the v Matth. v. 17. OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. 239 political institutions of Moses, Jtis plain they were accommo¬ dated to the circumstances of affairs, and the necessities of time and place ; not absolutely the very best, hut the best that those ages of the world and the genius of that people would bear. As, for instance, the toleration of polygamy and causeless divorces ; these were indulged them, not as most pleasing to their lawgiver, but because of the hardness of their hearts ,w in the words of our Saviour ; because they were too stiff-necked and headstrong to admit of a shorter bridle. These civil ordinances, therefore, when better precepts were once proposed and accepted in their place, must of necessity drop and die of themselves, and become obsolete without any repeal : just as the temporary edicts in war, and the agree¬ ments of the cartel, do expire of their own accord when the peace is concluded. But then the moral part of the law of Moses, which is the sap and marrow, the soul and substance of the whole, that indeed is of eternal and universal obli¬ gation. But then who can say that this is abrogated and cancelled by Jesus ? So far from that, that every branch of it is ingrafted and incorporated into his Gospel. In this best of senses, therefore, the Mosaic law is confirmed and fulfilled by our Saviour. For morality is a thing immutable; and, unless human nature itself should be new-moulded by our Maker, vice and virtue must be always what they have been. So foolish was the cavil of the Deists against our Saviour’s descent from heaven, because he gave no other lectures of morals than what nature and reason had taught before. Nay, if he had taught us the reverse of those morals, this had been an objection indeed. But in that even the divinity of his doctrine most eminently appears ; that the finger of God upon the tables of our hearts, and the pens of the inspired writers in the volume of the Gospel, have prescribed us one and the same lesson. As for us, whose employment it is to teach that lesson to others, let us but express it also in our own lives and conversations ; let us but add that credit to w Matth. xix. 8. 240 OF REVELATION AND THE MESSIAS. our doctrine, that reputation to our profession : so may we expect to bring over all our adversaries to the truth and power of religion ; so may we expect, when we give the account of our talents, to be received with that blessed ap¬ probation, Well done , thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Master. A SERMON UPON POPERY,* PREACHED AT CAMBRIDGE, November the fifth, 1715. 2 Corinthians, ii. 17- For we are not as many , which corrupt the word of God : but as of sincerity, but as of God , in the sight of God speak we in Christ. Our text, as it exhibits to us two contrary characters, of many that corrupt the word of God , and of some that handle it in sincerity , may fitly represent the two different views of the Church under Popery and the Reformation ; and may furnish a proper discourse for the solemnity of this day, when we are met to commemorate the public deliverance from one of the most impious and bloody attempts that even popish pravity and corruption either contrived or favoured. [* This admirable discourse, well suited to the peculiar circumstances of those times, was attacked by a Calvinistic dissenter named Cummins (or Commins) in Remarks on Dr. Bentley’s Sermon upon Popery : Preach’d before the University of Cambridge, November the 5th, 1715. Quid dignum tanto feret hie Promissor Hiatu ? Parturiunt Montes. Hor. 1716, 8vo, pp. 24. Cummins was answered in Reflections on the Scandalous As¬ persions cast on the Clergy, By the Author of the Remarks upon a Sermon on Popery, Preach’d by the Revd. Dr. Bentley, November the Fifth, 1715. With a particular Vindication of the Doctrine of Universal Redemption. Anseribus cibaria publice locantur et canes aluntur in Capitolio ut significent si fures venerint, at fares inter- noscere non possunt, significant tamen si qui noctu in Capitolium venerint. — Quod si luce quoque canes latrent cum deos salutatum aliqui venerint, opinor Us crura suf- fringantur, quod acres sint etiam turn cum suspicio nulla est. Tull. Orat. pro Rose. Amerino. — Obpevovv rrj dA^Oei'a - Svuatrai avnSeyeiv eVel S,uicpaT? iroWol, but ax? ol 7 roWol, as the many, as the multitude. These two senses are very different : as many may still be the lesser part ; as the many must always be the majority: as many must mean here Christians only ; as the many may include the heathens too : c t> which no body else was to know. No sooner had Christianity spread itself over the world, but superstition mixed and grew up along with it ; a weed natural to human soil, complexionally inherent in the weaker sex, and adventitious to most of our own. Vast multitudes SERMON UPON POPERY. 249 of all nations withdrew from the world ; renounced human society, and all commerce with their own species ; abandoned the cities and villages for the solitude of woods, deserts, and caves ; under a false notion of pleasing God better by such devotion and mortification. But all this was at first pure and simple superstition ; no mixture of avarice and craft in it, no tincture of politic and worldly advantage ; their known poverty and perpetual austerities wholly quit them of that suspicion. But how did Popery manage this foible of man¬ kind to its lucre and interest ? Under a pretence of a like retirement from the world in a life of prayer and contem¬ plation, they began their monasteries, abbeys, nunneries, &c. ; which by degrees so vastly multiplied, that, instead of their first pretence of retreating from the world, the very world was filled with them : instead of the old hermitical poverty, they had drained the riches of kingdoms, had engrossed the fattest of the lands ; nay, had appropriated and devoured the very ministerial wages, the bread and sustenance of the pa¬ rochial clergy, who were impoverished, made vile and con¬ temptible, to feed these vassals of the popes in their laziness and luxury. In the early ages of the Gospel there was a high and just veneration for the sepulchres and remains of holy men, for the memorials of them in statue or picture, for the places of their abode ; and especially for the land of Palestine, which the patriarchs, the Son of God* and his apostles, had made sacred by their birth and habitation. This at first was within due bounds ; but superstition was soon engrafted on it, and grew to excess : the remains and relics were supposed to work miracles ; the images had not value only, but worship and adoration ; long journeys were taken, to the great detri¬ ment of families, to visit holy places, and kiss the footsteps of saints and martyrs. These bigotries, though even then reprehended by the best Fathers of those ages, were yet without any mixture of craft and knavery. But Popery soon [* the patriarchs, the Son of God ; 1st ed. “ the patriarchs, the prophets, the Son of God.” — D.] 2 K VOL. III. 250 SERMON UPON POPERY. saw that here was a proper fund, to be improved and managed to great advantage. Instead of coercion and restraint, they advised, encouraged, commanded those superstitions, with such scandalous KaTrrjXela , such abominable traffic, as even paganism would blush at. All the graves and catacombs were exhausted to furnish relics ; not a bone, not the least scrap of raiment of any saint, that was not removed into the holy wardrobe, to raise money to the shewers. Where the monuments were dubious and blended, the names and bodies of pagan slaves were taken into the church-calendar and treasury : disputes and quarrels arose among the numerous pretenders to one and the same relic, which could never be decided ; but the victory was various and alternate, according to the fruitful inventions and ingenious lies of the contending impostors. Even statues and pictures of the same saint were made to rival each other; and the blessed Virgin, like Juno Lucina and Juno Sospita, had as many numina and specific powers as she had pictures and statues ; one celebrated for one virtue, another for another. No piety was thought ac¬ ceptable, no life religiously spent, without a pilgrimage to some foreign saint, where vows and rich offerings must be paid at the shrine. But, above all, the endeavour to gain the Holy Land, by driving out the Saracens, was the most pro¬ mising project, the very masterpiece of Popery. What arts were used, and* what not used, to inveigle the princes and nobility of Europe into that romantic expedition ! Every hour of grief or sickness, every hour of mirth and wine, were a snare and trepan to them. If, in any of those softer mo¬ ments, they once rashly took the cross on their garments, the vow was irrevocable ; to break it was thought attended with all misfortunes in this world, and damnation in the other. In the mean time, salvation, like soldier’s pay, was promised and insured to all that embarked; the heavenly Jerusalem to be their certain acquisition, though they failed and perished in fighting for the earthly. Now while the world by these artifices was made mad and infatuate ; while [* and ; lsi ed. “ or.” — D.] SERMON UPON POPERY. 251 princes abandoned their own realms, and left the regency in weak or treacherous hands ; while for several generations all Europe was exhausted of its strength and its wealth, and the remainder overrun with superstition and leprosy; the con¬ trivers of all this were not wanting to their own interest. ’Twas then, in the absence of so many kings, and the dis¬ tracted condition at home, that Popery made its most plentiful harvest ; then cities, with their large territories, were extorted out of the owners’ hands, and made the patrimony of the church ; then investitures, faculties, dispensations, bulls, the whole shop and warehouse of profit and power, were ex¬ tended and exerted over all persons and employments ; then, in a word, was mankind enslaved, and Popery trod upon the necks of princes. And well was it for Palestine that the Saracens kept possession of it. If Popery had succeeded in its attempt on that country, what a new revenue from pil¬ grimages ! what an inexhaustible store of religious merchan¬ dise ! every stone there would have been a sacred relic. If we may guess from some histories, the very soil would have been dug up and exported by this time, and customers in¬ vited to the purchase by a new legend of miracles. Not a church in Europe would have been counted holy, not a palace or seat lucky or prosperous, not an estate, not a field or close, fertile to the owner, that had not some of the holy earth to bless and to sanctify it. When the empire was first Christian, though the bishops of Rome had no more under their inspection than the sub- urbicarian regions, yet the great city imperial, the metro¬ polis of the western world, gave them a just preeminence above those of inferior and municipal towns. And so those of Constantinople had a due deference paid them by the other bishops of the east, as fiacrLXevTepoi aWcov, presiding* over a diocese the most numerous and the most potent. A fit re¬ gard always was and ought to be had to their advice, concur¬ rence, and assistance ; since their example must needs have the greatest influence on the peace of the whole church. [* presiding; ls< ed. “as presiding.” — D.] 252 SERMON UPON POPERY. Now, how did Popery make use of this advantage of situa¬ tion, to make spiritual Rome as much the empress of the church as ever civil Rome had been of the state ? In long tract of time they reduced all under their power ; not by our Saviour’s declaration, ’Eiri ravTjj t fj Trirpa, Upon this rock I will build my church, as if that was the Tarpeian rock, and the cliff of the Roman Capitol ; but by the subtlest arts of politic, continued from age to age with indefatigable address ; by sowing factions among all other bishops, and* promoting appeals to the arbitration of popes, who always decided for those that owned their authority : by creating new bishops against those in possession; the event whereof was both ways the certain increase of papal power; for either the pope’s new title prevailed, or the former bishop, after long charge and vexation, was content, for quietness’ sake, to keep his own, as the gift of the pope by an after act of confirm¬ ation. And as they then managed with the bishops, so in time they dealt with princes ; fomented rebellions of their subjects ; set brother up against brother in pretence to the crown ; who was to own it, when obtained, as a donation from Rome ; and the contract for it, that all the ecclesiastical dignities should be in the pope’s collation. By these methods, continued through many successions, the result at last was, that he was the spiritual monarch of the universe, the ac¬ knowledged patron of all church preferments ; that all bishops held their jurisdiction not from Christ, but from him ; that kings themselves were no kings, till accepted and confirmed by him ; that they might be resisted, deposed, or murdered, if they did not govern by his dictates and directions ; that he, as visible head of the church, was superior to general coun¬ cils ; that he, perhaps at first some ignorant monk, after he was once chosen pope, though without the suffrage either of clergy or people, by a mercenary conclave and nocturnal cabal of cardinals, a new order contrived by Popery to de¬ press and subdue the bishops, was immediately gifted with infallibility. O horrible profanation of a divine attribute ! [* and ; Is/ ed. “ and then.” — D.] SERMON UPON POPERY. 253 O audacious and ridiculous claim ! which, though no pope can ever believe of himself, and the cardinals his electors, like the haruspices of old, may laugh at when they see each other ; yet it’s an useful pretence in the way of politic, and of great moment among the adoring crowds, to support and establish his usurped spiritual empire. As the Christians in the first ages were all educated in the midst of paganism, and the most of them made converts out of it ; so it could not be avoided, but that many must assume or transfer some pagan notions into the system of Christianity. Besides the one supreme God, the pagans had vast numbers of inferior deities, who had every one shares of the common devotion. This begot in many Christians a like worship of angels and saints, as mediators and intercessors between them and the heavenly Father. The dii manes of the pagans, and the parentations to their dead ancestors, produced a near resemblance to them among some Christians, that offered solemn prayers and expiations for the souls of their deceased relations. The Platonic notion, that the laa-L/xa d/iapTij/xara, the curable sins, the delible stains of departed souls, were scoured and purged off by propor¬ tionate punishments ; - alia panduntur inanes Suspenses ad ventos ; aliis sub gurgite vasto Infectum eluitur scelus, aut eocuritur igni ;* must naturally raise among some Christians a like persuasion about a future purgatory. These notions and practices, though quite repugnant to the holy Scriptures, were not discouraged nor forbid by Popery ; but propagated, enjoined, and enacted, being a most sure and ample fund to increase the church’s treasure. In course of time the whole calendar was crowded with saints ; not a day in the year without its red letter : every trade and profession had its saint tutelar and peculiar, who must be retained and engaged with pre¬ sents and oblations. Horses, cows, and sheep, every animal [* Virg. En . vi. 740. — D.] ♦ 254 SERMON UPON POPERY. domestic, the fields and the vineyards, the very furniture of houses, must be annually blessed and sanctified, at a set price for the blessing : and if the old set of saints should by long time grow cheap and vulgar, there still was a reserve in Popery to enhance and quicken the low market, by making new and fresh ones in acts of canonization. And then, by their prayers and the masses for the dead, to ease and shorten the pains of purgatory, what a spacious door was opened for a perpetual flow of money ! What family was not daily pil¬ laged of some part of its substance ? What heart could bear that his dead father should fry in the flames of purgatory, when a moderate sum might buy him out of them ? Or who would not secure himself by a timely legacy for masses for his soul, without leaving it to the conscience and courtesy of his heir ? But what do we speak of this popish traffic for the sins of the dead, when the very sins of the living, the wages of damnation, were negotiated and trucked, indulged or par¬ doned, by the wicked politic of Popery ! As in common life we daily see, that an officer shall permit and license those very frauds for money, which his office itself constitutes him and commands him to prevent; so has Popery done in that great affair of a Christian life, and the duties of the Gospel. To engross which profitable trade, it was first necessary that Rome should challenge the sole custody of the keys of heaven and hell, should claim the sole power of loosing and binding, should possess the sole mint of all spiritual licenses and par¬ dons. When this was once arrogated and obtained, what an impious fca7rri\eia, what an extensive traffic was opened ! As the other schemes drew in the superstitious and the bigots, so this was to wheedle and pillage the profane, the impure, the villains of the world. The common sale was soon pro¬ claimed for indulgences and pardons for all crimes past or to come, already committed, or hereafter designed ; the price raised and enhanced according to the deeper dye and black¬ ness of the guilt. The stated market at Rome was not suffi¬ cient for the commerce : the princes only and the nobles SERMON UPON POPERY. 255 could afford to send thither for them ; so that, for the ease and benefit of trade, blank instruments were issued out for all the countries of Europe, and retailed by the spiritual pedlars at the public markets and at the private doors : such a cheap pardon cried aloud for the more common sins of lying, swearing, drunkenness, or fornication ; a higher price in private for robbery or murder ; a higher still for sodomy or incest. Thus were the grace of God, the remission of sins, all the privileges of the Gospel, trucked and cauponated by Popery, for sordid and detestable lucre, upon the open scheme and the bare foot of Atheism. ^Tis true, indeed, that when the light of the Reformation broke out, and good letters revived and spread around, even the popish provinces grew too wise and sagacious for this gross imposture ; such wretched wares were thenceforth chiefly vended among the poor ignorants of America. But there soon arose a new set of loose and profligate casuists, who, to engage on their side the libertine part of mankind, since impunity in sins would no longer be bought with money, should distribute it gratis, and instruct them to be wicked without remorse and with assurance. These are they who (contrary to St. Paul, Rom. iii. 8) are not slanderously reported to say, Let us do evil, that good may come ; who ex¬ cuse and patronise the vilest corruptions, the foulest cheats, forgeries, and extortions in common dealing ; who teach that no faith promised or sworn to heretics or enemies is of any obligation; who defend common perjury and perfidiousness by the scandalous shifts of equivocals and mental restric¬ tions ; who have glossed and warped all the severe rules of the Gospel about chastity, charity, and forgiveness, to the worldly and wicked notions of gallantry and point of honour; who sanctify the horridest villanies, murders, plots, assassi¬ nations, massacres (like the intended one of this day), if de¬ signed for the service of the church ; who, in a word, have given such vicious systems of moral, such a license to corrupt nature, as a heathen Stoic, Platonic, or Academic, nay, an Epicurean, though in himself never so wicked, durst not have polluted his pages with, out of reverence to his sect. 256 SERMON UPON POPERY. I might proceed, would the time permit me, to discover all the rest of their politic arts, the mysteries of their spi¬ ritual trade ; for such are all their peculiar tenets, that were discarded at the Reformation. What availed it to the clergy, that the Scriptures expressly said, marriage is honourable in all : let a bishop, let a presbyter , be the husband of one wife : one that ruleth well in his own house, having faithful children , kept in subjection with all gravity ? This did not suit with popish politic; this tied* and attached the clergy to the common interest of mankind; their affection to their own children made their country also dear to ’em, made them love and pity the abused laity ; they were not vassals devoted enough to the service of a foreign master ; the riches of the church did not flow in one channel, nor all revert at last to that one fountain and receptacle. And for these pious rea¬ sons, in spite of plain Scripture, of the authority of ages before, of all the lusts and impurities that must necessarily follow, a chaste legitimate marriage shall be forbidden to the clergy, and an adulterous celibacy shall be enjoined universal. But what can plain Scripture avail against the avarice and pride of Popery, when both common sense internal, and the joint testimony of all our outward senses, must submit to its decrees, when ’tis to advance its profit or power ? That due respect ever paid to ra ayia, the consecrated bread and wine at the holy communion, was easily raised by superstition and ignorance to the highest excess, to notions improbable and impossible. This fair handle was not neglected by Popery : by slow degrees transubstantiation was enacted into an article of faith ; and a very beneficial one to the priests, since it made them the makers of god, and a sort of gods among the people. But we must think better and juster of the con¬ trivers of it, than that they themselves believed it ; they did or could believe it no more, than a proposition made up of the most disparate ideas, that sound may be turned into colour, a syllogism into a stone. *Twas not ignorance nor stupidity, but the most subtle and crafty politic, that produced tran- [* tied; so 1st ed. : ed. 173 5, “tried.” — D.] SERMON UPON POPERY. 257 substantiation. Thence the awful pomp,, the august caval¬ cades, in the procession* of the hostie ; as if they would outdo the pagan ones of Cyhele ; Ingratos animos atque impia pectora vulgi Conterrere metu qua> possint numine Diva : f thence the presence of God continually resident corporeal at the high altar : thence, to exhibit it perpetually there, the wafer, panis a&gos, unleavened unfermented bread, was taken into the solemnity, both against ancient practice and the perpetual custom of the Greek church ; because common bread would soon have grown mouldy, and not pass with the palate of the multitude for the body of God : thence, at last, in the xiiith century, was the cup denied to the laity; not for not seeing the plain words of the Scripture, Drink ye all of this ; not for the dearness or scarcity of wine, which is cheap and common in those climates; not for the then pretended reason, that the mustaches or whiskers in the mode of that age used to dip into the holy cup ; but because it was inconsistent with the rest of the show. So small a quantity of wine, even after consecration, would soon grow dead and vapid ; would discover its true nature, if tasted after long standing. The wine, therefore, because it interferes with the standing ceremony and continued pageantry of tran- substantiation, has not the honour to be reposited with the wafer on the altar, nor to accompany it in the solemn pro¬ cessions. I might now go on to shew you a more dismal scene of impostures, their judicia Dei , the judgments of God, as they blasphemously called ’em, when no human evidence could be found : their trials by ordeal ; by taking a red-hot iron in the hand ; by putting the naked arm into hot boiling water ; by sinking or swimming in pools and rivers when bound fast hand and foot : all of them borrowed or copied from pagan knavery and superstition, and so manageable by arts and slights, that the party could be found guilty or innocent just [* procession; 1st ed. “ processions.”— D.] [f Lucret. ii. 622.— D.] VOL. III. 2 L 258 SERMON UPON POPERY. as the priests pleased, who were always the triers. What bribes were hereby procured ! what false legacies extorted ! what malice and revenge executed ! on all which if we should fully dilate and expatiate, the intended tragedy of this day, which now calls for our consideration, would scarce appear extraordinary. Dreadful indeed it was, astonishing to the imagination ; all the ideas assembled in it of terror and horror. Yet, when I look on it with a philosophical eye, I am apt to felicitate those appointed for that sudden blast of rapid destruction ; and to pity those miserables that were out of it, the designed victims to slow cruelty, the intended ob¬ jects of lingering persecution. For, since the whole plot (which will ever be the plot of Popery) was to subdue and enslave the nation, who would not choose and prefer a short and despatching death, quick as that by thunder and light¬ ning, which prevents pain and perception, before the anguish of mock trials, before the legal accommodations of gaols and dungeons, before the peaceful executions by fire and faggot ? Who would not rather be placed direct above the infernal mine than pass through the pitiless mercies, the salutary torments of a popish inquisition, that last accursed contriv¬ ance of atheistical and devilish politic ? If the other schemes have appeared to be the shop, the warehouse of Popery, this may be justly called its slaughter-house and its shambles. Hither are haled poor creatures (I should have said rich, for that gives the frequentest suspicion of heresy), without any accuser, without allegation of any fault. They must inform against themselves, and make confession of something here¬ tical ; or else undergo the discipline of the various tortures ; a regular system of ingenious cruelty, composed by the united skill and long successive experience of the best engineers and artificers of torment. That savage saying of Caligula’s,* horrible to speak or hear, and fit only to be writ in blood, Ita feri, ut se mori sentiat, is here heightened and improved : Ita se mori sentiat, ut ne moriatur, say these merciful inqui¬ sitors. The force, the effect of every rack, every agony, are [* Suet. Calig. 30.— D.] SERMON UPON POPERY. 259 exactly understood : this stretch, that strangulation, is the utmost nature can bear, the least addition will overpower it ; this posture keeps the weary soul hanging upon the lip, ready to leave the carcass, and yet not suffered to take its wing ;* this extends and prolongs the very moment of expiration, continues the pangs of dying without the ease and benefit of death. O pious and proper methods for the propagation of faith ! O true and genuine vicar of Christ, the God of mercy, and the Lord of peace ! And now, after this short, but true sketch and faithful landscape of Popery, I presume there’s but little want of advice or application. If this first character in the text be¬ longs to Popery, let us secure the other to ourselves, that we handle the word in sincerity , as of God, as in the sight of God in Christ. The Reformation without this must forfeit its name, and the Church of England must lose its nature. Let every one, therefore, that thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall. Our very text informs us, that in the apostle^s own days, when the church was in its greatest purity and sim¬ plicity, there were even then many /cdwryXoi, fraudulent deal¬ ers, among its members ; though the traffic must needs run low when the whole community was so poor. But when the emperors became Christian, and the immense revenues of the pagan priesthood were (as indeed they ought to be) all con¬ fiscated and distributed, without doubt the spoil and the [* This powerful passage has been borrowed by Sterne. Part of the cele¬ brated “ sermon” introduced into Tristram Shandy is as follows : — “ Go with me for a moment into the prisons of the Inquisition . Hark! hark! what a piteous groan ! See the melancholy wretch who uttered it just brought forth to undergo the anguish of a mock trial, and endure the utmost pains that a studied system of cruelty has been able to invent. Behold this helpless victim delivered up to his tormentors, — his body so wasted with sorrow and confinement, you will see every nerve and muscle as it suffers. Observe the last movement of that horrid engine ; see what convulsions it has thrown him into ! Consider the nature of the posture in which he now lies stretched, — what exquisite tortures he endures by it. ’Tis all nature can hear! Good God! see how it keeps his weary soul hanging upon his trembling lips, — willing to take its leave , hut not suffered to depart." — Sterne’s Works, vol. i. pp. 247-250, ed. 1788.— D.] 260 SERMON UPON POPERY. plunder attracted crowds of new converts, and the courtiers found it useful to declare themselves good Christians. Even the Reformation itself did not make the slower progress for the vast riches of the monasteries that were to be dissolved ; nor had it been less honour to it, if, as the lands and manors of the abbeys were justly restored to the laity, so their im¬ propriations had reverted to the parochial clergy, from whom they had been robbed. To say the truth, the spirit of Popery is near as old as human race ; ?tis in all ages and places, and even then exerts itself when it demolishes Popery. The generality of men, ol n roWol, were always tcd'K'rffioi , traders in a profession. The Epicureans of old, though they denied and derided the heathen gods, would yet gladly accept of a fat benefice, optimum sacerdotium, and, to gain an ample revenue, would officiate at those altars which they silently laughed at. Think not, therefore, that all the priests were the vilest of men, but that some of the vilest of men got in to be priests. They saw the opportunity of enslaving and pillaging mankind, if they could but manage the priesthood upon atheistical principles. This was the temptation, this gave the original to Popery 5 and nothing to be accused for it but human nature in common. What profession, what con¬ junction of laymen, if not continually watched, if not curbed and regulated by authority, have not abused the like advan¬ tage and ascendant in their several ways, to their private emolument, and the oppression of the public ? Let us watch, therefore, against this fatal degeneration, incident to all things. He that aims malis artibus to arrive at church pre¬ ferment, by sinful or servile compliance, by turbulency and faction, what is he but KaTnjXos, a trafficker for sordid lucre ? He that zealously vends his novelties, or revives dead and buried heresies to the disturbance of the community, what is he but a trader for the fame of singularity ? He that labours to dig up all the fences of the church ; to throw down her articles and canons, her liturgy and ceremonies ; to extin¬ guish her nurseries of learning ; and when he has made her a mere waste and a common, shall call that a comprehension ; SERMON UPON POPERY. 261 what is he but a vile factor to libertinism and sacrilege ? He that propagates suspected doctrines, such as praying for the dead, auricular confession, and the like, whose sole tendency is the gain and power of the priest, what is he but a negoti¬ ator for his partisans abroad ? what does he hut sow the seeds of Popery in the very soil of the Reformation ? But if we are to watch against the silent tide of Popery in the small rivulets at home, much more against its inun¬ dation and deluge from abroad, which always meditates, and now threatens, to overwhelm us. If foreign Popery once return, and regain all the provinces that it lost at the Re¬ formation, O the terrible storm of persecution at its first regress ! O the dark prospect of slavery and ignorance for the ages behind ! In tract of time it will rise again to as full a measure of usurped hierarchy as when the hero Luther first proclaimed war against it. For then was Popery in its meri¬ dian height : it was not raised up all at once, but by the slow work of many centuries. In all the steps and advances of its progress, the good men of the several ages opposed it, but in vain ; they were overborne by a majority, were si¬ lenced by the strong arguments of processes and prisons ; for it first subdued its own priests, before it brought the laity under its yoke. Good letters became a crime even in the clergy : or heresy or magic, according to the different turn of men’s studies, was a certain imputation upon all that dared to excel. And though Popery, since the Reformation, has even in its own quarters permitted learning and humanity, and prudently withdrawn some of its most scandalous trum¬ pery ; yet if once again it sees itself universal, the whole warehouse, now kept under key, will again be set wide open ; the old tyranny will ride triumphant upon the necks of en¬ slaved mankind, with certain provision against a future re¬ volt. The two instruments, the two parents of the Reforma¬ tion, ancient learning and the art of printing, both coming providentially at one juncture of time, will be made the first martyrs, the earliest sacrifice to popish politic. The dead languages, as they are now called, will then die in good 262 SERMON UPON POPERY. earnest. All the old authors of Greece and Italy, as the conveyers of hurtful knowledge, as inspirers of dangerous liberty, will he condemned to the flames ; an enterprise of no difficulty, when the pope shall once again be the general dic¬ tator. All these writings must then perish together ; no old records shall survive to bear witness against Popery, nor any new be permitted to give it disturbance. The press will then he kept under custody in a citadel, like the mint and the coinage nothing but mass-books and rosaries, nothing but dry postils and fabulous legends, shall then be the staple commodities, even in an university. For the double festivity, therefore, of this candid and joy¬ ful day ; for the double deliverance obtained in it, the one from the conspiracy of Popery, the other from its tyranny ; for the happy preservation of our religion, laws, and liberties, under the protection of pious and gracious princes ; for the flourishing estate of learning, and the prosperity of our nursing mother, — be all thanks, praise, and glory to God, for ever and ever. Amen. A SERMON PREACHED BEFORE KING GEORGE I.* On February the third, 1716-7. Rom. xiv. 7* For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. Our apostle having in this chapter and before discoursed of the mutual duties and obligations in human life, concludes the whole with the words above, sententiously in way of aphorism. That no one liveth to himself, and no one dieth to himself. Which without doubt must seem a harsh paradox to a narrow-minded person, that is wholly involved and con¬ tracted within his own little self, and makes his private plea¬ sure or profit the sole centre of his designs, and the circum¬ ference of all his actions. Indeed, the heathen poet in the epigram, a man of that very stamp, as sitting in pagan dark¬ ness and the shadow of death, teaches the downright reverse to our text : Vive tihi, says he, nam moriere tibi. f He took it as self-evident, That every one dies to himself; and there¬ fore infers it as a consequence both plain and profitable, That every one ought to live to himself. But our inspired writer has here taught us a new and Christian lesson, a doctrine which is the source and spring of all true piety to God, of justice and beneficence to men, of public spirit, and all the other ingredients of heroic and godlike virtue ; a doctrine, too, so pregnant of sense and truth, that it may be considered in various views, all different from each other, and all worthy [* The 1st ed. adds, “ at his Royal Chapel of St. James’s:” it was delivered by Bentley in the capacity of chaplain to his Majesty. — D.] [f “ Uni vive tibi, nam moriere tibi,” — the last line of an epigram by an unknown author: see it in Anth. Vet. Lat. Epig. et Poem. t. i. p. 510. ed. Burmann. — D.] 264 A SERMON BEFORE KING GEORGE I. of our serious speculation. I cannot now undertake to ex¬ haust them all; in so short a discourse as is prescribed by the occasion ; but I shall place before you some of the principal, at least some of the most general and obvious, which may furnish a proper hint and rise to your own further medi¬ tations. I. None of us, says the apostle, liveth to himself. To live to a man’s self, when considered at large, is to do all the actions of life with regard to himself alone ; as a true free¬ born son of earth, not accountable to any other being for his behaviour and conduct, but carving out his own satisfaction in every object of desire, without any obligation or relation to a higher power. Now, in this sense, I conceive it’s suffi¬ ciently plain, that none of us liveth, ought to live, or can live, to himself. ’Tis the thoughtless atheist alone that can be guilty of such absurdity, to imagine the first parents of human race sprung naturally out of the mud, without the foresight and efficiency of an intelligent cause. Every one, I say, but an atheist, (if an atheist can now possibly be, under the powerful light of the Gospel, and the late advances in natural knowledge, which directly lead and guide to the dis¬ covery of the Deity,) every one else must needs see and acknowledge that an almighty and all-wise God was our Creator; and consequently, that we live to him, the sole author of life, and not to ourselves. All our powers and faculties, all the properties and perfections of our nature, were gratuitously given us by the good will of our Maker, without our own asking or knowing. We neither produced our own being, nor can we annihilate it; we can neither raise it above, nor depress it below, the original standard of its essence, derived to the whole species. Which of you, says our Saviour, Luke, xii. 25, which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature ? And so also may we say, which of us creatures, by all our thought and industry, can add one specific power to our beings more than God has bestowed upon them ? ’Tis true, indeed, we may either exert or clog our native faculties in different degrees ; we may either in- A SERMON BEFORE KING GEORGE I. 265 vigorate them by exercise and habit, or damp and stifle them by sloth and neglect ; so that the same person under one education and tour of life would extremely differ from him¬ self had he fallen under another. But with all our endea¬ vours we can exalt none of our faculties above their original pitch ; we can never raise the aqueduct above the level of the fountain-head ; we cannot advance our species, or change our human nature to a superior class of being ; we must all continue in our settled rank and degree, as God was pleased to place mankind in the great scale of the creation : Tis the will and decree of God that we are what we are ; and as we are all his creatures, the work of his hands, his servants of such particular station, we do all live to him, and not to ourselves. II. But then, secondly , besides the title of creation, even on the account of our conservation, we so entirely subsist upon the power and will of God, that in this view also we must needs confess that none of us liveth to himself but to him. For as God at first by his almighty power produced the world and all creatures out of nothing, so by a perpetual efficacy and emanation of the same power he sustains them all from relapsing into nothing. ’Tis concluded, I think, among all those that have well considered these matters, that the same divine energy which gave a being to any creature must be constantly and incessantly exerted to continue it in being. Could we suppose the great Creator but for one single moment to suspend and interrupt the communication of that power, the whole frame and system of nature must immediately drop and vanish into its primitive nullity. Every essence therefore, except his own eternal and immutable essence, is solely supported by him, and owes to him not only the first production, but the continuance of its being. From him alone depend not only the breath of our nostrils , the operations and instruments of mortal life, but the very existence of our souls and bodies : upon his invariable will, upon his inviolable promise, rest all our hopes of future glory, and all the prospect of happy immortality. This the VOL. HI. 2 M 266 A SERMON BEFORE KING GEORGE I. voice of reason dictates to us, and the authority of holy Scripture puts it out of question ; for in him, says our apos¬ tle, Acts, xvii. 28, we live , and move , and have our being. And if we all live and exist in him, much more do we live to him, and none of us to himself. III. But again, thirdly, the proposition, now our text, may be considered in another view, not only with respect to God, our creator and preserver, but with reference to the several parts of the creation itself. If we survey the whole system of it, as far as human understanding and industry have yet advanced, we shall not find one single thing made absolutely for itself, but to bear likewise some office, some subservience to the uses of its fellow- creatures ; the all-wise Author of the universe having so contrived every part of his work, that they are all coherent and contributive to each other, and, by their mutual operations, conduce every one its share to the economy and beauty of the whole. Thus, astro¬ nomy informs us that the moon, not barely made to govern our night, though so very useful to our earth by reflecting the sun’s rays to it, receives again the like benefit from our earth in a greater measure than she gives it. ’Twere very easy, if this occasion was proper for it, to shew the like re¬ lation in all known instances of nature ; how every thing conspires to the general good, and was made for each other, as well as each for itself, and all for the glory of their Maker. JTis enough to say, once for all, what true philosophy assures us, that every least particle of body, every atom of the world, has its operation and passion perpetual and reciprocal with all the rest of the world besides it ; such an alliance being established between all the matter of the universe, that the whole is linked together by mutual attraction or gravitation, working regularly and uniformly according to quantity and distance ; which is the great instrument in the hand of God to support the permanent frame of things in the same pos¬ ture as at first it was constituted. Now, if all the visible world be thus made for each other, how dare we entertain the thought that we alone should be made to live to our- A SERMON BEFORE KING GEORGE I. 267 selves ? Some, indeed, have had the vanity to assert, that all the world was made for the use of man, and man for his own enjoyment : a very insolent presumption ; a composition of self-love, partiality, and natural pride ; when we have neither a due knowledge of ourselves, nor of the things about us. By the late improvements of science and art, there are discovered such new regions in the universe, new to us, though as old as our own ; such immense tracts of sky, and innumerable stars, each equal to our sun and his spa¬ cious system, which never before entered into man’s ima¬ gination ; that it’s scarce possible to think in earnest that all those were created for our sakes only, seeing our world was grown old before we had the least tidings of their very exist¬ ence. And this may teach us both the modesty and the judgment to think, that even in the intellectual world there may be numerous ranks and classes of rational creatures, some inferior and many superior to us in the perfections of their several natures. What arrogance, therefore, for us, for us that probably make so small a figure in the great sum of the creation, to think we only were made exempt from the universal law of service and dependence ! Has not God himself told us, in the apostle’s words, Heb. i. 14, that even the angels themselves are all ministering spirits ? But if those glorious beings live to subserve and minister to others, how can we, so far below in* natural powers, station, and dignity ; how can we presume we owe service to nothing, but are made to live only to ourselves ? IV. But, fourthly, let us now proceed from the natural world to the moral ; and in that view we shall still more clearly discover the truth of our text. That none of us liveth to himself. Our Creator has implanted in mankind such appetites and inclinations, such natural wants and exigencies, that they lead him spontaneously to the love of society and friendship, to the desire of government and community. Without society and government, man would be found in a worse condition than the very beasts of the field. That di- [* below in ; 1st ed. “ below them in.” — D.] 268 A SERMON BEFORE KING GEORGE I. vine ray of reason, which is his privilege above the brutes, would only serve in that case to make him more sensible of his wants, and more uneasy and melancholic under them. Now, if society and mutual friendship be so essential and necessary to the happiness of mankind, Tis a clear conse¬ quence, that all such obligations as are necessary to maintain society and friendship are incumbent on every man. No one, therefore, that lives in society, and expects his share in the benefits of it, can be said to live to himself. No, he lives to his prince and his country ; he lives to his parents and his family; he lives to his friends and to all under his trust; he lives even to foreigners, under the mutual sanctions and sti¬ pulations of alliance and commerce ; nay, he lives to the whole race of mankind : whatsoever has the character of man, and wears the same image of God that he does, is truly his brother, and, on account of that natural consanguinity, has a just claim to his kindness and benevolence. Not that private offenders are not to be punished with loss of goods, of liberty, of life itself, in proportion to the offence ; nor just wars not to be undertaken for the security of national happi¬ ness : wars and offences will come (such is the imperfection of human state), and woe be to them by whom they come. But then those very severities, the necessary effects of penal laws at home, and of wars and ruptures abroad, do all arise and flow from a principle of love and kindness. ’Tis a superior love for the good of the whole community, which makes it necessary to cut off those noxious members of it; as mortified limbs are freely parted with to preserve the rest of the natural body. Certainly the nearer one can arrive to this universal charity, this benevolence to all human race, the more he has of the divine character imprinted on his soul ; for God is love , says the apostle ; he delights in the happiness of all his crea¬ tures. To this public principle we owe our thanks for the inventors of sciences and arts ; for the founders of kingdoms, and first institutors of laws ; for the heroes that hazard or abandon their own lives for the dearer love of their country ; for the statesmen that generously sacrifice their private profit A SERMON BEFORE KING GEORGE I. 269 and ease to establish the public peace and prosperity for ages to come. And if nature’s still voice be listened to, this is really not only the noblest, but the pleasantest employment. For though gratitude, and a due acknowledgment and return of kindness received, is a desirable good, and implanted in our nature by God himself, as a spur to mutual beneficence, yet, in the whole, ’tis certainly much more pleasant to love than to be beloved again. For the sweetness and felicity of life consists in duly exerting and employing those sociable passions of the soul, those natural inclinations to charity and compassion. And he that has given his mind a contrary turn and bias, that has made it the seat of selfishness and of unconcernment for all about him, has deprived himself of the greatest comfort and relish of life. Whilst he foolishly de¬ signs to live to himself alone, he loses that very thing which makes life itself desirable. So that, in a word, if we are created by our Maker to enjoy happiness and contentment in our being ; if we are born for society, and friendship, and mutual assistance ; if we are designed to live as men, and not as wild beasts of the desert; we must truly say, in the words of our text. That none of us liveth to himself. V. But again, fifthly, besides this moral view of the world, if we consider the state of human life as it’s influ¬ enced by religion and the Gospel of Christ, we shall yet have a clearer discovery of the truth of our text. For a man truly religious cannot be said to live to himself, but to God, to whom he has dedicated his worship and service. The service of God is the first principle and ultimate end of all his thoughts and actions. Even in the smallest affairs of life, whether he eats or drinks, or whatsoever he does, he does all to the glory of God, 1 Cor. x. 31. In this he is elevated and engaged to a higher pitch of duty above the rules and obli¬ gations of mere morality; that in things seemingly indiffer¬ ent he has still his eye fixed on heaven, how every thing may conduce to God’s honour, and to peace and righteousness among men. And in this stricter acceptation the words are 270 A SERMON BEFORE KING GEORGE I. used* by our apostle ; ovSeU ggwv,none of us, of us Christians, liveth to himself, teal ovSels, and none (not no man, as in our English version, but none of us Christians) dieth to himself. Christianity excludes all selfishness, not only in the total and complex of living, but in the minutest particulars and cir¬ cumstances of life. For ’twas a controversy of the+ smaller size that gave occasion to our text : ’twas neither about essential duties of moral, nor important articles of faith ; but about matters of free choice and indifference, of scruples only and infirmities ; about observation of days, and distinction of meats ; things of lawful use or neglect to those that knew their own liberty. And yet even in this case our apostle de¬ clares that both sides had the glory of God in their view, and not an indulgence to their own appetites or opinions. For he, says he, that observes the day, observes it to the Lord ; and he that observes not the day, to the Lord observes it not : and he that either eats or abstains, to the Lord he doth either , and giveth God thanks. For none of us, then adds he, liveth to himself, and none (of us) dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord ; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. And the truth is, such a general resignation of one’s self to God is the first contract, the express covenant of our religious profession. When we first take the badge of Christianity, our very souls and bodies are made an offering to Christ ; we have nothing left us that we may call our own, as separate from his interest and service ; we are dead unto the world and to sin, and live to God and to righteousness ; we live no longer to ourselves. Christ, says the apostle, died for all; that they which live should not thenceforth live to themselves, but to him that died for them, and rose again. VI. And then, sixthly, while a good Christian is per¬ suaded that we ought to live unto Christ, in subordination to that duty he lives to all his fellow-members in Christ, to all [* are used ; 1 st cd. “are here used.” — D.] [f the; 1st cd. “this.” — D.] A SERMON BEFORE KING GEORGE I. 271 those for whom our common Saviour suffered. He considers both his natural abilities, and the external blessings of Provi¬ dence, as a talent committed to his care to be employed for the public good, for promoting piety, and virtue, and pro¬ sperity among men ; expecting at the great day to be called to his account by an all-knowing and impartial Judge. For he sees there is no station or condition of life, no office or re¬ lation, or circumstance, but there arises from it such special obligation, that he may truly be said to live to others rather than to himself. If any persons can be conceived to enjoy the prerogative of living to themselves, some perhaps may imagine that the monarchs and princes of the world, with the chief ministers under them, have the fairest claim to that privilege, as pos¬ sessing and commanding in the largest measure all the power, and splendour, and voluptuousness of life. But if things are weighed in the just balance of reason and truth, they perhaps of all others have the least pretence to self -living. For though God himself has described them, that they are gods among men , as bearing the character and image of divine power and authority, yet all that superiority is solely derived and delegated from him ; *tis a mere trust put into their hands ; they are only commissioners under him, and account¬ able to him for the discharge of their great office. So that they can the less be said to live to themselves, inasmuch as the extent and sphere of their duty is wider than that of others. For if the ancient remark be always found most true, That the master of the house is the veriest servant of all his family ,a because he has the care and concern for all ; so, if the boldness of the comparison may be allowed, the su¬ preme magistrate himself, and those that are next below him, are the veriest subjects in all his dominions. An in¬ ferior magistrate or a private subject hath his service confined within narrower limits ; the princess and the prime officer’s duty extends over the whole ; so that by being the masters and protectors of all, they really become the servants of all. » Eft i Pag. 10, 11. REMARKS. 305 necessary ; for to understand the matter of this book, and to be master of the whole, a man must be able to think justly in every science and art. Very true ! and yet all he has here said of his sciences, is requisite were your English Bible supposed to he the very original. Add therefore to all the requisites here enumerated a sufficient skill in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Now pass your verdict on the man from his own evidence and confession. To understand the Bible, says he, requires all sciences ; and two languages be¬ sides, say I. But it’s plain from his book that he has already condemned the whole Bible for a forgery and imposture. Did he do it without understanding the matter of it ? That’s too scandalous for him to own. We must take it, then, that he professes himself accomplished in all sciences and arts, according to his own rule. .1 < Quid tulit hie tanto dignum promissor hiatu ?* Where has he or any of his sect shewn any tolerable skill in science ? What dark passages of Scripture have they cleared, or of any book whatever ? Nay, to remit to him his sciences and arts, what have they done in the languages, the shell and surface, of Scripture ? A great master of the whole Bible in¬ deed, that can scarce step three lines in the easiest classic author produced by himself without a notorious blunder ! IX. Among the absurdities that follow from not thinking freely , he mentions that of the pagans, who, he says, suppose God to be like an ox, or a cat, or a plant.1 Our author means the Egyptians ; and it’s plain here, from the next clause, that he puts God under the present idea and known attributes of that name, as Christians now conceive it. A rare judge in antiquity, and fit to decide about Scripture ! The matter is no more than this. The Egyptians, who chiefly lived upon [* “ Quid dignum tanto feret hie promissor hiatu ?” Hor. Ar. P. 138. — D.] r Pag. 13. VOL. III. 2 R 306 REMARKS. husbandry, declared by law that all those animals which were useful to agriculture, or destroyers of vermin, should be holy, sacred, and inviolable ; so that it was death to kill any of them, either designedly or by chance.3 These they con¬ sidered as instruments of Divine Providence towards the support of human life ; and without that view they conse¬ crated none.* So that it was only a civil and political wor¬ ship in the legislators, and had very little of sacred even among the vulgar. This is plain from what Diodorus11 says, that they paid the same honours to them when dead as when alive.* But our author’s conception here is really so absurd and so monstrous, that the silliest pagan in all Egypt would have been ashamed of him. For, according to his notion and the present meaning of the word God, they declared it death by law to kill an immortal and omnipotent cat; and decreed divine honours to it after its immortality and deity was dead. When thinking is by longer time come to some perfection in the sect, they will learn, perhaps, that the ob¬ jects of worship in paganism and polytheism had not all the attributes, nay generally not one of them, that we now by advances in science and thought justly ascribe to God ; and they may have the pleasure of insulting several of the clergy that have wrong stated the notion of heathen idolatry. In the mean time I’ll recommend to him one thought, when he’s disposed to think de quolibet ente ; what divine attributes s Herodotus in Euterpe, [c. 65. — D.] * Cicero de Nat. Dear. I. [c. 36. ed. Dav. — D.] AEgyptii nullam belluam, nisi ob aliquam utilitatem quam ex ea caperent, consecraverunt. u Diod. lib. I. [t. i. p. 93. ed. Wessel. — D.] 2ej8 ovtcu cvlol twv Aiyvir- rtoi, . ... ou C divra pivov, aXAa teal re\evT7](TavTa. \* “ II est bien vrai que les autres nations ont accuse les Egyptiens d’avoir ador6 comme dieux les animaux, les plantes, &c. Quand il n’y en aurojf d’autres preuves que la Satire xv. de Juvenal, dans les 10 ou 12 premiers vers, e’en seroit assez pour n’en pouvoir douter. Mais les Egyptiens ne convenoient pas du fait, et leur idee etoit celle qu’exprime ici Mr. Bentley, selon l’ob- servation qu’en a faite J. Ger. Vossius, de Theol. Gentil. et Physiol. Christiana, lib. ix. cap. 14.” Ar. de la Chapelle, La Frip. La'ique, p. 39. — D.] REMARKS. 307 the Egyptians thought of, when they worshipped, as good authors* assure us, crepitum ventris. X. But the most ancient fathers of the church were as bad as his Egyptians ; for they , says he, no less absurdly sup¬ posed God to be material .v And you are to suppose he’s a droll here when he says, no less absurdly ; for, if I wholly mistake not the cabbala of his sect, he himself supposes either God to be material , or not to be at all. With a few of the fathersf the matter stands thus : they believed the attributes of God, his infinite power, wisdom, justice, and goodness, in the same extent as we do ; but his essence, no more than we can now, they could not discover. The Scriptures, they saw, called him spiritus , spirit ; and the human soul anima , breath .- both which in their primitive sense mean aerial matter; and all the words that the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin of old, or any tongue now or hereafter can supply, to denote the substance of God or soul , must either be thus metaphorical, or else merely negative, as incorporeal or im¬ material. This, when he is in a mood for thinking , he will [* “Ces bons auteurs sont des pfires. Minucius Felix, par exemple, qui dit, cap. 28, pag. 167, ed. Cantab. 1707. Iidem JEgyptii . . . non . . . Serapidem magis quam strepitus per pudenda corporis expressos contremiscunt." Ar. de la Cha- pelle, La Frip. La'ique ,‘ p. 40. — See the notes of the commentators on this passage of M. Felix. — D.] v Pag. 13. [The later 8vo ed. of the Discourse, ibid, (see note, p. 291) and the 12mo ed. p. 9, have “some of the most ancient fathers;” and so the French translation, “ quelques-uns,’’ p. 18. — D.] [f “ Je me contenterai d’en citer, pour l’exemple, ce seul passage si beau de St. Theophile d’Antioche, dans son i. livre ad Autolyc. ch. v. ’E pe?s oZv pot' av 6 fi\£iruv, bc^yycra'i pot rb eTSos too 6eou. &Kove, S> dvdpwTre' t b pku eTSos rov 0eov d^r/roy, nal avtKp.a io’Tiu, disoient-ils . Ainsi la voix etoit elle-meme un REMARKS. 309 is, that in these brighter days of knowledge, when matter and motion have been thoroughly considered, and all the powers of mechanism discussed and stated, our author and his sect should still contend, both in discourse and in print, that their souls are material .* This they do with such zeal, as if they should be great gainers by the victory. And, by my consent, let’s close with them upon the debate. Let them put a pre¬ vious question, whether there are in mankind different spe¬ cies of souls ? Let this once pass in the affirmative ; and then- souls shall be allowed as corporeal and brutal as their opinions, writings, and lives seem to represent them. XI. His next effort is a retail of some popish doctrines and rites, infallibility , image-worship , and relics, x which our church and yours have along ago rejected. What’s this then to the purpose ? or what plea to the present free-thinkers in England ? Nay, he owns we are now rid of these absurdities, and by whose labour and cost. They obtained, says he, almost universally, till the thinking of a few, some whereof sacrificed their lives by so doing , gave a new turn to the Christian world J This is manifestly meant of the first re- corps, et par consequent tout ce qui etoit opere par la voix etoit aussi corporel, sans en excepter les syllogismes et les barbarismes. § 59. Menage, dans ses notes sur le chapitre 55, cite divers auteurs qui attribuent aux Stoiciens le sentiment que tout est corporel, en y comprenant Dieu lui-meme. Orig&ne est formel sur ce dernier article, ad Cels. lib. i. p. 17. ed. Cant. 1677. O i pa ehrivres t bv debv 'S.Tai'iKor. sur quoi l’on peut consulter Spencer. Leur sentiment ne differoit done que pour la forme, de celui des Epicuriens, que Lucrece exprime en ces mots, [i.] vers 420 et suivans: Omnis, ut est, igitur, per se natura, duabus Consistit rebus : nam corpora sunt, et inane, &c.” Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 45. — D.] [* “ Ceci regarde singulidrement Jean Toland, grand ami et meme com me le precepteur en Deisme de Mr. Collins. On sait que la 2. de ses Lettres a Serena a pour but d’etablir la materialite de l’ame.” Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 46. — D.] x Pag. 13. y Pag. 14. 310 REMARKS. formers, and particularly those of England, who for freedom of thinking laid down their lives ; Atque animas pulchra pro libertate dederunt .* ’Twas by the price and purchase of their blood that this author and his sect have at this day, not only the liberty, but the power, means, and method of thinking ; for, together with religion, all arts and sciences then raised up their heads, and both were brought about by the same persons. And yet this very honest and grateful sect involves those very priests, to whom they are indebted for all things, in the common crime with those that murdered them ; nay, with Talapoins, Bonzes, Pawawers, and who not ; For priests of all religions are the same .+ But some of the fathers again displease him ; for they were too severe and rigorous for men of his genius ; they disallowed2 self-defence, % second marriages, § and usury. || An error sure on the right hand, which shews they had not the priestcraft of Pope Pius the Fifth.8 And yet here, with [* Is this line formed for the occasion ? See Virg. JEn. vi. 822, — D.] [f Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel, part i. 99. — D.] z Pag. 14. [J “ Grotius a rassemble quelques-uns des passages des peres qui condam- nent la defense de soi-meme. Dr. de la G. et de la Paix, liv. i. ch. 3. On y trouve St. Ambroise, St. Augustin, et St. Basile.” Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 49. — D.] [§ “ Voyez parmi les canons attribues aux apotres, celui qui est le xii. des Grecs, ou le xvii. des Latins, et la note de Cotelier D-dessus.” Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 49. — D.] [|| “ Gratien, dans son Decret, caus. xiv. quest. 3. et 4. a recueilli les passages de divers peres ou conciles qui ont interdit l’usure. Voy. aussi Mr. Barbeyrac, dans ses notes sur Grotius du Dr. de la G. et de la Paix, liv. ii. ch. xii. 20.” Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 49. — D.] a Pag. 117. [“ Pope Pius V.” says Collins, (quoting in a note Confes. Cath. de Sancy, liv. i. c. 1.) “confessed this secret of supporting a church, when, upon hearing that the Protestants were in earnest against adultery and fornication, he said, If they will not alloiv of such kind of sport in their religion, it will never be of any long duration.” The 12mo ed. (see note, p. 291) has, “Pope Pius V. shewed that he well understood this secret,” &c. p. 96. The French translation gives, “Le Pape Sixte V fit bien connoitre qu’il n’ignoroit pas,” &c. p. 173. — D.] REMARKS. 311 his usual accuracy, he lays those things wide and in common, which were pressed upon the clergy only,* but in the laity connived at. It is a crime too in the fathers, that antipodes were not sooner demonstrated, nor the earth’s motion about the sun .b Very well; but pray who were the persons that gave new light intof these matters All hearty professors and practisers of religion, and among them several priests. § All these things were discovered and perfected before this new club had its rise ; nor is there the least branch of science that any of their members either invented or improved. XII. But now we have him for ten pages0 together with image and allegory; free-seeing is substituted for fr ee- thinking , and a confession of eye- sight faith for a Christian creed ; and then [* “ II me paroit que ceci ne se peut dire, a toute rigueur, de tous les peres et de tous les conciles qui interdirent autrefois ces trois choses. Les autorites recueillies par Grotius ubi supr. contre la defense de soi-meme, sont absolues, et regardent en commun tous les Chretiens. Quant aux secondes noces, tout le monde sait que Tertullien les a condamnees, comme autant d’adulteres ; mais comme St. Augustin a rejette cette rigueur sur son Montanisme, il est bon d’observer qu’il y a d’autres peres qui ne se sont pas exprimes avec beaucoup plus de douceur. Je ne citerai qu’Athenagoras Leg. pro Christ, c. 28. p. 130. ed. Ox. 1706. 1) of os r\s P-tvei v, 1) evl yapw, 6 yap Sebrepos evTrpeir-f)s iffri fxoixeia . . Voy. les Comment, in loc. II en est de meme par rapport it l’usure.” Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. La'ique, p. 50. — D.] b Pag. 14. [“ To maintain there were antipodes was heresy ; and Galileus, even in the last age, was imprisoned for asserting the motion of the earth.” — D.] [f into ; ls£ ed. “ in.” — D.] [| “ II y eut autrefois des pliilosophes qui crurent qu’il y a des antipodes, et que la terre tourne autour du soleil. Sur le lr de ces deux articles on peut con- suiter Pline, dans son Hist. Nat. liv. ii. c. 65 ; et quant au 2d on n’ignore pas qu’au rapporte d’Aristote, De Ccelo, lib. ii. c. 13, Pythagore croyoit que notre terre n’est qu’une des planetes qui se meuvent autour du soleil. Mais bien que ces sentiments ne soient pas nouveaux, il n’en est pas moins vrai que les demon¬ strations sont nouvelles.” Ar. de La Chapeele, La Frip. La'ique, p. 51. — D.] [§ “ L’Angleterre seule a fourni un grand nornbre d’ecclesiastiques qui se sont digtingues dans 1’etude de l’astronomie. Parmi ceux-H je ne- saurois presque douter que Mr. Bentley n’ait eu singuli^rement en vue l’illustre Wilkins, mort Eveque de Chester en 1672,” &c. Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 52. — D.] c Pag. 15 to 25. 312 REMARKS. iii a tedious parallel the several juggles of Hocus Pocus make the emblem of priestcraft. Argument in all this you are to expect none, there’s no occasion for that : for illustration, similitude, comparison, especially when turned to ridicule and distorted into farce, do the business much better ; and, as I have been told, work wonders for the growing sect , and make converts to admiration. Suppose, says he, a set of men should fancy it was abso¬ lutely necessary to the peace of society, or to some other great purpose, to hinder and prevent free-seeing , and to im¬ pose a creed, and confession, and standard of eye- sight faith. These men, says he, must either he madmen or designing knaves ; and what methods would they take ? They would draw articles in flat contradiction to plain sight; require subscription, and forbid opposition to them ; explain, para¬ phrase, and comment upon them ; settle pensions and salaries for those that preach and propagate them ; traduce, punish, and persecute to the utmost all that disagree to them. Now under this image you are to understand Christianity , and all religion whatever ; for our author is playing Hocus Pocus in the very similitude he takes from that juggler, and would slip upon you, as he phrases it, a counter for a groat.* The true meaning of it is this : suppose that religion was first contrived , either by the priesthood for lucre , or by the magistrate for easy government. Why truly, if we suppose it to be a sham, we do suppose it a sham. A wonderful [* “ So that I will suppose among the various and contradictory forms of confession \_of eye-sight faith ] , which men of different whims, or of different interests and designs, will make at different times, one to consist of these follow¬ ing articles : That a hall can go through a table: That two halls may he made out of one little one : That a stone can he made to vanish out of sight : That a knot can be undone with words : That a thread may he burnt to pieces, and made whole with the ashes : That one face may he a hundred or a thousand : And lastly, That a counter may he turned into a groat.” Discourse, p. 17, where a note on these articles refers the reader to “Hocus Pocus Jun. p. 13, 15, 36, 43, 45, 47.” — D.] REMARKS. 313 argument, and a mighty advance. Does he detain us in so many nauseating pages, and all along beg the question ? A most formidable man this for thought and demonstration ! XIII. Well, but he’ll shew instances of religious juggle in the oracular temples or churches of the pagans. d Pray mind the emphatic words, or churches, and admire the author’s pene¬ tration and discretion. For without that prudent explication, temples perhaps in your language might have been misunder¬ stood, and mistaken for inns of court. These temples, he says, were contrived with many caverns and holes to produce fearful noises, and furnished with machines for the priests to act their parts in. And pray who taught him all this ? is it not chiefly, and almost solely, to be learnt from the Christian fathers ? Does not he own that the Christians, as well as Epicureans, were chased away by those priests, before they would pronounce any oracles ?e And yet thorough this whole book, by a worse trick than Hocus Pocus,* the Christians are charged with the very frauds that they either only or chiefly have discovered. But now for af specimen of his learning again, which he sprinkles by the way. It was universally believed, says he, among ordinary people, that the gods themselves came down from heaven, and eat of the repasts which the priests prepared for them at the people’ s expense :f and again in the next page, d Pag. 19. [The later editions of the Discourse in English (see note, p. 291) shew no alteration in this passage. The French translation has “ les temples consacres a ces oracles etoient batis,” &c. p. 28, without a corresponding word to “ churches.” — D.] c Pag. 20. He had it out of Lucian’s Alexander. vE£a> 'Eiuuovpeioi, Xpurnavol. [Opp. t. ii. p. 245. ed. Hemst. — D.] [* See note, p. 312. — D.] [f now for a j ls£ ed. “ now a.” — D.] f Pag. 19. [In the 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291), immediately before this passage we find the following addition: “ In some places the priests made the people believe they saw heaven just over their heads; and that when it rained hard, the gods opened the windows of heaven, and poured the rain down upon ‘ 2 s VOL. III. 314 REMARKS. that the gods came down to eat upon earth. Now did not I guess right that, for all his fine panegyric upon the Ilias of Homer, & he was little or not at all acquainted with that poem ? For if he were, he would have learnt from thence, that in the heathen notion the gods could not eat upon earth, nor devour human repasts : Ov yap ctltov eSova , ov ttivovg’ a'c^oira olvov, Tovvetc dvaipoves elcn, Kal addvaroi KaXiovrai .h Whence, therefore, had our learned author this bold assertion of universal belief? Even from Bel and the Dragon :* and what his mother once taught him there, he ascribes to paganism in common. The real matter is no more than this : when a heathen priest slew a victim, he had no more of it for his share than law and custom allowed ; scarce worth the labour of butchering : the entrails and most useless parts were burnt on the altar ; and the best of the victim was car¬ ried home to the sacrificed house, to be feasted on by his family and friends ; and if the priest was invited too as a guest, it was a work of supererogation. Nor did the most credulous believe that gods came down and devoured flesh ; nor was any such repast set apart for them. If any victuals was so set, either in temples or the open streets, it was w'ell known that the sweepers of the fanes got the first, and the poor of the town the latter. All they believed in relation to the gods, besides the piety and the prayers, was only, that the steam of the burnt sacrifice ascended up to heaven, and delighted, or, if you will, fed the gods. This Homer would have told him too, that libation and steam weref the only share the gods had in any offering : them; and that the smoke of burnt sacrifices ascended thither, fed the gods, and ivas a sweet savour in their nostrils. In other places, agreeably to the same supposition of the nearness of heaven, they persuaded them that the gods themselves came down,” &c. p. 14. And so the French translation, p. 29. — D.] s Pag. 9. h Iliad, e. v. 341. [* “ About all these matters the people were to have a faith, which free- seeing would have destroyed ; and that would have rendered the priests as con¬ temptible as Daniel did the priests of Bel,” &c. Discourse, p. 20. — D.] [f were; ls< ed. “ was.” — D.] REMARKS. 315 Aoiftrjs re tcvtcrcrys re, to ycip Xd^ogev yepas rjpets.1 Whence Aristophanes, in his play called The Birds, makes a city to be built in the air, on purpose to stop all intercourse between heaven and earth, that no smoke from sacrifices should ascend to the gods ; and presently Prometheus is in¬ troduced bringing the news, that the gods were almost starved, having not had one particle of steam since Nephelococcygia was built. 7Tis true, indeed, there was another notion, that the gods often came down from heaven in human shape,! to inquire into the actions of men ; and so, like strangers and pilgrims, were unawares entertained, and (seemingly) eat and drank with their hosts. But this is nothing to the priests, nor to the assertion of the author ; who no doubt will anon be found a most subtle interpreter of Solomon and the prophets, after he has been so miserably imposed on by that silly and spurious book, Bel and the Dragon. XIV. After a few threadbare narratives about the Armenian, Greek, and popish priests, the miraculous flame at Jerusalem, and the melting blood at Naples, he has his fling at us Lutherans. The Lutheran priests, says he, contrary to the testimony of men’s senses, make their followers believe that the body and blood of Christ are superadded to the bread and wine :k which he parallels with an old story as lewd as it is vulgar. Now, though I am move concerned in this remark than many others, for the particular honour of our church, I design not to launch out in a vindication of our doctrine, which this scribbler understands no more than he did that of 1 Iliad. 5. v. 19. 1 Odyss. p. v. 485. k Pag. 25. [In the 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291), Collins has added, “ Nor are those priests who pretend that men eat and drink the body and blood of Christ verily and indeed by faith in the Lord's supper, less absurd or less guilty of imposing on the senses of the people.” p. 19. The same addition is found in the French translation, where the latter part of the passage quoted by Bentley is rendered, “que le corps et le sang de Christ sont caches sous le pain et le vin.” p. 38. — D.] 316 REMARKS. the Egyptians.* You know something of the university of Leipsic ; we are reputed the greatest latitudinarians and free-thinkers of our sect, not near so stiff and rigid as those of Wittenberg or Jene ; and yet I5 11 tell this author, if he had published his wretched libel with us, without any instigation from the priests, the magistrate would soon have taken care of him, either in a prison or a dark room. What his re¬ ception will be in England, I pretend not to guess. You have a glorious liberty there, the parent of many noble books, which under a less freedom of thought would never have been wrote. And it’s that novelty of notions that makes the product of the English press so inquired after here. But I fear the outrageous license of this author and others of his stamp will in time have an unexpected effect, and oblige your government to abridge all of that good freedom which these have so much abused. And then we foreigners of curiosity, when we shall see nothing come from Britain but stanch and staple postils, must curse the impious memory of this writer and his whole tribe. XV. Tantamne rem tam negligenter ? The question he pro¬ poses to consider is no less than this, Whether the Christian religion is founded on divine revelation ? 1 This he resolves to examine and determine by himself. And we may easily fore¬ see what the sentence will be under so ignorant and corrupt a judge. Nay, his book sufficiently shews he has given his verdict already,, and resolved that darkness is brighter and more desirable than light. Let us bestow a few reflections on his conduct ; for, for all his noise about speculation in general , this question is the whole affair and business, the whole compass anfl sphere of modern free-thinking. What in common life would denote a man rash, fool¬ hardy, hair-brained, opiniatre, crazed, is recommended in this scheme as the true method in specidation. Are you dangerously sick ? you will call an able physician. Is your [* See p. 305. — D.] 1 Pag. 26. REMARKS. 317 estate threatened and attacked ? you’ll consult the best law¬ yer. But have you an affair upon your hands, wherein your very soul and being and all eternity lie at stake ? ( — Neque enim . . . ludicra petuntur Prcemia *) why there you are to seek no help, but confide in your own abilities. That is, if you have a very deep and broad river to pass, scorn to ask for cork or bladders ; flounce in and hazard all, though you have never learnt to swim. This rational author (p. 107) puts the same objection to himself : and he notably answers it thus ; A man , says he, of no profession may have as much law, physic, and divinity as any sergeant or doctor of them all : and then with a Quaker’s story out of his friend Mr. Le Clerc, he declares that to be a happy country, a very paradise, where none of those three professions is admitted. t And who doubts but in this reply there’s as much sense as good manners ? But for all this author’s great skill in physic and law, he’ll hardly make himself sick on purpose, or bring on a trial against his own estate, to shew his great abilities. Why then will he needlessly and voluntarily run a risk for his soul and salvation ? and fool-hardily put his head under a weight that may crush him to death ? The strange difference in this conduct, when examined to the bottom, will open the whole mystery of free-thinking and atheism. ’Tis plain, a man that is born in a Christian country, if he is a just and good man, has no interest to wish that religion false. The moral precepts fall in with his own opinion and choice ; no restraints are laid upon him but what out of paternal affection he wonld forbid his own son. No foreign religion, much less the atheistic scheme, threaten him with [* Virg. Mn. xii. 764. — D.] [■j- “ And this puts me in mind of a passage of Mr. Le Clerc’s late Biblio- thdque Choisie, tom. 25, p. 130. A gentleman asked a proprietor of New Jersey in America (where there are few inhabitants besides Quakers), whether they had any lawyers among them ? then, whether they had any physicians ? and lastly, whether they had any priests? To all which the proprietor answered in order, no. O happy country ! replies the gentleman, that must be a paradise.” Discourse, p. 108. — D.] 318 REMARKS. any danger, should he be here in an error. He’s as safe as those that differ from him, were he really in the wrong. But then if it be true, what glorious promises and rewards ! not superior only to other schemes, but beyond all human wishes. The speculative doctrines in it (which affect the main chance) are very few and easy. If his education has enabled him for’t, he’ll examine them and the whole grounds of faith, and find them true to his satisfaction and comfort. If he’s en¬ gaged in active and busy life, he will acquiesce in the judg¬ ments of those who have better means and leisure to know them. Thus it is, will be, and must be, while men lead such virtuous lives as entitle them to the promises of religion. And were there not equal threats in it on the other hand, were it all heaven without any hell, there would not he one atheist, unless crack-brained , in Christendom. I positively affirm, that no man in his senses, educated in our holy religion, ever did or could fall from it to atheism, till, by considering his own actions and designs, he despaired of the promises of Christianity, and looked upon it with fear and terror. In that case indeed, and in that alone, out of uneasiness of mind, they wish all religion was false ; and that’s the original of modern free-thinking . Then they ransack all im¬ pious books for objections against it; they are biased in their favour ; a single ounce in that scale buoys up a hundred in the other. Pagans, Mahometans, Pawawers, and Talapoins, are all good vouchers against Christianity. All that’s said by Christians (and who else must speak for them) is suspected for craft and design. And the very ignorance of these free¬ thinkers does them more service than knowledge. For wrho can deal with an ignoramus, that is wai*pt by his inclination, fixt there by his conceitedness, jealous of all contrary in¬ struction, and uncapable of seeing the force of it ? That this is the very case of our author and those of his club, is pretty notorious. Inquire closely into their lives, and there you will find the true reason why they clamour REMARKS. 319 against religion. For, when they have settled themselves in atheism, they are then elevated with joy and mirth, as if they had obtained a great conquest. Now this is wholly un¬ natural, unless religion is viewed by them as the greatest of terrors. What ! rejoice that we have lost immortality, and must die like the beasts ? Utterly impossible ! all the springs of human passions resist and refute it. Misery at that rate may excite laughter, and prosperity tears ; indignation may raise love, and complacency revenge. But if once heaven is desponded of, and hell opens its horrible mouth, then indeed mountains are desired to cover us, and the thoughts of destruction or annihilation may really produce joy. This, I say again, is the true origin of free-thinking , and not the force of any objections against the truth of Christi¬ anity : and, as a proof, I appeal to this very book. For no tloubt the writer has couched in it the strongest objections he was master of. And yet those are so old and stale, that if they could have any operation, Christianity would have been extinct above a thousand years ago. Well ! hut they had influence upon him, and would have so upon others, if fear and force were removed, and men left at free liberty. So far from that ; so far is our author from seeing deeper into those objections than others before him, that, as- I’ll presently prove, he understands not the mere grammatical sense, much less the application and import of any old passage he cites. XVI. It’s the great benefit, says he, oi free- thinking , that the supposed power of the devil in possessions and witchcraft has visibly declined in England since a liberty to think freely has been given and taken there .m A quaint conceit indeed, and very far-fetched. So that you in Great Britain owe it to this rising sect, that you have not so many prosecutions oi witches as formerly. This is Thraso again exactly : m pa'30. — See the passage given in the words of Collins, note, p. 302. -D.] 320 REMARKS. Lahore alieno magno partam gloriam Verbis in sese transmovet, qui habet salem.* I do not think any English priest will or need affirm in general, that there are now no real instances of sorcery or witchcraft ; especially while you have a public law, which they neither enacted nor procured, declaring those practices to he felony. But I must needs say, that while I sojourned among you, I observed fewer of the clergy give in to par¬ ticular stories of that kind than of the commonalty or gentry.t In the dark times before the Reformation (not because they were popish, but because unlearned), any ex¬ traordinary disease attended with odd symptoms, strange ravings or convulsions, absurd eating or egestion, was out of ignorance of natural powers ascribed to diabolical. This superstition was universal, from the cottages to the very courts : nor was it ingrafted by priestcraft, but is implanted in human nature : no nation is exempted from it ; not our author’s paradise of New Jersey, J where no priests have yet footing : if § the next ages become unlearned, that super¬ stition will, I will not say return, but spring up anew. What then has lessened in England your stories of sorceries ? Not the growing sect , but the growth of philosophy and medicine. No thanks to atheists, but to the Royal Society and College of Physicians, to the Boyles and Newtons, the Sydenhams and Ratcliffs. When the people saw the diseases they had imputed to witchcraft quite cured by a course of physic, they too were cured of their former error : they learned truth by the event , not by a false position a priori , that there was [* Ter. Eun. iii. 1, 9. Vulgo “ Verbis scepe in se tr.” — D.] [f In the 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) is the following additional note : “ I desire I may not be so far mistaken in what I here say, as to he supposed to charge either the clergy of England in gsneral, or even the reverend actors and under-actors at the late Hertford trial, with the belief of sorcery or witchcraft. On the contrary, I agree with Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, one of my answerers, who says that fewer of the clergy (in conversation with one another) give in to particular stories of that land than of the commonalty or gentry.” p. 24. The same note is found in the French translation, p. 49.— D.] [t See note, p. 317.— D.] [§ if; 1st ed. “and if.”— D.] REMARKS. 321 neither witch, devil, nor God. And then as to the frauds and impostures in this way, they have most of them been detected by the clergy, whom our writer here wickedly libels as complices and parties in them. The two strongest books I have read on this subject were both written by priests : the one by Dr. Becker in Holland,* and the other by a doctor of your own, whose name Fve forgot, that was afterwards Archbishop of York.t XVII. We are now come to his IId section, where he brings several arguments to prove the duty and necessity of free- thinking upon religious questions. Now take free-thinking in that open sense that himself takes it in when he ascribes it to Chillingworth, Taylor, and Tillotson, and you may grant all his arguments, and yet quite disappoint him. But if you take it in that interior meaning that the members of his club do, as a modish and decent word for atheism , then all his arguments are mere trumpery; and his consequences from them are as short as his occasional learning in them is shallow. One of his capital arguments is from the evil o/’super- [* De Betover Wereld, 1691-1693, by Balthasar Bekker ; of which there is a French translation, Le Monde Enchante, and an English one, The World Bewitched. — D.] [f Samuel Harsnet, successively Bishop of Chichester and Norwich, was translated to the archbishopric of York in 1628. He wrote the two following works ; to the first of which, I presume, Bentley alludes. A Discovery of the Fravdulent practises of John Darrel Bacheler of Artes, in his proceedings concerning The Pretended Possession and dispossession of William Somers at Nottingham: of Thomas Darling, the boy of Burton at Caldwall : and of Katherine Wright at Mansfield, and Whittington: and of his dealings with one Mary Couper at Nottingham, delecting in some sort the deceitfull trade in these latter dayes of casting out Deuils. 1599, 4to. A Declaration of egregious Popish Impostures, to with-draw the harts of her Male sties Subiects from their allegeance, and from the truth of Christian Religion professed in England, vnder the pretence of casting out deuils. Practised by Edmvnds, alias Weston a Jesuit, and diuers Romish Priests his wicked associates. Wherevnto are annexed the Copies of the Confessions, and Examinations of the parties themselues, which were pretended to be possessed, and dispossessed, taken vpon oath before her Maiesties Commissioners, for causes Ecclesiastical l. 1603, 4to. — D.] VOL. III. 2 T 322 REMARKS. stition;11 which terrible evil and great vice can never be avoided but by turning free-thinker ; that is (in plainer English) abandoning all religion. Strange ! that superstition and religion , which have been distinguished and divided this two thousand years,* should yet stick so fast together that our author cannot separate them : so that to ease himself of the one, he must abdicate both. His dismal description of it is in the words of Cicero, which chiefly relate to little bigotries in civil life, not to fabulous conceptions about the Supreme Being. And his inference from thence is exactly as if I should now say to you : Sir, you must renounce your baptism and faith, or else you can never be rid of those terrible super¬ stitions about the death-watch , thirteen at one table , spilling of salt , and Childermas- day. XVIII. But you’ll know the man better, as alsof his great reading and penetration, when you see how he manages and trans¬ lates that passage of Cicero : I’ll give you it here both in the original and our author’s version. Instat enim (superstitio) et urget, et quo te cumque ver- teris, persequitur : sive tu vatem, sive tu omen audieris ; sive ” Pag. 33. [* “ Ceci regarde les Caracttres de Theophraste. Mr. de la Bruyere re- marque, dans son Discours sur ce philosophe, page 23, edit. d’Amst. 1731, que ‘ce livre a pu etre ecrit la derni£re annee de la 115 olympiade, trois-cens qua- torze ans avant l’ere Chretienne, et qu’ainsi il y a deux-mille ans accomplis.’ Dans Particle 16 de ses Caracteres, Theophraste definit la superstition, en disant : 'ApeA et 7) 8eurida.iiJ.ovla 86%eiev efoai deiA'ia it pbs rb daipSviov . Theophraste n’est pas le seul payen qui l’ait dit et reconnu. Isaac Casaubon, dans ses notes sur cet endroit, cite Varron et Sen&que, qui s’en sont exprimes aussi claircment qu’aucun Chretien le put faire. Le premier, cite par St. Augustin, a dit, Deum a religioso vereri, a superstitioso timeri ; et l’autre ajoute, Religio deos colit, superstitio violat. Casauhon cite aussi Maxime de Tyr, qui dit, dans son 4 Discours, 6 pev evaeffis cplAos 6e$, 6 de deundaipwv u6Aa£ [fleoD] .... . ... II me seroit aise de multiplier ces temoignages ; et si je l’entreprenois, je n’oublierois pas la reflexion par laquelle Plutarque commence son traite de la Superstition ; c’est que I’ignorance de Dieu jette les hommes, selon leurs dispositions, dans Vatheisme, ou dans la superstition.’1' Ar. de La Chapelt, e, La Frip. La’ique, p. 86. — D.] [f as also: notin 1st ed. — D.] REMARKS. 323 immolaris, sive avem aspexeris ; si Chaldaeum, si haruspicem videris; si fulserit, si tonuerit; si tactum aliquid erit de coelo ; si ostenti simile natum factumve quippiani : quorum necesse est plerumque aliquid eveniat; ut numquam liceat quieta mente consistere. Perfugium yidetur omnium laborum et sollicitudinum esse somnus : at ex eo ipso plurimse curse metusque nascuntur. Cic. de Div. II. 7'2. If you give way to superstition, it will ever haunt and plague you. If you go to a prophet, or regard omens ; if you sacrifice, or observe the flight of birds ; if you consult an astrologer or haruspex ; if it thunders or lightens, or any place is consumed with lightning, or such-like prodigy happens {as it is necessary some such often should), all the tranquillity of the mind is destroyed. And sleep itself, which seems to be an asylum and refuge from all trouble and uneasiness, does, by the aid of superstition, increase your troubles and fears.0 Now if it shall appear that our author has misconstrued almost every part and comma of this passage ; that he has made the first parts contradict the last, and so has put his own nonsense upon the great original ; that he has weakened his own design, and made the place speak with less strength against superstition than it really does ; what apprehensions are we to have of so formidable a writer ? The whole tour of the passage is this : a man given- •to superstition can have no security, day or night, waking or sleeping; for occasions of it will force themselves upon him, against his will, do what he can to prevent them : and so all the particulars here specified are involuntary and unsought. Sive tu vatem, sive tu omen audieris : if you go to a prophet, says our translator, or regard omens. Pray, where’s the Latin to answer go and regard? or where is common sense, thus plainly to beg the question ? For if one 0 Pag. 35. — [The 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) exhibits the following alterations in the version of this passage. “ If you hear a prophet or an ominous word .... if you see an astrologer .... or any place is blasted with lightning, or any thing like a prodigy happens (of which some or other must often happen).'' p. 28. And so nearly the French translation, p. 55. — D.] 324 REMARKS. goes upon superstitious errands, no doubt he’s troubled with superstition. The true sense is this: If you hear a lunatic or frantic in the streets foretelling some mischiefs ; if a word is spoken accidentally in your hearing , which may be interpreted ominous. The vates or divini were mad-fellows bawling in the streets and roads ; and their predictions might be con¬ temned, but must necessarily be heard if you came that way. Sive immolaris, sive avem aspexeris : a man was obliged often to sacrifice , even by his office ? and birds must needs be seen, if one stept but out of Rome. These occurrences, there¬ fore, were unavoidable, and so Cicero meant them. Si Chal- deeum, si haruspicem videris ; if you ■ see them ; and that could not be prevented, all public places being haunted with them. But what does our translator make of these ? If you sacrifice, says he, or observe the flight of birds ; if you consult an astrologer or haruspex. Pure nonsense again, and point blank against Cicero’s meaning : one makes that done by design, which* the other makes by accident. If by accident, then it’s true that superstition instat et urget, haunts and plagues one, and there’s no escaping it : but if by design, ’tis labouring in a fairy circle ; ’tis begging and supposing the thing in debate. To pass in silence his false version of de ccelo tactum , consumed with lightning, instead of blasted ; the next instance of his dulness surpasses all belief. Si ostenti simile natum factumve quippiam ; that is, if any monster is born, or some¬ thing like a prodigy happens ; as, raining of blood or wheat, or the like. You see Cicero says ostenti simile, like a prodigy ; for his part in that discourse was to deny there were trite prodigies. A monster writh two heads was no prodigy, but was occasioned by natural causes : the blood or wheat was either a mistake, or was carried up by a whirl¬ wind. But behold now how our translator has managed it : if any such-like prodigy happens. This version, I am sure, is a greater prodigy than any of them all. What, ostenti simile, a such-like prodigy ? ’Tis manifest by his construction [* which ; 1st ed. “what.” — D.] REMARKS. 325 v he joined them in the same case, as adjective and substantive. Stupidity incredible ! I’ll leave every man to his own asto¬ nishment, and say no more of the matter. I’ll only ask him, not where his grammar , but where his brains were, when, by owning and confessing such-like prodigies , he frustrated both Cicero’s and his own argument ? To go on once more: quorum necesse est plerumque ali- quid eveniat ; that is, of which things (all that were enume¬ rated before) some or other must frequently happen. Ob¬ serve that must, necesse est, must happen of necessity. And now you see, what I said before, that our translator has made the first parts of the passage contradict the last. If he had had* the least grain of sagacity, this last comma might have guided him to the true meaning of the former ; that the instances must all be accidental, and not voluntary and with design. Take the several instances reckoned up, and it’s hardly possible to pass one day in common life but some objects of superstition will necessarily present themselves : but is it necessary to go to prophets, to regard omens, to observe birds, to consult astrologers ? Surely these four verbs have the signification of choice, not of necessity. And now, gen¬ tlemen of the English clergy, what think you of your free¬ thinker ? Did I not promise for him that he would manage his old passages with great ability and dexterity ? Dixin’ ego in hoc esse vobis Atticam elegantiam ?\ XIX. He’s so pleased with this subject of superstition , that he holds us in it still with two most common citations ; for what can there be that is not so in Horace and Virgil ? Horace, it seems, despises dreams, witches, spectres, and prodigies ; and Virgil goes something further. And what then ? Both these were bred young in the Epicurean school, and so speak here the language of their sect. They prove nothing, they [* If he had had ; Is< ed. “ And if he’d had.” — D.] [f Ter. Eun. v. 9. 63.— D.] 326 REMARKS. only affirm. And so the argument is no more than this 5 miracles, religion, the pains of hell, are false, because Epi¬ curus’s doctrine was against them. A notable proof indeed, were the passages never so well handled ; but, as ill luck and worse ignorance would have it, he has maimed and murdered them both. Take that of Horace, with the author’s version : Somnia, terrores magicos, miracula, sagas , Nocturnos lemures, portentaque Thessala rides ?* Are you so much above superstition, as to laugh at all dreams, panic fears , miracles, witches, ghosts, and prodigies ? Magicos terrores, panic fears in the translation ; so very unhappily, that both the words are wrong. For terrores are not fears here, the internal passion of the mind ; but external terrors, the tricks and artifices of wizards to fright, scare, and terrify. And then by substituting panic for magic, he has just served Horace as he did Cicero, and made him talk complete nonsense. A general fright falling upon an army or city, as if the enemy was at the camp or the gates, when the alarm was found to be false and groundless, the Greeks called a panic ; as if the god Pan was the author of it. Now it’s plain that these frights (when there’s probability in the alarm, and the enemy lies within due distance) can never be known to be panic and vain till the business is over. In the mean timewise and foolish are both under the panic: (fievy ovtl koI 7raiSevov SvffKoXiuv Xvo’eis leal airaWayat • aAA a /cat trepl rrjs reAevrris tjSLovs ex*w ras iAnlSas us &p.ei vov 8id£ovras, /cat owe eV ct/cotijd re /cat fiopfiigu Keiaop-evovs, & Sr) tovs dfj.vr)rovs a vapeveiv. — D.] REMARKS. 331 as the happiest of men both alive and dead;, makes answer, that he had rather alive be a poor day-labourer to the meanest peasant than be emperor of all the dead : * H irdaiv ve/cvecrcri KaTacpdigevoicriv dvdarcreiv.r ’Tis so false, then, what our author lays down here, that the pagan religion gave less uneasiness in life, because they thought they hazarded less after death than we Christians think we do, that it’s certain they thought bad men hazarded as much , and good men obtained infinitely less. XXII. He comes now to a IVth argument for the absolute necessity of free-thinking on religious questions, and that is from the infinite number of pretenders to revelation ;s which he afterwards dully repeats under another head, in the Bramins, Parsees, Bonzes, Talapoins, and Dervizes,* to which he might have added several more. Now here is his perpetual juggle about his term of art, free-thinking . Take it in the common sense, and we agree with him. Think freely on all the various pretences to revelation ; compare the counterfeit scriptures with the true, and see the divine lustre of the one, to which all the others serve as a foil. It was upon this very account that Christians took the pains to translate and publish them ; not to confound religion, but to confirm it. And yet the occult meaning of our author is, from the variety of scriptures to insinuate none is true. An argument as weak as it is stale, and baffled over and over. Could this reasoning have any effect, Christianity had never begun. For besides the true living oracles of the Jews, was not the whole world then full of false ones, written and divulged ? and oracular temples {or churches ,* if he will) then in being to deliver out more ? Even suppose Christianity to be true, yet those impostures must necessarily be, while human nature is what it is : and our Scriptures have foretold 5 Pag. 40. [* See p. 313.— D.] r Oilyss. A. v. 490. 1 Pag. 52. 332 REMARKS. it. Is that, then, a good argument backwards against the truth of any thing, which a priori is plain must happen so, though that thing be allowed to be true ? But a very extraordinary line has slipped from our author here ; If a man , says he, be under any \an\ obligation to listen to any revelation at all. This thought, it seems, was a little too free, and so a dele corrects it in the list of errata .* ’Tis very easy to sift and toss this fine thought, which would afford good diversion ; for besides its own silliness, it contradicts all the rest, and spoils the whole grimace of the book. But we’ll spare it, since the author himself has chastised it ; at the hint (I suppose) of a graver member of the club, wrho was not for discovering the whole farce at once, and shewing the actors to be mere puppets. XXIII. We have heard here of the much-applauded foundation of your Society for propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, which this despicable scribbler, though he owns it is sup¬ ported and encouraged by her most excellent majesty and the chief persons of the kingdom,11 dares openly ridicule. This is much such a saucy and slovenly freedom as the rest of the Greeks laughed at in the islanders of Corfu : ’ E\ev6epa Keptcvpa, yelf ottov Corcyra certe libera est ; ubi vis, caca. [* Hare, in The Clergyman’s Thanks to Phileleutliertis (see note on the Dedi¬ catory Epistle to the second part of these Remarks), has the following ob¬ servation : “ You seem to have mistaken the design of our free-thinkers, when you fancy, by putting the most extraordinary words of their whole book into the errata, they have thereby disowned them : on the contrary, I take it to be their favourite line, and put into the errata because it is so, as the best way to have it seen with the greatest ease and most advantage ; whereas as it stands in the body of the book, a careless reader might either pass it, or not attend to it” p. 32. — But the words in question are struck out from the later 8vo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291), the 12mo ed., and the French translation. — D.] u Pag. 41. [f Ar. de La Chapelle ( La Frip. Laique, p. 121) cites Eustathius on Dionys. Per. v. 494.' — See also Strabo (lib. vii. Epit.), t. i. p. 478, ed. Falc. and Erasmi Adagia, p. 1153. ed. 1606. — D.] REMARKS. 333 For our cleanly author here assumes the like or worse license, to lay his filth and ordure even upon the throne and the altar. We envy not your due liberty , the most valuable blessing of good government; but if such insults even upon majesty itself and all that’s accounted sacred are allowed among you with impunity, it gives no great presage of your lasting prosperity ; - nimia illcec licentia Profecto evadet in aliquod magnum malum.* But to leave unpleasing thoughts, and for once to answer a fool according to his folly. Are the Talapoins of Siam then to be put here upon a level with the whole clergy of England , the light and glory (if they are not changed all on a sudden) of present Christianity ? and this done by a sorry retailer of atheistical scraps, which he understands not three lines of, but at the first offer of a translation betrays his stupidity ? Is he to draw out your divines , whose names we know not here because he has mangled them,f but conclude them to be men of worth and distinction, from the very credit of his abusing them ? If he is once for drawing out , and reviving the old trade of dvS pair 0S0 tcaTrrfkia, selling and exporting of [* Ter. Adelph. iii. 4, 63. — D.] [f The names are given entire in the 12mo ed. of the Discourse, p. 34 (see note, p. 291), and in the French translation, p. 67. — “ Should the King of Siam (or any other infidel prince), in return for the favour of our endeavours to convert him and his kingdom to our religion, desire to send us a parcel of [later 8vo, some of; \1mo, a pack of] his Talapoins (so the priests of Siam are called) to convert us to the religion by law established in Siam, I cannot see but that our Society for propagating the Gospel, and all the contributors and well-wishers to it, must acknowledge the king’s request to be highly reasonable, and perfectly of a piece with their own project [later eds. design] ; and particularly must allow to the King of Siam, that it is as much the duty of the members of the church of England to think freely on what the missionary Talapoins shall propose to them, as it is the duty of the members of the church of Siam to think freely on what shall be proposed by the missionary priests of England : and therefore no doubt all they who sincerely desired the conviction of the Siamese would give their missionaries the same encouragement here which we expect for ours in Siam. The institution, therefore, of this society supposes free-thinking in matters of religion to be the duty of all men on the face 334 REMARKS. men, it may perhaps be found more serviceable to your government to oblige your East India Company to take on board the whole growing sect, and lodge them at Madagascar among their confessed and claimed kindred (since they make themselves but a higher species of brutes), the monkeys and the drills; or to order your new South Sea Company to deliver them to the Spaniards as part of the assiento, to be free-diggers in the mines there; and after a decent time in that purgatory, to convey them to their happy country, their paradise of New Jersey, where neither priest, nor physician , nor lawyer can molest them.v XXIY. Well, but VFy, the gospel itself, and our Saviour and his apostles by their own example, recommend free-thinking . w Grant the scribbler this argument, if free-thinking is taken in its legitimate sense, as Chillingworth, Hooker, and Wil¬ kins made use of that freedom. But if he juggles as usually in the term of art, what greater nonsense, than that Christ and his disciples should recommend atheism ? But our author’s learning is here again admirably displayed. St. Paul, says he, when he went into the synagogues of the Jews, of the earth. And upon that account I cannot sufficiently commend the project [later 8 vo, design]. And oh ! that the proper persons were but employed for the execution of so glorious a design [later eds. work] ! That such zealous - divines as our Sacheverels, our Atterburys, our Smalridges, our Stubs’s, our Higgins’s, our Milburns, and our Swifts, were drawn out annually, as our 'military missionaries are, to be sent into foreign parts to propagate the gospel! (a service in which such conscientious men must rejoice, since preaching the gospel to infidel nations is no doubt contained in Christ’s commission, whatever haranguing upon a text among Christians, falsely called [ later eds. Christians, by some called] preaching the gospel, may be) ; we might then hope to see blessed days, the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England triumph throughout the world, and faction cease at home ; as by the means of the others our arms triumph abroad, and we securely take our rest at night, and travel by day unmolested. And no doubt, likewise, but it would be as beneficial to the king¬ dom of Siam to have a select number annually taken out of their vast body of Talapoins.” Discourse, fyc. p. 42-3. — D.] T Pag. 108. [See p. 317 and note. — D.] W Pag. 44. REMARKS. 335 and reasoned with them,* took a very extraordinary step , as now it would be looked on; and so he compares it to Penn the Quaker going into St. Paul’s, or Mr. Whiston into the House of Convocation, to reason there against the established church. Penn’s name has been long known among us in Germany, and the latter we have lately heard of in the journals and bibliothbques . But how ignorant and stupid is this writer with his foolish comparison ! The fact he speaks of and quotes (Acts, xvii. 2, 3) was done at Thessalonica, a pagan city in Macedonia : and was the Jewish synagogue the established church there ? or rather allowed upon toleration ? But to pardon him this, and suppose the thing done in Judea itself, where our Saviour often did the same, was it any thing like to interrupting divine service , or disturbing the proceed¬ ings of a synod ?t Our author knows not one tittle of the manner and custom of a synagogue. After reading a few * sections out of the Law and the Prophets, the ablest men of the assembly used to stand up and expound the passages read ; and if any stranger or person of note chanced to be there, he was asked by them if he had any discourse to impart to the congregation. This is expressly affirmed by Philo the Jew, and others, and appears clearly from Acts, xiii. 15, where at Antioch in Pisidia, the rulers of the syna¬ gogue seeing Paul and Barnabas strangers there, sent unto [* The 12mo ed. (see note, p. 291) adds — “ and into the market-places at Athens, where he disputed with the devout people he met with.” p. 35. And so the French translation, p. 69. — D.] [f “ For should William Penn the Quaker, or other religious person differing from the established church, come to St. Paul’s during the time of divine service to reason with the court of aldermen, preacher, and singing-men [ the 12 mo adds, or go into the markets of London to dispute with the devout butchers and herb-women] ; or Mr. Whiston into the Lower House of Convocation, to reason with them [12 mo, with the members] ; it is certain, that, pursuant to the false notions which now universally prevail, the one would be treated as a madman and fanatic, and the other as a disturber of the proceedings of the holy synod, which assumes a right to determine without reasoning with the person whose opinions they condemn.” Discourse, p. 45. — The French translation (p. 70) agrees with the 12mo ed. (see note, p. 291) in this passage.— D.] 336 REMARKS. them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. So that if even Penn and Whiston should do no more, but speak when desired by authority, it would be no extraordinary step at all. The only step here that appears very extraordinary is our author’s bold leaping in* the dark, and blundering about matters where he’s quite blind and ignorant. XXV. But he proceeds in his argument from our Saviour’s gospel and example, and declares it impossible that Christ should give so partial a command, as to contain a reserve in behalf of any set of priests, in prejudice of the general rules of free-thinking .x Our author is very oftenf orthodox, when he opposes what nobody affirms, or affirms what nobody opposes. And yet that very orthodoxy is all artifice and craft, to insinuate as if the clergy did really maintain the one, or deny the other. Pray who is it that challenges such a reserve ? He has named a reverend doctor% here of his side : name another, if he can, that’s against him. The thing he seems to contend for is true and allowed him ; but he has given such an awkward reason for it, as would spoil his own inference, if better hands than his did not support it. All the priests upon earth, says he, being (in our Saviour’s life-time) enemies to him and his gospel, and he giving the privilege of infallibility to nobody besides his apostles, he [* in; 1st ed. “into." — D.] * Pag. 46. [j- very often ; 1st ed. “ often very.” — D.] [J “And he commanded his own disciples not to be called rabbi nor masters ; by which last words our learned commentator, the Reverend Dr. Whitby, under¬ stands, that we should call no man guide or master upon earth, no fathers, no church, no council.” Discourse, p. 46. — The words of Whitby on Matt, xxiii. 8, are these : “ That we should call no man guide or master upon earth, no fathers, no church, no councils, so as absolutely to submit ourselves in the concernment of our eternal interests to the conduct of their judgments, or give them dominion over our faith and conscience ; Christ being the sole guide and teacher of his church,” &c. Par. and Com. v. i. p. 200. ed. 1727. — D.j REMARKS. 337 could not be secure that any priests could {would ] ever be otherwise .x Is the stupidity of this greater, or the im¬ piety ? Was not he secure of that, who declared he ivould be with his church to the end of the world , and that the gates of hell should never prevail against it ? But to let this pass (for if I mistake not our authors principles, he had rather be proved an impious or knavish writer ten times than a silly one once), I affirm further, that this assertion of his is abso¬ lute nonsense, though Jesus Christ were supposed to be an impostor. For his argument lies thus : because the Jewish and pagan priests were once enemies to Christ and his gospel, he could not be secure that any of his own priests would ever be otherwise. A most powerful syllogism ! At this rate no sect of philosophy, no heresy, nor false religion, would ever have been set up or thought of. Because all other sects opposed Zeno when he first founded Stoicism, he could not be secure that the Stoics his own followers would ever do otherwise. Because Socinus found all people at first against him and his notions, he could not be secure but that the very Socinians would always be as much against them. Because all priests abhorred Mahomet’s Alcoran when first it was broached, he could not be secure that his own mufties and dervizes would not always abhor it. This, you’ll say, is very strange : but I’ll concede our author one thing, which looks a little parallel to it; that though he’s the chief of the rising and growing sect, and has published their neiv gospel, he cannot be secure that his own fraternity and members of the club may not soon be ashamed both of him and it. XXVI. And now we come to a new argument, from the conduct of the priests ; which by a tedious induction is branched out into ten instances, and takes up half a hundred pages. And what will be the grand result ? x Ibid. — [The 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) has — “ any priests except his own dozen.” p. 36. — D.] VOL. III. 2 x 338 REMARKS. Na iste hercle magnojam conatu magncis nugas dixerit .* The sum of it is no more than this : the priests cannot agree among themselves about several points of doctrine , the attri¬ butes of God, the canon of Scripture, fyc. ; and therefore I’ll be of no religion at all. This threadbare obsolete stuff, the most obvious surmise that any wavering fool catches at when he first warps towards atheism, is dressed up here as if it was some new and formidable business. What great feats can our author now promise himself from this ; which, after it has been tried age after age, never had influence on mankind either in religious concerns or common life ? Till all agree, Til stand neuter. Very well ; and till all the world speaks one language, pray be you mute and say nothing. It were much the wriser way, than to talk as you have done. By this rule, the Roman gentry were to learn no philosophy at all, till the Greeks could unite into one sect; nor make use of any physician, till the Empirics and Methodists concurred in their way of practice. How came Christianity to begin, since the objection now brought to pull it down was as visible and potent then as now ? or how has it subsisted so long, since all the present discord in opinions does not near amount to the sum of what Epiphanius alone collected above a thousand years ago ?t Nay, how came our author’s new sect to be rising and growing, since the atheists are as much at variance among themselves, and can settle [* Ter. Heaut. iv. 1, 8. “Nae ista,” & c. — D.] [f “ Le catalogue des heresies, dresse par St. Epiphane, en contient 80. Encore marque-t-il dans la conclusion de son recueil, qu’il y en avoit ajoute 5, pour faire un nombre egal a celui des concubines dont il est parle dans le Can- tique des Cantiques, vi. 8. Le catalogue de St. Augustin est de 90. Encore ce pere n’assure-t-il pas de n’avoir rien oublie. Qua hareses ortee sint, dit-il, quomodo commemorare omnes potui, qui omnes nosse non potui ? Quod ideo existimo, quia nullus eorum, quorum de haresi scripta legi, omnes posuit. Quandoquidem invent apud alium, quas apud alium non invent, et rursus apud istum, quas ille non posuit. Ego aulem propterea plures quam ipsi posui, quia collegi ex omnibus quas omnes apud singulos non invent, additis etiam his quas ipse recolens apud ullum illorum invenire non potui. Unde merito credo nee me posuisse omnes, quia nec omnes qui de hue re scripserant legere potui, fyc.” Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. La'ique, p. 138. — D.] REMARKS. 339 and centre in nothing ? Or, if they should resolve to con¬ spire in one certain system, they would be atheists indeed still, but they would lose the title of free-thinkers. This is the total of his long induction ; but let us see his conduct in the parts of it. Some fathers thought God to be material; this he has said, and I have answered before in Remark the Xth. Several ancient Christian priests of Egypt ivere so gross as to conceive God to be in the shape of a mans If they did so, they were no more gross than his master Epicurus, who was of the very same opinion. But it’s fatal to our author ever to blunder when he talks of Egypt. These priests of Egypt were all illiterate laymen ; the monks or hermits of those days, that retired into the desert, the fittest place for their stupidity.* But several of your English di¬ vines tax each other with atheism, either positively or conse¬ quently .z Wonderful ! and so because three or four divines in your island are too fierce in their disputes, all we on the great continent must abandon religion. Yes ; but the Bra- mins, the Mahometans , Sec. pretend to scriptures as well as weS This, too, has come once already, and is considered in Remark the XXIId ; but, being so great a piece of news, de¬ served to be told twice. And who, without his telling, would have known that the Romish church received the Apocrypha as canonical ?b Be that as it will, I am sure it is unheard-of news, that your church receives them as half -canonicals- I find no such word in your Articles, nor ever saw a such-like prodigy f before. Half-canonical ? what idea, what sense has it? ’tis exactly the same as half-divine , half -infinite, half- y Pag. 47. [* “ Voyez Socrate, Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. c. 7, oil il dit que ces moines etoient air\oiico\, ISiurat, aypdp.fxct.Toi.” Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. La'ique, p. 141.— D.] 1 Pag. 48. — [“ The Reverend Mr. William Carrol has wrote several hooks to prove the Reverend Dr. Clark and the Reverend Mr. Samuel Bold atheists in that sense. The Reverend Mr. Turner charges the Reverend Dr. Cudworth with atheism for his Intellectual System of the Universe," & c. — D.] R Pag. 52. b Pag. 53. c Ibid. [f See p. 324. — D.j 340 REMARKS. omnipotent. But away with his Apocrypha ; he’ll like it the worse while he lives, for the sake of Bel and the Dragon .* XXVII. But now to make room for his learning again : for the rabbis, says he, among the Samaritans, who now live at Sichem in Palestine, receive the five books of Moses for their Scripture, the copy whereof is very different from ours.A What shall I admire most, his ignorance or his impudence ? Why the rabbis at Sichem, exclusive and by way of dis¬ tinction ? Does not the whole Samaritan nation receive the Pentateuch as well as their rabbis? ’Tis just as if he had said, among the English the reverend divines receive the Bible. But is not their copy of the five books of Moses very different from ours ? No question he has often affirmed this with great sufficiency at his club, though he does not know one letter of the language. The Samaritan Pentateuch has now been printed above half a century; and the various readings wherein it differs from the Jewish have been twice collected and published, even to the minutest letter ; first by Morinus at Paris, t and afterwards anew by your Walton at London, X both of them priests. I have pe¬ rused those various lections ; and do affirm here on my own knowledge, that those two copies differ no more from each other than the same book (Terence, Tully, Ovid, or the like) differs from itself in the several manuscripts that I myself have examined. So that it’s a plain demonstration that the copies were originally the same ; nor can better evidence be desired, that the Jewish Bibles have not been corrupted or interpolated, than this very book of the Samaritans, which, [* See p. 314.— D.] d Ibid. — [In the 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291), the words, “ who now live at Sichem in Palestine,” are omitted, p. 42 ; and so in the French translation, p. 82. — D.] [f In the Paris Polyglot, 1645. — D.] [J In the London Polyglot, 1657. — D.] REMARKS. 341 after above 2000 years’ discord between the two nations, varies as little from the other as any classic author in less tract of time has disagreed from itself, by the unavoidable slips and mistakes of so many transcribers. And now does not our author come off victoriously with his rabbis of Sichem ? Well, but the Samaritans have a chronicon , or history of themselves from Moses’s time, which is lodged in the public library at Leyden, and has never been printed ; and this is quite different from that contained in the historical books of the Old Testaments Here’s now a sly insinuation of some great discoveries to be made out of this book ; and yet the mighty matter is no more than this : Joseph Scaliger above a hundred years ago procured this book from Sichem, and left it among others by his will to the library at Leyden. There it’s name has long appeared in the printed catalogue ; it has been transcribed more than once ; and one copy, formerly Professor Golius’s, has fallen into the hands of my learned friend Mr. Reland at Utrecht ; whereof take his own account.* ;Tis called The Book of Joshua, but its author is not named : ’tis written in Arabic ; since Mahomet’s time most certainly, but how much since is not known : it pre¬ tends to be a translation from the Hebrew, but it’s only its own voucher, there being no fame now remaining of any such original. It consists of about l. chapters ; xxxix. of which make the sole story of Joshua; six chapters more reach as low as Nebuchadnezzar; the very next comes to Alexander the Great, and his travels thorow the air; the next makes a long stride to the Emperor Hadrian ; and two more to the time of Alexander Severus. This is the noble chronicle that our judicious free-thinker would place above the Bible, when the very Sichemites do not place it so high as his own jargon half-canonical. ’Tis pity a man of so fine a taste, and the Maecenas of the new club (since he hints r- Pag. 53. [# “ Reland. Dissertat. t. ii. ou vii. Piss. de Samarit. p. 14." Ar. de La Chai'ELLE, La Frip. Ldique, p. 146. — P.] 342 REMARKS. with such concern that it is not yet published ), should not be obliged at his own charge to get it translated and printed. XXVIII. The very view of the following pages fills me with dis¬ dain, to see such common stuff brought in with an air of importance. Hebrew and Septuagint ; Gospels according to the Hebrews and Egyptians ; the Traditions of Matthias, and the Secrets of Peter ; Apostolic Constitutions, and Gospel of Janies ; and the different notions of priests concerning in¬ spiration. f And w7hat of all these, or half a hundred more, that my learned and Lutheran friend Dr. Fabricius* has amassed together ? Has our author a mind to read and think of them ? Think freely and welcome ; for I suppose that was the design my friend had in the publication. Or is he rather at his old play, that he’ll regard no Scripture at all till all Christians among themselves, and Talapoins with them, can agree ? Jubeas stultum esse libenter :f let him have license to play the fool, since he answers his own argu¬ ment in the very words where he puts it. For all, says he, who build their religion on books, must from the nature of things vary about the books themselves, their copies, and their inspiration .£ Here’s now both the poison and the antidote in one. For if it’s necessary from the nature of things that men shall so differ in their opinions, that difference is no { Pag. 54. [* “ Le savant et l’infatigable Mr. Jean- Albert Fabricius fit imprinter en 1703, a Hambourg, le Code Apocryphe du N. Testament, en 2 tomes, auxquels il en ajouta un troisieme en 1719,aussi gros que les 2 precedens ensemble. C’est un recueil de toutes les pieces supposees que Ton a attributes ou a J. C., ou a ses ennemis contemporains, ou aux apotres, ou aux hommes qui vecurent avec les apotres. Dans les 2 premiers tomes il y a plus de cinquante titres princi- paux; et dans le troisieme il s’en trouve pres d’une trentaine. Ajoutez a cela le Spicilegium de Grabe, en 2 vol. Oxf. 1698, qui est a peu pres dans le meme gout; et l’on verra que Mr. Collins n’avoit pas grandes recherches a faire pour citer quatre ou cinq apocryphes.” Ak. de La Chafelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 148.— D.] [f Hor. Sal. 1. 1. 63. “Jubeas miserum,” & c. — D.] s Pag. 56. REMARKS. 343 argument backwards to prove tlie falseness of all those books. Unless the man will prove a 'priori , that revelation ought not, cannot be communicated and conveyed to us in books. Which when he performs, or finds out a better method, it shall be allowed to be the first instance of science or art that the growing sect has invented. XXIX. But notwithstanding he has fore-answered from the na¬ ture of things all that he can say about different interpre¬ tations , yet he proceeds in xx. tedious pages to enumerate those differences, which he ranges under xn. heads, and before them puts a long preamble out of your learned Bishop Taylor.* That prelate, it seems, has with great acuteness and eloquence displayed the difficulties in acquiring a full and perfect knowledge of all the abstruse places of Scripture ; affirming at the same time, that all the necessaries to sal¬ vation and moral duties are delivered there most clearly and openly. Well, and what does our wise author gain from the bishop’s confession ? Has not he himself gone a great deal further, and made all the sciences and arts , every ima¬ ginable part of knowledge, to be requisite towards having a just notion of that miscellaneous book, the Bible If it be so, what wonder is it (nay what miracle were it otherwise) that, in an allowed freedom of thinking and printing, your English divines should have different opinions ? nay that the self¬ same man by advances in age, and by progress in study, should differ from himself ? I have run over the citations here out of Taylor, and find scarce one of those difficulties so peculiar to Scripture as not to be common to other authors : to know which with exactness, as becomes every writer (especially a declared adversary to a whole order professing [* Collins quotes from the 3d and 4th sections of The Liberty of Prophesy¬ ing, in Taylor’s collection of Polemical Discourses, ed. 1674, pp. 965, 966, 967, 969, 970, 972, 973, 974.— D.] h Pag. 11. — [See Remark viii. p. 304. — D.] 344 REMARKS. learning), is no easy and perfunctory matter, as our author to his shame and sorrow may hereafter find and feel. His xii. heads of difference he has disposed in this order : the nature and essence of the divine Trinity , the im¬ portance of that article of faith , the specific body at the resurrection , predestination, eternal torments , sabbath or Lord’s day, episcopacy, original sin, our Saviour’s human sold, lay-baptism , usury , and the power of the civil magistrate in matters ecclesiastical. About all these points, and several others he could name, some of your English divines, it seems, for want of good conduct, have had contests and dis¬ putes : a most surprising piece of news ! to you, as if none had heard of those books till this discovery ; and to us, as if we were entirely free from the like disputations. Now what would our author have here ? Is he angry that all cannot agree ? or will he make himself the arbi¬ trator ? If he’ll be umpire in all these questions, he has full liberty of thinking ; the path is beaten before him ; he may choose what side he inclines to, or coin new notions of his own. As your church has not yet anathematised nor censured any of these divines, so he needs not turn atheist on these accounts, to purchase the right of free-thinking . But if he’s angry that all agree not, and thinks it a dis¬ grace to religion, or resolves to meddle with none of them till all are unanimous, he must be put in mind of what he lately mentioned, the nature of things. For if he forbids thinking on abstruse questions, he contradicts his whole book, which asserts men’s right and title to think de quolibet ente ; but if he allows them to think on them, diversity of opinions will necessarily follow from the nature of the things. For how can men keep the same tract where all walk in the dark ? or how can they agree in one story where all tell their own dreams ? If men needs will be prying into the hidden mysteries of heaven, they’ll certainly court a cloud instead of a goddess : yet such discoverers and projectors there ever will be ; and in divinity, as well as geometry, we have squarers of the circle. REMARKS. 345 XXX. A second instance of your English clergy’s bad conduct, is their owning the doctrines of the church to he contradictory to one another and to reason ;l a IIId, their owning abuses, defects , and false doctrines in the church ;i a IVth, their pro¬ fessing that they will not tell the truth ;k a Vtl1, their charging the most judicious men of their own order with atheism , deism, or socinianism 4 Now as these accusations reach no further than some particulars among you, our church here is not in the least, and yours (I think) is not much concerned in them. If the author really has not wronged them (as his usual unfairness gives cause for suspicion), it will be pru¬ dence in them to learn even from an enemy, and to speak hereafter with more caution and discretion. All that a stranger can do here, is to leave the persons to their own proper defence ; and the supposed abuses and false doctrines in your church, to your own either refuting the charge, or remedying the defect. For what would our Lutherans here say of me, if I should pretend to maintain that your church has no blemish at all ? Though we justly esteem and honour it next to our own. XXXI. But a VIth instance of their ill conduct is their rendering the canon of the Scripture uncertain .m This is a heavy charge indeed ; and if they do not clear and vindicate them¬ selves, we, as well as this author, must call them to account. But what’s the ground of the indictment ? Why, Dr. Grabe, Dr. Mill, with some others, affirm that no canon was made till above lx. years after the death of Christ. If this be all, he has verified the sentence in the comedy ; Homine imperito numquam quicquam injustiu’ st.* For pray, what’s the notion of the word canon ? An entire i Pag. 76. j Pag. 79. k Pag. 82. i pag. 85. _ [The 12mo ed. (see note, p. 291) has — 1 “atheism, deism, ariamsm, or socinianism,” p. 68 ; and so the French translation, p. 126.— D.] rn Pag. 86. [* Ter. Adelph. 1. 2. 18.-D.] -vr VOL. HI. ^ ^ 34 G REMARKS. collection of the sacred writings, to be a rule, standard , and system to Christianity. Now according to those doctors, and the plain matter of fact, all the books of the New Tes¬ tament were not written till the year of Christ xcvn. ; and that is above lx. years after the death of Christ. What sense is there in this complaint then ? that the books were not collected before they were made ? All the books we now receive for canonical were written* occasionally between the years lii. and xcvn. And during that interval of xlv. years, every book, in the places whither it was sent, or where it was known, was immediately as sacred and canonical as ever it Avas after. Nor did the church loiter and delay in making a canon or collection of them ; for within tvATo years after the writing of St. John’s gospel the evangelical canon was fixed. And within x. after that, an epistolical canon was made : quick enough, if it he considered that they were to be gathered (whither they had been directed) from so many and so distant parts of the world. So that it’s plain to me this collector of scraps did not knoAV what a canon or collection meant. I’ll borrow his argument for one minute, and try it upon some classic authors. It’s very plain that Martial published every single book of epigrams by itself ; one generally every year ; only sometimes he de¬ layed two or three. And so Horace (as your Bentleius has lately shewnf) set out his several books occasionally, from the xxvi. to the li. year of his life. Now in the reasoning of our acute writer, I’ll pro\re several books of those two authors to be uncertain and of dubious authority. For what do you tell me of the first book of the one’s Epigrams , and of the other’s Satires ? How do I know that those are genuine, when the canon of Martial and Horace was not fixed and settled till above xx. years after those are pretended to be written ? Is not this argument most strong, cogent, and irre¬ fragable ? So very valuable and precious, that, bear witness, I now return it safe and sound to its possessor and author. [* Written ; 1st ed. “ writ.” — D.] [f Bentley’s ed. of Horace appeared in 1711. — D.] REMARKS. 347 XXXII. Yes 1 but poor Dr. Mill has still more to answer for; and meets with a sorry recompense for his long labour of xxx. years. For, if we are to believe not only this wise author, but a wiser doctor* of your own, he was labouring all that while to prove the text of the Scripture precarious ;n having scraped together such an immense collection of various readings , as amount in the whole, by a late author’s computation,! to above thirty thousand. Now this is a [* Wliitby, — whose Examen Var. Lect. Millii, p. 3, 4, is cited by Collins. — In the 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291), the author appends to the quotation from Whitby a long note on the question, “ whether the numerous various readings do affect the text of Scripture or no,” the 4lh head of which is as follows : “ Though the text of Scripture be, like the text of all other ancient books, rendered uncertain through the ignorance and negligence of transcribers, and more uncertain than all others through the wilful corruptions of tran¬ scribers ; yet it is evident, that the more ancient manuscripts there are which remain to us, and the more collations are made of them, the better are critical Christians qualified to fix a true text of Scripture for themselves. And by con¬ sequence such critics as Father Simon and Dr. Bentley ought to be better believers, and in a more direct road to salvation, than others who are inferior to them in criticism." p. 73. — In the French translation we find the same addition, p. 131 ; on which Ar. de La Chapelle has bestowed a much longer examination than it deserved, La Frip. La'ique, p. 213 : “ La section,” says he, “ que T’on vient de lire au sujet des variantes, auroit du ramener au bon-sens un homme raisonnable et sincere. Mais comme l’auteur du Discours, &c. n’etoit ni l’un ni l’autre sur Particle de la religion, il mit dans son Francois cette addition, oh l’on voit un homme outre de depit, et qui voulant faire mine de raisonner, ne paye que de colhre et d’injures.” — D.] n Pag. 88. [f “ Praf. Nov. Test. Wetstenii” is the reference given by Collins. He means the ed. published by H. Wetstein in 1711, the editor of which was Gerard von Maestricht. — On the subject of various readings in the Gr. Test. see Michaelis’s Introd. (by Marsh), vol. i. chap. vi. pp. 246-341. ed. 1793. Hare, in The Clergyman’s Thanks to P hileleutherus (se,e note on the Dedi¬ catory Epistle to the Second Part of the Remarks), has the following just ob¬ servations on the present section: “You have, in the small compass of seven leaves, done the work of large volumes, and have set the whole question of various lections in so clear and full a light, that nothing more need be said in defence of the text on this account, nothing can be said against it. You have pulled up this panic by the very roots ; and a man must be afraid of his own shadow, who can hereafter be in pain about a various reading, or think the number of them any prejudice to the integrity or authority of the sacred books.” p. 34. — D.] 348 REMARKS. matter of some consequence, and will well deserve a few reflections. I am forced to confess with grief, that several well- meaning priests, of greater zeal than knowledge, have often by their own false alarms and panic both frighted others of their own side, and given advantage to their enemies. What an uproar once was there, as if all were ruined and undone, when Capellus wrote one book* against the antiquity of the Hebrew points, and another + for various lections in the Hebrew text itself! And yet time and experience has cured them of those imaginary fears ; and the great author in his grave has now that honour universally, which the few only of his own age paid him when alive. The case is and will be the same with your learned countryman Dr. Mill ; whose friendship (while I staid at Oxford) and memory will be ever! dear to me.§ For what is it that your Whitbyus|| so inveighs and exclaims at ? The doctor’s labours, says he, make the whole text precarious, and expose both the reformation to the papists, and religion itself to the atheists. God forbid ! we’ll still hope better things. For surely those various readings existed before in the several exemplars; Dr. Mill did not make and coin them, he only exhibited them to our view. If religion, there¬ fore, was true before, though such various readings were in [* Arcanum Punctationis revelatum, fyc. 4to, 1624. — D.] [t Critica sacra, sive de variis quce in sacris Veteris Testamenti libris occurrunt lectionibus. Fol. 1650. — D.] [J be ever; 1 st ed. “ ever be.” — D.] [§ “ At the beginning of 1689 Bentley attended his pupil [James Stilling- fleet] to Wadham College, of which he became himself a member, and in the course of that year was incorporated Master of Arts, as holding the same degree in the sister university.” Monk’s Life of B., vol. i. p. 19. — During his residence at Oxford he was introduced to Dr. Mill, and their acquaintance soon ripened into a warm friendship. See Preface to the present ed. of Bentley’s Works, vol. i. p. xviii., and the Epist. ad Millium in vol. ii. p. 239. Mill died in 1707, about a fortnight after the appearance of his edition of the Greek Test. — D.] [|| See note, p. 347. — Michaelis observes, that Whitby, though a good com¬ mentator, was a bad critic ; that he betrays a total ignorance of manuscripts, and had never read with proper attention even Mill’s Prolegomena : see Introd. (by Marsh), vol. ii. p. 461. ed. 1793. — D.] REMARKS. 349 being, it will be as true, and consequently as safe still, though every body sees them. Depend onT, no truth, no matter of fact fairly laid open, can ever subvert true religion. The 30,000 various lections are allowed, then, and con¬ fessed : and, if more copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what’s the inference from this ? why, one Gregory, here quoted, infers that no profane author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time as the New Testament has done.0 Now if this shall be found utterly false ; and if the scriptural text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from the nature of things, and what are common and in equal proportion in all classics whatever ; I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought as firm as before. If there had been but one manuscript of the Greek Tes¬ tament at the restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we had had no various readings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then than now we have 30,000 ? So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we should have had hundreds of faults, and some omissions irre¬ parable. Besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased immensely. It is good, therefore, you’ll allow, to have more anchors than one ; and another MS. to join with the first would give more authority, as well as security. Now choose that second where you will, there shall be a thousand variations from the first ; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain in them both. A third therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are de- 0 Pag. 88. — [“ The Reverend Mr. Gregory, of Christ Church, Oxford, says,” &c. “Preface to his Posthumous Works.” — Dr. John Gregory, author of vari¬ ous learned works, died in 1646. His MS. Animadversiones on Malelas, which the curators of the Oxford press originally intended should accompany the ed. of that author in 1691, were afterwards rejected for the Prolegomena of Hody, who terms him “ omnigena eruditione instructissimus.” The expression “ one Gregory” does not, I apprehend, imply contempt: Bentley writes in the cha¬ racter of a foreigner, who has no extensive acquaintance with the works of Englishmen. — D.] 350 REMARKS. sirable, that by a joint and mutual help all the faults may be mended; some copy preserving the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you ; every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do singular service. And this is fact, not only in the New Testament, but in all ancient books whatever. ’Tis a good providence and a great blessing, that so many manuscripts of the New Testament are still amongst us; some procured from Egypt, others from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of places as well as numbers of the hooks demonstrate, that there cordd be no collusion, no altering nor interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them. In profane authors (as they are called), whereof one manuscript only had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that, notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, those books still are,* and are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate col¬ lation of them made by skilful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author. Were the very originals of ancient books still in being, those alone would supersede the use of all other copies ; but since that was impossible from the nature of things, since time and casualties must consume and devour all, the sub¬ sidiary help is from the various transcripts conveyed down to us, when examined and comparedt together. Terence is now in one of the best conditions of any of [* still are ; ls< ed. “ are still.” — D.] [f examined and compared; 1st ed. “compared and examined.” — D.] REMARKS. 351 the classic writers ; the oldest and best copy of him is now in the Vatican Library, which comes nearest to the poet’s own hand; but even that has hundreds of errors, most of which may be mended out of other exemplars, that are otherwise more recent and of inferior value. I myself have collated several ;* and do affirm that I have seen 20,000 vari¬ ous lections in that little author, not near so big as the whole New Testament ; and am morally sure, that if half the number of manuscripts were collated for Terence with that niceness and minuteness which has been used in twice as many for the New Testament , the number of the variations would amount to above 50,000. In the manuscripts of the New Testament the variations have been noted with a religious, not to say superstitious ex¬ actness. Every difference, in spelling, in the smallest par¬ ticle or article of speech, in the very order or collocation of words without real change, has been studiously registered. Nor has the text only been ransacked, but all the ancient versions, the Latin Vulgate, Italic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Saxon ; nor these only, but all the dispersed citations of the Greek and Latin fathers in a course of 500 years. What wonder then, if, with all this scrupulous search in every hole and corner, the varieties rise to 30,000? when in all ancient books of the same bulk, whereof the MSS. are numerous, the variations are as many or more, and yet no versions to swell the reckoning. The editors of profane authors do not use to trouble their readers, or risk their own reputation, by an useless list of every small slip committed by a lazy or ignorant scribe. What is thought commendable in an edition of Scripture, and has the name of fairness and fidelity, would in them be deemed impertinence and trifling. Hence the reader not versed in ancient MSS. is deceived into an opinion, that [* Bentley was at this time engaged on liis ed. of Terence, which circum¬ stances obliged him soon after to lay aside: on the appearance of Hare’s ed. in 1724, he earnestly resumed the work; and it was given to the public in 172(1 : see Monk’s Life, of B., vol. i. p. 3G0 ; vol. ii. p. 217, sqq.— D.] 352 REMARKS. there were no more variations in the copies than what the editor has communicated. Whereas, if the like scrupulous¬ ness was observed in registering the smallest changes in pro¬ fane authors, as is allowed, nay required, in sacred, the now formidable number of 30,000 would appear a very trifle. 'Tis manifest that books in verse are not near so obnoxious to variations as those in prose ;* the transcriber, if he is not wholly ignorant and stupid, being guided by the measures, and hindered from such alterations as do not fall in with the laws of numbers. And yet even in poets the variations are so very many as can hardly he conceived without use and experience. In the late edition of Tibullus+ by the learned Mr. Broukliuise you have a register of various lections in the close of that book, where you may see, at the first view, that they are as many as the lines. The same is visible in Plautus set out by Pareus. I myself, during my travels, have had the opportunity to examine several MSS. of the poet Manilius ;% and can assure you that the variations I have met with are twice as many as all the lines of the book. Our Discourser here has quoted nine verses out of it, § p. 151 ; in which, though one of the easiest places, I can shew him xiv. various lections. Add likewise, that the MSS. here used wrere few in comparison : and then do you imagine what the lections would amount to, if ten times as many (the case of Dr. Mill) were accurately examined. And yet in these and all other books the text is not made more pre¬ carious on that account, but more certain and authentic. So that if I may advise you, when you hear more of this scarecrow of 30,000, be neither astonished at the sum, nor in any pain for the text. ’Tis plain to me that your learned Whitbyus, in his in¬ vective against my dead friend, was suddenly surprised with [_* as those in prose ; 1st ed. “ as prose.” — D.] [f 1708. — D.] [J As early as 1691 Bentley was preparing an ed. of Manilius : see Monk’s Life of B., \ ol. i. p. 34; and the author’s preface to the Dissert, on Phalaris, vol. i. p. xxvii. sqq. of the present ed. of his Works. It was not published till 1739.— D.] [§ Lib. i. 522. “ Omnia mortali mutantur,” &c. — D.] REMARKS. 353 a panic ; and, under his deep concern for the text, did not reflect at all what that word really means. The present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several MSS. by Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris ; whose beautiful and (generally speaking) accurate edition* has been ever since counted the standard, and followed by all the rest. Now this specific text in your doctor’s notion seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable; and if the conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer's infallibility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelist’s or apostle’s. Dr. Mill, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed by a printer is sometimes by the various readings rendered uncertain , nay is proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the sacred writersf does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. ’Tis competently exact indeed even in the worst MS. now extant ; nor is one article of faith or moi*al precept either perverted or lost in them ; choose as awkwardly as you can, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions the very words of the writer, must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that is used in other books ; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular MS. or edition, but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged, wherever they are met with. Stephens followed what he found in the King of France’s copies, Acts, xxvii. 14. ave/io? tv^xovikos, 6 icaXov/xevo avrov &>r 7.* So that, with submission, I think our Luther’s and the Danish version have done more right than your English to the sacred text, by translating it nord-ost, north-east ; though, according to the present compass divided into xxxn., euro¬ aquilo answers nearest to ost-nord-ost, east-north-east ; which is the very wind that would directly drive the ship from Crete to the African Syrtis, according to the pilot’s fears, in the 17th verse. The Alexandrian copy, then, though it has vastly increased the number of readings, as you see in your Polyglot and Dr. Mill’s edition, has been of excellent use here ; and so in many other places ; retrieving to us the true original, where other copies failed. And what damage if all the other copies of near the same antiquity, which Mr. Montfaucon has dis¬ covered, and Dr. Mill never saw, were sometime collated as exactly, and all the varieties published, let the thousands grow never so many ? When the doctor is so alarmed at the vast sum of 30,000, he seems to take it for granted, that within that number the very original is every where found ; and the only complaint is, that true are so blended with false, that they can hardly be discovered. If that were the only difficulty, some abler heads than ours would soon find a remedy : in the mean time I can assure him, that if that be the case, the New Testament has suffered less injury by the hand of time than any profane [* This verse, which Bentley has slightly corrected, occurs in the Schol. on Aristoph. Equit. 43.5, in Plutarch, &c. &c. See Wyttenbach’s note on Plut. De Cap. ex inirn. util.—Mor. t. vi. p. 304, ed. 4to. — D.] 356 REMARKS. author , there being not one ancient book besides it in the world, that, with all the help of various lections (be they 50,000 if you will) does not stand in further want of emenda¬ tion by true critic ; nor is there one good edition of any that has not inserted into the text (though every reader knows it not) what no manuscript vouches.* 5Tis plain indeed, that if emendations are true, they must have once been in some manuscripts, at least in the author’s original ; but it does not follow, that because no manuscript now exhibits them, none more ancient ever did. Slips and errors (while the art of printing was unknown) grew pre¬ sently and apace, even while the author was alive. Martial tells us himself, how one of his admirers was so curious, that he sent a copy of his poems, which he had bought, to be emended p by his own hand. And we certainly know from Gellius,^ that even so early as Hadrian’s time and before, the common copies of Virgil had several mistakes. Not frighted, therefore, with the present 30,000, I for my part, and (as I believe) many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet untouched 10,000 more were faithfully collected : some of which without question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact, though of no [* Hare, in The Clergyman' s Thanks to Phileleutherus (see note on the Dedi¬ catory Epistle to the Second Part of the Remarks), has the following passage: “ That the present text wants the help of more manuscripts than have yet been examined, or the assistance of critic to supply the want of them, is not only a priori evident from the reason and nature of the thing; those who have read the New Testament with a critical care and exactness know it to be so in fact: yourself have given us a small specimen of this in your happy conjectures upon three passages [see pp. 357, 8], which, as far as I can find by my own con¬ versation and my friends, are universally liked by the men of learning, who would be very glad so great a master would turn his labours to the Scriptures ; and if not a new edition of the Testament, that he would give us at least a critice sacra on it, which, from so able a hand, would on many accounts be infinitely valuable. Many of us are sensible this wants to be done, though none of us can do it; the province is yours without dispute, ’twill be our part to judge and to applaud.” p. 38. — Hare’s pamphlet is dated March 1713. In a letter to Archbishop Wake, April 1716, Bentley announced his design of publishing an edition of the Greek Test. — D.] p Martial, vii. 11. t Gellius, i.-21 ; ix. 14. REMARKS. 357 consequence to the main of religion, nay perhaps wholly synonymous in the view of common readers, and quite insensible in any modern version. If all those remaining manuscripts were diligently per¬ used, perhaps ofie might find in some or one of them a new various lection in 1 Tim. vi. 3. el Tt? erepoSifiacr/caXei, /cal IIP02EPXETAI vyiaivovai \ov itpiwv, ot>s avyovpas ' Poo pah i KaXovai. Plut. in Cic. [Opp. t. iv. p. 816. ed. Reisk. — D.] v See Remark the 5th. [* than that of the; 1st ed. “ than the.” — D.] REMARKS. 389 orders. While I resided at Oxford, and saw such a conflux of youth to their annual admissions, I have often studied and admired why their parents would, under such mean encou¬ ragements, design their sons for the church ; and those the most towardly and capable and select geniuses among their children, who must needs have emerged in a secular life. I congratulated, indeed, the felicity of your establishment, which attracted the choice youth of your nation for such very low pay ; but my wonder was at the parents, who generally have interest, maintenance, and wealth, the first thing in their view : till at last one of your state lotteries ceased my asto¬ nishment. For as in that a few glittering prizes, 1000, 5000, 10,000 pounds, among an infinity of blanks, drew troops of adventurers, who, if the whole fund had been equally ticketed, would never have come in ; so a few shining dignities in your church, prebends, deaneries, bishopricks, are the pious fraud that induces and decoys the parents to risk their child’s for¬ tune in it. Every one hopes his own will get some great prize in the church, and never reflects on the thousands of blanks in poor country livings. And if a foreigner may tell you his mind, from what he sees at home, ’tis this part of your establishment that makes your clergy excel ours. Do but once level all your preferments, and you’ll soon be as level in your learning. For, instead of the flower of the English youth, you’ll have only the refuse sent to your aca¬ demies, and those, too, cramped and crippled in their studies, for want of aim and emulation. So that, if your free-thinkers had any politics, instead of suppressing your whole order, they should make you all alike ; or, if that cannot be done, make your preferments a very lottery in the whole similitude. Let your church dignities be pure chance prizes, without re¬ gard to abilities, or morals, or letters : as a journeyman (I think) in that state lottery was the favourite child of fortune. XLI. But again, before I come to the inviting passage of Zosimus, I shall gather some of his scattered flowers, and comprise 390 REMARKS. them under one remark. If any good Christian , says lie, happens to reason better than ordinary , the priests presently charge him with atheism .w He means only your English priests, as I see by his instances : and naughty men they, if any of them do so. But I’ll give him a word of comfort, and offer myself as sponsor for them, that none of them will call him atheist, for reasoning better than ordinary. Good man, to avoid that odious name, he has sprinkled all his pages with mere nonsense, out of pure consideration and forecast. To shew his good taste and his virtuous turn of mind,* he praises two abuses upon James I. -, that he was a doctor more than a king, and was priest-ridden by his archbishop ;x as the most valuable passages in Father Paul’s Letters ; and yet, as I have been told, those passages are spurious and forged. Well, hut were they genuine and true, are those the things he most values ? O, the vast love and honour he bears to the crown and the mitre ! But his palate is truly constant and uniform to itself : he drudges in all his other authors, ancient and modern, not to find their beauties, but their spots ; not to gather the roses, but the thorns ; not to suck good nutriment, but poison. A thousand bright pages in Plutarch and Tully pass heavy with him, and withoutf relish ; but if he chances to meet with a suspicious or sore place, then he’s feasted and regaled, like a fly upon an ulcer, or a beetle in dung : and with those delicious scraps put together, he has dressed out this hook of Free-thinking. But have a care of provoking him too much, for he has still in reserve more instances of your conduct ; your declama¬ tions against reason A such false reason, I suppose, as he and his tribe would put off for good sterling : your arts and method of discouraging examination into the truths of religion ; such truths, forsooth, of religion as this, that religion itself is all w Pag. 85. [* his virtuous turn of mind ; ls< cd. “ the virtuous turn of liis mind.” — D.] x Pag. 94, 95. [f him, and without; ls< cd. “ him without.” — D.] y Pag. 97. REMARKS. 391 false : and again, your encouraging examination when either authority is against you (the authority, he means, of your late king James, when one* of his free- thinking doctors thought himself into popery), or when you think that truth is certainly on your side ; he will not say that truth is certainly on yo in¬ side, hut only that you think so : however, he allows here you are sometimes sincere; a favour he would not grant you in some of his former instances. But the last and most cutting instance is, your instilliny 'principles into youth :z no doubt he means those pernicious principles of fearing God ; honouring the king ; loving your neighbour as yourselves ; living soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. O, the glorious nation you would be, if your stiff parsons were once displaced, and free¬ thinkers appointed tutors to your young nobility and gentry ! How would arts, learning, manners, and all humanity flourish in an academy under such preceptors ! who, instead of your Bible, should read Hobbes’s Leviathan ; should instil early the sound doctrines of the mortality of the soul, and the sole good of a voluptuous life. No doubt such an esta¬ blishment would make you a happy people, and even a rich ; for our youth would all desert us in Germany, and presently pass the sea for such noble education. The beginning of his IIId section, where (as I remarked before) free-thinking stands for no more than thinking , may pass in general for truth, though wholly an impertinence. For who in England forbids thinking ? or who ever made such objections as he first raises, and then refutes ? He dare not, sure, insinuate as if none of your clergy thought , nor examined any points of doctrine, but took a system of opinions by force and constraint, under the terror of an in¬ quisition, or the dread of fire and faggot. So that we have xx. pages of mere amusement, under the ambiguity of a word. Let your clergy once profess that they are the true [# See note, p. 361. — D.] * Pag. 97. — [The French translation of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) has “ lews principes.” p. 145. — D.] 392 REMARKS. free-thinkers, and you’ll soon see the unbelieving tribe re¬ nounce their new name. However, in these sapless pages he has scattered a mark of his great learning. He says, the infinite variety of opinions, religions, and worships among the ancient heathens, never pro¬ duced any disorder or confusion .a What! was it no disorder when Socrates suffered death for his opinions ; when Aristotle was impeached, and fled ; when Stilpo was banished ; and when Diogoras was proscribed? Were not the Epicureans driven out from several cities, for the debaucheries and tumults they caused there ? Did not Antiochus banish all philosophers out of his whole kingdom ;b and for any one to learn of them, made it death to the youth himself, and loss of goods to his parents ? Did not Domitian expel all the philosophers out of Rome and whole Italy ? Did the Galli, the vagabond priests of Cybele, make no disturbances in town and country ? Did not the Romans frequently forbid strange religions and external rites that had crept into the city, and banish the authors of them ? Did the Bacchanals create no disorders in Rome, when they endangered the whole state, and thousands were put to death for having been initiated in them ? In a word, was that no disturbance in Egypt, which Juvenal tells of his own knowledge (and which frequently used to happen), when in two neighbouring cities their religious feuds ran so high, that, at the annual festival of one, the other, out of zeal, went to disturb the solemnity ; and after thousands were fighting on both sides, and many eyes and noses lost, the scene ended in slaughter, a Pag. 101. — [The later 8vo ed. of the Discourse, ibid, (see note, p. 290, 1) has “ any great disorder.” The 12mo ed. gives the passage thus: “ And yet no confusion ever arose in Greece on account of this diversity of opinions. Nay, so far were the differences among philosophers from being supposed to have any tendency towards confusion in society, that the Epicureans ( Gassendi de Vita et Moribus Epicuri, cap. 5. 1. 2.), as well as other philosophers, had salaries settled on them by the government. Nor did the great variety of religions and worships, which in old Rome were of six hundred different kinds, ( Lipsius de Magnitud. Rom. 1. 4. c. 5.) ever produce any great disorder or confusion among the ancients,” p. 84. ; and so the French translation, p. 150. — D.] b Athenaeus, lib. xii. p. 547. [=t. iv. p. 532. ed. Schw. — D.] REMARKS. 393 and the body slain was cut* into bits, and eaten up raw by the enemies ? And all this barbarity committed, because the one side worshipped crocodiles, and the other killed and eat them. - summus utrinque Inde furor vulgo, quod numina vicinorum Odit uterque locus ; cum solos credat habendos Esse deos, quos ipse colit. f Let him go now and talk facetiously at his club, that among the pagans there was no polemic divinity. XLII. We are now come to a grand secret of your priestcraft, the toleration of vice , by which all the rogues and fools are engaged in your party. c This, he says, was put in practice with success as early as Constantine the Great, who (as Zozimus tells us) after he had committed such horrible vil- lanies, which the pagan priests told him were not expiable in their religion, being assured by an Egyptian bishop that there was no villany so great but was to be expiated by the sacra¬ ments of the Christian religion, he quitted the religion of his ancestors, and embraced the new impiety ; so Zozimus im¬ piously calls the Christian religion.% Now, the business itself, laid to Constantine’s charge here by a bigoted pagan, is too stale and trivial to deserve a new answer, having been fully refuted both by the ecclesiastic historians of old and several of the moderns. But what I here animadvert on is [* slain was cut; 1st ed. “ slain cut.” — I).] [f Juv. XV. 35.— D.] Pag. 117, 118. [J In the 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) the words “ so Zozi~ mus impiously calls the Christian religion ” are wanting, p. 97 ; and so in the French translation, p. 174. The “ mauvaise-foi” of Collins, in his version of this passage of Zosimus — his using terms unwarranted by the Greek text, — “ an Egyptian bishop ,” and “ the sacraments of the Christian religion ,” has drawn forth a very long note from Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Ldique, p. 319, &c. ; but it relates to particulars on which Bentley has not touched. — D.] VOL. III. 3 E 394 REMARKS. the prodigious awkwardness of our writer both in his version and application of this passage. Zosimus, a poor superstitious creature (and consequently, as one would guess, an improper witness for our free-thinker) , who has filled his little history not more with malice against the Christians than with bigotry for the pagans ; who treats his reader with oracles of the Palmyrenes and Sibyls ; with annual miracles done by Venus, where gold and silver swum upon water ; with presages and dreams of old women ; with thunders and earthquakes, as if they were prodigies ; with a dead body vanishing in the middle of an army ; with omens, and with predictions from the entrails* of beasts ; with an ap¬ parition of Pallas and her Gorgon, and with the spectre of Achilles ; with wooden idols that fire could not burn ; with a necklace of the goddess Rhea, that executed divine venge¬ ance ; who imputes the taking of Rome by Alaric to the omission of pagan sacrifices, and the decay of the Roman empire to Constantine’s neglecting the ludi sceculares : this wise and judicious author is brought in for a good evidence ; and our avowed enemy to superstition connives at all this trumpery, for the sake of one stab at the reputation of Con¬ stantine and the honour of Christianity. But how has he managed and represented it ? The story, as Zosimus himself tells it,d is thus : c Constantine, being troubled in conscience for some crimes he had committed, applied to the heathen priests for expiation. They answer¬ ing, that they had no way of expiation for crimes of so deep a die, a certain Egyptian told him, that if he would turn Christian, all his sins would be immediately forgiven him. Constantine liking this well, and, after a renunciation of paganism, partaking of the Christian rites, t% acre/3eia? ryv apxfjv €7rnLrjaaT0, rrjv /aavriKrjv e%etv iv viro-^ria, for his first instance of irreligion, he began to suspect and cry down the art of foretelling things from the entrails of beasts ; for having had many events truly predicted to him by that [* from the entrails ; Is/ ed. “ from entrails.” — D.] J Pag. 104. [Lib. ii. cap. 29. p. 150. ed. Reit.— D.] REMARKS. 395 art, he was afraid others would make use of it against him¬ self.’ This is a faithful version ; for that /xavTucr) here means haruspicina, the art of divination by entrails, appears from p. 157,'* and other places of that author. How amazing, now, is the ignorance of our free-thinker ! unless, perhaps, he will plead impudence ; for with such men excusatius est voluntate peccare quam casu, it’s counted a smaller fault to prevaricate on purpose than err by mistake. He stops his citation and version in the very middle of the sentence, and interprets rys dae^eta<; rrjv dp^yv the new impiety ; and then subjoins, with a sneer, so Zozimus impi¬ ously calls the Christian religion. If Zosimus speakf not impi¬ ously, somebody else does. For with him d(re@eia, irreligion, neglect of worship, has only reference to the pagan rites, and particularly to sacrifices and haruspices. These Constantine had abandoned ; and for that reason deserved, as well as Cato the Censor, e to be put into our writer’s list of free-thinkers. But see the partiality ! Constantine has lost his favour, be¬ cause he first made the government Christian : and an author must be mangled, sense and grammar distorted, all rules of syntax perverted, to bring out a little blasphemy. ’ Apxyv t?5 137j &c< [* - - “ aut temperans, voluptatem summum bonum statuens.” — D.] ft De Fin. v. 23.— D.] 3 VOL. III. 402 REMARKS. XLV. But he now leaves arguments a priori, and proceeds to historical accounts ; wherein he will shew, that they who have been distinguished in all ages for their understanding and virtue have been free-thinkers.* Such free-thinkers as his party are, or else all his labour is lost: and yet we shall find, that among his whole list there’s scarce a pair that will come under that character. Socrates, his first instance, the divinest man of the heathen world , was, as he says, a very great free-thinker. By what mark or token ? Why, he disbelieved the gods of his country , and the common creeds about them .* Allow that; though just before his death he made a hymn to Apollo, and left a sacrifice to iEsculapius ; yet why is this character so peculiar to Socrates ? Pll help our author to a million of free-thinkers , upon the very same reason. For Constantine himself, whom he abused before, and all the pagan converts to Christianity before him and after, disbelieved the (same) gods of their country , and the common creeds about them. Nay, they far excelled Socrates in their free-thinking quality; for he timorously fell in with the reigning superstition of his country , and suffered it quietly to take its course :u but they heroically professed their true sentiments ; in spite of terrors and tortures, contemned, routed, and trampled down the gods of their country ; till pagan superstition was quite ex - tinct, and washed away with the blood of so many martyrs. And why, pray, could not these deserve from our writer the honourable name of free-thinkers ? The reason is manifest : the Christians were free-thinkers at first, while they contra¬ dicted the herd of mankind ; but now Christianity is esta¬ blished, they themselves are become the herd, and conse- s Pag. 123. — [In the French translation of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) we find “ distingues . . . par la solidite de leur jugement,” p. 181, without any corresponding words to “ and virtue there, too, in the passage next cited by Bentley, “ the divinest ntan” is rendered “ l’homme le plus sage.” ibid.— D.] * Ibid. u Pag. 123. REMARKS. 403 quently free-thinking now consists in contradicting them. Dare he deny this is his notion ? And that his characteristic of free-thinking is to oppose a great majority ? No matter whether right or wrong ; whether the herd is in truth or in error, •free-thinking must he singularity. Unthinking, shallow fellow !y for at this rate, if the growing sect should so spread, as to attain the name of the herd, the only title then to free-thinking would be to oppose the free¬ thinkers. Well, but Socrates declared his dislike, when he heard men attribute repentance, anger, and other passions to the gods, and talk of wars and battles in heaven, and of the gods getting women with child, and such-like fabulous and blasphemous stories .w This is quoted by him out of Plato in Euthgphrone,'* as if they were that author’s own words. And what a fine scene am I entering upon ! He to complain of mangling, forging, and corrupting passages ! And himself here to forge so openly, on purpose to hook in some bold and saucy blasphemy ! Repentance and anger attributed to the gods : this glances aside at those frequent expressions of our Bible, the wrath of the Lord, and the Lord repented. As if the whole herd of Christians did not know that these are not to be taken literally, but are spoken dvQpw'rro'jraOws, in a human manner, accommodated to our capacities and affections ; the nature of God being infinitely above all ruffles of passion. And then wars and battles in heaven : this is pointed against Revelations, xii. 7- And there was war in heaven ; "Michael v Pag. 104. — [“ If there is any such rare monster as an atheist, David has given us his character in these words : The fool hath said in his heart , There is no God; that is, no one denies the existence of a God but some idle, unthinking, shallow fellow .” — D.] w pag. 123. — [The French translation of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) has, “ou que les dieux dehauchoient les femmes.” p. 182. — “ Ce qui,” says Ar. de La Chapelle, “ est plus fort, et meme tout autre que ce que Mr. Collins dit dans son Anglois.” La Trip. Laique, p. 356. — 1).] [* The reference “ Platonis Euthyphro. p. 6. vol. i. ed. Serrani,” which is found in all the editions of the Discourse in English (see note, p. 290, 1), is omitted in the French translation.— D.] 404 REMARKS. and his angels fought against the dragon , and the dragon fought and his angels. Now where has this writer lived, or what idiot evangelist * was he bred under, not to know that this is all vision and allegory, and not proposed as literal truth ? But his mother perhaps, that gave hilti his first notions about Bel and the Dragon, f might frighten too the naughty boy with Michael and the Dragon. His last ex¬ pression, of the gods getting women with child, without doubt was designed by him as a flout upon our Saviour’s in¬ carnation. But when we come to consult Plato himself in the pas¬ sage alleged here, how do all this writer’s insinuations vanish, and how does his own impudence and prevarication appear ! The whole passage is no more than this : Socrates, discoursing with Euthyphron an haruspex, who was bringing an indictment for murder against his own father, asked him if he thought it just and pious to do so: ‘Yes, says the other, it is right and pious to bring an offender to justice, though he be my father ; for so J ove bound his father Saturn in chains, for devouring his children ; and Saturn before had castrated his father for some other crime. I confess, replies Socrates, when I hear such things said of the gods, I assent ivith some difficulty :x but do you think these things true ? and that there are really wars, and enmities, and battles among the gods ; and many other such matters, as poets and painters represent ? These are all true, says the other, and stranger things than these, which I could tell you.’ This is all that is there said on this head : and then Socrates pro¬ ceeds in his disputation, upon the very concession that these accounts of the gods are true. And hence, first, we may observe, that Socrates was not so free a thinker as our writer represents him. For, accord¬ ing to V arrows division^ of religions into poetical, civil, and philosophical, it is the first here that Socrates with some diffi- [* See p. 363.— D.] [f See p. 314.— D.] x Avffxtp&s ttujs anofiexopcu. — [Plat. Opp. t. ii, p. 121. ed. 1826. — D.] In St. Augustin, Be Civ. Dei ; see Remark Li. — D.] REMARKS. 405 culty assents to, or very tenderly denies : whereas the Stoics, that came after him, treated openly that whole poetic system as Impious and superstitious ; and these very stories of Saturn and Jupiter, and of the wars with Titans and giants, and of gods against gods, as wicked fables , anile superstitions, foolish and pernicious errors J But as to the civil religion, Socrates never opposed it, but always countenanced it both by dis¬ course and example. His precept to his scholars about matters of worship, was to govern themselves vogw 7roXe&>9,* by the custom of the country . He himself sacrificed regularly and openly both at home and at the public altars ; he sent his friends to consult the oracle at Delphi upon all affairs of importance. How, therefore, will our writer make out, that he disbelieved the gods of his country ? That, indeed, was the indictment against him ; ahucel ZwKpaTys, on? . . y 7ro\i<; vogl^ei 6eov 9 ov vogl^mv :z but he did not plead guilty to it. And though our writer should now convict him, yet I am sure his celebrated dcemonium , by whose admonition and impulse he guided all his affairs, sufficiently secures him from being listed and consociated with our modern free¬ thinkers. Another thing we may observe from this passage of Plato is, the unfairness and malignity of our writer; who, without the least hint from his author, has foisted in two scoffs and contumelies upon the Scripture. There’s nothing said there of God’s repentance and anger ; not a word of gods getting women with child : why then does he suborn Plato to speak what he never said ? Why so great a name to cover his own impiety ? Mala mens, malus animus ; and from this instance take the measure of our writer’s veracity. But he will still press Socrates into the service, and force him into his regiment of free-thinkers ; because he did vtot make notions, or speculations, or mysteries, any parts of his y Cicero de Nat. Deor. ii. 24, 28. [* Xen. Mem. lib. i. cap. 3. — “ Tout ce que Mr. Bentley dit ici de Socrate est tire de Xenophon." Ar. de La Ciiapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 364. — D.] 7- Xenophon. Memorab. lib. i. — [cap. 1. — D.] 406 REMARKS. religion .a No mysteries ? a wager with our writer, that he was initiated in the mysteries of Ceres Eleusina ; and conse¬ quently, had he lived in the present age, would never have flouted Christianity for being mysterious. But where is our author’s proof for this character of Socrates ? Why, he demonstrated all men to be fools who troubled themselves with inquiries into heavenly things and asked such inquirers , whether they had attained a perfect knowledge of human things , since they searched into heavenly. This the shrewd author gives as a translation from Xenophon ;b and he pro¬ poses here heavenly things in the Christian sense used by our Saviour and his apostles. What shall I say, or what shall I not say ? But I have spent already all my wonder and words too uponf this writer’s stupidity. Can any thing be plainer, than that the rd ovpavia, the heavenly things, in that passage of Xenophon mean celestial bodies and appear¬ ances, their causes, magnitudes, and motions ? These phy¬ siological inquiries, which had employed the former philoso¬ phers, Socrates let alone, and first turned his speculations to morality and human life. This is it, that Xenophon says there express ; and it is echoed over and over in all ancient authors.® Let us take now our writer’s argument, and see how it concludes : Because Socrates did not cultivate astro¬ nomy, but ethics, therefore he had no mysteries in his religion. Because our writer has cultivated no science at all, therefore he makes such silly syllogisms and blunders abominable. XLYI. To bring Plato in among his free-thinkers, our writer is put hard to his shifts, and forced to make several doubles. He was not so free, he owns, as Socrates; but, alarmed at a Pag. 125. [* The French translation of the Discourse (see note, p. 291), has “ mysteres celestes.” p. 185. — D.] b Memor. lib. i. — [cap. 1. — D.] [f upon; 1st ed. “ for.” — D.] c See Cicer. Acad. i. 4 ; Tus. iii. 4, and v. 4 ; Diogenes Laert. in Soc. ; and many more. REMARKS. 407 his fate, kept himself more upon his guard, and never talked 'publicly against the religion of his country. d This is arguing backwards, and gives him one remove out of the list. But he brings him back with a fetch ; for he thought himself into notions so contrary to those known in Greece, and so resem¬ bling Christianity , that , as some Christians suspected he had read the Old Testament, so Celsus charges our Saviour with reading and borrowing from him. Allow this, and admire the consistency of our writer’s language and sentiments. The free-thinking of Plato, by his present account of it, consisted solely in approaching to Christianity ; but our modern free- thinking lies wholly in receding from it, in a course retro¬ grade to that of Plato. This free-thinking is a mere empusa ; it changes shapes as fast as Vertumnus : Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo ?*■ But he goes on, and remarks, that Origen indeed very well defends our blessed Lord from Celsus' s charge .e When you see the words very ivell, and the compliment of blessed Lord, you are to expect from our writer some smart piece of burlesque. And here you have it ; for Origen, says he, well replies, that Celsus deserves to be laughed at, when he affirms Jesus had read Plato: who was bred and born among the Jews ; and was so far from having been taught Greek letters, that he was not taught Hebrew letters, as the Scriptures tes¬ tify. You see, Origen’s answer here is commended as very good ; to insinuate, with a sneer, that our Saviour was illite¬ rate. Contemptible buffoon ! Origenf did not mean he had d Pag. 126. [* Hor. Epist. i. 1. 90.— D.] e Pag. 127. — [In the French translation of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) the passage is rendered, “ Origene en le refutant, dit,” &c. p. 186. — D.] [f “ Voici les propres paroles d’Orig&ne, que Collins a rapportees, Ad. Cels, lih. vi. pag. 286. edit. Cant. 1677. & rrapd ’I ovbalots yeyevvppevos, Kal avareOpap- ptvos, Kal ’lws ne pouvoit s’entendre que d’une instruction prise dans les ecoles humaines. II est raeme certain que la bonne- foi ne lui permettoit pas de le dissimuler, puisqu’ayant pris sa citation dans l’edition de Cambrige, il ne peut qu’y avoir lu cette note de Spencer. ‘ Matt. xiii. 25 [54]. Marc. vi. 2, 3. Clariss. Grotius in Annot. ad Marc. Causa ad- mirationis, ut collatio Luces et Johannis nos docet, htec erat, quod Jesus, nullo humano magisterio institutus, summa cum perspicuitate prophetarum verba explicaret.’ ” Ar. de La Chapeele, La Frip. Ldique, p. 375. — D.] f Matt. xiii. 54. « Pag. 127. [* See p. 363. — D.] h Euseb. Praep. p. 540; Theod. Graec. Affect, p. 33; Cyrill. c. Julian. p. 283. REMARKS. 409 took the form of man ; though even then he gave proof of the majesty of his nature : nay , and after his dissolution was deified again ; and is God, the same he was before he descended into body, and flesh, and man. Is there any air in all this of banter or contempt ? Has it not, the very contrary, an air of* the most serious assent and approbation ? Has he not para¬ phrased the Evangelist’s words in the best style and manner? TirepayaraL teal redav/xa^e, says Theodorit; Amelias vene¬ rates and admires the proem of St. John’s Gospel ; and per¬ haps it was he (though no worse, if it was another Platonist,) who said it deserved to be writ in letters of gold, and set in the most conspicuous place in every church A And who liow is the barbarian but our writer himself ? The Platonist he brought to affront the Evangelist is found an adorer of him. I hope he’ll learn, in his next performance, not to depend too much on second or fifth-hand citations. f Our author seems sensible that he drags Plato per force into the club of free-thinkers, as Cacus did his oxen into his cave by the tails. For which hanging back and reluctancy Plato shall have a dash ; and since he cannot make a good free-thinker of him, he’ll make him a creed-maker : for several of his notions became fundamental articles of the Christian faith J It really may be so ; for the first article of my faith is, I believe in God, and that he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek himJ And I persuade myself that Plato and his master, and many other good men before our Saviour’s manifestation, had the very same article. And I had rather [* Has it not, the very contrary, an air of; 1st ed. “ Is it not the very con¬ trary, of.” — D.] 1 Augustin de Civ. Dei, x. 29. Quod initium S, Evangelii, cui nomen est secundum Joannem, quidam Platonicus . aureis literis conscribendum, et per omnes ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat. [f Collins’s reference at the bottom of the page is, “ Per Jovem, barbarus iste cum nostro Platone sentit. Apud Reeve’s Apologies in his Dissert, upon Justin Martyr.” — D.] i Pag. 128. — [The 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) has, “ were afterwards esteemed fundamental,” Sic. p. 105; and so the French translation, p. 187. — D.] k Heb. xi. 6. VOL. III. 3 G 410 REMARKS. have my soul he with those,* though they had not the light of the Gospel, than with such of our moderns as trample pearls under their feet, and rend those that lay them before them. But I do not owe this article to Plato, but to God, the com¬ mon author of nature, and father of rational light. When our writer specifies more articles as borrowed from Plato, your own divines will take care of him, and do justice to revelation. ♦ Yes, but zealous Christians forged several things under Plato’s name, with which they had great success in the conver¬ sion of the heathen world.1 He’s at his old charge of for¬ gery,! though it never succeeds in his hands. And what, pray you, did they forge ? Why, the thirteenth letter to Diony¬ sius, printed in his works. But is this our author’s own criticism ? is it supported by any reasons hammered on his own anvil ? Not the least pretence to those ; but he refers to Dr. Cudworth, and the business is done. O wretched gleaner of weeds ! Has he read that noble work. The Intel¬ lectual System, to no better purpose ? One oversight, one error, he culls out for his use ; and passes over a thousand noble truths, that might have made him a better man, and no writer. The doctor there says, It is supposititious, and counterfeit by some zealous and ignorant Christian ; as there is accord¬ ingly a vodevercu, or brand of bastardy, prefixed to it in all the editions of Plato’s works. m ThaPs true indeed of the brand ; but he was a bold ignorant that put it there. That letter is as genuine as any of the rest, and was received in the list before the Christian name began. Laertius, an Epicu¬ rean,11 who lived in Antoninus Pius’s time, gives a catalogue of them all ; emo-roXa! rpiaicaiheKd, says he, epistles thirteen : and so Suidas in EowparTeiv : but take this branded one away, [* An allusion, observes Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 383, to a reported saying of Averroes, “ moriatur animamea morte philosophorum” — “ malle se animam suam esse cum philosophis,” &c. See Bayle in Aver, note H. — D.] 1 Pag. 128. [f See p. 383.— D.] Cudworth, p. 403. [ed. 1078. — D.] 11 In Platone, iii, 61. REMARKS. 411 and there are but twelve. Among these are 777309 Alovixtlov TerrapeSifour, says he, to Dionysius : remove this suspected one,, and there remain hut three. In a word, all the present thirteen answer exactly to his list, both in names and in number ; except a small various lection, To Aristodorus the Xth letter, whom he calls Aristodemus. And this alone is suf¬ ficient to clear the Christians of the pretended forgery. For surely Laertius could come at copies of Plato 200 years old, since we now have them of 700 or more : and if the present XIIIth was there, it must be writ before Christ was born. But to go farther still : this recension of Plato’s works he gives not from himself, but from Thrasyllus, who, flourishing in the time of Augustus, must needs be older than Christ. Nay, he cites, without the least hint of diversity in the number, another recension by Aristophanes Grammaticus, who- was a writer 200 years before the Christian era. And now, if we look into the internal character of the letter itself, it w ill have all the marks of genuineness. ’Tis not some staple commonplace, as most of those forged by the Sophists are, but a letter of business, circumstantiated with great variety of things and persons, all apt and proper to the writer and to the date. It was forged, therefore, by nobody, much less by any Christian ; who certainly would never have put idolatry into a letter made (as our writer says) for the conversion of the heathens. I have got you, says Plato there, a statue of Apollo, and Leptines conveys it to you : it’s made by a young and good workman, whose name is Leochares : this was that Leochares, afterwards a most famous statuary, cele¬ brated by Pliny and Pausanias ; and the time hits exactly, for then he was young. Which is as great a mark that the letter is genuine, as it is a demonstration that no Christian forged it. And lastly, the ground of this suspicion, a pas¬ sage yet extant in it, and quoted by Eusebius and Theodorit,0 is a weak and poor pretence. As for the symbol, says he, or private mark you desire, to know my serious letters and which ~ contain my real sentiments from those that do not so , know 0 Euseb. Prap. p. 530. Theod. Affect, p. 27. 412 REMARKS. and remember that Tys gev airovhaias e7TLaTo\g^ ©eo9 ap^ei, Geot 8e rr}<; t)ttov , God begins a serious letter, and Gods one that’s otherwise. This the Fathers (and not unjustly) made use of as some indication that Plato really believed but one God. Which notion your learned doctor not approving, as con¬ trary (in his opinion) to the Platonic system, he decries the letter as spurious. But this is no consequence at all, what¬ soever becomes of Platons true thoughts. The symbol he here speaks of made no part of the letters, nor began the first paragraph of them ; for here’s neither 6eo 9 nor deol in that manner in any one of the thirteen. ’Twas extrinsic (if I mistake not) to the letter, and was a mark at the top of it in these words, avv dew, if it was a serious one ; otherwise, avv deois. These two were the common forms in the begin¬ ning of writings or any discourse of importance : and in their usage were equivalent and indifferent; philosophers, as Xeno¬ phon and others, having it sometimes avv deol<;; and poets, as Euripides and Aristophanes, avv dew. So that Plato could not have chosen a symbol fitter for his turn, being in neither way liable to any suspicion, nor any inference to be drawn from it to discover his real opinion. And yet I am so much a friend to Eusebius’s remark, that I would not wish Plato had made the other choice, to put avv deois in his solemn letters, and avv dew in his slight ones. Had our writer carried his point in this instance of forgery, could he have done any great feats with it? Yes, a mighty one indeed ! he could have added one pious fraud more to a hundred others that are detected ready to his hand. But, pray, who are the discoverers of them ? The Christian priests themselves : so far are they from concealing or propagating them, or thinking their cause needs them. And I challenge him and the whole fraternity to shew one single one that they discovered, and owe not to the clergy. Even this mistaken one is picked from your Cudworth. Most able masters of stratagem, ever to hope to vanquish religion by arms borrowed from the . priests ! They may be REMARKS. 413 sure there’s no danger of the strong town’s being taken, while the garrison within can afford to lend the besiegers powder. So far are the modern Christians from protecting old forgeries, that they are ready* to cry spurious without ground or occasion. As not only this XIIIth by Dr. Cudworth, and before him by Aldobrandinus, but another letter of Plato’s is called in question by Menagius. There are thirteen letters extant , says he ; among which , one to Erastus and Coriscus, quoted by Clemens and Origen, is now wanting : but it seems to have been spurious, and forged by the Christians, p Now all this is mere dream and delusion. That very letter is expressly named by Laertius, 7 rpo? 'Epgeiav kcll 'Epaarov kcll KopLa-Kov gia, one, says he, to Hermias and Erastus and Coriscus ; and it’s the VIth of the present set of thirteen ; and the passages thence cited by Origen, Clemens, and Theodorit too, are extant there exactly ; and there’s nothing in it for the Christian cause but what may be proved as strongly from several other places of Plato’s undoubted works. But what mischief have I been doing ? I have prevented our free¬ thinker ; who, after he had dabbled by chance in Menagius, might have flourished with a new forgery, and magisterially preached it to his credulous crew. XLVII. Aristotle, the next in the free-thinking row, makes a very short appearance there, and goes quickly off the stage. His title hangs by two slender threads ; first, that he fur¬ nished articles of faith to the popish church , as Plato did to the primitives Now I had thought that creed-making and free-thinking (even allowing the charge to be true) had been words of a disparate sense, that looked askew at each other : and how both of them come to sit so amicably upon Aristotle [* are ready ; I st ed. “ are too ready.” — D.] >' Aldobrand. ct Menag. ad Laertium, iii. HI. •i Pag. 128. 414 REMARKS. surpasses my comprehension. But the matter is no more than this : as the primitive Christians, in their disputes with the pagans, made great use of the Platonic philosophy ; not to coin articles, but to explain them, and refell* the adver¬ saries’ objections ; so the schoolmen, in the popish times, had recourse to the Peripatetic, the sole system then in vogue. And yet these did not make articles from it : our author’s weak if he thinks so : neither did Palavicinof so mean it. The peculiar doctrines of that church came from politics, not metaphysics ; not from the chairs of professors, but from the offices of the Roman court. And the school¬ men were their drudges, in racking Aristotle and their own brains to gild and palliate such gainful fictions, and to reconcile them, if possible, to common sense, which ever hated and spurned them. The second title Aristotle holds by is a charge of im¬ piety ;v which I must own promises well, if it could be made good ; for that word and free-thinking are very closely com¬ bined, both by affinity and old acquaintance. He was forced, says he, to steal privately out of Athens to Chalcis, because Eurymedon , a priest , accused him of impiety, for introducing some philosophical assertions contrary to the religion of the Athenians. The voucher he brings for this is Diogenes Laertius ; but, under his old fatality of blundering, he sum¬ mons a wrong witness. Origen,| indeed, says something to his purpose, that he was impeached 8id r iva Soygara rg ov tptXo?, he that has friends has no friend : but Christian friendship or charity, in the same degree of affection, is extended to the whole household *» Plutarch contra Coloten, p. 2037, 2041, 2058. [= Mor. t. v. pp. 359, 366, 389. ed. Wyttenb. 4to. — D,] y Idem, p. 2018. [In the tract, "Ot< oi/Se £rjv icrrtv rjStoos, k. t. A. Mor'. t. v. p. 327. ed. Wyttenb. 4to. — D.] 7 Pag. 129. — [The later 8vo ed. p. 130, and the L2mo ed. of the Discourse, p. 108, (see note, p. 290, 1) have — “ require of us that virtue.” — D.] 11 Cicero de Amic. cap. v. REMARKS. 419 of faith, and in true good-will and beneficence to all the race of mankind. Not that particular friendships, arising from familiarity and similitude of humours, studies, and interests, are forbid or discouraged in the gospel ; but there needed no precept to appoint and require what nature itself, and human life, and mutual utility, sufficiently prompt us to. A bridle was more necessary than a spur for these partial friendships ; where the straight rule of moral is often bent and warped awry, to comply with interest and injustice under a specious name ; as many of the most magnified instances sufficiently shew. But I’m insensibly here become a preacher, and in¬ vade a province which you clergymen, and the English of all others, can much better adorn. XLIX. Before I proceed to the next in his row, I shall make a general remark on our writer’s judgment and conduct. He has brought the authors of three sects, Plato, Aristotle, and, with the greatest mark of approbation, Epicurus. Pray, how came he to drop the others ? Aristippus the Cyrenaic cried up pleasure as much as that Gargettian did ; had strumpets for his mistresses and she-disciples, as well as he ; and well deserved the honour of being in the list. Even Diogenes the Cynic would have made a laudable free-thinker, for that single assertion, that marriage was nothiny but an empty name ; and he that could persuade might lie with any woman that could be persuaded .b Nay, even Zeno himself, the father of Stoicism, as gruff as he looked, might have enlarged our writer’s cata¬ logue, for some very free thoughts about the indifferency of things : that all women ought to be common ; that no words are to be reckoned obscene; that the secret parts need no covering ; that incest and sodomy have no real crime nor tur- j)itude.c Where was our author’s reading when he omitted such illustrious examples, that might have graced and dig¬ nified his list full as much as Epicurus ? b Tbv irelffavra ttj TreifffleiVp awelvat. Laert. [vi. 72. p.348, eel. Meib. — D.] e Sextus Enipir. 420 REMARKS. The remainder of his roll are not founders, but followers of the several sects. But be they one or the other, masters or scholars, what shallowness, what want of thought in our writer, to impose and press these upon us for our imitation in free-thinking? Many of his blunders are special, and reach no further than a paragraph ; but here his stupidity is total ; and in the wThole compass and last tendency of his passages he’s as blind as a mole. The great outcry against the church, which is always in his mouth, is its imposing* a system of opinions to be swallowed in the gross, without liberty of examining or dissenting. Allow it : though even this is false, the imposed opinions being few, and true, and plain ; and a large field left open for freedom and latitude of thought ; as his own book attests, which is mostly spent in collecting the various notions of your clergy. But how would our writer mend this ? by recommending the freedom of the leaders and followers of the sects of philosophy ? Ridiculous direction ! Bid us copy free government from France, and free toleration from Spain. Those very sects, all, without exception, prescribed more imperiously than Christianity itself does ; and not in a few generals, some easy articles of a short creed, but in the whole extent of reasoning, both natural and moral, and even in logical t in¬ quiries. Any scholar of a particular sect, though commonly entered in it young, and by his parent’s choice, not his own, was to be led shackled and hoodwinked all the rest of his life. He assented and consented to his philosophical creed in the lump, and before he knew the particulars. It was made the highest point of honour never to desert nor flinch : Scelus erat dogma prodere , it ivas flagitious to betray a maxim : they were all to be defended , sicut moenia, sicut caput et fama , like his castle, as dear as his life and reputation.% And there were fewer instances then of leaving one sect for another, than now we have of defection to popery, or of apostacy to Mahometism. And I’ll give our writer one [* is its imposing; lsi ed. “is imposing.” — D.] [+ even in logical ; \st ed. “ even logical.” — D.] [2 Cic. Acad. ii. 43, 44. — D.] REMARKS. 421 observation upon Cicero, better worth than all he has told us : that in all the disputes he introduces between the various sects, after the speeches are ended every man sticks where he was before ; not one convert is made (as is common in modern dialogue), nor brought over in the smallest article. For he avoided that violation of decorum ; he had observed, in common life, that all persevered in their sects, and main¬ tained every nostrum without reserve. But of all sects what¬ ever, the most superstitiously addicted and bigoted to their master were our writer’s beloved Epicureans. In others, some free-thinking or ambitious successor might make a small innovation, and thenceforwards there was some scanty room for domestic disputation ; but the Epicureans, those patterns of friendship, never disagreed in the least point ;d all their master’s dreams and reveries were held as sacred as the laws of Solon or the twelve tables. ’Twas daeftypa, 7 ra- pavoggpa, unlawful , irreligious, to start one free or new notion ; and so the stupid succession persisted to the last in maintaining that the sun, moon, and stars, were no bigger than they appear to the eye, and other such idiotic stuff, against mathematical demonstration. O fine libei'ty ! 0 dili¬ gence and application of mind ! This is our writer’s admired sect ; these his saints and his heroes. Could it be revived again at Athens, he deserves for his superior dulness to be chosen /cyTroTvpavvos, the prince of the garden ,e L. We are advanced now to Plutarch, whom, though a heathen priest, he will dub a free-thinkei'. This is very obliging ; but in the close of his catalogue he’ll extend the same favour even to the Jewish prophets and the Christian priests. I perceive his politics, totum orbem civitate donare, to make all religions in the world free of his growing sect. It will grow the better for it ; especially if he aggregates to it his Talapoins and his Bonzes. But wherein has Plutarch d Laertius, Numcnius, &c. * Laert. in Epicuro. [p. 614. ed. Meib. — D.] 422 REMARKS. so obliged the fraternity ? In his treatise of Superstition ; a long passage out of which fills two of our writer’s pages :f and yet the whole is pure impertinence, and contributes no¬ thing to any free-thinking purpose whatever. The design of Plutarch is to shew the deplorable misery of superstition when it is in extremity ; when a man imagines the gods under the same idea we now do the devils ; when he fancies them efnrXrjKTOw 7, dirta-rovs, evperafioXovs, Ttgw- prjTLKovs, dgovq, putcpoXvTrov ?, mad, faithless, fickle, re¬ vengeful, cruel, and disgusted at the smallest things ; when he figures Diana, Apollo, Juno, Venus, as acting under the most frantic and raving distractions ; when he approaches trembling to the temples, as if they were the dens of bears, dragons, or sea -monsters A When superstition, says he, is arrived to this pitch, it’s more intolerable than atheism itself; nay, it pro¬ duces atheism, both in others that see them, and in themselves, if they can emerge to it. For when fools fly from superstition, they run into atheism, the other extreme, inrepTrr/hyaavTes iv pecrM Keigevyv ttjv evcre{3eiav,h skipping over right religion, that lies in the middle. This is the sum of Plutarch’s book : and what’s all this to our writer’s design ? Superstition, under this character, is not possible to be found in Chris- f Pag. 132, 133. — [where a note refers us to Plutarch’s “Morals in English, vol. i. p. 162, &c.” — ed. 1704. That version is “ by several hands,” and the treatise in question is “ made English by William Baxter, Gent.” Collins (as Bentley shews) has mangled the passage, and occasionally altered the words of Baxter. In the French translation of the Discourse (see note, p. 291,) the following note is added to the passage from Plutarch : “ Plutarque ajoute quelque chose ici, qui depeint bien le trouble du superstitieux. Ainsi, dit-il, on peut dire que le dormir du superstilieux est pour lui tin enfer, ou il est en proie a mille imagina¬ tions horribles, et a mille visions monstreuses et effrayantes de diables et de furies, qui tourmentent sa miserable dme, et lui dtent tout son repos, par des songes dont elle se tourmente elle-meme avec autant de soin que si elle y etoit contrainte par quel¬ que autre. Plutarque d’Amiot, p. 324. in 8. R. ajoutee.” p. 194. — Ar. de La Chapelle {La Frip. La'ique, p.429) is mistaken in saying that the French translator “ a saute une periode” of the quotation from Plutarch, as exhibited in the editions of the Discourse in English. — D.] e Pint. p. 295, 296. [= Mor. t. i. pp. 469, 470, 471, 472. ed. Wyttenb. 4to. — D.] h Ibid. p. 299. [= Mor. t. i. pp. 474, 473. ed. Wyttenb. 4to. — D.] REMARKS. 423 tianity; it can be no where but under pagan and poetical theology. In other places1 the same author scourges atheism as severely as superstition here ; nay, he prefers a moderate superstition infinitely before it. But those passages are to be dropped ; and this, out of so many volumes, is singled out as a flower ; which yet serves to no better end than to shew our writer understands neither the language nor the sense. Superstition , says he (by way of insertion1*), by which the Greeks meant the fear of God, and which Theophrastus in his Characters expressly defines so. Not a syllable of this true. The Greeks meant not absolutely fear, but an erroneous and vicious fear ; and Theophrastus defines it, not 8eoo/3o<; 6 rr)? SeiaiSaigo- vlas* the fear arising from superstition. He will fix a calumny on religion and the fear of God, in spite of his author. His justness of thought is conspicuous in his version of this period : Even slaves forget their masters in their sleep ; sleep lightens the irons of the fettered ; their angry sores , mortified gangrenes, and pinching pains allow them some inter¬ mission at night : hut superstition will give no truce at night. n If Plutarch had writ no better in the original, he would scarce have been now the most known of all the ancients, \ but long ago had been forgot. Mind the absurdity : their angry sores, that is, of the fettered ; as if all captives, or criminals, or slaves in chains, must needs be full of sores and ulcers. And then mortified gangrenes allow some inter¬ mission of pain. If he had consulted physicians, he might have known that mortified parts can give no pain at all, and consequently have no intermission. And lastly, sores and pains allow intermission at night : false ; for night is the periodical time of aggravation of pains. But superstition will give no truce at night. Is that such a wonder? even less truce than in the day; for darkness and solitude increase the fears. What a series of nonsense has he fathered upon Plutarch ! Of which nothing appears in the Greek ; neither their sores, nor mortified gangrenes, nor at night. Pll trans¬ late the passage^ word for word : Sleep lightens the irons of the fettered; inflammations of wounds, cancerous corrosions of the flesh, and all the most raging pains, dismiss men while they sleep : superstition alone gives no truce nor cessation even in sleep. If this is not unworthy of Plutarch, the other cer¬ tainly becomes none but our writer and his company. m Pag. 132. — [The French translation of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) has “ comme celle que la religion superstitieuse lui inspire,” p. 193. — D.] [* Plut. Mor. t. i. p. 457. ed. Wyttenb. 4to. — D.] 11 Pag. 133. — [In this passage Collins has only transcribed Baxter’s ver¬ sion : see note, p. 422. — D.] [f Discourse, p. 131. — D.] [J Plut. Mor. t. i. p. 458. ed. Wyttenb. 4to. — D.] REMARKS. 425 But now comes a signal instance of the lightness of his hand, and the heaviness of his head. In the middle of his long citation, page 133, after the words at noon-day •,* he drops the period which immediately follows in the original, and transfers it into his 134th page, as if it was quoted from another place, and belonged to another head. Why this legerdemain ? Why this mangling and luxation of passages ? The reason is apparent ; for Plutarch’s own words, as they were represented in the last English version, not serving his turn, he quotes the place as it is translated forsooth in the Characteristics, t a book writ by an anonymous, but whoever he is, a very whimsical and conceited author. O wretched Grecians (so that author renders Plutarch), who bring into religion that frightful mien of sordid and villi- fying devotion , ill-favoured humiliation% and contrition , abject looks and countenances , consternations , prostrations , disfigu¬ rations ; and , in the act of worship, distortions, constrained and painful postures of the body, wry faces, beggarly tones, mumpings, grimaces, cringings, and the rest of this kind.0 Thus far that nameless opiniatre : and our worthy writer in¬ troduces it with a grave air, that Plutarch thus satirises the public forms of devotion ; which yet are such as in almost all countries pass for the true worship of God. p This would partly be true if those were really the words of Plutarch ; but as not one syllable of them is found there, what must we think of this couple of corruptors and forgers ? There is nothing in all this but their own disfigurations and distor- [* At the corresponding place in the French translation of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) an omission is marked thus . . . . p. 195; but the reader is not informed that the passage there omitted is the one quoted in the next page.— D.] [f “ as it is translated in the CharacteristicJcs, vol. iii. p. 126 ” — -a reference which is not found in the French translation of the Discourse, p. 196 (see note, p. 291). Bentley, writing in the character of a foreigner, affects here to be ignorant that Shaftesbury was the author of the Characteristics ; as afterwards (sect, liv.) that Rowe was the translator of Lucan. — D.] [+ The French translation of the Discourse (see note p. 291) has “ des hu¬ miliations indecentes, un visage contrefait, des yeux baisses,” &c. p. 196. — D.] o Pag. 134. P Ibid. VOL. III. 3 I 426 REMARKS. tions of the original; their own mumping s and beggarly tones, while they pretend to speak in Plutarch’s voice. Plutarch having observed, that superstition alone allows no ease nor intermission even in sleep; e for their dreams, adds he, do as much torment them then as their waking thoughts did before. And then they seek for expiations of those visions nocturnal ; charms, sulphurations, dippings in the sea, sittings all day on the ground/ O Greeks, inventors of barbarian ills ! whose superstition has devised rollings in the mire and in the kennels, dippings in the sea, gravellings and throwings upon the face , deformed sittings on the earth, absurd and uncouth adora¬ tions, .9 This is a verbal interpretation of that place ; except that for aa/3(3aTia/£ov$, sabbatisms, I have emended it fiair- Ticryovs, dippings : and this, if I mistake not, for very good reasons. Neither o-a/3/3aTicryb 9 nor p.bv ' PiQiaroreK-qs ivtSpocraro rdvSe Tlxdruuos, we ought to read, for the sake of the measure, lUpvaaTo : vide Anth. Gr. ex rec. Br. (ed. Jacobs.) t. iv. p. 233. — D.] f Pag. 140. [f M Leztus sum laudari me, inquit Hector, opinor apud Naevium, abs te, pater, a laudato viro." Cic. Epist. Earn. xv. 6. — D.] £ Remark xxvii. h Ornnem antiquitatem. Consensus nationum omnium. 446 REMARKS. not only transmit the doctrine, but produced reasons and arguments to establish it : Sed rationes etiam attulisse ; quas, nisi quid dicis, prcetermittamus, et hanc totarn spent immortali- tatis relinquamus ; which arguments , unless you say other¬ wise, let us pass over, and lay aside this whole hope of immor¬ tality} The meaning of which is most plain, if we reflect, that the question here to be debated was only this, It seems to me that death is an evil : which Cicero had already refuted, even upon the scheme of the soul’s extinction ; without need of engaging deeper in the proofs of immortality. So that here, in the Socratic way of dialogue, with elpwvela, dissimu¬ lation and urbanity, he seems willing to drop the cause, on purpose to raise the interlocutor’s appetite. Who well knowing this was but a feint, and that Cicero wanted a little courting to proceed. What, says he, do you now leave me, after you have drawn me into the highest expectation ? Pray proceed with Plato’s arguments : quocum errare mehercule malo, quam cum istis vera sentire, with whom (in this affair) I had rather choose to be mistaken than be in the right with those mean souls that are content with extinction. Upon which, says the orator to him, Macte virtute, God bless you with that brave spirit : I myself too should willingly mistake ivith him : and so he enters upon and exhausts the whole Platonic reasoning for the soul’s immortality. Now what oddness, what perverseness of mind in our scribbler, to infer from this paragraph that the interlocutor thought Cicero denied the immortality of the soul! Is it not just the re¬ verse ? But what need I wonder ; when none but such a crooked and cross-grained block could ever be shaped into an atheist? And now we are come to his general character of Cicero, and the new key to his works, which our bungler has made for the use of your clergy. He professed, he says, the Aca¬ demic or Sceptic philosophy ; and the only true method of discovering his sentiments is to see ivhat he says himself, or under the person of an Academic. To quote any thing else ' Tuscul. i. 17. REMARKS. 447 from him as his own is an imposition on the world, begun by some men of learning, and continued by others of little or none. This is the sum of our author’s observations ; * in which there is part vulgar and impertinent, and part false and his own. The Academic or Sceptic philosophy ! He might as well say, the Popish or Lutheran religion ; the difference between those being as wide as between these. A common imposition on the world ! Where, or by whom ? Has not Cicero in his disputations represented the systems of the several sects with more clearness and beauty than they themselves could do ? Such passages have been, and will be, quoted out of Cicero indeed, for the elegancy of them ; not as his own doctrines, but as those of the respective t sects that there speak them. And what harm is this ? The reasoning is the same, from what quarter soever it comes ; and the au¬ thority not the less, though transferred from Cicero to a Stoic. But the men of learning have blundered, and not nicely distinguished Cicero from the Stoic. When he pleases to name those, FJ1 produce him a man of none, who has stupidly confounded Cicero with the Epicurean.! And then his sagacious hint, that Cicero’s true sentiments are to be seen in the person of the Academic ! This he thought he was safe in ; and yet it is as true as it will appear strange, that his sentiments are least, or not at all, to be seen there : of which as briefly as I can. The Platonic Academy dogmatised, or delivered their doctrines for fixed and certain, as the Peripatetics and Stoics did. But in the tract of succession, one Carneades, a man of great wit and eloquence, on purpose to shew both, made an innovation in the Academy. By the notion of fixed and certain ( fixa , certa, rata, decreta) he was pinned down to one system ; and his great parts wanted more room to expa- [* Discourse , p. 135, &c. — D.] [f not as his own doctrines, but as those of the respective ; lsf ed. “ but not as his own doctrines, but of the respective.”— D.] j Remark XLVIII. p. 417. 448 REMARKS. tiate and flourish in : he contrived, therefore, a way to get it : he denied the certainty of things , and admitted of no higher a knowledge than probability and verisimilitude. Not that he did not as much believe and govern himself in com¬ mon life upon what he called highly probables, as the others did upon their certains ; but by this pretty fetch he obtained his end, and became disputant universal, pro omnibus sectis et contra omnes dicebat. Did the Stoics assert a thing for certain ? He would demolish that certainty from Epicurean topics. Again, did these last pretend to any certainty ? He would unsay what he spoke for them before ; and attack them with Stoical arguments, which just now he had endea¬ voured to baffle. This method gave name to the New Aca¬ demy: but it had few professors while it lasted, and lasted but a little time ; requiring such wit and eloquence, such laborious study in all sects whatever, and carrying in it’s very face such an air of pride and ostentation, that very few either could or cared to espouse it. However, this very sect, then deserted and almost forgot, did best agree with the vast genius and ambitious spirit of young Cicero. He was possessed of oratory in it’s perfec¬ tion ; and he had added philosophy under the best masters of all sects, Diodotus, Antiochus, Philo, Posidonius, and others : he would not confine himself to one system, but range through them all ; so the New Academy was chosen, as the largest field to shew his learning and eloquence. Which turn when he had once taken, he was always to maintain : he was to rise no higher than probability, the characteristic of the sect. For this was their badge of ser¬ vitude, though they boasted of more freedom than the others. Did a Stoic assert the certainty of Divine Providence ? You are tied down, says an Academic ; itJs only a probable. You are tied as much, replies the Stoic ; for though you believe it as firmly as I, you dare not say it’s certain, for fear of clashing with your sect. If we take Cicero under this view, we shall then truly be qualified to interpret all his writings. And first we shall REMARKS. 449 find, what I said before, and which at once breaks to pieces our writer’s new key, that the Academic objections, which in his philosophical conferences are ever brought against the other sects, is the most unlikely place where to find his real sentiments. For that being the privilege of the sect, to speak pro or con as they pleased, contra omnia did oportere et pro omnibus ,k contra omnes philosophos , et pro omnibus dicer e ; 1 they very frequently opposed non ex animo , sed simulate , not heartily , but feignedly ; m not what they really believed, but what served the present turn. In De Natura Deorum, when Balbus the Stoic had spoken admirably for the existence of the gods and providence. Cotta the Academic (though he was a priest, one of the pontifices ) undertakes the opposite side, non tarn refellere ejus orationem, quam ea quce minus intellexit requirere ; not so much to refute his discourse as to discuss some points he did not fully understand ;n and after he had finished his attack with great copiousness and subtilty, yet in the close he owns to Balbus, that what he had said was for dispute's sake , not his own judgment ; that he both desired that Balbus would confute him , and knew certainly that he could do it.0 And Cicero himself, who was then an auditor * at the dispute, though of the same sect with Cotta, declares his own opinion, that the Stoic? s discourse for pro¬ vidence seemed to him more probable than Cotta’s against it ; which he repeats again in De Divinatione, i. 5. And what now becomes of our writer’s true method and rule ? Whatsoever is spoken under the person of an Academic, is that to be taken for Cicero’s sentiment ? Why Cicero de¬ clares here, that he sided with the Stoic against the Aca¬ demic ; and whom are we to believe, himself or our silly writer ? When Cicero says above, that the stoical doctrine of providence seemed to him more probable, if we take it aright, it carries the same importance as when a Stoic says k Acad. ii. 18. 1 Nat. Deor. i. 5. m Nat. Deor. ii. fine. " Nat. Deor. iii. 1. ° Nat. Deor. m.fine. [* then an auditor ; Is/ ed. “ then auditor.” — D.] 3 M VOL. III. 450 REMARKS. it’s certain and demonstrable. For, as I remarked before, the law, the badge, the characteristic of his sect allowed him to affirm no stronger than that : he durst not have spoken more peremptorily about a proposition of Euclid, or what he saw with his own eyes. His 'probable had the same influence on his belief, the same force on his life and conduct, as the others* certain had on theirs. Nay, within his own breast he thought it as much certain as they ; hut he was to keep to the Academic style, which solely consisted in that point, that nothing was allowed certum, comprehension, perceptum, ratum, firmum, fixum; but our highest attainment was probabile et verisimile. He that reads his works with penetration, judgment, and diligence, will find this to be true, that probable in his sect is equivalent to certain. For what he says of Socrates exactly fits himself ; where report¬ ing his last words. Whether it’s better to live or die , the gods alone know ; of men I believe no one* knows : as to what Socrates speaks, says he, that none but the gods know whether is better, he himself knows it; for he had said it before : sed suum illud, nihil ut affirmet, tenet ad extremum ; but he keeps his manner to the last , to affirm nothing for CERTAIN. p If we seek, therefore, for Cicero’s true sentiments, it must not be in his disputes against others, where he had license to say any thing for opposition sake; but in the books where he dogmatises himself ; where, allowing for the word probable , you have all the spirit and marrow of the Platonic, Peripatetic, and Stoic systems ; I mean his books De Officiis , Tusculance , De Amicitia, De Senectute, De Legibus ; in which, and in the remains of others now lost, he declares for the being and providence of God, for the immortality of the soul, for every point that approaches to Christianity. Those three sects he esteems as the sole ornaments of philosophy ; the others he contemns ; and the Epicureans he lashes throughout, not only for their base and abject principles, but for their neglect of all letters, eloquence, and science. [* No one ; 1st ed. “none.” — D.] p Tuscul. i. 42. REMARKS. 451 And I must do him this justice, that as his sect allowed him to choose what he liked best, and what he valued as most probable, out of all the various systems, he always chooses like a knowing and honest man. If in any point of moral, one author had spoken nobler and loftier than another, he is sure to adopt the worthiest notion for his own, and to clothe it in a finer dress with new beauties of style.* [* 1 may here observe, that to the note, at p. 139 of the first ed. of the Discourse, which commences, “And yet sometimes his [Cicero’s] zeal against what he took to be superstition made him so far forget himself, as to speak that in his orations which he could only do with safety in an assembly of philoso¬ phers,” Collins in the later 8vo ed. ibid, (see note, p. 291), added another “ instance” from Cicero’s works ; and that in the 12mo ed. p. 115, he threw the whole note into the text, altering the beginning thus : “ And yet sometimes his zeal against what he took to be superstition made him so far forget a maxim of his own, as to speak,” &c. ; and citing at the foot of the page : “ Queritur sintne dei, nec ne sint. Difficile est negare. Credo, si in concione quaeratur : sed in ejuscemodi sermone et consessu, facillimum. De Nat. Deor. lib. i.” The French translation of the Discourse, p. 204, agrees with the 12mo ed. — The dishonesty of Collins in the above quotation from Cicero is exposed by Ar. de La Chapelle, La Frip. Laique, p. 544. — D.] TAlVTUM. . • • ti > • . , . .1 ■ * * REMARKS UPON A LATE DISCOURSE OF FREE-THINKING BY PHILELEUTHERUS LIPSIENSIS. PART THE THIRD. (From ed. 1743.) . ' - . ' REMARKS. LIV. Our author, very discreetly silent about the living members of his sect, has laboured strenuously to incorporate into it some great names from the dead, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Yarro, Cato the elder, and Cicero ; with what suc¬ cess my former Remarks have sufficiently shewn ; where the reader, as he is variously affected, now with our writer’s ignorance, now with his prevarication, is tossed between the alternate passions of pity and contempt. We now again overtake him, endeavouring to draw over to his honourable party the very picture of virtue ,* Cato the younger j not from Cato’s own declaration, but from a famous passage of the poet Lucan, who, he says, has raised a noble monument , not only to Cato’s wisdom and virtue , but to his free-thinking ;( i and he expects our thanks for giving us that passage, not in the original only, but in the trans¬ lation of an ingenious author. t And here I find myself under some difficulty and uneasiness ; our writer slinks away, and leaves me to engage with a nameless author , whose cha¬ racter and station at home, a foreigner, and at such a dis¬ tance from Britain, cannot be supposed to know : - 67 Tetrj pa\a 7 roWd gera^v Ovped re a/aoevra, ddXaaad tc r/^yeaaa.X So that I must throw out censures at random, not knowing on whom they fall. Perhaps he may be a person of worth, [* Discourse, p. 141, where Collins cites, “Homo virtuti simillimus,” &c. Veil. Paterc. 1. ii. c. 35. — D.] ** Pag. 141. [f The later 8vo ed. of the Discourse, ibid., and the 12ino ed. p. 117 (see note, p. 291), have “ in the excellent translation of a most ingenious author.” — The version of Lucan, with which, writing in the character of Phil. Lip., Bentley affects to be unacquainted (see notes, p. 349 and p. 425), is the well-known one of Rowe, who died (1718) long before this portion of the Remarks appeared. In the French translation of the Discourse the Lucan of Brebeuf is cited. — D.] [t Horn. 11. i. 150.— D.] 456 REMARKS. as little allied to this free-thinker’ s society as many others of the English nation whom he has the impudence to list in it. Hooker, Chillingworth, Wilkins, Cudworth, Tillotson. If so, I must plead in my behalf both the innocence of my intention, and the necessity of the work, because justice cannot be done to the present subject without some severity upon that version. But it’s possible that the ingenious translator may be our writer himself, who would try his faculty in poetry under this mask and disguise ; and in that view I desire that all the infamy of that faulty translation may fall on him and no other ; since, be he the author or not, he is certainly to answer for it, having so applauded the performance, and so warped it to a vile and impious abuse. But, before we come to Lucan, we have a small specimen of our writer’s usual penetration and ability in the classics. Paterculus,* in a fine character of our Cato, among other expressions says, He was, per omnia ingenio diis quam homi- nibus propior , in his whole temper (tranquillity, constancy, justice, &c.) nearer to the gods than to men. Who does not know that ingenium is temper, disposition, turn of mind ? But our writer has rendered it, that in every thing by his knowledge he approached more to the gods than to men.r Absurdly translated ! not only against common language, but common sense. For wherein was Cato so distinguished for knoivledge ? and universal too, per omnia? As a Stoic he was inferior in that knowledge to the Greek professors of the sect who were his preceptors ; and for general know¬ ledge, what vast extent could he attain to, whose life was short of fifty years, in a continued course of employments, and hurry of public business ? he was so far in that regard from approaching the gods, that he was below many mortals his contemporaries, Cicero, Nigidius Figulus, Varro, and [* Lib. ii. c. 35. — D.] r Pag. 141. [The 12mo ed. of the Discourse (see note, p. 291) has “ by his wisdom approaching,” &c. p. 117: and the French translation “par la sagesse de ses actions il ressembloit plus,” &c. p. 207. — D.] REMARKS. 457 others. But let Cato be divine both in temper and know¬ ledge too ; our writer himself is certainly in knowledge no more than human , and in temper it’s well if so much. Surely so awkward, so perverse a turn was never given to poet, as this writer and translator (if they are two) have given to Lucan ; who, on occasion of Cato’s march through the deserts of Afric, near the Temple of Ammon, introduces an officer of his army requesting him, in a set speech, to consult that celebrated oracle; and Cato refusing it, in as set a reply. This refusal Our writer takes as a proof of Cato’s free-thinking ; that he took oracles for impostures, for the knavery of juggling priests, and the credulity of super¬ stitious crowds. But to his great shame and disappointment, the scene in the original has quite contrary actors : there were really some free-thinkers , Epicureans, in Cato’s retinue, that had a mind to try to puzzle, to baffle the oracle ; but Cato, by his very sect a friend to all oracles, in an artful as well as magnanimous speech eludes their inquiry, denies to consult, and so screens and protects the reputation of the temple. So that Cato here is really the patron of super¬ stition ; and the supposed monument of his free-thinking is a true and lasting monument of our writer’s stupidity. But this cannot fully appear without the reader’s patience in going along with me through the whole passage in the original, and through the double length of the tedious translation. [ 1 1 - comitesque Catonem Orant, exploret Libycum memorata per orbem Numina, de fama tarn longi judicet sevi.s His host , (as crowds are superstitious still,) Curious of fate, of future good and ill. And fond to prove prophetic Ammon's skill, VOL. in. s Lucan, lib. ix. vers. 54 (>. 3 N 458 REMARKS. Entreat their leader to the gods * would go, And from this oracle Rome’s fortune Jcnow.t Two verses, you see, and a half in the Latin are exactly doubled and become five in the English ; which we might take for just payment and exchange, in the known allowance of one for sense , and one for rhyme , were it not that no tittle of the original sense appears in the version. The poet himself tells us, that Cato’s companions entreat him to ex¬ plore {try, sift) the deity so famous through the Libyan world, and to judge of a reputation possessed through so many ages. Here, indeed, are plain footsteps of free-thinking, a doubting about the oracle’s veracity; a trial demanded and a judgment , not of an upstart puny oracle, but. (in the heathen account) much older than Solomon’s Temple, and adored by the third part of mankind. Now, why are these just and proper sentiments dropt in the version ? not a word there of exploring ; nothing of the wide authority, the vast antiquity of the oracle ; but empty trash with false ideas foisted in their place. These inquirers do not desire to know Rome’s fortune , but to criticise the oracle itself, as Croesus did that at Delphi, and Lucian that in Paphla- gonia.f r Nay, allowing that they secretly wished to know their fortunes, yet it was injudicious in the translator to an¬ ticipate here what he knew was to come anon in Labienus’s speech. But I desire not to be too severe; I’ll admit the propriety of that diction, curious of future good and ill ; nor shall it be tautology to onerate three poor lines with pro¬ phetic Ammon , then the gods, and then this oracle ; when in [* In the complete translation of Lucan by Rowe, published after his death, we find “ the god,” and in the next line “Ms oracle but (with the ex¬ ception of “fortunes” instead of “fortune”) the passage stands as above given, in the vith vol. of what is called Dry den's Miscellanies, where Rowe’s version of the 9th book of Lucan was originally printed. — D.] * Pag. 141. [t Ar. de La Chapelle (La Frip. Laique, p. 555) refers to Alexander, seu Pseudomantis : see Luciani Opp. t. ii. p. 217. ed. Hemst. — D.] REMARKS. 459 truth it’s but one god and but once. But I am astonished that any person could presume to translate Lucan who was capable of mistaking comites for an host, or a whole army. Comites or cohors amicorum were persons of quality, com¬ monly youths, recommended by their parents or friends to the familiarity of the general, to diet and lodge with him through the course of his expedition, to learn from his con¬ versation the skill and discipline of war. You can scarce dip in any Roman historian, or even poet, but this you are taught there. I’ll but quote one place of Floras,11 because it relates to our Cato, who, in his apartment after supper ,v postquam filium coMiTEsque ab amplexu dimisit, when he had embraced and dismissed his son and companions, read Plato’s treatise of the soul’s immortality , and then fell asleep. These comites , companions at Utica in Cato’s last hours, are the very same that here speak to him about the oracle of Ammon. If the whole army is meant in one place, it must be meant too in the other. But can our writer imagine that Cato entertained the whole army in one room ? and embraced them all at parting ? How unfortunate, then, is his very first line ! His host, as crowds are superstitious still. Sad omen for our translator ! and no superstition to think so. This mighty host and these crowds are only a few young noblemen ; and so far from superstition (as he here calum¬ niates ’em), that he may henceforth value them as hopeful free-thinkers. And why that spiteful character given to all crowds ? mere fillings of his own, without warrant from his original. It carries in it an air of libertinism ; and its just and immediate punishment was blunder. [ 2 3. Maximus hortator scrutandi voce deorum Eventus Labienus erat : sors obtulit, inquit, u L. Florus, iv. 2. v Plutarch in Catone: Svvetie'un/ovv naures oi 'ETAIPOI (comites). [ Opj> . t. iv. p. 485. ed. Reisk.— D.] 460 REMARKS. Et fortuna viae tam magni nurainis ora Consiliumque dei : tanto duce possumus uti Per Syrtes, bellique datos cognoscere casus. But Labienus chief the thought approv’d, And thus the common suit to Cato mov’d : Chance and the fortune of the way, he said, Have brought Jove’s sacred counsels to our aid. This greatest of the gods, this mighty chief In each distress shall be a sure relief ; Shall point the distant dangers from afar, And teach the future fortunes of the war. The Latin poet has observed a decent economy in the con¬ duct of this passage : the young sceptics in the former para¬ graph are despatched in two lines ; their request is not put in form ; and Cato’s refusal is not expressed, but understood ; as if given without words, by a look. But now here comes a person of another character, Titus Labienus, lieutenant- general under Caesar through all the Gallic wars j* then a deserter to Pompey ; in Afric here with Cato ; with Pompey the son in Spain, where he perished at the battle of Munda. He (as his speech demonstrates) proceeds upon a different principle ; not of waggery and scepticism, but full assurance in the oracle. He was paullo infirmior, prone to bigotry and superstition, and for that reason (if it is not true in fact) was judiciously chosen by the poet to be the author of this speech. This character, which I have given of him, though in Lucan’s time W’ell known, is now only to be learned from a passage of Plutarch ;w where Aafiiyvov, says he, pavrelais Tialv la^vpL^ogevov, Labienus relying on some prophecies, and affirming that Pompey must be conqueror; Ay, says Cicero, and while we trust to that stratagem, we have lost our [* wars; lsi ed. “ war.” — D.] w Plut. in Cicer. p. 1612. where for irapayeveadai nopirpiov read TTipiyevlaQai. [ = Opp. t. iv. p. 822. ed. Reisk. (who gives Trepiyeveadai from two MSS.): A afSipvov Se pavreiais Turin IcrxvgiCopevou, teal \4yovros, Sis Set irepiytvtrrOat Xlopirtjiov’ ovkovv, 4 Rather than see a tyrant crowrid in Rome ? J Or wouldst thou know, if, what we value here, Life, be a trifle hardly worth our care ? What by old age and length of days we gain, More than to lengthen out the sense of pain ? We come at last to Cato’s answer, which, if you’ll take our writer’s word for it, denominates him a free-thinker . It is time for us then to look sharp, to observe every period ; the battle advances and grows hot ; nunc specimen specitur, nunc certamen cernitur .* And 1*11 renounce my name Phile- leutherus, if the success of the day does not so frustrate his hopes, that he’ll hate both Cato and Lucan for’t, as long as he lives. [* Plaut. Cas. iii. 1. 2. — D.] ADVERTISEMENT. Lest the reader should perhaps wonder why this Third Part, after so long an interval, is published thus imperfect, it is thought proper to inform him, that Dr. Bentley began it many years ago, at the desire of her late Majesty when princess, had actually printed two half-sheets of it, and in¬ tended to have finished the whole. But a dispute then unhappily arising about his fees as professor,* in which he thought himself extremely ill used, he threw the book by with indignation ; nor could he, after having excused himself to her royal highness, be ever prevailed upon to resume it again. These two half-sheets, however, still remaining with the printer, the publisher of the last edition, in 1737, got leave of Dr. Bentley to reprint them at the end ; which is the reason why that edition breaks off so abruptly, master t being the catch-word to the next intended half-sheet. It was imagined by some, that the remaining part of the copy would be found after Dr. Bentley’s death ; but he having often told me that he wrote it only sheet by sheet, just as they could print it off, I had, I must own, no great expec¬ tations. I examined his papers, however, very carefully, and found at length a few pages more, which are now first added [* L e. Regius Professor of Divinity : for the particulars of this dispute, which took place in 1717, see Monk’s Life of B. vol. ii. p. 37 sqq. To the request contained in the following University grace, voted 1715, Bentley had turned a deaf ear : “ Whereas the Reverend Dr. Bentley, Master of Trinity College, besides his other labours published from our press, to the great advancement of learning and honour of this University, has lately, under the borrowed name of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, done eminent service to the Christian religion and the clergy of England, by refuting the objections and exposing the ignorance of an impious set of writers that call themselves Free¬ thinkers — May it please you that the said Dr. Bentley, for his good services already done, have the public thanks of the University; and be desired by Mr. Vice-Chancellor, in the name of the whole body, to finish what remains of so useful a work.” Monk’s Life of B. vol. i. p. 373. — D.] [f See p. 4(>9. 1. 5. from foot. — D.] VOL. III. 3 P 474 ADVERTISEMENT. in this edition. And as the manuscript ends, agreeably to his former declarations, in the middle of a page, I think I may venture to assure the public, that this is the whole of it that Dr. Bentley ever wrote. R. B* Mar. 25, 1743. [* i. e. Richard Bentley, the nephew and sole executor ot' the author. — D.] DR. BENTLEY’S \ PROPOSALS FOE PRINTING A NEW EDITION OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT AND ST. HIEROM’S LATIN VERSION. WITH A FULL ANSWER TO ALL THE REMARKS OF A LATE PAMPHLETEER. BY A MEMBER OF TRINITY COLLEGE IN CAMBRIDGE. Cunarum labor est angnes superare mearurn. Tollentemque minus et sibila colla tumentem Dejice - Ovid. Virgil. (From ed. 4to, 1721.) t- i ‘•jt 1 V • ! ... . ; •• ; ■ . f ... .' , . : ! ;:*>*** ■ , * - ? ■ ' ■ - ■ . . -- ’ ■ ■ 477 [Bentley’s intention of editing the Greek Testament, (an undertaking which he had for some time meditated, and which had been publicly suggested to him by Hare ; see note, p. 356,) was thus announced in a letter to Archbishop Wake :* — “ May it please your Grace ; “ ’Tis not only your Grace’s station and general character, but the par¬ ticular knowledge I have of you, which encourages me to give you a long letter about those unfashionable topics, religion and learning. Your Grace knows, as well as any, what an alarm has been made of late years with the vast heap of various lections found in MSS. of the Greek Testament. The Papists have made a great use of them against the Protestants, and the Atheists against them both. This was one of Collins’ topics in his Discourse on Free-thinking, which I took off in my short answer; and I have heard since, from several hands, that that short view I gave of the causes, and necessity, and use of various lections, made several good men more easy in that matter than they were before. But, since that time, I have fallen into a course of studies that led me to peruse many of the oldest MSS. of Gr. Test, and of the Latin too of St. Jerom; of which there are several in England a full 1000 years old. The result of which has been, that I find I am able (what some thought impos¬ sible) to give an edition of the Gr. Test, exactly as it was in the best ex¬ amples at the time of the Council of Nice. So that there shall not be 20 words, nor even particles’ difference ; and this shall carry its own demonstra¬ tion in every verse ; which I affirm cannot be so done of any other ancient book, Greek or Latin. So that that book, which, by the present management, is thought the most uncertain, shall have a testimony of certainty above all other books whatever ; and an end be put at once to all var. lectt. now or hereafter. I’ll give your Grace the progress which brought me, by degrees, into the present view and scheme that I have of a new edition. “ Upon some points of curiosity, I collated one or two of St. Paul’s epistles with the Alexandrian MS., the oldest and best now in the world. I was sur¬ prised to find several transpositions of words, that Mill and the other collators took no notice of; but I soon found their way was to mark nothing but change of words ; the collocation and order they entirely neglected : and yet at sight I discerned what a new force and beauty this new order (I found in the MS.) added to the sentence. This encouraged me to collate the whole book over, to a letter, with my own hands. “There is another MS. at Paris of the same age and character with this ; but, meeting with worse usage, it was so decayed by age, that 500 years ago it served the Greeks for old vellum ; and they writ over the old brown capitals a book of Ephraim Syrus, but so, that even now, by a good eye and a skilful person, the old writing may be read under the new. One page of this, for a specimen, is printed in a copper cut in Lamie’s Harmony of the Evangelists. * First printed by Burney in Rich. Bentleii et Doct. Virorum Epistola, &c. 1807. 4to. p. 228. 478 “ Out of this, by an able band,* I have bad above 200 lections given me from the present printed Greek ; and I was surprised to find that almost all agreed, both in word and order, with our noble Alexandrian. Some more experiments in other old copies have discovered the same agreement : so that I dare say, take all the Greek Testaments surviving, (that are not occidental with Latin, too like our Beza’s at Cambridge) and that are 1000 years old, and they’ll so agree together, that of the 30,000 present var. lectt. there are not there found 200. “ The western Latin copies, by variety of translations, without public ap¬ pointment, and a jumble and heap of all of them, were grown so uncertain, that scarce two copies were alike ; which obliged Damasus, then Bishop of Rome, to employ St. Jerom to regulate the best received translation of each part of the New Testament to the original Greek, and so set out a new edition so castigated and corrected. This he declares in his preface he did, ad Grcecam veritatem, ad exemplaria Grceca, sed vetera ; and his learning, great name, and just authority, extinguished all the other Latin versions, and has been con¬ veyed down to us, under the name of the Vulgate. ’Twas plain to me, that when that copy came first from that great Father’s hands, it must agree ex¬ actly with the most authentic Greek exemplars ; and if now it could be retrieved, it would be the best test and voucher for the true reading out of several pre¬ tending ones. But when I came to try Pope Clement's Vulgate, I soon found the Greek of the Alexandrian and that would by no means pary. This set me to examine the Pope’s Latin by some MSS. of 1000 years old ; and the success is, that the old Greek copies and the old Latin so exactly agree, (when an able hand discerns the rasures, and the old lections laying under them), that the pleasure and satisfaction it gives me is beyond expression. “ The New Testament has been under a hard fate since the invention of printing. “ After the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but very ordinary MSS., it has become the property of booksellers. Rob. Stephens’ edition, set out and regulated by himself alone, is now become the standard. That text stands, as if an apostle was his compositor. “No heathen author has had such ill fortune. Terence, Ovid, &c. for the first century after printing, went about with 20,000 errors in them. But when learned men undertook them, and from the oldest MSS. set out correct edi¬ tions, those errors fell and vanished. But if they had kept to the first pub¬ lished text, and set the var. lections only in the margin, those classic authors would be as clogged with variations as Dr. Mill’s Testament is. “ Sixtus and Clemens, at a vast expense, had an assembly of learned divines to recense and adjust the Latin Vulgate, and then enacted their new edition authentic : but I find, though I have not discovered any thing done dolo malo, they were quite unequal to the affair. They were mere theologi, had no ex¬ perience in MSS. nor made use of good Greek copies, and followed books of 500 years before those of double that age. Nay, I believe they took these new ones for the older of the two ; for it is not every body that knows the age of a MS. * Wetstein: see p. 480. 479 “ I am already tedious, and the post is a-going. So that, to conclude — in a word, I find that by taking 2000 errors out of the Pope’s Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephens’, I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any book under 900 years old, that shall so exactly agree, word for word, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures, can agree better. “ I affirm that these so placed will prove each other to a demonstration ; for I alter not a letter of my own head without the authority of these old witnesses. And the beauty of the composition (barbarous, God knows, at present,) is so improved, as makes it more worthy of a revelation, and yet no one text of consequence injured or weakened. “ My Lord, if a casual fire should take either his Majesty’s library, or the King’s of France, all the world could not do this. As I have, therefore, great impulse, and I hope not adeel, to set about this work immediately, and leave it as a neifiriAiov to posterity against atheists and infidels, I thought it my duty and my honour to first acquaint your Grace with it; and know if the extrinsic expense to do such a work completely (for my labour I reckon nothing) may obtain any encouragement, either from the crown or public. “ I am, with all duty and obedience, “ Your Grace’s most humble servant, “ Trin. Coll., April the 15th, 1716. “ Ri. Bentley.” From the following letter* it appears that the Archbishop heartily encou¬ raged the design : — “ May it please your Grace ; Trin. Coll., Sunday evening. “ This minute I had the honour of your Grace’s letter : indeed, when I saw by the prints that your Grace was in full convocation, and had addressed his Majesty upon so just an occasion, and consequently was immersed in business of the highest importance, I condemned myself that I should be so immersed here in books and privacy as not to know a more proper occasion of address to your Grace. On a due consideration of all which, I gave over expecting any answer, and designed to wait on you in person when I came to London, where already my family is. But I see your Grace’s goodness and public spirit is superior to all fatigues ; and therefore I thank you particularly for this present favour, as what was (justly) above my expectation. The thought of printing the Latin in a column against the Greek (which your Grace puts to the common), I doubt not is your own. My Lord, it is necessary to do so ; and without that all my scheme would be nothing. It was the very view that possessed me with this thought, which has now so engaged me, and in a manner enslaved me, that va mild unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end. I leave the rest to the time of the West¬ minster election : with my hearty prayers and thanks, being “ Your Grace’s most obedient and obliged humble servant, “ III. Bentley. * Id. p. 235. 480 “ I was told, a month ago, that your Grace (when you was at Paris) had made a whole transcript of the Clermont copy, Greek and Latin, which J hope is true.” On this great work, though soon after its commencement his duties at Cambridge, and the strange feuds in which he was involved, occasionally sus¬ pended it, Bentley continued to employ himself, regardless of labour or expense. For a detailed account of bis progress, I refer the reader to Monk’s Life of B. vol. ii. p. 118 sqq. : it will be sufficient to mention here that MSS. were collated for him at Paris by Wetstein ; and afterwards by John Walker, Fellow of Trinity College, whom he had sent over to the French capital in 1719 for that purpose. On the return of Walker to England in 1720, Bentley put forth two folio leaves of Proposals, (“ drawn up,” as he himself tells us, “ in haste, in one evening by candle-light, and printed the next day from that first and sole draught”) ; the first containing an account of the intended edition, the second a specimen of its execution — the last chapter of the Revelation.* The Proposals soon reached a second edition ; and Conyers Middleton (over whom was then hanging a prosecution for his pamphletf against Bentley’s government) lost no time in attacking their weaker points with equal skill and malice in Remarks, Paragraph by Paragraph, upon the Proposals lately published by Richard Bentley, for a new edition of the Greek Testament and Latin Version. — Doctus criticus et adsuetus urere, secare, inclementer omnis generis libros tractare, apices, syllabas, voces, dictiones confodere, et stilo exigere, continebitne ille ab in- legro et intaminato Divince Sapientice monumento crudeles ungues ? Petri Burmanni Orat. Lugd. Bat. 1720. — By a Member of the University of Cambridge. London, 1721. 4to, pp. 24: of which there was a third edition (with the author’s name) during the same year. This tract was speedily known to be Middleton’s, by his own avowal. J * “ The reader cannot help seeing through the shallow artifice of his taking the last chapter of the Revelations for the specimen of his edition; to per¬ suade us that the whole work is already done, and nothing wanting but the encouragement of contributions -for the sending of it to the press.” Middleton’s Farther Remarks, &c. p. 69. — But the whole work was really in an equal state of readiness. t “ A True Account of the Present State of Trinity College in Cambridge, under the Oppressive Government of their Master, Richard Bentley, late D.D.” fyc. Lon¬ don, 1720. 8vo, pp. 43. J “ But what was the most surprising in this extraordinary piece of his was to find it to be in fact a most virulent and malicious libel upon Dr. Colbatch, a reverend and learned member of his college, on pretence of his being the author of the Remarks, though he could not possibly be ignorant, long before his book was published, that this worthy gentleman was perfectly unconcerned in the controversy ; wholly out of the question ; and had not any share or part at all in advising or assisting me on the occasion. For I no sooner heard that 481 Bentley, however, suspected that the materials for it had been supplied by Dr. Colbatch, Professor of Casuistry, and one of the Fellows of Trinity, against whom the Master had long been waging war ; a suspicion grounded on his knowledge that Colbatch had assisted Middleton with papers for the pamphlet already mentioned against his college government, and on the coincidence of some passages in the Remarks with certain expressions used by Colbatch in conversation. Accordingly, in a third* edition of his Proposals, with a full Answer to all the Remarks of a late Pamphleteer. By a Member of Trinity College. London, 1721. 4to, pp. 44. (the piece now reprinted), he chose to consider Colbatch as the sole author of the Remarks, and assailed him with the coarsest personal abuse. That the full Answer, & c. was from Bentley’s pen is manifest in every page : the signature at the end, I. E., are the two first vowels in the names Richard Bentley. f Indignant at such libellous invectives, Colbatch immediately endeavoured to obtain redress by every means within his reach : see a minute account of his proceedings in Monk’s Life of B., vol. ii. p. 138 sqq. In a note below I insert the paper which Colbatch printed at the time, and the censure which was passed by the heads of colleges on the full Answer, &c.J some of my friends were suspected by him, but to prevent any inconvenience which might befal such of them as were more immediately under his power, I freely owned myself the sole author, gave commission to my acquaintance to make no secret of it any where ; and was informed at different times by several of them that they had assured some of his principal friends and confidants of the truth and certainty of it to their own knowledge. Dr. Colbatch, on the other hand, did from the beginning (as he afterwards thought fit to declare by a printed advertisement) constantly disclaim the imputation in such a public and open manner as must of necessity come to the knowledge of our editor .” Preface to Middleton’s Farther Remarks, fyc. * That this is the third ed. of the Proposals I learn from Middleton’s Farther Remarks, & c. p. 23 : of the earlier eds. I have seen only the first folio. f “ I must honestly and frankly tell you, Master, that every body I have yet met with, both friends and foes, affirm you to be that very champion or bully, in masquerade. A person well versed in Porta’s Art of Occult Ciphers has proved it by the very letters I. E., the first vowels of Richard Bentley .” A Letter to the Reverend Master of Trinity College, fyc., p. 10. \ “ Cambridge, Jan. 20. “ Finding myself to be treated after a most barbarous manner in a virulent libel, which bears the title of Dr. Bentley' s Proposals, with a full Answer, fyc., upon pretence of my being the author of The Remarks upon the Proposals lately published by Richard Bentley, Sfc., I think it necessary upon several accounts to declare as follows, viz. : “ That I am not the author of those Remarks, nor any part of them, and that they were undertaken and written without my assistance or knowledge. “ That It. B. certainly knew, or easily might have known, that they were VOL. III. 3 Q 482 Middleton soon after rejoined in a pamphlet, much longer and more ela¬ borate than his first, and entitled Some Farther Remarks, Paragraph by Paragraph, upon Proposals lately pub¬ lished for A New Edition of A Greek and Latin Testament by Richard Bentley. Containing A full Answer to the Editor’s late Defence of his said Proposals, as well as to all his objections there made against my former Remarks. — Imperitiam tuam nemo potest fortius accusare, quam tu ipse dum scribis. Hieron. - Occu- patus ille eruditione secularium literarum scripturas omnino sanctas ignoraverit ; et nemo possit, quamvis eloquens, de eo bene disputare, quod nesciat. Ibid. — By Con¬ yers Middleton, D.D. London, 1721. 4to, pp. 74. It has been generally supposed that Bentley’s project was frustrated by the powerful attacks of Middleton ; and Wetstein tells us ( Prolegom . p. 156) that it was abandoned because the Board of Treasury rejected Bentley’s application to import duty-free the paper for the work — a supposition and a statement which Dr. Monk has clearly shewn to be erroneous ; Life of B., vol. ii. p. 146, written by the Reverend and learned Dr. Middleton, who had owned them to several of his friends, by whose means he verily believes that R. B. was in¬ formed that he alone was the author. For my own part, presently after the Remarks were published, I took all occasions to declare as above, being obliged in justice so to do, lest my silence might in some measure contribute to deprive my worthy friend of the honour due for so excellent a pei'formance ; nor do 1 question but that R. B., before he began to write his libel, had been acquainted with what I said on those occasions. “ That those foul aspersions which are cast upon me in almost every page are as false in fact as they are apparently malicious ; which is notorious to all who know me, and to none more than R. B. himself. “ That I never wrote any libels against the government, the College, or the Master, as he falsely asserts. “ I never wrote any thing at all relating to the government, or published any thing concerning the College or the Master, except a commemoration sermon in Dec. 1717, which the Master pretended to approve of, giving it under his hand that he would subscribe to every word of it. As to other matters relating to either, I have hitherto thought them fit only for the cognizance of a Visitor. “ John Colbatcli, D.D., Senior Fellow of Trinity College, and Casuistical Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge.” “ Cambridge. “At a meeting of the Vice-Chancellor and Heads, Feb. 27, 1720-21. “ Whereas the Reverend John Colbatch, D.D. and Casuistical Professor of this University, hath made complaint to us of a book lately published, annexed to Proposals for Printing a New Edition of the Greek Testament, 8fc., and called A Full Answer to all the Remarks of a late Pamphleteer, by a Member of Trinity College, subscribed I. E., wherein the said John Colbatch conceives himself to be highly injured, as being represented under the most reproachful and infa- 483 sqq. Bentley at intervals continued his labours on the edition as zealously as ever till about the middle of 1729 : after that period we cannot discover that he pursued them ; the little leisure w^ch perplexing law-suits allowed him was devoted to other literary undertakings ; and his troubles only ceased when age had unfitted him for the completion of his grand design. On his decease in 1742, the money which had been subscribed for the Greek Testament, amounting, it is said, to 2000 guineas, was returned by his nephew Richard, his sole executor ; to whom he had bequeathed, with the ex¬ ception of some Greek manuscripts left to the college, his library and papers ; and by whom (see Wetstein’s Proleg. p. 156) he seems to have expected that at least the far-famed edition would be given to the public. This nephew died in 1786 ; and, according to his bequest, the whole apparatus criticus* for the mous characters, and hath therefore applied to us for redress : We the Vice- Chancellor and Heads of Colleges, whose names are underwritten, having perused the said book, do find that the said Dr. Colbatcli hath just ground of complaint, it appearing to us that he is therein described under very odious and ignominious characters, and do declare and pronounce the said book to be a most virulent and scandalous libel; highly injurious to the said Dr. Col- batch, contrary to good manners, and a notorious violation of the statutes and discipline of this University. And as soon as the author of the said libel can be discovered, we resolve to do justice to the said Dr. Colbatcli, by inflicting such censure upon the offender as the statutes of this University in that case do appoint. “Tho. Crosse, Vice-Chancellor. Bardsey Fisher. Wm. Grigg. John Covel. Edw. Lany. D. AVaterland. C. Ashton. R. Jenkin. Wm. Savage.” Preface to Middleton’s Farther Remarks, &c. * A distinguished member of Trinity College has obligingly furnished me with the following information concerning it : “ These collections are principally composed of thirteen printed copies of the Greek Testament, interlined with Bentley’s notes, and with collations of a vast multitude of ancient MSS., copied by Bentley himself, except two or three, the collations of which are in the hand-writing of John James Wetstein. I subjoin a list of these editions : Argentorati, 1524. 12mo. Lutetiae, Roberti Stephani, 1549. 12mo. Genevae, cum notis J. Scaligeri, 1620. Small quarto. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1628. Folio. Two copies. Roterodami, 1654. 12mo. Oxon. 1675. 12mo. Two copies. Cantabrigiae, 1700. 12mo. Joannis Gregorii, Oxon. 1703. Folio. Millii, Oxon. 1707. Folio. Wetsteinii, Amstelaedami, 1711. Small 8vo. Wetsteinii, Amstelaedami, 1735. Small 8vo, 484 Greek Testament, together witli some other hooks and MSS. of Bentley, were deposited in Trinity College. For farther particulars, beside^ the excellent work of Dr. Monk, the reader may consult Thes. Epist. Lacroz. 1742. t. i. p. 63 ; Wetstein’s remarks, “ De Editione proposita Bentleii,” in his Prolegomena to Test. Gr. 1751, p. 153 sqq. ; and Krigliout’s Memoria Wetsteniana Vindicata, 1755, p. 34 sqq., Appendix, p. 11 sqq. As connected with the present subject, the following publications require to be noticed : — 1. Two Letters to the Reverend Dr. Bentley, Master of Trinity-College in Cambridge, concerning his Intended Edition of the Greek Testament. Together with the Doctor's Answer, and Some Account of what may be Expected from that Edition. With a Particular Enquiry into Two Texts of St. Matth. xix. 17. and srxvii. 9. And that Famous one of St. John, 1 Epist. v. 7. There are Three that bear Record, Sfc. London, 1717. 8vo, pp. 38. This tract, by an unknown writer, is only valuable because it has preserved the subjoined letter of Bentley : — “Sir, Trin. Col., Jan. 1, I74f. “ Yours of December the 20tli came safely to my hands, wherein you tell me, from common fame, that in my designed edition of the New Testament I pur¬ pose to leave out the verse of John’s Epistle i. chap. 5. ver. 7. “ About a year ago, reflecting upon some passages of St. Hierom, that he had adjusted and castigated the then Latin Yulgate to the best Greek exemplars, and had kept the very order of the words of the original, I formed a thought a priori, that if St. Jerom’s true Latin exemplar could now be come at, it would be found to agree exactly with the Greek text of the same age ; and so the old copies of each language (if so agreeing) would give mutual proof and even demonstration to each other. Whereupon rejecting the printed editions of each, and the several manuscripts of seven centuries and under, I made use of none but those of a thousand years ago, or above (of which sort I have 20 In several of these editions, especially those of the folio size, the notes of Bentley are extremely copious, and closely written both in the margins and between the lines of the text ; and the whole collection is a wonderful monu¬ ment of his industry, and presents such a vast accumulation of materials, that one may fairly conjecture that his own voluminous annotations were the main obstacle to the execution of his intended edition of the Greek Testament. “ In addition to the printed copies above mentioned, there are also two MSS. of the Epistles of St. Paul of the ninth or tenth century, one of which is of great value ; — a copy of ‘ Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Divina Bibliotheca. Folio. Parisiis, 1693 the third part of which, containing the Latin transla¬ tion of the Greek Testament, is replete with Bentley’s notes. And a consider¬ able quantity of letters and miscellaneous papers relating to the edition under¬ taken by him.” 485 now in my study, that one with another make 20,000 years). I had the pleasure to find, as I presaged, that they agreed exactly like two tallies, or two indentures ; and I am able from thence, to lead men out of the labyrinth of 60,000 various lections (for St. Jerom’s Latin has as many varieties as the Greek), and to give the text as it stood in the best copies in the time of the Council of Nice, without the error of 50 words. “ Now in this work I indulge nothing to any conjecture, not even in a letter, but proceed solely upon authority of copies and Fathers of that age. And what will be the event about the said verse of John, I myself know not yet, having not used all the old copies that I have information of. “ But by this you see that in my proposed work the fate of that verse will be a mere question of fact. You endeavour to prove (and that’s all you aspire to) that it may have been writ by the apostle, being consonant to his other doctrine. This I concede to you ; and if the fourth century knew that text, let it come in, in God’s name : but if that age did not know it, then Arianism, in its height, was beat down without the help of that verse ; and let the fact prove as it will, the doctrine is unshaken. “ Yours, “ Ric. Bentley.” On the 1st of May following, Bentley delivered at Cambridge his probationary lecture as candidate for the Regius Professorship of Divinity, to which he was next day appointed. He chose for his subject the above-mentioned text of St. John, and concluded by decidedly rejecting it. This praelection (which was in Latin) has unfortunately disappeared ; but it is mentioned by Porson as “ still extant” in his Letters to Travis, Pref. p. viii., and had been seen by him, Monk’s Life of B., vol. ii. p. 19; and was once in possession of the late Dean Vincent, who had borrowed it, with other papers of Bentley, from a relative of the great scholar : ibid. There is reason to believe that an examination of the disputed verse was to have formed part of the Prolegomena to Bentley’s ed. of the Testament : id. ii. p. 287. 2. A Letter to the Reverend Master of Trinity College in Cambridge, Editor of a New Greek and Latin Testament. Tollentemque minas 8f sibila colla tumentem Dejice - Ah Timon, Timon, quee te dementia cepit ? Ah, qua te mala mens, miselle Timon ? Tune TUis telis moriere ! Ne scevi, magne sacerdos. Nihil est, Zoile, quin male E den do possit depravarier. AOs pen iiriarcero TroWa, KaKcios S' yirlffTaro iravra. Et si non aliqua nocuisset, mortuus esset. - cestuat ingens Uno in corde odium mixtoque insania fastu, Etfuriis agitatus amor sceleratus habendi. Answer to the Remarks by I. E., p. 1, 12, 16, 24, 26, 28, 39. 486 London, 1721. 4to, pp. 23. A second edition appeared during the same year. This clever and ill-natured attack on Bentley is signed “ Philalethes.” 3. Epistolcs Duo: ad Celeberrimum Doctissimumque Virum F - V - Pro- fessorem Amstelodamensem Scripts. Quarum in alterd agitur de Editions Novi Testamenti a Clarissimo Bentleio suscepld, omnesque ejus, adhuc in lucern emissce. Conjectures de sacro Textu examinantur. In alterd vero multcs de corruptis ( uti videntur ) Epistolarum Novi Testamenti locis conjectures, jam primum editee, propo- nuntur. Londini, 1721. 4to, pp. 31. By Zachary Pearce, who writes under the name of Phileleutherus Londinensis. 4. An Enquiry into the Authority of the Primitive Complutensian Edition of the New Testament, as principally founded on the most Ancient Vatican Manuscript ; together with some Research after that Manuscript. In order to decide the Dispute about 1 John, v. 7. In a Letter to the Reverend Mr. Archdeacon Bentley, Master of Trinity-College in Cambridge. London, 1722. 8vo, pp. 54. Has been attributed to Dr. Richard Smalbroke. D.] H KAINH AIA0HKH GREECE. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM VERSIONIS VULGATE PER Stum HIERONYMUM AD VETUSTA EXEMPLARIA GR.ECA CASTIGATE ET EXACTS. XITRUMQUE EX ANTIQUISSIMIS CODD. MSS., CUM GRJECIS TUM LATINIS, EDIDIT RICHARDUS BENTLEIUS. PROPOSALS FOR PRINTING. I. The author of this edition, observing that the printed copies of the New Testament, both of the original Greek and ancient vulgar Latin, were taken from manuscripts of no great antiquity, such as the first editors could then procure ; and that now by God’s providence there are MSS. in Europe (accessible, though with great charge) above a thousand years old in both languages ; believes he may do good service to common Christianity if he publishes a new edition of the Greek and Latin, not according to the recent and interpo¬ lated copies, but as represented in the most ancient and venerable MSS. in Greek and Roman capital letters. II. The author, revolving in his mind some passages of St. Hierom ; where he declares, that (without making a new version) he adjusted and reformed the whole Latin Vulgate to the best Greek exemplars, that is, to those of the famous Origen ; and another passage, where he says, that a verbal or literal interpretation out of Greek into Latin is not neces¬ sary, except in the Holy Scriptures, ubi ipse verborum ordo 488 PROPOSALS FOR PRINTING mysterium est, where the very order of the words is* mystery ; took thence the hint, that if the oldest copies of the original Greek and Hierom’s Latin were examined and compared together, perhaps they would be still found to agree both in words and order of words. And upon making the essay, he has succeeded in his conjecture beyond his expectation or even his hopes. III. The author believes that he has retrieved (except in very few places) the true exemplar of Origen, which was the standard to the most learned of the Fathers , at the time of the Council of Nice and two centuries after. And he is sure that the Greek and Latin MSS., by their mutual assistance, do so settle the original text to the smallest nicety, as cannot be performed now in any classic author whatever : and that out of a labyrinth of thirty thousand various readings, that crowd the pages of our present best editions, all put upon equal credit, to the offence of many good persons, this clue so leads and extricates us, that there will scarce be two hundred out of so many thousands that can deserve the least consideration. IV. To confirm the lections which the author places in the text, he makes use of the old versions, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and /Ethiopic, and of all the Fathers, Greeks and Latins, within the first five centuries; and he gives in his notes all the various readings (now known) within the said five centuries. So that the reader has under one view what the first ages of the church knew of the text ; and what has crept into any copies since is of no value or authority. V. The author is very sensible, that in the sacred writings there’s no place for conjectures or emendations. Diligence and fidelity, with some judgment and experience, are the characters here requisite. He declares, therefore, that he does not alter one letter in the text without the authorities subjoined in the notes. And to leave the free choice to every reader, he places under each column the smallest variations of this edition, either in words or order, from the received [* is; 1st ed. “is a.” — D.] THE GREEK TESTAMENT, ETC. 489 Greek of Stephanus, and the Latin of the two popes Sixtus Y. and Clemens VIII. So that this edition exhibits both itself and the common ones. VI. If the author has any thing to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena ; in which will he a large account of the several MSS. here used, and of the other matters which contribute to make this edition useful. In this work he is of no sect or party; his design is to serve the whole Christian name. He draws no consequences in his notes ; makes no oblique glances upon any disputed points, old or new. He consecrates this work, as a KeiggXiov, a KTrgia iaael, a charter , a magna charta , to the whole Christian church ; to last when all the ancient MSS. here quoted may be lost and extinguished. VII. To publish this work, according to its use and im¬ portance, a great expense is requisite : it’s designed to be printed, not on the paper or with the letter of this Specimen , but with the best letter, paper, and ink that Europe affords. It must therefore be done by subscription or contribution. As it will make two tomes in folio, the lowest subscription for smaller paper must be three guineas, one advanced in present; and for the great paper five guineas, two advanced. VIII. The work will be put to the press as soon as money is contributed to support the charge of the impres¬ sion ; and no more copies will be printed than are subscribed for. The overseer and corrector of the press wrill be the learned Mr. John Walker, of Trinity College in Cam¬ bridge; who, with great accurateness, has collated many MSS. at Paris for the present edition. And the issue of it, whether gain or loss, is equally to fall on him and the author. O R VOL. lit. 490 AnOKAATVEnX Kecf). k/3' . AnOKAAWEfiS Kef/>. k/3'. 1 KAI cBet^ev ptot 7 rora- ptov vbaros ^(orj<;, \aptrrpbv co£ [* Omittunt] “ Deest Speciminis ed. pr. — D.] [f Syriac.] om. Spec. ed. pr. — D.] Keep. reft'. AnOKAATVEnZ. 491 teal o v% e^ovenv yjptlav (f)o)Tos Xv%vov real ((kotos rfxiov, ore Kvpios 6 @609 (fxoTLaei i.7r avrovs, /cal fiacriXevcrovo-Lv 6t9 tov 9 aloovas tcov alcovcov. 6 Kal ehrev p,oi, Ovtoi ol Xoyot TTKTTol Kal dXljdlVOl’ Kal 6 KVpiOS 0 0 60 9 TG)V TTvenpidrcov twv 7 rpo(f)r]Td)V d- 7recrT6iXev tov ayyeXov av- tov, Beitjat, tols BovXols av- tov d Bel yeveadai ev Ta^ei. 7 Kal IBov epyopiai Ta^v. puaKapios o Trjpcov tovs Xoyovs Tr/s irpocjirjTelas tov ftifiXtov TOVTOV. 8 Kayo) Acodvvrjs o aKOvcov Kal fiXei ro)v TavTa. Kal ore rjKovaa Kal efiXen tov, eirecra 7rpoaKVvr]crai irpo ttoBwv tov dyyeXov tov BeiKVVOVTOS pcoi TavTa. 6 /cal Kvpios, deest <5. 6 0e8s t Siv aylwv irpocot1>s ijA loo] Alex. <^ws r)Alov. ^cori :£ei auroi/y] Latini plerique illuminat. Sed Alex. Greg. Palamas, cpwriau eV av- tous. VI. Kal Kvptos~\ Alex. Kal 6 kv- £ios. 'O 0e8s r £>v ay'ioov Sic non egebunt lumine lucernae neque lumine solis, quoniam dominus Deus inluminabit il- los, et regnabunt in ssecula saeculorum. 6 Et dixit mihi, Haec verba fidelissima et vera sunt: et dominus Deus spirituum pro- phetarum misit angelum su- um, ostendere servis suis quae oportet fieri cito. 7 Et ecce venio velociter. beatus qui eustodit verba pro- phetiae libri hujus. 8 Et ego Johannes, qui au- divi et vidi haec. Et post- quam audissem et vidissem, cecidi ut adorarem ante pe¬ des angeli qui mihi haee os- ten debat. 6 fidelissima sunt et vera. edidit Erasmus. Sed Complut. Alex, Aretlias, Graeci Codd. fere omnes, Latini omnes, Syr. Copt. .Ethiop. twv irvevp.aTwv twv irpo(j>. Fidelissima sunt et vera] Codd. veteres, fid. et vera sunt. VII. ’iSov] Kal iSou. Alex. An¬ dreas, Aretlias, Syrus, Codd. Graeci plerique omnes, Latini ad unum omnes. VIII. Kal iyw ’Iw. 6 /dAeirwv raura Kal aKova iv] Alex. Andreas, Com¬ plut. Syrus, Latinus, Codd. Graeci f* Andreas et] om. Speeiminis ed. pr. — D.] 492 ATIOKAATWEflX Keep. k(3' . 9 Kal \eyec pcoc,"Opa per). avvhovXos aov etpcl, Kal tmv u8e\(f)a)V aov twv 7rpo(j)T]Th)V, Kal TCOV TTjpOVVTCOV TOU? \o- 0e

v 7ro8&)j'] Alex. npb iroduv. IX. Et dixit mihi] Codd. * veteres constanter, dicit ; ut Gr. A.e- yei. y.wdovKis aov yap dpi. et Vulg. Conservus enirn tuus sum] Atqui Alex. Arethas, Andreas, Athanasius, Copt. Syr. Graeci Codd. omnes tollunt yap; et Latini itidem omnes et Cyprianus tollunt enim. Verba prophetiee libri] Latini veteres omnes tollunt prophetiee. X. aOri b Kaipbs iyyvs iariv] Sic An¬ dreas, et Cyprianus bis, Quia jam tern- pus in proximo est. Sed Alex. Codices Gr. plures, Syr. Copt. Latini omnes, 'O Kaigbs yap iyyvs iariv. Graeci cgteri, 6 Kaipbs iyyvs iariv. desunt Sn 9 Et dicit mihi, Vide ne feceris : conservus tuus sum, et fratrum tuorum prophet- arum, et eorum qui servant verba libri lmjus : Deum adora. 10 Et dicit mihi, Ne signa- veris verba prophetite libri hujus : tempus enim prope est. 1 1 Qui nocet noceat adhuc, et qui in sordibus est sordes- cat adhuc, et justus justitiam faciat adhuc, et sanctus sanc- tificetur adhuc. 12 Ecce venio cito : et 9 Et dixit mihi. conservus enim tuus, verba prophetice libri. 11 et qui justus est justificetur adhuc. et yap. XI. Kal 6 pviruv pviruaano cTi] Deest hoc comma in Alex, et duobus Gallicis errore librariorum ob repetitionem toD Sri. At ceteri fere omnes, Andreas, Arethas, Complut. 6 (>vwapbs pvirapevdrira) Sri. Origenes ad Johannem bis, 6 (ixmapbs pvnavdr]rui Sri. Idem ibid, aliud membrum addit, ‘fly <3 'loiavvps (pTjal, Kal 6 Kadagbs Ka- Sapiadrirw Sn (MS. Oxon. KadagOpru) Kal 6 ay. ayiaaOrirtv. Kal 6 dinaios di- Kataifl^Tw] Alex, et Codd. ceteri omnes, Andreas, Arethas, Complut. Latin. Syr. Copt. diKaioavvr] v irongaarw. Cy¬ prianus bis ; Justus justiora faciat ad¬ huc. Et qui justus est justificetur adhuc] Veteres Codd. fere omnes, Et justus justitiam faciat adhuc. XII. Kal <5ov] Delent «al Alex. Codd. [* Sn, Kal 6 Sue.] Sn. 6 din. ; Speciminis ed. pr. — D.] ‘{t ’IwawT/s] om. Spec. ed. pr. — D.] Ke<£. /c/3' . ALLOKAATWEnZ . 493 6 fucrOos fiov peer ep,ov, arro- hovvcu e/caarcp cos to ep. 14 Ma/cdpLOL oi 'irXvvovres ras aroXds avrcov, lya earau rj i^ovala avrcov eVl to %vXov rrjs &rjs, /cat Tot? TrvXdoaiv elaeXdcoaiv els rrjv ttoXlv. 15 ''E%co ol kv yes /cal oi 13 ’Etco el/jLL rb A /cal t!> fl, apxi? /cal reXos, 6 irpccros /cal o etr^aTos. 14 M anapioi oi ■noiovvres ras ivroXas av¬ rov, iva. 15 ',E|a> 5e oi Kvves. iras 6 (piAwv. plerique omnes, Arethas, Complut. Syr. Copt. Latini Codd. omnes. Cy- prianus bis. VE pyov avrov earai] Alex. Gallicus unus, Syr. earlv avrov. XIII. 'Eyd e. K&. (frapfJLaicol /cal ol iropvoL /cal oi 'Irjaovs eirepv^ra rov dyyeXov ptov, p,apTvpr)craL vpiiv ravra iv rac<; i/c/cXij- c tlcus . iLycD etfii rj pt^a Kai to v. XVI. ’E7rt ra?s eKKXT]crlais~\ 'Ev rats Alex. Codd. 2 Gallici. Athana¬ sius. Deest praepositio in Codd. multis. ToO AafilS ] Omittunt * rov Alex. Codd. multi, Athanasius, Andreas, Arethas. Porro omnes Graeci AavlS, vel coin- pendiose SaS. Nusquam invenitur Aa- 018. Aapirpos Kal 6 opdpivbs ] Alex. Kal 6 irpoivos. sed ceteri Codd. cum Atha- nasio, Andrea, Aretha, Complut. ngw- < vos. XVII. ’EA0e — iXOe — iXdereo] et inpudici et homicides et idolis servientes, et omnis qui amat et facit mendacium. 16 Ego Jesus misi angelum meum, testificari vobis hsec in ecclesiis. ego sum radix et genus Davids stella splendida et matutina. 17 Et spiritus et sponsa dicunt, Yeni : et qui audit dicat; Veni : et qui sitit ve- niat : qui vult accipiat aquam vitee gratis. 18 Contestor ego omni au- dienti verba prophetiae libri hujuS; Siquis adposuerit ad haec; adponet Deus super 17 et qui vult. 18 Contestor enim omni. Alex, et ceteri omnes, Athanas. And. Arethas, Complut. epxov — *PX0V — 6V~ X^erdu. Kal 6 OeXarv Xafifiaveroo rb C5a>p] Omittunt Kal, et postea liabent <3 6e- Xcov f Xafieroo vSc up, Alex. Codd. fere omnes, Athanasius, Andreas, Com¬ plut. Et qui vult] Codd. Latini ve- teres tollunt et.\ XVIII. 2 v/xpiaprvp- ovp.ai 7ap] Alex, et alii Codd. plerique et Complut. et Andreas fxaprvgcb eycb: pauci cum Aretha paprvpopai eyw : [* Omittunt] “ Deest Speciminis ed. pr.— D.] [f Omittunt Kal, et postea liabent 6 0eA.] “ Deest Kal, et postea 6 6e A. Spec. ed. pr. — D.] [+ Et qui vult] Codd. Latini veteres tollunt et\ om. Spec. ed. pr. — D.] Keep. k/3'. AnOKAATWEnH. 495 ^TriOrjcreL 6 Geos €7r avfov * t«9 rrXrjyds rds yeypappuevas iv to) fiifiXiw Touray 19 Kcd idv ns dcfreXr) diro rcov Xorycov tov /3i/3Xlov rr/s 7rpocfi7)T€La<; tuvtt) 9, acfteXei 6 @609 TO p,ipOS dVTOV aTTO TOV tjvXoy TTjS ^Cofjs, /cai e/e tt)s rroXecos ttjs ay Ids, tmv . tc/3r. 21 'H x^Pl Pag. 9. ' 1 Paf?- 9- 512 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. must certainly be looked for in the Old Testament : •> but pre¬ sently he revokes that, and declares, that neither our Master nor any man else knows where to find them.k Give honest Timon his due : he has spoke one true thing in his pamphlet. As to places, indeed, where mystery is, a man cannot miss ; but for particular places of Scripture where order of words is, exclusive to others where (it seems) there’s no order of words, I would challenge Argus himself or Lynceus to spy them. No one writer , continues our censor, that I have yet heard of, has ever affirmed that the order of words in the New Tes¬ tament is mysterious : and I could shew from twenty places of St. Hierom, that he never in the least dreamt of confining him¬ self to the order of words in any of his versions. To his noise and bounce of twenty passages in St. Hierom, I return again (for he deserves no other) the blunt answer of Father Valerian. But since he never heard of one writer (wonderful in the onmiscious Timon), I’ll endeavour to help his hearing. St. Hierom himself, in his Commentary on the Ephesians, cap. iii., says thus : I know the adding of the pre¬ position CON in the words coheredes, concorporales, and comparticipes, makes but an odd figure in the Latin tongue; yet because that preposition is in the Greek, and because in the divine writings every WORD, SYLLABLE, TITTLE, and POINT, ARE FULL OF SENSES, we choose there¬ fore rather to forego the composition and structure of the words than to weaken the meaning What says our censor now ? Are not syllables, tittles, points, as small things as the order of words ; or can those subsist without this ? Is not plena sunt sensibus, full of senses, deep, latent, recondite j Pag. 9. k Pag. 10. 1 Scio appositionem conjunctionis ejus, per quam dicitur, coheredes et con¬ corporales, et comparticipes, indecoram facere in Latino sermone sententiam : sed quia ita habetur in Graeco, et singuli SERMONES, SYLLABLE, APICES, PUNCTA, in divinis Scripturis plena sunt SENSIBUS, . . magis volumus in compositione structuraque verborum, quam intelligentia periclitari. [Hieron. Opp. t. iv. p. i. p. 350. ed. 1693. — D.] ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 513 senses, as strong an expression as mystery ? Is not this spoke of the New Testament , and of the Greek ? To quote more to the same purpose would be running into common¬ place ; but this alone is sufficient to let our censor see that there are more things in the Fathers than every casuistic drudge* can find in the pious and polite volumes of Diana and Escobar. That the Latin interpreters of Scripture confined them¬ selves in their versions to the order of words (except in cases of necessity, where, though the original was clear, the version by its ambiguity might create an absurd or impious sense), is both plain in fact at this day, and affirmed by the Fathers themselves. And though every body perhaps did not know this, yet nobody but a hard-faced Timon would have the confidence to deny it. St. Hilary, in his Commentary on the lxviith Psalm: Laboriosius autem, says he, et obscurius, dum COLLOCATIONES VERBORUM non demutat, trans¬ late Latina declarat : ceterum absolutius totum hoc sermo e Graeco enuntiatus eloquitur. And again on the same Psalm : Id . . his verbis, quae Latine minus expresse atque absolute translata sunt, continetur : admonui enim superius, plerumque interpretes cunctos, dum COLLOCATIONEM ORDINEM- QUE VERBORUM demutare ac temperare non audent, minus dilucide proprietatem declarasse dictorumf Here it’s expressly said twice, that while ALL the (Latin) inter¬ preters DARED not to CHANGE the COLLOCATION and ORDER of Words (in the Greek), they frequently ex¬ pressed that obscurely which in the original was clear. Pray, how came they not to dare to change the order, even to the detriment of the sense, unless they thought there was mys¬ tery inJt ? And if they were so scrupulous in translating the Greek Septuagint, can they be supposed to make more bold and free with the Evangelists and Apostles ? The matter of fact verifies this : there are four or five [* An allusion to Colbatch’s professorship: see p. 481. — D.] [f Hilar. Opp. pp. 197, 203. ed. 1693. — D.] VOL. III. 3 u 514 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. very old MSS. extant with the Greek on one hand and a Latin version on the other ; the Beza’s MS. at Cambridge containing the Gospels and Acts, another of the Acts at Oxford, three more of St. Paul’s epistles at Paris and else¬ where. In all these line answers to line, and word to word in order. Such books as these gave the model to the Latin versions that had no Greek joined with them. Order of words is preserved in all, allowing for the negligence of copiers. Even the passages cited by the Latin Fathers as carefully pursue the order as those in the Greek Fathers cited from the original : and our Master makes that use of both of them in his edition. Old Timon now will go puzzle himself, and try this by experience. But what criterion has he to try by ? He’ll find hundreds of variations in the printed books, which in our Master’s manuscripts will be all found to agree. Methinks I have breathed in clear air while I was writing this last page ; I must now return to fog and dulness, and follow Timon where he carries me. He brings111 a long cita¬ tion out of HieronPs letter to Austin ; but his usual fate attends him, that it makes directly against him. The case is this : St. Austin, in a prior letter, had expostulated with Hierom, why in his former translation of Job out of the LXX. he had added marks, obels and asterisks, to deter¬ mine every word to the greatest niceness ; but in his new translation of Job from the Hebrew, non eadem verborum fides occurrit,* the same vouching for the words was not found ? This shews what St. Austin expected in a translator of Scrip¬ ture. To this St. Hierom replies, that there was no need of such marks in a version where nothing was added or left out ; he having translated it exactly from the Hebrew, but sensuum potius veritatem, quam VERBORUM ORDINEM INTERDUM conserv antes, t SOMETIMES preserving the trueness of the sense rather than the ORDER OF WORDS. m Pag. 9, 10. [* Hieron. Opp. t. iv. r. n. p. (jlO. ed. 1093. — D.] [f Hieron. Opp. t. iv. r. ii. p. 626. ed. 1693. — D.] ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 515 Is not this demonstration, that Hierom (and other inter¬ preters) strove as much as possible to adhere to the order ? Sometimes , he says, he was forced to vary from it, and that in J ob, the difficultest book of the whole Scripture ; the sense of which, as he says in another place, is so slippery , that like an eel or a lamprey , the more you think to hold it, the sooner it slides out of your hand. But for all this our censor still persists, that the notion is absurd and impossible, a silly fancy of our Master’s.11 Ne scevi, magne sacerdos : * rude words will not do the busi¬ ness. He’ll prove too, from Erasmus, Arias Montanus, and Beza, that the vulgar Latin often deserts the Greek.0 If our Master begs subscriptions, as Timon reproaches him, sagacious Timon will be even with him in begging the question. Why, what Greek, what Vidgate? those that they saw and used. But each of those will differ from our Master’s Greek and Vulgate in thousands of places. If theirs had agreed two centuries ago, then indeed our Master’s edition would now be as useless and needless as Timon would gladly make it. But we need go no farther, continues he, than our author’s own Specimen, where in the Latin text, as it stands dressed up by himself, we see MANY considerable variations in the order of words from the Greek, viz. verse ii. v. viii. ix. xii. xiv. tyc. p And I say, we need go no farther than this paragraph for a specimen of the greatest malice and impudence that ever scribbler out of the dark committed to paper. Why, courteous Timon, if our Master’s own Specimen had so con¬ futed his Proposals, he might have been begged (which you may be in danger of) for a lunatic ; there needed no pam¬ phlet to quash the edition : your spleen and envy might have been reserved for another occasion. Of the six variations that our censor brings, four are no variations of order. Verse ii. rov 7 rora/iov evrevOev /cal e/ceide v, you cannot translate word for word without a barbarism, fluvii liinc et » pag. 10. [* Virg. JEn. vi. 544. “ magna sac.” — D.] 0 Ibid. . >' Pag. 10. 516 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. hide : so that this is no breach of order, but an equivalent expression, which the translator was forced to. So verse xii. ce 9 to epyov e err Iv avrov, ’twould have been most awkward in Latin, sicut opus est ejus ; he judiciously therefore changed the whole, reddere unicuique SECUNDUM OPERA SUA. Verse ix. there’s no change, 6 pa p.rj, vide ne feceris, but a necessary addition of a word ; use and custom among the Latins not allowing the Greek aposiopesis. Verse xiv. Father Valerian again ; for there’s not the least change either in word or order. And then for his etcetera , O truth, O sincerity, O conscientious director of conscience ! ’Twas to insinuate there were many more behind : I do affirm, any one may see, and he well knew, there’s not one more. So that all his MANY CONSIDERABLES are dwindled to two ; and those we shall see of what great consideration. Ver. v. ouk ear at ext, ultra non erit instead of non erit ultra. Verse viii. rov Bei/cvvovros poi ravra, qui mihi hcec osten- debat for qui ostendebat mihi hcec. And now are not these variations of the highest import¬ ance both for number and sense ? In the next page the wretch can insinuate, that our Master will wrest and force both texts, to make them answer as well as he can, to his hypothesis : ^ and his native stupidity could not let him see that the one of these accusations contradicts and confutes the other. For if our Master was disposed to warp and force his texts, how easily could he have set those two places in the right order, and have kept his own counsel ! Can we desire a greater instance of his fidelity and sincerity in the promised edition ? He left those places as he found them, not yet having seen any MSS. that represent them other¬ wise. He feared not but that all men of common sense and common candour would look on the ccclx. hits that are in that chapter, and not from two small slips imagine that all those agreements came by chance, without the translator’s design or thought ; would look more on the xxx. variations that appeared, before his Specimen, between ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 517 the two texts, and are now reconciled from the hest copies, than on two trifling variations that still remain. And, pray, has our Master undertook or promised that not one variation shall remain in the whole New Testament? To accomplish that, after xm. centuries, though he had all the copies in the world, would be a sort of miracle. All he declares is only this, that he succeeds in his essay beyond his expectation or even his hopes. And we may venture it upon this very Specimen, if he has not exceeded other men’s expectations and hopes as much as his own. But to return to our censor ; he tells us for news, that Robert Stephens and Monsieur Toinard reckoned the Latin Vulgate as good as one Greek exemplar. r And so do others : and not that only, but the Syriac and Coptic. The Greek LXX. served Cappellus and others for an exemplar of the Hebrew. But what this is to our Master’s edition I cannot conjecture. While our censor was hunting for mate¬ rials, he lit upon these two scraps, and resolved not to lose them. But Dr. Mill has retrieved the true readings of the OLD Vulgate with the very Greek from whence they were taken, which was probably that of the age next to the apostles. s Our censor does not know one tittle of what he says here, nor what the Old Vulgate means. Before St. Ilierom’s time there were innumerable Latin translations (as St. Austin tes¬ tifies), that went about in the western churches, all differing from each other (as both he and St. Hierom say), and con¬ sequently most if not all of them faulty, being translated from faulty Greek ones. And by that occasion there are at this day more variations from the present Greek than by all the other copies in the world. And Dr. Mill, who took all that heap of those vitious copies for one, under the name of Vetus Italica, superstitiously and ignorantly made it his idol; and has quite spoiled, not his edition, but his Prolego¬ mena by it ; which, though he gives us as his last thoughts, to over-rule every thing that he had wrote before on the r Pag. 11. * Pag. 11. 518 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. text, is a piece of the most unfortunate and erroneous critic that ever saw the light. Amicus Millius, sed magis arnica veritas. I shall say more of it by and by. Our censor concludes his Remarks on this second para¬ graph with a smart push ad hominem, out of our Master’s sermon upon popery. In that, it seems, he had blamed the papists for exalting the authority of the Latin trans¬ lation above the Greek original; and now Zoilus, with his great penetration, discovers that our Master by his promised edition is doing much the same thing :*• and then he runs to his fusty common-place out of the Council of Trent and Bel- larmine. I must reply with honest Geta in the comedy,* - Nihil est, Zoile , Quin male narrando possit depravarier. The case is entirely different : the Popes have authorised and authenticated a particular edition, which is frequently faulty; our Master, before he uses the Vulgate , corrects it from better MSS. than they either had or knew how to use, in thousands of places : he takes it only as an assistant, directing us to discover the genuine Greek ; he never once makes the genuine Greek bend and yield to the Latin, nor deserts that to comply with this. Neither does he print the Latin with any other view than as a good voucher of xm. hundred years’ age, that the Greek, which out of many varieties our Master selects for his text, is that genuine text that was in public use in the in. and iv. centuries. And here indeed comes the use and service of that judgment and experience which our Master speaks of as characters requi¬ sites Here are xxx. thousand variations already published of the Greek ; and I have heard him say, that he has met with as many in the copies of the Vulgate itself. Find me now the clue (which Zoi'lusv grins at) to extricate us out of 1 Pag. 11, 12. [* Ter. Phorm. iv. 4. 15. “ Nihil est, Antipho, Quin,” &c. — D.] u Proposals, parag. 5. v Pag. 7. [See note, p. 505. — D.] ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 519 this double labyrinth. I dare say, were our Master’s talents to be exchanged for Zo'ilus’s, the labyrinths might continue oil; a perpetual puzzle and maze, - Qua signa sequendi Falleret indeprensus et inremeabilis error.* Our Master, so far from raising the Vulgate above the ori¬ ginal, is very sure that the author of it has translated the Greek wrong in hundreds of places. But he’s as useful to our Master’s purpose when lie’s wrong as when lie’s right. If he translates 7rapatca\u> by exhortor, when he should do it by consolor, he still shews he read 7rapaKa\do in his Greek copy, which is all our Master wants of him. But our censor cannot take one step but ignorance and mistake follow him. Our Master there t tells the Papists, that more ancient manuscripts are preserved of the Greek than they can shew of the Latin. This is thus varied by our censor , that there are FEWER ancient MSS. preserved of the Latin than of the Greek.™ What our Master says more ancient , a comparative, ancienter, antiquiores, our censor understood more in number, plures antiqui codices. A thing false, and worthy only of him. Four or five extant copies of the Greek are older than any Latin one yet known ; but in the whole, for copies of a thousand years’ age, there are twenty Latin ones preserved for one Greek. And now at last we have travelled through dirty roads and dull prospects to Paragraph the Third. Our Master had said in this paragraph, that the exemplar of Origen was the standard to the most learned of the Fathers, and he believed for the most part he had retrieved it. Upon this, our snarling censor, like a dog biting at the stone that’s thrown at him, out of his scanty and beggarly common-place, [* Virg. JEn. v. 590.— D.] [f i.e. in the Sermon on Popery: see p. 247. — H.] w Pag. 11. 520 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. for a whole page together* falls foul on the great Origen. In which attempt, too, he has shewn himself inferior to Homer’s Margites, with whose name I at first honoured him. For of the poet’s Margites it is said or sung, ''O 9 gev hricTTaro rrroWci, /ca/coos S' rjTrlaTaro 7rdvra :* but of our censor wre may truly say, 'O? fxev eTTLararo rravpa, kcikco 9 S' yirlaraTo Ka\ rd. The old hero knew many things, but every thing wrong; the modern one knows but few things, and even those wrong. Origen, we grant, was heterodox, and warped the Christian doctrines to the systems of Pagan philosophy. But what’s this to his exemplar of the New Testament? which was fol¬ lowed even by those who declaimed most fiercely against his peculiar opinions. But our censor cannot find any high character of Origen’ s copy in any author he has yet consulted on this occasion J Emphatically spoken ! ’Twas on this occasion only he dipped into these inquiries; and so without spleen or envy resolved to search for materials against our Master’s Pro¬ posals, before he knew what would be the issue of that search ; Et si non aligua nocuisset , mortuus esset. t But it seems he had not leisure enough from his drudging office J in the cloudy cases of Escobar and Caramuel to search to any purpose. To help him out at a pinch, I’ll supply him with two passages out of the author he would seem most acquainted with, St. Hierom himself : Comment, on Matthew , cap. xxiv. De die autem ilia et hora nemo scit, neque angeli ccelorum , nisi Pater solus. In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, Neque Filius ; cum in Greeds et maxime Adamantii et Pierii x Pag. 13. [* See note, vol. ii. p. 14 of the present ed. of Bentley’s Works. — D.] y Pag. 12. [f Virg. Eel. iii. 15. — “ nocuisses, mortuus esses.” — D.] [t Sec note, p. 513. — D.J ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 521 exemplaribus hoc non liaheatur ads crip turn.* And on Galatians , cap. iii. 0 insensati Galatee, quis vos fascinavit ? . . . Legitur in quibusdam codicibus, Quis vos fascinavit NON CREDERE VERITATI ? Sed hoc quia in exepiplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus.f Is not this the utmost deference to OrigeiTs copy ? Some copies, says he, add gg vreideaQai rfj aXgOeta: but because Origen’ s copies own not those words, we leave them out. He declares in another place, that he got a collation from Origen^s own original in the library at Caesarea. And so Euthalius, a learned Greek Father, did, about the same time. What shall we say now to the plod¬ ding pupil of Escobar? Either he was very hasty in his consulting on this occasion ; or else he did not know that Adamantius was Origen, and so in his hunting lost the scent. But he found something in his hunting (if, instead of a hare, he sprung not a cat), that St. Hierom says in a letter to St. Austin, that the text (of the New Testament) was rather corrupted than mended by Origen .z This is the letter men¬ tioned here above about the obels and asterisks. a St. Hierom, being piqued a little at St. Austin for preferring his old version of Job out of Origew’s Hexapla before his new out of the Hebrew; Et miror, says he, quod LXX. interpre- tum libros legas, non puros ut ab eis editi sunt, sed ab Origene EMENDATOS sive CORRUPTOS per obelos et asteriscos ; et Christiani hominis interpret at iunculam non sequaris :% that is, I wonder you’ll read the Books of the Septuagint, not pure and neat as the LXX. published them, but as they are MENDED or MARRED by Origen with his obels and as¬ terisks ; and not read my book, that am a Christian. Pray observe, mended or marred; which refers to the Hexapla, where Origen had put marks, obels to denote what was not in the Hebrew, and asterisks to shew what was not in the [* Hieron. Opp. t. iv. r. i. p. 118. ed. 1693. — D.] [f Hieron. Opp. t. iv. r. i. p. 249. ed. 1693. — D.] 7 Pag. 13. a Pag. 514 [i. e. of the present Answer. — D.] [J Hieron. Opp. t. iv. r. ir. p. 626. where, “ Et miror quomodo &c. — 1).] VOL. III. 3 X 522 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. LXX., but supplied out of Theodotion’s version. This inter¬ polation of the LXX. out of Theodotion our learned Father in a little pet calls mending or marring , though he himself had translated the LXX. so marred. Now, let any man find out how this belongs to the copies of the New Testament, and thence let him judge of Suffenus’s judgment, and confess that his intellect is as dark as his countenance. Our censor brings Huetius and Dr. Mill to vouch that Origen in his writings makes use of several copies of the New Testament .b As if this was any thing to the purpose. Why, for that very reason, he was so useful then to the church, and now to our Master’s edition. He may be called the first Christian critic ; he gathered from all parts the exemplars of the best note, examined and collated them, and by those helps, as good critics do now, settled the genuine text of Scripture ; which was received afterwards by both eastern and western churches as a standard. Had he used hut one copy, he had done then no more service than any other Father ; and, considering how few of his writings have been preserved, had done less at this day than many other. Ay, but St. Ambrose tells us, that Origen’s authority was not near so great in the New as in the Old Testament : cum ipse Origenes longe minor sit in Novo, quam in Veteri Testa- mento.c The meaning is no more than this. St. Ambrose had allegorically interpreted a passage of the New Testament very speciously and plausibly. Whereupon his friend de¬ sires him to try the like upon another place proposed. I’ll endeavour it, replies the Father, though in the New Testa¬ ment it’s difficult ; since even Origen himself (that incom¬ parable allegorist) got less reputation in his essays on the New Testament than he had got on the Old. This is all the matter ; and the reason is plain. For in the Old Testament all his allegories referred to the New ; but in the New he could refer to nothing but either common notions or visionary schemes of his own. Now, what’s this to the Greek Testa- b Pag. 13. c Pag. 20, 21. [Ambr. Opp. Lt. ii. p. 1083. ed. 1686. — D.] ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 523 ment ? And yet our censor filched this passage from Hue- tius, out of the same page he had just quoted ;d and, like an ignorant thief, offers it to sale without knowing the value of it. But our Master pretends to retrieve the true exemplar of Origen ; and yet our censor finds, upon examining his notes in the Specimen, that he gives but three various readings from Origen , and instead of retrieving rejects them all as falser A spiteful examiner indeed ! He has caught our Master, as he thinks, and has him fast in a cleft stick. But here again we have occasion for his characters requisite , judgment and experience. Every reading that now appears in the edition of any Father is not certainly the reading of that Father. The copyists made as many or more blunders in transcribing the Fathers as in transcribing the Scriptures. Dr. Mill, who meddled with no MSS. but those of the Testament, seems to have thought, at least acts as if he thought, that no other book was faulty but it. Thence, through all his Prolegomena he passes his censure upon the copy that each Father used, these places in it were corrupt : when all the while it’s much more probable the corruption lies not in the Father’s copy, but in the copyists of the Father. This is known to our Master in many instances, where the doctor’s corrupt read¬ ings out of a printed Father are corrected by the MSS. of that very Father. Though our Master, therefore, gives these three readings out of Origen as they now stand, he has reason to be satisfied they were not the true readings of Origen. If that were all the business, to take the present readings out of Origen’s works, and clap them all into the text, even our censor's low talents and vicious taste would be sufficient for a new edition. Our Master had said, that 30,000 various readings now crowd the pages of our best editions , all put upon equal credit , to the offence of many good persons .f Here our pious calum¬ niator first mangles the sentence, and knowingly puts a false rt Huetius, pag. 239. c Pa8- 14. f Parag. 3. 524 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. sense upon it, and then cries out, A piece of grimace , in± sincerity, imposing on the senses of mankind. & A piece of grimace indeed, so habitual to our Timon, that he acts it every day ; first wilfully mistakes the words that are said to him, and then bawls and bellows against a phantom of his own making. Well, in spite of the plainest words, our Master must needs mean, that the number of readings gives the offence : and then Timon exults, as if he had taken him in a contra¬ diction to himself and to common sense ; for, says he, in his Remarks on the Free-thinkers, he rallies and exposes as weak and ridiculous, that offence at the great number of various readings)1 You see, sir, how some theologues would reward our Master for that piece of service against the free-thinkers. But why, forsooth, in contradiction to common sense ? Had the learned Dr. Whitby, and the greater part of the clergy, that from his alarum took that offence, no common sense at that time ? Did not atheists and sceptics lay hold on the advantage, to the perverting of many laymen, and to the great terror of the churchmen ? If our Master at that time by a seasonable book delivered them from the panic, and restored them (as it now seems) to common sense , pray let not our Master be now treated as if he alone is without it. The short of it is this : number of various readings in the Holy Scriptures is not a desirable good, but a necessary evil : in tract of time it was unavoidable, from human nature and circumstances of things. And though our Master is not frightened at that number, or even a greater, and may have recovered others from their fright, yet he believes and is sure, that he that out of that heap of confusion can cull out the genuine readings by a fair touchstone, and restore the text to truth, certainty, and order, will do eminent service, if not to some present party men, yet to posterity and com¬ mon Christianity . But our censor, having got (as he thought) by his paltry calumny a fair blow at our Master, is now willing to see the ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 525 true meaning, that perhaps it is not the number of the read¬ ings, but their being all put upon equal credit, that gives the off ence : the contrary of which, says he, is directly and evi¬ dently true.1 O patience, the queen of virtues ! how salu¬ tary is thy aid, when one is yoked with such a wretch ! But resentment apart ; the repute of craziness and madness* is to some men an useful privilege, and covers a multitude of faults. That the readings in Dr. Mill’s edition, which ac¬ company the text, are put upon equal credit, without rejec¬ tion or preference, except in some places that make the present points of controversy, is certain and notorious. But he gives, says our censor, in his Prolegomena a par¬ ticular and distinct account of the different antiquity, author¬ ity, and correctness of the several manuscripts : and how can the readings be put upon the same degree of credit, and the copies upon different ones ? Of any other writer, I should be tempted to say, he had never looked into those Prolegomena ; but of swarthy Timon I dare not affirm it, for his stupidity is so substantial, that though he really read them all over, he may know nothing of the matter. Dr. Mill, in his xxx. years’ incredible labour, fancied he had found above two thousand places (as Mr. Markius counts them) where the present text of Stephens ought to be altered. All these he has particularised in his Prolegomena, not in order and sequel of book, chapter, and verse, to make them visible, obvious, and easy for use, but has sown them and thrown them about at random, giving every Father, every edition, every manuscript a snack ; so that the most recent, most vile and contemptible of all, may have some share in the honour of his genuine readings. Pag- clxiv. he gives the character of a manuscript that it is cliartaceum, manu recenti, not vellum, but paper, and of a recent hand ; and yet this worthy one has xi. of his true readings against ‘ Pag. 14. [* But Colbatch certainly was never “ reputed” either crazy or mad : Bentley seems to have grounded this cruel insinuation on the eccentricities of his brother: see p. 53 3 and note. — I).] 526 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. the present text. And so he deals with the rest of them. And if this is not, tell what is, to put all copies upon equal credit ? Why impute to a scrub manuscript, which our Master would scorn to look into, the readings that appear in others nine hundred years older ? For assure yourself, in that and such other recent copies, not one good reading is found that is not found in the old ones. But the doctor’s design was, to distribute his genuine readings so, that every one of his manuscripts might look considerable. And pray, what is his criterion of genuine readings ? He has two characteristics to judge by (as any one that will peruse his Prolegomena will see), omissions and solecisms. If a word or words are omitted in any copies, out they must go as inter¬ polations : these make 1500 at least out of his 2000. And what is very extraordinary, the more signilicancy, the more importance the omitted words have, the more confident he is that they are spurious and interpolated ; and for this specious reason, Quis sanus tarn insigne verbum omiserit , preeterierit, expunxerit ? Wliat copyist in his wits would leave out so considerable a word , if he found it in the exemplar that he transcribed ? This argument and expression comes fifty times at least in those Prolegomena. One may say, Quis sanus could argue at this rate ? Is a word, so con¬ ducing to the clearness, grace, and beauty of the sentence (as the Dr. often allows), and confirmed by the oldest copies and versions, to be cast out of the text because one drunken or drowsy stationer’s boy happened to omit it ? God forbid : and yet this is his perpetual manner. The other is solecism ; which decides the remainder of his genuine readings. If in a few or in one manuscript there’s a reading that makes an avarco\ov6ov, an absurdity, a barbarism, he seldom fails to warrant it for true. In short, in his scheme, whatever ap¬ pears bright and elegant (if one copy does but fail in’t) is an emendation of some copyist ; whatever appears impolite, idiotic, absurd, (if the most scoundrel copy countenances it) is manus apostoli. I am sensible this free dealing of mine will not be grateful to our Master ; but his adversaries must ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 527 answer for it, who, by their malice and impudence, have made it necessary. But our censor quarrels with our Master for his slovenly and suspicious way of quoting manuscripts, Gallici quatuor, Anglici tres, &cJ There’s no dealing on the square either with a fool or a knave. In our Master’s edition all the tnanuscripts he uses will be specified, not in the lump, as in Stephenses and Mill’s, but before every book of the New Testament. For there are very few good manuscripts that contain the whole ; and the neglect of this indication very often makes great mistakes. They will be distinguished by letters, for brevity’s sake. A, B, C, &c. a, ft, 7, &c. But how could this be done in the Specimen ? All sensible men perceived this ; but dulness leavened with malice allows no favour nor quarter. Our censor presages, that, from the proportion of this Specimen, the pages of our Master’s edition are still like to be crowded with the old round number of xxx. thousand vari¬ ations A Pray let them be 30,000 ; and if more, the merrier ; provided they subside to the bottom of the pages, and pre¬ tend not to rise into the text itself. Fll assure him our Master will not set out a text, and decide against it himself in 2000 places. And so we are arrived at Paragraph the Fourth, in which our merciful censor will not give us much trouble. He first predicts that our Master’s edition will fall much below the former ones, and especially Dr. Mill’s r1 and to this, since you know by this time our censor’s size and abilities, we leave the edition itself to answer. But he says, it is certain that our Master does not under¬ stand a tittle of any one of the versions he pretends to make use o/.m So certain, does old conscience say ? He can make, you see, a good affidavit man ; and ’twas ungenerous in him to balk his friend Conyers, and leave him under peril of i Pag. 15. 1 Pag. 15. k Pag. 15. m Pag. lfi. 528 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. the pillory.* I would ask dear misanthrope a couple of short questions. Has not he read Mill’s Prolegomena, where the doctor fairly professes he knew nothing of the Oriental tongues, nor Gothic, nor Saxon, but made use in the two last of his friend Dr. Marshall, and in the others of the Latin translations in the Polyglot Bible ? Whence is it then that Dr. Mill with these defects has merited the character of incredible pains and industry, and our Master under the same defects can have no grain of allowance ? But how knows the veracious Timon what he affirms to be so certain? I have had the honour to see a sort of hexapla, a thick volume in quarto, made and writ by our Master with his own hand before he was xxiv. years old ; in the first column of which is every word of the Hebrew Bible alphabetical ; in five other columns all the various interpretations of those words in the Chaldee, Syriac, Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, and Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, that occur in the whole Bible. This he made for his private use, to know the Hebrew, not from the late Rabbins, but the ancient versions ; when, bating Arabic, Persic, Ethiopic, he read over the whole Polyglot. And I saw, too, another volume in quarto, of various lections and emendations of the Hebrew text, drawn out of these ancient versions, which, though done in those green years, would make a second part to the famous Cap- pellus’s Critica Sacra. In Paragraph the Fifth our censor assures us, with the same confidence, that our Master’s whole life has been spent in critical niceties and observations on classic authors.n The fitter, for that, as I think, to give an edition of the Greek Testament. The [* See note, p. 499. — “ But though he flies to the law himself, as an injured, libelled person, yet he makes no scruple, we see, to libel me and others too as much as he pleases ; and, with a modesty peculiar to himself, prejudges the very cause now depending, and condemns me even to the pillory.” Middleton’s Farther Remarks, &c. p. 3. — D.] " Pag. 16. ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 529 world has seen what poor work is made in this kind by mere theologues without classical letters. But how came Timon to forget that our Master, while he was only deacon , had the honour to be the first preacher of Mr. Boyle’s lec¬ ture ; and gave the world a volume of sermons that have been translated abroad into several languages ? Do those con¬ sist of nothing but critical niceties? But this is the venom of such vermin as our Timon. If a man is distinguished in one part of learning, he’s not allowed to know any thing else ; for why, say they, does he not publish that too ? By this rule, what must Timon’s life and studies be supposed to have been spent in ? In libelling and defaming. For as soon as he came from Portugal (where he stayed not long, but much longer than the Factory wished), he libelled that court and country too,* with such paltry stuff as Dr. Edwards told him in print was below any kitchen wench. Since that time the world has seen nothing of his but libels and pam¬ phlets to the same tune ; one of which appears in his own name, but most lie under the cover of the musicalf Conyers. Our Master has declared in this paragraph, that he'll not alter one letter in the text without the authorities subjoined in the notes. This must not pass without a fling ; for Timon says, that the Dutch orator and our Master's old friend Peter Burman, whom he has quoted in the title-page , has told us already what we are to expect: the substance of which is, that a critic long used to cut and slash profane writings will hardly keep his cruel fingers from the Scripture itself.0 I thank our dear English casuist% for quoting the Dutch orator. Here’s an instance of his stupor and insensibility beyond any of the famous Tom Coryat. Mr. Burman’ s oration, made last year, when he laid down his office of rector mag- nificus, a very fine one in its way, is all writ in Lucian’s manner, a thorough irony and jeer. He tells the audience, that to make a complete finished divine there’s no need of [* Colbatch, who had been for several years chaplain to the Factory at Lisbon, published an Account of the Court of Portugal, &c. 8vo, 1700. — D.] [f A sneer at Middleton’s love of music. — D.] o pag. 17. [t See note, p. 513.— D ] VOL. III. 3 Y 530 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. any skill at all, either in languages , or history, or eloquence, or critic. These four topics he agreeably pursues ; and in the last of them has that passage which our Escobar has chosen for his motto.* The Dutch orator supposed that all men of common sense would read his meaning backwards ; but he met with an English cabbage-head that takes him to be in good earnest ; as being indeed of that opinion before, and believing himself a profound theologue without any of those four ill qualities. We have one feeble fling more, and this paragraph is done. Our Master, he says, has made some literal alterations in the Greek text, and one verbal one in the Latin, without authority subjoined .p The reason of those literal alterations could not be made appear in this short Specimen, but will be given in the edition itself ; and the verbal one, erit for erunt (though our Master has yet no manuscript for it), is founded upon such plain and cogent reason as is equal to authority. Paragraph the Sixth. Even Timon’s dulness is sunk in this paragraph below its natural depression, and he seems to be jaded with his past laborious fatigue. Here were plausible topics ready for him, emendations and mere conjectures, not supported by any copies now extant ; of no sect nor party ; no regard to any disputed points. How comes the zealous and orthodox Timon to be mute where he should have been loudest ? In¬ stead of which he contents himself to aim at an awkward ridicule upon Keigrfkiov and magna charta. But he thinks he is very sharp upon the word extin¬ guished. What, says he, shall our Master’s edition needs last when all the ancient manuscripts are not only lost, but {in a phrase as barbarous as the thought) extinguished too 1$ not this smart and pungent ? But a fool never shews himself more than when he affects and labours to be witty. He first leaves out the words, here quoted ; and by that slight of hand, for a few MSS. of the New Testament he substitutes [* See p. 480. — D.] p Pag. 17. '* Pag. 17. ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 531 all the MSS. of all books whatever. But pray, is that a wonder, if an edition, dispersed over Europe in a thousand exemplars, should outlast half a score manuscripts, half perished already, and their letters scarce legible but vanish¬ ing with long age ? And is it so barbarous to suppose that MSS. may be extinguished? What became of the famous library of Alexandria, when there were no other books but MSS. ? was it not extinguished , and all destroyed in a sedi¬ tion of that city ? Were not all the MSS. of the then famous library at Ghent destroyed on purpose by the Anabaptists of those times ? Whence have we the famous MS. of the Gospels and Acts, that Beza gave to our University? Was it not from Lyons in France, when in the civil wars the monasteries and libraries in that city were all burnt or plun¬ dered, and this hook chanced to fall into a learned man’s hands ? Did the Turks extinguish no manuscripts when they spread their empire over Greece ? What has formerly been may be again ; and our Master’s thought is not so bar¬ barous as our censor’s cavil is ignorant and silly. Paragraphs the Seventh and Eighth. In these our Master proposes to print the book by sub¬ scription ; and without that indeed, what sense, what use in PROPOSALS ? But our censor, as if subscriptions had never been known in Great Britain before, falls into one of his raving fits j gain and flthy lucre ; sordid insinuations ,■ higgling to squeeze our money from us ; mendicants in the streets ; charitable contribution to a poor young critic ; scheme and bubble borrowed from Change- Alley ; and other such wild reveries.17 Now, besides the influence of the moon, there r Pag. 18, pag. 19. [“ In a design like this, pretended to be undertaken for the service of the Christian world, any other man would have contrived Ss well as he could to have kept out of sight all selfish views and motives, all regards to gain and filthy lucre : but we find in these two paragraphs such sordid insinuations, such low and paltry higgling to squeeze our money from us, viz. great expense requisite ; shall he put to the press as soon as money is contributed ; no more printed than subscribed for ; the best letter, paper, and ink in Europe ; the lowest price must be, #c., that it puts me in mind of those mendicants in the streets, who beg our charity with an half-sheet of Proposals pinned upon their breasts: to what 532 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. seem to me to be two causes of this sudden extravagance ; one, the strong idea he took of his money being squeezed from him. For you are to know, to a great many other virtues he had before, old Timon has of late added a new one, the most tenacious and sordid avarice ; and renews among us the memory of old Raslileigh.* So that he has now a whole set of most amiable qualities : - cestuat ingens Uno in corde odium, mixtoque insania fastu, Et furiis agitatus amor sceleratus habendi.f The other cause was personal spleen and envy ; 8 though, with his usual conscience , he professes the contrary. At the first purpose is it to tell us that Mr. John Walker is to go halves with him in the gain or loss of this work, except to move the compassion of good Christian people, and to beg of us, however unkind we may be to himself, yet not to see a poor young critic undone for want of charitable contributions ? But indeed most people are agreed in opinion, that he has borrowed his scheme from Change-Alley, and in this age of bubbles took the hint to set up one of his own:” &c. &c. — D.] [* In The Present State of Trinity College in Cambridge, in a Letter from Dr. Bentley, Master of the said College, to the Right Reverend John, Lord Bishop of Ely, &c. 8vo, 1710, Rashleigh is thus described: “Now a senior fellow, who when your lordship inquires his character, will be found a sordid miser and every way worthless ; is never without a curse in his mouth ; keeps com¬ pany with the very bedmakers and sculls ; lets his own chamber out at rent, and lies skulking without one; has absented from chapel for some years on all Sundays and festivals, because he will not be at charge for surplice and hood,” p. 26. Against this attack Rashleigh is defended in several pamphlets which were called forth by the piece just quoted: in one by Miller, entitled Some Remarks upon a Letter, 8fc. 8vo, 1710, we are told, that as to “his not having a surplice and hood, being asked whether it was true, he answered, he might have borrowed the Master’s, for he never used it himself,” p. 74. — D.] [f Virg. AEm. xii. 666. . . . “sestuat ingens Uno in corde pudor, mixtoque insania luctu, Et furiis agitatus amor, et conscia virtus.” — D.] 8 Pag. 1. [“I shall not trouble myself with making any apology for the following Remarks; but shall only desire the reader to believe, that (whatever prejudices may lie against them) they were not drawn from me by personal spleen or envy to the author of the Proposals, but by a serious conviction that he has neither talents nor materials proper for the work he has undertaken, and that religion is much more likely to receive detriment than service from it,” &c. -D.] ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 533 view of the Specimen , he pronounced it was a sham; no such thing designed \ no such thing possible : but when he heard that the Proposals met with great encouragement from the best quality at London^ notwithstanding the difficulty of the times, he raged, he stormed, he resolved to take his deadly pen in hand, and extirpate the edition from the very root. And, in truth, all his friends (if he has any) should come in to his assistance; for if the edition goes prosper¬ ously on, old Timon’s either a dead man, or in a dark room. Both his constitution and his schemes have long looked towards that latter place. He has a brother* here in the neighbourhood, a harmless, quiet clergyman, and much the better of the two ; who has taken a fancy from a vow or a vision, to wear in the flower of his age a beard to his girdle, sufficient for a Greek patriarch. And though ours has the much better title to that badge upon his chin, yet out of tru e fraternum odium (for they cannot so much as see each other) he refuses to wear that hieroglyphic , because the other has taken it up first. However, he seems to be under [* See note, p. 525. — According to Dr. Monk, Life of B. vol. ii. p. 136, this person was the Rev. George Colbatch; and in Cantabrig. Graduati we find “ Col- batch, Geo., Christ’s, A. B. 1691.” The following notice by Cole, in which he is called Thomas, has never been printed. “ Thomas Colbatch was vicar of both the Abingtons in 1695. He was a very worthy, conscientious, good man, but somewhat particular. He dreamed that an angel appeared to him, and ordered him to let his beard grow ; and from that time he never shaved. 1 remem¬ ber him in his white hair and beard, a thin old man, at my mother’s funeral, which he attended to St. Clement’s Church in Cambridge, where she desired to be buried. He was brother to the late Rev. Dr. Colbatch, rector of Orwell, and senior fellow of Trinity College, who died this year 1748, and lies buried at Orwell. Our vicar left an only daughter, who lived with Dr. Colbatch after the death of her father, and is heiress from her uncle of 10,000 pds. Mr. Col¬ batch got a fall from his horse on Gogmagog Hills, in his way to Cambridge, and broke his leg, which occasioned his death. He printed an Exposition of the Catechism, which is in few people’s hands but of those to whom he presented it; and indeed that was the end he proposed in publishing of it. He died March 14, 1735, aged 75 years, and lies buried, according to his direction, under a neat altar-tomb on the S. side of chancel in the churchyard of Little Abington ; for he was of opinion that it was not proper to inter in churches, as is evident from a note of his in the parish register.” MS. Collections (in the Brit. Museum), vol. xxii. p. 257 — D.] 534 ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. a vow too, not to speak one word of truth or sense till he has demolished our Master. This great design lies upon his heart , he says ; and, in all probability, may hold him tug so long, that he’ll die before he finishes it. For he finds his party dwindle ; he walks melancholy and lonely, Ipse suum cor edens, hominum vestigia vitans ;* he stoops already, and decays apace, and lies sleepless whole nights, out of mere anguish to see all things quiet and flou¬ rishing about him. In time of yore he had now and then some consolation, some squabble in the college to keep up his spirits ; on which occasions he would look something gay among us, smile horrible , like Satan in Milton, and extend his wide jaws with an agreeable yawn. But now every thing about him, peace, plenty, and a hopeful prospect of the future, conspire to his uneasiness : and if this edition, too, comes on the back of them, poor Timon is quite heart¬ broken. But our censor having despatched his remarks upon all the paragraphs of the Proposals , he now advances to make his observations upon the Specimen. And here he first takes a view, with great satisfaction and applause to himself, of what he has already done : he has shewn, that our Master, even upon his own scheme, can¬ not give us any thing , or any at least considerable, any thing equal to the pomp and magnificence of his Proposals : all is to be copied and transcribed, and robbed and stolen from Dr. Mill.1 Can one yet bear with patience this Suffenus ? But weJll let him go off without any farther drubbing : Quamquam est scelestus, non committet, hodie umquam iterum ut vapulet.\ [* Cicero (from Horn. II. vi. 202), Tuscul. iii. 26. — D.] 1 Pag. 23. [Middleton’s language here is not quite so strong: “ — yet with all his hints and conjectures, his old manuscripts and versions, he has not been able to produce one single reading which we do not find long ago exhibited in Dr. Mill’s edition,” &c. : afterwards, p. 24. “ he will be found, I am apt to think, at last to have acted the plagiary rather than the critic.” — D.] [f Ter. Adelph. ii. 1. 5.— D.J ANSWER TO THE REMARKS. 535 Our Master’s design and proposal in this edition is to give an accurate and authentic Greek TEXT ; and in the Specimen here offered there are more than threescore changes in it in the compass of xxi. verses. And I have had the op¬ portunity to hear one of the best judges in England say, after he had carefully read it over, that of those lx. changes in the text there was not one hut what should be there ; as every knowing man would allow. Now if their numbers in the whole New Testament bear equal proportion to this pattern, will that be inconsiderable ? will that be nothing ? In truth, if our Master’s edition goes on at this rate through the whole, the alterations will appear too many, and at first put us into some fright. And I dare say our Master is better pleased when he finds the present text right, than when it’s wrong. But because Dr. Mill is cast in our teeth so often by our censor , I’ll examine and compare (though it’s dry work for a letter) what the doctor and our Master have each done upon the text of this chapter. In his Prolegomena the doctor has given all his desired reformations of the text ; and in this xxii. of the Apocalypse he would introduce verse iii. /card- Qepa, verse ix. dele yap, verse xvii. dele /cal, verse xx. dele Koi. These four are all that even malice itself can say were borrowed from him by our Master in all the threescore. But let candour look on our Master’s notes on each, and speak whether those four changes would not have been made though the doctor’s edition had never existed. Three places our Master has changed which the doctor would have stand as they now are. Verse v. %pe Lav <£&>to