h 
 
 I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | |M 
 
 Princeton, N. J. * \-^ • 
 
 I 
 
 From the Executors of the Rev. C. NESBIT, D.D. 
 
 Shelf, Section 
 
 ^ Book, N« 
 
 5rr 
 
 'c>- 
 
Natural Religion inrufficient, and Revealed neceifarv, 
 to Man's Rappinefs ia his Prefent State : 
 
 o R^ A 
 
 RATIONAL ENQUIPJf 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 principles 
 
 MODErWdEISTS; 
 
 \y H E & fe I N 
 
 15 LARGELY DISCOVERED THEIR UTTER. INSUFFICIENCY 
 
 TO ANSWER THE GREAT ENDS OF RELIGION, AND 
 
 THE WEAKNESS OF THEIR PLEADINGS FOR THE 
 
 SUFFICIENCY OF NATURR's LIGHT 
 
 TO ETERNAL HAPPINESS : 
 
 AND PARTECULARLY 
 
 The Writings of the late learned Lord Herbert, the great Patron 
 
 of Delfm, to wir, his Books ^e Veritatey de Religkne Geuti' 
 
 iiuvh and Religio Laicij In fo far as they afiert Nature's 
 
 Light able to conducl lis to future Bleflednefs, 
 
 are confide red, and fully anfv/eied. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, AN 
 
 ESSAY ON THE TRUE GROUND OF FAITH. 
 
 BY THE LA;rE REVFRFND 
 
 Mr. THOMAS^H a LY burton, 
 
 Profeflbr of Divinity in the Univerfity of St. Andre-: s. 
 
 A fcorncr feeketh wifdoni and findeth it not: but knowledge is eafy imto biiu 
 
 that underftandeth. pRov. xiv. 6. 
 
 If any man will do his will, he Poall know of the dct^lrine, whether it be of 
 God, or whether I fpeak of myfelf. John vii. 17- 
 
 Solis r.ojfc Dsos (U" cxli numina vobis^ 
 Aiit [oils nefcire, datum. Lucan. de Druid. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 POINTED BY HOGAN& M'ELROYi'ii^.li NORTH THIRD-STREET,* 
 And fold by A. Cunningham, Wafhingron, (Venn.) A- M'Donald, Nor- 
 th umber land ; C.Davis, New-Ycivk; and by J. M'Cx-tli.och, tfnd 
 the PubliHievs, Philadelphia. 
 
 1798. 
 
r 
 
 t 
 
g^..— i_^— -- J , JL ^^-^ 5=== » r. i=te == i ==.-===a===-?^ 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 THE God of glory hath not left himfelf without a 
 witnefs ; all his'works do, after theii manner de- 
 clare his glory. Aj^ now the beajis^ and they JJ:)all teach 
 thee ; and the fowls of the air^ and they Jhall tell thee : 
 or fpeak to the earthy and it Jhalll teach thee ; and the 
 Jifhes of the fea jhall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not 
 in all thefe^ that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? 
 Job xii. 7, 8, 9. Moreover it hath plcafed him to 
 inftamp upon the confciences ot men, fuch deep im- 
 preflions of his being and glory, that all the powers 
 and fubtilry of hell, "fhall never be able to eradicate 
 them : Though, alas ! through a cuftom of fin, and 
 efpecially againit much light and convidion, the con- 
 fciences of many are debauched in thefe dregs of time, 
 to an obliterating of thefe impreffions, which otherwife 
 •would have been ftrong and vivid. The principles of 
 moral equity carry fuch an evidence in their natiire, 
 and are alfo accompanied with fo much of binding 
 force upon the confcitnce, that their obligation on ra- 
 tional creatures hath a moil refplendent clearnefs, and 
 fills the little world with fuch a llrength, and efficacy 
 of truth, as far furpalTeth the plained theoretical prin- 
 ciples. 
 
IV 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 ciples. That one maxim, Mattb. vii. 12. Luke vi. 3. 
 therefore all things ivhatfoe'vcr ye mould that men jhould 
 do to you, do ye even fo to them ; th?At one niaximj I faVj 
 (to pafs otberij) was matter of fo much v/onder to fome 
 of the moil polite heathens, that they knew not wel! 
 how to exprefs their fenfe of the truth and glory of 
 it ; they thought it worthy to be engraven with letters 
 of gold, upon the frontifpieces of their mod magni- 
 ficent ftruclures ; an agreeable and fpeaking evidence 
 of its having been imprinted in foaie meafure upon 
 their hearts. Neverthelefs, all thefe, though fweet, 
 ilrong, and convincing notices of a Deity, do yet 
 evaniih as faint glimmerings, when compared to that 
 ftamp of divine authority, which our great and alone 
 Lawgiver has deeply imprinted upon the fcriptures of 
 truth, Pfal, xix. 7. The taw of the Lord is perfed:^ con- 
 verting the foul : the icftlmony cf the Lord is fure^ ma". 
 king wife the fimple^ &c. I enter not upon this large 
 theme, which great men hsive treated to excellent pur- 
 pofe ; I only reprefent very ihortlVj that the fliipendous 
 account w-e have in thefe fcripture, of moral equity in 
 its full compafs, comprifed even in ten words, that 
 wonderful account, I fay, proclaimeth its Author with 
 io much of convincing evidence, and fuch drains of 
 glory, as i cannot poUibly clothe with words. The 
 greatcit men among the heathen nations, have given 
 the higheil accounts of their accompiiihments by fram- 
 ing laws; but beddes the palling v/eaknefs of their 
 performances, when viewed in a true light, the choicefl 
 of them all have a great deal of iniquity inlaid with 
 them : but all here iliineth with the glory o^ a Deity* 
 Every duty is plainly contained within thefe fmail boun- 
 daries, and all concerns thereof in heart and way, are 
 fet down fo punctually, and fo fully cleared in the ex- 
 pofiticn which the Lav/giver himfelf has given of his 
 own laws, that nothing is wanting. Heie aifo are all 
 
 the' 
 
PREFACE, V 
 
 the myftsnes of iniquity ia the heart fo clearly and 
 fully detected, thefe evils alfo purfiied to their mod 
 latent fources, and to the grand ipring of them ail, viz. 
 the corruption of our nature, and in fo very few words, 
 with fo much of (liining evidence and power, that no 
 iudicious and fpber perfon can deny that the finger of 
 God is there, unlefs he offer the moil daring violence 
 to his own confcience. And vhat fliali I fay of the 
 glorious contrivance of falvation, through the Lord 
 jrsus our only Redeemer ? Should I touch at the 
 ground-work thereof in the eternal counfel of the ador- 
 able Trinity, and the feveral dilplays of it, until at 
 length the complete piirchafe was made in the ful- 
 iiefs of tioie ; and if 1 fhould but glance at the feve- 
 ral firokes of omnipotent power, and rich mercy 
 through Chrifl, by vi^hich the purchafed falvation is ef- 
 fedually applied to every elect perfon, I would enter 
 upon a neld from which I could not quickly or eafiiy 
 get off. All that I adventure to fay is, that the difco- 
 veries of a Deity in each ilep thereof, are fo relucent 
 and full of glory, that the being of the material light 
 under a meridian fun, without the interpofition of a 
 cloud, may as well be denied, as thefe great truths can 
 be difov/ned. Beyond all manner of doubt, they con- 
 tain matter of much higher, and more glorious evidence, 
 ijpon the minds of all thofe whofe eyes the god of this 
 world hath not blinded, (2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. John i. 5. 
 Deut. xxix. 4.) Yet ah! mid-day clearnefs is mid- 
 night darknefs to thofe who have not eyes. But not to 
 infill : If v»'e add to all thefe, the full hiftory of the heart 
 of man, in the depths of wickednefs contained in that 
 great abyfs, together with the feveral eruptions thereof, 
 both open and violent, as alfo fubtile and covered, to- 
 gether with all the engines of temptations for fetting 
 it to work, and keeping it flill bufy ; if, I fay, the per- 
 fect account of thefe things which is given in the word, 
 
 be 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 be ferioufly pondered, who can efcape the convidion, 
 that He, and He only who formed tiie Spirit within 
 him, could have given fuch a dilpiay. From all this, 
 I would bewail, were it poflibic, with tears of blood, 
 ihe blafphenious wickednefs oi thole, who, from the 
 grciTeft darknefs and ignorance, oppofe, malign, and 
 deride fuch great and high things. But it is enough; 
 zvlfdo?n is jujiified of all her children^ Matth. xi. 19. 
 The worthy and now glorified author of this work, had 
 a plentiful meaiure, beyond many, of the fureft: and 
 fweeteit knowledge of theie matters : his foul, (may I 
 fo exprefs it) was cad into the blefled mould of gof- 
 pal truih. Wno is a teacher like unto God ! Sure an 
 enlightening work, by his word and Spirit upon the 
 foul, filleth it with evidence of a more excellent na- 
 ture, and attended with a penetrancy quite of another 
 kind, than any mathematical demonftration can amount 
 to. In this cafe, the foul (2 Cor. iii 3.) is an -epidle 
 of Jefus Chriftj wherein thefe great truths are written 
 by himfelf, in characters which the united force. and 
 fubtilties of hell (hall be fo far from deleting, that their 
 it rongeit efforts fliall render the impreiTions ftiil deep- 
 er, and more vivid. No mathematical demonftration 
 can vie with this: forafmuch as the authority of the 
 God of truth, that conveys bis own teftimony into 
 the heart with a ftrong hand, has a glory and evidence 
 peculiar to iti'elf. And though well known to thofe 
 who enjoy it, yet of a beauty great and myfterious, fuch 
 as the tongues of men and angels could not fuffice to 
 defcribe. The empty cavils of that execrable herd of 
 blafphemous Atheiiis, or Deiils, as they would be cal- 
 led, amount to a very fmal! and contemptible account, 
 feeing the moll fubtile of them, fall very far fhort of 
 the objections which unclean fpirits propofe, and urge 
 in a way of temptation, again ft perfons exercifed to 
 ^-;adlinef>;, which yet the Father of lights difpelleth 
 
 mercifully 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Vll 
 
 mercifully from time to time, and maketh thefe dark 
 fhadts to evanifb, as the Sun of righteoufnefs arifeth 
 upon the foul with a glory and evidence ftill upon the 
 afcendant, Mai. iv. 2. Prov. iv. 18. Hof. vi. 3. Ne- 
 veriheles, the learned and godly avathor hath encoun- 
 tered thefe filJy creatures at their own weapons, both 
 ofFen fively ard defenfively, and to fuch excellent pur- 
 pofe, as needeth not my poor teftimony. He hath 
 fearched into the very bottom of what they allege. With 
 great and unwearied diligence did he read their writ- 
 ings carefully from the very firft fprings, and hath re- 
 prefented fairly their empty cavils, in all the fbadows 
 of (Irength they can be alleged to have, and has refut- 
 ed them plainly and copioufly. On which, and the 
 like accounts, 1 hope the work will be, through the di- 
 vine bleffing, of great ufe in the churches of Chrift. 
 
 JAMES HOG. 
 
 TO 
 
TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 THOUGH the editors will not prefume to offer any recdffi- 
 mendation of the enlliing work ; yet they conceive them- 
 felves juftifiable^ in prefenting to the public the fentinients of 
 fome eminent chara6ters refpeding it. 1 his they do chieiiy with 
 a view to obviate an objection that poffibly may ariie in the 
 minds of fome, viz. That it is not adapted to the prefent Rate of 
 the ccntroverfy with the Deifts. To this we would obferve, 
 that a careflil peruful of the book will at once prove, to any 
 perfon acquainted with the controverfy, that the arguments lat- 
 terly produced againft divine revelation, are in fubftance precifely 
 the fame with thofe form.erly advanced by Herbert and his ad° 
 herents, with whom our author chiefly contends. And that he 
 has fully fucceeded in this conteft, was the judgment of the cele- 
 brated Dr* Watts* He here ** proves," fays the Dr. ^^ by un-* 
 ^* anfwcrable arguments, the utter ihfufficiency of the Deiils^ 
 *^ religion for the falvation of men, and beats them fairly at their 
 " v;eapon3*i'' Dr. John Newton, in one of his letters to 
 
 the rev. Mr. S=^ , to whom he had fent Mr. Halyburton^s 
 
 book for perufal, thus expreffes his fentiments refpeding it : ^^ I 
 '^ fct a high value upon this book of Mr. Haly burton's ; fo 
 ** that unlefs I could replace it with another, I know not if I 
 *' would part with it for its weight in gold. The firft and long- 
 *' eft treatife, (meaning that againft the Deifts) is in my judg- 
 '^ ment a m.after-piece-j-.'^ Dr- Jameison of Edinburgh, who 
 no dcubt will be allowed to be well acquainted with the prefent 
 jtatt of the controverfy, in a late publication, having occafion to 
 mention Mr. Hal\^ burton's treatife, fays. It is *^ a book not fur- 
 ** pafied, if equalled, by any of the numerous antl-deifilcal wnu 
 '' inos that have appeared fmce the tim.e of its publication ; and 
 *' v.diich has this ipecial excellency, that it carries the war into 
 <^ caiVip of the adveriary±.'' — — Eulogiums cculd be multiplied, 
 and the teftimonies of eminent clergymen in this country produ- 
 ced, v.ere it deemed necelTary. We are authorifed in faying^ 
 that it has the decided approbation of Dr. NisbeT, Prefident of 
 Jjickinfon ColL-ge ; to whom we are indebted for the tranllation 
 of the Latin quotations, and a number of literal corrections, which 
 much increaiVe. the value of the prefent edition. 
 Pkihidtiphwy Feb' 1798. 
 
 * See his Recoirimendatioii picf.::ed to Mr. Halyburton's Men-.oirs. page 7^ 
 of P'lM'adelpblii edition, 
 t Newton's Letters, vol. T. pag. 148, Phi!ado!pliia edition. 
 \ Alarni to Britain, pag. 25. 
 
SUBSCRIBERS^ NAMES 
 
 L\EV. James Abei-cromble, 
 minirter of the Proteftant E- 
 pifcopal ehureh, Philadelphia. 
 Rev. John Andenon, minifterof 
 the Affociate congregations at 
 Milr-creek and Harman's-cr, 
 near Pittfburgh 
 Dr. Henry Arnot, York county 
 I}r, James Armflrong, Carlifle, 
 Thomas Aliifon, ftud, of divinity 
 Col. Aliifon, Philadelphia 
 Mr. Robert Armflrong, Juniata 
 Abraham Anderfon, Carlifle 
 James Anderfon, do 
 
 .William Alexander, do 
 Vv'illiam Airkin, Yci:k cou. 
 Alexander Aliifon, do 
 Ja. Agnew, Ma^:(h creek, do 
 J no. Aj>new, do do 
 Thos. Adams, "Walh, county 
 Samuel Agnevv, do 
 John Afhton,Camb. fN.Tj 
 James Afnton, do 
 John Armitage, do 
 Archibald Armftrong 
 
 B 
 
 Ktv. Thomas Eeveridge, Cam- 
 bridge, fN. T.J 
 Mr. George Barber, do 
 Mrs. Hannah Barton, fK J.) 
 Lewis Berry, do 
 Robert Boyd, do 
 James Buchanan, Wafhing- 
 ton county 
 
 Mr. Evert Bufn, New- York 
 John Pennie, do 
 Alexander Bradley, Carlifle 
 James Blaine, 6.<:i 
 
 Charles Bovard, do 
 
 William Brcrden,ftudent,do 
 John Brov.'n, W^eft Pennf- 
 
 borough townfliip 
 Randel Blair, do 
 David Blaine, Big-fpringj 
 
 2 copies 
 James Brown, do 
 John Brown, do 
 Andtew Bran wood, Marlh- 
 
 creek, York county 
 
 Rev. Ja;r,es Clark fon, York cc. 
 Rev^. William Clarkfon, near 
 Bridgetown, fI\',J,J i z copies 
 Mr. Abraham Craig, A. B. Big^ 
 fpiing 
 John Creigh, Carlifle 
 Thomas Graigliead, do 
 James Chrifw, 11, Lev/is 
 
 townfliip, MiSin county 
 James Conchy, FhiladeU 
 James Creng do 
 
 Michael Cc>:rodi do 
 Alexander Caflel, Wafii. co^ 
 P.andc! Cowden, do 
 
 Samuel Cald^vell, do 
 Andrew Chriftie, N. York 
 AlexC'i'ider Cunningham, 
 merchant, Wafii. (Fen.) 
 
 c 
 
SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 
 
 Mr, John Cunningham, Dela- 
 ware county 
 William Collins, "Vork co. 
 Samuel Cr.lilns do 
 
 John Collins, do 
 
 D 
 
 Rer.Jchn Dunlap,Camb. ^V.^'*.; 
 Jonathan Dorr, phyiiclan, do 
 Rev, Robert Davidfon, D. D, 
 miRifter of the Prefbyterian 
 church, Carlille 
 James Duncan, preacher of the 
 
 gofjjel 
 Mr, Thomas Dick, New- York 
 Hugh Dodd, Philadelphia 
 Ja. Duncan, Carlifle 
 'IhoiTias Duncan, attorney 
 
 at law, do 
 Robert Dawfon^ Wafh. co. 
 John Donaiiifon, Norihuiu, 
 
 Rev. John Ewing, D. D. pador 
 of the firft Prefbyterian church, 
 Philadelphia 
 Mr. Benjamin Egbert, N. York 
 James Edmifton, Lewis- 
 town, Miffiin county 
 Peter Eifenbray, Philad. 
 
 F 
 
 Mr. Alexander Fridge, Yhlhd, 
 James Furze, do 
 
 John Frirth, Salem, rN.J.J 
 John Forfythe, Carlide 
 Samuel Fullerton, York 
 county 
 
 G 
 
 Rev. Albbel Green, D. D. paf- 
 tor of the fecond Prefbyterian 
 church, Philadelphia 
 
 Rev. David Goodwille, Earner, 
 
 fVermofJt) 
 Mr. Samuel Gufline, Carliile 
 Francis Gibibn, do 
 
 Mr. George Gofrnan, N. York 
 12 copies 
 Jacob Grove, York county 
 Thomas Grove, do 
 Alexander Govvens, do 
 Gaion Grier, Waui. county 
 
 H 
 
 Pvcv. Matthew Hcnderion, Alle- 
 gany county 
 
 Davijd HaySjllud.atlaw, Carlifle 
 
 Thomas Kainilton, lludent of 
 divinity, Wafh In^e^. co. 
 
 Mr. J no. Hughes, Carlifle 
 Robert Huiton, do 
 Peter H art rick, New-Y'ork 
 Cornelius C. Hoffman, do 
 David Hall, Philadelphia 
 James Hogan, do 
 Samuel Harper, York co. 
 Hugh Hcnderfon, do 
 Jofeph n a mil ton, do 
 Ebenezer Henderfon, -do 
 Alex. Hcnderfcn,Wafh. co. 
 Ezekial Hill, Monrgom.co. 
 John Hsys, do 
 AmafaHinchlev,Cari)bridge 
 
 fN^. r.) 
 
 James Hoy, do 
 
 Mr. James Irwin, Cumb. county 
 William Innes, PhiladeL 
 Johjii Johnflon, do. 
 
 K 
 
 William Kef fey, Chief Jddoe of 
 
 Steuben cou-nt)-, {N, T.f 
 Mr. /Andrew Kevan, New- York 
 David Kempton, Carlifle 
 John Kemen, Wafhing. co. 
 
 Rev. John Linn, Shearman'sVal- 
 
 ley^ 
 Mif. VVrn. Liggar, fen. York co. 
 
SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES, 
 
 Mr^ Francis Linch, New-York 
 Samuel Longcope, Philad. 
 Archibald Loudon, CMflifle 
 Vv Mliam Lyon, do 
 
 James Lamberton, do 
 Saaiuel Laird, do 
 
 Philip K. Laurence, do 
 John Lecky, Norihura. co, 
 
 M 
 Rev. Samuel Magaw, D. D, 
 reflior of Sr, Paul's church, 
 Philadelphia 
 Rev. WiJIiam MarOiall, A. M. 
 minifter of theAfibciate church 
 Philadelphia 
 Rev, John iVlafon, New- York 
 
 12 copies 
 James M'Cormick, profefTor of 
 mathemacicks in Dickinfon 
 College 
 John Montgomery, Efq. Carlifle 
 Samuel Murdoch, ftad. of divi- 
 nity, Waihing. county 
 John M'Phcrfon, Efq. Norlhui-n, 
 Dr. Sam. A. M'Cofey, Carlifle 
 James Magiil, A. B, near MifHin 
 town 
 ^ Mr. barauel Mill/r, (N, T.J 
 lo copies 
 John M'Clellan, do 
 Alexander M'Donald, Nor, 
 
 thumberland, 2 copies 
 William Mack}-, do 
 
 Robert M'Neal, do 
 
 John M'Alliiler, Philadel, 
 John M^Ara^ do 
 Andrew M'Ara, do 
 Andrew M'Calla, da 
 Robert rvjillikin, do 
 William W. Moore, do 
 John M'CleHCchan, do 
 Walter Mickeljohn, do 
 James M'G lathery, do 
 Peter M<Kachan, N. York 
 Daniel M'Lauren, do 
 
 Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Carlifle 
 William MCluer, do 
 Andrew Munro, do 
 William Moore, da 
 Alex. M'Kechan, jun. do 
 William M'Craken, do 
 Hugh M'Cormick, Rear do 
 Pi ugh Morrifon, York co. 
 Andrew Martin, do 
 Robert MClellan, do 
 David Mdellan, do 
 Frederick M-Pherfon, do 
 John Main, i^hippeniburgh 
 James M<Nary, Walh. co. 
 Samuel M'Bride, do 
 Samuel M^Gov.'en, do 
 John MCall, do 
 
 Henry Maxwell, do 
 James Morrifon, do 
 Charles Moore, do 
 
 James M'Keman, do 
 James Marfhall, do 
 
 Samuel Marihall, do 
 
 N 
 Rev. Charles Nilbet, D.D. Pre 
 
 fidcnt of Dickinfon, Carlifle 
 Mr, John Noble, do 
 
 O 
 
 Mr, Jacob Orwitt, Cambridge, 
 
 (N, r,j 
 
 Robert Oliver, do 
 William Ouells, do 
 
 Rev. Samuel Porter, minifter at 
 Congruity and Poke run,Weil- 
 rnoreland, near Pitlhurgh 
 Robert Patterfon, profeflbr of 
 inathemaiicks in theUniverfity 
 of Pennfylvania 
 Mrs. Mary Patron, Carlifle, 
 
 3 copies 
 Mr' George Paitifon, Carlifle 
 Charles Pauifon, do 
 James Paxton, near do 
 
SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 
 
 Mr. fames Peden, York county 
 Archibald Purdie, do 
 James Philips, Philadelphia 
 Charles Pettit do 
 
 Hugh Patton, Wafhing. co. 
 
 Kev. William Rogers, D. D. pro- 
 fefibr of Englifh 'and Oratory, 
 in theUniverfiiy of Pennfyi, 
 
 Mrs. Mary Rca, Philadelphia 
 Frances Pvcid, Carlille 
 
 Mr. Archibald Kainfej;, do 
 James Robcrticn, N. York 
 Thomas Rohertion, do 
 Sia.on PvofssHopeweli town 
 
 {hipj <^umb= county 
 Ifaac Ralilon, Philadelphia 
 Samuel Rofeburgh, York co. 
 David Reed, " do 
 James Raliton. Wafnw co. 
 Andrew Ruffel, do 
 James Ruffe!, do 
 John Reznor, Northumb. 
 
 Rev. Thomas Smith 
 
 John Steele, A. B. Carlifle 
 
 Snovvden & M*CorkIe, printers, 
 
 Philadelphia 
 Mr. John Scotland, New- York 
 1 copies 
 Jamas Small, Camb. fN,T.J 
 Alexander bkelly, do 
 Vv^iilium Story 
 Henry Sclieetz, Montg. co. 
 Juftus Scheetz, do 
 
 Woolry Slaughter, do 
 Jeremiah ::impfon,Wafb.co. 
 John StrLither>s, fen. do. 
 John Struthers, jun» do 
 Robert Simpfon, do 
 William Smiley, Philadel. 
 John Smith, Big-fpring near 
 Cariine 
 
 Mr. James Stirling, flore-keepcr 
 P/jrlington 
 Eiillia Steele, Carlifle 
 
 William Thcmpfon, teacher of 
 languages in Dickhu^on Col- 
 lege, Carlifle 
 Samuel Tate, teacher of Eng. do.- 
 Mr. Archibald Tompfon, Frank- 
 lin county 
 Andrew Thomfon, do 
 John Thorapfon, do 
 Jofeph Thompfon,York co. 
 Samuel Tagart, WaPn. co. 
 John Tagart, do 
 
 James Ihompfon, Philad. 
 
 U 
 
 Rev. Thomas Uftick, minifter of 
 the Bapiiil church, Philadel. 
 
 W \ 
 
 Rev, Samuel Waugh, Silver- 
 
 . .Spring 
 
 WiiiiamWilfon, preacher of the 
 gofpei 
 
 David Watts, attorney at law, 
 Carlifle 
 
 Jonathan Walker, Efq-Northum. 
 
 Mr. William Wiifon, . do 
 David Walker, Cumb. co, 
 John Wright, Carlifle 
 , John Walker, do 
 
 A nd row Wright,Ne w - York 
 Charles Whyte, Philadel, 
 William Wear, do 
 David Wallace, York coun. 
 Alexander Wallace, do 
 John Wiifon, jun. do 
 John White, Wafliing. co. 
 Andrew V/hite, Cambridge 
 
 Y 
 
 Mr, Jofeph Young, Carlifle 
 Stephen Young, Philadel, 
 
d^ The following names came too late for infertion in their pro-* 
 
 per place, , 
 
 
 
 From Camb, and Argyhy (N» T.J 
 
 From Northumberland, (Fenn,) 
 
 Dr. Andrew Proudfit 
 
 
 
 William Reid, Efq. 
 
 William P. Brady, Efq. 
 
 yiu John Reid 
 
 Mr 
 
 . John Cowden 
 
 James Beatie 
 
 
 John Wilfon 
 
 John Gilchrift 
 
 
 Daniel Reea 
 
 Peter M<Euchron 
 
 
 Peter Jones 
 
 John Herflia 
 
 
 Mordecai M'Kay 
 
 John Millar 
 
 
 William Reynolds 
 
 Finley M^Naughton 
 
 
 James Shaddon 
 
 John White 
 
 
 Jared Irwin 
 
 Archibald M'Neal 
 
 
 William Murray 
 
 John M'Neal 
 
 
 James Armftrong 
 
 William Robertfon 
 
 
 Ifaac Hannah 
 
 Roger Campbell 
 
 
 John Jones 
 
 Duncan M*Arthur 
 
 
 And re A^ Kenne«ly 
 
 Cafpcrus Baine 
 
 
 David Steel 
 
 Daniel Mothiefon 
 
 
 
 Thomas Walfon 
 
 
 
 */ The binder is direded to 
 
 place 
 
 thefe immediately after the 
 
 laft page of the Subfcribers* Names, 
 
„>< • X i 
 
g^ ^KrEWBKWBac=aBea:»s»a=iB«as3aE^ ==-==«^2 
 
 TO THE READER. 
 
 Meader, 
 
 WHOEVER thou art, the queftion agitated In 
 the enfuing difcourfe is that wherein thou had 
 a coniiderable concernment. If thou art a Chriiiian, 
 the enfuing difcourfe is defigned to juftify thy refufal 
 of that religion which has now got a great vogue 
 amongft tholie gentlemen, who fet up for the only wits, 
 and aim at monopolizing reafon, as if they alone were 
 the peorle, and wifdom was io die witJo them. They cry 
 up their religion as the only reafonable religion, and 
 traduce all who will not join with them, as credulous 
 and unreafonable men. Whereas, on the contrary, no 
 man that ufes his reafGn, can clofe with that which 
 ihey would obtrude on us as rational religion : nor can 
 any man, without being guilty of the fondeft credulity, 
 venture his falvation upon this modern Paganifm, that 
 it^ruts abroad under the modilli name of Deifm^ which 
 I nope the enfuing difcourfe will evince; wherein it 
 is made appear, that the light of nature is utterly in/uf- 
 ficient io an/wer the great ends of religion^ and that con- 
 fequentiy we had the jufteft reafon in the world, if there 
 were none, to wilh for a revelation from God, as what 
 is of abfolute neceiTity to our happinefs ; and fince 
 
 there 
 
xiv TO THE R E A D E R. 
 
 there is one, with the greated thankfulnefs to embrace 
 it, cleax'e to it, and comply with it. 
 
 Reader, if thou hail thy religion yet to choofe, which 
 J aai afraid is too common a cafe in this unftable 
 ijge, then it is high time thou wert bethinking thyfelf 
 of religion in earneft. 
 
 To-morrow thou wilt live, thou ftill doft fay; 
 To-day's too lare, the wife liv'd yeilerday. 
 
 And if after too long a delay thou mean to avoid au 
 unhappy choice, reafon advifes thee to confider weil^ 
 that when the choice is made, care be taken to make 
 it fo, as to prevent the neceffity either of a fecond 
 choice, or a too late repentance for choofing amifs. 
 1 here is a fet of men, who cry up at this day natural 
 religion, and efpecially commend it to fnch as have no 
 religion. It is fuch as thou art that they defire to deal 
 with, and among fuch it is that they are mod fuccefs- 
 ful. But if thou hail a mind not to be deceived in a 
 matter of fuch moment, it imports thee not a little to 
 confider what may be faid againft that, which it is 
 likely may be offered thee, as a fine, modifli, reafon- 
 able religion, meet for a gentle7nan, a man of wit and 
 reafon, I have here offered to prove this all to be faid 
 without, yea againft reafon and experience. Well, firft 
 hear and then judge, and after that choofe or refufe 
 as thou feeft caufe. 
 
 As for the management of this ufeful inquiry, it is 
 Vv'holly fuited to that which at firft was only defigned, 
 viz. the fatisfadion of tbe writer's own mind about 
 the queftion that is here propofed. I entered not up- 
 on this inquiry with a view to oppofe any man, or tri- 
 umph over adverfaries, and fo did induftrioufly wave 
 thole catches, fubtilties, and other nicities, ufed fre- 
 quently by writers of controverfy.^ My only defign 
 was to fnid the truth, and therefore 1 chofe clearly to 
 
 ftate 
 
TO THE READER. xv 
 
 ftate the qiieftion, which I found the Deifts always a- 
 voided, and plainly propofe my reafons for that fide of 
 it I took, after trial, to be the truth. As to the op- 
 pofite opinion, I made it my bufmefs to make a dili- 
 gent inquiry into the ftrongeft arguments advanced 
 for it, candidly to propofe them in their utmoft force, 
 and clofely to anfwer them ; avoiding, as much as 
 might be, fuch reproaches as are unworthy of a Chrif- 
 tian, or an inquirer after truth, though I met with fre^ 
 q»ent provocation, and found fometimes how true that 
 is, Difficile tji non fcrihere faiyrani contra fatytiwi '*. 
 
 It was not am.ufement I aim.ed at, or to pleafe my 
 ©wn fancy, or tickle the reader's ears with a gingle of 
 words, or divert aud bias the judgment by a flood of 
 rhetorick, I never defigned to fet up for an orator. 
 My b^finefs lies quite another way, it is what I lay no 
 claim to, and what I think is to be avoided in difcourfes 
 of this kind. All 1 aimed at as to language, w^as to 
 clothe my thoughts in plain and intelligible expref- 
 fions. The reader is to expect no more, and if he 
 mifs this I hope it will be but rarely- 
 
 It is not to be expeded, that a diicourfe which was 
 begun in an inverted order, the middle part being firft 
 writ ; and that was compofed in the intervals of bufi- 
 nefs of a very different nature, at (pare hours, by one 
 of no gre-^t experience, and an ucter llranger to w-ri- 
 tings of this fort, (I all be free of biemifiies that may 
 offend nicer palates. Some few repetitions could nor, 
 at lead: without more pains in tranfcribing than I had 
 either leifure or inclination for, well be avoided. Nor 
 could a difcourfe fo often interrupted by other bufmefs, 
 and upon fo very different fubjeQs, be carried on with 
 that equality of itile that v/ere to be wifbed, efpecially 
 by Gue who was never over much an affedter of elegan- 
 
 " cy 
 * ** It is diiFicult not co writea fatjr againft mtyr." 
 
xvi T O T H E R E A D E R. 
 
 cy of language. In a word, the work is long, much 
 longer than I defigned ; and yet without wionging the 
 iubjed, at leaft as I am othervvife fituated and engaged, 
 I could not eafily (liorten it. li he pleales to inioect 
 the book, he may poffibly find, that I had reafon for 
 iRfifling at the length I have done. However, every 
 one has not his art, who could enclofe Homer's Iliads 
 in a niu's fhell. 
 
 I am fenfible, that what I have difcourfed in the iird 
 chapter of the enfuing treatife, concerning ttiQ Occajt^ns 
 of De'ifm^ will grate bard upon a {^i of men, who hava 
 for many years bygone carried ail before them, and 
 fo took it ill to have any cenfures bedowed on them., 
 though they did feverely animadvert upon the real or 
 fuppofed faults of others. As to this I have not much 
 to fay by v;ay of apology. That Deifm has fprung up 
 and grows apace amongft us, is on all hands confeifed* 
 Others have offered their conjedures concerning the oc- 
 cafions of its increafe. Why I might not oiler niy opi- 
 nion alfo, 1 know no reafon. '1 he principal fuhject of 
 the enfuing treatife fuffers riot, though I fiiould herein 
 be millaken. i\\ propofing my conjecture 1 did notpur- 
 fu£ the intereii" of any party ; but have freely blanked all. 
 parties, if the fticklers for the Arminian or Socinian 
 divinity are touched, it was becaufe I thought they were 
 to be blamed, and therefore I have withllood them to 
 their face. As to the tendency of their principles I 
 have been fparing, becaufe that debate has \^K^.tVi fuiiici- 
 ently agitated in the Low Countries betwixt the con- 
 tending parties. The reader who would be fatisfied as 
 to this, may perufe thofe who have direclly managed 
 this charge, and the aniv/ers that have been made, and 
 judge upon the whole matter as he finds caufe*. But 
 
 whatever 
 
 * See Arcana Arminianifnij, by Vicleaus, ;md Vi-jelius Roprodiis. 
 With Videlius's Rf-joinders, <? c. 
 
TO THE READER. xvu 
 
 whatever may be as to this, the manner of their ma* 
 nagement may perhaps be found lefs capable of a colour- 
 able defence. And it is upon this that I have principally 
 infilled. To oppofe, efpecially from the pulpit, with con^ 
 tempt, buffoonry, banter and fatyr, principles, that fober 
 perfons of the fame perfuafion do own to have at leaft a 
 very plaufible like foundation in the word of God, 
 and which have been, for near fixty or feventy years af- 
 ter the reformation, the confVant doctrine of the fathers, 
 and fons of the church of England, and have by them 
 been inferted into her articles, and fo become a part of 
 her doctrine*, is a praclice that I do not well underiland 
 how to excufe, or free from the imputation of profanity, 
 and which hath too manifeft a tendency to Atheifm, to 
 admit of any tolerable defence. The fcriptures, and 
 truths, that have any countenance in them, or opinions 
 which they feem really to perfons otherwife fober, pious 
 and judicious, not only to teach, but to inculcate as of* 
 the higheft importance, are not a meet fubjecl for raille- 
 ry ; nor is the pulpit a meet place for it. This is that for 
 which principally I have blamed them, and this I cannot 
 retrad. If they take this ill, I afk them, Have not 
 others as much reafon to take it ill, that the doclrines of 
 the church of England taught in her articles and homi- 
 lies, and profeffed by her learned billiops, who compo- 
 fed them, and by her fons for fo long a trad of time, as 
 confonant to, found in, and grounded on the v/ord of 
 God, (hould be fo petulantly traduced by wit, raillery^ 
 and declamatory invedives from prefs and pulpit ; and 
 that too by thofe who have fubfcribed to thefe articles 
 and homilies ? This managiement has been complained 
 of by fober perfons of all parties, churchmen and dif- 
 fenters, contra-remonftrants and remonftrants too, as I 
 could make appear, if there were occafion for it : And 
 
 D why 
 
 * See Bifhop of Sarum on the Articles; Preface, pag. 7, S* 
 
XViil 
 
 TO THE READER. 
 
 why I might not alfo complain, I want yet to be inform- 
 ed. None is charged fave the guilty. Others who are 
 free have no reafon to be angry. And, perhaps, they 
 who will be offended at this, would fcarce have been 
 pleafed if I had let it alone. 
 
 In the tenth chapter of this treatife, I have oppofed 
 the opinion that afferts the Heathen world to be under 
 a government of grace. I know it is maintained by 
 many learned men both at home and abroad, from 
 whofe memory, if dead, or juft refpecl, if alive, I de- 
 figned not to detract. Nor did I defign to lid them with 
 the Deifls, whom I know to have been folidly oppofed 
 by feverals that were of this opinion. But yet I do think 
 the opinion itfeif deftitute of any folid foundation, with 
 ail deference to them, who think otherwife, either in 
 fcriptw^re, reafon or experience. And I am further of 
 the mind, that the learned abettors of it, had never em- 
 braced an affertion, that expofes them to fo many per- 
 plexing^ difficulties, and puts them upon a necellity of 
 ufmgfo many, I had almofl faid, unintelligible diftinc- 
 tions for its fupport, if they had not been driven to it 
 by fome peculiar hypothefis in divinity which they have 
 feen meet to embrace. If any intend to prove what I 
 have denied, I wiOi it jiiay be done by proper argu- 
 ments, diredly proving it, and not by advancing an hy- 
 porhefis that remotely infers it^ and which, in itfeif, or, 
 at lead as propofed by thofe whom [have met with, is fo 
 darkened by a huge multitude of fubtile, myfterious 
 and uncouth diftinclions, that I can fcarce ever project 
 fo much lime as to underdand them. Flov/ever this 
 much I mud fay, that fo crofs does this opinion feem to 
 fcripture, reafon and experience, that it will go a very 
 great wav to weaken the credit of any hypothefis on which 
 it inevirahly follows. However, I hope this may be faid, 
 and diiferent opinions about this point without any 
 breach of charity may be retained. Diver/urn fen^ 
 
 tire 
 
TOTHEREADER. xix 
 
 tire duos de rebus i'lfdem incolumi licuit femper amicUia* . I 
 know the abettors of this opinion are hearty friends in 
 the main tc the caufe I here maintain. 
 
 The fcheme I have in the clofe of that chapter offer- 
 ed by way of digreflion, of God*s government of the 
 Heathen world, is not defigned as a full account of that 
 matter, which as to many of its concernments, is of 
 ihofe things that are not revealed, and fo belong not to- 
 us ', much iefs is it defigned to be the ground of a pe^ 
 remptory judgment as to the eternal (late of them, who 
 are without the church : But only to (hew, that any 
 thing we certainly know as to God's dealings wuh them, 
 in the common courfe of his providence, may, upon 
 other fuppofitions and principles, befide that rejected, 
 be accounted for. The judicious and fober reader may 
 judge of ic as he fees caufe. I hope I have, in a matter 
 of fuch difficulty, avoided any unbecoming curiofity, 
 or affecting to be wife above what is written. 
 
 If any blame me for the multitude of quotations, I 
 anfwer, the fubjed I undertook rendered this unavoid- 
 able. I have ufed the utmoft candor in them. ^ Some» 
 times out of a regard to brevity I have avoided the 
 tranflation of teftimonies quoted from authors who writ 
 in a different language. Ihe learned will not complain 
 of this : And if any perfon of tolerable judgment, who 
 is not learned, will be at pains to perufe the enfuing dif- 
 courfe, he will find as much faid, without regarding 
 thofe quotations, as may fatisfy his mind upon this 
 fubjedt. 
 
 As to what I have, in the enfuing papers afcribed, to 
 Mr. Gildon publifher of the Oracles of Reafon, I had 
 written it before I underftood his recover)-^ from Deifm, 
 But yet 1 thought it not meet to alter it, becaufe there 
 
 are 
 
 + " It was always allowed, that two perfons might think differently 
 « of the fame things, without breach of friendihip,'* 
 
XX T O T H E R E A D E R. 
 
 arc, no doubt, many others who entertain the fame no^ 
 tions be then did maintain, and my oppofition is to the 
 principles and not the perfons. As for his recovery, I 
 congratulate it, and wifli it may be fuch as may fecure 
 hin^i from after-reckoning for the hurt he has done. 
 
 If any DeiRs (hall fee meet to undertake this debate, 
 I decline it not. If they treat my book as they have 
 done thofe of others, every way my fuperiors, and as 
 Tats are wont to do,— gnaw only the outfide, divert to in- 
 cident things that are not to the purpofe, and fmgle out 
 rather what feems exceptionable than what is of moment, 
 following him who did fo. 
 
 Defbcrat tra6lata nitefcere pojje relinquit *> 
 
 I have fomewhat t\{Q to do, than to take any notice of 
 fuch impertinency. If any fliall offer a folid and ra- 
 tonal confutation, which yet I am not much afraid of, 
 and convince me, not by jeif, buffoonry and railleryj 
 but by folid arguments, of my being in a miftake, 
 
 Cuftfia recantaho n'.alediSiai priora repe^idam 
 LaudibuSi ^ 'vefirum iiomen in ajira feram \„ 
 
 * 'f And leaves out whatever he defpairs of being able to fhine in 
 <« if they vi^erc touched on." 
 
 f *< 1 will recant all my reproaches, I will make amends for my for- 
 »< mer Danders by praifes^ and will exalt your name to the ftars," 
 
 INDEX. 
 
I N D E X, 
 
 I 
 
 NTRODUCTION, - - Page 41 
 
 [Wherein it is proved a vmtter of the highelt import and nece/fty 
 to 77iake a fight choice of religion ; and zvherein 2t is juriher 
 evinced^ that no man without the moji mamfe/i violence to rta^ 
 Jon, can turn Heathen^ Mahometan, or acquiefce in Aihe.ijm 
 or Sepncifm, and that confequently fvery man mvft acquiefce 
 in the Scriptures^ 0^ turn Deijt. This latf^'r uvder'ak-..> to he 
 demonfiiated falfe and ruining, — Th^ author s inducements to 
 this undertaking,] 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Giving a Jhort account of the rife, occafions, and progrefs of 
 Dei/m^ efpe daily in Fn gland \ the op nions oj the Deifls ; the 
 different forts of Deijis, mortal and immortal, 61 
 
 C H A P. II. 
 
 Mortal Deifls whOf and what judgment to he made of them and 
 their fentimentSi - - 76 
 
 CHAP. 111. 
 
 Wherein the controverfy betwixt us and the Immortal Deifls is 
 fated and cleared, - « g^ 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Wherein the infiifficiency of natural religion is proved from the 
 infiifficiency oj its difcoveries of a Deity ^ - "^ 88 
 
 C H A P. V. 
 
 Proving the infujficiency of natural jeligionfrom its defcBivenefs 
 as to the worfhip of God, -^ - 106 
 
xxii INDEX. 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Proving the infufficiency of natural religion from its deJeEHvc" 
 nefs as to the difcovery wherein 7nans happmefs lies, 112 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Natures light affords not a fufficient rule of duty. Its injuf- 
 Jiciency hence inferred, - - 127 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Proving the infufficiency of natural religion from its defeBs as 
 to fiifficicnt motives for enforcing obedience, 138 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Shewing the importance of knowing the origin of fin to the worlds 
 and the defedivenefs of nature's light as to this, 147 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Proving nature's light unable to dif cover the means of obtaining 
 pardon oj finy or to fhew that it is attainable, 161 
 
 Sect. I. The importance of this difficulty ftated, 162 
 
 Sect. II. Shewing the darknefs of nature s light as to 
 pardon, - - 171 
 
 Sect. III. Wherein it is inquired whether repentance is 
 fufficient to atone for fin "/ How far nature's light ena- 
 bles to It ? What affiurance nature s light gives of par- 
 don upon repentance? 17S 
 
 Objections confdered, - - 209 
 
 Digression concerning God's government of the Heathen 
 
 zuorld,fiewing that there is nothing in it whence any dc" 
 
 fign of God to pardon them may he certainly inferred, 23S 
 
 C H A P. XI. 
 
 Proving the inftiffiiciency oJ natural religion to era die ate our iw 
 clinations to jin, or fubdue its power, 248 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 Wherein the proof of the infufficiency of natural religion is con- 
 cluded Jrom a general view of the experience of the worlds 26© 
 
INDEX. xxiii 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Wherein tog make atranfition to theDeiJls pleas for their opinion ^ 
 and take particular notice of the Articles to which thzy reduce 
 their catholick religion ; give fame account of Baron Herbert, 
 the frfi iriventer of this catholick religion, his Books, and 
 particularly of that which is infcribed De Religione Gcntili- 
 lium, as to the matter and f cope of it, and the importance 
 of what is therein attempted to the Dezjis' caufe, ^66 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 Wherein it is inquired, Whether Herbert has proved that his Five 
 Articles did univerfally obtain ^ - 278 
 
 C H A P. XV. 
 
 Wherein it is made appear that Herbert's Five Articles did not 
 univerfally obtain^ - - 306 
 
 CHAP. XVI. 
 
 Wherein fo me general con ft derations are laid dozen for proving 
 that many of the bejl things, which are to be met with in the 
 Heathens, were not the dif cover ies of nature s lights but came 
 from tradition, - - 327 
 
 CHAP. XVII. 
 
 Wherein we confider what Herbert s opinion was as to thefuffcien- 
 cy of his Articles, and offer fo me reflexions, fhewing hozv 
 foolifli, abfurd and ridiculous the Deifis' pretences to their 
 f efficiency are, - - 333 
 
 CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 Containing an anfzoer to fow.e of the Deifls* principal arguments 
 for the fujficiency of natural religion, * 345 
 
 CHAP. XIX. 
 
 Wherein Herbert's reafons for publiPiing his hooks in defence of 
 Deifn are examined and found weak, 361 
 
 C H A P. XX. 
 
 Wherein the Queries offered by Herbert and Blount, for proving 
 the fujiciency of their Five Articles are examined, 370 
 
xxh INDEX, 
 
 ESSAY ON FA I TIL 
 
 C H A P. L 
 
 Containing fome general remarks concernmg knowledge, faith, and 
 particularly divine faith, and that both as to the faculty and act- 
 ings thereof J - • 40 1 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Wherein the nature of that faith, -u^hich in duty we are obliged to 
 give to the word of God, our obligation to, and our ability for 
 anfwtring our duty, are inquired into, ■ 404 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 The ground, or the ftsrmal reafon, whereon faith affents td the 
 fcriptures is inquired after ; the RatlonaUji^s oph'ton about it, 
 and particularly as fiat ed by Mr. Locke in his book on Human 
 Underftanding, is propofed and conjidered, 409 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In this fceptical age, which qut^flions almofl every 
 thin^, If is rtill owned as certain, that all rnen mufl die. If 
 there were any place for dlfputing this, there are not a few, 
 who would fpare no pa'ns to bring theiiifelves Into the difbelief 
 of a trufh, that gives them io mach dlfturbance, In the courfes 
 they love and feem refolved to follow : But the cafe Is fo clear, 
 and the evlden-c of (his principle fo pregnant, which Is every 
 day confirmed by new experiments, th^t the moft refolved in- 
 fidel is forced, when it comes in his v/ay, though unwilling, 
 to eive his affjnt, and moan out an Amen. The ^rave is the 
 houfe appointed for all the livings Some arrive fooner, fome 
 later ; bat all come there at length. The obfcurity of the 
 ineanefl: cannot hide him, nor the power of the greateft fcreen 
 him from the impartial hand of death, the executioner of fate, 
 if I may be allowed the ufe of a word {o much abufed. As its 
 coming Is placed beyond doubt, {o its afpe6l is hideous beyond 
 the reach of thought, the farce of expreiHon, or (he utmoft ef- 
 forts of the finefi pencil In the moft artful hand*. It, In a mo- 
 ment, da(hes down a fabric, which has more of curious con- 
 trivance than all the celebrated pieces put together, which the 
 moft refined human wits have Invented, even when carried to 
 the greateft height, which the Improvements of fo many fubfe- 
 quent generations, after the utmoft of application and diligence, 
 could bring them to. It puts a flop to many thoufand motions, 
 which, though (irangely diverfified, did all concur, with won- 
 derful exa6tnefs, to maintain, and carry on the defign and In- 
 tendment of the glorious and divine Artificer. How this divine 
 
 E and 
 
42 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and wonderful machine was firQ ere6\ed, fet a going:, and has^ 
 for (o long a trad of time, regularly peirformed al) i's rr.otions, 
 could never yet be underilood by the moft elevated underftand- 
 ings. CaTiJl thou till hozv the bones grow in the womb of her 
 that is with child', is a challenge to all the fons of art, to un- 
 fold the myOery? Many have accepted it, but all have been 
 foiled. Something they could (ay : but, in fpite of it all, the 
 thing they found a myilery, they left fo flill. How can one then 
 look on the dilTolutibn of fo admirable a contrivance, a machine 
 fo curious, and fo far farpafling human art, without the deep- 
 efl and moil ienfible regret. It untwifis that myrtcrious tie, 
 whereby foul and body were fo faft linked together ; breaks 
 up that intimate and ciofe correfpondence, that entire fympaihy 
 which was founded thereon ; diilodges an old inhabitant ; and 
 while it lingers, being unvi^illing to remove, death pulls that 
 curious fabric, wherein it dwelt, down about its ears, and fo 
 forces it thence, to take up its lodgings, it can fcarce tell where.- 
 And upon its removal, that curious fabric, that a little before 
 was full of life, a(Stivity, vigour, order, warmth, and every thing 
 clfe that is pleafant, is now left a dead, unacSlive, cold lump, 
 or difcidered mafs of loathfome matter, full of ftench and cor- 
 ruption. Now the body is a fpe6\acte fo hideous, that they wha 
 loved, and who embraced it before, cannot abide the fight or 
 fmell of it ,- but (but it up in a coffin, and not content with that,- 
 away they carry it and lodge it amongf^ worms, and the vileft 
 infects in the bowels of the earth, to be Coiifumed, devoured, 
 torn and rent by the moft abominable vermin that lodge in the 
 grave. 
 
 Quantum inutatus ah illo "*. 
 
 V/e have all heard of the afflictions of Job, Two or three 
 meflengcrs arrive, each after another, and Oill the laft is worft^ 
 Every one tells a ftory. The firft is fad ; but its flill more me- 
 lancholy that follows. The difafter is fo terrible, that it fills 
 the world with jiift af^onilhrnent. And yet after all, what is 
 X^\s\o death, which alone is able to furniPn fubjesSl, more than 
 enough, for fome thoufands of fuch melancholy melTages ! One 
 might bring the dying man the melancholy tidings, that he is 
 divefted of all his beneficial, pleafant, and honourable em- 
 ployments: While he is yet fpeakinsj, another might be ready 
 to bid him denude himfeif of all his poiTcffions : A third, to 
 
 continue 
 
 * « How greatly changed from wh?t it once was,'* 
 
INTRODUeTIOKr. 43 
 
 continue the tragedy,^ might afTure hira that there is a commif^ 
 fioti ifTued out to an impartial hand, to tear him from the cm- 
 braces of his dear relations, without regarding the hideous out- 
 cries of a loving wife, the meltings of tender infants, the in- 
 tercelTions of dear friends : While others continuing ftill the 
 mournful fcene, might allure him that he was no more to re- 
 ViCa the f.agrancy of the fpring, or tafte the delights of the fons 
 of men, or fee the pleaf^qt light of the fun, or hear the charm- 
 ing aiis of mufic, or the yet more ufeful converfe of friends. 
 And to make the matter fadder Hill, if it can well be (o, the 
 ftory might be fliut up with a rueful account of the parting of 
 foul and body, with all the horrible difaflers that follow upon 
 this parting. 
 
 Thus the cafe evidently ftands. Not a title of all this ad- 
 mits of debate. To every man it may be faid, De tc fahula 
 narratur*. What a wonder is it, that fo grave and important 
 a fubject is fo little in the thoughts of men ? What apology 
 can be made for the folly of minkind, who are at fo much pains 
 to fhelter themfelvcs againrt lefler inconveniences, quite over- 
 looking this, that is of infinitely greater confequence ? 
 
 Here is the light-fidc of death, which every body may fee. 
 What a rueful and allonilhing profpe6l doth it give us? Where 
 fell we find comfort againll that difmal day, whereon all this 
 fhall be verified in us? He is fomething worfe than a fool or 
 madman, that will not look to this. And he is yet more mad 
 that thinks, that rational comfort in fuch a cafe can be main- 
 tained upon dark, flender and conjectural grounds. 
 
 It is certain, that which muft fupport, mufi be fomething on 
 the other fide of time. The one fide of death affords nothing but 
 matter of terror ; if we arc not enabled to look forward, and 
 get fuch a fight of the other as may balance it, we may rea^ 
 Ibnably fay, that it had been better for us never to have been. 
 
 Undoubtedly, therefore, no queilion is fo ufeful, fo necef- 
 farv, fo noble, and truly wojthy the mind of man as this— 
 What lliall become ofm- after death? What have I to look 
 for ori the other fide of that awful change? 
 
 Thofe arts and fcience^ which exercife the induftry and con- 
 fideration of the greater part of the thinking world, are cal- 
 culated for time, and aim at the ple?.fure or advantage of a pre- 
 sent life. It is religion alone that directly concerns itfelf in the 
 
 important 
 
 * « It is of you that the ftory is told." 
 
44 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 important qiiefllon laft mentioned, and pretends to offer coiti* 
 forts aeain ft the melancholy a fpeil of desth, by fecuring us in 
 an up-making for our loiTes on the other fide of time. Men, who 
 are not biind to their ou'n intereft, had need therefore to take 
 care of the choice of their rf/z^^?^??. if they neglccSt it allo- 
 gefher, as many now do, th-y forfeit ail prcfpetl of relit f. 
 If they choofe a wrong one, that is not able to reai h the end, 
 they are no lefs unhappy. The world may call them niiSy or 
 what elfe they pleafe^who either Vvhc-llv negled^anJ laugh over 
 all inquiries after reugion.ox who fuperficialiv look into matters 
 of this nature, and pafsa hady judgment: But fober rcafon 'ill 
 look on them zs Jcmezihat below the condition of the beafts that 
 perijh, 
 
 it is much to be regretted, that the bulk of mankind found 
 their principles, as well as practice and hopes, on no better 
 bottom than education^ which gives but too juft occahon for 
 the fmart refle<f?iiGn of the witty, though profane pott — 
 
 By education mon: have been mifled ; 
 So they believe, becaufe they were fo bred. 
 The pritR continues what the nurfe began ; 
 And thus the child impofcs on the man*. 
 
 Moft part feek no better reafon for their belief and pra6ilce 
 than cuflom and education. "Whatever thofe ofrer in principle, 
 they greedily Iwallovv down, and venture all on {o weak a bot- 
 tom. And this fure is one of the great realtors why fo many 
 mifcarry in this important matter. It is true, in this inquiring 
 age, many, efpecially of the better quality, fcorn this v;ay. 
 But it is to be feared that the greater part of them, flying on 
 extremes, as is comm.on in fuch cafes, have fallen into another 
 and a worfe one, if not to themfelves, yet certainly of more 
 pernicious confequencc to the public. They fet up for wits and 
 men of fnfe. Th y prcterd to have found cut great miflakes 
 in the principlesof their education, the religion of their coun- 
 try ; and thereon, without more ado, rejecl it in hulk, and 
 turn J^ep fie s in relij>ion. And yet after all this ncife, mofi of 
 them neither underhand the religion they rejeO, nor knoiv" 
 they what to fubi^itute in its room, which is certainly an error 
 of the worft confcquv-nce imaginable to the public ; fince men 
 once arrived at this pals, can never be depended on. Men 
 
 may 
 
 ^ /////^ and Fanther. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 45 
 
 may talk what thev pleafe. A man of no religion is a ir.an 
 not to be bound, and therefore is abfolutely urn-eet fcr any 
 fhare in a fociety, which cannot fublift, if thefacred ties of re- 
 ligion hold it not together. 
 
 But whatever courfe fuch perfcns, on the ore h?nd or other, 
 fteer, the more conndeiate and better part of mankind, in n.at- 
 ters of fo high importanre, v\ili, with the niceft care, try all, 
 thyt xYicy m3iy hold j aft what is good- If a man once urder- 
 ftands the importance of the cafe, he v\ill find reafon to look 
 fome dei per, and think more ferioufiy cf this matter, than ei- 
 ther the unthinking gcneialiiy., who receive all in bulk, with- 
 out trial, as it is given them, or, the forward xLOuld be-ziits, 
 that oftentimes are guilty of as great, and much micre pcrnicicus 
 credulity in rejc(S^ing all, as the other in receiving all. 
 
 But whereas there is fo many different rehgicns in the world, 
 and all of them pretend to ccndud us in tl is imiportant 
 inquiry; which of them fhall we choofe ? The deijht to 
 drive us into their religion, which ccnfiils only of five articles, 
 agreed to, as they pretend, by all the world, would bear us in 
 hand, that a choice is impcffible to be made of any particular 
 religion, till we have gone through, with luch a parti;, ular exa- 
 mination of every pretender, and all things that can be faid for 
 or againft it, as no man is able to make. Blount tells us, as 
 Herbert before had done, That ** unlefs a man read all authors, 
 *' fpeak with all learned men, and know all languages, it is 
 ** impoffible to come to a clear lolition of all doubts*." And. 
 fo in effect, it is pretended impclhble to be fatisficd about the 
 truth of any particular religion. If this realcning did hold, I 
 fhould not doubt to m.ake it appear, that no truth whatfcever is 
 to be received ; and in particular, that their, fo mi;'{ h boaOed 
 of, catholic rdigion, cannot rationally be entettained by any 
 man. If we can be fatisficd upon rational grounds about no 
 truth, till we have heard and confidered all, that not only has 
 been faid, but may be alleged againft it; what truth cr;n we 
 believe ? Here it is eafy to obierve that fome cannct do, unlefs 
 they overdo. The intendment of fuch reafonii/g is obvious: 
 Some men would caft us loofe as to all religion, that mc may- 
 be brought under a neceflity to take up with any fancy they 
 fhall be pleafed to offer us; a man that is finking will take hold 
 ofthemoft tender twig. 1 he Fapids have vigoroufiy purfucd 
 
 this 
 
 * Blount's Rellgio Laid, page 91. Herbert's Rdi^io Laia'i page 12. 
 
46 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fills courfe in opporition to the Proteftants, to drive them into 
 the arms of their vrfaltibU guide. And indeed the learned 
 HerbcTt's reafonings on this point, after whp^rj the modern 
 deiils do but copy, feem to be borrowed from the Romanilh, 
 and are U' ged upon a defign not unfavourable to the church of 
 Kome, of which perhaps more afterwards. 
 
 But io wave this thin fophiOry ; any one that will, with a 
 fujtabie applicalion, engage in the confidcrntion of what rell* 
 gion he is to choofe, will quickly find himfelf eafed of this 
 isrmanageablc tafk, which the dt;ifts would (et him. His in- 
 quiry will foon be brought \o a narrow compafs, and the pre- 
 tenders, that will rcquiie any nice conlideralior;, will be found 
 very ^t\v. 
 
 For, a very overly confideration of the religion in the hea^ 
 then worlds will give any confiderate mind ground enough to 
 relt fully aiTured, that the defired fah*sfa6\ion as to future hap' 
 f/incfs, and the ivicans of attaining it, are not thence to be ex- 
 pedied. Here he will not find what may have the leaft appear- 
 cncc of fatisf)'ing. The wifefi of the heathens fc^rce ever pre- 
 tended to fatisfy tl^mfelves, much lefs others, upon thefe 
 heads. All things' here are dark, vain, incoherent, inconfif- 
 tent, wild, and plainly ridiculous for n>oft part ; as will fur- 
 ther appear in our progrefs. Their religions were, generally 
 fpeaklng, calculated fvjr other pyrpofes, and looked not {o far 
 as eternity. 
 
 Nor will it be more difficult to get over any Hop that the 
 religion of Mahomet may lay In our inquirer's way. Let ^ 
 man feiioully perufe the Alcoran, and if he has his fenfes a- 
 bout him, he cannot but there fee the moft pregnant evidences 
 of the groOrcft, moft fcandalous and impudent impofture, that 
 ever was obtruded upon the world. Here he muft expeit no 
 other evidence for what he is to believe, but the bare aifertion 
 of one, who was fcandalouOy impious to that degree, that his 
 own followers know not how to apologize for hitn. If you in- 
 quire for any other evidence, you are doomed by the Alcoran 
 to everlafting ruin, and his ilavcs are ordered to dci\roy you *. 
 Me forbids any inquiry into his religion, or the grounds of 'it, 
 and therefore you muff cither admit iri bulk the entire bundle 
 of fopperies, inconfiftencies, and lliocking abfurdities, that are 
 cafl together in the Alcoran, without any tr^al, or rejetl ail ; 
 
 And 
 
 * Alcoran, chap. 4. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 4? 
 
 And In Ihi^ cafe, no wife man will find it hard to make -^ 
 choice. 
 
 After one has proceeded thus far, he may eafily fee, that hg 
 is now inevitably cafl upon one of four concluficrs : Either ifl^ 
 He niuft conclude it cerlain that all religion is vain, that there 
 is nothing to be expecled after this life, and (o commence athe- 
 ift. Or 2dly, He muli conclude, that certainty is not attaina^ 
 'kle in thefe things; and io prove fieptic Oc ^dly, He miifb 
 pretend, that every one's reafon unqffijled is able to conducl 
 him in matters of religion^ afcertain him of future happinefs, 
 and dire6t as to the means of attaining it ; and to fst up for 
 natural religion, and turn deijl. Or 4rhly, He muft acquiefc<; 
 in the revealed religion contained in the fcriptures, and fo turn 
 Chrijiian, or at leaf! Jew* 
 
 As to the firn of thefe courfes, no man w^ill go into it, till 
 he has abandoned reafon. An atheift is a monfter in nature. 
 That there is nothing to be expected after this life, and that 
 man's foul dies with his body, is a defperate conclufion, which 
 ruins the foundation af all human happinefs ; even in the judg- 
 ment of the dcifls themfelves*. There are two material ex- 
 ceptions which are fufficieat to deter any thinking man from 
 clofing with lU 
 
 The one is, the kidequfnefs of its afpeB, Annihilation is fo 
 horrible to human nature, and has fo frightful a vifage to mea 
 who have a defire of perpetuity, inlaid in their very frame, 
 that none can look at it ferioufly vviihout the utmofl dread. It 
 is true, guilty atheifts would fain take fan6iuary here; yet, 
 were they brought to think feriouily of the cafe, they would 
 r.ot find that relief in it which they projeiS^. I have been cre- 
 dibly informed, that a gentleman of no contemptible parts, who 
 had lived as if indeed he were to fear or hope nothing after 
 time, being in prifon, and fearing death, (though he efcaped 
 it and yet lives) fell a thinking ferioufly, when alone, of anni" 
 hilation: And the fears of it bad fo deep and horribie impref- 
 fion on his mind, th-it he profciTed to a gentleman, who made 
 him a vifit in prifon, and found him in a grievous damp, that 
 the thoughts of annihilation were fo dreadful to him, that he 
 had rather think of a thoufand years in hell. GuiUy finners, 
 to cafe their confciences, and fcreen them from the difquiet'ng 
 apprchenfions of an after-reckoningy retreat to this, as a refuge ; 
 
 but 
 
 * jLctler to a Deifl, page 125. 
 
4S INTRODUCTIOIvf* 
 
 but tVscy think no more about it, faveonly this and that in an 
 overly wav, that it will free them from the puniihment they 
 dreid and deferve. Bat if they would fedately view it, and 
 take und^r their confideration all the horror of the cafe, their 
 natures would recoil and (brink : It would create uneafinefs 
 initead of qjiet, and increafe the ftrait rather than relieve 
 them from it. 
 
 Bofides, which is the other exception againft^ it, were there 
 never fo much comfort ia it, as th^re is none, y^i it is i?n^ 
 pofjibk to prove that there is nothing after this lije. There is 
 nothing that is tolerable can be faid for it. None fhall ever 
 evince the certainty of the foul's dyin:r with the bo^y, till he 
 lias overthrown the bun^ of a God, which can never be done fo 
 lon^ as there is any thing certain among men. Further, as there 
 Js little or nothing to be faid for it, fo there is much to be 
 faid aa:ains1 it. Reafoi atfbrds violent prefumptions, at leaf^, 
 for a future ftate. And all the arguments, which conclude for 
 the truth of Chriiiianity, join their united force to fupport the 
 certainty of a ftue after this life. Till thefe are removed out 
 of the wa/, there is no accefs for any to enjoy the imaginary 
 comfort of this fuppofition. But who will undertake folidly to 
 overrurn fo many arguments, which have flood the tefl of ages ? 
 They who are likely to be moR forward, and favour this caufe 
 mofl, dare fcarce allow thefe reafonings a fair hearing, which 
 plead for a future Hat?, for fear of rivetting the impreffion of 
 the truth deeper on their minds, which they defire to Oiake 
 themfelves loofe of. And how then will they overthrow 
 them? In fine, he is a madman, who will go into a conclu- 
 fion, whereof he can never be certain, and wherein, were it 
 fure, he can have no fatisfaflion. The firlt forbids the judg" 
 menty the lad diiTuades the zoiil and affeBions from reding in it. 
 As to the fecond conclufion above-mentioned, that fets up 
 iov fcepticifni in matters of religion, and bids us live at perad- 
 ventures as to what is to be feared or hoped after time ; it 
 is a courfe that nothing can jullify fave ahfolute neceffity. It 
 lies open to the worft of inconveniences. Nothing can be ima- 
 gined more melancholy than its confequences, and the pretences 
 to it are vain and frivolous. 
 
 If it is really thus, th it man can arrive at no certainty in 
 matters of religioa, aad about his ft ite after time, how deplo- 
 rable is mm's condition? His cafe is comfortlefs beyond what 
 can be well conceived. Nor can hij enjoyments aiford him 
 
 any 
 
INTRODUCTION. 49 
 
 sfny folid fatisfa6lion^ while ghoflly death looks him in the face, 
 and the fvvord hangs over his head, fupported by a hair. Will 
 not the profpecl of this rueful change (of whofc difmal attend- 
 ants wef have given feme account) imbitter his fweetefl; enjoy- 
 ments ? And will not the horror of the cafe be much increafed 
 by refolving upon a perplexing uncertainty as to what may 
 come after? In how difmal a plight is the poor man, who on 
 the one hand is certain of the fpeedy arrival of death with all 
 its frightful attendants; and on the other, is told that he muft 
 rove in uncertainty, till the event clear him, whether he fhali 
 be entirely annihilated, and fo plunge into that horrible gulf 
 where atheifts feek faniSluary! or if he fhall not be hurried 
 headlong into thefe endlefs torments, which the confciences of 
 guilty finners, when awakened, prefage ; or,~ if he fhall foar 
 aloft into regions of endlefs blifs^ v/hich linfui mortals have but 
 little reafon to expe6f ; or, finally, whether he is not to launch 
 out into fome flats reducible to none of thefe. If here we be- 
 hoove to fix, one would not to know how to evite two con- 
 clufions that are horrible to think of : ** That our reafon, 
 ** whereby we are capable of forefeeing^ and are affe6tcd with 
 '* things at a diftance, is a heavy curfe ; and that the profligate 
 " atheifl, who endeavours to mend this fault, in his ccnftitu- 
 ** tion, by a continual debauch, that never allows him to think 
 '* any more of what is certainly to come, than if he were a 
 *' a brute incapable of forethought, is the wifeft man." 
 
 Befide, as was above infinuated, the pretences for this courfc 
 are vain. It is true, mofi; of thofe who fet up for wits in this 
 unhappy age, are mere fceptics in religion, who admit no- 
 thing as certain, but boldly queftion every thing, and live at 
 peradventures. Yet we are not obliged to think that this 
 fcepticifm is the refalt of a ferious inquiry, and the want of 
 certainty thereon ; but thofe gentlemen's way of living is in- 
 Confifient with ferious religion ; they are therefore defirous to 
 have fuch a fet of principles as may, if not favour them in the 
 practices they have a mind to follow, yet not incornmode them 
 fore. This principle gives not abfolute fecurity of impunity ; 
 but it feems, and but [terns, to juftify them in a prefent ne- 
 gle6\ of religion, and gives them a may he for an efcape 
 from feared and deferved punifhments ; and favours that lazi- 
 nefs that cannot fcarch for truth, where it lies not open to the 
 e)'e, even of thofe who care not to fee it. Their pra6tice artd 
 courfc of life Ihew them fo impatient of reflraints, that they 
 
 F tove 
 
50 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 love liberty, or rather licentiovfnefs ; and are not 'willing td 
 come under any bonds. They greedily grafp at any difticulty 
 that feems to make never {o little agalnfl religion ; an evidence 
 that tliey bear it no real good-will. They neither converfe 
 much vith books, nor men, that may afford them fatisfa6tion, 
 in reference to tlieir real Icruples, which is proof enou^:;h they 
 defign not to be fatisfied. They are light and jocular in their 
 converfe about the mofi ferious matters ; an evidence that their 
 defign is not to be informed. It is a good obfervation of the 
 wife man, [Prov- xiv. 6,] A /corner Jeeketh wifdom and Jind' 
 eth it not : hut knowledge is cafy to him that underjlandeth* 
 This is the real myflery of the matter with thofe gentlemen^ 
 whatever they may pretend. 
 
 I know they want not pretences, taking enough with the 
 unthinking, whereby they would jufllfy themfelves in their in-* 
 fidelity. The principal one is, that they find it eafy to load 
 religion with abundance of difhcullies, not eafily, if at all, ca- 
 pable of folution. But after all, thefe gentlemen ufe thofe ob^ 
 jeBihns as the jceptics did of old, not fo much to maintain any 
 fettled principle, no not their beloved one, whereof now we^ 
 fpeak ; as to create them work, and make fport w^ith thcfe wh» 
 would ferioufly confute them, and to ward off blows from them- 
 felves, who have neither principles nor pradlice capable of a 
 rational defence. 
 
 It is like indeed, that fometimes they may meet with fuch^ 
 who although they own religion, are yet incapable of defending 
 it againfi fuch objec^.ions. But this is no wonder, fince there are 
 weak men of all perfuafions. And their weaknefs is, or ought, 
 not to be any real prejudice to the truth they maintain. Be- 
 fides, every one may know that ignorance of any fubjc6l is> 
 fertile of doubts, and will flart abundance of difficulties; where- 
 as it requires a more full and exa<5> acquaintance with the na- 
 ture of things to folve them ; and this falls not to every one's 
 fharc. 
 
 Further, if this be allowed a reafonable exception againfl 
 religion, that it is liable to exceptions not eafy to be folved, 
 it will hold as well good againfl all other forts of knowledge, 
 as againfi religion ; yea, and 1 may add, it concludes much 
 ftronger ,• for the farther a nv fubje6l is above our reach, the 
 lefs reafon v/e have to expedl;, that we fhall be capable of folv- 
 ing every difficulty that may be flarted againfl it. There is 
 no part of our knowledge, that is not incumbered with diffi- 
 culties, 
 
INTRODUCTION. ^ 
 
 cultles, as hard to be fatisfyingly folved, as thofc commonly 
 urjred againft religion. If this be a fufficient leafon to queftion 
 religion, that there are arguments which may be urged againft 
 it, not capable of a fair, or, at leaft, an eafy folutlon ; I doubt 
 not, upon the fame ground, to bring the gentlem.en who main- 
 fain this, if they will follow out their principle, to rejedt the 
 mofl evident truths, that we receive upon the credit of moral, 
 metaphyfical, and mathematical demonllrations ; yea, or even 
 upon the teftimony of our fenfes. For I know few of thefe 
 truths that we receive upon any of thofe grounds, againft which 
 a perfon of a very ordinary fpirit may not ftart difficulties, 
 which perhaps no man alive can give a fair account of; and yet 
 no m.an is fo foolifh as to call in queiUon thofe truths, becaufe 
 he cannot folve the diflicultics which every idle head may ftart 
 upon thofe fubje^ts. I m,ay give innumerable inOances of the 
 difficulties wherewith other parfs of human knowledge are em- 
 barralTed : I fliall only hint at a few. 
 
 That matter is diviiTible into, or at leaft confifts of indivifi- 
 ble points, is with fom.e a truth next to feJf-evident. That the 
 quite contrary is true, and matter is divifiblc in infinitumj ap- 
 pears no lefs certain to many others*. But if either of them 
 Ihould pretend themfelves capable of folving the difficulties, 
 that lie againft their refpecStive opinions, it were fufficient to 
 make all men of fenfe and learning doubt of their capacity and 
 judgment : For the difficulties on both hands are fuch, that no 
 ingenuous man that underftands them, will pretend himfeif 
 capable of giving a fair folution of thofe, which prefs that fide 
 of the queftion he is inclined to. 
 
 i^gain, whether we v/ill, or v^ill not, we muft believe one fide, 
 and but one fide, of the queftion is true; that either matter is di- 
 vifiblc in inJinitufUf or not ; that it confifts of indivifibles, or not ; 
 thefe are contradictions. Arid it is one of the moft evident propo- 
 iitions that the mind of man is acquainted with, that contradic- 
 tions 
 
 * Loch on Human Underjlandingi edit. 5, pag. 207. — " I would 
 " fain have inftanced in our notion of fpirit any thmg more perplexed} 
 ^^ or nearer a contradicftion, than the very notion of body includes iii 
 ** it; the divifibility /// infinitum of any finite extenfion, involving up, 
 " whether we grant or deny it, in confequenccs impoffible to be ex- 
 ** plicated, cr mads in our apprehenfions confident; confequences that 
 " carry greater difficulty, and more apparent abfurdicy than any thing 
 . " that can fellow from the notion of an immaterial fubilancco" 
 
^z INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tions cannot be true, or that both fides of a contradlciion can-^ 
 not hold. And yet againit this truth, whereon much of our 
 nioft certain knowledge depends, iDiblnble difficuhies may be 
 Urged : For it may be pretended, that here both fides of the 
 contradiftlon are true, and this pretence may be enforced by the 
 arguments above-mentioned, which confirm the two oppcfite 
 opinions, which no mortal can anfuer. Shall M'e therefore be- 
 lieve thatcontradidions may be true ? 
 
 That motion is poffible I am not like to doubt, nor can I, 
 while 1 know that I can rifs ard walk ; nor is he like to 
 doubt of it, who fees me walk. And yet I doubt not the mofl 
 ingenious of our atheiflical wits w^outd find himfelf fufficiently 
 llraitened, wete the arguments of Zeno Eleates againft motion 
 well urged, by a fubde difputant. I Ilia 11 offer one argument 
 j^gainll motion, which 1 am fully fatisfied will puzzle the mod 
 kibtle adverfaries of religion to folve fatisfyiagly. There are 
 ifrongcr arguments proving that matter is dlviiible in infinitum 
 than any mortal can folve or anfwer, though I perhaps believe 
 it untrue. And it is as certain as the fun is in the firmament, 
 that if matter is divifible in infinitum,, it confifls of an infinite 
 number of parts— (what fome talk of indefinite is a flielter of 
 ignorance, and if it is ufed any other way than as a fhield to 
 ward off difficulties for a while in a public difpute, the ufers 
 cannot be excufed either of grofs ignorance, rooted prejudice, 
 or dirmgenuity). This being laid down as proven, and pro- 
 ven it may be by arguments, which none living can fatisfy, 
 that matter is divifible in infinitum^ and that confequently it 
 contains an infinite num.ber of parts. Nor is it lefs certain, 
 that according to thefe conclufions laid down, if one body move 
 upon the furface of another, as for inilance, an inch in a mi- 
 nute's time, it mufi pafs by an infinite number of parts ; and it 
 is undeniable, that it cannot pafs one of that infinite number of 
 parts without fome portion of time. Now if fo, what a vaft 
 portion of lime will it require to make that little journey, which 
 we know can be performed in a moment ! Will it not evi- 
 d:::ntly require an eternity ! What dilficulty can any urge, more 
 difficult to be folvt'd, againfi religion than this? And yet for all 
 this he were a fool who would doubt of motion. 
 ■ As to matliematical certainty, though many boalls are made 
 of the firmnefs of its demonfirations ; yet thefe may, upon this 
 ground, be called all in queftion. And 1 nothing doubt, that 
 Jf men's intereils, real or pretended, lay £*s crofs to them, as 
 
 they 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 53 
 
 thev are fuppofed to do to the truths of a religion, many more 
 exceptions might be made againft them, than are againft thole, 
 and upon full as good, if not better realbn. In juftification of 
 this aflertion, I might proceed to demonftrate how trifling even 
 the definitions of geometry, thefirmcft of all the mathematical 
 £ciences, are. Its definitions might be alleged, upon no in- 
 confiderable grounds, trifling, nonfenfical, and ridiculous. 
 Its demands or populates, plainly impracticable. Its axioms 
 or felf-evident propofitions, controvertible, and by themfelves 
 they are controverted. Any one who would fee this made good 
 in particular inftances, may confult (befides others) the learn- 
 ed Huetius' Demonjhatio Evangelica^ where, in the illufiration 
 of his definitions, axioms and poftulates, he compares them with 
 thofe of geometry, and prefers them to thefe, and (liews they arc 
 incumbered with fewer difficulties than the other, though with- 
 out derogating from the jufl worth and evidence of mathema- 
 tical fciences. Befides what he has obferved, I may add this 
 one thing more, that thofe fciences deferve not any great re- 
 gard, fave as they are applied to the ufe of life, and in a fub- 
 ferviency to man's advantage. And when thus they are ap- 
 plied to practice, the difficulty is confiderably increafed, and 
 thev may eafily be loaded with innumerable and infoluble in- 
 conveniences. For then, their definitions ceafe to be the defi- 
 nition of names, and are to be taken as the definitions of things 
 that arc a61ually in being. Their demands mufi: not be prac- 
 ticable, but put in pra6\ice. And who fees not how many in^ 
 cxtricable difficulties the pra6lifcr will be caft upon ? The de- 
 montlration may proceed bravely fo long as they hold in the 
 theory, and mean by PunB-um, id cujus pars nulla eft* ; and the 
 fame may be faid of lines and furfaces, and all their figures ; 
 without obliging us to believe that really there are any fuch 
 things. But when we come to the pra6^ice, they mufi go further, 
 and take it for granted, that there are fuch points, lines, furfaces 
 and figures. This turns what was before only an explication of 
 a name, into the definition of a thing. And therefore I am 
 now left at liberty to difpute, whether there is any fuch thing ; 
 or, whether indeed it is poffible that there ffiould be luch. 
 And who fees not now, that they are incumbered with as m^a- 
 ny difficulties as may perhaps be urged again ft any fcience 
 whatfoever. 
 
 It 
 
 * « That which has no parts." 
 
5^ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It were encJJcfs to enumerate the things we mui't bellevej 
 without being capable to reiblvc the difficuhies about them. 
 The vericit Infidel mutl: fuppofe that fomething is eternal, or all 
 things are eternal, or that they jumped ir?to being without any 
 caufe. Whichlbever he (hall choofey he is led into a labyrinth 
 of difKculties, which no mortal wit can clear. We muft all own, 
 that either matter and motion are the principle of thought; or, 
 that there are immaterial fubftanccs which aiFetl; matter, and 
 are ilrungely aiFe6lcd by what befalr. it. Whichfoever hde 
 any Ihall choofe, he is caft upon inextricable difficulties. 
 Much more might be faid on this head ; but what has been 
 laid is more than enough to ibew, that if this courfe is ta- 
 ken, it faps the foundations of all human knowledge, and there 
 is no part of it fafe. 
 
 , BchJes, this way of queOIoning religion upon the pretence 
 of difl-icuities lyini^: againtl it, is contrary to the common fenfe of 
 iiianki'nd, contraditls the pra6lice of all wife men, and is in- 
 coafii'lent with the very nature of our faculties. For, if I have 
 a clear unexceptionable and convincing proof for any truth, it 
 is againft all reafon to reject it, becaufe I have not fo full and 
 comprehcnfive knowledge of the nature and circumOances of the 
 object, as is neceflary to enable me to folve all difficulties that 
 may occur about it : Yea, fuch is the nature of our faculties, 
 that to juftlfy in the opinion of the niceii inquirers after truth, 
 nay, to extort an afTent, clear proof is fufficlent ; whereas, to 
 untie all knots, and folve all obje6tions, perfect and compre- 
 henfive knowledge is abfolutely needful ; which man's condi- 
 tion allows him not to expe6t about the meaneft things. And 
 the more remote any thing lies from common obfervation, the 
 lefs reafon there is ftill to look for a fulhiefs of knowledfre and 
 exemption from difficulties. If therefore men will turn fceptics 
 in religion, to ju(Hfy themfelves, they muft attempt the proofs 
 whereon it is grounded. Sampfon-llke, they muft grafp the 
 pillars that fupport the fabric, and pull them down. If this is 
 not done, nothing is done. And he that will undertake this, 
 man have a fall view of their force, and find where there 
 flrength lies: Now a ferious view of this will be fuffixient to 
 deter any wife man from the undertaking. 
 
 la a word, this fcepticifm can yield no cafe or fatisfaif^ion to 
 a reafonable foul. For if a man Ihall thinls. rationaily, hh 
 reafon will fuggeft to him, that though all religion at prcfent 
 fceras uncertain to him, yet upon trial perhaps he may hnd the 
 
 grounds 
 
i N T R O D U C T I b N. 55 
 
 grounds of religion fo evident, that he cannot withhold his af- 
 fcnt. This will at leaft oblige him to a ferious inquiry into 
 the truth. Next, in uncertainties (fuppofing, after ferious in- 
 quiry, he fiills thinks the truths of religion fuch) a prudent man 
 wiil incline to what is moft probable. Finally, he will choofe 
 and fteer luch a courfe of life as will be fafeit, in cafe he fhall in 
 experience afterward find, that there is a God, aiid a future ftate. 
 All which Qiew the folly of our fceptics, and, were it ferioufly 
 confidered, would much mar their defign, which is thereby to 
 juftify a licentious life. 
 
 Now we have confidered, and fufhcienlly crrpofed the two 
 firfl: branches of the above-mentioned choice : and confequently 
 every man mufl find himfelf caft upon a neceility of one of two. 
 He mufl either betake himfelf to natural religion^ and fo turn de- 
 iji ; or he mufl: embrace tht fcriptursSf and turn Chri/iian : Fot 
 as to the Jtwifli religion, it is not likely to gain many converts. 
 
 If therefore we are able to demonftrate the utter injufficiency 
 of natural religion^ in oppofition to tlie deijls who fet up for it, 
 we reduce every man to this choice, tjiat he muft be a Chrijlian 
 or an atheifl ; or, which is the fame upon the matter, a man 
 of no religion ; for an infiifficient religion is in effed none. 
 And to demonflrate this, that natural religion is utterly in fuffi- 
 cient, that unafTifled reafon is not able to guide us to happinefs, 
 snd fatisfy us as to the great concerns of religion, is the dellgn 
 of the fubfequent fheets. In them we have clearly flated and 
 endeavoured with clofenefs to argue this point. We have brought 
 the pleadings of the learned lord Herbert , and the modern deifisf 
 who do but copy after him, to the bar of reafon, examined their 
 utmofl force, and, if 1 miOake it not, found them weak and 
 inconcludent. 
 
 As for the occzfion of my engagement in this controverfy, 
 it was not fuch as commonly gives rife to writings of this 
 nature. I undertook it with no defign of publication. 1 was 
 provoked by no adversary in particular. But every man being 
 obliged to underftand upon what grounds he receives his reli- 
 gion, I fludled the point for my ov/n fatisfadion, and in com- 
 pliance with my duty. 
 
 As for the reafons of my undertaking this part of the contro- 
 verfy, I ihall not fay much. The only vi^ife GOD, wJio has 
 determined the times before appointed, and made of one, blood all 
 nations of men that dwell on tke earthy has appointed them the 
 hounds of their habitation , cut out different pieces of work for 
 
 for 
 
56 I N T R O n U C T I O N, 
 
 them, t^a them into different circumflances, and hereby ejc- 
 pofcd them to trials and temptations that are not of the fame 
 kind. As every man is obliged to cuhivate in the heft manner 
 he can the bounds of land affigned to him, and defend his pof* 
 feffions ; fo every one is concerned to imprdve and defend after 
 the heft form he may, thofe truths, vi^hich his circumftances 
 have obliged him to take peculiar notice of, and his temptations, 
 of whatever fort, have cndeavcured, or may attempt to wreft 
 out of his hands. 
 
 Beiides, we live in a warlike age, wherein every one mufl: 
 be of a party in matters of religion. And religion is a caufe 
 in which, when difputed, no man is allowed to ftand neutral. 
 As all are concerned to choofe the right fide, fo every one is 
 obliged to provide himfelf with the beft armour his arfenal can 
 afford, both for defending himfelf and others that own the fame 
 caufe, and to annoy the common enemy. Nor is this work 
 peculiarly confined unto thofe, who by office are obliged to it: 
 For, in publico difcrimini eft omnis homo miles ** 
 
 Befides, it is well known, that the mofl bold attempt that 
 ever was made upon revealed religion, fincc the entrance of 
 Chriflianity into the world, has been made, in our day, by 
 men, who {ti up for natural religion, and who have gone over 
 from Chrijlianity unto a refined Paganifmy under the name of 
 Deifm, Two things they have attempted ; to overthrow revela^ 
 tion, and to advance natural religion. The lafl work has been 
 undertaken, I may without breach of charity boldly fay it, not 
 fo much out any real atfe6^ion to the principles or duties of na- 
 tural religion, as to avoid the odium inevitably following upon 
 a renunciation of all religion ; and becaufe they faw that men 
 would not eafily ^quit Chriftianity, without fomething were 
 fubftitated in its room, that might at lead have the name of 
 religion. Revealed religion has been worthily defended by 
 many, of old ^md of late, at home and abroad ; but the in- 
 J ujficiency of natural religion has been lefs infilled on, at leaft: 
 in that way tliat is necelfary to ftraiten an obftinate adver- 
 fary. And feveral things incline me to think an attempt of 
 this 'nature feafonable, if not neceflfary, at this time. 
 
 The times are infectious, and deifm is the contagion that 
 fpreads. And that which has taken many, particularly of dSr 
 vnwary youth of the better quality, off their feet, and engaged 
 
 them 
 
 * « In a time of public danger every man is a foklier,'* 
 
INTRODUCTION. 57 
 
 them to efpoiife this caufe, is the high pretence that this way- 
 makes to rcafoti* They tell us, that their religion is entirely 
 reafonable, and that they admit nothing, lave what this dictates 
 to them, and they endeavour to reprelent others as eafy and 
 credulous men. Now I thought it meet to demonftrate, for 
 undeceiving of fuch, that none are more credulous, no-ne have 
 lefs reafon upon their fide, than they who fet up for rational 
 religion i 
 
 Again, we have flood fufficiently long upon the defenfive 
 part, we have repulfed their efforts againtl revelation. It feems 
 now feafonable, that we fhould a6l offenfively, and try how 
 they can defend their own religion, and whether they can give 
 as good account of it as has been given of Chriftianity. To 
 fiand always upon the defenfive part, is to make the enemy 
 doubt ours, and turn proud of their own ftrength. 
 
 The reafonablenefs of this will further appear, if we confiSer 
 the quality of the adverfaries we have to do with, and their man- 
 ner of management. The enemies who have engaged revealed 
 religion, fenfible of their own wcaknefs to defend themfelves at 
 home, and endure clofe fight, do commonly make inroads, where 
 they expe6l none, or a faint refiftance. They defign not fo 
 much to conquer, as to dillurb. Jeft, buffoonery, or at bed 
 fophifms, and fuch little artifices, are the arguments they ufe, 
 and the weapons of their warfare. The beft way to make fuch 
 rovers keep as home is, to carry the war into their own coun- 
 try, and to ruin thofe retreats they betake themfelves to when 
 attacked. They have feen what Chriftians can fay in defence 
 of revealed religion. It is now high time to fee how they can 
 acquit themfelves on behalf of ;2«/2;r^/ r^/2'^z(7?2. It is eafy to 
 impugn. It is a defence that gives the beft proof of the' de- 
 fender's fkill, and fays mofl for the caufe he maintains. 
 
 I own indeed that moft who have evinced the truth of revealed 
 religion, have faid fomething of the weaknefs of natural reli- 
 gion. But this has only been by the bye, and in a way too loofc 
 to ftraiten obflinate oppcfers, not to Ipeakof the too large con- 
 ceffions that have been made them by fome. 
 
 Finally, natural religion being the only retreat, to which 
 the apoftates from Chriflianity betake themfelves, and whereby 
 they think themfelves fecured from the imputation of plain ^Z^^- 
 iffn, it is hoped, that a full and convincing difcovery of its 
 weaknefs, may incline fuch as are not quite debauched, to 
 look how they quit Chriftianity, and engage with that which. 
 
5$ INTRODUCTION. 
 
 if tins attempt is fuccefsfuJ, muft henceforward pafs for dif^ 
 guifed athtifm. 
 
 It now only remains, that I offer fome account of the rcafong 
 that have induced me to manage this controverfy in a method 
 So far different from that which is commonly ufed. The rea- 
 fons of this have been above infinuated, and I fhall not infiH: 
 rhuch further on them, left I (hould feem to detraft from per- 
 formances to v.'hich I pay a very great regard. The method 
 fome have choien, in managing this controverfy with the deifts, 
 to me appears inconvenient. They begin with an endeavour 
 to eftablilli the grounds of natural religion ^ and by the help of 
 light borrowed from re7jelation, they carry the matter fo far, and 
 extend natural relii^lon to fuch a compafs, that it looks pretty 
 complele-like ; which has too evident a tendency to leilen its 
 real deJtBs^ and make them appear inconfiderable. 
 
 Again, I am afraid that fome have gone near to give up the 
 whole caufe. This fault I would be very loth to charge upori 
 all. Many I know have dealt faithfully in it, and defervei 
 praife. But how to excufe fome in this cafe I know not. One 
 tells us that, ** It is true indeed, that natural religion declares 
 ** and comprizes all the parts of religion, that are generally 
 ** and in all times either neceflary or requifite*!" And much 
 more to the fame purpofe. This is m.uch fuch another af-* 
 fertion of the weaknefs of natural religion againfl the de- 
 ifts, as the fame author gives us of the perfection of the fcrip-*- 
 turest in oppofition to the fame perfons in another place of 
 his book. ** 1 could," fays he, *' prove, 1 think, by undenia- 
 ** ble, unavoidable inftances f," what Mr. Gregory of Oxford 
 fays in his preface to fome critical notes on the fcriptures that 
 he publifned, viz. " That there is no author whatfoever that has 
 ** fufFered fo much by the hand of time as the Bible has." Is 
 this the way to overthrow the fufficiency of natural religion, and 
 to defend the fcriptures? This is not the only remark 1 could 
 make upon this author, were it my defign. But this may let 
 us fee how neceffary it is to deal a little more plainly with 
 the afferters of natural religion. 
 
 Further, to adorn natural religion with the improvements 
 borrowed from revelation, is the ready way to furnifh thofe 
 
 who 
 
 * Difcourfe concerning Natural and Revealed Religion, by Stephen 
 Nye, Part 2, Cnap. i, page 97, 
 t Ubi Ju^ra, page 199, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 59 
 
 who fet up for its fufficicncy, with pretences to ferve their de- 
 ^\gnf and to ftraiten themielves, when they come to fhew its 
 defects. And perhaps I (hould not miftake it far, if I alTeited, 
 that the ftrongeft arguments urged by deifts, have been drawn 
 from unwary conceflions made them by their adverfaries. 
 
 And this is the more confiderable, that the perfons, with 
 whom we have to do in this controverfy, are, generally fpeak- 
 ing, either of no great difcerning, or fmall application; who 
 have no great mind to wait upon the bufinefs, or look to the 
 bottom of It. Now when fuch perfons find many things gran- 
 ted, they are ready to think all is yielded, and fo run away 
 with it, as the caufe were their own. That fuch conceffions 
 have done no good fervice, there is too much reafon to believe. 
 This I am fare of, it would have been long before the deifts 
 could have trimmed up natural religion fo handfomely, and 
 made it appear io like a fufficlent religion^ as fome have done, 
 who meaned no fuch thing. 
 
 Finally, the apoftle Paul's method is doubtlefs moft worthy 
 of imitation, who, when he is to prove juflification by faith, 
 and enforce an acceptance of it, flrongly convinces of fin, and 
 the utter infufficiency of works for that purpofe. The bet> way 
 in my opinion, to engage men to clofe wi\h revealed 7'eligion, 
 is flrongly to argue the infufficiency of natural religion* 
 
 As to the performance iti'elf, and what I have therein at- 
 tained, I am not the judge competent. Every reader mud judge 
 as he fees caufe. I have not the vanity to exped that it fhould 
 pleafe every bodv. The vafi compafs of the fubjecl, the va- 
 riety of the purpofes, the uncommonnefs of man\', if not moil 
 of them, with refpedl to which I was left to walk in untrod- 
 den paths, and other difficulties of a like nature, with candid 
 and judicious readers will go a great way towards my excufe 
 in lefler efcapes. As for the fubftance of the enfuing difcourfe, 
 I am bold to hope, that upon the ftrittefi; trial it fhalj be found 
 |rue, and pleaded for in words of truth and fobernefs. 
 
 AN 
 
A N 
 
 INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 PRINCIPLES of the MODERN DEISTS. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Giving a Jhort Account of the Ri/e, Occafions, and Progrefs of 
 Dafm, efpecially in England, the Opinions of the Deijis, and 
 the different Sorts of them, 
 
 X HERE is no man, who makes it his concern to 
 underftand what the ftate of religion has, of late years, been, 
 and now is, particularly in thefe nations, but knows that defm 
 has made a confiderable progrefs. Since therefore it is againft 
 thofe, who go under this name, that this undertaking is defjgn- 
 cd, it is highly expedient, if not plainly neceflary, that in 
 the entry, we give fome account of the occafiont and rife oi 
 deijm, the principal opinions of the deifs, and fome other 
 things that may tend to clear the matter difcourfed in the 
 fubfequent fheets. 
 
 It is not neceflary that we inquire more largely Into the 
 caufes of that general defe6lion in principle and praBice from 
 the ^(?^n7Zd of the ^^d?/ which now everywhere obtains; this 
 has been judlciouiiy done by others. 
 
 Nor will it be needful to write at length the hiflory of deifnu 
 This I think impravSlicable, becaufe the growth of this feH has 
 
 been 
 
62 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap, u 
 
 been verv A"cret, and they have generally dlfguifed their opi- 
 nions. And pei haps till of late, they Icarce had any fettled 
 opinion in matters of religion^ if yet they have. But though ■ 
 it were practicable, as it is not, yet It is not neceflary to our pre- 
 fent undertaUno; ; and if it were attempted, would require more 
 helps, and more kifure, belldes ether things, than 1 am mafter 
 
 One has of late written a ramphJet bearing this title, ** An 
 Account of the Growth of Deifm in England */'^ 1 he author, 
 if he is not a deift, yet has done v. hat in him lies to promote 
 ti'tir caufe, by fetting off, with all the art and addrets he is 
 mailer of, thofe things which, he f.jys, have tempted many to turn 
 deiiis, without any attempt to anudote the poilcn of them. 
 
 Another has wrote R?fe8ions upon this pamphlet, wherein 
 he has fufiRciently fncwn, that thole alleged by the former au- 
 thor, v/ere not fufiicient reaibns to jiifiify any in turning deifl. 
 But I conceive that is not the main queOJon. If he had a 
 mind to difprove the other author," he Ihould haye made It ap- 
 pear, that t'he partlcuLrs condefcended upon by bis antagonift, 
 had no real influence into this apuftafy. Whether they gave a juft 
 caufe for it, is another queflicn. I am fatisfied they did not. 
 But neither do thofe ?Y^y^?zj of this defe^ion, condescended on 
 by the reJleSer, give a fufficlent ground for it. Nor are there any 
 reafons that can juftify any in reiinquiihing Chrifiianity. The 
 inquiry in this cafe Is not. What juft grounds have the delfts 
 to warrant them in, or engage tiiem to this defe£tion? for all 
 Chriaians own ic impofiibie th?y ihould have any. But the 
 quetlion is, WHiat has e,iven occahon to any, thus to fall olF 
 from our religion ? Now I conceive both thefe writers have hit 
 upon federal of the Arz^^ r^^/o;z5 of this; though the firft is ap- 
 parently 8;uiltv oUeeb imprudence, 1 wiib I might not lay ma- 
 lice, againPi Chriftianity, in propofmg thofe temptations, with 
 all }he' advantajre he could give them, and that without any 
 antidote : For vvhich and other faults he has been juftly, though 
 mod eft] y, cenfured by the rejleStr. 
 
 - Although both of them has given fome account of this matter, , 
 yet 1 conceive (o much has not been faid as may fuperfede a 
 further inquiry, or make us defpair of obferving not a few 
 things that have not haJ an Inconfiderable influence, which 
 are overlooked by both. W^iereforc wc Ihall In a few words 
 
 propoie 
 
 * Printed anno 169c. 
 
PRINCIPLES 01^ THE MODERN DEISTS. 6^ 
 
 propofe our opinion of this matter. And In delivering it, we 
 Jliall not piuTue the defign of any party, but make it evident 
 that all parties have had their own acceflfion to the growth o£ 
 this eml. Thouith 1 am fenfible th<it this account will fall hca- 
 yy upon 21 /et of men in particular, who have of late years 
 claimed the name of the Church of England, though unjufily ; 
 if we take her Homilies, Articles, ard the confentlent judg- 
 ment of her renowned bifhops from the time of the Pvcfoimation 
 to bilhop Laud's time, for the Oandard of her do6\rine*; and I fee 
 no reafon whv we ought not. I premiied this to avoid any fuf- 
 picion of a defign to brand the Church of England, with an 
 acceffion to the growth oj dnjni. And even in fpeakLg of 
 that ftt of men, whom I take to be principally guilty, I would 
 not be underftood to fpeak fo much of the defign of the men, as 
 cf the noJive tendency of their doBrine and praBices- 
 
 The many groundlefs, nay ridiculous pretecces to revelation^ 
 and bold impoftures of the Church of Rome, and cf thofe m ho 
 have fupportcd that intereli ; their impudence In obtruding up- 
 on the world, doctrines crofs to rea/c-n and fe?ife, and princi- 
 ples of morality fubverfive of the whole law of nature + ; their 
 fcandalous endeavour to befpatter the fcrlptures, and weaken 
 their authority, on purpofe to bring them into difcredit, to 
 make way for the defigaed advancement of their wild traditions 
 into an equality with them, and to bring t'ne v/orld under a ne- 
 ceffity of throwing themfelves upon the care and conduft of 
 their infallible guide, though they cannot yet tell us v^hich Is 
 he ; their grofs and difcernible hyrocrify in carrying on fecubr, 
 nay impious and unjuft def'gns, under the fpecious pretences 
 of holinefs and religion ; their zeal for 2. form and few cf re- 
 ligion, a worPnip plainlv theatrical %, v/hile the lives of their 
 Popes, Cardinals, Monks, Nuns, and all their higheR pre- 
 tenders to devotion have been fcandalouHv lewd, even to a 
 proverb ^ ; the immoral morality, atheipical divinity, and 
 abominable praBices of the Jefults, thofe zealous fupporteis and 
 ftrongeft props of the Poplili intercft, but in very deed the worft 
 enemies of mankind, the fubverters of ail true piety, morality, 
 
 and 
 
 * Sec Bifhop of Sarum's Explanation of the Thirty-nine Artick?, 
 on Art. 17 ; pag. 168. 
 
 +_ Growth of Deifin, pag. 5. Pvefleaions on it, pag. 8. 
 
 X See jefuit's ^^ orals. 
 
 § Ciarkfon's Pradicai Divinity of FapiOis, 
 
^4 An inquiry into the chap. i. 
 
 and govermnent in the world ; thefe, I fay, together with ma- 
 ny other evils of a like nature, every where obfervablc in that 
 church, have been, for a very long time too evident and grofs 
 to be denied, or hid from perfons of any tolerable fagacity, 
 living among them. And, by the obfervation of thofe and the 
 like evils, continued in, approved, juftified, and adhered unto ; 
 and the cruelty of that church in dcftroying all thofe, who 
 would not receive, by wholefale, all thofe (hocking abfurditieSj 
 not a few who lived among them, and were unacquainted with 
 the power of religion, that was nccelTary to engage them cordially 
 to efpoufc the Reformed intereft, got their minds leavened with 
 prejudices, and furnifhed with fpecious pretences againft all 
 revealed religion ; which they the more boldly entertained, be- 
 caufe they knew it was lefs criminal to turn athujl than Fro- 
 Ujlant in places where the Popiih intereft prevailed. 
 
 Thefe prejudices once taken up, daily grew ftronger, by 
 the obfervation of new inftances of this fort, and the conftancy 
 cf thofe of that communion in a6ting the fame part, i^nd men 
 of wit and learning, who fooneft faw into this myftery, and 
 had no inward bonds on them, failed not to hand about and 
 cultivate thofe pretences to that degree, that many begun to 
 own their apoftafy, if not openly, yet more covertly. 
 
 Not long after the beginning of the laft elapfed century, fo 
 far as I can learn, fome in France and Italy began to form 
 a fort of new a party. They called themfelves Thnjls, or Deifts ; 
 unjuftly pretending that they were the only perfons who owned 
 the One true God» And hereby they plainly intimated that they 
 had reje6ted the name of Chrift, They reje<5led all revelation 
 as clicatf prisjlcraftf and impojluref pretending that there was 
 nothing fincere in religion, fave what nature s light taught. 
 However, being generally perfons too fond of a prefent life, 
 and too uncertain about a future, they thought it not meet to 
 put too much to the hazard for this their pretended religion. It 
 was a refined fort of Paganifm which they embraced, and they 
 were to imitate the Heathen phllofophers, who, whatever their 
 peculiar fentiments were in matters of religion, yet for peace's 
 iake, they looked on it as fafe to foP.ow the mode, and com- 
 ply v/ith the religious ufages that prevailed in the places where 
 they lived. That which made this party the more confidera- 
 ble was, that it was made up of men, who pretended to learn- 
 ing, ingenuity, breeding, and who fet up for wits* They 
 pretended to write after the copy of the new philofophers, who 
 
 fcorned 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 55 
 
 fcorned that philcfophical ilavery, which former ages had l:ecn 
 under to Ariftotie. They inculcated that crcduiiiy was no ief's 
 dangerous in matters of religion than in matters of philofophy. 
 And herein certainly they were not miOakcn. But one may 
 iuftly fufpea, that at the fame time, while they pretended to 
 guard againi^ eafmefs in believing, they have fallen into the 
 worli credulity, as well as ruining incredulity^ For none is fo 
 credulous as an atheift* 
 
 Much about the fame time^ fome novel opinions began to be 
 much entertained in Holland, in matters of religion. The 
 broachers of them being men learried and diligetit, carefully 
 cultivated them, till lliey were ripened into fomething very 
 near-akin to plain Socinianifm, which is but one remove from 
 deifm. It v/as not long after this when thofe new-fangled 
 notions took footing in England and began to be embraced and 
 countenanced by fome topping churchmen, who, forgetful of their 
 Articles, Homilies, aud Subicriptions, and the conduct of their 
 predeceQbrs, carefully maintained^ and zealcully propagated 
 this new divinity. 
 
 I fhall not make bold to judge what the defigns of thofe 
 were, who appeared moil; zealous for thefe new notions: 1 his 
 is to be left to the judgment of him, who fearches the heart of 
 the children of men, and will bring forth things that arc now 
 hid* But there M'ere not a few reafons to fufpedl that the Jefuits 
 had a confiderable hand in diffeminating them, and that the 
 others were their tools ; though it is likely they did not fufpe6t 
 this. The Jefuits vaunted that they had planted xYit fovereign 
 drug of Arminianifm in England, which in time would purge 
 out the northern herefy *. This it could not olherwife do, than by 
 fliaking men as to all principles of religion. And it is a known 
 maxim, that make men once atheifls it will be eafy to turn tltem pa- 
 pifis' The jealoufies many difcerning people had of this, were 
 confiderably increafed when it was feen with what violence the 
 abettors of this new divinity appeared againfl the more moderate 
 part of the Church of England, as well as the DifTenters, upon the 
 account of fome ceremonies, owned by themfelves as indifierent 
 in their own nature ; while at the fame time, they exprefled 
 a great deal of tendernefs, if not refpe6t to the Chuixh of 
 Rome, and made propofals for union with her. 
 
 But 
 
 * Rulh worth's CoUea. Part 1, pjg. 475. Letter by a Jefuit to the 
 Redor of Eruffels, See pag. 62, ihid^ 
 
 H 
 
66 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. i. 
 
 But whatever there is as to this, it is certain that this divinity 
 opens a door, and has given encouragement to that apoftafy 
 from Chriftianity, that has fince followed, and ftill increafes, 
 under the name of deifm. 
 
 Tliis divinity teaches us, that no more is neccffary to be be- 
 lieved, in order to falvation, fave what is confefled and owned 
 by all that are called Chriftians. Dicunt fe non videre unde, 
 cut quo mode, prater pauca ijla, qua apud omnes in conjejfo 
 funt, alia plura adhuc mccjfaria cjft cjlendi aut elici pojjit* \ 
 that is, *' They fee not how it can be made appear, that be- 
 *' fides thefe few things, which are by them allowed, any o- 
 ** thers are neceflfaiy to falvation." Confonantly hereto, they 
 exprefsly deny any thing to be fundamental which has been 
 controverted, or aftervv'ards may be fo f* In a word, they teach 
 that we are not necefl'arily to believe any thing, fave what is 
 evident to us. And that only is to be reckoned evident, which 
 is confeffed by all, and to which nothing that has any appearance 
 of truth can be oppofed. Now after this, what is left in Chrif- 
 tianity ? The divi?iity ^ the purity, the pefeBion and fufficiency o{ 
 the /criptjires]; xhe Trinity, Deity of Chrijl, hisfatisjat'iion, the 
 whole difpenfation of the Spirit, juflfication by faith alone, and all 
 the ^r^/c/^j of the Chriflian religion, have been and are con- 
 troverted. None of them therefore is neceflary to falvation. Are 
 not men left at liberty, without hazard of their falvation, to re- 
 nounce all, fave what is common to Chriflianity with natural 
 religion ? and fince even fome of its mofl confiderable articles 
 zhoxxixhe attributes oiGOV> 2iud his providence, future rewards 
 ^ndpuni fitments, have been, or may be controverted, why may we 
 not reckon them unneceffary too? The dei/^s have borrowed their 
 doBrine of evidence, and oppofed it to the Chrflian religion* One 
 of them tells us, *' If our happinefs depends upon our belief,we 
 ** cannot firmly believe, till our reafon be convinced of a fuper- 
 ** natural religion {.'* And if the reafons of it were evident, there 
 could be no longer any contention about religion. How little 
 does this differ from that divinity, which tells us, that GOD is 
 obliged to offer us fuch arguments to which nothing that has an 
 appearance cf truth can be oppofed ! And if this beCwanting, 
 they are not to be received as articles of faith* Now if after 
 
 this 
 
 * Reraonftr, Apol, Fol. 12. 
 
 + Hi, Cap. 24,. lol. 276; and Cap. 25, Fol. 283, 
 
 % Oracks of Keafon, p:^g. 20&. Letter by A. W. to C. Blount. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 67 
 
 this the deifts can but offer any thing that has an appearance 
 of truth againft Chriftianity, they are free to reje£l it iji cumulo. 
 
 This divinity reduces Chriftianity to 7nere morality. Nothing 
 cKq is univerfally agreed to, if that be fo. ** The fuppofition 
 ** of fin, (fays one that wore a mitre) does not bring in any 
 ** new religion, but only makes new circumftances and names 
 ** of old things, and requires new helps and advantages to im- 
 ** prove our powers, and to encourage our endeavours : And 
 ** thus the law of grace is nothing but a reflitution of the law of 
 " nature* " 
 
 And further, left we fhould think this morality, wherein they 
 place the whole of Chriflianity, owes its being to the agency of 
 the fan6iifying Spirit, we are told, that ** the Spirit of God, 
 ** and the grace of Chrift, when wicd as diftinft from moral a- 
 ** bilities and performances, fignify nothing f." And a com- 
 plaint is made of fome, v/ho fill the world ** with a buz and 
 *' noife of the divine Spirit :j:." Hence many fermons were ra- 
 ther fuch as became the chair of a philofopher, teaching ethzcks, 
 than that of one, who by office is bound to know and preach 
 7iothing fave Chrijl and him crucified- Heathen morality has 
 been lubftiiuted in the room of gofpel holinefs. And ethicks 
 by fome have been preached inftead of the gofpel of Chrift, 
 And if any complaints were made of this conducl, though by 
 men who preached the neceffity of holinefs, urged by all the 
 gofpel motives, and carefully pra6^ifed what they preached in 
 their lives, they were expofed and reje6led, and the pcrfons 
 who offered them were reflecS^ed on as enemies to morality ; 
 whereas the plain truth of the cafe was, they did not complain 
 of men being taught to be moral, but that they were not taught 
 fomewhat more. 
 
 After men once were taught that the controverted docS^rines 
 of religion were not neceflfary to falvation, and that all that 
 was necelFary thereto was to be referred to and comprehended 
 ■\xndzT mGf'alityi2Lud that there was no need of regeneration, or the 
 ifandiifying inftuences of the Spirit of Chrift in order to the per- 
 formance of our duty, it is eafy to fee how light the difference 
 was to be accounted betwixt a Chrifiian and an honeft moi-al 
 lleatken* And if any fmall temptation offered, how natural 
 
 was 
 
 * S. Park's Defence of Ecclef. Poli. pag. 324. 
 f Idem ibid, pag. 345. 
 % Ecclef. Polit. pag. 57. 
 
68 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE^ chap. i. 
 
 v,'35 it for men to judge that the hazard was not great, to flep 
 over from Chrijlianity to dtijmt which is Paganil?n a-la-rnode. 
 And to encourage them to it, it is well known how favourably'- 
 many ufed to exprefs themfelves of the flate of the Heathens ; 
 little nun lin^ that the ChrilHan reh'gion reprefcnts them a'5 
 rvithout God, and tuilhout C'lrijl, and without hope, children of 
 zv ra I k , a n d dead in' t refpa/fcs and fn s . 
 
 I need not {land to prove that tliis divinity is nearly alh'ed to 
 Socinia'jifm. It is we!) known that they rfckon the Socinians 
 found in the fundamentals, and therefore tJiink them in no ha- 
 7.:\xAi provided they live nmrally. Hence iFien have been em- 
 boldened to turn Socin'ans. And everybody may fee by what 
 €A'[y removes, one may from Socinianifm arrive at deifm. For 
 my part I can fee little ditFerence betwixt the two- The deift 
 indeed fcims the honefter man of the two ; he reje£fs the gof- 
 pcl, and ownsthjt he does fo ; The other, I mean the Soci- 
 ninn, pretends to retain it, but really rejecl^s it. But I fliali 
 not iiihil any further in difccvering the tendency of this nezu 
 divinity to lihtrtiynjm and deifmy fjnce others have fully and ju- 
 dicioully done it from the rnofl unqueOionable arguments and 
 documents. And niore cfpecially, fmce in {dCi it is evident, 
 that wherever this new divinity has obtained, Socinians and 
 delfts abound, and many who embrace it daily go over to them ; 
 whic'i 1 take to be the fureO: evidence, if it be duly circum- 
 itantiate, of the tendency of this docfrine to encourage thofe 
 opinions, and ieaft liable to any jufl; exception. And perhaps 
 I might add, that few, comparatively very few, v/ho own the 
 contrary dodlrine, have gone into this new way, where that di- 
 vinity has not been entertained. 
 
 But to return whence v/e have fora little dIc:reued,to the Hate 
 of religion in England. No fooner were they advanced to 
 pozvn who had drunk in thofe opinions, but prefently the doc- 
 trines that are purely evano;eiical, by which the anofiles con- 
 verted the world, the Reformers promoted and carried on our 
 reformation from Popery, and the pious preachers of the Church 
 of England did keep fomewhat of the life and power of religion 
 amongli their people ; fhefe do6irines, I fav, began to be de- 
 cryed ; julllficiation by the righteoufnefs of Chriil, which Lu- 
 ther calK*d Articulus ftantis aut cadenris eccfcfiv*^ that rif- 
 de?nptioii that ts in himy even the forgivenfs of fins though 
 
 faith 
 
 * " An article by winch the church mufl cicker ftaad or fall.*' 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 6g 
 
 faith in Ins blood ; the myftery of the grace, mercy and love of 
 Godmanifefted inChrift; the great myftery of godlinefs; the dif- 
 penfation of the Spirit for convidion, renovation, fan6tification, 
 confolation and edification of the church, by a fupply of fpiri- 
 ritual gifts, and other doctrines of a like tendency, were, upon 
 all occafions, boldly expofed, and difc) edited in prefs and pulpit. 
 The minifters who dared to avow them, from a convi6tion of 
 the truth, the fenfe of the obligation of their promifes and fub- 
 fcriptions to the Articles, were lure to have no preferment, nay, 
 to be branded with the odious names of Calvanijls, Fiiriians, 
 FanaticSf and I know not what. 
 
 The do6trines of /^tV/z were not regarded as belonging to 
 the foundation of religion. The morality of the Bible was pre- 
 tended the only thing that was necelfary ; and as much of the 
 doBrine, as all, even Socinians, Quakers, and all the reft 
 were agreed in, were fufficient. And if any oppofed this, 
 though in civil language and by fair arguments, they were fure 
 to be expofed as enemies to morality ; although their adverfa- 
 ries durft not put the conteft on this ififue with them, that he 
 fnould be reckoned the greatcft friend to morality who was moft 
 blamelefs in his walk, and (hewed it the greateft pra<?tical re- 
 gard. They could cxercife charity, forbearance, and love to a 
 Spcinian that has renounced all the fundamental truths of reli- 
 gion ; but none to a poor Dijfenter, who (incerely believed all 
 the Doctrinal Articles ; nay, even a fober Churchman, who 
 could notconfent to new unauthorized ceremonies, was become 
 intolerable. So that men, at this time, might, with much more 
 credit and lefs hazard, turn Socinian, or any thing, than difco- 
 ver the leaft regard to truths contained in the Articles, owned 
 by moft of the Reformed churches, and taught by our own Re- 
 formers. This is too vt'eli known to be denied by any one 
 v/ho knows how things v/ere carried on at that time and fmce *. 
 Further, whereas preachers formerly, in order to engage 
 men to a compliance with the gofpel, were wont to prefs much 
 upon them, their guilt, the impoiFibiiity of ftanding before God 
 
 in 
 
 * Any one that would be fatlsf.ed in the truth of this, mufl perufe 
 the fermons and writings publiihed by that party of old and of late, and 
 the hiflories of thofe times, particularly Rvjhivorth's Collet, the 
 fpeecbes of the long Parliament, and later writings, and they will find 
 documents more than enough. And they may confult alfo Honorii 
 Rcgii's Comment, de fiatu Eeclefio' Auglicance- 
 
70 AN INQ^UlRY INTO THE chap. i. 
 
 in their own righteoufncfs, their impotency, their mifery by 
 the hilf the necelRty of regeneration, illumination, the power 
 of grace to make them willing to comply, and that no man 
 could fincerely call Ckri/l Lordf and be fubje6^ to him pratii- 
 cally, fave by tkz Holy Ghofl ; care was now taken to unteach 
 them all this, and to (hew them how very little they had lort by 
 the fail, if any thing was lofi: by it, either in point oi light to dif- 
 cern, or power and inclination to pra6life dut)?, 1 hey were 
 told how great length their own righteoufnejs would go, and 
 that it would do their burinefs ; tliey might fafely lland before 
 God in it ; or if there was any room for ChnJFs righteou/mfSf 
 it was only to piece out their own, where it was wanting. In 
 a word, the people were told, v/hat fine perfons many cf the 
 Heathens were, who knew nothing of illumination, regenera- 
 tion, or what the Bible was, and how little odds, if any at ail, 
 there was betwixt ^r^<:<2 and inorality^ 
 
 And, whereas a veneration for the Lord's day was a mean 
 \ri keep people under fome concern about religion, and that 
 day was fpent by faithful minirters, in preffing upon the con- 
 fciences of their people, thofe new-contemned gofpel truths, 
 to the fpoiling of the whole plot ; care was taken to difcredit 
 and bring it into contempt. Minifters, inftead of telling them 
 on that 6.2iy ^ that they were too much inclined to fin, levity, 
 folly, and vanity, were commanded to deal with them as per- 
 fons too much inclined to be ferious ; and inflead of preaching 
 the gofpel, they were required, under the higheil pains, to en- 
 tertain them with a profane Book of Sports* And for difobe- 
 dience many were ejefled. And that they might be taught by 
 example as well as precept, a Sunday's Evening Majk was pub- 
 licly acted, where were prefent perfons o\ no mean note *. 
 
 Moreover, a ftate game being now to be played, the pulpit, 
 prefs, religion and all v/ere made fafely to truckle to Jtate. de- 
 JignSi and to the enllaving of the nations, by advancing the 
 dotlrincs of pq[five obedience t no?i'refJtance,?iud jure-divino-Jliip 
 of kings t; whereby men of religion were wounded to fee the 
 ordinances of Chrifl proHituted to fuch proje6^s, as were entirely 
 foreign, to fay no worfe, to the defign of their inftitution : 
 And men of no religion, or who were not fixed about it, were, 
 drawn over to think it a mere cheat, and that the defign of it 
 
 was 
 
 * Rufnworth's Colic;^. Part 2, Vol. i, pa*:!:. 459* 
 + Eiihcp of Saruraonthe Articles, Art. 7^ pag. 152. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 71 
 
 was only to carry an fecular intercft under fpecious preten- 
 ces. 
 
 At length by thofe means, and fome other things, which are 
 not of our prefent confider^tion, concurring, coufufions ripened 
 into a civil war, whereby every one was left to fpeak, write, 
 aud live as he pleafed. 
 
 Many who intended no hurt, while they upon honeft defigns 
 inquired into, and laid open the faults of the topping clergy, 
 did unawares furnifli Icofe and atheiftical men with pretences 
 againft the minidry. And what in truth gave only ground for 
 a diilike of the perfons faulty, v/as received by many as a juil 
 ground of prejudice againft the very paftoral, as priefi-craft, 
 and all who are clothed with it, as a (qX of felf-deligningmen. 
 
 The body of the people, who had been debauched by the 
 example oi difcandalous clergy , and hardened in fin by the in- 
 termiihon of all difctplinCt (which of late had only been exercifed 
 againft the fober and pious who could not go into the mea- 
 sures that were then taken), the negle6l of painful preaching, 
 the Book of Sports and Pajlimes, and who had their heads 
 filled with airy and felf-elating notions of man's abiliiy to 
 goodi Jree-willi univerjal grace, and the like, and who now, 
 when they much needed the infpetStion of their faithful paftors, 
 were deprived of it, many of them, by the iniquity of the 
 times, being forced to talce faniluary in foreign nations ; the 
 people, I fay, by thefe things turned quite giddy, and broke 
 into numberlefs fed^s and parties. Every one who had en- 
 tertained thofe giddy notions was zealous, even to madnefs, 
 for propagating them, and thought himfelf authorized to 
 plead for them, print for them, and preach them. The of- 
 fice of the miniftry, that had before been rendered contemp- 
 tible by the fuppreffion of the beft preachers, and the fcan- 
 dalous lives of thofe who were mainly encouraged, was 
 now made more fo, by the intrufion of every bold, ignorant aud 
 affuming enthufiaft. The land was filled with books of ccn- 
 trovery, I'^uffed with unfound, offenfive and fcandalous tenets, 
 which were fo multiplied, as they never have been in any na- 
 tion of the world, in fo fmall a compafs of time. The ge- 
 nerality of the people being, by the neglc61 of a fcandalous 
 miniftry, and the difccuragcment of thofe who were laborious, 
 drenched in ignorance, were eafily fnaken by thofe controverfial 
 writings that were difleminated every wheie, and became an 
 eafy prey to every bold fe^^tarian. 
 
 Many 
 
72 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, f^ 
 
 Many of the better fort fet themfelves tooppofe thefc extremes, 
 and from a deteftaton of them were carried, fome into one evil, 
 fome into another ; whereby the common enemy reaped adver- 
 ts ge, and truth fufFered even by its defenders. Minillers who 
 defired to be faithful, by the abounding of thofe errors, were 
 forced to op pofe them in public; whereby preaciiing became 
 lefs edifying, and dlfputes increafed, to the great detriment of 
 religion. 
 
 The nation was thus crumbled into parties, in matters both 
 civil and religious, the times turned cloudy and dark. Pre- 
 tences of religion were dreadfully abufed on all hands to fub- 
 ferve other defigns. And even the befl: both of miniflers and 
 people wanted not their own fad failings, which evil men made 
 the word ufe of. The word and providzyict were ufed in fa- 
 vour of fo many crofs opinions and practices, that not a few- 
 began to run into that fame extreme, which fome in France and 
 Italy had before gone into. And about this time It was that, 
 the learned Herbert began to write in favour of delfm : Of 
 which we (hall have occafion to fpeak afterwards. 
 
 After the Refloration, things were fo far from being mended, 
 that they grew worfe. Lewdnefs and atheifm were encouraged 
 at the court, which now looked like a little Sodom. The 
 clergy turned no lefs fcandalous,If not more fothan before. Im- 
 piety was, as It were, publicly and with applaufe a61ed and 
 taught on the fiage, and all ferlous religion was there expofed 
 and ridiculed. Yea, the pulpits of many became theatre'?, 
 whereupon men affumed the boldnefs to ridicule ferious godli- 
 nefs, and the graveft matters of religion ; fuch as communioa 
 with God, confeflion of fin, prayer by the Spirit, and the 
 whole work of convertion. Controvcrfial writings were multi- 
 plied, and In them grave and ferious truths were handled in a 
 jocular way. The fcriptures were buriefqued ; and the moft 
 important truths, (under pretence of expofmg the DiflTcnters, to 
 the great grief of all good men among them, and In the Church 
 of England), were treated with contempt and fcorn. The pul- 
 pits were again proOItuted to flate dcffgns and doBrines ; and 
 the great truths of the gofpel, in reference to ?nan's ??n/eryt and 
 his recovery by Jefus Chrijl, were entirely negle6\ed by many; 
 and difcourfesof morality came in their place, I mean a mora- 
 lity that has no refpe6l to Chrift as its end, author^ and the ground 
 of its acceptance with God, which is plain heathenifm* The 
 loberer, and the better part were traduced as enthufiaftical» 
 
 diiloval 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 73 
 
 difloyal hypocrites, and I know not whan And fometimes 
 they on the other hand, in their own defence, were conrtrained 
 to lay open the impiety, alheilm, and biafphemous boldnefs of 
 their traducers in their way of management of divine things. 
 And while matters were thus carry ed betwixt them, carelefs and 
 indifferent men, efpecially of the better and moft confiderable 
 quality, being debauched in their pra6Iice, by the licentioufnefs 
 of the court, the immorality and loofenefs of the ftage, were 
 willing to conform their principles to their pra6\ice; for which 
 this ftate of things gave them a favourable occafion and plaufi- 
 ble pretences. Men whofe walk and way looked like anything 
 of a real regard to religion, they heard fo often traduced as hy- 
 pocrites, fanatics, and I know not what, that they were eafily 
 induced to believe them to be fuch. They who taught them 
 fOf on the other hand, by the liberty they alTumed in pra6iice, 
 convinced tliefe gentlemen, that whatever their profeflion was, 
 yet they believed nothing about religion themfelves ; and there- 
 fore it was eafy to infer tliat all was but a cheat. Befides, the 
 Popifh party, who were fufficientiy encouraged, while the fo- 
 ber DilTenters of the Proteftant perfuafion were cruelly perfecu- 
 ted, made it their bufinefs to promote this unfettlednefs in 
 matters of religion. They found themfelves unable to fland 
 (heir ground in way of fair debate, and therefore they craftily 
 fet themfelves rather to (hake otliers in their faith, than dire6^- 
 ly to prefs them to a compliance with their ov/n fentiments. 
 And it is well known they wrote many books full of fophiflry, 
 plainly levelling at this, to bring men to believe nothing; as 
 well knowing, that if they were once brought there, they 
 would foon be brought to believe any thing in matters of reli- 
 gion. 
 
 On thefe and the like occafions and pretences, arofe this de** 
 fe6\ion from the gofpel, which has been nourilhed by many of 
 the fame things which firii gave it birth, till it is grown io 
 fuch ftrength, as fills all well-wifters to the interell of religion 
 with juft fears as to the iflue. 
 
 Nor was it any wonder that thefe pretences fliould take, (efpe- 
 cially with pcrfons of liberal education and parts, who only were 
 capable of obferving thofe faults which gave occafion for them), 
 fmce the generality were prepared for, and inclined to fuch a 
 defe&ton, by a long continance under the external difpenfation 
 of the gofpel, without any experience of its power, the prevalent 
 love of iuft, that makes men impatient of any thing that may 
 
 1 have 
 
74 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. i. 
 
 have the leaft tendency to reftrain them from purfuing the gra- 
 tification thereof; to which we may add the natural enmity of 
 the mind of man againrt the myrtery of the gofpel. 
 
 There was another thing which at this time had no fmall 
 influence, — -the philofophical writings of Mr. Hobbs, Spinoza, 
 and fome others of the fame kidney, got, one way or other? a 
 great vogue amongft our young gentry and ftudents, whereby 
 many were poifoned with principles deftru6iive of all true re* 
 ligion and morality. 
 
 By thofe and the like means, things are now come to that 
 pafs, that not a few have been bold to avow their apoflacy from 
 the Chriftian religion, not only in converfation, but in print. 
 They difown the name of Chrift, call themfelves deijlsj and 
 glory in that name. They have publilhed many writings re- 
 fle6ling on the fcriptures, and juftifying themfelves in rejeding 
 them. 
 
 And we have juft reafon to fufpe<?t, that, befides thofe who 
 do avow their principles, who are perhaps as numerous in thefe 
 lands as any where elfe, there are many, who yet are alhamed 
 to fpeak it out, who bear them good-will, and who want onlv a 
 little time more to harden themfelves againft the odium that this 
 way goes under, and a fair occafion of throwing off the mafk, 
 which they yet think meet to retain. Of this we have many in- 
 dicat:ons. 
 
 Many have alTumed an unaccountable boldnefs in treating things 
 facred and ferious too freely in writing and converfation. They 
 make bold to jeft upon the fcriptures, and upon every cccafjon 
 to traverfe them. When once men have gone this length, the 
 veneration due to that biejied book is gone, and they are in a 
 fair way to reje6\ it. 
 
 Others have made great advances to this defe6\ion, by difle- 
 minatingj and entertaining reproaches againO a Oanding minif- 
 try. It is known what contempt has been cafi: upon this order 
 of men, whom God hath ci-trufted with the gofpel difpenfaticn, 
 and who, by office, are obliged to maintain its honour. If this 
 order of men fall under that general contempt, which feme do 
 their utmoll to bring them to, relijzion cannot long maintain irs 
 ftation among us. When the principal means of the Lord's ap- 
 pointment are laid afide, or rendered ufelefs, no other means 
 will avail. 
 
 And hereon, further, there follows a negle6l of attendance 
 on the miniftry of the word, which the Lord has appointed for 
 
 the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 75 
 
 the edification of the church, and eftablifhing people in the 
 faith of the truth he has revealed to us therein. When this once 
 begins to be negleded, men will foon turn fceptical and un- 
 concerned about religion. 
 
 And further, it is very obfervable, that many are ftrengthen- 
 ed in this negle6l, by principles calculated for this purpofe ; 
 while the whole efficacy of preaching is made to depend, not 
 on the blejftng of Chrift, whofe inftitution it is, or the influ- 
 ences of his Spirit, which he has promifed for fetting it home 
 on the hearers for their convi6tion, converfion, and edification, 
 — but on the abilities 2ind. addrefs of the preachers. It is natural 
 lo conclude, that it is better to ftay at home and read fome 
 book, than to go to fermon, if the preacher is not of very un- 
 common abilities : Which is a principle avowed by many, and 
 their practice fuits their principles. 
 
 Befides, which is the true fpring of the former, I am afraid 
 ignorance of the nature of revealed religion^ the defign of its 
 inditutions, and all its principal concerns, is become more 
 common than is ufually obferved, even amongft men of liberal 
 education and the befl: quality. And hence many of them en- 
 tertain notions inconfiftent with their own religion, at firfl out 
 pf ignorance, and afterwards think themfelves in honour en- 
 gaged to defend them, although deftru6live to the religion they 
 profefs. 
 
 Add to all this, that profanity in practice has, like a deluge, 
 overfpread thefe lands. And where this once takes place, love 
 to fin never fails to engage men to thofe principles, which 
 may countenance them in the courfes they love, and defign to 
 cleave to. 
 
 This feems plainly to be the flate of matters with us at pre- 
 fent. And we fee but little appearance of any redrefs. The 
 infe£lion fpreads, and many are daily carried otf by it, both in 
 England and Scotland. Though it mufl be owned that Scot^ 
 land, as yet, is lefs tainted with that poifon : But thofe of this 
 nation have no reafon to be fecure, fince many are infe61:ed,and 
 more are in a forwardnefs to it than is comm.only thought. 
 
 Having given this fliort, but I conceive, true account of the 
 rife and growth of deifm^ it now remains that we confidcr, what 
 thefe principles are which they maintain. The deifis, although 
 they are not perfe61ly o?2^ amongft themfelves, yet do agree in 
 two things: i. They all Tt]t€i revealed religion, and plainly 
 maintain that all proitences to revelation are vain, cheat and im- 
 
 pofturec 
 
75' AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ghap. ii. 
 
 fo(\upc\ 2. They all inainfalri that iiatural religion is fuflucient 
 10 aniVv-er all the great ends of religion, and the cnly rule 
 whereby all our religious pia^^ices are to be fquared. The 
 fii'Jl of thefe alTertions only tells v/hat their religion is not^ 
 and exprefies their op43olition to all revelation, particularly to 
 Chriftianity ; which has been v/oitbily defended and aderted 
 againil all their objeclions by many of late, and I {hall not 
 much infill: in adding to uhat they hav^ written to fuch ex- 
 cellent purpofc. 'T\\Q Jkond feUs us what their religion is ; 
 :^nd il is this we chicily delign in the following papers to debate 
 uiiii them. They have long been upon the ojjenfive part, 
 v/hich is more eafy ; v^e defign now to put them upon the dc 
 Jtnlivc, 
 
 They whp call thernfelves dei/ls, although they thus far agree, 
 5^et are not all of one Ibrt. I find them, by one of their own 
 liijiuber, claPted into two forts, ??iQrta I and immortal*. 
 
 I'iie iramortal are they who maintain z jiiture Jlate> The 
 viortal, they wlio deny o fie. It is with the firft we are prin- 
 cipally concerned ,* yet I ihall in the fubfequent chapter offer a 
 few things with refpecf to the mortal dajls* And in what I 
 have to iay of them I fliall be very ihort ; becaufe 1 conceive, 
 what has already been offered in the introduction, againR this 
 joi't of men, miglit almoll fuperfcuc any fuither difcourfe about 
 ihcm. 
 
 C H A P. IL 
 
 Mortal Ddfis whOi and what Jud^iment to he made oj than 
 and their Smtimcnts* 
 
 TflE mortal delfts f who alfo are called nominal deijist dc" 
 nyingvi future flail' y are, in etFe6^, 7nere athcijls. This per- 
 haps fome may think a harfli judgment ; but yet it is fuch as 
 the deids themfelves, who are on the other fide, will allow. 
 
 One who ov/ns hiir.felf a deiil, thus exprefies his mind, — 
 ** We do believe, that there is an inhnitcly powerful, wile and 
 ** good Godj who fuperintends the adions of mankind, in or- 
 ** der to retribute to every one according to their defeits : Nei- 
 ** ther are we to boggle at this creed ; for if we do not ftick 
 
 '' Xo 
 
 * Oracles of Reafon, pag. qn. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 77 
 
 " to it, we ruin the found-ation of all human happinefs, and are 
 ''' it] elFefl no better than mere atheifts *." 
 
 A further account of this fort of men we have given us by 
 one, whom any may judge capable enough for it, v.'ho confi- 
 ders his way of writing, and the account he gives of himfelf. 
 ** 1 have obferved fome," fays he, ** who pretend ihemfeives 
 ** deifts, that they are men of loofe and fenfual lives ; and I 
 *' make no wonder that they diilike the Chriftian doctrine of 
 ** felf-denial, and the fevere threatenings againft wilful finners. 
 ** You may be fure they will not allege this reafon : But hav- 
 " ing read Spinoza and Hobbs, and being taught to laugh at 
 ** the (lory of Balaam's afs, and Sampfon's locks, they pro- 
 ** ceed to ridicule the reality of all miracles and revelation. 
 ** I have converfed with feveral of this temper, but could ne- 
 ** vcr get any of them ferious enough to debate the reality of 
 ** reiigion,— but a witty jell, and t'other ginfs, puts an end to 
 '* all further confideration f." Thefe are mere fceptics and 
 pravSiical atheifls, rather than real deifts. 
 
 Now, it is to no purpofe to debate with men of this temper, 
 if they will liften to arguments, many have faid enough, if 
 not to convince them, (for I know it is not an eafy matter to 
 convince fome men), yet to flop their mouths ; ard therefore I 
 Ihail not oHer any arguments, — only 1 fliall lay down a few 
 clear principles, and from them draw an injerence or two, which 
 will make it evident, what judgment we are to make of this 
 fort of men. 
 
 The principtes I take for incontrovertible are thefe which 
 follow : I. He deferves not the name of a man who a£ls no* 
 rationally ; knowing what he does, and to what end. 2. No 
 action which contributes not, at leaft in appearance, to inans 
 happin*fs is worthy of him. 3. The happinefs of a prefent 
 life, which is all that thefe gentleman allow, confifls in the 
 enjoyment of things agreeable to our nature, and freedom from 
 thofe that are noifome to it. 4. Man's nature is fuch, that /ni 
 felicity depends not only on thefe things, which at prefent he 
 has^ or wants; but likcwifeon what is pail, and what is fu- 
 ture. A prol'peft of the one, and a reflexion on the other, ac- 
 cording as they are more or lefts agreeable, exceedingly in- 
 creafes his pleafure or pain. 5. The hopes of obtaining here- 
 after 
 
 * Letter to the Deids, pag. 125. 
 t Growth of Deifm, pag. ^, 
 
7§ AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. lU 
 
 after the goo J we at prefent want, and of being freed from evils 
 we fuitbr bv, mightily enhances the pleafure of what we pof- 
 icfs, and allays the trouble that arifes from incumbent evils. 
 6. So ftrong is the dcfire every one finds in himfelf of a con- 
 tinuation in being, as cannot choofe but render the thoughts of 
 annihilation very terrible and irkfome. 7. The pra6iice of 
 virtue^ as it is the moil probable mean of attaining y^^z^r^ hap'- 
 pinefsf if anv fuch ftate be, fo it is that which tends moft to 
 perfe*:^ and advance man's nature ; and fo muft give the moft 
 Iblid and durable pleafure, even here in this life. 8. It is ma- 
 licious to do what tends to the obftru6ling another's happimjs^ 
 when it cannot further one s own* Few men will queftion any 
 of thefej and if any do, it is not worth while to debate with 
 him. Now from thefe we may fee, 
 
 1. It would contribute much to thofe gtn\\cm&n''s prefent felicity 
 to believe, (be it true or falfe) that there is 2i future ftate of hap* 
 pinefs, fince the hopes of immutable and endlefs blifs would be 
 a nocable antidote againrt the uneafinefs of mind that arifes, not 
 only from incumbent evils, but alfo from thofe we fear, and the 
 inconfiancy of our lliort-lived enjoyments. 
 
 2. The generality of maqkind, elpecally where Chrifllanity 
 obtains, being already poffeffed of the profpe6t oijuture happinefs^ 
 which fupports them under prefent evils, arms them againft the 
 troublefome reflections on pafi troubles, and fears of the future; 
 and moreover animates them in the pra6tice of thefe a61ioiis 
 whereby not only their own good, but that of the focieties 
 wherein they live, is fignally promoted ; all attempts to rob 
 them of this hope are highly malicious, and import no lefs than 
 a confpiracy aganil the happlnefs of mankind, and the good of 
 the fociety wherein they live: And therefore we may fay ailuredr 
 ly, that as thofe mortal ddjls are much incommoded by their owq 
 opinion ; fo their attempts for its propagation, niufi be looked 
 on as proceeding from no good defign to the refl of mankind. 
 
 Here perhaps fome of them may fay, that this opinion tends 
 to liberate a great part of mankind from the difquicting fears 
 of future viijeiy. 
 
 To this I anfwer, i, I believe it true, that their fears ai fu- 
 tare mifery are uncafy to them; or they have but little hope of 
 future felicity* Their way of living allows them none. But 
 thefe fears proceed from confrience of guilt, and are the genu- 
 ine refult of avStions, equally deftru6\ive to the aCtors, and the 
 intereft of the reft of mankind. 2. Thefe fears have their u^e, 
 
 and 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. ' 7^ 
 
 and ferve to deter from fuch evils as are ruining to the perfons 
 who commit them, and to human fcciety. 3. VVhile this opinion 
 liberates a few of the worfl: of men, from thefe fears, which 
 are a part of the juft puniftiment of their villanies, and embold- 
 ens them to run on in thofe evils which ruin themfelves and c^ 
 thers, it difpirits and difcourages the only ufeful part of man^ 
 kind, by filling them with difmal thoughts of annihilation* 
 4. Nor can all that the deifls are able to do, liberate them^ 
 felves or mankind from thofe fears. The utm.oft that they can 
 pretend, with any (hew of reafon, is, that we have not ground 
 lo believe fuch a flate. Will this make us fure that there is 
 •none ? But of this we have faid enough in ihet intrcdu6tion. 
 
 By what has been faid it is evident, what judgment we are 
 «o make of this fort of deifts. Their lives, writings and death, 
 ihew them to be mere atheids, 
 
 VaninuSy when firft he appeared and wrote his Amphithea^ 
 trum ProvidenticR Bivinx, fet out for fuch an one that believed a 
 God' But at length fpoke out plainly that ke believed none, 
 and was defervedly burnt for atheifm at Thouloufe, April 9, 
 ^619. He confeifed there were twelve of them (hat parted in 
 in company from Naples to teach iheir doctrine in all the pro- 
 vinces of Europe *. 
 
 Uriel Accofla vJxo^Q. for this opinion, as himfelf tel!s us in 
 his Examplar Vita, Hu nance, which is fub joined to Li?nburg's 
 conference with Urobius the Jew f. His lad a61ion tells us 
 what man he was. After he had made a vain attempt to (hoot 
 his brother, he difcharged a piftol into his own br^aii. This 
 fell out about the twentieth or thirtieth year of the laft century^ 
 So they live, and fo they die* 
 
 Were this our deflgn, or if we faw any need of it, v/e might 
 give fuch an account of the principles, pra6\ices, and tragical 
 exits of not a few of this fort of perfons, as would be fufficient 
 to deter the fober from following thtm. Bt>.t what has been 
 faid is fufficient to difcover the dcftruttive tendency of their 
 frinie opinion. And further we (hall not concern ourfelves 
 with them, but go on to that which is mainly intended in this 
 4ifcourfe. 
 
 CHAP, 
 
 ^ Spe Great Geographical Didionarv, 
 
 i y.mburgi Pr^fatio & Refpons. Urielis Accoftje Lihro, 
 
$Q AN INQUIRY INTO THE . chap. m. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Wherein the Controvcrfy betwixt us and the Immortal Deijh is 
 fiated and clemed, 
 
 THE immortal deijls, who own a future Jlate^ are the only 
 perfons with v^hom it is worth while to difpute this point about 
 xhc fujjiciency of natural religion. Before we olfer any arguments 
 on this head, it is neceflary we ftatc the queRion clearly ; and 
 it is the more neceflary, that none of the deifls have had the 
 courage or honefty to do it. And here in the entry \vq fliall lay 
 down fome things, which we think are not to he controverted 
 on this occafion. And we ihall, after thefe conceflions are made, 
 inquire what (lill remains in debate. 
 
 I. We look on it as certain, that all the world, in all ages, 
 hath been poflcfled of Tome notion of a God, of fome />(??6'(fr above 
 them, on whom, in more or lefs, they did depend; and to whom 
 on this account, feme rerpe£l is due. This Heathens have ob- 
 ferved. CicerOf amongfl others, hath long fince told us, " That 
 ** there is no nation lb barbarous that owns not feme god, that 
 " has not fome anticipations or impreffions from nature, of a 
 '* God*." Nor is thisany more, than what we are told, Rom. 
 i. 19, 20, &c. that the Gentiles have fome notions of truth 
 concerning God, which they hold in unrighteoufnefs ; that God, 
 partly by erecting a tribunal in their own breaOs, which they 
 cannot decline, though they never fo m.uch would, and partly 
 by prefenting to their eyes thofe vifible works that bear a lively 
 imprefs of his invifihle power and Godhead, hath, as it were, 
 forced upon them the knowledge of fome part of that, which 
 the aportle calls yv^f^" -^S S^r, or that which may he known of 
 God, Whence they all in fome mcafure knczu God, though 
 they glorified him net as God. 
 
 The floties fome have told us of nations that have no notion 
 of a God, upon fcarch are found falfe. And for fome lewd 
 perfons, who have pretended to a fettled perfuafion, they are 
 not to be credited. We have fufFicient reafon to look on them 
 as liars, or at leaft, not admit them witnelfcs in this cafe. 
 
 2. I do think that the knowledge of feme of the more ob- 
 vious laws of nature, and their obligation, hath univerially ob- 
 tained, 
 
 * Cicero de Natura Deorum, Lib. i. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. Si 
 
 tained *. The Gentiles, all oF them, do by nature thofe things, 
 that is, the material part of thofe duties, which the law of na- 
 ture enjoins, zukich jhews thz zocrk of the latv, or fome part 
 of it at leaft, to bt zontttn in their hearts, fince ihey do 
 fome things it enjoins. 1 do not think that this writing &f the 
 law imports innate ideas, or innace aclual knowledge, wliich Mr. 
 Lock hath heen at fo much pains to diiprove f, with what fuc* 
 cefs I inquire not now. Some think, that while he grants the 
 ielf-evidence of a natural propenfity of our thoughts toward 
 fome notions, which others call innate^ he grants ail that the 
 more judicious intend by that expreffion. Others think that 
 iVIr. Lock's arguments conclude only the improbability of hi' 
 nate ideas, and that they are to be rejected, rather for want of 
 evidence for them, than for the llrength of what is faid againft 
 them %' But whatever there is as to this, neither the apollle's 
 fcope nor words oblige us to maintain them. What is intend- 
 ed may be reduced to two affertions, viz. That men are born 
 with fuch faculties, which cannot, after they are capable of ex- 
 ercifing them, but admit the obligation and binding force of 
 fome, at leafl:, of the laws of nature, when they are fairly of- 
 fered to their thoughts ; and, That man is fo flated, that he can- 
 not mifs occafions of thinking of, or coming to the know- 
 ledge of thofe laws of nature. ** Homines nafci cognitione 
 ** aliqua Dei inftru61os, baud dicimus : Nullam omnino ha- 
 ** bent, fed vi cognofcendi dicimus; neque ita naturalitcr cog- 
 ** nofcunt atque fentiunt, inntam potentiam Deum cognoi- 
 ** cendi, ad cultum ejus aliquo modo praslhndum, ftimulantcm, 
 ** fponte fe in adultis rationis compotibus, non minus ccrto & 
 ** neceflario quam ipfum ratiocinari, exerturam, unumquemque 
 *' retlnere, ratio nulla ef^ cur opinemur cum fcntiamus,'' fays 
 the learned Dr. Owen J. 
 
 3- It 
 
 * I inquire not whether tliey were acquainted with the proper and 
 true grounds of the obligation of thofe laws they owned obligatory. 
 
 + Lock's Efiay on Human Underftanding, Book i. Ch. 4.' § 11. 
 
 % Becconfail of Nat. Relig. Ch. 6. § i, 2. 
 
 § Theologumen. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Par- 2.—" We do not faj^ tliat 
 « men are born with any aftual knowledge of God, as they have 
 ** no knowledge at all when they are born ; but we fay that they are 
 « born with a capacity of knowing him, and that they do not fonataral- 
 " ly know as they feel this implanted capacity of knowing God, which 
 « ftirs them up to worfliiohini in fome manner. And that this capa- 
 
 K 
 
83 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. in. 
 
 3. It IS unqucHionable, and has been fufficiently attefted 
 by the nations, and even by fome of the worft of them, that 
 man has a confcitnce^ that fometlmes drags the greateft and 
 moft obftinate offenders to its tribunal, in their own breafts, 
 accufes them, condemns them, and in fome fort executes the 
 fentence againft them, for their counteraiSiing known duty, 
 how little foeverthey know. A Heathen poet could fay, 
 "——Prima tji hdtc ultiOf quod fe 
 Judice, nemo nocens ahfolvitur^ improha quamvis 
 Gratia fallacis pratons vicerit urnam*. 
 
 4* We own that thofe laws of nature, which arc of abfolutc 
 ncccility to the fupport of government and order in the worJd, 
 and the maintenance of human fociety, are, in a good mea- 
 fure, knowable by the light of nature, and have been generally 
 known. 
 
 5. We willingly admit that, what by tradition, and what by 
 the improvement of nature's light, many of the wifer Heathens 
 have come to know, and exprefs many things excellently, as 
 to the nature of God, man's duty, the corruption of nature, a 
 future ftatc, &c. and fome of them have lived nearer up to the 
 knowledge that they had than others : For which they are 
 highly to be commended, and 1 do not grudge them their praifc. 
 
 6. I look on it as certain, that the light of nature, had it 
 been duly improven, might have carried them in thefe things, 
 and others of the like nature, further than ever any went. 
 
 But after all thefe things are granted, the queilion concern- 
 ing \\\t Jufficitncy of natural religion^ remains untouched. 
 
 For clearing this, it is further to be obferved, that, when 
 wc fpcak of the fufficiency of natural religion, or thofe noti- 
 ces of God, and the way of worfhipping him, which arc at- 
 tainable by the mere light of nature, without revelation, we 
 confider it as a mtan in order to fome tnd* For hy Jufficitncy 
 is meant, that aptitude of a mean for compaiTing fome cnd^ 
 that infers a neceffary conne6\ion betwixt the dut uje^ that is, 
 
 fuch 
 
 " city will no lefs naturally and fpontaneoufly exert itfelf in all adults 
 *« that are poffeffed of reafon, than that of reafoning itfelf, there is 
 « no reafon why we Ihould deliver as an opinion, as we feel it to be 
 « the cafe." 
 
 * «* This is the firft part of the punifhment, that every guilty per- 
 « fon is eendemned by himfelf, although wicked interell £ould hare 
 « overcome the integrity of his judge." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 83 
 
 fuch an ufe of the mean, as the perfon to whom it is faid to be 
 Jufficitnt, is capable to make of it, and the attainment of the 
 end. 
 
 Now natural religion, under this confideration, may be af- 
 ferted fufficient or not, according as it is looked at with rcfpedl 
 to one end, or another : For it is ufeful to feveral purpofes, 
 and has a refpe6^ to feveral ends. 
 
 I. It may be confidered with refpe(51: to human fociety, up- 
 on which religion has a considerable influence. " There could 
 ** never poiTibly be any government fettled amongft athcifts, 
 ** or thofe who pay no refpe6l to a Deity. Remove God once 
 ** out of heaven, and there will never be any god's upon earth, 
 ** If man's nature had not fomething of fubjc<S^ion in it to 4 
 ** Supreme Being above him, and inherent principles obliging 
 ** him how to behave himfelf toward God, and toward the reft 
 ** of the world, government could have never been introduced, 
 ** nor thought of. Nor can there bp the Icaft mutual fecurity 
 ** betA^een governors and governed, where no God is admitted. 
 ** For it is an acknowledging of God, in his fupreme judg* 
 ** ment over the world, that is the ground of an oath ; and up- 
 •* on which the validity of ^U human engagements do depend,'* 
 fays an excellent perfon *. And the famed Cicero expreffe* 
 himfelf very fully to the fame purpofe. Speaking of religion 
 and piety, he {zySj—Ouibusfublatis, perturbatio vita fequitur , 
 & magna conjufio, atque hand fciof an pietate advcrfus Deojf 
 fublata, Jides etiam, & Jo cut as humani generis, ^ una excels 
 UntiJJima virtus, juftitia toliatur\. If the queftion concerned 
 this end, we might own natural religion feme way fufficient 
 to be a foundation for human fociety, and fome order and go- 
 vernment in the world : For it is in fa6t evident, that where re- 
 velation has been wanting, there have been feveral well formed 
 governments. Though ftiH it muft be faid, that they were 
 obiged to tradition for many things that were of ufe, and to have 
 recourfe io pretended revelation, where the real was wanting J. 
 
 Which 
 
 * See Ch. Wolfeley*s Unrcaf. of Athcifm, p?g. i J2, See, 
 t De Natura Dcorum, Lib. i, m^hi. pag. 5. " — Which being 
 *' taken away, 'a great diforder and confufion in life rauft follow ; and 
 «< I know not whether, after piety to the Gods is taken away, truth and 
 *[ the focial affedions, and juftice, the moft excellent of the virtues, 
 " would not at the fame time be taken away," 
 % See Amy raid on Reli*;. Part a. Cap. 8. 
 
;?4 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap, in. 
 
 Which -fi-icws revelation necefll^ry, if not to the beings yet 
 to the uetl-being of iocicty. 
 
 2. Natural religion may be confidered in its fubferviency 
 to God's moral government of the world ; and with refpe^i to 
 tliis, it has feveral confiderable ufes, that I cannot enter uoort 
 the detail of. It is the meafure of God's judicial proceedings; 
 v.'ith rcipeCl to thofe of mankind who want revelation ; and 
 as to \\\\%, there i-s one thing that is ufually obferved, that it is 
 fufjicient to jujlijx God in puivMiing [inners* That God fome- 
 times, even here in time, punilbes offenders, and, by the fore- 
 bcdir^'s of their ccnfciences, gives them dreadful prefages of 
 a progrefg in his feverity againil them, after this life, cannot 
 ivcli be denied. Now certainly there muft be fome meafure^ 
 uhereby God proceeds in fin's matter. Where there is no lazv, 
 there is nx)-trL.'»JgrefJion. Puniihments cannot be inflicted, but 
 f:r the tfanJgfciTion, and according to the tenor of a/^rz). And 
 this lav/, if it is holy, juj}.y 'dnd good in its pi'eceptSy and equal 
 in its Jandiod, is not only the incafure whereby the governor 
 proceeds in punifhing offenders ; but that which juflilies him 
 in tlie punishment of them. It is needlefr, to fpeak of the 
 grant of reruards in this caie ; becaufe with refpe6\ to them, 
 noe only jujlice, but ^s^rai.e and bounty have place, which are 
 i!Ot r^ilnctcd to any iuch nice ir.enfures in the dilpenfation of 
 favrur?;. as jiijiice is in the execution of })uni{hmerits. Now if 
 iiatur-al rciigion is ccnfidered wiih rei'peiH to this end, we iay 
 Ix is fvjfimerit to jutlify God, and fuliy clear him from any 
 imputatic n of injultice or cruelty, whatever puni/b.ments he 
 rryav, eitiier.in (ime or after time, infiiit upon mankind who 
 want revelation- There ar^ none of them come to age, who— 
 !• Have not fallen fhort of knowing many duties, which they 
 might have known. 2. V\'ho liave not emitted many duties, 
 which they knew themfelves obliged to. And 3.^ Who have 
 v.oi done what they kne.w they ought net to have done, and 
 rriaht have forborn. If thefe three are made out, as no doubt 
 thev m^y be againfl all m''n, I do not fee what lealon any 
 will have to implead God either of hard(l)ip or injuftice. 
 
 fliere are 4 know, who: think it very hard, that thcfe na- 
 tural notices of God and reiigiun ibould he lufjicwnt to juftify 
 God in adjudging tbofc, wlio couniera61 then), to future ami 
 eter r.al punifriTnents , while ye.t fuch an attendance to, and com- 
 pliance with them as m.en aie capable cf, in their prefent cir- 
 cuiTiliances, is not fufficient to entitle us Xq etcjiial rcizcirds* 
 
 But 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 85 
 
 But if, in this matter, any injuftice is charged upon God, who 
 fliall manage the plea? Shall they who tranfgrersand contraveen 
 Thole notices do it? But what injuftice meet they with, if they 
 are condemned for not knowing what they might have known? 
 n*t doing what they were obliged to do, and were able to do? 
 nnd for doing what they might and Ihould have forborn? If all 
 thefe may be laid to their charge, though there were no nfore,what 
 have they to fay for themfelves, or againft God ? They furely 
 have no reafon to complain. If any have reafon to complain, it 
 miift be they who have walked up to the natural notices of God. 
 But where is there any fuch? We mav fparc our vindication till 
 fiich an one be found. Nor is it eafy to prove that man's obedience 
 though perfedl, muft necelfarily entitle to eternal felicity. And 
 he who (hail undertake to implead God cf injullice upon the 
 account of fuch a fentence, as that we nor/ fpeak of, will not 
 find it eafy to make good his charge. 
 
 Were the difficulty thus moulded, That it Is hard to pretend 
 that thcfe natural notices of God are fufficient to juftify God in 
 condemning the tranfgrelTors of them to future puniHiments, 
 while punctual complance with them is not fufficient to fave 
 thofe, who yield this obedience, from thofe punifnments, which 
 the contraveeners are liable to for their tranfgreffion, — though 
 it were thus moulded, it would be a hard talk to make good 
 fuch a charge. But I am not concerned in it; nor are any, who 
 judge the perfons, who have gone fartheft in this compliance, 
 liable upon other accounts ; becaufe rhey flill own their com- 
 pliance lo far available to them, as to fave them from thofe de- 
 gress of wrath, which deeper guilt would have inferred. 
 
 3. Other ends there are, with refpeft to which natural religion 
 mav be confidered, which I fhall pafs without naming, and fnall 
 otily make mention of that which we are concerned in, and Is 
 aimed at in the prefent controverfy, and that is, thejuiure happi- 
 r.efs of man in the eiijoyment of God, This certainly is xViefupra/i: 
 and ultimate end of religion with refpecl to vian himfclf. For 
 that the Glory of God is the chief end abfolutely, and muft, in 
 all refpcc>, have the preference, I place beyond debate. 
 
 Nov/ it is as to this end, that the queflion about the fuf- 
 ficiency cf natural religion is principally m.dved. And the 
 que^ion, in fhort, amounts to this, Whether the notices of God 
 and religion, which all men by the light cf nature have, or at 
 leaft by the mere improvement of their natural abilities without 
 revelation, may have, are fufficient to dlre6\ them in the way io 
 
 eternal 
 
85 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE «map. ni. 
 
 eternal blcffsdnefs, fatisfv them that fuch a Oate is attainable, 
 and point out the way how it is to be attained ; and whether by 
 that practical compliance with thofe notices, which man in his 
 prefent ftate is capable of, he may certainly attain to acceptance 
 with God, pleafe him, and obtain this eternal happinefs in the 
 enjoyment of him? The deifts are for the affirmative, as we 
 fhall afterwards make appear, when we confider their opinions 
 more p:irticular!y. 
 
 But before v/e proceed to offer arguments, it will be needful t» 
 branch this queftion into feveral particulars that are included 
 m it, that we may the better conceive of, ^nd take up the 
 import of it, and how much is included and wrapt up in this 
 afTertion, The quertion which we have propofed in general, 
 may be turned into thefe five fubordinate queries : 
 
 1. Whether, by the mere light of nature, we can difcover 
 an eternal flate of happinefs, and know that this is attainable ? 
 Unlefs this is done, nothing in matters of religion is done. It 
 is impoffible that nature's light can give any dire6tions as to 
 the means of attaining future happinefs, if it cannot fatisfy us 
 ehat there is fuch a ftate. 
 
 2. Whether men, left to the condu6^ of the mere light of 
 nature, can certainly difcover and find out the way of attain- 
 ing it ? that is. Whether, by the light of nature, we can know 
 and find out all that is required of us, in the way of duty, iri 
 order to our eternal felicity ? If the affirmative ischofen, it mufl 
 be made appear by nature's light, what duties arc abfolutely 
 neceilary to this purpofe; that thofe which arc prefcribcd are 
 indeed duties; and that they are all that arc neccfTary in order 
 to the attainment of the end, if they are complied withal. Al- 
 though we fhould have it never fo clearly made out, that there 
 is a future ftate of happinefs, yet if we are left at an utter lofs 
 3s to the means of attaining it, we are no better for the difco- 
 very. 
 
 3. Whether nature's light gives fuch a full and certain dif- 
 covery of both thcfe as the cafe feems to require ? Confidering 
 what a cafe man at prefent is in, to hope for an eternity of hap- 
 ^oinefs, is to look very high : And any man, who in his prefent 
 circumftances, Oiall entertain fuch an expe<Sfation, on mere 
 furmifes, fufpicions and may- he's, may be reproached by the 
 world, and his o vn heart, as a fool. To keep a man up in 
 the fteady impredion, and expe6tation of fo great things, con- 
 jectures, fuppofitions, probabilities, and confufcd general hints, 
 
 'arc' 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 87 
 
 are not fufficicnt. Again, there are huge difficulties to be fur- 
 tiaounted in the way to thib bleffednefs, which are obvious and 
 certain. Senfiblc lodes are fometimes to be Tuftained, fenfible 
 pains to be undergone, and fenfible dangers to be looked in the 
 face. Now the queliion is, Whether is there fuch a clear and 
 certain knowledge of thefe attainable, as the importance of the 
 cafe, the ftrefs that is to be laid on them, and the dangers that 
 are to be encountered for them, requires ? Certain it is, it 
 will not be fuch notices as moft pleafe themfelves with, tha^ 
 will be able to anfwer this end. 
 
 4. Whether the evidence of the attainablenefs of a future 
 ftate of happinefs, and of the way to it, is fuch as fuits the capa- 
 cities of all concerned ? Every man has a concernment in this 
 matter. The deirts inquire after a religion that is able 
 to fave all, whereof every man, if he but pleafe, may have 
 the eternal advantage. Novi^ then the queflion is. Whe- 
 ther the cafe is fo dated, as that every man, who is in earncf^, 
 if he has but the ufeof reafon, however (hallov/ his capacity is, 
 how great foever his inevitable entanglements and hinderanccs 
 frxym clofe application are, may attain to this certainty about 
 this end, and ihc way to ii? For it muft be allowed that there is 
 a vart difference among men as to capacity. Men are no more 
 of one meafure in point of intellectual abilities, than in ftature. 
 That may be out of the reach of one, which another may eafily 
 attain to. Now, may as much be certainly known by the 
 meaneft capacity as is neceffaiy for him to know ? Again, all 
 men have not alike ieifure. That may be impoffible to roe, if 
 I am a poor man, obliged to work hard to earn my own and 
 family's bread, which would not be fo if 1 had Ieifure and op« 
 portunity to follow my ftudies. Now, if thefe difcoveries, 
 both as to their truth, certainty and fuitablenefs, are not fuch 
 as the meaneft, notwithfianding any Inevitable hinderances 
 he may be under, may reach, they will not anfwer the end. 
 
 5. Whether, fuppofing all the former, every man, however 
 furroundcd with temptations, and inveigled with corrupt in- 
 clinations, or other hinderances, which he cannot evite, is yet 
 able, without any fupply of fupernatural firength, to comply 
 fo far with all thofe duties, as is abfolutely needful in order to 
 obtain this eternal happinefs? Whatever our knowledge is, 
 we are not the better for it, unlefs we are able to yield a prac- 
 tical compliance. 
 
 The deifts have the affirmative of all thefe queflions to make 
 
 good# 
 
8S AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, iv, 
 
 good. How thcv acquit themfelves in this, we fliall fee after- 
 wards. The fafk, as any one may fee, is fufficiently difficult. 
 And I do not know, that any one of them who has yet wrote, 
 hath given any evidence that they undeiOood the ftate of the 
 queftion in its full extent. They huddle it up in the dark, 
 that the weaknefs of their proof may not appear. And per- 
 liaps they are not willing to apply their thoughts fo clofely to 
 the fubje6l, as is requifite, in order to take up the true ftate of 
 the controverfy. 
 
 The more remifs and carelefs they have been this way, we 
 had fo much the more to do to Aate the queftion truly betwixt 
 us and them. And having done this, v/e fhall next proceed to 
 make good our part of it. 
 
 A negative is not eafily proven, which puts us at fome lofs. 
 It has been denied that it can in fome cafes be proven. But 
 we hope, in this cafe, we are able to offer fuch reafons as will 
 juftify us in holding the negative in this debate. And wc {l»all 
 fee next whether they are able to demonfirate the affirmative^ 
 and offer as good reafons for it, as we fhall give againrt it. 
 And it is but reafonable they ihould offer better, in a matter 
 of fo great concern. 
 
 C H A P. IV. 
 
 Proving the Infufficiency of Natural Religion^ from the Infuf- 
 ficiency of its Difcoveries of a Deity. 
 
 THOUGH it belongs to the afiferters of \\\q Efficiency of 
 natural religion, to juflify by argument their affertion, and we 
 v/ho are upon the negative, might fuperfede any further debate 
 until fuch time, as we fee how they can acquit themfelves here ; 
 yet truth, not triumph, being the defign of our engaging in 
 the contefl, that none may think we are without reafon in our 
 denial, and that wc put them upon the proof, only to difficult 
 them, we fhall now by fome arguments endeavour to evince the 
 infufficiency of natural religion. 
 
 The firli argument 1 (liall improve to this purpofe is deduced 
 from the infufficiency of thofe difcoveries, which the light of na- 
 ture is able to make of God. Nothing is more plain than this, 
 that religion is founded upon the knowledge of the Deity ; and 
 that our regard for him will be anfwerable to the knowledge 
 
 we 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 89 
 
 wc have of him. That religion therefore which is defe6live 
 here is lame with a witnefs : And if nature's light cannot af* 
 ford fuch notices of the Deity, as are fufficient or neceffary to 
 beget and maintain religion amongft men, then it can never 
 with any rational man be allowed fufficient to dire6\ men in 
 religion. 
 
 Now, for clearing this argument, feveral things are to be dif- 
 courfed. And firft of all, it is requifite, that we ftate fuch a 
 notion of religion in general, as may be allowed to pafs with 
 all, who are, or can reafonably be fuppofed competent judges 
 in fuch matters. Religion then, in general, may be juftly 
 faid to import that veneration, rej'peci or regard ^ which is due 
 from the rational creature, in his whole coiirfe or life, to the 
 fupreme fuper eminently excellent Beings his Creator, Preferverj 
 Lord or Governor and Benefador* 
 
 The aBions of the rational creature, which may come under 
 the notion of religion, are of two ibrts ; Some of them do di- 
 rectly, prop'erly and immediately import a regard or refpe<5^ to 
 God as their end ; which they are immediately and properly 
 defigned to exprefs. Such a61:sare called aBs of worfiip. And 
 religion is more eminently thought to confift in thefe, and that 
 not without reafon. Yea, by fome it is wholly, and againft 
 all reafon, confined to them, and circumfcribed within thofe 
 bounds. Again, there are other a6\ions, which, though they 
 have other more proper, dire6l and immediate ends, on account 
 whereof they undergo various denominations, yet they alfo 
 are, or may be, and certainly (hould be fubordinate to that, 
 which, though it is not the proper, moft immediate, and dif- 
 tinguilhing end of thefe actions, yet is the common and ulti- 
 mate end, at which all a man's anions Ihould be levelled. 
 Now all the a6lions of a rational creature, which are of this 
 laft fort, as referred to a Deity, and importing fomewhat of re- 
 ligion, may be termed a6^s of 7noral obedience. In fo far they 
 are religious, and come within the compafs of our confideration, 
 as they exprefs any refpe£l to God. And they exprefs and 
 import regard to God, in as far as they quadrate with the mo- 
 ral law, which is the inflrument of God's moral government of 
 the v/orld ; and therefore if they are right and agreeable to this 
 rule, they may be termed ads of moj;al obedience, to diftin- 
 guiCn them from thefe ads, which are folely and more flri6\ly 
 religious, and are called a6ts of worlhip. 
 
 But 
 
 L 
 
90 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. iv. 
 
 But to rpeak fomewhat more particularly cf this regard that 
 IS due to God, it is as evident as any thing can, that it mufl 
 be, 
 
 1. In \\s Jor?nal nature different from that refpetS^, uhich 
 we may allov/abiy pay to any creature ,* that is, it mufi be 
 given on accounts no way common to him with any of the 
 creatures, but on account of thofe diftinguilhing excellencies, 
 which are his incommunicable glory. None can reafonably 
 deny this, fince it muft be allowed by all, that religious refpeB 
 due to God, and civil rejpetl due to creatures are difierent, 
 and muft be principally differenced by the grounds whereon 
 the refpe6t to che one or other is paid. Now the grounds 
 whereon this homage is due unto the Deity, arc, the fuperemi- 
 nent, nay, infmite excellency of his nature and perfe61ions, 
 and his indiiputably fupreme, abfoiute and independent fo- 
 vereignty over all his creatures, v^hich flands eternally firm 
 and undiaken, as being fupported by that Jupereniinency of his 
 excellency^ his creation, prtjtrvation, and benefits' Now none 
 of thefe grounds are, in any degree, comm.unicabls to the 
 creatures ; and fo to talk of a religious worfhip due to the crea- 
 Jure, is to fpeak nonfenfe uith a witnefs. 
 
 2. This veneration we give to God muR be i-.tenfively, or 
 as to degree, not only fuperior to that which we give to any 
 creature, but even Jupreme. It is not enough, that we love 
 God on accounts peculiar to him ; but we muft love him with 
 a love fuperior to that which we give any creature, and au" 
 
 Jwerahle to thofe accounts, whereon we do love him. And 
 the like may be faid as to other inOances. There is no need 
 of infixing in the proof of this. Would our king be pleafed, 
 if we paid him no more refpe61 than we do his fervant ? Is 
 the diftance betwixt God and tlie highcil creature lefs confider- 
 ^ble, than that which is betwixt a king and his meanefl fub- 
 je<5l ? Nay, is it not infinitely more? How ran it then rea- 
 fonably be expecSied that the fame degree of refpe6l we pay 
 to the creatures, will find acceptance, or anfwer the duty we 
 owe to the glorious and evcr-blefi'cd Lord God? 
 
 3. This veneration muft be extenfively fuperior to that paid 
 to any of the creatures. Our regard to the Deity mufl not be 
 confmed to one fort of our a6\ions, (thofe, for inHance, which 
 are religious in a JlriB Jenfe, or more plainly, ads ofwovjliip) ; 
 but it muft run through every a6^.ion of our life, inWard and 
 outvv'ard. Every a61ion is a dependent of God's, and owes him 
 
 homage. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE PvlODERM DEISTS. 91 
 
 homage. It 13 otherwife wltli men ; for to one fort of men, we 
 may owe refpe6i, in one fort of our avftions, and owe them none 
 in another, A child, in filial duties, owes his hiher rc^JpeSl ; 
 .as a fubjecl, he owes his governor reverence ; and fo of other 
 inftances of a like nature: But to no one creature is he, in all 
 re/'pecls, fubjeci, or obliged by every a6tion to exprefs any re- 
 gard. And the reafon is plain ; he is fubje6^ to none of them 
 in all refpe^fts wherein he is capable of a6iing. But, with re- 
 ipecl to God, the matter is quite otherwife: Whatever he has 
 is from God, and to him he is in all refpeHs fubjec^, on him he 
 every way depends. The power your father has over you, he 
 derives from God, and it is God that binds the duties you are 
 to pay your father on you ; and therefore God is to be owned 
 as fupremz, even in every a6l of duty that you perform to your 
 father, your king, your neighbour, or yourfelf : for you 
 are in all refpects his. While you are fubordinate on various 
 accounts to others, yet flill God is in every regard fupreme 
 and fovireign Lord and difpoftr of you and your a«5\ions, and 
 therefore you owe him a regard, in every thing you think, 
 fpeak or do. I tliink this plain enough. 
 
 I hope this account of the nature of religion in general, will 
 not be found liable to any confiderable exceptions^ it being no 
 other than fuch as the firll view of the nature of the thing offers 
 to any that fcrioally confiders it. And from this account it is 
 evident, that religion is founded on the knowledge of a Deity, A 
 Hind devotion that is begot and maintained, either by profound 
 ignorance of God, or confufed notions of him, anfwers neither 
 man's nature, which is rational, and requires that he proceed 
 in all his avSiions, efpeciaiiy thofe of moR moment, rationally, 
 that is, with knowledge and vvillingnefs ; nor will it obtain ac- 
 ceptance, as that which anfwers his duty, wherebyhe is obliged 
 to ferve God with the be[I and in the higheft wav that his faculties 
 admit him. The contrary fuppoution of Papifts is a fcandalous 
 reproach to the nature^ both of God and man ; and an engine 
 fuited only unto the felnili defign of the villainous priefts, who, 
 that they may have the conduct of men's fouls, and fo the ma- 
 nagement of their eftates, have endeavoured \o hood-wink man, 
 and make him brutiOi, where he fhould be motl rational ; and 
 that they may have the hefty they make him prefent God with 
 the blind and the laraey v/hich \i.\s foul abhors* 
 
 This being, in general, clear, that the knowledge of God is 
 tfiefoundaticrt of all acctptahle religion, it is now proper to in- 
 ■ ■ ■ ■ quire 
 
AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, iv, 
 
 ire zvhat difcoveries of God are requifite to bring man to fuch 
 eligion, as has been above defcribed, and to keep him up in 
 ■ practice of it. Now if we look ferioafly into this matter, I 
 nkwe may lay down the following pofition, as clear beyond 
 ional contradiction. 
 
 [. That a particular knozoledge of God is requifite to this pur- 
 e, to beget and maintain this reverence for the Deity, which is. 
 
 undoubted due. It is not enough that we have fome general 
 ;3ons, however extenfive. To conceive of God in the general, 
 t he is the heft and greateft of beings, optimus viaximus, is 
 t enough. The reafon is obvious: we muft have in every 
 t of actions, nay, in each particular action, that knowledge 
 ich may influence and guide us to that refpe6l, which is 
 :i to him, in that fort of adtions, or that particular one; but 
 s general notion having no more refpecf to one than another, 
 11 not do. It direiSls us no more in one than another, unlefs 
 ; particulars that are comprehended under that general be ex- 
 lined to, and undt*rftood by the a61or. 
 
 2. That knowledge, which will anfwer the end, mufl he large 
 d comprehenfive. This religion is not to be confined to one 
 rtlcular fort of a6lions, but to run through all, and therefore 
 ;re muft be a knowledge, not merely of one or two per- 
 tions of the divine nature, but of all : not fimply, as if God 
 re to be comprehended, but of all thofe perfections and pre- 
 2;at]ves of God, which require our regard in our particular 
 tions, in fo far as they are the ground of our veneration, 
 s for inftance, to engage me to irufl God, I muft know his 
 wfir, his care and knozoledge ; to engage me to pray to him, 
 mufl be perfuaded of his knozoledge., of his willingnejs and 
 wer to affift me in the fuit I put up ; to engage me to Icve 
 m, I mull know the amiahlenefs of his perfections; to engaae 
 1 to pay him obedience, I muft know his authority, the laws 
 
 has flampcd it on, and that he has fixed a law to thefe par- 
 :ular aClioiis, either more general or mote fpeciaL Whence 
 bein^'^ ^^vident, that different actions require different views 
 
 Gcd in order to their regulation ; and all a mean's aCtions 
 ing under rule, there mufl be a large and comprehenftvc 
 lowlcdge of God to guide him in his whole courfe. 
 3. It being no lefs than an univerfal religion that is to be 
 light after, the difcoverits of God wherein it muft be founded, 
 ufi Ijc plain to the capacities of aJl mankind ; and that both 
 
 to the truth of thefe difcoveries and their ufe. It is certain 
 
 that 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 93 
 
 that all men are no more of the fame meafure of underHanding 
 than they are in ftatuie. However important the difcovery is, 
 if it is above my reach, it is all one to me as if it vi ere not dif- 
 covered at all. To tell me of fuch a thing, but it is In the 
 clouds, is to amufe and not to inflruft me. There may in- 
 deed, fuppofing an nniverfal religion, be fomewhat of differ- 
 ence as to knowledge allowed, as to fome of the concernments 
 of this religion, to perfons of more capacity and induftry, and 
 who have more time ; but if is calculated for the good of all 
 mankind, the difcoveries muft be fuch, as all i\ ho are con- 
 cerned may reach, as to all its efTentials ; for the meaneft nave 
 as much concernment in them as the greatcft. 
 
 4« It is mofl: evident, that thtfc difcoveries muft be certain^ 
 or come recommended by fuch evidence as may be convincing 
 and fatisfying to every mind. Conjectural difcoveries, or fur- 
 mifes of thefe things, built upon airy and fubtile fpeculations, 
 are not firm enough to eftablifh fuch a perfuaficn of truth in 
 the foul, as may be able to influence this univerfal regard, over 
 the belly of the (Irongeft inward bias and outward rubs. 
 
 5. The evidence of thefe things mujl he abiding ; fuch as may 
 be able to keep up the foul in a conftant adherence to duty. 
 It is not one day tliat man is to obey, but always ; and there- 
 fore thefe difcoveries muft lie fo open to the mind at all tin^ies, 
 as that the foul may by them be confiantly kept up in its ad- 
 herence to duty. If from any external or internal caufe, tliere 
 may arife fuch obflru6\ions as a ay for one day keep man from 
 thofe difcoveries, or the advantage of them ; he may ruin, nay, 
 mud ruin him.felf by failing in his duty ; or at leaO, if he is 
 not ruined, he is laid open to it. 
 
 6. Upon the whole it appears, \h2^\\o^o\ix\^ natural rehgion^ \ 
 or to introduce and maintain among men that regard v/hich is | 
 due to the Deity, there is requifite fuch a large^ comprehenfivcj . 
 certain^ plain^ and abiding difcovery^ as may have fvfficiait y 
 
 force to influence to a compliance with his du-y in all,injianc€S. i 
 
 Thus far matters feem to be carried on with fufficient evi- 
 dence. We are now come to that which feems to be the prin" 
 cipal hinge, whereon the whole controverfy, about \\\^ juffi- 
 ciency of natural religion, turns; in fo far at leaO, as it is to 
 be determined by this argument. Now this is, Whether na- 
 ture's light can indeed afford fuch difcoveries of God, as are 
 evinced to be neceffary for the fupport of religion? If it can- 
 not, then it is found irfufficient ; if it can, then natural rell- 
 
 gipii 
 
54 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. iv. 
 
 gjoii Is thus hr acqultled from the charge laid againft it. Now 
 to attempt the decifion of this queiiion iaccefsfully, it is necef- 
 fury that we ftate it right. It is not then the quefiion, vVhe- 
 ther 2« ?2aturc there is fujicicni obje^live light ? as the ichools 
 barbaroullv fpeak ; that is, Whether in the works of creation 
 and providence, which lie open to our view, or are the obje6l 
 of our contemplauon, there are fuch prints of God, which, if 
 ihey were ail fully underftood by us, are fufticieat to this pur- 
 pofe ? For ihs queftion is not concerning tlic woiks of God 
 without us, but concerning us. The pluin queftion is this, 
 *- Whether man can, from thofe Vv'Oiks of God alone, without 
 the help of revelation, obtain fuch a knowledge of God, as is 
 iuffxient to the purpofe mentioned^" 
 
 Now the quefiion being concerning our power, or rather the 
 exfeut of ou,r pozccr, 1 know but four ways that can be thought 
 upon to come to a point about it : Either, 
 
 1, By divine revelation we may be informed what natures 
 light unaffifted can do. We would willingly put the matter on 
 this illbe : Our adverfarics will not ; fo we fnall leave it. Or, 
 
 2. So'.ne apprehen4 that the way to decide this, is, to take 
 our meafures from the nature of God; and to inquire, When 
 God was to make or did frame man, with what powers it was 
 proper for him to endue him ? or, with what exftnt oj power, 
 conndering the infinite wifdom, goodnefs and power of the 
 Creator? This way the djiOs would go. But, i. It feems a 
 little prefumptuous for us to prefcribe, or meafure what was fit 
 for God to do, by what appears to us fit to have been done. 
 For when we have foared as high as we can, we mufl fall down 
 again ; for God's counfels are too deep for us, and if we ibould 
 think this or that fit for God, yet he having a more full view 
 of things, may think quite the contrary ; and thus all that we 
 can co:ne to here in this way, is but a weak and prefumptuous 
 conjcraure. 2. If in fact, what we think fit, or conjecture 
 fit for God to have done, it be evident that God has not 
 done ; that he has given no fuch power or ex/.ent of it, as we 
 judge ncceflary, our judgment is not only weakly founded, 
 but plainly falfe; yea, and impious to boot : For if God has 
 done otherwife, it is certain that the way which we prefcribed 
 was not bed ; nor can we hold by our own apprehenfion, what- 
 ever piezus it is built on, without an implicit charge of folly a- 
 gainft God. q. Whatever we may pretend the wifdom of God 
 requires to be done for, cr given to man, if by ao divine a^i 
 
 there 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 95 
 
 there is any evidence that he has (o done, though there be 
 ro proof of his having done the contrary, yet it weakens the 
 evidence of ai( we can fay, if the thing is fuch in its nature, as 
 would be known by experience, if exiftent ; becaufe, in that 
 cafe, the whole ftrefs of cur argument leans upon a fuppofuicn 
 that we are capable of judging of the wifdcm of God, while it 
 is certain, we have not ail thofe circumftanccs under our view, 
 which may make it really fit to ^Ol this May rather than that, 
 or that way rather than this, which on the other hand he cer- 
 tainly hss. This way then we cannot decide the cafe. 
 
 3. We may immediately perhaps judge of the extent of 
 mans ability m this fort, by a dirzd inquiry into the nature of 
 the powers*' But this way is as uncertain as the former; for 
 there is no agi cement amcngfl the mofi judicious about the na- 
 ture of thofe powers, without endlefs controvcrfies. And all 
 that are really judicious own fuch darknefs in this matter, that 
 will not allow them to pretend them,felves capable to decide the 
 queliion this way. It is little we know of the nature, or poic- 
 ers, or aStings of fpirits : Nor do I believe that ever any per- 
 fon that underftands, will pretend to decide, the controverfy 
 this way. Wherefore, 
 
 4. We mud, upon the whole, give over the bufmefs, or in- 
 quire into the extent of our ability by experience ; and judge 
 what man can do by what he has done. If not one has made 
 fufficient difcoveries of God, it is rafn to fay that any one can 
 by the mere light of nature make them : More cfpecially it will 
 appear fo, if we confider, that all mankind muft be pretended 
 equally capable of ihefe difcoveries, which concern their own 
 practice. It is (Irange to pretend that all are capable of doing 
 that which none has done. Further, thefe difcoveries are not of 
 that fort that may be fufficient to anfwer their end, if one in 
 one age iliall m.ake fom»e fieps towards them, and another after- 
 wards improve them : But it is neceOary that every one, in 
 every age, and at every period of his life, have exad"! ac- 
 quaintance with tliem, in fb far as is needful to rcgulnte his 
 practice in that period of his life. W'hen I am in one flation, 
 I muft either fail in the refpect due to Gcd, and fo lay myfelf 
 open to juftice, or I mufi know as much of Gcd, as is requi- 
 {ne to influence a due regard in that Haticn, or that part cf m.y 
 life that now runs ; and therefore an univcrfal dt^t^ as to thofe 
 difcoveries muft inevitably overthrow the pretendtd ability cf 
 maa to make ihefe difcoveries, and confequently i\\t fufficiency 
 
 of 
 
96 » AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, iv 
 
 of natures light \o beget or maintain religion, which cannot be 
 fupported without them. 
 
 Now for clearing this matter, It is to be confiderfd, that 
 what wc are upon is a negative, and it belongs to thofe who 
 aflirm man abU to make fuck difcoveries of God, to (how by whom 
 and where thefe difcoveries have been made, or to produae 
 thofe notices oi God that are built on the inere light oj nature f 
 that zxt fujicient to this purpofe. Now none of them dare pre- 
 tend this has been done, or, at leafl, ftiew who has done it, or 
 make the attempt themfelves; and therefore we might take it as 
 confeiTed, that it is not to be done. 
 
 But if it is ftill pretended, that this has been done, though 
 without telling us by whom, or pointing to thefe difcoveries 
 where we may find them ; 
 
 1 anfwer, How Ihall we know this ? May we know it by the 
 efFe6ts of it, in the lives of thofe, who either have had no other 
 light i'ave that of nature, as it was with the philofophers of old be- 
 fore Chrift, or who own none other fave that of nature, as the deifis 
 and others who rejected Chrlflianity ? Truly if we judge by this 
 rule, we are fure the negative will be much confirmed? For it is 
 plain that thofe notions of a God, which were entertained by the 
 philofophers of old, influenced none of them to glori/y ki?n as 
 God. The vulgar Fleathens were void of any rcfpec\ to the true 
 God; nay, by the whole of their pra6lice bewrayed the pro- 
 foundeft ignorance, and moft contemptuous difregard of him. 
 The philofophers, not one of them excepted, whatever notions 
 they had of a Deity, and whatever length fome of them went 
 in morality, upon other inducenents, yet Ihewed nothing like to 
 xh^xX peculiar, high and extenfive reJpeSl to the one true God which 
 we now inquire after. We may bid a defiance to the delfts, to 
 fliew us any thing like It in the practice even of a Socrates, a 
 Plato, a Seneca, or any others of them. Their virtue was 
 plainly built upon another bottom. It has been judicioufly ob- 
 i'erved by one of late, that there was little notice taken of God 
 in their ethicks; and I may add, as little regard in their praciice. 
 Nor are the lives of our deifts, or others fince, any better 
 proof of {\-\Q fufpciency of the natural notices of God, to beget 
 and lupport a due veneration for him. 
 
 If the deifis declmc this trial of the fujficiency of thofe dij- 
 coveries of a God, by their influence upon praElice, then we 
 muft look at them in themfelves. And here wc mufi have re- 
 courfe, either to thofe who had no acquaintance with ihc fcrip^ 
 
 ture 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 97 
 
 ttlre revelation ; or to thofe who have given us accounts of God 
 aoiongft ourlelves ; who though they own not the Jcriptures to be 
 from God, y-t have had accefs to them, for the improvement of 
 their own notions about God. The laft fort might be cafl, as 
 incompetent witnelTes in this cafe, upon very relevant giounds. 
 But we fhall give our enemies all that they can de(ire, even as 
 to the advantage they may have this way, that they may fee our 
 caufe is not wanting In evidence and certa-niy* 
 
 We begin then with thofe who have been left to the m^re 
 light of nature, to fpeji out the letters of God's name, from the 
 works of creation and providence, without any acquaintance 
 with the more plain fcripture account of God. Now what we 
 have to fay as to them, we iliall comprize in a few obfervations* 
 
 1. As for the attainments of the vulgar Heathens , there is no 
 place for judging of them otherwife than by their pra8ice. 
 They have configned nothing to writing, and fo we have no 
 other way to guefs at their opinions in matters of rdigion^ but 
 either by their praBice, or by afcribing to them the principles of 
 thofe, who in their refped^ivc countries, had the difpofal of 
 thefe matters. Whichfoever way we confider the matter, it mud 
 be owned that the vulgar Heathens were iVjpidlv ignotant as to 
 the truths of religion. If we make their praBice the meafure 
 of judging, which in this cafe is necelTary, none can hefitate 
 about it. If we make the principles and knowledge of their 
 leaders the ftandard, whereby we are to judge of their attain- 
 ments, and make a fuitable abatement, becaufe fcholars mud 
 always be fuppofed to know lefs than their mafters, I am fure 
 the matter will net be much mended, as the enfuing remarks 
 will in part clea?'. 
 
 2. As to the philofopher5, if I had time and opportunity to 
 prefent in a body or fyjlcnidW that has been faid, not by one of 
 them, but by ail the beft of them put together, it would put any 
 one that reads, to wonder, that they, ** who weie fuch giants," 
 as an excellent perfon fpeaks, " in all other kinds of literature^ 
 ** Ihould prove fuch dwarfs in divinity, that they mipht go to 
 *^ fchool to get a lelTon from the mod ignorant of Chriflians that 
 *^ know any thing at all *." Any one that will but ^ive himfelf 
 the trouble to perufe their opinions about God, as they lie fcat- 
 tered in their writings, or even where they are propofed to 
 more advantage by thofe, who have colle6^ed and put them to- 
 gether, 
 
 * See Char. Wolfeky's Rcafonablenefs of Scripture Belief* 
 
 M 
 
9^ AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, iv- 
 
 gether, will Toon be convinced of how low a ftature their divi- 
 nity was, and how juftly the apoOle Paul faid, that by their 
 wifdom they knew not God' All their knowledge of God was 
 no more than plain and grofs ignorance, of which the heft of 
 them were not ignorant, and therefore Thales, Solon, Socrutes, 
 and many others, fpcke either nothing of God at all, or that 
 which was next to nothing. And it had been well for others, if 
 they had done fo too ; what they fpoke, not only failing Ihort 
 of a fufficient account, but prefenting moft abominable and mif- 
 ihapcn notions about God ; of uhich we have a large account in 
 Cicero de Natura Deoriim *. 
 
 3. Befides that endlefs variety amongft different perfcns, in 
 their opinions about a Deity, which is no mean evidence of 
 their darknefs, even the very fame perfons, who feem to give 
 the bell accounts, are wavering and uncertain, fay and unfay, 
 feem pofitive in one place, and immediately in the very next 
 fcntence feem to be uncertain and fluctuating. Thus it is with 
 them all, and thus it ufually is with perfons who are but gro- 
 ping in the dark, and know not well how to extricate ihem- 
 felves. 
 
 4. They who go furthefl, have never adventured to give any 
 methodical account. They wanted materials for this ; and 
 therefore give but dark hints here and there. Cicero^ who 
 would make one expe6l fuch an account, Vv'hile he infcribes his 
 book De Natura Deorum, yet eOablifhes fcarce any thing ; but 
 fpends his time in refuting the opinion of others, without daring 
 to advance his own f. 
 
 5. They who have gone furthcO, are too narrow in their ac- 
 counts, they are manifeftly defcdive in the moft material things* 
 
 They 
 
 * Cicero, Lib. i. P. 4. ^// 'vero Deos ejje dixfrunty tanta funt m 
 'varietate ac dijfentione conjlituti^ ut eornm molejlum Jit atinumerare fenten" 
 tias. Nam de fj^uris Deorum Cff de locis atque fcdihus l^ adiom 'vitce^ 
 multa dicuntur, &c. — " But thofe who have affirmed that there are 
 " Gods, have gone into fo great a variety and difference of opinion, that 
 «« it is diiTicuh to enumerate their fentimenrs, for many things are faid 
 « by them concerning the ihapes of ike Gods, their places, habitations, 
 ** and manner of life." 
 
 f De Natura Deorum, Lib. 2. Any inquit, obliius es quod initio dix£' 
 rim, facilius me talihus de rebus, quod non fcntirem quam quod ftntirem 
 dicere p^>JJ'f. — « Have you forgot that I told you at the beginning, that 
 « I could more eafily tell what 1 did not think, than what I thought, 
 « of thef^ matters !" 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 
 
 99 
 
 They are all referred about the number cf the Gods. It is 
 true (he beft do own that there is one Supreme ; but then there is 
 fcarce any of them pofuivc that there' are no more Gods fave 
 one. No not Socrates himfelf, who Is fuppofed to die a martyr 
 for this truth, durft own this plainly. And while this is unde- 
 termined, all religion is left loofe and uncertain ; and mankind 
 cannot know how to diliribute their regard to the feveral dei- 
 ties. Hence another defeat arifes, and that is about the fuptr' 
 eminency of the divine excellencies' Although the Supreme 
 Being may be owned fuperior in order ; yet the inferior deities 
 being fuppofed more immediate in their influence, this will 
 fubftradt from the Supreme Deity much of his refpedl, and be- 
 ftow it clfewhere. Moreover, about God's creating power their 
 accounts are very uncertain, few of them owning it plainly. 
 Nor are any of them plain enough about the fpecial providence 
 of God, without which it is impoflibie to fupport religion in the 
 world. 
 
 6. As their accounts are too narrow, fo in what they do own 
 they are too general. But v^ill this maintain religion? No, by 
 no means. But there muft be a particular diicovery of thefe 
 things. Well, do they afford this ? Nay, fo far are they from 
 explaining themfelves to any purpofe here, that induftrioufly 
 they keep in dark generals. The divine exce'lencieSf unlefs it 
 be a few negative ones, they do feldom attempt any explication 
 of. H\s providence they dare not attempt any particular account 
 of. The extent of it to a!l particular a6i:ions is denied by many 
 of their fchools, owned diflincl:iy by fcWf if any ; but particularly 
 cleared up by none of them*. The laws whereby he rules men 
 are no where declared. When fome of them are infifted on in 
 tlic'ir eihicksf the authority of God in them, which is the only 
 fupreme ground of obedience, and that which alone can lay any 
 foundation for our acceptance in that obedience at God's hand, 
 is no where taken notice of. The holmefs of the divine nature, 
 which is the great reftraint from fin, is little noticed, except 
 where fome of the more abominable evils are fpoke of. The 
 
 goodnefs 
 
 * DoSlrinam de procidentia rerum particularijice gratia a 'vete-' 
 
 ribus (quatenus ex eorum libris qui extant, coilegi poteji) remijfius crcdi oh" 
 fer-jamus: Herbert de VeritaLC, pag. 271, 272. — " Vv'e obferve that 
 *< the dodrine of univerfai providence and particular grace was bat 
 " faintly believed by the ancients, io far as can bi colieilcd from 
 " their books." 
 
loo AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. iv. 
 
 goodncfs of God as a rewarder^ is not by any of them cleared 
 up* And yet upon thefe things the whole of religion hangs, 
 which by them are either wholly pafled over, or mentioned in 
 generals, or darkened by explications that give no light to the 
 generals; at leaf!:, and for moft part, are fo far from explain- 
 ing, that thev obfcure, nay corrupt them, by blending perni- 
 cious falfhoods withtli/C moft valuable truths. 
 
 •7. The difcoveries they offer are not for the moft part pro- 
 ven, but merely aflerted. Their notions are moft of them 
 learned from tradition, and they Were, it would feem, at a iofs 
 about arguments to fupport them. Where the greateft certain- 
 ty is required, leaft is found. 
 
 8. Where they do produce arguments, as they do fometimes, 
 for the being and providence of God in general, they are too 
 (dark and nice, both in matter and manner^ to be of any ufe to 
 the generality of mankind. 
 
 To have produced particular inftances for the juftificatlop 
 of each of thefe obiervations, would have been too tedious. 
 Any one that would defire to be fatisfied about them, may be 
 fully furnilhed with inftances, if he will give himfelf the 
 trouble to perufe Cicero de Natura Deoru?n, Diogenes Laer- 
 tius's Lives of the Philofophers, or Stanley's Lives ; but efpe- 
 cially the writings of the feveral philofophersthemfelves con- 
 cerning this fubject. Nor v/ili this taflv be very tedious, if he- 
 is but directed to the places where they treat of God : For they 
 iiifift not long on tliis fubjed^j and the better and wifer fort of 
 them are moft fparing. 
 
 When I review thefe obfervations, which occurred by my rea- 
 ding the works of the Heathens, and their opinions concerning 
 God, I could not but admire the grofs inadvertancy, to give it no 
 yi^orfe word, of the deifts, (and more efpeciaily 0/ the late lord 
 Herbert, who vjas a man of learning and application) who pre- 
 tend that tlie knowledge of tbofe general attributes of God, his 
 greatiicfs and goodnefs, vulgarly expreffed by Gplivius Maximus, 
 are fufficient : Since it is plain from what has been faid, i. That 
 this general knowledge is of no fignificancy to influence fuch a 
 peculiar, high arid extenfive, pra(5^ical regard to the Deity, as 
 the notion of religion necetfariiy imports. Of which even Blount 
 was, it feems, aware, when he ccnfcfies in his Religio Laid, 
 that there is a neccflity that his articles muft be well explainedo 
 ?. It is plnn that the philofophers, and confcquently the com- 
 pson people, did not underftand well the meaniij^ of thofe arti- 
 
 cles^ 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. loi 
 
 cles, or of thofe general notions concerning: God, at leaft, in 
 any degree anlwerable to the end we now have in view. 
 
 I dare lubmll thele obiervations, as to their truth, to any im- 
 partial perfon, who will be at pains to try them, upon the 
 grapting of a twofold reafonable demand. I. That he wiii con- 
 sult either the authors themfelvcs, or thofe, who cannot be fuf- 
 pe(Sted of any bias, by their being Chriflians, which 1 hope de- 
 iils will think jufi ; fuch as Cicero, Diogenes Lacrtius, &c. or 
 thofe who have made large colle6iions, not merely of their 
 general fentences concerning God ; but of their explications. In 
 which fort Stanley excels. 2. I require that, in reading the 
 authors, that they do not lay hold on z general ajfertion, and fo 
 run a.vay, without confidering the whole of Mhat the authors 
 fpeak on that head. 1 he reafons why I make thefe demands, 
 are, firft, fome perfons defigning, for one end or other, to il- 
 luftrate points in ChriRianity with quotations from Heathen au- 
 thors, i2L\kc up general exprtjjions, which feem congruous v^itn, 
 or may be the fame, which the fcripture ufes, without confidsnng 
 how far they differ, when they both defcend to a particular ex- 
 plication of thole general words. Again, fonje Chriftians, wri- 
 ting the Jves of philofophers, and colle6ting their opinions, are 
 milled by favour to fome particular perfons, of whom they have 
 conceived a vaft idea, and therefore either fupprefs or wrefl 
 v/hat may detract from the perfon they defign to magnify. M. 
 Dacier, for inftance, has written the life of Plato: but that ac- 
 count is the ilTue of a peculiar favour for that philofopher's notions 
 in general ; and it is evidently the aim of the writer to recon- 
 cile his fentiments to the Chriflian religion* A v/ork that iome 
 others have attempted before. To this purpofe Plato's words 
 are wrefted, and fuch conftrutlions put on them, as can no other 
 way be juftified, but by fuppofmg that no material points of the 
 Chriftian religion could be hid from Plato,or his mafter Socrates. 
 And yet after all, Plato's grofs miOakes, and that in matters of 
 the highefl import ; yea, and fuch of them, as are fuppofed, 
 generally, to lie within the reach of nature's light, are fo ob- 
 vious and difcernible, that the evidence of the thing extorts an 
 acknowledgment. To give but one inflance ; after the writer 
 has made a great deal ado about Plato's knowledge of the Tri- 
 nity* , a flory which hath been oft toJd, but never yet proven, 
 jt is plainly acknowledged, that he fpeaks of the Three Perfons 
 
 of 
 
 * M, Dacier's Life of Plato, pag. i|i. 
 
I02 AN INQ^UIllY INTO THE chap. iv. 
 
 of ^he Deity as of three Gods, and three different principles ; 
 M'hich 13, in phin terms, to throw down all that was built be- 
 fore, and prove that Piato knew neither the Truiity, nor the 
 one true G d' Finally, general fentences occur in thofe au- 
 thors, which Teem to import much more knowledge oF God, 
 thin a further fearch into their writings will allow us to believe 
 they hid : For any one will quickly fee, that in thofe general 
 expreHrions, they fpoke as children that underilood not what 
 they fay, or at leai^, have but a very imperfect notion of it. And 
 though this may feem a fevere refledlion on thefe great men ; 
 yet I am fure none fhali impartially read them, who will not own 
 it juft. 
 
 Bjt now, to return to our fubje£t, this fufficient difcovery of 
 God not being found amongft thofe, who were flrangers to the 
 fcrptures and Chriftianity, let us next proceed to confider thofe, 
 who have had accefs to the fcriptures, and lived fince the Chrif- 
 tian reli-:ion obtained in the world. And here it muft be owned, 
 that fince that time philofophers have much improven natural 
 theology, and given a far better account of God, and demonilrated 
 many of his attributes from reafon,that were little known before,, 
 to the confuiion of atlieills. From the excellent performances of 
 this kind, which are many, I defign not to detracl:. I am con- 
 tent that a due value be put on them : but ftill 1 am for putting 
 them only in their own place, and afcribing no more to them, 
 than isrejlly their due. Wherefore, notwithftanding what has been 
 now readily granted, I tliink I may confidently otter the few fol- 
 lowing remarks on them. 
 
 1. We might ju'dly refufe tliem, as no proper meafure of the 
 ability of una jjijltdr talon, in as much as it cannot be denied, that 
 the l^ghty whereby thofe difcoveries have been made, was bor- 
 rowed from the fcriptures: of which none needs any other proof 
 than merely to confider the vafi improvement of knowledge, as 
 to thofe matters, immediately after the fpreading of Chriilianity, 
 which cannot, with any tliew of reafon, be otherwife accounted 
 for, than by owning that this light was derived from the fcriptures^ 
 SLiid the obfervation and writings of ChriPiians, vvh5ch made even 
 the Heathens alhamed of their former notions of God. But not to 
 infifl: on this. 
 
 2. Who have made thofe improvements of natural theology? 
 Not the Heathens or deifls. It is little any of th-m have done 
 this way. The accurate fyflems of natural theology have come 
 from Chriftian philofophers, who do readily own that the fcrip- 
 
 ture 
 
PRINCIPLES OF TBE MODERN DEISTS. 
 
 103 
 
 ture points them, not only to the notions of God they therein 
 deliver, but alfo to many of the proofs WkewKe, and llat their 
 reafon, if not thus adii^ed, would have failed them as nuich, 
 as that of the old philofophers did them. 
 
 3. It is worthy our obfervation, that fuch of the Chilians, who 
 favour the deilis mod, fuch as the Socini^ns and fome others, do 
 give moft lame and defediive accounts of God* They who lean 
 much to reafon^ their reafon leads them into thofe miftakes about 
 the nature 2^u& knowledge oi God, which tend exceedingly to wea- 
 ken the pTCL&icalinfluenceoi the notion of a God. And we have 
 reafon to believe that the deifts will be found to join with them, 
 in their grofs notions of God, as ignorant of ihc free aGions of 
 men, before they arc done, and as not fo particularly ccncerned 
 about them in his providence, with many fuch-like notions, which 
 iap the foundations of all prad^ical regard to God. 
 
 4. But let the befl of tJiefe fyfltms be condefcended on, they 
 cannot be allowed to conX2i\n Jufficient difcoveiiei of God. For 
 it is evident beyond contradiction, that they are neither full e- 
 nough in explaining what they in the general own, nor do 
 they extend to fome of thofe things v^'hich are of mofi ncceflfity 
 and influence to fupport praBical rdigion. They prove a pro- 
 vidence, but cannot pretend to give any fuch account of if, as 
 can either encourage or direct to any dependence on, truft in, 
 or pra61icai improvement of it. And the like rr^ight be mzdo. 
 appear of other perfections. Again, they cannot pretend to 
 any tolerable account of the remiunerative bounty, the pardon- 
 ing mercy and grace of Gcd, on which the whole of leligion, 
 as things now fiand, entirely hangs. Can they open thefe 
 things fo far as is neceiT?.ry to hold up religion in the world ? 
 They who know what religion is, and what they have done, 
 or may do, will not fay it. 
 
 5. In their proofs of thefe truths, there muft be owned a 
 want cf that evidence, which is requifite to compcfe the mind 
 in the perfuafion of them, and eflablifa it againft cbjections. 
 Let fcripture light be laid afide, which removes objeClions ; and 
 let a man have no more to confirm him of thofe truths fave thefe 
 arguments, the difficulties daily occurring from obvious provi- 
 dences will jumble the obferver fo, that he uill find thefe 
 proofs fcarcely fufficient to keep him firm in his alfent to the 
 trutlis ; and if fo, far lefs will they be able to influence his 
 practice fuitably againft temptations to fin. Now this may arife, 
 not fo much from the real zvcaknefs of the arguments, which 
 
 may 
 
104 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. iv. 
 
 may be conclufive, as from this, that moft of them are rather 
 drawn ah ah far do , than from any clear li^ht about the nature 
 of the object known ; and hence there comes not that light a- 
 long, asto difficulties, which is neceff^ry to remove them. And 
 though thefe arguments filence in difpute, and clofe the adver- 
 fary's mouth ; yet they do not fatisfy the mind. Moreover, 
 fome of no mean confideration, have pretended that many of 
 thefe demonftrations, even as to fome of the moO confidt^rable 
 attributes of God, are inconclufive : Particularly they have 
 alTerted, that the unity of God was not to be proven by the light 
 of nature f nor fpecial providence. But not to carry the matter 
 thus far, it is certain that the force of thefe demonfiratioiiS mufi: 
 Jie very fecret, that fuch perfons, who owned the truths, and 
 bore them <TOod-will, yet could not find it. 
 
 Much more might be faid on this head, but I am not wil- 
 ling to invalidate thefe arguments, or even to (hew all that 
 jnipcht, perhaps, not only be faid, but made app«^ar againft 
 them. But whatever there is as to (his, it is certain that the 
 difcoveries of God by nature's light being fmall, are eafily 
 clouded, by entangling difficulties arifing from the dark occur- 
 rences of providence, and the natural v/eaknefs and unftpidnefs 
 of our minds, which are always to be found in matters fub- 
 lime, and not attended with ftrong evidence. And attention in 
 this cafe will increafe the darknefs, and force on fuch an ac- 
 knowledgment as Simonides made to Fliero, the tyrant of Sy- 
 racufe. That ** the longer he thought about God, the mere 
 ** difficulty he found to give any account of him." 
 
 6. They muft, whatever be allowed as to their validity in 
 themfelves, be owned to be of no \i^c to the generality, nay, 
 to the far greater part of mankind. No man who knows them, 
 and knows the \vorld, v ill pretend that the one half of man- 
 kind is able to comprehend the force of them. And fo they 
 are fiill in the dark about God ; which quite everts the whole 
 {lory about the fufficiency of the natural difcoveries of a Deity. 
 
 7. It is plain, that there is no ferving God, waRing with 
 or worfbipping of him, uithout thoughts, and ferious ones too, 
 oflim. Now his nature and excellencies are infinite, how then 
 fliall we conceive of them ? Our darknefs ard weakncfs will not* 
 allow us to think of him as he is, and conceive thole perfections as 
 they are in him. And to conceive othcrwife is dangerous. We 
 may mifiake in other things without fin ; but to frame wrong, and 
 Other conceptions of God and his excellecies, than the truth of 
 
 the 
 
tRINCiPLES OF THE MODERNIDEISTS. 105 
 
 tlie thing requires, is dangerous and finful ; for it frames an idoL 
 Now though this difnculty may be eafy to lefs attentive minds ; 
 yet it will quite confound pcrfons who are in earned, and under- 
 hand what they are doing, in their approaches to Gcd. Nor 
 can ever the minds of fuch be fatisfied in our prefent ftate, other- 
 wife than by God's telling us, how we are to conceive of him, 
 and authorizing us to do it in a way of condefcenfion to our pre- 
 fent dark and infirm ftate. 
 
 8. 1 cannot forbear to notice, as what warts not its own 
 weight in this cafe, though in condefcenfion we did a little wave 
 arguments drawn from the prad.ical infiutnu of truths t that how- 
 ever great the improvements, as to notions of truths concerning 
 the nature of the Deity may of late have been, vet the effe&s of 
 thefe notices in their highell improvement, have been far from re- 
 commending them, ^s fufficient to the end we have now in view. 
 This natural theology \\2^s vd^xhtr u\7i<\Q men more learned than 
 more pious. Where fcripture truth has not been received in its 
 love ^nd power f men have feldom been bettered by their impJove- 
 ments in natural theology. But we fee in experience, that 
 they who can prove mofl and beft in thefe matters, evidence lead 
 regard to the Deity in their practice. 
 
 1 (hall add one obfervation more, which at once enforces the 
 argument we are upon, againft the fufficiency of natural religion ^ 
 and cuts off a pretended retortion of ir, againl) the Chriftian reli- 
 gion ; and it is this: The religion the deifts plead for, and are o- 
 bliged to maintain. Is a religion that pleads acceptance on its own 
 account, which has no provifion againft^z/z^^ and efcapes, as fhall 
 be demonftrated hereafter ; a religion which confequently muO be 
 more per fed , and fo requires a more exaB knowledge of the Deity in 
 order to its fupport : whereas. theChridian religion is one which 
 is calculated for man in hh fallen ftate; and xht fall is every 
 where in it fuppofed, and a gracious provifion made againft 
 defeBs hi knowledge, SiVid unallozved praiiical ef capes* 
 
 N CHAR 
 
io5 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. v. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Proving the Infufpciency of Natural Religion from its DefeC" 
 tivenefs as to the Worjliip of God, 
 
 THE araument we are to improve againft the Jiifficiency of 
 natural religionm this chapter, might have been coniidered as a 
 branch of the foregoing: But, that we may be more diftin(!^, 
 and to fliew a recr:3rd unto the importance of the matter, we ftiall 
 confider it as a difiinct arcfuTrent by itfelf. 
 
 Now therefore, when we are to fpeakcf the zvorfap oi God, 
 It is not of that inward veneration that confifts in a6is of the 
 mind, fuch ^s efleem, fear, love, trufi, and the like; but of the 
 outward, Rated, and folemn way of expreffing this inzuard vene- 
 rafi.on^ That there (hould not only bean inward regard to the 
 Deity in our minds, inH'encing the whole of our outward deport- 
 ment ; but th t hefides, there (hould be fixed, outward, and fo- 
 lemn ways of rxercliing and expreffing thele inward a6\ings, 
 feems evident bevond any reafonable exception, — 
 
 ,T. From the general agreement of tlie world in this point. 
 All the worid has owned fome word'ip necefl'arv. Every nation 
 and neonle had their peculiar way of worlliip*. It is true, moft of 
 thernvvere ridiculous many of them plainly wicked, and all of 
 them vain; but this makes not againO the thing in general; 
 onlv it befpeaks the darknefs of nature's light, as to the way cf 
 manatrintj in particulars, that which in general it directs to. 
 
 2. The deiffs theinfelvcs own thi^ ni'^ch. Heibert in his trea- 
 tife, de Religione Gentifium, confcfTes it a fecond branch of the 
 generally received reh'gion, for uh'ch he pleads, that GodistO 
 lezvorjiiippsd. It is tru-^, in his next, while be tells us that vir- 
 tue and pif-ty were ow n^d to be the prindpal means of worjhip^ 
 ping him, he would feem to preclude us from the benefit of the for- 
 mer acknowlediment. But yet he dares not allert, that this 
 which h? co-id elcend.'^ on was the onI\ zvay^ and fo pretend the 
 worOiip w;^ fpeak of unneceffary : But Ijeing to hold forth the fuffi- 
 ciency of this natural religmn, he was loth to fpeak any more cf 
 that, wljicii wou'd lead bins if he had ct.nfidcred it, unto a difco- 
 very of its nakednefs. But others of the deifts do own the necef- 
 fityof fucha worlliip, and pretend prayer and praife lufficient to 
 
 tliis 
 
 * Herbert de Veritate, r?-S« 271^ 272. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 107 
 
 this purpofe, as he alio doth in his other treatifes, particularly 
 dt Vent ate*. 
 
 3. The fame rrafons which plead for inward acls, peculiarly 
 directed to this end, plead for outward veneration likewife. If 
 we have minds capable of this inward veneration, lo are we 
 capable of outward expreilions ; and <ire under the fame obli- 
 gation to employ thofe latter forts of powers to the honour 
 of God, that binds us ro the former. Nor is there more rea- 
 fon why, befides that tranfient regard we ought to pay him in 
 all our actions, there ihould be inward a6ts peculiarly defigned 
 to exprefe our in^^ard veneration, than that there fnouid be out- 
 ward ftated acts, peculiarly defigned for the fame purpofe. 
 
 4. The nature of fociety pleads loudly for this. Mankind as 
 united in focieties, whether ielTer, as ifamilies, or greater, as 
 other focieties, depend entirely on God ; and therefore owe him 
 reverence, and the expreffion of it in fome joint and fixed way. 
 Public benefits require public acknowledgments: And this 
 fort of dependence on, and fubjeCtion to the Deity, (hould cer- 
 tainly have fuitable returns. 
 
 5. It is incontrollably evident, that many in the world do 
 fl-iake otFali regard to the Djity, and walk in an open denance 
 to him, and thofe laws which he has eftablijlied. Certainly there- 
 fore, it is the duty of fuch as keep firm, openly to teftify 
 their dependence on and regard to the Deity, which is not fuffi- 
 ciently done by the perform. ince of thofe things, which are mate- 
 rially according to the appointment of God. For what regard to 
 Gjd there is, induencins: to thofe outward ads, cannot be rleai ly 
 diicernei by on -lookers, who kn^^v not but fomewhat, befde any 
 regard to the authority of the lawgiver, may be at the bo?{oni of 
 ail. It is therefore necelTary that there be public, (olemn ac- 
 tions, dire6ity and plainlv importing our avouc!)ment of a regard 
 to him, in oppofition to thefe atixonts that are publicly offered 
 to him. 
 
 6. This worfliip is necelTary in order to maintain and cherifh 
 ih'3L\inward veneration. It is weM kaown, however much v/e are 
 bound to it, yet the fenfj of this obligation, and that veneration 
 
 itielf 
 
 * Herbert de Veritate, pag. 272. Nos int?rca externum illuTn Dei «.</- 
 ti(m ffrutf aliqKa religionis fpecie J ex omni pculo regionc, genie evici^ms. — • 
 *< In x'aQ mean time we have proved this eKternal wo rib '.p of Gc.-^, un- 
 «-der fome appearance of religion, fum every age, country, and na- 
 M tion.'- 
 
io3 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. v. 
 
 itfelf to which we are obliged, is net fo deeply rivetted I'pon 
 our niiuds, but it needs to be cheriilied, and the habits Hrength- 
 ened by a<?lings. It is not fo eafy for men to do this by inward 
 meditation, who for moft part are little accuftomed to this way, 
 and can indeed fcarce fix their minds in this inward exercife at all, 
 cfpecially if they have no fixed way ofexercifing it, but are iet't 
 at liberty to choofe their own way. Religion therefore muft go 
 out of the world, or, there mufi be fiated and fixed wavs of exer- 
 cifing it. This is eafily jufiifiable from experience, which (hews, 
 that where once public worfhip is difregarded, any other fort 
 of refpe6l to the Deity quickly falls of its own accord. 
 
 7. It is lucejfary for the benefit of hu7iian jociety* The foun- 
 dations of human fociety are laid upon the notion of a God, and 
 the facrednefs of oaths, and the fixed notions of right and 
 wrong, which all fiand and fall together. Nor is there any way 
 of keeping that regard to thofe things, which are the props of 
 human fjciety, without fuch a worfliip of God, as that we plead 
 for. This all the lawgivers weie of old fatisfied about, and took 
 meafures accordingly. 
 
 8. If religion has any valuable aidy then certainly this muft be 
 one main part of it, to lead man Xo future Jiapphiefs ; which can- 
 not, with any (hew of realon, be alleged to confift in any thing 
 bcfides the enjoyment cf God. And it is plainly ridiculous to 
 fuppofe, that mankind can be kept up in any fixed expe6^ation 
 of, or clofe purfuit after this, if not animated and encouraged by 
 fome, nay frequent experiences of commerce betwixt him and 
 the Deity here. And it isfcolilh lo pretend, that this is other- 
 wife to be had, in any degree anfvverable fo this end, in any other 
 way than in the way of defigned, fixed, folemn and (fated worlhip. 
 
 Now this much beincj faid in the general for clearing the 
 ncceifity of fuch a icorfhipj and the importance of it in reli- 
 gion; it remuns that we pro^e the light of nature infufficient to 
 direct us as to the way of it. And this we conceive may be cafi- 
 ly made appear from the enfuing grounds. 
 
 1. The mdnifcft mifiakes all the wr-vld fell into, who were 
 left in this matter to the condu6f of the mere light of nature, a- 
 bundantly evince the inccrppetency of nature's light for man's 
 direction, with repe<5\ to the wordiip of God. Every nation had 
 their own way of woiihip* and tliat fiulied with blafphtmous, 
 unworthy, ridiculous, ungrounded, impious and horrid rites and 
 ufages; of v.-hich there are innumerable accounts every where to 
 be met with, Vvecannb where in the Heathen world find any 
 
 voifnip 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 109 
 
 worfhip that isnot manifeftly unworthy of, and injurious to the 
 glorious God. Surely that light that fuffered ihe world to lofc 
 their way fo evidently, niuft be fadly defeil^tive. Their woriliip 
 was every where fuch, even where wife men were the inftitutei;s 
 of it, that it could not fatisfy any perfon who had any true notion 
 of God : and was the fcorn of the v^ife and difcerning. Nor 
 can it with any Ihew of reafon be pleaded, that thefe defects and 
 enormities are to be charged, not on the dejetiiventfs of nature's 
 light, but the negligence of thofe who did not ufe it to that advan- 
 tage it might have been ufed ; fince it has been above proven, 
 that the only way we can judge what nature's light can do, is 
 by confidering what it has done fomewhereor other. And thefe 
 enormities did every where obtain : they were not peculiar to 
 fome places; but v^herever men were left to the mere light of 
 nature, there they fell into them. 
 
 2. Thefe ways of worlhip, viz. prayer and praife, which are 
 condefcended upon by the deifts, and feem in general to have the 
 countenance of reafon ; yet, as they are diicovered by nature's 
 light, can no way fatisfy. Be it granted that nature's light 
 dire61s to them in general, and binds them on us as du- 
 ty; yet it mull be allowed, that this is not enough; for the 
 difficulty is, how we fhall in particular manage them to the glcry 
 of God, and our own advantage. The duty is-ftated in the ge- 
 neral, and when we begin to think of compliance with it, we 
 find the light of nature, like the Egyptian tafk-maiiers, let u§ 
 our work, and demand brick, while yet it ailcvv's us nojlrazo. 
 What endlefs difficulties are we caft in, about the matter of our 
 prayers and praifes? What things Ihall we pray to God, and 
 praife him fori^ How (hall we be furnifhed with fuch dilcoveries 
 of the nature, excellencies, and works of God ; and what things 
 are proper for us, as may be fufficient to guide us in our prayers 
 and praifes, and keep us up in a clofe attend mce en thefe duties 
 in the v/hole tra6t of our lives, without wearying or fainting? 
 Are we, becaufe we know not what is good or ill for us, \o hold 
 in mere generals, as the bed of the philofophers thought? if fo, 
 will the mind of man, for fo long a tract of time, be able to con- 
 tinue in this general way, without naufeating? Or, ihall we 
 defcend to particulars? If fo, how {hall materials be furnidied to 
 us for fuch particular addrelTes, who know fo little of God's 
 works, or our own wants? Again, who fhall teach us the way 
 and manner of praying and praifing, which will be acceptable 
 to G06. ? Shall every one's fancy be the rule ? If there be a 
 
 fixed 
 
no AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. v. 
 
 fixed rule, Which, and where is it? Again, What fecurity 
 have we from the mere li.iht of njture, as to the fuccefs and 
 acceptance of thfie duties? It will be to no advantage to ex- 
 cept, that God requires of us no more than he has dirccled us 
 in ; for this is to beg the m.iin q jeOion. W^ere it once granted, 
 thjt nj more is required than what nature's light diretfs to, 
 there might be fome countenance for this plea, that what it 
 gives no directions in, will not be inrifted upon by God ; but 
 this is plainly refufeJ, and fo the difficulties remain. Nor is 
 it to more advantage to pretend, thjt the ful fiance being: agreed 
 to, God will not infiil upon circumfiances of worOiip : for the 
 difficulties objected refpecl not merely the circumftances, but 
 the very fubltantiai parts of thefe duli;?s. As to what may be 
 pretended of the inflaenct of the hopes of eternal life, toward the 
 keeping up men in an attendance on duties ; as to the particu- 
 lar manner of the perforinance of which, and the grounds of 
 acceptance, they are entirely in the dark. Th'.s plea fliall be 
 fully CO jfidered afterwar Js. And as it is obvious, that no gene- 
 ral luppoial of benefit can for any long trac\ of time keep men 
 fteadv i'^i the performance of actions, about the nature and ac- 
 ceptance of which tiiey are in doubt ; fo, it fhall be made ap- 
 pear \K\txi is no ground from the mere light of nature for any 
 i'>xz\\ hope of future felicity, as can relieve in this cafe. 
 
 3. The plain coafedion of the more thoughtful, wife and 
 difcerning of the Heathen world, plainly proves this*. The 
 followers of the famed Coufurious in China, though thev own 
 that there is one fi'preme God, yet profefs themfelves ig- 
 nora it of tiie way in which he is to be worOiipped, and fhere-^ 
 fore think it fafer to abjiain from worlhipping, »han err in the 
 alh venation of improper honour to hrm. iMato in his fecond 
 A'cibiades, which he infcribes" Of Prayer," mikes it hii buii- 
 nef^to prove, '* That A'e know not how to manage prayer ;" and 
 therefore concludes it " fafer to abOain altogether, than err in 
 ** the manner." Alc-biades is going to the temple to pray, So- 
 crates m*ets hi.m, diifuades him, and proves his inability to 
 minaa;e the dutv, of which he is at len-iih convinced; 
 whereapon Socrates concludes, ** You i'ee, fays he, thai it is 
 ** not at all fafe for you to go and pray in the temple-r-1 am 
 ** therefore of the mind, that it is much belter for you to be 
 *' lilent. — And it is neceiTiry \'ou fliould wait for iorae perfon 
 
 " to 
 
 * Hornbeck de Convcrfione Gentilium, Lib. 5. Cap. 6. pag. 47. 
 
<i 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 1 1 1 
 
 *' to teach you how you ouglit to behave yourfelves, both to- 
 ** wards the gods and men. To which AicibiadrS faid, And 
 ** when will that tW,e come, Socrates? And who is he that 
 ** will inilruiSl me? With what pleafure (hould I look on h'ni? 
 ** To which he replies, He will do it who takes a true caie 
 ** of you. But methinks, as we read in Homer, that IVlipeiva 
 ** diffipated the mifl that covered Diomedes, and hindered him 
 ** from difiinguilhing a God from a man ; fo it is neceffary, 
 ** that he fnould in the fir(l place fcatter the darknefs that co- 
 ** vers your foul, and afterwards give you th.f fe remedies that 
 
 that are neceffary to put you in a condition of diic-.rning 
 ** good and evil ; for at prefent you know net hi w to rr^ake a 
 ** difference. Akibiades favs, I think I mud defer my f^icri- 
 ** fice to that time. Sccrates approves — You have reafon, fays 
 ** he ; it is more fafe fo to do, than run fo great a rslk *. The 
 ** famed Epicietus was fo much of the fame mind, that he knew 
 ** no way but to advife every one to follow the cudom of their 
 ** country in worfhip f ." Upon the fame account Seneca re- 
 jects all this worihip. And memorable is the confeffion of Jam- 
 blichus, a Platonic philoJbpher, "wlio lived in the fourth cen- 
 tury — '* It is not eafy to know what God will be pleafed with, 
 ** unlefs we be either immediately infiru6ied by God ourfelves, 
 ** or taught by fome perion whom God hath converfed with, or 
 ** arrive at the knowledge of it by feme divine means or other :^." 
 Thus you fee how much thefc gieat men were bemifted in this 
 matter, and may eafily conclude what the cafe of the reft of 
 mankind was. 
 
 4. The very nature of the thing feems to plead againft the 
 fiifficiency of reafon in this point : For it feems plainly to be 
 founded on the cleared notions of nature's light, that the wor- 
 ihip of God is to be regulated by the will d.ud' plea fuje oi God ; 
 which, if he reveal not, how can we know it ? Hence it was 
 that the Heathens never pretended reafon, but always revelation 
 for their worfhip. The governors all of them did this. And 
 Plato tells us, " That laws concerning divine matters muft be 
 '* had from, the Delphick Oracles J". 
 
 Much 
 
 * We have the fame account of Socrates and Xenophen j of which 
 Staiilev, pag. '75. 
 
 f Epiiter. Enchirid. Cap. 3?. 
 
 + Seneca Epif. 95. Jambl. de Vita Pytha^. Cap. 28. 
 
 <S Plato de Legibus. 
 
112 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. vi. 
 
 Much more might be faid on this head, were it needful : but 
 I am apprehenfive this is a point that the deiils will not be fond 
 to difpute with us ; not only becaufe they are no great friends to 
 thisworfJiip, but becaufe they can fay fo little on this head, 
 ivhich has any fhew of reafon: of which their famed leader //er- 
 ^^r^ was fufficisntly aware, when he tells us in his third article. 
 That virtue is the principal zoorfnip of God ; whereby he owns, 
 that there is indeed another part of, u hich he dare not namC; be- 
 caufe he knows not what to fay about it. 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Proving the Infufficiency of Natural Religion, from its Defec 
 tivcntfs as to the Difcovery wherein Mans Kappinefs lies- 
 
 NEXT to ih^ glory cf God, the \nd\^pu\My fupre?7ie end oi 
 man, and of the whole creation, of which 1 am tiot now to dif- 
 courfe, the happinefs of rnan, is, paft all peradventure, his chief 
 end* Yea, perhaps, if we fpeak properly, except as abovefaid, 
 it 13 his only end> For whatever man is capable of defigning, is 
 comprehended under this, beinf^ either what doth, or at leaft 
 is judged to contain fom.ewhat of happinefs in it, or what is fup- 
 pofed to contribute to that wherein fatisra6\ion is underficod to 
 confifl. Every thing a man aims at, is either aimed zX as good ia 
 itfelf, or contributing to ^wr^^i^flf. The firH is a part oi our 
 happinefs ; the lafl is not in proper fpeech fo defigned, but the 
 good to which it contribute?, and that Hill is as before a part of 
 our happinefs* If religion is therefore any way ufeful or fuffi- 
 cient, it mull be fo with refpe6\ to this end. And fince religion 
 not only claims fome regard from man, but pleads the prefer- 
 ence to all other things, and demands his chief concern, and his 
 being employed about it as the main hufinefsoi his life, it muft ei- 
 ther contribute more> toward this end, than any thing elfe, nay 
 be able to lead man to this end, ctherwife it deferves not that 
 regard which it claims, and is indeed of little, if any ufe to man- 
 kind- If then v.'e are able to evince that natural religion is not 
 fufficient to \Q2id m.an to that happinefs, which all men feek, and 
 is indeed the chief end of man, there will be no place left for the 
 pretence of its fufficiency, in fo far as It is the fubje6l of this 
 controverfy betwixt the deifts and us. And this we conceive 
 
 may 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEHN DEISTS. 113 
 
 l^ay be niade appear many ways. But in this chapter we fhali 
 confine ourfelves to one ot them. 
 
 If nature's light is not able to give any tolerable difcovery of 
 that wherein man's happinefs lies, and that it may by him be ob- 
 tained, then furely it can never furniJh him with a religion that 
 is able to conduct him to it. This cannot with any ihew of rea- 
 fon be denied. It remains therefore that I make appear, that na- 
 tures tight is not abU to difcover wherein mans happinefs lies^ and 
 its attainahUnefs, Now thisl think is fully made out by the fol- 
 lowing confiderations : 
 
 I. They who, being left to the condu61 of the mere light of 
 nature, have fought after that good wherein man's happinefs 13 
 to be had, could not come to any agreement or confiOency 
 among themfelves. This is a point of the hrft importance, as 
 being the hinge whereon the whole of a man's life muft turn ; 
 the fpring udiich muft fet m.an a going, and give life to all his 
 actions, and to this tliey inuft «ll be directed. This, if any 
 other thing ought to be eafily known ; and if nature's light 
 IS a fufficient guide, it mull give evident difcoveries of. But, 
 methioks, here is a great {\%n of a want of this evidence ; great 
 men, learned men, wife phllofophers and induflrious fearchers 
 of truth have fplit upon this point, into an cndlefs variety of 
 opinions ; infomuch th::t V^rro pretends to reckon up no lefs 
 than 288 different opinions. May I not now ufe the argument 
 of one of the deirls, in a cafe v\?hich he falfely fuppofes to be alike, 
 and thus in his own words argue upon this point, (only putting 
 in, the difcoveries of natures light about happimfs, or the evi^ 
 dence oj thoje dijcovirieu in place of the evidence of the reafons 
 of the Chriflian religion, againfi which he argues) : ** If the 
 ** difcoveries of it were evident, there could be no longer any 
 *' contention or ditTerence about the chief good ; all mem 
 ** would embrace the fame and acquiefce in it : no prejudice 
 ** would prevail againft the certainty of fuch a good*," **^ It is 
 ** every man's greateR bufinefshere to labour for his happinefs, 
 ** and confequently none would be backward to know it. And, 
 *' if all do not agree in it, thole marks of truth in it are not vifi- 
 *' ble, which are necelTarv to draw an adentf." But whatever 
 there Is in this, it is a moH certain argument of darknefs, that 
 there is fo great a difference, where the fear(2liers are many, it 
 
 18 
 
 * Oracles of Reafon, pag. 2o5. 
 ^ Ibidi pa?, aoi. 
 
 Q 
 
114 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE eriAP. vio 
 
 IS every one's interefl to find, and the bufinefs and fearch is 
 plied with great application. 
 
 2. The greateft of the philofophers have been plainly mifla- 
 ken in it. They efpoufed opinions in this matter, which are 
 not capable of any tolerable defence. Solon, the Athenian 
 Jawgiver, defined them *' happy who are competently furnifhed 
 ** with outward things, a6l honeftly, and live temperately *-" 
 Socrates held, that there was but one chief good i which is 
 knowledge, if we may believe Diogenes Laertius in his life 
 Ariftotle, if we may take the fame author's words for it, places 
 it in virtue, health, and outward conveniency, which no doubt 
 was his opinion, fince he approved Solon's definition of the 
 chief good \ \ and herein he was followed by his numerous 
 fchool. Pythagorus tells us, that the ** knowledge of the per- 
 ** fe<5\ions of the foul is the chief good." It is true, he feems 
 at other times to fpeak fomewhat differently ; of which we 
 may fpeak afterwards. Zeno tells us, that it lies in ** living 
 ** according to nature." Cleanthes adds, that ** according t© 
 ** nature is according to virtue." Cryfippus tells us, that It is 
 •* to live according to expert knowledge of things which hap- 
 *' pen naturallyj." It is needlefs to fperd tin.e in reckoning 
 up innumerable others, who all run the fame way> placing hap- 
 pinefs in that which is not able to afford it, as being finite, of 
 fhort continuance, fickle and uncertain. It is not my defign 
 to confute thofe feveral opinions. It is evident to any cne^ 
 that they are all confined to time, and upon this very account 
 fail of what can make us happy. 
 
 3. They who fcem to come fome nearer the matter, and talk 
 fometlmes of conforviity to God being the chief good ; that it is 
 cur end to be like God, and the like ; as Pythagoras and feme 
 others J ; but efpeclally Plato, who goes further than any of the 
 refill ; yet cannot juiUy be alleged to have made the difcovery* 
 becaufe we have not any account of their opinions clearly deli-' 
 vered by themfelves, but hints here and there gathered up from 
 their writings, which are very far from falisfying us as to theif 
 n)ind. Befides they are fo variable, and exprefs themfelves (o 
 differently, in different places, that it is hard to find their mind; 
 nay 1 may add,they are, indufiriouily and cf dtfign obfcuie. 1 his 
 Alcinous the Platonic philofopher, tells us plainly enough in his 
 
 DoBrinc 
 
 * Stanley, pag. 26. Life of Solon, Cap. 9. + Stanley, pag. 540. 
 J Ibid, pag, 463, § Ibid, pag. 541, || Ibidj p. 192. Cap. 80 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 115 
 
 J^oElrine oj Plato ^ which is inferted at lenp:th in Stanley s Lives* 
 He fays," that he thought the difcovery of the chief good was not 
 *^ eafy, and if it were found out, it was not fafe to be declared." 
 ^nd that for this reafon, he did communicate his thoughts about it 
 bjit to very few, and thofe of his moil intimate acquaintance. Now 
 the plain meaning of all this, in my opinion is, that he could not 
 tell wherein man's happinefs confifts, or what that is which is 
 able to afford it : or at moft, that though one way or other in his 
 travels, by his ftudies cr convcrfe, he had got feme notionsabout 
 It; yet he did not fufficiently underftand them, and was not able 
 to fatisfy himfelf or others about them, and that therefore, he 
 either entirely fuppreffed, or would not plainly fpeak out his 
 thoughts, leaft the world (hould fee his ignorance, and that though 
 his words differed, yet in very deed he knew no more of the mat- 
 ter than others. For to fay, that, upon fuppofition that his dif- 
 coveries had been fatisfying, as to truth and clearnefs, and that 
 he was capable to prove and explain them, they were not fit to 
 be made known to the world, is to fpeak the groffeft of nonfenfe; 
 for nothing was fo ncceffary to be known, and known univerfal- 
 ly, zsX^t chief good^ which every one is obliged to feek after. 
 To know this, and conceal the difcovery, is the mofl malicious 
 and invidious thing that can be thought of. And rather than 
 charge this on Plato, 1 think it fafer to charge ignorance on him. 
 He fpeaks fomewhat liker truth than others, while he tells us, 
 ** That happinefs qonfiils in the knowledge of the chief good ; 
 ** that phllofophers, who arc fuflficiently purified, arc allowed, 
 ** after the diffolution of their bodies, to fit down at the table of 
 ** the Gods, and view the field of truth ; that to be made like 
 <* God is the chief good ; that to follow God is the chief good." 
 Some fuch other expreflions we find. But what does all this fay ? 
 Poes it inform us that Plato underilood our happinefs to confifl 
 in the eternal enjoyment of God ? Some, who are loth to think 
 that Plato njilTed any truth of importance which is contained in 
 the fcripture, think fo : ^ut for my part, I fee no reafon to con-» 
 ynce me from all this that Plato underllood any thing tolerably 
 about the enjoyment of God^ either in time or after time, or that 
 he was fixed and determined wherein the happinefs of man con- 
 lifts, or that really any fuch ftate of future felicity is certainly 
 attainable. All this was only a heaven of his own framing and 
 fancy, fitted for philofophers; for the being of which, he could 
 give no tolerable arguments. And all this account fatisfies me 
 |io more that Plato underwood wh^'rein happinefs confulD, ihar^. 
 ^ ' the 
 
Ii6 AN'INOJJIRY INTO THE chap. yi. 
 
 the following docs, that he knew the way of reaching it, which 
 I fball tranfcribc from the fame chapter of AUinous's'aU) Brine of 
 Plato: ** Beatitude is a good habit of the genius, and this fimi- 
 ** litude to God we fliall obtain, if we enjoy convenient nature^ 
 ** in our manner, education and ferife, according to law, and 
 ** chiefly by reafon and difcipline, and inllitution of wifdom, 
 ** withdrawing ouifclves as much as is poiTible from human 
 ** afiairs, and being converfantin thefe things only which are 
 ** underftood by contemplation: the way to prepare, and as it 
 '* were, to cleanfe the demon that is in us, is to initiate our- 
 ** felves into higher dlfciplines; which is done by mufiCj 
 ** arithmetic, aOronomy and geometry, not without fome ref- 
 ** pect of the body, by gymnaftic, whereby it is made more 
 ** ready lor the actions both of war and peace.'* I pretend not 
 to underRand him here : But this I underfland from him, that 
 one of three is certainj cither he underfiood not himfelf, or 
 had no mind that others (hould undcrltand ; or that he was the 
 moft unmeet man in the world to iiiftrucl mankind about this 
 important point, and to explain things about which the world 
 was at a lofs. When men fpeak at this rate, we may put what 
 meaning we p^cafe upon their words. 
 
 4. It is plain that none of them have clearly come to know 
 themfclves, or inform others that happinefs is not to be had hen ; 
 that it cor./ifis in the eternal enjoyment oj God after tiuie; and thai 
 (his ts attainable* Thefe are things whereabout there is a deep 
 filence, not fo much as a word of them, far lefs any proof. If 
 ever we were to expc6l fuch a thing we might look for it from 
 thole who have not merely touched at this fubje«S\ by the bye, and 
 in dirk hints, but have difcourfed of ??ioral e?ids on fct purpofe, 
 fuch as Cicero and Seneca. Cicero frequently te'ls that lie de- 
 figned to enrich his native country with a tranflation of all that 
 was valuable in thcGreck philofophers, he had perufed them for 
 this end, and thus acccmplKhed, he fets h.imfclt to write ofmO' 
 ral endSf which he does in five books. Here we may expe£\ 
 fomevvhat to the purpofe : Br.t if we do, wc are dii'appointcd. 
 Thsfrjlhook fets ofi-'Epicures's opinion about happivefs with a 
 great dial of rhercric The y^cc???^ overthrows it. "The third rc^ 
 prefents the St.:ic's opinion. And thefowrth confutes it. 1l he fifth 
 r«prefcntr, and afferts the Peripatetic's opinion, which had been 
 as cafily overthrown as any of them. And this is all you are 
 to expc6\ here, without one word of God, tlie fjijoyment of 
 him, or any thing of that kind, which favours of ii life after this. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 117 
 
 Seneca writes again a book dt Vita Beata confiftirg of thirty-ivo 
 chapters. Here we may find loniewhat polTibly. And indeed if 
 one (hould hear him (late the qaeflion, as he does in his ieccr.d 
 chapter he would expect feme great mutters frons hin>. Quara^ 
 mus quid optime faBum fit, non quid ufuatijjimuin : Et quid nos 
 in ppjfeffione felicitaiis attrn(Z conjlitnat , non quid vulgo, verita'- 
 tis pejji'nio interpreii, probatum Jit, Fulgns auUm tain chlamy- 
 dates, quam coronam voco* • What may we not now expect? 
 But after this, I aflure you, you are to icok for no m.ore words 
 about eternity, nor any thing more, but a jejune difcourfc ia 
 pretty fentences, about the Stoic's cpinicn, reprefenting that a 
 man would be happy, if his psffions were exiln(5l, and he wa& 
 perfc6\ly pleafed with the condition he is in, be it what it wiii. 
 Now after this, who can dream that nature s light is fufHcient 
 to fatisfy here ? Is every m.an able to diuover thai which phiio- 
 phcrs, the greateft of them, after the greattfl application, failed 
 ib fignally about, that fcarcely any of them came near it, and 
 none of them reached it ? 
 
 5. Nor will it appear flrange, that the Ueaihen philofo- 
 phers of cid (hould be io much at a lofs zhoul future happinejs, 
 to any one who confiders how difhcult, if not impofhbie ii mult 
 be for any, who rejeds revelation, and betakes himielf to the 
 mere li^ht of nature, to arrive at the wifhed for, and neceffary 
 affurance of eternal felicity after this life, even at this prefcnt 
 time, after all the great improvements, which the rational 
 proofs of a future fiate have obtained, fince Chriftianity pre- 
 vailed in the world. If nature's light, now under its higleil 
 improvements, proves unable to aftord full aflurance, and fiill 
 leaves us to fiu6\uate in uncertainty about future happinefs ; 
 no wonder that they fhould be in the dark, who were Itrangcrs 
 to thefe improvements. 
 
 That the arguments for a future fiate, (ince Chrifiianity ob- 
 tained, have received a vaft improvem.ent from ChriTjian divines 
 and philofophers, cannot mcdeflly be denied. The perform- 
 ances of Plato and Cicero, on this point, Vihich were the beil 
 among the ancients, are, when compared with our iate Chriftian 
 writers, but like the trifles of a boy at fchcol, or the rude ef- 
 
 fays 
 
 * « Let us inquire what is heft to be done, and not wlias i* n. -fl 
 " common; and what puts us in polTeiiicn of eternal felicity, and ikvc 
 '* what is approved by the vulgar,— ~ihe v^oril jodges of iruth. Ey the 
 "* vulgar I mean the rich and great nx^n> a* well as the ir.ob." 
 
ii8 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. vi. 
 
 fays of a novice, in comparifon to the moft elaborate anc| 
 complete peiformances of the greateft mafters ; if they bear even 
 the lame proportion. He who knows not this, knows nothing 
 in thele n.atters. Yea, to that degree have they improven 
 t'fiofe arguments, that it is utterly impoffible for any man, who 
 gives all their reafons for the continuance ef the foul after 
 death, with their anfwers to the trifling pretences of the oppo- 
 fers of this conciufion, a fair hearing and due confideration, to 
 acquiefce rationally in the contrary afTertion of atheijh and 
 mortal deifts ; or not to favour, at Icafl this opinion, as what 
 is highly probable, if not abfolutely certain. 
 
 But after all, if v/e are left to feek affurarfce of this from the 
 unaffifled light of nature, that certainly God has provided for, 
 and will aiiually bejlow upon man, and more tjpecially man who 
 is now a /inner f future and eternal felicity ^ we will find our- 
 felves plunged into inextricable difficulties, out of which the 
 light of nature will find it very difficult, if not impoffible to ex-x 
 tricate us. It is one thing to be perfuaded of the future fepa- 
 rate fubfiftence of our fouls after death, and another to know 
 in what condition they ffiall be ; and yet more to be alTuredj 
 that after death our fouls fiall he poffeffed oj eternal happinefs. 
 It is precifeiy about this iaft point that we are now to fpeak. 1 he 
 arguments drawn from nature's light will fcarce fix us in the 
 ileady perfuafion of future and eternal felicity. There is a 
 great odds betwixt our knowledge of future puniihw ents, and 
 the grounds whereby ue are led to it, and our perfuafion of fu- 
 ture and eternal rewards. Upon inquiry the like reafons 
 will not be found for both. Our notices about eternal rewards, 
 when the promifes of it contained in the fcriptures are fet afide, 
 will be found liable to many obje6\ions, hardly to be folved by 
 the mere light of nature, which do not fo much afTedl the 
 proofs advanced for future puniffiments. Befides, fince the en- 
 trance of fin, its univerfai prevalence in the world, and the 
 confequenccs following upon it, have fo long benighted man, 
 as to any knowledge that he otherwife might have had about 
 eternal happinefs, that now it will be found a matter of the ut- 
 mofi: difficulty, if not a plain impoffibility, for him to reach 
 afTurance of eternal felicity by the mere light of nature, how- 
 ever improven. 
 
 The pleas drawn from the kolinefs and jn/itce of God, fay 
 much for the certain punilhment, after thirs life, of many noto- 
 rious ofFenders, who have wholly efcaped punilhment here ; 
 
 ' ' ■ efpccially 
 
PRINCIPLES OF TFIE MODERN DEISTS, 119 
 
 cfpecially as they are ftrengthened by other collateral confider- 
 ations clearing and enforcing them. 
 
 But, whether the pleas for future and eternal rewards, from 
 *he juflice and goodnefs of God, on the one hand ; and the lufFer- 
 ings of perfons really guilty of fin, but in comparifon of others 
 virtuous, on the other ; will with equal firmnefs conclude, 
 that God is obliged to, or certainly wiil^ reward xhch imperje^ 
 virtue, and compenfate their fufFerings, may, and perhaps not 
 without reafon, be queftioned. 
 
 That it is congruous that virtue fhould be rewarded, may 
 perhaps eafily be granted. But what that reward is, which it 
 may from divine juftice or bounty claim, it will not be eafy for 
 us to determine, if we have no other guide than the mere light 
 ©f nature. The man who perfectly performs his duty is fecured 
 againft: the fears of punifhment, and has reafon to reft fully 
 affured of God's acceptance and approbation of what is every 
 way agreeable to his will. He has a perfect inward calm in 
 his own confcience, is difturbed with no challenges, and has 
 the fatisfa6lion and inward complacency, refulting fiom his 
 having acquitted himfelf according to his duty : His confcience 
 affures him he has done nothing to provoke God to withdraw 
 favours already given, or to withhold further favours. And 
 though he cannot eafily fee reafon to think God obliged, either 
 to continue what he freely gave, or accumulate further eiFecls 
 of bounty upon him, or to protra6l his happinefs to eternity ; 
 yet he has the fatisfa6tion of knowing, that he hath not ren- 
 dered him.felf unworthy of any favour. This reward is the 
 neceffary and unavoidable confequence of perfeSI obedience. 
 
 But this comes not up to the point. That which the light of 
 nature muft affure us of is. That virtuous men, on account of 
 their virtue, may claim and expedl, befides this, a further re- 
 ward, and that of no lefs confequence than eternal felicity. 
 Now, if I miflake it not, when the promife of God, which 
 cannot be known without revelation, is laid afide, the mere 
 light of nature will find it difficult to fix upon folid grounds, 
 for any affurance as to this. Many thorny difficulties muft be 
 got through. Not a few perplexing queOions mull be folved. 
 If it is faid that the juftice of God neceffarily obliges him, he- 
 fides that reward nece(r:irily refulting from perfect obedience, 
 (of which above), further to recoiT.peiiCf , even the moft exa^l 
 and perfedl performance of our duty, antecedetatly to any pro- 
 mife given to tliat efFed, with future and eternal felicity ; it 
 
 may 
 
I20 AN INQUIRY INTO THE tnxT. vu 
 
 may be inquired, How It fhail be made appear that virtiie, fup- 
 pofe it to be as prrfsct as you will, can be faid to r/ieritf and to 
 merit (o great a reward ? May not God, without injuftice, turn 
 to nothing an innocent creature ? Sure I am, no mean nor in- 
 competent juJges have thought fo *. Where is the injuftice 
 of removing or taking away what he freely gave, and did not 
 promife to continue ? Is it modeft or fafe fur us, u-Ithout the 
 mod convincing evidences of the inconfiOency of the thing, to 
 litnit the power of Go-d, or put a cannot on the Almighty ? 
 And does not the very pollibility of the annihilation of an in- 
 nocent creature, in a confillency with juftice, though God, for 
 other rcafons, (bould never think fit to do it, entirely enervate 
 this plea? If God, without injuftice may takeaway ih^ being 
 of an innocent creature, how is it poOTible to evince, that in 
 juflice, he mull reward it with eternal kappinefs? Again, if we 
 iTiay, for our virtue, claim eternal felicity, as due in juflice, 
 may it not be inquired. What exercifc of virtue, — for how long 
 a tim^ contiued,— is f iffici ent to give us this title to eternal re- 
 wards ? If the bounty and goodne/s of God is infixed on, as 
 the ground of this claim, the plea of juOice feems to be defert- 
 ed. And here again it may be inquired, Whether the goodnefs 
 of God is necefl'ary in its egrefs? Whether the bounty of God 
 ought not to be underflood to refpe£i thofe thinrs which are 
 abfolutely at the giver's pleafure to i^rant or withhold ? Whe- 
 ther, in fach matters, we can be affured that bounty will give 
 us this or th.U, which, though we want, is not in jufiice due, 
 nor fecured to us by any promiie ? Further, it may be inquired 
 how far maft goodnefs extend itfelf as to rewards? Is it not 
 iuppofable, that it may iXo"^ (horl of eternal felicity, and think 
 a lefs reward fjfHcient? Of io great weight have thefe, and 
 the like difficulties appeared to not a {cw, and thofe not of the 
 more ftupid fort of mankind, that they have not doubted to af- 
 fert boldly, thit even innocent man, without revelation, and a 
 poll five promife, could never be afl\ired of eternal rewards. 
 And how the liglit of nature can dlfcngagc us from the[e difficul- 
 ties, were man perfe611y innocent, I do not well underfiand. 
 
 But whatever there is of this, the entrance, of fin and the con- 
 fidcration of man's cafe as involved in guilti has caii us upon 
 
 new 
 
 * See the Excellency of Theology, Src. by T- H. R. Boil, pag. 25, 
 26, 27, &c. and Confiti. about the Recon. of Reafon and Rel. by T* 
 £. pag. 21, 22. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN bEISTS. 12 i 
 
 new and yet greater difficulties. From this prefent cotidition 
 therein we find all mankind without exception involved, a 
 whole (hoal of difficulties emerge, never, I am afraid, to be re« 
 moved by unajjijied reafon* 
 
 Now, it may be inquired, what obedience is it that can en- 
 title us to eternal felicity? If none fave that which is perfeB will 
 ferve, who lliall be the jjetter for this reward? Who can pretend 
 to this perfe£^ or finlefs obedience? \i imperfeS obedience may^ 
 how (liall we be fare of this? How fhall he who deferves punllh* 
 ment, claim, demand and expecl reward, a great reward, yeaj 
 the greatell reward, — -eternal happinefs? If the goodnefs of God 
 is pleaded, and it is faid, that though we cannot expe6l inJiriSI 
 jujlice to have oiir imptrjeB obedience rewarded ; yet we may hope 
 it from the bounty of God? Befides, what was above moved 
 agalnft this, in a more plaufible cafe^ when we were fpeakingof 
 innocent man, it may be further inquired, whether, though infi- 
 nite bounty might deal thus gracioufly with man, if he were 
 perfeBly righteous, it may npt yet withhold its favours, or at 
 lea^l {{op (bort of eternal felicity, with the befl among finners? 
 Again, what degree of imperfedion is it that will prejudge this 
 claim? What may confifl with it ? Who is good in that fcnfe, 
 which is neceflary to qualify him for this expedition? Is there any 
 fuch perfon exiftent? What way (hall we be fure of this ? Is it to 
 bemeafured by outward a6lions only, or are inward principles and 
 alms to come in confideration ? Who can know thefe fave God ? 
 If it be faid, we can know ourfelves to be fuch : I anfwer, how 
 Ihall we maintain any confidence of future* nay eternal re- 
 wards, while confcience tells that we deferve puniftirnent ? 
 What if by the mere light of nature we can never be alTured of 
 forglvenefs? How (hall we then by it be fure of eternal re- 
 wards? If we are not rewarded here, how can we know but that 
 it has been for our fins that good things have been withheld froin- 
 us? May not thisbe prefumed to be the confequcnceof our known 
 fins, or more covert evils, which felf-love has made us overlook? 
 If we fuffer, yet do we fufFer more than our fins deferve, or even 
 fo much ? If we think fo, will we be fuftaincd competent judges 
 of the quality of offences, and their demerit, which are done 
 agalnfi; God, efpecially when we are the aftors ? To whom 
 does it belong to judge ? If ye meet with fome part, for ye can 
 never prove it is all, of demerit or deferved punKbmcnt of your 
 fins here, will this conclude that ye fl:iall be exempted frond 
 fuffering what further God may in jufticc think due to them, and 
 
 P you 
 
121 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. vf. 
 
 you on their account hereafter? What fecurlty have ye that ye 
 fViall efcape with what is intli(5>ed on you here ? And not only 
 fo, but inftead of meeting with m hat ye further deferve, obtaiis 
 rewards which ye dare fcarce'y fav ye deferve ? If God fpare at 
 prefent a noted offender, who cannot without violence to rea- 
 fon be fuppofed a fubjett meet for pardon or for a reward, and 
 referve the whole puniO.ment due to his crincs, to the other 
 world ; but in the mcari uhile, fees meet to \ni\\&. prefent pu- 
 i^iOnment on thee, though lefs criminal, perhaps to convince 
 the world, (hat e^ven Icfler cfterder«^ fhall not efcape ,* if, 1 fay, 
 he deal thus, is there no way for clearing his juflice, but by con- 
 ferring eternal happinefs on thee ? ^A by, if he \iiih6t what 
 further puniflimcnt is due to thee, in exacl proportion to thy lefs 
 atrocious crimes; and punilh the other with evils pi'oportioned 
 to his more atrocious crimes, and make him up by the feverity 
 of the Oroke for the delay of the puniflimetit ; if, I fay, thus he 
 do, I challenge any man to tell me where the Injufticc lies? 
 And may not the like be faid as to any other virtuous perfon, 
 or whom thou fuppofeft to be fuch, who meets with itlierings ? 
 
 Nor do lefs perplexing difficulties attend ihofe other pleas for 
 future happinefs to man, at leafl, in his prefent condition ; 
 which are drawn from God creating us capable of future hap- 
 pinefs, implanting defires, and giving us gufls of it: All which 
 would be given in vain, if there was no happinefs defigned for 
 man after time. 
 
 But how by this we can be fecar^d of eternal happinefs, I 
 do not well fee. Nor do I underftand how the difficulties which 
 may be moved againft this, can be refolved. It may be in^ 
 quired, \'\'hether this defire of happinefs, faid to be implanted 
 in our natures, is really any thiiig dif'indt from that natural 
 tendency of the c/ealure to Its own perfe61ion and prefervation, 
 which belongs to the being of every creature, with fuch difference 
 as to degrees and the manner, as their refped^Ive natures re- 
 quire ? If it is no more than this, it muft be allowed effential 
 to every rational creature : And if every rational creature has 
 an effential attribute, which infers an obligation on God to 
 provide for it eternal happinefs, and put it in poflefhon of this 
 felicity, If no fault interv. ne, doth it noT thence neceffarily, 
 follow, that God cannot poihbiy, without injufllce, turn to no-- 
 thing any Innocent rational creature ; nay, nor create any one, 
 which it Is pofhble for him again to annihilate without injuf- 
 tice ? For if we Ihould fuppofc^ it poflible for God to do fo, 
 
 and 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 123 
 
 ^nd thus without injuftice frufirate this defire, where is the force 
 
 gf the argument ? And is it not a little bold to limit God thus ? 
 
 J need not enter into the debate, Whether there is any fup- 
 
 pofablecafe, wherein infinite wifdom may think it fit to do fo V 
 
 That difpute i's a little too nice: For on the one hand, it will 
 
 be hard for us to determine it pofitively, that infinite wifdom 
 
 mud, in any cafe we can fuppofe, think it fit to deftroy or turn 
 
 to nothing an innocent creature ; and on the other hand, it is 
 
 no lefs ra(h to adert, that our not knowing any cafe, proves 
 
 ihat really there is none fuch known to the only wife God. 
 
 Befides, if we allow it only pcffible, in a confiftency with juf- 
 
 tice and veracity, for God to do it, 1 am afraid the argument 
 
 has loft its force. Further, it may be inquired, Whether the 
 
 rational creature can in duty defire an eternal continuation in 
 
 "feeing, otherwife than with the deepefi: fubmiffion to the fovereiga 
 
 pleafure of God, where he has given no pofitive promife? If fub- 
 
 miffion belongs to it, ^11 certainty evanifhes, and we muft look 
 
 clfewhere for aflTurance of eternal happinefs. A defire of it, if 
 
 God fee meet to give it, can never prove that certainly he wll 
 
 give it. If it is faid, that the creature without fubmiffion or fault 
 
 may in fift upon and claim eternal happinefs; I do not fee how 
 
 this can be proven. 
 
 But again, do not thefe defires refpefi the whole man, con-* 
 lining of foul and body? Doth not death diflblve the m.an ? 
 Are not thefe defires apparently frufirated ? How will the light 
 of nature certainly infer from thofe defires, gufis, 6cc. that the 
 whole man thall have eternal felicity, while we fee the man 
 daily defiroyed by death? Can this be underftood without reve- 
 lation ? Does the light of nature teach us that there will be a 
 refurredion ? I grant, that without ihe fuppofal of a future cx" 
 iftance, we cannot eafily underlland what end there was wor- 
 thy of God for making fuch a noble creature as man : But 
 while we fee man, on th? other hand, daily deftroyed by death, 
 and know nothing of the refurre(Stion of the body, which is 
 the cafe of all thofe v/ho reject revelation, we ihall not know 
 "vv'hat to conclude, but muft be toflfed in cur own minds, and be 
 at lofs how to reconcile thofe feeming inconfirtencies : Which 
 gave a great man occafion to obferve, ** That there can be no 
 *' reconciliation of the do61rine of future rewards and punifh- 
 ** ments, to be righteouily adminifiered upon a fuppofition of 
 ^' the feparate everlafiing fubfiitence of the foul only *•'* And 
 
 f^V 
 
 ♦ Dr. Qwen 02 Heb. vu ver, i, 2. Vol, 3, pag. au 
 
124 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. vi. 
 
 for proof of this, he Infifls on feveral weighty confiderations, 
 which I cannot tranfcribe. 
 
 But, fhould we give up all this, Will this defire of happinef? 
 prove that God defjgned it for man, whether he carried himfelf 
 well or not ? If it prove not that finful man may be happy, or 
 that eternal happinefs is defigned for man, M'ho is now a finnerj 
 what are we the better for it ? Are we not all more or lefs guil- 
 ty ? What will it help us, that we were originally def.gned 
 for, and made capable of future felicity, if we are now under 
 an incapacity of obtaining it ? Do we not find that we have 
 fallen fliort of perfect obedience? And can thofe defires afl'ure 
 us that God will pardon, yea reward us, and that with the 
 greateft bieffing which innocent man was capable of? Moreover, 
 before we end this difcourfe, I hope to make it appear, that by 
 the -mere, light ofvaturf^ no man can affuredly know ihzX fin fhall 
 be pardoned; and if (oy it is vain to pretend, that we can be 
 allured of eternal felicity in our prefent condition. They who 
 have finned Icfs and fuffered more in this life, fliall not be fo 
 fcverely punifhed in that which is to come, as they who have 
 finned more grievoufly and efcaped without puniihrnent here, 
 this reafon aitures us of: But it can fcarcely fo much as afford 
 us a colourable pica for eternal rewards, to any virtue that is 
 ftained with the leaf! fin. The fcriptuies rrake mention of a 
 happinefs promifed to innocent man upon perfect obedience ; 
 and of faivation to guilty man upon faith in Jesus Christ. 
 Befide thefe two I know no third foit. As to the laO, the 
 light of nature is entirely filent, as we fliall fee afterwards. 
 Whether it can alone prove the firft is a queflion : But that 
 man in his prefent condition cannot be better for it, is out of 
 queflion. 
 
 6. Were it granted that thefe arguments are ccnclnCve, yet 
 the matter would be very little mended : For it is ceitain, that 
 thefe arguments are too thin to be dilcerned by the dim eyes of 
 the generality, even though they had tutors who would be at 
 pains to inftrudt them. Yea, I fear that they rather beget fuf- 
 picions than firm perfuafions in the minds of philofcphers. They 
 are of that jort, which rather fiience than fatisfy. Arguments 
 ab abfurdo, rather force the niind to afi'ent, than determ.ine it 
 cheerfully to acquiefcc in the truth as difcovered. Other de- 
 monfirations carry along with them a difcovcry of the nature 
 of the thing, which fatisfies it in fome meafurc. Hence they 
 have a force, not only to engage, but to keep the foul fiesdy 
 
 in 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 125 
 
 in its adherence to truth ; but thefe oblige to implicit belief as 
 it were, and therefore the mind eafily wavers and lofes view of 
 truth ; and Is no longer firm, than it is forced to be fo, by a 
 prefent view of the argument. If learned men were always ob- 
 fcrvant of their own minds, and as ingenuous as the Auditor is 
 in Cicero, in his acknowledgment about the force of Plato's 
 arguments for xht immortality of the foul*, they would make 
 fome fuch acknowledgment as he does. After he has told, that he 
 has read oftener than once Plato's arguments for the immortali" 
 ty of the foul t which Cicero had recommended in the foregoing 
 difcourfe as the beft that were to be expected, he adds, " Sed 
 ** nefcio quomodo, dum lego a/fentior: cum pojui librim, & me<- 
 ** cum ipfe de immortaliiate animorum capi cogitare, afftntio am- 
 ** nis ilia elal?iturf," In like manner might others fay, When 
 I pore upon thofe arguments I affent ; but when I begin to look 
 on the matter, I find there arifes not fuch a light from them, 
 as is able to keep the mind fiea^y in its affent. More efpecially 
 will it be found fo, if we look not only to the matter, but to 
 the difficulties which offer about it. Yet this fteadlnefs is of ab- 
 folute neceifity in this cafe, fince a refpecl to this mufl be fbp- 
 pofed always prevalent, in order to influence to a Heady pur- 
 fuit. The learned Sir Matthew Hale obferves, that, ** It is ve- 
 ** ry true, that partly by univerfal tradition, derived probably 
 ** from the common parent of mankind, partly by fome glim- 
 ** merings of natural light in the natural confciences, in iome, 
 ** at leaflf, of the Heathen, there {ccfcitd to be fome common 
 ** perfuafion of a future ftate of rew^ards and punilhments. But 
 ** firft it was weak and dim, and even in many of the wifcft of 
 ** them overborn ; fo that it was rather a fufplcion, or at moft, 
 ** a weak and faint perfuafion, than a ftrong and firm convic- 
 ** tion : And hence it became very unoperative and ineffectual 
 •* to the mofl of them, when they had greateft need of it ; 
 ** namely, upon imminent or incumbent temporal eviisof great 
 ** preffure. But, where the impreifiion was firmed among them, 
 *' yet ftill they were in the dark what it was." 
 
 7. It is further to be confidered, that it is not the general per* 
 fuafion that there is a ftate of future happinefs and mifery, which 
 
 caa 
 
 * Cicero Tuf. Queft. Lib. r. 
 
 + " But I know not how it happens, that althc-gh I affent to him 
 ** as long as I am reading, yet when I have laid down the book, and 
 " begun to think with myfelf of the immortality of the foul, all that 
 «< aflent vanilhes." • 
 
}26 AN INdUIRY INTO THE chap, vi, 
 
 can avail *; but there iriun be a difcovery of that happlnefs in its 
 nature, or wherein it confifts; its excellency and fuitablenefs, to 
 engage man to look on it as his chief good, purfue it as fuch, 
 perievere in the purfalt over all oppolition, and forego other 
 things, which he fees and knows the prefent pleafure and advan- 
 tage of, for it. Now, fuch a view the light of nature can never ra» 
 tionally be pretended to be able to give : If it is, let the pretender 
 lliew us where, and by whom fuch an account has been given and 
 verified ; or let him do it himfelf. And if this is not dene, as it 
 never has, and I fear not to fay never can be done ; it wou!d not 
 mend the matter, though we iliculd forego all that has been 
 abovefaid, ^as vv'as above infinuated), which yet we fee no ne- 
 ceffity of doing. 
 
 8. I might here tell how faintly the deifts ufe to fpeak upon 
 this head. Though upon occafion, they can be pofitive; yet at 
 other times they fpeak modelUy about the being of a future flate 
 of happinefs.and tell us,** That rewards and punifliments hereaf- 
 ** ter, though the nofionofthem has not been univerfally receiv- 
 ** ed, the Heathens difagreeing abo'jt the doctrine of the immor- 
 ** tality of the foul, may yet be granted to feem reafonable, becaufe 
 ** they are deduced from the doctrine of providence,— and that 
 ** they may be granted parts of natural religion, becaufe the wifefl 
 ** men have inclined to hold them amongft the Heathen f ,"^c« 
 and now do in all opinions. And as they feem not over certain 
 as to the being of future rewards and puniQ^rr.ents, fo they plainly* 
 own they can give no account what they are. ** Qua vera, qualist 
 ** quanta^ &:c. k^c vitajtcunda vd mors Juerit ob deftBum condi" 
 '* tionum ad veritrJus iflius conformationtm pojluldtaruniy fciri 
 •* nequit," i^ys the learned Herbert %, 
 
 CHAB, 
 
 * Herbert de Veritate, y^g. 59. 
 
 + Orac. of Reafon, png. 201. 
 
 % De Ver. pag. 57. ^ Alihi f^phts, — " "But what, of what kind« 
 « and how great, thiR fecond lik or death fnall be, can not be known, 
 «« for want of thofe CvirJitions that are required for th« confirmation ti 
 « the truth of it." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 127 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Natures Light affords not a fufficient Rule of Duty* Its In" 
 
 jufficicncy hence injeried, 
 
 THERE is certainly no other way of attaining bappinefs, than 
 by pleafmg God. Happineis is no other way to be had, than 
 from him, and no other way can we reaionably expert it from 
 him, h.\Xm\.\iZ 'W2Ly oi duty OT obedience. Obedience nnjft either 
 be with refpecl to thele things wl ich in mediatelv regard the 
 honour of the Deity, or- in other things. The injifficitncy 9] na^ 
 tural religion as to wor[hip, has been above den:ohOrated. i hat 
 it is wanting as to the latter, viz. thefe duties which we cal- 
 led, for diftinclion's fake, dudes oj moral obedience, is now to 
 be proven. That man is fubjett to Gcd, and fo in every 
 thing obh'ged to regulate himfelf according to the prefcriptidn 
 of God, has been above aflerted, and the grounds of this af" 
 fertion, have been more than infmuated. Now if nature's 
 light is not able to afford a complete directory as to the whole 
 of man's conduct, in fo far as the Deity is concerned, it can 
 never be allowed fufficient to condu6t man in religion, and lead 
 him to eternal happnefs : While it leaves him at a lofs as to luffi- 
 cient rules for univerfal virtue, which even deifts own to be the 
 principal way of ferving God and obtaining happinefs. It is 
 one of the principal things to which this is to be afcribed, and 
 whereon man's hopes muil: reafonably be fuppofed to lean, if he is 
 left to the mere conduft of the light of nature. Now tie infuffi- 
 ciency of nature's light in this point will be fully made appear, 
 from the enfuin^- confiderations; fome of which are excellently 
 difcourfed by the ingenious Mr. Lock in his Reajonablenefs of 
 Ch'njiianityy as delivered in the Scripture*. If be had done as 
 well in other points as in this, he had deferved the thanks of all 
 that willi well to Chriftianity : But fo far as he follows the truth 
 we fhall take his affillanre, and improve fome of his noiions, ad- 
 ding fuch others^ as are by him omitted, which may be judged of 
 ufe to the cafe in hand. 
 
 I. Then we obferve, that no man left to the conduct merely of 
 nature's light, hasoiteredus a complete body of morality* Some 
 parts of our duty aire pretty fully taught by philofopheis and poli- 
 ticians 
 
 * Reaf. of Chrift. pag. 267. 
 
128 AN INCiUiRY INTO THE cWap. vii* 
 
 ticians. *' So much virtue as was rieceffary to hold focleties toge^ 
 ** ther, and to contribute to the quiet of governments, the civil 
 ** laws of commonwealths taught, and forced upon men that liv- 
 ** ed under magiftrates. But thefe laws, being for the moft part 
 ** made by fuch, who have no other aims but their own power, 
 '* reached no further than thofe things that would ferve to tie men 
 ** together in fubjedlion ; or at mort, were dire(?tly to conduce 
 '* to the profperity and temporal happinefs of any people. But 
 ** natural religion in its full extent, was no where, that 1 know 
 •* of, taken care of by the force of natural rcafon. It ihould feem 
 ** by the little that hitherto has been done in it, that it is too hard 
 " a thing for unaflifted reafon to eftablilh morality in all its 
 ** parts, upon its true foundations, with a clear and convincing 
 ** light*. ' Some pirts have been noticed, and others quiteomittcd. 
 A complete fyflem of morality in its whole extent has never beeri 
 attempted by the mere light of nature, much lefs completed. 
 
 2. To gather together the fcattered rules that are to be met 
 with in the writings of morality , and v/eave thefe ihrcds into a 
 competent body of morality ^ in fofaras even the particular di- 
 rection of any one man would require, is a work of that im- 
 menfe labour, and requires fo much learning, ftudy and atten- 
 tion, that it has never been performed, and never like to be per- 
 formed, and quite furmounts the capacity of mod, if not of 
 any one man. So that neither is there a complete body of mo- 
 rality given us by any one. Nor is it ever likely to be colle6ted 
 from thofe who have given us parcels of it. 
 
 3. Were all the moral directions of the ancient fages collect- 
 ed, it would not be a fyftem that would be any way ufeful to 
 the body of mankind. It would confiH for moft part of enig- 
 matical, dark and involved fentences, that would need a com- 
 n.entary too long for vulgar leifure to perufe, to make them in- 
 telligible. Any one that is in the leaft meafure acquainted 
 with the writings of the philofophers will not queftion this. Of 
 what ufe would it be to read fuch morality as that of Pythagoras, 
 whofe famed fentences were, ** Poake not in the fire with a 
 ** fword ; ftride not over the beam of a balance; fit not upon 
 ** a bufhel ; eat not the heart ; take up your burthen with help; 
 ** eafe yourfelf of it with afliftance ; have always your bed- 
 ** clothes well tucked up ; carry not the image of God about 
 
 ** you 
 
 * Rcaf. of Chrift. pag. 26S. 
 
 + Diog. Laeit. Life ©f Pythagoras. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 129 
 
 ** you in a ring," &c. Was this like to be of any ufe to man^ 
 kind ? No furely, fome of them indeed fpeak more plain, fome 
 of them lefs fo ; but none of them fufficiently plain to be un- 
 derftood by the vulgar. 
 
 4. Further, were this colle6tion made, and, upon other ac- 
 counts, unexceptionable ; yet it would not be fufficiently full to 
 be an univerfal dire6\ory. For, i. Many important duties would 
 be wanting. Self-denial, that confifts in a mean opinion of our- 
 ielves, and leads to a fubmitting, and pafling from all our mod 
 valuable concerns, when the honour of God requires it, is the 
 fundamental duty of all religion, that which is of abfolute neceffity 
 to a due acknowledgment of man's fubje6^Ion and dependence ; 
 and yet we {hall find a deep filence in all the moralifts about it» 
 Which defect is the more confiderable, that the whole of our 
 apoftacy is eafily reducible to this one point, ^« endeavour tofubje^ 
 the will, concerns and pleasures of God to our own* And no adl 
 of obedience to him, can, without grofs ignorance of his nature^ 
 and unacquaintednefs with the extent of his knowledge, be pre- 
 sumed acceptable, which flows not from fuch a principle of felf- 
 denial, as fixedly prefer the concerns of God's glory to all other 
 things. Again, what duty have wc more need of, than that 
 which is employed in forgiving enemies, nay in loving them? We 
 have frequent occalions for it. If we are not acquainted that this 
 is duty, wc muft frequently run into the oppofite (in. But 
 where is this taught among the Heathens? Further, where fhall 
 we find a direcSlory as to the inward frame and aSings of our 
 rfiinds, guiding us how to regulate our thoughts, our defigns? 
 Some notice is taken of the outward behaviour; but little of that 
 which is ihefpring of it. Where is there a rule for the dire6^ion 
 of our thoughts as to objeHs about which they fhould be employed, 
 or as to the manner wherein they arc to be converfant about them ? 
 Thefe things are of great importance, and yet by very far out 
 of the ken of unenlightened nature. Divine and Spiritual 
 things were little known, and lefs thought of by philofophers. 
 2. As this fyflem would be defe6\ive as to particular duties of 
 the highefl importance ,* io it would be quite defeiSlivc as fo the 
 grounds of thofe duties which are enjoined. It is not enough to 
 recommend duty, that it is ufeful to us, or the focieties we Jive 
 in. When we a£^ only on fuch grounds, we fliew fome regard 
 to ourfelves, and the focieties whereof we are members ; but 
 none to God. Where are thefe cleared to be the laws of God'^ 
 Who is he that prefTcs obedience upon the confciences of men, 
 
 Q^ from 
 
t30 AN INQ,UIRY INTO THE chap, vn, 
 
 from the confideration of God's authority Oamped upon thefe 
 laws he prefcribes? And yet without this, you may call it v/hat 
 you will; obedience you cannot call it. It is well obferved by 
 Mr. Lock, — '^ Thofe juft meafures of right and wrong, which 
 ** neceffity had any where introduced, the civil laws prefcrib- 
 ** ed, or philofophers recommended, flood not on their true 
 ** foundations. They were looked on as bonds of fociety, and 
 ** conveniencies of cotiiinon life, and laudable practices :~ But 
 ** where was it that their obligation was thoroughly known, 
 ** and allowed, and they received as precepts of a law, of the 
 *' higheft law, the law of nature ? That could not be without 
 ** the clear knowledge of the lawgiver, and the great rewards 
 ** or punilhments for thofe that would not, or wouid obey. But 
 ** the religion of the Heathens, as was before obferved, little 
 " concerned itfelf in their morals. The prieOs that delivered 
 ** the oracles of heaven, and pretended to fpeak from the gods, 
 ** fpoke little of virtue and a good life. Av.d on the other fide^ 
 ** the philofophers who fpoke from reafon, made not much 
 *t mention of the Deity in their ethicks *." 
 
 5. Not only would this rule be defedive and lame ; but it 
 would be found corrupt and pernicious. For, i. Inflead of 
 leading them in the luayj it would in many inftances lead them 
 afidi* We Ihould have here Epi6letus binding you to tempo- 
 rize, and *' worfiiip the gods after the failiion of your coun- 
 ** try f." You (liould find Pythagoras *' forbidding you to 
 '* pray for yourfelf to God 4," becaufe you know not what is 
 convenient. You (liould find Ariftctle and Cicero commending 
 revenge as a duty. The latter you fl ould find defending Bru- 
 tus and Cafiius for killing Ceiar, and thereby authorizing the 
 murder of any magifirates, if the adiors can but perfuade them- 
 felves that they are tyrants. Had we nothing to condu6^ us ia 
 our obedience and loyalty, but ihe fentiments of philofophers, 
 no prince could be fecurc either of his life or dignity. You 
 fhould find Cicero pleading \or felf -murder, from which he can 
 never be freed, nor can any tolerable apology be made for him- 
 Herein he was fecondcd by Brutus, Cato, Caffius, Seneca ard 
 others innumerable. Many of them pra(Siifed it ; others ap- 
 plauded of their fentiments in this matter. You may find a 
 
 large 
 
 * Reafonr\hIcnefsof Chiiftianlty, pa^. 27S. 
 
 + Epia, Enchirid. Cap. 38. 
 
 % Di»g. Laert. Vit, Pyth. pag. 7. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 
 
 ^3^ 
 
 large account in Mr. VfodwoVs Jpology for the Pkilofophical Per" 
 formances of Cicero prefixed to Mr. Parker's tranilation of his 
 book de Finifus* And you may find the delfts juftifying this in 
 the preface to the Oracles of Reaforif wherein Blount's killing 
 of himfelf is juftlfied. Of the fame mind was Seneca, who ex- 
 prefsly advifes the pia6^ice of it. We fhould here find cuflomary 
 fwearing commended* ^ if not by their precepts, yet by the examples 
 of the heji moratifts,V\2iXoj Socrates, and Seneca. In whom numer- 
 ous inftances of oaths by Jupiter, Hercules, and by beafts, do oc- 
 cur. In the fame way we fhould find ufinatural luji recommended'^'* 
 Ariftotle pra6iifed it. And Socrates is foully belied, if he loved 
 TiOt the fame vice. Whence elfe could Socratici Cznadicoweto 
 be a proverb in Juvenal's days. Pride and ftf-efeem were among 
 their virtues* Which gives me occafion to obferve, that this 
 one thing overturned their whole morality. Epl6\etus, one of 
 the bcft of all their moralifts, tells us, *' That the conftitution 
 ** and image of a philofopher is to expe6l good, as well as fear 
 ** evil, only from himfelf |." Seneca urgeth this every where— 
 ** Sapiens tarn, cequo animo omnia apud alios videt^ contemnitque^ 
 ** quam ]\xmitx : Et hoc fe magi i fufpicit, quod Jupher uti iliis 
 ** non poeJ?f fapiens non vulf^,^' And again, ** EJl aliquid 
 ** quo fapiens anteced.it Deum. Ille nafura beneficio, non fuo, 
 ** fapiens eft ||. Incomptus vir fit externis 3* infuperabiliSy mtra- 
 ** torque tantum fui**.'' ** Friae and fcif-eftcem was adifeafe 
 ** epidemical amongft them, and feems wholly incurable by any 
 ** notions that they had. Some arrived to th.it impudence to 
 '* compare themfelves with, nay, prefer themfelves before their 
 *^ own gods. It was either a horrible folly to deify what they 
 ** poftponed to their own felf-eftimation, or elfe it was aflupen- 
 
 dous 
 
 * Seneca de Ira, Lib. ?, Cap. 15, 
 
 + Diog, Laert- Vita Ariit. Lib- 5. pag. 323. 
 
 J Epid. Each. Cap. 27. 
 
 ^ Seneca, Epift. 73. — <' A wife man beholds and defpifes all things 
 « that he f^es in the poffeffion of others, with as eafy a mind as Ju- 
 «< piter himfelf. And in this he admires hirafelf the mere, that Jupi- 
 « ter cannot ufe thofe things which he defpifes, whereas the wife 
 " man can ufe them, but will not." 
 
 II Id. Epill. 53. — " There is fomething in which a wife man excels 
 " Godi as God is wife by the benefit of his nature, and not by his 
 «■ o^vn." 
 
 ** Id. de njita Beatay Cap. 8. — " Let a man be incorruptible and 
 " incorrigible be external things, and an adtnirc^r of himfelf alone, ' 
 
132 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE qhap. vn, 
 
 ** dous efFefl of their pride to prefer themfelves to the godo 
 ** that they worihipped. Never any man amongrt them propo- 
 *' fed the honour of their gods as the chief end of their ac- 
 *' tions, nor fo much as dreamed of any fuch thing ,* it is evident 
 ** that the beft of them in their beft a6iion5 refledled ftill back to 
 ** themfehes, and determinated there, defigning to fet up a pil- 
 ** lar to their own fame*." That known fentence of Cicero^ 
 who fpeaks out plainly what others thought, will juftlfy this fc- 
 vere cenfure given by this worthy perfon, Fuii plane virius 
 honoran : Nee virtutis uUa alia merces f. Were it needful, 1 
 might write volumes to this purpofe, that would make one's flefh 
 tremble to read. They who defire fali=>fa6\ion in this point, 
 may find it largely done by others. I fl)all conclude this firft 
 evidence of the corruption of their morality ^ with this general 
 reiiedtion of the learned Amyrald in his Treatife of Religions ; 
 ** Scarce can there be found any commonwealth amongft thofe, 
 ** which have been efteemed the beft governed, in which fome 
 *' grand and fignal vice has not been excufed, or permitted, or 
 " even fometimes recommended by public laws J. 2. Not on- 
 ly did they enjoin wron^ things ; but they enjoined what was 
 right to a zurong endy yea even their beft things, as we heard 
 jufl now, aimed at their own honour. We have heard Cicero 
 to this purpofe telling plainly that honour zoas their ai?n» Or 
 what the poet faid of Brutus killing his own fons when they in- 
 tended the overthrow of the liberty of their country, 
 
 Ficit a?nor putrice laudumqiie immenfa cupido J, 
 
 is the moft that can be pleaded for moft of them. Others are 
 plainly blafphemous, as we have heard from Seneca, defigning 
 to be above God by his virtue. At this rate this philofopher 
 talks very oft : *' Let philofophy," fays he," miniftcr this to me, 
 ** that it render me equal to God \\." To the maintenance of 
 this, their notions about the foul of man contributed much ; 
 Hiling it a piece dipt from God 'ATroo-Traa^//,^ ra 0£t, or a part of 
 
 God, 
 
 * Sir Char, WoUeley's Reafon. of Scriptare Belief, pag. ii8. 
 
 + Cicero de Amicina. — " Virtue certainly will have honour, nor is 
 **■ there any other reward of virtue." 
 
 X See indanccs to this purpofe in a dilcourfe of Moral Virtue, and 
 its dia^:rence frcm Grace, pag. 225- 
 
 § " The love of his country, and his irr.nicnfe defire of praife, over- 
 « came him.'' 
 
 Ij Seneca, Epillle 48. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 133 
 
 God, tS A/oV Ms^©-, as Epicletus fpeaks. Horace calls it di^ 
 vincK particula aura. Cicero in his Somnium Scip, tells us 
 what they thought of themfelves, Demn fato te ejfi — " Know 
 ** thyfelf to be a God.'* And accordingly the Indian Brach- 
 mans vouched themfelves for Gods. And indeed they, who de- 
 bafed their Gods below men, by their abominable characters of 
 them, it was no v/onder to find them prefer themfelves to them. 
 Nor did any run higher this way than Plato. Let i)ny one read 
 his arguments for the immortality of the foul ^ and if they prove 
 any thing, they prove it a Gcd» Thus they quite corrupted all 
 they taught, by direcllng It to wrong ends. 3. This fyO.em 
 would corrupt us as to the fountain of virtue and its principlt, 
 teaching us to truft ourfelves, and not depend on God for it. 
 We have heard fome fpeak to this purpofe already ; and Cicero 
 may well be allowed to fpeak for the reft. '* A Deo tanium 
 ** rationem habemus : Bonam autem ratLonem aut fion bonam a 
 ** nobis*.'' And a little after, near the clofe of his book, after he 
 has owned our external advantages of learning to be from God, he 
 fubjoins — ** Virtutem autem nemo unqumn accepiam Deo retulit, 
 ** nimiruju reBe : Propter virtutem eni??i jure lauda?nur, 6? 
 ** in virtute rede gloriaviur, quod nan contingeret, fi id donum 
 ** a DeOf non a nobis kaberemiisf." Thus we fee how corrupt 
 they were in this point, and it is here eafily obfervable whence 
 they were corrupted as to their chief end. He that believes that 
 he has any thing that is not from God, will have fomewhat aifo 
 that he will not refer to him, as his chief end. 4. The corrup- 
 tion of this fyftem, would in this appear, that it would he full 
 of contraditlions. Here we fhall find nothing but endlefs jaris ; 
 one condemning as abominable, what another approves and 
 praifes : Whereby we fhould be led to judge neither riglit, ra- 
 ther than any of them. A man who, for dlre^S^flon, will be- 
 take himfelf to the declarations of the philofophers, goes into a 
 wild wood of uncertainty, and into an eridleis maze, from which 
 
 he 
 
 * Cicero de Natura Deornra, Lib. 3. P. mini, 173. — " We hare 
 « only reaton from God, but we have good or bad reafon from cur- 
 <f felve!5." 
 
 i " Ba-t nobody ever acknowledged that he was indebted to God for 
 " his virtue, and certainly with good reafon ; for we aie juilly pralfed 
 " on account of our viriue, and we jutUy boaft of it, which could not 
 " be the cafe, if we had that as a gift from God, and not from our- 
 « felves." 
 
131 AN INCtUlRY INTO THE chap. vii. 
 
 he fliould never get out. Plenty of Inftances, confirming thefe 
 two iall inentioncd oblervations, might be adduced. If the rea- 
 der defire them, I iliall refer him to Mr. Lock's Effay on Human 
 Under jlandingy Book i. Chap, 3. Parag. 9. where he may fee it 
 has been cuftomary with not a few nations, to expofe their chil- 
 dren, bury them alive without fcruple, fatten them for the 
 flaughter, kill them and eat them, and difpatch their aged pa- 
 rents : yea fome, he will find, have been fo abfurd, as to expecl 
 paradife as a reward of rtven.ge, and of eating abundance of their 
 enemies. Whether thefe inftances will anfwer Mr. Lock's pur- 
 pofe, I difpute not now, I defign not to make myfelf a party 
 in that controverfy. But I am fure futh fatal mirtakes, as to 
 what is good and evil, area pregnant evidence of the infufficl- 
 ency of nature's light to alFoid us a complete rule of duty. If 
 they, who were left to it, blundered fo Ihamefully in the clear- 
 eft cafes, how (hall we exped direction, as to thefe that are far 
 more intricate ? 
 
 6. Be this fyftem never fo complete, yet it can never be allow- 
 ed to be a rule of life to mankind. This I cmnot better fatisfy 
 rnyfelf upon, than hv tranicribine what the ingenious Mr. Lock 
 lias excellently difcourfed on t.iis head. '• 1 will fupnofe there 
 ** was a Stoheus in thofe times, who had gathered the moral Jay 
 ** ings from all \}c\t fa;ges of the wor^d. What would this amount 
 *' to, towards being; a fteady ru'e, a certain tranfcript of a law, 
 ** that we are under ? Did the faying of AriRippus, or Confucius, 
 ./** give it authority ? Was Zeno a lawgiver to mankind? If 
 ' ** not, what he or any other philofopher deli\/ered, was but a 
 ** faying of his* Mankind might hearken to it or reject it as 
 ** they pleafed, or as it fuited their intereft, paffions, principles, 
 ** or humours. They were under no obligation : The opinion 
 ** of this or that philofopher, was of no authority. And if it 
 ** were, you mufl take all he faid under the fame chara61er. 
 ** All his dictates muft go for law, certain and true ; or none of 
 ** them. And then ifvou will take the moral fayings of Epicu- 
 ** rus (many whereof Seneca q"'J0tes with approbation) for pre- 
 <* cepts of the law of natuie, you mufi take all the rel^ of his 
 ** do6lrine for fu'ch too, or ?Ife his authority ceafes : So no more 
 *' is to be received from him, or any ol the fagesofold, for parts 
 ** of the law of nature, as carrying with them an obligation to be 
 ** obeyed, but what they prove to be fo. But fuch a body of 
 ** cthicks, proved to be the law nature, from principles or reaion, 
 ** and reachins: all the duties of life, 1 ihiijk no body v/ill fay 
 
 " the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 135 
 
 ** the world had before our Saviour's time." And I may add, nor 
 to this day has, by the mere light of nature* ** It is not enough/* 
 continues he, " that there were up and down fcattered fayings 
 *' of wife men, conformable to right reafon. The law of nature 
 ** was the law of conveniency too: And it is no wonder thefe 
 ** men of parts, and (tudicus of virtue, (who had occafion to think 
 " of any particular part of it) (liould, by meditation, light on 
 ** the right, even from the obfervable conveniency and beauty 
 ** of it, without making out its obligation from the true prin- 
 ** ciples of the law of nature, and foundations of morality." 
 More he adds judicioufly to this purpofe ; but this is enough. 
 And hence it is plain, that fuch a fyfiem of morality would, if 
 co]le61ed, at befl be only a collection of problems, which eve- 
 ry man is left at liberty to canvafs, difpute, or rejc6\ ; nay 
 more, which every man is obliged to examine as to all its parts, 
 in fo far as it prefcribes rules to him, and not to receive, but 
 upon a difcovery of its truth from its proper principles. 
 
 7. It is then plain that every man is left to his own reafon to 
 find out his duty by. He is not to receive it upon any other au- 
 thority than that of reafon, if revelation is reje<?ted. He muft 
 find out therefore, in every cafe, what he is to do, and deduce 
 its obligation from the principles of the law of nature. But who 
 fees not, that the rnofi: part of men have neither Icifure nor capa- 
 city for i'uch a work? Meamay think duty eafy to be difcovered 
 now, when Chrirtianity has cleared it up. But Mr. Lock well 
 cbferves,** That the flrft knowledge of thofe truths, which have 
 ** been difcovered byChriflian philofophers, or philofophers fince 
 ** Chriftianity prevailed, is owing to revelation ; though asfoon as 
 ** they are heard and coniidered, they are found to be agreeable 
 ** to reafon, and fuch as can by no means be contradicted. Every 
 ** one may obferve a great many truths v.-hich he receives at firH; 
 *' from others, and readily aficn's to, as confonant to reaion, which 
 " he would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond hisflrength 
 *' to have dilcovered himfelf. Native and original truth, is not 
 ** fo eafiiy wrought out of the mine, as we who have it delivered 
 ** ready clv^ and faff ioned into cur hards, are apt to imagine, 
 " And how often at fifty, and threefcore years old, are thinking 
 *' men told, what they wonder how they could mifs thinking 
 *' of? Whi h yet their own contemplations did not, and polPitly 
 
 never would have helped them to. Experience fhe-^s, that the 
 ** knowledge of m.orality, by mere natural light (how agreeable 
 ** foever it be to it), makes but a flow progrefs and little advance 
 
 (( 
 
135 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, vii; 
 
 " in the world: Whatever was the caufe, it is plain in fa6l, that 
 " human reafon, unaffifted, failed men in its great and proper 
 ** bufmefs of morality." 
 
 8. As it is unquefiionably certain, that the raoR part of man- 
 kind arc not able, by their own reafon to frame a complete body 
 of morality for ihemfelves, or find out what is their own duty 
 in every particular indance. (I ftiall not fpeak of any man's be- 
 ing obliged to difcover what belongs to other people's duty, left 
 our antagonifts (hould fufpei5l Idefigned to open a door for priefts, 
 afet of men and an office which they mortally hate). I fpeak only 
 of what is every one's duty in particular. And I fay it is evident, 
 that the moft part of mankind are unable to find this, which is 
 Dot to be done, but by fuch f^rains of reafoning, and connexion 
 ©f confequences, which they have neither leifure to weigh, nor, 
 for want of capacity, education and ufe, (kill to judge of; and 
 as I fay, they are unable for this, fo I fear this tafk will be 
 found too hard for the ableft philofophers* Particular duties 
 sre fo many, and many of them fo remote fiom the firft prin- 
 ciples, and the connexion is fo fubtile and fine fpun, that I 
 fear not to fay that it mufl: cfcape the piercing eyes of the mod 
 acute philofophers : and if they engage in purfuit of the difco- 
 very, through fo many and fo fubtile confequences, they mufl: 
 either quit the unequal chace, or lofe themfelvea inftead of 
 finding truth and duty. And if we allow ourfelves to judge of 
 v'hat (hall be, by what has been the fuccefs of fuch attempts, I 
 am fure this is more than bare guefs. 
 
 9. It is further to he obferved, that no tolerable progrefs could 
 be made herein, were it to be done before advanced years. But 
 it is certain, that youth, as well as riper age, is under the law 
 of nature^ and that that age needs clear difcoveries of duty the 
 more, that in it irregular paffions and inclinations arc more vi- 
 gorous, and it is expofed to more temptations than any other 
 part of a man's life ; and befides, it wants the advantages of 
 experience, to fortify it againft the dangerous influence of them, 
 which advanced years are attended with. Now it will be to 
 no purpofe to me, to find out fome years hence what was my 
 duty before, as to obedience ; for now the feafon is over. The 
 law may difcover my fin, but can never regulate my praElice^ 
 in a period of my life that is paft and gone. Every man muft 
 hive the knowledge of each day's duty in its feafon. This is 
 not to be had from the light of nature. If we are left at a lofs in 
 our younger years, as nature's light will have us, we may be 
 
 ruined 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 137 
 
 ruined before knowledge come. Much fin mud be contrad^ed, 
 and ill habits are like to be very much ftrengthened before any 
 ftop come : yea, they may be fo ftrong, that the foundation of 
 inevitable ruin may be laid. 
 
 Finally, knowledge is requifite before a6\ing ; at leaft, in 
 order of nature it \z fo, and muft, at leaft in order of time, be 
 contemporary. Acllon gives not always time for long reafon- 
 ing and weighing fuch trains of confequences, as are requifite 
 to clear duties from the firft principles of nature's light, and 
 enforce their obligation. And therefore man left to it, is in a 
 miferable plight, not much unlike to the cafe of the Romans, 
 Du?n deliberant Ro?nani capitur Saguntum* : While he is 
 fearching for duty, the feafon is loft ; and the difcovery, if it 
 comes, arrives too late to be of any ufe. 
 
 It is in vain for any to pretend, that the knowledge of duty 
 is connate to the mind of man. Whatever may be pretended 
 as to a few of the firft principles of morality, and it is but a very 
 few of which this can be alleged, yet it iscertain, it can never 
 be without impudence extended to the thoufandth part of the 
 duties we are bound to in particular cafes. General rules 
 may be eafy ; particular ones are the difficulty, and the 
 application of generals to circumftantiated cafes is a hard 
 tafk. It is but with an ill grace pretended, that thefe duties 
 are felf-evident, and the knowledge of them innate or connate, 
 call it what you pleafe,to the mind of man; which the world has 
 never been agreed about ; which wife men, when the faireft oc- 
 cafions offered of thinking on them, could not difcern ; which 
 philolophers, upon application and attention, cannot make out 
 from the principles of reafon. The reafon why the knowledge 
 of any truth is faid to be innate, is, becaufe, cither the mind of 
 man is ftruck with the evidence of it on its firft propofal, 
 and muft yield aflent, without feeking help from any principles 
 of a clearer evidence ; or becaufe its dependence on fuch principles 
 is fo obvious, that the conclufion is fo plainly connected with 
 fuch principles, that It is never focner fpoke of, than its con- 
 nexion with them, and fo its truth, appears. Of the firft fort 
 few duties can be faid fo be. And if they were of the laft fort, 
 any perfon of a tolerable capacity would be able to demonftratc 
 them upon attention. New how far it is otherwifc in this cafe, 
 who fees not? 
 
 Upon 
 
 * " While the Romnns were deliberating, Saguntum was taken." 
 
 R 
 
138 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. viii. 
 
 Upon the whole I mud couclude, that nature's light is not 
 fufticient to give wsfucka law or rw/^ as may be ?i fur e guide to 
 thofe who defire to go right, fo that they need not lole their way 
 or miftake their duty, if they have a mind to know it, nor be 
 uncertain whether they have done it. 
 
 It will not relieve the deifts to pretend, that fome of the excep- 
 tions above mentioned may be retorted upon Chriftians, and im- 
 proven againft the fcriptures: For nothing but ignorance of the 
 true fiate of the queflion can give countenance to this pretence. 
 The fcriptures are a rule provided by fovereign grace for fallen 
 man, and by infinite wifdom are adjufted to God's great defign of 
 recovering man to the praife of his own grace, in fuch a way as 
 m2iyjlain the pride of all glory. They are fufficient as an out- 
 ward mean, and do effectually conduct man to that happinefsde- 
 figned for him, under the influence of the afTifting grace provided 
 for him, and in the ufe of the means of God's appointment. , 
 They provide a relief againfi: any unavoidable defe6is in his obe- 
 dience, and dirc£l to the proper grounds of his acceptance in it : 
 But men who pretend nature's light is able to guide to happinefs, 
 are obliged to ihew that it affords us a rule of duty ; which of 
 itfelf, without the help of any fupernatural aiTiflance, either as 
 to outward means or inward influences, may be able to lead man 
 to the obedience required ; and this obedience muft be fuch, as an- 
 fwers our original obligation, and upon account of its own worth, 
 is able to fupport, not only a hope of aceptance but of future, 
 nay eternal rewards. For fuch as are left to nature's light, can 
 neither pretend to any fuch outward means, nor inward aflifiance, 
 nor any /uch relief againfi: defc£ls in knowledge or pra6\ice, 
 as the fcriptures do furniih us with. Nature's light lays no 
 other foundation for hopes of acceptance or reward, fare only 
 the worth or perfection of the obedience itfelf. And this, if it 
 is duly confidered, not only repels the pretended retortion, but 
 gives additional force to the foregoing argument. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Proving the Infuffciency of Natural Religion from its DejeBs 
 as to fufficient Motives for enforcing Obedience. 
 
 TT is warmly difputed in the fchcols, whether revardsDnd 
 -*- puniflirnents be not {o much of the ejfence of a law, and fo in- 
 cluded in its notion, that nothing can properly be (iilcd kw 
 
 which 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 139 
 
 which wants them ? I defign not to make myfelf a party in thofe 
 difputes. But this much is certain, that laws and government 
 are relatives ; they mutually infer and remove each other. 
 There is no government properly fo called, that wants laws, or 
 fomewhat that is the meafurcand ftandard of its adminiftration. 
 And there arc no laws where there is no authority and govern- 
 ment to enjoin them. Whence this plainly refults, fhat obedi- 
 ence, if it does no more, yet it certainly entitles to the protec- 
 tion of the government* And difobedience, not only deprives 
 of any title to that, but lays open to fuch further feverities, as 
 the government fliall have power to execute and fee meet to ule 
 for its own prefervation, againfi: violaters of its conflitutions. 
 But further, to wave this difpute, the nature of man, which 
 proceeds not to a6\ions fave upon knowledge, makes this much 
 certain, That whatever he may be fuppofed to be obliged to in 
 flridl duty, yet really in fa6l, he ufes not to pay any great re- 
 gard to laws which are not enforced by motives or inducements, 
 that may be fuppofed to work with him, as containing difcove- 
 ries of fuch advantages attending obedience, and difadvantages 
 following difobedience, as may powerfully fway him to coniult 
 his duty as well his intereft, by yielding obedience. If then 
 natural religion is found unable to difcover thofe things which 
 ordinarily prevail with man to obey, and carry him over any 
 obftrudtions v/hich lie in the way, it can never be fuppofed fuffi- 
 cient to lead man to happinefs : For man is not to be driven, 
 but led ; he is not to be led blind-folded, but upon rational 
 views of duty and intereft. That natural religion is in this ref- 
 pe6l exceedingly defedive^ is the defign of this difcourfe to de- 
 monfirate. Ail thofe motives, which ufually have any influ- 
 ence, may, I think, be brought under the following heads. 
 
 1. A full vie'.y of the authority of the lawgiver and his laws. 
 
 2. A profpe6f of prefent benefit by obedience. 3. A profpect of 
 future rewards for it. 4. Fear of puniQiment in cafe of diiobedi- 
 ence. And 5. Examples. Now, as I know no motive which may 
 not eafily witiiout ftretch be refoiv^d into one of thofe, fo, if f 
 make it appear that nature's light is lame as to each of them,, I 
 think I have gone a great way to difprove its fufficiency to hap- 
 pinefs. Well, let us elTay it. 
 
 I, The great inducement to obedienc-e is <2 t/c^^r difcovery of 
 the authority of the lazvgiver, and laws thence refuiting. This 
 is not perhaps, properly fpeaking, a motive, as it i.i oft ufed : 
 for in very deel th's is the lorrnal reafon of cbc.Hjnce ; a regar-:! 
 
 'Alisreto 
 
I40 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. viii. 
 
 whereto gives any a6lion the denomination of obedience, and 
 entitles to the law's protc(5\ion, and other advantages ; yet cer- 
 tain it is, that thisfhould have the principal influence, from the 
 grouiid jurt now laid down, and therefore v/e (hall here fpeak of 
 it. Jt will prevail far with man to obey the law of nature, if 
 nature's light clearly dlfcovers how much the lawgiver defervcs 
 that place ; how well he is qualified for it ; how indifputablc 
 his title to the government is, and how far he has interpofed his 
 authority ; that the ftamp of it is on thefe laws, to which wc 
 arc urged to be fubje6t ; that they bear a plain congruity to his 
 fublime qualifications ; that he is concerned to have them obey- 
 ed ; obferves the entertainment they meet with ; entertains a 
 refped for the obedient, and refents difobedience. If we arc 
 left in the dark, as to all or mod of thefe, it will exceedingly 
 weaken our regard to the law. And that this is plainly the cafe, 
 is now to be made appear, i. It goes a great way toward the 
 recommendation of any law to be fully fatisfied as to the quali- 
 fications of the framer. But how dark is nature's light here ? 
 It dlfcovers indeed his power and greatnefs : But its notions of 
 his wifdom, juftice, clemency and goodnefs are exceedingly 
 darkened, by the fecmingly unequal diftrlbutions of things here 
 below, the innumerable miferies, under which the v/orld 
 groans, and other things of a like nature ; that truly very {qv/ 
 if left merely to its conduct, would reach any fucli difcovcrics 
 of thofe glorious properties, as would influence any confiderablc 
 regard to thofe laws he is fuppofed to make. 
 
 I difpute not now what may be iiri^tly known and demon- 
 ftrated of God, by a train of fubtle arguments. For 1 would 
 not he underflood fo much as to infinuate the want of objeBiv: 
 ezjidences of the wifdom and goodnefs of tht Deity » Our quef- 
 tion refpecis not fo much thefe, as mans power of difccrning 
 them. It is not abfolutely denied, that there arc many and 
 pregnant evidences of ihefe attributes in the works of creation 
 and providence ; our quefiion is only, Whether there is fuch 
 evidence of thofe perfections, cfpecially in God's moral govern- 
 ment of the world, every where appearing, as may be able 
 cfFe^^ually to influence the practice, and aifec^ the mind of man 
 in his prcfcnt flate, notwithflanding of any obRructions arifing, 
 cither from (he inward weaknefs of his faculties, or the works 
 of God from without, which to the darkened mind of man 
 may have a contrary appearance ? And that which I contend 
 is, That fuch is the flatc cf thicgs, fo they go in the world, and 
 
 fo 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 141 
 
 fo blind are men's eyes, that there is not fo near and clear evi- 
 dence of thefe things, in what is difcernible by the moft of 
 men, as may ftrike flrongly, atteiSt powerfully, and have a live- 
 ly influence to quicken to pra6lice. If our governor is near, if 
 he is daily converfant with us, if we have daily indifputed evi- 
 dences of his goodnefs, wifdom, juOice, clemency, and other 
 qualifications fitting for government, without any a6tions that 
 may feem to be capable of a contrary conftru^^ion, or even of a 
 dubious one, this enforces a regard to his commands. On the 
 contrary, if he is little known, if his way of management is 
 hid from us, if there are inflances, which however poffibly they 
 may be juft, yet have a contrary appearence to us, this weak- 
 ens regard and quite confounds. And this is plainly the cafe 
 as to God, with men left to the mere condudi of nature's light, 
 not through any defect on God's part, but through the darknefs 
 of the mind of man in his prefent flate ; and this is the more 
 confidcrable, that we ufc to be more tenfible of what evil any 
 is fuppofed to do us, than of what good we may receive from 
 them. Now fince this obfcrvation is of life to prevent mifiakes, 
 1 defirc it may be carried along through the reft of our remarks. 
 2. It works powerfully, and ftrongly excites to obedience, if 
 the indifputablenefs of the lawgiver's title, and the grounds 
 whereon it leans are clearly known. Now as to God, the 
 grounds of his title to the legiflative as well as executive power, 
 are the fuper-cminent excellency of his nature, rendering him 
 not only fit, but the only fit perfon for it ; his creation of all 
 things, and thence refuJting, propriety in them as his creatures, 
 fuch as his prefcrvation of them in being, his providential care 
 and infpe^tion, and the many benefits he befiows on them. But 
 we have heard already, how dim the difcoveries of God's fuper- 
 cminent excellencies are, which the light of nature affords. As 
 to his creation, it was difputcd among the learned and quite 
 overlooked by the vulgar, amongft thofe who were left to na- 
 ture's light, as baron Herbert well obfcrvcs and clears. As (o 
 hisclofc influence in their prefervatioc, it could not be noticed 
 or known, where the other was overlooked. His providential 
 care and infpe6iion, which perhaps, as to its power of influ- 
 encing, would go the greateft length, if it can be proven by 
 the light of nature ; yet cannot certainly by it be explained, 
 and truly is fo darkened by many obvious occurrences in the ex- 
 ternal adminiftration of the world, that paft all pcradvcnture, it 
 can never fuitably aficdl men, who have no other difcoveries of 
 
 it. 
 
142 AN INQUIRY IxXTO THE chap. viii. 
 
 J*, than the light of nature affords. As to God's benefits, 
 though they are many, yet thc}?^ did not affe6l fo much, becaufe 
 they were conveyed by the intervention of fuch fecond caufes as 
 did arred, inOead of helping forward the (liort-fighted minds 
 of men, and detained them in contemplation of the fervant 
 who bioaght the favour, whereas they fhould have loekcd fur~ 
 ther, to him who fent it ; fo they (hould have done, but fo they 
 did not. Again, fome of their moil valuable benefits, their 
 virtues, they denied God to be the author of, as we have heard 
 above from Seneca, Cicero and Epi6letus. And finally, fome 
 •"^f them were inclinable to think, that the benefits were more 
 than countervailed by the evils we labour under. Thus were 
 the minds of men darkened, and fo they had continued, if we 
 had been without revelation, 3. It is of much force to influ- 
 ence obedience, if we have a clear and fatisfying difcovery of 
 his government in thofe laws ; that is, that he who is thus qua- 
 ficd for, and rightfully poffefTed of the government, has made 
 fuch laws, and ftamped his authority on them. However great 
 ideas we have of his excellency and title to give laws ; yet this 
 will have no weight, if we are not clearly fatisfied that thefe are 
 /z2i laws. Now how palpably dcfe6live nature's light is here, has 
 been fully made out in the laft chapter. 4. It will have no 
 imall force, if we had a clear knowledge, that thefe laws are 
 in their matter fully congruous to the qualifications we defire in 
 a lawgiver, fuch as wifdom, goodnefs, jnftlce, clemency, and 
 the like. But as thefe attributes are either not known or darkly 
 known by the light of nature ; fo the imprefs of them on the 
 laws of nature has not been difcovered, nor is it difcoverable : 
 for I doubt not but it might eafily be made appear, that the 
 whole frame of the laws of nature are adapted to the nature cf 
 man as innocent, and indued with fuflicient power to continue 
 lb, which is not the cafe wilh him now. And therefore how to 
 reconcile thefe laws to the- notions of God and man is a fpecu- 
 lation, as of the laft confcquencc, fo of the greateft difficulty, 
 wiiich had never been got through, if God had not vouchfafed 
 \-\^ another guide than nature's light. 5. If the lawgiver is cei- 
 tainly known to have a great regard to his laws, and to lake 
 careful inipeiHiion of the obfervation of them ; this will be a 
 llrong inducement to regard tliem. Rut liere nature's light is 
 no iefs dark, than as to the reft. The whole face of things in 
 the world Teem to have fo contrary an afpei^^, that we could ne- 
 ver it<i clearly through this matter, if, without revelation, we 
 
 were * 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 143 
 
 were left to judge of God by the mere light of nature. The 
 abounding of fin, profperity of finners, fufferings of the beft, 
 and the like, led fonr.eto deny God's providence and government 
 entirely ; others of the better fort doubted of it, as Claudian 
 elegantly reprefents his own eafe, lib. i. contra Rufinum. 
 
 Sape mihi duhiam traxit fententia menteniy 
 Curarent fuperi terras^ an ullus inejjet 
 Re^or y incerto fluereyit mart alia caftt. 
 Nam cum dijpojiti quajtjjemf^dera muftdU 
 F reef criptof que mar i fine h annifque meatus y 
 Et iifcisy notijque 'vices : Tunc omnia rebar 
 
 Confilis firmata Dei ■ 
 
 Sed cum res hominum tanta caligine njoln^i 
 Adfpiceremy l<£tof(^ue diu florere nocentes, 
 Vexarique pios : Rurfus lahefaBa cadehat 
 Religio caujfceque 'viam vonjpontefequehar 
 AlteriuSi 'vacuo qu^e currere femina motu 
 Affirmat magnumque ncvas per inane figufas 
 Fortuna, non arte, regi: qu<^ numina fenfji 
 Amhiguo 'vel nulla putaty 'uel nefcia nojirij*' 
 
 I know that Claudian got over this by Rufinus's death, but 
 fuch providences have not always the like ilTue, and I only 
 adduce his words as a lively reprefentation of the ftraif. Yea, 
 to fo great a height came thefe doubts, that it is to be feared 
 that many were carried to the worfl fide. It is certain the 
 beft of them were fo confounded with thofe occurrences, 
 that they could not fpare refledions full of blafphemy upon 
 
 Providence, 
 
 * " I had often my mind diftrafted with doubt, whether the gods 
 took care of the world, or whether there was no governor in it, and 
 the affairs of mortals fluduated under uncertain chance. For when i 
 had enquired into the laws of the world, as difpofed into order, and 
 the bounds that are prefcribed to the fea, and the courie of the yerr 
 and the fucceflion of day and night, then I thought that theie things 
 were eftablifhed by the wifdom of Gcd. But again when 1 faw fhat 
 the affairs of men were involved in fo great darknefs, that the wicked 
 f^oiuilhed in joy for a long time, and that the godly were harrafTed, 
 Religion being weakened, expired, and I againft my will followed the 
 trafl of another opinion, which fuppofed that the feeds of things have 
 a blind motion, and that new form* of things are directed through aa 
 immcnfe void, by chance, and not by art, and which fuppofes that the 
 deities have cither an ambiguous fcnfe or none at all, and chat they 
 know nothing of us.'* 
 
144 ANINQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. vni. 
 
 Providence, The famed Cato's lad words may fcarccly be ck- 
 cufed for this crime. Finally, it is certain, that iherc was 
 fo much darknefs about this matter, that Hone of them all paid a 
 due regard to God. 
 
 1 (hall now leave this head, after I haveobferved one or two 
 things ; and the firft of them is, That however fomc of tlicfc 
 truths above mentioned may pofTibly be made out by a train 
 of fubtle arguments ; yet fuch arguments, however they 
 may draw an affent from a thini^.ing man, not only tranfcend 
 the capacity of the vulgar, but fall of exciting and affed^ing 
 even the moft philofophicai heads. For to draw forth our 
 a6llve powers into a6lion, the inducements muft (bine with a 
 light; that m.ay warm the mind as it were, not only diflipat- 
 ing doubts about the reality of what it obferved, but alfo 
 lhewi»g its excellency. Upon this occafion 1 may not im- 
 pertinently apply to the philofophers> what Plautius fays of 
 comic poets, 
 
 SpeBa-'vi ego priiem ccmicos ad ijitim modum 
 Sapienter dida dicere, (itqne illis plaudier 
 Cum illos fapienUs mores mo7rJirabant populo : 
 Sed cum inde faum quifque ihant dvverji domumj 
 Nulus erat ilia pa^oy ut illi jujferunt** 
 
 ** I have often feen, that after the comic poets have fald 
 ** good things, and that they have been applauded for them 
 ** while they taught good manners to the people, as foon as they 
 ** were got home, no body was the better for their advice." 
 The other thing I obferve, is, that any defeat as to the know- 
 ledge of the lawgiver is fo much the more confiderable than 
 any other, that a regard to the lawgiver is that which gives the 
 formality of obedience to any a6Uon, and therefore the Icfs 
 knowledge there is of him, the lefs of obedience, properly (o 
 called, there will be. Thus far we have cleared how little 
 nature's light can do for enforcing obedience from the difcovc- 
 rits it makes of the lawgiver. 
 
 2, A fecond head of motives to duty is prefsnt advantage. 
 Now if nature's light is able to prove, that obedience to the 
 law of nature is like to turn to our prefent advantage, cither 
 
 a» 
 
 * Lc Clerk Parrhofianay page 52. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 
 
 ■i.i 
 
 as to proHt or pleafure, this would be of weight: But it i^ 
 needlefs to infili on this head ; for v.'ho fees not, that there 
 is but iittle to be fald as to many duties here? Are fhey not 
 to crofs our prefent inclinations? And for any thing that na- 
 ture's light can ditcover, diametrically opponte to our prelent 
 Jntereit and honour; I mean according to the notions general- 
 ly entertained of thofe things in the world? So it is but little 
 that it can fay upon this head. How often are we fo fitu- 
 atedl, that in appearance notiiing ftands in our way to pleafure, 
 honour or profit, but only the command? It were eafy to en- 
 large on this head; but fmce it will not be readily controverted 
 I wave it. And indeed it were of no conGderation, if prefent 
 lodes were othenvife compenfated by future advantsges, 
 
 3. If nature's light can give a full view of frUurd rewardi, 
 then this will compenfate prcient dil'ad vantages, and be a 
 llrong inducement to obedience. But the difcovery, if it 19 
 of any ufe, muil; be clear and lively, that it may afpeti **nd 
 excite, as has been above obferved. Well, what can nature's 
 light do here? Very little, as has been above fully demon- 
 ftrated, when we difcourfed of the chit f end. It remains only 
 now that we obferve that evils and difadvantages difcouragino; 
 from duty are prefent, fenlible, great, and fo atfeiSt fironglv: "^ 
 wherefore if future rewards have not fomewhat to balance 
 thefe, they cannot have much influence. Now it has been 
 made fufficlently evident, that all Vvdilch nature's light has to 
 to put in the balance, to encourage the mind to go an in d-;fy, 
 agalnfl prefent, fenfible, certain and great difcouragemcnts, 
 is at mofl, but a dark, conjectural difcovery of rewards, or 
 rather fufpicion about them, af:er time, without telling u» 
 what they are, or wherein they do confiH:. Will tiiis ever 
 prevail with men to obey? No if. cannot. The profpect of 
 future rewards was not that which prevailed witli the mon. 
 moral amongfl; the heathens of old. Th.eir knovvieJoe of 
 thefe things, if they had any, was of little or no ufe or in- 
 fluence to them, as their excitement to virtue. 
 
 4. Nature's light is no lefs defective as to xhz difco-erv of 
 puniPii'nents: For however the forebodings ofKuiUv coniclcnccs, 
 a dark tradition handed down from generation to generation, 
 and ibme exemplary inflances of divine feveiity, hav^ kept 
 fome impreffions of punllliments on the mind's of many in 
 ail ages; yet it is well known, that thofe things were ridi- 
 culed by moft of the philofophers, the poet's fictions rnads 
 
 S iheai 
 
146 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. viii. 
 
 them corxtemptible, and the daily inftances of impunity of 
 finners here, weakened the impreffions. Befides, evils that 
 follow duty, and loires luRained, are fenfible, prefent, cer- 
 tain, known, and fo affecl flrongly, and therefore are not 
 to be balanced by punilliments, which are not, or rather, at 
 leaft, are rarely executed in time, and whereof there is little 
 diflinil evidence after time. For be it granted that the jufticc 
 and holinefs of God render it incredible that fo many tranf- 
 greilors as efcane unpuniflicd here, fhould get off fo ; yet cer- 
 tain it is, that nature's ligiit can noway inform what punifh- 
 ment (hall be infli6ied. 
 
 5. Nature's light can never point ns to exa??iples vjh'ich m2iy 
 have any inliuence. There are but few of thofe who wanted 
 revelation, even of the philofophers, who were not tainted with 
 grofs vices. We have (Irange ilories told of a Socrates; and 
 yet after all, he was but a forry example of virtue. He is fre- 
 quently by Plato introduced fu'earing. He is known to have 
 balely complyed with the way of worfnip followed by his own 
 country, which was the more impious, that it is to be fuppo- 
 fed to be againfl the perfuafion of his confcience ; yea we find 
 him with his lafl breath, ordering his friend to facrifice the 
 cock he had vowed to Efculpaius. M. Dacier's apology for 
 him is perfectly impertinent. He is accufed of impure amours 
 with Aicibiades, and of proRituting his wife's chaftity for 
 gain. It is evident that in the whole of his condu6t, he (liews 
 but little regard to God. Such are the examples we are to ex- 
 pcdl here. We might give full as bad account of the famed 
 Seneca, were it neceiTary to infift on this head not to mention 
 others of lefs confideration. 
 
 Now to conclude, how fhall we by nature's light be pre- 
 vailed on to obey, while it gives fo unfatisfying difcoveries of 
 the law and lawgiver ? Can Ihew fo little of prefent or future 
 advantage by obedience, cr difadvantagc by difobedience? 
 Nor can it offer any examples that are worth follovving. 
 
 It is certain that the experience of the world juftifies this 
 account. VVMiat means it, that inflances of any thing like 
 virtue arc fo rare where revelation obtains not? Sure it mud 
 i'ay one of two, if not both; that either nature's light prefent 
 no in duce?7ie nts fuificicnt to \ni\ucnce pral'hcef or that man is 
 dreadfully corrupt I The deifts may chufe which, or both, 
 and let them avoid the confequences if they can. 
 
 It had been cafy to have laid a great deal more on this head, 
 
 Ihe 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE IMODERN DEISTS. 147 
 
 The fubjea would have admitted of confiderable enlargement; 
 but this iny defign will not allow. I intend to keep ciofe to 
 the argument, and run out no further than is of neceffity 
 for clearing the force of that. And where tlic cafe is plain, 
 as I take it to be here, I content inyfelf with touching at the 
 heads which clear the truth under debate. 
 
 C H A P. IX. 
 
 Shewing the Importance of knowing theOrigin of Sin to iht toerld, 
 and the DefeBivenefs of Nature's Light as to this, 
 
 JT is not more clear that the fun (hines, than that the whole 
 world lies in wickednsfi. The creation groans under the 
 weight of this unweildy load, which lies lb heavy upon it, 
 that it is the wonder of all who have any right notions of the 
 jiiftice or holinefs of God, that it is not funk into nothing, 
 or exquifite niifery before now. Tl:e Heathens made bitter 
 complaints of it. And indeed if their complaints had been 
 left upon themfelves, and had not been turned into accufations 
 of the holy God, none could have wondered at them, or con- 
 demned them. For it is manifefl to any one who will not 
 Hop his ears, put out his eyes, flifle his confcience, forfwear 
 and abandon his reafon, that thi world is full offn, what nati- 
 on or place is free of idolatries, blafphemies, the raging of 
 pride, revenge, perjuries, rape:, adulteries, thefts, robberies, 
 murdeis, and other abominable evils innumerable? And who 
 fees not, that all thefe are the effecls of ftrong, prevailing, 
 imiverfal and contagious corruptions and depraved inclinations; 
 from a il^are of which, no man can jufily pretend l/imfelf free? 
 And if he (hould, any one v.'ho llriflly cbferves his way, may 
 eafily implead him, either of grofs ignorance or difingenuitv. 
 
 To know how tilings came to this pafs with the Vv^orld, and 
 trace this evil to its fountain, is a bufmefs of great importance 
 to religion. Yea, of fo much moment is it, that one can 
 icarcely tell how any thing like religion is to be maintained 
 in the world, without fome, competent knowledge of it, 
 
 I. It this is not known, we can never make any right 
 fTtimate of the evil of fn. If men were by their original con- 
 llitutlon, without their own fault, made of fo wicked or in- 
 hrm 3 nature, as that either they were inclined to it, or una- 
 ble 
 
14^ a:: IXQIIRY I A TO THE chap. ix. 
 
 ble to refill temptations, aniongO: the throng of v.'hich they 
 Mere pieced, it is impolTible lor them to Jook upon lin as lo 
 detellable an evil as rcaiiy it is; or blame tbenlelvcs lo much 
 for it, as yet they are bound to do. If it is quite otherwile, 
 i.rid ii)2u was orignally upright, and fell not into this cafe, 
 but by a fault juftly chargeable on him, it is certain, that 
 cu'te ether apprchenfions of lin fhould be maintained. Now 
 Ji^ch as men's apprehctifions are about the evil of (in, fuch 
 vviil their care be to avoid it, prevent it, or get it removed. 
 /\nd who fees not, that the whole of religion is eahly redu- 
 cible to thefc things? 
 
 2. If the cri'iin of ftii is not underflood, man can never 
 iiridcifiancl what he is obliged to in the uay of duty. If 
 ve devivc this ueaknefs, wickcdnels and depiavcd inclination 
 troni our hrlt conliitulion, we can never lock on ourielves 
 i!s obliged to fuch an obedience, as the rectitude, holmefs, 
 and. purity of the divine nature, iecms to render neceflary. 
 Aiidi if we arc uncertain as to this, we (hall never knew 
 };o\v far our duty extends. And if v\ e know not what is re- 
 CLiircd of us, how can we do it? To fay we are bound to 
 cbey as far as we can, is to fpeak nonfenfc, and what no 
 v.ay hitishes the diHiculty : For this leaves us to judge of our 
 own power, opens a door to maa to interpret the law as he 
 picafcs, arid charges God with fuch folly in the frame of the 
 law, a^ we dare fcarcely charge on any human lawgiver. 
 
 3. VViihout the knowledge of the origin oj Jin, we can 
 never know what m.eafures to take, in fubduing our corrupt 
 ir.chnatzojis* If we know not of what nature they are, liow 
 they come to be interwoven with our frame, and fo m.uch of a 
 j:i<^ce v.ith ourfeives, we {hail not know w here to begin at- 
 tempts lor leforuiation, cr if it be piaciicabJe to eradicate 
 ihen.. And yet this mull be done, otliervviic we cannot m ith 
 ^'ay fliew of reafon project happinels. But the life of corrup- 
 tion being ^^id, we Ihali neither know wliat it is to be removed 
 or v here 'to begin our work, nor liow lar fucccls to aUempts 
 it this bind n;ay reafonabiy be hoped for. And of how 
 diiliru^tivr. confequenre this is to all rcligicn is eahly ieen. 
 
 4. If the origirt cj Jin is not knoM-n, we will be at a lofs 
 V » at tl.oLghts io iSitertain of God's hoUh'eJs, J'l/Uce and 
 gooc(r,'js, yea and his wijdom too. ]f our natures ^tx^ ori- 
 ginaly burdened with thole corrupt inclinations fo twiOed in 
 W'ith them, i.s now we find them; or if we were fo inhrm, as 
 
 not 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 149 
 
 r^ot to be able to refift a throng of temptations, among which 
 we were placed, we will icarcely be able to entertain fuch a 
 high regard for God's holincls, gcodnefs and wifdom in our 
 make, or of his jullice in dealing fo by us. And if We fup- 
 pofe oiherwife, we will ftili be confounded by our darknefs 
 about any other way we can poihbiy think of, whereby things 
 were brought to this pals, and mankind fo univerfally preci- 
 pitated into fo miferable a cafe. 
 
 5. if the origin of evil is not known, wc (hall never be 
 able to judge what ejiimate God will make of fin, whether 
 he will look on it asy^; evil as to demerit any deep refent- 
 ment, or otherwife. 
 
 6. Hereon it follows, that the whole flatc of our affairs 
 with God, will be quite darkened and become unintelligible. 
 We ihall not know whether he fhall animadvert fo heavily 
 on us for our fins, as to ruin us, or fo flightly pafs over them, 
 as not to call us to an account. If the latter is fuppofed 
 obedience is ruined; confidering what man's inclinations and 
 temptations are: who will obey, if no ruin or hurt is to be 
 feared by fin ? ii the former is fuppofed, our hope is ruined* 
 We ftiall not know what value God will put on our obe- 
 dience, if this is not known ; whether he will not reject it 
 for the finful dcfeds cleaving to it. Kor fhall we know 
 whether he will pardon us, or upon what term»s, if we know 
 i?ot what thoughts he has of fin. -And this we know not, 
 rior can we poflibly underfland, unlefs we know how it came, 
 and came to be fo twilled in with our natures. 
 
 Finally, hereon depends any tolerable account of the ^^t/zVy 
 of God's proceedings^ at leall: of his gcodnefs in dealing fo 
 wilh the world, fubjedlng it to fuch a train of miferies. If 
 any thing of fin is chargeable juftly upon man's make and 
 firlf conftitution, it will be much to clear his juOicc, but 
 harder to acquit his goodnefs in plaguing the world fo. If 
 oiherwife, it will be eafy to juftify God: but how then were 
 men brought to this cafe? 
 
 Thus we have firsortly hinted at thofe grounds that clear the 
 importance of the cafe. /\n enlargement on them would have 
 made the dullefl underfland, that without fome fatisfying ac- 
 count of the oiigin of evil, all religion is left loofe. The ju- 
 dicious will eafiiy fee it. It now remains that we make appear 
 the infiifficiency of nature's light. To clear this point, it is 
 evident if we confider, 
 
 I. That 
 
I50 AN INQ^URY INTO THE chap. ix. 
 
 I. That rr.od of the wife men of the world have pafied over 
 thie in filcnce, as a fpeculatlon too hard and high. The efFecls 
 of it were fo fcnfiblc, that they could not but notice them, as 
 the Egyptians did the overflowing of their Nile. But when 
 they would have traced thefe ftreams up to their fource, they 
 were forced to quit it as an unequal chace. The reafon where- 
 of is ingcniouily, as well as folidly given by the judicious 
 Dr. Stillingfl^et, ** The reafon was, fays he, as corruption in- 
 crcafed in the world, fo the means of inflruc^ion and know- 
 ledge decayed ; and fo as the phenomena grew greater, the 
 '* reafon of them was lefs underdood : The knowledge of the 
 ** hiftory of the firfl ages of the world, through which they 
 *' could alone come to the full underflanding of the true caufe 
 of evil, infenfibly decaying in the feveral nations; info- 
 much that thofe v/ho are not at all acquainted with that hiRory 
 of the world, which was preferved in facred records among 
 the Jews, had nothing but their own uncertain conje61;ures to 
 goby, and fome kind of obfcure traditions, which were pre- 
 *' ierved among them, which, while they fought to redify by 
 ** iheir interpretations, they made them more obfcure and falie 
 '* than they found them.* 
 
 2. Others who would needs appear more learned, but were 
 really lefs wife, offered accounts, or pretended to fay fome- 
 what, rather to hide their own ignorance, than explain what 
 they Ipoke of. So obfcure are they, that nothing can be con- 
 cluded from what they fay, but that they were ignorant, and 
 yet fo difingenuous and proud that they v/culd not own it. 
 Among this fort Plato is reckoned, and with him Pythagoras, 
 vho tell us, *' that the principle of good is unity, finity,quief- 
 ** cent, ftreight, uneven number, fquare, right and fplendid ; the 
 *' principle of evil, binary, infinite, crooked, even, long cf 
 ** cne fide, uneqwai, left, obfcure. f" Plutarch as is noted 
 by Dr. Siiilingfleet, fays, that the opinion of Plato is very eb- 
 icurc, it being his purpofe to conceal it ; but he faith in his 
 eld age, in his book de Legibiis, « ^' ''cx.iviyi/.ij)) nlk arvu(3o\i Z^ 
 without any riddle and allegory, he aiTerts the world to be 
 Hioved by more than one principle, by two at the lead ; the one 
 or a good and benign ns^iure, the other contrary to ir, both in its 
 
 nature 
 
 * Or:2inesf:icrr, lib. 3. cnp. 3. kCt, 8. 
 t Orioi;-n.'&. iacra", ibid, fed, 11. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 
 
 '^5^ 
 
 nature and operations rw {j.ev ocyocQapv eivxi, rmos Ivxynx^ rxvr/t y^ rx¥ 
 
 3. Another, and perhaps the greater part, did plainly give 
 the inofl: abfurd and ridiculous, not to lay blalphemous accounts 
 of this matter. Some pretending all the vltiofity inherent 
 in matter, which they fuppofed not created. The folly as well 
 as wickednefs of this opinion, is well laid open by the judici- 
 ous perfon lad quoted. This was what Plato aimed at, as 
 Dr. Stillingfleet clears from Numenius, a famous Syrian Platonic 
 phiiofophcr, who Is thought to have lived in the fecond centur}'^, 
 who giving an account of Pythagoras and Plato's opinions, fays, 
 Pythagoras a?V, ** Exjjlente providentia, mala quoque necejjario 
 *' fubjlitijfe propUrta quodfylva fit & tadcm fit malitiA pr^dita : 
 ** Platonemquc idem Nuynenius laudato quod duas mundi ani- 
 *' mas autumet ; unarn htnefictntijjima7n ; vialig7iam alteram fcil-. 
 ** Sylvam* Igitur juxta Platonem mundo bona Jua Dei, tan- 
 ** quam patris liberalitate collatafunt ; mala vero matris fylviz 
 *' vitio cok^ferunt***' The plain cafe Is, they thought God 
 and matter eternally co-exi(lent, and that vltiofity was inherent 
 in matter, and that God could not mend it. To this purpofe 
 Maximus Tyrlus a Platonic phllofopher, who lived in the fe- 
 cond century, fpeaks, ** That all the evils that are in the 
 ** world, are not the works of art, but the afFedilons of mat- 
 ** terf." StnQC2i{2iySy^^ Non pote/l arfifax mutare ^nateriamX,''* 
 This way the Stoicks went. Though they who have ftudied 
 them, pretend that there was fome difference betwixt Plato's 
 opinion and theirs. They who would defire a more full ac- 
 count both of thefe ©pinions, and the abfurdity and impiety of 
 them, may have it from Dr. Stillingfleet, but a great many of 
 the phllofophers plainly maintained two anti-gods, the one good 
 
 and 
 
 * " Although that there is a Providence, evils neceffarily exid h\ 
 " the world, becaufc matter exlfts in it, which is naturally the caufi^ 
 <« of evil. And Rumcnius commenis Plato who thought that thcri' 
 *« were two fouls of the world, the one moil beneficent, and the other, 
 " viz. matter, malicious. Therefore according to Plato, the good things 
 " that are in the world, arc conferred on it as it were by the liberality 
 «' of its father, but the bad things that are in ir, originate from the vi- 
 *« tlofity of matter, which is its mother." 
 
 + Max. Ter. Ser. 25. 
 
 X Seneca de Provid. <•' The workman cannot change the nature'. 
 *•' the matter ou which he works," 
 
152 AN IN(iUlR\^ INTO THE chap, ix. 
 
 and the other evil. The Perfians had their Oromafdes, to whom 
 they afcribed all the good, and Arimanius, on whom they fa- 
 thered all their evils. How many run this wav, any one may 
 learn from Plutarch's difcourfe of Ifis and Ofiris, and judge 
 whether he himfeJf was not of the fame mind. What was it 
 that drove thofe great men on fuch wild conceits, which are 
 fo abfurd that they are not worth confutins; ? Nothing elfci 
 but their darknefs about the rife of fin. And how difmal were 
 the confrrquencss of thofe notions and of this darknefs ? What 
 elfe drove fo great a part of the world to that madnefs, to worlhip 
 even the Principle of evil ? Was it not this, that they enter- 
 tained perverfe notions about the origin of evils, both of fin 
 and punlQiment ? 
 
 4. Not to infill on thofe abfurd opinions, the latter accounts 
 we have of this matter, by perfons who reje6l the fcriptures* 
 after they have taken all the help from them they think meet 
 thousjh they are more poliihed, are not one whit more fatis- 
 faclory. For clearing this we Ihall orFer you the moil: con- 
 fiderable of this fort that have occurred to us. We fliall begin 
 with Simpllcius a Phrygian philofopher who lived in the fifth 
 century, and was a great oppofer of the fcriptures. He in 
 his commentary upon the 34th chapter of Epi^Sletus, fpeaks 
 thus, ** The foul of man is nexus ntriufquc fjiundi, in the 
 ** middle between thofe more excellent beings, which remain 
 *' above (which he had taught to be incapable of fin) with 
 ** which it partakes in the fablimlty of Its nature and under- 
 ** ftanding, and thofe inferior terreftrlal beings, with which it 
 ** communicates through the vital union which it hath with the 
 '* body, and by reafon of that freedom and IndifFercncy which 
 ** it hath, it is fometimes afiiTiilated to the one, fometlmes to 
 *' the other of thofe extremes. So that while it approacheth 
 ** to the nature of the fuperlor beings, it keeps Itfelf free from 
 ** evil; but becaufe of its freedom, it may fometimes fink down 
 ** into thofe lower things, and fo he calls the caufe of evil 
 *' In the foul, its voluntary defcent into this lower world, and 
 *■* immerfing itfelf in the fcculency of terreflrlal matter." much 
 more he ad.Js; but It all comes to this, ** That becaufe of the 
 •* freedom of the will of man, nothlufr elfe can be fald to be 
 " the author of evil, but il^^ foul." We have llkewife an ac- 
 count from the Oracles of Reafon much to the fame purpofe. 
 
 A. W. 
 
 * Comment, in Epift. Cap. 34. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 153 
 
 A. W. a cleift in a letter to Sir Charles Blount anfu'ering 
 an objediion of Sir Charles Wolleley's, againft: the fufficicncy 
 cf natural religion, gives this account : ** This generally acicnow- 
 '* ledged iapfe of nature, that it came, may be dilcovered by 
 *' natural light; how it came, is reafonable to conclude vvith- 
 ** out revelation, namely, by a deviation from the right rule of 
 ** reafon implanted in us; how he came to deviate from this 
 ** rule, or kpfe, proceeds from the nature of goodnefs, ori- 
 ** ginally given us by our Creator, which reafon tells us to be 
 ** an arbitrary (late of goodnefs only ; therefore not a neceflary 
 ** goodnefs to which our natures were conftrained. In Ihort 
 ** our fall proceeds from our not being able to reafon lightly on 
 ** every thing we a6t, and with iuch beings we were created : 
 For all our a6\ions are defigned by us to fome good which 
 may arife to us ; but v/e do not always diflinguiOi righily 
 of that good : we often miftake bojium apparras for the 
 honum rsale, Deapimur fptcit rcBi* The bonum jucun- 
 dum for want of right reafoning, is preferred to the bonum 
 kontflum; and the bcnum vicinum, though it be iefs 
 in itfelf, often carries it before the bonum rtmctunii which 
 ** is greater in its own nature. No man ever held that we 
 could appttere malum qua mulum*; and therefore I will not 
 grant him a total Iapfe in our natures from God. For vi-e 
 fee many born v^ith virtuous inclinations; and though all 
 men at fometimes err, even the beO, in their aflions, it 
 only (hews that we were not created to a neceffitated good- 
 nefs. It is enough to prove no fatal Iapfe, that many are 
 proved, through the courfe of their lives, more prone to do 
 good than evij, and that all men do evil, only for want of 
 right reafoning ; becaufe the will neceffarily follows the lafl 
 dictate of the underltandingf." The next and laft whom 
 we (hall mention, is the learned Herbert, whom the reft do 
 but copy after. Thus then he accounts for it; ** Oi:od adma- 
 ** lum culp^ fpcElaty hoc quidem non aliunde provenin, quem 
 *' ab arbitrio illo omnibus inJitOy ingaiitoquet quod tanquam 
 
 ** bonum 
 
 * " An apparent good for a real good. — We are deceived by fhe 
 " appearance of reftitude. — A pleafmg good is preferred to an honour- 
 *« able good, and a near to a diftant one, but vye cannot defire evil as 
 «< evil." 
 
 t Oracle^ of Reafon, pag, 157, 
 
 T 
 
J54 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. ijr. 
 
 ** honuw eximium Bens optinius maximus vobis largitus efl ; 
 ** ex quo etiam a bdluis fiiagis quam ipjo intellcBu dijlingui'- 
 ** mur: quum tavicn adeS ancipttis fit naturce, ut in utra??!" 
 ** que pur tern JleSIi poffiff fit ut in malum [apt propendeat & 
 *' dilabatur; cater um per fe ejf hen ejiciuvi plane divinum, ^i^f~ 
 ** que amplitudinis & pr^Jiunticr.f ut citra illudf neque boni 
 " ejje pojfemus: ecquis enim boni aliquid ejicere decitur, niji 
 ** quando in adverfam partem datur optio? Hinc igitur ma^ 
 ** lum culpa accidtrey quod nobilijfnna amma faculfas, in Je- 
 *' quiorem Jua fponte partem, nulloque cogente traducatur de- 
 ** torqueaturiue *. 
 
 Thele three accounts, in feveral rerpe£\s, run the fame 
 way. It were eal'y however to let them by the ears in fome 
 confiderable particulars, and perhaps, to fhew the inconfiflency 
 of the feveral authors with themfelves, on thefc heads: but 
 this is net my defign to fpend time en things, whereby truth 
 will not gain much ; as, perhaps, they contain the turn of what 
 reafon can fay on the head, fo we ihall now {hew how very 
 far they are from fatisfying in the cafe* The fubftance of 
 them may be reduced to thefe three propofitions : 
 
 1. That Man's body fways the foul, to which it is joined, to 
 things fuitable to itfelf, which are evil. This Simplicius more 
 than infinuates. 
 
 2. That as reafon is the guide of the will, which neceffarily 
 follows its laft dieiate; fo the will's inclination to evil flows 
 from our not being able to reafon rightly. This the Oracles of 
 Reafon give plainly as a refponfe in the words now quoted. 
 
 3. The will is ancipitis natura* , perfedlly indifferent, equally 
 
 capable 
 
 * De Religione Gentilium, Cap. 13. pag. 164.—" With regard to 
 " the evil of fin, this arifes from no other fource than our natural frce- 
 " dom of will, which God the beft and the greatefl has beRowed oj> 
 *' us as a dirtinguilhed blefllng, and by which we are diflinguiOied from 
 <* the brutes even more than by reafon itfelf. But as this blefiing is 
 <* of fo ambiguous a kind, that it may be turned either v.'ay, it hap«< 
 «* pens that it often inclines to evil and goes aftray. Yet in itfrlf it is 
 << certainlv a divine blcffing, and of fuch an extent and excellency, 
 <* that without it we could not be good. For who is ever paid to do 
 <* any good, unlefs when he had it in his choice to ad in a different 
 «' manner ? Tt^e evil of fin therefore proceeds from hence, that the 
 <« moft noble faculty of the foul, of its own accord, and without any 
 «< one forcing it, is drawn away and turned to the wrong fide." 
 
 + OY a doubtful nature. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 155 
 
 capable of, and fvvayed to evil and good. This all the three 
 concur in. It is like a nice balance which ftands even, hulls 
 eafily fwayed to either fide. 
 
 But now it is eafy to multiply difficulties againft this ac- 
 count, and fliew how it no way clears, but ratlier involves the 
 matter more. And, 
 
 I. I would defire to know whether that inferior part, the 
 body, or terre'lrial part of man, call it which you will, fways 
 to any thing, not fuited to its original frame and perfe6lion, or 
 not ? If it aims at nothing, bends or inclines to nothing, but what 
 is perfe6iive of itfelf, I defire to know how that can be faulty? 
 How can this body be made a part of a ccmpofition, wherein 
 it is faulty for it, to aim at what is truely perfedive of its nature? 
 Kow can it be criminal for the foul to aim at enobling and fatisfy- 
 ing the capacities of that, which is fo nearly united to itfelf? How 
 is it confiftent with the wifdom of God, to unite two beings, the 
 one whereof cannot reach its own perfection without hurt to 
 the other? Ifitisfaid, that it inclines to what contributes not 
 to its own perfection ; then I defire to know how it came to 
 be fo depraved as to have a tendency to its own detriment ? 
 How was it confident with the wifdom of God to make it fo ? 
 How was it confiftent with the goodnefs of God to affoci- 
 ate it when fo made, with another more noble being to which it 
 muft prove a burden ; yea, which muft fway to that, which 
 proves the ruin of the whole compolition? And how can man 
 be blamed for doing that, to which his nature inevitably muft 
 carry him ? For if he is thus compounded, his body, earthly 
 part, or lower faculties fway to evil ; his will is equally inclin- 
 able to both ; and, in this cafe, how can the compofition be o- 
 therwife, than depraved ? For my part I fee not how it could 
 be otherwife ; or how God can juRly punifli it for being fo, up- 
 on the fuppofition laid down. 
 
 2, If it be afferted tliat we are not, by our original conRitu- 
 tion able to reafon rightly, in what concerns our own duty, as 
 we have heard from the Oracles of Reafon ; then I defire to 
 know if we are not neceifitated by our very make and conHitu- 
 tiontoerr? If we are to believe, what the fame Oracle utters, 
 that the will muO follow neceflarily the underftanding; then I 
 defire to know, if we are not ^lecelTitated to fin? If things-are 
 thus and thus, we muQ either believe them to be, or believe that 
 this Oracle gives a falfe refponfe ; then I defire to know how 
 God could make us neceifarilv evil ? How can he puniih us for 
 
 it? 
 
156 AN INQ^LmiY INTO THE chap. ix. 
 
 if ? Can this be reconciled vvl(h tbe reft of (his doiflrine, ahout 
 the arbitrary fiatc of man's goodncfs? I might a(k net a few o- 
 ther queries, but perhaps thefe vvi!l fuBke. 
 
 3. If the will be, in its own nature, perfcclly free and indifFer- 
 enr, then I defirc to know, whether there is any thing in that 
 compofition, whereof it is a part, or to which it is joined, or any 
 thing in the circumflances wherein man is placed, fwaying it 
 to the worft fide? If there is any thing either in man's conPiitu- 
 tion or circumftances, fwaying him wrong; then I defire to know, 
 13 there any thing to baJance them? Whether there is or is not 
 any thing to keep him even? I would dcfire to know how any 
 thing came to be in his'conftitution, to fway him wrong? If 
 there is any thing to baL-^nce thefc induccm^rnts to fin, or in- 
 clinations, then inan is perfectly indifferent ftill : and about this 
 we fhall fpeak anon, if there is a will, equally capable of 
 good and evil, and tr.an has fomewhat in his confiitution or cir- 
 cumftances, at leaft fwaying him to evil, then I defire to know 
 how it was pofiible for him to evite it ? If he has nothing deter- 
 mining him more to evil than to good, or if any thing that in- 
 clines toevii is balanced, by other things of no lefs force de- 
 termining and fwaying him to good, then many things may be 
 enquired: how comes it to pafs, that though man is equally, in- 
 clinable to good or evil, that alm.ofl ail men choofe evil? Yea 
 1 need not put an almoft to it. It it a Grange thing to fuppofe 
 all men equally difpofed to good or evil, and y-t none choofe 
 the good. 
 
 4. I do not know how this notion of man's liberty, which is 
 cahly granted to be in itfelf, if the notion of it is rightly dated, 
 a perfe^ion, will take with confiderate men, that it confiOs in 
 a perfect indifi'crency to good or evil: for if this is a nccflary 
 perfe6\ion of the rational nature, without which it cannot be call- 
 ed good, as Herbert clearly aiTerts, in his words above quoted ; 
 then I afk, what il^all become of thofe natures unalterably good, 
 of which Simplicius talks? Is it abfurd to fuppofe, that there 
 may be fuch? Are they, if thev be, lefs perfcc>, bccaufe uncapa- 
 ble of that which debafes and depraves them ? is God good, who 
 \us beyond difpute no fuch liberty as this? Is an indifi-ercncy to 
 commit fin or not to fin, a great perfedion ? If it be, is it great- 
 er than not to be capable of fmning ? They may embrace this 
 notion of lihertv who will, and fancy themlelves pcrfe61, I thall 
 not for this reckon them fo. 
 
 5. This account of man as equally inclined to good or evil, is 
 
 either 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 157 
 
 cither an acount of man's ca(e as he now is, or as at firft made : 
 If man is now otherwife, to wit, inclined more to evil than good, 
 how came he to be fo ? This is the difficulty we defire to be fa- 
 tisfied about. If this be the cafe he was made in, and ftill con- 
 tinues in, then, I fay, it is utterly falfe, and contradictory to the 
 cars, eyes and confcience of all the world. Who fees not that 
 man is plainly, ftrongly, and I may add unlverfally, inclined 
 to evil ? The wifer heathens have owned it. And it is plainly- 
 made out againft the mofl impudent denier. Hierocle's words, 
 as I find them tranilated by an excellent perfon, are memorable 
 to this purpofe. ** Man, fays he, is of his own motion inclined 
 ** to follow the evil and leave the good. There is a certain ftrifc 
 ** bred in his affcLlions ; he hath a free will which he abufeth, 
 ** binding himfelf wholly to encounter the laws of God. And 
 ** this freedom itfelf is nothing elfe, but a willingnefs to admit 
 ** that which is not good, rather than otherwife*." This is a 
 true ftate of the matter from a heathen. 
 
 6. The fuppofition of man's being made perfectly indifferent 
 is injurious to God, who cannot be fuppofed, without reflection 
 on him, to have put man in fuch a cafe. The leaft that can be 
 faid, preferving the honour due to the divine excellencies, is that 
 God gave a law to man, fuitable to the re6titude of his own nature 
 and to man's happinefs and perfection ; that he endued him with 
 an ability to know this law, the obligations he lay under to 
 obey it, and the inducements that might have fortified him in his 
 obedience againfl the force of any temptation which he might 
 meet with. If this be not afferted, it will not be poilible to 
 keep God from blame, which all that own him, are concerned 
 to take care of: for how could he bind man to obey a law, which 
 he did not make known to him, or at leaft gave him a power to 
 know? If he laid him open to temptations, and made him in- 
 capable of difcovering what might antidote their force, if he 
 would ufe it, what (hall we think of his goodnefs? Further, we 
 muft own tliat the will of man was made inclinable, though not 
 not immutably fo, to its own perfe6lion: how elfe was it wor- 
 thy of its author? Finally, we muft own that man had no affec- 
 tion or inclnation in him, that was really contradictory to that 
 law which he was fubjeded to, and which tended to his happi- 
 nefs and perfection. If this is denied, then I afli, were not thefe 
 inclinations finful? Was that being worthy of God, that had no 
 
 tendency 
 * Hierccles Carmin, Aur, Tranfl. Reaf. of Script. Belief, pag. 146. 
 
153 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. ix. 
 
 t^ndencv to its own perfef^'ion ? But on the contrary, what was 
 inclinable to its own ruin? 
 
 7. This being the leaf!:, that can without manifeft reproach to 
 the wifdom, goodnefs and juftice of the Creator, be fuppofed 
 in favour of man's original cooftitution ; I defire to know, is this 
 the cafe ftill, or is it not ? If it is not, then how came it to be 
 othcrwife ? How comes man originally to be worfe now, than at 
 firft ? How is this confiftent with the deift's principles, that 
 there is no lapfe? Tf it be afiTerted, we are in the fame ftate ftill, 
 how then comes all the world to be full of wickednefs? How is 
 this reconcileable with the experiences and confcicnces of men, 
 that affured them of the contrary? 
 
 8. If it is thought enough to refolve all this, as to a<5lual fail- 
 ings, into the choice of man ; yet what fhall we fay as to that 
 darknefs as to duty, which we heard the deifts confeffing, in 
 their Oracles of Reafon ? How came that inability to reafon 
 rightly, which we have before demonftrated man under, and 
 which our adverfaries will own ! Again, how come we to have 
 vitious inclinations fo ftrongly rooted in our natures ! Strong they 
 are ; for they trample upon our light, the penalties of laws 
 divine and human ,* yea and the fmartings of our own con- 
 fcience. The drunkard and unclean perfon finds his health 
 ruined, and yet in fpite of all this, his inclination makes him 
 run on in the vice that has ruined him : and the like is evident 
 in other cafes innumerable. Deeply rooted they are: they are 
 fome way twilled in with the conftitutions of our body, and no 
 lefs fixed in our fouls. So fixed they are, that, though our 
 own reafon condemns them, it cannot remove them* Though 
 fometimes fear reftrains them as to the outward a6ls ; yet it 
 cannot eradicate the inclination. Inrtru6lion and all human en- 
 deavours cannot do it. A famed Seneca that underftood fo much, 
 who undertook to teach others, and perhaps has fpoke and writ 
 better than moft of the heathens ; yet by all his knowledge and 
 all his endeavours, owns this corruption fo deeply rooted in him- 
 felf, that he expeded not to get rid of it. Non pertrni ad fa- 
 vitiiteirif nt perveniam quidem. : delim mentis magis quam remedia 
 podngrce Tiiece compono contmtusjirarius acctdit, & ft minus ter- 
 viinatur* 9. Not 
 
 * *« I am not come to a found flate, nor fhall I ever arrive at it. 
 *' I am compofing paliiitives rather than remedies for rny gout, being 
 '» content \i it aitacks <ne more feldora, and proves lefs violent." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 159 
 
 9# Not only fo, but further, hov' come thefe inclinations to 
 be born with us? Grow up with us? That they are fo, is 
 evident. We no fooner begin to a6t, than to a(Si perverfely. Wc 
 no fooner (hew any inclinations, than we fhew that our inclina- 
 tions are evil. Yea, among Chriftians, where there are many 
 virtuous perfons, who give the beft example, the beft inftruc- 
 tion, and ufe the beft difcipline for the education of their chil- 
 dren in virtue ; yet we fee the children difcover inclinations {o 
 ftrong, as are not to be reftrained by all thefe endeavours, much 
 Jefs eradicated: and, fo early are they there, that they cannot 
 be prevented by the moft timeous care. 
 
 10. It will not help the matter to tell us, that there are 
 fome born with virtuous inclinations. For i. If all are not 
 fo, the difficulty remains. How came thefe to be born other- 
 wife, of whom we have been fpeaking ! How came their frame 
 to be different from, nay and worfe than that of others! Are 
 they under the fame law? If fo, why have they more impe- 
 diments, and lefs power of obedience? 2. We would be glad 
 to fee the perfons condefcendcd on, that are void of vitious in- 
 clinations, that we might afk them fome queftions. You fay 
 you are born with virtuous inclinations. Well^ but have you 
 no ill inclinations? If you are no drunkard, adulterer, &c. yet 
 have you no inclination to pride, prodigality, negle<Sl of God, 
 covetoufnefs, or fomewhat like? 1 fear the man that can anfwer 
 plainly in the negative here, will not be eafily found. And 
 till wc fee him, we deny there is any fuch. 3. To confirm 
 this, feveral perfons, whom the world has looked on as virtu- 
 oufly inclined from their infancy, have, when ferioufly acquaint- 
 ed with Chriftianity, owned that they were as wickedly in- 
 clined as others; only by the help of their conftitution, they 
 were not fo much prompted to thofe evils, which are moft ob- 
 obferved and condemned in the world. And this account has 
 been given by perfons of judgment, wliofe capacity, nor inge- 
 nuity cannot reafonably be queftioned. Finall)^ the ground 
 whereon A. W. pronounces againft an univerfsl lapfe, viz. 
 That we cannot appetne malum qua malumf, is ridiculous : 
 For this is a thing perfed^ly inconfiftent, not only with the due 
 exercife, but the very nature of our rational faculties: And 
 if notwithftanding this impcffibility of any man's defir- 
 
 ing;' 
 
 + Delire evil as evlL 
 
i6o AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. ix. 
 
 ing evil as evil, fo many are deeply corrupted, no imagina- 
 ble rcafon can be alligned, why all may not be (o, without 
 fuppofing that we can appetere malum qua malum. 
 
 To conclude then, it is upon the whole evident, that reafon 
 can never trace this matter to its proper lource. Our confcjen- 
 ces condemn us indeed, and fo acquit the Deity. But with- 
 out revelation we can never underftaiid upon M^hat grounds 
 we are condemned by ourfelves, nor how the Deity is to be 
 juftified; and lo this fentence of our confciences involves the 
 matter more, and encreafes the difficulty. It is not from any 
 di(lln6l view of the particular way how sve come to be guilty, and 
 how God comes to be free of blame? that confcience is led to this 
 fente ice. And therefore, how to come to any fatisfa6lion about 
 the matter, that may liberate us from the inconvenicncies above- 
 mentioned, which are really fubverfive of all religion, and can 
 reafonabiy be fuppofed available to us, reafon can never falisfy , 
 us. 
 
 Sirce thefe gentlemen, with whom we have to do, find it their 
 intercft lo deny any lapfe, I fnaii, to what has been faid, add a 
 fbort, but judicious and folid confirmation of this, from a perfcn 
 of a more than ordinary reach, I mean Dr. How : who, after he 
 has quoted many teflimonles from Heathen authors, proving this 
 lapfe, reaibns for it, and confirms it further from arguments not 
 eafily to beanfwered : His words run thus, ** If we confider, can 
 ** it be fo much as imaginable to us, that the prefent flate of man 
 ** is his primitive Hate, or that he is now fuch as he was at firfi 
 ** made? For neither is it conceivable, that the bleffed God 
 ** (bould have made a creature with an averfion to the only im- 
 ** portant ends, whereof it is naturally capable : Or particu- 
 " larly that he created man, with a difaffe<5\ion to himfelf ; or, 
 *' that ever he at firfl, defigned a being of fo high excellency, 
 ** as'the fpirit of man to trudge fo meanly, and be fo bafcly 
 ** fervile to terrene inclinations ; or, fince there are manifeftly 
 " powers in him, of a fuperior and inferior fort and order, the 
 ** meaner (hould have been by original infiitution framed to 
 ** command ; and the more noble and excellent, only to obey 
 '* and ferve ; as every one that obferves, may fee the common 
 ** cafe with man is. 
 
 ** And how far he is fvverved from what he was, is eafily 
 *' conje6\urable by comparing him with the meafures, which 
 '' ihew what he fliould be. For it cannot be conceived for 
 ** what end lawi were ever given him ; if at leafi we allow 
 
 ** them 
 
PRlNClf'LES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. i6i 
 
 ** them not to be the meafures of his primitive capacity, or de- 
 ** ny him ever to have been in a poilibility to obey. Could 
 ** they be intended for his government if conformity to th^m 
 ** were againft or above his nature ? Or were they only for 
 ** his condemnation ? Or for what, if he was never capable of 
 *' obeying them? How^ inconfiftent were it with the goodnefs 
 " of the bleiTed God, that the condemnation of his creatures 
 ** fhould be the firft dcfign of his giving them laws ! And with 
 ** his juilice, to make his laws the rule of punllbment, to whom 
 ** they could never be the rule of obedience and duty ! Or 
 ** with his wifdom, to frame a fyrtem and body of laws, that 
 ** (hould never ferve for either purpofe ! And fo be upon tl>e 
 ** whole ufeful for nothing. The common reafon of mankind 
 ** teacheth us to eftimate the wifdom and equity of lawgivers, 
 ** by the fuitablenefs of their conftitutions to the genius and 
 ** temper of the people for whom they arc made ; and we com- 
 ** monly reckon nothing can more flur and expofe a govern- 
 '* ment, than the impofing of conftitutions, rpoft probably im- 
 '* practicable, and which are never likely to obtain. How 
 ** much more incongruous muft it be efteemed to enjoin fuch 
 ** as never poffibly could ! Prudent legiflators, and ftudious of 
 ** the common good, would be fhy to impofe upon men, under 
 ** their power, againft their genius and common ufagesf nei- 
 ** ther eafily alterable, nor to any advantage ; much more ab- 
 ** furd were it, with great folemnity, and weighty fan6lions, to 
 *' ena6l ftatutes for brute creatures : and wherein were it 
 ** more to purpofe, to prcfcribe unto men ftridl rules of piety 
 ** and virtue, than to bcafts or trees, if the former had not 
 '* been capable of obferving them> as the latter were not *." 
 1 believe the deifts will not eafily overthrow this nervous dif- 
 courfe. 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Proving Nature's Light unable to dijcover the Means of obtain* 
 ing Pardon of Sin, or to Jhew that it is attainable. 
 
 THAT all have finned is fufficiently clear from the forego- 
 ing difcourfe. That it is of importance to underftand the 
 rife of fm, and that nature's light is unable to trace its origi- 
 nal, 
 * Dr. Haw's Living Temple, Part 2, pag. 12 1; 122. 
 
 U 
 
i62 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ciia?. x. 
 
 nal, has been likewlfc evinced. But all this were indeed of 
 Jefs confideration, if nature's light could afliire U5 of pardon, 
 or direifi as to the means whereby it may be obtained. But here 
 it 13 no lefs dcfedive, than as to the former. That we are all 
 guilty of fm even the dcifis do acknowledge ; the Oracles of 
 Keafon own that all men at fcmetimes err, even the befl, in 
 their adlions. And the evidence of it is fuch, that none can 
 get over the truth, if he is not plainly refolved to deny what 
 is nioft evident. Now this being the cafe, that we have ail 
 tranfgrelTed, it is cf the highefl importance to know whether 
 God will pardon us, or upon what terms he will do it? If he 
 punilh us, what a cafe are we in? How can they who fear pu- 
 niihment expe6l rewards ! But becaufe this is a difficulty of no 
 fmail importance, and the deifls, fince they fee they cannot 
 clear it, make their bufmefs to obfcure the importance of the 
 cafe, and render it more involved; we fhall, therefore, 
 
 I. State the cafe, and clear the importance of it. 
 
 II. Difcover the weaknefs of nature's light about it. 
 
 III. Speak fully to a particular exception about repentance. 
 
 S E c T. I. 
 Wherein the Importance of the Difficulty is Jlated' 
 
 I F the deifts fhould allow fin to be fo great an evil, as we 
 pretend it is, it would exceedingly embarrafs them ; therefore 
 they labour to fmooth the matter by telling us, that either it is no 
 evil, or one of not lo great confideration, as is commonly ima- 
 gined : but the wildnefs and unreafonablenefs of this attempt 
 will be eafily (hewn, by a confideration of the evil of fin. 
 It is not my defign to write largely on this head, but only to 
 condefcend on a few of thofc confiderations, whereon we infill 
 for proving {in to be exceeding Jinjul : which, although they 
 are built on rational grounds, yet we are led to them by the 
 afliftance of revealed light. 
 
 I. Sin is a tranfgre/fion of a lazut the highcft law, the law 
 cf the fupreme and righteous Governor of the world. Where 
 there is no Uw there is no tranjgre/fipn. And fuch as the 
 law is, fuch is the tranfgreliion. There is no mere jull way 
 of meafuring the evil of fin, than by confidering the law it 
 violates. The law bears the imprefs of the higheft auihoiity, 
 that of the Supreme Ruler of the univcrfe. Every tranfgreifiou. 
 mult therefore import, if not a contempt, yet certaini)^ a v/ant 
 
 of 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 163 
 
 of due regard to this authority, which, how criminal it is in 
 man, who is as to being, prefervation and well-being, every 
 way dependent, is eafily undcrftood. Moreover, this law is 
 not a mere arbitrary appointment, but fuch as is the necefiary 
 Tcrult of the nature of God and man ; and therefore the violation 
 of it, imports no lefs, than an accufation of the reditude of God's 
 nature,whence the law refults ; and charges unfuilablenefs there- 
 to, upon the nature of man, as being To made, that, without 
 wrong to itfelf, it cannot be iubje«ft to the rule of God's govern- 
 ment. And v/ho fees not how deeply this reflects on God? 
 
 2. Sin contradi£\s the great defign of man's being. God made 
 us and not we ourjelves. It is blafphemy to allege, that infi- 
 nite vvifdom made fo noble a creature as man without de- 
 fign. Nor can it reafonably be pretended, that the chief aim 
 of God in making him was any other, than his having the felf- 
 fatisfa6iion of having a6\ed as became him, and having made 
 a work every way worthy of his vvifdom and holinefs. And fince 
 man alfo was capable of propofing defigns, it is foolifti to ima- 
 gine, that God eithercould or would allow him to make any other 
 his chief end than the pleafure of God ; oradting ^o as to make it 
 appearthat he was every worthy of his Author. But when man fins 
 he plainly countera6\s what God dcfigned, and he was obliged 
 to defign; for he pleafes not God, but himfelf; and this is 
 doing what in him lies to fruftrate God of the defign he had in his 
 v/ork, and dabafe the being and powers given him for the honour 
 of God by employing them againft him, and ufing them in con- 
 tradiction to his declared will. 
 
 3. Sin mifreprefents God. The works of God bear an im- 
 prefaof God's wifdom and power. Man only v.^as made capable 
 of reprefenting his moral perfections, his holinefs, juflice, truth, 
 and the like. But when he fins, he not only fails of his duty, but 
 really mifreprefents God his maker, as one who approves fin, 
 that is dired^iy crofs to his will, which is ever congruous to the 
 holinefs of his nature ; or, at lead, as one, who either wants 
 v/ill or power to cruili the contra veener ; and fo he is reprefent- 
 ed either as tmholy, or impotent ; or one, who can tamely al- 
 low his will to be countera6led by a creature that he has made 
 and fuftains. But what horrid reflexions are thefe on the holy 
 God? 
 
 4. Sin accufes God of want of wifdom and gocdnefs in ap- 
 pointing laws which were not for his creature's good, and he 
 could not obey wirhoqt detriment ; of envy, in barring the crea.- 
 
 ture 
 
i64 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 ture by a law, from that which is neceflary to his happinefs ; of 
 infufficiency, to fatisfy the creature he has made, while he is 
 obliged tofeek for that elfewhere, which is not to be found in 
 him, in the w:Ay of obedience ; and of folly, in makifig fuch a 
 law, as cannot be expected to be obeyed, in regard the creature 
 lubje61ed to it, gain? more by breaking than by keeping of it. 
 
 I'inally, to crown all, fin dethrones God, and fets the crea- 
 ture in his room. The honour of God's law and authority, and 
 the finncr's good, are wickedly fuppofed to be inconfiftent, and 
 the latter is preferred. The will of the Creator aVid creature crofs 
 one another, and the creature's will is preferred. The friendfhip, 
 favour, and fufficiency of Deity is laid in balance againft fome 
 other imaginary good, and decifion is given againft God. Thefe 
 are a few of the many evils of fin. They are not drained ones. 
 This is not a rhetorical declamation againft fin, wherein things 
 are unjuftly aggravated to raife odium againft it; but a plain ac- 
 count of a few of the evils of it, which yet is infinitely fhort of 
 what the cafe would admit. But who can fully reprefent the evil 
 that ftrikcs againft infinite goodnefs, holinefs, jufticc, vs/ifdom, 
 and fupreme authority ? Who can unfold its aggravations, (avs 
 he who knows what God is, and what he is to man, and what 
 man is, and how many ways he is dependent on, fubje6>, obli- 
 ged and indebted to God? Well therefore may firi be faid to 
 have an infinity of evil in it. 
 
 The deifts, to evade the difficulties arifing from this evil 
 of fin, take different gourfeq. Some plainly deny any fuch 
 ihing as evil, or that there is any thing morally good or 
 bad. Thomas Aikenhead, who was executed at Edinbrugh, 
 January 8, 1697, ^^^ '"''^ blafphemics, in his paper he deli- 
 vered from the fcaffbld, tells us what his thoughts were in 
 in this matter, and upon what grounds they were built. When 
 in his rational inquiries he came to confider, whether we were 
 capable of otfending God, he tells us, '' That after much 
 ** pondering and ferious confideration, he concluded the nega- 
 *• tive." The famed Mr. Hobbs was not of a very different 
 mind, for he plainly afferts, *' That there i^ nothing good or 
 *' evil in itfelf, nor any common laws conftituling ubat is 
 *' naturally juft or unjuft : but all things a^c to be meafured 
 ** by what every man judgcth fit, where there is no civil eo- 
 *' vernrnent ; and bv the lav.'s of fociefy, where there is one." 
 And elfewhere, " Before men entered into a ttatc of civil go- 
 ** vernrnent, there v/as not any thing juft or unjnft, foraf- 
 
 ** much 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 163 
 
 *^ much as jud and unjuft are the relatives of human laws ; 
 ** every action being in Itfelf indifferent." And whether Spi- 
 j:oza was not of the fame mind, is left to thofe to judge, who 
 have time and leifure to trace his meaning, in his obfcure 
 and dcfignedly involved way of writing. But furely this pro- 
 pofition in his atheiflical ethicks looks very like it, ** Si ho^ 
 ** mines liberi nafcerentur filter aute?n eft juxta Spinozam, 
 ** quijtcunclum duBum vel ex duElu rationis agit) nullum boni 
 *' ii3 mail for mar tnt conceptumt quamdiu liberi ejfent*' Mr. 
 Hobbs has been learnedly confuted by many, fuch as Dr. 
 Cumberland, Mr. Tyrell, and almoft all who write of the 
 law of nature. Spinoza has likewlfe been examined by Wit- 
 tichius and many others. The firft, vjz. Thomas Aikenhead, 
 his grounds I Ihall purpofe and examine. 
 
 The firil: In his own words runs thus, ** I thought, fays 
 ** he, a great part of morality, if not all, proceeded ex arbitrio 
 *' hominum\ f as of that of a kingdom, or commonwealth, or 
 ** what moft men think convenient for fuch and fuch ends, 
 ** and thefe ends are always teripinated upon being congruous 
 ^* to the nature of things; now v/e fee that according to men's 
 ** fancies things are congruous or incongruous to their na- 
 ** tures, if not to the body, yet to the tlainking faculty." 
 
 The fum of tjils confufed difcourfe, which probably he learn- 
 ed from Hobbs, amounts to this; God has fixed no law to 
 our moral a6\ions, by which they are to be regulated. Thefe 
 which are called moral laws, are only the determinations of 
 governments, or the concurring judgment of men, concerning 
 what they think meet to be done for their own ends. That 
 wiiich fome judge meet and congruous, others may find un- 
 fuitable to their nature and ends, and fo are not obliged to obey. 
 But I. Are not all thefe ungrounded affertions, whereof no proof 
 is offered, but the author's deluded fancy? Has it not been 
 irrefragably demonftrated by as many as difcourfe of moral 
 good and evil, that antecedently to any government among 
 men, we are under a law, the law of nature, and that this is 
 the will of God. 3. If all thefe had kept filence, does not the 
 thing itfelf fpeak ? What can be more evident, than that there 
 \h a law of nature, and that this is the law of God ? We are cer- 
 tain, 
 
 * " If men were born free (and he is free according to Spinoza, 
 *< who ads according to the guidance of reafon) they would forai 
 " no conception of good or evil, as long as they wer<; free/' 
 
 + " From the wiii of man," 
 
iC'3 AN INQLTIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 tain, that we are made cf rational natures, capable of laws and 
 gov'crnnient. We are no lefs fure that God made us, and made 
 us To. It is felf-evident, that to him who made us, it belongs to 
 govern, and difpoie of us to thofe ends for which we were made. 
 And we by our very beings are bound to obey, fubmit, and fub- 
 jecl ourfeives to his will and pleafure, who made us and on 
 whom we every way depend, and therefore his will, if he make 
 it known, is a law, and the higheft law to us. Again, it is 
 clear tiiat this reafon, if we attend to it, tells us that fomc 
 ihirin;s are to be done, and fome things left undone; fuch as 
 thcfe, that we arc to ferve, love, obey and honour him that 
 made us, upholds us, and on whorn we every way depend ; 
 ;hat we arc to carry toward our fellow-creatures, as it becomes 
 rhofs, who have the fame original with us, whe arc fubjedied 
 to the fame rule, are obliged to purfue the fame ends; and 
 that we are ^o difpofe of ourfeives, as the author of our na- 
 ture allows us. Thefe are all, if not felf-cvident, yet next 
 Jo it, and eafily deducible from principles that are fo. Fur- 
 ther, the reafon that is implanted in us by God, tells us fo, wc 
 are to take what it leads us to, while duly ufed, as the will 
 of God, and fo a law to us. ** For whatever judgment 
 *' God makes a man with, concerning either himfelf, or other 
 '• tilings, it is God's judgment, and whatever is his judgment 
 *' is a law to man ; nor can he ncgle^ or oppofe it without 
 '* fm, being in his exigence made with a necelTary fubjcc- 
 ** tion to God. Such and fuch di6ldtes being the natural ope- 
 *' rations of our minds, the being and efTentiai conftitutlon of 
 *• which, in right reafoning, we owe to God; we cannot 
 '* but cileem them the voice of God within us, and confe- 
 ** quentiv his law to us *." 
 
 What he tells us of men's different apprehen(ions, about 
 what is right or wrong makes nothing to the purpofc. That 
 only ilicws that in many iuRances we are in the dark as to 
 what is good and evil, which is granted ; but will not infer 
 that there is no fixed nieafure of good and evil. In many ge- 
 neral trutlis, all who apply themfelves to tliink, underftand the 
 terms, and have the truths nropofed, do agree. And perhaps, all 
 that is kncwab'e of our duty by the light of nature, isdeducible 
 from fuch principles of morality, as all rational men who have 
 them fairly propofed to them, muft: aflent to. And dedudlions 
 
 from 
 
 * bir Ci^fliks Woifelcy's Scriptars Belief, pag. 321 33* 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MO DEkN DEISTS. 167 
 
 from laws, when duly made, are of equal authority with the 
 principles from M'hich they are inferred. And finally, when 
 men, in purfuance of their perverfe natures, follow what is 
 crofs to thofe di£\ates ofreafon, they are ccndcmned by their 
 confcicnces, which (hews them under the obligation of a law, 
 and that a6\ing in a congruity to their natures as corrupt, is 
 not the ftandard they are obliged to walk by, iince their own 
 reafon checks them for doing it. They who would defire to 
 have this matter fully difcourfed, may read others who have 
 done it defignedly, of whom there is great plenty. 
 
 His fecond reafon runs thus: ** Alfo we do not know what 
 '* is good or evil in itfelf, if not thus ; whatfcever can be at- 
 ** tributed to God, that Is good; and what cannot, is evil. 
 ** And we know not what can be attributed to God, but fuch 
 " things as by a dedu^ion we afcribe to him, we call perfe6t, 
 #** and fuch as we deny to be in him, we call Imperfet^, and fo 
 ** we moft ignorantly commit a circle. There is no other no- 
 ** tion of things in themfelves good or evil." 
 
 It is much harder to find the fenfe of thefe words, if tliey have 
 any, than to anlwerthe argument. Tlie defign of it is to prove 
 that there is no flandard whereby we may judge v/hat is good 
 and what is evil. The force of the argument amounts to this, 
 that there is no way how we come to know any thing to be 
 good, but by this, that it may be afcribed to God. But we 
 cannot know whether it is to be afcribed to God, unlefs we 
 know that it is perfe£l or good. 
 
 This is thin fophiflry, which I might eafily expofe, were it 
 to any j^urpofe to difcover the weaknefs of that, which its au- 
 thor was alhamed of and difowned. As to the rirfl propofition, 
 ** That there is no other way to know whether any thing be 
 good ar evil, but this, that it can or cannot be afcribed to God." 
 I . The complex propofition is falfe ; for there are other wavs 
 whereby v/e may know things to be good or evil. And this 
 holds whether we take it in a phyfical or a moral fenfe. Wf 
 know that to be morally good which God enjoins i.s to do. 
 We know the M'ill of God in fome infiances, from the nature 
 God has given us ; and from thefe inflances our reafon can in- 
 fer others. As to phyfical good, we know thijigs to be good 
 or perfe6^, by acquaintance with the nature of things, and by 
 the felf-evident notions of peifeClion : for there are fome things, 
 fuch as dependence, fubiei.iion, and the like, which without 
 any reafoning about the mutter, \ve underdand to be imperfect 
 
i68 AN INQ,UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 or perfe6\. As foon as we underftand the terms, and know 
 that a perfection is that which it is better for any being to have 
 than to want : and then what thefe particular words, depen- 
 dence, fubjed^ion, dzc, fignify. This alone overthrows his 
 whole argument. 2. The maxim which he fixes as a flandard. 
 That is good which may be afcribed to God, and that is not 
 good which may not be afcribed to him; if it is taken in its full 
 extent, it is falfe as to moral good, of which the only queftion is : 
 for it is certain, that it is good for man to be a dependent, a 
 fubjeiSt, &c. which cannot be afcribed to God. If it is taken 
 in a phyfical fenfe, it is not to the purpofe ; and befides, it 
 would even in this fenfe need fome caution. 
 
 As to his other propofition, ** That we cannot otherwife 
 know what is to be afcribed to God, than by knowing that it 
 is good or perfed," it can fcarcely be fuppofed to fpeak of good 
 in a moral fenfe ; and in any other fenfe it is impertinent. If 
 it is underftood in a moral fenfe it is likewife falfe, for we may 
 know that things which are not in their own nature moral per- 
 fe6lions, belong to God, fuch as power, omniprefence, &c. 
 If it be underftood in any other fenfe, we have nothing to do 
 with it. 
 
 The next head that he adds is, '* That all men will confefs 
 " that any thing may be morally evil and good alfo, and con- 
 ** fequently any thing decent or indecent, moral or immoral. 
 ** Neither, though there were things in themfelves evil, (if 
 ** we do not apprehend other things inftead of them) can wc 
 *' have any inclination thereunto ? Otherwife the will could 
 " vvifh evil." 
 
 But r. Who will grant him (in any other fenfe that will be 
 fubfervient to his purpofe) that all adlions are indifferent ? I 
 know none but men of his own principles. 2. As for what he 
 pretends, that we cannot incline to that which is in its own 
 nature evil, unlefs it be under the notion of good, I fee not 
 what this fays for him ; it is enough that we can do that adion 
 which is evil and prohibited, yea, and which wc know is pro- 
 hibited, to conftitute fm and make the (inner deeply guilty. 
 
 But not to infili any further on this inconfiderable trifier, 
 whofe undigefted notions fcarce deferve the confideration we 
 have given them ; and much lefs did they become the awful 
 gravity of the place where they were delivered. There are 
 others of the deifts who think it not fafe to venture thus far : 
 b^caufe in effecfl this overthrows all religion and eftablilhes 
 
 plain 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEfSTS. i6g 
 
 plain alheifm : yet they mince the matter and lelTen fm as 
 much as they can. 
 
 Herbert goes this way, telling us the Tinner's excufe, that 
 " I, Ho?nines funt naiura fua fragiles peccaioqiie obnoxii, 
 ** 2. Peccata hominum -non ta?n in-Dei contu??ieiia?77, qua?n tn 
 ** pTopriam utilitataUf fuh bom alicujv.s apparentis cbtentu fieri 
 ** pkrurnque ; ac licet in eo homines /alitor entur, nihil tamen t?i- 
 *^ fenjQ i7i Deu??i ammo patratum ejje* .'' That is, ** Men are by 
 ** nature frail and liable to fin : and they do not (in out of con- 
 " tempt of God, but for their own profit, while fm appears 
 ** under the (hew of good. And although in (his men are de- 
 ** ceivcd, yet there is nothing done with any ill defign againft 
 " God." 
 
 A. W. in his letter to Charles Blount, pleads, " That though 
 ** the offence is committed againfl: an infinite being, we are but 
 ** finite creatures, who commit finf." 
 
 But now, as to the firfl of thefe reafons or excufes, I fear, if 
 it plead any thing, it calls the fault over on God. Are we to 
 excufe ourfelves from our frailty? Well, either we are made 
 fo frail that we are n<?t able to obey, or we are not ; if we are 
 able to obey, then where is the excufe when God requires no 
 more of us than what he gave us power to perform ? If we are 
 not able, then how came God to fubje6\ us to a law we were 
 notable to obey? If we have rendered ourfelves unable, is net 
 this our fault? 
 
 As to the fecond, '* that we do not fin out of contempt of th3 
 Deity, but for our own advantage." I anfwer, i. The princi- 
 ple that the finner goes on, according to this apology made for 
 him, viz. That the thing he does, though it crofles the Jaw of 
 God, yet makes for his own advantage, is highly injurious to, 
 and blafphemous againfl: God : for it fuppofes that God has bar-» 
 red man from what contributes to his happinefs, and fuppofes 
 that more advantage is to be kad by difobedience, which is a high 
 aggravation of the fault. 2. I will not grant him, that there 
 is no oppofition in the heart to God. What though there be 
 not plain, declared, dired and open hoflility; yet there is an 
 aiienaton of affe6lion, averfion from converfe with, and a ne- 
 gle6lof God to be found with all in more or lefs; of which their 
 a6iions are a fufficient proof. 
 
 As 
 
 * De Relig. GentiHum, Cap. 5, pag. 199. 
 t Oracles of Reafon. 
 
 X 
 
fjo . AN INClUiRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 As to the third, " that an offence, though againfl: an infinite 
 God, is leflcncd by the confideration of the finner's being finite ;" 
 I anfwer, i. This excufe pleads for all fin alike: for let the 
 linner fin never ib deeply, yet he is finite fiill. 2. If this be 
 well confidered, it is perfe6ily ridiculous: for the meafure of 
 fin, its greatnefs is not to be taken this way, but the contrary; 
 for provided (he objeCl againli whom it is committed is infinite> 
 the meaner the pcrfon is that commits it, the greater fiill is the 
 fault. 
 
 But in very deed, all thefe attempts to extenuate fin, as 
 they are uielefs to finners,who are not judged by man, but God, 
 and not to be dealt with according to the eflimate he makes, but 
 that which God makes of fin ; fo likewifc they fmell rank oF 
 the want of a due regard for the honour of the Deity, and are of 
 the worfi. confequences to theworid,fince they tend to encourage 
 fin, open a door to impiety, and embolden finners to go on 
 in courfes they too much incline to. Befides, fuch excufes 
 for fin do but ill become perfons who make fuch an horrible 
 out cry againfl the doctrine of fatisfa6lion upon all cccafion.s, 
 as having a tendency to make forgiveneis cheap in finner's 
 eyes, and to embolden men to fin without fear. May not the 
 charc;e be here retorted? Who gives the greateR encouragement 
 to fib, he that aOTerts the neceffity of a fatisfadlion, or he who 
 extenuates fin to that degree as to encourage the finner to hope 
 he may get off without a fatisfaiStion ? I fiiall, to what has been 
 iaid, fubjoin a ^tw words from, a late difcourle. If the quotation 
 Utra long, the excellency of it will eafily excufe it; befides, 
 it h fo full to the purpofe, and leads fo dire^lly to that which 
 is the defign of what has hitherto been faid. ** Furthermore, 
 *' it is to be confidered, that the rights of the divine govern- 
 ** ment; the quality and meafure of offences committed againd 
 ** it ; and when or upon v/hat terms ihey may be remitted ; or 
 ** in what cafe It may be congruous to the dignity of that go- 
 ** vernment, to recede from fuch rights, are matters of fo 
 high a nature, that it becomes us to be very fparing in ma- 
 king any efiimatc about them, efpecially adiminidiing one. 
 Even among men, how facred things are majefiy and the 
 rights of governm.ent? And how much above (he reach of a 
 ** vulgar judgment ? Suppofe a company of peafants that un- 
 ** derltand little more than what is within the compafs of their 
 *' mattock, plough and fliovel, fbould take upon them to judge 
 ** of the rights of their prince, and make an eflimate of the 
 
 " meafure 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 171 
 
 -' meafure of offences, committed agalnfl the majefly and dle- 
 
 ** niry of government, how competent judges would we think 
 
 '* them? And will we not acknowledge the moft refined hu- 
 
 *' roan vinderftanding as inconpetent to judge of the rights oC 
 
 *• the divine government ? Or meafure the injurioufiiefs of the 
 
 *' offence done againft it, as the meaneft peafant to make an 
 
 *' ellimate of thefe matters in a human government? If only 
 
 ** the reputation be wronged of a perfon of a better quality, 
 
 ** hov^ ftrictly is^ it infilled on, to have the matter tried by his 
 peerSjOr pcrfons of an equal rank, fuch as are capable of under- 
 
 * Handing honour and reputition ! How would it be refented, 
 
 * that an affront put upon a nobleman, (houid be ccmmitled to 
 
 * the judgment of fmiths and coblers, cfpecially if they were 
 
 a 
 
 participss crhmnis*, and as well parties as judg 
 
 " When the regalia f of the great Ruler and Lord of heaven 
 
 and eartli are invaded, his temple violated, his prefencc 
 
 defpifed, his image torn down thence and defaced : Who 
 
 among the fonsof men are cither great, or knowing, or in- 
 
 ** nocent enough to judge of the offence and wrong ? Or how 
 
 fit it is, that it be remitted u ithout rccompence ? Or what re- 
 
 compence would be proportionable ? Hov/ fuppofable is it, that 
 
 there maybe congruities in this matter, obvious to the divine 
 
 '* underRanding, which infinitely exceed the meafure of ours.t." 
 
 From what has been faid, it is eafy to underhand the im.por- 
 
 fance of the cafe. All mankind are involved in fin, lie under 
 
 this dreadful guilt, and that not in one, but in many infianccs. 
 
 Now if they are not fare that it may be removed, and know 
 
 not in whit v/ay this is to be done ; they mud either not take 
 
 up the cafe, or they muft be under continual difquietmento, 
 
 dread the iif^, and fear divine refentments. They can never 
 
 expe£l any revt/ards for obedience, and confequently they muR 
 
 jasi^uilh in it, and fo all religion that can be available is Ipfl. 
 
 Sect. IT. 
 Skeining the darktufs oj Natures Light as io Pardoiu 
 
 THE importance of the cafe being thuscleared, we now pro- 
 ceed to demondrate the infutticiency of nature's light to help 
 
 f>, . out 
 
 '^ " on:irers in the crime." 
 T '* Koyal prerogatives.'"' 
 X Dr. Hct'c Uvin^j Teir.ple, Part 2, pa?. 257,238, 239. 
 
172 AN INC^UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 out of this ftrait. And that we may widiout fear affert it fo, is 
 evident from the enfuing confideration3 : 
 
 1. That light which failed men fo far, as io a difcovery of 
 the ilrait, is not likely to help them cut of it. If we under- 
 hand not where the difficulty lies, and how great it is, we are 
 never likely to folve it. Now it is undeniable, that a great 
 part of the woild underftood not the evil of fin, or of how vafi: a 
 coafi^ucnce it was to be alTured about the pardon of it. The 
 prevalent darknefs of their minds about the nature, holinefg 
 and JMilice of the Deity ; their own natures and relation to 
 him ; their'ignorance of the nature of fin ; the commonnefsof 
 it in the world ; their ftrong inclinations to it, and other things 
 of a like nature, kept them from apprehending the difficulty of 
 the cafe. But above all, the befi. moralifts amongfl the philofo- 
 phcrs, fuch as Socrates and Plato, feemed utterly unconcerned. 
 And the reafon is plain, their pride blinded them fo, that they 
 idolized their own virtues, and made no reckoning of their 
 fins. 
 
 2. They who had a little more concern about fin, faw fome- 
 what of the difficulty of this matter, but found themfelves at a 
 Icfs what way to relieve themfelves : and therefore they had re- 
 courfe, fome to philofophyj mufic and mathematics, for the 
 purgation of their fouls ; and others to lultrations, facrifices 
 and diveile wafnings, and 1 do not know what other fancies, 
 v/hich had no manner of foundation in reafon, no fu'jablenefs 
 to the nature of the difficulty, no divinev^arrant, and therefore 
 were never able to fatisfy the confcicnce, as to the finner's ac- 
 ceptance with God, and the removal of the guilt. 1 hefe be- 
 h;^ only the produtftions of their own imaginations, notwith- 
 Vranciingof all (hcfe, their fears continued, and they remained 
 under apprehenfiona that even deat!i fhould not terminate their 
 iiii^'ericSj as Lucretius hirnfelf fings, 
 
 . — /Jf r:xenr jUi confcia faSii^ 
 
 Jt'ncmefuejis adhihet ftimnlo^y terretque flr^ellis, 
 Kec ^oidet intercay qui tenninm fjje rnalonim 
 I^cjfif^ nec qui Jit' penari4in denique fi^ns^ 
 Atqiie eadcm melziit magis hcec in morle gravejcaiit^ , 
 o» They wiio either thought fomewliat deeper of the cafe, 
 or at Icaltj feemed to do io, efpecially at tinies when the im- 
 
 preffions 
 
 * « But the mind confcious to itfelf of at^.ual guilt* by f::'ari:ig p'J. 
 «*■ iiilkn.-:ent appiiss flings to itfeif and terrifies itfclf with whips: not* 
 
: PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 173 
 
 preifions they had of divine jnnice were quickened by fome 
 torrible plagues or judgments, had recourfe to things that vera 
 io far from relieving, that they really increafcd the guilt, I 
 iT.ean that abominable cuftom of human facrifices. This cruel 
 ciillcm almoft univerfaliy obtained in the world, if we may be- 
 lieve either profane or facred records ; of which Dr. Owen in 
 his treatife of VindiBive Juftice gives many inftances. They not 
 only facrificed men, but even multitudes of them* The inftan- 
 ces of this kind in the facred records are known. As to others, 
 Ditmpras quoted by Dr. Owen tells us, ** That the Normans and 
 ** Danes, every year in the month of January did facrifice to 
 ** tiieir gods ninety-nine men, as many horfes, dogs and 
 ** cocks*." Clemens Alexandria quoted by the fame author, 
 tells what* the ufage of the nations in this matter was, and on 
 what occafion.' — " Jam vero cum cimtatts 6? gentes tanquam 
 ** pejles invafijfent, fiva pojlularunt Ithamina ; & Arifloniencs 
 '* quidan Me/feniiiS-, Ithometce Jovi, Trecentos ma&avit, fe tot 
 ** & tales rite facrificarc exijiimans, in quihus ctiam Theom- 
 ** pompus rex Laced^monu7n erat^ pra^clara viclima' Tauri au- 
 ** tern populif qui habitabant circa Tauricam Cherfoncjum, quof' 
 ** cunque hofpites apud fe ceperint, Dianx Tauric^ cos ftatim 
 *^ facrificant finde inhofpitalia littora). Hccc tuet facrificta Eu' 
 *^ Tipides in fcena tragice deca?7tatf»" Here are no Jefs than 
 three hundred facrificed at once, and among them a king. Here 
 are Grangers facrificed. And any one that will read there will 
 find how ufual it was to facrifice their children and nearefl rela- 
 tions. The cuflom is barbarous, and fully fpeak out the de- 
 fpair of men awakened to a ferious confideration of fin, and the 
 
 darknefs 
 
 " does it fee in tlie mean time how any bounds can be fet to its fuf- 
 ** ferings, nor what will at lafLhe the end of its punifiiment, and fears 
 " leftthefc fame fufferings fhould grow more grievous at death." 
 Dr. Owen de juiUtia Vindicatrice, Cap. 4. page 69* 
 + " But when, like the plague, they had over- run all ftates and na- 
 " tions, they reqiiirerl cruel offerings. Ariftomenes the MelTenian facri- 
 *' ficed three hundred men to Jupiter Ithometes, among whom likc- 
 ** wife was Thecpopyus king of the Lacedemonians, an illuftrious vic- 
 <^ tim. And the Tauri a nation in Crim Tartary, whenever they 
 " caught any (trangers among themj they iinniediateiy facrificed them 
 <* to Diana Tauric?, whence their fnores were proverbially ftilcd in- 
 •* l.ofpirable. Euripides reUici thefe facrifices of yours in a tragic^ 
 ** manner on the Itage." 
 
174 AN INCl'Jn^Y INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 darkncfs of nature's light. If it could have pointed to any other 
 thing that could quiet iheconfcietice, civilized nations, iuch as 
 thoie among whom this cuiloin did prevail, would never have had 
 recourfe to it. 
 
 4. it is no wonder that men (liould be brought to fuch flraits; 
 for rhey wanted the knowledge of many things, that wete of ab- 
 iblute neceifuy to make tlicm once fo much as underftand v/hat 
 a caTe tiiey were in. They knew not» nor, ao hssbeen proven 
 could they know the rife of fm, and therefore could not knov/ 
 what eilimate to make of it, nor what God would maike of it. 
 They knew neither the extent of the mercy nor juRIcejof God, 
 vvithout which it was impoilible to determine in the cafe. 
 
 5. The queftions that muft be refoived before the mind of a 
 fmner, that once underftands his Rate, can be iatisfied, are 
 io many, fo intricate, and fo palpably above the reach of unen- 
 lightened reafon, that it isfoclilli to pretend that nature's light wlii 
 or can fatisfy the- mind of any man in the cafe. Men may pre- 
 tend what they wiU, who either do not take up the cafe, or who 
 are otherwife themfelves fatished by divine revelation ; but they 
 who feriouOy, and without partiality or prejudice view the cafe, 
 \rili have ether thoughts. Who v/iil give me rational fatisfa6^ion 
 ;:s to thofe and the like quefi ions? Whether, confidering the 
 jjTeatnefs of fi:^, the juftice, wifdom and holinefs of God, and the 
 honour of his government, it is confiftent to pardon any fm? If it 
 i>e, whether he will pardon all, many or (cw fins ? What, or what 
 degrees of fin he will forgive :* Whether he will pardon without 
 any reparation for the honour of his laws or not? Upon what 
 cr what terms he will do it? If he require reparation, what re- 
 paration, and by v/hom is it to be performed? How fhall we know 
 that he has p-irdoned ? If he pardon, whether will he remit all 
 p'jnifhment due to fin, or how much? Whether will he miercly 
 pardon, or will he over and above re-admit the finner to grace, 
 and as entire favour as before he finned ? Whether will he not 
 only p.irdon, but reward tlie finner's imperfe6\ obedience? Un-, 
 iefs ail of thefc are refoived, the dliticulty is not loofed. And 
 who will undertake to rcfoive them and give rational fatisfailion 
 that unaerfiands the cale. 
 
 6. Thefe queftions arc not only above the reach of man ; but 
 they belong not to him to judge and decide them. The oflence 
 is committed a^ainil God. He alone underftands what the con- 
 tempt of his authority, the diforder brought into his government 
 by fin, and the dliobedience of his creature amounisunto: what 
 
 is 
 
PRINCIPl.ES OF THE MODERN DraSTS. 17J 
 
 is fit to be done in the caie, he alone is judge, at h'c ti-ibunal 
 it is to be tried, Man is too ignorant, too guilty, and too par- 
 tial in his own favour to bs allowed to judge ? Ko'.v where are 
 the decifions of Gcd in the cafe to be found ? Ai': they legible 
 in the works of creation or providence, or confcienccs cf men ? 
 In the works of creation it cannot be pretended. The works 
 of providence afford innumerable inflances of his jufiice, foirje 
 of his forbearing finners, even while they continue in tiieir 
 fin, and loading them without outward elfevfts cf his bol:^ity ; 
 But where is the finner, of whom we can fav, God lias for- 
 given him ? Or faid that he will forgive? The ccnfcienccs cf 
 men read them fometimes fad ledurcs of jufiice ; but never, if 
 they be not informed from revelation, any of forgivenei's. 
 
 7. All the pretences that are offered for relief in this cafe, 
 are abfurd, vain and inrignificant. They are si! reducible to 
 this one head. That God is infinitely merciful ; but this give; 
 not the lead relief. For, 
 
 1. I afk, muft God then of necefTity exercife mercy, cr h the 
 egrefs and exercife of this mercy rccelTary ? If it is not, b.:t 
 flill remains arbitrary, and in the pleafurecf God whether hi: 
 will pardon or not ; then I inquire, where is the relief pre- 
 tended ? Does it not all cvanifn ? Are we not as much at a lofs 
 as before, whether he Mill pardon, or how far, or upon what 
 terms ? If it is necelTary in its egrefs, tiien i inquire, how is 
 this reconcileable with the notion of merc)% tlut I'ecms to rcf- 
 pe6l voluntary and undef-srved acSlsof favour iliown to them, to 
 whom God was not obliged to fnow any ? Mow is this reconci- 
 leable to or confident with juftice, which is exercifed in pu- 
 nilhing finncrs ? By what arguments can this be made appear ? 
 Whence is it that there are fo many a«5is of jufiice, and no in- 
 flances known to, or knowable by the light of nature, of God s 
 having pardoned any ? 
 
 2. Mercy is either unlimited in its egrefs or it is not. If it is 
 limited and cannot be exercifed, but upon fuch and fi;ch pro- 
 vifos as make the exercife of it confnlent with God's averhon 
 to fin, and with the regard he has for the authority of his Jaws, 
 the concern he has for the honour of his government, and h's 
 jufiice, wifdom'and holinefs, then we are where we were be- 
 fore : For who can tell whether it be conHPiCnt with theie 
 things to pardon ? In wliat cafe and upon what prcvifos : if it 
 is not limited to any fuch qualifications, then I defire to know, 
 how this is reconcileable to his nature ? How is fuch mercy con- 
 fident with any exercife cf juftice at all ? What account can be 
 
 givcii 
 
176 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 given of rfie direful effects of juftice, whereof the world isr 
 full ? By what means can it be reconciled to the holinefs of 
 God's nature to pardon impenitent finners ? What need is there 
 for any to guard againit fm, lince upon this fuppofition, all fm 
 lliall be forgiven ? 
 
 3. Is infinite mercy univerfal in its extent ? If it is not, then 
 I defire to know, what fins, what finners (hall be pardoned ? 
 How fliall any know whether his fins are the fins that are to be 
 pardoned ? If it is univerfal in its extent, and all fins muft be 
 pardoned ; then is there net a door opened for all fin ? How can 
 this be proven ? Why have we no evidence of this in God's 
 providential dealing ? Whence have we (o many evidences 
 of the contrary? If it is faid that mercy mufl: in more or lefa 
 be exercifed toward all, then I inquire, who tells us fo ? How 
 far fliall it be exercifed ? Will it pardon all or part ? Upon what 
 terms ? Will it not only pardon, but remunerate the guilty ? 
 
 4. I inquire who are the proper objects of mercy ? Or what 
 is requifite to conftitute the proper obje6t of it? Amongfl; men, 
 the proper obje£l of that mercy which belongs to governors, is 
 not fin and mifery. To fpare and pardon upon this fcore only, 
 is a plain vice in men efpecially in governors. But the object 
 of mercy is fuch fin and mifery, as is confident with the ho- 
 nour and good of the governor, government and the governed 
 to pardon. Now, if it be thus in this cafe, then I fee nothing, 
 but we arc v^here we were, and are plunged into all our diffi- 
 culties; and why it fhould not be thus, I fee no reafon. For 
 there is no man who knows what God is, what fin is, what juf- 
 tice is, that will fay it is confident with the honour, juftice, wif- 
 ^om and holinefs of God to pardon impenitent finners, going 
 on in their fins. And when they fay, that his mercy only re- 
 quires him to pardon penitent finners, then this plainly fays, 
 that the exercife of his mercy is confined to thofe who are its 
 proper obje6\s, that is, not to miferable finners, for the impeni- 
 tent are mod fo ; but to thofe whom he may fpare, in a deco- 
 rum to his government and congruity to his other perfeflions. 
 And indeed this is what cannot in reafon be denied : and 
 when it is granted, then it remains a quefiion, not yet decided, 
 nor indeed determinable by reafon, whether repentance alone 
 is fufficient to this purpofe ? 
 
 5. The cafe of jufticc and mercy are quite different as to 
 their egrefs : For jufiice has refpecSl to a fixed rule, an univer- 
 fal rule, and requires that regard be had to it, in dealing with all 
 that arc under that rule : whereas mercy only is converfant about 
 
 par- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEP.N DEISTS. 177 
 
 particular Inilances, according to the wifdcm and pleafurc of 
 him in whom it refides. 
 
 6. The inhnitenefs of either of thefe attributes, neither re- 
 quires nor admits, that there be intiniie numbers of inilances of ei- 
 ther : but that the afts of juftice and rtiercy be fuch as becomes 
 the infinite nature of God, when it is proper to exercife them, or 
 when th:^ wifdom, holincfs, jufticc or mercy of God require 
 that thev be exercifed. 
 
 But the deitts obje-SV, i. " That upon fuppofition that God ivili 
 " not pardon fin, there is no ufe of his mercy*." 1 anfwer.we do 
 nof iav he will not pardon fin ; but we fay, nature's light cannot 
 teli whether he will pardon it or not, or what is the cafe where- 
 in mercy takes place. We own its ufe, but we fay,^ nature'3 
 light cannot tell when and how it is proper to exercife it. 
 
 Again, it is pretended, '* That God is infinitely merciful, then 
 *' he mull as the leaft of its operations pardon the greateft of 
 " finsf." This is plainly denied, and we have told wherefore 
 above. 
 
 It is further pretended, ** That juOice has done its bufinefj, 
 " when it has condemned the finner, and then mercy brings him 
 " off |:" but this is grofs ignorance. It belongs as much to juf- 
 tice to take care that its fentence be executed, as to fee it pafTed. 
 
 Again, it is urged, " That though God be infinitely juft as well 
 ** as merciful, yet his juQice is only as inherent, not as extenfive 
 *' as his mercy toward us: for \^e are punifhed only according to 
 ** ourdefervings, but mercy is (hown us above our defervings^." 
 The firil partisfalfe. The very contrary affertion, viz. that juf- 
 tice is more extenfive, is true, as has been cleared above, if we 
 refped the number of obje^ls. The proof of it is a plain (ophlfi-n. 
 For I. It is not true that mercy beftows its effc6fs, which in their 
 nature arc above our defervings, fo more perfons than juflice 
 gives its effects, which are according to defert. 2. The effe^fls of 
 raercy are not more above deferving, than the effet^s of jufilcs 
 are according to it. 3. The effects of juftice are with infinite 
 exadnefs proportioned to defervings. And all that can be faid is, 
 that the e(Fe6ls of mercy arefuited to the nature of infinite mer- 
 cy, not that they are given to infinite number of perfons, or in- 
 finite degrees. 
 
 Further, it is pretended, '* That God with whom we have to 
 ** do, is a Father who will not animadvert feverely upon his pe- 
 
 *' nitent 
 
 * Aikenhcad's Speech. -!• Ibid. J Ibid, 
 
 t A, W. in his Letter, Oracles of Reafon, 
 ■ Y 
 
:78 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. v. 
 
 *' nit^nt fon^." I anfwer, as he is a father, fo he is a rlghreous 
 judge. Firrther, though he be a father, yet he is not fuch a father 
 as men are, inBrrn, liable to failings, that needs his children, 
 tii^t may give tliem occafion or temptation to offend, that is of 
 t';c laiTie Jiature with them. And hence no firm argument can be 
 inferred from csny thing that is known in this matter by the light 
 of nature. Belides, the meaneft offence agbnd God is more 
 atrocious, than the greatefl offence againft one's natural father. 
 For which neverthelefs there is no forgivenefs, but puniihment 
 witiiout mercy, by the law of nations and nature. 
 
 Finally, all thefe are but generals, that m,ay well raife fuf- 
 picions in the minds of men, but can never give particular 
 idthJ-^ioii to any one man, as to his cafe, cr any one of the 
 particuhr diliicuhies that have been mentioned. They no more 
 latlsfy, than thofe notions that generally prevailed, of the placa- 
 bility of the Deity, which had their rife at fird; from revelation, 
 ■Nvere continued by the neceffity of finners,who having challenges 
 for till, b-boo'-ed to take fane) uary fome where, and handed 
 down by tradition: But being general, and leaving men at a 
 lofs ablaut the means of atoning the Deity, were really ofnoufe 
 if not to keep men from running into downright defpair, and 
 keep them up in attendance upon fomewhat that looked 
 like religion ; but whereon the minds of fuch as really 
 underllood any thing of the cafe, could never find fatisfac- 
 tion. 
 
 There is only one thing that feems of any moment, that 
 is objected to all this; and that is, that nature's light which 
 dilcovers the fore, difcovers a falve for it, to wit, repentance, 
 to which we (hall anfwer in the fcliowing fe6\ion, that is 
 peculiarly defigned to confider this. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 Where:?! it is inquired whether Repentance is fujicicut to alone 
 Jcr Sin? Hozu far Nature's Light enables to it? What aj- 
 Jurance Natures Light gives of Par Jon upon Repentance. 
 
 IT now remains that we confider tlie only exception, whicii 
 is of moment, and that is, that repentance is a fufficient 
 atonement, tiiat natttre's light difcovers this, and fo we are 
 
 not 
 
 § Blount's Reli?. Laici, pag. 69. Herbert de Relig, Gen. pag, 199. 
 
 fl 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 179 
 
 jiot left without relief. This is the more conuderable that 
 feveral Chriftians, yea divines of great note, and fomc of 
 them defervediy of high elleem, have fcen meet, in compli- 
 ance with their feveral hypothefes in divinity, to drop avler- 
 tions that fcem to favour this. We fhall firft propofe their 
 opinions, who alTert this, and then confider it. 
 
 The deiils go all this way as one mm. I Tnall offer one 
 for all, and it is Charles Dlount, who not only fpeaks the 
 i'enCCf but tranflates the very words of the learned lord Herbert, 
 He tells us then, " That repentance is the only kr.oy/n and 
 ** public means, which on our part is required for fatisfyin|]j 
 ** the divine juilice, and returning to the right way of ferving 
 ** God*." And for clearing this, he premits to it thefe enfuing 
 confideratlons, ** i. That he that judgeth man is his Father, 
 " and doth look on him as a frail creature, obnoxious to Cm* 
 *' 2. That he generally finds men fin, rather out of frailty, 
 ** than out of any defire to offend his divine Majefly. 
 " 3. That if man had been made inwardly prone to fin, and 
 ** yet dePiitute of all inward means to return to him again, 
 ** he had been not only remedilefs in himfelf, but more mi- 
 ** ferable, than it could be fuppofed an infinite Gocdnefs did 
 *' at firft create, and doth Hill perpetuate hiiman kind. 
 " 4. That man can do no more on his part, for the fatisfvincr 
 *' of divine juftice, than to be heartily lorry and repent him 
 ** of his fins, as well as to endeavour, through his grace, to 
 " return to the right way, from which through his tranfgrcf- 
 " fion, he had erred : or if this did not fuffice for the making 
 ** of his peace, that the fupreme God by inflicting fome tern- 
 ** poral punilhment in this life, m.ight fatisfy his ov/n juftice. 
 ** 5. That if temporal punifhment in this life, v/ere too lit- 
 ** tie for tlie fin committed, he might yet inflict a greater 
 ** puniQiment hereafter in the other life, without giving eternal 
 *' damnation to thofe^ who (if not for the love ofgoodnefs) 
 ** yet, at leaf!:, upon fenfe of punilTiment, would not fin eter- 
 ** nally. Notwithftanding, fince thefe things may again be 
 *' controverted, 1 fiiail infill: only upon that univerfally ac- 
 *' kncwledged propcfition firfl laid dov/nf." This proposi- 
 tion, with the explications, he tranfiates from Herbert, only 
 has made fome fniall additions. 
 
 It 
 
 * Rsli^^Io Laici, pag, 68, 69, 70. 
 
 i Heibfrt dc Relig. Gcntil. pag. 199. 
 
ti 
 
 l8o AN IKQ/JIRY INTO^^THE chap. x. 
 
 It is no wonder to fee thofe fpcak fo; but it is a little 
 more cdJ to hear Ciiriilians talk fo# One who would feem 
 very zealous for Chriftianity tells us, ** That the God of 
 " patience and confolation, who is rich in ruercy, would 
 
 forgive his frail olispring, if they acknowledge their faults, 
 'ii>ipproved the iniquity of their tranfgrefiions, beggtrd his 
 *' pardon, and refolvcd in earned: to conform their actions 
 *' to this rule, which they owned to be juli and right : this 
 " way of reconciiiaton, this hope of atonement, the light 
 
 ** of nature revealed to them. He thai made ufe of this 
 
 ** candle of the Lord, (viz. rcc:fon) fo fares to find his duty. 
 *' could not mifs to find alfo the way to recoriciliatlon and 
 ** forglvenefs, when he had failed of his d'-ity*.'"' Much more 
 fpeaks he to the fame purpofe. 
 
 But it is flranger to hear divines fpeak fo. And yet we hnd 
 one telling us, '* That ths fame l)ght of nature, which de- 
 *' dares to us our duty, dilates to us, when- we have failed 
 ** in that duty, to repent and turn to God with trufting to 
 *' Ills mercy and pardon, if we do fo and net elfe. We 
 ^' do find it legil-dc in our hearts, that God is good and wife- 
 *' \y giacious to pity our infirmities, to confider our lofl 
 " eflate, and nccellaiy frailty, as that there is a God, and 
 *' any worlhip that is at all due to him f." 
 
 '1 o the lainc purpofe the learned Baxter fpeaks in his Rea- 
 fons of the Chrifiian Religion, Part j. Chap. 17. Dr. Which- 
 cct in his fermon on Aiils xli. q8. and others too large to quote. 
 
 But nov;, witliall due deference to thofe great names, 1 fhall 
 ttke leave to olier the following remarks, wherein 1 fhall clear 
 my own mind, and pfler tjic ^cafons on which I dident from 
 them. 
 
 J. I obf^rvc that the deifts fpeak more uncertainly about this 
 matter ; whereas thefe ('hrifiian writers feem more pofitive. The 
 deiPis i'eem not to want their fears that repentance may not 
 ferve vhe turn, and therefore they feem wiiiing to admit of tern-- 
 pornl puniihments, and even punidiments after tim.e, only they 
 liave not will to think of eternal puniOiments ; as v.e heard from 
 IJerbert and Blount, who both fpeak in the fame words on this 
 h'cad. But the Chrifiian writers are pofitive. And I am jea- 
 40 ub the reafon is not, that they faw farther into the liglit of na- 
 ture 
 
 * Locke's Reafonphlenef'; of ChrilHanity, pag, 25^, 256. 
 
 f Mr. rlumphrey's Feaceable Difquifitious, Chap. 14. pag. 57. 
 
Px^INClPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. iSi 
 
 lure than the deifis ; but that they lean more firmly to the fcrip- 
 ture revelation, which aiFures us that penitent (inners (hail be 
 forgiven. Though I muft add, the fcripture no where fays that 
 penitent nnners Ihall be forgiven upon their penitence, as that 
 which is fufficient to atone the juftice of God. And to fpeak 
 plainly, however confident thofe worthy perfons are, that they 
 have read this do6lrine in the book of nature, I dare be bold to 
 aitirm that they had either failed in the difcovery, orftammered 
 a little more in reading their leflbn, if they had not learned it 
 before-hand out of the book of the Scriptures ; though the 
 thing feems, when they have read it there, to approve itfelf fo 
 much to reafon, that reafon cannot but alTent to it. It is well 
 obfervcd by one of thofe authors, with whom we now manage 
 this debate, " That when truths are once known to us, though 
 ** by tradition, we are apt to be favourable to our own parts, and 
 *^ afcribe to our own underftanding the difcovery of what, in 
 *• truth we borrowed from others, or, at leaft, finding we can 
 ** prove, what at firft we learned from others, we areTorward4o 
 '* conclude it an obvious truth, which, if we had fought, we could 
 *' not have miffed. Nothing feems hard to our underftandings, 
 ** that is once known ; and becaufe what we fee with our own 
 ** eyes, we are apt to overlook, or forget the help we had from 
 *' others, who firft fhewed and pointed it out to us, as if we 
 ** were not at all beholden to them for that knowledge ; for 
 " knowledge being only of known truths ,* we conclude our 
 ** faculties would have led us into it without any alTifiance ; and 
 ** that we know thefe truths by the ftrength and native light 
 ** of our own minds, as they did, from whom we received them 
 ** by theirs, only they had the luck to be before us. Thus 
 ** the whole ftock of human knowledge is claimed by every 
 ** one, 33 his private pofl'effion, as foon as he (profiting by 
 *' other's difcoveries) has got it into his own mind ; and fo it is; 
 *' but not properly by his own fingle induftry, nor of his own 
 ** acquifition. He (iudies, it is true, and takes pains to make a 
 ** progrefs in what others have delivered, but their pains were 
 *' of another fort, who firft brought thofe truths to light, which 
 *' he afterwards derives from them. He that travels the roads 
 *' now, applauds his own ftrength and legs, that have carried 
 *' him fo far, in fuch a fcantling of time, and afcrlbes all to 
 ** his own vigour, little confidering how much he owes to their 
 ** pains, who cleared the woods, drained the bogs, buiit the 
 ** bridges, and made the ways paifable ; without which he 
 ** might have toiled much with little progrefs, A great many 
 
 thinjrs 
 
iS2 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 " things which wc have been bred in the belief of from our cra- 
 ** dies (and are notions grown familiar, and as it were natural to 
 ** us, under the gofpel) we take for unqueflionable obvious truths 
 ** and eafily demonftrable, without confidering how long we 
 '* might have been in doubt, or ignorance of them, had reve- 
 lation been filent. It is no diminifliing to revelation, that 
 '•* reafon gives its lufFrage too to the truths revelation hath 
 '"' dii'covered. But it is our miRake to think that becaufe 
 reallm confirms them to us, we had the firft; certain know- 
 *^ ledge of them from thence, and in that clear evidence we 
 ** now poffefs them*." How applicable this excellent dif- 
 courfe is to the cafe in hand, will appear from what we de- 
 fign to fubjoin on this head. Though after ail, that which the 
 Icripture delivers, and reafon coniirms in this cafe, is not, 
 *' That repentance is fufhcient to atone the jufiice of God, or 
 tnat God will pardon a penitent finner, merely on the ac- 
 count of his penitence," which the deifts* cafe requires. The 
 icripturcfplainly teach the contrary, and thofe learned pcrfons, 
 or fome of them at lead who own them, believe according to 
 the fcriptures, the contrary, which makes a confiderable dif- 
 ference betwixt them and the deifts ; though in this cafe, they 
 feem to fpeak the fame things. But that which the fcripture 
 alferts, is, ** That penitence is a qualification fuitable to a fin- 
 ** ner to be pardoned, and that it ig not fuitable to the wifdom 
 and juPiice of God to pardon one, who is not 'forry for for- 
 ** mer offences, and refolves to obey for the future*." Reafon 
 confirms this indeed, but it is not to the purpofe. 
 
 2. But to come a little more clofe to the purpofe ; this re- 
 pentance, which is pretended to be fufhcient, con fids of two 
 ^^'cX?,f forrow for the offence, and a return to oheditnu. This 
 fair, part, a return to obedance, what is it ? Nothing, but 
 only a performance of the duties we were antecedently bound 
 unto by the law of creation, which only receives a nev/ de- 
 nomination from its relation to an antecedent deviation, or 
 lin. This denomination adds no new worth to it, nor does 
 the relation whereon it is founded. Wherefore we can never 
 reafonably fuppofe, that there is any great matter in this, 
 that can atone for the tranfgrclfion. It is well if it obtains 
 approbation as a part of our duty. But no reafonable man 
 Ci..i pretend that it aioncs for any part of our fin. 
 
 3. Though 
 * Lor.'^e's Pvesfoaabkncf., of Chridianity, pag. 279, 2&c> 281. 
 
 1 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 183 
 
 3. Though nature's light difcovevs our obligation to that 
 tluty, which now, becaui'e fin preceded, muft be called a 
 return ; yet it is a queftion, if nature's light is able to bring 
 a finner, that has once gone away, to fuch a return as is 
 neceffary. For i. We have above proved that nature's light 
 is d€fe6live as to motives lo obedience, as to the difcovery of 
 particular duties, and much more is it defe6tive as to motives 
 to a return : becaufe there is more required to encourage a 
 finner to come back, who has once offended, than to engage 
 him to continue. There is a difcouragcment arifrng from 
 fear of punilhment, and falling (hort cf any reward he might 
 have expedted, upon the account of his fm to be removed, 
 and that is not eafily done, as (hall be fhown. 2. Befides, 
 r.ot only difcouragements lie in the way of a return, but 
 crofs inclinations, averfions from duty, and inclinations to fm. 
 Now 1 am nor fatii/fied that nature's light can remove, or 
 dire6l how to remove thefe ; of which we may fpeak more ful- 
 ly in the next chapter. So that as for this part of repentance 
 we neither fee of what ufe it is as 10 atonement, nor do 
 we find it clear that nature's light can bring any to it. 
 
 4. The ftrefs of the bufinefs then muft lean on this forrov/ 
 for by-gone tranfgreffions, that is the other part of the com- 
 pofition. But here I am fur e it will be readily granted, that 
 every fort of furrow for fjn will not ferve. If one is on- 
 ly grieved for the lofs he has fuftained, the hazard he has 
 run himfelf into, and the evil he has to fuffer, or fears at 
 leaft for his ofFencc ; this can be available to no man. Where- 
 fore though nature's light may bring a man to this, and has 
 oft done it, yet this fignifies nothing in the cafe. 
 
 5. The forrow, that only can be pretended, is that which 
 ariles purely, or at leaft, principally from concern for the 
 diihonour done to God. New as to this forrow, it is to bs 
 obferved, that it is not any ad^ion cf curs done in obedience 
 to any command : but it is a palhon, in its own nature un- 
 eafy, as all'forrow is, though fuitable to a finner, and, upon 
 the fuppcfition, that he is fo, ufeful perhaps. And it rcfults 
 from the joint influence cf prevailing love to God, his law 
 and authority, and a clear convi6\icn of fin's having injured 
 his honour, and our being, on this account, obnoxious. 
 
 6. It is not eafily to be granted that nature's light can 
 bring any man to this forrow. Since i. It is evident that 
 the temper men are naturally of, is quite contrary to that which 
 
 give? 
 
iS4 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, x, 
 
 gives rife to focli a forrow. We are naturally averfe from God, 
 as {hall be made appear afterwards/ and are not under the in- 
 fluence of any fuch prevalent love to him, and it is not eafy to 
 prove that nature's light is able to remove this natural averfion 
 of the heart from God : but of this more in the next chapter, 
 2. God can never appear amiable to a finner, if he is not re- 
 vealed as one ready to forgive. We cannot be forrovvful for 
 our fin, if we are not ferioufly convinced that we have finned, 
 and fee the demerit of fin. If we are convinced that we have 
 finned, and deferve punifhment, we cannot have prevalent love 
 to God, which is requifite to give life to this forrow, make 
 it run in the right channel, and proceed on thofe accounts, 
 which will make it acceptable to God, or available to us, un- 
 lefs he appear to us as ready to forgive, which nature's light 
 doth not difcover. 
 
 7. I doubt if nature*s light calls us to repentance, I allow 
 that there art feveral things obvious to nature's light, which 
 may be faid to drive us to repentance, becaufe they ferve 
 to difcover to us thefe things whereon this forrow follows, 
 bind the obligation on us to that duty, which, becaufe of 
 the preceding fin is called a return, and ferve as argu- 
 ments to enforce the compliance, provided we had a call or in- 
 vitation to return, I mean a new call. For clearing this, we 
 are to obferve that, were man innocent, and guilty of no fault, 
 and had his obedience no imperfe£\ion necelTarily cleaving to 
 it, and were he under no fuch inconveniency as might make 
 him dread wrath, or fear his obedience might be rejected ; in 
 in that cale a difcovery of the obligation hs lies under to duty 
 were a call and invitation fufficient, asfecuring him, at leaf! as 
 to to the acceptance of his duty. But where there are thofe 
 things in his cafe, fin and imperfe6\Ion cleaving to the duty, and 
 the performer chargeable with guilt on both thofe accounts, in 
 order to engage him to duty, there is requifite a new call or invi- 
 tation, fecuring him againfl thofe grounds of fear, and giving 
 him ground to expe(^ acceptance. Now it is fuch a call as this, 
 tljat only can bring the finner to repentance. And this we de- 
 ny that nature's light gives ; though we own that it difcovers 
 many things, that may be faid in fomie fcnfe, to lead to repent- 
 ance : Becaufe, upon fuppofition of fuch an invitation, they are 
 improveable as arguments to enforce compliance with dutv. 
 Thus, if God invite me back again, his goodncfs difcovercd 
 in the works of creation and providence, invites to go to him, 
 
 and 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. iSj 
 
 and all the direful evidences of his anger againft finners per- 
 fuade the fame thing : and therefore may be faid to lead, or 
 rather drive to repentance ; becaufe they have a tendency thrt 
 way in their ov/n nature, and arc capable of fuch an imprcve- 
 rnent : But ftlll it is only upon the foregoing fuppoHtion. 
 
 8. To make this matter yet a little more clear, 1 gran tthatthe 
 light of nature difcovers finful man to be ftiii under an obligation 
 to obey God. As long as God is God, and man his creature, 
 man is under a tie to fubje6lion, and God has a right to man's 
 obedience. This obedience to which man is bound, after once 
 he has finned, muft be called a return. Further, the light of 
 nature teaches, that if man had yielded perfe6^ obedience, he 
 ihould not have done it in vain. Acceptance, at leail, he 
 fhould have had, and what other reward the goodnefs of God 
 thought meet. And that man fuflains a great lofs by fin, that 
 interveens betwixt him and his expc6lations from the goodnefs of 
 God, and befides,expofes him to the hazard of his juft refentment, 
 which, if it is feen, as by nature's light in fome meafure it 
 may be, will occafion forrow. Further, nature's light will 
 teach that the more deeply we fin, the more we have to fear, 
 and therefore out of fear and a regard to our own intercQ and ex- 
 pedation of being freed from thofe feverer judgments, which a 
 progrefs in fin draw on men, may be induced to return. Now 
 all this nature's light difcovers: but neither is this forrow, which 
 favours of fome regard to ourfelves, but of little or none to God ; 
 nor this return, which is not that cheerful, cordial obedience 
 that God requires and accepts, of any avail in the cafe. No 
 man, that knows what he fays, will pretend, that fuch a for- 
 row or fuch a return is fufficient to atone the juftice of God for 
 by-gones, or even obtain acceptance for itfelf, which has fo 
 much of love to (elff and fo little of that which refpeds God. 
 
 9. But the repentance that is available in this cafe is a forrow, 
 flowing from prevalent love to God, and grieving, if not only, 
 yet principally for the wrong done to God, and a cheerful fol- 
 lowing of duty upon profpe6t of God's being a rewarder of it. 
 Now to call or to make up a fufficient invitation to a finner, to 
 fuch a repentance, it is requifite that i. God be reprefented 
 in fuch a way, as a finner that fees himfelf guilty, can love him, 
 delight in him, and draw near to him. But this he can never 
 be, if he is not reprefented as one with v/hom certainly there is 
 forgivenejs, 2. It requires further, that God be reprefented as 
 one, who will accept of finners' obedience, notwithftanding 01 
 
 Z theic 
 
iS5 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, .t- 
 
 their defert of wrath for former difobedience, and this requires 
 fi'ui that he be a God that forgives. 3. Further, it is requifite, 
 that he be reprefented as one, that will accept of obedience, not 
 only from one that has finned, but that implies fin and imper- 
 fection in it. Now this cannot be, if he is not known to be one 
 that is plenteous in ??iercy and zvill abundantly pardon. Now I 
 fay the light oi nature gives no fuch difcovery of God: and 
 therefore gives no call or fufficient invitation to this repentance. 
 10. Nor will it help out here, to fay, that the light of nature doth 
 reprefent God as placable, one tvho may be pacified : for, fhould 
 I grant that it does io^ yet this cannot invite to fuch an obedi- 
 ence, fo long as I. It Is left a qucftion, whether he be a6lu- 
 ally reconciled, or pofitively determined to forgive ? 2. Efpe- 
 cially confidering, that he has not pointed to, and pofitively de- 
 clared on what terms he will be appeafed. Yea 3. Since 
 moreover he has given no vifible inftance, knowable by the 
 light of nature, that he has forgiven any particular perfon. But 
 4. On the contrary, the world is full of the mofl terrible ef- 
 fe6is of his difpleafure, and thefe falling mod heavily on the 
 bef^, even ihofe who go farthefi in a compliance with duty. In 
 a word, thcfe dark notions of a placable God, which yet is the 
 utmoli that unenlightened reafon can pretend to, are utterly in- 
 fumcient to bring any of the children of men to that repentance 
 we are now in qucfl of; it is fo funk, and as it were quite ob- 
 fcurcd by crofs appe.»rances. And all that can reafonably be 
 faid, is, that in the providence of God there is fuch a feemlng 
 cortrariety of good and evil, that men know not what to make 
 of it, hut are tolTed by contrary appearances. And of this we 
 have a fair acknowledgment by one, who, befides that he was a 
 perfon of great learning, was not only a great ftlckler for the 
 natural difcoverics of this placability, but one of the firfl broach- 
 ers of it, being led to it by the peculiar hopothefis he main- 
 tained and advanced in divinity, 1 mean the learned Amyrald. 
 After he has aflerted the natural difcoverics of this placability, 
 and alleged that they lead to repentance, yet fubjolns — ** But 
 *' there are (fays he) motions in the corrupt nature of man 
 *' which tVufirates the effevSt, if God did not provide for it in 
 *' another manner (that is, by revelation). For man files from 
 *' the prefence of God through fear of punifhment, and cannot 
 '* hinder the prevalence of it in his foul , fo that as a man af- 
 ** frighted beholds nothing ftedfafily, but always imagines nexi- 
 ** occafions of terror, and reprefents hideous phantafms to him- 
 
 «* felf; 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 187 
 
 '" ielf ; To we are not able to allow ourfelves leifure to confider 
 *• attentively this difpenfatlon of the goodnefs of God towards 
 ** the wicked, nor thereby to aflure ourfelves cf obtaining mercy 
 ** and pardon. As a lewd wretch, whofe confcience bears him 
 <* witnefsofraanyheinouscrimes, though helliould perceive ibrric 
 ** connivance in the magiftrate for a time, and his judge (hew 
 ** him fome countenance, cannot but be dilUufifal of him, and 
 ** i'ufpe*!:! that he does but defer his puniflriment to another tiiiic, 
 ** and alTuredly relerves, it for him ; efpccially it he hath an 
 " opinion that the magiflrate is not fuch an one as hinifelf, but 
 ** abhors the wickedneQes committed by him. Now are we 
 ** univerfally thus principled, that as we have thofe vv'hom we 
 *' fear, lb we never bear good will toward them of whom 
 ** we have fome diffidence. And the diflrudiag the good 
 " will of any one being a ftep to fear, is likewife by the fame 
 ** reafon, a degree of hatred ; unlefs the difirufl proceed to fuch 
 ** a meafure as to be an abfolute fear ; for then the coldnefs 
 ** of affe^lion is turned into perfett hatred. Wherefore mm 
 "' thus diftrufting the good will of God towards liim, confe- 
 '* quently can have but a very flight affed^icn to him ; yea, he 
 *' wiii even become his enemy, in as much as the dillruft iii 
 •* this cafe will be extremely great*." Thus far he goes. Now 
 methinks this quite overthrows the placability he had before af- 
 ferted difcoverable by the light of nature, at leaft as to any ufe 
 it can be fuppofed of for affuriag finners of pardon, cr inviting 
 them to repentance* 
 
 1 1 . But to go a ftep further, I cannot iee that the light of nature 
 is able to give us any affurance of this placability* Where is 
 it in the book of nature that we may read this truth, that God 
 is placable? Is it in the works of creation? No, this is not pre- 
 tended. Not can it be, they were all abfolved and nnifned bv?- 
 fore the entrance of fin, and cannot be fuppofed to carry on them 
 any impreiTions of placability to finners. is it in the works of 
 providence? Yes, here it is pretended. And what is it in the Vvorks 
 of providence that is alleged to evince this placability? Is it that 
 God fparec finners for fome lime, and not only fo, but beftows 
 many outward good things on them, whom he fpares? Yes, this 
 3£ tliat whereon the whole flrefs of the buiinefs is laid. But I 
 cannot fee the force of this to alfure us that God is placable. 
 For I. It is certain that the nature of the things do not infer 
 
 certainly 
 
 * Amyrald of Religions, Part 2. Chap. 17. pag, mihij 253, 254. 
 
rS3 AN INQ^UIRY IxN TO THE chap. x. 
 
 certainly any fuch thing. Forbearance is not forgi /enefs: nor 
 cioes it intimate any defign to forgive. It may be exercifed, 
 where there is a certain defign aud fixed purpofe of punifiiing. 
 And what relation have a few ofthofe outward things, whereby 
 love or hatred cannot be known, unto peace and reconciliation 
 with God? It i?;, I know, pretended, that even this forbearance 
 is a fort of forgivcnefs, and that all (he world (baring in it, are 
 in fome fort forgiven. So Mr. Baxter fays. If this learned 
 perfon or any other has a mind to extend the notion of pardon 
 10 far as to include even reprieves under that name, we cannot 
 hinder : but it is certain, that no abatement of the punifhment, 
 far lefs the difTolution of the obligation, which is that ordinarily 
 meant by pardon, do neced'arily follow upon, or is included in a 
 delay of punifrinient. The llownefs in execution, which may 
 proceed upon many grounds, hid in the depth of divine Vv'if- 
 dom fronm us, may be more than compenfated by its feverity 
 when incomes. Leaden Jeaif as fome have ufed the expreffion, 
 may bs compe^i fated by iron hands* And when men have feri- 
 ouUy weighed outward good things, which are thrown in great- 
 e(i plenty in (lie lap of the moft wicked, and are full of vanitv 
 and commonly enfnare, they can fee but very little of any mercy 
 defigned them thereby. And if any inference toward a placa- 
 bility is deduciblc, which I profefs 1 cannot fee, I am fure that 
 it is far above the reach of not a few, if not moft of mankind, 
 to make the dedu6^aon and trace the argument. And lb it can 
 h?. of no ufe to them. 2. All thofe things are conliRent with 
 a {^vAqxicz landing unrepealed and never to be repealed, if ei- 
 ther fcripture, which tells us that God exercifes muck long fuf- 
 /:-n ;?/;•, and gives plenty of good things to the vejfcls of zuratk ; 
 or reaibn, which affurcs us that perfons continuing obfiinate to 
 the b(^ in fin, cannot evite judgment, m?.y be believed. 3. As 
 ^-hcre is nothing in the nature cf the thuigs that cJin afcertain us 
 cf God's placability, mucli lefs is tlicrc any in the condition of 
 *Mz perfon, to whom this difpcnfation is exercifed. Were 
 tlicfe bellowed on the moll virtuous, or were there an Jncreafe 
 of them, as perfons proceeded fn virtue, and came nearer and 
 nearer to repentance ; or were there on the other hand a conti- 
 nued evidence of wrath and implacability towards obftlnate fin- 
 ner'-.; thio then would fee m to fay fomewhaf. But all things are 
 quite contrary, tlie worfl have the mo(l of them, and the beft 
 have commonlv Ic^ll of them. What will the hnncr fa}', that 
 God is inviting nie by this gcodnefs to virtue ? No, if I fhould 
 
 turn 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 189 
 
 turn virtuous I might rather expe6l to be worfe dealt with. That 
 is a bootlefs way for any thing I can ice in it. Does not the 
 fcripture and experience tell us, that thus things go, and that 
 fuch ufe finners have made of this difpenfation ? And fo dark 
 is it, that even they who had God's mind in the word to unrid- 
 dle the myftery, have been ihaken at it fo far, that they have 
 been upon the brink of apoflafy, while they faw the way of fin- 
 ners profper, and that they who hate God wtit exaltzd* How 
 then can unenlightened reafon draw fuch inferences as thefe 
 learned men pretend ? Although I have a great veneration for 
 thefe learned men ; yet if it would not appear prefumptuous in 
 one fo far below in all refpeds, to cenfure his fuperiors, I 
 would take the liberty to fay, that in this matter they are guil- 
 ty of a double miftake : Firil, In that they meafure men's abi- 
 lities by a wrong ftandard. What fuch men as they may trace 
 by reafon, many men are under not only a moral, but even a 
 natural incapacity to difcover. It is certain, befides that vail 
 difference which is in the capacities of men, from different edu- 
 cation and circumflances, whence it is morally impcffible for 
 one who wants that education, and other occafions and advanta- 
 ges which another has, to go that fame length and trace thefe 
 difcoveries, which the ether who had education and cccallon 
 may do : there is likewife vaft difference even in the natural 
 abilities of raen (whether that arifes from their bodies or fouls I 
 difpute not now, nor is it to the purpofe ; for if from either it 
 is ftiil natural) fo that one has not a natural capacity to trace 
 the truths that others may, who have better natural abilities : 
 and fo it is naturally impoflible for the former to make the dif- 
 coveries which the other may. And I fear not to add, that if 
 any fuch inferences may be drawn from thefe preraifes, asthofe 
 learned perfons pretend, yet many are under a natural impoili- 
 biiity ; and the moft under ir.fuperable moral incapacity of tra- 
 cing thofe difcoveries. And if it be allowed that any man^ 
 without his own fault, is under an incapacity of making fucli 
 deductions, about the placability of God, from thefe difpenfa- 
 tions of providence, which 1 think cannot modcOly be denied, 
 the whole plea about placability will prove not only unfervice- 
 able to the deifts, but, if I miftake it not, unmeet to maintain 
 that ftation for which it is defigned, in the hypothefis of the 
 learned afferters of this opinion. Another miiUke I think thole 
 perfons guilty of, is, that men whofe minds are not enlighten- 
 ed by revelation, may poffibly trace thofe difcoveries, v^'hich 
 
 thev 
 
190 AN INCtUiRY INTO THE ghap. x. 
 
 they who are guided by it may read in the book of nature. 
 4. I add, ifthefe things whei'eon they infift, as difcoveries of 
 this placability iti God, ferve to laife any fufjiicions of that 
 fort in the minds of men, and this is the moft that can be rea- 
 lonabiy pretended, for demonftration they do not amount unto, 
 they are quite funk by the contrary evidences of God's feveri- 
 iy ; which muR have (o much of force, in as much as they moft 
 commonly befall the moft virtuous, which heightens the fufpi- 
 cion. And befides, as we heard Amyrald obferve, the minds 
 of finners, who are convinced in any meafure of fin, who are 
 yet the only perfons that will think themfeives concerned in 
 this matter, are much more inclined to entertain fufpicions 
 Jhan good thoughts of him, whom they have oftended, and who, 
 as their cqnfciences affure them, hates their offences. 5. That 
 v/hich puts the cope-lfone upon our mifery, and concludes us 
 imder d.^rknefs, is that nature's light has no help to guide us 
 pver thefe dimculties laid in our way, from any known inflan- 
 ces of any perfons led to repentance by thefe means, or par- 
 doned on their repentance. So that upon the whole, I cannot 
 iee fuflicient evidence of this piacAbility in the light of nature. 
 12. If it is alleged here, that if God had no defign of mercy 
 ',n fparing the world, it is perfe6^ly unintelligible why he. did it. 
 In anfwer to this, it is to be obferved,that we do not lay that God 
 had no defign of mercy in fparing the world, but that this his 
 forbearance of the world is not a fufficient proof and evidence 
 of this defign; and that nature's light can give no falisfying 
 account of the reafon of this difpenfation of God. So dark was this 
 to fuch as had no other light but that of reafon, that the moft 
 part laid afide thoughts of it as a thing above their reach; and 
 the more thoughtful knew not what judgment to make, but were 
 confounded and perplexed in their thoughts. They underflood 
 not what occount was to be made of God's producing fo many 
 fucceilive generations of men, and tolling them betwixt love 
 ;nid hatred, hope and fear, by fuch a Grange mixture of good 
 and evil ; elfeds of his bounty and evidences of his anger. 
 Yea fo far were they confounded, that fbme of them came the 
 icngth to fet God afide from the government of the world. 
 No Icfs a perfon than Seneca introduces God, telHog good 
 men, ** That he could not help their calamities." Anti Pli- 
 ny acrafes God, under the notion of nature^ of no good de- 
 fign, " Natural y quafi magna ^ f^va merctde contra ianta 
 ^^ pisb muntrii !)fum ; ita ut ncnjatisfii ^Jiimarty parens 7ndior 
 
 ** hominL 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. igi 
 
 " hominij an triftior noverca fuerit ;" id ejl, " Nature has {o 
 ** cruelly counterbalanced its largeft gifts with horrible evils, 
 ** that it is hard to fay , whether it is not a fad or cruel ftep-reother 
 ** rather than a kindly parent to man." So that in fa6^, men were 
 thus fpared and left in this dark condition, as to the reafons of 
 God's difpenfations, is evident from experience. The reafons 
 of this condud are to be fought in the depth of the wifdom and 
 fovereign juftice of God. Chriflians whoare found in the faith, 
 will own, that all who belonged to the elecSiicn of grace could 
 not have come into being, if the world had not been thus fpared. 
 They will own that the world could not have been preferved in 
 any order, without thefe efJec^s both of bounty and feverity, 
 whereby fome reftraint was put on the lufis of men, and feme 
 government kept up among them, and they were kept from 
 running to fuch a height in (in, as would have made it impciTi- 
 ble for God, with any confiftency to his juftice, holinefs or wif- 
 dom to have preferved the woild, till his defign in its prcferva- 
 tion was reached. And it may be faid further, for the fatisfac- 
 tion of Chriftians (for the deifts have no concern in this ac- 
 count, which is bottomed on the revelation they deny). That if 
 God had fecn meet to make all that belonged to Adam's cove- 
 nant at once, they could not have refufed to ccnfent to the 
 placing their happinefs on that bottom whereon he placed it in 
 the tr3nfa6\ion with Adam, and could not have condemned 
 God for executing the fentence upon all im.mediately upon the 
 breach of it. And therefore I think they have no reafon to 
 quarrel God's keeping them out of hell for a while. Further, 
 God in his wifdom, by leaving fo many in this dark cafe for fo 
 many ages, has let them fee the ihortnefs of their wifdom todlf- 
 entangle them from that mifery, whereunto by fin they were in- 
 volved. It was in the wifdom of God, that the world by wif- 
 dom knew not God, Finally, this fliould make us welcome the 
 gofpel, which only can difpel the darknefs we are under, as to 
 the whole ftate of matters betwixt God and us, and lead us to 
 life and immortality, and mercy, pardoning mercy, which the 
 dim light of nature could never difcoverto us. 
 
 Now if we confider what has been above difcourfed, it will 
 be found that we have made confiderable advances towards a 
 derifion of that which is in debate. 
 
 We have cleared what that repentance is, which with any 
 fhew of reafon can be pretended available in the prefcnt cafe. 
 
 We have evinced that the placability of God, of which fome 
 
 ^ ^ talk 
 
jgz AN INQUIRY INTO THE cha^. x, 
 
 talk, were it difcoverable by nature's light, is not fufficientto 
 bring men to this repentance. 
 
 Further, we have made it appear, that the evidences of this 
 placability brought from nature's light are not conciufive. 
 
 But were all this given up, which v/e fee no caufc to do, the 
 principal point is ftill behind, viz. ** Whether nature's light can 
 ** afcertain us that all penitent finncrs fliall be pardoned upon 
 ** their repentance," This the deiils maintain, and we deny. 
 Their all'ertion, ** that the light of nature alTures us that peni- 
 ** tent finners upon their repentance (hall afl'uredly be for- 
 *' given," is that which v^e (hall next take under conlideration, 
 and demonftrate to be groundlefs, falfe and abfurd, by the enfu- 
 ing arguments. 
 
 J. I reafon againfl: it from the nature of pardon. Forgive- 
 nefs or pardon is a free a6i of God's will. It is a freeing of the 
 finner from the obligation he lies under to punifliment, by vir- 
 tue of the penal fanflion of that righteous and jul^ law which 
 he has violated. All divine laws are unqueliionably equal, 
 juft, and righteous, and their penal fanclions are fo too. Cer- 
 tainly therefore God may jufWy infli6l the puniQiment contained 
 in the fand^ion of the law upon the tranfgrelTors ; and confe- 
 quenlly, we may without fear infer, that to relieve him from 
 that penalty is a moft free ad, to which God was not ncceffarily 
 obliged. And indeed, though all this had not been faid, the 
 thing is in itfelf clear ; for we can frame no other notion of for- 
 givenefs than this, ** That it is a voluntary and free aft of 
 grace, which remits the punilhment, and Icofes the fmner from 
 that punilhment he juilly deferved, and which the lawgiver 
 might juftly have infli<Sled on him." Now this being clear, we 
 infer, that fuch a(Sts cannot be known otherwife than, either by 
 revelation, that is God's declaring hirnfelf exprefsly to this pur- 
 pofe, or by the desd itfelf, fome pofiiive a6l of forgivenefs, 
 which is the effe^Sl of fuch a purpofe. The deifts difown and 
 deny any revelation. And for any e(Fe6l declarative of fuch a 
 purpofe, we fhall challenge the world to produce it. There 
 never was, nor is any one perfon, of whom we can certainly 
 afiirm, upon the information only of nature's light, that God 
 has forgiven him, either upon repentance or without out. And 
 if there were fuch perfons, it would not bear the weight of a 
 grneral conclufion, that bccauie God has done it to them, 
 therefore he will do it to all, in all other inllances. 
 
 n. I reafcn againU this fuppofed conftitution from the ex- 
 tent 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 193 
 
 tent of it, that God will pardon all penitent finners. If 
 this is not faid, he pardons none upon their penitence : for if 
 any penitent (inner can be fuppofed to remain unpardoned, 
 why may not all ? Befides, if a penitent finner is punilhed, then 
 it mull be upon fomewhat elfe than penitence, that he who 
 is pardoned obtains remiiTion. For if mere penitence had been 
 fufficicnt, a pentient could not have fufFered. Now if all pe- 
 nitent (inners are forgiven, and nature's light affures them that 
 they fhail be forgiven, then the extent of this conftituiion is 
 very large. For, i. It makes void the penal fanction of the 
 law as to all fins, however atrocious they are, if the (inner is 
 only a penitent. 2. It extends to all ages, places, and genera- 
 lions of men, that ever have been, or (hall be in the world. 
 3. It reaches to all forts of perfons, even thofe who are in 
 a capacity to introduce the greatefl diforders into the govern- 
 ment of the world, as well as the meaneft offenders. Well 
 then, the delfts mart miintain that it is thus enatSled, and this 
 a6l or conflitution is in all this extent publicly declared 
 by the light of nature, fo that all may know it. 4. It reach- 
 es to all fins, part, prefent, and to come; they fhall all be 
 forgiven, if the finner does only repent. Now agalnft fuch 
 an cxtenfive conftitution, we offer the following confidera- 
 tions: 
 
 (i.) All wife governors, who have any regard to the 
 honour of their laws, aurhority, and governments, ufe to be 
 very fparing in indemnifying tranfgreffion. And no won- 
 der they fliould ; for wife and juft rulers are not wont to e- 
 na6t penalties, but in proportion to offences- And therefore a 
 paffing eafily from them tends to make tranfgreffion cheap, and 
 weaken the conftitution, and fo diiToive the government. Now 
 God is no lefs tender of the honour of thofe laws, which ena6l 
 nothing but what is the tranfcript of his ov/n righteous nature, 
 and the oppofite whereof he has the deepeft abhorrency of, as 
 contrary to the fame. And can we then reafonably fuppofe him 
 to be fo lavllfi of forglvenefsas to eftablifh it in fo ftrange an ex- 
 tent? I believe it will be hard for any thinking man to judge 
 fo. 
 
 (2.) In all well ordered governments pardon is a particular 
 26t of grace, reftri«5led to fome time, place and perfcn ; yea and 
 crimes too: and therefore Is never cxtf!^nded fo univerfally as 
 here it is, and if it is to the purpofe, mull: be aif^rted. So that 
 the common rcafon of mankind declares agalaft fuch aconflitu- 
 
 A a tion ; 
 
104 AN IxNQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 tlon : for what is or may be pretended of impenitent finners be- 
 ing excluded, is in very deed, no refiric^ion of the law indem- 
 nifying tranfgrefTors of whatever fort, that are but willing to be 
 indemnified. For impenitent finners are they only who have 
 no will to be pardoned, or who will not accept of favour. Now 
 to indemnify all that are willing to be pardoned is a very odd 
 confiitution. And before I afcribe this to the wnfdom of the 
 great Ruler of the world, I mud fee better reafons than I am ^ 
 ever like to fee in this cafe. 
 
 (3.) No wife government ever enabled pardon of fuch an uni- 
 verfal extent, without further fecurity for the honour of the 
 government, into a perpetual and (landing Jaw. Pardon and 
 acts of grace area p" t cf the fovereignty of the governor: 
 and however he may make them very extenfivc fometimes ; yet 
 he always referves it fo in his own power, that it lliall after- 
 wards be voluntary and free to him to forgive or not as he Ihall ' 
 Ice caufe, 
 
 (4.) Sucha conditution is efpecially irreconcileable with wif- 
 dom and equity, If it is extended to tranfgreflions not yet com- 
 mitted ; for in that cafe it looks like an invitation to fin. 
 
 (5.) And this binds more ftrongly, if the perfons are ftrong- 
 iy inclined to fin. 
 
 (6.) More efpecially fuch a conftitution is never to be recon- 
 ciled with wifdom, if it is univerfally made known and publifh- 
 ed without any provifion made for the fecuring of the honour of 
 the law, againlt any abufe of fuch grace. Now I defire to 
 know if nature's light difcovers fuch an a6l and declaration of 
 grace. Where is there any care taken, or any provifos in- 
 ferted in the declaration that can evidence the regard which 
 God has for his laws, and fecure againft the abufe of fuch kind- 
 nels? Indeed the fcripture difcovery of mercy to penitent fin- 
 ners, on accourjt of Chrifl's fatisfaction, fully removes all thofc 
 difficulties wfiich otherwife, fo far as T can fee, are never to be 
 removed : And therefore I can never fee how fuch a declaration 
 coiiid be made without the concomitant difcovery of a fatisfa6\ion 
 to jufiice, and reparation of the honour of the lawgiver and law, 
 and fecurity againR abufe of grace. Remarkable to this purpofe 
 are the words of the learned and judicious Dr. How : ** That 
 ** prince would certainly never be fo much magnifi.ed for his 
 ** clemency and mercy, as he would be defpifed by all the 
 ** world, for mofi remarkable dcfetMs of government, that 
 *' ihould not on4y pardon whofoevcr of his fubjeds had ofTend- 
 
 ** cd 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 195 
 
 <* ed him, upon their being forry for it ; but go about to pro- 
 *« vide, that a law (hould obtain in his dominions, through 2II 
 ** after time, that whofoever fhould offend againft the govern- 
 ** ment, with whatloever infolency, maligniiy and frequency, 
 *♦ if they repented, they (hould never be punilhed, but be taken 
 *' forthwith into highefl favour. Admit that it had been con- 
 ** gruous to the wifdom and rightcoufnefs of God, as well as his- 
 " goodnefs, to have pardoned a particular fmner, upon repent- 
 ** ance, without latisfad^ion ; yet nothing could have been more 
 ** apparently unbecoming him, than to fettle an univerfal law 
 ** for all future time, to that purpofe, that let as many as would, 
 ** in any age to the world's end, affront him never fo highly, 
 '* invade his rights, trample on his authority, and tear the con- 
 " ftitution of his government, they fhould upon their repentance 
 ** be forgiven, and not only not be puniflied, but be moft high- 
 <* ly advanced, and dignified." Thus far he. In the fubfequent 
 paragraph he learnedly and judicioufly fhews the difference 
 in the gofpcl propofal of mercy to offenders, from this fuppofcd 
 cafe of forgivenefs without fatisfa6fion. 
 
 3. 1 inquire, whether is it poflible that there may be any crime 
 fo atrocious, that it may be poiTible for God, in a congruity with 
 vhis perfedion, to punifh, notwithf^anding of the intei vention of 
 repentance? If there may be any fuch, then certainly it is not 
 merely on account of repentance that fm is pardoned : and fo a 
 penitent cannot always be fure of forgivenefs. Further, confi- 
 dering how grievous and finful every tranfgreflion of God's law 
 is, how can 1 be fure what fins are pardonable upon repentance 
 and what not? If it is not poflible tor God to puniili any pe- 
 nitent, then I. I would inquire what fo great matter is there in 
 repentance, that can bind God up from vindicating his lionour 
 againft affronts already offered? 2, To what purpofe was the 
 penal fa6fion fince, in the cafe it was defigned? For when the 
 law is tranfgrelTed, it may not poflTibly take place but the ex- 
 ecution is inconfiftent with the nature of God. 3. How will 
 this impoffibiiity ever be proven ? Repentarice hath nothing in 
 it fo great to infer it : for in repentance no more can be alleged 
 but a return to duty antecedently due. And as to this, we are 
 unprofitable fervants. And Chrifl has told us what reafon tells 
 us alfo, that v/e defcrve no thanks for it. And as tor the otlier 
 part, forrow for by-gones, it is the ncccLfary relult of that re- 
 gard 
 * Living Temple, Part 2. pag. 327. 
 
igS AN INCLUIRY INTO THE cha?. x, 
 
 gard to the Deity, and knowledge of our own fin, that is like- 
 wiib our own duty. Now what is there, in all this, that ftiould 
 be ruppofed to be of {o great worth, that it muft inevitably ftop 
 the courle of juflice ? 
 
 But here it may be obje6led, not only by deifts, but fome, 
 who are very far from favouring them, ** That pod cannot caft 
 •' away from his love and felicity any foul, which truly loveth 
 
 him above all, and which fo repenteth of his fin, as to return 
 
 to God in holinefs in heart and life.*" 
 
 I anfwer, i. The fuppofition that a finner convinced of fin 
 can repent without fome fecurity given as to pardon, can love 
 God above all, and fo repent, as to turn to holinefs in heart and 
 life, appears fo me impoffible. Much lefs is it poffible that an 
 unconvinced finner can repent. The reafon is plain, a clear 
 convid^ion of fin inevitably lays us under the decpeft fear of 
 Gcd, and dread of puniihment from him, which not only calls, 
 out that love, but draws on hatred, or at leafl, flrong averfion ; 
 as vre heard the learned Amyraid well obfcrve in the words be- 
 fore quoted. Now it is certain, th^t fuppofe one impoflTibility, 
 twenty will follow. 2. If the thing is not impoffible, which I 
 think it is, yet certainly it is a cafe that never happened, and is 
 never like to happen. 3. Suppofing it poffible, it is a very bold 
 afTertion, that no crime, how atrocious ioever, would juftify the 
 inflicting of the penalty contained in the righteous ian6\ion of 
 the law. 4. Much Icil then is it hard to fuppofe that it would 
 judify God's denying any reward to the finner, that he has i'o 
 finned. And if it is granted that penitence does not ncceflari- 
 ]y reflore to a profpe61 of reward, all religion and encourage- 
 ment to it is loft. 1 cannot forbear quoting again the accurate 
 and judicious Dr. How's words, who after he has fhown that our 
 offences againft God incomparably tranfcend the meafyre of 
 any otience that can be done by one creature againft another, 
 prefently fubjoins, ** Yea, and as it can never be thought con- 
 ** gruous, that iuch an offence againfl: a human governor, 
 ** ihould be pardoned, without the intervening repentance of 
 ** the delinquent; fo we may cafily apprehend alfo the cafe to 
 '* be fuch, 35 that it cannot be fit, it Ihould be pardoned on that 
 *' alone, without other recompence f:" whereof if any fnould 
 doubt, 1 would demand, is it, in any cafe, fit, that a penitentdelin- 
 
 qucnt 
 
 f J^axtcr's ReafonsofChria, Relig. Fart i. pag. 184, 18B. 
 T Living Tenaple, Part 2, psg, 240. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 197 
 
 oucnt againft human laws and government ftiould be puniftied, 
 or a proportionable rccompencc be exa6^ed for his offence not- 
 withftanding ? Surely it will be acknowledged ordinarily fit ; 
 and who would take upon him to be the cenlor of the common 
 juftice of the world in all fuch cafes ! Or to condemn the pro- 
 ceedings of all times and nations, wherefoever a penitent offender 
 hath been made to fuffer the legal puniftiment of his offence, 
 notwilhftanding his repentance? How Grange a maxim of go- 
 vernment would that be, That it is never fit that an offender, of 
 whatfoever kind, (hould be punilhed, if he repent himfelf of his 
 offence ! And furely, if ever, in any cafe, iomewhat elfe than 
 repentance be fitly infiflcd on as a recompence, for the viola- 
 tion of the facred rights of government, it may well be fuppof- 
 ed much more fo in the cafe of man's common delinquency and 
 revolt from God. 
 
 4. I reafon againft this pofition, from the confideration of the 
 imperfection of this repentance, which, as it takes place amongft 
 fmful men, is guilty of a double imperfection. Our forrow and 
 our return are imperfect, in refpe6l of degrees. Our relation 
 to God and his to us requires the higheft, the moft perfe6l love 
 and the moft cordial obedience. No lefs will anfwer our ob- 
 ligations. And our forrow, if it is required, muft be fuppofed 
 likewife to be fuch as refults neceffarily from fuch a love. Now 
 what can be more evident than this, that none of the children 
 of men love God as they ought, and with that Intention and 
 vehemency, which anfwcrs their original obligation ? And con- 
 fequently their forrow and obedience can never come up to it : 
 for they being the refult of this love, can never go beyond the 
 principle, which influences them. Again, our return is liable to 
 another imperfedion, even a frequent interruption. The cafe 
 is not thus, that we only once, through infirmijy, make an ef- 
 cape ; but even after our fuppofed return, it muft be allowed 
 that there will be after-deviations. And hence it becomes a 
 queftion, how can we expect acceptance in our returns? Kow 
 can our repentance, which anfwers not the demands of the law, 
 and our ties to duty be accepted for itfclf ? And if fo, much 
 more may it be a qucftion, how can it be allowed fufficient to 
 atone forother tranfgrefFions, yea, how can it be fufficient to atone 
 for tranfgrcffions, which it takes no notice of? For there are fuch 
 fins as by the light of nature we are never likely to reach the 
 conviction of ; and therefore it is impoffible we (hould forrow 
 for them, or repent of them? However men may pleafe them- 
 
 felves 
 
iqB an inquiry into the chap. x. 
 
 felves with a fancy of the fufficlency of their repentanre ; yet a 
 iinner, that undeiftands his own cafe, will never be able to fa- 
 tisfy his own confcience in this matter. 
 
 1 know it is pleaded, ** That we have a harder province 
 ** to adminiftcr than even the angels thetufelves ; they not ha* 
 *' ving lb grofs a body as we have, nor expofed to i'o much evil 
 *' as we are. But God he knoweth our frame, and upon that 
 ** account is not extreme to mark what is done amifs. A crea- 
 •* ture, as a creature, is finite and fallible : and yet we are 
 ** not the moft perfe(?t of God's creation. Now, for fallible to 
 ** fail, is no more than for frail to be broken ; and mortal to 
 ** die. Where there is finite and limited perfection, there 
 '* is not only a poilibility, but a contingency to fail, to err, to 
 ** be miftakcn, not to know and to be deceived, And where 
 ** the agent is fuch, there is place for repentance. Re- 
 *^ pentance is that which makes a finite being failing, capa- 
 ** bie of compaffion. If repentance did not take efFe6l, it 
 ** would be too hazardous for a creature to come into be- 
 ** ing. If upon a lapfe, an error, or miflake, we fhould be 
 " undone to eternity, without all hope of recovery ,* who would 
 ** willingly enter upon this ftate *?" Thus fpeaks Dr. Wich- 
 cot. 
 
 To this plaufible difcourfe we anfwer. Either this reafoning 
 proceeds upon the ftate of things, according to the covenant of 
 grace, and refpe£ls them who have laid hold on it, or it does 
 not. If it does proceed on this footing, we fay it helps not the de- 
 ifts : but if, as it feems, it be extended further, then I fhall make 
 the following remarks on it. i. Although we have here maoy 
 things prettily faid, yet I cannot but deeply diflike the dif- 
 courfe, bccaufe it aims at the extenuation of fin, and pleads its 
 cxcufe from our frailty. Now, befidcs that this bears hard up- 
 on the Author of our conflitution, as if he had made it unequal 
 to the laws he impofed on it, it is a fociifii argument, becaufe 
 the cafe may be as much exaggerated on the other hand by Uie 
 reprefenting the greatnefs of the lawgiver, the equality of the 
 ]?.ws, and the ability of man, at leaft in his firft make to obey. 
 And the one wilt not fignify more to give us hope of forgive- 
 nefs on our repentance, rhan the other will to make us defpair 
 of it. 2. It feems to refleft on God's difFerent rondu6t with 
 the angels that finned, who had no place allowed them for re- 
 pentance : 
 
 * Dr. Which cot's fdefl Sermons, Part 2. Serni. 2d, on Afts xiii. 
 38. pag. 322, 323. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. tgg 
 
 pentance: for iheir frame was finite, and fo frail and failable. 
 The little difference from the grofl'nefs of our bodies, if man 
 is not fuppofed corrupt, and his body inclined to evil, makes 
 no difference that can fatisfy ; for ftill we were under no ne- 
 ceflity of finning from our conftitution, if it is not fuppofed to 
 be corrupt. But to pretend that man was made corrupt, carries 
 our frailty too far, to make it God's deed. We cannot plead 
 in excufe, any defects in our conftitution, that God put not there. 
 3. It condemns all human laws that fpares not penitent tranf- 
 greffors. If it be faid, that they are under a neceflity to do it ; I 
 anfwer, whence does this neceflity arife ? Is the honour of the 
 divine law lefs dear to him, and of lefs confideration than the 
 honour and rights of human conftitutions and governments £* 
 But further, I defire to know, will neceflity juftify the punifli- 
 ment of the penitent ? If not, then here it doth not juftify : if 
 it doth, who will aflure me that there is not as great a neceffity 
 for this courfe in divine as human governments ; at leafl in 
 fome inftances ? And if in any inflancc the puniftiment of a pe- 
 nitent may take place, who will condefcend where it may, and 
 where not ? How likewife can it be faid that penitence fecures 
 pardon? Further, 4. I fay dire6^1y to the argument. If divine 
 Jaw s are as much adjufted to man's power, as the conflitutions 
 and laws of human government are, (and that they behoved to 
 be fo, with refped to his power in his firft conftitution has 
 been made appear) then it is no more hazardous to come into 
 being, than to enter into human fociety, where frail man may, 
 for a word or a deed, forfeit his own life to juftice and all the ad- 
 vantages of it, and beggar his pofterity, and that without any 
 profpe(5l of relief by his repentance. If it be faid, that the 
 punifliraents arc greater in this cafe ; I grant it : fo are the 
 laws too, and confequently the tranfgreffions ; and fo likewife 
 are the advantages of obedience ; and without an injurious re- 
 flexion on God, it cannot be denied that the laws are, as well 
 at leaft, attempered to man's abilities wherewith he was created 
 and fubjedled to them. 5. I do not fee how it can be injuflice to 
 infli(Sl a juft puniftiment upon ti-anfgreirors,and fuch of neceffity, 
 that is, which is included in the fanftion of the divine laws. 
 Nor does repentance make that execution unjuft ; which, with- 
 out it, is allowed not only juft, but indifpenfibly neceffary. 
 This I might largely ftiew, but others have done it before *. 
 
 5. The 
 ° See Specimen Refutationis Crcllii, pag. 100, lOJ, & fequ. 
 
2:oo AN INQ.UIRY INTO THE ghap. x. 
 
 5. The falfehood of this propofition may be further evi- 
 denced from the nature of the juftice of God, that feems ne- 
 cefl'arily to require that fin be puniftied. For clearing this, 
 1 (hall make the cnfuing obfervations : in doing which wc 
 ihall aim at fuch a gradual progreffion as may fet the matter in 
 the beft h'ght. 
 
 (i.) Juftice Hriclly taken, is *' that virtue of the rational 
 nature, whofe bufinefs it is to preferve, maintain, and be a guar- 
 dian of the rights of rational beings." It is commonly defined 
 a ** conftant and abiding or fixed will of giving to every one 
 what is their right or due." Whence it has been debated, whe- 
 ther in man there is any fuch thing as felf-juftice ; becaufe, ac- 
 cording to this account of juftice, it feems to be reftri6\ed to the 
 rights of others. And this reftriclion has countenance given to 
 it from that common maxim, that volenti nonfit injuria^ y which 
 is founded in this, that a man is fuppofed capable of parting, 
 without wrong, with his own rights, and confequently is not 
 capable of injuftice towards himfelf. It is true, man has no 
 rights, which he may not deprive himfelf of by his ovi\i 
 confent. Yet fince man has fuch rights, though they are but 
 derived ones, as alfo his being is, as he cannot deprive himJelf 
 of without fault, I fee not but even fuch a thing as felf-juflice 
 may take place among men : but whatever the cafe be as to 
 men, there is certainly in God to be allowed fuch a thing as 
 felf-juftice. For clearing of which, I obferve, 
 
 (2.) That God, being the fountain of all rights, has certainly 
 rights, which he can by no means deprive himfelf of. Ke has 
 •a right of dominion over the creature, and to the creature's fub- 
 jeiSlion, that he cannot part with. As long as there is a rational 
 creature it is, by its being, inevitably fubje£t to its Creator, 
 and he cannot part with that right he has to govern it. ** With 
 ** the fupreme Proprietor, there cannot but be unalienable 
 '* rights, infepirably and everlalllngly inherent in him : for it 
 *' cannot be, but that he, who is the fountain of all rights mud 
 ** have them primarily and originally in himfelf; and can no 
 ** more fo quit them, as to make the creature abfolute and inde- 
 ** pendent, than he can make the creature Gcdf." Hence in- 
 evitably there muft be allowed felf-jufiice, which is nothing 
 clfe, fave that fixed determination of the divine v/ill, not to 
 
 pari 
 
 * " No injury is done to one who is willing." 
 + Living Temple, Part 2. pag. 270. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 20I 
 
 part with what is his own unalienable right, and confequently 
 xo maintain it. 
 
 (3.) This juflice, in order to maintain God's right of govern- 
 ment, obliges him to enadl penal laws as the meafure of the 
 creature's fubje6lion and obedience. A fubjedt cannot be 
 without laws. And where the creature is capable of tianf- 
 greffing, laws cannot be fuch without penalties. Without thefe, 
 they were rather counfels or advices, than laws ; and the per- 
 fon to whom they are given is left at will to be fubje6l, or not. 
 And if God fhould thus leave the creature without a penalty, 
 then upon tranfgreflion, the tranfgreffor has dipt entirely out 
 under the dominion of God ; for he is not ad^ively, in thatin- 
 flance, fubje6l to God. And neither is he paffively lubje(^, if 
 there is no penalty. So that by this means God has forfeited or 
 Joft his right, which is impofliblc. There is no other imagina- 
 ble tie of fubjeflion, but either the preceptor the penal fanCtion 
 of the law, whereby rational creatures, as to their moral de- 
 pendence can be bound. Now if God part with the one, by 
 remitting the penalty, orenaiSling laws without it, and man call 
 off the other by difobedience, the creature is, at leaft thus far, 
 independent. Which how abfurd it is, is eafy to fee. Where- 
 fore, in cafe the creature is made, we cannot but fuppofe a law 
 muft be made to it. And if the creature is capable of violating 
 that law, there mud, for preferving that right, which God has 
 to the creature's fubje6tion, be a penalty annexed to that law. 
 Whence itfeems evident, " that God did owe it to himfelf pri- 
 ** marily, as the abfolute Sovereign and Lord of all, not to 
 ** fuffer indignities to be offered him, without animadverting 
 ** upon them, and therefore to determine he would do fo*." 
 
 (4.) The creature being made, jaftice requires that it fhould 
 be under fuch a law as is ena6\ed with a penalty, and fuch a lav/ 
 being now enadted, there feeras to arife a double necefTity for 
 the execution of the law, in cafe of traafgreifion. The one 
 arifingfrom the reafon of the law, the other from the law itfelf : 
 Since upon the grounds already laid down, the law was necelTa- 
 ry ; the fame grounds enforce the execution of the law : for 
 when the cafe falls out, for which the law was provided, it is 
 not merely the law or coni^itution itfelf, but the execution of it 
 that fecures the end. When the creature difobeys, he has in fo 
 far renounced an a6\ual dependence on, and fubjeC^ion to the 
 lawgiver and law : and therefore it feems of neceflity that either 
 as to thefe actions he is not fubje£i, or he muft be fubje6l to the 
 
 B b penalty. 
 
 * Living Temple, pag. 271. 
 
202 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 penalty. Again, as the reafon of the law enforces the execu-> 
 tlon, fo does the Jaw itfelf. For the law being once made, juf- 
 tice requires that its honour be fecured either by obedience, or 
 by the fubje6\)on of the tranfgreflor to the punifliment. 
 
 (5.) To proceed yet further, if the law is not executed, the 
 deTigr;, even the principal defign of punifhment in this cafe, is 
 no? reachtd. It is not the only or main defign of punifhment or 
 penal fan^^ions to reclaim the offender, or benefit by-(tanders, 
 or fecure the community. It is true, the penal fan61ion, or Jaw 
 enacting the penalty, is of ufe to deter from trangreffing, and 
 {o is of ufe to the community, and all under the government , 
 but the execution, if the fan6\ion is punifhment after this life, is 
 cf no advantage to the offender, nor is it inflru6\ive to by-iland- 
 ers, or the refl of the community, who do not fee it: wherefore 
 thefe are not the principal ends of punifhment. Though it is 
 beobferved, that any public intimation that the penalty fhall 
 not be inili6fed, could not but be of the worff confequcnce to 
 the community, as rendering it vain as to all that ufe which it 
 has of deterring perfons who are under the law from fin. Vet 
 I fay, thefe are not the principal ends of punifhment ; but the 
 fatisfadion of the Lawgiver. For the cafe is not here, as it is 
 in human governments, where the governor and government 
 are both coni'iltured for the good of the governed, v/hich there- 
 fore mufi be the chief aim of all laws : but on the contrary, the 
 governed are made, and the laws made, and penalties ena£fed 
 for the Governor, who made all things for himfelf- And con- 
 fequently, the principal defign of punifliment'is the fecuring; 
 and vindicating his honour in the government. Nor is this 
 any fuch thing as anfwers to private revenge amongft men. 
 *' But that wherewith we muR iuppofe the blefled God to be 
 *' pleafed in the matter of punifliing, isthe congruity of the thing 
 ** itfelf, that the facred rights of his government over the world 
 ** be vindicated, and that it be underfiocd how ill his nature 
 " can comport with any thing that is impure, and what is in 
 *' itfelf fo highly incongruous, cannot but be the matter of his 
 *' deteftation. He tal^es eternal pieafure in the reafonablenefs 
 *' and fitncfs of his own determinations and a6\ions ; and re- 
 '* joices in the works of his own hands, as agreeing v/ith the 
 ** apt, eternal fchemes and models, which he hafh conceived 
 ** in his own moO: wife and all-comprehending mind : fo that 
 ** though he defirelh not the death of /inner s^ and hath no de- 
 ** light in \\-\Q Ju firings of his alBicled creatures, which his 
 
 *' immenfe 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 203 
 
 ** HXimcnfe goodnefs rather inclines him to behold with cora- 
 '* pailion ; yet the true ends of puniiliment are lb much a grea- 
 ** ter good, than their eafe and exemption from the fuftcrings 
 ** they had deferved, that they mufl rather be chofen, and 
 ** cannot be eligible for ^ny reafon, but for which alfo they 
 ** are to be delighted in, i. e. a real goodnefs, and conduci- 
 " blenefs to a valuable end inherent in them." 
 
 (6.)A5Juftice in a ftritt fcnfe, of which hitherto we have 
 rpoken, as it denotes that re6\itude of the divine nature, which is 
 converfant about, and confervative of thedivine rights, pleads for 
 penal laws and punilhment; {o likewife juflice in a large fenfe, 
 as it comprehends all his moral perfedions, holinefs, wifdom> 
 faithfulnefs,&c. and anfwers to that which is amongfl men called 
 miiverfal juftice, pleads for the fame : for fo taken, it compre- 
 hends his holinefs and perfe£l deteflation of all impurity; in 
 rcfpeil whereof, he cannot but be perpetually inclined to ani- 
 madvert with feverity upon fin ; both becaufe of its irreconcilca* 
 blc contrariety to his holy nature, and the infolent affront, which 
 it therefore dire<Slly offers him ; and becaufe of the implicit 
 and moft injurious mifreprefentation of him which it contains in 
 ir, as if he were either kindly or more indifferently affe6\ed to- 
 wards it: upon which accounts, we may well fuppofe him to ef- 
 teem it necelTery for him, both toconflitutc a rule for punifhing 
 it, and to puni(h it accordingly ; that he may both truly a6f his 
 own nature, and truly reprefent it. Again it includes, thus ta- 
 ken, his governing wifdom, which requires indifpenfibly that 
 be do every thing in his government fo as he may appear like 
 himfelf, and anfwerably to his own greatncfs ; fo as to fccure a 
 deep regard for his government, and all the parts of the confti- 
 tution. In refpe61 whereof, it might be fhown, that the puniili- 
 ment of fin, or the execution of the penal laws folemnly enact- 
 ed is neceffary. Vv''ifdom takes care that one attribute do not 
 quite obfcure another, and will not allow that he gratify mercy 
 to the detriment of juftice. Again, it includes his faithfulnefs 
 and fincerity, which feem pledged in enabling the penahy for 
 its execution. Kow is it confident with them to ena6f fuch fe- 
 vere penalties, if he may remit them without any reparation 
 made for the wrong done? Any one that would fee more to this 
 purpofe,befides others who have difcourfed of Vindi6iive Judice, 
 may perufe the learned Dr. How's Living Temple, Part 2. 
 Chap. 6aad 7, who has learnedly difcourfed and improven this 
 
 fubjed : 
 
204 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.;.. 
 
 fubjec^: to whom we own ourfelves indebted for much light in 
 this matter. 
 
 Thus it feems evident, that whether we take the divine jufticc 
 in this lafl and largeft notion, as it is comprehenfive of all the per- 
 fediions of the DeitVj or in the former and firi6l notion as it im- 
 ports a virtue,whofe province it is to take care of the prefervation 
 cf the incommunicable rights of the Deity, and vindicate their 
 honour; it feems neceflarily to forbid the remiffion of (in with- 
 out the puniihment of the tranfgrelTor, or a reparation of the 
 injured honour of the Deity. 
 
 If it is alleged, that by repentance the fmner returns to his 
 fubjedion, and fo the honour of God's goverment is repaired. 
 I anfwer, that upon fuppofition of the Tinner's return be- 
 ing a fufficient reparation of the honour of the Deity, there 
 ivould indeed be no necelTity of punifnment : but this is the 
 queflion, and the obje6^ion begs what is in queflion. The 
 principles now laid down, (hew that juftice, however taken, 
 muft take care to preferve and vindicate God's honour in cafe 
 of tranfgreffion. The penal fan6tion of the law tells us, that 
 the puniQiment of the tranfgrelTor is that which wifdom and 
 juitice have fixed on, as proper for this end. There is no al- 
 ternative, puniihment or repentance. The law makes only 
 mention of punlOiment. When therefore the obje6^ors fay that 
 repentance is fufhcient, we deny it. They do not prove it, 
 jior can they. God, to whom alone it belongs to determine 
 what is necelTary for the vindication of his own honour, mufl 
 determine the reparation ; we cannot. Yea, it were prefump- 
 tion in angeis to do it. God has fixed upon puniihment : if 
 he allow of any thing elfe, the light of nature does not tell it. 
 Nor is there any thing in the nature of repentance, as has been 
 above cleared, that can induce us to think it is fufficient to 
 this purpofe. The mod virtuous, who muft be fuppofed the 
 penitents, if there are any fuch, meet with as heavy punilh- 
 nients in this life as any, which fhews, at leaft, that God looks 
 not upon their penitence as fatisfa6lion. 
 
 6. Againfi this propohtion we reafon thus, Every man is 
 endued wiih a power to repent when he pleafes, or he is not. 
 To affert the latter, were to yield the caufe ; for it matters not 
 to the (inner, whether repentance be a fufncient atonement or 
 not, if it be not in his power to repent, Befidcs, it is a queftion 
 in this cafe of confiderable difficulty, whether it is confident 
 ^A'ith the perfedlions of God to give this power, till once his 
 
 honouy 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 205 
 
 boncur is fecured by a fuitable reparation for the injury done it 
 by fin. If it is in the finner's power to repent when he pleaf- 
 cs, then again 1 infift, 
 
 Either God without impeachment of his juftice may inflia the 
 puniftiment contained in the fan6\ion of the law on the finner, 
 notwithftanding of his repentance, or he may not. If he may, then 
 the deifts can never without revelation be fure that he will not 
 Infill the punifhment, which is what we fay : nor will it mend 
 the matter, that though God, without impeachment of his juf- 
 tice, may punith the repenting finner, that he cannot do it with- 
 out injuring his mercy: for what is contrary to of one God's 
 attributes, is fo to all. And moreover, the juftice of God in 
 particular requires that each of the divine attributes have their 
 <^ue. 
 
 But if it be faid, that God cannot in juftice punilh the re- 
 penting finner; then I defire to be fatisfied, if this does not 
 evacuate and make void the penal fandtion of the law ? For if 
 every man hath a power to repent when he pleafes, and this re- 
 pentance ftops the execution of the fentence, I do not fee but 
 any may offend without hazard. 
 
 All that can be faid is, that God may furprize man in the ve- 
 ry aa of finning, or fo foon after it, that he ihall not have time 
 to repent, and fo man's hazard is fufficient to deter him from 
 fin. 
 
 But to this I anfwer, that the confideration of this hazard can 
 never have much influence on man, to make him refufe the gra- 
 tifying of his fenfesj in which he finds fo much pleafure, fo 
 long as in the ordinary conduft of providence he fees that God 
 very rarely takes that courfe of fnatching away finners in the 
 very a6l of fin, or fo foon after, as to preclude repentance. It 
 is not fo much what God may do, as what he ordinarily does, 
 that is of weight to determine men, efpecially when they have 
 fo flrong motives to perfuade them to the contrary, as the 
 impetuous cravings of unruly lufis are known to be. 
 
 This argument gives us a clear view how much the deift's no- 
 tion of pardon upon mere repentance favours fin ; and how un- 
 reafonable the outcries of Herbert and Blount, repeated ad 
 mauftavi, againf^ the maintainers of fatisfa^ion really are. 
 They fay, the doftrine of fatisfa^ion makes fin cheap. But 
 whetber do they who fay that fin cannot be pardoned without 
 the finner's repentance and fatisfaftion, or they who afTert rc- 
 pentence alone fufficient, make fin chcapefi ? 
 
 7. I 
 
2o6 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 7. I further argue againft this do(^rIne, that this conftitufion, 
 grant or allowance of repentance, in cafe of tranfgreflion, is 
 either co-eval to the law, and has its rife as the law hath, in the 
 relation bctwixf God and man and their natures, as being a ne- 
 ceffary refult of them ; or it is a pofterior eftablilhment, and an 
 aft of free and gracious condefcendence in God, to which he 
 was not neceffaril}^ obliged. If this lart isfaid, then I fay, this 
 could not be known, but by a revelation or fome deed of God, 
 expreffive of his mind in this matter. The firft is denied by the 
 deifts ; and we defire them to produce the work of providence 
 whereon it is legible, that God without any reparation to his 
 juftice for the injury done him. by fin, will pardon the fmner 
 upon his penitence and admit him to blifs. For though wc 
 fliould admit that fome works of providence fingly taken, 
 without obferving others which have a contrary afpe6^, have 
 fomewhat like an intimation of a placability, which we fee 
 but little reafon to do ; yet we deny positively that there is 
 any that fpecilies the terms, or particularly condefcends on re- 
 pentance, as that whereon he will be pacified and reconciled to 
 finners. And if any will pretend to draw this from them, 1 
 wlfii they would elfay it, and let us fee of what form their pro- 
 cedure will be ; perhaps they may prove that it is not confiftent 
 with God's attributes to pardon an impenitent finner : but if 
 they think thence to infer, that therefore it is confiftent to his 
 attributes to p.irdon one merely upon his penitence, they may 
 make good the confequence if they can ; they will find it hard- 
 er than it appears. 
 
 If the former is faid, that this conftitution is co-eval with the 
 law, and is as much a neceiVary refult of the nature of God and 
 man, and their mutual relation, as the law itfelf ; befides what 
 has been faid to d^monilrate the folly of it, let thefe three 
 things be ronfidered : 
 
 (i,) ThedeiRs do, and arc obliged to fay, that man is not now 
 from his birth more corrupt than he was at iirft. 
 
 (2.) Man at his original was, and confequently according Xo 
 them, ftill is endued with power fuHicient perfectly to know 
 and obey the law he is fubjected to. To fay that he was fub- 
 jected to a law, which he was not able to know or obey, is to 
 accufe the Deity of folly and in jufiice ; as has been made 
 appear. 
 
 (3.) The law to which man is fubje6^ed, is exa6lly fuited to 
 God's great defign, his ov/n glory and man's happinefs. 
 
 Thefc 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 207 
 
 Thcfe being granted, I conceive it evident, i. That nothing 
 can be faid more injurious to the glorious perfe<Slions of God, 
 than that any of them gives ground of hopes, far lefs afTurance 
 of impunity to man, if he break thefe laws, which are equally 
 fuited tp promote God's glory and his own good, and which he 
 wanted neither power to know nor obey. 2. Such a grant 
 would be of no lefs dangerous confequence toman, becaufe it 
 could be of other ufe, than to tempt to a violation of ihofe laws, 
 which ft is fo much his intereft to obey. 
 
 But fome may fay, it would be difcouraging to man to think 
 he were undone, if he difobeyed in the lead. I arifwer, this 
 could be no rcafonable difcouragement if he was potTeffed of 
 power perfed^ly to know and obey the law he was fubjedted to. 
 
 Again, it may be faid, that it was neceflary there lliould be 
 fuch an encouragement to man ; becaufe, though he was er- 
 trufted with fufficient power to know and obey the law of God ; 
 yet he was for trial expofed to a great many flrong and forci- 
 ble temptations to dlfobedlence. 
 
 For anfwer to this ; fuppofe two men equally able to know 
 and obey the law ; the one knows he may obtain pardon on 
 repentance, the other beleives himfelf irrecoverably loft if he 
 tranfgrefs ; I defire the obje6^or, on fuppofition that both were 
 attacked with a temptation equally ftrong, to anfwer me feri- 
 oully, I. Which of thofe two would in all probability fooneft 
 yield ; he that faw a probability of efcape or he that faw none ? 
 2, Since the keeping of the law was highly advantageous to 
 both, which of the two is in the beft ftate ; he who has this 
 ihong motive to obedience, that he is ruined if he difobey, or 
 he that halh this encouragement and enforcement of the tempta- 
 tion to difobedience, that he may difobey and efcape ? Nor 
 vvrill they evade by faying, that this conflitution was knowable 
 before, but was not taken notice of till fin fell out : for if it 
 might be known, all the inconvenlencies mentioned will fol- 
 low. Befides, if it was taken notice of after the firfl fin, it 
 might be a temptation to all fucceeding tranfgreffions. 
 
 In fine, if this allowance of repentance be faid to have the 
 fame rife with the law, and be equally neceflary from the na- 
 ture of God and man and their mutual relation ; it is a plain 
 difpenfation with the law, and that equally made public, be- 
 ing notified in the fame way as the law is; which how it is con- 
 fiftent v\ ith the wifdom, hoiinefs, and juHice of God, I know 
 not, 
 
 8, To 
 
2o8 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ghap. x. 
 
 8. To add no more on this head, if this ftory about the fuf- 
 fjciency of repentance lies fo open to the light of nature, whence 
 was it that it was fo little difcerned ? The name of it, in the 
 fenfe and to that ufe we now fpeak of, fcarce occurs among the 
 ancients, if we may believe Herbert, M^ho read them all with 
 great diligence, and with a defign to find what was for his pur- 
 pofe. Speaking of their fins, he fays, ** Neque igitur mihi du- 
 ** bium ejly quin eorum pctnituerit GentiUsf qu^ tot mala accer- 
 ** ferunt, licet rarius quidem panitenti^ verbum inter authores, 
 ** eOf quo jam ufurpatur Jenfu, reperiatur* ,^ Why does not 
 he doubt of it ? The reafon he goes on is, becaufe they ufed 
 facrifices. But I fuppofc for this very reafon fome do doubt if 
 they thought repentance fufficient : but of this more by and by. 
 The phliofophers neither taught nor pra6\ifed it. It is true> 
 Periander one of the wife men of Greece, had this for his fay- 
 ing, A//.apTwv ij.sTa.[2a\'cvii, *' Repent of thy fins;" that is, pof- 
 fibly, leave them off. For who can tell us whether he had a 
 right notion of repentance, or of what avail he thought it? Se- 
 n.eca fays, Quefn penitet peccaJJ'e pene ejl innocens f. This is 
 ipoken with his ufual pride that made him think little of fin. 
 But where is the perfon that taught repentance, or offered to 
 evince it fufficient to atone the Deity ? Moft of them contemp- 
 tuoufly dlfregarded it. We find nothing like it in their bed 
 morallfi's prad^ice : but on the contrary, they were fo puffed up 
 with their virtues, that they made no account of their fins. The 
 priefis taught not this do6lrine, for they Inculcated facrifices as 
 neceffary to atone the Deity. And if we may believe no in- 
 competent judge, both priefis and people were perfuaded that 
 repentance is is not fufficient to atone the Deity. It is Cefar 
 who tells us, that, ** Pro vita hominis nifi vita hominis redda* 
 ** tur nan pojfe deorum ijnmortalium numen placari arbitrantur 
 *' Gain :{:." To which we might add many more tefiimonles to 
 the fame purpofe. Nor do we find any thing like this difcovery 
 
 among 
 
 * Herbert de Relig. Gentil. pag. T98. — " Nor is it tlierefore a 
 *' doubt with me that the Gen:iles repented of thofe crimes which 
 " brought fo many evils upon them, although the word repentance, in 
 " that fenfe in which it is now ufed, feldom occurs in their authors." 
 + " He who repents of having linned is almpft innocent." 
 X Caefar de BeJlo Gal. Lib, 6. See Outramus de Sacrificiis, I-ib, i. 
 Cap. 22. — << The Gauls are of opinion that the Majeily of the immor- 
 ** tal gods cannot be appeafed unlefs the life of a man be given for the 
 ^* Hfe of another." 
 
PHIMCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 209 
 
 among them ; M'hich is very ftrange in a matter of importance, if 
 it was^lb dearly revealed. That which is moll like what they 
 would be at, is what we find in Ovidius — 
 
 So'pe let'ant penasi ereptaqUe lutnina reddmit 
 '^e?n bene peccati penituijfe 'vides. Et alihiy 
 
 ^(aynnjis eji igttur vicritii indehita ncjlris, - 
 Magna tamen /pes efi iH bonitate Dei *. 
 
 But this is nothing to the purpofe : how many of the poets' 
 notions, and particuJarly this one, were traditional? How evi- 
 dently were their notions cf all things about the gods fuited to 
 their own fabulous ftories of the clemency of the gods. And 
 befides, we have no alTurance that he underftood what we do by 
 repentance. Nor indeed could he. But of this more anon. 
 
 OhjeBions confiJered* 
 
 IT remains now that We take notice of fome confiderable oh-- 
 je61ions that are made againfl: what hitherto has been dicourfcJ 
 by different perfons, on different views and principles. 
 
 I. Say fome, if the cafe is fo apparent that all have finned ^ 
 and the relief is fo hid, that nature's light could not difcern it ; 
 whence^is it that all men run not to defpair and take fanduary 
 here ? Whence Is it that religious worihip was univerfally con- 
 tinued in the world? Yea, whence is it that fuch a wordiip 
 univerfally obtained^ that feems founded on the fuppofition of a 
 placable God? 
 
 To this fpecious argument we anfwer, that many things there 
 are in nature, whereof we can give no fatlsfying account. And 
 If there fliould prove fomeiliing in morality too, not to be ac- 
 counted for, it were not to be wondered at. But not to infift on 
 this, I anfwer dire6lly. A fair account may be given of this 
 otherwife than by admitting what we have overthrown upon (o 
 many clear arguinents. Towards which, we Ihall make the fol- 
 lowing attempt: l. The natural notices of a Deity, that are In- 
 laid in the mindsof men, ftrongly prompted them to worihip fome 
 one or other. From this natural obligation they could not {hake 
 
 themfelves 
 
 * De Ponto Lib. i. Eleg. 1. 7. — *< You fee that he who duly re- 
 ** pcnts of his offence, often alleviates his punilii me nt, and rei^ores 
 
 " his loft light. Although therefore it is not due to our raciits, 
 
 " vet there is great hope in the goodnefs of God.'* 
 
 C c 
 
2IO AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chaf ' 
 
 themfelvcs loofe. 2. Thrir ignorance and darknefsas to the 
 real horror of the cafe, made them think little of fin, and con- 
 fequently apprehend that it would not prove fuch an obfiruction 
 to acceptance, as really they had realon to apprehend it was. 
 3. Ail who allow of revelation, own that the revelation of for- 
 givenefs, as well as the means of obtaining it, was twice uni- 
 verfal in the days of Adam and Noah. 4. Though this reve- 
 lation was in To far loft by the generality of mankind, that it 
 could not be ufeful to its proper end, yet fomewhat of it remain- 
 ed fHU in the world, and fprcad itfelf with jnankind. 5. All 
 forts of men found their interefl and account in keeping it up, 
 1 he priefts who engroITed the advantage of the religion of the 
 world, found their gain in it. The politicians who aimed at the 
 good of ibciety, found it ufeful to their purpofe. The poets 
 who aimed at pleafing, found it capable of tickling the ears of 
 a world involved in fin. And the people whofe confciences' 
 were harralTed with guilt of atrocious crimes, found fome fort of 
 relief. And what ?A[ found fome benefit by, was not likely 
 quite io be loft. The phllofophers feeing the ftrait of the cafe, 
 faw that they could not make a better of it and fo acquiefced. 
 6. Tiieir profane conceptions of the deities, as if they were 
 perlons that allowed or pra6lifed their evils, did help forward. 
 The gods which their own fancy had framed, they could caft in- 
 to what mould they pleafed, as it beft fuited their intereft or in- 
 clinations. 7, Satan who acled a very vifible part among them, 
 and bore fway without ccntroul, no doubt had a deep hand in 
 the matter, and could varioufly revive, alter and mianage the 
 tradition, natural notices and interefts of men, fo as to make 
 his own advantage of them. Other things might be added, 
 fhcwing the concernment of the holy God in this matter, which 
 1 fhall wave for fome reafons that are fatisfying tomyfelf. But 
 what is faid, I conceive fufticient to blunt the edge of the cb- 
 jeftion. 1 Ihall only fubjoin the wordsof the learned Amyrald, 
 who after he has ov/ned the natural difcoveries of placability ; 
 but withal (hown their ufelcft^ncfs, and tliat they had no influ- 
 ence nor could have, in the words former ly quoted, at length he 
 moves th.is fame objctlion that \vc have here propolcd, and re- 
 turns the anfvvcr, which we (hail now tranfcribe, though it \< 
 fomewhat long, the rather becaufc it comes from a perfon not 
 onK of great learning, but one who owned placability might 
 be demonftrated by the light of nature, and yet denies that it 
 was the foundation of the religion that was to be found- in the 
 
 w^orld. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 211 
 
 vv'oild. " But perhaps, (fays he,) It will here be demanded, 
 ^^ v/hence then came it to pafs that all nations have each of 
 " them had its religion ? And why are not all men dilTociated 
 '' Inliead of hanging together in religious fociefy ? To which 
 ** I anlwer, that the mind of man is never agitated with the 
 •' fame emotions, nor conflant in the fame thoughts; the fame 
 ** paffion not always pofTeffing him, nor the fame vice. They 
 ** take their turns, or fucceed and mingle one with another. 
 ** Two things therefore have hindered that men, though pof- 
 ** feffcd with fear, have not abandoned all fervice of the Deity, 
 ** — profanencf:5 and pride : God perm;itting the profanenefs of 
 *■ fome and the prefumption of others to temper the terror 
 ** of confcience. Firfl, profanenefs; becaufe not v.-eighing 
 ** fufficiently how much God abominates vice, and how inex- 
 ** orable his juftice is, they often have flattered themfelves with 
 ** this thought, that he fcarce takes any notice of fmall of- 
 ** fences, and fuch as are in the intention and purpoieonly, that 
 ** is, in the aifcCtions of the will and not in a6lions really cx- 
 ^* ecuted. Moreover, they thought he was not much incenfed, 
 *' but with crimes that turn to fome notable detriment to the 
 ** commonwealth, or carry fome blot of infamous improbity. 
 ** Although mafculine lull was either juP.ified or cxcufed, or 
 ** tolerated by the mod civilized people of Greece. And they 
 ** were fometimes fo befotted in their devotions, that they 
 *' thought not but crimes of the greateft turpitude with no great 
 ** difficulty might be expiated by their facrifices, luftrations, reli- 
 ** gious procelfions.myfieriesand bacchanel folemnities. On the 
 **, other fide, prefumption ; becaufe not fulHciently acknow- 
 ** ledging how much they owed to the Deity, they imagined 
 *' that their good works, their offerings, and the exercife of 
 ** that fhadow of virtue, which they purfued, might counter- 
 ** vail the offences they committed: fo that were they bal- 
 ** anced together, there might be hope not only to avoid pu- 
 " nifnment, but moreover to obtain recomper.ce. Upon which 
 ** ground it was that Socrates being near his end, and dif- 
 ** courfingof the immortality of the Ibul, fpeaks largely of his 
 '* hope, (in cal'e the foul be not extinguid-ied with the body) 
 ** to go and live with Hercules and Palamedes, and the other 
 ** perfons of high account. But as to afiiing God pardon of the 
 ** ottences he had committed, he makes no mention at all of it ; 
 ** becaufe though he fpoke always difTemblingly of h imfelf, he 
 had in the bottom of his foul great opinion of his own vir- 
 
 *' tue 
 
 «e 
 
«i 
 
 t( 
 
 212 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 ■* tuc, and made no great reckoning of his vices, from which 
 '* notwithf^anding he was no more exempt than others. And 
 ** had his life been of fuch purity, ihjt tlic eyes of men could 
 ** not difccrn a blot in it (although Tome have written Infamous 
 *' matters of him) yet when the account is to be made up with 
 ** God, there needs another perfection of virtue than that of 
 his to fatisfy fo exatt a juliire. But yet further, oftentimes 
 thefe two vices of profanencfs and prcfumption have met to- 
 gether in the fame fubje6\, and lulled men with vain hopes 
 into abfoluie fupinity. Whence the excels of fear hath been 
 ** retrenched, which would otherwife have at laft turned into 
 ** defpair, and confequently not only diffipated all communion 
 ** in religion, but likevvife ruined all human fociety. For fear 
 ** rertrainin'?; man on the one fide from abfolute contemning the 
 ** Deity by profanenels, on the other fide, profanenefs and pre- 
 ** fumption hindered it from precipitating nien into thst furious 
 ** defpflir which would have overthrov/n all, and raufed more 
 ** horrible agitations in the mind of man, ihan ever the moll 
 ** outragious bacchldes were fenfible of. So that by the mix- 
 *' ture, viciiTitude and variation of thefe diverfe humours has 
 religion been maintained in the world. But it is eafy to judge 
 * how flncere ihat devotion was, which was bred of fear, (a 
 paffion that is naturally terminated on hatied) felf-prefump- 
 ** tion, and mifapprehenfion of the julf ice of God. Whereas 
 ** the certain knowledge of the remiflion of fins, of which the 
 ** fpecial revelation from heaven can only give us affured hope, 
 '* is a marvellous pewerfully attradlive to piety, out of gratitude 
 *^ towards fo Ineftimable a goodnefs*." 
 
 II. Sonje object again Jl what has been proven. That God is 
 good, companionate and kind ; and that natures cf any excel- 
 lency take pleafure in cxercifing mercy, companion and kind- 
 nefs, and with difliculty are brought to a6ls of fcverity, 
 
 1 anfwer, i. The goodnefs, kludncfs, mercy and compafFion 
 of God are a pietty fubje6t for men to declaim and make ha- 
 rangues about. But when tliey are made, they are iiitle to the 
 purpofc ; for they are eafily anfivered by a reprcfentation of 
 the juftice and holinefs of God» And the difliculty is not 
 iouchcd, unlefs men can iliew how thefe fecmingly jarring at- 
 iributes ma)'^ be confident, 2. The inferences men muft draw 
 from fuch reprefentations of the nature of God, are fuch as will 
 
 crols 
 •" Amy raid cf Rciig. Tzzt i. Chap. 7. pag. 254, 253, 256, 
 
 *f 
 
 n 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 213 
 
 trofs the experience of mankind who want revelation, and fee 
 ijiariy eHTefts of hie bounty, goodnefs, forbearance and patience, 
 but none of his pardoning mercy ; and nrjany of his juftice and 
 holy leveriiy. Wherefore M^e inay leave this fubjeft and pro- 
 ceed, though much might be fald to clear how little all this is to 
 the purpofe. But we conceive this is apparent from what has 
 i?een above difcourfed. 
 
 III. It is laid,** Ihat the very comniand of God to ufe his ap- 
 " pointed means for men's recovery, doth Imply that it ftiall not 
 " be in vain ; and doth not only fhew a pofiibility, but fo great 
 '* a hopefulnefs of fuccefs to the obedient, as may encourage 
 '* them chearfuUy to undertake it, and carry It through*." 
 
 In aafvver to this, I have above cleared, that men are flill 
 obliged to obey ; that there are many things, of which feveral 
 are by him mentioned in the fubfequent fetlions of that chapter, 
 whence thefe wor^s are quoted, which might be improven to 
 excite qian tp a cordial compliance, in cafe there were a new, 
 clear and plain invitation to a return with hope of acceptance. 
 And I admit, that to deny this, as he fays, in the words Imme- 
 diately proceeding thofe now quoted, were to make earth a hell. 
 Yea further, fo long as men are out of hell, there is flill a pofli- 
 bility in the cafe : but that there is any fuch invitation given, 
 or aiTurance of a hopeful ifiTue, or means diretlly and fpeclally 
 inftituted by God as ineansof recovery, knowablq by men left to 
 the mere light of nature, I deny : becaufe I fee not the lliadow 
 of a proof and evidence to the contrary that has been offered, 
 
 IV. It is alleged by the fame author,That God's commanding 
 us to forgive others, encourages us to tx^tcX Jorgivtnefs at his 
 hand. 
 
 To this I fay, i. The learned perfon owns, ** That from 
 ** from this it doth not follow, that God mufl; forgive all, which 
 ** he bindeth us to forgive, for reafons he had before expreffed." 
 2. I'fay, that this, the comm.and of God to forgive others, lies 
 not fo open to the view of nature's light, as that every one can 
 difcern it. And befides, it admits of many exceptions, for 
 ought that unaffilled nature can dilcover, 3. It is reftrided to 
 private perfons, and is not to be extended to public injuries 
 done againfl government, 4. When it is found to be our duty 
 by nature'ij light, we are brought to fee it bv fuch reafons as 
 
 ihcfc 
 
 * Baxter's Reafons of Chrift. Relig. Part i. Chap. 17. ^. 9. pag. 
 
 1S6, 
 
^14 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 tbefe, That v/e need the like favour at their hands, that we arc 
 frail, &:c. which gives us ground to be jealous that the like Is 
 riot to be expelled at his hand, with whom thefe things have 
 no place, which are the reafon of the law to us. So that from 
 this, as it is dilccverable by nature's light, no furc inference 
 can be drawn. 
 
 V, It is obje<3ed, That facrifices and all the religious fervi- 
 ces arr.cn gft the Heathens, were only fymbolical of a good life 
 i:nd repentance*. 
 
 To this I fay, j. If this were true, Herbert and the deifts 
 are much in the wrong to the prieAs who urged the ufe them, 
 as men who negle£\ed to inculcate repentance. For any thing 
 I can fee they were more commendable than the philofophers, 
 who neither taught nor pra^tifed repentance, and vilified facrifices. 
 But 2, This is a fcandalous falfchood ; for there is nothing more 
 evident, than that by the facrifices they dcfigncd to atone the 
 deities, and expected that they fnould be accepted In place of 
 the offerers, and their death be admitted inftead of what they 
 had defcived themfelvcs. See abundance of teRlmonies given 
 to this by him to whom we referred, when we quoted Cefar's 
 tePiimony to this purpofc ; I mear^ Outram. What, I pray, 
 rneant the cuflom that previillcJ, not only among the Jews, but 
 Heathens, of oif'erlng their Sacrifices with folemn prayers to 
 God, that all the plagues which they or their country had de- 
 ierved, might light on the head of the victim ; and fo they 
 themfelves efcape ? And hereupon they thought that all their 
 fms did meet upon it, and defile it to that degree, that none 
 who had touched it dared to return home till they had wafheJ 
 and purified themfelves. Suidas reports of the Greeks, ** Quod, 
 *' ei, qui main avcrruncandis quotannis deflinatus erat, fic im,- 
 *' jjrf.cabantur, Ju ^^t-^yi^oi, noflrum, hoc eji, falus ^ redemption 
 '* Arqut ita ilium in mare projicidmiity quafi Neptune facivm 
 *' piYfolventes\." Servius tells us, ** Maililienes, quoties pejii- 
 ^' Un!ia laborabant, unu3 fi ex paupejibus offerehat, alcndus 
 ** u-nno integro pubiicis ii? puno^ibus cibis, llic pi^jleay orna- 
 ^^ i^s mrbtnis i3 vcjlibus facris, circuiridiictbatur per tatom ci- 
 
 ** vitaiem 
 
 * See A. V7. Letter, Oracles of F.eafon. 
 
 '\ " They curfed the perfon who was yearly appointed for averting 
 •' .-ieforcunes, in this rflanner, " Be thou oar atonement," that is, 
 *• cj; f:ifety and redemption ; and fo they threw him into the fea, as 
 '"■ pciiorraing a facrifice to Neptune.'* 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEKN DEISTS. 215 
 
 ** vitate?n cum fxecrationibus, ut in ipfum reciderent mala totius 
 ** civitatis ; & fic prcjiciebatur *." But we have ftayed too ior.g 
 in refuting this rra(i and ungrounded conceit. 
 
 VI . Some, to prove that the works cf providence, particu- 
 larly his forbearance to finners and bounty to (hem, do call 
 men to repentance without the word, urge the apoftle's word!?, 
 Rom. ii. 4. Or defptfijl thou the riches of his goo due fs and 
 forbearance^ and lonfr'fiijjeringy not knowing that the gaodnffi 
 of God leadilh thee to repentance ? To this we anfwer, 
 
 1. Divines, and thefe not a ^i^w^ nor of the loweft form, do 
 underfiand this whole context of the Jews ; and they urge rea- 
 fons for it that are not contemptible. If this opinion hold, no 
 more can be drawn from thefe words, than v^hat has been alrea- 
 dy granted without any prejudice to our caufe, viz. that this 
 difpenfation, where perfonsare otherwife under a call to repen- 
 tance, gives time to repent, and enforceth the obligation of 
 that call they arc under. 
 
 2. But to cut off all pretence of any plea from this fcriD- 
 ture, we fhall take under our confideration the apoflle's whole 
 diicourfe, from the l6th ver. of the 4th chap, to the 4th ver- 
 of the 3d, and give a view cf thefe words, and other paffaes? 
 infifted on to the fame purpofe, with a fpecial eye to the apoJ- 
 tic's fcope in the di{courfe,and the particulardcfign of every paT- 
 fage. And this we Iball undertake, not (o much out of any reoard 
 to this obje6lion in particular, but to obviate the abufc of feverai 
 paiTages of this difcourfe of the apoftie, by one with whom we 
 ihali have juft now occafion to debate almoft every verfe in 
 this fecond chapter. If therefore our folution of the apoOIe's 
 difcourfe feem a little tedious at prefent, this difadvantai^e will 
 be compenfated by the light it will contribute for clearing ma- 
 ny of the enfuing objections. 
 
 The apoftle Paul, Rom. i. 16. had afferted, that the gofpf! 
 is the power of God to falvation to every one that believes^ to th" 
 Jewfirjland alfo to the Greek yih^t is, it is the only powerful mean 
 of falvation to perfons of ail forts ; neither Jew nor Greek can be 
 
 faved 
 
 * « As often as the Maffilians were affliaed with the peftilenc-, 
 «< one of the poor offered himfelf, who v/as to be nourilhed for a whci? 
 " year with clean viduals, at the public expence, afcer which being a- 
 " domed with vervains and facred garments, he was led round ths 
 " whole city with execrations, that the misfortunes of the whole ciii 
 " might fall upon Y^'un, and thus he was cad our." 
 
2i6 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 faved by any other mean. In the 17th verfe, he advances an ar-* 
 gument for proof of this aifertion, which is plainly this, that re- 
 velation, which exhibits the rightcoufntfs ofGodj^hxch is the only 
 righteoufnefs that can pleafe God, and on the account whereof he 
 accepts and juftifiesfinners; and which exhibits //z/j rightcoufncpSj 
 not upon flender or conjedlaral 5;ro\inds, hux from faithj that is, 
 upon the teOimony oi k\\q faithful Go>J, who can neither be de- 
 ceived nor deceive us, propofcs this righteoufnefs to our faith, as 
 the only powerful mean of falvalion : but it is the goJl'el only that 
 doth reveal this righteoufnefs of God from failhj or upon the 
 credit of divine teftlmonv unto faith: therefore the gofpel is the 
 only powerful mean of God's appointment. 
 
 This is plainly the apoftlc's argument ; and if we confidcr it, 
 we will find it to comprize three affertions ; i. That the right' 
 ^.oufmfs of God rcvcTxlcd in the gofpel, and received hy faith, is 
 that, on the account wliereof, finners are accepted with and 
 juflified before God. This is one branch of his firll: propofition^ 
 which he defigns to explain and confirm afterwards at length. 
 Here he only confirms it by hintinj^ a proof of it from the prophet 
 Habakkuk's words, the ja/ljliall live by faith, t\\AX h, faith re- 
 ceiving the righteoufnefs of God revealed in Jhe proniife, is the 
 foundation of all the godly, their hopes of pardon, peace. with 
 God, grace to fupport under trials, and a merciful deliverance 
 from them. As it is by thefe things they live in troublefome times, 
 fo it is the acceptance of this righteoufnefs, that gives them any 
 right to thefe advantages. 2 His firft propofition implies this alTer- 
 tion, that this righteoufnefs of God revealed in the gofpel, is the 
 only efFedlual mean of acceptance with and juification before 
 God ; or, that there is no other way wherein any of the children 
 of men may obtain thofe advantages, fave this Way of accepting 
 by faith the righteoufnefs of God, upon the credit or faith of 
 his teftimony ; this is the other branch of his firfl propofition. 
 3. The apoftlc affcrts in this argument, that the gofpel doth re- 
 veal this righteoufnefs of God ; on which, and on which only, 
 acceptance with and juRification before God are to be obtained, 
 from faith to faith* This is the apoftle's aiTumption orfecond 
 propofition. 
 
 The apoOle hnvjnp: hinted for the prefent, at a fufficient proof 
 of the firfi of thefe afl'prtlons, as has been faid, paOes it. He lays 
 afide likewife the third of thefe aflertions, defigning to clear it 
 afterwards, and addicfTcs himfclf to tlie proof of the fecond in 
 
 the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 217 
 
 the enfuing diTcourfe from chap. i. ver. 18. to chap. iii. ver, 
 20' or thereabout. 
 
 The propofition then which our apoftle fpends the whole 
 context under confideration in proof of, is," That there is no 
 other way whereby a finner can obtain juflification before, or 
 acceptance with God, but by faith:" Or that ** neither Gen- 
 tiles tior Jews can be jullified before God by their own works. 
 
 This he demonfirates, Firft, Againft the Gentiles in parti- 
 cular, from chap. i. ver. 18. to chap. ii. ver. 16. according 
 to our prefent fuppofition, or conceffion of his adverfaries. 
 Next, He proves the fame in particular againft the Jews, chap, 
 il. to ver. 8. of chap. iii. And from thence to the clofe of 
 his difcourfe he demonftrates the fame in general againft all 
 mankind whether Jews or Gentiles. 
 
 Firjly Then, he demonftrates againft the Gentiles in parti- 
 cular, that they cannot be juftified before God by the zuorks 
 they may pretend to have done in obedience \.o the law of nature y 
 by the enfuing arguments, which we fliali not i educe into 
 form ; but only propofe the force of them, by laying down in 
 the moO: natural and eafy order, the propofitions whereof they 
 do confifl. 
 
 i. The apoflle infinuates, ver, 18. that the Gentiles had 
 fome notions of truth concerning God, and the woriViip due to 
 him from the light of nature, ver. 18. though they imprifoned 
 them : and what here he infinuates, he directly proves ver. 
 19, 20. 
 
 2. He aOerts, that they did not walk anfwerably to thefe no- 
 tices, but detained them in unnghteoufnefs ; that is, they fup- 
 preffed, bore them down, and would not allow them that di- 
 re<Stive power over their pra6\ices which they claimed ; but in 
 oppofition to them went on in fin. This he had intimated in 
 general, ver. 18. and he proves it, ver. 21, 22, 23. 
 
 3. He proves, that the wrath of God, is revealed from hea- 
 veUf efpecially by inftances of fpiritual plagues, the mofl ter- 
 rible of all judgments, againft them for.-nheir countera6iing 
 thofe notices of truth. This he alfo intimated, ver. i8« and 
 proves it, ver. 24, 25, 26. 
 
 4. He fhews, that the Gentiles being thus,- by the jufi: 
 judgment of God, given up and left to themlelves, did run 
 on from evil to worfe in all forts of abominations ; and there- 
 by did render their own condemnation the more fure, inevit- 
 able and intolerable. This he does from ver. 26, to 32. 
 
 D d 5. To 
 
2i8 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ciu?. x. 
 
 5. To confirm this further, ver. 32. he (liews that the fact 
 cannot be denied, in regard that they both prac^tifed thofe 
 evils themfelves, and made themfclvcs guilty by their virtual 
 approbation of them in others: nor could It be excufcd, (Incc 
 they could not but know, if they attended to the light of na- 
 ture, that fucfi grofs abominations are worthy of death- 
 
 6. The apo-lle having in the lad verfe of chap. i. men- 
 tioned this aggravation of their fins, that they were againfi: 
 knowledge, takes occafion thence to proceed to a new argu- 
 ment, whereby he at once confirms what be had faid about 
 their finning againd knoivledge, chap. i. ver. 32. and fur- 
 ther evinces his main point, that they mufl inevitably be con- 
 demned by a new argument, which he lays down in the enfuing 
 aifertion, either cxpreffed or infinuated# 
 
 (r.) He takes notice, that the Gentiles, if he fpeaks of them^ 
 do themfelves practife thofe things, which they judge ai.J con- 
 demn others for. 
 
 (2.) He takes it for granted, as well he may, that he who 
 condemns any practice of another, doth confefs that that 
 pra6licc in itfelf is worthy of condemnation. 
 
 (3.) He hereon infers, that the Gentiles do pra6\ife thofc 
 things, which according to their own acknowledgment, are 
 in themfelves v/orthy of condemnation. Nov/ this conclufion 
 diredly fixes upon them the aggravation mentioned In the clofc 
 of the proceeding chapter, viz. That they know the things 
 they do to be worthy of death. And this fufficiently clears 
 the connection. 
 
 (4.) He argues again, that the judgment of God being al- 
 ways according to truth, he will c-rtaiiily condemn all, who 
 do things thjt in truth are ivorthy cf condemnation, ver. 2. 
 
 (c;.) Hereon by an inevlt.ible confequence, ver. 3. he con- 
 cludes, that God will certainly condemn the Gentiles, which 
 is the main point. 
 
 (^ ) As an inference from the whole, h-e concludes, that 
 as uiv profpe6l ofefcape is vain, fo they are precluded from 
 all excufe, or (hadow of ground for reclaiming agair.ft the 
 fentence of God, which by their own acknowledgement pro- 
 ceeds only agalnd praiSiices, that arc in truth worthy of con- 
 demnation. 
 
 7. J'he apofile having thus locked them up, as it were, 
 under unavoidable condemnarion, proceeds ver. 4. to cut off 
 lUeir retreat to that, wherein fome of them, took fancluary. 
 
 They 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 219 
 
 They concluded, that God, who did forbear them, while they 
 went on in (in, and allowed them to fnare fo deep in his 
 poodnefs, would not punilli them i'o Severely. To cut ofF 
 this plea, the apoftle firft taxes tiicm as guilty of a grievous 
 abufe of this difpenfation, while they drew encouragement 
 from it to go on in fin. 2. He argues them of grofs igno- 
 rance of the genuine tendency of this dealing of God. , To ar- 
 gue thus, ** God fnares me and is good fo me, therefore I 
 may fafely f;n agami^ him, and hope for his iinpunity in 
 committing known fm againfl him," is mad and unreafon- 
 able. Keafon Aould fay, ** God forbears me, and fo gives 
 iTic time ; he adds to former obligations I lay under to 
 obey him by Joading me with new kindnefles, therefore I 
 ihould be the mere lludious to pleafe him, and avoid thefc 
 things which 1 know will be offenfive to him, and be afhamed 
 for former offences. " This by the way is the full import of 
 that exprellion, The goodfiejs of God Ida ding to repentavcf.' 
 But of this more ancn. 3. Hereon ver. 5. lie infers that their 
 abufe cf this difpenfation and their not returning to obedience, 
 or anfwering the obligations laid on them increa-es their guilt, 
 and fo lays up materials for an additicnal libel, and a more 
 highly accented puniilimcnt, ver. 5. 
 
 Having thus fnortly given an account of the fccpe and mean- 
 ing of the words, I fhall next lay down a few Ihort obfervations 
 clearly fubverlive of any argutricnt that can be drawn from 
 them. 
 
 (t.) None can fay, that the perfons, who were under this 
 difpenfation did, in fa6}, underAand it to import a call to re- 
 pentance. The apodle accuf^s them of ignorance of this, and 
 of abufing ic by drawing encouragement from it, that they 
 Ihould efcape puniihment, though they vent on in fin, 
 
 (2.) ll is piain, the apoille's fcope i-d him to no more, but 
 this, to evince, that this difpenfation afforded them no ground 
 to hope for impunity, no encouragement to proceed in a courfe 
 of known fn, that it did aggravate the guilt of their continu- 
 ance in fuch fins, and enforce the obligations theyctherwife wztq 
 under to abdinencc from them, and the practice of neglected 
 duties. This is all the words will bear, and ail that the fcope 
 requires. 
 
 (3.) Theapodic is proving, as \vc have clearly evinced above, 
 that the perfons, v/iih whom he is npw dealing, without recourfe 
 to the gofpel revelation^ are fhut up from ail accefs to julH- 
 
 fication 
 
220 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 ficatlon before God, acceptance with him, pardcn and falvation ; 
 certain! V therefore he cannot it) this pla> e be urdeifiood to intend 
 that thefe perfons were under ireans fufhcient to lead them to 
 that repentdnce, upon which they might be aiTared of forgi vcnefs 
 and peace with God. 
 
 (4.) This fame apoftle elfev here appropriates the call to 
 repentance unto the gofpel revelation, Acls xvii. 30. fpeaking 
 to the Heathens at Athens, he lays, the times of this ignorance 
 God winked at ; but new common deth all men evry xvhere to re- 
 pent- Here It is plain, that men left to the light of natnre, are 
 Jeft without lliis call, until the gofpel ccme and give this invi- 
 tation. 
 
 (5.) Wherefore we may from the particular fcope of thisverfe, 
 the general fcope of the apoftle's dilcourfe, and his plain de- 
 clarations upon other occafions, conclude, I. That the repen- 
 tance he here intends, is no. that repentance to which the pro- 
 mife of pardon is in the gofpel annexed ; but only an abfiinence 
 from thefe evils, which their confciences condemn them for, 
 and the return to fome fort of perforniance of the material part 
 of known, but defertcd duty. Frequent mention is made of 
 fuch a repentance in fcripture ; but no where is pardon pro- 
 iriifed upon It. 2. This leading imports no more, but that the 
 difpenfation \\ e fpeak of difcovers this return to be duty, and 
 gives fpace or time for It. 
 
 (6.) To confirm what has been now faid, it is to be obferved, 
 that our apoftlc acquaints, that this forbearance and goodnefs is 
 e^ercifed towards the vejfels of wrath fitted to deJirvMion^ Rom. 
 5X,. 22. which fufficlently intimates that this difpenfation of 
 stielf gives no affurance of pardon to thefe who are under it, 
 but is confiflent with a fixed purpofe of puniibing them. Yet 
 ■^vithout this adurance, it Is Impodlblc there fticuid ever be any 
 call fo repentance, that can be available to any of mankind, 
 or anfwer the hvpothefis of thofe with whom we have to do. 
 
 8. In the clofe of ver. 5, the apoOle introduces a difcourfe 
 of'the laft judgment for two ends : Firtl, To cut offthofe abuf- 
 ers of God's goodnefs from all hopes of efcape. He has before 
 fliewcd that they have flored up fins, the caufcs of wrath ; and 
 here he fnews there is a judgment defigned, wherein thev will 
 reap as they have fown. Thus the words follcMnng are a confir- 
 mation of the foregoing argument, and enforce the apoflle's main 
 fcopc. Secondly, fie does it for clearing the righteoufnefs of God 
 ^rom any imputation that the dilpenfation he had been fpeak- 
 ing 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 221 
 
 j/ig of, viz. his forbearance and goodnefs towards finriers, might 
 tempt blind men to throw upon it ; and this he does by flicwing 
 that this is not the time of retribution, but that there is atLopen 
 2nd foiemn diHribution def\{5ned, wherein Gcd will fully cl^sr 
 his righteoufnefs. To theie iwo erds is this whole account of 
 the lafi judgment fuited. He tells them that there is a c'av of 
 wrath and of tht revelation of the righteous judgment oj God. 
 While he fpeaks of the reuelaticn of the righteous judgment of 
 Godi he tacitly grants that by this difpenfaticn of foibtarance, 
 the righteouinels of Gcd's judgment is icme way clouded or 
 under a vail : but withall he imimates that there is a definite 
 time, a day fixed lor its manifefiation ; and that this day will 
 prove a day oJ wraths that is, a day wherein the virdi6\ive juf- 
 tice of God will fignally mar.iteft itfelf, in pun filing iuc h fin- 
 ners as they were with whom he deals. In fliort, he acquaints 
 them, that the defign of this day is to reveal the righteous 
 judgment of God, that is, to maniteH to the conviction ot an- 
 gels and men, the righteouinels of God's prccctdings toward 
 the children of n?en, particularly as to rcwardsand punilh.ments. 
 It will be righteous., and therefore fuch finricrs as they {hall net 
 efcape. It will be revealed to be luch ; and fo all grour.d of ca- 
 lumny will be taken away. To clear this, he gives an account 
 of the concernments of that judgment, in fo far as it is to his 
 purpofe ; wherein, 
 
 (l.) He teaches, that there will be an open retribution of 
 rewards and punilhmer.ts, God will render, &c. 
 
 (2.) He fhews, that God will proceed in this retribution up- 
 on open and inconteftible evidence. He will render according 
 to zuorks' The perfons who are to be punifl.ed fl-iall, to the 
 convidion of on-lookers, be convi<Sled by their works oJ impiety; 
 and the piety of thofe to whom the rewards are given, il.ail in 
 like manner be cleared. 
 
 (3.) He acquaints them, that the difiributicn flail be fuita- 
 ble to the chara6^er of the perfons, the nature and quality of 
 their works. He will render according to their works; that 
 is, evil to the evil ; good to the good. This is all that is in^ 
 tended by ^xroe, fecunduvi, or according : the rreaning is not 
 that he will render according to the merit of their works. For 
 though 1 own that God will puniih according to the juft de- 
 merit of fin ; yet that is not intended here by this phrafe ac 
 cording to works : for the word in its proper fignification inti- 
 mates, not ftrl6^ or unlverfai proportion betwixt the things con- 
 
 nec\ed 
 
•ii^: 
 
 AN INC^UIRY INTO THE ghap. x. 
 
 necked by It ; much lefs doth it particularly 'ivr.port, that the 
 one is the meriioricus caule of the other ; but the word is, in 
 all languages, commonly taken m a more lax fignihcatjon, to 
 denote any rult^bienefs betwixt the things conne6ied by it. So 
 our Lord favs to the blind men, Matth. xix. 29. According te 
 your fait k be it unto yoU' Who u-ill fay that any faith, but e- 
 jpeciaily fuch a lame one as we have reafon to think thev had, did 
 merit that miraculous cure ; or that it was every way fuitable unto 
 3t? Since then the word of itfeif does not import this, it cannot 
 be taken fo here, unlefs either other fcriptures determine us to 
 this fenfe, or fomething in the context fix this to be the mean- 
 ing of it. To take it in this fenfe as to rewards, is fo far from 
 having any countenance from ether fcriptures, that it is direftly 
 contrary to the whole current of them. And when the word i^ 
 taken in this fenfe, then the fcriptures plainly tell us that we arc 
 no\ faved or mvarded by or according to our works of rightiouf' 
 fsefi, but according to his mercy through Jtfus Chriji, Tit. iii. 
 5, 6. Nor is there any thing in the text or context to incline 
 us to take it in this fenfe, but much on the contrary to de- 
 iTionftrate that this is not the meaning, at leaft with refpe6l to 
 rewards : for to fay, that the reward iliaii be given us according 
 to our works, that 13, for our works, as meritorious of it, flat- 
 ly contradicts the apofile's fcope, which is to prove, that all 
 mankind, Jews and Gentiles, do by their works merit only con- 
 demnation, and that none can expe6) upon them abfolution, 
 much lefs rev/ard, Befides, the works here principally inten- 
 ded are not all our works, nor thefe, which if any had, would 
 have the faireft pretence to merit, vi?. the inward actings of 
 grace, faith, love, &c. but outward woiks that are evidences 
 of the inward temper and frame ©f the ?61ors. This is evident 
 from the word itfelf, fiom the particular inftances elfewhere 
 londcfcended upon, when the laft judgment is fpoken of, and 
 \'i'-\m the defign of this general judgment. 
 
 (4.) He (hews, that this rctribufion will be imlverfal, io 
 c:)iry oW-j &ic, 
 
 (r.) He iiiufTrates further the righteoufnefs of it, ver. 7. by 
 charailerizing the pcrfons who are to be rewarded, they arc fuch 
 as do well, thit is, wliofe a6^ions openly fpeak them good, and 
 m-jdence the honef^y of the prmciple whence they flow; xhty con^ 
 tinuiin well doing, their walk is uniform and habitually good; 
 iiowing from a fixed principle, and not from an external acciden- 
 tal caufe; they continue paUently in this courfe, in oppofition 
 
 to 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 223 
 
 ta all difcouragements ; nor do they aim at worldly advantage, 
 but at that glory ^ honour and immortality, which God fets be- 
 fore them. None but they, who are perfed^ly fuch, fhall have 
 3 reward, if it is fought for, according to the tenor of the cove- 
 nant of \Vorks: and in this fenfe not a few, nor they obfcurc 
 interpreters, do take the words; as if the apoflle had faid, if 
 there be any among you, who have perfe6^1y obeyed, ye fhall 
 be rewarded : but whereas I have cleared that' none of you are 
 fuch, ye are cut off from any expectation of reward. But if the 
 fincerity of obedience is only intended, then the meaning is 
 that God will of his grace, according to his promife, and not 
 for their works, give the reward to the fincerely obedient ; and 
 thereby will openly evince his righteoufnefs, in dealing with them 
 exactly according to the tenor of the covenant, to which they 
 belong; fo that no. perfon, who has any juft claim to reward 
 founded upon either covenant, fliall want it. 
 
 (6.) To clear the glory of God's righteoufnefs further, he 
 fpecifies the reward, viz. eternal lifi, a reward fufficient to com- 
 penfate any lofles they have been at, evidence God's love to 
 holincfs,and his regard unto his pronuTes. 
 
 {7.) He, in like manner, clears the matter further, by giv- 
 ing a defcription ver. 8. of the perfons,who are to be condemned, 
 which evinces the apparent righteoufnefs of the fentence to be 
 palTed againft them. They are fuch againrt whom it will be 
 made evident, that they have been contentious, that is, that 
 they have oppofed and fupprefled the truths they knew, flifled 
 convictions, and detained them in unrighteoufnefs : fuch as have 
 not obey zd the truth, or walked up to their knowledge, but have 
 obeyed unrighteoufnefs , following the inclinations of their cor- 
 rupt hearts. As if the apoftie had faid, the perfons v/ho arc to 
 be rewarded are of a character that ye can lay no manner of 
 claim to, but your charadler is perfe(5tly that of thofe who are 
 to be condemned. 
 
 (8.) He fpecifies the punifliment, indignation and wrath* 
 
 (9.) To fix the truth and importance of this deeper upon their 
 minds, he repeats and enlarges upon this affertion, ver. 9, 10. 
 thereby affuring them that the matter is infallibly certain, and 
 to 2;ivc a further evidence of the righteoufnefs cfGcd, he adjeCts 
 a claufe and repeats it twice over, viz. jtrji to the J etc and aljo 
 to the Gentile, wherein he (lievvs the impartiality of God's pro- 
 ceedings. He will not fuffer one foul, who has any juft claim 
 to reward, to go unrewarded, be he Jew or Gentiie. He will 
 
 not 
 
224 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, x, 
 
 not allow one finner, to whom puniflirnent belongs, to efcape 
 linpunifhed. The Jews' privileges lliall not lave ihefn, if guilty, 
 but judgment ihall begin firft at the houfe of God ; nor fhall the 
 bare vv^nt of privileges prejudge the Gentiles. 
 
 (lo.) To confirm this, he ad J aces an argume... from the na- 
 ture of God, ver. 1 1. viz. that with him there is no refpcEl ofper^ 
 fons, t)iat Is, no unjuil partial ly toward perfons, upon conhder- 
 ations, that do not belong unto the rule, whereby the caufe Is 
 to be tried. 
 
 (ii.) To ftrengthen this and obviate obje<5lions, ver. 12. he 
 alTerts, that Gad will proceed impartially in judging them ac- 
 cording to the mofi" unexceptionable rule. He will condemn 
 the Jews for their trafgreflions of that law, which he gave to 
 them. He will condemn the Gentiles, not for the iranfgreffion 
 of the written law, wnich they had not, but for their fins againfl 
 the law of nature, which they had. And fo neither of them 
 iliall h^ve ground to except agalnil: the rule, according to which 
 God proceeds with them. 
 
 (12.) Hence he takes occafion, ver. 13. to rep?l an obje6lion 
 or plea of the Jews, who m.ight fancy that they fliouid not be 
 punilhed or perllh, to whom God had given the privilege of the 
 written law. To cut of this plea he tells them, that where 
 perfons expe6t juftification by the law, it is not the knowledge 
 of the law, or hearing of it, hui obedience to it that will be fuf- 
 tained. Here he does not fuppofe that any fliall be juflified 
 bv doing the law ; nay, he proves the contrary. It is mani- 
 fertly his defign, in the whole difcourfe, to do {o : but he ihews 
 that the plea of the Jews, that they had the law, is infufficient ; 
 as if he had faid, be it granted, that juftification Is to be had by 
 the law ; yet even upon that fuppofition, ye have no title to it, 
 unlefs ye peifedly obey it. The law pleads for none, but 
 thofe who do {o> And fince none of you do thus obey it, as 
 iliall be evinced anon, ye mufl perifh, as I faid, ver. 12. 
 
 {13.) Whereas the Gentiles might plead, it would be hard 
 treatment if they (hould be condemned^ fince they were without 
 the law ; he demonftrates that they could not except againfl 
 their own condemnation upon this ground, becaufe although 
 they wanted the written law, yet thev had another law, viz. 
 th^t o( nature ; for the breaches of which they might julHy b& 
 condemned. That they hac^ fuch a law he proves againft them, 
 ver. 14, 15. Firjlf From their praf^icj* : he tells them that by 
 the guidance of mere nature they did the zvoris oj th& lazo, that 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 225 
 
 is, they performed the material part of fome of the duties which 
 the hw enjoins, and thereby evidenced acquaintance with the 
 law, or as he words it, they fJiew the work of the law lunttin 
 iti their hearts, that is, the remainders of their natural lights 
 orreafon, performs the work of the law commanding duty,£,nd 
 forbidding fin. Secondly, He proves that they have fuch a law 
 from the v/orking of their confcience. He whofe confcicnce ac- 
 cufes him for not doing fome things, and approves him fordo- 
 ing other things, knows that he was obliged to do the one and 
 omit the other, and confequently has fome knowledge of the 
 Uw, This is the apollle's fcope, ver. 14, 15. So that /^r, 
 in the beginning; of ver. 14. refers to and renders a reafon of 
 thcfirft claufe of ver. 12. that they who had //zn<f^ without: 
 law, viz. the written law, fliall pen/Ii without law, that is, not 
 for violating the written law, which they had not. 
 
 (14.) Having removed ihefe objedions, he concludes his ac- 
 count of the laft jud<zment, ver. 16. wherein he gives them an 
 account, ijl. To whom it belongs originally to judge, it is 
 God. 2dly, Who the perfon is to whom the vifible adminif- 
 tration is committed, it is Jefus Chrift. 3fi7y, What the mat- 
 ter of that judgment is, or what will be judged, it is the y2- 
 crets of hearts. Although works will be infifted upon as evi« 
 dences for the conviaion of on -lookers, of the rightcoufnefs of 
 God in his didribution of rewards and puniOimcnts; yet the fecrets 
 of men will alfobe laid open, for the further confufion of fin- 
 ners, and juOification of the feverity of God againft them. 
 
 Secondly, Now the aportle having proven, that the Gentiles 
 are all under condemnation, and lo cannot be juftified by any 
 works they can do ; and having likewife removed fome excep- 
 tions of the Jews that fell in his way, he proceeds next di- 
 re£\ly to prove the fame againft the Jews in particular, and an- 
 fwers their objeaions from chap. ii. ver. 17. to chap. iii. 
 ver. 8. inclufrve. 
 
 To prove this charge againft the Jews, he makes ufc only 
 of one argument, which yet is capable of bearing the weight of 
 many conciufions or inferences. To underhand this, we muft 
 take notice, that the apoflle here is dealing with the Jews, 
 who fought to he jit flified by works- And, 
 
 I. Bv way of conccffion, he grants them feveral privileges 
 above the Gentiles from ver, 17. to ver. 20. incltifive, viz. 
 That they were called Jews ; that they had the law, on which 
 they refted, and pretended fome peculiar intereft. in Gcd,, a?. 
 
 E e being 
 
226 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, x, 
 
 beins^ externally in covenant wlih him, ver. 17. of which the^ 
 boafted ; that they had forne knowledge of the latv^ and pre- 
 tended themfelves capable of guiding others. This he grants 
 them in a variety ot expreffions, ver. 18, 19, 20. By v/hich 
 the apoftle fecretly taxes their vanity, and infmuates, that 
 whatever they bad in point of privilege, they abufed it. 
 
 2. The apoftle charges ihem with a pra6tical contradi^ion 
 to this their knowled(>e, and this he makes good againll ihetn, 
 particularly agunft their highcft pretenders, their teachers, 
 I. By condefcending on feveral inflances, wherein they were 
 gui'ly and appealing to their confciences for the truth of them, 
 ver. 22, 23. wiiich I (hall not infiii in explaining. 2. He 
 proves it further by a teftimony of fcripture, ver. 24. wherein 
 God covnpiains, that their provocations were fuch, as tempted 
 the Gentiles to blafpheme his name. 
 
 Tiiis is the argument, the conriufion he leaves to themfelves 
 to draw. And indeed it will bear all the conclufions formerly 
 Jaid down againd the Gentiles, Whatever their knowledge 
 was, they v/ere not doers, but breakers of the law^ and fo 
 could not be jnjlijied by it, ver. 13. but might expett to 
 perifli for their tranfgreilions of it, according to ver. 12. 
 Thev finned againft knowledge, and fo deferved as fevere rc- 
 fentments as the Gentiles, chap. i. ver. 32. They could 
 rot pretend ignorance ; for they taught others the contrary, 
 and fo were without excufe, chap, ii, ver. I. 
 
 The apoillc next proceeds to anfwer their obje£^ions. The 
 firft whereof is brought in, ver. 25. The (hort of it is this, 
 the Tews pretended they had circumcifion, the feal of God's 
 covenant, and fo claimed the privileges of it. This obje6lion 
 is not dire6ily propofed, but the anfwer anticipating it is In- 
 tr.oJricd as a confirmation or reafon enforcing the conclufion 
 aimed at, viz. That they could not be juHified by the law: 
 and therefore it is, that we find the calual particle /<?r In the 
 beginning of the verfe. This much for the manner wherein 
 the objection is introduced. To this objettlon the apoftle an- 
 fwers, 
 
 1. Bv a conceffion ; circuvici/ton verily profitcth if thou keep 
 the laWf that is, if thou perfectly obey the commands, then 
 thou mayeft in juftice demand the privileges of the covenant, 
 and plead the feal of it, as a pledge of the faithfulnefs of God 
 in the promifes. 
 
 2. He aniv/ers dire6lly by (hewing, that this feal fignlfied 
 
 juft 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 227 
 
 luft nctlii'ng: as to th \r cbim of a legal ric^htcoufncfs, bccaufe 
 thev were kreahrs of the law. But if thnu be. a breaker of the 
 lawj thy drcumc'i on is ?r,ade uncircamci/ion. I'he ihort of the 
 matter is thi- ; this fea! is only a condition:;! engagement of the 
 faithfuloefs of G'jcI : it does not lay, thou Ihalt get the privileges 
 whether iho'i perform the condition or not: fo that by this means, 
 if the condition is not performed, ye have nothing to a{k, and 
 ye are as remote from a claim to the reward, as they who want 
 the fesL 
 
 3, The aroftic, to iUuftrate and confirm what he had faid 
 ^bout the unprofi^abienefs of circumcinon in cafe of tranigrel- 
 Iion, fl')e\v5, that a Gentile upon fuppofition that it were pclli- 
 ble, obeying the law, but wanting the feal of the covenant, 
 would have a better title to the privileges promifcd, than a 
 Jew, who had the feal, but wanted the obedience, ver. 26. 
 Therefore if the innircumcilion keep the rightccufncfs of the lazn, 
 that is, if a Gentile Ihould yield that obedience the law re- 
 quires, j!/;a// «(?/ his uncircurr,cifioni be counted for circiuncifon? 
 That Is, diali not he, notvvithftanding he wanteth the outward 
 fign of circijmcifion» be allowed to plead an intered in the blef- 
 lings promifed to obedience, and to inOft upon the faithfulnefs 
 of God for the performance of the prcmifes made \^ the obedi- 
 ent, of wiiich circumciiiom is the Tign ? Tb»e reafoQ of this is 
 plain, circumciBon feals the performance of the promile to the 
 obedient ; the Gentile obeying has that, which is the ground 
 whereon the failhfulnefs of God is engaged to perform the 
 promife, viz. obebience, and fo a real title to the thing pro- 
 mifed, though he wants the outward iign : whereas the C'if- 
 obeying Jew has o'lly the feal, which fccurcs ncthinc. but 
 upon the condition of that obebience, which he huS net yield- 
 ed. This is only fpoken by way of fuppcfition, not as if any 
 of the Gentiles had yielded fuch obedience : for he hss plain- 
 ly proven the contrary before. The apoUle's reafon is t'lis, 
 circurRcifjon is an engagement for the pcrformar.ee ot the pro- 
 mife to the obedient. The difobedient jeu' has therefore no 
 title to the promife; whereas the Gennle t!;at obeys having 
 that obedience to which the proniife is m.ade, l;as a real right 
 to it, and fo mis^ht expect the performance of it, as it he had 
 the outward fea!. 
 
 4. To clear yet further the unprofifabienefsofcircumcilion witr,- 
 out obedience, the apoOiejUpon the forefaid fuppofuion, ihewsj 
 that the Gentile obeying v/ould not only have the belter title; 
 
 but 
 
223 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 but his obedience; would contribute to clearing the juflice of Godj 
 in condemiiir.g rhe diiobcdient Jew, ver 2^. And Jltall not un- 
 cucumAfion which is by nature, if itjulfd the law, judge thee, 
 zuho by the letier and circumcifiun doeji trangrefs the lazu, that is, 
 if a Gentile wanting circamciiion and tue Jecurity thereby given, 
 with th^ other advantages v; inch the Jews have, dilcover the in- 
 excufjb'encls of your dilobedience, who have liie /e//f r and cir^ 
 cumcifiorij or the written law, that is, v/ho have a clearer rule of 
 duty and a pUiner promife. 
 
 5. i'o remove enrirelv the foundation of this obje«5\ion, the 
 apoiUe clears the real defign of circumcifion, and the chara6ler 
 of the perfon to whom the advantages do belong, ver. 28, 29* 
 wherein he ihews neg.itively, that the Jew to whom the pro- 
 miles do beiong is not eveiy one u'ho belongs to that nation, or 
 is outwardly a Jew; and that the circunicifion, touhichthc 
 promifes are abfolutely made, is not the outioard circumcifioUf 
 which is in the Jlejli^ ver. 28- ; but pofitively, that the Jew, to 
 whom the promifed bleffings belong, ii he who is a Jezv inward- 
 ly, that is, who has that invv'ard frame of heart which God re- 
 quires of bis people; and the circuaiC!fion,to which bleffings are 
 abfolutely promifed, is that invtard renovation of heast which 
 is the principle of the obedience required by, and accepted of 
 God, ver. 29. 
 
 This obje:iion being removed out of the way, the apoftle pro- 
 ceeds to anfvver an infiance againft what he has now faid in the 
 t'lree or four firft vcrfes of the 3d chap. The objedtion is propol- 
 cd ver. i, and is in (hort this, By your reafoning, would the 
 Jews fay, we have no advantage beyond the Gentiles, and cir~ 
 cumcifion is utterly unprofitable. To this he anfwers, 
 
 1. By denying flatly what is alTerted in the objedion, declar- 
 ing, notwith'landing of all this, the Jews had every way the ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 2. Left this fhould appear a vain aflcrtion, he clears it by an 
 inftar.ce of the higheft confcqnencc, viz. that they had the oracles 
 of God, which the Gentiles v^'^nicd, wherein that relief againil 
 trjnfgreilions, which the Gentiles were firangers to, is reveal- 
 ed, as he exprefsly teaches afterwards, ver. 21. As if the 
 ijpof^le had faid, Though ye Jews fail of obedience, and fo are 
 cut ot} from julKncation by the \,yw as a covenant of works, yet 
 ye have a rii^ineouinefs rcveah^d to you in the law and the 
 prophets, ver. 21. to which the finner may betake himfelf for 
 relief; this the Gentiles who want the law and prophets know 
 nothing of. 3. He 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN I^ISTS. 229 
 
 3. He clears tliaf this Is a great advaritage, notvvithftanding 
 that many of the Jews were not the better for it, ver. 3. thus at 
 once anticipating an obje6lion that might be moved, and con« 
 firming what he had faid. JVhat if Jo me did not bdievs, that 
 is, though fome have fallen ftiort of the advantages of this re- 
 velation, (hall we therefore fay it was not in itfelf a privilege? 
 Nay, it is In itfelf a privilege, and they by their own fault in 
 not believing, have forfeited the advantages of it to themfelves 
 only ; for Jhall their unbdUf makt the. faith of God withotit 
 effed? That is, alTuredlv believers wiil not be the worfe dealt 
 with for the unbelief of others ; but ihey will obtain the advan- 
 tage of the promifcs. 
 
 We have infified much longer upon this context than was de- 
 figned, but we hope that they who coi fider that the apoftle's 
 arguments and his whole purpofes, are directly levelled at that 
 which is the main fcopc of thel'c papers, will not reckon this a 
 faulty dIgiefFjon. And befidcs, we fnall immediately fee the 
 ufefulnefs of this, in order to remove the foundation of a great 
 many objections drawn from this context by Mr. Humfrey ; 
 fome of whcfc notions we (hall confider after we have removed 
 one objection more, and it is this : 
 
 VJI. The words of the apollle Paul to the Athenians, A^s 
 xvii. 27. are made ufe of to this purpofe. The apofile tells 
 them in the preceding words, that the God whom he preached, 
 was he who made the zuorldsj kath made of one blood all nations 
 of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath de^ 
 termined the tiims before appointed, and the bounds of their ha* 
 hitation \ that they fliould feek the Lord, if happily they might 
 feel after him and fnd him, though he be not far from every 
 one ef us : for in him we live and move and have our being. 
 The fum of what is pleaded from this teftimony amounts 
 to this, that men left to the light of nature are in duty bound 
 to feek the Lord ; that God is not fo far from them, but he may 
 be found ; and that if they will feel atter him, that is, trace 
 thefe dark difcoverics of him, in the works of creation and 
 providence, they may happily find hinu 
 
 For anfwer to this we fay, i. No word is here to be 
 firetched further than the occafion and fcope of the apofile re- 
 quires and allows. 2. The occafjon of this dif'ourfe was, 
 that Paul being at Athens, faw that city fet upon the worlhip 
 of idols, and overlooked the one true God, which moved him 
 with wrath, and gave occaiion to this difcourle; the evident; 
 
 fcopc 
 
2^o AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 fcope whereof is to fliew, tbat they were to blame, that fhey 
 overlooked the true God, and gave that worihlp to idols, which 
 was only to be given to God. For convincing them of this, 
 3. Fie ihews, that (he true God, by his works of creation and 
 providence had in To far difcovered hinfelf, that if by thefe 
 works they fought after the knowledge of hiip, they might find 
 him fo far, or know »'o much, as to underfiand that he alone 
 was tiie true God, (o whom divine worlhip v/as due. 4. He 
 ownSj that indeed thefe difcoverics Vv^ere but dark, to wit, in 
 comparilon of the difcoveries he had made of himfelf in the 
 v.ord ; which is fufficientjv intimated by that expreffion cf 
 feeling after him, tiiey mi^hl find him, fo f^r as to deliver them 
 from that grofs idolatry and neglett of him they were involved 
 in. Here is all that the fcope holds out : but he does not fay, 
 that they might find him, fo as to obtain the faving knowledge 
 of him by theft works of providence ; but on '^he contrary l)e 
 tells us, thai God winked at the times of ignoranze, that is, feem- 
 ed as if he did not notice men, and in his hciv and fovereign 
 jufiice left them to find by their own experience, which by 
 any means they had, that they could not jsrrive to the Javing 
 knowledge of God; though they might, as has been jufi now 
 faiJ, have gone fo far as to difentangle themlelves fiom that 
 grofs idolatry for which he now reproves them. He does not 
 fay, that God then railed them to faving repentance, gav& 
 ^hem any difcovery of his purpofe of msrcv, and thereon in- 
 vited them to peace and acceptance: but on the contrary, he 
 tells, that now he calls all mm every where to repent, ver. 30* 
 which fufhciently intimates that they had not that call before. 
 In a word, it is not that feeking or finding of God, or that 
 nearnefs to God which is here intended, that elfewhcre the 
 icripture fpcaks of, when it treats about m.en's cafe wI)o are liv- 
 ing under the gofpcl, and have God in Chrift revealed, and the 
 gofpel call to turn, to feek after and find liim to their own fal- 
 vdtion ; as the fcope of the place fuliy clears. Any one that 
 would fee this place fully conrulered, may fmd it done by the 
 jcarned Dr. Ovven, in (hat accurate, {hough Paort digreflion con- 
 cering univerfal grace, infcrted in hhlhro-og^Paiiiodap. p'g';'.3» 
 There likewife is that other fcripture, A6ks xiv. ver. 15, 16, 17. 
 -;rgely confidered. On which I ihall not now infii], feeing there 
 u nothing in it that has the lead appearance ofoppofilion to what 
 \ve have afferted, if not that God is there faid, not to have left 
 lirn/elf zuilhout a zoitncfs among the nations, in as much as he 
 
 did 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 20I 
 
 did good to them, gavi fruitful feafonSi &c. This is granted : but 
 thefe neceiraries oflifc are no vvitnefs that God defigned for them 
 mercy and forgivenefs, as has been made appear above, and as 
 the Spirit of God tells us there; for Godfuffcred them to walk 
 in their ozun way* 
 
 Vlil. Some allege that there is a law of grace connatural to man 
 in his lapfed ftate, and that in llibftance it is this, That God will 
 pardon finners upon their repentance t and they tell us, that 
 this law of grace is as much written (n the heart of lapfed man, 
 as the law of nature v/as written in the heart of innocent man. 
 To this purpofe fpeak^ Mr. Humifrcy in his Peaceable Difquifz- 
 lions* 1 and that with fuch an air of co-itidence, as might make 
 one expec\ better proo*/ than he has offered. 
 
 We lliall jafl: now exa.nine Mr. Humfrey's arguments. As 
 to the notion itfelf of a connatural law of grace written in the 
 hearts of all m.ankind in this lapfed condition, we look upon it as 
 abfoluteiy falfe. It contradiils fcripture, reafon and experience. 
 My delign excufcth me from the ufe of fcripture arguments. Ex- 
 perience I need not infift upon, after what has been already faid, 
 Reafon will not allow us to call any law connatural toman, fave 
 upon one of thefe three accounts ; either becaufe we arc born 
 with a6\ual knowledge of it ; or, becaufe it lies fo open and is 
 {o fuited to our rational faculties, that any man, who has the ufe 
 of reafon, can fcarce mils thinking of it, at leaft, refufe his 
 a (Tent to it, when it is propofed to him; or, finally, becaufe it 
 is nearly connected with notions and principles that are felf-evi- 
 dent, and is eafily deducible from them. Now this difcovery of 
 mercy to finners merely upon repentance is connatural in none 
 of thefe fenfes. I know no truth that is connatural in the firft 
 fenfe. The ingenious Mr. Locke has faid enough againft thisf. 
 In the fecond fenfe, it is not connatural. Who will tell me, 
 that this is a felf-evident propoiition, while fo great a part of the 
 more knowing and judicious part of mankind, not only refafe 
 their adent to it, but reje6f it as a plain untruth ? Yea, I doubt 
 if any man that underftands the cafe, and knows nothing of the 
 fatisfa(Slion of Chrifl-, will give his afient to it. In this laft fenfe 
 it is not connatural; for if it were fo, it were eafily demonfhrable 
 by thefe felf-evident principles, to which it is nearly allied : 
 which when Mr. Humfrey (liali have demonRrated from thefe 
 
 principles 
 
 * Peace. Difqaif. Chap. 4. pag. 56. 
 
 f Eflay on Huraan Undcriland- Lib. i. 
 
^32 AN INCI.UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 principles, or any otlier for him, we (hall then confidcr it ; but 
 this I am anprehcnfive will never be done. In a wo^d, all 
 thele truths, which with ny tolerable propriety of fpeech can 
 be Cdlled connatural, if they are not felf-evidcnt, are yet fuch 
 as adinit of an eafy demondration. And it is fooliib to call 
 any truth connatural, unlcfs it is fuch, as either needs no proof, 
 or is eafily dcmonftrable. This is fufi-icisnt to cveithrow this 
 notion. 
 
 Before we confidcr the arguments which Mr. Humfrey ad- 
 vances for his opinions, I (bail otTer to the reader a more full 
 view of it in his own wonh* He then afl'erts, ** that there is 
 " a connatural law of grace written in t!:e heart of man, that 
 '* is, that this law of lapfed nature, this law of grace, or re- 
 ** ^nedving law, is written in the heart of n)an in legard of 
 *' his fallen n jture, no !efs than the law of pure nature itfelf 
 ** was. The law of nature, (fays be) as 1 take it, is the dic-^ 
 ** tates of ri.j;bt reafon, declaring to us our duty to God, to 
 '* ourfelves and to our neighbours ; and the light of the fame 
 reafon will dictate to us, when we have failed in that duty 
 to repent and turn to God, with tru^ing to his rr;crcy and 
 pardon if we do fo, and not elfe. We do find it legible in 
 our hearts, that God is good and wifely gracious (o confider 
 our loft eOate, and pity our infirmities and neceiTary frailty*." 
 After he has told us of a threefold promulgation of this law of 
 grace, under the patriarchs, by Mofes and Chrift, which he 
 calls three editions of the fame law ; he fubjoins, ** Now I 
 fav, that though the Heathen be not under (or have not) 
 this law of grace, in the third and lafl; fctting out, or in 
 the flate under the gofpel ; yet they arc under it (or have 
 it) in the (late of the ancients, or as they had it in the firft 
 ** promulgation ; and upon fuppofition that any of them do, 
 ** accordini^ to the light they have, live up in fincerity to this 
 ** law, I dare not be the man that (hall deny, that through 
 '* the grace of our Lord Jefus Chriil (procuring this law or co- 
 '* venant for them, as for us and all the world) they fnall be 
 " faved even as wc." And a little before he fays, ** Thefc 
 " characters thus engraven in the heart of man, is the fame 
 ** law of grace in its praciical contents, which is more large- 
 ** ly paraphrafed upon in the fcriptures." 
 
 Surely tlie apoflle Paul bad a very different notion of the flate 
 of the Heathen v/orld from this gentleman, when he tells us 
 
 emphatically 
 * Peace. Difquif. Chr.p. 4. ip^g. k6, 57. 
 
 ' 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. -233 
 
 tmphatically, that they are grangers from the covenants of 
 promife, that they are without God, that is, without the laving 
 knowledge of God ; for another fenfe the word will fcarce bear; 
 that they txxQ without Chriftt without hope, afar off, &c. But 
 it is not my deii©;n to offer fcripture arguments againil this an- 
 ll-fcriptural divinity. I leave this to others, and proceed to 
 his proof: nor fliall I in the confideration of them take notice 
 of every thing that might be juftly quarrelled ; but only hint 
 at the main faults. 
 
 1. Ke reafons to this effecTt : If there is no connatural law of 
 grace written in the heart of man, then none of thofc who liv- 
 ed before Mofes could be faved, in as much as there was then 
 no other law by which they could be faved*. This argument he 
 borrows from Suarcz, and concludes it triumphantly thus, 
 ** Which is a truth fo evident, as makes the proof of that law 
 ** by that reafon alone to be good." 
 
 But for all this oommendation, I think this argument has a 
 double fault, i. It proves not the point, viz. that there is a 
 law of grace written in the hearts of all men by nature ; but 
 only that there was fuch a law written in their hearts that were 
 faved. This argument is built upon a fuppofition that is plainly 
 falfe, viz. that there was no other way that they could be faved 
 but by the law of grace written in their hearts. This, 1 fav, \i 
 falfe ; for they were faved by the gofpel difcovery of Chrifl iii 
 the promife revealed to them by God, and wherein the^ gene- 
 rality of the Lord's people were more fully inftru6^ed by the 
 patriarchs, who were preachers of righteoufnefs. And this re- 
 velation and preaching was to them inftead of the written 
 word. Thus we fee this mighty argument proves jufl nothing. 
 
 2. He reafons from Abraham's pleading with God on be- 
 half of the righteous men in Sodom. Here he thinks it evi- 
 dent, that there were righteous men. He proves, that there 
 were none righteous then, according to the tenor of the cove- 
 nant of works, and therefore concludes, that thefe righteous 
 perfons did belong to, and were dealt with according to the 
 covenant of gracef. But now what does all this prove? Docs 
 it prove that thele men were under the covenant of grace, and 
 that they were dealt with according to the tenor of it? Well, I 
 grant it. But v/hat will he infer from this, that therefore all the 
 
 world 
 * Peace. Difquif, pag, r^6. 
 + Ibid, pag. 6c. 
 
 F f 
 
234 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 world were under the covenant cf grace, or fhall be dealt with 
 according to its tenor ? I would have thought that one vho has 
 read Suarez, might know that this conclufion will not follow. 
 If there had been any righteous men in Sodcm, it is true they 
 were under the covenant of grace ; and I add, if there be any 
 fuch in the world, they are under it ; therefore all the world 
 are fo ? Who fees not that this will not follow ? Again, fuppo- 
 iing that there were righteous men in Sodom, how will Mr. 
 Huinfrey prove, that they had no other rule of their life, or 
 ground of their liope, but his connatural law of grace? Whv 
 might they not have revelation ? Was not Abraham, to whom 
 God revealed himfelf, and made fo many gracious promifes, 
 well known to forric in Sodom ? Might not the fame of fuch a 
 perfon fo near eafily reach them ? Was not he the deliverer of 
 Sodom fome eighteen years before, and did not Lot his friend, 
 who was well acquainted with the revelations made to Abraham,^ 
 live in Sodom ? 
 
 3. Mr. Mumfrey tells us, that the law of grace was in Adam's 
 and N-oah's time publiflied to all the world, and that it never 
 was repealed, and therefore all the world arc Hill under it, and 
 fo in a capacity of faWation*. 
 
 But I. This, were it granted, will not prove Mr. Humfrey's 
 connatural law of grace. The gofpel is revealed to all the inha- 
 bitants of England; therefore the law of grace is uritten in their 
 hearts : he rrjuil know very little of many people in England, 
 who will admit the confequence. 2. Nor will It prove, that 
 all the world arc under the gofpel revelation, even in its firO: 
 edition, to ufe Mr. Humfrey's words. Suppofe God once re- 
 vealed to the world, when it M'as comprifcd in the farr^ily of 
 Noah, the covenant of grace, and fo all this little world had the 
 external revelation*, will Mr. Humfrey hence infer, that all the 
 defrendants of Noah, after fo long a tra6^ of time, in fo many 
 dit^^rent nations, have 0111 the fame revelation? If he do, the 
 conlequencc is nought. It is as furc as any thing can be, that 
 very quickly mofl of the dcfcendants cf Noah lofl in fo far that 
 revelation, or at leail^, corrupted it with their vain additions to 
 that degree, that it could be of advantage to no man. 3. Nor 
 will what Mr. Humfrey talks of his repeal help cut his argument. 
 To deprive a people of the advantag-e of an external revelation, 
 there is no need of a formal repeal by a publifhed flatute ; it is' 
 
 enough 
 
 * Peace. Difquif. pag. 62. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 235 
 
 enough that men by their wickedncfs lofe all remembrance of 
 it, and futTcr it to fall into defuetude, and God fees not meet to 
 renew the revelation to them or their pofterity. 
 
 4. Mr. Humfrcy will prove his point by a fyllogifm, and it 
 runs thus, The doers of the law are juftified, Rom. ii. vcr. 13, 
 but the Gentiles are doers of the law; ergOj fome of the Gen- 
 tiles are juiiified before God. 
 
 The conclufion of this argument is the direct antithefis of that 
 pofition,which the apoftle makes it his bufinefs in that whole con- 
 text to prove, as is evident from the account already given of 
 that context. This is pretty bold. But let us fee how he proves 
 his minor. This he pretends to do from Rom. xiv. where it is 
 faid, that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the 
 lazVf and fo are doers of the Jaw, and confequently fliall be juf- 
 tified. 
 
 Well, is this the way this gentleman interprets fcripture upon 
 other occaiions ? I hope not. He has no regard to the fcope or 
 defign of the apo(lle*s difcourfe. AH that the apoOle fays 
 here, is, that the Gentiles are info far doers of the law, that their 
 doing is proof that they liave fome knov.'ledge of it. The per- 
 fons who here are faid to be doers of the law, are the very fame 
 perfons of whom the apoflle (ays, ver. 12. that they JJiall PeriJIi 
 loithout the lazo» But we have fully cleared this context be- 
 fore, and thither I refer the reader. 
 
 But Mr, Rumfrcy reforms his argument, and makes it run thus, 
 He who fincerely keeps the law, (hail be juftified according to 
 that of our Lord, keep the commandments if thou wilt enter in- 
 io eternal life; and that of the apoftle, God loill render eternal 
 life to every one that patiently continues in zuell-doing ; but, ar- 
 gues he, ibilJe Gentiles keep the law f.ncerely : and therefore 
 it is according to the gofpel, which requires not the rigour, 
 but accepts of fincere obedience. 
 
 As to our author's major, if the meaning of it be, that we 
 ihall be juftified before God for, or upon our fincere obedience, 
 according to the gofpel, I crave leave to differ from him ; nor 
 v.ill the fcripture's adduced by him prove it in this fenfe. The 
 firfi is a reference of a young man to the covenant of works, 
 v/ho was not feeking falvation, but eternal life by doing, in or- 
 der to difcoverto him his own inability and his need of Chiift. 
 But as to this commentators may be confulted. The other text 
 I have cleared above. 
 
 His. 
 * Peace. Difquif. pag. 61, 
 
2^6 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 Ill's nonor I flitly deny: well, but our author will prove 
 it by a new lylloglim, wliijh runs thus, He ivho yields fuch 
 obedience as the Jcivs, who arc clrcunicifed in he.irt, do, yields 
 that finccre obedience, upon which the golpcl accepts and juf- 
 tifies men ; but the Gentiles, or fome of them yield fuch obe- 
 dience. 
 
 I have already entered my diffent againft the lad claufc 
 of the m^jor, viz. That the gofpel juftifies men on fincere 
 obedience; but it is not my delign to debate the point of juf- 
 tific^tion with our author at this time, and fo I let this pro- 
 pofi'.ion p;j(s : yet I again deny the minor, which our author 
 cffays to prove thus. That fome of the Gentiles do obey in that 
 fenfe, in which the Jews, who are circumcifed inwardly or 
 in heart, do obey: this he pretends to demonilrate from the 
 apoflle's words, Rom. li. 26, 27. Th^.rejore if the uncircuyn^ 
 cijion keep the righteoufnefs of ike law, &c. and fhall not unciT' 
 cumcifion, zvhich is my nature j if it fulfil the law. 
 
 But where will our author find the proof of his minor \xv 
 ibefe wordf.? There is nothing like it, unlefs he take the an- 
 tecedent of a hvpothctic propofitlon, for a plain afiertion. 
 But this ar-teccdsnt needs not be allowed poffible, and yet the 
 apoRle's v/ords and his affertion would hold good, and all 
 that he aims at be reached. Every one knows, that in fuch 
 propofitions, it is only the connexion \n^i is afTerted. As for 
 the meaning of the text, I have fhcwcd before that it is not for 
 OUT author's purpofe. 
 
 5. But our author has another argument, wliich he ihinks 
 is clearer than all the refl, and profcfies himfcif pCifedJy 
 fhicken with the evidence of it, as with a beam of light never 
 to be withftood, or any more to be doubted. Well this migh- 
 fv argument runs thius " Jlf U)is was fhe chief advantage ihc 
 ♦* Jew had over the Gentile, that one had ihc oracles of God, 
 ** and the other had not, then was there not this dltterence 
 ** bcivveen them, that one is only in a Oate of natu'e, and 
 *' the other in a Hate of grace; or that one was in a capacity, 
 ** a:id the other under an impoffibility of falvation. For this 
 ^' were an advantj^ge of a far £",re.Uer nature. But this was the 
 ** adv.-.r.tagc, Rom iii. 2, Chiefly htcaufe to them were com- 
 *' jTiitteji tie oracles oj God*;'' ergo. 
 
 1 xmi\i confefs, that I. am not Rricken with fo much evidence 
 upon the propofal of this argument, as it feems our author was. 
 
 To 
 
 Peace Difquir. pag. 63> 6 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 237 
 
 To me this argument appears a plain rophlfm. That the Jews 
 had the oracles of God, was a greater advantage, than our author 
 I'eems to think it. And while the apoftle calls it the cliicf advan- 
 tage of the Jews above the Gentiles, that they had the cracks of 
 God, how will our author infer from this, that they v/erc upon an 
 equal footing as to the means abfolutely neceflary for faivation; 
 or which is the fame, as to a capacity of faivation ; for certainly 
 lie that wants the means abfolutely neceflary to faivation is not 
 capable of faivation, in that fen fe that beUngs to our purpofc? 
 For my part 1 would draw the quite contrary conclufion from 
 it ; thus, The Jews had this privilege above the Gentiles, that 
 they had the oracles of God entrufted with them, wherein the 
 only way of faivation is revealed, being witnejfcd to by the 
 law and the prophets, Rom. iii. 21. and therefore had acccfs 
 to faivation: whereas on the other hand, the Gentiles wanting 
 divine revelation, which alone can difcover that righteoufnefs, 
 whereby a finner can be juftified, did want the means abfolutely 
 neceflary to faivation, and fo were not in a capacity of faiva- 
 tion. Now where is our author's boafted of demonllration ? 
 The occafion of his miftake is this, he once inadvertently fup- 
 pofed, that thefe two advantages, divine revelation, and ac- 
 cefs of faivation, were quite different, and that the one was 
 not included in the other. But of this enough. 
 
 Mr. Humfrey, I know, may fay, they had the law of grace 
 in their hearts. But that is the qucftion. Our author afferts 
 this; but he does fo without proof. Wc have all this while 
 been feeking proof of this: hitherto we have met with none. 
 We have met with fome fcriptures interpreted or wrefted into 
 a fenfe plainly inconfiflent with their fcope and intention, 
 without any regard had to the context and drift of the dif- 
 courfe, which is no fafe way of managing fcriptures. 
 
 Next, he infifls upon the ftory of the Ninevitcs' repentance. 
 They were without the church; it was a law of grace which 
 led them to repent. But had not the Ninevites divine revela- 
 tion? Did they not repent at the preaching of Jonah? How 
 will our author prove that Jonah never dropped a word, that 
 there was a poflibility of flopping the progrefs of the controver- 
 {y by their turning from their evil courfes? Did not Jonah 
 apprehend, that the event would be a further forbearance? 
 But may be fome may fay, Jonah had no mind they fl^ould be 
 fpared, and therefore would not drop any encouragement: but 
 we know that it was not of choice that he went there ; and 
 
23S AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 as lie went there In obebience to God, fo no doubt, he who 
 }>ad been (o fharply difciplined for dilobcdience, would fpeak 
 what the Lord commanded him. Again, had they afTurancc of 
 pardon or eternal falvation upon their repentance? Was it 
 gcfpci-repentancc ? Or did it reach farther than a forbear- 
 ance of temporal jugdments? 
 
 Weil but the inftance of Cornelius feems more pat to his 
 purpofe. He was a Gemiic, was accepted with God; and 
 Peter tells us, that in every nation hi that fears God a?id zoorks 
 righiecufnefsj is accepted* But who will affurc me that Cor- 
 nv^lius was a ftranger to the fcriptures? Did he not know them ? 
 Did he not believe them? How could that be? It is plain he 
 was a profelyte and embraced the Jcwiili religion as to its fub- 
 i^ance, and that he did believe, fince he plea fed God 2x\d was 
 accepted. Now we know, that without faith it is unpoffible to 
 pleoje God, What wanted he then ? Why, he wanted to be in- 
 formed that the Meffiah promifed was corrLe, and that Chriji Jc' 
 J'dS was he. As to what the apollle fays of God's acceptance $f 
 prrfons of all natiom, any one that will give himfelf the trouble 
 of conficiering his fcope, and the circumftances of the place, will 
 fee, that it is nothing elfe but a comment upon the defign of the 
 vilion he got to iuRrudihim, that now God was to admit perfons 
 of all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews, to a participation of the' 
 covenant bleffinss. 
 
 DIGRESSION. 
 
 A fhort Digrejfion concerning God's Government of the Heathen 
 World, occajioned by the foregoing Ohjeclions, wherein an at' 
 tempt is made to account for the Occurrences that have the mojl 
 favourable AfpeB to thtm^ zinthout fappofing any Intention 
 or Defign of their Salvation, zvhich is adjefled as an Appendix 
 io the Anfnrtrs given to Mr. Humfrey*s ObjeBions, wherein it 
 is made evident^ That there is ni need to fuppofe the Heathens 
 under a Law or Gavernment of Grace. 
 
 IF I (hould here flop, the perfons with I whom have to do, might 
 poOTibly allege, that the main ftrength of their caufe remains un- 
 rouched, and the moft ftraitening difficulty that prelfes ours is 
 not noticed. The fhort of the matter is, they inquire. What 
 government are the Heathen world under? They conceive it muft 
 
 be 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 239 
 
 be allowed a government of grace, fince they arc not dealt by 
 according to the demerit of their fins. Poffibly we might pro- 
 pofe fome queftions that would be no Icfs hard to fatisfy,by thofe 
 who talk of an unlvcrfal law of grace : but this would not remove 
 the difficulty, though it might cmbarrafs the oppofers of our 
 fcntiments. I (ball therefore open m.y mind in this matter, and 
 ofFcrwhat occurs on this head. If I miflake,itwill plead fomewhat 
 for me, that the fubjcf^, fo far as I know, is not ufually fpoken 
 of by others, and I have not of choice meddled with it, but 
 was led to it bv mv fubje<S^, that requires fome confideration ©f 
 it. If we ftate right thoughts in this matter, it will give light 
 to many things, that othcrwife are dark. What I have to fay, 
 I ihail propofe in the fubfequent gradation. 
 
 I. Man was originally made under a law that is holy, good, 
 righteous, equal and juft ; this law required of ail fubje<fted 
 to it exact, pun6^ual and pcrfe<^ obedience ; and for its pre^ 
 fervation it was armed with a penal fan£llon, anfwerable to 
 the high and fender regard, which the infinitely holy, wife 
 and great God had for the honour of that law, that was the 
 declaration of his will, bore the imprefs of his authority and 
 reprefentation of all his moral excellenciest And befides all 
 this, he alfo propofed a reward, fuitable to his wifdom and 
 goodnefs, for which his faithfulnefs became pledged. It is 
 not needful to launch out in proof of the feveral branches of 
 this aflertion. That man was made under a law, is quefiioned 
 by none, but athiefis ; and they have their mouths fufficiently 
 (lopped of old and late by many pcrfons of worth and learning. 
 That this law is holy, jufl; and good, cannot without nota- 
 ble injury to the Deity be denied. That it exadled perfeft 
 obedience, is fo evident, that no perfon, who thinks what he 
 fays, can deny it. A law not requiring perfedl obedience, 
 to its own precepts, is a law not requiring what it requires, 
 which is plain nonfenfe. A pofterior law may not require 
 perfe6l obedience to a prior : but every law requires perfcfl: 
 obedience to itfelf. That this law was armed with a penal 
 fan*5^Ion is evident from the wifdom of the lawgiver, who 
 could not enadl fuch laws, which he knew men would tranf- 
 grefs, without providing for the honour of his own authority. 
 Befides, If there is no penal fand^Ion, it is not to be expect- 
 ed that laws could ever reach their end, efpecially ss thing:: 
 have always fiood with man- But were all thofe proofs given 
 up, the cfledls of vindictive jufilce hi the v/orld^ with the fears 
 
 (liar 
 
240 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE c^ap. >c. 
 
 that finners are under, left all thefe are only the beginning of 
 forrows, fufficiently confirm this truth, and moreover alTure us, 
 that it is fuch a penalty as fuits every way the offence in its 
 nature and aggravations. But 1 know none of thofe things 
 will be queftioned by thofe, whom we have mainly under view 
 at prefent, 
 
 2. All the children of men, in all ages and in all places of 
 the world, have been and are guilty of violations of ihis law. 
 We have heard the deifts owning this before; and ChriQians 
 will not deny it. Deills would have thought it their intereft to 
 deny it; but fince, it is unqueftionable that the generality of- 
 fend, in inftances paft reckoning. If they had affinned, that a- 
 ry one did, in no inllance offend, they might have beeri re- 
 quired to make good their affertion: but this they could not do. 
 Thev duril not condefcend. And therefore it mull be owned 
 that the bed, not in one inftance, but in many, violate this 
 law. 
 
 3, Upon account of thefe violations of his holy and righteous 
 law, all mankind, every individual, and every generation of 
 men, that have lived in the world, arc obnoxious to juRice. 
 By thofe fins they have forfeited any claim they might have 
 laid to the reward of perfect obedience, and are liable to the 
 penalty in the fan6^ion of the law. And God might, at any- 
 time, have righteoufly inflidled it, either upon any individual 
 or any whole race of men. I determine not noW what that 
 punifhment was. They who talk that our offences arc fmall, 
 and extenuates them, feem fcarcely impreffed with fuitable 
 notions of God, and I doubt will not be fuftained judges com- 
 petent of the qualities of offences and injuries done to his ho- 
 nour. But whatever the punifhment is, eternal, or not, which 
 I difpute not now, bccaufe we agree about it with thofe, whom 
 we now have under confideration, it is certain none can prove 
 that it is all confined to time, or that any temporal punifhment 
 is fufHcient for the Icafl offence that is committed againfi God. 
 And it is alfo clear, that, upon one's finning, the penalty might 
 be prefently infli6\ed, without any injuftice, provided the pe- 
 nal fan6^ion were fuitable and jufi in its confiitution, as of ne- 
 ceflitv it mufl be, where God made the law and confiituted the 
 puftifhmcnt, 
 
 4. Although God righteoufly might have cut off any gene- 
 ration of men, and fwept the earth clean ; yet has he feen 
 ineet to fpare finners, even multitudes of them, for a long time. 
 
 A 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 241 
 
 A piece ofcondu^^ truly aftoniftilng ! Efpecially it would ap- 
 pear fOf if we underftood how much God hates (in. The on- 
 ly reafon why the Heathen world hath not admired it more, 
 and been more extenfivc in their inquiries into the reafons of 
 it, is becaufe they had but very fliort and imperfe6t notions 
 of God's holinefs, and the evil of (in. They took notice 
 of God s forbearence of fome notorious offenders. Some of 
 them were (lumbled at it, and fome of them endeavoured to ac- 
 count for it. But the wonder of God's fparing a world full of 
 finners, was little noticed, and though they had obferved it, 
 they would have quickly found thcmfelves as much at a lofs here, 
 as any where elfe. The fcriptures have not gratified the curio- 
 iity of men with fuch a full account, as our minds would have 
 dc(ired, that arc too forward to queflion him particularly about 
 his ways, who gives an account of none of his matters : yet fome 
 reafons of this condu<5t are dropped that may fatisfy the hum- 
 ble. I. God made a covenant with Adam, wherein his polleri- 
 ty, as well as himfelt" were concerned and included. They were 
 to be gainers or lofers as he acquitted himfelf well or ill. This 
 tranfa6\ion, I know, is denied by fome Chriftians. I (hall 
 not difpute the matter with them : others have done it. I now 
 take it for granted. And if they will not fuppofe if, it is but 
 the lofs of this reafon. And let them if they can put a better 
 in its room. Upon fuppofition, that there was fuch a tranfac- 
 tion, and that it was juft, as we muft allow all to be, whereof 
 God is the author, it was not only equal, but in point of wif- 
 dom, apparently nccelTary, or at Jeaft, highly fuitablc, that 
 all concerned in this tranfa6\ion (hould be brought into being, 
 to reap the fruits of it. But this was impolTible if the world 
 had not been fpared. 2. God, in fparing the world, had a 
 defign of mercy upon fome. And many of them were to pro- 
 ceed from fomt of the worft (inners. He defigned to favc fome 
 in all ages, and in moft places. Their progenitors mud there- 
 fore, of neceflity, be kept alive. He bears with the provoking 
 carriage of evil men ; becaufe out of their loins he intends 
 to extract others, whom he will form for the glory of his 
 grace, 3. God is patient toward (inners, to manifell the equity 
 of his future juflice upon them. When men are fpared and 
 continue in (in, the pleas of infirmity and miflake are cut off, 
 and they are convi6led of malice. They are filenccd,and on- 
 lookers fatisfied, that feverity is juftly exercifed on them. 
 
 G s 
 
542 An inquire into the chap, x. 
 
 Quanta Dei 9;:a^Ts Judicium tardum eft, tanfo magis jnftmn^. 
 As patience, uhile it is exercifed, is the fiJence o't his juaice; 
 io when it is abjfed, it filences men's complaints againfl his 
 juftice. Other reafons of this conduct ue might glean" from the 
 fcrintures : but my defigh allows me not to infill. Nor indeed 
 do they dcfcend {o low as to fatisfy curious wits. Lo thcfe 
 are parts of his ways and aims, bui hoic little a portion V5 
 keard, that is, even by revelation, knotcn of him'/ fays Job, 
 chap. xxvl. iii^, 
 
 5. The world, or finners in it, are fpared, not by a proper 
 reprieve, that is, a delay of punilhment, after the offenders are 
 taken up, queifionsd, tried, conviaed, and folemnly condemn- 
 ed; the v/ay, manner and time of their punifiiment fixed, by 
 a judicial application of the o^eneral threatening of the law in 
 this particular cafe, by the judge comipetent, and the fentence 
 plainly intimated ; a delay of the execution after this, if it is of 
 the judge's proper motion, if the offender is not imprifoned, if 
 he is employed, and if favours are conferred upon hiui, and o- 
 bedience required of him, gives hopes of impunity and efcape ; 
 and if the perfon*? commit not new offences, without, at leaft, 
 an appearance of iufincerity, they are very feldom condemn- 
 ed upon the firft fentence: but finners are fpared by a for- 
 bearance, or wife and jufl connivance, if the word would not 
 offend. The Governor of the world knows and fees the car- 
 riage of finners, is aware of their fins, and keeps fiience for a 
 time ; but yet keeps an eye upon them, calls them not intoquef- 
 lion, puts oflfthe trial, lakes them not up, as it were, and 
 Tvinks at them. Now all this may be jufi ly done for a time ; the 
 finners may be employed, and a^s of bounty, for holy and wife 
 ends, may be conferred on them, and exercifed towards them, 
 and that without the lead injur{ice,without any dcfign of pardon- 
 in.q: ; as the fequci of th'is difcourfe will more fully clear. 
 
 6. This forbearance of God is wife, juff and holy : for 1, Hp 
 is the only competent judge, as to the time of puniihing ofi^endeis. 
 It cannot be made appear, that he may not thus delay, even 
 where he has no thought of pardoning. 2. It implies no approba- 
 tion of the faultR formerly committed, or thofe they may commit^ 
 during this interval of time, fince he has fufficiently feOified a- 
 gain!) them by the laws he has made, which forbid them by the 
 penalty annexed io thofe laws, and by examples of his ieverity 
 
 upon 
 * « The flower that the Judgment of Gcd is, it is the ir.cre jull." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 245 
 
 upon others, which have not beea wanting in any generation. 
 Thefe may fuflficiently acquit him, however for a time he keeps 
 iilenr, and conceal, as it were, his knowledge of the offences of 
 jome, or his refentments againii them, on account of them. 3. He 
 accompiilhes purpofes worthy of him; which are fufticient to juf- 
 tify him in this conduct, while he keeps iilence, and carries to 
 them as if there were no offence, or he knew none, and they go 
 on in their rebellion, or fecret pra(Stices againft his law and go- 
 vernment. Impudent offenders have no place left, either for 
 (ieniai or exeufc of their crimes, or complaints againfi the fe- 
 verity of his refentments. Spectators are made to lee that it 
 is not infirmity or miilake, but fixed alienation or enmity that 
 is fo Iharply punilhed. He ferves hinfelf of them, and makes 
 them, though they mean not To, carry on the defigns of his glo- 
 ry, either in helping or trying, or bringing into being perions, 
 whom he has defigns of mercy upon. And fure he may juitlydo 
 this, fince jiot only he has the beft title to their obedience; 
 but he has all the reafon and right in the world to ufe that life, 
 while he fpares it, for what purposes he pleafes, which they have 
 forfeited tojuftice. Who can blame him, if fometimes he fpj.res 
 fecret plotters, and lets them goon till their plots are fufficienily 
 ripened for their convicfion, and others' fatisfa(Stion. Nor is 
 ihere af^y ground to quarrel, if he deal even with tiic worft, as 
 equal judges do with the mother, guilty of fomc manifcft crime; 
 they not only fpare and delay the execution, till the child whom 
 (hey defign mercy to. Is brought forth ; but do not take notice 
 of her, or intimate even a purpofe of puniihment, till after- 
 wards, iell the child (liould fuffer by the mother's defpair 
 and grief. 4. This is yet more remarkably jul^ in God, who 
 can on the one hand fecure the criminal, fo that jufiice lliall not 
 luffer by the delay, and on the other, that t'ne criminal fha'l 
 not run out into thofe impieties, that would crol's the ends, en- 
 danger the fafety, or wrong the reputation of his governmcnf, 
 w,ith thofe who are capable of making an equal eliimatc of 
 tilings. 
 
 7. It was every way fuitable and neceffary that the perfons thus 
 fii;ared,(hould becontinucd under a moral governmenf.They were 
 not to be ruled by mere force; i. Becaufe they are, while under 
 fuch a forbearance, capable of fome fort of a moral government. 
 When a prince deals with perfons, whom he knows to be on 
 treaibnable plots agalnO: his government, and conceals his re- 
 fentment, h* (i'lU manages ihem as fubjecfG, and continues them 
 
 under 
 
244 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ckap. x. 
 
 under a government ; nor is he faulty in doing fo. 2. They arc 
 not, while under fuch a forbearance, capable of any other p;o- 
 vcrnment ; for if once the Ruler of the world begin to deal in a 
 way of force and juflice with them, then thir. forbearance is at 
 an end. 3. It were a manifeft reproach to the Governor cf the 
 world, if they were fuppofed under no government at all. be- 
 fides, on this fuppofiiion, the ends of his forbearance could not 
 be reached. And moreover, the moial dependence cf creatures 
 on their Crcator,which can only be maintained either in ths way, 
 or by putting them under the penal fandlion of the law, would 
 bediflolved, which cannot be admitted. 
 
 8. Sinners under this difpefation are dill under the law of crea- 
 ation : it is true this law can no longer be the means of convey- 
 ing a title to the great and principal reward ; but that is their 
 own fault, and not the governor's nor the law's. But notwlth- 
 Aanding of this, they are fiill under it, and it continues the in- 
 ftrument of God's government over them. For i. The ground 
 of obedience flill continues, although fome of the motives, vea, 
 the principal encouragement, I mean, eternal rewards, are for- 
 feited. The obligation to obedience can never otherwife be dif- 
 folved, than by the infiifiing of a capital puniflimenf, which puts 
 out of all poflibility of yielding any obedience. Spme, I knciv 
 make the power aiid right of obliging, to confjft merely in a 
 power of rewarding and punlthing: but this iseafily cpnvi^led cf 
 fa Ifc hood : and although the learned Mr. Gaftrcl has advanced 
 this, in his fermcrs at Boyle's Le^^ure, yet vvc have no reafcn 
 ?o receive it, as Beconfal in his treatife of the Lazu of Nature, 
 and others have fufficiently c'earcd. 2. This law is lufficient to 
 ar(wer the dcfigns of this forbearance, and God's rule ever thern 
 who live under it aijd by it. It has not Jcfl its directive pow- 
 er ,- but it is able fufficiently to inOruCl, at leafl: in thefc du- 
 ^tics, either as to God, ourfelves cr others, that are of abfolutc 
 nccflBty to keep fome order and dpccium in the world, carry 
 en regularly the propagation of n^ankind, and the like. It is 
 manifcdly fufiicient to be a tcO to try men's willingnefs to obey, 
 and convince rren of wilfulnefs in their rebellion ; and to be a 
 Handing njonument of God's hoiinefs ; yea, it continues to 
 have that force upon the confciences of the generality, as to be 
 a check Jo keep tiiem from running into enormities fubverfive 
 of ail order and fociely, and deftructive to the other ends of 
 '-OQ^'i patic.-iCe. 2. Experience fuiiy cltar^^ that men ftill pay 
 
 reear^ 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 245 
 
 regard to this law, and this Is the only law that mcndcftltutc of 
 a revelation own. 
 
 9. While God faw meet to continue this forbearance, it was 
 not neceflary nor fuitable, that he (hould plainly, particularly 
 and folemnlv intimate all the length he defigned to carry his 
 refentments againft offenders, i. There was no neceffity of 
 this towards the clearing of Gcd's holincfs ; this being fufficient- 
 ly done by the promulgation of the law, its penally, and ma- 
 ny particular examples. 2. This would have undone the dif- 
 pcnfation whereof we have been fpeaking. 3. This is utterly 
 inconfiftent with all the defigns of it. Men had been driven 
 into defpair, and fo all moral government had been diflblved. 
 
 10. Yea, it was confiftent with his holinefs, and fuitable to 
 his wifdom, to permit men to fall into fin, very great fins, and 
 for a time to go on in them. God can neither do any thing 
 that is unworthy, nor omit any thing that is worthy of him, of 
 3 moral kind. And it is certain in fa«5t, that fuch fins and 
 enormities he has permitted : and therefore, however flrange 
 it appears to us, that a holy God, who could have re- 
 ftralned, fbould permit thofe things ; yet fincc he, who can 
 do no evil, has done it, wc muft conclude this altogether con- 
 fident with his holinefs. And it is manifeftly fo with his wifdom, 
 fince no injury is done to his holinefs. For 1. By this means 
 finners give full proof, what a height their enmity againft God 
 is come to. 2. They are the fitter to excrcife his own peo- 
 ple. And 3. They are riper for the ftrokes he defigns to in- 
 fli6l on them. 
 
 11. Notwithftanding of all this, it was meet and neccfia- 
 ry that fome offenders ihould be remarkably punllhcd, and 
 fomc bounds fet to offences ; and more efpecially thofe of- 
 fences which crofs the defigns of God's forbearance, and tend 
 to diflfolve the government and order, which it was neccf- 
 fary God (hould maintain in the world. And hence it has 
 come to pafs, that not the greatcfi fins, fuch as thefe certainly 
 are, which immediately ftrike againft God, but thefe which 
 ftrikc againft order and government, have been moil remarka- 
 bly punifbed in all ages, as might be made appear by innumer- 
 able inftances of the remarkable punilbment cf murders, trea- 
 sons, and undutifulnefs to parents. This is congruous to jiif- 
 tice, not only on the above-mentioned account, but on this, 
 that the notices concerning thefe lafl fort of evils are much more 
 clear in raoft inftances, than thefe which refpect the former. 
 
 12. It 
 
245 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x. 
 
 T2. Tr Is every way fuit.ible to the wifdom, (incerlty and ho- 
 i'neis of God ; yea, and of abfolute neccfiity to the defign of 
 this forbearance, that h^ exercife bounty in lefiTer things ; fucii 
 as the good things of this life are : and that he vouchfafe thofe 
 inenta] endowments to fome of the fpared finners, which are ne- 
 ceiJary toward the maintenance of that government, which God 
 xvas to keep up among them; fuch are civil wifdom, inven- 
 tion, courage, &c. Thefe he may give without the leaft inti* 
 luation of any dcfign of fpecial mercv. For what relatioa 
 Lave theie things to fpecial mercy, which are heaped in abun- 
 dance on, the word of men. However, that it was fit thefe 
 tilings would be beftowed upon fome in this cafe, is evident ; 
 becaufe, i. Eternal rewards are now forfeited, and there would 
 have been nothing to induce to obedience if this had not been, 
 :^. Hereby he gives a witnefs to his own goodnefs, which ag- 
 gravates oifencss committed again»^ hiai. 3. Hereby he draws 
 on men to obedience, or rather to cjo thcfe pieces of fervice, 
 which are in their own nature, fuch as he allows and requires, 
 although they defjgn not his fervice, but their own pleafure and 
 profit. 4. Hereby he clears fcores •. ith finners, while he fufFers 
 FiOt what Is even but pretended fervice, to pafs without a re- 
 ward, which is fufficient to ihew what a kind rewarder he 
 would have been, if they had indeed obeyed. 5. Hereby he 
 tuts ofF ail excufe for their continuance in difobedience. 6. This 
 condu6i gives them an innocent occafion of discovering latent 
 v.'ickednefs, wliich otherwife they would have had no accefs to 
 fhew, and keeps from that nmr defpair which would have 
 marred the defi 2,n of God's forbearance. 
 
 13. Xtiefe vj-jchfafements of divine bounty lead to a fort of. 
 repentance; not that to which the promife of pardon is joined in 
 the gofpeL For i. They give eminent difcoveries of the good- 
 nefs of that God whom we have offended, and confequenily of 
 the foijy of cfiendiiig him, which na'urally leads to lorrow or 
 regret. 2. They ilrengthen, as all benefits do, the orignal ob- 
 ligation to obedience. 3. They let us fee, that obedience is 
 r.ot altogether fruiiiefs, fince they may expecl lei's levere rclent- 
 mer.ts if they return ; yea, -may expect fome Ihare in this bounty, 
 and are not under an impofBbility of mercy, tor any thing they 
 can know. 
 
 14. After all, I do yet fee no rcafon to think, that they, who 
 are luercly under fuch a dii'penfatipn as this, which I take to be 
 the cafe of the Heathen world, are under a Liw of grace ; which 
 
 aiiuresj 
 
PRlNCirLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 247 
 
 alTures, that upon a return to forn^er obedience, fins all be 
 entirely pardoned, and they have accefs to eternal rewards. I 
 grant it highly probable, that if God had not intended pjace to 
 lome, fuch a dlfpenfation had never been, i admit, that this 
 difpenfation is fubfervient to a defign of grace upon fome. I 
 further allow, that there is no abfolute impoffibility of the fal- 
 vaticn of perfons, however deeply guilty, who are net vet un- 
 der the penalty : but if they are faved, it mud be by fome 
 means orvvaV revealed by God, and luperadded to all the for- 
 mer, which I can never fee to amount to any law of grace, 
 fmce it is manifeft, i. That all this may be exercifed toward 
 them whom God in the end defigns everlafiinglv to puniPn. He 
 7/7^^1-^ ^"^^'"^ ^ong-fuffering to the vefjels of wrath fitted tc 
 dejtriitnon, 2. 1 here is nothing in this whole difpenfation, 
 that in the lead intimates any purpofc of God to pafs hv former 
 olTenccs, either abfolutely or upon condition. 3. In fa6\ it has 
 never been found, that ever this difpenfation hassled any one to 
 that fincere repentr.nce, which muft be allowed necelTarv, in 
 order to pardon. And I dare not fay, that God ever did ap- 
 point means for fuch an end, which after fo long a trial fhould 
 never anfwer it. 4. All whom God has pardoned, or of whom 
 we may fay, that he has brought them to repentance, have been 
 brought by other means. So that upon the whole, I fee no 
 ground for afleriing an univerfal law of grace. 
 
 As what has been above faid takes cfi' the principal pretence 
 for fuch an univerfal law of grace, u-hich fome feem {o fond of ; 
 fo if any fuch is aiTerted, it muft be owned to be a law o^ a 
 very univerfal tenor, as being that wherein all mankind are 
 concerned. It^ muft be allowed a law defigned to take olfthc 
 force of the original law, concreated with our nature, that ne- 
 ceflTarily refults from the nature of God and man, and their na- 
 tural relation, at leaft as to one inftance, I mean the penal fanc- 
 tTon, in cafe of fin. It muft be allowed to be a law not merely 
 djredive as to duty, but defigned to tender undeferved favours 
 to finful man. Now he that can think a i^w, (or call them many) 
 dubious anions, that is, aaions capable of another, vea, con^ 
 trary conflruction, afuffici'ent promulgation of fcch a 'lavv, as is 
 of fo univerfal extent, as derogates, atleaft in one inOance, of fo 
 great moment, from a law fo fiVmly and folcmnlyeftablifned, with 
 out any known provifion for its honour, injured bv fo m.any fins; 
 and finally that tenders fuch great favours to the Uanft^relTbrscf 
 
245 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE giia? xr« 
 
 it, may believe what he pleafes. I mufl own, this one confi- 
 deration is with me enough to fink that notion. 
 
 But to conclude this whole matter, upon which we have dwelt 
 fo long. Upon the nicefl furvey of occurrences in the Heathen 
 world, lean difcern nothing that favours of any acquaintance 
 with that forgivencfs that is with God ; untefs it is that general- 
 ly entertained notion o^ xh^ placability of their deities. This no- 
 tion, I make no doubt, had its rife from revelation^ nnd was 
 continued bv tradition. And feveral things did concur to the 
 prefervation of this, while other notices that had the fame rife 
 were loft ; the apparent necelTity of it to man in his prefent fm- 
 ful condition ; the fuitablen^fs of it to lay a foundation for thai 
 worfliip, to which the remaining natural notices of a Deity urged 
 them, and which was of indifpenfible neccffity toward the fup- 
 port of human government ; the darknefs and blindnefs of men 
 as to the exceeding finfulnefs of fin; the holinefs of God's na- 
 ture, and the ftrong inclination all men have to be favoura- 
 ble, even to their faults, did contribute not a little toward its 
 Support, Finally, this placability did not fo much rcfpc6l the 
 one true God, of whom they had very little knowledge, as 
 their own li<Stitious deities, which they put in the room of the 
 true God. And it is obvious, that when men took upon them 
 to fet up gods, they would be fure to frame fuch as might 
 agree with their own apprehenfion^, and pafs by their faults 
 with as little difficulty as they committed them. Whatever there 
 is to as this, we have no reafon to think that this Is a natural no- 
 tice, it being neither felf-cvidcnt, nor certainly deducible from 
 principles that are fuch. 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 Proving the Infufficiency of Natural Religion to eradicate our 
 Inclinations to Sin, or fuhdue its Power. 
 
 I Think we have faid enough to demonf^rate the infufficiency 
 of natural religion, to fatisfy us as to the way how we may 
 obtain the removal of guilt or xhc pardon of fin* Let us now 
 fee whether it is able to remove the corruption cf nalure, and 
 fubduc or eradicate our inclinations lo fin. 
 
 Before we enter dire«S^ly on this, it will not be Impertinent, 
 if it is not plainly necefl'ary, that we fay fomcwluU concern- 
 ing 
 
PRIMCIPLES OF THE MODERN DESITS. 14$ 
 
 ing the nature of this corruption* We (hall therefore offer 
 the few following hints concerning it. 
 
 !• It is moft certain, that man has corrupt inclinations. I 
 think this will fcarce be denied ; fince it is beyond contradic- 
 tion evident, that the bulk of mankind in all ages, have run 
 headlong into thofe courfes which reafon condemns as con- 
 trary to the law, under which we arc made. The law con- 
 demns, reafon juftihes the law, and proclaims thofe courfes 
 unworthy of us ; confcience checks and fometimes torments, 
 and yet finners run on. Can all this be without corrupt in- 
 clinations fwaying, yea, as it were, forcibly driving that way? 
 No fure. 
 
 2. It is Certain, that not only there are fuch incli- 
 nations in man, but that they arc exceedingly ftrong and forci- 
 ble. Our own reafon condemns thofe a6tions, and cries (hame 
 on the fmner's confcience, prcfages the refentments of the 
 righteous God, the evil e{fe6ls of them are vifible, and they 
 are felt to be de[lru6live to our health, ruining to our reputa- 
 tion and eftates, inconfiflcnt with our inward peace ; yea, in 
 a icw inllances, human law provides terrible punifhments : 
 and yet, in fpitc of all thefe flrong barriers, we are carried 
 down with the l^reara : nor can the mofl rational confidcra- 
 tions, from intereft, honour or prudence ftop our career. Cer- 
 tainly the force of inclination, that carries over all thefe, mud 
 be great. 
 
 3. It fcems plainly natural and Congenial to us. I (hall not 
 nicely inquire in what fenfe it is fo. 1 am far from thinking, 
 that our natures as at firft made, were created with it. I have 
 faid enough before to prove this impoflible : but I mean, that 
 as our natures now are, however they came to be fo, it is an in- 
 feparable appendage of them, cleaves to them, and proceeds not 
 merely from cuftom, and is not acquired, though it is often im- 
 proved by cuftom. Now this feems evident from many things, 
 I. The univcrfality of it. All men, in all ages, in all places, 
 and in all circumftances,havc fuch vitious inclinations. I do not 
 fay that every individual is proud, ambitious, covetous, revenge- 
 ful, paffionate and luftful. No, but every one has fome one or 
 other of thefe, or the like, breaking out ; which fays, the 
 fpring is within,and is ftrong ; though the conftitution of our bo- 
 dies, the climates we live under, our education and circumf^ances 
 of life, have dammed in fome of them, and cutout channels for 
 others of them. Now it is plainly unaccountable how all men 
 fhoiild be thus corrupt, if not naturally fot No parallel inftance, 
 
 H h in 
 
^5o AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xi. 
 
 in any fort, can be given, where ciny thing not natural and con- 
 l^enial, at leaft as to its principle and inclination, has obtained 
 Tucb an univerlal fway. 2. It waits not till we are grown and 
 framed by education, cunom, engagement and inventions ; but 
 makes ftrong, difccrnible, and fenfible eruptions in infancy 
 and child- hood. As foon as wc are capable, and very ofr, while 
 one would think us fcarceiy (o, by reafon cf age, wc are proud, 
 revengeful, covetous, &c. vvhicii fays this is congenial 3, It 
 Is often fcen, that thcfe corruptions break out in cur young 
 years, which neither education, example, circumllanccs, nor 
 any thing elfe but a corrupted nature, can give any encourage- 
 ment to. 4. Yea more, how ftrong are theTe inclinations, and 
 that very-early, which are dlfcouraged, oppofed, borne down, 
 and have all outward occafions cut off from them. One is paf- 
 ficnate among calni people, though he is punilhed for it and 
 fees it not. Another is ambitious and proud among fober peo- 
 ple, in mean circumilances, where there is no ex2mple to ex- 
 cite arnbiiion, no theatre to a6t it upon, and tlic beginnings arc 
 curbed by precept, inftru6\ion, reproof, challifcments and ex- 
 ample. 5. Thofe things are evidently interwoven with, and 
 ftrengthened by the very conftitutions of our bodies, and cli- 
 mates under vv-hich we live. Hence there are domeftic and na- 
 tional vices, which cleave to fom.e families and nations. 6. The 
 beilj the mofl fober, and freell from difcernlbie eruptions of 
 cctruptionj yet do own they find the inclinations flrong, and 
 driving them into indifcernible ztis ccrrefponcient to them. 
 7. They who deny the force and being of thefe inclinations, 
 and who pretend that the will of man is able to mafter all 
 thefe, yet cannot but otvn, that there are fuch inclinations; 
 and as for the pretended ability cf the will to conquer them, 
 thev give the leaR proof of it who pretend moil: to it : for if thu 
 will is thus able, and if, as they pretend, they have fufficient 
 moral ars^uments which perfuade to it, why is it not done ? What 
 ftops it V 8. I (hall only farther offer the teftimonies of fome 
 few among the Heathens. Timus the LocriaUy who lived be- 
 fore Plato, tells us in his difcourfcs, '* That vitiofity comes 
 ** fiom our parents and firft piinciples, rather than from ne- 
 *' cligence and diforder of public manners; brcaufe we never 
 ** part from thofe actions which lead us to imitate the primitive 
 ** fins cf our parents *.*' Plato tells us, that, ** In times paO: 
 
 '' the 
 
 * Gale's Cotirt cf the GcntiJes, Part 4. Lib, i. Cap. 4. Par, 2, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 251 
 
 '■ the divine nature flcv.rill-icd in men ; but at length it mixed 
 ** with nK>rtal,and c^vOfcoiTrr.v r;9'^^ human cullcms prevailed to the 
 *' ruin of mankind : and fromi this fource there followed an in- 
 ** undation of evils on m.en. Hence he calls corruption voo-©. r 
 *« xxia (pvTivt the natural dIfeafe,or dli'"eafe of nature, becaufe the 
 *' nature of mankind is greatly degenerated and depraved, and 
 *' all !Tunner of dlforders infeft human nature : and men being 
 ** impott»nt, are torn in pieces by their own lufts, as b)^ fo ma- 
 ** ny '-vi'd horfes. Hence Democritus is faid to affirm the dif- 
 ** eifesofthe foul to be fo great, that if it were opened, it 
 ** would appear to be a fepulchre of all manner of evils." 
 Ariftotle tells us, ** That there is in us iomewhat naturally 
 ** repugnant to right reafon, '7T'.:pvz^^ cc-^ii;3xrov ro? Xoy .*" Sene- 
 ca, Epilt. r^o. gives us a very remarkable account of his thoughts 
 in thir. r.iailer. The whole were worthy to be tratifcribed, but 
 it is too long. I ihall tranflate a part of it. ** Why do we 
 ** deceive ourfeives ? Our evil is not from without ; It is fixed 
 ** in our very bowels, Jlibi f All fins are in all men, but all 
 do not appear in each man: he that hath one fin hath all. 
 We fay, that all men are intemperate, avaricious, luxuri- 
 ous, malignant ; not that thefe fins appear in all ; but be- 
 caufe they may be, yea, are in all, ahiiougti latent. A 
 ** man may be guilty, though he do no hurt. Sins are per- 
 fect before they break forth intoeffed." It is worthy of our 
 cbfervation, what Mr. Gale tells us, after he has quoted thefe 
 words, viz. tl^at Janfenius breaks forth into a rapture upon 
 hearing thefe philofophers philofophize m.ore truly about the 
 corruption of man's nature, than Pelagians and others of late. 
 
 But the Oraclss of Reajon tell us, that it is denied " that 
 ** the kpfe of nature is univerfal, becaufe fome through the 
 ** courfe of their lives, have proved more inclinable or prone to 
 ** virtue than to vice." I have fpoke to this before, but I add, 
 I. This is not enough, that they are more prone to virtue than 
 to vice: for the queftion is, ¥/hether they have inclinations to 
 vice? and net. Whether the contrary are Wronger? 2. This 
 cannot be preter^ded to be the cafe with many. Now, fmce the 
 queftion is about a religion fufncienl for all mankind, if any of 
 them have fuch a diftemper, and natural religion provide nd 
 cure, it is infulHcient. 3. It is not. Whether there are men 
 that have ht<za prone to fome virtues, and averfe from iome vi^ 
 
 ces, 
 
 * ArL^, E:hick, Lib. t. Cap. 13. t ^' F.lfe where," 
 
252 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xi. 
 
 ces, poflibly fcandalous fins? But, Whether there have been 
 men inclined to no fin, prone to all virtue? If they affert iuch 
 a one, Hrew us the man. We cannot believe any fucb, fince 
 all wc know are othcrwife, till we lee a condefccnfion. 4. It is 
 not the bufinefs whether men have done virtuous a61s ordinarily, 
 that is, the material a6ls of virtue : for corruption may rum 
 freely out in this hidden channel. A man may be ambi- 
 tious, proud, and live among perfons, with whom vice is de- 
 cried, open vice I mean, and therefore affeds a great exa^t- 
 nefs as to morality. This is good : but this is all but a facrifice 
 to ambition. One luft Is the principal idol, all the reft are fa- 
 crificed to it. Corruption turns not troublelome, and is pieafed, 
 if it get vent any way. A ftrong fpring, if It can get a vent 
 under ground, may prefs for a vent above ; yet it will caiiiy hp. 
 rcftrained there. • 
 
 New this being the cafe plainly with man, it Is impofiible for 
 him to reach happinefs, while this corruption remains ; nor 
 can he be fure of acceptance with God. While things are 
 thus, nature is imperfe6i, man is out of order, reafon, the no- 
 bler part, is at under, and paflions, the brutal part,^bear the 
 the fway. This Is more unfeemly, than to fee fervarJs on.- 
 hoy/eSf whilf. princes ivalk on Joot. There I3 continual occa- 
 fion for rcmorfe, checks, challenges of confcicnce, and fears 
 of the refentment of a holy God. There can be no firm confi- 
 dence of accefs to God, or near fellowship with him, while 
 we entertain his enemies In our bofom ; nay, have them inter- 
 woven, as it were, with our natures. 
 
 The deifts J know make a horrible outcry againfl Chriftians, 
 for airerting this corruption of nature. Herbert in his book 
 de Veritatey has many b'ttcr invet^ives againfl: the afferters of 
 it ; and yet, overcome with the evidence of truth, he is obliged 
 frequently to acknowledge it plainly: yea, not only docs he 
 acknowledge it, but he pleads this directly, in excufe of the 
 moft abominable wickednefs. After he has told us, that the 
 temperament or conRitution of our bodies have a powerful influ- 
 ence to fway us to fome fms, he fubjoins, ** Quo paSo hand 
 ** italevi ntgotio damnandos exiflimo, qui ex f^ioa-vyKo'oc&ia. alicjua 
 ** pravaricaniur. Q^uemadmodum i(ritur flagitii haud jujli ar^ 
 ** gueris lethargum, dcfidaii, out hydropicum bibacera \ ita Jar- 
 ■ * ta/fe ntqut veneris, aut martis aflro percitum 7nodo in peccan-- 
 ** tiuitx humorum redundanfiam., pofius qua,vi pravum aliquent 
 '^ habitum, dditlum commode riiia profit, Neque tamen me hie 
 
 *' coufceierali 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 253 
 
 " confcderati cujujvis patronumjijlo ; fed in id folummodo con- 
 ** Undo, ut mitiori fententia de lis Jlatuanius^ qui corporea, 
 ** brutaliy S tantum ncn nece/faria propenfions. in peccata pro- 
 ** labuntur*" Well, here is a handfome excufe for vice. We - 
 muft be as far from condemning him, who, prompted by pafiaon. 
 Hays and murders, or hurried on by \\i{i, commits rapes and 
 adulteries ; as of cenfuring him who is fick of a lethargy, for 
 his lazinefs and indifpofition to a6t ; or one that is hydropic, 
 for his immoderate thirfl. This divinity will highly pleafe 
 profane men. The falvo he fubjoins is very frivolous, and de- 
 ferves rather contempt than an anfwer. But to leave this, it 
 is plain there are fuch inclinations, and that if they are not 
 rooted out we are undone. What though men might have 
 hopes, if thev but erred once, that they might cafily obtain re- 
 miflion ; yet furc it muft confound them, when they lliil fin on, 
 and that out of inclination. Unlefs therefore natural religion 
 is able to cure this difeale, and eradicate tbofe inclinations, it 
 ferves to no valuable purpofc, at leafl it is infufficient as to the 
 great ends of religion, our own happinefs or acceptance with 
 God. And that really it cannot do {o, will be clear by th? 
 following confiderations. 
 
 I. If this corruption is congenial to our natures, as the above- 
 mentioned arguments go near to demonftrate, and the Chiiftian 
 religion fully proves, it is evident, that there mufl be feme 
 change wrought upon our natures. Now this is more than na- 
 tural religion can pretend to, which knows nothing of regene- 
 ration, and the fan6lifying work of the fpirit of grace. I know 
 Plato and fome others have talked of infpiration, and fome aids 
 of God: but this was all but chat, amufement, and a few tink- 
 ling words, which might pleafe the ears ; but what evidence 
 could they give, that any fuch thing was attained, or attaina- 
 ble ' T^U t. 
 
 2. J hough 
 
 * " Therefore I think that thofe are not fo eafily to be ccndem- 
 
 *' ned who fm from any peculiarity of bodily conftitution. As, there- 
 
 ** fore, one could nor juftly blame a lethargic perfon for being lazy, 
 
 " or a dropfical perfon for being defirous of drink ; fo, perhaps, we 
 
 " ought not to blame any one that is prompted to fin by the fting of 
 
 " luft or anger, provided that his fm may be conveniently charged 
 
 " to the redundancy of peccant humours, rather than to any perverfc 
 
 ** habit. And here I do not fet inyfelf up as the advocate of every 
 
 " wicked man, but only contend for this, that we (hould judge more 
 
 " mildly of thofe who fall into fins, from a corporeal, brutal, and 
 
 " airaoft neceffary incHnation." 
 
r,^ AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xi. 
 
 2, Though ihls were given up ; yet of whatever nature 
 this corruption and iinpotency is, call it natural or moral, 
 it is certain, that it is ftrong ; natural religion cannot give 
 i"ufricient fecuritv tliat it is pra6ticable to eradicate it. We 
 JjQO'r that fome ftreams of this corruption may be dammed in, 
 fomc of the lop branches lopped off, and fonie of the fruits of it 
 mav be pl-jckcd. Thisj in fo far as it is done, is good for 
 mankind, and ufefid in focicty. Some of the philofophers have 
 gone a great way in it, and there'oy have fliamed moll who are 
 called Chriilans. But what is all this to the eradicating of 
 corrupTicn, purifying the minds of men, and univerfal confor- 
 mity in heart to the rule of duty? The attainments of philo- 
 fophers need not here be talked of: their virtues were but 
 fhows, and the {hadows of them. Search to the bottom, and you 
 will find, th^4t what they called fcjf-denial, was only a piece 
 of delicate intcreft in order to reach feif-ends: it was but a 
 parting with one thin^: pleafant to ourfelves, to gain a greater, 
 \vhich 13 felfidmefs to the height. As for that feif-denial, 
 which Chriflianity teaches, it was not heard of, or known in the 
 leafl. Liberality was but a mere trade of pride, which values 
 no gifts, provided it have the glory of being liberal; modefly 
 was the art of concealing our vanity; civility, but an afFe«5\ed 
 preference of other men before ourfelves, to conceal how much 
 we value ourfelves above all the world ; badifulnefs, but an af- 
 fected filence in thofe things, which lufts make men think of 
 with pleafure; benevolence or the defne of obliging other men, 
 but a fecret dellre ©rferving ourfelves, by getting them to befriend 
 us at other times ; gratitude, but an impatience to acquit ourfelves 
 of an obligation, with a Ihamefacedncfs for leaving been too 
 long beholden to otliers, for feme favour received. So that 
 sM thefe pretended virtues, in j^cneral, have only been fo ma- 
 ny gaurds made ufe of bv felf-love, to prevent our darling and 
 lecret vices froir* -appearing outwardly. All thefe are no evi- 
 c.ence«:» v/hnt rnay be done towards the removal of corrupt in- 
 vjanations. Nor indeed can nature's light fatisfy us tliat it is 
 praclicable. Can it (Ikw us the man that has done it? This were 
 iomewhat to the purpofe, could he be named. But this cannot be, 
 \Vili it tell us t!5at we have a power to do it ? But this is ibmcwhat 
 that wc fee and find by experience, the Oronged and mofl con* 
 vincing of all arguments, not to be true. We find vi'e may 
 rellrain or forbear fome outu^ard a^lions, but we have no expe« 
 rien:e of a power to lay afide or diveft ourfelves of inclinations 
 
 io 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 253 
 
 fo deeply rooted. Befides, they, who talk of this power^ 
 whereof others have no experience, are liabie to be quenioned 
 upon feveral things which ihey canriot fairly or fatiGfyingiy 
 anfweri Why do net they more than others who find it 
 not, but complain of the want of this power, fhevv that thofe 
 inclinations are eradicated which they ov/n (hould be laid a- 
 fide, which they affert they have a power to lay afide, and 
 which they fay they have been long trying to overcome ? The 
 world will be forward to judge, at leaR, the thinking part of 
 mankind will be fo, that they are rather mified by fome fond 
 fpeculalions to judge they have a power that they really want, 
 than that this practical proof fhould fail, which feems fcarce 
 capable of an anfv/er. 
 
 Now will men be effe6lually engaged in a work fo difficult, 
 which they are never like to bring toanilTue? Will they 
 not rather choofe to yield to the conqueror than engage in a 
 war that muft laft r/hile they laft, and that without profpc£t of 
 conqueft and being mafters in the end? Yea, have they not done 
 fo? Who v/ill be induced to fuch an undertaking without 
 encouragement? 
 
 3. If this is practicable, vet it mud be owned extremely dif- 
 ficult, and what men will not eafily be engaged in. Inclinations? 
 are deeply rooted, ftrengthened by cuftcm, and in mod height- 
 ened by tcmpt:^iions, whereof the world is full. Now if 
 natural religion is fuppofed able to perfuade to fuch an under- 
 taking, it muft be well furniflied with ftrcng motives and in- 
 ducements. Whence (hall thofe be fetched ? Fronr: the rewards 
 of virtue, and the punilhnient of vice on the other fide time? 
 We heard how (hort the accounts of nature's light of the.fe are. 
 The impreffions of thefe were always more deeply rooted in 
 the vulgar, than the philofophers; yet they had no fuch effect. 
 It is plain, outward encouragements do not attend the practice 
 of virtue. There remains only then the beauty of virtue itfelf. 
 Of this the philofophers have talked wonderful things. But 
 the mifchief of it is, it was but talk. When they miiTed other 
 things, they could, even with iheirdying breath, as Brutus, one of 
 the adcpti*, is faid to have done, call virtue but an empty name. 
 They lived otherv/ife than they talked, the beft of them not 
 excepted. It is excellently faid by the ingenious Claudian, 
 
 Ip/2 
 
 * « Ferfea.'* 
 
^5^ AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, xr 
 
 Ipfa quidem t-irtus pretium Jihi folaqne lat€ 
 Fortiin^e fecura nitei, nee fafcikus ullis 
 Erigiturt plaufwve petit dare/cere <vulpi. 
 Nil opis externi cupicnii -nil indigna laudis, 
 Di-uitiis animofa Juisy immotanue cundis 
 CaJibuSi ex alta mortalia dejpicit arce *. 
 
 This is indeed very prettily faid ; but this Is all. Mcrl may 
 pleafe thcmfelves with refined fpeculations of the excellency of 
 virtue : but it is not this alone that can fway corrupt man. It is 
 not the queftion, what virtue really is? but what men think of 
 it, and can be made to fee in it? And it is certain, all the 
 philofophers could never perfuade the world of it ; and no 
 wonder, for they could not perfuade themfelves. Man- 
 kind have had other thoughts, and it mull be other views than 
 nature can give, that will beat them out of this. Another poet 
 pliinly opens the cafe, 
 
 T^urpe quidem dijiu (fed Ji modo 'vera fatemur) 
 
 Vulgm amicitias utilitate prohai : 
 
 Ciira quid expcdiat prior ejiy quam quid Jtt honejium^ 
 
 Et cum fortuna Jiatque caditque fides. 
 
 Nee facile in'veuies multis in millibus ununiy 
 
 Fir tut em pretium qui put at effe Jui, 
 
 Ipfe decor rediy fadi ft prcemia definty 
 
 Ng?i ?nc^vet, ^ gratis penitet effe probum \, 
 
 Here is the true ftate of the cafe. But to come clofely up to 
 the point ; this beauty of virtue is not difcernible till we have 
 made fome progrefs in it. While corrupt inclinations are in 
 their vigour in the heart, fuch a beauty is not eafily feen. 
 
 2. It 
 
 * De Confuhtu Mallii Theodoriab Initio.—" Virtue indeed is its 
 " own reward, and it alone ihines far and wide, regardlefs of for- 
 " tune^ nor is it elevated by any power, or dcfires to become fa- 
 ** mous by the applaufe of the croud, having no defire of outward 
 ** help, nor any need of praife. Bold in its own. riches, and immove- 
 ** able by all accidents, it looks down on mortal things from a high 
 ** eminence.*' 
 
 + Ovid, de Panto, Lib- 2. Eleg. 3. — " It is indeed fcandalous to 
 «< relate, but if we will only confcfs the truth, the multitude approves of 
 »« friendfhip only for interefl; the cafe of what is profitable is prior to 
 *< the cafe of what is honourable, and tlieir fidelity ftands and falls with 
 ** fortune ; nor wiil you eaiily find one among many ihoufands, who 
 " thinks that virtue is its own reward. "Ihe beauty of virtue by itfelf 
 ♦« does not move them, if rewards are wanting? and they grudge 
 »< to be honeft for nothing." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODBHN DEISTS. 257 
 
 2. It is a beauty too line to be perceived by vulgar eyes, 01' 
 indeed by any, rvitbcut deeper and nicer ccnfideraiion, than 
 itigI^ of men can go to (he charge of. 3. Alone it is not luih- 
 clent to fuppcrt and carry on in fo hazardous an undertaking. 
 4. This advantage is not to be felt till the virtue be obtained. 
 It is a queftion whether it will be attained. So that it is plain, 
 natural rehVion wants motives to engage elfe«Siuaily to this. 
 
 4. It is ftili further confiderable to this purpcle, that ihefe 
 vitlo'js inclinations arc ftrong, if not ftrongeft, in thoie v/ho 
 have neither capacity to dive into fhofe few refined confidera^ 
 tions, which enforce the praiiice of virtue, and the fubduing 
 of corruption, nor indeed to undcrfiand them v/hen propofcd, 
 nor have they time or Iclfure to attend to the diicourfes of tl.'C 
 philofophers when they are taught, or money to purchafe them. 
 And natural religion provides no teachers, at leaf) if we take it 
 according to the accounts that we get from the deifls, who bear 
 fuch a terrible grudge to ?l Jlanding ?nini/lry, and have fo oft 
 in their mouths that refie6tion of Dryden, *' Prief^sofsll re- 
 ligions are the famiC." Now what a fad cafe are poor men in, 
 who are folicited by outward temptatiof?s and pufhed on by 
 Orong inclinations, and have fo fmall afiinance given them by 
 natural religion. 
 
 5. As motives are wanting, fo tlie work is not eaPdy carried 
 on, the 'vvay of management is difficult, and th«^ dive6lions giv- 
 en us bv the philofophers or others, are exceedingly unfatisfac- 
 tory. Some of thern are impofTible, fuch as the entire laying 
 afide of our affections ; others of them ridiculous, fuch as ihat 
 direction above-mention.ed out of Plato, for the purihca?ion oi 
 our fouls by mulic and mathematics, &c. Others, and in.:'ced 
 mod of them, only tell us what we are to do, bid us do the 
 thing, but tell us not hew to fet about it ; Tome of them only 
 tell us how to conceal inward corruption, or divert it. /^nd, 
 perhaps, I ilicuid net f:iy amifs, if 1 fnouid fay, that what the 
 beu moral philofophers either aimed at or attained, was oniy 
 to dam in corruption on one fide, to let it run ouv at anctbrr; 
 or to make that run in a fecret channel, v.'hich lun open »■""- 
 fore. It were long to examine their feveral directions. 1 l^e 
 learned Herbert gives us a fummary of them, which I fltal! here 
 prefent the reader v.'i'^b. i. We jliould fupprefs all our viticv.s 
 afj'tdions* This is but to advife the thing, without telli?)g us 
 how it is to be done. 2. That zvt expiate our jins by dtep re- 
 pentancef and by the iiiftituted facripces or rites* This is oniy 
 
 1 i a re- 
 
2:3 AN INd^IRr INTO THE chap. xi. 
 
 a rtfnctiy for guilt, and an ill one too, as has been cleared a- 
 br.»'e. 3. That we avcid the Jociety of evil men* But then we, 
 mull go out of the ivorld^ or at leaft out of the heathen world. 
 .\' Th.U ue ufe the company of good men. But where (hall we 
 fjnd tlieir amongft thofe, who have no rriore but natural reli- 
 gion ? 5. That ice inquire carefully what is to be done^ and 
 what is rot to be dene; but the quefhon is, when we know it, 
 How lliall we get the one avoided and the other followed, con- 
 fidcring we have a ftrong averficn to good, and inclination to 
 e-it? 6. 'Ihat our Jins, zvhich arife from human frailty t 
 fiiould he coirsBed or laid o fide. But ftili the quellion occurs, 
 How is this to be done? 7. That zee fJiould ufe fupplications 
 ahd prayers to the gods ^ as the priefls prefcribe. But for M'hat, 
 and upon what grounds? And what will this help the matter? 
 6 To conclude this argument, the univerfai experience oi 
 rrtankind bears teftimcny to the weaknefs of natural religion. 
 Nothing in this matter was ever done, or done to purpofe,' 
 i":v e where revelation prevailed. Should we narrowly lean 
 the livcL-, not of the vulgar, but of the Heathen philofophers, 
 ^s Plato, Arifiotle, Seneca, Plutarch, Cato and Brutus, we 
 might eafily pull ofthenriafk, and dilccver how little it was 
 t'jar lliey attained in this matter, or rather nothing' st all. Yea 
 even a Sccrates him.fclf would not be able to (land before an im- 
 pa:;i.il inquirer. 1 believe he could not give a good account 
 of his amours, and thofe practical inflru6iions, which he is 
 f;\id TO have given his fchclar Alcibiades. He repreiTed well 
 the vanity and pride of other piiilofophers: but pcihaps, nay I 
 Yi^.<in\ rot fay perh?,ps, with greater pride; yea even his death, 
 th.-; iRcit applauded part of his whole conduti, might be un- 
 inalk^^d, and dt-privcd cf the unjufl eulogies, which fome have 
 made on it, who, it may be, never read the accounts we have 
 of it, or ferioufly ccnl'ideied his carriage on that occafion. It 
 is triic, he was unjuOly put to death, and behaved very refo- 
 iutelv, but whether he fell not a facrifice to his own pride, as 
 much as to the malice cf his enemies, may be qucilioned. This 
 I fav not to detract from thofe great men, whom I admire, 
 conlidering their Tiatc ; but to inew, that they went not fo high 
 as fcnic would have us believe. 
 
 In tine, till revealed religion appeared, nothing was {ctn 
 in the world, of true piety or religion, of mortihcation of fm, 
 or holinefs of life. The natural notices could never make 
 one pious, or indeed moral. Whereas Chriilianity, upon its firii 
 
 4 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE iMODERN DEIST: 
 
 259 
 
 appearance, in a moment, as it v/ere, made millions (o. And 
 they who have rejefled it, an:T fet up for Fleatheni;':! again, 
 under the new, but injurious name of Deifm, are no friends to 
 holinefs of life, piety towards God, fobriety in their own wav, 
 nor righteoufneis among m^n. How mighty faints da Biourit, 
 Hobbs, Spinoza, Uriel, Accoila and others make? 
 
 I defigned to have pioceeded further, to demonHratc the 
 infufficiency of naturai religion to anfwer the ends of religion, 
 by the connderation of its infufficiency to fnpport under the 
 troubles of life^ or amongft the terrors of death; but upon fe- 
 cond thoughts I judged, after what has been faid, it was not 
 needful. Befides, if any look but at it, they may eafiiy fee 
 it L'.tterly infufficient to this purpofe, as it is indeed t.o the 
 ether great ends of religion. 
 
 If the well-founded profpe6l of future rewards, an^l a cle^r 
 knowledge of the nature and excellency oi thivgs eternal and 
 not feen, the prefent intimations of divine love, in crofs difpen- 
 fations, the fupports of divine powerful grace under them, the 
 iifefulnefs of thofe calamities, by virtue of divine ordination 
 Py and concurrent influence of the divine Spirit, verified in the: 
 ^ experience of the fufFerers, are laid afide, as natural religion 
 does, which knows nothing of thefe, all that men can fay to 
 comfort under afflidion, or arm againfi; the horrors of doath, 19 
 but an unprofitable amufement, or at leaft, like rattles and 
 other toys we give to children, that do not in the le.^li cafe 
 them of the pain they are under; but do for a little, divert 
 the mind, while they are looked at ; but as foon as thp firfi 
 impreiTion is over, which thefe new toys make on the mind, 
 the fenfe of pain recurs again, with that redoubled force, 
 which it always has, when it immediately fuccee<i^ either tai"<? 
 or want of fenfe. And if it is really violent, thefe things 
 will not avail, no not to divert trouble for a little. It is but a 
 forry comfort to tell me, that others are troubled as well as 
 I, or warfc ; that death, which I fear, will cn^ it ; thitt I 
 mufl bear it ; that I have other enjoyments, which yet prefent 
 pain will not allow me to rclilh. Yet fuch are thq bjft cor]- 
 folations that natural rdinon affords. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
26o AN IXQ^UIRY INTO THE chax-. xii. 
 
 C H A P. XII. 
 
 IVherrAn the Proof of the Infujjlciency of ^ Katura! Religion is 
 ^concluded from a general Viezu of the Exptritnce of the 
 World. 
 
 AS a conclunon to, and illuRration of what has hitherto been 
 dircourfed, for dcmonftrating the infufficiencyoi natural 
 religon, I ffiall here olfer 2i fix-fold view of the experience of the 
 world in general, wiihodt dei'cending to particular iniiances, 
 u'hich have in part been touched at, and ottered before^ and 
 are every where to be inet with. 
 
 I. Let us view man as a creature made for this end, to gfor?/y 
 Cod and enjoy /: J. ■??., abfi ranting frcjn the confideration of bis cor- 
 ruption, winch ihe deiPis fonnetimes dcvry, and fometinies wit!i^ 
 diihcuity, do but in part admit. And Jet us confidcr him as left to 
 purfue this noble cn6, in the Life of his rational faculties, unc'cr 
 the conduci of the mere light of nature : If we confider hi.n thu:^> 
 and inqu're into the experience of the world, how far he has 
 rciched this end, we thall hnd fuch an account, as will mpch 
 co-inrm the truth we have hitherto aiTerted, and weaken the credit 
 of the dehls' imaginary fufficiency of nature's light to cohdud 
 an to the end for which he was made, 
 
 I'i we look to the generality of m.ankind, \vq rnall find them, in 
 a porlure much like that wherein the prophet faw the princes in 
 the vifion, with their backs to the chief end, never once think- 
 ing for what they were made, parfuing other things ; every one 
 as'iud led him, foliowing his own humour, walking in a diredl 
 and open contradiction to that law, which was originally dehgn- 
 ed fur the guide cf our life, and the dire6iory to bliis, that hap- 
 pinefs, which all would have, though they know Lot where to 
 find it. 
 
 If we look at the philofjphcrs, we may fee xhcxn fitting up 
 late, rifing earlv, ealing thebre-zdofcarefulnefis, wearying ihem- 
 felves in the fearch of happinefs., running into hundreds of ditFe- 
 rent notions about it, and yet not one of them hitting, or at leaft 
 imderRanding the true one ; and as little agreed about the way 
 to it. We may hear them talk of virtue, but never levelling it at 
 its proper end, the glory of God, We may hear them urging its 
 practice, but not upon the proper grounds. Rarely any regard to 
 the authority of God, the only formal ground of obedience. In- 
 
 fiead 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 261 
 
 Oead of plain rules ufeful to mankind, they obtrude cryptic and 
 dark ientences, rather defigned to make others admire them, than 
 to be ufeful to any. They every where tack their own fancies 
 to the divine law, a weight iuiiicient to link it as to its truth, in 
 the apprehenfions of men, oratleaft, as to its ufefulnefs. They 
 offer a rule defeclivc in m.ofl thinj^s of m.oment, corrupt in many, 
 ruining in not a few inRances, deltitute of any other authority 
 than their own fay, or ipjc dixit ^ unintelligible to the generality, 
 and naked as to inducements to obey it. 
 
 2. Let us confider man as made for this end, but barred from its 
 attainment, by the interpofition of thofe great hindcrances and 
 rubs which now are certainly in its way ; I mean darknefs, 
 guilt and corruption. Thefe arc ftones in the way. How has 
 nature's light acquitted itfelf as to the rolling them away ? Truly 
 they have been like Syfiphus's ftone, as faft as they have rolled 
 them up, 23 fait they have recoiled and fallen back on them. 
 
 As to that darknefs that has overfpread the minds of men, if 
 we look at the gcneralty, we find them like blind men, con- 
 tent to jog on in the dark, mired every where, fiumbiing 
 frequently, and falling fometimes dangeroufly; yet fatisficd 
 wth their cafe, not looking after light: not fo much becaufe they 
 want it not, as becaufe they have no notion of it, or its ufeful- 
 nefs ; like blind men that never {aw the fun, and therefore 
 fufFer the lofs of it with lefs regret, than they who once faw, 
 but now have loft their eyes. They follow as they arc led ; are 
 ready to take hold of any hand, though of one as blind ^s 
 themfelves, and are never fenfible of the miftake, till funk 
 where they cannot get out again. The philofophers indeed 
 feem a little more fentlbie of their czi'c, and fancying truth to 
 be hid in Dem.ocritus's well, dive for it, but lofe their breath 
 before they come at it, and fall into dangerous eddies or whirl- 
 pools, where they lofe themfelves inilead of finding truth ; or 
 trying to fetch it up, but with a line too fnort, they fetch up 
 feme we.^<is that are nourifhed by their nearnefs to the waters, 
 and pleafe tl.emfelves with thofe. After all their painful en- 
 deavours we firvj them groping in the dark, as to all ufeful: 
 and neceflary knav.'ledge of God, or the way of worfiiipping 
 him; of ourfelves, our happlnefs, our fins, the way of obtain- 
 ing pardon, our duty or our corruption. 
 
 As to guilt, if we lo{>k at the cafe of mankind, and their 
 endeavours for the removal of ir^ we find the mofi part drov, n- 
 ^d in endlefs defpair or fatal fecurity ; like m.en at their wit's 
 
 end, 
 
'jiSi AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xii. 
 
 env^, trying all v/ays that fear, fuperflition, or racked imaglna^ 
 tion can fLipnlyj and Oili unfatisfied with their own inventions, 
 they are ready to try ail ways that lelf-defigning men, or even 
 Ihe d«?vil can fuggeil to them, fparing no cod, no travel, no 
 pain. They Hand not to give the fruit of their body for the 
 Jin of their JouL The philofophers either think, through their 
 pride, they have no fin, becaufe they are not quire {o bad as 
 the vulgar ; or, if they ftill retain fome fenfe of fin, they are 
 driven into the ntmofi; perplexity, being convinced of the 
 wickednefsof the meafures taken by the vulgar, or at lead of 
 their ufelelVnefs and impertinency, and yet unable to find out 
 better ; they try to divert their thoughts from a fore they know 
 Ro plainer for. 
 
 As to corruption, we find all confefling it, crying out of 
 thedifeafe; and indeed it is rather becaufe it cannot be hid, 
 the fore runs, than becaufe it is painful to many. The gene- 
 rality defpair of ftemming the tide, and finding it eaficft to fwim 
 with the ftreara, are willingly carried headlong. The body 
 of philofophers are indeed like weak w^ter-men on a Orong 
 flream, they look one way but are carried another. Though 
 they pretend they aim at the ruining of vice, yet really they 
 do it no hurt, fave that they fpeak againfl it. A izw of the 
 bed of them being aPr.amed to be found amongfl the red, fwim- 
 ming, or rather carried down the dream on the lurface, that is, 
 in open vice, have dived to the bottom; b-ut really made as 
 much way under water as the others above. 
 
 3. Let us view mankind under the goodncfs and forbearance 
 of God, thefe helps which fome think fufficient, Thefe words 
 arc ufed, or rather abufed, as a blind in a matter of very great 
 importance ; and men who ufe them will fcarce tell, if they 
 can, even in the fubjc6l of the prefent difcourfe, in what {^^{q 
 tbey ufe them. But let it be as it will, feme pretend the 
 works of providence, particularly God's goodncfs aird for- 
 bearance fufi-icient. Well, let us lee the expericjice of the 
 world in this. 
 
 If we view mankind under this confideraticn, wc may fee 
 them fo far from being led to repentance, that mod part never 
 once took notice of this condu6l of God. Other?, and they 
 not a few, have abufed it to the word purpofes. Becaufe judg- 
 7iient agoinfi an evil worky has not boen fpeedvy executed, there- 
 fore their hearts were wholly fet in them to do eviL The more 
 inquifitive have raifed a clvrge agaiud God as encouraging 
 
 wickcdnels. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 26 
 
 Vvickednefs. And as for the favours ihey enjoyed themrelvcs, 
 they looked on them, not as calls to repentance, but as re- 
 wards for their pretended virtues, and fcanty ones too, below 
 the worth of thern. Not a fev/ of them have gone near to ar- 
 raign God of injuftice for lefier afflictions they uere vifued 
 vi^ith ; while others have been entangled and toiled to and 
 fro by crofs appearances. So that none have by this goodnefs 
 of Goilf been led to repentance. 
 
 4, Let us view man living in the place where revelation ob- 
 tains, or where the Chriftian religion is profefled and taught, but 
 renouncing and rejedting it, and in profeflion owning only na- 
 tural religion : Such are the deifts atiiong us. if we confrer 
 their words, they talk indeed that natural religion is fuflicient ; 
 and to make it indeed appear fo, fome of them have adorned \i 
 with jewels borrowed from the temple of God, afcribing to na- 
 ture's lightdifcoveries in religion,which originally were owing to 
 revelation, and were never dreamed of v. here it did not obtain ; 
 though being once difcovered, they have gained the confent of 
 fober reafon. But now we are net ccnfidering the fpcech, but 
 the power of thefe men ; not v/hat they fay of the fufficiency of 
 natural religion, but what real experience they have of it, and 
 what evidence they give of this in their pradiice. 
 
 if we thus conuder them, we find, that although when thev 
 have a mind to impofe their notion of the fufnciency of natural 
 religion upon others, they pretend, that it is clear, as to a great 
 many points or principles, that are coniciledlv of the greateO: 
 mouieni in religion ; yet when they begin to fpeak more plainly 
 and freely their own inward fentimiCnls, they (hew that thfv 
 are not iixed, no not about the very principles themfelves, cvta 
 thefe of them which are of the greateft confequence. Mr. Gil- 
 don, publilher of the Oracles of Reafon, is not far from alTerting; 
 two anti-^'Tods, the one gocdi the other evil ; and fo falls in 
 with the Perfians *. Blouat favours the opinion of Ocellus Lu- 
 canus, about the zoorld's eternity, and confequently denies, or 
 at leaR hefitates about creation-^. The immateriaiity of the foul 
 teems to be flatly reje6ied by them all. Nor do they \t^m 
 very firm as to its immortality. In fhort, after they have 
 been at fo much pains to trim v.y) natural religion, and 
 make it look fufficient-like, they yet exprefs a hcfitation about 
 lis fufficiency to eternal Ife^. We have heard Herbert to this 
 
 purpoie 
 
 * Oracles of Reafon, pag. 194, 213,-22:^. f Ibid, 154, iq/. 
 
 t ibid, 1 17, 127. 
 
264 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xii. 
 
 purpofe already. Blount, in a letter to Dr. S^'denliam, pre- 
 fixed to the Deifies Rcafons, fays plainly, that it is not iafe to 
 truft deifm alone, without Chriiiiariity joined to it. And the 
 Deift's hope is fummed up in this, in the 4th chap, of (he Sum- 
 mary oj tlu Deijl's Ilea fens. That ** there is more probability 
 of his ialvation, than of the creduious and ili-living Papill*;" — 
 and that is juil none at all. 
 
 Nor does their pratlice give one jot of a better proof of the 
 fufficiency of that religion which they profefs : yea, it r.ffbrds 
 convincing evidence of its weaknefs, ufeleiTnefs, and utter in- 
 fufficiency. Their lives fhew that they arc not in earneR about 
 any thing in religion. Tliey arc Latitudinarians in pra(Slice. 
 Their words, their actions, have no favour of a regard to a 
 Deity ; but they go on in all manner of impieties in pra*.5^ice, 
 and perhaps in the end, put a period to a wretched life by their 
 own hands, as Blount, Uriel, Acci'la and others have done, and 
 the furvivers juftifythe dced,upontriilingand child ifii reafonings; 
 as not knowing but they may one day be put to ufe the fairiC 
 fnift. 1 am not in the leafi deterred from averting this, by the 
 commendations that the pubiifiierof the Grades of Reajon gives 
 to Mr. Blount, as a perfon remarkable for virtue *. If a pro- 
 fane, jocular, and unbecoming treatment of the gravcfl and 
 moft iirportant truths that belong, even by his own acknow- 
 ledgment, to. natural religion ,* yea, and are the principal 
 props of it ; and if grofs and palpable difmgenuiiy be inHances 
 of that virtue that he afcribes to him, and evidences of thofe 
 ju/l and adequate notions of the Daty, in which he fays Mr, 
 illount was bred up, I could gives inflances enougii from the 
 book itfelf of fuch virtues : But I love net to rake in the ajhes of 
 the dead* Again, others of the Deifts, having wearied then>- 
 feives in chace of a phantom to no purpofe, and having neitiicr 
 the grace nor ingenuity to return to the religion tirjy aban- 
 doned, either land in downright atheifm in principle and prac- 
 tice, or they throw themfelves into the arms of the pretended 
 infallible guide ; and thereny orjve evidence how well-founded 
 the Jefuitical maxim is, Make a man once an atliajl, he wiU 
 foon turn Papift. 
 
 5. Let us view men living under the ffofpej, embracing it 
 in profeflion, but unacquainted with that Spirit that gives life 
 and pozoer to its dodhines, precepts, pi-omifcs, threats and or- 
 dinances. 
 
 * Oracles of PvCafon, at the beginning, accouiit of Blount's life. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 25.5 
 
 dinances. They, befides that they are pcffcired of all the ad- 
 vantages of nature's light, have moreover the luperadded ad- 
 vantages of revelation, and its inftitutions. They have minif- 
 teis and parents inftru6ling them, and difcipline to reftrain 
 them, they are trained up in the faith of future rewards, and 
 inftru£ted in the nature and excellency of them, for their en- 
 couragement ; they have punilhments propofed to them to deter 
 them from fm, which they profsfs to believe; yet if we con- 
 fider the pratlice cf the generality of fuch perfons, if gives 
 a fufficient evidence, tlmt all this is not enough. Who but a 
 man blind or foolilh can then dote fo far, as to pretend nature's 
 light alone fufficient, when it is not fo, even when helped by 
 fo many acceiTory improvements ? 
 
 If we conftder the experience of them who have recei^'ed tlie 
 gofpel in truth, and felt its power, we find they have indeed 
 reached the ends of religion in part, and have a fair profpect 
 as to farther iuccefs. Well, what is their fenfe of the fuffici- 
 ency of nature's light ? Why, if you obferve them in their pub- 
 lic devotions, you Ihall hear heavy out-cries of their own daik- 
 nefs, weaknefs and wickednefs ; you may hear ferlous prayers 
 for divine light, and life to quicken th?m, flrengthen and in- 
 cline them to follow duty, and fupport tliem in it, againft the 
 pov/er of temptations, whi^h they own themfeUes unable to 
 marier, without the pov/erful aids of divine grace. If you fal- 
 low them into their retirements, where the matter is rnanaged 
 betwixt God and them alone, where they are under none of 
 thefe temptations, to maintain the credit of any received no- 
 tions, and therefore mu(\ be prefumed to fpeak out the practical 
 fenfe of the ftate of their cafe, without any difguife ; there 
 you fliall find nothing but deep confeffions of guilt, darknefs, 
 and inability, with earnefi: cries, prayers, and tears, for {u:^- 
 plies of grace : and what they attain in matte?s of religion, 
 you (liall find them freely owning, that it* was not tLy, but 
 the grace of God in thsm that brought them to this. And ih^ 
 more that any is concerned about religion, or know and has 
 attained in it, fiill you will find him the more feniible of ibis 
 ftate of things. 
 
 This is but a hint of what might have been faid : but I have 
 rather chofen to ofl^er a general Icheme of the argument ficm 
 experience, which every one, from his own private reading and 
 obfervation, may illuftrate with obfervations and particular in- 
 flances, than to infii't upon it at large, which would have re- 
 quired a volume. 
 
 K k CHAP 
 
266 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ci«\p. xm. 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 IVherdn tee mah a iranfdion to the Dcifts' Pleas for their Opt- 
 raoHf and take particular Notice oj the Articles to zuhichthey 
 reduce their Catholic Religicjiy give fomt Account of Baron 
 Herbert, the firft Inventer oJ this Catholic Religion Jus Books, 
 and particularly of that which is infcrihed De Religionc 
 Gentilium, as to the Kiatter and Scope of it, and the Impor- 
 tance of what is therein attempted to the Deijls' Cavfe, 
 
 WE have norv propofed and confirmed our own opinion ; our 
 ntxt bufincfs is to inquire more particulariy into that 
 of the Deills, and confider what they otter for it. 
 
 The firll: fet of Deills, fo far as I can learn, did fatlsfy them- 
 felves with the reje^iion of ail fupernatural revelation, and a 
 general pretence, that natural reiigicn was fufficient, without 
 telling the world of what articles it did confift, what belonged 
 thereto, or how far it went. The learned lord Herbert was 
 the firft who did cultivate this notion, and dreiTed Deifm, and 
 brought it to fomethingcf a form. This honour he aflumes to 
 himfelf, glories in it, and we fee no ground to difputeihis with 
 him. 1 have met with nothing in any of the modern Deifts 
 t'nat makes towards this fubje»:t, which is not advanced by him, 
 ;^nd probably borrowed from his writings. It will not there- 
 fore he impertinent to give the reader fome account of him. 
 
 Tiiis Edrnard lli-.rhert was a defcerdant from a younger bro- 
 ther of the family of Pembroke. He was brother to the fa- 
 mous George Herbert the divine poet. His education was at 
 Oxford, where he was for fome time a fellow Commoner in 
 IJniveifitv-Coliege there. After he left the univerfity, he im- 
 proved himf. !f by travels into foreign nations, and obtained the 
 reputation of a icholar, a t^atefman and foldier. He was made 
 Knight of the Bath at the coronation of king James I. in Eng- 
 land, wlio afterwards fent hivn as ambalTador to Lewis Xlli. on 
 behalf of the French Prcteftants : and upon his return he was 
 created Baron of Caflle-Ifand, in Ireland ; and by king Char- 
 les 1. anno i6op, he was created a baron of England, by the 
 tiile of Lord Herbert of Cher bury ^ and died in 1648 *. 
 
 This 
 
 * See Geo^raph. Diflion. articles Herbert and Dcifm, See alfo the 
 Life of Mr, George Herbert, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 267 
 
 This learned perfon having once unhappily apoi^atifed from 
 the reJigion wherein he was bred, into dajm, though, as other 
 Deiftsiikewile do, he did ftili feem to own the Church of Eng- 
 land ; yet he fct himfclf for the maintenance of deifm in his 
 writings. And to this purpofe he publiihcd fome time after 
 the year 1640, (for I have not the firft edition of it) his book 
 de Veritate, and (hortly after another, de Caujis Errorzun* 
 Thefe two books are for the moft part phiiofophical, and writ- 
 ten with fome Angularity of notion. What is truth in them is 
 rather delivered in a nezu ivayf than new ; and by the ufe of vul^- 
 gar words in new and uncommon acceptations, and hisobfcure 
 way of management of his notions, is fcarcely intelligible to 
 any but metaphylical readers, nortofuch, without greater ap- 
 plication, than perhaps the matter is worth. I fliould not think 
 myfelf concerned in either of thefe two books, their fubje6\ be- 
 inij phiiofophical, were it not that it is his avowed defign in 
 them, to lay a foundation for his peculiar notions in religion. 
 
 There are two things at which Herbert, in thele and his o- 
 ther writings, plainly aims at — to overthrew revelation^ and to 
 cjiahlijh natural religion in its room. It is not my defign or 
 province at prefent, to defend revelation againft the efforts of 
 tliis or any other author, though I think it were a bufmefs of 
 no great dlilicuity to remove what Herbert has faid againft it ; 
 yet fince 1 hue mentioned his attempt upon it, i cannot pafs 
 it without fome ftiort, but juft remarks upon his unfair, if not 
 difingenuous v/ay of treating revelation. 
 
 1. On many occafions, with what candor 2LTiQ ingenuity him- 
 felf knew, he profeireth a great refpe6\ to revelation, and par- 
 ticularly to the fcriptures, and pretends he dehgns nothing in 
 prejudice of the ejlablifhed religion : but any one that perufes 
 the books will foon fee, that this is only like Joab's kifs^ a blind 
 to make his reader fecure, and fear no danger from the /word 
 that he has under his garment : For notwithUanding of this, 
 he every where infinuates prejudices againli all revelation, as 
 uncertain, unneceffaryy and of little or no vfe to any, fave thofc 
 to whom it was originally, or rather immediately given. 
 
 2. Upon all occaiions, and fometimes without any occafion 
 given him from his fubject:, he makes failles utvon truths of the 
 greateft importance in the Chriflian religion ; fuch as the doc- 
 trines of the corruption of our natare, fatisJacUon of Chrijl, and 
 the decrees of God, &c. And having reprefented them difin- 
 genuoufly, or clfe Ignorantly, (which I !efs fufped in a man of 
 
 his 
 
26d, AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ghap. xiii. 
 
 hii learning) not in that way they are propofed in fcripture, or 
 taught by thoic who maintain them, but under the difguile of 
 grofs mifreprefentations, miftaken notions, and ftrained con* 
 fequences : and having thus put them in bead's fkins, as the 
 primifive perfecutors did the Chriftians, he lets his dogs upon 
 them to worry them ; and this without any regard had unto the 
 foundation they have in the fcriptures, or the evidence of the 
 proofs that may be advanced for the fcriptures in general, or 
 thefe doi^rines in particular, and without all confideration of 
 the inconfidency of this way of treating truths plainly taught, 
 and inculcated as of the greateft importance in the fcriptures, 
 with that refpe6l, which upon other occafions he pretends to 
 that divine book. 
 
 3. He ftates wrong notionG of the grounds v^hereupon reve- 
 lation is received, and overthrows thofe imaginary ones he has 
 fet up, as the reafons of our belief of the fcriptures, and then 
 triumphs in hig fuccefs. How eafy is it to fet up a ?Jian qfjliaw 
 and beat him down with the finger ! 
 
 4. The Pedis generally, and Herbert in particular, do grant, 
 that' the Chrillicin revelalion has manifeflly the advantage of all 
 oilier pretenders to revelation, as in refpe6t of the intrinfic excel- 
 lency of the matter, fo likewile in refpe6t of the reafons that 
 may be pleaded, for its truth.* And fo certain and evident is 
 this, that one of their number owns, that Chriftianity has ** the 
 
 ' faireft pretenfions of any religion now in the world," and 
 exhorts to/' make a diligent inquiry into it;" arguing, "that 
 ** if the pretences of Chriftianity be well grounded, it cannot 
 ** be a frivolous and indifferent matter ;" and he grants further, 
 that '* the truth of the matters of fact which confirm it, is hard- 
 " Iv poffible to be denied f." Now notwithftanding of this 
 m.anifeft and acknowledged ditlerence betwixt the fcriptures and 
 other pretenders to revelation, when Herbert fneaks of revela- 
 tion, he jumbles all pretenders together without diftin6iion, and 
 urges the faults of the moft ridiculous and obvioully fpurious 
 pretenders, againft revelation, in general, as if every particular 
 one, and efpecially Chriftianity, were chargeable with thefe 
 faults : Is this candid and fair dealing, to infinuate to the un- 
 wary reader tb.at thefe palpable evidences of impofture are 
 to be found in all revelations alike, while, even they tl.en)- 
 felves being judges, the icripturcs are not concerned in them ? 
 
 Yet 
 * Re)ieiol.aici, pag. 9, ic. t Letter to the Deifts, psg. 139. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 269 
 
 Yet this is the way that Cliridianity is treated by this learned 
 author; and his fteps have been clofely traced in this piece of 
 ~ Icandalous difingenuity, (for I can give it no milder name), by 
 Blount and the other writers of the paity, as I could make ap- 
 pear by niany inilances, if need required. 
 
 5. Our author makes high pretences to accuracy in fearching 
 after truth, and treats all other authors with the greateft fcorn 
 and contempt imaginable, as Ibort in that point : yet he feldom 
 flates a quetUon fairly, but huddles all up in the dark, efpeclal- 
 ly, U'hen he fpeaks about revelation, and heaps together diffi- 
 culties about all the concernments of revealed religion, with- 
 out any regard to the diilindi heads to which they belong. This 
 13 a ready way to ibake the faith of his reader about all truths, 
 but eftablifh him in none. 
 
 Other reflections 1 forbear, though he has given fair occa- 
 fion for many : but this is not njy fubje<5l. This part of his 
 difcourfe has been animadveited on by a learned author, though 
 the book is not come to my hand,* 
 
 The other branch of our author's defign, viz. His attempt to 
 eflablilh the fujficiency of natural religion^ is that wherein I 
 am dire6ily concerned. This he only propofes in his book de 
 Veritatt at the clofe, with a fhort explication of his famed five 
 ArtideSt of which more anon. And in a frnall treatife entitled 
 Religio Laid, fub joined to his book de Caufu Errorum^ he fur- 
 ther explains them. The defign of this laft mentioned treatife 
 is to ihew, that the vulgar can never come to certainty about the 
 truth of any particular revelation, or the prefcrablcncfs of its 
 presences unto others, and that therefore of necefiity they mufl 
 fit down fatisfied with the religion he offers ihem, confiiling of 
 five articles, agreed to, if we believe him, by all religions. 
 
 The religion, confiftingof five articles, which we (liall exhi- 
 bit immediately, he attempts to prove fufficient by fome argu- 
 ments in that iaf^ mentioned treatife. But the principal proof, 
 on which our author lays the whole ftrefs of his caufe, is at large 
 exhibited in another treatife of our author, deReligione Genliliu?n, 
 publifhed at Amf^erdam, anno 1663, ^Y J' VoJJi.us, fen to 
 the great Crer, Joan. Vojfius, His pleadings in thefe and his 
 other writings we ibaii call to an account by and bye. 
 
 Herbert, 
 
 * Baxter's More Reafcns for the Ghriflian Religion, and no Reafo^i 
 againll it, in tiie Appendix. 
 
270 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xm. 
 
 Herbert, In his treatife dt Religiont Gtntilium^ pretends. 
 Whatever iniftakes the Gentile world was under in rrjatters of 
 religion ; yet there was as much agreed to by all nations, as 
 ivas necellary to their eternal happinefs. Particularly, he tells 
 us, that they were agreed about five. ArticleSt of natural re 
 ligiotif which he thinks Z-Vt fujficient, viz. i. That is then 9ni 
 fupreme God^ 2, That he is to be worfliipped. 3. That virtue is 
 the principal part of his worfliip. 4. That we mufl repent of 
 our fins, 5. That there are rewards and punip2ments both in 
 rkii If e and that which is to come* 
 
 Charles Blount, who fet himfelf at the head of the Delfts fomc 
 i^^N years ago, in a fmall treatife entitled Rdigio Laid, printed 
 1603, which in effe6t is only a tranflation of Herbert's book of 
 the fame name, inverting a little the order, but without the ad- 
 dition of any one thought of moment; in this treatife, I fay, he 
 reckons up the articles of natural religion much after the fame 
 manner, i. That there is one only fupr erne God. 2. That he 
 chiefly is to be worfiipped* 3. That virtue^ goodnefs and piety, 
 accompanied with faith in, and love to God, are the bejl ways of 
 worjhipping him, 4. That wefJiould repent of our fins from 
 the bottom of our hearts, and turn to the right wuy, 5. That 
 there is a reward and punifhment after this life^^ 
 
 Another, in a letter dire6ted to Mr. Blount, fubfcribed A. W. 
 has given us an account of them fomewhat different from both 
 the former, in itvtn articles, i. That there is one infinite, and 
 eternal God, creator of all things, 2. That he governs the world 
 by providence. 3. That it is our duty to worfiip and obey him as 
 our Creator and Governor, 4, That our worfiip con fifls in pray ^ 
 er to him, and praife of him. 5. That our obedience confifs in 
 the rules of right reafon, the pratiice whereof is moral virtue. 
 6. That lue are to expetl rewards and puniflimeuts hereafter ac- 
 cording to our adions m this Ife; which includes the foul's im- 
 mortaljty, and is proved by our admitting providence. 7. Ihat, 
 when we err from the rules of our duty, we ought to repent and 
 trufl in God's mercy for paidon-X To the fame purpofe, with- 
 out any alteration of moment from what we have above quoted, 
 Herbert reckons up and repeats the fame articles in his other 
 treat if^s. 
 
 Thcfe 
 
 * DeRelig. Gentil. pag. 186, 210, &c» f Ibid, .19) 50. 
 J Oracles of Reafon, {i'^. 197, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 271 
 
 Thefe other authors do but copy after Herbert. To him the 
 honour of this invention belongs, and he values himfelf not a 
 little upon it. Let us hear himfelf. ** Afque ita ffed non jint 
 ** multiplici accurataque rdigionum turn diJftBione^ turn inf pec- 
 •^ tiom) quinque illos articulosfepius jam adduBos deprehendi, 
 ** Quibus itiam inventis me Jdiciorem Archimede quovis txijli- 
 ** viavi *." He acquaints us, that he confulted divines and 
 writers of all parties, but in vain, for to find the univerfal reli- 
 gion he fought after; it is not therefore likely, if any had mould- 
 ed this univerfal religion, or put it into a form meet for the De- 
 iOs' purpofe before him, that it could have efcaped his obferva- 
 tion and diligence. 
 
 Now we have had a fufficient view of the articles, to which 
 the Deifts reduce their religion. Let us next inquire after the 
 proof of this religion ; the burden whereof mufl lean upon Her- 
 bert. The Deifts fince his time have added nothing that has a 
 (hew of proof that I can yet fee. Well, after he has in his other 
 treatifes, as has been faid, propofed and explained his religion, 
 he at length comes to the proof of it in his treatife dt Rcligiont 
 Gentilium. Here the main ftrength of his caufe lies, and with 
 this we (hall mainly deal ; yet fo as not to overlook any thing 
 that has a (hew of proof elfewhere in his writings. 
 
 In this treatife dt Religione. Gtntilium^ he makes it his work 
 to illufirate and prove, *' That the above-mentioned five arti- 
 ** cles v/ere univerfally believed by people of all religions." 
 This isthe propofition at which that whole book aims. In the 
 management of this fubje6t our author gives great proof of di- 
 ligence, vaft reading, and much philological learning. He 
 gives large accounts of the idolatry of the Heathens and their 
 pleas for it, or rather of the pleas, which our author thought 
 might be made for it ; m hich has given occafjon to feveral con- 
 je6fures, as to our author's defign in that book, and his other 
 writings. 
 
 I find a learned author, who has bellowed a few (hort ani- 
 madverfions on this book, inclined to think it not unlikely, 
 that Herbert's principal defign M'2S, if not to juftify, yet to ex- 
 
 cufe 
 
 * Dc Relig. Gent. pag. 218. — " And thus, though not without -< 
 ** manifold and accurate difTe^ion and inrptdicn of re]igion, 1 hav< 
 
 a 
 'e 
 " found thofe five articles, that have already been ofren quorcfl, on 
 " finding which! thought myfelf more happy than any Archimedes.'' 
 
272 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. xiir. 
 
 rufe the idolatry of the church of Romef. And if one confi- 
 ders how many pleas Herbert makes for t'ne Gentiles' idolatry, 
 and that they are generally fach as may ferve for the Homaniiis' 
 purpofe ; and if it is fwrther confidered, that Herbert elfe where 
 feems, upon many occafions, to found the whole certainty of 
 revelation upon the authority of the church, and that alone, and 
 the va(\ power he gives to the church as to the appointment of 
 riies, yea, and all the ordmanc^.s of loorfkip ; if it is further 
 confidered how concerned fome pcrfons were for an accommo- 
 dation with the church of Rome at that time, when our author 
 wrote, and how far Herbert was concerned in that party, who 
 were flriving for this reconciliation ; if I fay, all thefe things 
 are laid together, this conjeciure will not appear deftitute of 
 probability. I might add to this, that Herbert makes ufe of 
 pleas not much unlike thofe which are ufecl by the church of 
 Rome to Hirike Proteftants out of their faith, that they may at 
 length fall in with the infallili>ie guide. In fine, I dare be bofd 
 to undertake the maintenance of this againft any oppofer, that 
 ,y Herbert's method followed out, will inevitably make the vulgar 
 atheifts ; whether he defigned by this to make them Papii\s, I 
 know not, nor fhall I judge. How far this conje^^ure will 
 hold, I leave to others to judge, i ihall only add this one thing 
 more, that the feeming oppofition of Herbert's defign unto 
 PopiQi principle?, and his thrufls at the Romifh clergv, will not 
 be fullicient to clear him of all fufpicion in this matter, with 
 thofe who have ferioufiy perufed the books written by Papids in 
 difguife, on defign to (hake the faith of the vulgar I'ort of Pro- 
 taliants, in (bme of which, there is as great appearance at iirfl 
 view of a dehgned overthrow of Popery, and as hard thinj^s 
 faid ag-ainll the Romiih clergy. Good water-men can look one 
 wav and row another. What there was of this, will one day be 
 manifcih 
 
 The Delfts maintain, that '* their religion, confifiing of the 
 *' above-named five articles, is fufncient." It is the avowed de- 
 fign of Herbert in his book, to aiTert this and prove it ; and yet 
 he fpends it v/holly in proving this propofition, ** That fhefe 
 ** five articles did univerfally obtain." Now it feems of im- 
 V portance to inquire, why Herbert flioual be at fo much pains to 
 prove this. How does univeri'a! reception of thefe articles efla- 
 bliilihisreii'Mon, and of what conlequcnce :s it to tlic De:(!.i' caufe? 
 
 For 
 
 f Abra'i. HciJanus de Oriijine Erroris, JLib. VI. (Zr\ XI. p.^or. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 273 
 
 For clearing this, it muft be obferved, that it is a common 
 religion that Herbert is inquiring after, which may be equally 
 ufeful to all mankind ; and nothing can agree to this, which is 
 not commonly received. ^ And Herbert has before laid down 
 this for a principle, that the only way to diflinguifh common 
 notices from thefc which are not fo, is U7nveifal reception* 
 This according to him is the only fure criterion. ** Rtligio ejl 
 
 *' notitia communu Vtdendum igitur eji^ qu^nam m re- 
 
 *' ligione ex confenj'u univerjali Jitnt agnita: univerja conftran- 
 ** tur: Qua antem ab oinnibus tanquam vera in religione agnof- 
 ** cuntur^ccmmunes notitidi hahcnddi Junt» Sed dices e/fe lab oris 
 ** iwprobi: at alia ad veritates notitiarum communium non fu- 
 ** perefl via; quas tamen ita jnagni faclmus, ut in illis Jolts fa- 
 " picntui: divine univerfalis arcana deprchendi pajjint,*" 
 
 But to fet this matter in a full light, I Ihall make appear,That 
 a failure in this attempt, to prove that thefe were univerfally a- 
 greed to, is inevitably ruinous to the Dcifts' caufe and plea for 
 a common religion ; though the proof of this point will be very 
 far from inferring that there is a common religion, as feall be 
 cleared afterwards. And this will give further light iato the 
 realbns of Herbert's undertaking. 
 
 To this purpofe then it is to be obferved, That the Dcifts 
 being agreed about the reje6tion of the Chriftian religion, and 
 that revelation whereon it is founded, they are for ever barred 
 from the acceptance of any other revelation as the meafure of 
 religion, that the world knows*. For they own no revelation 
 ever had fo fair a plea, and fuch probable grounds to fupport 
 its pretenfions, as the Chriftian revelation has. However there- 
 fore, the generality of the Deifts were fatisfied to lay afide the 
 Ghrifllan religion, which will not allow them that liberty in 
 following the courfes that they are refolved upon, without put- 
 ting any thing into its place ; yet the more fober fort faw, that 
 to reje6\ this religion and put none in its place, would, by the 
 
 L i world 
 
 * De Veritate, pag. 55 " Religion is a common notice, we 
 
 " ought to fee therefore what things in religion are acknowledged by 
 <« umverfal confent. let ali be gathered together, and thofe things in 
 «* religion which are acknowledged by all to be true are to he reckon- 
 " ed common notices. But yea will fay that this is a taik of immenfe 
 « labour* But no other way remains for arriving at thofe truths that 
 " Fnay he reckoned common notices. Which however we value fo 
 " highly, that in thefe alone the fecrsts of divine univerfal wiidom can 
 " be fouiid." 
 
274 AM INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiix. 
 
 world, be counted plain atbeirra, uhich defervedly is odious 
 in the world. Therefore they Taw there was a neceiTity of iub- 
 fiituting one in its pince. 
 
 Now firKre revelation was rcjecVed, nothing remained, but to 
 pretend, that realbn was able to fupply the defedl and aflbrd a 
 i'ufficlent religion, a religion that is able to aniwer all the pur- 
 pofes for which others pretend revealed religion neceflary. 
 
 When once {iiey were come tl>is length, it was eafy to fee 
 that it uiiglit be ijiquired, Whether this rational religion lay 
 within the reach o* every man's reafon, or was only to be found 
 out by petfons of learning? 
 
 If it is pretended, that only perfons of learning, application 
 and uncommon abilities, could attain the dilcovery of this re- 
 ligion, the diificuUics whereon ths* pretenders are caft, are ob- 
 viouf<. 
 
 Wh.^t fiiall then become of their argiimcnt againH; revealed 
 religion, ** that it is not univerfal, that it is not received by all 
 mankind, that therefore it is not amended wi;hfuHicient evi- 
 dctic.:." Upon this fuppcfition there is a fair ground for retort- 
 ing the argument, wlili no iel^s, if not more force, againfl natu- 
 ral religion. 
 
 AgJiin, what lliall became of th;it plea, which they make, for 
 natural religion, *' that God mufi provide all his creatures in 
 the mcuHs necclfary for attaining that happinefs they are capa- 
 ble of?" May they not, on this fuppofuion, be urged, that, 
 according to it, the generality are not provided with fuch means? 
 
 Nor will it avail to pretend, that thofe who are capable cf 
 this difcovery, are obliged to teach others the laws of nature* 
 For, it m.ay be inquired, Mufl the people take all on trull from 
 th-ni, or fee with their own eyes? If they mull take all on truft, 
 then is lliere not here a fair occafion fur charging priefi-craft 
 upon them, Vv'ho blame it fo much in others ? Will not this o- 
 Idige our wits, men of reafon and learning, to turn creed and 
 Jyfiem'??iakers? Further, what will they fay of their own negle<fl, 
 and the neglecl of the learned world in this matter? How will 
 they reconcile tiiis to the notion of God's goodnefs, of which 
 they talk fo much, to Aifpend the happinefs of the greater part 
 of mankind on their care and diligence, who quite negieit them, 
 biU keep up their knowledge, and thereby expofe the poor vul- 
 gar to inevitable ruin? Moreover, ifthryjet up for teachers, 
 they muft ibew their credentials. Finally, there is no place, 
 i]pon this fuppofuion, left for the ftrongetl pleas for a fuMici- 
 
 ent 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 275 
 
 ent religion, that is common to mankind, which are taken 
 from the nature of God and man, and their mutual relation ; 
 becaule ail thefe arguments conclude equally for all n33tikind, 
 and (o are not adapted to alTert fome peculiar prerogative in one 
 above another. Nor are any able to juftify a claim to any fur- 
 ther ability this way, than be can Tatisfy the world of, by the 
 effects of it. When a man pretends to no other abilities, than 
 fuch as are due to human nature, that kg is a man is fullicient 
 to juftify his claim; but if he pretends to fome eminency in na- 
 tural or acquired endowments above others, he mufl give fuch 
 proofs of it, as the nature of the thing requires; that is, he mud 
 make it appear, that he has that ability, by atllngs proportion- 
 able to the nature and degree of the power that he claims; and 
 further than this is done, no wife man will believe him. It 
 will not help them out here, to fay, that they only of better ca- 
 pacities, and who have more Icifure, are able to difcover this 
 natural religion ; but the vulgar are capable of judging and fee- 
 ing wiih their own eyes when it is propofed : For, befides that 
 all the former .difficulties, or moft of them recur here, fiill it 
 may be inquired, Is this made appear? The difficulties on this 
 fide are unfurmountable. 
 
 Wherefore, of neccllity, they mud maintain, ** that every 
 man is able to find out and difcover what is fuHkient for himfelf 
 in metters of religion.' But now when this is alTerted, if the 
 experience of the world lie againfl them, and it be found, as is 
 commonly fuppofed, that many nations, nay, the far greater 
 part of mankind, had no fuch religion, this will much prejudge 
 their opinion, about every man's having this ability of finding 
 out a religion, or as much in religion as was necefiary to his 
 own happinefs. 
 
 How will they perfuade the u'orld of fuch an ability, if expe- 
 rience is not made appear to favour them? it is commonly 
 thought, and we have made it appear, that the wifefl men, when 
 they elfayed what pou'er they had of this fort, foully blundered, 
 a.nd fell fhort of fatlcfying either themfelves or others ; and that 
 the world generally acknoivledged the want of any experience 
 of this ability, and therefore looked after revelations with that 
 greedinefs, (hat laid them open to be impofed on, by every vain 
 pretender to fupsrnatural revelation- 
 
 Now if things are allowed to be thus, how ihali they pro-^re 
 man pofletred of this power, if they are cut orl from the advan- 
 tage of the ufual fountain of conviction, ia maUtrs of this nature? 
 
 What 
 
^70 AN INCIUIRY INTO THE chap, mil 
 
 What is the w^ we come to know, that ali men have a power 
 of underflanding, or that fuch a power is due to his nature? Is 
 it not hence, that wherever we meet with m.cn, we find them 
 exerting the a«5ls of underftanding? And the like may be faid 
 of his other powers. Now if it is once admiitted, that there arc 
 iingle perlons, nay, whole nations, yea more, many nations 
 that have no experience of this pretended ability, in'reference 
 to matters of religion, how will they ever be able to perfuade the 
 world that all m.en have it? More efpccially, if it be admitted, 
 that the learned themfelves were heredefe6tive, as to that which 
 perfonsof the meaneft abilities and leafl leifure are fuppoied a- 
 ble for : this will look very ill, if a man who toils all his days 
 at the plough and harrow, could make this difcovery, how could 
 a man of learning and application find it hard. 
 
 In a word, if things are thus rtatecl, as is generally fuppofed, 
 and has been already proven, and fhall be further c'eared anon, 
 then there is little left them to pretend for this natural and uni- 
 verfal ability of mankind in matters of religion, if not perhaps, 
 to tell us a ftory of God's being obliged, in point of gcodnefs, to 
 endow ail mankind with a capacity, whereof there is no evidence 
 inexperience; yea, which the experience of the world plainly 
 declares them to want. But this will not eafily take with men 
 of fobriety and fenfe : For it is not more evident, that there is a 
 God, than, that this God mujl do whatever is proper and ftxit able 
 for him to do : And on the contrar}'', that it zufis not nccejfary or 
 proper for him to do any thing that really he has not done. If 
 then, any iball pretend it becoming or neceffary for God to do 
 any thing, which experience (hews he has not done, he will be 
 fo far from obtaining credit with the world, that on the contrary 
 he will jullly fall under the fufpicion of atheifm, and an evil 
 defign againft God. For to fay, that God in point of gocdnefs, 
 was obliged to do this, which experience Oiews he has not done 
 is plainly to fay, God adied not as became him. There was 
 therefore a plain neceliity of undertaking to prove experience on 
 their fide, if Deifm was to be fupportcd. 
 
 If the common apprehenfions of men, who enjoy the light of 
 Chriftianity, with refpeCl to the flate of the Heathen world, are 
 v/eli grounded, ail (he pretences of DciOs as to the fufficiency 
 of natural religion are for ever ruined, and quite fubver(ed. 
 
 It was but necelTary therefore, that the learned Herbert, who 
 undertook to maintain the caufe, fhould attempt to (liew, that 
 experience was on their fide, and that in facl a religion in it- 
 
 felf 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 277 
 
 {■A{ fuflficient did univerfally obtain. And he bad the more rca- 
 ion to be concerned in tliis matter, becaufe he avows it as his 
 opinion, that without a fuppofuion of fuch an univerfal religion 
 as the Dciils do plead for, Providence cannot be maintained. 
 Et quideriij fays he, quum media ad viBum veflitumque heic 
 accommodata fuppeditarit cundis 7iatura Jive previdentia re- 
 rvvi cowmumSi Jufpicari non potui, cmidem De urn, five ex 
 ' natura,five ex gratia in fuppeditandis ad beatiorem hoc nqftro 
 * ftatum mediisy ulli hominum deejfe pojfe, vel velle, adeo ut li" 
 ' cet mediis tllis parum reBe vel jeliciter ufi fint Gentiles ^ hand 
 ' ita iamen per Deum optimum maximum ftetent, quo minus 
 ' Jalvi fierent* »' And as it is clear that this author thinks, that 
 Providence is not to be maintained without an univerfal religi- 
 on ; fo it is fufficiently evident, that this univerfal religion Is 
 not to be maintained, if experience lies againfl it. 
 
 Here then was a plain neceflity for undertaking this argu- 
 ment, and proving, or at leaft pretending to prove, that all man- 
 kind had a fufricient religion, or were able to know ail that was 
 necelTary. For we fee the whole frame of Deifm fails to the 
 ground, if this is overthrown. This therefore was an under- 
 taking worthy of our noble author's great parts, long experi- 
 ence, great charity to mankind, and the great concern he pro- 
 felTes to hnd in himfelf for the vindication of Providence. 
 
 And fure if fuch a man, after fo much pain?, has failed in 
 the proof of this point, any that may fucceed him, may juflly 
 defpair of fuccefs. He read ail the Heathen authors to find this 
 univerfal religion, and he was as willing and defirous to find it 
 as any man. And he has given in this learned book evidence 
 enough of his reading. 
 
 But fince no religion was to be admitted, fave that whereon 
 all men were agreed, it was wifely done by our author, that he 
 reduced this univerfal creed to a few articles* For one who 
 knew fo much of the fiate of the world, could not but fee, that 
 they "Were not very many wherein they were asrced. 
 
 Well, 
 
 * De Rclig. Gentil. Cap. i. pag. 4. — <* And indeed as the coinmon 
 " nature or providence of things here, has furnifhed all men with full 
 « means of food and cloathing, L could not fufpe<ft that the fame God, 
 "either from his nature or from grace, could or would be wanting to 
 " any of mankind in fupplying him with the means of attaining a more 
 « happy ftate than the prefent, fo that although the Heathens ufed thofe 
 " means unlkilfully or unhappily, yet the beft and greateft God was 
 " cot to-be blamed for their not being faved." 
 
278 AN INQ_U1RY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 Well, he undertakes and f^oes through with the work, and 
 concludes with that memorable triumph above mentioned ; ** Jt- 
 *' que ita (fed non fine jnultipliciy accurataque religionum turn 
 ** d?f/'eclioney turn infpedionej quinqueillos articulos, fipius jam 
 ** aadudos deprehendi' Om5us etiam inveritis me Jeliciorem 
 ** quoms Archiinede exijlimavi*' 
 
 But one might poiTibiy a(k, How it could cod our author To 
 much labour and pains to find out this religion, and to fever 
 the articles belonging to it from others, with which they were 
 intermixed, when every illiterate man mull be fuppofedable to 
 do this? 
 
 However, if our author is not belied by common fame, he re- 
 pented, that he had fpent his time fo ill in contributing fo far 
 to the advancement of irreligion ; though others contradict this 
 and tell us, that dying he left this advice to his children, — 
 ** They talk of trufting in Chrifi for falvation ; but I would 
 *' have you be virtuous, and trufi: to your virtue, to make you' 
 *' happy." 
 
 Whatever there is as to this, I fhali now proceed to examine 
 our author's arguments. 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 fhUrcin it is inquired, Whether Herbert has proved that his five 
 Articles did univerfally obtain ? 
 
 T ^yE have heard our author's five articles above ; he pretends 
 * '' to make it appear, that they were every where receiv- 
 ed ; we fhall now inquire, Whether the arguments adduced by 
 him do evirxc this? And then in the next place, vvc (liali fee 
 whether it is indeed true. And for method's fake, we fhall ipeak 
 of every article apart, and dilTe6l and infped his book, to 
 find all that he offers, which has the leaft appearance of proof. 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 There is One Supreme God, 
 
 TH AT which our author pretends to prove as to this arti- 
 cle is, that it was generally owned by all nations, that there is 
 one Supreme Beings and that this Supreme Being, .whom they 
 
 owaed* 
 
PRINCIPlrES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 279 
 
 Cvvned, was the fame whom we adore. Wc are not now to 
 difpute, whether tliis article may be known by the light of na- 
 ture ; nor whether fome particular perf&ns went not a great xxzy 
 in the acknowledgmen.t of it. This we have before granted : 
 But the queliion is, Whether all nations agreed in this, that 
 there is one Supreme God, and he the very fame whom we adore? 
 Let us hear our author, '* Quarnvis enhn de aliqidhus alijs Dsi, 
 ** five attrihutisi^ive muntribus dijceptatio inter veteres fjfet, uti 
 ** fuo loco monjirahimus \ fummum tamen aliquem extare, and 
 ** Jemper extitijfe Deum, neque apudfupientes, negue apttd infipi- 
 ** entes dubiuin (putoj fuit*^' And afterwaids, when bethinks 
 the fird part of his article fuihciently cleared, he proceeds to the 
 fecond part of it, ** Reliquum ejl, ut Deupi fummum Gentiliur/if 
 tnndiun ac noflrum e[[e probcmus.'\' Thus we fee what our au- 
 thor pretends. Whether he has proved this, we are nov/ to in- 
 quire. Ke has not digefied his arguments, nor caft them into 
 any fuch mould, as might make it obvious wherein the force of 
 them lies, and therefore we muft be at pains to fcrape to- 
 gether, whatever is anywhere through his book dropped, that 
 may contribute in the leall toward the Orengthening of his 
 caufe ; and we il-all not omit any thing willingly, that has tiie 
 leaf! appearance of force. 
 
 The firft obfervation our author infills on to this purpofe is, 
 ** That the Gentiles did not intend the fame by the name 
 God J that we now do. We by that name deiicn the Supreme, 
 Eternal, Independent Being ; whereas they intend no more than 
 any virtue or power fuperior to man, on which man did any way 
 depend." Id oinne D€um vocita,runt quod vim a/iguam eximia?n in 
 injeriordj fed m homines pr^ccipue ederet.X This he frequent- 
 ly inculcates, and tells us in the firft page of his book, that the 
 obfervation of this, was that which inclined him to think, or 
 
 pre fume 
 
 * De Relig. Gent. pag. 158. — *< For although there may have been 
 " difputes among the ancients about certahi other attributes cr cfHces of 
 '* God, ?.s vre fnali (hew in its own place, yer it was never doubted, I 
 *' think eidier among the wife or the unvvife, that fome Supreme God 
 " exifted, and had always exifted. " 
 
 f Ibid, 106. — "It remains to prove that the Suprerne God of tl;e 
 ** Heathen's was the fame as curs." 
 
 * De Relig. Gent. pa^]. i3.~'< T^ev call.eti all that God, which 
 <* produced any ccnfiderable effed on inferior thing?, bu: efpccirily 
 ** upon rren." 
 
28o AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 prcfurr.e the Gentiles not chargeable with that grofs Polythcifm, 
 with which moft do, and he hiniCelf had, upon an flight view 
 of their religion, well nigh once concluded them chargeable. 
 
 If the Gentiles rrreant the fame by the word God, which we 
 ^o, no doubt they ftand chargeable with the moft grofs, unac- 
 countable, abfurd and ridiculous Polythcifm imaginable : For 
 fcarce is there any thing animate or inanimate, but by fome way 
 or other became deified. Qiiicguid /rumi(s,pelaguSf calum mira- 
 hiU gignuntf id dexere deoSt colles, jreta, JIuminay Jlamjnas* 
 
 But our athor is not willing to admit that they were (o ab- 
 furd ; and to induce us to favourable fentiraents, he has bleffed 
 us with this obfervation, I'hat when they called thofe creatures 
 animate and inanimate gods^ they meant no fuch thing as we do 
 by that name^ Well, if we Ibould grant that the wifer fort, at 
 leaft, or perhaps even the vulgar too, did fometimes fo under- 
 Oand the word, as he alleges, will that ferve his purpofe, and 
 fatisfy him ? Nay, by no means, unlefs we grant him, that 
 they always fo uiiderilood the word, fave when they fpoke of 
 the One true God, But this is too iriuch to be granted, unlefs 
 he prove it ; elpecially if we are able to evince, that not a few, 
 both wife and unwiTe, believed that there were more than One 
 Eternal, Independent Being : and polTibly this may be made 
 appear afterward. A learned author, in reproach of the Gre- 
 ci:^n r-nd Roman learning, fays, ** That fetting afide wliat they 
 " learned out of Egypt, they could never by themfelves de- 
 '* termine whether there were many Gods or but one\>'* 
 
 The nex^ thing our author infifls on to this purpofe, 15;, 
 ** That different names do not always point out different gods, 
 but different virtues of the fame God." ** Tot Dei apptl- 
 " lationesy quot vninera^ adeoq ; fi triginta milia Deum no- 
 '* mina quod ah CLnomao & Hejiodo in 'Seoyow^s perhibetar, 
 '' jupponat qi'.ifpiam, 6? tot ejus munera dariy Jatendum ejU'' 
 fays Seneca, quoted by our author:}:. And conlcqucntially to 
 
 this, 
 
 * Aurel. contr. Sym. Lib. I. — " Wh?t<"ver wonderful thing the 
 '* earth, the fea, or Scy produced, that they called gods — hills, feas, 
 '* riverr, fire." 
 
 + Wolfely's Scripture Belief, pag. 110. 
 
 i Seneca Lib. 5. Cap. 17. Herbert de Reiig. Gent. pag. 13. — " We 
 «« n-iUfl confefs that there is as many names of Cod, as there are ofScPs, 
 " fothat if any one fupjnife that there are thirty thoufar.d di:ferent names 
 «« of gods, as ii related by Oenomaus and Hefiod in his Theogony, we 
 " mull acknowledge that there are likevvifc as many offices of the Dtitv." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 281 
 
 ilils, the fame Seneca tells as, ** Sapientes nequaquam Jov- m 
 ** cum Intellexifie, o/ji in Capitolio aut alijs templis fulrr.ino 
 ** armatus cernereiur, fed potius mentem animumque exiOi- 
 '* malTe omnium cuftodem, univerfiq ; adminiftratorem, qui 
 ** banc rerum univerfalitatem condidcrit, ac eandem nutu fuo 
 •* gubernet, ac propteria divlna qucsq ; nomina ei convenire. 
 ** Itaq ; optimo jure fatum appellari polTe, ut a quo crdo feii- 
 " efve caufarum inter fe aptarum dcpendeat. Ita is Providenii- 
 ** am dicit, quum ipfe provideat ut omnia perpetuo ac peren- 
 <* ni quodam curfu, ad finem ad quern ditlinata funt, currunt: 
 '* Naturam quoque nuncupari, ex eo enim cundta nafcuntur, 
 ** per cum quicquid vitse eft particeps, vivet: Mundi quin criam 
 ** nomcn illi congruere. Q^iicqoud fub afpedum cadit, jpfecO, 
 ** qui feipfo nitirur, & omnia ambitu fuo complcclitur, univer- 
 ** faque numine fuo compltt.*'* To the fame purpofe fpeaks 
 Servius of all the Stoicks, quoted llkewife by our auihcr.f The 
 plain EngliOi of ail is, he would perfuade us that by thcfc tefii- 
 monies he has proved, that the Geniiles, M'hen they att:ibutcd 
 the name of god to fo many things, inlended no more, but to 
 let out fo many different viriues, which all refided in the fafne 
 God. -^ 
 
 As to this, we may grant, that our author has indeed proved, 
 That different nam.es do not always point out difiercnt gods ; for 
 lis has told us that each of their gods had many diifercnt n^m^es. 
 But this will do him no fervice, if we grant not, that different 
 names never point out different gods. But how {hall we do this, 
 when our author has Ihewed us, that many nations wor(hippcd 
 
 M m 'the 
 
 * Herb. De. Rel. Gent, pat;^;.— « Wife men did not meanby Jiipi- 
 " ter, that ft .tue that is feen in the Capitol and orher (eniiJes, arn-icd 
 " withthunderbolrs] but rather ti. ought that thac Mind and Soul wasju - 
 •♦ piter, which was the Guardian and Governor ot the Univerfe,vvho for- 
 « med this whole world, aiid governs it by his nod, and that all ci\ine 
 " names agree to him He may therefore be very juftly called Fatt^, as 
 " on him the order and feries cf connedcd caufes depends.Thus too he 
 " may be called Providence, as he provides thac ail things mould tend 
 '* to the end for which they were def.ined, in a conftanr and perptrtual 
 « courie. He may hkewife be called Nature, for all things ariie irura 
 
 " w -j"^ ^'^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^° ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^'- ^'^y ^^^'^ f^^e na;ne of 
 " World may agree to him, for whatever is viilbie is himfelf, who dc- 
 « pends on himfelf, furrcunds all things wiih his circua.fcrcrxe, and 
 « hil.s^aJlth;ngs with his divine prefence." 
 t Do Rcji^;. Gentii. pag. 37. 
 
282 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ghap. xiv. 
 
 the fun, moon, ai>d ftars ; and thought them gods, yezj diftin6t 
 ones too, different in their natures as u eli as names. Each ot them 
 indeed had different names, nay each of them .' ad inany names, 
 titles or elogies heaped on them by their fond worfnippers, who 
 no doubt fancied, that their gods were fmitten wiih thai fame 
 vanity, wherewith they themfelves were tainted ; which yet as 
 learned Rivet obfcrves, had a dangerous effe6l upon the vulgar 
 in procefs of time: for ihey were not fo quick in their obferva- 
 tions as our author. ** Coacervacis enun eiogiis, titulif que conge f- 
 ** tiSi caplnumen putabant, maximoqut inch affici honor t; iia ut 
 ** tandem qu-- diverfa tantum nomina jupeijiitionis Jueranty graf- 
 *^ Jante error e^ divtrfa numina haberentur,'^'* 
 
 Further, we know full well that fome of the more wife and 
 learned men, efpecialiy after the light of the gofpel began to 
 rtiine through the wcrid, began to be aflianied of their religion, 
 and efpecialiy the number of their gods, and to ufe the fame 
 Ihifto, to pailiatc the fooiiin and wild Polytheifm, which the 
 gofpel fo fully ejipofed : and particularly Seneca, who was con- 
 temporary with Paul, (and by fome, upon what ground I now 
 inquire not, is faid to have converfed with him) and others of 
 the Stoicks fteered this courfe, to vindicate their religion againd 
 the aifaulis of the Chriftians. But it is as true, this was a foolifh 
 attempt, and its fuccefs I cannot better exprefs, than in the 
 words of the learned and excellent Dr. Owen, *' PoiK|uum au- 
 *' tem feverius paulo inter nonnullos philofophari cceptum efi, 
 ** atque 1imatior(^s de natura divina opiniones inter piurimos ob- 
 •' tinuerant, faplenits pudcre ccepit eorum deorum, quos pro- 
 ** tulerant ferrea frcula, ip:norantia & tenebris tota devoluta, 
 ** Omnia idco, fuix de dljs iictitijs, Jove fcil : totoque facro he- 
 *' lenif-ni choragio, vulgo celcbrata crant, res natuiales adum- 
 .** bralle apud antiqous M-jI^^Aoo/s? contcndcrunt. Theologiam banc 
 *' ^\-j^iy.r,v vocant, quam nihil aliud fuilfe aiunt, quam naturje 
 *' doClfinani allegoricam.t" And fome palTages after, he ihews 
 
 the 
 
 * Ad Has. 2. 8. Pvcferente Owen Thcolog. pn?. 189. — «< For 
 *<. they thoiiLjht that uyi Deity was chnrmc.l w.th encomiiuiis ?.nd ti- 
 ** ties heaped one abov :; another, and receivca great honour from thence, 
 " fo that at length thofe different names, dtvifed by fnperltition, by 
 " the progrefs of error, caaie t^ be reckop.t.d different deities. 
 
 + UW\ fupra pag. i(^6. — " But after philofophy began to be more 
 " fcrioafi/ cultivated, ani more corrtd opinions concerning the divine 
 *' nature had taken pkv? among die generaiiiy, the wife men began to 
 
 " be. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 283 
 
 the vanity of this attempt. ** Pofiquarn enim eyangelii lumen 
 *' ufque adeo radiis fuis terrarum orbem perculiffet, uleiube- 
 ** fcenda veteris fuperditionis inf-inia apud ipfum vulgus in con- 
 ~ ** temptum venerit, acutiores lophiRss, qoud dixi, quo ftulliliam 
 ** iftam colore novo fucatam, amabilem redderent, figmento 
 ** huic (N. B.) cuiadverfatur omnis hiiloriae fides, perJinacif- 
 " fime adhseferunt. Inr.o, ut obiter dicam innovata eft priniis 
 ** ecclefiae temporibus apud ipfos Gentiles, tota philoibphandi 
 " ratio.*" Any one that would defjre to fee the folly of this 
 obfervation expol'ed, on which our author lays fo much ftr els, 
 may perufe that chapter, whence thefe words are quctedf. i^'or 
 is this more than what Velleius fpeaks of Zeno a Stoick and o- 
 thers," CumHefiodi ^Eoyot^av interpretatur, toilit cmnino,(N. B.) 
 " ufitatasperceptafque, cognitiones deorimi.:!:" <^<^' 
 
 But were this true, which thofe quotations pretend, it will 
 not yet come up to our author's purpofe ; for thefe quotations 
 tell us not that all the world were of this mind, but only the 
 wife men; and I fear that ihis too needs a refiriction. Now 
 this comes not near to the point. When our author has occahon 
 to notice fome abfurd pra6iices or opinions that are againft him, 
 he rejeasthem with this, ** Qiiod a paucu [olummodo fuptrfitti- 
 ** oft faduviy non fatis in rdiriomm ajferitur, Nos auU?7i hand 
 ^ -^ " alia 
 
 « be alhamed of thofe gods, which had been invented in the iron ages, 
 « that were entirely involved in ignorance and daiknefs, andthereiure 
 <( they maintained that all thofe things that had been commonly report- 
 « ed of the fiftitioiis gods, viz.Jupiter and all the hierarchy of Greece, 
 «* fignified onlv certain natural things in the fcnfc of the ancient Myiho- 
 ii logifts. And they called this Mythological Divinity, which they 
 « fa?d was nothing clfe than the knowledge of nature, veiled by alle- 
 
 * Ubi fupra. pag, 198.—" For after the light of the gofpel had (0 
 « far enlightened the world with its rays, that the Ihameful madnefs 
 " of the a'ncient fuperftition had fallen into conteir^pt, even among the 
 « vulgar, the more acute fophiih, as I faid before, in order to render 
 *< that foolery amiable, by giving it a new colour, adlsered moft oblli- 
 " nately to this fiaion, though oopofue to all the faith oi hiftory, nay, 
 << we may obferve in paffing, that in the f.rft ages of the church, the 
 « manner of. philofophifing among the Heathens underwent a total 
 " change." 
 
 i Owen ubi fupra. Lib 3, Cap. 6. 
 
 + Cicero de Nat. Door. Lib. i.— *^ Vv'hen he interprets the Theo- 
 « gonv of Heiiod, he entirely overturns altogeuier ?he ufual and re- 
 <" ceived traditions concerning the gods." 
 
284 AM INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 ** aha quam qu.'C omnes, vel pUrique faltem colutrtyfiih rdigionis 
 ** titulo pouimuS'*" Now let this be, as it is, the ftateefihe 
 quefiion, and what fonie of the wifer did, is nothing at all to the 
 purpofe; ard this indeed is the point. In fine, we doubt not 
 before v/e have done, from our author's own book, to demon- 
 ftrate, that wliat he aims at in this obfervation, and confequent- 
 ly all the fiory of the jnyfiick theology of the Heathens, is ut- 
 terly inconfident with all faith of hiitory, which makes us as fure 
 of this, as they can of any thing, that many nations, nay mofi; 
 nations, nay nioft wife men held a plurality of gods, even in the 
 fcnfe our author v\ould deny. Tlie next obfervation he makes, is 
 akin to the former. He, follow in gVcdius, as he tells us, divides 
 nil the Gentiles' worihip into proper^ JymboUcal ^nd mixt.'^' 
 Proper is, when the true God, or the fun, or the moon is wor- 
 fhipped as the true God, and the worftnp is defigned ultimately 
 tj terminate in their honour: Symbolic is, when the true God 
 is worfnipped in the fun, as an image, reprefentation or fym- 
 bol of hi?T> ; tlien the worihip is not defigned only, nor mainly 
 to terminate on the fun, but on the true God. As for the 
 mixt, we ave not concerned to fpcak of it. Ke would every 
 where have us to believe, that all their worfliip was fymbolical, 
 and as fuch he frequently ieems to juiV.fy and avouch it as rea- 
 fonable, which the Papifts will readily tliank him for ; and he 
 cxprefiy aiferts this, th.it all ** their worihip, fave what was di- 
 reitlv audreflc-d to the true God,*' which I believe was very lit- 
 tle, *' was fymbolic." Atque cultum proprium nullum Juijfe 
 olvn preterqucv7i furmni Dei, videtur.X ^^ is well that he expreilcs 
 this pcfition modcftly, as being confcious how great ground o- 
 thers will fee to jud^e otherwife. And the reafon that follows, 
 drawn tVom the alleged evidences of the thing, we Ihall have 
 under conhderation anon. But toward the clote of his bcok, he 
 calls them ignorarJs, oi Jcioliy that believes not as he believes 
 in this matter. 
 
 But 
 
 * Do Relig. Gent. pa^r. 12. — " What was done fuperftitioufly by a 
 << few only, cannot be faid to be a part of the gcner.d relij^ion, but 
 <c we place under ihe tide of religion no nther things than thofe which 
 n all, or at kali the moft part practiied." 
 
 t Jbld. Y^%' 183. 
 
 t Ibid. pag. 226. — " And there feems to have been no proper wor- 
 " Ihip of old, e.-flcept that of the Supreme God." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 285 
 
 But it would be expected, that when he advances fuch a bold 
 pofition, and is To hard on them that diffcnt from him, he would 
 give good proof of it ; but if any expe6t that, he will find him- 
 ielf deceived. 1 find indeed a paffage quoted with a high com- 
 mendation to this purpofe. *' Atque hie dt cullu dei Jymbolico 
 •* preclarum. locum ex Maximo Tyrio, Dijfert- 38. quef/i adducit 
 ** Vo^ius, fupprimere non poffum> Burbari o?nnes pariter De^ 
 " V7?i ejjt intciligunt ; conjlituere interim fibi alia atque alia fig^ 
 ** na : ignanPerfi imaginem qnt unum duret diem, vorax quid 
 *' ^ in faiiabiley fie Maximi verba vtrtit Voj]ius*'' But what 
 is all this to the purpofe ? Doth this quotation from a Platonic 
 philofopher, who lived an hundred and fifty years after Chrift, 
 when the gofpel had overfpread the whole world, and chafed 
 the i^agan darknefs away, and made them ail^amed of their old 
 opinions, and improven reafon, prove any thing? To fpend 
 time on this, after what has been laid above, were to trifle with 
 a witnefs. The Deifis have not, nor can they ever prove the 
 truth o- this bold affcrtion ; the falfhood of which we may dete<5l 
 before we have done. But hitherto our author has only ufed 
 hhjiiield; we muft next fee whether his fword be not of bet- 
 ter metal. All that has been hitherto faid, is only a dcfenfa- 
 tive for the Heathen's opinions and practice : We mull now iee 
 by what arguments he proves that his firl\ article did univer- 
 ialiy obtain. 
 
 His firfl argument leans upon a few quotations from fome Hea- 
 thens, who ailert, that there is one Supreme Being, fuch asHi- 
 erocles, Zoroailer, and others, fome of old and fome of late. 
 
 But all this is nothing to the purpofe : For were there twenty 
 times more who faid fo, this v.'iil not prove the point he is obli- 
 ged to make good. He has undertaken to (hew that it was not 
 doubted among wife or unwife, tkat there was one fupre?ne God, 
 and ke the fame whom we adore. Now what is this to the pur- 
 pofe, to bring the opinions of a few learned men, without tel- 
 ling what were the opinions of the nations or times where they 
 lived, or of the world at large V It is not the queilion, What Se- 
 neca, 
 
 * De Rcl. Gent. pag. 70.—" And here! cannot fupprefs a famous 
 « place in Maximus Tyrius, DifT. 38. which is quoted by VoiTius. 
 " All the barbarians believe equally that there is a God, but fet up 
 •* diiterent figns or repiefenrations of hira. For exnirple, the Perilans 
 *•' chufefire, an image that laih but one day, fomething voracious and 
 ♦' infatiablc. Thus does Voluus render the words of Maximus." 
 
286 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 neca, Zcroafler, Plato, and twenty more, thought, nay what 
 whole nations bebdes thought? but. What the whole world 
 thought -in this matter? This the argument touches not. 
 
 His next argument is drawn from the confeiTion ofieveral di- 
 vines. With this he begins his fifteenth chapter, and frequent- 
 ly Ipeaks of it. But this favs no more for him, than other, and 
 perhaps more confiderable teOimonies, do againO him. Befides, 
 fmce he has not condeicended on the perfons who fall in with 
 him here, nor their words, we murt "^ leave them ,* as we are 
 not concerned in them, nor obliged to follow them further, 
 than thev do the truth. 
 
 But that which he lavs the mod flrefs on, is the fuppofed evi- 
 dence of the thing*. This he frequently infifts on, as to all his 
 articles; and its force amounts to this — It is fo clear that there is 
 one only Suprenie Beings and that the fun nor no other is he, that 
 it could not efcape the m.oit dull and unthinking. 
 
 But here our author puts me in mind of the companions of 
 Chriftopher Columbus, whofirft difcovered Am-erica, about the 
 year i ^,92 ; thev were one day at table with him, and began to 
 depreciate and undervalue the diifcovery he had made, telling 
 him how eafily others might have done it. Well, fays he, I 
 hold you a wager, I do what none of you IhaU do, and prefent- 
 ly calling for an egg, fays he, none of you can make that 
 eg^ ftand flralght on the table ; which when they had effayed 
 to no purpofe, he tikes it, and crufhes the end of it a little, 
 and then it flood eafily ; which, when they all faid it was eafy 
 to do : Well, fays he, it is very true, ye can do it after 1 have 
 done it. It is ealy to fee things after they are difcovered to 
 our hand, whi-h we would otherwife never have thought of. 
 Ail the world was not fo difcerning asour author was, and his 
 followers pretended to be, and he has given us fufficient proof 
 of that in his book, and I truly wonder with what face any man 
 could make ufe of this argument after he had read, much more 
 after he had u^rit fuch a book, wherein it is made clear as the 
 day, that many nations believed no other God but the fun, 
 moon and flars, as we Ihall lliew afterwards. And 1 mud take 
 the freedom to fay, that our ndble and learned author, with the 
 reft of the Deiiis, and all the philoiophers, who lived fince the 
 o-ofoel obtained in the world, owe more to tlie Chriftian religion, 
 than they have the ingenuity to own. What they think fo 
 
 clear 
 
 * De'Tvclig. Gent, pag, 1S2, i65. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 287 
 
 clear, when revelaiion has not only taught them the truths, but 
 the grounds of them.vvas dark not only to the vulgar, but to the 
 wifellof old. I cannot better conclude this, than by tranfcribing 
 a pailage of the ingenious Mr. Lock's EJay on Human Under- 
 ftanding — " Had you or 1, (fays he, fpeaking 2,ho\Minnatt: ideas) 
 *' been born at the bay of Seldania, pofTibly our thoughts and no- 
 ** tionshad not exceeded thefe brutiili ones of the Hotentots that 
 ** mhabit there ; and had the Virginian king, Apochancana 
 ** been educated in England, he had, perhaps, been as know- 
 ** ing a divine, and as good a mathematician as any in it. The 
 ** difference between him and a more improved Englilhman, 
 ** lying barely in this, that the exercife of his faculties was 
 ** bounded within the ways, and modes and notions of his own 
 ** country, and was never directed to any other or farther in- 
 *' quiries : And if he had not any idea of a God as we have, 
 •* it was only becaufe he purfued not thofe thoughts, that would 
 ** certainly have led him to it." Thus far Mr. Lock. If 
 fome men had been born where the gofpel light has not come, 
 they would have learned to talk more foberly of iht fufficiency 
 qi the light of nature. 
 
 The only thing that remains fcr him to prove as to this firft 
 article is. That this One Supreme God, whom he thinks the 
 Gentiles all centered in, was the jfame God with him. whom \vq 
 worfhip. For this he refers us to three fcriptures — Rom i. 19. 
 A6fs X. throughout, and A6^s xvii. 28, 6cc. 
 
 Our author has not drawn any argument from thofe pafTages, 
 but barely refers to them. He was particularly unlucky in 
 quoting the laft of them : For it obliged him to take notice of 
 an argument arifing obviouily from the paffage, againR the pur- 
 pofe he adduced it for the proof of ; and indeed that paffage af- 
 fords feveral arguments againil; our author's opinion in this mat- 
 ter, which are not eafy to be folved, if they who follow him, 
 were to be determined by fcripture arguments. But our noble 
 author has fcarce fairly laid the objediion, which he ftarted X» 
 himfelf from the altar to the unknown God. But tofpeak home to 
 the purpofe — -There are only two things that can be drawn from 
 thefe or the like paffages. I. That fome of the Gentiles knew 
 the true God. 2. That all of them had fom.e notions of truth 
 concerning God, or which were only rightly applicable to the 
 trus God* The actings of confcience within, and the works of 
 God without them, enforced on them the impreffion of feme 
 Power, fuperior to themfelves, on which they depended; ard 
 
 this 
 
288 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 this was indeed a notion of truth concerning God ; for this xv^is 
 only juftly applicable to the true God : But yet they, through 
 their darknefs and wickednefs, when they came to inquire n7ore 
 particularly after the true God, applied thefe notions to crea- 
 tures, and took them for this true God. 
 
 Now this is indeed all, befides bare and repeated aflertions, 
 that 1 can find in our author, to prove that his firft article ob- 
 tained univerfally : And how far it is from proving this, is evi- 
 dent from what has been faid. 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 T/iis One Supreme Gcd is to be worjhipped* 
 
 THE fecond article our author has not attempted a fufiici- 
 ent, nay nor any feparatc proof of: Wherefore we go onto 
 the next. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 That Virtue and Piety are the principal parts of the zvorfkip of 
 this one true God* 
 
 THIS he alfo pretends to have univerfally obtained, and that 
 the Gentiles expe£led not Heaven for their worlhip, or their 
 iacred performances, but for their 7«(?ra/ worfhip, that is, their 
 \irtues. To prove this, is the defign of our author's 15th chap- 
 ter, at Icaft till pag. 195. 
 
 The firft thing he infills on to this purpofe is, the high rel- 
 pe6> which the Heathens put on thole things, while they ranked, 
 /nens, ratio, pittas, fides, pudicitia, [pes ^vA jclicitas\ , aniongft 
 ilic number of their gods, and ercdted temples to tliem. '1 his 
 lie proves at large. But what all this makes to his purpoic, 
 1 am not yet fatisfied. 
 
 This indeed proves that they had a refpeCt to all thofe thing/. 
 V^cj-y true, io they had, and thai becaule of their ufefulncis in 
 huinan foclety. Yea this proves that they had an undue relpucl 
 to them, fo as to perform ads of worihip to them. But that 
 they defigned to worfhip God by thoi'e virtues, which ihey 
 would not allow they had from him, as we Ihall hear altei wards, 
 
 is 
 
 * Mind, Reafon, Pietj, Faith, Hope, and Happi»efs. 
 
PRINCL^LES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 289 
 
 IS not fo eafily proven. Befides, this was cniy at Rome that 
 thefe altars were ered^ed, and fo is far from concluding as to the 
 red of the world, where virtue, hope, (&c. had no fuch temples. 
 The next thing our author mentions for proof of the univer- 
 fal reception of this article, is the cujlom of the Heathens in dei- 
 Jying their heroes on account of their virtues and piety. But 
 our author knew too much of the Gentiles' religion to believe 
 that this proves any more, than the fulfome flattery of the blind- 
 ed world that deified even devils, and, as our author elfewhere 
 well obferves, men that were no better than devils ; or if there 
 was any more in this cudom, when at firft invented, it was only 
 fome ill applied piece of gratitude to perfons, who had been 
 their benefa6\ors, or the henefa6iors of mankind. And all this 
 refpeC^, that was put on them, v/as not hecaufe their virtues re- 
 fktSied any glory on God, but becaufe they had been ufeful to 
 men. Befides, religion was old in the world before this novel 
 Grecian invention took place. As the Roman poet and fatyriil 
 obferved, 
 
 — nee turha decrum 
 
 Talisy ut eji hodie-, conteiitaqize fydera paucis 
 NuminibuSi mijerum urgeharit Atlanta minore 
 PiuJere,* 
 
 Nor did this univerfally obtain. So that the argument con- 
 cludes juft nothing. It neither proves that all the world were 
 agreed tliat virtue and piety are the principal parts of the wor- 
 fhip of God, nor that on acccnnt of thefe, men get eternal hap- 
 pinefs. What their in:mortality was, of which they talked, 
 we may fee under the fifth article. 
 
 Some few quotations from Cicero, Seneca, Plato, and one or 
 two more compofe our authr^r's laH argument. Seneca fpeaking 
 fbmewhere of Scipio Aflricanus fays, ** Animam quidem ejus 
 ** in ccelum, ex quoerat, rediffe perfuadeo, non quod magnos 
 ** exercitus duxit (hos enim Cambyfes furiofus, & furore felici- 
 ** ter ufus habuit) ied ob egregiam moderationem, pietatemque. 
 ** Cicero Lib, de Offic. Deos piacatos facit pietas & fanctitas.'* 
 And elfewhere he fays, ** Nee eft ulla erga decs plctas, niii 
 
 N n ** honeda 
 
 * " Nor^was there fuch a mnldtude of gods, as there is now, nnd 
 " the iUrs being content with a fe;v deities, preiTcd the poor Atlas 
 « -vvith kfi. wei<rht." 
 
250 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 ** honcfta de niimine eorum ac mente opinio : Qiium cxpeti ni- 
 ** hil ab iisquod fit injuftuin, ac in honeAuni arbitrere *" Some 
 others he adduces from Plato and others, wherein they fay, that 
 happinefsand likenefs to God arc obtained by virtue. 
 
 But to what purpofe are all thele brought ? I. There is word 
 here of gods, and their worfhip ar.d piety as refpc»S\ing ihem ; 
 i)ut not one word of the One trueGcd, of whom aionc we 
 fpeak. 2, It is certain that this piety and fan(ftity accoiding to 
 thofe authors, comprehended the worfliip of their gods, as our 
 author exprefly confcfies, ^^ Atque ad pietatem confu}n:natu?}] plu- 
 ** rima infuper [thM is, befides virtue of which he fpeaks before) 
 ** po/iulan aiehanf, fedea prefertini qw! grati infuperos animi 
 ** indicia etTent, puta /acrificia, ritu & ctranonas & kujufmo' 
 ** di alia quorum Jar r ago ingensjuit : C teriim fine prxdiBis 
 ** divis five deabus, am mam regentibui, aditiim in ccshim non 
 ** dari.Y' This lall put is only our author's fay, and is not re- 
 ccncileable with what he tells us of their drifting fomi-, who 
 we e fo far from being gods, that tliey were, fays he, Ne viri 
 qiizdcm probi.X 3- As for wliat Cicero fays, •' Thit for virtue 
 and piety v> e are advanced to heaven ;" I do not know weil how 
 to reconcile it with what he fays elfcvvhere in his book de Ami- 
 ciiia^ " Vult plane virtus honorem : nee virtiitii efi ulla alia mer- 
 cesT otherwife than by thinking that by heaven, (his ccclmUf) 
 lie meant, that which many of them meant by their immortality^ 
 that is, an -immortal fame, a good reputation after they are 
 gone, asTiongft the furvivers. As for Seneca, Chriftianily had 
 
 taught 
 
 * De Re!i?. Grnti). pa^. 187 — "Tarn perfuaded that his foul re- 
 '* turnrd to thar heaven fro;n whence it came, not bt^caufe he had great 
 <* armies (for Cambyfis who was a madiran, and fortunare \-\ his madnefs, 
 " had thefe too) but on account of his rcinsrkable moderation and pi- 
 
 <* ery Piety and hoiincfs appeafe the gods Nor is 
 
 " there anv piety towards the gods, except an honourable o^nnion of 
 " their deity and mind, '.-rhen one thinks that nothing unjull and dif- 
 " honourable ihouid ue aiked of them/' 
 
 + Ibid. pav>:. 185. — « And thev faid, that many other things befides 
 <■< were requifuc in order to conlHtute '^erfeft piety, but efpccialiy fuch 
 << things as-viere iiidlcarions of a mind gratef'.il to the gods, viz. fjcri- 
 *' lices, rites, and csrcmonie'^, and ether thinps of t!»'.s fort, of which 
 << there w-as a g'-eat number, but that there was no acccfs to heaven 
 «« without the aibrefaid gods and goJilelies, who directed the foal." 
 
 \ ibid, pag. 195. — " Not even good men,'' 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 291 
 
 taught him a little more, and his teftimony is not much to be 
 regarded. 4. Were there twenty ir.oie of them, they never 
 come near tea proof of the point: it is the fentiments of the 
 world that we are inquiring after, and not what were the thoughts 
 of fome of the more improved philoiophers. The queliion is 
 not, Whether men by the light of nature faw an excellency in vir- 
 tue, and that it was to be followed ? but, Whether they looked on 
 It as a part, a principal part of the worfliip, not of their deities, 
 but of ;he one true God ; and that for which heaven, not that 
 imaginary heaven which men had at their difpofal ; but an eter-^ 
 nity of hap pine f s tn communion with God, is to be obtained? 
 Now our author advances nothing to prove this point. 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 JVe miijL repent when zoe do amy's* 
 
 A S to this article our author confefTes fevcral things, which 
 it will be m.eet to notice in the entry, i. He owns that the 
 ancients, the wifer fort of them, thought not repentance a fufH- 
 cient atonement for the grolTer fort of (ins;* and quctesCicero, 
 faying, Expiatio fcelerufu in homines nulla ejl,\ Where Gcd 
 was offended they iought fan<Siuary in repentance, and thought 
 it fufficient, but not where men were wronged. *' C^teruin licit 
 " in remedium peccati^ ubi Dei fummi majejias L'dereiur, paniten' 
 '* tiam five dolor em efficacem e[Je crederent : Nsn itatamenvbi ho' 
 ** mines injuria vel contiimelilii afficerentur, de pcenitentia ilia 
 *' ftatuebant Gentiles-t" 2. He con feiTes that they thought not, 
 ** Repentance alone a fulTicient atonement.!!" He tells us, that 
 they had Expiationes lujirationcjque, fine quibus neque ctimine 
 neque poena folutos femetipfos arbitrahantur . Again, 3. He 
 confefTes that the word repentance, or penitence, was rarely ufed 
 among the ancients, in that fenfe we ufe it. *' Neque mihi dubi^ 
 
 " iim 
 
 * De Rel. Gent, pag, 197. 
 
 + Cicero de Leg. Lib. i. — " There is no expiation of crimes 
 " agaijjft men." 
 
 X De Rcl. Gent. pag. 198. — " But although they thcjght that pen. 
 « itencc or foriovv was an efFtrcluai mean of taking away iinj 
 *< whereby the majcUy of the Supreme God was injured, yet they had 
 « not the fame opinion of penitence, in rrgard to thofe fms whereby 
 " men v/rre injured and infuhcd." 
 
 II Ibid. pag. 1 9 J. 
 
'02 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, 
 
 XIV, 
 
 " um ^uin eorum (fal, ptccatorum) panituerit Gentiles, guc 
 *' fot mala, accercerunt ; licet ranus quidem pmmtentic verbum 
 *' inter aiaores, ec quo jam ufarpatur ftnfi reperiutur,**' Since 
 then he makes all thefe concelTions, there remains no more lave 
 this, that he pretends ail the ** world were agreed upon rapen- 
 ** tance, as that which was of uiz to expiate, M lead, iome lef- 
 " ler faults committed againft God, and that we Ihould, when 
 " we (in, be grieved for it." < 
 
 To prove this, he quotes feme pafiages from Ovid, Seneca 
 and fome others. The only confiderable teftimony is from Peri- 
 ander, who was one of the feven Mafe men of Greece : One of 
 whofe fentences, he f-ws it was AV^pr^v UiraQoKiva^ Te mail 
 pamteaf, ubi peccaveris, Seneca fays. Quern pccniiet peccojfe 
 pene eji innocens. And Ovid, 
 
 Scepe le-oam pcenr.Sy ereptaque Iu7r,i7ta redduvt 
 '^t7n bene pecccti pcenitnfjj'e -videsj; 
 
 But all thefe are alleged to no purpofe. They do not prove 
 ilxdl repentance vras looked on as an expiation by (he Gentiles. 
 Ovid and Seneca lived too late in the world, and had too great 
 accefs (o learn from others, to be nf^ucb regarded in this matter; 
 hut they only fpeak their own mind, and we have here no argu- 
 ment of the agreement of the world as to any thingaboutrepen- 
 tanq^. 'i he opinions of the wife are no jull rneafurc of the 
 knowledge or apnrehenfions of the vulgar. 
 
 But that whereon our author feerns to lay more (Irefs, is their 
 facrinces, which he pretends are an evidence of their grief for 
 fin, or repentance.^ Ouo?yum enim mfi intern o dolore perciti, tot 
 ritusfacraque ad d'eos placandos excogitaffentX -^ 
 
 But, I. if the Gentiles had been as much agreed about re- 
 pentance as our author pretend?;, they would indeed have fpa- 
 red all this pains and coll. 2. Tliey were indeed grieved, but this 
 grief they did not willingly entertain, nor allow themfelves in 
 
 as 
 
 * De Rel. Gent. pag. 198.--'' Nor is h a doubt with ire that the 
 " Gentiles n^pented of thofe crimes which brought fo many evils upon 
 << them, although the word repen(ance, in that fenfe in which it is now 
 " ufed feldom occurs in their authors." 
 
 + « You fee tliat he who duly repents of his otTence often alJevi- 
 « ares his puniihment, and reilores his lofilig'jt." 
 
 t ^* For to what purpofe, unlefs they had l;ficn prompted by inward 
 *« iforrov/, would tl-ey have contrived fo many rites and faciifices ior 
 *< appeafmor the gods :" 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 293 
 
 as their duty; but looked upon it as their termcnt, and fought 
 landuary in means proper for appe^fing their gods, as they 
 thou^:ht. 3. This grief, which facrifices prove them to have 
 had, is no more but" that uneafy fenfe of fin in the confcience, 
 which is a part of its punilhment, and no duty performed for 
 their delivera/ice ; and this forced them upon all ways that they 
 could imagine to get rid of it ; fo that facrifices were what they 
 betook themlelves to, to fave themielves, or procure a deliver- 
 ance from our author's peniiencc 4« Further, our auihor, 
 when it is for his purpofe, can put another conftruaion on their 
 facrifices ; while we have heard above, he makes them only ab- 
 furd enough teftimonies of gratitude to the gods, and to have no 
 refneft to fin at all. It is indeed true, that fcmetimes they were 
 in this way ufed ; fo Pythagoras is faid to have ufed them when 
 he oiTered hecatombe to the gods, for a propofition w hich he 
 found out ; but for ordinary they were defigned as expiatory. 
 r. Do their facrifices, which they ottered to fo many gods, 
 prove that they were troubled for offending the one true God ? 
 \ believe not. Ay, but this was what our author fl^ouid have 
 proved. 6. Docs our author tell us that they were fo little a- 
 greed about this purgative, that no lefs a perfon than Plato dif- 
 cardcd repentance, and put philofophy inits room, as that where- 
 by only v/e could be purged ? And this leads me to a 7th thing, 
 that fhev;s of hov/ little lignification this preterided proof is, 
 That it is known that the moredifcerning philoiophers m.^de moft ? 
 light of thofe facrifices, yea, of fm, and conlequently of our 
 author's catholic remedy, repentance. As to the fufficiency of 
 rep ntance for the place he aingns it, we have fpoken to it a-, 
 bove. Our author, I think, has badly proven that rt univer- 
 fallv obtained. And indeed had there been as m.uch weight 
 laid on it as is pretended, we could not have mifTed a more large 
 account of it in the writings of the Gentiles. Further, 8. Our 
 author pretends, that repentance is of no avail, as to the groljer 
 evils, but only waQies away lcff<r fins, and we fear our auti.or 
 would find fome difficulty tc provq that generally the Gen- 
 tiles were fo concerned for leffer fins, as he pretends. 9. Had 
 they been fov/ell agreed, as he pretends, about repentance, and 
 had this been the defign of their facrifices, 1 do not well un- 
 derffand why our author fliould make fuch oppofiticn betwixt 
 facrifices and repentance, as elfewhere he does; when he is 
 fpeaking of feveral faults of the Heathen priefts, he fubjcins— 
 ** Scd& hoc pejus, quod quum ex vera venule, vd June uhi ex- 
 
 ** ciicrint 
 
294 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 " ciderint ex panitentia vera, pactm internam comparare debw 
 iffent, adritus^ facra, qu£ ipjij SciL Sacer dotes ) peragerent 
 ** res perduBa efi, &€. *" Here it would feem plain, that the 
 people came at length, If not of their own accord, yet by the 
 perluafion of prierts, to overlook repentance, and reje^ if, 
 iubftituting other things in its room ; and when once this ob- 
 tained in one generation, it is like it might Ipread and obtain 
 in after ages, being tranfmitted from father to fon, and the 
 prieOs carrying on the cheat ; and fo at leaft the v/orld in all 
 ages hath not made any account of repentance as the only ex- 
 piation. ^ Again, it would feem from our author, that facrifices 
 did not import, and were not evidences of repentance , but on 
 the contrary, means invented to make people negleft it.f I do 
 not well underHandhow they, who, if we may believe our author, 
 were all fo fully agreed about repentance, and were fo prone 
 and inclined to it, that their minds run into it without any, 
 perfuafion, fnould need fo much the prielh' perfuafion, and be 
 eafily drawn off from what they accounted fo available. Let us 
 hear our author. Speaking of man's recovery from fin. fays 
 he, ** Atque inflauratione7n hanc fieri dcbere ex panitentia, 
 ** docuere tu?nphilo/ophi, turn facer dotes, ita ut hanc a gen dam 
 ** animamque purificandum, fed non fne eorum minifleno, ft" 
 ''^ plus inculcarent. Bent quidem fi pcrnitentiam fatis populo 
 perfuafjjent, quod neutiquam tamen ab illis fa&um fuit ; licet 
 adeo prona in earn fit anima liumana, ut etiam nuUo fuadente^ 
 in foTO interna ex gratia diviiia, confcientlfque didamine de- 
 ** cernatur,X' Our author tells us, that the people's facrilices 
 were an argument of their repentance, as we heard above, and 
 that the prielis perfuadcd them to it, and that they were all 
 
 agreed 
 
 * Do Rel. Gent. pa^. lo — « But this too is worfe, that when they 
 
 " ought to have fought hnvard peace by true virtue, or when they had 
 
 '^ fallen from it, by true penitence, the matter was reduced to rites and 
 
 '•' iacrifices performed by the priefts." 
 
 % Ibid. pag. 107. 
 
 ■f « And both 'the philofophers and the priefts taught that^this rc- 
 «' covcry mull be brouohc about by repentance, fo that they often in- 
 '* culcared that this ought to be done and the foul purified, but not 
 •' ^^i;h ;Ut their miniltry. It would have been well indeed if they had 
 " fjflicienily pcrfuaded the people to penitence, which however was 
 '* not done by them, although the human mind is io prone to it, that 
 " even without any adviler it is determined in the inward court by the 
 »• diviiic grace and the didatc of confciencc." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 295 
 
 agreed, that repentance was the only atonement, and that the 
 mind of man needs no admonilher to peri'uade it to repentance; 
 and yet he tells us likewiTe in the palTages adduced, That 
 repentance was quite laid by, facrificcs and rites put in its 
 place, the people lb ignorant of the worth- of it as to let it go, 
 and fo backward as not to look after it, uniefs the priefts had 
 preffed it more, (and yet we are told they inculcated it oft) and 
 in fine, the prieUs fo negligent that they quite neglciSled tbeir du- 
 ty. How to knit all this together I know not. I do think it were 
 eafier to make thefe words overthrow our author's argument, 
 than to reconcile them with themfelves, with truth, reafon, or 
 experience ; but I fparc refle61ions that offer themfehes. Be- 
 fore our author, or the Deifts, make any thing of this argument, 
 they muft prove, ** That facrifices univerfally obtained — That 
 facrifices were every where ofTered to the One True GOD-— 
 That thofe facrifices were fymbolical of repentance," as ano- 
 ther Deift has it, and fcveral other things taken notice of a- 
 .bove. 
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 That there arc rewards and punijlimaiis after this life* 
 
 WE are now come to cur author's laft article, 
 very conftant in exprefiBng himfelf about this article, and how 
 far it was agreed to. Sometim:;s he pretends, that thefe rewards 
 v<!CYC eternal happinefs J and that this v.as agreed ; fometimes on- 
 ly it was agreed that there were rewards and punifhments after 
 this life ; and fometimes he words it yet mere modefiiy , that they 
 expe&ed rewards and punilbments, either in this lijey or ajter 
 it. So pag. 2OC5, when he enters exprefly to treat of this arti- 
 cle, Et quidem premium bonis i3 fupplicium malis^ (N. B.J vet 
 in hac vita, vel pojl hanc vitum dan, Jlatuekant Gentiles*.'' 
 
 And indeed when he cotnes to tell us how far is determina- 
 ble in this matter by the light of nature, he makes this article 
 of very little fignification. " Non imperite quidem, bonos 
 ** bona, males mala, vel in eternum manere affirmabant vete- 
 *' res. At quis locum prasmii, vel pcenas oflenderit ? Qjns 
 
 *' fupplicii 
 
 * " And indeed the Heathens we«*e of opinion, that there would be 
 " a reward to the good, and a puniihrnent to the wicked, either in thit 
 « life or after this life." 
 
296 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE CHAP.xr;. 
 
 ** rupplicli genus conje£^2vbrlt?" (And the fame U perfe<ft]y the 
 cale :js to rewards, though our author waves that, for uhat 
 caufe it is not hard to conjecture.) ** Qj»'s tandem durationis 
 " tertninurn pofuerit * i'* 
 
 All that he pret^^nds to have heen received, was barely this, 
 '* 7'hat there are rewards a. id puniil.medts after this life." Let 
 us hear himself, ** Et quidem pra^ter folennem illann notitiam 
 ** communem, nempe, deiim bonum juftumq ; effe, adeoq ; 
 *' pEseadum vel pccnam tum in hac vita, turn pofl banc vitam, 
 ** pro aftionibus, imo & cogitationibus fuis unicuique rt^metiri, 
 ** nihil quod verifimile magis effet ab iilis ftatui pofle decerni- 
 *' mus f." But he teiis us, that by the additions they made to 
 this, and proceeding to determine further than they knew, even 
 this came to be ca'led in queftion, (w'lich, bv the way, ruins 
 our author's caufe as to this article) but let himfelf fpeak, 
 ** Dutn haec philorophl, ilia faceidotes, alia demum pocta: 
 '^ sdjicerent, tota inclinata in cafumq ; prona nutavit veritatis 
 *' fabrica. Si femet fatis coercuiflent Gentilium coriph^ei, ne- 
 *' minem, puto, dilTentientcm habiwircnt.:): 
 
 He aiTerts very little, we fee, to have univ.erfally obtained as 
 to this article, and he Teems to do more than iniinuate, that even, 
 as to this littUi at leall, in procefs of time there were fome, and 
 even not a icw diilenters: For I know not v/hat meaning elfe 
 to put upon the *' whole fabric of truth nodding,'' and " inclin- 
 ing to fall :" And this is to quit the caufe. We fliall however 
 notice his arguments, but the more (hortiy, becaufe of what has 
 been already cbferved. 
 
 Firft, 
 
 * Dc E-clig. Gent. pso;. 2 ro. — *•' The ancients indeed not unikil fully 
 *< afHrm-^d that good things awaited the good, and evil the wicked, 
 " even for ever. But v/ho could fnow the place cl: reward or pim- 
 ♦« ilhment ? Who could guefs die kind cf puniihrnent ? . . . Who 
 " at hfr can fix the term of their duration ?" 
 
 + " And indeed bolides that foletim common notice, that there is a 
 *< God who is good and juR, and confeqaenilv will reward and piiniHi 
 ** every one, I'Oth in this life and afi^r this life, according to his ac- 
 " ticns, and even to his thoughts, we ihink that nothing inore pio- 
 " b>Tbie could he deterrnint'd by rheiii." 
 
 :{'^ While t\\Q philofophers added fome things, the priefls others, 
 " and the poets others further, the u-hoie fabric of truth was ruiiied 
 <f and fell to the ground. . If the leaders of the Heathens could have 
 f« reilralned themfcivcs, I think that they would have had nobody 
 '» di'tcriof? from rhem." 
 
Principles of tke modern deists. 297 
 
 Firft then, he pretends, that the perfuafion o( ihis \s in naie*, 
 that the reaions of it are To obvious, and the arguir.ents heading 
 to it are lb evident, that they could not but agree as to this.f 
 
 But I have already ihown, that every thing that is evident, or 
 was (o to our author and his companions and followers, was not 
 fo to the ancient fages. I guefs that he learned moft of thcfe ar- 
 guments he infiiis on from fome others than the Heathen phiiof- 
 ophers, or if they managed them (o well, he would have done 
 right to hav£ pointed us to the places where they have done fo» 
 But when he has done this it will nat prove an univtrfal cori' 
 Jent: For we are concerned in fome others befides philofophers. 
 As for what he ptetends of this perfuafion's being innate, I think 
 he has faid much to diiprove it himfeif; or if it be, I think the pre- 
 fages of future mifery in the mind of man, have been much more 
 firong than of happinels. And in a word, he only fays it was in- 
 nate, but does not prove it. Yea, if this did not univerfally ob- 
 tain, according to our author's own do6\ritie, it was not innate. 
 
 Next he infifls on the cuflom of deifying heroes, and placing 
 them among the number of the immortal gods. This he hints 
 at frequently. But this did not univerfaily obtain as to time or 
 place, and fo hit not the point in theleaf^- All were not fo dig- 
 nified, nay, not all that were good ; nor does it prove, that even 
 all that people, among whom ihiscuilom prevailed, were of r, :it 
 opinion; but only the perfons principally concerned. And in- 
 deed it were eafy to (liew that they were not all of this opinion, 
 which may polTibly be made appear in the next chapter. 
 
 His next argument is deduced from a {^\\ teOimonies of poets 
 and philofophers averting a future flate, which he has fcattered 
 up and down, here and there. But what is this to all the world ? 
 Do the poets' fancies of Ely fian fields , Styx and the like, give us 
 the true meafure of the fentiments of the world ? 
 
 Thus I have viewed our author's proofs of his five articles, 
 and their reception in the world. I have not knowingly omitted 
 any thing of moment, advanced by him for his opinion. I (liall 
 conclude this chapter with a few general reflections on our au- 
 thor's ccndu6l in this atTalr. 
 
 I do not a little fufpect a writer of controverfy, when he hud' 
 dies up, and endeavours to conceal the Hate of the qaeilion, and 
 fhifts it upon occafion. It is alv/ays a fign either that his judg- 
 
 O o raent 
 
 * D2 R.e^. Gent. pag. 211. + ibid. pag. 4, 
 
298 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 ment is naught, or that his defigns a-e not fair and Qood. I do 
 not believe that our nolle aulhor's abilities required any fuch 
 njean (liifts, if the badnefs of the caufe he unhappily undertook, 
 had not obliged him : Bat that this ia the courfe he fteers, is evi- 
 dent. Now he feems to undertake tD (hew us, what the oioit 
 univerfal apprehenfions of men were in matters oi religion ; and 
 anon, he pretends to tell us what the more diicerning perfona, a- 
 mong the Heathens thought; and thusfnifts the fcene, as it is for 
 his piirpofe. 
 
 It is further remarkable, that our aut'ior has crammed in a 
 great deal of philofophical learning, which makes nothing at 
 all to the main purpofe of the book. He has writ a book of 
 230 pages to prove that thefe five articles obtained : whereas 
 all the arguments he adduces, fcarce take up ten of them. The 
 refi is acoTle6\ionof hillorical and philological learning about the 
 Heathen gods and woriliip. He only drops here and there the 
 ihadow of an argument; and then when we are fome pages by 
 it, he tells us he has dern'onftrated this already, and we ar« re- 
 ferred back to fome of the preceeding arguments ; and that is, 
 we are bid fear ch for a needle among fl a heap of hay* This looks 
 exceeding fufpicious like.* 
 
 Again, i do not like frequent and repeated aflfertions in a dif-r 
 p t» nt without arguments. Fewer aifertions and more argU' 
 m;:nts, if the caufe had permitted, v/ould liave done better. If 
 is faid.that fome by tcUinga lie often over, come at length to be- 
 lieve it to be t!ue. 1 am apt to think that the oft alTerting over 
 and over again what he undertakes to prove, might go further 
 toward his ov/n conviction, than all the arguments that he has 
 advanced. 
 
 Our author undertakes to give us an account what the Plea- 
 th.^n's thoughts as to thofe articles were, and what led them to 
 thefe apprehenfions; but after all, you ihall find nothing but an 
 account of fome o-" their pra6iices,with our author's glolTes put oa 
 them, and the reafon that, not they, but he thinks mav be al« 
 Icged in juiliiication of their pravSlices and opinions. If he had 
 dealt fairly he would have told us in their own words, what 
 their fcntiments were, and likewife, what were their induce- 
 ments that led them into thofe opinions: but to obtrude, as e- 
 vcry where he doth, his conjeilures and drained interpretations, 
 as their meaning, is perfei'^iv intolerable. 
 
 It 
 
 * Read the conc'ufion of our author's 8. C:;p, pag. 54. r.nd com- 
 pare it with the Cap, 
 
PRI>XIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, 299 
 
 It is indeed true, thnt our author affords us feveral quctat*onr. 
 from the Heathens; but doth he, by this means, give us a fair 
 reprefentation of the point in controverfy, and their fentirrjects 
 about it? No. If his reader is fo fitnple as to take this for gran- 
 ted, he deceives himfelf. I know it is the cuftom of feme others, 
 as well as our author, though perhaps on better defigns, to quote 
 fome paffages from Heathen authors, in order to (hew their a- 
 greenient with. Chnftianity, and to what a length the mere 
 light of nature brought them ; but hereby they do deceive the 
 reader : So Cicero's teitimony to the immortality of the foul, is 
 alleged by our author, pag. 192, *^ Qu€??iadmocfu?n igitur haut 
 ** alius Deus, haut alia virtus, ab GentilibuSy quam ah nojtris, 
 ** 011771 cdehratUTy ita certe communis utriuJquefpesimmGrtalha" 
 ** tis fuit> Diftrtim Cicero 2 de. Leg, ait, animi hominitm 
 *' Junt immortaUs : Sed fortiu?n bonorum divini & alibi iii Lib* 
 *' de SeneBute att : Nan eji lugenda mors, quum immortalitas 
 *' confequitiir*" Now if any body Ihould think that this tefti- 
 inony of Cicero gives a full account of his apprehenfions about 
 immortality, they would be very far deceived ; For in his firft 
 book of lufculan Quejbons, wh.ere he difculTes this point ex pro- 
 fejfo, he diicovers indeed an inclination to believe it, and a de- 
 fire that it may be true ; yet fuch a hefitation about it, that he 
 knows not how to perfuade himfelf of it, as we fhall (liew per- 
 haps in the next chapter. In like manner Plato is cited by him, 
 and many others to the fame purpofe : But what a fad uncer- 
 tainty both Socrates and Plato were in about this point, I (hall 
 fully demonflrate in the next chapter. I {hall here fet down 
 only one notable inHance of the unfairnefs of this v.'ay of pro- 
 cedure. Our author quotes Solon's teftiir.ony iox Juturt Jdici- 
 ty, p2g« IQ4' Let us hear our author's ov/n words, " Fulchram 
 ** diJlinBionem inter felicem Jive jcrtvnattm ^ beatum ajfert ex 
 *' Solo?is Herodotus Lib i. Vbi Crccfo refpondens, ait neminem 
 ** dignum ejfe qui vocetur htatus antequam r£>.si;rr,<7si rov E;o» sv hoc 
 ** €ft, vitavijuamhtne cluvjerit ; adeoquezoroyj^fivejortunatmn 
 
 '* hac 
 
 * " As therefore there was no other God; nor any other virtue for- 
 <' merly celebrated among the Gentiles than by our writers, fo fiir«=ly 
 *' both of them had a common hope of immortality ; for Cicero fays 
 « exprcfsly, 2d de Legibus, that the fools of men are immortal, and 
 " thofe of the brave and good are divine: and elfeuhere in his book oa 
 " Old Age he fays, that^death v-hich immedistely follows, is not ta 
 " be mj'rned for.'* 
 
ooo AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xiv. 
 
 ** hac in vita, nequaquam ''C7f^r.v five heatum ante ohitum ejus ho* 
 " milium appellan pojfe. Huic concinit Ovidius, 
 
 Diciq ; heatus 
 Ante ohitum nemo, fupremaque funera, debet, 
 
 ** Proprie quippe loquendo, nemo keatus ante mortem: Ita ut 
 ** beaii infer Gentiles vocarentur, quiin Ely/iis campis Jempiterno 
 ** dvojiuerentiir**' 
 
 No^v here we have a proof to the full of our author's con- 
 d Jit in his quotations, and the improvement of them. Was 
 not Solon clear that there was a Hate of happincfs after this life? 
 Who can doubt it, after our author has thus proved it ? But 
 what if Solon for ail this, confined happlnefs to this life, de- 
 fining the happy man, *' One who is competently furnifhed 
 ** with outwa-d things, a6l5 honeflly, and lives temperately f;'* 
 which definition no kfs a perfon than Ariilotle approves. And 
 in all Solon's fpeech to Crefus, there is not one word, if it 
 were not difingenuoufly or ignorantly quoted, that gives us the 
 leaft oround to believe that So'on once fo much as dreamed of 
 kappinefs after this life. Stanley in his Life of Solon recites 
 from Herodotes this whole fpeech, and the ftory to which it 
 relates t. Crefu. king of Lydia in Afia the Lefs, fends for 
 Solon upon the (aix^c of his v/ildom. Solon comes. The vain 
 king, dazzled with the lufire of his own greatnefs, alked the 
 wile So'.on, Whether ever he faw any man happier than him- 
 felf, who was poiTeired of fo great riches and power? Solon 
 named feverals, particularly Tellus the Athenian citizen, Cleobis 
 and Bito, two brothers ; the Oory of whom he relates to Crefus, 
 and gives the reaions why he looked on them as happy, without 
 ever a hint of their enjoying any happinefs after this life. At 
 
 which 
 
 * i< Herodotus from Solon quotes a fine didiniflion betwixt a lucky 
 
 « or fortunate and a happy man, in his firil book, when bolon anfwer^ 
 
 <«^ in.; Crefus, fays that nobody tkferves to be called happy, till he has 
 
 <* ended his life well, and confequently that although a man may be 
 
 " called lucky or fortunate in this life, but that he ought not to be cal- 
 
 <f led happv before his death. A.nd Ovid agrees with him, *' Nor ought 
 
 " any to be called happy before his death, and the lall ceremony of 
 
 « his funeral." For properly fpeaklng none is Happy before his death* 
 
 « So that thofe were eail^d happy among the Gentiles who enjoyed an 
 
 «» eternal lite in the Elydan fields." 
 
 f Stanley's Life of S -Ion, pag. 26. J Ibid. pag. 28, 29. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 301 
 
 which Crefus was angry, thinking himfelf undervalued ; 
 whereupon Solon thus addrciTes him — "Do you inquire, Crefus, 
 " concerning human affairs of me, who know, that divine 
 ^^ providence is fevere, and full of alteration ? In procefs of 
 *' time, we fee many things \ve would not ; we futTer many 
 '^ things we would not. Let us propofe feventy years as the 
 '^ term of man's life, which years confift of 25200 days, be 
 '^ fides the additional month ; if we make one year longer than 
 '^ another by that month, to make the time accord, the additional 
 " months belonging to thofe years will be thirty-five, and the 
 *^ days 1050, — whereof one is not in all things like another. So 
 '^ that every man, O Crefus, is miferable ! You appear tome 
 '* very rich, and is king over many ; but thequeOion you de- 
 ^* mand 1 cannot refolve, until I heard you have ended your days 
 ^' happily ; he that hath much wealth is not happier than he 
 '- who gets his living from day to day, unlefs fortune continuing 
 ^' all thofe good things to him, grant that he die well. There 
 ^' are many men very rich, yet unfortunate; many of mode- 
 " rate eftales, fortunate ; of whom he who abounds in wealth, 
 << and is not happy, exceeds the fortunate only in two things, 
 <i the other him in many ; the rich is more able to fatisfy his 
 << defires, and to overcome great injuries ; yet the fortunate 
 i' excels him. He cannot indeed inflict hurt on others, and fa- 
 ii tisfy his own defires; his good fortune debars him of thofe : 
 But he is free from evils, healthful, happy in his children, 
 a and beautiful ; if to this, a man dies well, that is, he whom 
 you feek, who deferves to be called happy ; before death 
 he cannot be ftiied happy, but fortunate ; yet for one man 
 to obtain all this is impofiible, as one country cannot fur- 
 niih itfelf with all things : Some it hath, others it wants; 
 that which hath moft is beft, fo in men not one is perfe6t ; 
 a what one hath the other wants. He who hath confiantly 
 ti moft, and at laft quietly departs this life, in my opinion, O 
 ti king, deferves to bear that name. In every thing we mu'a 
 '• have regard to the end, whither it tends ; for many to whom 
 «^ God difpenfeth all good fortunes, he at lafi utterly fubverts." 
 Thus we fee the whole paffage, in which it is evident that So- 
 lon meant only, thaftomake a man happy, it is requifite he 
 continue in the enjoyment of a competency till death, and that 
 then he die well, that is, quietly and in good refpecl or credit 
 with men. That this is the meaning of dywg zoell according 
 to Solon, is not only evident from the firain of the difcourie, 
 
 but 
 
302 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xiv, 
 
 but from the Ooiiesof Tellus, Cleobis and Blto, v.'bom he in- 
 rtances as bapvv men, becaufe of their creditable deaths. The 
 firft he tfils us died in defence of his country, after he had 
 put his eneniies to flight, ** he died nobly, and the Athenians 
 buried him in the place where he fell, with much honour." 
 The two brothers, Cleobis and Bito, drev/ their mother's chariot 
 forty-five Oadia, and with the. Rrefs died next morning in 
 the temple, and (o died honourably* And any that will rive 
 himfelf the trouble to read Ovid's flory of Adeon, in his third 
 book of his Metamorph. wiU fee it clear as the day, that hs 
 meant ju(\ the fame, tie reprefents how happy one might 
 have thought Cadmus, confidcring how many things he had 
 that were defirable in his lot, a kingdom, relations, and chil- 
 dren, had not Adeon his grand -child's fate interrupted the fe- 
 ries of his joys, and made him iniferable. Whereupon the po- 
 et concludes, ** Till de^th a man cannot be called happy ;" 
 that is, till a man has without interruption, enjoyed a trac^ of 
 profperity, and dies creditably, without any mixture of ill for- 
 tune. 
 
 n 
 
 yam fiahatit Thehce : Poteras jam Cadmet 'vidc 
 Exilio felix : Sorceri tihi Marfave I' enujque 
 Contigerant : Hue adde geuus de covjuge tonta^ 
 ^fot jiaioSi natafque, ^ pignsra cava iie.potes. 
 Has quoquc jmn jwvt'fres : Jed Jcilicet ultima Jemper 
 ExpeSanda dies homini ejli dicique beatus 
 Ante obi turn nemo, fupremaque funera debet. 
 Prima ncpos inter res *ot fibi Cadmcy fecundas 
 CaujA fuit Juciusy l^Sc, * 
 
 And thus he proceeds to tell the ftory of Actcon's being 
 transformed into a hart. Thus we fee with v/hat candor our 
 author quotes the Heathens. Here he has firft broke offforne 
 words from their context, whereby the unwary reader is temp- 
 ted 
 
 * Ovid. Metamorph. Lib. 3. — <« And now Thebes was built ; nowr 
 " O Cadmus, you might feem to be happy in your banilhment. Mar*, 
 ** and Venus was your father and mother in law; add to this, a race 
 *< from fo iUuilrious m confort, fa many fons and daughters, atul grand- 
 *« children, dear pledges, r.nd thefe too alrca-ly y oaths ; bin truly a 
 " man mart ahvays look for his tall day, and nobody can be called 
 " happy before his death, andlart funeral rites. Amidlt io uiuch prof- 
 ** perity, O Cadmus, agrar.dfon was the iir'l caufe of moiirning to you." 
 
PRikClPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 303 
 
 ted to believe, that the fpeaker meant quite another thing than 
 really he did ; and then obtrudes this falle fenfc of one or two 
 trien's words., who were wiie rnen, and in their thoughts tar a- 
 bove the vuigar, as the harnionious meaning of the Gentile 
 world. 
 
 Nor do I think it O.range that our author (nculd ferve us fo, 
 feeing he was prepofleired in favour of the Heathen's religion be- 
 fore he began to read their books. For he tells us in the entry 
 of his book, the very firPi fenlence of it, and more fully in the 
 reft of the nrfi chapter, Thar he was at once very concerned 
 for the divme provtdtnce, and withal fully convinced that it 
 could not not be maintained wiihout there were a religion com- 
 mon to all men j or, as his words formerly quoted by us ex- 
 prefs it, *' Uniefs every man was provided with tlie means that 
 ** were needful for attaining future happinefs ;" io he went to 
 the books of the Heathens under a perfuafion that there was a 
 common religion there, could he be fo lucky as to light on it, 
 and therefore no doubt he drew and ftrainecj tilings to his pur- 
 pofe, both rites and words. Thus he begins his difccurfe about 
 expiation : ** Qi.iofdam Gentiiium ritus, qui in fenfum fani- 
 ♦• orem trahi poQunt, jam traaaturus*," &c. And indeed he 
 draws them to a fouader j'enfe than ever they put or. then?. 
 But, after all, forced prayers are not good for the fouU f^ays 
 the Scots proverb. And from one thus prepoil'cired, v/e can 
 expe<it,no fair account of the Gentile's fentiments. 
 
 Which, by the way, gives me occafion to remark, that if 
 any one deHres to underftand the mind of the Heathen philofo- 
 phers and fages, they fnould read them themfelves, or Heathen's 
 accounts of their lives and ad^ions, rather than thcfe done by 
 Chriltians ; becaufe very often when Chrlftians write their lives, 
 they have fome deiign, and they ftrain everything in the phi- 
 lofophers to a compliance either with their defigns or appre- 
 henfions. The Heathen writers being under no influence from 
 the fcripture light, do plainly narrate things as they are, (not 
 being fo fenhbie of what .things may refle6l really upon the 
 perfons concerning whom they write ; the light of nature not 
 reprefenting clearly that wickednefs v.'hlch is in many of their 
 actions and opinions) and fcrupls not to tell them out plainly : 
 
 whereas 
 
 * De Rel. Gent. pag. igr, — « Being now about to treat of fome 
 *' rites of tht^ iieathens, v/hich may be drawn irito a found fcrsie." 
 
^04 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xiv, 
 
 whereas Chriftlans, being aware how odious fuch and fuch 
 pra6"^ices or principles are, dare fcarce tell fuch things of thofe 
 famous men, as they were really guilty of; becaufe they know 
 how deep a flain it u-ill leave on them, by thofe who are taught 
 the evil of them by the fcriptures. 
 
 I (hall jdd this reflection more : If any one would conclude 
 from our author's confidence in fome places of his book, where 
 he talks of many reafons that he has advanced, and that he has 
 demonftrated this and that ; if, I fay, from this they would in- 
 fer, that he was fully perfuaded in his own mind, about thefe 
 five articles f that they univerfally obtained, and are fuffiaent, 
 he would very far miRake our author, who, throughout his 
 book, fufficiently betrays his uncertainty about them, and that 
 he wanted not cijcar lefi it fhould not be true, as fome things 
 afterwards to be pleaded will (how. But leafi; this fhould feem 
 to be faid altogether u'ithout ground, I (hall fingle out one in- 
 Oance of cur author's wavering in this matter, referving others 
 Id another occafion. It is pag. 19, where, after our author has 
 difcourfed of the more f avion s names of the true God, and fliew- 
 cd that the Gentiles applied them all, fave one, to the fun, he 
 concludes thus, ** Haec faJtem fuere folenniora fummi Dei no- 
 *' mina inter Hebiseos extantia, quae etiam ad folem, Sabazio 
 *' excepto, a Gentilibus redu6la fuilTe, ex fupra-allatis conjec- 
 " turam facere licet. Adeo ut quamvis fuperius fole numen 
 ** fub hifce praecertim vocabulis colucrunt Hebrsei, folem ne- 
 ** quealiud numen intellexerunt Gentiles, nifi fortade in fole, 
 ** tanquem prseclaro Dei fummi fpecimme, & fenfibili ejus, 
 ** ut Plato vocat, fimulacro, Deum fummum ab illis cultum 
 '' fuiile cenfeas : Q^aod non facile abnuerim, prasfertim 
 ** cum fymbolica fuerit omnis fere religio veteram *." But 
 
 perhaps 
 
 * De Re!. Gent, pag, 19. — « Thofe at leaft were the morefolemn 
 " names of the Suproir.e God, that we find among the Hebrews ; all 
 *« which except Sabazino, wc may conjeiTiure irom what has been qno- 
 *^ ted above, was .-applied by the GentileS to the fan. So that akhough 
 «<• the Hebrews woriliipped a delry fnperior to the fun, efpecially un- 
 ** der thofe names, yet :he Gentiles underilood by them the lun, and 
 «' no other deity, unlefs perhaps in the fan, as an illuflrious reprefen- 
 f< tation and fenfible image, of the Supreme God, as Plato calls him, 
 " under which figure ws may fuppofe that the Supreme God was wor- 
 « fiiipped by them. Which I wouii not eafily contradi^i efpecially 
 ^' asulniollall the religion of :he aacients was (ymbQiical." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 305 
 
 perhaps though our author was not well confirmed in his opini- 
 on, when he began his book, yet he came to fome more fixed- 
 ncfs before he got to the end of it. Well, let us hear him, in 
 his cenfure of the Gentile's religion in the laft chapter of his 
 book, where fpeaking of the worlhipping the heavens, the 
 fun, &c. he gives his judgment thus: " De hoc quidem dog- 
 *' mate, idem ac de priore cenfeo : Nempc, nifi fymboHcus 
 ** fuerit, erroneum mihi prorfus videri cultum ilium. Csete- 
 ** rum quod fymbolici fuerunt olum hujufmodi cultus, multae, 
 *' quas fupra adduximus» fuadere videntur rationes : Sed fuo- 
 ** judicio hcic quoque utatur le6^or *.'* What more uncer- 
 tainty could any betray, than our author doth in thefe words ? 
 And indeed here we have enough to overthrow his whole book: 
 for if this firft article fall all will fall with it, as we may fee af- 
 terwards. 
 
 But it is now time that we draw to a conclufion of this chap- 
 cr, having fufficiently enervated our author's arguments, fo 
 far as we could difcern them. If any of them feem to be o- 
 mitted, I prefume they will be found to be of no great confider- 
 ation, and of an eafy difpatch to any that is acquainted with 
 this controverfy. Oar author's way of writing made it fome- 
 what difiicult to find his arguments. And indeed upon ferious 
 refle<S^ion, I can fcarce undetftand at what our author aimed in 
 this way of writing. He could never rationally expe6l that 
 this would clear the fubjeCl he had undertaken. 1 had almoft 
 concluded that his defipn behooved to be an oftcntation of 
 knowledge of the Heathen's religion, in order to make his au- 
 thority have the more weight, and to fcare people from enter- 
 taining a different opinion concerning the religion of the Hea- 
 then world, from that which one who had fo induftrioufly 
 fearched into their writinss, owned. But if tl is was it, our 
 author has miffed it. And I think inftead of doing the Deifts' 
 caufe any fervice this way, he has rather hurt it : for every 
 one that (liall perufe this work with attention, and find how 
 
 P p great 
 
 ^ De Rciig- Gent. pag. 223. — " Concerning this dodlrine indeed, 
 " r am of the fame opinion as concerning the former, to wit, that 
 «* unlefs that worlhip was fymbclical, it feems to me to have been 
 <* quite erroner.us. But the many reafons which we Iiave addu- 
 «< ced above, feem to perfuadc us to believe that worfhip ot this kind 
 « of old was fymbolicaJ. But let th« reader nfc his own judgment in 
 <* this cafe likewife," 
 
3o6 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE €Hap.xv. 
 
 great our autlior's learning, diligence and induOry have been, 
 and yet how little he has been able to do, they will infer the 
 weaknefs of the caufe he has undertaken, and conclude, that 
 the caufe could bear no better defence, and that therefore a 
 weak and indefencible caufe has baffled our author's great a- 
 bilities and application. For 
 
 Ji Perganm dextra 
 
 Dcftndi pcJUenti etiam hac deftfija fuijfeni,* 
 
 C» Blount and they who have come after our author, as has 
 been faid before, do but copy after him, and take his notions 
 upon truil, but others v/ill be fomewhat more wife, and will 
 look whom Joey tiull in a matter of this importance. 
 
 Wherein it is ir.ade cpptar that Herbert's Five Articles did not 
 univerfally obtain, 
 
 'T X 7E have in the preceding chapter fufEciertly fhewed how^ 
 ^ ^ weak our noble author's proofs are of his univerfal re" 
 tigion- It now remains that we prove that what he pretends is 
 indeed falfe. Our work here is far more eafy, than what our 
 author undertook. He affeits that providence cannot be main- 
 tained, unlefs all mankind are provided in the means needful 
 for attaining future happinefs, and he is likewife clear, that 
 iefs cannot be allowed fufiicient for this tnd than the five arti- 
 cles mentioned, wherefore he pretends that all the world agreed 
 in owning thefe. Now to have made this lail appear, it was 
 needful it ftiould be proven by induaion of all particular na- 
 tions, that they thus agreed, and that as to all times; but this 
 would have been fomewhat too laborious. We maintain that 
 all did not agree in the acknowledgment of thofe five articles ; 
 And this is evinced, if we can (lievv onlv one nation diifeniing 
 from any one of them. But we Hiall not be fo nice upon the 
 point, as only to njention one nation^ or difprove one article' 
 Let us take a ieparate view of each article, and fee what the 
 judgment of fome nations were concerning them. 
 
 ARTICLE 
 
 * « If Troy could have been defended by any right hand> it 
 
 " would have been defended by this one." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 307 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 All the World did not ag-^e in owning the One True Supreinc 
 
 God. 
 
 I MIGHT for proof of this, only defire any perfon to read 
 our author's book, and (here he woaidfind this fuiHciently clear. 
 But I ftiall fhortly co itirm it to the convittion of any, who has 
 not a mind to Qiut his eyes, by the fe\\' following obiervations 
 as to the fentiments of the world in this cafe. 
 
 I. It is moft evident to anv one, who will give himfelf the 
 trouble to read never fo littleofthe writings of the Gentiles, that 
 many nations, I had alnrroft faid moft nations, did hold a plu- 
 rality of eternal and independent beings^ on whom they depen- 
 ded, and which they caied gods in the propereft fenfe of the 
 word. Herodotus qucied by our author tells us, ** That ail 
 " the Africans woriliip the lun and moon only"—** Soli & 
 ** lunae folummodo facrilicint, & quidem Afri univerfi *." 
 And Plato quoted iikewife by our author, a itw pages after, in 
 his dialogue, which he calls Cratylus, tells us, ** Qpi Grseciam 
 ** primi incoluere, ii videntur mihi illos i lum dcos exiitiiuaiie, 
 ** quos nunc eliam barbjri mJti, pro diis habent, foiem, lu- 
 ** nam, terrnm, aftra, cceiumt'" Of this alto the ancient 
 infcriptions mentioned by our authorij:, and more parcicularly by 
 Hornbeck in his treatife de Converjione Gentilium, is a proof. — 
 *' Soli invi6\o h lunae aet^.n^ae deo foli invic^o Mythvae <5e; om- 
 •* nipotenti deo MythrseH " Mythras M^as a name given to the 
 fun by the Perfians, as our author proves. And if we may be- 
 lieve Maimonides, the Sabeans owned no God fave the Oars. 
 *• Notum ert Abrahamum patrcm noRrum educatuin eile in fide 
 ** Sab2eorum, qui ftatueruiit nullum elTe Dcum, prater fleilas§- 
 
 Nor 
 
 * De Kt\, Gent. pag. 36. 
 
 •k Ibid. pag. 39. — " Thofe who firft inhabited Greece, appear to 
 <* me to have thought that thefe alone were gods, which many barba- 
 '* rians (iill hold to be god?, to wit, the fun, the moon, the tari^, 
 <» the ftars, the heaven." 
 
 X Ibid, pag 26. Ij Hornbeck, pag. 19. 
 
 § More Nevochim, rcf-:rente. Hornbec ubi fupra. pag. 17. — "It 
 '< is well known that our father Abraham was educated in tlie faith of 
 '^ the t^abe::ns, who thought that there was no God except the itars.'* 
 
3o8 AN INQ^UIRY 5INTO THE. chap. xv. 
 
 Nor were the Egyptians of another mind. Diodorus's teftiirony 
 is worth our notice to this purpoie, — '* Igitur piinii iili liomires 
 *' olim in JE^ypio ^eniti, hinc mundi ornatum conipicientes, 
 ** admirantelque univcrforum naturam, daos cfie deos, &c tos 
 ** aelernos arbitratri lunt, folem &Junann: Et ilium quidem 
 ** Ofiridem, hanc Ifidim certa nominis raticne appellarunt *." 
 
 Thus we fee what the apprehenfions of feveral nations were, 
 and how harmonious they are in dilTenting from our author's 
 affertion. It had been eafy to have alleged many more teili- 
 monies even from our author againft himfeif : But we aim at 
 brevity. 
 
 2. It is not improbable, that fome nations, though they might 
 allow fome prioiity of one of their gods to the retl yet did not 
 think that there was any fuch great inequality, at leaf! amongft 
 their more notable deities, as could infer the fupremacy of one 
 to the reft, and their dependence on, and iubcrdination to him. 
 We find every where equal honours paid, equal or very little 
 ditierent titles of refpf-dt given to the fuo or moon- So that it 
 is very likely, though they might give the fun the preference in 
 point of orde-, yet they did not apprehend anv luch great ine- 
 quality, as feems needful betwixt one fupreme being and his 
 dependents* The people of Mexico in America, though they 
 woriiiip many gods, yet look on their two principal ones, whom 
 they call Vitzilopuckili and TezLdttipuca^ as two brothers. 
 ** Mexicani pnmo coUre fohti fuerunt immanem deorum turham^ 
 ** bis milk refe runty inter quos duo prcipui Vitzilopuchth & Tez- 
 ** cah'ipuca duo fratre^y quorum abnir rerum providtnti^^ alter 
 ** hellis pr. erat\.'* And the inhabitants of Darien, St, Martha 
 and other places thereabout, own only the fun, and the moon 
 as his wife. Furlher, it is owned by our author feveral times, 
 
 that 
 
 * Owen Theolog. Lib. 3. Cap. 5. Herbert pag. 39. — *' Therefc^re 
 " thofe firft men rhat wc^re produced in- Egypt, obferving from thence 
 *' the beauty of the world, and admir'ng rhe nature ot the univerfe, 
 " concluded that there were twog ds, the fun and the moon, and 
 *' they called the one Oiiri, and tl]e other ifis, giving certain reafons 
 ** for thofe names." 
 
 + Hornbeck, pag. 70. — " The Mexicans at firft ufed to worfhip an 
 ** imnicnfe nuint.er of gods, to wit, two thoufand, the chief among 
 " which were Vitzilop'JchtH and Tezcarlipnca, two brothers, the on« 
 *« of whom had the care of the world, and the other prcfidcd over 
 « wars." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 309 
 
 that many nations hold two flrft bdngs, one good and another 
 £vitt whom they called Ve-JupiteTy and by the Perfian Magi 
 he was ca led ArimaniuS' Though our author thinks a fofter 
 conftrudion is to be put on their meaning, than to charge them 
 wish uiakii g their Ve- Jupiter equal with the good God*: But 
 we know our author mult not be allowed to interpret, unlefs he 
 can give good g'ounds for his opinion about the meaning of the 
 Geniiie-s, which in this cafe he doth not once attempt, and we 
 know that fome looked on this wicked principle as ihc fupreme, 
 as we fhall '.how aeon ; and 1 think it will be hard to clear fomc 
 of them, yea even no lefs a perfon than Plutarch, from making 
 theni equal and both infinite ; if we mav believe a late author, 
 who tells us, ** That as for Plutarch, one of the fobereH of the 
 ** philofbphfrs, he was the horrideft Polytbeift of them all ; for 
 •* lie aliens two Supreme Anti-gods; one infinitely good, and 
 ** the oth r infinitely evil. f" Moreover, fome of the Deifts do 
 not think this opinion de^itute of probability, as we have noted 
 before |. But whatever there is as to this, yet, 
 
 3. It is certain that many of them, notwithftanding the huge 
 number of gods they maintained, were utterly ignorant of the 
 true God' This is fo evident, that 1 cannot but w©nder at our 
 author's impudence in denying it, cfpecially, after the teftimo- 
 nies we have already quoted from him. We have heard already 
 that the Egyptians and Grecians of old owned no other gods 
 befides the fun, moon and ftars. And we have heard the 
 fame of the Sabeans, feveral Americans and inhabitants of 
 Africa ; and Celar tells us the fame of the Germans — " Deo^ 
 ** rum nianero eos folum ducunty quos cernunty & quorum opt- 
 ** bus aperte jiwamur, foltm & vulcanum & lunam ; reliquos ne 
 ^^ jama quidem acceperunt.y* Yea, our author is forced to 
 make a fair confeffion, and contradict himfelf in the entry of 
 liis fourth chapter, where fpeaking of the Gentiles and their 
 worrtiipping of the fun, he delivers himfelf thus: " Incongrv 
 ** uni demuvi exifiimaverant , ut qui cultum ah omnibus jlagitarety 
 
 " acul- 
 
 * De Rf lig, Gent. pag. 163. + Nichol's Confer. Part 2. pag. 57. 
 
 I Oracles of Reafon. pag. 194. 
 
 i De Bella Gallico, Lib. 6. — " They reckon in the number of the 
 *♦' god»: only thofe whom they fee, and by whofe power they are evi- 
 " dcntly alTifted, that is, the fun, the fire, and the moon. They have 
 " not iot much as heard of the other gods." 
 
3IO AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xv. 
 
 ** a culiorihus fins fcfe abfconderet Deus: Sclem igitur Deum 
 *^ fere omnes Gentileiflatuebant^ non fummum quidem, fed fum^ 
 ** mo proximum, ejufqu? pr'.'clarijfimam iconem^ licet alii muu' 
 " dum totum, tar.quam Deo plenum, fummi numinis imaginem 
 *^ fpeciofam appiime pr i Je fare contender ent^ •' Here you lee 
 our author pofitivc, fhcjt they put not the fun in the room of the 
 One true God : None of them did it ; but we (Ijall hear him 
 in the very next fentence tell us, that they did difcard the true 
 (^od, and very abfurdlv put another in his place. *' Certe uti 
 ** olim diElum (fays our author) qui Jolem vice fuinmi Dei toluc' 
 *' runtf perinde ferere, ac i-li qui ad aulam potentiffimi princi^ 
 ** pis accedenies, quern punijin amitiu fplendido indutixm ctT' 
 *' nerent, regium i a tu'tiun dc'.jerendum exiflimaverant^^'" And 
 our authorknovvsfi'll wcilthat .it At leus there was an ahar ere6^- 
 ed to the unknown God; and Pml cxpr Ov tells them, that this 
 vnknoiun God, was the tiae God' Whom therefore ye ignor- 
 antly zvoifJiipt him d,;xlare I unto you. What lays our author 
 to this ? He directly conlrad cts the apoftle, and then makes 
 him a compliment, ihat is well nigh to nonfenfe. ** Ccete- 
 *' rum, (fays he) duriuSculi O^^us ignotus AthenienGum ad De- 
 *' um Juda^orum rcfertur : Ut ita pricra S. S. loca Deum Gen- 
 ** tilium eundum ac communem omnium Deum evincant. Nam. 
 Deus ille ignotus Athenie!:fi jm alius certe fuit, (ihis is a 
 plain contradiction to the apollle's affeition) atque ideo puto 
 ara dcnatus, ne aliquis forfan incuitus apud illoseflet Deus: 
 ** Ut belle lamen hinc inflraendi Gentiles occafionem captarit 
 apoRolus. Neque dubium mihi efl, quia e libro naturas 
 ** edo'iH Deum fuiiinium lum agnoverint, tum coluerint Gen* 
 
 ** tiles. 
 
 * Ds Reli^r. Gent. yn^^. 20. — " In fine, they reckoned it incon- 
 « gruous to fnppof:', that God, v.ho required uorlhip from all n-iCn, 
 '< (houid hide hirrifejf iror.n his worO-iipper?. Therefore almoft all the 
 " Heathens thought that the fun was a god ; not indeed the fupreme 
 " one, but next to the fupreme, and his moil illoflrious in-jage ; al- 
 « though others maiataned that the whole world, as being full of God, 
 «» bore a diftind ia-prciiion of his image." 
 
 + " Stjrsly, 33 was faid Jong ago, thofe who worfliipped the fun in- 
 " l^ead of the Supreme f^eity* a>ted in the fame manner as thofe who 
 " going to the court of a rnoil powerful prince, {hould trdnk that the 
 " iiril perfon they faw I'plsiididly drelTei \?a= the kino^, and to be re 
 " vercnced as fiich.'* 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 31 1 
 
 ** tiles*." Thus w eke qua??? belle f how pleafantly our author 
 proceeds. He tells us that it is hard to think, though the apof- 
 tlc cxprefly fays fo, that this vnknown God was the Gcd of the 
 Jews. But if we will not Hand to our author's word, then he tells 
 uswhatfome fcriptures he had formerly cited prove; viz.Adlsx. 
 pa/f??i A tXsKvVi, 28, 29. Rom. i. 19. But we have above ft cwed^ 
 that thefe are not for our author's purpofe. We 1, what then 
 remains ? Nothing, but only this, " I have no doubt,'* fays he, 
 ** but they knew the true God." But our author's certainty will 
 not fatisfy another ; and we juft now ihewed, that our author was 
 not fo fully fure as he pretends to be in this place. But yet 
 t^ur apoftle, he tells us, took very handfomcly occafion hence 
 to inftru^l the Gentiles ; that is, if we believe our author, he 
 took occafion from a falfe fuppofiiion to inflru6l them. But 
 it is a kindnefs that he ufed any compliment, though a ri- 
 (Jiculous one. But leaving this, I go on. 
 
 4. They among the nations, who owned One Supreme God, 
 did frequently, if not for moO part, puf feme others in the 
 room of the true God. Some made the World God. This is 
 what Balbus the Stoick fets up for with all his might in Cecero's 
 fecond book de Nat* Deor. throughout. ** x'Vtqui certe nihil 
 ** omnium rerum melius eft, Mundo, nihil praeftabilius, nihil 
 ** palchrius : Nee folum nihil eft, i'cd ne cogitari quidem quic- 
 ** quam melius poteft : Et fi ratione & fapientia nihil eft meii- 
 ** us, neceile eft hs^c inefte in eo, quod optimum cfTe concc- 
 '* dimus f:" i^nd therefore a little after he concludes the ztwrld 
 
 Gcd 
 
 * «* It was rather fcmewhat hard to refer the unknown God of the 
 " Athenians to the God of the Jews, as ihe foriTittr places of lioly 
 " fcripture prove that the God of the Gentiles was the fame with that 
 ** of the jeus, and the coramcjn God of all men. For this unknown 
 ** God of the Athenians was certainly another one, and 1 fuppofe was 
 ** honoured with an aitar for this reafon, that no god perhaps inighr 
 <* be wiihoct worfhip among them. Yet how prettily does the apof- 
 « tie rake an opportunity from hence of inftruding the Gentiles, l-ar 
 ** is it doubtful with me, that the Gentiles, taught by the book of 
 << nature, both acknowledged and worlhipped the fupreme Gcd." 
 
 •f f* And certainly noiie cf ail things is better than the World, no- 
 ** thing is more exccilenf, nothing is more beautiful; and not ct;iy 
 ^* nothing exifts, but nothing can be imagined that is better than the 
 «* World. And if nothing is better than Pv.ea fen and Wifdom, thefe 
 " qualities muit neceffariiy be conceived to belong to that which zc 
 " acknowledge to be the beft of all things." 
 
312 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xv. 
 
 God. Cicero hlmfelf was of the fame mind : For, wben Vel- 
 leius the Epicurean had heen heard and refuted by Cotta the 
 academick ; and Epicurus's wild opinions about the gods, had 
 been fully expofed, which is the fubjedl of the firft book ; Bal- 
 bus the Stoick propofes and defends the Stoicks' opinion about 
 the nature, being, and number of the ^ods, and their provi- 
 dence, and defends it after the be(l manner he can, (where, by 
 the way, there is not one word of the true, God, but a full 
 difcovery of the groflTeft i2;norance of him, and the greatefi: 
 wickednefs and folly in afTsrting a plurality of gods, and part- 
 ing all the excellencies of the true God among theni). This 
 makes up the fecond book. In the third book Cotta the aca- 
 demick, difputes againft, and expofes the Stoicks' opinions as 
 defended by Balbus ; and in the iaft fentence of the book, 
 Cicero gives his iiriy-fiTis or cenfure of the v/hole in thefe wortis, 
 " Hsec cum eff^nt ditla, ita diiceffimus, ut Veileio Cotrae difpu- 
 " tatio verier, nnihi Balbi ad veritatis fimilitudinem videretur 
 ** eiJe propenfior*." Vellcius the Epicurean favours Cotta, 
 who difproved the whole opinions about the gods, and put no 
 better in their place. And Cicero was pleafed with Balbus, who 
 maintaned the Stoicks' fentiments. What they were we h 've 
 jufl now noted. And whether Plato, Ariitotle, yea and So- 
 crates were not of this opinion, is not To very clear. Certain 
 it. is, that they paid a little too great refpedl to the worlds if 
 they were not. Let us hear our author. Plato in tini:' o tt U" 
 gibus dicit i^ mundum drum e/J'e & cerium & ajlra, ^c.\ But 
 whatever were their fentiments, it is not of fo great confe- 
 quence to the quelHon under conilderation, to fpend time in 
 inquiring, fince it is evident that many were of this opinion. 
 Others tliought that the heaven was God, and this is owned by 
 Ennius the poet, quoted by our author, in that noted verfe fo 
 frequently mentioned by Cicero, Afpicc hoc Jublime candens^ 
 quan omnes invocant JovnnX* And there alfo he tells us of 
 an old infcription found at Rome, Optimum Maximus caliis ^ter^ 
 nus» Thus we fee the heavens dignified withihofe very epithets, 
 which our author pretends to have been peculiar to the Su- 
 preme God. And he tells us, that fome are of opinion, 
 
 that 
 
 * ^< When thofe things had been faicl, we parted, but fo that the 
 
 " difcourfe of Cotta feemed to Vclleius to be truer, but that of Bal- 
 
 <"• bus feemed to me to approach more nearly to the likenefs of truth." 
 
 \ De Rt'Ug. Gent. pag. 59. % I^-^i'^>- V'^Z' 54« 
 
PRINCIPLES OF TH£ MODERN DEISTS. 313 
 
 that Pythagoras inclined tins way* and our author leaves it in 
 floubt. If Arillotle and Plato M^ere not of this mind, that the 
 heavens were the Supreme God, as we ice fome others were ; 
 yet they did own heaven for God, and to be vvorflriipped as fuch. 
 *' Sed non folummodi calum divino honore coUndum decrevcrant 
 ** facerdotes, fed et ipfi pkilofophi cdebriores, adto ut ncn Sta- 
 *' girita tantumf Jed Emiuus ejus preceptor it a jlatuerint *." 
 But the mcft prevalent opinion was, that the jun was the one 
 true and Stupreiue Gnd. — That many, and pernaps moft nations 
 thought {q, the teftimonies above alleged fuljy prove, and we 
 have heard cur author confelling it as to fome. I fhall only add 
 a few ren^iarks more to this purpolc. There is a qoutatlon of 
 Macrobius, which I find in our author, that is worth noticing, 
 *' Afiyrii (incj(,it Macr.) quern Deuni funiiiium maximumq ; 
 " vcnerantur, iVdad nomen dcderunt, ejus nominis interp2:!ra- 
 " tio fignihcat unus. Hunc ergo ut f)otentiflimum adoiant De- 
 " um, fed tubjungunt deam nomine Atcigatin ; omnemque po* 
 " leOatem hiice duobus attribuunt, folem teramque inteliigen- 
 *' tesf." And our author further acquaints us as to the Peihans, 
 *' Qijod Perix duo principia ftatuebant, Oromazen fcil. tanquem 
 ** boni fonremt Et Arirnanium, maii. — Inter quos medium & 
 '* quail arbitruiii y.ofuere folem if." I have in the clofe of our 
 torn^er chapter, quoted a notable paffage from our author to the 
 fame purpofe, wherein he tells us, that all the names of the 
 true God, were afciibed to the fun. Gf the fame opinion m ere 
 the Phenicians, Britains of old, and their famed Druides, and 
 perhaps mo/i nations. Yea, £0 deeply did this fix its roots in 
 \\\z minds of mcrl, that the greaki^ among the Heathen philo- 
 
 (^ q fophers 
 
 * De Rel, Gent. pag. 29. — " But not orJy were the prieftsof opin- 
 *' ion that the heaven ought to l>e worfliipped with divine honours, 
 *' but alfo the mcft famous phil'jfophers, fo that not only the Stag) rite 
 " but his mafter before him, was ot that opinion.'* 
 
 + Ibid. pag. 24^ — " The AlTyrians, fays Macrobius, gave the name 
 <* Adadi which fsgnines oner to that Being whom they held to be the 
 *< fuprenne «nd greateft God. Therefore they adore him as the riiofl 
 *f powerful God, but thev add to hin^ a goddefs named Atergatis, and 
 ♦* afcribe all power to thefe two, meaning the fun and the earth." 
 
 t Ibid. pag. 23. — '< That the Perfians hold two firft principles, to 
 " wir, Aromazes as the fountain of good, and Arimanius of evd, be- 
 " twixt whom they phcsd the fun in the iniddle, and as it were an 
 *« arbifer.'* 
 
314 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xv. 
 
 fophers can fcarce be freed from an inclination lliis vay *. 
 Plato tells us, iiow devout Socrates was in the woilhip of the 
 fun, and that feveral times he fell into an extafy, while thus 
 einployed.f Nor are the famous Indian philofophers one whit 
 more wife. *' Not onlv the Brachinans, but all the Indians, 
 ** veaatid the famed Appolionius (wliom the Heathens compar- 
 " ed to our blefied Lord, motl bl.ifphemouflv and groundlcfly) 
 <• worlhipped the fan J." And we have Appollonius's prayer 
 fo the lun, recorded bv Philollratus in his life, Lib. I. O/umrn^ 
 Jbl, CD meter r arum miitc, quo me projtcturum ejjc cognoJc2u & 
 concede, precor, vt viros bcnos. a.^^no/lam; improhos vero neq, 
 a^nofcam, neq ; agnofcar ah iiiis§. Yea after the light or the 
 glorious gofpel had cleared the philofopber's eyes, and made them 
 aa-»amed of mucii of their religion, yet even the Platon-ck phi- 
 io.ophcrs coiild not quit the thoughts of the fun's being God. H' 
 
 But not only did fome look on the fun as the Supreme God ; 
 but (if we mav believe Hornbeck, who was at great pains to un- 
 deifbnd the religions of theworld, and paiticulaiiy of /imerica) 
 feveral nations in America, particularly the inhabit^mts of New- 
 France, and they who inhabit about thd river Sag<^dabcc, wor- 
 (iiip piincipaliy the devil or a malignant fpirit-** 
 
 Thus v/c have fully dcmonftratcd what we undertook, and 
 hereby quite froib'd the whole (torv of an univerl^i religion: 
 And our author has been fo unhappv, as to lay to our hands 
 many of the arsumeras, whereby we have difproved his own po- 
 f^tion. Thisftcn beini- one:; g.-ined, ve fhall be more brief 
 in the confideration of the rcmaininp: articles : For they all fall 
 with this, if there is a miO.ike as to this, there can remain 
 nothing fincere in rr-lioion. If the true God is not known, he 
 cann<jt\e wot ;h>ppfiJ^ ^vd rewards and pinufJmentsc3n not be 
 r;^Mtfi/ from him; nor can we be fenfiblc of, or fori y tor any 
 
 offence 
 
 « This is fully proven by Dr. Owen, Hornbeck and others, in their 
 books formerly referred lo. 
 
 + SeeOwei'vs'lheolog.«Lib. 3. Cap. 4. pag. 182. 
 
 J Jlornbeck pag. 31. ' 
 
 f « O fuprrrae fun, fend n^e to that piut of the world, to which 
 <r you know J am going, ar.cl gr.nt, 1 pray, that I n^.av know good 
 <«'men, but that i may neither kucvv bad man, nor be known by them. 
 
 II Owen ubi fupra. Lib. 3. Cap.' 5. pag. 194. 
 
 *** Horubeck de Conver. Gcntll. Lib. {.Cap. 9* pag. 70, 71. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 315 
 
 offence done 5s:ain(i him. So that wc might flop here, as hav- 
 ing ruined whollv thaf caiife our author uadertypk Xo dst'end: 
 But we Ihall confider the reft ^iia* 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 li was not univerfally agreed that ike One True God is to be 
 luo'jktppjd- 
 
 HOW could they agree as to the worftiipping him whorfi 
 they did know to he ? If it would not frighten the perlbns con- 
 cerned, I might here pertinently afk them the queition the a- 
 poftle puts, Rom. x. 14. Hozu fhalT they call on him, in whom 
 they have not believed ' And how jhall they believe in him^ of 
 whotn they have not heard? 
 
 And farther, even they who owned one fupreme God, ma- 
 ny of them entertained fuch notions of him, as made him un- 
 worthy of any worHiio. He tells us that many of them locked 
 him up in heaven, denying his providence ; and one would 
 almoft think our author had been of their opinion, while he 
 tells us, *• Rede di&u},i efl oh?n, quod dternum beatu?nque ejl nee 
 ** negotii quicquam habere y ne: exhiberi alteri* *** But whatever 
 our author's thoughts were, it is well known, that this opinion 
 prevailed very far, and obtained amoiifjO many, if not moll na- 
 tions, who owned one fuprems God befrJes the fun. And they 
 were further of opinion, that God had committed the whole man- 
 agement of the world to deputies. Our author iriforms us, (hat 
 the ancient Heathens divided ihdr ^ods iniofuper-celt/iial, ce- 
 leflial, Tind ftjb~celeflial\; and he tells us, that the chief god, and 
 his companions the fuper-celeftial gods, have not any fuch 
 concernment in, or regard to the things that are tranfa^ied in 
 this world, as to m.ake them take any notice of them ; and 
 that the Supreme God has withdrav^^n himielf and the fuper- 
 cel'eftial gods from the view of mortals, as being of too fub- 
 lime a nature to be kno.vn by them : and that he lias deputed 
 the fun, moon, and ftars to infpeCt the world, as the on'y gods 
 Vviio can be enjoyed by men. ** Deuai fuiiirfium vero feiplum 
 
 fuper- 
 
 * Da Relig. Gent. pag. 174.— " It was well iWid. of dd. that a being 
 « that is eternal raid happy, neither has aoy trouDie ia itfslf, nor gives 
 " any trouble to anoihtrr.'* 
 
 ' Ibid, pag. 1 TO. 
 
3i6 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xv. 
 
 '* fupercceleflefq ; Dcos a confpef^u mortallum rcmovilTe, quod 
 '* fubliniis adeo effent naturae, ul nulla eos acies latis portinge- 
 *' ret, ejus loco non in confpectum lolum, fed in fruitlonem 
 ** quandam produxilTe deos illos cuelefies, qui a nobis fol, lu- 
 ** ria, cce'um, &c. vocantar*." And the Indian Brachmins icem 
 indeed to be of the lame mind, as we know the xvhole followers 
 of Epicurus weref . Yea, the inhabitants of Calecut, a kinp;- 
 dom in the Eail-Indies, are fo abfurd as to imagine that the de- 
 vil is God's deputy, to whom tlie government of the world is 
 comnvitted. And hence they worflnip the devil f.rincipaily, 
 (as likewile do the kingdoms of Decum and Narfinga) and 
 '* their king has in his oratory the image of the devil with 
 ** a crown on his head, fo very frightful, that the moft relb- 
 *' lute tremble at the fight of it : the wail is all painted 
 ** with leiTer devils ; and in each corner (lands one of brafs, 
 ** fo well done, that it feems all in ilamesl." Now if fuch 
 notions are entertained of God, it is no wonder though he be' 
 by many thought not worth liie worfliipping. The confequen- 
 ces of thofe apprehenhons I cannot better exprefs, than Cicero 
 has done in the very beginning of his hrft book ck Nat. Deo^ 
 rum- ** Sunt enim philofophi, & tuerunt, qui oninino nul- 
 ** lam habere cenferent humanarum rerum procurationem deos: 
 Qj-iorum fi vera fententia efl, qua^ poteft eiTe pietas ? Qu^e ' 
 fan'flitas? Q^uoe rcligio ? ft deii neque pofi'unt nos juvare, 
 nee volunt, nee curant omnino, nee quid agamus animad- 
 vertant ; nee efi: quod ab his ad hominum vjtam permanare 
 poffit: Q_uod efl, quod ullos diis imrnortalibus cuitus, honc- 
 rcs, preces adhibearaus J?" And much more to the fame 
 
 purpcfe* 
 
 * De Reli-;, Gent- pa?. 171.— « But that the fupreme God had 
 " witudr<ivvn iiimfelf and the other fuper-celf:rtiai gods from the \vi\\i 
 " of niortalb, bt^caufe they were of fo fubliire a nature thai no human 
 " eye could fumciently leach them; but that lie had fei up in his place, 
 " not only for our knowledge, bat fruition, thofe celeiiiai godb, which 
 " are called hy us the fun, the moon, the heaven, <ic." 
 
 + Hornbcck, pa^-. 40. 
 
 :J: See Caleatti in Great. Gcograph. Dtifiicn, 
 
 \ " F. r tliere are and have been phiiofcpbers, who think th t the 
 ** i?<>ds tai^e no care at all of human affairs, and if tiie>r opinion be 
 ** trde, what piety can there be r or what fan«^l:Iiy ? u-hat reltgi.m ? 
 ♦< if the gods neither can, nor will help v.s, nor obferve what we do; 
 " nor is there ar-v thing that can come from them into human life. 
 " What reafon is there then, why we fhould oiFer any wor{h;p, ho» 
 <* noun or prayer^ to the iiUinortai gods r" 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 317 
 
 purpofe. Thoiigh he fpeaks of a plurality of gods, yet what 
 he Lys holdsUueas to the cafe In hand : for if we entertain, 
 or if the Gentiles did entertain, as we fee fome of iheni did, 
 fuch notions of iheir fupretne God, as he here foeaks of, the 
 farne conftciuences mud follow; and it is not credible that any, 
 who thought fo, could judge the fupreme God worthy of wor- 
 fiiip. And indeed we hnd them no way concerned about It. 
 
 In fine, not a few of tlie wifer, who entertained the moft 
 jufl thoughts of God of any, yet being in the dark as to the 
 way of worihipping God, have declared agalnO any worflnp, at 
 jeail In practice, till it ihouid by himfelf be condefcended on. 
 Thus it is as to the wifer fort among the Chinefe — *' De Deo 
 ** eoque colendo non funt foliciti. Unum quidcm agnofcunt 
 ** fummum numen, a quo omnia confervarl & regi credunt : 
 <' Sed, quia quomodo coli velit, ignorare fe profitentur ; fa- 
 ** tius autumant cultum ejus omittcre, quam In eo defignaiido 
 *' errare*." And perhaps the beft philofophers In other na- 
 tions were not of a different mind. Thus we fee how far they 
 were from being agreed ^bout this article. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 The Gentile World were not agreed in judging that Virtue and 
 Piety are the principal parts of tke zvorfliip of God, 
 
 HOW it fliould come Into our author's head to think that 
 they were agreed, is a little ftrange, confidering how little is to 
 be found among their writers that looks this way. But I fup- 
 pofe the cafe was this, he had concluded that they were agreed 
 about the king of one true God, and to make his religion com- 
 plete he behoved to have them fome way agreed aboot his wcr- 
 fhip too. But he found them endlefsly divided about their fo- 
 lemn worfnip, and none of it dlre£\ed to the one true God, but 
 all exprefsiy aimed at other things: wherefore there was no 
 other thing left that could be to his purpofe; and therefore he 
 
 finding 
 
 * Hornbeck ubi fupra, pag. 47.—" They have no anxiety nbouc 
 «* God or his vvorrriip, '1 hey acknowledge indeed one Supreme Dei- 
 " ty, by whom they think that all things are preferved and governed ; 
 ♦< but as they profefs that they do not know in what manner he chafes 
 ** to be worfhipped, they think it better to let alone his worfnip ai- 
 " together, than to err in determining it." 
 
3iS AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xv. 
 
 finding that there was fomewhat that all the world agreed in, 
 pa\'lng foinc refpc^t to, a{ leail, in words, under the name of 
 virtue ; he wonld reeds appropriate tliis (o the Uue God for his 
 worPnip, though he his no warrant from the Gentiles to do (o» 
 An\ truly after all, if this was the worihip of the true God, or 
 deligned as fuch, whatever agreement ttiere might be in opiniori 
 about the worihip of the one true God. 1 think there was none 
 in praBicEj if not in a tot^l nesiledl of it: For how few were 
 there, who can have the ieal pretence to challenge that name 
 aoiongft all thofe, whofe names have been tranfmitted to us! 
 How true was the poet Juvenal's obfervation, 
 
 Rari quippe bovi) nuntero 'vix fu7it tot id em. quot 
 ^1 h^barum portce, di'viiis Tel ojiia Nili *, 
 
 But to leave this, and come to the point in hand fomewhat more 
 clofely, 
 
 I. It is evident that the world was very far from being ar 
 greed, that there is cne God : Far more were they divided about 
 the acknowledgment of the true God, and whom they ihould 
 own as fuc'i. It was therefore utterly impoflible th^t they 
 fiiould condefcend on this, as a principal part of the worfhip of 
 God; whom they did not know to have any being. 
 
 2, So far were they from looking on virtue as the principal part, 
 of the worihip of the gods, whom they owned, that the worfhip 
 of many of their goJs, was thought to conhft in things that were 
 crofs to the plained dictates of nature's light. Our author ac- 
 quaints us frequently with the obfcenities, the cruelties, and 
 other extravagancies of their worihip. The obfcenities are too 
 fuliome to be repeated. The furious extravagancie.i, religious, 
 or rather fuperliitious fury and niadnefs ufed in the woriTiip of 
 Bacchus, are known to efery one. And for their cruelty, 
 who knows not that human facrifices were aimoU uni^'erfally 
 uied ? Some offered captives, Icme Oifcred Orans^ers, fome fa- 
 cnficed their deareit reianonsand children, and that in the mofl 
 cruel manner f , 
 
 3. We n'?ed go tio fLirther than our author's book, to learn, 
 that mcil nations were io far from locking co virtue as any part 
 
 of 
 
 " " For good men are rare, and fcarcely a.% nDmerous as the gafes 
 " of Thebes, or the mouihs of the fcebis Nil-.*." 
 
 + See this^ fully }>roven in the lenrncd and excellent Dr. Owen'e 
 treatiie de Jujutici '-oiiidicatricei from pag. 66 to 100, by auriientic 
 teihmouics, widi fuch remarks as may be worth the reading. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERxN DEISTS. 319 
 
 of the ivcrflhip due to any of thofe gods they owned, that (hev 
 placed it wholly in fuch other things, as our author, aiTiongil: 
 others, has given us a large account of. 
 
 4. They, who were mod zealous for virtue, were very far 
 from looking on it as a part of the worlhip of God, or direiSling 
 it to his glory. I believe our author, were he alive, for all 
 his reading would find it difficult to find one fair tefiiinony to 
 this purpole« They looked not on themfe'ves as debtors to 
 God for their virtue. Hence Cotta, after he has acknowledged 
 that we are indebted to God for our riches and eternal enjoy- 
 ments, adds; ** Virtutem autcm nemo unquam acceptam Deo 
 ** retulit, nimirum re6fe: Propter viitutem enim lap.dantur, & 
 ** in virtute re6\e gloriamur; quod non contingeret, h id donum 
 ** a Deo haberemus." Hence a little after, he adds, ** Nam quis 
 ** quod bonus vir eiTet, gratias dils egit unquam*!" And much 
 more 'to the fame purpofe. They thought that their virtue 
 made them equal to their gods. " Hoc eft quod philofophia mi- 
 ** hi proroittit, ut me parem Deo faciat.f" Yea not only fo, but 
 they pretended their virtues placed them above their gods. ** Eft 
 ** aliquid, quo fapier.s antccedat deufi), ille naturae beneficio, 
 ** non fuo,fapienseni.." And again," Deus non vincit fapientem 
 *' felicitate, ctiarr.fi vincit jetate : Non enim efl virtus major, 
 ** quae ior;gicr§." Picnce they will not have us fo much as to 
 pray to God, cither as to virtue or felicity. It is a mean thincr 
 to weary the gods. '* Qiizci- veils opus eft? Jatio fdicem\\S' 
 And much more to the fame purpofe, 
 
 ARTICLE 
 
 * Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. mihi. 187. Lib. 3. — <i For nobcdv ev^r 
 " ccnfcfTcd that he owed hit virtue to God, for we are juilly praifed 
 « on accccnt of our virrue, and we juilly boafl of it, which would not 
 <' be the cafe if we had our virtue as a gift frcm God. . . . Nor did 
 *< any body ever give thanks to the gods becaufe he was a good a^an/' 
 
 t Seneca, Epiil. 48 — « This it what pbilofophy proiLJfes n.e, to 
 " make rpe equal to God.'' 
 
 X Idem, Epift. 55. — " There is fomething in which a whe man 
 " excels God, that die forraer is wife by his osvn benefit, but the lat- 
 ** ter by that of nature." 
 
 II Kplu. 73. — "God does not exceed awife man in happinef, though 
 '* he exceeds hira in age, for virtue is not the greater in pioporticn as 
 «' it is oWtT," 
 
 § EDiil. Si' — " Wliat need has he of prayers v. ho is acln^llv h.an- 
 
AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xv, 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 It did not tmiv^rfally ol?tain, that repentance is ii fujficient tx- 
 piatation ; or, thai we mujt reptrA. Jcr o^enccs dent againfi 
 the true God, 
 
 OUR author has acknowlegei, that there is rarely ment'on 
 cf this aa!ong(^ the ancients ; aad we have already, by qnota- 
 tions froti] him, cleared that the ancient Keatbeos did no; tlniik 
 it a fufficient expiation, and indeed that it was of no great con- 
 fideratioo among tliein, is lufhcicntly evident froin their not 
 taking any notice of it, even when the faireft occasions prefent 
 themfelves. And finally, there can be nothing more certain, 
 than that their repentance could not aim at the offence done to 
 the true God, of whom many of them were utterly ignorant. ^ 
 But what has been faid is fufiicient to fl-iew that it did not uni- 
 verfaJIy obtain in any fenl'e, that can turn to any account 
 to tiie Deilts. 
 
 A R T I C L E V. 
 
 It ZL'dS not univcrf ally agreed, that tlure are rezoards and pun' 
 ijjniients after this life* 
 
 I. HOWEVER many there were that maintained the im- 
 mortality of the fouls of men, it is certain, that there were very 
 many dilTentienis, who were of a dil^Ferent mind, and that of 
 all forts of people. 
 
 The famed lects arnone; the Inlians, which they call Scha.er- 
 waecha Pafenda and IJchctieat if we may bsiieve Hornbeck in 
 his account of ihem, all deny a future iiate *• 
 
 Nor are wife Chir.efe, at leafi: manv of them, of a different 
 rr/md. They are divided in rl -re fe<^\3. The iiift feci cf their 
 philofophers are the followers of the famed Confucius^; their 
 morals are as refined as perhaps thcfe of the moft polite parts of 
 the v/orld, if not more. But ss to the foul, thev feem to make 
 it a part of God, which at death returns to that firrt Principle, 
 whence it was broke o!^-'. Let as hear PoHevinus's account of 
 them. As to this matter he favs, they riiaintain, *' Kominis 
 
 ** cor 
 
 * Hornbeck, pag, 3 5, ubi fuira. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, 321 
 
 *' cor efle unum & eandem rem cum illo primo rerum princi- 
 ** pio; cumque homo rr.oritur, cor perire prorfus & abfumi, 
 ** i'uperetTe tamen ex eo primum principlum, quod vitam ante 
 ** conferebat." And fuither, they maintan, *' P*^^^ hominem 
 ** in hac vita fummam principii cognofcendi perfe6tIonem ad- 
 ** ipifci, & meditando pervenire ad maximam vitae tranquii- 
 ** litatem, & hoc cile ruiT7mum bonum, quod donee obtineat, 
 ** continuo motu agatur, & de inferno uno in alium conjiciatur, 
 *' ufqae dum contemplando & meditando ad fafiigium perven- 
 ** erit tranquiliitatis, qucz in principio illo primo eft*." Thefe 
 are the apprehenfions of their beft moralifts. 
 
 But there are other two feds, that plainly declare againft a 
 future ftate, are for the immortality of the foul, and have no 
 prorpe6l beyond timef. 
 
 Of this fame opinion were not only fingle perfons, but ma- 
 ny fetSls of the ancient philofophers, whom Cicero mentions, 
 and concludes his account of them thus — ** His fententiis om- 
 *' nibus nihil pofl mortem pertinere ad quemquam poteft : Pari- 
 ** ter enim cum vita fenfus amittitur |." And a little after, 
 fpeaking of the oppofition made to Plato's opinion about the 
 immortality of the foul, he fays, " Sed plurimi contra (Pla- 
 ** tonis fcil. fcntentiam) nituntur, animofq ; quafi capite dam- 
 ** nates morte mulclant." And fome palfages after, fpeaking 
 of the fame opinion, he fays, ** Caterv^ veniunt contradicen- 
 ** tium, non folum Epicureorum, quos equidem non defpicio, 
 ** fed nefcio quomodo dodifiimus quifque contemnit. Acerri- 
 ** me autem deliciae meae dico Archias, contra banc immor- 
 ** lalitatem differuit : Is enim tres libros fcripfit, qui Lelhiaci 
 
 R r ** vocantur 
 
 * Hornbeck, pag. 47, 48.— <« That the heart of man is one and the 
 <* fame thing with that firft Principle of things, and that when a man 
 « dies, his heart quite peiilhes and is confumed, yet that the firll Prin- 
 •* ciple of it remains, which formerly gave him life. . . . That 
 »< a man may in this life attain to the higheft perfeiflion of the principle 
 " of knowledge, and arrive by meditation to the grcateft tranquillity 
 «« of life, and that until he obtain this, he is agitated by a perpetual 
 '* motion, and thrown from one hell into a another, till by contempla- 
 " tion and meditation he arrive at the furamit of tranquiUity which is 
 «< in that firil Principle." 
 
 + Ibid, pag. 4?, 49. 
 
 X Cicero, Tufc. Qncft. i. pag. 329. — " From all thefe opinions, 
 *' nothing after death can be interfiling to any one, for fenfition is loifc 
 f* together with life.** 
 
322 AN IxVQTJlRY INTO THE chap.xv, 
 
 *' vocantur, quod MeJylenis fermo habetur : In qulbus vult ciH- 
 " cere anirr.os efTs mortalcs : Stoici autem ufuram nobis* tan- 
 '* quam cornicibus: D'lu manfuros aiunt animoSj leniper ne- 
 ** ^ant*." 
 
 Nor were they otheru'ife minded, many of them In Greece. 
 When Socrates vents his opinion of the in;mortciiify of the 
 foul that day before he died, Cebes, one of his difciples, who is 
 the conferrer, or one ot thern at leaft that m.iintains the dif- 
 courfe with him, addrelTes him in thefe words : *' Socrates, I 
 ** iubfcrlbe to the truth of iiU you hive faid. There is only 
 ** one thing that men look upon as incredible, viz. what you 
 ** advanced of the foul : for alniolt every body fancies, that 
 ** when the foul parts from the body it is no more, it dies along 
 ** with it ; in the very minute of parting it evarilfiies like a 
 ** vapour or fmoke, v.hich flics oit and oiiperfes, and l:as no 
 " exigence f." 
 
 Yea, Pliny, Strabo, and many otliers, declare againft the 
 immortality of the foul ; nay, Pliny en fct purpole difputes' 
 againR it .j:. 
 
 And the poets go the fame w^y. It v ere eafy to multiply 
 proofs of this from them. S:rncca fpcaks the mind of many of 
 them, t'iiough perhaps not his own. Traj.^ Troa, A* I. 
 Poji mortem 7zihil ef, ipfaque jnors vAhih 
 Velocis fpatii meia ?ionjiJJiwa, 
 ^Uceris nzio jace.-'s poJi obitum loco; 
 
 ^uo von mala jacent, Et 
 Tern pus nos avid urn de-vorat ^ chaos ^ 
 Mors i'idividua cfj; voxio corporiy 
 
 Nee paycc'?js {>7:if;ia }l. Pcrfius 
 
 * *< Crowds of nppofers come agninil m?, not only of the Epic:]- 
 «< reans, whom indeed I do n<n defpife, but 1 knew roE how 
 f' every molt lenrned man defpifes them. For my darling, I n ean 
 *'• Archais, has difptjred rerv c;)gtrr!y againft this immortality. He 
 *« u r'Ue three btn^k-^, which Jire called Lefbian, hecaufe the dif- 
 <* coirfe is held at rviytelene, in which he endcp.vcured to prove that 
 <' the fouls of men are mc>rtaL Bur the btoicks only give them a long 
 *' life like the crows, — fh<v fny that foulb will live a long time, but 
 " ihev d ?ny that thev w\\\ Hve forever." 
 
 + Plato's Phedc?: done into Engllfli from M. Di-cier's Tranf. vol- 2. 
 pag. 100. 
 
 if uweni Tlie:.log. Lib i. C. pag. 174. 
 
 II " There is nothing after death, and death itfclf is nothing, being 
 <f Oijly the hi'.t fta^e of oar fvvift courfe. Do you alk in what p'acc 
 
 " you 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 323 
 
 Perfms and all the pccts made ufe of this ss an encourage- 
 ment to give way to themlelves, in whatever Juft prompted 
 (hem to. 
 
 Indulge genioj carpamus dzilcia ; niflriim eft 
 ^:cd 'z-i-jusj cinist ^ manesy ^ fahula fes*. 
 
 If it be faid that this is an irony, and that he M-as not in ear- 
 neP:, it is eafy to multiply quotations to this purpcfe from Ho- 
 race, Catullus, and m.cft of the poets, which are not capable of 
 any fuch conflrud^ion. But I forbear. 
 
 And although Cicero was for the irr.mortality of the foul ; 
 yet in his fird book of Tup.ulan Qjitftions^ he plainly derides 
 the whole bulinefs of rewards and punirnm.cnts after this life ; 
 as anyone who will attentively perufe it may Ice. I forbear 
 to tranfcribe the pailige ; becaufe I behoved to tranfcribe much 
 to fnew the tendency of the difcourfe. He plainly tells us, that 
 he could be eloquent, if he had a mind to fpeak againfl thole 
 things; Dijhtus efc pojfdm, fi contra ifla dicer cm j". The 
 cafe is plainly this : Th^t perion to whom he difcourfes looks 
 on death as an evil. Cicero tells him that perhaps it is be- 
 caufe he fears thcfe punilluTients after this life, which the vul- 
 gar believed ; and after he has tartly ridiculed them, he con- 
 cludes, That had he a mind, he could enlarge againft thofe 
 things, and plainly expofc the whole tradition. 
 
 But bscau'e lom.e talk fo much of Plato, Socrates, Cicero, 
 and we get fo many quotations from them about the immortality 
 of the foul and a future Oa^e ; 1 ihali here reprefent their own 
 opinion fooiewhat more fully. 
 
 As for Socrates, he has not M'rit any thing that is come to our 
 hands: all the accounts we have of him are from Plato, Xeno- 
 phen and others, but efpecially Plato his Icho'ar, who was 
 with him at his death : From him then we (hall learn at once, 
 what both his maker's opinion and his own v/ere in this matter. 
 
 When 
 
 *< you are to lie after your death, in which evils do not I'e, and greedy 
 ''time and chance devours us? Deaih is a divider, which hurts ths 
 «* body and does not fpare the foul." 
 
 * '"'Indulge your inclination, let us enjoy pleafures; this fpan of life 
 " thzt we enjoy is ours, you will foon become i-flies, a {hade and a 
 » fable." 
 
 t Tufcul. Quell. Lib, i. a little from the beginning, pag. ir.ihi 3? 2. 
 
324 AN INQ^UIRY |INTO TFIE chap. xv. 
 
 When Socrates is inaking bis apology before bis judges, he 
 
 tells them, " That to fear death, is nothing elfe, but to be- 
 
 *' lieve one's felf to be wife, v/hen they are not ; and to fancy 
 
 ** that they know what ihey do not know. In ciFed, no body 
 
 ** knows death ; no body can telJ, but it may be the treateft 
 
 '* benefit of mankind ; and yet men are afraid of it, as if they 
 
 ** knew certainly that it was the greatefl: of evils*." And a 
 
 Jittle after fpeaking of death, *' What ! (hould I be afraid of the 
 
 ** punilhment adjudged by Melitus, a punifliment that I can- 
 
 ** not pofitiveiy fay whether it is good or evil f ?" And thus he 
 
 concludes his apology- ** But now, it is true we (hor<ld all 
 
 ** retire to our reipec^ive offices, you to live, and I to die. 
 
 ** But whetlier you or I are going upon the better expedition, 
 
 *' it is known to none, but God alone .J ' 
 
 Again, in that famed difcourfe on this fubje6i, before his 
 death, after he has produced all the arguments he can for (he 
 inimortality of the foul, he tells us pretty plainly, how things 
 f^ocd with him. ** Convincing the audience of what 1 ad- 
 ** vance, is not oniy my aim ; indeed I Ihall be infinitely glad 
 " that it come to pafs ; but my chief fcope is to perfuade my- 
 ** felf of the truth of thefe things ; for I argue thus, my dear 
 ** Phedon, and you will find that this way of arguing is highly 
 ** ufeful, (very true to folk that are not certain and can do no" 
 ** better, and only to thei'e). If my propofitions prove true, 
 ** it is well done to believe them, and if after my death they 
 ** be found falfe, I will reap that advantage in this life, that 
 ** 1 have been Icfs afflicted by the evils which commonly ac- 
 " company it. But I fhall not remain long under this igno- 
 '* ranee §." And when he is near his clofe, and juft about 
 (o take the poifon, or a little before, having reprefented his 
 thoughts about rewards and punithmcnts after (his life, which 
 are little better than thofe of the poets, he concludes his ac- 
 count in thefe words; ** No jTian of fenfe can pretend to af- 
 ** furc you, that all thefe things are jui\ as you have heard. 
 '* But all thinking men will be pofitive, that the ftate of the 
 ** foul, and the place of its abode, is abfolutely fuch as I 
 *' reprefent it to be, or at leafl very near it," — provided the 
 foul be ini mortal. 
 More might be alleged to the fame purpofe ; but this is fuf- 
 
 ficient 
 
 * Dacier's Plato, Vol. 2. pag. 2;"^. Socrates' Apology, 
 ■f ^bid. pag. 40. ;- jbid. pag. 47. 
 
 § Plato's Fhedon pag. ijj, 136. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 325 
 
 ficlent to let us fee how wavering Plato and his mafter Socra- 
 tes were. They talk confidently Ibmetimes ; but prefently t}7ey 
 fink aaain. Let us next fee what Cicero's mind was. He 
 treats ihls fubjeCl on fet pu.rpofe, in his firfi book of Tnfculan 
 Quefiions^ which is wholly fpent on this fubje6t. He under- 
 takes to frew and prove againft the perfon whom he inflru6is, that 
 death is 7wt evil, whether we are diflolved quite or not : and 
 having, as he fancies, proven that death is not an evil, he 
 proceeds and gives us this account of his undertaking^-** I 
 ** (hall teach you, (fpeaking of death) if I can, /t pqji??:, that 
 ** it iiot only not evil, hui good *." But a little after he tells 
 us cbarlv what we may expe<?i: from him, when his heaver ex- 
 horts him to go on ; fays he, Geram tibi morem, & ea qua 
 vis, ut poteroi explicabo : Nee tamen quafi Pythiiis Apol/o, 
 certa ut Jiiit, zd fixa qua: dixero : Sed ut homvnculus unus t 
 maltis prohahtlia conje.Burd fequens^ ultra enim quo progrediar, 
 quam ut verifimilia videam, non habeo : Certa dicait ii qui £3 
 percipi ea pojfe dicunty & ft fapientcs ej[e projitentur \. And 
 fpeaking about this opinion, his auditor tells him, how pleafant 
 this is to him. It will be a little pleafant to hear them fpeak. 
 A* Me vero deleSat: Idque primu??? ita ejfe fJciL ardmos effe 
 immortales :) Deinde etiamfi non fit, mihitainenperfuaderi vdim» 
 M, Quid tibi ergo opera noflrd opus e/i? Nam eloquentid Pla- 
 tonem fuperare pojfumus? Evolve diligenter ejus turn libriivi^ 
 qui eji de animo : Amplius quod de/idcres n'hil erit. A- Feci 
 mthercule ^ quidan jd^pius : Sed nefcio quomodo, dum lego, af- 
 fentior : Cum pojui librum, & mecum ipfe de immortalitate ani- 
 niorum ccepi cogitare, affentio omnis ilia tiabitur %- After he 
 has it=iilru6\ed his hearer, he profoiTes his refolution to (land by 
 
 this 
 * Pag. 325. 
 
 + Pag. 526. — «y^, I will obey you, and explain thefe things that you 
 « wi(h, as I fhall be able. Yet what I ara to fay will not be certain 
 « and fixed like the oracles of the Pythian Appoilo, but 1 will proceed 
 " as one poor man of the many, following probabilities by conjecture, 
 « for I have no where that 1 can go further than I fee probability. 
 " Thofe will i-:;.-)^ certain things who fay that certainty can be attained, 
 « and who profefs to be wife men." 
 
 X Pag, 329.— "^y. Bjt it pleafes me, and this firfl, that fo is the cafe, 
 « (to wit, that the fouls of men are immortal) and then although it 
 « (hould not be fo, yet I wiih to be perfuaded of it, M. What need 
 " have you then of our fervice ? Can we excel Plato in eloquence? 
 « Turnover diligently that book of his, which treats of the foul, yea 
 
 " will 
 
326 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. 
 
 XV 
 
 this opinion, but gets a caution from his inflruftcr, that lets us 
 iee liow things Rand. //. Nemo me de immortalitate. depdkt. 
 M, anlvvers, Laudo id quidein^ et Ji nihil nimis oporttt conftdat ; 
 Movcmur enim /Icpc aliqiio acute condufo : Labamus miitamuf- 
 cjye ftnrentiam clariorihus etiam in rebus: In his enim ejl ahqua 
 ohfcuritas*. And If ye would know what his reaibn was for 
 inriiting fo long on the proof of this, he tells us near the clofe, 
 't hat it was to bimirn the contrary fufpicion, which was trou- 
 Mefome. Much more might be adduced, but what has been 
 fald fuhSciently derDonOrates how fluctuating and uncertain the 
 beR of them were, in reference to this importaut point. 
 
 if any fhall fay, tlKit though thefe great men upon feme oc^ 
 crJions, expreiTed themfelves with fonie hefiratlon, and did infi- 
 nuate fomc fufpicion that the oppofite part of the quefiion might 
 be true, yet upon other occafions they are pofitive, and that this 
 is as good an evidence oftheirbeing firmly perfuaded, as the o- 
 thercxprefTions are of iheir hefitation. lanfwer, the confequence 
 is naught. A ft!«ming pofvivenefs upon fome occaiions, may 
 be the refuh of the joint influence of a Itrong defire, that the 
 thing (hould be true, and fome philofopbical quirk urged for 
 its fupport: For as Cicero well obferves in the words laft quo- 
 ted, Moveinur fipe aliquo acute condufo; and this efpecially 
 holds true, where there is a flrong inclination to believe the- 
 thing, as being of obvious advantage to us. Now this may 
 be, where there Is no certainty or firm perfuafion. I readily 
 own that thcfe great men favoured the immortality of the i'oul : 
 Bat I pofitively deny, that they received it with that firmnefs 
 of ailent, that is not only due, but unavoidable, to truths which 
 carry their own evidence along with them. And 1 moreover 
 a\er, that the Dcifls, in q-uOtlng fome of thefe affertions from 
 th'^m, wherein they feeni pohtive, fuppreffing other exprcffions, 
 wherein they difcover a hefitation, da but abufe the reader's 
 credulity ; and give neither a full nor fair account of the judg- 
 ment of thefe men. CHAP 
 
 « will Gcfire nothing more on the fubje(^. J. Indeed I have done To, 
 f< and cfrencr than once, but 1 knov/ not how it is, I alTent as long as 
 <' I am readii^^;, but when I have b.id down the book and begin to 
 t« think '.vith mvfclfofthe immortality of fouU, all that affent va.iliht-s." 
 * ♦*]Sjone fhail drive rne from my bclict' of imn^ortalirv. M. I 
 <• commend that indeed, ahhougli we ought not to be too fure of a^y 
 f thing, for we arc often determined by foraeihing that is acutely con- 
 '»' chKiei.i , yet auerwards wc give way and change our opinions even 
 " in thi :^^.. that are dearer, for there is fome obrcuiiiy iw ihofe tuio^ii " 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 327 
 
 CHAP. XVI. 
 
 Wbnein fome. general conjiderations are laid do:vnfvr proving 
 that many cf the heji things, zuhich are to be met ziitk in the 
 Heathens f were not the difcoveries of Nature s Light , hut 
 cams J ram Tradition* 
 
 NOTWITHSTANDING the grofs ignorance, which over- 
 fpread the Heathen world, was very great ; yet it can- 
 not be denied that there are very many furprifing hints of truth 
 to be found, in many of their writings, in reference even to 
 matters of religion. 
 
 The DeiQs take up whatever tli^y meet with of this fort, and 
 confidently give it out, That all this they difcovered by the 
 mere light of nature. 
 
 There are who, on the other hand, will fcarce allow them 
 to have made any of thofe difcoveries by the light of nature; 
 but afcribe whatever hints of truth are to be met with, to tradi- 
 tion* This is faid to be the opinion of Eufebius and Scaliger, 
 by Dr. O^ven *. And it is of late maintained by Mr, Nicclh, 
 the ingenious author of the Conference with a Iheifi^, For 
 which Mr. Becconfal, the author of a late treatife concerning 
 the Lazo of Nature^ is much difpleafed with him, and takes 
 him to tafk %» 
 
 I defign not to mal^e myfelf a party in this debate, I think 
 that there is fom.ewhat cf truth on both fides : But if either 
 think to carry the matter to the utmoQ, I think alfo there will 
 he miilakes on both hands. It is too much to fay that they 
 discovered nothing in reference to religion by the mere light of 
 nat;ire: And on the other hand it favours of grofs ignorance 
 to fay that all we meet with in the v/ritings of the ancient fager, 
 was difcovered by the light of nature. Nothing is more evident, 
 than that many things have been banded from nation to nation, 
 and from age to age, by tradition. This no modeft man will 
 or can deny ; it has been fo clearly m^de out by many. 
 
 V/hat 
 
 * Thcol. Lib. I. C. Z. Parag. 4. 
 
 f Confer. Part 2. pag. 32, 35, &c. 
 
 :; Beccon. of the Law of Nature, C. 4. '^?.-^. 54, 55. &;. 
 
323 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xvi. 
 
 What I affert, and {Vjall attempt to prove, is, ** That ma- 
 nv of the moft notable things that we meet with in the Hea- 
 then writers, in matters of religion, are nOt to be looked on as 
 difcovertes made by the light of nature ; but as truths, where- 
 of they were informed by tradition. And moreover, that when 
 we find them alTerting fome of thofe truths, which to us who 
 enjoy the fcripturcs, and by the fcriptures have our reafon im- 
 proven, appear to have a foundation in reafon, we are not there- 
 fore to conclude, th^t reafon led them to thofe truths; but ra- 
 ther, that in many cafes they had even thefe from tradition,''* 
 
 In proving this point, I ftiall not proceed by fingle inibn- 
 ces, but (hall lay down thefe general confiderations, which at 
 once clear the truth of oar affertion, and difcover whence thefe 
 traditions might com3, and how eafily they might be conveyed 
 to them. Particular inftances may be had in great abundance 
 from thofe who have, of fet purpofe, largely iaiiiled on th^is 
 fubject. Amongfl others, Huetius, in his D^imonjlratio Evan- 
 gdica, has largely diicourfed of particular inftances of this na- 
 ture. I think the following obfervations taken together and 
 duly confidered, will put our allertion beyond quelHon with 
 the fober and judicious. 
 
 1. It is moft certain, that the Jews, however in other regards 
 inconfiderable, which makes it dill the more obfervable, had 
 more fall, clear, and certain knowledge of the true God, re- 
 ligion, and matters of worlhip, than all the world befides. If 
 th^ D^^iQs pleale to controvert this propofilion, we thai I debate 
 it with them when they pleafe. And I dare be bold to^ fay, 
 that 1 Ihall prove, that there is more true and rational dlviriity in 
 one QiiX.'ci^ hooks of Mofts", than they ihall be able to find in 
 all the Heathen zuriters, when they put all that has been faid 
 by all of them together. 
 
 2. Their neighbours, and more efpecially the Egyptians, 
 had many fair occafions of obtaining acquaintance with their 
 opinions and prac\lces in matters of relgion. Several p-rlons 
 at diflant times, went out from the church and fettled i i dif- 
 tant nations, llbmael went out from Abraham's family, and 
 Efau from that of Ifaac. Now it cannot be fuppofed, how 
 wicked foever thefe perfons were, but they would carry out 
 with them ibme (rue notions, opinions and praCiices, in maliers 
 of religion. Nor can it reafonably be denied, that they found- 
 ed then- new government on fome of thefe notices, thout'h yari- 
 ouav blended and mixt with corrupt additions and alterations, 
 
 ^ both 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 329 
 
 hotU in matters of opir.ion and practice. And it is evident, that 
 thci^ hints, or remainders of truth, in n>atters of opinion and 
 practice, as they were mixt with thefe corruptions, would ob- 
 tain a general and great refpecSt, as being found ufeful for 
 maintaining order in focieties, as being delivered to them by 
 the iirft founders of their nations, as being commended by their 
 pra6tice, and perhaps eilabiiined by laws and conRitutions. 
 Whence it is not pofiibly to be fuppofed that thefe notices or 
 praclices would in an age, or a few ages wear out. 
 
 Again, it is particularly obfervable in this cafe, that the 
 church was, for a long tra6i of time, in a wandering and un- 
 fettled ftate ; which obliged them to more of intimacy with the 
 nations that lay near them, than afterwards was neceOary , when 
 they fettled in a land by themifelves apart, and were, by divine 
 conl^itutions, barred from that familiarity. 
 
 Moreover, as to th.e Egytians, they had much occafion of 
 being particularly acquainted with the Jews' opinions and prac- 
 tices in the matters of God. The Ifraelitcs dwelt among them 
 (befides what occafional converfe they had before) about 217 
 years together. The correfpondence was again renewed in So- 
 lomon's time, by bis matching with the king* of Egypt's daugh- 
 ter. Jeremiah, and a great company with him, ftaid a conii- 
 derable tim.e in Egypt, and prophefied there to the Jews, who 
 had at that time no feparate dwellings, and prophefied concern- 
 ing Egypt ; which, together with the reputation he had got at 
 Jerufalem, by his predictions that were remarkably verified, 
 the notice taken of him by thp king of Babylon, and the con- 
 tefls he had with thofe of his own nation, could not but make 
 him much regarded. 
 
 It is further confiderable, that there were many things, which 
 may reafonably be fuppofed to excite an uncommon curiofity in 
 the Egyptians, to unierRand the religion of the Jews. It is 
 known v/hat a place Jofeph long had in Egypt, and how he 
 managed it. Afterwards the people, while under bondage, 
 were fcattered through the land, and the piety of fomc of them 
 appearing in their fuiferings, could not but be taken notice of, 
 as their feathering through the land, gave occafion to the E- 
 gyptians to inquire, as to the principles that influenced it. 
 Uhe miraculous appearances of God on behalf of that peo- 
 ple in Egypt and its neighbourhood, in the wildernefs, would 
 have excited ths curlofity of a people, much lefs inquifitive 
 than they were. The reputation of Solomon, bis alliance with 
 
 S s the 
 
330 AN INdUIllY INTO THE chap. xvr. 
 
 tlic crown of Egypt, c^nd his traffck with them, as they gave 
 a new occahon, lo ccold not hut ipiir them on to inquire fur- 
 ther into matters cf this ("ori. If to all this you add the general 
 character writers of all forts give to the Egypsians, That thev 
 were a people more tl^an ordinarily fond about matters of reli- 
 gion, infcmuch that our author Herbert obfei ves, that they are 
 Wid to be the firit tliiii taught religion*; and if further it is con- 
 fidered, that the Gentiles, finding the unfatisfat^tojinels of their 
 own opinions and praifliccs, v/ere very much inclined to change, 
 and adopt the cufiotns, practices, and way of every naiion in 
 matters ©f religion, to try if they could find any thine rr.ore f?.- 
 tisfying than their own ; — if, I fav, all tljefe are laid together, 
 it cannot be doubted that the neighbouring nations, and parti- 
 cularly the Egypjianb, learned many things* from the Jews in 
 matters of religion. 
 
 3, It is obfervable, that all thefe things fell out a confidera- 
 ble tiiTie before any of thofe great men appeared or tiouriihed 
 in the V. orld, whofe writings are come to us, and contain ihefc 
 truths, concerning the rile whereof we now difccurfe. 
 
 The [cv!^n fages, i hales. Solon, PittscuS; Bias, Chllo, Pe- 
 ri'inder, and Cleobulus, who raifed the reputation of Greece, 
 did not tlcurilh till about the time of the Babvlonilli captivity, 
 and long after the difpei non of the Ten Tribes ; feme do reck- 
 on it l23yL:''rst. Socrates and Plato flcuriilicd net for near 
 150 .years after thefe again. Now thefe are among the firft 
 who made any confiderable figure for learning of this icri in 
 the Heathen world, wliofc v/rilin;^3 are come to us. 
 
 4, All thefe great men did, forth'.irown improverrent^ tra- 
 vel into foreign nations, and made it their bunnefs to learn their 
 opinions and practices. Particularly we are told of the mofi 
 canfiderable of them by Diogenes Laertius and others, That 
 they were very concerned to know the opinios.s of the Egyptian 
 piie0.sin matters of religiof, and moil of ivhat they knew in 
 thefe matters was taught them by thofe- This Vv'ill be denied 
 b}'' none, that is acquainted widithe lives of thofe perfcns. 
 
 5, it is further obfervable, that in many inOances there is 
 fuch a plain ref'^mbhince in iheir opinions to the icripture ac- 
 counts of tlie origin of the zuorUIj the deluge, the peopling cj the 
 earth, and mofl other thip«»s, as could net be cafual ; but Oiews 
 plainly that tliey were derived thence. This in particular in- 
 
 f.nnces 
 * De Relio;. GenC pag. ?. 
 T Le Clerk Coaipui. Hilt. pag. 35, 40. 
 
PRI>:CIPLES O^-^ THE MODERN DEISTS. q^i 
 
 iUnces bv rranv, particulr.rly [luetius and ofbers, to ^vliorr he 
 refers, is fo fjUy dcnionft ated, that it cafinoi, without inanifeft 
 impudence, be «lcnied. 
 
 6. What cones yet rorrjcvhat nearer io our purpofc, it is 
 very obfervablc e*/en as to thofe truths, which ha^'C lome foun- 
 dation in rea{on,^fiich as thcle, about the immortality of the 
 fouls of men, and their ftate after dfa^h, and the like, that 
 thofc great men of oid propofed them commoniv, without oflcr- 
 ing any proof of them, or any rejfons for them. Now it is 
 not creditile that, if they had been Jed to thofe notices by 
 reafon, they would have offer«-^d thofe important truths, without 
 osfering reafons of them. This obfervatian we find m.ade, as 
 to its lubftance, thobp;h not on fuch views, by no lefs a prfrfon 
 than Cicero, v./ho knew as vveli how maiters then i^ocd, to 
 fpeak modeiUy, as an • now ca-J do. Speaking of ihe imn'fOrtali- 
 ty of the foul, and rhi^ ancient ohilolophers* fcTiiiinen^s abou^t 
 it, he lavs, ^^ Sed r^deo ad antiquos- Rntionem iili /ententie 
 ** fus non fere reddoant niji quid trat numeris ant dtjcnp ion- 
 ** \bus explicandum—h' I atonem Jerunt primum de animorum 
 '^ ''Itrnitate non foluvi fenplj e ideni^ quod Pythagoras : fed ration- 
 ** em ttiam attuli/[e *.' 
 
 ■y. Nor is it lels confsderable to prove, thnt the notions, 
 which prevailed about \\\t imir-ortahiv of the foul, and a future 
 ftate, (and the like mav be faid of mar^y otlieis) were not 
 learned from reafon^ but from tradition ; and tliat the impreffion 
 and perfuafion of thefe trutiis wjre more generally entertained, 
 and more (Irongly r-vttcd among the vulgar than among the 
 philofophers. Whole* Ihoals (;f them^ cy Cat^rv^i as Cicero a- 
 bove quoted fpeaks, denieil and derid^'d ail thefe things, which 
 the vulgar nrmiy believed. This obfervation 1 find made by the 
 ItdiYnQd Dr. Owen, ** fCun inundi conditu j udiciu m poti haw: vi' 
 *' taniexe.rcendum.fama'n cathohcam. obtinuit Earn diara perfua- 
 ^\fionem ccmitita eji immortalitatis anrmarum pr^jiimptio^ qu<s 
 ** quamvis ratioai etiam innitatur, tamert cum niaxirm ftriiptr 
 
 *' a pud 
 
 * f' Btit I renirn fo r'e ancients. They cGrr,n:;c'.J7 did not give a 
 <' realb.i for their opinion, unlcTs when ai»y thi-ig was to be orpiain- 
 
 <' ed by numbers or ngares. rhey fsy thai I'iato was the nril who 
 
 " not only was of the fame opinion with Pyihaj^oras concerning the 
 <* iaimortaiity of the foul, bat vvho likewife a'.idiiced a reafoii for it.'* 
 
 T «' Thai: with the end of che world thsre was to be a jadguient after 
 <* this life, had agencial fa-ViC, and a prcfi.nption of the imaiorrality 
 
 '< of 
 
332 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. xvi. 
 
 ** apud vuIguSf potius quam 'ooZas oblinuit, non niji traditioni 
 ** 0dJcTi\}endcu tjl^' 
 
 8. When thcfe great men of old do give reafons of their o- 
 pinions, they ar« fuch, as any one may iee, never led them to 
 thefe opinions: but having, by tradition received them, theywere 
 atliamed to ho'd them, without being capable to give any reafon 
 for what thev held, and tlierefore, they fet their wits on the 
 rack to find out what to fay for them. And it was but feldom 
 they hit on the true ones. For moil part their reafonings are 
 plainly childidi, trifling and fophiftical. It were eafy to de- 
 monf^rate this. As to the arguments of Socrates and Plato for 
 the immortality of the foul, they are plain fophifms : and upon 
 what defign they were urged, we have heard before, viz. to 
 confirm thcmfelves in an opinion, the belief whereof was ac- 
 companied with fome advantage. A learned perfon fays jultly, 
 ** That Pbto endeavours to prove the immortality of the foul by 
 *' fuch reafon^>,as5if they conclude any thing, would conclude it 
 •* to be a God*." And ihe fame maybe (iiid of Cicero and others. 
 
 9. It is moreover remarkable, to this purpofe, that not only 
 are there are many things to be met with in the writings and 
 pra6tices of the ancient writers amonft the Heathens, whereof 
 no colourable reafon can be given, nor any account m.ade, o- 
 therwifc than by afcribing them to ancient ana corrupted tradi-" 
 tions ; but further, that they knew not how to manage or im- 
 prove thofe hints, w'liich were this way handed to them. 
 Moll of tliem quite fpoil thcfe things in the telling. A few of 
 the more wiA?, confcious of their own ignorance, yet wanting 
 humility and ingenuity enough to acknowledge it, wrap tJiem- 
 fclves in clouds, and exprefs themfelves darkly, to conceal 
 their own ignorance from the vulgar; and one that underilands, 
 wfoujd not know whether to laugh or be angry, to fee their fond 
 admirers, ip later ages, fweati.ng to fetch fublime meanings 
 from words which the writers themfelves really underftood not. 
 
 10. In tise lart place, we find the ancients themfelves, on 
 fome occafionS) ozuning, that they owed the firfl difcoveries of 
 thcfe things to tradition. Dacier in the life of Plato, tells us, 
 ** That he firfl inilructs them in religion, about which he efia- 
 
 '' blhhes 
 
 '< of fonis accompanied this pc^rfiiafion, which akhougb it is f-ipported 
 ^' by reafon, yet as it has always prevailed moil among the vufyar, 
 ** raiher than amono; philofophers, can only be afcribed to tradition." 
 * Dr. How's Liv'ing Tcrnple, Parr i, pa^. 122. 
 
P^lNCJPLliS OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 333 
 
 *< biiihes nothing, without having confulted God ; that is, no- 
 ♦* thing but what is conformable to true tradition and ancient 
 '' orac/fs*." To evince the truth of this, Plato's own words 
 are fuojoined, " God, (faith Piato) as we are taught by an- 
 ** cient tradition J having in himfelf the beginning, the middle 
 " and end of all things, always goes on in his way, according 
 *♦ to his nature, without ever ftepping afide ; he is followed by 
 ** j7^''/^<:^,vvhich never fails to punitTi the tranfgreffions committed 
 ** agaiuR his iawf/' And a little after fpea king about the 
 punllhments of the wicked, he proceeds thus, ** They are not 
 *< limited to the miferies of this life, nor to death itfelf, from 
 " which even good men are not exempt; for thele are penalties 
 '* too light and Ihort, but they are horrible torments." i3ut 
 yet more remarkable to this purpofe are his words in his epil- 
 ties, *' A/ittquis vero fact if q ; fermonibus fides fe?nper hahenda^ 
 *' qui declarant animum nobis e/fe i?nmortalem, etjudices habere ^ 
 *' quorum dtcretis, pro merit pr ' mia et fupplicia maxima atin- 
 ** baantiir, iit primum gais e corpore dccejferit |." 
 
 Lay thele things together, and as they are in themfelves evi- 
 dent enough: lo 1 think they amount to a full demonftration of 
 the aflertion, we have above laid down, for the proof whereof 
 we adduced them; and they do abundantly (liew, how inconfi- 
 derately every thing met with in ancient writers is, put upon 
 the fcore of nature s light » 
 
 CHAP. XVII. 
 
 Wherein we con/ider what Herbert's opinion was as to the fuffi- 
 ciency of his Articles, and offer fame refeElions<>fnewing how 
 foolifi, abfurd and ridiculous the Deifts' pretences to thzir 
 fuffictency are. 
 
 E have now demonfirated that thefe five articles did 
 not univerfally obtain in the world, and that conle- 
 quently the Heathen world had not the means necejjary tofalva- 
 tion* 
 
 But 
 * Life of Plaro, pag. 8(5. + Plato de LigioLis, Lib. 4. 
 
 ' % Piato, Epiit. 7. — «♦ But cre^^it ought ahvays to be givrn to ancient 
 " and facfed fpeeches, which declare that our ibuls arc innmortal, nnd 
 *« that thefc are judges by whofe fentences great revv:n " n- 
 
 «' meats. are to be diilributed according to merit, as 1 -i 
 
 « have left the body," 
 
^34 AN INCVJIRY INTO THE chap. xvii. 
 
 But flioird v/e grant what has been above proved to be falle, 
 viz. That ihci'e articles did univtr [ally obtain \ yet all is not 
 dane, nor is the dilficulty To got over ; for we are not agreed, 
 that thel'e, though acknowledged, are alone [undent. 
 
 We know our author would have us to believe, that they 
 are iuRicient. He tells us to this purpole, that when he had 
 fLvjrid them oi;t,. he fa"' that there was nothing wanting to trake 
 a comp'ete reJi^i'?n Ouiim ka/lei^^tiur eximias veiitates feorfim 
 parajfem^ difquifi-.i porro, quid hifce adjecerint, vel quidcni ad-i 
 ■jiceie poJJintja^erdot'S, unde certxor fidei cerca fa lutein ^ ternam 
 daretur norma, ciut vit • intezfi'^is fantlito.fq', magis promovere- 
 tiir, aut communis ii'''ique llalnliretur Concordia Videbam jaiis 
 aha aU}iie aha hic a idi poff^., qmn tt additafuiffe. ; Jed q^*." vcri- 
 fates hajce objlruercnt, ene^virenlqiif. potms, quam vim roburque 
 iilis conciliariint*. t\ud indeed our author is lb bold as to chal- 
 lenge all the world to Oicvv what can be added to thele five ar- 
 ticles. Vt xidp.r^nrinterea antiftites^ pr ftilrj'q ; per tottm orbein 
 d>ffvf}i qu'dliife q-iinq: Artiruti.^, add^rc potuerint : Unde ve- 
 ra ilia virtus, qua ko mines Deo fi miles, confortioque ejus dignoi 
 ejfi.iit; vel pie'as, puritai fanEiitafq vit'" magis promoveri pof- 
 fiiit\. And gro . ii;g [\u\ bolder by this imaginary fucceis, he 
 proceeds lo inveior}i, fh ragh more covei'tly, againii x\i^ JatisJ ac- 
 tion oj Chrif}., as deitru^live to piety Of which he give* a mo(l ' 
 diGngenuous account, as commonly he docs of all the articles 
 of revealed religion, u'hich he has occafion to mention. 
 
 But however co fident our autlior is, of the rilhcieacy of his 
 five articles in this place; yet elfeivhere he fhev/s he had not 
 overmuch certainty in his own mind, about this rnatter : For 
 fo'iTe piges after, he fays, Et qtiukm qidnque hofce Jrttci!hs 
 hnosj cuiLoUcofqu(i eije unufqmfq ; DtthJo procul fateb'itur ; id fa^ 
 
 lutcm 
 
 " *» Wlr^r; therefore I Iv-fd got thefe excellent trurhs by themfelvej, I 
 <* next iT.pairod what prieih had added, or could add to thefe, vyhere',:y 
 f* they might b? a furer guide of our faith concerning eternal I'alvaiion, 
 •* or integrity and faniStity of life more promoted, or cosTiraon concord 
 ** e*labliihed every where. I faw well enough that ditFerent things 
 <* might be added, nay had been added to them, but fuch as rather obltrnc- 
 «* ted and enervated thefe truths, tlian gave tht":!!!! any force or lirength.'* 
 
 + " — That the priefts and biihops,fcattered over the whole world, 
 " mijiht fee in the mean time, wha'r they could add to thet'e five ar- 
 ** tides ; or by what means that true virtue, which renders men like 
 " to God, and worthy of his tellovvihip, or by v.hich piet;, pUiU/ 
 " i».nd fanclif)' of iiie, can be more proinoted." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEUN DEISTS. 335 
 
 lutem tarnen aternam cornparandam mn fufficere prohlhehiint non 
 nuU'i, caterurriy qui Ita hcuius fusrity ne ilk quidnn at'dax ; nedum 
 f.n)um ternerariumq ; effcitern (meafintsntia) protukrit ; quurn nuUi 
 fails explorata fint Judicia Divina ; quam etium ob caiifajn, nequeea 
 fufficere protenus dixerim: atiamcn mcigls prohdilh mihi vldeiiir 
 eorum opinio ^ qui £qeu pie ac knlttr at Dei Judiclls Jlctuunty dum 
 homo, quod In Ce eft, pncfiat ; neque enim in cujufve pot ''ji ate eft, 
 ut fides free tradltiones c^uantumvls laxs (pr^fertlm ubl aUqua ex 
 parte coniroveriuntur) ad fe fatis pei'thigiint, neque tandem recia 
 conimimlq ; rat lone aulnq ; Jlrtlcuils nojtrls addi potefi dogma , 
 unde magis pH, fincerlque evadunt Imnlnes ; aut pax, ccncordlaq 'y 
 publlca Tiiagls prornoveatur* ' Here our author is more modeft. 
 
 Thus we have feen what his opinion is; it now remains tbvt 
 we offer iboie re{le<5\ions on it. Many oflcr thcmfclves: 1 Ihall 
 only touch at a itvj» 
 
 I. 1 hough the Deifts are as defirous as any, to confine re- 
 ligion (o a narrow compafs, and perhaps it is as much their in- 
 lereil, as it is of any fort of men, that it finculd confift of fev/ 
 articles ; yet, for ftiame, they cannot make it contain lefs, than 
 thofe five articles. Tliey own, and mull own all thole necelTary 
 to falvation, both in belief and pra6llce. It is not pcfiible, 
 they themfelves being judges, to reach the ends of religion, if 
 any of them are cut off. Since then we have above proved that 
 thefe did not univerfally obtt»in, it is plain, that all mankind 
 had r.oK fujficient knGivledge of religion^ Thus it is in fafi. 
 
 But now where fiiail the blame of this be laid ? On them- 
 felves? On the crieils ? Or on God ? This lafl cannot be faid. 
 
 Weil 
 
 * << And indeed every one will doubtleis con feff, that thefe five lirti. 
 « cles are good and catholic; yet forae will think the)- are not fufTicient 
 " for attaining eternal life. But whoever would fav fc, would be guilty 
 *' of uttering not only ahold, not to fay a cruel-and jabitrary fcntence, 
 " in ir.y opinion, as the Divine judgments are not fuiriciently known 
 " to any one j for which reafon likewife, neither would Ipofjtiveiy af. 
 *' firm that they were fufiitienr. Yet the opinion of thofe feeins to be 
 •< the nx)re probable, who judge equitably, pioufly and mildly of the 
 ** Divine judgments, while a ivaw does what depends on him ; for it is not 
 " in the power of every one, that Faiths or Traditions, however lax, 
 ** (efccciaily when they are any where controverted} (hould fufilcienriy 
 " extend to him; nor in line, can any doctrine be added to cur five arri- 
 *' cle*- by right and common re r.ibn, wherf by i"nen n":ay hecoire roove' 
 *< pious and finccre, or peace and pubhc concord may bv T..i-e -^rj- 
 *< rnctsd." 
 
336 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ckap. xvn. 
 
 Well ihcn, niuft tbefe villains of prieOs, with whom our 
 author and ail the fucceedlng Deills are io angry, bear the 
 biame of it, in that they did not better teach and infiru6t the 
 people, in the grounds of /in cere religion? But though our au- 
 thor, and all the Deifls, would fain lodge the blame here ; yet 
 I am fcarce fatisfied of the juftice of the charge ; (though I am 
 willing to own, that they were for the moil; part arch-viiiains) 
 for how lliall it be made appear that they theuifelves knew the 
 grounds of fincere religion ? I know our author blames them 
 for not imparting the knowledge of fincere religion to the peo- 
 ple ; and that he may be fure to Hiut the door upon them that 
 they may not efcape, he adds by way of parenthefis, licet illis 
 fitis cognitam *. But how proves he this, that they knew that 
 chajie and fincere religion well enough ? Might not they be fup- 
 poied ignorant of it, as well an moil of the phiiofophers, the 
 greateil moralids not excepted? Again, 1 do not uell fee what 
 right they had to teach, or how they were obliged. Did the 
 lav/ of nature authoiife them to be public teachers? I believe 
 the Deifis think not. Was not every man able to fnift for bim- 
 felf, and find the way to bleflednefs? Jf he was, what need 
 was there to truil thefe villainous prieRs ? Who was obliged to 
 liOen to them? if every man was not able, without the help of 
 forne inftruclor, then if that inrtru6ior failed in his duty, as it 
 certain they did almoU perpetually, (nay o,ur author will not 
 allow, nor fee I any need of that abnofl) what becomes of the 
 poor vulgar, who, without indruciion cannot reach competent 
 knowledge? He is not able to reach it, his inltru6lors fail of 
 their duty ; and for any thing I fee, the poor man vi'ants, and 
 muQ always want a fuflicient religion, and that without any 
 fault of his. 
 
 Weil then, unavoidably, either every man is able to do mid 
 know for hinifeif, in matters of religion ; or a great many, even 
 iiicit of the poor vulgar, are loR for good and all ; and there is 
 no help for it, and that without their fault. If the lali be faid, 
 our author has loR his point quite ; and if this be a fault, he 
 U'ill lay it at the door of Providence, that has not fufhcieiifly 
 provided all men, in the means necclTaiy for their future happi- 
 nefs : If the firil be faid, then the blame muil lie; at every man's 
 own dour. But meihinks our author is not willing of lliis ; for 
 
 he 
 
 * Pa.?. iZo fnh f./icm, — « Alihougb it v/ns; fufHcicntiy known to 
 <♦ them." 
 
PRTNCIFLES OF TFIE MODERN DEISTS. 337 
 
 he would always excuje the vulgr.r, and iirppcfe them fo rud^^ 
 and ignorant, that (hey Iiad not either will, courage, nor 
 ability to ftep othervvife, than they were led. But after all, tlie 
 fault muft be lodged at their doors, or the Deifts* whole caufe is 
 loft. I confefs, any one that was under fuch imprefficns of their 
 (lupid ignorance, as our author feems to have been, will even 
 think it hard enough to lay that every one of them had this abil- 
 ity, to find out a fufficient religion ; and I believe, not without 
 ground ; though I Oili fliink, that they tr.ight have knoVvn,aDd 
 done more than they did ; but this will do the Deifis' caufe no 
 fervice. 
 
 2. But further, the DciHs muft own that natural religion, ac- 
 cording to this mould of it at leaft, did never obtain in purity, 
 without any additions, in any place of the M^orld, Our author con- 
 fedes, that on this foundation, there was every where a (Irangc 
 fu peril ruc\ure railed. After he has fpoken of thofe articles, he 
 lubjoins "Hsec igitur fincerioris Gentilium religionis parttis fu- 
 *• ere ; rcii»:iu?£ vel commentitiae fcibellas vel archctypse r.ugcE, 
 ** vel fcitanienla qusedem prohiberi poiTunt : inter quae (danuio 
 *' mortalium) nonnulla inf^na, nonnuUa etiam i^ipia vii'eban- 
 ** lur*." Now, this being the cafe, I would gladly know, if 
 cur author's five articles aic looked upon as of luch virtue, that 
 they could hallow all thcfe additions made to them, or at leaf?, 
 fo far antidote tlie poifon of them, that perfons, who embractd 
 this complex frarrse of religion, confifting of thefe five articles, 
 and fuch additions as in every nation were made to them, might 
 yet reach happinrfs, or not. 
 
 It is pretended that thefe five articles of natural religion, 
 though contaminated witii thefe additions, (as our author fpeaks 
 when he enters upon hisdifcourfe about thofe orthodox points of 
 religion, ** Ritibus, CKreraoniseq ; ccntaminabantur, confpur- 
 '* cabanturqt,") are fufiicieni to lead to happinefs,. then this is 
 plainly to fay, that tne religion of every country was good 
 and fufficient, and that every one might be laved by that religi- 
 on he was bred in.J ^f the defence of this is undertaken, It 
 
 T t will 
 
 * Pa~. z\2 «« Thefe then were the parts of the more pure rejigi- 
 
 « on of :I-e Heathen?, the others were devifed fables, or ancient trifleF, 
 ^f or falfe ornaments, among which, to the lofsof rr.an, fouie iXiad and 
 <t even impious things were likewife to he ieea»" 
 
 + Par^. 1O4 Cap. 4. at the clofe. 
 
 % HeioML de Veritate. pag. 372. 
 
338 AN INCtUlRY INTO THE chap. xvii. 
 
 will be fourd a pretty liard province, and one v/ill not eafiJy be 
 able to defend, '1 bat the confiplex reiipion of every country was 
 Sufficient, or ilut the virtue of thofe articles was fuch, as to pre- 
 ferve from the hurt of the additions. What if, in the complex 
 frame of moll religions of the world, fome of our author's fun- 
 damental articles are jiiflled out of their own place? Perhaps, 
 while each rejigion fets up for fo many inferior gods, they lob 
 the one fupreme God of much of his glory, to adcrn thefe ima- 
 ginary gods wi»h. It may be, more ftrefs is laid on rites than on 
 virtue, which our author makes the principal part of worQiip. 
 Perhaps more Orcfs is laid on their rites for expiation, than on 
 repentance. What if the additions made are Inch, as are utter- 
 ly inconfiflent with a due regard to theie articles, or a jufi im- 
 provement of them ? What if there arc other things yoked in 
 with them in m.oft religior-s, that are as derrga?ory to the hon- 
 our of God, as thefe can be fuppoied conducive for its advance- 
 ment ? How can fuch a horrid medley of things, found and un- 
 fcund, orthodox foundations tiud impious fuperfiruCiures, be ac- 
 c^ptible to God, or ufcfui to man ? One half, to wit, our au- 
 thor's five calholic articles, is dcfigncd to lead men to blifs, pre- 
 tend theDeills: And the other, to wit, the rites -and ceremo- 
 ?2/Vf, are defigned to the vvoift of purpofes, by thofe villains of 
 pricRs, who aim at cheating the world. Now, how ftiall fuch 
 crofs defigns agree or confifl ? Or, how can means adapted to fo 
 very different, nay, quite oppofite ends, be united and hang 
 together? Or, if they are united, how can that religion, which 
 conhih of fuch j;^rnncr and incoherent materials, turn to any 
 account ? But this opinion is fo ridiculous, that I need not infifi 
 in difproving of it. No man of fobriety can ever pretend that 
 thefe articles can be of any uie, if each of ih-^m is not kept in 
 its own place, and if care is not t;;ken to guard againd all ad- 
 ditions, which are inconfitient ivith a due reipeel: to thofe arti- 
 cles. Some little additions, perhaps'cne might fuppofe would 
 do no great hurt : b:.t if there are any, that entrench on the 
 foundations, and put them cut of their place, the whole fa- 
 bric fails, and all is ruined. New I think it were no hard work 
 to prove, that the additions were fuch, in every nation, as 
 rendered the whqje utterly ufeieis, and infufficient to any of 
 the moil confiderable ends of religion, either with lefpett to 
 God or r^^an. 
 
 But if it is pretended, that vvliile thofe five articles are alTert- 
 cd fufiicient, it is only meant, that if perfons would abandon 
 
 all 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 339 
 
 all thofe extrvagant, deftru£live and fihhy additions, which 
 every where arc siiade to them, and onlv regard Uicm, ihcn in 
 foiiowing thele they im^ht attain to iite and eternal happinela ; 
 if, I fay, this is alleged, then 1 would all;, how fliall we dif- 
 tinguilh betwixt thoie a.ticles and others that are interwoven 
 with them, in each country r* Bv what rriarks {hall the necefla- 
 ries be known from tie not necelfaries ? The fundamentals from 
 the accelTaries ? Is every man able, with our author, to dilfe6^t 
 and infptdt the feveral religions ot the countries where they 
 live, and feparate (he necclVaries from thefe that are not fo ? 
 Our author found this a pretty hard talk; What (hall poor 
 mean people then think of ii ? Our author has iliown what fair 
 pleas might be made for many of the mod pernicious parts of 
 the religions of the r-ations. Would a poor countryman be 
 able to rid his feet of fuch fetters ? It is utterly impollible that 
 the one half of mankind couid diftinguilh betwixt what was to 
 be rejeCied, and whit was to be retained. In a word, it is evi- 
 dent, that ail the world over, things pernicious and deflruCHve 
 were fo twifted in with things of another fort, and fuch fair 
 pleas made for them, that it was ut erly impoffible for the poor 
 ignorant vulgar to divide the one from the other. Since ihen 
 thefe five articles fignifv 1 othing unlets they were fevered from 
 thefe other things, which were every where interwoven with 
 them, and moft part of m.'nkird were utterly unable to do this, 
 which I doubt no man eve[ did before our author, it I'eems evi- 
 dent, that of whatever ufe they may be to our author, who was 
 fo (harp-fighted, as to fpv them out and diftinguilh them from 
 the other things witii whj h they were mixt ; yet they can be 
 of no ufe to the far greater part of mankind, and confequently 
 the far greater part of the human race fiill muft he ow^ned deliif 
 tute of the means that may bejuftly termed fuiticient to lead 
 them to future happinefs. Thefts five artickr., as in fatt they 
 have always been interwoven with other things, were not lutii- 
 cient to fave any; and whatever their force might be, if they 
 had been fevered f;om other things, yet they not being fo, be^ 
 fore our author did it, and moft part of m.en being utterly un-^ 
 capable of making this diitinction, they mull be looked on as 
 infufficient to many, at lead of mankind, who therefore cer- 
 tainly were denitute of means needful for future happir,}eis, and 
 fo left to perish. I know our author pretends that lome Vv'ere 
 able to diftinguiih, and did make a diiFerence betwixt thefe arti- 
 cles and the additions : Vervm quinq ; ariiculosj'upra diBos 
 
 (uti 
 
£4o AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xvii. 
 
 (uti qiu in cordc defcrihuntiir ) fr.u ulla h-^/itatiGuc accipuhant 
 oiim Gentiles dubio procul ; de reliqms pitto, azihgcl'ant, ititn li 
 pTc'efertimy qui inter itlos Jalttm fapisntiores exij}i?nabantur* * 
 How ill-grounded our author's confidence as to the univerfal 
 acceptance of his five articles is, we have feen above. What 
 he fubjoins about the Gentiles dirtinguilhing the additions that 
 were made to xhzvn^ from them, comes not up to the point : For 
 the q'jeftion is net. Whether fome could thus diftimgulih the one 
 from the other ? but, Whether ail did, or could ? And when he ' 
 pretends that (omc of the more dilcerning did \o, v.hat proof 
 advances he? Nothing but his bold puto. This reflccticn 
 might be further urged, but 1 (haliparsit, and proceed to ano- 
 ther. 
 
 3. How iliall one be latisBed that thefe five avticles are ail 
 that uere neccUary ; or that they are Sufficient ? Are the De-its 
 all agreed about this ? No, we have heard one above making 
 feven neceiiary. Nay our author is not too confident, as we 
 have heard above, when he fays:, ihia?n nulli Jatis cxplorata 
 Jint juduia dwina ; quam etiam oh caujamy neqac eos fitjficere 
 protenus dixerimf. We fee our author is not veiy lure about »he 
 iufticiency of thole articles. But lie feeins pretty pcfitj/e that 
 there is no other article djfcoverable by the cGinnrson rec'-fon of 
 marikind, that can be of any great ufe, or that is neceiiary to 
 anfwer the great ends of religion, the public peace and bet- 
 tering of mankind. But we lee the DeiOs arc not all agreed 
 here : fome think more needful. But I have two or three 
 words to lav to all this — May no article be allowed neceiiary 
 that is controverted? So our author infinuates. And Blount 
 in his Relioio Laicij is pofitive oftener than once.t» Then I 
 would know of the Deifts, Have never thefe articles, any or 
 all of them, been controverted ? Have not w,e already proven, 
 that the /",»7/ aillcle has been. controverted, about tlie being of 
 
 one 
 
 * ?d'y. zi T. — '< B-Jt doubrlcfs the Ileathcns fonr.erly received with- 
 <« out any heiitation, thcfc five ilrticles above nic;uJop.ed (as being 
 <* written in the.ir hearts) of the reft I think that they doubted, and 
 «' efpeclally thofe awiong them who were rt:ckoned wifer that) others." 
 
 i VIJ. pag. 47. <«— As-; th? divine judgments are not fuilScicntly 
 " known to ^ny one, iot wliu.h reafon likeviife, neither would 1 po- 
 '* llrivejy afiirin that they were fulTicieiic." 
 
 X Compare y:\g, 3 and 4. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 341 
 
 . :e JuprtTTie God ? Is not our author's third article, viz. ** That 
 virtue (as it is diicoverable by the light of nature) is the princi- 
 pal part of the wcrihip cf God," dilpuied by Chrii^ians ? I^o 
 not the follov/ers of Spinoza deny repentance to be a duty, and 
 that in coriipiiance with their marter, who pretends to demon- 
 ftrate in his EthickSt ** That he who repents is twice mi- 
 ierable * V" Has not the fifth been controverted by many of 
 old ? Let any who denies this read Cicero, Lib. i. Tufc, Qjnejl, 
 or Plato's Pliedon, and they will learn, that it has been contro- 
 verted by more of the wife men than embraced it. And do not 
 very many of our modern Deifls call it in queftion ? Again, 
 have there not been fome other articles as univerfally agreed, 
 us little controverted, and perhaps lefs than fome of thefe? To 
 ^:ive but one inftance^ Has not the article about the worfhip of 
 God, that he was to be worfhipped with fome foiemn external 
 v.'orihip, whom we owned as God, been as much agreed to as any 
 cf the refl ? Doth it not arife from the common reaibn of 
 is.'aiikinc? But I rr;ali wave this. 
 
 4. 1 here is another thing that I would knov/ of the DclPis, 
 concerning their five articles* Do they think them, as they 
 are propofed, fufficient ? or muft they not be well explairjed? 
 If as they are propoi'ed, I would gladly fee the m^^n that can 
 have the face to maintain, what is not only untrue, but ridicu- 
 lous. Will, for intlance, the o'Jirning virtue to be the princi- 
 pal part of the worlhip of God, fi^nify any thing to the world, 
 while they know not, and are not agreed what is virtue and 
 what is vice ? Is not this to mock the world, to propole gene- 
 ral articles, and tell the world is agreed about them, while yet 
 one half is not agreed what is the fignilication cf thefe general 
 words? Is not this a plain cheat? It is true, Blount, who h:;s 
 copied all fiom our author, as the prefent Deifts do from him, 
 tells us that ihcfe articles nuiO be well explained. '* Neither 
 *^ can I, (fays he) imagine fo much as one article more in com- 
 *' rr.on reafon, that could make man better, or more niouf, 
 ** when the forefaid were rightly explicated and obfervedf," 
 But now, are not th^fe articles fullicient unlefs ligttly cxpH- 
 
 ' catcd ? 
 
 /rue ex 
 
 * Spin. Ethicks pag. 4. Prop. 54. P.xntraitla -z-iytus nnjt efi^ J'l 
 ratio?te non oritur^ qtiem fafii pceniteti his mijcy feu impoU7i% eft. — " Peni- 
 ** tence is not a virtue, nor arifcs from reafca, ibr he who if pents of 
 " what he has done, is twice mircrable» or v/c?k." 
 
 + Religio Laici. pag. -yj, ^ * 
 
342 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.xvii. 
 
 cated ? No, he dares not fay It. Well, was the world agreed 
 about this right explication of !hcm ? Who ever did rightly ex» 
 plain them ? Point us to the peribn who diet it, either for him- 
 ielf or o hers ? Was every body able to do it for himfelf? U not, 
 then I fear the world wanted ftiii a fuilicient religion, after all 
 the pains taken to provide them in one. And further, what is 
 the meaning of our author's wording the third article, ** That 
 virtue is the principal part of the worfliip of God ?" This may 
 be true, though it be not the only part. Well, though it is the 
 principal part, may there not be another part necejjary? Tho' 
 perhaps the head of a man is the principal part, yet there are 
 lome other parts neceflary. Was not the world as m.uch agreed 
 \\\a\ there fhould be another part, as that this was a part of the 
 M^orOiip of God ? I be ieve it is eafy to prove the world was 
 more agreed as to the firfl than the lall» Why then muft this 
 be overlooked .? I believe i could guefs pretty near,*— 'he v^ as 
 afraid to do it, becaufe he faw that he would prefently be con- 
 founded w^ith the differences about the way of worfhip, and 
 that he would never be able to maintain, that reafon was iufh- 
 cient to direct as to x\\z fokmn zuorphip of God; and that, if 
 he ihouid affcrt it, he would have not only Ch'iflians to difpute 
 th.e point with him, but Heathens. But leH it (liould be thoug.ht 
 \}'hat is alleged of the Heathen's looking on reafon as income 
 petent for this, is ojoi.ndlefs, 1 fliall only copy you a little 
 of Socrates and Alcibiades's difcourfe about worililp out of Pla- 
 to, or rather remind the reader of what we quoted from him 
 before. Socrates meets Alcibiades going to the temple to pray, 
 and dllTuades him from it, becaufe he knew not how to do it, ^,:^ 
 till one (hould come and teach hifii. Socrates fays, " It is al- 
 ^* together necciTary you ihouid wait for fome perfon to teach 
 ** you how you ought to behave youifelf, both towards the 
 ** gods and men." Alcibiades replies," And v/hcn will that 
 ** time come, Socrates? And who is he that will inflru<5\ me? 
 " With what pleafure fhould I look on him !" Whereupon So- 
 crates bids him hope ** that God will do it, and will take the 
 *' mift otF his foul, and cure him of that darknefs, that hinders 
 ** him from dininguiibing betwixt good and evil." Wherc- 
 ** upon Alcibiades favs, ** I think 1 muil defer my facrlfices to 
 •' that tim-::." To which Socrates returns, ** You have rea- 
 *' ion : it is more fafe to do (o, than run fo great a ri(k*" 
 
 And 
 
 * ivi. D.icier's Flato En.gllf!.:ed, Vol, i. pag. 249, 250. Second 
 Alcibiad. Ur, Uf Prayer, 
 
 i 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 343 
 
 And the fame Plato elfewhere tells us, ** That tliis inriru6^or 
 *• mull: be a psrien Tomevvhat more tlian human." Nor was 
 Jamblicus, a famous Platonick philofopher, w ho lived in the 
 fourth century, otherwife minded, whofe m ords, as i fmd them 
 tranfiated by Mr. Fergufon, run thus : ** It is not eafy to know 
 ** what God v/ill be pleafed with, unlefs we be either immediate- 
 ** ly inUrucied by God ourfelves, or taught by feme perfon 
 '* whom God hath converfed with, or arrive at the knowledge 
 ** of it by feme divine means or other *." 
 
 5. There is another thing that I vv'culd gladly be informed of, 
 and that is, whether every fort of knowledge of them be (ui^.' 
 cient ? Or, is a clear, certain and firm perfuafion needful ? If 
 the firfi, How can a dark, uncertain and wavering knowledge 
 have that influence upon prad^ice, and that vigour to excite to 
 a compliance with them, which is abfolutely needful in order to 
 attain the benefit of them ? If the latter, How will cur autlor 
 prove, that it was any where to be met with, as to their, all, in 
 the Heathen world ? Or, how will he make it appear, that it is 
 attainable by m^ere reafon ? Melhinksour author's words above- 
 noted, as to the fifth article, feem not to import any great 
 certainty. 1 his might be urged to that degree that it would be 
 very hard, nay, I fear not to fay fo, impoirxble, for (he DeiTis 
 to rid their feet of it. 
 
 6. I would further know, Will thefe five articles be fumcicnt 
 to this end, to lead to eternal happinejsy whether men direct to 
 it or not ? Is not the intention of fome confideraiion in m.oral 
 ad^ions V And what if I (liould deny that the religion of Hea* 
 thens was dire6fed to this end, the obtaining of future happi- 
 nefs? If 1 ihould, I know feme very great men are of my mind. 
 1 fhall name two, the one a Chrifiian, the other a Heathen. 
 The firjl is the famous Samuel Pufl'endorf, counfcllor of fiate 
 to the late king of Sv/eden. His words are v/orthy to be here 
 tranfcribed, though fcm^ewhat long. ** Now to look back to 
 
 the firll beginnings of things, we find, that before the nativi- 
 ty of our Saviour, the inhabitants of the whole univerfe, ex- 
 cept the Jews, lived in grofs ignorance as Xo fpiritual afTairs* 
 For what was commonly taught concerning the gods, was 
 for the moil part involved in fables, and u:oft extravagant 
 
 abfurdities. 
 
 * Lib. 4. de Lege Civ. by Dr. leilie ag^inft the Jews. m-g. 306. 
 Ferg. Enquir. into morjtl virtue, &c. pn^;. 177. j;irr.LIi. de \ >ia. 
 Fythag. Cap. 28. 
 
344 A:J I:\QIJIRY INTO TME chap. xvii. 
 
 *' abfurdities. It is true, fo'.TJe of the- learned :imong them have 
 ** pretended to give fonie rational account concerning the n?.- 
 ** ture of the gods and the foul ; but all tills in fo imperfect 
 *' and dubious a manner, that they th^-mfolves remained vcrv 
 *^ uncertain in the whole matter. They agreed almoO all of 
 ^^ thern in this point, that mankind ought to apply themfelves to 
 <' the pracfticeof virtucj but they did not propofe any other fruiis, 
 <* but the honour and benefits, which ti;cnce did accrue to civil 
 '^ fociet}^. For what the poets did give cut concerning tlie 
 ^' rewards of virtue and puniihments of vice after death, t\'as 
 ^' by thefe, who pretended to be the wi feft among them, look- 
 «' ed upon as fables, invented to terrify and keep in awe the 
 i' coma.on people. The refl of the people lived at random, 
 i' and v/hit the Heathens cfillcd religion, did not contain any 
 a doctrine or certain articles coucerr.ing the knowledge ofdi- 
 (( vine matters. But the greateft part of their religious worjhip 
 a ccnhrted if? facrifices and ceremonies, which tended more to 
 a fports and voluptuoufnefs, than to tlie contemplation cf di- 
 i( vine things. VVlierefore tl;e Heathen religion did neither 
 '• edify in this life, nor adord any hop'^sor comfort at the time 
 ii of death*." Thus far he. Now methinks here is a quite dif- 
 ferent account of tlie Heathen world from that which our author 
 gives us, and that given bv no churchman, but a ftatefrnan ; 
 and one as learned as our author too, and that both in hijiory 
 an.i the lazu oj nat'ue^ as his works evince; and in my opinion 
 it is the juiter of the tv;o accounts, '^^hc Jtcond is Varro, quoted 
 by our author, w ho divides the reliaicn of the Heatb.ens into 
 three forts, Primum genus appeilat Mythicon, Juundunit Civile 
 tertiunij Phy^cumt. The hrii is that cf the poets, which is al-'^ 
 to[/erher/rt/'i-/j:.'i- The other which he calls natural, is tb.at 
 of the phiIoil)pher?, which is wholly employed about the nature | 
 of the gods. Ad Varro exprefsly fays, it was not meet for 
 for, n »r of any ufe to the vulgar. Tue third fort was what 
 he calls civil, which wa-s wholly calcjlatcd for human iociety, 
 ajid its fuMport : an J to this all the public worfhip belonged, if \ 
 . we may believe Varo in the pafi'age v/e row fpeak of. When I 
 he lias 0[)ened the nature of e^^ch uf them, be concludes with 
 i\n account of the delign of tlicm. *' rrinui theologia maxirne 
 
 * Introdua. IliPu of Europe, pao. 3/;-. Ch. 12. Par. 2. 
 + 5:;ee it alii) in Au-id. de Civii. Dei, V.j. 6. C;i'-, - 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 345 
 
 ** accormncdata efl ad thmtriun: fecundafdl. naturalis ad fnu?i' 
 ** dunt: Tertia ad urbe?7i*»'' No word here of eternal life, as 
 the defign of any of them. The palTage ilfelf fully excludes it, 
 and had it not been too long, had been worthy to be tranfcrlbed. 
 7. To draw to a concluhon, Was it enough to the Heathens 
 that thefe things were fuCicient, although they did not know 
 them to be To? Or was it needful that they fnould know them 
 to be fo? If the lafi be laid, how could they be fure about that, 
 even the vulgar fort of them, which cur author after all bis appli- 
 cation to this controverfy, could not win to be fure of? If th^ 
 firft be faid, I would afk any Deift, Was not the end of natural 
 religion fixed, and were they not certain ? Or might they not, 
 at leaU, be fixed and certain about it ? if it was not, how could 
 they ufe or chufe means, or dire6\ them to an end which was 
 not fixed, and they were not certain about? If it was, then with 
 what courage could they ufe means with refpect to an end and 
 means, in the ufe of which they had fo many difficulties to 
 grapple with ; yet they could not be fure that they were fufficl- 
 ent by the leaft ufe of them to gain the end? Was it enough of 
 encouragement, that they might ufe them at all adventures, not 
 knowing whether they were, in themfelves, fufficienl to reach 
 the mark or not? Meihinks our author is very defe6live as to 
 motives to excite to virtue. 
 
 C H A P. XVIII. 
 
 Containiiiig an anfiuer to foim of the. Delfts' principal arguments 
 for thz fufficicncy of Natural Religion. 
 
 WE have now confidered what the Deifts plead from uni- 
 verjal confent\' ^.x\A have fufficiently cleared that it is not 
 by them proven, that the world was agreed as to thefe articles ; 
 that indeed the world did not agree about them ; that even 
 they who owned them, were led to this acknowledgment, at 
 lead of fome of them, rather by tradition than nature's light ; 
 and that though they had acknowledged them, they are not 
 fujficient* It now remains that we confidcr thofe arguments, 
 wherein they conceive the great ftrength of their caufe to lie. 
 
 U u The 
 
 * << The firft theology is fitteH for the theatre, the feconi> to viit, 
 ^* the natural, for the v»orld, aqd the third for the city," 
 
34^ AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. xvm. 
 
 The Hrfl argument, uhich indeed is the ftrongcft the Deifts 
 cati pretend unto, is thus propofed by their admired Herbert: 
 " Et quiiiem quum media ad viBum, veftitumque heic commoda 
 *' Jv-ppeditant cunBis natura five Providtntia reritm communis, 
 ^^ J^fp^cari non potui, eundem Deum, Jwe ex natura^ Jive ex 
 ** gratia^ in Juppedilandis ad heatiorem hoc noftro fiatum, me- 
 ** diiSy ulli hominum decf/e poffe vel velle, adeo ut licet mediis 
 " illis parum re£le, vel fdiciter ufi jint Gentiles, haul ita tamen 
 *' perDeum ophmum maximum jlc tent, quo ?ninus falvi fierent*^' 
 To the fame purpofe fpeaks Blount in his Rdigio Laid, and 
 A^ W, in his letter to him in the Oracles of Resfon, of whom 
 afterwards. The force of all that is here pleaded will beft ap- 
 pear, if it is p.it into a clear arpjument, and I (hall be fare not 
 to wrong it in the rropofal. The argument runs thus : 
 
 The good nefs of God makes it necejfary tkat all men be prO' 
 Tided in the means Titcejfary for future hlijs^ 
 
 But all men are provided in no other ineans of attaining future 
 blifs javc nature: s lipjit. 
 
 Therefore no other means are neceffary for all men fave the 
 light of nature* 
 
 The minor or fecond propofition needs not to be proven, 
 f.nce is it is owned by thofe who maintain revelation, that it 
 is not given to all men, and therefore that many have indeed 
 no other light to guide them, fave that of nature, in matters of 
 religion, or ia any of their other concerns. 
 
 The fifit proportion, " That the goodnefs of God makes it 
 neceifary that ali men be provided in the means of attaining 
 future blciTcdncfs," is tliat which they are concerned to prove. 
 And the ftrength of what ihey urge for proof of it amounts in 
 Ihort to this : 
 
 The gcodnefs and wifdom of God feem to render it necejfary 
 that all creatures f hut more efpecially the rational, he provided 
 in all means necef/ary to obtain thofe ends they were 7nade capa- 
 hie of, and obliged to pur fie. 
 
 But men a^e ynade capable of, and obliged to purfae elernal 
 happinefs and fe!icit\. 
 
 Therefo'e the good nef and wifdom of God make it neceffary 
 that all men fliould be provided in the means neceffary to obtain 
 future and eternal blifs. 
 
 Here v/e have the ftrength of their caufe, and wc fhall there- 
 fore 
 
 * For the tranfialion, fee note at bottom of pag. 277 of this b^o'c. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 347 
 
 fore confider this argument the more ferioufly, beciiufe fome 
 fecm to be taken with it, and look upon it as having much 
 force. Before I offer any diredt anfvver, I fiiall make fome 
 general ref]e6lions on it. The hrft procefs is only defigned to 
 make way for this laft, which indeed is the argument, and con- 
 tains the force of what is pleaded by the Deilis. 
 
 Now concerning this argument, we offer the few following 
 reflections, which will not a little weaken its credit, and make it 
 look fufpicious-like. 
 
 I. That propofition whereon its whole weight leans, viz. 
 ** That the goodnefs of God obliges him to provide his crea- 
 tures in the means necefiary for attaining their ends," is one 
 of that lort, about which we may, in particular cafes and ap- 
 plications of it, be as eafily miftaken, and are as little in iuto*, 
 to be pofitivs in our determinations, as anywhere elfe. For, 
 although we are furer of nothing: than that God is good^ and 
 7?iu/i aB congruou/ly to his goodnefsy in general ; yet when we 
 come to make parti':ular inferences, and determine what, in 
 point of goodnefs he is obliged to do, we are upon very flippe- 
 ry ground, efpecially if we have not, as in this cafe it is, the ef- 
 fects to guide us. For, befides that goodnefs is free in its effects, 
 divine and not affixed to fuch ftated rules knowable by us, as juf- 
 tice is, goodnefs, in its adings,is under the conduCf and manage- 
 ment of all-comprehending wifdom, which in every cafe wherein 
 God is to a6t,confiders that a being not only infinitely good is to 
 a6t,but alfo one who is infinitely wife, holy, juft and righteous ; 
 and therefore all-compiehending wifdom takes under confider- 
 ation, or rather has in its view the concernment of all thofc pro- 
 perties of the divine nature ; and withall, all the circumdances 
 belonging to each particular cafe, and takes care that the cafe, 
 in all its circumftances, be fo managed, that not one of the 
 divine perfections fliine to the eclipfing of another ; but that all 
 of them appear with a fuitable luUre. Nov/, it is certain that 
 we, who are of fo narrow underftandings, and fo many other 
 ways incapacited to judge of the wavs of God, cannot reach 
 either the different intereffs of the divine properties, and judge, 
 in a particular circumilanciated cafe, what beiits a God, who 
 is at once good, holy, wife and righteous ; nor can we reach ail 
 that infinite variety of circuir.ffances, which lying open to the 
 all-corr.prehending view of infinite and confummate wifdom, 
 may make it appear quite olherwife to him than to us. Hence, 
 
 in 
 * " hi fafety^ '* 
 
345 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ghap.xviii. 
 
 in fiiSt, we fee that an almofl infiui'e number cf things fall out 
 in the government of the world, u'hicli we know not how to 
 reconcile to divine goodnefs: and as many J^re left undone, 
 which we would be apt to think infinite goodnefs would make 
 necedary to be done. This coniideration, if well weighed, 
 would make men very fpirlng in determining any thing necef- 
 fary to be done, in refpe*£^ of divine goodnefs, which either it 
 is evident he has not done, or of which we are not fure that he 
 has done, which perhaps we (hall make appear, if it is not 
 from what has been already faid evident, to be the cafe. 
 
 2. I obferve, as to what is advanced, *' That man is 
 made capable of, and obliged In duty to purfue eternal telici- 
 ty," that ahhougli from revelation we know this to be true as 
 to man in his original ccnditutionj and by the remaining de- 
 fires of it we may guefs that po(ribly it was fo ; yet, if we iet a- 
 fide divine revelation, and coniider rnan in his prefent Hate, 
 concerning which the qiieftion betwixt us and the Deiits pro- 
 ceeds, we cannot by the help of nature's light only, with anv 
 certaintv conclude, ** that inm is capable of and obligt^d to 
 purfue etern^jl^ felicity." We fee the man diilolved by death. 
 Nature's light knows nothing of a refurre^i^ion. Without a re- 
 furrcclion there is nothing can be f.iid for man's eternal felicity. 
 Though we grant his foul to ha -e no principle of corruption in 
 itfelf, and fo to be in this f^^nie immortal ; yet this cannot fecure 
 usagaini^ the fears of annihilation. And the guiis anS defircs of 
 felicity, from which we mav be induced tofufpe^i fome Inch fiate 
 defigned for man, being apparently fruftrafed, by {he dilfolution 
 of man, to which they have a refpecl, cannot but make n»cn,who 
 have no more fave nature's light, hefitate mightily about this 
 affertlon ; WiicQ it is plain, that the dc fires we find in ourfelves 
 of fehcitv, do rcfpecSl the whole man ; and the avcrfion we 
 have to diifolutjon refpects our natuics in their prefent entire 
 frame and conliitation. Befides, it is of moment, that if man, 
 now entire, is at a lofs how to judge of the ends for which he 
 was made, nsuch more mud he be fuppofed in a (Irait how to 
 judge and determine for what ends any particular part belonging 
 to his confiitutlon was defigned, after the dlfi'olution of the whole 
 in a fcparate Hate, that is, in all its concernments, fo much hid 
 from and uijknown to us. Farther, although undoubtedly as long 
 as we are, it is our duty to make it our chief aim to plcafe 
 Cyod, and feek for felicity only In him ; yet fince, not ojily 
 our beings, but that felicity which may be fuppofed attain il-ie 
 
 by 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 349 
 
 by us, arc emanations frotn fovereign, free and undsferved 
 bounty, without fome intimation from him, in way of promilc, 
 we can draw no fure conclufion as to its continuance, were 
 we innocent, much lefs can we being guilty. 
 
 3, This argument concJudes nothing in favour cf the Deifis; 
 whatever it may fay for the Heathens. For were it granted, 
 tl)at God is obliged to provide al! men in the means necelTary 
 to future felicity ; and that he has not given ajl men any other 
 means: yet it cannot be hence inferred, that he has given no 
 other means to fome. In this cafe, if all this were granted, 
 which yet we have not done, it would follow, that they, who 
 l)aye no other means, muft look on thefe as fulficient, and that 
 they really are fo : But fiill God is left at liberty to prefcribe 
 cfher duties to any particular perfons, or nations, by revela- 
 tion ; and if this revelation come, they are obiieed, to wltorii it 
 comes, to attend, receive and obey it. "Now \{ \\\z Jcnptures 
 be a aivine revelation, attended with fufiicient evidence, which 
 the Deilh mufl either allow, or overthrow v^hat it pleads for 
 itfelf ; they are everlallingly undone, ualefs they receive it, and 
 coiDply with it. 
 
 4. 1 obferve, that the conclufion of this arpjument, which it 
 aims at the eliabliihrnent oi, viz. That God in point of goodne/s, 
 muj} provide all men in the means nece/fary to juturtjeluily, and 
 confequcntly has donz it, is exceedingly prejudiced, by ifs lying 
 croJs to tlie plain fenfe and experience of the world in all ages, 
 as has been plainly maie appear. Now in this cafe, where tho 
 principles or premilTes are dark, and fuch whereabout we may 
 tahly be niiilaken, which is the cafe here, as appears by the 
 two firil rcilciStions ; and the conclufion carries a manifeil con- 
 tradiction to what we mu(t certainly know, and have e^vpeii- 
 ence of; in this cafe we have reafon to conclude, that there 
 lies certainly a fallacy or mifiake in one or other cf the princi- 
 ples , though we cannot difcover prefently were it pvi^cifely is. 
 And therefore, although m.en could not eallly except ag::inft 
 the pr^miiTes or principles, v/hence it is deduced; yet they 
 would think themielyes fufbciently warranted, if not plainly to 
 reje6i, yet to be iliy in admitting the conclufion : forafmuch as 
 the admitting the conclunon will obli|i:e them to deny what 
 their own fenfe and experience, as well as that of the v.csld, 
 adores them about ; Whereas, it is much more reafona'jle to 
 think and determine that there lies fome fallacy in the princi- 
 ples, though it may be they are not in cafe to dct^iSl it. No 
 
 man, 
 
35® AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, xviii. 
 
 man, by the arguments againfl motion, can be brought to quef- 
 tion its being, much lefs its poffibility ; yet there are thoufands, 
 even no mean icholars, who cannot anfwer the arguments that 
 conclude againJl it. But in very deed, this argument is not i'o 
 firong, as to need fo much nicety. 
 
 Having thus far weakened it by thefe general reflections, I 
 fliall next lay down and clear fome propofitions that will lay a 
 foundation for a clcfe anfwer fo it. 
 
 1. All men, at prefent, are involved in guilt, have corrupt 
 inclinations, and are under an inability to yield perfedl obedi- 
 ence to the law, they are fubje6led to. That all in more or 
 icfs, are guilty of fin, cannot be well denied, and we have heard 
 U^s Oracles of Reajon owning, <* Th:it all do err fometimes, 
 *' even the bell, in their a6\ions." That men are corrupt, or 
 have corrupt inclinations, has been above futficiently evinced. 
 That all are under fome fort of inability to yield perfedl obedi- 
 ence, is atteded by the experience of all, and befides, is an in- 
 evitable confequent of the former : for it is not poffible to fup- 
 pole one poffeil of corrupt inclinations, and yet able to yield 
 peife6l obedience. Nor need wc fland to prove what the De- 
 ids own. For A. W. in his Letter to Charles Blount, fpeak- 
 ing of the law of nature, fays, ** I do not fay that we are able 
 perfe6lly to obey it." I difpute not now of what fort this ina- 
 bility is, whether only moral, fuch as arifes from the will's in- 
 clination to evil ; or natural, which imports fuch an inability 
 as fuppofes the nature of the faculties vitiated, though the fa- 
 culties are not v/anting. 7>.e condemning! of our own liearts, 
 and the nature of the moral government we are under, fufii- 
 ciently allures U3, it is fuch as does not excufe from fault ; and 
 further we arc not concerned : though, after all, I ^o not 
 underhand how the will can be fixed in an inclination to evil, 
 or aveifation from good, unlefs the nature of the will be {v.-^^oi- 
 ed a{ie6>ed with fome indifpofition, though the faculty is not re- 
 moved. But of this only by the bye. It is enough to our prc- 
 ient.purpofe, that man is guilty, corrupt, and thence unable. 
 He tnat will deny this, mull fuppofe us blind and fenfelefs. 
 
 2. \i reafon can afcertain us of any thing, it does of this, that 
 things were not originally thys with man, or that man, when 
 he was hrft made, was not thus guilty, corrupt or impotent. 
 None will any dare to f:;y, that at ic^^. he was guilty. And to af- 
 fert him either corrupt or impotent, oveithrows all the juft no- 
 fions we have of the Djity. How can it be fuopofed, that infinite 
 
 wifdum 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 351 
 
 wifdom could ena£l laws, which were not only not likely to 
 take effect, but really could not poflibly be obeyed by men 
 fubje£led to them! Hov/ can we fuppole infinite goodnefs to c- 
 ftabllfn laws under a penalty, and deny the powers, which were 
 indifpenfably requlfite to obey them, and without which It was 
 not poffible to evite the penalty ! How can we Tuppofe infinite 
 righteoufnefs and holinefs to confent to a conftltution of this 
 kind ! How is it conceivable, that a God, wife, juft and good, 
 fhould originally have implanted in our natures inclinations 
 contrary to thofe laws, that were the tranfcript of, and bore 
 the imprefs of all thefe perfections! Or, how can we once 
 dream that he implanted inclinations, which it was criminal to 
 fatisfy or comply with! For ray part, I fee not what can be 
 reafonably faid in anfwer to this. 
 
 3. It is further evident, that man could not have fallen into 
 this flate he now is in, or from that wherein he was made, but 
 by his own default. If this is denied, I inquire, were (hall the 
 blame be laid? Will ihey lay it at God's door? Befides, that 
 this Is blafphemy, it is further evident, that all the former ab- 
 furdltles will recur : Fcr it is to no purpofe to give powers, and 
 take them av/ay again without any default in the perfon who 
 lofes them, the obligation to obedience or fuffering upon difo- 
 bedience fiill continuing. Nor can It be laid upon any other, 
 becaufe if man Is without his own fault, robbed oflhe powers 
 neceffary to obey, the obligation to obedience cannot be ri^^ht- 
 eouOy continued. Nor was it confiRent uilh the divine wlfdoni, 
 to have obliged men to obedience, under a penalty, while there 
 was a poiTibility of man's lofing the power to obey, v/ithout a 
 fault on his own part. It remains then, that man has by hi^ 
 own fault forfeited what he has in this part loft. And to this our 
 own confclence, and the confclences of all finners, who are fen- 
 fible of fjn, confent, that God is free and v/e gulhy. 
 
 4. Flereon it inevitably follows, that man is at prefent in a 
 corrupt, finful, and impotent ftate, into which by his own default, 
 he has fallen. Nor fee 1 how It Is pofiible to evIte this, which 
 tonly fums up the three preceding allertions. The firft whereof 
 is undeniable with fober and Ingenuous perfons, being attefted 
 by the plaineft and cleareft experience, and the other two Oand 
 firm upon the ciearefl; deduCVions that our reafon can make. If 
 any Deift Ihall fay. How can this be that we are fallen into fuvch 
 a ftate? I anfwer, i. The queftion is not. How can It be? but, I^ 
 it fo ? I think I have faid enough to ibew that it 15 fo. 2, Here- 
 
 bv' 
 
^^2 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xvin. 
 
 bv vvc may lee natural religion has its myfleiics too, as well as 
 levealed. And I think I have told more than one of them. 
 Q. If this will not I'atisfy, then get as much faiih and humility as 
 will teach you to fubjea yourielf to lupernatural inftruction, 
 and vou may come to underftand how it came to be fo. If 
 you will not, ycu muft remain in the dark, and there is no 
 help for it. 
 
 Now 1 have laid a plain feundatton for an anfwer to this ar- 
 gum.ent, whereon the Deifts value themi'elves lo much. It was 
 not becaufe I thought (o long an anlwer needful for the argu- 
 ment, but to make the matter a little mere plain, that we have 
 difcourfed it at this length. 
 
 The argument then runs thus. The zvi/dom and goodmjs of 
 God mah it ntczffary that all his creatures fr.otild be provided in 
 the means neceffaryfoi attaining thi end oj their being, and this 
 holds efpecialiy as to the rational: But man was made capable of 
 eternal felicity ; or this is the end oJ his being. 
 
 I need fay nothing more to what has been advanced, than 
 has bsen faid above, I anfwer to the fiiTt propofition, — Be it al- 
 lowed that God's wifdom and goodnefs required that the ra- 
 tional creature tliould be provided in the means neceflary for the 
 attainment of the end of his being, in his firll make and ori- 
 ginal Hate: Yet neither God's goodnefs, nor his wifdom, obliges 
 i.im to reftore man, if by his own fault, he has fallen from that 
 fuitc, wherein at firil he' was made. Now this is the cafe with 
 man in his prefent ftate, as we have told above. 
 
 if it is laid, that this is but our ailertion, That man is in a 
 bpfed ftate: I anfwer, i. 1 think it is more than an affertion, 
 and m'j(t do fo till 1 fee what I have offered for proof of the 
 foregoing propolitions fairly anfwered. Kay, till I fee the 
 whole arguments that have heretofore been offered againfl the 
 fulHcicncy of natural religion, anfwertd. For, I think they 
 ail prove that m^n is at prefent in a bpfcd fiate. But, 2. I 
 add, that the Deiils mufl mind, we are upon the defenfive, and 
 il is their province to prove, that man in his prefent condition 
 is not fo fituated, as we fay. It was^A' abundanti for clearing 
 of truth, that I condefcend to prove this. It was enough to me 
 to have denied that man is new in iris criginal ftate, and put 
 the proof upon them ; in regard they allirm, and tlie whole 
 ftrefs and force of their argument !ea:i:i upon that fappofition 
 
 which we deny. 
 
 Tne 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 353 
 
 The fecond argument, on v/hich the Deifts lay much ftrels. 
 Is drawn from the fuppofed ill-confequences attending our opi^ 
 nion. They pretend, that it is horribly cruel to imagine, 
 that all the Heathen world were loft. This they inculcate 
 upon all occafions, rather to expofe their adverfarics, 1 am 
 afraid, than to confirm the truth. The fum of this argument 
 we fee propofed by Herbert in his words above quoted. Where 
 he tells us, that all will own his articles to be good ; Jd fa^ 
 lutem tamen aternam cojnparandam, non fufficere prokibebunt 
 nonnullim C-^cterum, qui ita locutusfucrit, n£ ills quidcm audax ; 
 nedum fdvum temerariumq ; effatiivi mea fententid protulerii* • 
 The (hort of the matter is this, " If natural religion is not fuf- 
 ficient, we muft give all the Heathen world for loft ; but this is 
 a cruel and harlh affertion, injurious to God, and cruel to fuch 
 a vaft number of men." And here they raife a horrible out- 
 cry. With this they begin, and with this they end. 
 
 This argument, although it has no force, as we ftiall evince^ 
 yet makes fuch a noife at a diftance, that a great many ingenu- 
 ous fpirits feem to be mightily afFe6led with it : I conceive 
 therefore that it will not be improper to lay open the caufes of 
 this, and the rather becaufe they difcover where the fallacy of 
 the argument lies, and whence it is that men are io eafily pre- 
 poiTeffed in this matter. To this purpofe then it is to be obferved, 
 
 I. That there are fome things which in themfelves are not 
 defirable ; to which therefore no uncorrupted rational nature, 
 much lefs that of God, could incline merely upon their own 
 account : which yet, in fome circumftanliate cafes, may be 
 every way congruous to juftice and righteoufnefs ; yea, and 
 worthy of the wife and good God. The torment of any rational 
 creature is not in, or for itfelf defirable : God has no pleafurc 
 in it. The nature of man, if not deeply corrupted, yea, and 
 diverted of humanity, recoils at it ; yet there is none, who will 
 not allow that in many circumftantiate cafes, it is not only wor- 
 thy of, but plainly necefTary in point of wifdcm and juftice, for 
 the moft merciful of men, to infiidf upon their fellow creatures 
 fuch punifhments, as their own natures do (brink at the appre- 
 henfions of. Nor can it be denied that the holy God, notvvith- 
 
 X X ftanding 
 
 * De Rel. Gentil. pag. 217. " — Yet fome will think they are not 
 « fufficient for attaining eternal life. But v.'hoever would fay fo, would 
 " be guilty of uttering not only a bcid, not to fay a crael and aibitrar^ 
 << fentence in lay opinion," 
 
354 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.xviii. 
 
 ftanding of, and without prejudice to his innnite goodnefs, may, 
 nay in Tome cafes niuft, iikewife thus puniih his own creatures. 
 Now, if fuch things are reprefented as they are, in their own 
 natures, without a due confideraiion of circumftances and ends 
 inducing to therri, it is eafy to make them appear not only hard, 
 but odious, 
 
 2. However jurt, righteous and congruous fuch a6^ions are ; 
 yet he who undertakes to expofe them as cruel, barbarous and 
 hard, efpecially, if he has to do with perfons, weak, ignorant, 
 partial in favour of the fufferer, and averfe from the author of 
 the torment, has a far more eafy tafk, even though he is of weak- 
 er abilities, and employed in defence of the worfl caufe, than 
 he who undertakes to defend fuch aiftions. The reafon of this 
 is obvious ; all that makes to his purpofe, who defigns to ex- 
 pofe the a6lion as cruel, lies open in its nature and horror to the 
 thoughts of the mofi inconfiderate ; and if to this he only fets 
 off the reprefentation with a little art, fo as to touch the affec- 
 tions, which in this cafe is eafily done, he has carried his point ; 
 the judgment is not only deceived, but the affe6\ions are fo deep- 
 ly engaged in the quarrel, as to percludc the light of the mofl 
 nervous and valid defence imaginable. Whereas on the o- 
 ther hand, all things are quite otherwife. The circumftances 
 inducing to fuch aclions, are ufually deep, and not fo eafily 
 difcernible, and therefore not to be found out, without much 
 confideration; and when they are found out, they are not eafily 
 collected, laid together, and ranged in that order, U'hich is ne- 
 ceffary to (ct the atrocity of the crime in a due light, efpecially 
 where the perfons who are to judge are weak and biaffed. Be- 
 fides, the evil of thofe crimes, being for mofl part more fpiri- 
 tual, makes not fo flrong an imprellion on the afiedlions. And 
 this confideration holds more efpecially true, where the quef- 
 tion is concerning the judgments of God, which proceed upon 
 that comprehcnfive view, which infinite wifdom has of all cir- 
 cumftances, that accent the evil, aggravate the fault, and en- 
 hance the guilt of fins comniirted agai nfl him ; many of which 
 circumftances no mortal penetration can reach. And further, 
 this more particularly holds true, where it is not God himfclf, 
 but man that pleads on behalf of the a6\ings of God. It is 
 very obfervabie to this purpole, that hiftorians of all nations 
 almoft condelcend upon inilances, wherein the fight of fevcrCf 
 but jufl punilhmsnt of atrocious offenders has not only excited 
 the compaffion of the populace to the fuffcrers, but enraged 
 
 them 
 
PR1NC1PL.es of the modern deists. 355 
 
 them agawjft the judge. Even they who would have been rea- 
 dy to reclaim a.aainft the partiality and negligence of the judge, 
 if the crimes had been pallid without juli punifhnient, when they 
 j'ee the punilbment inflicted, through a fond fort of ccmpaffion 
 to tlie fufferers, complain of the cruelty of the judge, laying a- 
 iide all thoughts of the atrocity of the crime. 
 
 3. Where they, Vv^ho make it th-eir bufinefs to traduce fuch 
 actions, as hard and cruel, and they alfo, whom they labour to 
 perfuade of this, are conne6led by alliance, or common inter- 
 eft with the fuflerers, are themfelves in the fame condemnation, 
 or, upon the fame and fuch like accounts, obnoxious to that 
 juilice, which adjudges thofe fufferers to thefe torments, which 
 they fludy to reprefent as cruel and barbarous, it is no wonder 
 to fee the rcprefentation make fuch deep impreffions, and rivet 
 fucha perfuafion, that the puniinments are cruel and hard, as 
 may not only bias a little againft any defence that can be made 
 for the judge, but may even make them refufe to admit of 
 any apology, or condefcend fo far as to give any that can be 
 made a fair hearing. But all unbiaffed perfons mufl allow, that 
 fuch can never be admitted judges competent, as to what is juft 
 or unjufl, hard or otherwife ; the cafe being, in effefl, their 
 own, and they by this means being made bpth judge and 
 party, 
 
 4. However great, terrible and heavy any punlfhment that 
 God is fuppofed to inf]i6t, may in its own nature appear, or how 
 great foever the number of the fufferers may be, yet we can 
 never, from the feverity of the puniflim.cnt, or the number of 
 the fut?ercrs, difprove its juRIce, unlefs we can make it appear, 
 that no circumflances, which can poiTibly fall under the reach 
 of infinite v/ifdom, cap render fuch feverity towards fo many 
 perfons, worthy of him. Now, however eafy this undertaking 
 may appear to perfons lefs confederate, it will have a far other 
 afpe<Si to fuch as impartially ponder, that ail men are manlfeflly 
 partial in favour of thofe of their own race, and in a cafe which 
 is, or may be their own, and have no fuitable apprehenfions of 
 the concernments of the divine glory in it, or no due regard for 
 them : Befides fuch is their fhallownefs, that they can neither 
 have under view many important circumflances, that are fully 
 cxpofed to all-comprehending wifdom, nor can they fully un- 
 derftand the weight, even g^ befe circuniu:inccs,tliat they either 
 doj or may, in feme meafure know. 
 
 5. Every 
 
2s6 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xviii, 
 
 5. Every man, who is wife and juft, when either he hears cf, 
 or fees any punifhment that appears very fevere and terrible, 
 mud fufpend his judgment as to the hardfliip of it, till the author 
 of it is fully heard as to the inducemerrts, and neither ought he to 
 deny what his eyes fee, his ears hear, or he is otherwife inform- 
 ed of, upon fufficient evidences. He is neither h^ queflion the 
 jmattcr of fa61, nor condemn the judge of cruelty, becaufe cf the 
 feeming feverity of the punlfhment. This is a piece of ccmmcn 
 juftice, which every judge, even amongR men, may reafonably 
 claim from his fellow creatures, although his actions and the rea- 
 sons of them, cannnot be fuppofed to lie fo far out of their ken, 
 as thofe of the divine judgments: Much more is it reafonable 
 for men to pay this deference to God, confidering how unable 
 the moi\ elevated capacities are to penetrate into all the reafons, 
 which an infinitely wiib God may have under view ; and there 
 is the more leafon for this, fince man alfo is naturally fo very 
 apt to be partial in his ovv'n favour, and to fail of giving a due re- 
 gard in his thoughts unto the concernments of divine glory. 
 
 Thcfe obfervations, as they are in themfelves unqueOionabiy 
 true, fo they do fully lay open the caufes of that general accept- 
 ance, which this plea of the Deifis has obtained with lefs atten- 
 tive minds ; and how little weight is to be laid upon them. In 
 a vvord, if they are well confidered, they are fufficient to ener- 
 -vate the force of this whole plea. 
 
 But leafi the DeiOs (hould think their argument flighted, or 
 that confciouinefs of our own weaknefs, makes us choofe long 
 weapons to fight with, I fnall clofely confider the argument. 
 Perliaps v^hat makes a nolle, at a dillance, will be lefs frightful 
 If we take a nearer view of it. We deny that the Heathen 
 world had means fufficient for obtaining eternal happinefs. The 
 Deifis fays, this is cruel and rci/Ii, Let us now fee whence this 
 may be proven. 
 
 I. Doth our cruelly lie in ibis, That we have laid down an 
 aiTertion, upon which it follows, that in fact all the Htatheii 
 world are loji? But now, do not the Deius own, that in very 
 dc^d, all impenitent finnners muft perifn ? No doubt they do, 
 who talkfo much of the nece.jjity of repentance. Well, are not 
 ail who want revelation, guilty of grofs (ins? Is not idolatry a 
 grofs fin? are tliey not all plunged in ihcgtiilt of it ? Socrates, 
 the mofl confiderable perfon for his virtue, that lived before 
 Chrifl, cannot be excufed. He denied his difowning the gods 
 cf Athens. He joined in their worfliip. If this was againlt 
 
 his 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 357 
 
 his confcience, the more was his fault. And, even with his dy- 
 ing breath, he ordered a cock to be facrificed to Efculapius. 
 Epicletus, the beft perhaps among the philofophers who lived 
 after Chrift, in h\s Enchindion, enjoins to worfhip after the mode 
 of the country where we live ; and no doubt pra6^ifed as he 
 taught. Gentlemen, condefcend, if ye can, upon one, who was 
 not guilty of grofs fins. Did they repent ? What evidence 
 bring you of it ? That the multitude lived and died impenitent, 
 none dare queftion. That there was one penitent none can 
 prove. That the beft of them were guilty of grofs fins cannot 
 be denied, ^nd there is no evidence of their penitence. Yea, 
 there is no reafon to think that they looked upon repentance as 
 a virtue; but much to the contrary. Weil, gentlemen, do not 
 your own principles conclude, that the bulk of the Heathen 
 world are, in fa6t inevitably loft ? And that there is but little 
 ground of hope, and great reafon to fear, that it fared not much 
 better with the few virtuo/i 9 
 
 2. But doth the cruelty lie in the number of the perfons fup- 
 pofed to be loft ? No. This cannot be faid. For if the caufe 
 be fufficient, the number of the condemned makes not the con- 
 demnation the more cruel. Befides, let them go as narrow- 
 ly to work as ihey can, they are ^^.w, very fetv, for whom they 
 can plead exemption : and their pleas for that handful will be 
 very lame. So that for any thing I fee, the Deifts, in this re- 
 fpedl, are not like to be much more merciful than we. 
 
 3. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this. That we fuppofe them 
 condemned without a caufe, or without one that is fufficient. 
 But this we do not, we fuppofe none to be condemned, who are 
 not finners againft God, and tranfgreffors of a law ftamped with 
 his authority, which they had accefs to know. And were not 
 the heft of them guilty of grofs fins ? What evidence have we of 
 their repentance ? Is it not juft, even according to the Deifts*^ 
 principles, to condemn impenitent finners? Thus we fuppofe 
 none condemned, but for their fins. 
 
 4. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this. That we fuppofe them 
 all equally miferable; Socrates to be in no better cafe than Nero. 
 But this follows not upon our affertion. None are fuppofed mi- 
 ferable beyond the juft demerit of their fins. 
 
 5. Weil, perhaps the cruelty lies in this. That we fuppofe 
 their torments after this life to be intenfe in degree, or of a 
 longer continuance than their fins deferve. This we are fure 
 pf, that their fins being offences againft God, deferve a deeper 
 
 punifhment 
 
358 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xvin. 
 
 puni'tliment, than fome men can well think of; and that God 
 15 ju'i, and will proportion puniihments exa611y to offences, 
 and have a juft regard, as well to the real alleviations as aggra- 
 vations of every fin. And if God has, in his word, determined 
 that every fin committed againd him, deferves eternal punifh- 
 ment, no doubt his judgment is according to truth* We are 
 not judges in the cafe. 
 
 6. Well, but the rafhnefs and cruelty perhaps lies here, That 
 by our affertion we are obliged to pafs a pofitive and peremptory 
 judgment about the eternal flate of all the Heathen world, that 
 they are gone to hell, and laid under everlafting punifhments, 
 leaving no room for the mercy of God. Bat to this we fay, re- 
 velation has taught us, even where there is the jufteft ground 
 of fear, to fpeak modeflly of the eternal condition of others, and 
 to leave the judgment concerning this to the righteous God, to 
 whom alone it belongs, and who will do ?w iniquity. That all 
 the Heathen world deferve punifhment, cannot, without impu- 
 dence, be denied. That God will pafs any of them v/ithout 
 inflicting the punifhment they deferve, neither revelation nor 
 reafon give us any ground to think. That none of them (hall 
 be punilhed beyond their defervings, fcripture and reafon de- 
 monltrate. But in thefe things our affertion of the infufficiency 
 of natural religion is not concerned. It obliges us to pafs no 
 judgment further than this, " That the Heathens, and all who 
 ** want revelation, had no means fufficient to bring them to e- 
 ** ternal happinefs, and that confequently they had no reafon 
 ** to expe6t it ; and we have no reafon to conclude them pof- 
 ** feffed of it." And in this cafe we leave them to be difpofed 
 of, as to their ftate, after this life, by the vvifdom and juftice 
 of God. 
 
 7. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this, That they are fuppo- 
 fed to want the means neceffary to attain eternal happinefs, 
 while yet they are capable of, and expofed to eternal mifery 
 for their fms. But, i. How will the Deifls' prove, That God, 
 without a promife, is obliged to give man eternal happinefs for 
 his obedience? 2. Since none of them are to be punilhied beyond 
 the jull demerit of their fins, may not God righteouily inflict 
 that puniflimenf, whatever it is, that their fins, in ftridt juilice, 
 deferve, though he had never propofed arevv^ard, which reafon 
 can never prove our beft actions worthy of, even though we had 
 continued innocent? But, 3, That man, in his prefent cafe, has 
 io[l the knowledge of eternal felicity, and the means of attaining 
 
 it, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 359 
 
 it, and is unable (o attain it, is owing not to any defe6l of 
 bounty and goodnefs of God, much Jefs of juftice; but only 
 unto the fin of man, as has been demonftrated in our anfuer to 
 the foregoing argument, by rcafons drav/n from nature's light. 
 Notwithftanding of which, it muft fiill be owned, that nature's 
 light cannot acquaint us, how man fell into his p'refent lament- 
 able condition, as we have above made appear. 
 
 8. But is it not fafer and m*ore mode(i, may fome fav, to 
 fuppofe, that God of his great mercy did, by revelation, com- 
 municate to fome of the befi; of the Heathens, who improved 
 nature's light to the greateft advantage, what was further necef- 
 fary to their falvation, or, at leaft to bring them into a ftate of 
 happinefs, of fomewhat inferior degree to that which is prepar- 
 ed for Chriftians. I know many Chriftian writers of old and 
 of late have multiplied hypothefis of this kind : Some have fup- 
 pofed apparitions of angels, faints, nay damned fouls and de- 
 vils ; of which ftories I am told that Collius difcourfes at large 
 in the fecond book of his treatife De Animabiis Paganorum** 
 Some tell us, ** That to fuch of them as lived virtuoufiy, God 
 always at fome time or other fent fome man ©r angel favingly 
 to illuminate them f." So the Areopagites. Some tell us of 
 Chrift's preaching to them in purgatory, fo Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus ; fome will have them inftrudled by the Sibylls, as the 
 fame author fays elfewhere ; fome talk of their commerce with 
 the Jews, in which way no doubt fome of them came to faving 
 acquaintance with God ; others fay, that upon their worthy 
 improvement of their naturals^ God might and did reveal Chrift 
 to them and fptrituals, becaufe habenti dabiterX* So Arminius. 
 And of this Herbert frequently intimates his approbation, but 
 with an evident contradidion to, and fubverfion of his whole 
 i\oxy about the fufficiency of natural religion. Befides, the 
 bottom of this is a rotten Pelagian fuppofition of a merit in their 
 good works : and that habenti dabiter, fpoken of in another 
 cafe, after all the pains fome are to ftretch it, will not reach this 
 cafe : and after all we are left in the dark, as to the way where- 
 in they will have fupernaturals communicated to them. The 
 late ingenious author of the Conference with a Theijiy fuppofcs 
 a place provided for the fober Pagans in another world, where- 
 in they Ihall enjoy a confiderable happinefs $, and wrefls what 
 
 our 
 
 * De coelefti Kierar. Ch. g. + Strong. Lib. .6. 
 
 X « To him that hath fnall be given.** 
 § Nicol. Cofi/er. P^rt 2, pag. go. 
 
3^0 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, kvirii 
 
 our Lord fays to his difciples, John xiv. 3. of tht rnany inaU" 
 fions that are in his Father 5 houfe, to favour his notion. But 
 now as to all thefe fuppofitions and others of the fame alloy, 
 however their authors may pleafe themfelves in them, I think 
 they are to be rejefted. Nor is this from any defefl of chari- 
 ty to the Heathens, but becaufe they are fupported by no foun- 
 dation, either in fcripture or reafon. However fome of them 
 are poffible, yet generally fpeaking, none of them have the 
 countenance fo much as of a probable argument. The fcrip- 
 ture proof, adduced by that laft mentioned ingenious author^ 
 has no weight in it. There is no countenance given to it 
 from the context, nor any other place of fcripture, and I can- 
 not approve of his boldnsfs in i^rctching our Lord's words be- 
 yond what his fcope requires. But thefe things have been con- 
 lidered at length by others, whom the reader may confult ** 
 All thefe fuppofitions are at beft but ingenious fancies, where- 
 with their authors may pleafe themfelves, but can never fatisfy 
 others. Nor can they be of any advantage to the Heathens. 
 I think I have made it fufficlently appear in the foregoing 
 difcourfe, that they wanted vicans fufficient to lead them \o fal" 
 vatiorif and fo had no ground to fupport a reafonable hope of 
 it. It is granted even by thofe, whofe peculiar hypothefis in 
 divinity lead them to be moll favourable to the Heathens, that 
 they had no Jederal certainty of falvation ; and for any unco- 
 venanted mercy j of which fome talk, I know nothing about it. 
 Scripture is filent. Reafon can determine nothing in it ; and 
 therefore difputes about it are to be waved. It is unwarantable 
 curiofity for men to pry into the fecrets of God ; thiyigs that art 
 revealed do belong to us. Where revelation (iops we are to flop. 
 Even Herbert himfelf dare carry the matter no further than a 
 may be ', and what may be, may oct be. 
 
 C H A P. 
 
 See Anth. Tuckney, Appendix to his Sermon on A^s iv, 12. 
 
FRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 361 
 
 CHAP. XIX. 
 
 Wherein Herbert's Reafons for publifJiing his Bdoks in Defefice 
 of Deif?n are examined and found weak, 
 
 r HE learned Herbert, toward the clcfe of hisbook Be Re^ 
 ligione Laici^ to juftify the publication of his thoughts, as 
 to a catholic religio??., common to all mankind, mentions fevetl 
 fuppofed advantages of this opinion, or fo many pleas for De- 
 ilm. What weight there is in them, we fhall now confider. 
 
 He introduces himfelf with a proteftation that he publillied 
 not his book with any ill defij^n againft Chriflianity, which h6 
 honours with the title of optima rcligio : But on the contrary 
 fays, That he aimed at eftablilhing it, and intended to ftrength- 
 en true faith, " Benique me aniino adeo non optima religioni in* 
 ** fenfoy aut a vera fide alieno traBatum hunc edidijfe tejior ; ut 
 ** utramquefiatuminare in animoJmhuerim^ i &c. 
 
 I (hall not dive into his defigns ; for which he has long ago 
 accounted unto the only competent Judge. But of the defign, 
 or rather tendency of his books, we may fafely judge. And as 
 to this I fay, that if it h granted, that the fcriptures arc the only 
 flandard of the Chriftian religion, which cannot modeHly be 
 denied ; I (hall upon this fuppofitiort undertake to maintain a- 
 gainll any who will defend him. That his books aim at the ut- 
 ter fubveriion of the Chriilian religion, that his principles over- 
 throw entirely the authority of the fcriptures, and are not only 
 inconfiftent with, but dellrudive to the effentials of ChriRianity. 
 And I further add, that this is every where fo obvious in his 
 writings, that it will require a flrange flretch of charity, to be- 
 lieve our author could be ignorant of it. 
 
 Our author having told us what was not his defign, proceeds 
 next to condefcend upon the reafons inducing him to alTert this 
 common religion. And 
 
 I. He teiis us that he maintains this common religion, " Q^itod 
 ** provid&ntiam divinam^ &c. Becaufe it " vindicates the univer- 
 
 Y y *« fal 
 
 * Herbert Relig. Laici, pag. 28.—" In fine, I profefs that I have 
 " publiihed this treatife with a mind fo far from being hoftile to the 
 " beft religion, oraverfe to the true faith, that I intended to eUablilb 
 « both." 
 
^2 AN iNQ_UiRY INTO THE chap, xix- 
 
 ** fal Providence o^God, God's principal attribute, v/hofe dignit}^ 
 *' can never be fufficiently fupported. Neither do any particu- 
 '* lar reb'gion, or faith (to give you our author's ow^n words, 
 " Fides quantumvis laxa) maintain this, ib as to reprefent 
 *' God's care of all mankind, in providing for them fuch com- 
 ** mon principles as thofe contained in our catholick truths." 
 
 Here our author teaches two things, and I think them both 
 falfe. (l.) He tells u.>, " That his catholick religion vindicates 
 ** the univerfal providence of God, or ferves to maintain its 
 ** honour." This 1 think i:\\{^. The foundation of it we have 
 proved to be not only precarious, but falfe. For we have cleared, 
 that his five articles did not univerflilly obtain ; and further, 
 that if they had, they were not fufficient to happinefs. Yea, our 
 author himfelf, after he has told us, that the univerfal providence 
 of God cannot be maintained, unlefs vyc fuppofe him to have 
 provided ail his creatures, in the means neceiTary for obtaining 
 their happinefs, next informs us that he has provided man in 
 no other means, fave thefe five articles *. And he further tells 
 las in his words above quoted, that he dare not pofitively fay 
 they are fufficient, nor can we be fure of it, fince it depends 
 upon God's fecret judgments, which we cannot certainly know.f 
 And we have heard Blount above own, That Deifm is not fafe, 
 unlefs it be pieced out by fome help from Chrifiianity J. Well, 
 is this the wav our author aiTerts the honour of divine nniverfal 
 Providence, firft to tell us, that its honour cannot be maintained 
 without fuppofing di fufficient religion iinivcr/aliy to have ohtaiw 
 td, and then to tell us that he is not furej that ever there was 
 fuch a religion ? Is not this the plain way to bring the univerfal 
 Providence of God in qucflion? 
 
 Again, 2cl]v, Our author teaches, " That no particular reli- 
 ** gion can fupport the honour of univerfal Providence." This 
 I take to be alio falfe. The Chriftian religion alferts and proves, 
 that God, who has created all things, preferves them, and go- 
 verns them in a way fuitable to their nature and circumftances, 
 and in fo far clears the equity of God's proceedings with the 
 Heathen world, in particular, as may fatisfy fober men. It 
 acquaints us, that God did, at firft, provide man in a coveniint- 
 fecurity fo,r eternal happinefs, and in means fufiicient for obtain- 
 ing 
 
 * DeRel. Laici, pag. i, 4, f De Rel. Gentil. p3g. 217. 
 
 X Oracles of Kcafon pag. Hy. 
 
PRINCIPLlS of the MODERxV deists. 363 
 
 jng of it; that man, by his own fault, incapacitated himfelf for 
 the ufe of tbele means, and forfeited the advantage of the cove- 
 nant-fecurity ; that Gcd, in juRice hath left the Heathen world 
 under the difadvantcige of that forfeiture; that during the time 
 he fees meet to fpave them, he governs ihem, in fuch a way as 
 is fuitable to their Japfed ftate, of which we have fpoke before. 
 We confefs we are not able to explain all the hard chapters 
 in the book of Providence, and folve every difficulty relating 
 thereto ; but this affords no ground for the denial either of 
 God's^eaeral or fpecial providence. As the difficulties about 
 God's OiTiaifcience, omniprefence, eternity, &c. will not jufti- 
 fy a denial of thele attributes, or the exigence of a Deity veRed 
 with them; fo neither will the difficulties about Providence juf- 
 tify a refufal of if ; and if this vindication of Providence fail of 
 giving fatisfadion, I am fure Herbert's will never fatisfy. 
 
 What our author adds about his fides guantumvis laxa, which 
 he fuppofes fome to fland up for, and maintain as a fufficient 
 religion, I do not v/el underhand, But yet {\nc.c this expref- 
 iion is very often ufed in the writings of this author, in re- 
 proach cf particular religions, efpecially the Chriftian, which 
 lays the greateft firefs upon faith, it cannot be paffed without 
 fome remark. That which our author fecms to intend by this 
 fides quaniumvh laxa, 01 *' faith how lax foever it may be," is 
 a faith that confiils in a general aflent to the truth of the doc- 
 trines, without any correfpondent influence upon prad^ice. And 
 he would have us to believe that the Chriftian religion, or, at 
 leall, Chriftians, do reckon this fufficient to falvation. This 
 is a bafe and difino^enuous calumny. And our author could not 
 but know it to be fuch, if \\q was acquainted either with the 
 fcriptures, or the writings and lives of that fet of Cbrifiians a- 
 gainfl whom this calumny is particularly levelled, who unani- 
 moully teach, th:u the faith that is available, is chat which 
 works by love, and is to be found pnly In liiem who are created 
 m Ghrift Jcjus to good works. If Herbert was a (iranger 
 to the o^ne or the other, he was the unmeeteft perlon in the 
 world to fet up for a judge and cenfurer of them. 
 
 2. The next advantage that Herbert condclcends on, cf his 
 catholick religion, is, Quod prohamfacvJtai&mhomtni infitarum 
 confer jnationem, ufumaue doceat. Nulla enim datur Veritas c a- 
 tkolica, qua; non in faro interno defcribitur, vel non illuc Jaltem 
 nece/fario rcducitar'K That is, " Tl)is alone tcaclies man the due 
 
 Vie 
 
 * Herberi: Rel, 1 aici, pag. 28. 
 
364 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xix. 
 
 ** ufe and application of his faculties," But this is only our au- 
 thor's aiTertion. Chiirtianity is no lefs confiQent with the due 
 ufe of cur faculties and their application to their proper objecfls, 
 than our author's religion. It deftroys none of them, lays none 
 of themaiide, and does violence to none of them ; but reftores, 
 improves and elevates them to their moil noble and proper ufe. 
 
 Our author adds, for a confirmation of his affertion, that 
 there is no catholick verity, but what either is infcribed in the* 
 mind, or what may be reduced to fome innate truth. Whether 
 there is any verity infcribed in the mind In our author's fenfe, I 
 queftion. Mr. Locke has proven, that there is none fuch, and 
 in particular has evinced that our author's five articles are not 
 innate truths, no not according to, the defcription he himfelf 
 gives of fuch notices. He examines the chara6ters of innate 
 truth given by ovir author, and undertakes tofhew them not ap- 
 plicable to his five articles*. 
 
 3. Our author tells us, he embraced this catholick religion, ' 
 giiod Zficontr over/a a controxKrfis diftinguat\ , &c. It is need- 
 lefs to repeat all our author's words here. What he fays is in 
 fhort this, That " particular religion (and here he mufi be under- 
 flood to fpeak particularly of Chriftiaoity) contains aitflcre and 
 frightful doBriiies that prejudge form men oj Jqueamijh Jlomachs 
 at all religion (and is it to be wondered ar, that men who have 
 no heart to any religion, are eafily difgufted i) But our author 
 has provided them with one that will not offend the mod nice 
 and delicate palate, as Qox\{\'^m%o^ principles univerfally agreed 
 to ; which he fuppofes fuch perfons will readily clofe with, and 
 io retain fome religion, whereas otherwife they would have 
 none. 
 
 Here our author evidently defigns a thruft at the Chriftian re- 
 ligion, and infmuates that it is (lutFed with aujiere and horrid doc- 
 trines' I know full well what ase the do6kines he particularly 
 aims at: the doctrines concerning the corruption of mans 
 nature, the decrees of God, the fail sfatlion of Chriflf are par- 
 ticularly intended. But if theie doclrines are confidered as 
 delivered in the fcriptures, or taught by Chriftians according to 
 the fcriptures, Vv^hat is there olTenfive in them ? What horrid 
 or frightful ? 
 
 I do 
 
 * Locke's EiTay en Human. Under. Ro(jk i. Cii. . § 15, 16, 17 
 18, 19. 
 
 f *' Becaufc it dillinguiflies uncontroverted points from thofc which 
 *< are controverted.'* 
 
PRINCIPLES QF THE MODERN DEISTS. 3^5 
 
 I do iadeeti grant, that fpme Chriftians, through their weak-« 
 Mieis, without any iil-defign, have lo reprerented, or rather mif- 
 reprefented lome pf theie points, parucuiarly concerning the 
 decrees of God, as to give oifcace to lober perlbtis of ail per- 
 luafions. But ^s to this, they, and they ouiy, are to bear the 
 blame. As for the dccirines, What have they done ? Mud 
 the fauh of the profeiTors be call on the religion they profefs? 
 This no reafonabie man will allow to be juft. 
 
 I do iikewile acknowledge, that whereas there are different 
 fentlments among ChriOians concerning fome of thefe points ; 
 and fome of the contending parties have fo unfairly ftated, and 
 foully milreprefented the opinions of their oppofers, in the dif- 
 guife of imaginary confequences, or confcquences, at leaft, de- 
 nied and abhorred by the rriaintainers of the opinions they op- 
 pofe, as to give fome umbrage to this, ftartle weak men, and 
 prejudge them againil religion. This they do to expofe their 
 adverfaries, and frighten others from the reception of their fen- 
 timents. For fuch 1 can make no excufe. The practice itfelf 
 is fcandalouily difingenuous, and can admit of no reafonabie 
 vindication, and fo fair an occal'ion being given, 1 cannot 
 pafs it without a remark. A notable inftance of this fort I meet 
 with in a book juft now come to hand- The ingenious author of 
 thejiiort Method luith the Deijlsy in a letter dire£fed to Charles 
 Giidon, newly recovered from Deifm, cautions him againft the 
 DifTenters , and to enforce his caution, prefents him with fuch an 
 account of their opinions, *;s is indeed fuited to frighten the 
 reader. He tells him, that they maintain, ** That God fees no 
 *' fin in the eledl, let them live never fo wickedly. They 
 ** damn the far greater part of the v.'orld, by irreverfible de- 
 crees of reprobation, and fay, that their good works are hate-? 
 ful to God ; and that it is not podibly in their power to be 
 faved, let them believe as they will, and live never fo religi- 
 oully; They take away free will in man, and make him a 
 perfect machine. They make God the author of fin, to 
 
 " create men on purpofe to damn them ; they make his 
 
 ** promifes and threatenings to be of no effe6f, nay, to be a 
 ** fort of burlefquing, and infulting thofe whom he has made 
 ** miferable, which is an hideous blafphemy *." But to what 
 purpofe is all this faid ? 1. Did not the writer know, That this 
 is not a reprefentation at all of the opinions m.aintained by the 
 pifTenters, but of the confequences tacked to them by their ad- 
 
 verfaries I 
 * Letter fubjoined to the Deift's Manuel, pag. 22, 33. 
 
 <( 
 
 n 
 
366 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.xix. 
 
 verfarles? Does he not know, that they deteft and abhor thefe 
 pofitions as much as he does, that they refufe thefe to be conTe- 
 quences of them ? Is it then candid to offer that as their opini- 
 ons, H'hich they abhor, and wFiich ihey will not allow to follow 
 i^pon iheir opinion? i\gain, 2. Doth not this gentleman know 
 that the principles to which lie has tacked thefe confequen- 
 ces, are the very doctrines taught in the artkl^s of the Churck 
 oj England, unanimoufly maintained by ajl the great men of 
 that church, till Bi(hop Laud's days; which were preached by 
 them in the pulpit, taught in the fchools, and upon all occafieng 
 avouched as the do^lrine of the Church of P.ngland ; and, as 
 fuch, ro this very day are owned by no inconfiderable number of 
 that church ? With what jullice then, or ingenuity, can he call 
 this the doclrine of the DifTenters ? 3. From whom does he ex- 
 pe6\ credit to this difingenuous account of the Diffenter's opini- 
 on ? Such as know them, will believe nothing upon the readin<> 
 of this paiTage ; but that the writer either underftood not the 
 opinions he undertook to reprefent, or that againfl his light, he 
 mifreprefented them, and to is never to be credited again, with' 
 out good proof, in any thing he fays of them. 4. Was it the 
 author's defign to gain a profelyte to the oppolite opinions? This 
 1 believe it was. But this is the moft unlucky way of manage- 
 ment in the world ; for if his difciple is a man of fcnfe, he will 
 be fhy of believing that fuch moniirous opinions can be receiv- 
 ed by a body of men, among whom, there mufl: be owned by 
 their worfl enemies, to be not a few learned and fober. And 
 if he find himfelf abufed, upon fearch, may he not be tempted^ 
 not only to reje6t this account, but all that he received upon the 
 fame authority ? When perfons of fenfe, who have been abufed, 
 are undeceived, they are wont ever after to incline to favoura- 
 ble thoughts of the perfons and principles they were prejudged 
 againft ; and to fufpect that caufe of weaknefs, which cannot be 
 fupported, but by fuch mean and unmanly fhifts, as this of 
 reprefenting the oppofite opinion. 5. If theadverfe party fhall 
 take the fame courfe, what a fine work fhall v/e have ? And to 
 fpeak modefily, they v/ant not a colourable pretence for a re- 
 tortion. But who fhail be the gainers? Neither of the contend- 
 ing parties furely : For men will never be beafea from their o- 
 piuions by calumnies that they know to be unjufi. None will 
 gain, {^iMi they, wiio are lying at the catch, for pretences \o 
 countenance them in the reje£\ion of the Chriftian religion. It 
 is none of my buftnefs to debate this coiitrcverfy with thi? author. 
 
 If 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 367 
 
 If he has any thing new to advance upon thefe heads, let him 
 advance it, he will find antagonifts in the Church of England, 
 able perhaps to cope with him, though the Diiienters Ihould 
 fail. This gentleman had managed his oppofition with more 
 modefty and ingenuity, if he had attentively perufed the learned 
 Bilhop of Sarum's difcourfe on the 17th article of the Church of 
 England. But I hope this author, upon fecond thou^ghts, when 
 his pailion is over, will be afhamed of what he has written. 
 
 But now to return to Herbert and the Deifts. If we abflra6l 
 from thefe two abufes, and confider thedo6)rines of ChriPiianity 
 as reprefented in the fcriptures, or according to them, there is 
 no ground to charge ihem with any thing frightful, or ofii! 
 confequence to religion. Yea, I dare be fo bold as to fay. That if 
 practical religion, confifting in godlinefs, righteoufnefs and fobri- 
 ety, isany v/here tobefound in the world, it is to be found airongfl 
 Ihofe, as readily as any where elfe, and in as eminent a degree, 
 who have been trained up in the belief, and under the influence 
 of thofe very do6trines, which fome, and particularly Herbert, 
 would perfuade us to be fo horrid, as to frighten men at once out 
 of their wits and religion. If it be fald, that this is not owing 
 to the influence of thefe principles. I anfwer, This, at leaft, 
 proves thofe principles not inconfiftent with practical religion, 
 in as much as they, who believe them, are eminent in it ; and, 
 if we inquire of them, what has influenced their walk^ they are rea- 
 dy to atteft, that the belief of thefe very truths has had the principal 
 influence upon that efFe6t ; and to offer a rational account of the 
 tendency of thefe dodlrines to promote practical religion. 
 
 Now we have wiped off the ini'inuated reproach, defigned 
 by our author, againli the Chridian religion. Let us next con- 
 fider what there is in this plea. He tells us, His religion con- 
 (lOs of incontroverted articles, and fo will frighten no body. 
 But, I. This is not true in fa6\, as we have demonftrated above. 
 His articles have been controverted. The fufficiency of them 
 has been believed by very few. Again, 2. Will our author 
 fay. That nothing is neceflarv, to religion, which is controver- 
 ted ? Will the Deifts undertake this point ? If fo, their religion 
 is loft, as is evident from what has been demonftrated above. 
 3. This no more proves our author's five articles to be a fuffici- 
 ent religion, than it proves one of them alone (o be fuch. He 
 who owns no more in religion, but this only, thtrt is a God, 
 may as well plead, that religion retains only what is incontro- 
 vertible. But the Deifts' will fay, there are other points neceifa- 
 
 rv. 
 
1^58 An INQ^UIRY into TK£ chap. XIX. 
 
 ry. Well does not this give mean anfwerto their argument, when 
 I lav, there are other points neceflary befidcs their fire articles- 
 4. Whereas he would perfuade us, that no man will fcruple his 
 his religion : Is not this enough to make any reafcnable man (hy 
 of admitting it, that its author and inventer dare not fay pofi- 
 tively, that it is fufficient to ani'.ver the purpofe, for which 
 it is deiigned, and that others undertake to demondrate, that 
 if it is trufted to, it will prove afoul-ruining cheat? In a wcrdj 
 it is not worth the while to calculate a religion for thofe, who 
 will admit nothing in religion, but what is incontroverted: for^ 
 in fliort, they are for no religion. And I think we have in par- 
 ticular evinced, that our author's five articles will be too hard 
 in digeftion for fuch delicate ftomachs. 
 
 4, Our author tells us, that he embraced this cathclick reli- 
 s:ion, Ouod concordus communis fubfhuclionan agaty &c** 
 That is, in fhort, let all the world agree to the fufficiency of 
 our auti:or's five articles, and leave all other things to be re-* 
 jeered or received as trifles, not neceffary to be dlfputed about, 
 and then there is an end of all the contefts, then there is a 
 foundation laid for everlafting peace, and the golden age will 
 be retrieved, Jam redit tt virgOf redeiint Saturnia regnal* 
 
 This trifle deferves rather pily than an anfwer. What \ will 
 all the world agree that this religion is fufficient, while its in- 
 venter durfi: not fay fo ? 
 
 5. He embraced it, ^^ Q^uod authoritatem majeftat&mq -, indu- 
 ** biam religioni, et hierarchic indt pQlid^quz conciliate'' &c^ 
 That is, " becaufe it conciliates refpe6l to religion, to the cc- 
 " clefiaflical hierarchy, and civil government." Religion will be 
 refpc6ied, when it requires nothing but what is neceffary. Church 
 and Hate will be refpeiiled when it punifnes nothing but tranf- 
 greffions againft incontroverted atticlc?. 
 
 But is not this to trifle with a wltnefs ? The weaknefs of this 
 plea is fo obvious, that I may well fpare my pains in expofing it« 
 Will it maintain the dignity of religion to confine it to a number 
 of articles, which for any thing we know, or the Deifls know^ 
 may cheat us of our reward in the end, fince they cannot posi- 
 tively alfure us of its fuiriciency, and we are pofitively fure it is 
 not fufficient? Will it maintain the honour of church officers, 
 to admit a religion, which fubverts the very foundation of all 
 
 refpedt 
 * « Becaufe it lays a foundation for common concord." 
 f "Now Aftra returns, the reign of Saturn returns." 
 
FRINCIFLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 369 
 
 s-erpe6t to them, viz. The divine inftitution of their order? As 
 for the advantage of it to ihe civil government, the DeiOs may- 
 offer it to the confideration of the next parliament, and they 
 will confider whether it is proper to conciliate rcfped to the ci- 
 vil government. 
 
 6. Our author embraced his religion, Q^ucd adeo non violiat 
 rdigionenii ut ejus fevcritoJein Jli7nulu7n addat. That is, ** It is 
 •' io far from favouring liberty in fin, that it urges harder to vir- 
 ** tue, (fevere virtue) than revealed religion." There is no 
 hope of pardon here upon the fatisfa6lion of another. Men 
 muft work for their life, and when they fail, they muft fatisfy 
 by their repentance. 
 
 Well, but do they, who teach the nece-llity of fatisfa£lion, 
 exclude repentance ? And if they make both fati3fa6iion and 
 repentance abfolutely necefiary, though each in its own order 
 and place, to forgivenefs, methinks they will yet have the ad- 
 vantage in point of feverity. Again, but what if repentance 
 will not fatisfy ? If this is fo, and our author feclude all other 
 fatlsfa6\ion, will not his religion lead men rather to defpair thaa 
 virtue, 
 
 7. Our author*s lafl: inducement was, Oiiod facrarum liUra^ 
 ■rum fini ultimo intentioniq quadret J &c. That is, " becaufeihis 
 *' catholick religion aniwers the ultimate defign of the fcrip- 
 ** tures. All the do<5trine5 taught there level at the efta- 
 ^* bliiliment of thefe five catholick verities, as we have often 
 " hinted; there is neither facrament, rite or ceremony, there 
 ** enjoined, but what aims (or feems to aim) at the eftabiifli^ 
 ** ment of thefe five articles." 
 
 8. But is not this a notable jeft. Our author would perfuade 
 us, That his religion anfwers the great end of the fcriptures, 
 better than that religion, which the fcriptures themfelves teach. 
 If our author fays not this, he fays nothing. If the end of the 
 fcriptures is not good, it is not for the honour of our author's 
 religion that it agrees with it : If it is good, and the religion 
 taught in the fcriptures themfelves, anfwcr their own defign 
 befl:, why then, 1 would chufe that religion, and leave our au" 
 thor to enjoy his own : If he favs, his anfwers it better, then I 
 would defire to know where the compliment lies, that he de- 
 figned to the fcriptures. But I defire to know further of the 
 Deifts, Whether do the fcriptures teach any thing befides thefe 
 articles, to be necelfary ? Where do the fcriptures tell that thefe 
 are fufiicient ? Are divine inditutions, facraments, &c. necef]ary 
 
 Z 7. tov/ard 
 
370 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xx. 
 
 tov/ard the compaiTTng of the entls of rclij>ion ? If they are not, 
 how does it commc'id our author's religion, that it quadrates 
 with the defign of fhefe inrtitutloris? If they are neceirary and 
 ufefal, this Catholick religion is at a lofs that wants them, I 
 am lenfibJe our author has cautioned againft this, when he tells 
 us, That they either do, or feem to aim at fhis. 1 fee old birds 
 are not caught with chaff. Now 1 have found it. This catho- 
 lick religion, will really ferve the purpofe, that revealed truths 
 and inftitutions do only feem to aim at. But after ail, this is 
 but fay and noX proof And I will undertake to Ihew againft all 
 the DeiRs under heaven, that the confinement of religion tothefe 
 five articles, as taught by the light of nature, is not only not 
 agreeable to the principal defign of the fcriptures, but inconfift- 
 ent fvith it. 
 
 Thus I have confidered the inducements which led Herbert to 
 embrace this catholick religion, and found them wanting. And 
 I muit fay, if this noble author had not been itraitened by a bad 
 caufe, that is not capable of a rational defence, his learning, 
 which v/as very confiderable, could not but have aHcrded him 
 better pleas. Chaalcs Blount, in the clofc of hisReligio Laici, 
 tells us, It was f : r the iair.e reafons he embraced Dcifm, andt 
 copies after Herbert, with fome little variety. What he has, 
 th it our author has taken notice of in this place, will occur in 
 the next chap'er, where rhey are again repeated under another 
 form. M^n that have little to fay have need to hujkand it -welly 
 and 77iakc all the itnprovemeni of it that the') can* 
 
 CHAP.. XX. 
 
 Wherein the Queries offered by Herbert and Blount, for proving 
 thefujfiaency of thtir fve Articles are examined, 
 
 THE learned Herbert in an appendix to hisReligio Laici, 
 moves fcm.e objections againft hinifelf, but fearing after 
 he has laid all he can, fome may remain unfatisFied dill, he be- 
 taki-s himfelf to another courfe, and edavs to difpuje his oppo- 
 fers into a compliance with his fentiments by (Queries. Of this 
 iort he propoies feven. Charles Blount concludes his Religio 
 Laici in the fame method, with this ditFerence, that he has ad- 
 ded oiher feven que.ies, making in all fourteen, and prefixed 
 this title, Queries proving the validity oj the five Articles* 
 
 The 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 371 
 
 The arguments couched in thefe queries, in lb far as they tend 
 to prove the fuffitiency of this catholick religion, are not new, 
 but materijily the fame, which we have formerly confidered. 
 The method is indeed diiferent, more fubtile, and better fuited 
 to their great defif^n. Diredl proofs are lefs dct^'iv'in^, and their 
 weaknefs 15 more eafy difcoverabls by vulgar capacities. Que- 
 ries conceal the weaknefs of arguments, iniangle, perplex and 
 amufe lefs attentive minds , and by them, the fubtile afferters of 
 a bad caufe eafe themfelves of the trouble of proving th^ir ill 
 grounded ailertions, (which yet, by all rules of difputing, be- 
 longs to them only) and turn it over upon the defender. This 
 is enough as to the method, to let us lee how fuitable it was to 
 their purpofe. 
 
 The (y.eries propofed by Blount are the fame with Herbert's, 
 and he adds others which Herbert wants. Wherefore we (hall 
 confider them as propofed by Mr. Blount. But whereas fome 
 of them are to more advantage urged by Herbert, we (ball offer 
 thefe in Herbert's words, that we may overlook nothing, which 
 has the leafi appearance of force in this caufe. 
 
 Query I. " Whether there can be an}'^ other -true God, or 
 ** whether any other can juflly be called opiimus maximus, the 
 ** greatetl and beft God, and common father of mankind, fave 
 " He who exercifes univeiial providence, and looks fo far to 
 ** the good of all men, as to provide thern in common and fuffi- 
 ** cjent or etfeclual means for obtaining the Itate of eternal hap- 
 ** pinefs after this life, whereof he has implanted a defire in 
 *' their minds? If the laity or vulgar vvorlbip any other God, 
 ** who does not exeicife this univerlal providence, are they not 
 •' guihy of fali'e worfhip, or idolatry? And if any one deny this 
 " common providence, is he not guilty of treafon againfl the 
 ** divine Majefly,'and of a contempt of his goodnefs, yea, and 
 ** of atheifm itfelf?'' Thus Herbert*. Blount propofes the 
 fame query, but more fhortly, thus, ** V/hether there be any 
 *' true God, but he that ufeth univerfal providence concerning 
 " the means of coming to him f." 
 
 The delign of this qu-ry is to prove the necelTity of a catho- 
 lick religion, or a fufiicient religion com:non to ail mankind, 
 and to fix the black note of atheifm upon all who deny it. The 
 argument vrhereby this is evinced is rhe very fame, which we 
 ■ have examined aboi'e, as the Deiils' firft and great argument. 
 
 What 
 * Herbert's Relig. Laid, Appendix, pa^-. i, z. 
 i Bloant Rel, Laid, pa^. ^o. 
 
372 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xx. 
 
 What is added ccrscernin^ iinlverfal Providence, we did con- 
 fider in our anfwer to Herbert's firfl inducement to Dcifm. And 
 io we might entirely pafs this query as anfvvercd already, were 
 it not for the feeming advantage given to it by this new drefs, 
 wherein it appears. 
 
 This query has a dire6l tendency to drive men into atheifn;, 
 and tempt them to lay afide all worfbip for fear of falling info 
 idolatry. It is in itfelf felf-evident, that if God has given aii 
 mankind, or to every man, means fuFncienl and etie6iual to lead 
 them to eternal happinefs, they mud know of it, or, at Icali, 
 there muft be eafy accefs for them to know it. With what pro- 
 priety of fpeech can it be faid, That the means leading to eter- 
 nal happinefs, are given to every man to be by him ufed for 
 that end, if they know them not, or, at leaR, if the knowledge 
 of them be not cafily accciTable to all, who will apply theni- 
 lelves to an inquiry after them ? Nor is it lefs evident. That the 
 fuitablenefs, eificacy and fufficiency of thefe means, for reach- 
 ing this end, muft be fufficiently intimated to them. If it is not 
 io, how can men rationally be obliged to ufe means which they 
 do not know to be proper for compaffing the end ? With what 
 courage or confidence can any rational man, with great applica- 
 tion, over many difficulties, ufe, and all his life continue in 
 the ufe of means, concerning which he has no affurance, that 
 they will put him in poiTeffion of the end ? After all his pains 
 he may mifs the end be had in view. How can any reafonable 
 foul pleafe itfelf in fuch a courfe? Can it be reafonably thought 
 worthy of the wifdom and goodnefs of God, to give man the 
 means of attaining eternal happinefs, and means fufficient, and 
 yet leave men in the dark as to the l;,,nowledge of this, That 
 they are deligned for, and fufficient to reach the end for which 
 they were given ? What can rationally induce men in this cafe, 
 to give God the praife of his goodnefs, in affording them thefe 
 means, or to ufe them for that end, for which they were given, 
 if this is hid from them? It is then evident, That, if God has 
 afforded all men fufficlent means of reaching eternal happinefs, 
 tliey muil know this, or, at lean, h.jve eafy accefs to know thefe 
 means, what they are, and that they are deligned to, proper 
 for, and will prove eitc6iual to this end. And confequently, if 
 men find not fuch means, after fearcb, they have evidently rea- 
 fon to conclude, that God has left them without them, at- 
 ]ea(^, that they want them in their prefent circumflances ; fmce 
 $fter all their inquires they cannot hnd them, nor cau they dif- 
 
 cover 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 373 
 
 cover that any means, they know of, will be efFe6^ual to reach 
 ;his end. 
 
 This is evidently the condition of man r.t prefent, left to the 
 mere light of nature. We have proved juil now, That if God 
 had given thefe fufHcient ineans, every men inuft, at leall, upor* 
 application, have had accefs to know thern, and to know that 
 they are fufficient. 
 
 But, upon application, they find no fuch matter, and there- 
 fore have reafon to fufpeci, that God has not gi' en them thcfe 
 means, if not pofnively to conclude that tliey are without them. 
 Herbert himfelf glories that he was the firft who found out what 
 thefe means were. They had efcaped the knowledge and in- 
 duflry of the moft learned and diligent before liis lime. And 
 if fo, certainly the vulgar behoved to be at a lofs about them, 
 "vVhen he has found them, he dare not be pcfitive about their 
 iufficiency : '* Quam etiam oh caufam, neqiie eafirfficere (adfa- 
 ** iutem, viz. ^t: terna?n J protenus dixeri'mi' i^ysh^*. Yea, he 
 more than infinuates, that we cannot come to be pofitively af- 
 fured of their fuBiciency, and fo mud remain in the dark, iince 
 the determination of this depends upon the fentiments of God, 
 which are known to none, as he fays. Now when a man (o 
 learned, fo diligent, and fo evidently prepofTelTed with a ftrong 
 inclination to favour any means that had a fliew of fufficiency, 
 found fo much difficulty to hit upon any fuch, and did fo evi- 
 dently hefitate about the fufficiency of thefe he had found ; mufi: 
 not the laity, for whom, upon all occallons, he pretends fo 
 much concern, hefitate more? Yea, have they not reafon evi- 
 dently to conclude, that there are no fuch means provided for 
 them ? 
 
 But Herbert here teaches them, that none is Xo be acknow- 
 ledged as the true God, nor worshipped asfuch,who has not pro- 
 vided every man in efte^^ual and fufficient means for attaining 
 eternal happinefs. Well may the layman fay, ** I neither 
 " know, nor can I ever be fatisfied, that I have fuch means; 
 " yea, I have the greatefi: reafon to think that 1 want them ; if 
 ** the good God had given them, he would not have mocked 
 *' me, by concealing them, and fo precluding me from the ui'c 
 ** of them ; he would have pointed me to them, and intimated 
 ** their fufficiency, (b as to make it knowable to me, upon ap- 
 ** plication, without which he could never expe(5\ that 1 fhouid 
 
 ** ui'c 
 
 * Herbert de Rel. Gent. pag. 217. 
 
374 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.xx. 
 
 ** ufe them : I have therefore reafon to conclude myfelf deftltute 
 ** of them, and fo I will worlhip no God, fince there is none 
 ** that has provided me in the means neceffay to eternal happi- 
 *' nefs : For if I (hould, 1 would be s;uilty of worfhipping one, 
 ** who is an Idol, and not the true God." Here we fee where 
 this gentleman's principles mud inevitably lead the poor man, 
 either to dlre6t atheifm, or to worOiip one, whom he has reafon 
 vehemently to fufped to be merely an idol, and not the 
 true God, 
 
 Having thus difcovered the dangerous tendency of this query, 
 I iliall now give adiretl anfwer to it. And to it I fay, That 
 the God, who makes man, implants in his child's mind a defire 
 of eternal felicity, intimates to him that he is made for this end, 
 obliges him in duty to purfue this end, under a penalty in 
 cafe he fail of it, and yet denies or leaves his child without the 
 means that are abfolutely neceffiry for compading it, antece- 
 dently to any fault upon the child's part, will fcarce obtain the 
 titles of opti7nus maximus, great and goodf ov of a common 
 Father, 
 
 But the God who made man perfe61:, in his original ftate, and 
 put him in the full poffeffion of all the means that were necef- 
 fary to obtain that end, whatever it was, for which he was made, 
 and which he was in duty obliged to purfue, lofes not his inter- 
 eR in, and unqueftionable right to the title of optimus maximus, 
 great and good ; nor does he ccafe to be a common Father, and 
 to a6l the part of fuch an one, if, when his children contrary to 
 their duty, have rebelled againft him, by their own fault drop- 
 ped the knowledge of the end, for which they were made, loft 
 the knowledge of the means, whereby it is to be obtained, put 
 themfelves out of a capacity of ufing the means, or reaching the 
 end ; if, I fay, in this cafe, he leaves them to fmart under the 
 effe6\5 of their own fin, and treats them no more as children, 
 but as rebels, who can blame him ? Does he not a6t every way 
 as it becomes one, who by the bed of titles is not merely a fa- 
 ther, but the fovereign ruler and governor of all his creatures, 
 to whom of right it belongs to render a juji recommence of re- 
 ward to every tranfgrelTor ? 
 
 Now, this is the cafe, as we have already proven. . If the 
 Deids will make their argument conclufive, they muft prove 
 that this is not the cafe with man. And when we fee this 
 done, we (hall then know what to fay. Till then we are not 
 much concerned with their query. If they fay, How can this 
 
 be? 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MQDERN DEISTS. 375 
 
 be ? Can men by the light of nature know how this came to 
 pafs ? I anfwer, that it is not the queflion, Kow it came to be , 
 i b ? but, Whether, in fa6t, it be fo ? That it really is thus, 1s 
 before proven. The Heathens have confcfled it. And though 
 we fhould never come to be fatisfied, how it came about, yet 
 that it really is fo, is enough to acquit God, 
 
 Nor is God's univerfal Providence hereby everted, he ftill 
 governs all mankind fuitably to their condition. He rules thofe, 
 whom of his fovcreign and undeferved grace, he has {ecn 
 meet to deal with, in order to return to his family, in a way 
 of infinite mercy and grace. He governs the reft of the world,"" 
 whom in his fovereign and adorable juftice and wifdom, he 
 hath left to lie under the difmal confequences of their own fin, 
 in a way becoming their ftate. He provides" them in all things, 
 that do neceflarily belong to the ends, for v/hich they are fpa- 
 red. Further, he leaves himfelf not without a witnefs as to his 
 goodnefs, in that he does good, gives them rain from heaven , 
 and fruitful feafons, filling their hearts with food and glad- 
 nefs* Which is fufficient to (hew his fuperabundant goodnefs, 
 that reaches even to the unthankful and evil, and gives them 
 ground to conclude. That their want of what is further necef- 
 fary, flows not from any defe6\ of goodnefs on his part ; but 
 from their own fins, of many of which their own confciences 
 do admonifh them. If God vouchfafes the means of recovery to 
 any, they have reafon to be thankful to fovereign grace. If 
 God gives not, what he may juftly refufe, who can in jufiice 
 complain of him ? They muft leave their complaint upon 
 themfelves, and acquit God. And while man is continued in 
 being, it will remain his indifpenfihle duty to v.'orlhip this God, 
 who made him, fpares him, notwithftanding of his finS, for a 
 time, punidies him lefs that his iniquities deferve, and confers 
 many other undeferved favours on him. Nor is he guilty of 
 worfJiipping an idol in doing fo. 
 
 Thus we have anfwered this query : And I might now pro- 
 pofe to the Deifis a counter query, ** W^hether they, who make 
 that neceffary to the fupport of the univerfal providence of God, 
 his goodnefs, and confequently his being, of which no man can 
 be fure that it really is, which all men have reafon to believe 
 is not, and which moft men, who have made it their bufinef^ 
 to confider the cafe ferioufly, do firmly believe not to be in 
 being, may not reafonably be fufpe6ied to defign the overthrow 
 of thefe attributes of God, and confequently of his very being?" 
 
 Thus 
 
lyS AN INCiUIRY INTO THE chap, r.^u 
 
 I'liLis Vaniniis endeavoured to cflablifl:] atbeirm: he afcilbes 
 iuch attributes to God, and enc'eavoured to fix fuch notions of 
 his perfedions, as could not be admitted, without the overthrow 
 of other perfections, unqueftionably belonging to him, or own- 
 ed in any confiftency with realon and experience. For he well 
 knew, that if once be could bring men to believe God to be 
 Iuch an one, if he v.-as, they would be brought under a neceffity 
 of denying, that there was any God, 
 
 Query IL ** Whether thefe means appear univerfally other- 
 ** wife, than in our forefaid five catholic articles*?" 
 
 Thefe gentlemen think they have, by their firft query, fuf- 
 ficlently proved, that there m.uft be a catholick religion : Now 
 they will prove theirs to be it. But I have overthrown the 
 foundation, and fo the fuper{lru6iure falls. I have evinced, 
 that there is no fuch catholick fulhcient religion, by reafon and 
 experience. I hav'e proved that the pretence of its being necef- 
 fary to fupport the notion of God's providence and good nefs, can 
 never poffibly perfuade any confideiate man, to believe againft 
 his reafon and experience, againft the fight of his eyes, and what 
 he feels within himfelf,that he really is in poffciTion of a fufHcient 
 religion, without revelation ; and confequently that the urging of 
 this pretence can ferve for nothing, if not to make men quef- 
 tion the good nefs and providence of God, and fo his very being, 
 to the overthrow of all worihip and religion, I have moreover 
 made it appear, that thefe five articles arc not catholick, and 
 though they were fo, yet are not fuflicient. 
 
 Query III, ** Whether any thing can be added to thefe five 
 ** articles or principles, that may tend to make a man more 
 ** honeft, virtuous, or a better man ?" So Blount f* To this 
 query Herbert adje6ls a claufe, viz. " Provided thefe articles 
 ** be well explained in their full latitude J." And is not this 
 tiie principal end of religion ? 
 
 hy the foregoing queries the Dcifis' think they have proved 
 the nccefTuy of a catholick religion ; and that their five articles 
 is t;-:'s catholick religion. By this query they pretend to prove 
 tlisir religion fuificient. 
 
 Yo this purpofe thev tell us. That their five articles are fuf- 
 ilcient to make a man virtuous, honeft and good ; that this is 
 the principal end of religion ; and that nothing can be added to 
 
 them, 
 
 * Blount Rel. Laici. p??. 90. IJcrb. Rel. Laici, Appendix, 
 t Ibid, pag. 91. "' ^ % Herb, Ibid. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE xMODERN DEISTS. 377 
 
 ibem, which can be any way helpful as to this end. If by 
 making a man virtuous, honeft and good, they mean no more, 
 than the Heathens meant by thefe words, who took them to 
 intend no more, but an abftinence from the more grofs outward 
 a6^s of vice, contrary to the light of nature, with fome regard 
 in their dealings among men, to the common and known rules ; 
 of righteoufnefs, and ufefulnefs : If, I fay, this is their mean-: 
 ing, which I conceive it mufl: be, then I deny that this is the i 
 principal end of religion. No man that underflands what 
 religion means, will fay it. The Heathens were influenced to 
 this by other motives, than any thing of regard to the authority 
 of the One true God. Their Ethicks, which enjoined this 
 goodnefs, virtue and honeOy, prefled it by confiderations of a 
 quite different nature. Of God, his legiflature, his laws, as 
 fuch, they took little or no notice of, as we obferved from 
 Mr. Locke before ; and therefore, whatever ufefulnefs among 
 men there was to be found in their virtues, they had nothing 
 of religion, properly fo called, in them. 
 
 But if by making a man honeft, virtuous and good, they mean 
 the making of him inwardly holy, and engaging him in the 
 whole of his deportment, in both outward and inward a6^s, to 
 carry as becomes him, toward God, his neighbour and himfelf, 
 with a due eye to the glory of God as his end, and a juft re- 
 gard to the authority of God, as the formal reafon of this per- 
 formance of duly in outward and inward a6\s : If, I fay, they 
 take their words in this fenfe, I do own this to be one of the prin- 
 cipal ends of religion. But then I deny that ever any man, by 
 their five articles, as taught by the light of nature, or by any o- 
 ther of the like kind, known only by the mere light of nature, 
 was in this fenfe, fmce the entrance of fin, made virtuous and 
 good. Nay, the moral Heathens were not led to that Ibadow 
 of virtue and goodnefs, which they had in the fenfe before- 
 mentioned, from any regard to thefe five articles, as they are 
 articles of religion ; that is, as they are principles diretStive as 
 to the duty, which man owes to the One only True and Su- 
 preme Being. 
 
 And taking virtue, goodnefs, and honefty in this laft; fenfe, 
 which is that alone wherein we are concerned, 1 have above 
 proven the light of nature, and particularly thefe five articles, 
 as known by it, utterly infufficient to make any man virtuous, 
 boneft and good. And I have demonflrated not om, but many 
 things befide what is contained in thefe five articles, however 
 
 A a a explained 
 
378 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. xx. 
 
 explained to the utmofl advantage that can be done by mere 
 unafTifted reaibn, to be ahfoiiUely neceffary io the ends of religion. 
 Nor will what Herbert has adje^:^ted mend the matter, viz. 
 That his articles mujl be zcell explained in their full latitude, 
 Thele v>rords, if they have any fenfe, it is ti)is, *^ It is not e- 
 nough to believe and receive our articles, as in general propofed, 
 this will make no man good. He muft not only, for inliance, 
 agree to it, that theie is one Supreme God, and that he is to be 
 worihipped by a virtuous life, but he muft be acquainted with 
 all the attributes of this God, neceiTary to be known, in order 
 to the direction of his pradice, and he mufi underftand and be 
 fixed as to the nature, meafure and all other necefTary concerns 
 of thefe virtues that belong to his duty." This is undeniably 
 the meaning of this exprelTion, and this inevitably overthrov/s 
 all tliat our author has been building. Were thefe five articles, 
 in this latitude, univerfaily agreed to? Our author knew the^ 
 contrary. If any man (hould afifert it, it were enough to make 
 him be hiffed off the ftage, as either brutifhly ignorant of the 
 world, or impudentiy difingenuous. Well then, our catholick 
 religion is loll. Again, fmce the explications belong as much 
 to our author's religion as the articles themfelves, (for without 
 them he confeffes the articles not fufficient) how ihall the poor 
 layman ever be fatisfied about them ? Have there not been as 
 many, and as intricate dlfputes about them, as about the articles 
 of revealed religion r' Where is now the boafled agreement? 
 "Where is the uncontroverted religion? What attribute of God 
 has not been queftipned, difputed and denied ? Have not his 
 creation of ail thing-i, his Providence, 6:c. which of all others 
 have the moft remarkable influence upon practice, by many been 
 denied ? Have not horrid notions of them been advanced by 
 Ibnie? What will now become of men of fqueamilh ftomachs, 
 that car. admit of no religion, but one that is fmooth, and has no 
 rugged coniroverfies in it? Why, poor gentlemen, they mufl: 
 part with our author's relioion, and fo be, what they were be- 
 foie, men of no religion. Upon the whole, we fee that this que- 
 ry, dci^.^wtd to piove the DeifW religion Jiifficient, has proven 
 it a chimera. 
 
 Q^uery IV, *' Vv'^hether anv things that are added to tljefe five 
 ** principles from the doctrine of faith, be not uncertain in 
 *' their original ?" So Blount *. Herbert to this adds, " That 
 
 though 
 * EloiintRcl. Laid, pao;. g,i. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 379 
 
 ^* though God be (rue, yet the laity can never be certain about 
 ** revelation : For, (fays lie) how do ye know that God fpake 
 " thefe words to the propliets ? How do you know that they 
 '* faithfully repeated or wrole what God fpoke to them, and no 
 ** more? How do ye know that transcribers have performed 
 ** their part faithfully? How do ye know, that that particular 
 *' revelation made to a particular prieft, prophet or lawgiver, 
 *' concerns not only ail other priefts and lawgivers, but alio the 
 ** laity? Efpecially, how ihall ye know this, if the matter of 
 ** revelation require you to recede from reafon ? *" And here 
 we have a proof of the fourth refieGtion, of liis unfair treatment 
 of the Chriftian revelation, which we made above. Chap. 13. 
 For either he inHnuates, that the fcriptures teach things contra- 
 ry to reafon ; and if fo, where was our author's ingenuity when 
 he called it optima religioy and upon other occafions pretended 
 fo much refpeci to it? Does not this juflify our charge of difm- 
 genuity againft him, in the firji reflexion we have made, in 
 the place now referred to? If he owns, that this is not the fault 
 of the Chriftian religion, but of other pretended revelations ; 
 then he juftifies out fourth refletliorii wherein we charge him 
 with jumbling revel?,tions, true and falfe together, that have, 
 at leaft, feemingly fair pretences, and thefe that have none ; and 
 deceitfully charges upon all in cumulo, the faults peculiar to the 
 worfl:. If this is not enough to perfuade you to the truth of his 
 proteftation above-mentioned, viz* that he defigned no hurt 
 to the Chriltian religion, he lias an obfervation, with which he 
 concludes this query, that will beat the perfuafion of it into 
 your brains, or elfe of fomewhat befide ; and it is this, in his 
 own words, " I think it worthy of the layman's obfervation, 
 >* that there is this difference betwixt the pretended revelations 
 offered to us, by the lawgivers, and thofe offered to us by 
 pUcfis, interpreters of the oracles God, (under which no- 
 tion he takes in all prophets) whether they gave their re- 
 velations or refponfes for hire, or merely to fet off their own 
 conceits (five venales five nugivendiij that the revelations, 
 which the lawgivers pretended they had from heaven, and 
 promulgated as luch, did ufually make the people more juft 
 and fociable, or agree better together ; whereas the pretend- 
 ed revelations of the priefis and prophets, of whatever fort, 
 V (or in his own words, Oracuiorum inter pr^Uibus five vetinhhui 
 
 " JivC: 
 
 t Herb, Rel. Laici, Appendix, pag. 3» 
 
o3o AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xx, 
 
 vJ 
 
 ** five nugivendis ) did ufuaiiy make the people more unjuft or 
 ** impious, and did divide them among theaifelves *." 
 
 Here is a rare obfervation, vvonh gold to the layman. He 
 may, with more fafety, receive and ule the laws v/hich Lycur- 
 gus, Solon, and the other Heathen lawgivers pretended they 
 had from heaven ; and I would add Moles and his writings, but 
 that I fear our author has caR hirn, becaufe he fet up for an in- 
 terpreter of God's mind, and, upon fome extraordinary ©cca- 
 fions, afted the part of a priell : Our author, 1 fay, would per- 
 fuade him, that he may, with more advantage,, read thele wri- 
 ting', than thofe of the prophets and apoflles, or any other of 
 the facred writers, who were not lawgivers. It is true, both 
 are to be looked upon but as pretended revelations, and fo in 
 etFect cheats : but the lawgivers beguiled the people to their 
 sdvantyge ; whereas thefe rogues of priefis, and others who 
 joined with thcrn, offered cheats that were hurtful to juftice a- 
 mong men, and the peace of fcciety. 
 
 If any fay, I qm wrefting our author's vvords, and that cer- 
 tainly his comparifon refpe6ts only the Heathen lawgivers, and 
 Keathcn priefts ; I anfwer, \x this is the meaning, it is alto- 
 gether impertinent to the defign of the query, which avowedly 
 aims at this, ** That laymen, living among us, (for i do not 
 believe our author defigned to fend his book to the Pagans) 
 can never be fatisficd as to the truth of any particular revela- 
 tionj" and all his fubordinate queries do dire£lly thruft at the 
 fcriptures ,• and then he clofes with this obfervation, as of the 
 greateft moment to the defign of the query. And therefore I can- 
 not own, tliat I have done any injury to our author, in the inter- 
 pretation 1 have given of it; but i have fpoke his meaning more 
 plainly, than he thought convenient to do. The next query 
 is to the fame purpofe, and therefore v/e (hall propofe it, and 
 anfwer both. 0, 
 
 Query V. " Suppofing the originals true, whether yet they 
 *' be not uncertain in their explications ; ** fo that unlefs a 
 ** man read all authors, fpeak with all learned men, and 
 '* know all languages, it be not impoirible to come to a clear 
 ** folution of all doubts?" Thus Blount f. Herbert, in his 
 fifth query, fpeaks to the fame purpofe, he makes a hue;e out- 
 cry about the fchifms and fedis that are among us, and tells us 
 
 plainly 
 
 * Herb. Rcl. Laici, Appendix, pag. 3. 
 f Blount Rsl, Laici, ubi fupra, pa^, 91. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 381 
 
 plainly, that if we will adhere ftifHy to revelation, we muft of 
 nece(li?y get an injalithle judge^ to whofe deci(ions we muil 
 iubinit in all things. He endeavours to prove that the fcrip- 
 tures will not decide the eontroverfy ; and impertinently e- 
 «ough labours to difprove what none ever aOerted, That mira- 
 cles wrought by the Vvritcrs will not decide the differences a- 
 bout the nneaning of their writings. For it is evident this 
 query only refpecb tlie meaning of the revelation, as the former 
 did its OTZginal. Howe/er, 1 know who will thank our author 
 for alTerting the neccfruy of a living infallible judge. If any 
 think I have wronged ci::r author as to this, let them infpe£l his 
 book, and they will find I have done him juPvice. But for the 
 fatisfatiion of thofe who have it not, I (hall fubjoin his own 
 exprefs words ; he informs the layman, that he can never be 
 fatished about the meaning of this revelation, about which there 
 are fo many controverfies, unlefs either he can ** Linguas 
 ** cuntlas edifcere, fcriptores cunBos celebriores perleoerey doc- 
 ** tior&s ttiam, qui non fcripfirunty conjulere; aut aliquis fal- 
 ** tcm controverfiarwn illarum ex coiifenju communi J'mnmus 
 ** conflitueretur judex *•" And then he goes on to prove, 
 that there is no other poffible way of deciding thefe differences, 
 ahd coming to the meaning of revelation, but in thefe two 
 ways pointed at in the v/ords now quoted. The firft is ridicu- 
 lous, and therefore we muft be Deifts or Papifts. 
 
 The defign of thefe queries is obvious. They were afraid 
 that their arguments might prove weak, which they had ad- 
 vanced for the fufficiency of their catholick religion ; and now 
 in efFect, they tell the laity, that if they have a mind to have a 
 religion at all, they muft clofe with this which the Deifts pre- 
 fent them. And though we cannot fatisfy you, may the Deifts 
 fay, in all points, about our catholick religion, yet you muft 
 reft fatisfied with it : for you can never be fure about revela- 
 tion, either as to its original or meaning. Men brought to fuch 
 a ftrait, fince they cannot have fuch a religion as they would 
 Willi, muft take fuch as they can get. 
 
 Thefe queries dire6lly attack revelation ,* and fo belong not 
 to our fubjeft. The learned defenders of revealed religion 
 
 have 
 
 * " Learn all languages, read over all the moft celebrated writers, 
 '< confult the moil learned men, v/ho have not written, or at leaft fome 
 " fupreme judge of all controverfies muit be appointed by common 
 " confent." 
 
3S2 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xx. 
 
 have confidered thofe trifles, and repelled the force of them, 
 I fiiall oniv conf-dcr them, in fo far as they belong to our fub- 
 ]ci\y and offer the few following animadverfions upon tliem. 
 
 I. 1 fay, if the layman miift, for the fake of thofe diiriculties, 
 quit revealed religion, he mull part with the DcilU' catholick 
 religion upon the fame; account. Herbert has told us, and it 
 vers indeed ridiculous to fay the contrary, that this catholick 
 trtUgion is comprehenfive not only of their five articles, but their 
 cxpiicatioijs. Now, are there not as many, and no lefs intricate 
 debates about this religion, as about that which is revealed ? 
 Is not its fufficicncy difputed? Muft not the layman read all 
 books, converfe with all learned men, &c. before he can reft 
 fatisfted in it ? Are there not intricate and perplexed difputes a- 
 bout the authority, extent, ufe, rpatter, and manner of the pro- 
 mulgation of the law of niture ? Where ihall the layman find 
 the notices ihat belong to this religion ? Shall he turn inward, 
 and find them infcribed upon his own mind ? So our author ad- 
 vifes. But learned men fay, and pretend to prove the con- 
 trary. And if mod men look into their own minds, they will 
 either fay with the latter that they are not there ; or complain that 
 they are become fo dim that they cannot read them unlefs fome 
 charitable Deifl will afford them his fpe6iacles. But when they 
 have got them, what fhall they do next for the explications? Are, 
 the explications written there too? The Deifts dare not fay it. 
 But thefe likewife are neceffary fay the Deifls, as we have heard 
 from BJount and Herbert before. Shall the laity confult the 
 Poftors about their meaning? But do not Do6\ors differ? Do 
 not the Magi, and not a few learned Greeks, as Zeno an4 
 Cryfippus, &c. teach Sodomy to be lawful ? Was it not 
 the judgment of others, that a wife man ought J^a'' /tAi\|.5/v te 
 
 KXi (/.oi^-^stVy K(x.i ispiJvKri'jiiv ev KXipM^ fjL'nOsv yxp raTwv Ovcrsi a.ia")(jpov aivxi } 
 
 that is, To fleal, and commit adultry and facrilegc upon occa-fions, 
 for none of thefe things are by nature evil- So Theodorus, as He- 
 fychius Illuftrius reports in his life *. Does not Arifiippus and 
 Carneades. with many others, overthrow the whole law of nature, 
 telling us, that nothing is naturally jufi: or unjuH:, good or evil, 
 but by virtue of fome arbitrary law ? Has not the fame opinion 
 been revived, broached and inculcated by Hobbs and others a- 
 mong ourfelves? Has not Plato long fince obferved in his 
 
 Phedoup 
 
 * Sec Dr. Owen on the Sabbath, Excrcit. 3. §.13. 
 
Pl^vINeiPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 3S3 
 
 Phedortj " That if any one name either filver or iron, prefent- 
 '* ly all men agree what it is that is intended ; but if they 
 ** fpeak of that which is juft or good, prefently we are at vari- 
 ** ance with others, and among ourfelves." In a word, he 
 that will cad at revelation, for its controverfies, is a fool to go 
 over to natural religion, in expectation to be free of contioverfy. 
 Thus we are at leaft upon a level with the Deifts. 
 
 2. If the layman, in defiance of the Deifts' queries, may 
 reach a fatisfying affurance of the divine authority of the fcrip- 
 tures, where is then the necf:ffity for his quitting revelation ? It 
 will quite evanifh. This, I fay, he may have, without trou- 
 bling his head about impertinent queries of this fort, if he duly 
 attend to that one, plain and rational dire6iion given by cur 
 X^ORD, John vii. 17. If any man will do his will, he Jliall 
 know of the, dodrinc, whether it be of God, or whether I fpeak 
 of rnyfelf. 
 
 The fcrlptures containing a full account of all the concerns 
 of the Chriftian religion, are exhibited to him, and put in his 
 hand by the church as a revelation from God, wherein all his 
 concerns for eternity are wrapped up. I do not plead, that 
 the teftimony of the church is a fufficient ground for bottoming 
 his faith. But this I fay, that the teflimony of the church is a 
 fufficient ground for any man to judge and conclude firmly, 
 that its pretcnfions are not contemptible, and that it deferves 
 the moft ferious confideration imaginable. But when 1 fpeak 
 of the church, to whofe tellimony this regard is to be paid, we 
 fet afide, as of no confideration, a multitude of perfons, whe- 
 ther of the clergy or laity, who do, in their praCtice vifibly 
 contradict the confelTed rules of their religion. Such perfons 
 are fcarce to be reckoned of any religion, and their terrinjoriV 
 js of no confideration, either for or againft religion. Nor do 
 we refirid the notion of the church to the reprelentatives of it, 
 much lefs to the Church of Rome, that monopolize this narr:e. 
 But 1 take it for that body of men, of whatever ftation or qual- 
 ity, who have received, and do a6f anfwerably to the Chrifiian 
 religion they profefs, in fome good meafure at leafl. Now 1 
 fay, the teftimony of this church, or body men, deferves great 
 regard in this matter. If we confider them, There are among 
 them perfons of untainted reputation, enemies themfelves be- 
 ing judges. Not a few of them are of unqueftionable judgmenf.. 
 deep diferning, folid learning, and firidl inquiries after truth. 
 They are not a fe^^ but many. Nor are they confined to one 
 *. ■ nation 
 
384 AN IInQ^UIRV into THE ghap.xx. 
 
 tiation or age, but fuch they have been in all ages, in lali 
 nations, where Chrinianity has obtained free arcefs. Many 
 ot them are perfons, whom envy itfelf cannot allege biaO'ed, 
 by external gain of one fort or of another. They are perfons 
 of ditFerent, nay crofs civil interefts, and of different out- 
 ward conditions. Such are the perfons who give this tefti- 
 n;ony. Again, if we confider their teflimony. They bear 
 witnefs to the Chriftian religion in all its concerns, its truth, 
 iufficiencv, ufefulnefs to all the ends of religion, with re- 
 ipeSt to time or eternity, and its efficacy for beginning, car- 
 rying on, maintaining, reviving and confummating fuch as 
 fmcerely receive it, in godlinefs towards God, righteoufnefs 
 towards men, fobriety ^vith refpe6l to ourfelves ; and that both 
 as to inward principles and outward acls. Further, if we con- 
 fider in what way they give in their teflimony, the weight of 
 it will appear. They bear witnefs to all this, not only by 
 their words, but by their deeds, living in a conformity to it, 
 parting with all that is deareft to them for it, cheerfully under^ 
 going the greateft hardOiips, patiently bearing the moft cruel 
 torments, to the lofs of life itfelf ; and this they do neither upon 
 mere conftraint, nor on the other hand, from a ralh and inad- 
 vertent negledl of a due regard to the unqueftionable advantages 
 of peace, health, iife? and the other good things they part with ; 
 but they venture upon doing and fuffering freely and of choice, 
 upon a fober, rational confideration of the advantage of cleav- 
 ing to their religion, and of its being fuch, as will do more 
 than compenfate any lofs they can fuiiain for it. Again, they 
 bear witnefs to the concerns of this religion, as to a thing that 
 tl'.ev h.ave not received upon bare hear-fay, but upon narrow 
 fcriitiny, as that whereof they have the experience. They do 
 not only give this teftimony, when it is new to them, but af- 
 ter long trial, when they are moll; fedate and compofed, and 
 when they can expedft nothing of advantage by it, and when 
 they muft lay their account with contempt, oppofition and lofs. 
 They give this teflimony in whatever place they are, where it 
 is honoured, or where it is oppofed. They give it with the 
 fircatefi concern, and recommend this religion to thofe whom 
 they would leaR: deceive, even vi'ith th6ir dying breath, when 
 they dare not diG'emble, and that after a long trial, in the courfe 
 cf their lives, in the greatel} variety of outward conditions, fuf- 
 ficient to have difcovered the weaknefs of their religion, if it 
 had any. They have made choice of this religion, and adhered 
 
 to 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 3S5 
 
 to it, under the greateft outward difau vantages, who were not 
 prspoffefled in its favour by education, but prejudged againlt 
 it ; and they have embraced it, where they had a free choice 
 to accept or reject it, and advantages to tempt them to a refufa!. 
 They do not require an implicit belief as Mahometans do, but 
 proi'oke to experience and trial. Now I dare boldly fay, that 
 fhis teflimony is a better, more plain, obvious, and every way more 
 juftitiable ground of rational ailent to the divine authority, truth, 
 efficacy, and fufficiency of the Chriftian religion, than can be 
 given for the like aflfent, to any other particular religion what- 
 ibever. Nay, there is more in this one teftimony, as it is, or 
 at leall: may be qualified with other circumftances, difcernible 
 even by the moft ordinary layman, here for brevity's fake omit*- 
 ted, (the urging of this in its full firength, not being my pre- 
 fent defign) than can be offered for all the other religions in the 
 world, natural, or pretending to revelation, were all that can 
 be faid for them altogether put in one argument. Any reafon- 
 able man cannot but think his eternal concerns fafer in follow- 
 ing this fociety, than any other whatfoever : There is not fuch 
 another company elfewhere to be met with, as might be dc- 
 monftrated to the convi6\ion of the ftiffeft oppofer. But this J 
 plead not at prefent, I fay not, that he fhould build his per- 
 fualion of ChriQianity upon this teftimony. All that I make of 
 it is this, That he has reafon to confider the fcriptures, as thus 
 attefied, as a book that has, at leaft, very plaufible preterices to 
 divinity, a book that deferves ferious perulal, a book that can- 
 not poffibly have any obvious and unqueftionable arguments of 
 impofture, and confeqaently, that it deferves to be read through, 
 and fully heard before it is caft ; and that though there occur in 
 it fomc things that he cannot prefently underftand, or whofe ufc 
 and value he cannot take up, he ought not therefore to be pre- 
 judged againfi: the divine authority of the book upon the account 
 of them, till, at leaft, it is heard to an end. For, who knows 
 not, that things which appear incredible, unreafonable, yea 
 ridiculous, before their caufes, order and defign are underftood, 
 may, upon acquaintance with thefe, appear convincingly cre- 
 dible, uieful, and every way reafonable ? This is ail 1 claim of 
 the layman at prefent, and he deferves not the name of a re?.- 
 fonable man who will deny it upon fuch a ground. And if the 
 Deifts had confidered this, we had not been troubled with the 
 many chiidirn and trifling prejudices, wherewith their Oracics of 
 Reafon and otiier books are fluffed. Nor could they have been 
 
 B b b (liver ted 
 
38^ AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xm. 
 
 diverted from the ierlcus connderation of the fcriptures, by fuch 
 pitiful exceptions. 
 
 Well, the Icriptures being put into the layman's hand, thus 
 attefted, he fets himfelf to the perufal of them, and fiich a pe- 
 rufal as the cafe requires ; looking to God for dire6tion, he tries 
 the means appointed by them, for fatisfa6lion as to iheir divinity. 
 While he Is feeking light from God, in fuch a matter, he dare 
 not expe6i it, if he continue in the negle6l of known duty, or 
 the commitTion of kiicv/n fin, and therefore he fiudies to avoid 
 them. He is refoived to follow truth, as it is difcovered, and 
 to fubfcribe to the fcripture pretenfions, if they give fufficient 
 evidence of themfeives. Nothing is here refoived, but what is 
 reafonable beyond exception. In purfuance of this jufl re- 
 Iblution, he reads them, and upon his perufal, v/hat pafTages 
 he cannot underfiand, or reach the reafon of, he paffes at pre- 
 fent and goes on, till he fee further what may be the intention 
 of them. And he finds in plain and convincing expreilions, 
 his own cafe, and the cafe of all men by nature, clearly 
 difcovered, and urged upon him by this book ; the words 
 pierce his foul, dive into his confcience, and make manifeft 
 'i\^Q fecrets of his heart, (known to none but God) manifeft his 
 fins, in their nature and tendency, add all their concern- 
 ments. His confcience tells him, all this is true to a tiile,- 
 though he did not know it before, and none other fave the 
 heart-fearching God, could know v/hat was tranfa61ed within 
 h\s heart, though overlooked by himfelf. The difcovery not 
 only carries with it an evidence of truth, which his confcience 
 lubfcribes to ; bqt the words wherein it is expreffed, bear in 
 themfeives upon his foul with a light, authority and majefty for- 
 merly unknov/n, evidencing their meaning and truth, and fil- 
 ling the foul with unufual and awful imprefhons of the majefly 
 and authority of the fpeaker. Thus being convinced and judged, 
 and the Jecrets of his heart made manifcjlj he is forced to faU 
 down and acknoxvledge, that God is in the word of a truth. And 
 he is ready to fay, Come fee a book tliat told 7ne all that ever I did 
 in my life, is not this the book of God ? Thus he flands trcm- 
 biing under the fenfe of the w^ralh of God, due to him for his 
 iins. He reads on, and iinds in the fame book a difcovery of 
 reluf, propofed frequently in plain palfnges. He is urged to an 
 acceptance of it. The difcovery carries along with it a full evi- 
 dence Qi \.k\Q fuitahlenefs, excellency , and advantage of the reme- 
 dy : And by a gufl of its goodnefsi or inward {t.x\it^ he is drawn 
 
 to 
 
PRINCIPLES OF TxHE MODERN DEISTS. 387 
 
 to an approbation. Upon this approbation the promifed effecls 
 follow. His fears are difTipaled, his hopes revived, his ibul is 
 made acquainted with formerly unknown aqd God>becoming 
 expreffions of the nature and excellencies of God, and going 
 iViii on every day, repeated experience occur of the jullnefs of 
 the difcoveries the word makes of himfelf, the authority of its 
 commands, faithfulnefs of its promifes, the awfulnefs of its 
 threatnings, none of which fall to the ground. He, In a 
 word, has repeated experience cf the unparalleled efficacy of 
 the whole, for the cure of his darknefs, his corruption, &c, 
 which defpifed other applications; and towards his advance- 
 ment to a fincere and confcientious regard to ail his duties, 
 outward and inward, toward God and man. 
 
 Let us now but fuppofe this to be the cafe with thic man upon 
 his perufal of the fcriptures, though with refpe(5t to innumera- 
 ble fouls, it is more than a bare i'uppofition : upon this fuppo- 
 lition, I fay, i. The man has the higheft lecurity he can de- 
 fire, that tliis book is, as to its Tubftance, the very word of 
 Gpd, as certainly as if it were fpoken to him immediately by 
 a voice from heaven. This cannot well be denied by any that 
 underftands this fuppofition. 2. I fay, the man thus convinced 
 may laugh at all Herbert's queries as Impertinent. He finds 
 God fpeaking by the word, and owning it for his. He needs 
 not therefore trouble himfelf who wrote it, or whether they 
 were honefi men who tranlcrlbed it, or whetl|er they performed 
 their part, whether it was defigned for him ;^and the like may- 
 be laid of all his other queries. He will find no occafion for 
 that dinin61ion htX^ixX traditional or original revelation ^ menti- 
 oned by Herbert,'and infixed upon by Mr. Locke,* on what de- 
 lign I leave others to judge. In this cafe, as to the fubftance, 
 it is all one to him, as if it had not corns through another hand, 
 nor has he reafon to furpe61-, that God v,'culd permit to creep 
 into, or Hand in a book, whIcJi for the (vh^Xd^v.cQ ^ he Oill owns 
 and evinces to be from him, any thing of a coarfer alloy, at 
 leaft any fuch corruption as might make it unworthy of hirn to 
 own it, or unfafe to ufe it to the defign it xvas given for : Yea, 
 he has the ftrongeft fecurity that the perfeciions and providence 
 of God can afford, to reft fully allured of the contrary. He has 
 no reafon to be tumbled at paffages that he cannot und^rOand, 
 or fuch as by others are reckoned ridiculous, but rallier to fav. 
 
 witji 
 
 * L^jcke's E\Bv on Hum» UnderRand. Book 4. Cap^ 18. i 6, 7, 8\ 
 
388 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xx. 
 
 with Socrates, in another cafe, " What I underftand I admire, 
 ** and am fully convirrced to be every v;ay worthy of its author; 
 ** and therefore I conclude what I underfiand not, to be equally 
 ** excellent, and that it would appear fo if I underOood all lis 
 ** concerns," Finally, This fuppofition takes off all pretence 
 of hefitation about tlie meaning of the fcripfurcs, as to what the 
 man is particularly concerned in. The l^ory of the neceffity 
 of an infallible judge, is built upon this fuppofition. That the 
 Icrlptures are lb obfcure in matters neceQarily relating to the 
 taith and pra6lice of the vulgar, that they cannot be underfiood 
 by them fatisfyingly, in the nfe of appointed means. This fup- 
 pofition is palpably falfe, contrary to fcripture, reafon and ex- 
 perience, as is evinced by our writers againfi the Papifls, who 
 fYjily confider their pleas, and particularly thofe which Her- 
 bert and the Deifis have borrowed from them, who may be 
 confulted hy the reader. 
 
 3. Thus far I have made appear, that the layman has the 
 jufleft reafon in the world to look upon it as his duty, or the 
 will of God, that he ihould give the fcrlptures fuch a perufaL 
 2. That in doing his will there is a way, at leaft, fuppofable, 
 wherein he may reach full fatisfadlion in his own mind, in defi- 
 ance of the Deifis' queries about the divinity of the icriptures, 
 and reach the higheft rational fecurity, even that of faith, bot- 
 tomed upon divine tefiimony, and inward fenfe or experience ; 
 whicli Herbert himfelf, upon all occafions, truly afferts to be 
 the higheQ certainty. I Ihali new advance one flcp further, and 
 aiTert, that this is more than a mere fuppofition, that it is matter 
 of fa6t, that they, who do receive the fcriptures in a due man- 
 ner, eipeciaiiy among the laity or illiterate, do find and reft 
 upon this ground in their perfuafion. Upon this ground it was 
 alone, that multitudes did at firft receive it, and for it reject 
 tnz religions they were bred in ; and not as the Deifis imagine, 
 upon a blind veneration to teachers, piiefis or preachers, whom, 
 by education, they were taught to abhor : And upon this ground 
 they fiill do adhere to it, and receive it as written in the fcrip- 
 tuies. The words of Mr. Baxter, as I find them quoted by 
 Mr. Wilfon (for 1 have not fecn Baxter's book in anfwer to 
 Herbert de Veritatc) are remarkable to this purpofe, ** 1 think, 
 ** fiiys he. That in the very hearing or reading, God's Spirit of- 
 ** ten fo concurreth as thai the will iticlf fhould be touched wich 
 *' an internal guft or ia'our of the goodnefs contained in the 
 *' doclriije, and at the fame timt the underfianding with an 
 
 ** internal 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 389 
 
 ** Internal irradiation, which breeds fuch a fudden apprehen- 
 ** fion of the verity of it, as nature gives men of natural prin- 
 *' ciples. And I am perfuaded, that this increafed by more 
 ** experience and love, and inward gufls, doth hold moft Chrif- 
 ** tians faftcr to Chrift, than naked reafonings could do. And 
 ** were it not for this, unlearned ignorant perfons v/ere ftill in 
 ** danger of apoftafy, by every fubtle caviller that aflaults 
 *' them. And I believe that all true Chriftians have this kind 
 *' of internal knowledge, from the fuitablenefs of the truth and 
 ** gooiinefs of the gofpel to their new-quickened, illuminated, 
 ** fancSrified fouls*." The apoftle tells us, God who commanded 
 the light to ikine out of darknefsj hath fltined into our hearts, to 
 give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of 
 Jejus Chrijh — If the Deift fay. How proves the layman this to 
 me V I anfwer. That is not the queftion. For the defign of 
 the Deifts in thefe queries, is ta prove, that the layman cannot 
 be affured about the original and meaning of revelation in his 
 own mind, and io muft clofe with their catholick religion. Now 
 in dire6l contradiction to this, I fay, here is a ground to ftand 
 upon. And if he has this ground, even a fober Deift muft allow 
 he has no reafon to be moved from it, but muft fully know that 
 the doBrines are of God, And fo I have overthrown the defign 
 of the query. As for the Deifts' queftion, How he proves it to 
 others ? it is impertinent. It is not reafonable to expe6t, that 
 every common man can ftop the mouths of gain-fayers. It is 
 enough for him, if he can give a reafon, which is good, and muft 
 be owned fuch in itfelf. If the Deift queftions matters of fa6i:, 
 that he finds matters fo and fo ; I anfwer, A blind man may 
 queftion whether I fee this paper now before me ; and yet I 
 have good reafon to believe it is there, though I ftiould fail of 
 convincing him. 
 
 If the Deift fay, I have perufed the icriptures, and found no 
 fuch efFe6t; I anfwer, in matters of experience one affirmative 
 proves more than twenty negatives; unlefs the application is in 
 all refpe6\s equal, and the efFe6l depend upon a neceffary caufe: 
 For where a voluntary agent is the caufe of the effect, there it 
 does not neceflarily follow upon the like application. But to 
 wave this general, which would require more room to explain, 
 than 1 can allow it in this place, I fay further, to the complain- 
 
 er, 
 
 * Baxter's Animad. on Herbert de Verii. pag. 155. quoted by M. 
 J. Wilfon, Scriptures interpreter alTerted, Appendix pag. 20. 
 
590 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. xx. 
 
 er, Have you given the fcrlptiires fuch a perufal, as I have prov- 
 ed in a way of duty you are obliged to do? Have you ufed the 
 iT»eans, in fo far, at ieaft, as is poffible for you ? Have you 
 fought, have 3^ou waited for God's guidance and prefervation 
 from rnlRake, and from unjuft prejudices againft hini, his works 
 his word, (if this be fuch) and his ways? Do you carefully iludy 
 to avoid what may reafonably be thoupjit, even by a confiderate 
 Heathen, to obflru6i the grant of the ailiflance defired from God? 
 Do you carefully avoid known fin? Do you endeavour the per- 
 formance of what you know to be duty? Are you refolved to 
 follow in pra6\ice where light leads? If you dare not frankly 
 anfwer, you have no reafon to complain* For my own part, I 
 am perfuaded, that in fact, none who have done his will even 
 thus far, have reafon to table a complaint againfl the word. 
 Others Mdio take a quite contrary courfe,are unreafonable in the 
 complaint. Difputes about what might be the cafe, upon fup- 
 poiition of a perfon's doing ail, that in his prefent circumftances 
 he is able to do, and yet mifs of fatisfa6iion as to the divine au- 
 thority of the word, until the fubjedl of this queftion be found, 
 I think not myfelf concerned in, at Ieaft in a controverfy with 
 the Deifts. It is unreafonable to queftion thefcripture's author- 
 ity, or the evidence of it, upon fuppofitions that never were in 
 being, and I am perfuaded, never ihall have a being. 
 
 But thefe things I leave. This difpute lies wholly out of our 
 road. But I have been obliged to this digreflion, in purfuit of 
 the Deifts' impertinent queries. I fay impertinent, becaufe, 
 were all granted that is aimed at in thefe queries, it will not a- 
 vail one rufti, towards the proof of the point the Deifts are on, 
 viz. the validity of their religion : For were revealed religion 
 uncertain, is it a good confequence, that therefore the Deifts' 
 religion is certain ? What I have faid in defence of revealed re- 
 ligion, I would have to be looked upon only as a digreiiion, 
 and not as a full declaration of my opinion ; much lefs would I 
 have this underftood as the fubftance of vvhat can be pleaded on 
 behalf of that blcfied book that has brought life andvtmnortaitly 
 to light. This is not the hundredth part of what even I could 
 fay, were this my fubje6t. And others have faid, and can 
 plead much more than I am able. Hov/ever, this I owed to the 
 truth of God, Such as would fee all thefe pretences againft re- 
 velation, repelled, are defired to confult thofe, who delignedly 
 treat of this'fubje^t. 
 
 There 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 39! 
 
 There are other things in thefe queries now animadverted up- 
 on, that deierve rather contempt than an anfwer. In particular,' 
 it is fuppofed, as one of the principal foundations of thofe twcj 
 queries, now under confideration. That a man cannot reach 
 certainty in his own mind upon foiid grounds, and rationally 
 acquiefce in it as fuch, unlefs ** he knows all that can be faid 
 ** againfl it, read ail books, converfe with all learned men^ 
 *' «Scc." than which there is not a more extravagant exprefiion in 
 B(:vis and Garagantua. Admit it, and I (hall demonftrate a- 
 gainft any that will undertake it, that nothing is certain. I 
 cannot but admire that fo learned a perfon as Herbert could ufe 
 fuch an extravagant fuppofition. But what will not a bad caufe 
 drive a man upon ? 1 his confirms what is ordinarily obferved, 
 that there is no opinion, however unreafonable, but has feme 
 learned man for its patron, if not inventor. 
 
 We {hall now go on to the reft of the queries, which will be of 
 more eafy difpatch. That I have dwelt fo long upontbefe two, 
 is out Of a regard to revelation and its honour, and not from anv 
 weight in the queries. As for them, this alone had been a fuf- 
 ficient anfwer, which I propofe in a way of a counter-query^ 
 and conclude with it — *' If a layman that is illiterate cannot be 
 '* fatisfied as to tlie truth of revealed religion, how doth this 
 ** prove the Deifts' five articles to be a fufficient and good re- 
 ** ligion." 
 
 Query Vh *' Suppofing all true in tlieir originals, and in 
 '* their explications, whether yet they be fo good for the in- 
 ** ftru6\ing of mankir?d, that bring pardon of fin upon fuch 
 '* eafy terms, as to believe the bufinefs is dene to our hand?" 
 And, 
 
 Query VIL ** Whether tipis dotlrine doth not derogate from 
 '* virtue and goodnefs, while our beft a6iions are reprefentcd as 
 ** iraperfe<5l and fiiiful, and that it is impoflible to keep the ten 
 ** commandments, fo as God will accept of our acSlionfj, doing 
 ** the beR we can?" Thus Blount gives us Herbert's fixth query 
 in two.* There is no material difference in Herbert, fave only 
 that he harps upon the old ftring, and fpends himfelf in bitter 
 invectives againit the fcripture-do6lrine about the decrees of God, 
 of which we have faid enough before. And therefore I think it 
 iieedlefs to burden this paper wiih liis woid?. 
 
 " The 
 
 * Blount Rel. Laici, pag* 91. 92. 
 
^ip AN INdOiRY INTO THE ciur. xk. 
 
 The two former queries (truck at fcripture-revelation itfelf, 
 thele two ftrike at the matter contained in the fcriptures. And 
 here there is a double charge laid againft the dodlrine revealed 
 in the fcriptures, as black as hell can invent, and as faiie as 
 it is black. The fixth query charges it with favouring fin, by 
 bringing pardon upon too eafy terms ; and the ieventh charges 
 It with derogating from virtue. 
 
 For an anfwer to both, I might oppone experience* Sin is 
 no where by any fo oppofed, virtue no where fo fi ncerely cul- 
 tivated, as among thofe who fincereiy receive the do6lfine of 
 fatisfaBioHy and believ^e the utmofi as to the ijiahility of man in 
 his prefent fallen cafe, without fupernatural ailiftance, and 
 gracious acceptance, to pleafe God. Dare the Dcifts compare 
 with them in this refpe6t ? If they fhould, 1 know what would 
 be the iffue, if the judge had confciecce or honefty. A Socra- 
 tes, Seneca or Plato, defervcs not to be named in the fame day 
 ivith the meaneft feriousChriftian, that believes thefe do6lrines, 
 either with refpecl to piety toward God, or duty toward man. 
 
 But as to thenrft charge, 1 fay the ground of it is falfe ; the 
 query is difingenuous and deceitful. The ground of it is a fup- 
 pohtion, that revelation excludes the neceflity of repentance. 
 This is manifeftly falfe : both Herbert and Blount knew it to 
 be falfe ; and could not but do fo, if ever they read the Bible 
 And the query comparing revelation upon this known mifre- 
 prefentation, with natural religion, is fhamcfuUy difingenuous. 
 Let the query be, Whether it is more favourable to fin, to fay, 
 it is not to be pardoned without a fatisfa6lion to jufiice by Chrift, 
 and repentance upon our part, as revelation teaches ; or, that 
 upon our repentance merely, God is obliged to pardon it, as 
 the Deifts (ay ? Now, I leave it to the Deifls to anfwer this. 
 
 As to the fecond charge, revelation derogates nothing from 
 virtue. It teaches indeed that our bell a6fions are imperfedl, 
 and he knows not what perfedion means, or what is required 
 thereto, that will deny it. It teaches that they who are in the 
 flejli cannot pleajt God. It talks at another rate than Herbertj 
 ot the condition of finful man, as to acceptance with God. He 
 gives him a direction, ** Cumbonum pro virili pr^cJiaSf vurce- 
 ** dem a bonitatc ilia Jiipremd pcte^ exige., hah ; quo paBo re- 
 *' vera fapies**'' 1 hat is, " Manfully perform your duty as 
 ** you can, and (v/hatever fin remain) alk, demand, and have 
 
 ** your 
 
 * Herbert de Vciitate, rag. io8. 
 
PklNClFLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 393 
 
 ** your reward. This js the way to be truly wife." This pe- 
 tulent advice the fcripture does not juftify, and fober rcafon re- 
 probrates. Where i\n interveens, whatever the finncr does, in 
 way of obedience, I conceive it will be as good wifdom as our 
 author teaches him, to be very fober with his deijiciuls, Ect 
 to return : Revelation, by teaching man's inability, doth net 
 hinder him from virtue; but takes him off from his own ftrength, 
 which would fail him in the performance, and leads him where 
 he may get (Irength, and where innumerable perfons have got 
 ftrength to perform duty acceptably ; and it points to the only 
 ground, whereon fmful and imperfe61 obedience can be accent- 
 ed with, or expedt a reward from God. 
 
 Q^uery VIIL *' Whether fpeaking good words, thinking 
 *^ good thoughts, and doing good a6ticns, he not the jud cx- 
 *' ercife of a man's life ? Or that without embracing the fcrefaid 
 *' five principles or fundamentals, it be impcffible to keep peace 
 ** among men, that God may be well ferved ?" Thus Blount*. 
 This is Herbert's feventh and laO query, and he only adds one 
 claufe to it, wanting here ; *' Whether the layn-an may not 
 */ fpend his time better in thcfe exercifcs mentioned, than if lie 
 ** emplcved it in deciding contrcvcrfies he does net under- 
 *^ fland.f" 
 
 The fuppcfsd neceflity for tli^ layman perplexing himfelf with 
 contrive: r.es, at wliich Herbert lx:rc aims, in cafe he fee meet 
 to embrace revebtion, we have above weiglied and raft. But 
 as \o the query itfeif, it is utterly impertinent. For this is the 
 qucO.ion tiicy fhou'd have propofed, " Whether their religion 
 *' is fufHcient to bring a man to thefe juR exerciics, and to 
 *' m-intain peace in fociety r" And not as thev propofe if, 
 " Whether thefe exercifes be in themfclves good ?" which no- 
 body denies: let this be the queftion, and v/e anfwer negatively. 
 For this <ve have given fufScient reafons above. 
 
 Oueiy IX, '* Whether the forefaid five principles do ret bcfi: 
 *' agree with the precepts given in the ten corr;mandrrents, and 
 ** with the two precepts of Jefus Chrii), viz. To love God above 
 ** all, and cur neighbour as ourfelves? as well as with the 
 ** v/ordsof St. Peter, That in every nation he that feareth God, 
 ** and worketh rigUiecuiaels is accepted cf Gcd t ?" 
 
 C c c ' This 
 
 * Blount Rel. Laic], pag. 92. + Heib. Kck Lajci. Ap.en. 
 
 1 Blount, ibid, pag. 92, 93. 
 
394 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xx. 
 
 This query Is the fame with Flerbert's feventh and laft per- 
 fuafive to Deifm, vv'hich we have anfwered above. It is fallely 
 iuppofed that revelati®n teaches, that the knowledge cf the ten 
 commands, or Cliriil's fummary of them, Is fufficient to falva- 
 tion. Yea, revelation teaches exprefsly, that no man can prac- 
 tife them without grace from Chrift, and that there is no other 
 way of falvatlon but by faith in him. Again, it is falfely fuppo- 
 ied, that the agreement cf thefe articles with (that is to fay, their 
 not contradiding) thcfe commands, proves them a fufficient re- 
 ligion. This argument, if it proves any thing, it proves too 
 much; for it v/ili prove any one of them alone to be fufficient. 
 If the Delfts mean, that their five articles, not only are not in- 
 confiftent with, but fufficient to bring men the length required 
 by the ten commands, our Lord's fummary of them, or to fear 
 God and work rigkteoufnefsy as Cornelius did : I anfwer nega- 
 tively to the queftion, they can bring no man to this. Corne- 
 lius, of whom Peter fpeaks, had embraced the Old Teftament 
 revelation. What Peter fpeaks of men of all nation being ac- 
 etptid with God, relates to the difcovery God had made to him 
 ©f his defign to admit men of all nations promlfcuoufly to accep- 
 tance with him through the gofpel-revelation : And confequently, 
 that the opinion hitherto received by Peter and other Jews, of 
 the continued confinement of revealed religion and its privileges 
 to Ifrpel, was a miRake. So that this place helps net the De- 
 ilh, if it is not cut ofi from its fcope and cohefion, or interpre- 
 ted without refpefl to it. This vvay of interpretation offcrip- 
 ture is not fafe. I know not where Mr. Blcunt learned it; 
 but I can tell him where there is a precedent of it— *Matt. iv. 
 And if the Deiils have a n:ind to follow that precedent, they 
 liiall not be followed by me. 
 
 Qiitry X. *' Whether the doctrine of faith can by human rea- 
 '* fon be fupnofed or granted to be infallible, unlefs we are in- 
 *' faliibly aifured, that thofe who teach this doclrine do know 
 *' the fecret counfels of God ?*" 
 
 To this I anhver. That I am fufficiently fecured as to the In- 
 fallible certainty of the dod^rine, if I have received the fcrip- 
 tures upon the ground above-mentioned, without fuppofing any 
 who now teach it, to have any further acquaintance with the fe- 
 cret counfels of God, than the word gives them. 
 
 Q^ucry 
 
 * Blount Pvel. Liiiti, pa^. 95. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 395 
 
 Q^uery XL " Whether all things in the fcriptures, (befides the 
 " moral part, which agrees vviih our five principles) luch as pro- 
 *' phecy, miracles and revelations, depeiiding on the hiHory, 
 ** may not be fo far examined, as to be made appear by what 
 ** authority they are or miay be received *?" 
 
 I anfwer, Revelation, in all its parts, is capable to ftand the 
 tcft of the ftri6\eft trial, provided it be jufr, and managed as 
 becomes it. But I rauft tell the Deifts one thing in their ear. 
 That if the fcriptures once evince themfelves to be from God, 
 i)y fufTicient evidence, they are obliged, upon their peril, to re- 
 ceive all that it teaches them, though they cannot prove it by 
 reafon; nay, nor eiiplain it. But what if any revealed do£\rine 
 be contrary to reafon ? Upon the forgoing fuppontion, this que- 
 ry cannot be excufed of blafphemy, but is highly impertinent 
 and unreafonable. 
 
 Query XIL ** Whether in human reafon any one may, or 
 ** ought to be convinced by one fingle teftimony, fo far as to be- 
 ** lieve things contrary to, or befides reafon f?" 
 
 One Jingle tefiimony is writ in a different chara6\er in the que- 
 ry, perhaps to give us to underfland, that by it is meant the 
 tefiimony of the revealer, God» And it cannot reafonably be 
 underftood of any other : for upon no other fingle Ujlimony favc 
 that of Godi is an aflent to revelation demanded, or pleaded 
 for, by thofe he oppofes. 
 
 This being premifed, I fay this query confifts, and is made 
 up of three as impious fuppofitions as can enter the thoughts of 
 any of the fons of men ; befides that they are mutually deflruc- 
 tive of one another, i. It fuppofes that the one fingle tefiimo- 
 ny of God is not a fufficient warrant for believing whatever he 
 ftiall reveal. 2. It fuppofes that a revelation come from God 
 may contain things really contradictory to our reafon. 3. \t 
 fuppofes that the (ingle teilimony of God is not a fufficlent ground 
 to believe things that are befides our reafon, though they be not 
 contrary to it, that is, truths, which we cannot prove by reafon, 
 or about which there are fome difficulties that we cannot folve. 
 Take thefe three impious fuppofitions out of the query, 'and it 
 }i:.s no difRculty in it. If once we fuppofe a revelation to be 
 from God, we mufi; lay afide the fecond fuppofition as impcfTi- 
 ble, viz. That it can contain any tiling really contrary to reajou 
 Set afide this, which makes the ({wzxy Jclo dt fe^ defiroy iuelf, 
 
 and 
 * Elcunt Rel, Laid, pag, 9j|, f Ibid, pag. 94. 
 
396 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ghap. xx. 
 
 and let the qiieRion be propofed. Whether we may believe upon 
 thQ Jif?oJe fejiirnony of God whatever does liot really contradict 
 our reaion, though it contains feme difficulties, which we can- 
 not folve? And then I fay, it Is impious to deny it, 
 
 Ojiery XllL And laflly, ** Whether, if It were granted they 
 ** had revelations, I am obliged to accept of another's revela- 
 ** tion for the ground of my faith? EfpeciaJly if it doth any 
 ** WTxy oppofe thefe five articles, that are grounded upon the 
 ** law of nature, which is God's univerfal magna charta, enait- 
 ** ed by the All-wife and Supreme Being, from the beginning 
 ^' of the world, and therefore not to be deftroyed or altered by 
 ** every whin ling prcclaniation of an enthufiaft *." 
 
 This query is of the fame alloy v/ith the former. To it we 
 anfwer fhortly, The Cbriftian revelation, (in others we are not 
 concerned) exhibits matters of univerfal concernment, upon 
 evidence of their divinity, capable to fatisfy thofe who now 
 live, as well as thofe to whom they M'ere originally made ; and 
 jfo arc Impertinently called another s revelation. And we are 
 obliged to receive it as the ground of our faith, and rule of our 
 ]3ra6iice as much as they. The fuppofitlon that is added, that 
 it contains do6)rines or precepts contrary to the law of nature, 
 is Impious and falfe. What he adds further about the " whilHIng 
 proclamations of enthufiafis," if it is not applied to the facred 
 writers, we are not concerned in It. If it is applied to thepi, 
 Firjl, It is falfe, that they taught any thing contrary to the law 
 of nature. Secondly, It is impious to call them, in way of con- 
 tempt, entliujiajl$ ; or, at leaft, it Is intolerably bold for any 
 man to call them fuch, before he has proven it ; which he never 
 did, nor v/ill all the Deirts on earth ever be able to do. 
 Thirdly, It was rude and unmannerly to treat them with fo much 
 contempt, efpeclally without arguments proving the charge, 
 whom the whole authority of the land, all the perfons vefted 
 with If, and the body of the people, refpedt as men Infallibly 
 directed of God. Fourthly, It v.as difingenuous to treat them 
 thus, after fuch pretenfions as our author had made of refpeft to 
 them, in this and his other books. 
 
 Finally, Mr. Blount, inOead of a fourteenth query, concludes 
 with the teftimony of Jufiin Martyr, as probative of his point. 
 His words run thus, "Finally, fubmitting my difcourfe to my 
 *' impartial and judicious reader, I Ihall conclude with the faying 
 
 *\ of 
 * .Blount Rel. Laici, pag, 94, 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 397 
 
 '' cf Juftin Martyr, ApoL cont. Tnphon, pag. 83. " That all 
 " thoie v^ho lived according to the rule of realbn, were Chrif- 
 ** tiaiis, notwiihftanding that they might have been accounte-d 
 ^* as Arheifts ; fuch as among the Greeks were Socrates, Hier- 
 '* aclitus, and the like; and among the Barbarians, Abraham 
 *« and Azarias : For all thofe who lived, or do now live, ac- 
 '* cording to the rule of reafon, are Chriftians, and in an afl'ured 
 *' quiet condition *," 
 
 As to this teftimony of Juflin Martyr, it is not probative with 
 us; though we honour the fathers, yet we do not think ourfelves 
 obliged to fubmit to all their di6tates. This is faid, but not 
 proven by him, either by fcripture or reafon. And I fear not 
 to fay, It is more than he or any other can prove. Abraham is 
 impertinently claffed amongft thofe who wanted revelation ; So- 
 crates and Hieraclitus, in fo far as they lived according to rea- 
 i'on, are alTuredly praife-worthy, and upon this account are not 
 to be reckoned Atheifts. That they were Chriflians I flatly 
 deny. Nor can it be proven from fcripture or reafon that their 
 condition is ajfuredly quiet. And further than this I am not 
 concerned to pafs any judgment about their ftate at prefent ; 
 What it is that day zoill manifejl* 
 
 Blount Rel. Laici, pag, 94, 95. 
 
 END OF THE INQUIRY. 
 
A N 
 
 ESSAY 
 
 CONCERNING THE 
 
 NATURE OF FAITHi 
 
 O R, 
 
 THE GROUND UPON WHICH 
 
 Faith affents to the Scriptures: 
 
 \V HEREIN 
 
 THE OPINION OF THE RATIONALISTS ABOUT IT, IS PROPOSED 
 
 AND EXAMINED, ESPECIALLY AS IT IS STATED BY 
 
 THE LEARNED MR. LOCKE IN HIS BOOK ON 
 
 HUMAN UNDERSTANDING* 
 
 Br THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 

 AN E S S A Y, &c. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Containing fome general Remarks concerning Kn.owledget Faiths 
 and particular iy divine Faiths and that both as to the faculty 
 and aElings thereof » 
 
 ALL knowledge is commonly, and that not unfitly, refer- 
 red to the underftanding or intellective power of the 
 mind of man, which is converfant about truth. Our affent to, 
 or perfuafion of any truth is founded, either i. Upon the immedi- 
 ate perception of the agreement or difagreement of our ideas, 
 and io is called intuitive knowledge. Or 2. It refults from a 
 comparifon of our ideas with fome intermediate ones, which 
 helps us to difcern their agreement or difagreement; and this 
 goes under the name of rational knowledge. Or 3. It leans 
 upon the information of our fenfes, and this is fcnjihle know^ 
 ledge. Or 4, It depends upon the teftimony of credible witnef- 
 les. And this is faith. 
 
 i'aitk agii'm, if it is founded upon the tePilrnony of angels, 
 may be termed angelical ; if on the teftimony of men, human; 
 and if it is founded on the teftimony of God, it is called divine 
 faith: It is of this lafl; we defign to difcourfe, as what particu- 
 larly belongs to our prefent purpofe. 
 
 When wa fpeak of divine faith, we either mean the faculty 
 or power whereby we affent unto divine teftimony ; or the af- 
 fent given by that power. Bpth are fignified by that name, and 
 faith is promifcuoufly ufed for the one or other* 
 
 D d d Faith 
 
402 AN ESSAY CONCERNiNG| 
 
 Faith, as it denotes the faculty, power or ability of Our minds 
 to perceive the evidence of, and aflent to divine teflimony, is 
 again either ncitural ox J'upernaturat, That naturally v/e have.?- 
 faculty capable of afl'euling in Ibme fort to divine teflimony, ir, 
 denied bv none, fo far as I know. BiU that ability whereby we 
 are at lead habitually fitted, difpofed and enabled to alTent in a 
 due manner to, and receive with a juft regard, the teiiinnonycl" 
 God, no iiwn by nature has. This is a fupernaturai gift. 
 
 Several queuions i know are moved concerning this abiiily. 
 It belongs not to my fubject, neither doth my inclination lead 
 me to dip much in them at prefent, I (hail only fugged the few 
 remarks enfuing. 
 
 1. It feems unquePiionably clear, that man originally had a 
 pov/er, ability or faculty capable of pcrccivirig, difcerning and 
 aUbnting to divine revelations upon their proper evidence : For 
 it is plain, that God did reveal himfelf to man in innocency,. 
 and that he made man capable of converfe with himfelf. But if 
 inch a faculty, as this we fpeak of, had been -wanting, he had 
 neither been capable of thofe revelations, nor fitted for con- 
 verfe with God. 
 
 2. It may moO; convincingly be made out, That all our fa- 
 culties have fufFered a dreadful fhock, andare mightily iujpaired 
 by the entrance of fin, and corruption of our natures thereon en- 
 fuing ; and particularly our underdandings are fo far difabled, 
 efpeciaily in things pertaining unto God, that we cannot in a 
 dv.Q manner, perceive, difcern or entertain divine revelations 
 upon their proper evidence, unto the glory of God, and our 
 own advantage, unlefs our natures are fupernaturally renewed. 
 But this notwithflanding, the faculty of affenting to divine tcfb'- 
 mony is not-quite loft, though it is impaired and rendered unfit 
 for perfor^^ming its proper work in a due manner. I know none 
 who alTcrts, that any of our faculties v/ere entirely ioft by the 
 fall.* In renovation our faculties are renewed, but there is no 
 v/ord of implanting new ones. It is certain, unrenewed men, 
 fuch as Balaam and others, have had revelations made to them, 
 and did affent to thofe revelations. Nor is it kfs cl^ir, that 
 the devils believe and tremble- 
 
 3. Wliether 
 
 * '« We cannot conceive how reafon fhould be prejudiced ^by the 
 *' advancement of the rational faculties of our fjuls with rcfped unto 
 *f their exercife toward their proper objeds ; which is all we affign 
 <* unto the work of the Holy Spirit in this m.uter." Dr. O^vcii o-z 
 ihe Sph-iti- Preface, pag^, 9. 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 403 
 
 ^. V/hetlicr men, in a (late of nature, whore niirds are not 
 renc-A^cd, uizy not io far difcern and be affe(Sted by the cha- 
 raftcrs and evidences of Gcd impreft upon divine revelations, 
 particularly the fcriptures, where thofe evidences fl;ine brightly, 
 as thereby to be obliged, and ailuaiiy drawn to give (omQ ibrt 
 of affent into the teftimony of God, I fhali ndt pcfitively deter- 
 mine : though the afririnative feems probable to me. The 
 imprefs of a Deity is no iefs evident on the i'criptures than hiy 
 other works. He has magnijied this word alDve all his name. 
 Befides, I do not fee, how the very faculty itfelf can be thought. 
 to remain, if it is not capable of difcerning any thing of God, 
 where he gives the moft full and convincing evidence of him- 
 feJf, as unqucftionably he doth in the fcriptures. Nor do 1 
 doubt but multitudes of fober perfons, trained up within the 
 church, and thereby drawn to a more attentive and Iefs preju- 
 dicial perufal of the fcripture-revelatlon, do, upon fuudry occa- 
 fions, find their minds aliecled with the evidence of God iri them, 
 and thereby are drawn to affent to them as his word, though 
 not in a due manner, and that even where they remain ftran- 
 gers unto a work of renovation. And i am fure, if it is fo, it 
 will leave the rejedlers of the fcriptures remarkably without 
 excufe. 
 
 4. Whether fome tranficnt a6l of the Spirit of Gcd is always 
 neceiTary upon the mind, to draw forth even fuch an alTent, zs 
 that lad mentioned, I fliall not determine ; that in fome cafes 
 it is fo, is not to be doubted. The faith of temporary believers 
 undoubtedly requires fuch an a£\ion as its caufe, and where any 
 thing of this evidence affecls the minds ofperfonsj at prefent 
 d^eeply prejudiced, as they were, who were fent 10 apprehend 
 Chrifl, and went away under a conviction, that 7itver men 
 [pake as he {lid; there fuch a tranfient work of the Spirit of God 
 feems neceilary to clear their minds of prejudices, and make 
 them difcern the evidences of a Deity : But whether it is fo in 
 other cafes, I fhall not conclude pofitively. 
 
 5. But were it granted, That faith, that is, the faculty or 
 pov.'er of believing, which is nothing tVit fave the mind of rrnn 
 confidered as a lubject capable of affenting to tefiimony, OiU 
 remains; and that though wofully impaired, weakened and dif- 
 abled, it yet continues in {o far able for its proper ofHce or 
 work, that either by the alTif^ance of fome tranfient operation cf 
 God's Spirit, breaking in feme meafure the power of its preju- 
 dices, and fixing it to the confideration of its proper objcdt, or 
 
 even 
 
404 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 even without this, upon a more fedate, fober, lefs prejudiced 
 obfervatlon, it may, though lefs perfecliy, perceive the imprefs 
 and evidences of God appearing in the revelations he makes of 
 liimfelf, and that thereon it may be actually io afFefled, as to 
 fjive fonic fort of aflent, and reach fome convi6lion, that it is 
 God who fpeaks : Were, I fay, all this granted, it will amount 
 to no great matter ; fmce it is certain, that every fort of faith 
 or afTent to divine teRimony, is not fufficient to anfwer our duty, 
 obtain acceptance with God, and turn to our falvation. Nor is 
 k fo much of our concernment to inquire after that fort of faith 
 which fails of anfwering thefe ends ; and therefore I iliall dip 
 no further into any queftions about any faith of this fort, or our 
 ability for it. 
 
 6. It is more our interefl to onderftand what that faith is, 
 which God requires us to give to his zoord, which he will ac- 
 cept of, and which therefore will turn to our falvation ; and 
 whence we have the power and ability for this faith. Of thefe 
 things therefore we fliall difcourfe at more length in the next 
 chapter defigncd to that end. 
 
 C II A P. IL 
 
 Wlinein the Nalure of that Faithf which in Duty we are obliged 
 io give to the Word of God, our ohiigation to, and our ability 
 for anfwaing our Duty, are inquired into, 
 
 WE have above infinuated, and of itfelf it is plain, that 
 every fort of faith or affent to divine tcfiimony anfvvers 
 not our duty, nor will amount to that regard which we owe to 
 the authority and truth of God, when he fpeaks, or writes his 
 mind to us. We muft therefore, in the firfl place, inquire into 
 the nature of that faith which will do fo. Nor is there any other 
 w^ay wherein this may better be cleared, than by attending to 
 the plain fcripture accounts of it. 
 
 Nov/ if we look into the fcriptures, we ^mA, I. The apolile 
 Paul, I TheiT. ii^ 13. when he is commending the TheiTalo- 
 nians, and bleffing God on their behalf^ gives a clear defcrip- 
 tion of that faith which is due unto the word of God. For this 
 caufe alfo, fays he, thank toe God without ceafng, hecaufe when 
 ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it 
 not as the word of men; hut (as it is truth) the zuord oj God, 
 
 which 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 405 
 
 which tffeBually worketh alfo in you thai hdieve. If we advert 
 to this def'cription, we cannot but lee thefe things in it, Firfi ^ 
 That fonne fpecial fort of alTent is here Intended. The Thef- 
 iaionians did not think it enough to give fuch credit, or yield 
 fuch an aflent as is due to the word of men, even the bcfi of 
 men. Secondly^ In particular it is plain, that fuch an alTcnt is 
 intended ^ fome way unfwcrs the unquefiionable firmnefs of 
 the teftimony of the God of truth, which is the ground wherepn 
 it leans. Thirdly t It is obvious, that fomewhat more is intend - 
 ed than a mere aflent, of whatfoever fort it is : The words 
 plainly import fuch an aflent, or receiving of the word of Gcdj 
 as is attended with that reverence, fubmiflion of foul, refignation 
 of will and fubje6\ion of confcience, that is due to God, Thh 
 th.e ufe of the word elfewhere in fcripture firongly pleads for, 
 and the manner wherein the apoftle exprefles himfcif Itere 13 
 fufficient to convince any man that no lefs is intended, i, Lels 
 than this would fcarce have been a ground for the apoflle's 
 thanhfgiving to God, and for his doing fiiis without cea/in^. 
 And indeed we find that this exprcflion elfewhere uied iiTspoits 
 not only people's aflent to, but their confent and appicbaii*< 'i 
 of the word of God; yea, and their embracing in practice \\\ 
 gofpel, A6ls viii. 14. and xi. I. 2. We are told Heb. >n*. 1, 
 that it is the evidence of things not Jcen> £aj7%<''^> which we 
 render- evidence, fignifies properly a convincing de?nonjiration, 
 Handing firm againfl, and repelling the force of contrary cb- 
 je£)ioriS. Faith then is fuch an aifent as this, It is a nrm con- 
 vi6iion leaning upon the ftrongeft bottom, able to fland againO, 
 and wilhfland the flrongefi^ obje6tions. 3. The apoflle more 
 particularly defcribes the ground whereon it refls, or what that 
 demonftrative evidence is, whereon this convit^ion is founded, 
 and that both negatively and pofitively, i Cor. ii. 5. It (lands 
 not in the zoifdom of men, but in the pvwer of God. That is, 
 it neither leans upon the eloquence, nor reafonings; of men, but 
 upon the powerful evidence of the Spirit's demonflration, as it 
 is in the verfe before^ 
 
 Having given this (bort and plain account of faiih from the 
 fcripture, we maft in the next place prove, that in dutv we 
 are bound to receive the word of God with a failh of this fort. 
 Nor will this be found a matter of anv difficulty : For, 
 
 I, The fcriptures hold themfelves forth to us as the Oracles cf 
 God, which ^^/y 7nen ojCyodfpah as they were vicxjedhy the. Spir:t 
 of God, and wrote by divine infpiration, and the Holy Ghoji is 
 
 laid 
 
4o6 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 faid to [peak to us by tkem. Now the very light of natra'c teaches 
 us-, that whsn God utters oracles, fpsaksand writes his mind to 
 us, we are in duty bound readily to aiTsnt, give entire credit 
 to, and rely with the firmed confidence on the veracity of Vn^ 
 fpeaker ; and further, we are obliged to attend to what is fpokca 
 with the deepeft veneration, reverence and fubjed^ion of foul, 
 and yield an unreferved pra6lical compliance with every inti- 
 mation of his mind. 
 
 2. The fcriptures were written for this very end, That zie 
 ?mgkt /o believe them as to have life by them, John xx. 30. 31. 
 And again, Rom. xvi. 25, 26. The fcriptures of the prophets 
 according to the commandment of the tv&rlafling God, are faid to 
 he made known to all nations Jor the obedience of faith- Cer- 
 tainly tken we are in duty obliged to yield this obedience of 
 faith* 
 
 3. The raofi: <3readful judgments, 5^ea eternal ruin, and t];at 
 of the mofl intolerable fort, are threatened againft thofe, who 
 do not thus receive the words of God from his fervants, v/hether 
 by word or writ, is no a.atter. W hofc ever fiall not receive you, 
 nor hear your zvords, zohen ye depart out of that houfe or city, 
 Jhake off the du.fl of your feet' Verily I fay unto you, It fhall be 
 more tolerable Jor the land of Sodom and GomorroJi than for 
 that city, Matt. x. 14, 15. Accordingly we find the apoftles 
 preach the word at Aniioch in Fi/idia, A(5\s xiii. demand ac- 
 ceptance of it both of Jews and Gentiles, and upon their refu- 
 fal, they teftify againft them in this way of the Lord's appoint- 
 ment, ver. 51. And all this feverity they ufed without otiering 
 miracles, or any other proof for their doolrine, fo far as we can 
 learn, befides the authoritative propofal of it in 1\\q. naaiC oiGod, 
 
 4. We find the apoftle* in the words above quoted, commend- 
 ing the Thefialonians for receiving the v/ord in this manner, 
 which is proof enough, that it was their duty to do fo. 
 
 Tills much being clear, it remains yet to be inquired, 
 Whence we have power or ability for vieiding fuch an alTent, 
 whether it is natural or fupernatural ? Now if we confult the 
 fcripture upon this head, we find, 
 
 I. That this ability to believe and receive the things of God 
 to our falvatlon and his glory, is exprefsiy denied to uarcneu'ed 
 man, or man In his natural eftate, 2 Thef. iii. 2. Allmen have 
 not faith : i Cor. ii. 14. The natural manreceiveth not the things 
 of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolijlinefs unto him: Neither 
 can he know them, becaufe they arefpiniually decerned, John 
 
 . ' viii. 47 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 407 
 
 vlii. 47 — Ye therefore hear not GocPs words, hecaufe ys are not 
 of God. 
 
 2. This is exprefsl}'- denied to be of ourfelves, and afferted to 
 be a fupernatural gift of (}od, Eph, ii. 8- By grace are ye 
 /aved through Jaith; and thai not of yourfdveSi it is the gift of 
 ^God, 
 
 3. The production of it is exprefsly afcribed unto God. He it 
 is xhatfulfiis in his people the work of faith with power , 2 Thei. 
 i. II. He it is that gives them, that is, thai enables them, on 
 the behalf of Chrifi to helievt and faff -^r f or his name, Phih i. 29* 
 It is one of the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. v. 22. And of it 
 Chriil is the author, rieb. xii. 2. The further proof and vin- 
 dication of this truth 1 refer to polemical writers. 
 
 But here poffibly fome may inquire, How it can be our duty 
 thus to believe the fcriptures, fmce we are not of ourfelves able 
 to do fo? In anfwerto this, I (liall only fay, i. The very ligiit 
 of nature Ihews, that it is our duty to yield perfe6^ obedience, 
 but yet certain it is we are unable to anfwerto our duty. 2. The 
 fcriptures plainly require us \o ferve God acceptably with reverence 
 and godly fear,, and with the fame breath tells us, we mu(i have 
 grace to enable us to do it, Heb. xii. 28. 3. We have defiroy- 
 tf^ ourfelves, and by our own fault impaired the powers God 
 originally gave us, and brought ourfelves under innumerable 
 prejudices and other evils, whereby the entrance of light is ob- 
 ltru<51ed : But this cannot re.ifonably prejudge God's right to 
 demand credit to his word, on which he has imprefi; fufficient 
 objective evidence of himfelf, which any one that has not thus 
 faultily loft his eyes, may upon attention difcern. 4. It is 
 therefore our duty to juftify God, blame ourfelves, and v/ait in 
 the way he has prefcribed, for ihat grace which is necedary to 
 enable us ; and if thus we do his will, or at ieaft aim at it, 
 we have no reafon to defpair, but may expect in due time to 
 be enabled to underftand and know, whether thefe truths are of 
 God, or they who fpoke them did it of themfelves, John vii. 17, 
 Though yet we cannot claim this as what is our due. 
 
 From what has hitherto been difcourfed, it is evident, that 
 
 this faith, whereby we aflent to the fcripture, is fupernatural, 
 
 . or may be fo called upon a twofold account : i. Becaufe the 
 
 pov/er or ability for it, is fupernaturally given ; and 2. The 
 
 evidence v/hereon it rells is fupernatural. 
 
 In this chapter, we have diredlly concerned ourfelves onlv in 
 the proof of the firfi of thefe, viz. That our ability thus to be- 
 lieve 
 
4o5 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 lieve is [apernatuYaUy given ; and this has been tlie conflant 
 doitrine of tiie church of God, which we might conium by tef- 
 timoniesofall forts, did our defigned brevity allow*. 
 
 But our modern Rationaiills do refolutely oppofe this. The 
 author of a late atheitiical parriphlet, that truly fubverts all re- 
 Jigicn, ni:iy be allowed to fpeak for all the reft ; for he fays no 
 more than what they do ^ffent to : He tells us, " That when 
 ** once the myftery of Chrift Jefus was revealed, even human 
 ** reafon was able to behold and confefs it; not that grace had 
 ** altered the eye-fight of reafon, but that it had drawn the ob- 
 *' jecl nearer to it f." To the fame purpofe fpeak the Socini- 
 ans ; Schlichtingius tells us, *' Man endued with underftanding 
 ** is no otherwife blind in divine myfteries, than as he who 
 *' hath eyes, but fits in the dark : remove the darknefs, and 
 ** bring him a light and he will fee. The eyes of a man are 
 ** his underftanding, the light is Chrift's dot^rine." To the 
 fame purpofe doth the paradoxical Bdgick Exercimtor, that fets 
 up for phiiofophv as the interpreter of the fcripture, exprefs 
 himfelf frequeritiy. Nor is his pretended anfwerer Volzogius 
 diiierently minded ; though he is not fo conflant to his opinion 
 as the other %* 
 
 But thefe gentlemen n-!ay talk as they pleafe, we are not o- 
 bliged to believe them in this matter. The fcriptures plainly 
 teaching us, that our minds are blind, our underflandings im- 
 paired and obfl:ru6led in difcerning fhe evidence of truth, by 
 prejudices arifing from the enmity of the will, and depravity of 
 the affections. Nor were it diflicult to demonfl rate from fcrip- 
 ture, that no man can believe, or underfland the word of God 
 aright, till, i. The Spirit of God repair this ddzGi of the facul- 
 ty, or gives vs an under ft an din g^ i John v. 20» 2. Break the 
 power of that enmity that riles up againft the truths of God as 
 foollQinefs. 3. Cure the diforder of our aifedtions, that blinds 
 our minds. And 4. Fix our minds, otherwife vain and unlia- 
 ble, to attend to what God fpeaks, and th? evidence he gives 
 
 of 
 
 * See Mr. Wilfon's Scripture*;: oeiuuue Interpreter alTerted. Ap- 
 pendix, pag. x^, 5. clc. 
 
 + Treatife on Human Reafon, pag. 58. publilhed i674> and to the 
 credit of die church of England, with an Imprimatur, quoted by Mr. 
 Wilfun, ubi fupra, pag. 13. 
 
 J Wilfon ibid. pag. 7. ii» 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 409 
 
 of himfelf. But this is not what we prirtcipaUy defign, and 
 therefore we Hiall inriH: no longer upon this head : Our prelent 
 queftion is not about our ability or power to believe, but the 
 ground whereon we do believe. What has been fpoken of the 
 former hitherto, is only to prepare the way for the confideration 
 of the latter, to which we now proceed. 
 
 CHAP. HI. 
 
 The Ground, or the formal Reafon, whereon Faith afftnts to the 
 Scriptures is inquired after ; the Rationalifl's Opinion about it, 
 and particularly as Jiated by Mr, Locke in his Book on Hu- 
 man Under/landing, is propojld and conjidered- 
 
 THOUGH we have fpoken fomewhat concerning our abil- 
 ity to believe the word of God, and the fupernatural rife 
 thereof, in the preceding chapter; wherein we have offered our 
 thoughts of that which goes under the name oi fuhjetlive light', 
 yet this is not the queftion mainly intended in thefe papers. 
 That which we aim more particularly to inquire after, is the 
 ground whereon the mind thus fubjcilively enlightened, or by 
 the Spirit of God difpofed, fitted and enabled to difcern and af- 
 fent to divine revelations, builds its affent, and wherein it rejis 
 falisfied, or acquiefces. 
 
 The queftion then before us is this, What is that .;grf?tt«// where- 
 on, or reafon which moves and determines us to receive ihejcrip' 
 tures as the zvord of God? What is the formal reafon whereon 
 our faith refts ? or what is the proper anfwer to that quefiiort. 
 Wherefore do ye believe the fcriptures to be the word of God, 
 ^nd receive truths therein propofed as the zvord of God, and net 
 of man ? 
 
 It is in general owned by all, who believe the fcriptures to 
 be a divine revelation, that the authority, truth and veracity of 
 God, who is truth itfeif, and can neither deceive, nor be de- 
 ceived, is the ground whereon we receive and affent to propcli- 
 tions of truth therein revealed. 
 
 But this general anfwer fatisfiesnot the queftion : For, though 
 it is of natural and unqueftionable evidence, that God's tefti- 
 mony is true, cannot but be fo, and as fuch muft be received; 
 yet certain it is, that divine teftimony abftra6\ly confidered, can- 
 not be the ground of osr affent unto any truth in particular : 
 
 E e e But 
 
Alo AX ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 But that whereon we mud reil, and whereon our faith muft 
 Jean, is, ** The teftiiTony of God to it, evidencing itfelf, or as 
 ** it gives evidence of itfelf unto the mind." The knot of the 
 cjiiel^ion then lies here, *' What is that evidence of God's 
 *' fpeaking or giving teftimony to truths fupernaturaily reveal- 
 *•' ed, whereby the mind is fatisfied that God is the revealer? 
 ** Or when God fneaks, or intimates any truth to us, how, or 
 *' in what way doih he evidence to us, that he is the revealer,' 
 ** what ground is it whereon we are fatisfied as to this precife 
 *^ point ?" 
 
 Now whereas there are perfons of three forts, who may be 
 called to affent to divine revelations, the queftion propofed may 
 be confidered with refpedl to each of them. 
 
 1. The queftion may be moved concerning thofe perfons to 
 whom 'he fcripture revelations were originally made ; and as (o 
 them it may be inquired, When God did reveal his mind unto 
 the prophe*s, wha^ was th^ii eviclencdf what were thofe rsz.'y.r^pia, 
 ox certain ji^^aSy whereby they were infallibly affured, that the 
 propofitions they found impreffed upon their minds, were from 
 God? 
 
 2. As to the perfons to whom they did immediately reveal 
 thefe truths, it may be queftioned^ What evidences they had to 
 move them to affent, and ^w^jaith to thofe truths which were 
 propofed to them as divine revelations? On what ground did 
 they refl fatisfied, that really they were fo? 
 
 /^. Whereas we, who now live, neither had thefe revelations 
 made to us originally ^ nor heard them from the perfons to whom 
 they wer-e io given ; but being coraprifcd and put together in 
 the Bible, they are offeied to us as a divine revelation y and v/e: 
 are in duiy, upon pain of God's difpleafure in cafe of refufal, 
 called and required to believe, and ailent to whatever is therein 
 T^\'c^\td,. as the word of God and not of man -y hereon it may 
 be moved, What is that evidence which this booh gives of itfelf, 
 that it is of God, whereon our minds niay reft allured that 
 really it is fo ? 
 
 As to this queftion, in \o far as it concerns the firR: fort of 
 perfons mentioned, wc {hall not dip m^uch into it ,* all I (hall 
 i"ay is this, in the words of the judicious and learned Dr. Owen, 
 *' In the infpirations of the Holy Spirit, and his a6tings on the 
 *' minds of lioly men of old, he gave them infallible afiurancc 
 ** that it was himfelf alone by whom they were a6ied, Jer. 
 ** xiii, 2S. If any fnali afk by what -vi-.i'^.-n'^ix or infallible xo- 
 
 ** kens 
 
5S 
 
 ae- 
 
 THE REASON OP^ TRUE FAITH. 411 
 
 ^* kens they might know affuredly the infpirations of tiie Koly 
 ** Spin I, and be fatlshed with fuch a periuafion as was uoi Jia- 
 ** hie to i-nlftake, that they were not inipofed upon ? 1 niuil lay 
 |;>a.niy, That I cannot tell; for thefe are things Vv'hereof we 
 ** bd'e no experience*." 
 
 t --re is one thing dropt as to this Riatter by the ingenio-j 
 Mr '.-^cke, that deferves lome animadvernon. Though he 
 li' -iOthing pofuively about thofe evidences which the pro- 
 p; :iad, yet negatively he tells us, that the prophets' ailur- 
 ar;c- aid not at leaii folely arife from the revelations theoifelves, 
 .or. rhe operation of the Spirit impreffing them upon their minds, 
 which he calls the internal light of affurance : But that befide 
 this, to fatisfy them fully that thole impreflions were from God, 
 external figns were requifite f; and this he endeavours to prove 
 from their defiring confirmatory figns, as Abraham and others 
 did; and from God's giving ilich figns undefired. To this 
 purpofe his appearance to Mofes in the buOi, is by our author 
 taken notice of. As to the opinion itfelf, I look on it as hi^ily 
 injurious to the honour of divine revelation, and I take the 
 grounds whereon it is founded to be weak and inconcludent : 
 For, I. Mr, Locke, nor any for him, {Kail never be able to 
 prove, that thele divinely infpired perlbns always required or 
 got^ inch confirmatory figns extrinfical to the revelation or infpi- 
 ration itielf ; yea, it is manifeft, that for mo^ part ihey neither 
 fought them nor got them. 2. When they did feek or get them, 
 Mr. Locke cannot prove, that either God or they found them 
 neccfl'ary for the prefent affurance of the perfon's own minds; as 
 if that internal light of affurance, to ufe Mr. Locke's words, 
 had not of itfelf, while it abode, been fuflkient to fatisfy the 
 mind fully, that it was God who was dealing with it, or reveal- 
 ing himfelf to it. It is plain, that oihsr reaibns of tlieir deiir- 
 ingfuch figns maybe affigned. Vv'hen the matters revealed 
 were things at a diflance, Vvhich required foms ejaraordinary 
 out-goings of God's power to effe^uate them, in that cafe they 
 defired, and God condelcended to grant to them fome extraor- 
 dinary figns, not to aflure them that God was fpeaking unto 
 them, but to (irengthen their convi^ions of the fufficiencv of 
 
 God's 
 
 * Dr. Owen on the Spirit, Book 2. Chap, i. §, 10. pag. 104. 
 
 •'r Human Underllanding, Eook 4. Chap. 19. §, ij. pag. 50?. 
 Edition 5 th, 1706. 
 
412 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 God's power, for enabling to do what he required of them, if.it 
 was difficult, or accomplilhing what he promifed to them in de- 
 fiance of the greateft oppofition. Sometimes divine revelations 
 were prcmifes of things at a diftance, that were not to be actu- 
 ally accomplifhed till after a long trad of time, and ever nwny 
 intervenient obftru^^ions.; in this cafe they were obliged to be- 
 lieve thefe promifcs, and wait in the faith of them, even when 
 that light, that firH; allured them, was gone, and fuch evidences 
 or figns might be of ufe to enable them to adhere unto the aflent 
 formerly given upon that fupernatural evidence, that at firft ac- 
 companied the revelation. Such figns then might be of ufe to 
 ftrengthen the remembrance of that firft evidence, which they 
 had when the revelations were firft imparted to them. Thefe and 
 other reafons of a like nature might fufficiently account for their 
 defiring thefe figns, and God's giving them : But as has been faid, 
 we defign not a determination or full decifion of this queflion* 
 We ihall only confider the queOion with refpe6\ unto the two 
 1:^(1 fort of perfonso And as to thofe who heard, or had divine 
 revelations immediately from infpired perfons, our rational di- 
 vines feem pofitive, that the evidence whereon they aiTented to 
 to what they delivered as the mind of God, confifted in, or 
 did refult from the miracles they wrought, and other external 
 ligns, or proofs, which they gave of their mifi^on from God. 
 Monfieur Le' Clerk in his Emendations and Additions to 
 Hammond on the Nevv Teftament, gives us this glofs on i Cor# 
 ii. 5. *' Paul, fays he, would have the Corinthians believe him, 
 *' not as a philofopher propofing probabilities to them, but as 
 *' the meircnger of God, who had received commandment from 
 ** him, to deliver t® them thofe truths which he preached, and, 
 ** that he thus received them, he did fhew by the miracles 
 ** which he wrought." And a lit'.ie after he adds, ** He whofe 
 ** faith leans upon miracles wrought by God's power, his faith 
 ** is grounded upon the divine power, the caufe of thefe mira- 
 *' clcs." As to this opinion itfeif, I ihall exprcfs myfelf more 
 particularly juft now : But as to i:\ionfieur Le' Clerk's inference 
 from this text, he had no manner of ground for it. Let us but 
 look into the verfe befoie, and there we find the apoftle telling 
 the Corinthians, that in his preaching he avoided the enticing 
 words oj maris wifdom^ and delivered his melTage in the de~ 
 monftration of the Spirit, and of power. Upon the back of this 
 in the 5th verfe, he tells them, his defign in doing fo was, that 
 ihxiv faith might not fiand in the wifdom oJ men, hut in the power 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 413 
 
 ^/ God, that IS, on the powerful demonftration of the Spirit 
 of God, mentioned in the foregoing verfe. How Monfieur Le' 
 Clark came to dream of miracles, and fetch them in here, whiJe 
 the fcope and every circumftance of the text flood in the way 
 of this exi>ofition, I cannot divine ; for nothing is more foreign 
 and remote from the fenfe of this place. If the author had fol- 
 lowed the old approved interpreter of fcripture, I mean the 
 icripture itfelf, and had looked into the foregoing verfe and 
 context, he had given us a more genuine account : But philofo- 
 phy now fet up for an interpreter, I had almoft laid a perverter, 
 did certainly lead him into this violent and ridiculous glofs. 
 But to come to the matter itfelf. 
 
 Miracles can be no otherwife the ground of any alTent, than 
 as th,ey afford ground for, or may be made ufe of as the medi- 
 um of an argument, whereby the divine million of the workei: 
 is concluded and proven. This then mud be the opinion of 
 thefe gentlemen, That they who heard the apoftles or pro- 
 phets, could not be fatisfied in their minds, that what they 
 faid was divinely revealed, until they were convinced of it by 
 proofs drawn from miracles or figns, wrought by the preacher; 
 and that this is not merely my conjecture, is evident from the 
 accounts we have of their opinions and hypothefis, whereof 
 this is reckoned as a principal one, that the mind of man be- 
 ing rational, cannot be moved but by a rational imprefiTion, 
 that is, by the force of efFeaual reafons*. And to the fame 
 purpofe we fhall find Mr. Locke expreffing himfelf by and by. 
 
 Upon this hypothefis, it is evident, i. That if a Heathen 
 came into a Chriftian affembly, and heard Paul preaching, or 
 even Jefus Chrift himfelf, if he had never feen them work 
 any fign or miracle, he would not be obliged to believe their 
 dodrine. 2. If the apoflles preached to thofe among whom 
 they wrought no miracles, gave no fuch outward figns, fuch 
 perfons could not be obliged to believe them, the evidence 
 whereon fuch a belief is founded being denied. 3. They who 
 heard them, and faw the miracles, could not be obliged to af- . 
 fent unto their dodrine, until by reafoning they would have 
 time to fatisfy themfelves, how far natural caufes might go to- 
 wards the produaion of fuch effeas, and how far thefe things, 
 admitting them to be fupernatural, could go toward the proof 
 of this,— that what they delivered was from God. 4. If there 
 
 was 
 ' '^ Spanhem, Elench. Controverfiarum pag. 320. Edition 1694. 
 
414 AN ESSAY CONCERNING , 
 
 was any among them To dull, as not to be capable to judge of 
 theTe nice points, I do not fee how, upon thefe principles, 
 they could be obliged to believe. Thefe and the like are no 
 drained confequcnces ; for it is undeniable, that our obligation 
 to believe arifes from the ptopofa! of due objective evidence ; 
 if this is wanting no man can be obliged to believe. 
 
 As to us who neither converfed with the infpired perfons, 
 to whom fuch revelations were originally given, nor faw the 
 miracles they wrought, we are told b)^ thofe Rational iOs, That 
 we have hijlorical proof , that there were fuch perlons, that they 
 wrote thefe revelations which we now have, and that they 
 v/rought fuch miracles in confirmation of their mifiion and doc- 
 trine ; and upon the evidence of ihefe proofs we muft reft, they 
 will allow us no other bottom for our faith. Hence Monfieur Le' 
 Clerk tells us, *' That whatever faith is this day in the world 
 ^' among Chriitians, depends upon the teftimony of men." 
 
 Among many who have embraced this opinion, Mr. Locke 
 in his Effay on Hiunan Underjlanding, has delivered himfelf^to 
 this purpofe, and upon feveral accounts he deferves to be ta- 
 ken fpecial notice of: 1 fliall therefore reprefent faithfully 
 and fliortlv his opinion, and the grounds ^vhereon it is founded, 
 and make fuch animadverfions upon them, as may be necef- 
 i'ary for clearing our way. His opinion you may take in the 
 enfuing propofitions. 
 
 1. When he is fpeaking of the diHerent grounds of aiTent, 
 snd degrees thereof, he fays, " Beftdes thofe we have hitherto 
 ** mentioned, there is one fort of propofitions that challenge 
 ** the higheft degrees of our afl'ent upon bare tcftimony, whe^ 
 *^ ther the thing propofed agree or dlfagree with common ex- 
 **' perience and the ordinary courfe of things, or not. The 
 *' reafon whereof is, becaufe the teRimony is of fuch an one, 
 *' as cannot deceive or be deceived, and that is of God himfelf, 
 " This carries with it alfurance beyond doubt, evidence be- 
 ** yond exception. This is called by a peculiar name, revela* 
 ** tion^ and our aiTent to it^ faith: Which as abfolutely deter- 
 *■ mines our minds, and as perfeftly excludes all wavering as 
 ^* our knowledp;e itfeif *." 
 
 2. But notwithflanding, he tells us in the very fame para- 
 graph, ** Tliat our aflurance of truths upon this teilimony," or 
 to give his own words, ** Our aiTent can be rationally no high- 
 
 *' er 
 ^ liu.iian Ur.deriland. Book 4, Cap, 18. §. 14. pag. 5^4' 5^5* 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 4!^ 
 
 ** er than the evidence of its being a revelation, and that this 
 ** is the meaning of the exprefiions it is delivered in." That 
 is, as he himfelf explains it, *' If the reafons proving it to be a 
 ** revelation are but probable, our allVirance amounts but unio a 
 ** probable conje6ture." 
 
 3. He diftinguiihes betwixt traditional and original revela- 
 tion. By the latt of thefe, fays he, " I nr.ean that fir(\ imprci- 
 ** fion which is made immediately by God on the mind of any 
 " man, to which we cannot fet any bounds ; and by the other, 
 *' thofe impreflions delivered over to others in words, and the 
 ** ordinary w^ays of conveying our conceptions one to another*." 
 And afterwards fpeaking of immediate or original revtlaiion, he 
 tells us, ** That no evidence of our faculties by which we re- 
 *' ceive fuch revelations, can exceed, if equal, the certainty 
 " of our intuitive knowledge f." And in the preceeding para- 
 graph, fpeaking of traditio.nal revelation, he tells us, " That 
 ** whatfoever truth we come to the clear difcovery of, from the 
 ^* the knowledge and contemplation of our own ideas, will al- 
 *' ways be certainer to us, than thofe^ which are conveyed by 
 '* traditional revelation:]:." 
 
 4. He tells us, *' That true light in the mind can be no 
 ^' other but the evidence of the truth of any propofilion," and 
 hereon he proceeds to tell us, ** That there can be no otlier c- 
 " videnre or light in the mind, about propofitions that are not 
 '' felf-evident, fave what arifes from the ciearnels and validity 
 *' of thofe proofs upon which it is received:" And he adds, 
 '' That to talk of any other light is to put ourfcives in the dark, 
 ** or in the power of the prince of darknefs 1|.^ 
 
 5. In the next paragraph he tells us plainly, That there is 
 no way of knowing any revelation to be fiom God, but by 
 *' rational proofs : or fome marks in which rcafon cannot be 
 ** miftaken **." 
 
 6. In this next paragraph he tells what before we have ta- 
 ken notice of. That the internal light of alTurance which the 
 prophets had, was not fufficient to tcftify, that the truths im- 
 prelTed on their minds were from God, without other figns ft- 
 
 Thus far of Mr. Locke's opinion, which in fum amounts to 
 this, " That that even the original revelations, had not in thei-c, 
 
 intrinhck 
 * Hurr.an Underhand. Book 4. Cap. 18, §. 3. pag. 582. 
 + Ibid. §. 5. pag. 583. • : ibid. Eook 4. Cap. 18. §.,4. pag. 5S2. 
 !| Ibid. Book 4. Cap. 19. L 13. ^'^ Ibid. §. 14. +i Ibid. §. ij. 
 
4i6 AN ESSAY CONCERNlxNG 
 
 intrlnfick evidence, fufficlent to affure them on whom fuch im- 
 preflions were made, that they were from God ; that other fisjns 
 were neceflary to fatisfy them ; and that others who received 
 fuch revelations at fecond hand, not from God immediately, but 
 from infpired perfons, have no other evidence to ground their 
 affent on, behdes that which refuhs from arc^uments drawn 
 from thofe figns, whereby they did confirm their miffion ; and 
 that we have no evidence who fav/ not thefe figns, befides that 
 of the hiftorical proofs, whereby it is made out, that the per- 
 fons who wrote the traditional revelations we have, wrought fuch 
 iigns in confirmation of their miffion from God." 
 
 It is worth our while to c^well a little here, and more nar- 
 rowly confider Mr. Locke's thoughts, and the grounds of his 
 opinion ,♦ I (liall therefore offer a few obfervations on this doc- 
 trine. 
 
 1. Mr. Locke in his firfl propofition, fpeaks very honour- 
 ably of divine faith. As to the alTent or a6l of faith, he fays, 
 ** That it is an affent of the hii]^heft degree ; affurance without 
 *' doubt." As to the ground of it, he fays, *' That it is fuch 
 " as challenges an afTent of the higheft degree;" that it is 
 -' evidence beyond exception." Thefe are goodly words. He 
 Jiasjpoken welt in all that he has J aid, Lwlfl:i that his mean- 
 ing and heart may be found as good as his words. All is not 
 gold that glifcerS' Let us then look a little more narrowly in- 
 to his meaning. 
 
 To find it out, we foall fuppofe that God, as no doubt he 
 did, does reveal immediately to Paul this propofition, Jefus is 
 the Son of God, Here is a revelation : by Paul it is aflented 
 10. Weil here is faith. Now in his believing this propofition, 
 he may be faid to afl'ent to three things, — That what God fays 
 is true,— That Jefus is the Son of God, — and, That God fays 
 this to Paul. 
 
 Now, I afk Mr. Locke, or any of our Rationalifts that arc 
 of his mind. To which of thefe three is it that Paul aflents, 
 with an aiTent " of the higheft degree," and of which he has 
 " evidence beyond exception?'' 
 
 i. Could Mr. Locke only mean, that we have the higheft 
 affurance of this general verity. That God's ttjli many is injalli' 
 libly trucY No fure. For the afient to this truth is not an ait 
 of faith, but of intuitive knowledge. The truth itfelf is not a 
 truth here divinely revealed, but of natural evidence. This is 
 
 not 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 417 
 
 not Co much in this inftance exprefsly aiTented to, as fuppofed 
 known. 
 
 2. Doth Mr» Locke mean, that we afient to this proportion. 
 That Jefus is the Son of God? Had Paul ** afTurance beyond 
 doubt," and ** evidence be3'ond exception," of this? But fure- 
 ly Mr, Locke knew that Paul, on this fuppofuion, does not 
 at all afient to the propofition, Jefus is the Son of God ahfo- 
 lutely, but as it is revealed. Well then, all the evidence that 
 Paul has to ground Isis afient upon, is the evidence of this. 
 That God fays Jo to him. If then the evidence of God's fay- 
 ing fo to him is not fuch as " challenges an afient of the high- 
 eft degree," Paul cannot have the ** higheft degree of afiur- 
 ance" of that propofition, the faith whereof leans entirely up- 
 on his afi'urance of this. That God has revealed it* For as 
 Mr, Locke fays very truly in that fame paragraph, " Our 
 *' afl'urance of any particular truth,*that is, the matter revealed, 
 ** can never rife higher in degree than our alTurar^ce of this, 
 *' that it is revealed." If then Paul has not ** evidence beyond 
 exception," tliat God reveals the propofition we fpeak of to 
 him, he can never have fuch afiurance of the truth of the pro- 
 pofition materially confidered. Wherefore, 
 
 3. Did Mr. Locke think in this cafe, that Paul would 
 have evidence beyond exception, challenging the higheft de- 
 gree of afient, and thereon afl*urance beyond doubt, or of the 
 highefi degree, of this^ that God did in very deed lay to Paul, 
 That Jefus is the Son of God; or of this truth, That Jf us is 
 the Son of God as revealed. It is the afl'ent to this propofition 
 that in proper fpeaking is faith. The afient to the general 
 propofition above-mentioned, is not an a6l of faith ai all. Nor 
 is the aiTent to the propofition revealed, materially confidered, 
 an a6\ of faith. Faith in this cafe, is only the afient to that 
 propofition as revealedt or to the revelation of it. If then, 
 Paul has not the higheft evidence for, and thereon the high- 
 efi afi"urance of this, That God fays this to him, his faith can 
 never be faid to be the higheft degree of afiurance or airenr. 
 This then Mr. Locke muft mean, or he meaos nothing. But 
 yet I fuppofe he fcarce thought fo : For, i. He tells us after- 
 wards, that we can have no evidence for receiving any truth 
 revealed, that can exceed, if equal, the evidence we have for 
 our intuitive knowledge. If we have not then evidence, equal 
 •at leafi to that which we have for our intuitive knowiedfie, for 
 our belief of God's being the revealer, or that he fpeaUs to us, 
 
 F f f we 
 
4i8 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 we cannot have ihe liigbefl degree of alTurance. 2. He after- 
 wards teiis us, that we have no evidence for this, that this or that 
 truth is revealed to us by God, but that which refuhs from rea- 
 fons or arguments, drawn from marks, whereby we prove that 
 God is the fpeaker: but Mr. Locke owns, that the evidence of 
 «ll our reafcnings, is ftiil fhort of that which we have for our 
 intuitive knowledge. Now methinks this quite overthrows 
 Mr. Locke's goodly conceffion. With what confifiency with 
 truth or himfeif, Mr. Locke wrote at this rate, is left to others 
 to judge. 
 
 n. Whatever there is in this conceffion yielded in favour of 
 faith, Mr. Locke afterwards takes care that we who now live 
 ihali not be the better for it : For afterwards he telis us plainly, 
 ** That whatfoever truth we come to the clear difcovery of, 
 ** from the knowledge and contemplation of our ideas, will al- 
 •** ways be certainer to us, than thofe which are conveyed by 
 ** traditional revelation." We have no revelation at this day, 
 but that which Mr. Locke calls traditional. And here it is 
 plain, that iVlr. Locke thinks that our certainty of any truth we 
 have from this^ is inferior in degree to any fort of natural know- 
 ledge, whether intuitive, rational or fenfible. 
 
 ilL It is manifell, that the foundation of all is^what Mr. Loc^e 
 teaches in the fourth pofiiion above-mentioned; wherein he telJs 
 us, *' That to talk of any other light in the mind, befide that of 
 ** felf-evidcnce, reafon, aad fenfe, is to put ourfeives in the 
 '' dark." i have added this laft, ** the light of fenfe," bccaufe 
 Mr. Locke, though he meniions it not here, yet elfewhere he 
 admits it. That we may undeiftand Mr, Locke's allertion ex- 
 aCxly, it muft be obferved, that writers, when they treat of this 
 lubjccl, ufually take notice of a twofold light. There is Jub- 
 j^Bive lights by which is meant either our ability to perceive, 
 difcern, know and judge of objc61s, or our a(5\ual knowledge, 
 afl'ent, &c. Again there is ohjtBive light, by which they mean 
 that evidence whence our knowledge refults, whereon it is 
 founded, and which determines the mind to aflcnt or diflent. 
 Now it is of this laft that Mr. Locke is treating in his chapter 
 of EnthufiaJMf from whence tins propofition is taken. And his 
 opinion is this. That there is a threefold objedive light, which 
 is a real and juft ground for the mind to afient on. There is, 
 fi'^IK /-{f-emdence^ which is the ground of our intuitive know* 
 ledge, refulting from the obvious agreement or difagreement of 
 our ideas, appearing upon firft view or intuition, v/hen they 
 
 aie 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITFL 419 
 
 ate compared. 5^^^;7^/y, There is rational light, or the evidence 
 rcluhing from arguments, wherein the agreement or difagree- 
 ment of our ideas is cleared by affuming intermediate ideas, by 
 the help of which our mind is cleared, as to what judgment it 
 is to pafs. Thirdly, There is the light of Jenjt, or the evidence 
 refultiiag from imprelTions made on our minds by the interven- 
 tion and means of our organs of fenfe. 
 
 But befides thefe, he admits of no other objective light or evi- 
 dence, that may be a juft ground of affent; and adds, " That 
 ** to talk of any other, is to put ourfelves in the dark; yea, in 
 ♦* the power of the prince of darknefs, and turn enthufiafls.'' 
 
 This grape muft be preffed, that we may tafte its juice, how 
 it relifhes. In the confideratlon of this docbine delivered by 
 Mr. Locke, we fhall not at prefent inquire whether it really does 
 not preclude all place for faith, properly fo called. This in 
 the iffue will be further cleared. 
 
 But whatever there is as to this, if Mr. Locke's do6lrine 
 hold, certain it is, that either fairh, if there is fuch a thing, 
 mull: be founded on one of thofe three grounds of allent, or forts 
 of objective light, or it is altogether irrational. For an afl'ent 
 not founded on, and to which we are not determined by real 
 objective evidence, is brutifh, irrational, and really enthufiaflick, 
 as being no reafon or ground : And befides thefe three foits of 
 grounds, Mr. Locke admits of none. Faith therefore muft be 
 founded either on one or other of them, or it mufl want all rea- 
 fon for it. 
 
 Further, it is to be obferved, That Mr. Locke's taking ^^Vx- 
 evidence for that which is immediately perceptible without the 
 intervention of any intermediate ideas, by the natural power of 
 our intellectual faculties, not affifled, renewed, elev?.ted and in- 
 fluenced by any fupernatural influence; and taking fenfible 
 evidence for that v/hich is conveyed by the intervention of bo- 
 dily organs, from corporeal fubflances, cannot be thought to 
 make either of thefe the ground of faith to the tefiimony of 
 God. And therefore it muft have no reafon fave that rational 
 evidence, which makes the middle fort of objective light. But 
 1 need not fpend time in proving this, fince it is no more than 
 what he has taught us in the fifth propornion above-mentioned. 
 
 This opinion thus far explained is indeed the fum, and contains 
 the force of what is pleaded, or, for ought I know, can be 
 pleaded for the judgment of our Ratlonalifts, We (hall there- 
 fore 
 
420 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 fore weigh the matter more feriouily, and proceed by fotr.e plain 
 fieps in the enfuing propofitions. 
 
 I. ** If good and folid reafons can be produced for proof of. 
 *' another fort of obje6live light or evidence, befides thofe three 
 *' mentioned bv Mr. Locke, it mud be admitted, though we 
 ** (hould not be able to give a fatisfying account of its nature, 
 ** and other concernments." 
 
 (i.) This I believe was never denied in the general as toother 
 things, by any perfon of judgment, adverting to, and under- 
 flanding what he faid, and why it then ihould be refufed in this 
 cafe, I can fee no ground. 
 
 (2.) If any has ever in general denied this in words, I am 
 fure every man in facl admits it. Who is he that receives not 
 many truths, that admits not the being of many things, upon 
 good proof, from their caufes, eife6is, infeparable adjun6^s, &c. 
 of the nature of v.-hich he can give no fatisfying account ? We 
 ail own the mutual influence of our fouls and bodies upon one 
 another, upon the proofs we have from the effects : But who- 
 ever underi"iood the manner, how the foul operates on the bo- 
 dy, or the body upon it ? Inftances of this fort are innumerable, 
 
 {3.) Suihcient proofs mufi; always determine our affent; and 
 if there are fuch in this cafe, it is unreafonable to refufe it. 
 
 (4.) If we have fufficient reafons to convince us, that there 
 is a fourth fort of objedVive light diftin6f from thofe three ad- 
 mitted by Mr. Locke, and only deny it becaufe we underftand 
 not, or cannot give a clear account of its nature, I cannot tell, 
 but on this fame ground we fnall rejet^, and be obliged to refufe 
 thefe three forts admitted by him, for the very fame reafon. 
 Mr. Locke perhaps has done as much as any man to explain 
 them : but were he alive, I believe he vvtould be as ready to 
 own as any, that he has been far from fatisfying himfelf, or 
 offering what ma^v^ fully clear others as to the nature of thefe 
 things,Wherein evidence confifi^ ? What it is? What is felf-evi- 
 dence, or that evidence which is the ground of wjr fenfible or 
 rational knowledge? Mow they operate and influenc^vthe affcns? 
 All his accounts are only defcriptions taken from caufes, ef- 
 fects or the like. But what obje£tive light or evidence is, where- 
 in it really conhfts, (and the like may be faid of the reR) 15 
 as much a myfteiy as it was before, when he tcils us, That felf- 
 evidence fcX' gr*J is that which is immediately perceived with- 
 out the intervention of intermediate ideas. Here I learn, that 
 it is not rational evidcrxe, that requires fuch intermediate 
 
 ideas, 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 421 
 
 ideas. But this is all I can learn, unlefs it be, that it is per- 
 ceptibie by the mind, that is, it is evidence. But what evi- 
 dence is, I am yet to learn. 1 think this propofitlon is plain, 
 
 2. ** A fourth fort of objective evidence, different from thofe 
 ** three affigned by Mr. Locke, is not impoffible." 
 
 (i.) If any fay it is, it lies upon him to prove it. That 
 Mr. Locke, or millions more, obferved no fuch light in their 
 minds, found ihemfelves determined to affent by no other ob- 
 jective evidence or light, will not prove it impollible ; yea will 
 not prove, that a6lually there is no fach light ; nay, will not 
 prove, that there was no fuch light in their own minds. For 
 Mr. Locke, though he observed as accurately the manner of 
 his mind, its actings, as mod men, yet might not obferve it fo, 
 but that he poffibly overlooked fomewhat that pafled there. And 
 if really Mr. Locke did not affent upon other evidence to fome 
 things, though he obferved it not, I doubt not but by this time 
 he is fenfible it was his lofs that it was fo. It cannot be pre- 
 tended, that it is impoffible for want of a fufficient caufe, 
 virhile that God is In being, who is author of the three forts of 
 lights, that are admitted, and who is the Father of lights. Nor 
 can it be pretended, that the members of this divilion fland 
 contradid^torily oppofed to one another, as it is in this, Every 
 being is dependent or independent. 
 
 (2.) If any w^ill fay yet, It is impoffible there (houldbe a fourth 
 or a fifth fort of light or objective evidence, 1 fhall defire him 
 only to ftay a while, and confider the light of fenfe* It is no- 
 thing elfe fave ** that evidence that refults from impreffions 
 ** made on our minds by means of our organs of fenfe." Well, 
 hereon I fhall afk two queflions, 
 
 Firjlf Is it not poffible for him who made thofe conveyances 
 or organs of fenfe, to frame more fuch, quite different from thofe 
 We already have, and by means of them impart to us other pre- 
 ceptions, and determine as to affent on the evidence of the im- 
 preffions conveyed to our minds by thefe other fenfes? If it is 
 pofiible, as I fee not how rationally it can be queftioned, here 
 is at ieafl a fourth fort of objedive light determining our minds 
 to affent, admitted as pojjible. 
 
 Secondly^ Here I would inquire. Whether may not He, who, 
 by thefe bodily organs we already have, impreffes ideas upon 
 our minds, and determines our affent to their agreement or dif- 
 agreement, immediatdy icithout the intervention of fuch organs, 
 iTiake impreffions on our minds, whereby our affent or judg- 
 ment 
 
422 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 mcnt may rationally be fwayed ? To deny this, will look very 
 odd und irrational to ibber men, that have due thoughts of God. 
 If it is admitted, we have here at leaft the pojjibility of another 
 ground of aiTent,or objedive light, acknowledged, different from 
 thofe condefcended on by Mr. Locke. 
 
 (3.) We that have the benefit of fight, have in our minds a fort 
 of objective evidence or light, different from all thofe which are 
 born blind have. And why fhould it be then thought impoffi- 
 ble that others may have in their minds an evidence that we have 
 no experience of, and that it may be equally real, convincing, 
 er more fo than any that we have. 
 
 (4.) Mr. Locke grants. That there are extraordinary ways 
 whereby the knowledge of truth may be imparted to men; that 
 God fometimes illuminates by his Spirit the minds of men, with 
 the knowledge of truths ,* that there is no bounds to be fet to 
 fuch divine impreffions. Now if all this is fo, why may there 
 not be evidence of a different fort, refulting from fuch extraor- 
 dinarv impreffions, illuminations, &:c. allowed to be alfo pof- 
 fible ? 
 
 (5.) Either God can reveal his mind fo to man, as to give him 
 the highefl; evidence or obje6live light that he fpeaks to him, 
 who gets that revelation, or he cannot, if he can, then there 
 is pojfible an obje6tive evidence, and that of the higheft fort, 
 diffeient from thofe three mentioned by Mr. Locke : for that it 
 mud be different is evident, becaufe Mr. Locke in this cafe will 
 allow no place for felf-evidence, or that evidence we have in 
 our intuitive knowledge, which he determines to be the higheft 
 degree of thefe three forts he has admitted and owned. Speak- 
 ing of immediate revelation, he fays, '* No evidence of our 
 ** faculties, by which we receive fuch revelations, can exceed, 
 ** if equ^l, the certainty of our intuitive knowledge, as we 
 ** heard above." Since then this evidence of the higheft de- 
 gree, is difl"'erent from that which we have in our intuitive know- 
 ledge, (if it is at all) it muft be of a different fort from any of 
 thofe three ; For by concefTion, it is not felf-evidence ; and ra- 
 tional or fenfible it is not, becaufe thefe forts of evidence are 
 of a degree inferior to intuitive evidence. If then it is evidence 
 of the higheft degree, fince Mr. Locke will not admit it to be 
 felf-evidence, it muft be none of the three : and fo we have 
 a fourth fort admitted poffible. But if God cannot reveal his 
 mind, fo as to give the greateft objective evidence that he 
 fpeaks, or is the revealer, then I fay, it is plain, and follows 
 
 unavoid" 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 423 
 
 unavoidably, that God's teftimony can never have from man the 
 hightft degree of ajfentj which Mr. Locke above exprefsly ac- 
 knowledged to be its due. It is in vain to fay, that God's tefli- 
 mony is infallible : for our ailent to any truth upon God tefti- 
 mony, as Mr. Locke truly fays, can never rife higher, than 
 the affurance we have of this, that really we have God's tedi- 
 mony, and take its meaning. If then God cannot give us the 
 higheft evidence or objedlive light as to this, no truth he offers 
 can have from us the higheft degree of aflent. To me this looks 
 like blafphemy, to imagine, that God has made a rational crea- 
 ture, to whom he cannot fo impart his mind as to give it iuch 
 evidence as is abfolutely necelTary to lay a ground for entertain- 
 ing his teftimony with that refpedl, which is its unqueftionable 
 due. That his teftimony is in itfclf infallible, will never make 
 our aflent of the higheft degree, unlefs the evidence of his giv- 
 ing teftimony is of the higheft degree. 
 
 3. ** We aflert. That de JaBo there really is a fort of objec- 
 ** tivc evidence or light, different from thofe condefcended on 
 *' by Mr. Locke." 
 
 (i.) The prophets to, whom immediate revelations were 
 made, had obje6\ive evidence, or light fuflicient to ground the 
 higheft affurance, that the truths impreffed on their minds 
 were from God. It is impious to deny it. But this Mr. Locke 
 will not allow to be fuch evidence as we have in our intuitive 
 knowledge ; and all muft confefs, that it did not refuit from 
 their outward fenfes; and that it was not grounded on reafonings 
 from evidences, marks or iigns, extrinfical to the revelations 
 themfelves, feems undeniable, or even from reafoning, and 
 making inferences from what was intrinlical to the revelation. 
 For, I . We find not, that this perfuafion came to them by fuch 
 argumentation or reafoning. We can fee no ground from any 
 accounts we have in fcripture to think, that they took this way 
 to affure their own minds. Yea, 2. The fcripture-accounfs of 
 the way of their being convinced, feem all to import, that as 
 God impreffed the truths on their minds, fo that immediately by 
 that very impreffion, he fixed an indelible and firm conviction 
 of his being the revealer. Again, 3. Ws fee, that the evidersce 
 was fp convincing as to bear down in them the force of the 
 ftrongeft reafoningsand the cleareft arguments that ftood againft 
 it, as we fee evidently in the cafe of Abraham ,' he is command- 
 ed to offer his fon Ifaac ; if this command had not been im-* 
 preffed on his mind with an evidence, that God was the reveal- 
 
 er 
 
424 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 er, beyond what any reafoning upon figns and marks, and I 
 know not what, could pretend tOj^ the ftrong plain arguments, 
 that lay againfl: it, ftrengthened by a combination of the flrong- 
 eft natural affe(f^ions, muft have carried it. 4. If Abraham was 
 convinced by fuch reafonings, that God revealed this, that 
 this command was from God, is it not llrange that he, makes no 
 mention of them, when it was fo obvious, that it was liable to 
 be queftioned whether God could give fuch a command? But the 
 truth of it rs, it is obvious to any one that thinks, that nothing 
 could prevail in this cafe, but the incontrollable and irrefiftible 
 evidence refulting from the very imprcirion, v^'hereby the com- 
 mand was revealed. But we wave any further confideraiion o^ 
 this, which now we have no experience of. 
 
 (2.) Mr. Locke will admit, that the primitive Chriftians, who 
 embraced the gofpel, did it upon fufHcient obje6\ive evidence. 
 He is not a Chrillian who denies it. But he will not admit in- 
 tuitive evidence in this cafe. And I lliall, I hope, afterwards 
 make it appear, that it was not on the evidence of fuch Feafon-, 
 ings, as Mr. Locke talks of, that they embraced it. 
 
 (q.) The fcriptures demand our afi'ent, and offer no evidence 
 but this of God's authority. And arguments are not infifted on 
 to prove, that it is God that fpeaks ; God calls us not to affent 
 without objective evidence, and yet waves the ufe of fuch ar- 
 guments as Mr. Locke would have to be the foundation of our 
 faiih. There mull be therefore fome objedive light of a dif- 
 ferent fort fuppofed, that muft be the ground of our aflent. And 
 that there really is fo, the fcriptures teach, as we fhall fee af- 
 terwards, when this propofition muft be proven, and explained 
 more fully, 
 
 (4.) Abftra£iing from what has been faid, we have as good 
 ground as can be defired, and as the nature of the thing admits, 
 for believing there is really tx light di/iinSI from thofe mentioned 
 by Mr. Locke. As to the pcrfons who have it, this light evi- 
 dences ilfelf in the fame way as the other forts of intellectual 
 light do- They are conlcious of it, and find it has the fame ef- 
 fecl, determining the mind totifTent, alluring it, and giving it 
 reft in the full conviction of truth. A^ to others who want it, 
 they have fuch evidence as a blind man has, that there is fuch 
 a thing as vifible evidence. They have the concurring fuffiage 
 of perfons fobcr, judicious and rational, who have given evi- 
 dence of the greatcft cautioufnefs in guarding againft deluf^on, 
 enthufiafm, and groundlefs imaginations. Bchdes, the eife6ts 
 
 pecu- 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 425 
 
 peculiarly flowing from fuch a faith as leans on this foundation, 
 gives evidence tc it. But I cannot ftay to prove this further at 
 prefent. 
 
 4. ** Though perhaps an account every way fatisfying can- 
 ** not be given of the nature of this light, nor can we fo clear 
 *' what it is, and wherein it confirts, as to make thofe who are 
 
 unacquainted with it, underftand it, or have as c0^ a notion 
 ** of it as they have, whofe experience fatisfies them as to its 
 
 reality : Yet fuch an account may be given of it, as may 
 
 fecure it againft the imputation of unreafonablenefs, and un- 
 
 intelligibility." To this purpofe, I (hall only obferve the 
 few things enfuing. 
 
 (i.) That light or obje6\lve evidence, whereon we are obli- 
 ged to believe, and all that are rubje6tively enlightened to be- 
 lieve the fcriptures, and ground their affent, is fuch, that a 
 more intelligible account by far may be given of it to thofe, 
 who have no experience of it, than can be given of the objec- 
 tive evidence of villble objeds to peribns who have no experi- 
 ence of fight. To clear this, 
 
 (2.) It is to be obferved, that in the writings of men, efpeci- 
 aliyof fome, who have any peculiarity of genius, and excel in 
 any kind, we find fuch chara6ters, marks and peculiar evidences 
 of them, not only in the matter, but in the manner of expref- 
 fion, and way of delivering their thoughts: there is fuch a fpl- 
 rit, and fomewhat fo peculiar to themfelves to be obferved, that 
 fuch as have any notion of their writings, cannot thereon avoid 
 a convi6lion, that this or that book, though it bears not the au- 
 thor's name, or thofe other marks, whereon we depend as to our 
 opinion of the authors of books, of whom we have no particu- 
 lar acquaintance, is yet written by fuch an author, the veftiges 
 of whofe peculiar fpirit and genius run through, and are dif- 
 cernible in the flrain of the book. There are few men, who 
 are acquainted with books, and read them with attention and 
 judgment, who have not the experience of this. And hence 
 we arc frequently referred to this, as what may fatisfy us, that 
 books that bear fuch author's names are genuine and truly 
 theirs.* And it is found more convincing than the atteflation 
 
 G g g of 
 
 * « Though you had not named the author, &c. I could have 
 " known and avouched him. There is a face of a ftyle, by which 
 ♦< vvc fcholars know one another, no lefs than our perfons by a vifible 
 *' countenance." Bi'^ip ilaH's preface- i9 Dr» Tnvifs's dauhting Con/, 
 ■rcjol'Vid-) PHg, 2. 
 
426 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 of no incredible witneffes in many cafes. Yet it mufi be confeffed, 
 that perfons of the bell judginent, and moft capable to exprefs 
 their thoughts, will find it difficult, if not impoffible to exprefs 
 intelligibly v/herein this obje6^ive evidence confilis : But that 
 really it is there, that there is fuch a thing, is impoffible for 
 them to queftion. 
 
 (3.) If poor men, who differ infinitely lefs f-om one ano- 
 ther, than the moll; exalted created being can be fuppofed to do 
 from God, do impart to the produft of their own thoughts, and 
 leave on their writings fuch peculiar and difcernible chara6lers 
 of their own genius and fpirit, as, at firft view, upon the lead 
 ferious attention, co?ivinces the reader, that they are the au- 
 thors, and enables him to diflingui(h their writings from others, 
 is it not reafonabie to fuppofe, that a book written by God, mufl 
 carry on it a peculiar and diftinguifliing imprefs of its author; 
 and that by fo much the more certainly difcernible, by any that 
 has right notions of him, as the difference betwixt him and the 
 iDoft exalted human genius is infinitely greater, than that be- 
 twixt the moft contemptible pamphlet writer and the moft ele- 
 vated fchoiar ? Nay, is it not impoftible rationally to imagine 
 the contrary ? Can we think. !hat he, who in all his works, 
 even in the meaneft infecl, has left fuch objective evidence, 
 and fuch impreffions of himielf, whereby he is certainly known 
 to be the author, has not left imprefiions, more remarkable 
 and diftinguiihing, on his word, which ke has magnified above 
 ^11 his namif that in, all the means whereby he defigns to 
 make himfelf known, and which he defigned to be the prin- 
 cipal means ot imparting the knowledge of himfelf to men, 
 and that for the higheft purpofes, — ihc'ir Jaivatton and his ozon 
 glory, 
 
 (4.) This Imprefs, thofe charaftcrs, prints and veftigcs of 
 the infin-"te pertcrtions of the Deity, that unavoidably muft be 
 allowed to be ftampcd on, and fhJne, not merely, or only, or 
 principally, in the matter, but in that as fpoken or written, and 
 in the writings or words, in their ftile, the fpirit running 
 througli them, the fcopc, tendency, &c. This Oz-i'nfzTiztci, or 
 God-becoming imprels of majefty, fovereignty, omnifcience, 
 inilcpendence, holi nelVj, juftice, goodnefs, wlfdom and power, 
 is not only a fuiHoient and real, but in very deed, the greateft 
 objective light and evidence imaginable. And where one has 
 an underjianding given to know him that is true, and is made 
 thereby to enlertdin any fuitable notions of the Deity, upon in- 
 tuition 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 427 
 
 tuition of this obje6\ive evidence, without waiting to reafon on 
 the matter, his aflent will be carried, and unavoidably deter- 
 mined to reft on it as the higheft ground of aflurance. A.nd 
 this aflent, founded on this imprefs of the Deity in his own 
 ■word, is indeed an alTent of the higheft degree. And thus 
 far faith refembles our intuitive knowledge, with this difference, 
 not as to the manner of the mind's a6ling, but as to the ability 
 whence it a(5ls ; that in our intuitive knowledge, as Mr. Locke, 
 and thofe of his opinion, reftrlc^s it, the evidence or objedlive 
 light is fuch as not only is immediately without reafoning dif- 
 cerned, but fuch as lies open to, and is difcernible by cur un- 
 derftandins^s, without any fubjed^ive light, any work of the 
 Spirit of God, either repairing our difabled feculties, or ele- 
 vating and guiding them to the due obfervation, or fixing their 
 attention, or freeing their minds of the power and prefent in- 
 fluence of averfion of will, diforder of affeiStions, and pejudices 
 that obftru6l the difcerning power. Whereas this is really ne- 
 ceflary in this cafe ; and though the obje£live evidence is great, 
 and ftill the fame, yet according to the greater or lelTs^r degree 
 of this affiftance, our aflent muft be ftronger or weaker, more 
 fixed or wavering. 
 
 (5.) When this obje6^ive evidence is actually obfervant to, 
 and under the view of the mind thus enabled, difpofed and af- 
 iifted, there doth arife from it, and there is made by it, an im- 
 preflion on the whole foul correfponding thereto. The beaming 
 of God's fovereign authority awes confcience. The piercing evi- 
 dence of his omnifcience increafes that regard, the view of his 
 goodnefs, mercy, love and grace, operates on the will, and 
 leaves a relifli on the affe6\ions, and this truly refembles f':nfi- 
 ble evidence, tiiough it is of fpiritual things, and of a fpiritual 
 nature ; nor is it, as it is evidence, inferior to, but upon many 
 accounts preferable to that which refults from the impreuion 
 made by fenfible objesSts. And this, as was obferved of the 
 former, is alfo greater or lefs, according, and in proportion 
 unto the view we have of that objective light above mentioned. 
 This ielf-evidencing power is a refultancy from, and in degree 
 keeps pace with that i"e!f-evidencing light. 
 
 (6.) The effetSts wrought on the foul are fuch, many of ihem, 
 as not only are mod difcernible in the time, but likewife do re- 
 main on the foul, fome of them ever after, many of them for a 
 long tra6l of time, and in their nature are fuch as evidently 
 tend to the perfecting of our facuUies, are fuitable to thetn, and 
 
 for 
 
428 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 for their Improvement, even according to what unprejudiced and 
 fober reafon determines, as to that wherein the defe6\s of our 
 faculties, and their perfection conhfts* And the reality of.thoie 
 ciTc6ts, whereof the mind is inwardly confcious, appears to the 
 conviction of beholders, in their influence upon the perfon's 
 deportment before the world. And, 
 
 (7.) Hence it is, that though our conviClion neither needs, 
 nor is founded on reafonings ; yet from thofc effetis ground is 
 given, and matter offered for a rational and argumentative con- 
 firmation of cur affent, and the grounds thereof, and the vali- 
 dity of it for our own confirmation, when that evidence which 
 firft gave ground for our faith, and wherein it refts, is not ac- 
 tually under view, as alfo for the convi6\ion of others. 
 
 (8.) This evidence is fuch as indeed challenges, and is a 
 fufficient bottom for an afient of the higheft degree. And in- 
 deed the faints of God, and that even of the meaneR condition, 
 and who have been under the moft manifeft difadvantages, both 
 as to capacity and education, with the like accafions of im- 
 provement, upon this bottom have reached faith, comprifing 
 alTurance without doubt, even that full a/furance of faith, yea 
 the riches of the full ajfurance of iindeiflandiiig, as has been 
 evident by the efFefts in death and life, of which we have no- 
 table inftances not a few in Heb. xi. throughout, both in ad- 
 verfity and profperity, life and death. 
 
 5' ** I obferve, That this light or objective evidence where- 
 ** on faith is bottomed, has no affinity with, but is at the fur- 
 *' theft remove from cnthufiaftick impulfe, or imaginations." 
 
 (i.) This is not a perfuafion without reafon. Here is the 
 firongeft reafon, and the affent hereon given leans upon the moil 
 pregnant evidence. 
 
 (2.) It carries no contradiction to our f«:culties, but influ- 
 ences them, each in a way fuitable to its nature and condition. 
 
 (3.) Yea more, none of our faculties in their due ufe do 
 contiadiCt, or at leafl: difprovc it. Whereas enthufiaftick im- 
 preiTions are irrational. 
 
 (4.) This is not a perfuafion, nor a ground for it without, or 
 contrary to the word, but it is the evidence of the word itfelf, 
 that by it we are direCled to attend to, and improve. 
 
 (5.) Yea it is what our other faculties in their due ufe will 
 give a confequential confirmation to, as we have heard. Where- 
 fore, 
 
 (6.) INIr, Locke fiiall be allowed to run down enthufiafm as 
 
 much 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 429 
 
 much as be pleafeth, and ** perfuafions whereof no reafon can 
 *' be given, but that we are ftrongly perfuaded," or not to 
 give credit to thofe that can fay no more for themfclves, " but 
 ** we fee or feel," &c. But thefe things as delivered by Locke, 
 need lome cautions. As, i. A perfuafion whereof no reafon 
 can be given, is certainly not faith, but fancy : but a perfua- 
 fion, whereof he that hath it, through weaknefs, cannot give 
 an account, may be [olid. 2. A perfuafion may be folid, of 
 which he that hath it, cannot give another evidence of the fame 
 kind as he hath himfelf. It is enough that proof of another 
 fort, and fufficient in its kind, is offered. 3. If one fays, he fees 
 and he feels, this may be fatisfying to him, though he cannot 
 give any diftindt account of the evidence he hath. And that 
 he cannot thus account for the nature of things that are within 
 him, concludes not againft the reality and truth of what he has 
 the experience: but his experience is not ground of convi6lion to 
 others, unlefs other proofs are offered. A man of a fhallow 
 capacity, deftitute of education, might be convidted of enthu- 
 fiam by a fubtile blind man, to whom he cannot for his feeing 
 give an evidence of the fame kind, nor open the nature of vifible 
 evidence, nor give any other proof that he is not miftaken, but 
 that he fees ; and yet notwithftanding of this he is not miftak- 
 en, aflents not without reafon, and has no ground to call in 
 queftion what he fees, but may and will fecurely laugh at all 
 the l^lind man's quirks, and tell him, he is blind* The cafe 
 is parallel. We muft not by this atheiftical fcare-crow be fright- 
 ened out of our faith and experience. 
 
 6. " That many read the fcriptures, without difcerning any; | 
 " thing of this light, is no argument againft it." For, 
 
 (i.) Many want that fupernatural ability, that underftand- 
 ing whereby God is known, whereby Chrift's ^^e/> know his 
 voice Jro7n that of ajlranger, and fo not being oj God, they can-- 
 not hear his words, 
 
 (2.) Many want, and are utterly deftitute of any tolerable 
 notions of God : It is impoffible fuch fhould difcern what is fuit-^ 
 able to him. 
 
 (3.) Many have perverfe notions of God rivetted on their 
 minds, and that both among the learned and unlearned j and 
 finding the fcripture not fuited to, but contrary to thofe falfe 
 pre-conceived impreflions, they look on it as fooliihnefs. 
 
 (4.) Many want that humble frame of fpirit, which has the 
 
 promife 
 
430 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 promife of divine teaching ; the. meek he guides in the zoay. 
 It is they who are fools in their own eyes, who get wifdom. 
 
 (5,) Many are proud and conceited deeply, and no wonder 
 then that they know nothing. 
 
 (6.) Many have the vanity of their minds uncured, and fo 
 hunt after vain things, and fix not in obfervation of what is fo- 
 lid, and thereby their foohjh hearts art hardened, and their 
 minds darkened and diverted. 
 
 (7.) Not a few are under the power of prevailing lufts, dif- 
 ordered afFe6\ions, and out of favour to them they are fo far 
 from defiring an increafe of knowledge, that on the contrary, 
 they like not to retain God in their kMowledge. What they al- 
 ready know, is uneafy to them, becaufe contrary to their lufts, 
 and therefore they would be rid of it. 
 
 (8.) Many there are that defpife the Spirit of God, reje£l his 
 operations, feek not after him, contemn him : And no wonder 
 fuch as refufe the guide, lofe their way. 
 
 (9.) Many, for thofe and other fins, are judicially left of God 
 to ihc god of this world, who blinds the minds of them that hi' 
 lieve not. 
 
 (10.) Many never attempt to do his will, and fo no wonder 
 they come not to a difcerning whether the word fpoken and 
 written, is of God. And if all thefe things are confidered, wc 
 fhall be fo far from quedioning the truth, becaufe many fee not 
 X'viQ evidence, that this very blindnefs will be an argument to 
 prove the truth of it, and a ftrong evidence of the need of it, 
 and of fupernatural power (o believe it. 
 
 Finally, Perfons fober and attentive want not fome darker 
 views of this evidence, which may and fhould draw on to wait 
 for more. And I take the honourable confeffions, in favour of 
 the fcriptures, made by adverfaries, to have proceeded from 
 fome fainter views of this fort. 
 
 Thus I have confidered the force of what I find pleaded by 
 Mr. Locke ; flated the queftion ; cleared in fome meafure 'our 
 opinion as it flands opppfed to that of the Rationalifls ; ailigned 
 an intelligible notion of the reafon of faith ; and fliewed it to 
 be fuch as the meaneft are capable of, and fuch as is propofed 
 to ail who are obliged to believe the fcriptures : whereas thefe 
 hiftorical proofs are above the reach of thoufands, and were ne- 
 ver heard of by innumerable muliitiides, who, on pain of dam- 
 nation, arc obliged to receive the fcriptures as the word of God. 
 
 IV. Having 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 431 
 
 IV. Having in our third obfervation overthrown the ground 
 of Mr. Locke's opinion, we are now to clear, that what Mr, 
 Locke builds on, nnuft of courfe fall ; particularly what he tells 
 us, Lib. 4. Cap. 18. Par. 6. pag. 584. " That they, who make 
 '* revelation alone the fole object of faith, cannot fay, that it 
 ** is a matter of faith, and not of reafon, to beieive, that fuch 
 ** or fuch a propofiiion, to be found in fuch or fuch a book, 
 ** is of divine infpiration ; unlefs it be revealed. That that 
 ** propofition, or all in that book was communicated by di- 
 ** vine infpiration." And he goes on telling us, That with- 
 " out fuch a particular revelation, affuring us of this, that this 
 " propofition is by divine infpiration, it can never be matter 
 ** of faith, but matter of reafon, to affent to it." 
 
 What Mr. Locke defignsby this difcourfe, 1 know not; un- 
 lefs he meant to put us under a neceffity to prove every propofi- 
 tion of the fcripture to be of divine infpiration, before we believe 
 what it exhibits. And if this is what he intends, he overthrows 
 the Chriftian religion entirely, at leaft as to its ufe and advan- 
 tage to the generality. But waving what further might be ob- 
 ferved, I (hall only animadvert a little upon that one aflerticn, 
 ** That our belief, that this or that propofition is from God, is 
 " not an a<5l of faith but of reafon." As to which I fay, 
 
 1. If Mr. Locke defigned no more but this. That the men* 
 tioned alTent to the fcripture propofitions, is an a6^ of, and fub- 
 je6led in our rational, or intelledive faculty, it might well be 
 admitted. Or, 
 
 2. If Mr. Lock meant, that this affent is agreeable to the na- 
 ture of our minds, that is, that it is not really contrary to the true 
 principles of reafon, nor fuch as proceeds without fuch grounds 
 as the nature of our underftandings require for founding an af- 
 fent, we ftiould admit, that in this fenfe it is an a6t of reafon, 
 that is, a rational a6l, as not only being elicit by oar under- 
 ikndings, but depending on fuch a reafon or ground, as the 
 nature of the intellediual power requires, and which muft al- 
 ways be confident with our certain knowledge. But, 
 
 3. Neither of thefe being intended, we cannot go along with 
 Mr. Locke in what he means by this expreffion, That cur belief 
 of fcripture propofitions, is an act of reafon, that is, an afient 
 not built upon divine tefiimony, but on fuch other argv:iing§ 
 and reafonings, as we can find out for proving that God revealed 
 it* Becaufe we fay, and fiiall afterwards prove, that the fcrip- 
 tures do evidence themfelves to be from Gcd, in that way a- 
 
 bove- 
 
432 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 above-expreiTcd, and afterwards to be explained and confirmed, 
 which we hope fhall be done in fuch Ibrt, as may ell^edually 
 repel the force of what Mr. Locke has pleaded in oppofilion to 
 the fcriptures, and fhew, that there is no reafon for ranking all 
 the truths therein delivered amongft thofe conjectural things 
 that lean only on probabilities and reafonings from them, which 
 Mr. Locke evidently does, while he fmks traditional revelation 
 as to the point of certainty below our intuitive, rational and fen- 
 fible knowledge ; and baniihes all faith, properly fo called, out 
 of the world, leaving no room for it, and fubl^ituting in its 
 place an act of reafon, proceeding upon probabilities, that is, 
 on hiftorical proofs, which he reckons only among probabilities; 
 nor do I blame him for this laft, though perhaps lome things he 
 has offered on this head, might be excepted againil ; but this is 
 not my bufinefs. 
 
 The quellion in (hort amounts to this, " Whereas the fcrip- 
 ** tures, wherever they come, oblige all to v.rhom they are of- 
 ** fered, to receive them not as the word of man, but, as in- 
 ** deed they are, the zoord of God; upon what ground or for* 
 " mal reafon is it, that we afTent thus unto them, and receive 
 ** them as the word of God, to his glory and our falvatien, in 
 ** compliance with our duty ?" 
 
 In anfvvcr to this important query, I fnall offer what, upon a 
 review of former experieiice, confideration of the fcriptures, and 
 what otliers, cfpecially that judicious and profound divine Dr. 
 Owen, in his two treatifes on this fubje6i, have written on this 
 head, appears fatisfying to me: And this 1 (ball do in the few 
 following Propoftions, which I fliall, with as much brevity anj 
 pcrfpicuity as I can, lay down, and ihorlly confirm with fome 
 few arguments. 
 
 Prop. I. ** That faith whereby we afTent unto, and receive 
 «* the word of God, to his glory and our falvation, is faith di- 
 ** vine and fupernatural." 
 
 1. There are at this day, who teach, That whatever faith 
 is at preCent to be found amongft men, is built upon, and re- 
 folved into the teflimony of men*. And therefore it will be 
 neceflary to iniili a little in confirniing and explaining of this 
 important truth. 
 
 2. To clear this we obferve, that the underflanding, or that 
 faculty, power or ability of the foul of man, whereby we per- 
 ceive, 
 
 * Le' Clerk in his Logicks. 
 
THE REz^SON OF TRUE FAITH. 433 
 
 ceive, and alTent unto truths upon their proper evidence, rray 
 be dillinguifned or branched into diverlc iubordinate powers, in 
 refpecl of the ditFerent truths to which it affents. i. We have 
 an ability of affenting unto the felf-evident maxims of reafon, 
 fuch as that, The fame things at the fame time, cannot he and not 
 he, upon their own feif-cvidence, without any other argument, 
 than a bare propofal of them in terms we underiland. 2. We 
 have an ability to aiTent unto other truths, upon conviction of 
 their truth by argunients, drawn from the fore-mentioned lelf- 
 evident truths, or any other acknowledged or owned by us. 
 3. We have an ability to aiTent unto truths, upon the evidence 
 of the tellimony of credible witnefles, or perlons worthy to be 
 believed, and of deferving credit. This ability, and the alTent 
 given by it to fuch truths, upon fuch teftimony, are both called 
 by the fame common name, faith* 
 
 3. Faith then is that power or ability of the mind of man, 
 •whereby be is capable of receiving, and a6\uallv aflents unto 
 truths upon the evidence of the teftimony of perfons worthy of 
 credit, who know what they teftify, and will not deceive us. 
 Now whereas the perfon giving this teftimony, is either God, 
 men, or angels, good or bad, faith may be confidered as either 
 divine, human or angelical. This laii, as of no confideration to 
 our purpofe, we (liall lay afide. That faith, or ability, whereby 
 we alTent to the teftimony of men worthy of credit, is called hu- 
 7nan faith' And thai whereby we affent to truths upon the evi- 
 dence of the teftimony of God, who cannot lie, is called divine 
 
 faith. 
 
 4. Divine faith is that power, or ability whereby we alTent 
 unto, and receive truths propofed to us upon evidence of the 
 word or teftimony of God, to our own falvation, in conipiiance 
 with our duty, to the glory of God. 
 
 5. In this account of divine faith, we add, in compliance with 
 our duty, to the glory of God, and ow^ own falvation, becaufe 
 devils and men may yield fome affent unto truths, upon the evi- 
 dence of God's teftimony, which neither anfwers their duty, 
 nor turns to the glory of God in their falvation, of which we 
 do not now defign to fpeak, and therefore by this claufe have 
 cut it off, and laid it afide, as not belonging to that faith where- 
 of we now fpeak, and whereby we conceive all, to whon) the 
 fcriptures come, are obliged to receive them. 
 
 6. This faith now defcribed may be called divine, and fuper- 
 natural, and really is fo on two accounts, i. Becaufe this abiii- 
 
 H h h ty 
 
 I 
 
434 AN* ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 tv is wrouj^ht in them, in whom it is found, by the divine and 
 fupernatural power of God- 2. Becaufe it builds not its per- 
 fuafion of, yields not its aflenl unto the truths it receives upon 
 any human authority or teiiimony ; but upon the teftimony of 
 God, who can neither be ignorant of any truth, deceived, or 
 deceive us. 
 
 y. It now remains, that we confirm this propofition that we 
 have thus ftiorllv explained. And this we ihall do by its kvc 
 ral parts. F^y'?, then we aflert, " That this faith is wrought in 
 '* thefe, who have it, by the power of God." Now for clear- 
 ing this, we fhall only hint at the heads of a few arguments, 
 leaving the further proof to polemic treatifes. I. This ability 
 to believe and receive the things of God to our falvation and 
 his glory, is in fcripture exprefsiy denied to natural or unre- 
 newed men. 2 Thef. iii. 2. All men have 7iot jaiih. i Cor. 
 jj, 14. — Jjit natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of 
 God: For they are foolifhnefs unto him : Neither can he know^ 
 them, becaufe they are fpiritually difcerned. Joh. viii. 47. — Ye 
 therefore hear not God's words, becaufe ye are not oj God. 
 2. This is exprefsiy denied to be of ourfelves, and afferted a 
 fupernatural gij^t of God- Ephef. ii. '^.'—By grace K arc 
 faved through faith, and that not of y ourfelves, it is the gift of 
 God. 3. The produ6iion of it is afcribed unto God. He it is 
 that fulfils in his people the work of faith zvith power, 2 Thef.' 
 i. 1 1. He it is that gives them, that is, that enables them, on 
 the behalf of Chrifl, to believe and faff er for his name, Phil. 
 J. 29. It is one oixht fruits produced by Xhcfpirit, Gal. v. 22. 
 ana of it Chrift is the. author, Heb. xii. 2. 
 
 Secondly, We are next ihortly to prove, '' that this faith 
 *• builds its perfuafion on the teftimony of God evidencing it- 
 *' felf fuch unto the mind," and not on human teftimony^ 
 2. It is in Icripture exprefsiy faid not to 7?^???^ in the zvfdo?n of 
 men, i Cor. ii*. 5, that is, it leans not on the word, authority, 
 eloquence or reafonings of men. 2. It is exprefsiy in that 
 lame verfe, laid to fland in the power of God, that is, as the 
 foregoing;? words compared with ver. 13. explain it, in the 
 zi'ords which the HclyGhofl teacheth, and which he demonftrates 
 cr evidences by his power, accompanying them, to be the word 
 of God. 3. It is defcrihed in fuch a way as fully clears this ; 
 it is held forth as a receiving of the word, not as the word of 
 nun, but &sit is indeed the word of God, which effedually zuork- 
 
 eth 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 435 
 
 dh in you that believe f i- Thef. il. 13. Many other proofs miglit 
 be added, but this is fi;fflclent to anfwer our purpofc. 
 
 Thirdly, VVe (hall next fhortly prove, *' that Vv^e are obliged 
 ** in duty thus to believe the fcriptures, or to receive them as 
 ** the word of God, and not of men." i. The fcriptures are 
 indeed, and hold forth themfelves every where as the word of 
 God. They are the oracles of God, which holy men of God 
 fpakz by the motion of the Spirit of God, and zurote by divine in- 
 fpiration, and the Holy Ghojl /peaks to us by than* Now 
 when God utters oracles, fpeaks, writes and utters his mind to 
 us, we are in duty obliged and bound to aiTent to what he fays, 
 and yield what obedience he requires. This the very light of 
 nature teacheth. 2. The fcriptures were written for this very 
 end, that we might believe, and that believing zve might have 
 life, John xx. 30, 31. The fcriptures of the prophets (which 
 contain the revelation of the myfiery of God's will, otherwife 
 not known) according to the commandment of the evtrlafling God^ 
 are made known unto all nations for the obedience of faith, 
 Rom. xvi. 25, 26. Again the fcriptures are termed a more fare, 
 word of prophecy than the voice from heaven, and men are faid to 
 do well, to take heedxo them, 2 Pet. i. toward the clofe. That is, 
 it is their duty to take heed to them, or believe them. 3. The 
 mofl dreadful judgments are threatened againfl; thofe who re- 
 ceive not the word of God from the prophets or apoRlesi whe- 
 ther by word or writ, is all one. Whojoever fkall not receive. 
 you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that houfe or 
 city, fliake off the dnfi of your feet* Veiily 1 fay unto you, it 
 fliall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Goviorrah, in 
 the day of -judgment, than for that city, Matth. x. 14, 15. Ac- 
 cordingly we find the ^poftles preach the word at Antioch in 
 Pifidia, A6is xiii. ; demand acceptance of it both of Jews and 
 Gentiles ; and upon their refufal they teliify againft them in the 
 way of the Lord's appointment, ver. 51. Though fo far as we 
 can learn, they there wrought no miracle to contirm their mif- 
 fion. 4. We have above heard the apolVte commending the 
 Thefialonians for receiving the word as the word of God, and 
 not of man, l Theff. ii. 13. which fufhciently ihews that it 
 was their duty. 
 
 Whereas fome may here fay, *' How can it be our duty io 
 believe the word of God, unce it has been above proved, that 
 
 we 
 
 * Heb. V. 12. — 2 Per. i. 20^ 21. — 2 Tim. iii. 16. — Mark xii, ^6. 
 Afis i. 16, — Ads xxviii. 25.— rieb. iii. 7, 
 
43^ AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 wc are not able of curfelves thus to do It." I anf'vver briefly, 
 I. The very light of nature requires pcrfe£i obedience of us; 
 and yet we are not able to yield to it. 2. The Icriptures plain- 
 ly require, that zve Jerve God acceptahlyt with reverence and 
 godly j car y Heb. xii. 28. and yet we muft have grace whereby 
 to do it. 3. We have deflroyed ourjllvesj Flof. xiii. 9. and 
 that through this, our faith or natural ability of believing truths 
 upon teflimony, is fo impaired and weakened, and by preju- 
 dices fo obitruuled otherwife, that we are not able to dif- 
 cern the evidence of God's authority, in his word, nor afl'ent 
 thereon to his teftimony in a due manner, yet this cannot 
 reafonably prejudge God's right to demand credit to his word, 
 whereon he has impreiled fuch prints of his authority, as are 
 fufficiently obvious to any one's faith, that is not thus faultily 
 depraved. 4. We have therefore no reafon to queflion God, 
 who gave us eyes, which we have put out, but to blame our- 
 felves, and aim to do his will, that is, wait on him in all the 
 ways of his own appointment ; and we have no reafon to def- 
 pair, but that in this way we may have gracioufly given us of 
 God's fovereign grace, an underflanding to know whether 
 thefe truths are of God, or they who fpoke them did it of them- 
 felves, (i John v. 20- John vii. 17.) Though we cannot claim 
 this as what is our due. 
 
 Thus we have in fome meafure cleared what that faith is, 
 whereby the fcriptures muft be believed to the glory of God 
 and our own falvation, and confirmed fliortly our account of it 
 from the fcriptures of truth. We now proceed to 
 
 Prop. IL '* The reafon for which we are obliged in duty 
 ** to believe or receive the fcriptures as the word of God, is 
 ** not, That God has by his Spirit wrought faith in us, or given 
 ** us this ability thus to receive them." 
 
 This propofition we have ofFcred, becaufe fome do blame 
 Proteftants for faying fo ; whereas none of them really do it. 
 Nor can any man reafonably fay it. For clearing this obfcrve, 
 
 I. It is indeed true, that ve carrot believe them, unlefs 
 God y^ive us this gracious ability or faith to believe them, 
 and by his Holy Spirit remove our natural darkncfs, and clear 
 our minds of thofe prejudices agaiqft his word, wherewith na- 
 turally they are filled. 
 
 2. Yet this is not the reafon v/herefore we do afTent unto, or 
 receive the fcriptures ; for it were impertinent, if any (liould 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 437 
 
 aflc, Upon v»'hat account do ye believe the fcrlptures to be the 
 word of God ? to anfwer, 1 believe it becauTe God has wrought 
 the faith of it in me. This is not to tell wherefore we do be- 
 lieve, but to tell how we came to be furnilhed with power or 
 ability to believe. 
 
 Prop. HI. " We are not to believe the fcriptures upon the 
 ** authority of any man or church : or, The reafon wherefore 
 ** we are in duty bound thus to afTent to, or receive the fcrip- 
 ** tures as the word of God, is not, that any man, or church, 
 ** fays fo." 
 
 This is fully demonftrated by our writers againft the Papids. 
 For confirmation of it, it is fufficient for our purpofe at pre- 
 fent to obferve, 
 
 1. That to believe, that the fcriptures are the word of God, 
 becaufe fuch a man, or church fays fo, anfwers not our duty. 
 Our duty is to believe God fpeaking to us, upon the account of 
 his own veracity ; and not becaufe men fay, that this is his 
 word. This is not to believe God and his prophets for the fake 
 of their own teflimony, but for the authority of men, (2 Chron. 
 XX. 20.) 
 
 2. The faith that leans upon this teftimony, is built not on 
 the truth of God^ but on the ttjlimony of meriy who may be 
 deceived and deceive : All men are liars* 
 
 3. We have no where in the word this propofed as the 
 ground whereon, in duty, we are obliged to believe the fcrip- 
 tures. 
 
 4. The church, and what (he fays, is to be tried by the word, 
 and her teftimony is fo far only to be received as the word con- 
 fents : and therefore we cannot make this the ground of our 
 faith, without a fcandalous circle, which the church of Rome 
 can never clear herfelf of. 
 
 5. But I need infill no further on this head. That church 
 which only claims this regard to her teftimony, is long fince 
 become fo well known, and fo fully convi6led of manifold 
 falfhoods, that her tefiimony rather prejudges than helps to con- 
 firm whatever it is ens:as;ed for. 
 
 ■to-to- 
 
 Prop. IV. ** The rational arguments whereby the truth of 
 ** the Chriftian religien is evinced and demonftraied againft 
 ** atheifts, though they are many ways ufeful, yet are not the 
 ** ground or reafon whereon, in a way of duty, all who have 
 
 ^* the 
 
43S AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 " the Scriptures propofed to them, are obliged to believe and 
 " receive them as the word of God." 
 
 Thefe moral and rational confideratlons are, and • may be 
 many ways ufeful to (top the mouths of enemies, to beget la 
 them, who yef are unacquainted with the true intrinfick worth 
 of the word, Tome value for it, and engage them to confider it ; 
 to relieve them that do believe againft objeflions, and ftrength- 
 en their faith. This is allowed to them ; and is fufficient in 
 this ioofe and atheiftical age, to engage perfons of all forts, 
 who value the fcriptures, to lludy them. Bat yet it is not up- 
 on them that the faith required of us, as to the divine authority 
 of the fcriptures, is to be founded. For, 
 
 1. Thefe are indeed a proper foundation for a rational af- 
 fent, fuch as is given upon moral proof or demonftration. And 
 they are able to bege't a flrong moral perfuafion of this truth. But 
 this ailent which they beget, cannot, in any propriety of fpeech, 
 be called faith, either divine or human. For faith is an affent 
 upon teftimony. 
 
 2. The faith that is required of us, is required to be found- 
 ed not on the wifclom of mtrij that is, the reafonings or ar- 
 guings of men. Now this leans only and entirely on thefe. 
 
 o. This faith is, in way of duty, required of many. Many 
 are in duty obliged to receive the fcriptures as the word of God, 
 to whom thefe arguments were never offered. The apoflles 
 never made ufe of them, and yet required thejr hearers to re- 
 ceive and believe their word. 
 
 4. This faith many are obliged to, who are not capable of 
 uaderftanding or reaching the force of thefe arguments. 
 
 Prop. V. *^ The faith of the fcripture's divine authority is 
 ** not founded in this. That they by whom thev were written, 
 ** did, by miracles, prove they were fent of God." 
 
 I need not fpend much time in clearing this. It will fuflR- 
 ciently conRrm it to obferve, 
 
 1. That many are, and were in duty obliged to yield thl^ 
 affent to, and believe the fcriptures, who faw not thefe miracles. 
 
 2. We are no other way fure of thefe being wrought, than 
 by the teftimony of the word. 
 
 3. This way is not countenanced by the word : for it no 
 where teaches us to e\'pe6l miracles as the ground of our alTent, 
 but upon the contrary declares, that the word of Mofes and the 
 
 prophets 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 439 
 
 prophets is fufficlent to lay a foundation for faith, without any 
 new miracle, (Luke x. 31,) 
 
 Prop. VI. " The reafon whereon, in duty we are bound 
 ** to receive the fcriptures as the word of God, is not any pri- 
 " vate voice, whifper or fuggeftion from the Spirit of God, 
 ** feparate and diinn6t from the written word, faying in our 
 ** ear, or fuggefting to our mind, that the fcriptures are the 
 " word of God." 
 
 There is no need to infift long in proof of this. For, 
 
 1. Many are bound to believe the word of God, to whom ne- 
 ver any fuch teftimony was given : but no man is bound to re- 
 ceive the fcriptures, to whom the ground whereon he is bound 
 to beh'eve them, is not propofed. 
 
 2. There is no where in the word, any ground given for any 
 fuch teftimony. Nor doth the experience of any of the Lord's 
 people witnefs, that they are acquainted with any fuch fuggef- 
 tion. And befides, the queftion might again be moved con- 
 cerning this fuggeftion, Wherefore do ye believe this to be the 
 teftimony of God ? 
 
 Prop. VIL ** That whereon all, to whom the word of God 
 ** comes, are bound to receive it with the faith above defcribed, 
 " is not any particular word of the fcripture bearing tefiim.ony 
 ** to all the reii. As for inftance, it is not merely or primarily 
 *' upon this account, that I am bound to receive all the writleu 
 ** word as the word of God, becaufe the fcripture fays, 2 Tim. 
 *' iii. 16. That all fcripture is given by infpiration of God," 
 
 This is very plain upon many accounts, fome of which I 
 fhall fhortly offer. 
 
 1. We had been obliged to believe the fcriptures with faith 
 fupernatural, though thefe teftimonies had been left out. Yea 
 they who had them not, were obliged to believe the word of 
 God. 
 
 2. Thefe have no more evidence of their being from God, 
 than oth€r places of fcriptures : and therefore we are not to 
 believe the fcriptures merely on their teftimony ; but have the 
 fam.e reafon to receive with faith as the word of God, every 
 part of the fcripture as well as thefe teflimonies. 
 
 Prop. VIIL *' The reafon why we are bound, with faitli 
 ** fupernatural and divine, to receive the word of Cod, ii not, 
 
 " tiiat 
 
440 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 ** that the things therein revealed, or the matters of the fcrlp- 
 
 ** tures, are fuitable unto the apprehenfions v/hich men natu- 
 
 ** rally have of God, themfelves and other things, and con - 
 
 ** s^ruous to the interefts, neceffities, denres and capacities of 
 
 *' men." 
 
 I (Iiall not fpend time in overthrowing this, which fome feem 
 io fond of ; only for confirming the proportion obferve, 
 
 1. This fuitablenefs of the matter unto the apprehenfions, or 
 natural notions of men concerning God, themfelves and other 
 thino^s, &c. as difcerned by men unrenewed, and made out by 
 their reafonings, is not a ground for faith, or an afient to teflimo- 
 ny, but for a perfuafion of another fort. 
 
 2. There are many things revealed in the fcripture, which 
 are to any mere natural man no way capable of this character. 
 No man receives, or can reafonabiy receive on this account, the 
 dod^rine of the Trinity, and the like. It Is true, thefe are not 
 contrarv to our reafon : but it is likewife true, they have no fuch 
 evident congruity to the notions our reafon luggefts of God, as 
 ihould engage us to receive the difcovery as from God; yea on 
 the contrary, there is a feeming inconfiflency that has Oartled 
 many. 
 
 Prop. IX. " When therefore it is inquired. Wherefore 
 ** do ye believe, and by faith reft in the fcriptures as the word 
 " of God, and not of man? We do not anfwer, It is becaufe 
 *' God has given us an ability fo to do ; becaufe the church 
 *' fays, It is the word of God ; becaufe there are many llrong 
 " moral arguments proving it fo ; becaufe they who wrote it, 
 •* wroui>^ht miracles ; becaufe God has by fome voice whifpered 
 *' in our ear, or fecretly fuggefted it to us, that this is the word 
 *' of God ; or becaufe there are particular fcriptures which bear 
 ** witnefs to all the reft that they are of God ; nor finally, be- 
 ** caufe the matter therein revealed, feem worthy of God to our 
 '•' reafon." 
 
 This is the fum of what has been hitherto cleared : and the 
 rcafons offered againft all thefe, whether we take them fepa- 
 lately or conjunctly- They prove, that not one of them, nor 
 all taken together, are the form.al reafon whereon we are obli- 
 ged to believe the word of God, or receive it with faiUi fuper- 
 iiatural and divine. 
 
 PROPr 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 441 
 
 Prop. X. ** The formal reafon or ground whereon I alTent 
 ** to, or receive the whole fcrlptures, and every p:^rtlcular 
 ** truth in them, and am obliged in duty To to do, is, the au- 
 *' thority and truth of God fpeaking in them, and fpeaking eve- 
 ** ry truth they contain, evidencing itfelf to my faith, when 
 ** duly exercifed about them, and attending to them, by their 
 ** own divine and diftingullhing light and power. Or v/hsn it 
 ** is inquired, Wherefore do ye believe, receive, afl'ent to, 
 ** and reft in the fcrlptures as indeed the word of God, and 
 *' not of man? I anfwer, I do believe them, becaufe they car- 
 ** ry in them, to my faith, an evidence of God, or do evidence 
 ** themfelves by their own light and power to my faith, duly 
 ** exercifed about them, that ihey are the word of God, and not 
 *' of man." 
 
 Now for explaining this, which is the aflertion that contains 
 the truth principally intended, I Ihali offer the few following 
 ■remarks : 
 
 1. However great the evidence of God in the word is, yet it 
 cannot, nor is it requifite that it fhould, determine any to re- 
 ceive and aflent to it, whofe faith and ability of believing is not 
 duly difpofed. Though the fun fhine never fo clearly, yet he 
 that has no eyes, or whofe eyes are vitiate, and under any total 
 darkening indifpofition, fees it not. No wonder then, that 
 they, who have not naturally, and to whom God has not yet, by 
 fupernatural grace, given eyes to fee, ears to hear, or hearts to 
 perceive, difcern not the evidence of God's authority and truth 
 in the word. 
 
 2. Although there really may be in any an ability, or faith 
 capable of difcerning this evidence ; yet if that faith is not ex- 
 ercifed, and duly applied to the confideration of the word, 
 whereon this evidence is impreffed, he cannot affent unto, or 
 believe it in a due manner, to the glory of God, hisowu faiva- 
 tion, and according to his duty. There is evidence fufficient 
 in many moral, metaphyseal and mathematical truths ; and 
 yet abundance of perfons,'who are fufficiently capable of it, 
 60 not affent unto thefe truths, nor difcern this evidence : not 
 becaufe it is wanting, but becaufe thsy do not apply their minds 
 to the obfervation of it in a due way. God has not imparted 
 fuch an evidence to his word, as the light of the fun has, which 
 forces an acknowledgement of itfelf upon any, whofe eyes are 
 not wilfully ihut : but dciigning to put us to duty, he has im- 
 parted fuch evidence, as they, who have eyes to fee, if accord- 
 
 1 i i ins 
 
442 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 ing to duty they apply their minds, niay difcern,' and be fatls- 
 fied by. 
 
 3. This li^ht and pr>wer evidencing the divine authority of 
 the fcripiures, is really impreOed upon every truth, or every 
 u'ord which God fpeaki to us, efpecially as it ftands in its own 
 place, related to, and conne6led with the other parts of the 
 I'cripture, whereto it belongs. But of this more hereafter. 
 
 4. When ,to the queftion, Wherefore, or on what grounds 
 do i affent to the fcriptures as indeed the word of God and not 
 of man? it is anfwered, I do it, bccaufe it evidences itfeif 
 to be God's word by its own light or power, there is no place for 
 that captious queftion, How know ye this light and power to be 
 divine, or from God ? For, it is of the nature of ail light, ex- 
 ternal and fenhbie, or internal and mental, (concerning which 
 two it is hard to determine which ot them is properly, and 
 which only metaphoricallv, light) that it not only clears to the 
 mind other things difcernible by it, but fatisfies the mind about 
 itfeif, proportionably to the degree of its clearnefs. The light 
 of the fun difcovers fenfible obje^ls, and fatlfiies us fo fully 
 about itfeif, that we need have recourfe to no new arguments to 
 convince us that we have this light, and that it is real. In like 
 manner the evidence of any mathematical truth, not only quiets 
 iifi about the truth, but makes the mind reft allured about itfeif. 
 And fo the divine light and power of the word, not only fatis- 
 fies our minds, as to thofe truths they are defigned of God to 
 difcover, but, in proportion to the degree of light in them, or 
 conveyed by thern, fatisfy the mind about this light or power, 
 that it is truth and is ?20 lie. Nor is there need for any other 
 argument to convince a mind affe6!ed with this, of it. It is 
 true, if a blind man fl^.ould fay fo to me. How know ye that 
 the fun {hines, and ye fee it ? I would anfwer, 1 know it by the 
 evidence of its own light aiFe<Siing mine eyes : And if he fhould 
 further fay, But how prove ye to me, that ye aie not deluded, 
 that really it is (o? Then I would be obliged to produce other 
 arguments v^hereof he is capable : but then it mufi be allowed 
 that the evidence of thefe arguments is not fo great as the evi- 
 dence I jTiyfelf have of it by its ovv'n light ; though they may 
 be more convincing to him. And further, this is not to con- 
 vince myfelf, but to {^uisfy him, and free my mind from the 
 difturbance of his objections. In like manner, if one, that 
 denies the fcriptures, thall fav, Wherefore do ye believe or rcfl 
 ia the fcriptures as the word of God 't I anfwe.-, I do it, becaufe 
 
 ihev 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 443 
 
 they evidence thcmfelvcs to my mind, by their own light, or 
 pov/er, to be of God. If he (liall fay, I cannot difcern this. 
 I anhver, It is becauie your mind is darkened, ye want eyes, or 
 have them Chut, If he iliail further urge, That my light is not 
 real, I will prove it by arguments, which may ftop his mouth, 
 and be more convincing to him than mvafiertion, which is all 
 that hitherto he has; but yet thefe arguments are not that where- 
 on my mind refls faiisfied as to the truth ; though they may be 
 of great ufe, not only to convince him, but to relieve my mind 
 againll luch fubtiie fophifms, as he might make ufe of, which 
 though they could not perfuade me out of the fight of my eyes, 
 or the evidence ihining into my mind, yet troubled me hov/ to 
 anfwer them, and at times, when, through my inadvertency, or 
 indifpodtion of my eyes, or through clouds overfpreading and 
 interporing betwixt this light and me, thefe objections might 
 fhake me a little. 
 
 5. Contidering we are but renewed in part, and our faith 
 is impcrfiTCt. and liable to many defects, the miniftry of the 
 church is of manifold neceffity and ufe, to awaken us to attend 
 to this light, to cure the indifpofitions of our minds, to hold up 
 this light to us, to point out and explain the truths it difcovers, 
 whereby our minds are made more fenfible of the evidence of 
 this light. And upon many other accounts of a like nature, 
 are the ordinances neceffary, and through the efl^icacy of the 
 divine ordination and appointment, ufcful for eftablillriing our 
 minds, naturally lluggifh, dark, weak and unftable, and which 
 are expofed to manifold temptations, in the faith of the fcrip- 
 tures. 
 
 6. In order to our holding fail our faith, and being ftable in 
 it, betides this outward miniliry, and the inward work of the 
 Holy Ghoft, giving us an underHanding to difcern this evi- 
 dence, and befides the forementioned ufe of the moral argu- 
 ments above-mentioned ; befides all thefe, to our believing and 
 perfevering in a due manner, in the faith of the fcriptures, we 
 ftand in need of the daily influences of the Spirit of God, ta 
 flrengthen our faith or ability of difcerning fpiritual things, to 
 clear our minds of prejudices, and incidental indilpofitions, to 
 i'eal the truths on ouf tpinds, and give us refreihing taltes of 
 them, and con^rm us many ways againft opnofitiou. 
 
 7. This light, whereby the written word evidences itfelf un^ 
 to the minds of thofe who have fpiritual ears to hear, and ap- 
 ply them, is nothing cife fave the imprefs cf the majedy, truth, 
 
 omni- 
 
444 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 omnlicience, wifdom, holinefs, juftice, grace, mercy, and au- 
 thority of God, ftamped upon the fcripturesby the Holy Ghoft, 
 and beaming or fhining info the minds of fuch perfons upon 
 their hearing or peruial, and affecting them with a (enk of the(e 
 perfettions, both in what is fpoken, and in the majeftic and 
 God becoming way of fpeaking : they fpeak as never ^nan/pake ; 
 the m itter fpoken, and the manner of fpeaking, has a great- 
 jnefs difcernible by a fpiritual underftanding, that fully falisfies 
 it, that God is the fpeaker. And ail the impreffions of God's 
 wifdom, faithfulnefs, omnifcience and majefty, that are ftamped 
 upon the matter contained in the fcripturcs, being conveyed only 
 by the word, do join the impreffions that are upon the word, and 
 ftrengthen the evidence they give of their divine original, fince 
 thefe impreffions do not otherwife appear to our minds, or af- 
 fect them, than by the word. The v/ord, by a God-becoming 
 manifi^flation of the truth, that fcorns all thefe little and mean 
 arts of infmuation, by fair and enticing words, and artincially 
 drefled up argumentations, with other the like confefTions of 
 human weaknefs, that are In all human writings, commends it- 
 felf to the confcience, dives into the fouls of men, into all the 
 fecret leceflTes of their hearts, guides, teaches, dire^s, deter- 
 mines and judges in them, and upon them, in the name, ma- 
 jefjy and authority of God. And when it enters thus into the 
 foul, it fills it v/ith the light of the glory of the beamings of 
 thofe perfeclions upon it, v/hereby it is made to cry out, Th^ 
 voice of God and not of man, 
 
 8. This power, whereby the word evidences itfelf to be the 
 word of God and not of man, is nothing elfe fave that authori- 
 ty and awful efficacy, which he puts forth in and by It over the 
 minds and confciences of men, working divinely, and leaving 
 cfFe6ls of his glorious and omnipotent power in tliem and on 
 them. It enters into the confcience, a territory exempt from 
 the authority of creatures, and fubjccl only to the dominion of 
 God, it challenges, convinces, threatens, awakens, fets it a 
 roaring, and the creation cannot quiet it again. It commands 
 a calm, and the fea, that was troubled before, is fmooth, and 
 devils and men are not able to dii^urb its repofe. If enters into 
 the mind, opens its eyes, fills it with a glorious, clear, pure 
 and purifying light, and fets before it wonders, before unknown, 
 uiidifcerned in counfel and knowledge, concerning God, our- 
 ielves, our fin, our duty, oar daiger, and our relief, the 
 works, (he ways, the counfcls ar.<i purpoies of God. It fpeaks 
 
 to 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 445 
 
 to the will, converts it, and powerfully difengages it from 
 what it was nrioft engaged to, what it ennbraced, and was even 
 glued to before, fo that no art or force of eloquence, argument, 
 fear or hope, could make it quit its hold ; it makes it haftiiy 
 quit its embraces, and turn its bent another way, the quite op- 
 pofite, and with open arms embrace what nothing could make 
 it look to before, takes away its averfion, makes it willingly 
 not only go, but run after what it bore the greateft averfion to 
 before, and obtlinately refufe to clofe with any other thing. It 
 enters the afteftions, makes them rife from the ground, gives 
 them fuch a divine touch, that, though they may through their 
 fickle nature, be carried at a time by force another way, yet 
 they never reft, but point heaven-ward. It comes to the foul, 
 funk under the preffure of unrelievable dillrelTes, fticking in 
 the miry clay, refufing comfort, and in appearance capable of 
 none, it plucks it out of the clay, raifes it out of the horrible 
 pit, fets its Jeet upon a rock, fills it with joy, yea makes it ex- 
 ceeding joyful, while even all outward prefiures and tribulation 
 continue, yea are increafed. It enters into the foul, lays hold 
 on the reigning lufls, to which all formerly had fubmitted, and 
 that with delight; it tries and condemns thofe pov/erful crimi- 
 nals, makes the foul throw off the yoke, and join in the execu- 
 tion of its fentcnce againfl, and on them. Now where the cafe 
 is thus dated, how can the foul, that feels this powerful word, 
 that comes from the Lord moft High, do ctherwife than jdl 
 dozvn, and own. That God is in it of a truth, 
 
 9. Whereas fome may hereon objedl, ** That many, who 
 ** have for a longtime heard and perufed this word, have not 
 " perceived this light, nor felt this power, and, on this fuppo- 
 ** lition, feemed exempted from any obligation to believe the 
 " word." I anfwer, 
 
 (i.) Many who have fpent not a few years in prying into the 
 works of God in the world, have not difcerned to this day the 
 beaming evidence, and clear declarations of his glory in them ; 
 yet none will hereon fay, that they are excufable, or that 
 want of an evidence is chargeable on the works of God. And 
 why fnould not the cafe be allowed the fame as to the word V 
 May they not have this evidence, though men do not difcern it ? 
 And may not men, even on account of this evidence be obliged 
 to believe them ? 
 
 No wonder many difcern not this light, and are not affet^ed 
 with it, fmce all men have put out their ovi^n eyes, or impaired 
 
 by 
 
446 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 by their own fault, that faitli or power of difcerning the voice 
 of God, fpeaking either by his word or works, which our na- 
 tures originally had. In many this evil is increafed, and this 
 power further weakened by their fhutting their eyes, and en- 
 tertaining of prejudices, manifeftly unjurt, againft God's word 
 and works. Others turn away their eyes, and will not look to, 
 cr attend to the word in that way wherein God ordains ihem to 
 attend to it, that they may difcern iis light, and feel its power. 
 And God has hereon judicially given many up to the power of 
 Satan, to be uirther blinded. And no wonder they, whofe eyes 
 the god of this luorld has bhnd^dt fhould not difcern the glorv 
 of the golpei of Chrill, who is the image of God, Jhining into 
 their mindS' 
 
 (3.) No wonder thev fhoul I not difcern this ; for God to this 
 day has not given them eyes to fee^ ears to hear, or hearts to 
 perceive* It is an att of sovereign grace, which God owes to 
 none, to open their eyes, which they have wilfully ulinded: and 
 where he fees not meet to do this, it is not It range, that they 
 are not afie6^ied with the cleareft evidence, 
 
 (4.) Light, however clear, cannot of itfelf fupplv the di- 
 fe6l of the difcerning power. The fun, thou<:rh it ihines, c.n- 
 not make the blind to iee. The word has this light in it, though 
 the blind fee it not ; yea I may adventure to fay, that the word 
 of God contained in the fcriptures, which he has magnified above 
 all his name, has in it more, and no lefsdifcernibie evidences 
 of the divine perfe6lions, and confequently of its divine origi- 
 nal and authority, than the works of creation, fome of which 
 are fufficient to carry in fome convit^on of God in it, even on 
 the n)inds of thofe who are not favingly enlightened, if they at- 
 tend but to it in the due exercife of their rational abilities, that 
 isj in fuch a manner as they do, or may attend to it, without 
 favlog illumination, laying afide wilful prejudice; which though 
 it will not be fufficient to draw fuch an ailent, as will engage 
 and enable them to receive the fcriptures, in a due manner, to 
 the glory of God, and their own falvation, and comply with 
 them, yet 1 conceive it will be fufficient to juftify againft them 
 the word's claim to a divine original, and cut them oii" from any 
 ufe of, or excufe from a plea of the want of fufficient evidence 
 of the divine original of the word. 1 doubt not, but many of 
 thefe, who upon conviflion faid, that Chrifl fpake as never ?7iafi 
 fpake, were (hangers to faving iiluminaJion, and yet faw fome- 
 what of a fiamp and imprefs of divinity in what he faid, andt'he 
 
 manner 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 447 
 
 manner of faying it, that drew this confeffion from them, that 
 rendered them iuexcufable, in not llftening to him, and comply- 
 ing with his word. Yea I doubt not, that the cafe will be found 
 the fame as to many, with refpe<St to the written word, and would 
 be fo to ail, if they feriou{ly> and without wilful prejudices, at- 
 tended to it. 
 
 10. I further obferve. That to engage to this aflent, it is not 
 rcquifite, that every one feel all thefe, or the like particular 
 effects at all times, but that the word have this power, and put 
 it forth, as occafion needs, and circumfiances require it. 
 
 Having thus explained, we are now to prove our affertion, 
 ** That the ground whereon we are in duty bound to believe 
 ** and receive the word of God as his word, and not the word 
 ** of man, and whereon all who have received, and believed it 
 ** in a due manner, to the glory of God and their own falvation, 
 ** do receive it thus, is the authority and veracity of God ipeak- 
 *' ing in and by the word, and evidencing themfelves by that 
 ** light and power, which is conveyed into the foul in and by 
 ** the fcriptures, or the written word itfelf." 
 
 Many arguments offer themfelves for proof of this important 
 affertion, which hiiherto we have explained ; fome of the mofl 
 confiderable of them I ihall ft ortly propcfe, without infOing 
 largely on the profecution, deligning only to hint the argu- 
 ments that fatisfied me, that I was not miftaken as to the grounds 
 whereon, by the forementioned experience, I was brought lo 
 receive the fcriptures as the word of God. 
 
 Aig. I. God ordinarily in the fcriptures offers his mind, re- 
 quiring u's to believe, obey and fubmit to it upon this and no 
 ether ground, viz. the evidence of his own teflimony. The 
 only reafon commonly infifted on to warrant our faith, oblige 
 us to believe and receive, is, Thus faith the Lord. 
 
 Arg. 2. When faife prophets fet up their pretended revela- 
 tions in competition with his word, hf- remits them to the evi- 
 dence his words gave by their own light and power, as that 
 which was fufficient to diftirguiOi and enable them to reject the 
 falfe pretenfions, and cleave to his word, Jer. xxiii. 26, — 29. 
 How long fliall this be in the heart of the p7'ophets that prophefy 
 lies f Ihat are prophets of the deceit of their own hearts ; which 
 think to caufe my people to forget my name by their dreams^ 
 which thty tell every man to his neiphbour, as their fathers have 
 forgotten m.y name for BaaL The prophet that hath a dream, 
 let him tell a dreamt and he that hath my word, let him Jp-'ak 
 
 my 
 
448 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 my word faithfully : JVhat is the chaff to thewhmt, faith the 
 Lord? Is not my word like a fire, jaith the Lord, and like a 
 hammer that breaketh the mountains in pieces ? In the laltcr 
 days of that church, wlven the people were mofi errjinently per- 
 plexed with fajfe prophets, both as to their nimiber and fubtilty, 
 yet God lays their eternal and temporal fafety or ruin, on their 
 dilcerning aright between his wdrd, and that which was only 
 pretended lb to be. And that they might not complain of this 
 irupofition, he tenders them fccurity of its eaiincfs of perform- 
 arjce: fpeaking of his own word comparatively as to every thing 
 that is not fo, he fays, It is as wheat to chaff', which miy in- 
 fallibly, by being what it is, be difcerned from it ; and then 
 abfolutely that it hath fuch properties, as that it will difcover 
 itfelf, even light, heat, and power. A perfon divinely infpir- 
 ed was to be attended to for no other reafon, but the evidence 
 of the word of God, diftinguiPning itfelf from the pretended re- 
 velations, and fatisfying the mind about it, by its light and 
 power. 
 
 Arg. 3. When further evidence, as that of miracles, is de- 
 manded, as ncceffary to induce them that are unbelievers to re- 
 ceive and believe the word, it is refufed, as what was not in the 
 judgment of God needful, and would not be effectual ; and un- 
 believers are remitted to the felf-evidence of the word, as that 
 which would fatisfy them, if any thing would. This our Lord 
 teaches clearly in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Luke 
 :<vi. 27. to the end. The rich man being difappointed as to any' 
 relief to himfelf,in the preceding verfes, isdefirousof preventing 
 the ruin of his brethren, and for this end is concerned to have 
 them induced to believe. To which purpofe he propofes, ver. 27, 
 the fending of Lazarus from the dead to certify them of the reality 
 of eternal things ; J pray thee therefore Father, fays he to Abra- 
 ham, that woiadft find him to my Jathers kovfe : for I have five 
 brethren ; tJiat he may teffy unto them, lejl they afo come to this 
 place of torment* Abraham faith unto him, They ha,ve Mofes and the 
 prophets, let them hear them. And he [aid. Nay, father Abraham ; 
 but if one zvent unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he 
 f aid unto him, f they hear not Mofes and the prophets, neither toill 
 they be pafuaded, though one rojefrom the dead* Here the cafe 
 is plain. The rich man defires a miracle to fatisfy his brethren. 
 This is refufjjd, and they are remitted to Moles and the pro- 
 phets, as what was fufhcient. He inliRs, atsd thinks a miracle 
 would be more fatisfying. This is (11 11 refufed, and it is ph^in- 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 449 
 
 ]y taught, That where the evidence of the word of God will 
 not induce or perfuade to believe, the wo(\ uncomrnon miracles 
 would not do it. 
 
 Arg. 4. When the quedion isccnfidered particularly, i Cor. 
 xiv. What gifts were mcft to the ufe of the church, the mira- 
 culous gifts of tongues, &c. cr the ordinary gift of prophec}'', 
 or preaching of the word ? this !aft is preferred, as what was not 
 only more ufefui for the edification of believers, but for inducing 
 unbelievers to receive the word, and fubmit to it; and the v/ay 
 wherein it does this^ is mentioned, which is no other than by 
 its evidencing itfelf upon its naked propofal, in preaching, by 
 its own light and power. Let the whole palTage be copfidered 
 from ver. 22, but efpecially ver. 24, 25. But i/ali propke/y, and 
 there come in one that believeth not, or unharntd^ he is convinced 
 of ally he IS judged of all : And thus are the Jccrets of his htart 
 made manijej}., and fo falling dozen on hisjace^ he will worfkip 
 Qodf and report, that God is. in you of a truth, 
 
 Arg. 5. The conftant pra6tice of the apoftles fully proves 
 our alTertion. The way they took to perfuade the unbelieving 
 world to receive the gofpel, was not by propofing the argu- 
 ments commonly infifted upon now, for proving the truth of 
 their dotlrine, nor working, nor infixing upon miracles 
 wrought by them, for confirmation of the truth, but by a hare 
 propofal oi the truth, and a fincere manifedation of it to con- 
 fciences, in the name of God, they proceeded, and demanded ac- 
 ceptance of it, as the word of God and not of man ; and by 
 this means they converted the world. And when they did re- 
 i\\i<z it, thus propofed, they fiook off the diift of their feet for a 
 tejlimony againfl them, and fo laid them open to that awful 
 tlireatening of our Lord, of punilhments more intolerable then 
 thefe of Sodom and Gommorrah. 
 
 Arg. 5. The experience of thofe who do believe aright, 
 confirms it fully. However they mav be relieved againft the 
 objections, and capacitated to deal with adverfaries by other ar- 
 guments and means, yet that whereon believers of al! fcrts, 
 learned and unlearned, lean, is the word of God evidencing it- 
 felf unto their faith, by its own light and power. The unlearn- 
 ed are for moft part Capable of no other evidence, and yet upon 
 this alone, in all ages, in life and death, in doing and fuiiering, 
 they have evidenced another fort of (lability and firmneis in 
 cleaving to it, and fuffering cheerfully for it, on this account on- 
 ly, th^n the mod learned, who were beil: furniilied vvilh ar^u- 
 
 K k k m.cnts 
 
450 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 ments of another nature, but wanted this: and indeed if this is 
 not allowed to be the ground of faith, there can be no divine 
 faith leaning L^pon a divine and inf<;l'ibie bottom ; and the vul- 
 gar, v.ho are uncapable of any other evidence, niufi rove in 
 nnceriainty, and pi7i iheir faith upon thz Jlceves of their teach- 
 ers : but bleffcd be God, here is a ground fufficient to reft on, 
 that will not fail. He fpeaks, and his fneep, noivvilhftanding 
 that fiinplicity, which makes them contemptible in the eyes of 
 the world, know his voice, hear it, andjoliozu himy and will not 
 hear the voice oj a ft ranger* 
 
 Prop. XI. ** Whereas it maybe pretended, tl^at on fup- 
 ** pontion of what has been now ailcrted, the people of God, at 
 '* times when they difcern not this li^lit, feel not this power, 
 ** have no ground for their faith, with rcfpett unto theie paiTages 
 ** or portions of fcripture, which do not thus evidence ihen;- 
 ** felves to be from God, at the time of tlisir perufai, or of their 
 ** hearing of them, by affecting the believer's mind, with a 
 *' fenfe of this divine light and poiver. In oppontion to this 
 ** objedion, and for removing the ground of it, 1 ciier the foi- 
 ** lowing truth, which afterwards i Iball clear. That there is no 
 ** part of the fcriptures, in fo far as God ipeaks in them, bat 
 ** doth thus fufHcienlly evidence its authority in its feafon, unto 
 ** perfons capable of difcerning it, and duly applying them- 
 ** felves in the way of the Lord's appointment, in io far as they 
 ** are at prefcnt concerned to receive, believe and obey it, in 
 *' compliance with tlicir prefcnt duty, and reach the meaning 
 *' of the propofitlon in and by the ui'e of the means of God's 
 ** appointment." 
 
 This objeftion has fometimes had a very formidable afpc-fl to 
 m.e, and therefore 1 Oiall dillinctiy propole, fofar as the brevity 
 deii'>-ned will permit, the grounds whereon I was latished about 
 the truth propofed in oppofition to it, in the following explica- 
 tory and confirming cbiervations, referring for further ciearmg, 
 as to the way wherein the Lord quieted me, and relieved me of 
 objeclions, to the foregoing chapter. 
 
 f. We are to obferve, that feith, or that power in man, 
 xvhereby he alTents to truth upon teltimony, is corrupted, as 
 well as his other powers, by his fall. And though in believers 
 it is renewed, they receiving an undcrilanding, whereby they 
 know him that is true, and hioio his voice from that oj ajiran- 
 gcr, yet even in them it is imperfe6t, and habitually weak, they 
 
 being 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 45 ^ 
 
 being rcneived but in part, and To knowing but in part, as it is 
 with refpeft to his other powers, lb it is as to this. And befides 
 this habitual weaknefs, which engages them to cry to the Lord 
 daily for carryingon the zoork of faith with pozuer,znd an increale 
 of faith to believe and live to God in a due manner ; befides, I " 
 fay, this habitual weaknefs, it is liable to various extraordinary 
 incidental diforders, arifnig from inward and outward occafions, 
 while the believer is here in this valley of tears, fubjeCt unto 
 the miferies occafioned by the remaining power of indwellinjj 
 corruptions, which are in themfelves reftlefs, and raife many 
 fogs, damps and mifts to overcloud the foul : and by the vio- 
 lence of outward temptations, wliich Satan and the world throng 
 in upon them, through the wife permiilion of God, for the ex» 
 ercife of their faith in this itate of trial, the darknefs is exceed- 
 ingly increafed, faith weakened, or at leaft ftraitened as to its 
 exercife. And by this means this fpiritual difcerning is iome- 
 times more, and fometimes lefs obftruded and darkened. Now 
 if at fuch feafons, while the believer finds himfetf thus out of 
 order, he cannot difcern this evidence of the divine authority 
 of the word, i?o not where it ftiines cleareft, in fo far as to quiet 
 him, he has no reafon to reje6t the word, or queftion it for 
 want of evidence, but may be, and ordinarily believers are ex- 
 ercifed in complaints of their own darknefs, as the caule of 
 their not difcerning God in his word : Vittum efl in organo^ 
 there is no fault in the word, but in the difcerning power. The 
 argument, if it be urged with refpecl to fuch a cafe as this, 
 would prove that there is no light in the fun. 
 
 2. The Lord's people, through the power of corruption, 
 and force of temptation, are often negligent and inadvertent, 
 and do not apply their minds, nor incline their hearts unto the 
 v/ord, with the attention neceifary to difcern the evidence of 
 God in the word ; and as a punilhmcnt of tliis, God withdraws, 
 and leaves their minds under the darknefs they are hereby caft 
 into, and then when God palTes by before, or on the right ox: 
 left handy and worketh round about them, they cannot perceive 
 Jiim. If we turn our back to the light, ilmt our eyes, or will 
 not be at pains to remove motes, or humours that cbilrufl our 
 fight, no wonder we do not difcern the light. When we have 
 idols in our hearts and eyes, no wonder v/e fee not God. If 
 we lay not afide the filthinefs of our hearts, we cannot receivs 
 the ingrafted zcord, that is able to favc our fouls^ in a due 
 manner* 
 
 O.. Air 
 
452 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 3; Although the whole fcriptures come from God, sre his 
 word, yet every propofjtlon contained in them, as it is a pro- 
 pofition in itielf, expreffive of luch a particular purpole or 
 thoug;ht, is not his word : for God tells us, men's v/ords, and 
 the devil's words. Now though God fpeaks them in fo far as 
 to teach us that they are fuch pcrfon's w^ords, yet the propofi- 
 tians in themfelves are not to be received with faith ; but we 
 are only to ailent to this upon the authority of God, that they 
 faid {o and fo ; not always that thefe are true ; for oftentimes 
 in tlieinfelves they are faife and pernicious. Now, evidence as 
 to any more than the truth of God in the hiftorical narration of 
 theni, is not to be expected, nor are the fcriptures to be im- 
 peached for the want of it, 
 
 4. Although every divine truth which God fpeaks, has equal 
 authority, and fufficient evidence, yet every fcriptuie trutii has 
 not a beaming evidence, equally great, clear and afietling. 
 The fcripture is like the heaven, another piece of divine work- 
 inaolhip. It is full of Oars, every one of thefe has light fufhcient 
 to anfwerits own particular u(q for which it was defigned, and 
 to falisfy the difcerning and attentive beholder, that it is light; 
 but yet every one gives not a light equally clear, great, glorious, 
 2fie£iing and, powerful : T/iere is one glory of the fun, another of 
 ths moon, another of ihejlars : and one flar e.xcelkth another in 
 glory; and fonietinies the greatell light, if li is at the greateft dif- 
 ilance, like the fixed fiars, affect us lefs,and llune lefs dear to us, 
 ihun weaker lights, which, like the moon, are nearer. In the 
 icripture there are propofitions which tell us thinf^s,Mhich though 
 they arc in their own place and proper circumtlances, ufeful to 
 them, for whom they are pavticuhtrly defigned, and to their 
 proper fcope ; yet they are comparatively of lefs importance to 
 us, as acquainting us with thinf;!-; of lefs confiderable natures 
 and ufe to us, and which lie not lb far out cf our reach, being 
 in fomc meafure known, or knowable without divine revela- 
 tion, though it was necelTary, that in order to their particular \.\(q 
 to us in our walk with God, they fhould be better fecured, and 
 oiFcrcd U3 upon the faith of the divine tefumouy. Again, there 
 are other propofitions, wliic'n hold forth to us truths in their own 
 nature of more importance, that lie iuriher out of our reach, 
 being neither knovv/n, nor indeed knowable by us, without di- 
 vine revelation ; and which in our pi-efent cafes and circum- 
 flances are more nearly fuited to our cafe, and wherein there- 
 fore our prefent concernment doth more diredly appear to be 
 
 inrercHeJ 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 453 
 
 i^iterefted, and which therefore imprefs us with, and leave in us 
 effecls more lafting and dilcernible. Now it rrjuft be allowed, 
 tliat the truths of this iaft fort have an evidence more bright, 
 great, afFe6\iiig and fenfible, than thofe of the former fort. 
 
 5.. Hereon fundry fubordinate obfervations offer themfelves, 
 which are of the greatefl: importance for clearing the difliculty 
 under confulcration, i. Truths in fcripture, or propofnions ac- 
 quainting U5 with thini^^s, otherwife in fome refpe(^ within our 
 reach, and only vouched by God in order to the ftability of 
 pur faith in them, (in fo far as we are in pra6\ice obliged to 
 lay weight on them) and to give us, not fo much fatisfa6tioa 
 as to their truth abfolutely, as fome additional fecurity about 
 thpm ; ihefe cannot be fuppofed fo difcernibly to aile<5l our 
 minds, as truths of another nature, in as much as this additional 
 evidence is more diihcult to diflinguiih .from the evidence we 
 have otherwife for them. Befides that, God feeing that we are 
 not fo hard to be induced to a belief of them, or fo liable to 
 temptations that may fhake our faith, fees it not meet to fiamp 
 fuch bright, lively and affe6iing impreflions of hiinfelf on 
 them : for it is unworthy of him to do any thing in vain. 
 2. On the other hand, thefe propofitions which difclefe the fe- 
 cret purpofes, or knowledge of God, and things hid in it, that 
 lie witlihi the reach of no mortal, or perhaps created under- 
 (ianding, wiihout revelation, raufi make a more vivid and live- 
 ly impreffion on the mind, as illuminating it with the know- 
 ledge of things, whereto it was, and by its own reach forever 
 rnuil remain a flranger. 3, In like manner truths, wherein 
 our eternal falvatiqn, or prefent relief from incumbent trou- 
 ble, is directly concerned, do more forcibly affe6l, and have 
 a more powerful influence, than thofe which lie more remote 
 from our prefent ufe, of how great advantage foever in their 
 proper place they may be. The moon, which points out 
 my way in the night, guides me, and faves me from Jcfing 
 myfelforway, at that time affe61s me more than the light of 
 the fun, which I have formerly feen, but do not now behold ; 
 though the moon comparatively has no light, and borrows that 
 which it hath from the fun. In like manner, truths in them- 
 felves of lefs importance, and which derive all their glory 
 from thofe that are more important, yet, v/hen they fuit my 
 prefenl cafe, affeds me more, and their evidence appears grea- 
 ter. Every thing is beautiful in its feafon. That there is fuch a 
 city as Jerufaiem, or that there was fuch a one, the fcripture 
 
 tells 
 
454 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 tells us. Of this we are otherwife informed, and are not like- 
 ly to be tempted as to its truth : this however is told us in the 
 word, and therefore we are to receive it on the teftimony of the 
 word ; but the faiih of it is not fo di^Hcult, on accounts men- 
 tioned ; it is not told but with refpecl to fome particular fcope, 
 and we have onlv an additional fecurity about it. Hereon our 
 minds are not fo illuminated, influenced, and afFeiled with the 
 difcovery, as when God tells us, he was in Chrift reconciling 
 the world to himfdif. The difcovery of this liiis us with a fenfe 
 of the glory oj God^ hitherto unknown, and that lay far out 
 of the reach of vulo;ar eyes, or any mortal to difcover, without 
 divine revelation. And therefore the difcovery ailcCts the more. 
 Again, I atn perplexed about through-bearing in fome parti- 
 cular i^rait ; a promife of grace to help in it, though it is of 
 lefs importance than the forementioned difcovery of reconcilia- 
 tion, and has no eHicacy, light or glory, fave what it derives 
 from the former, yet coming in the feafon wherein I am whol- 
 ly exercifed about it, and the cafe whereto it relates, it aifecis 
 me more. 4. Where the fame truth is at the fame timedifcovered 
 by different lights, it is not eafy for perfons, if not very dif- 
 cerning and attentive, to underftand the diflin6t and particular 
 influence of the feveral lights ; fuch as thai of natural light, hu- 
 man teftimony, and revelation ; and yet each of them have 
 iheir own particular ufe, which upon its extindion would ap- 
 pear by the de(e6i v/e would feel. 
 
 6. With refped to truths of high importance, otherwife un- 
 known, which affeil our minds with the enriching light of 
 things, by us formerly not known or knowable, and which by 
 their fuitablcnefs to prefcnt circumflances, or exercife, do more 
 iirongly affetl with a fenfe of the divine authority, and illumi- 
 nate the mind, there is no difficulty, fave in the cafes afJerwards 
 to be taken notice of, or the like. 
 
 7. As to thefe truths and fcripture propofttlons which relate 
 to things not fo remote from our apprehenfions, or are not fo 
 fnitable to our circumRances, at prefent, or difcover things of 
 lefs importance to us, it is owned, that even real Chrillians who 
 have faith, or a fpitiliiil difcerning, for ordinary, are not, upon 
 hearing or reading them, flruck or ailed d with io fenfible, 
 clear and alfedling evidence of God, as they are in other fcrip- 
 tares of a diftercnt nature and relation, which arifes from the 
 nature oC the truths in ihemfelves, the manner and defign of 
 God in the delivery, our prefent circumflances, the weaknefs 
 
 and 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 455 
 
 tjnd imperfe6ilon of our faith, the incidental indifpofitions-we 
 are under, and other caufes which may be eaiily colle^fted from 
 what has been formerjy hinted in the preceding obfervaticns. 
 
 8. All this, notwilhftanding the lead confiderablc of thefe 
 truths, has a fufficient evidence of the divine authority, that is, 
 fuch an evidence as anfwers the defign of God in them, and is 
 able to determine the believer's affent, and oblige him to obey or 
 fubmit, and is every way fuitable to the weight that is to be laid 
 ©n them, with refpe6^ to the fcope they are mentioned for, and 
 importance of the matter ; which though at all times it is not 
 equally difcernible, for the reafons above-mentioned, or others 
 of an alike nature ; yet in its proper feafon it is obferved by 
 judicious, obferving, and refle6ling Chriflians. As for inftance, 
 when any of thefe truths, of the lead apparent importance, are 
 queftioned by Satan or men, then the authority of God is felt to 
 have that influence and awe upon the confciences of believers, as 
 wiJl not allow them to part with the leafi hoof or fnred of divine 
 truth, and. will make them maugre all oppcfilion, cleave to it, 
 though it fhould coft them their life. Likewife when the Spirit 
 of God is to apply thefe truths to the particular fcope at which 
 he aimed in ailerting them in the book of Gcd, then not only 
 have they fuch evidence as influences affent and adherence? but 
 emboldens the foul to lay that ftrefs on thera, which the cafe 
 doth require. 
 
 9. Whereas neither our prefent imperfe6\ date and capacities, 
 the nature of the things, nor other circumftances, allow of an evi- 
 dence equally clear and great as in other truths, the wifdom and 
 goodnefs of God, in confideration of this, to prevent the ibaking, 
 or at leaft failing of our faith, have as ro thefe provided many 
 ways for our fecurity : as, i. Though in the particular pafl'ages, 
 fuch evidence (bines not in themfelves apart, yet there often ap- 
 pears a beaming light, when they are prefented in reference to 
 the fcope intended by God, 2. Other palTages are joined with 
 them, placed near them, and related to them, which have a fur- 
 ther evidence of God, and though we cannot difcern them when 
 they are looked at ab(lra6ily, yet when we look to them in re- 
 lation to thefe, on which they hang, i^nd to which they are 
 connected, we are fatisfied. And 1 conceive there may be an 
 eye to this, in dropping doOrinal paflages, and inferting them 
 in fcripture hiftory. 3. This objection principally refpe«5^s tlie 
 Old Tedament ; as to the divine authority of which we are par- 
 ticularly fecurcji by plain and evident teftimonies in the New. 
 
 4. Some- 
 
^r/j , AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 4. Sornetimes with fach truths there «re dire£\ ancrtions o^ (he 
 Lord's ipeaking of them joined ; of which there are many in~ 
 fiarices in the books of Mofes, wherein it is exprefsly dcciared, 
 tliat what was then enjoined, was by ihe particular command of 
 God.* 5, Believers for ordinary, being, in the reading of the 
 -xvord of God, made fenfible of liis authority, will not be eaiily 
 brought to admit of any fufpicion, that a book wherein God 
 iliews hii.mfelf fo evidently concerned , and owns, as to the bulk, 
 to be from him, is or can by him be allowed to be in other 
 places filled up with propofitions, or matters of a coarfer alloy : 
 And therefore they will rather queflion themfelves, and their 
 own ignornace, than impeach the divinity cf the fcriptures on 
 this account. 
 
 IG. Though no faulty obfcurity is chargeable on the fcrip- 
 tures, (as much of thcnj as in prefent circumdances is of ab- 
 fclute neceffity to believers, in order to their acceptable walk- 
 ing v.'ith God, being clearly revealed) yet there are many 
 truths not underfiood by all, nor perhaps by any, therein in- 
 ferred, to leave room for the diligence, trial of the faith of 
 Chriftians, their progrefs in knowledge, and other wife ends. 
 Now, till in the ule of sppointed means, the Spirit of God open 
 to us the meaning of thefe fcriptures, we cannot perceive the 
 light and.power that is in them: but vvhenever he opens thefe 
 fcriptures, that fame light that difcoi'ers the naeaning, will not 
 fail to alTedi, afid make our hearts burn within us, with the 
 fenfe of divine light, authority and powder. Of this the expe- 
 rience of the people of God, as fhey grow in knowledge, fur- 
 niOies them daily with new inflances, and therefore they do 
 not Oumble at the want of the prefent fenfe of this light, but are 
 quickened to diligence, excited to frequent cries for opening of 
 their eyes, that they may underhand the wonders, that by tlie 
 knowledge of other parts of the word they are iridijced to be- 
 lieve couched in thefe parts, which yet they know not. 
 
 II. As has been bcfciie more than ipfmuated, there are, in 
 fcripture, truths defigncd for, and fuited to difFerent perfcr.s, 
 in ditrerent circumftances ; the book of God being dcfigned for 
 the life of the whole church, and all in it, in all fiations, re- 
 lations, cafes, temptations and difterent circumUances, in which 
 any are, have been in, or may be in. Now when God fpcaks 
 to one, what he fays cannot be fo afleclipg to another, no 
 wife in the fame or 'like cafe ; though yet he may knew fome- 
 
 what 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 457 
 
 v.bat of the Lord's voice in it. And the fame is to be fald as 
 to the fame perfon, with rerpe6l to different cafes. 
 
 12. It mud be ilill minded, that though every part of fcrip- 
 ture has, in it proper place and degree, a fufficient evidence of 
 the divine authority, yet the a6iual difcerning of it depends ve- 
 ry much upon the prefent ftate of the difcerning power or faith 
 of the Chriilian, v^'hich difccrns it or not, or difcerns it mors 
 or lefs clearly, as it is ftronger or weaker, more free from ac- 
 cidental indifpofiticns, outward temptations, or more affe6\ed 
 by them. And the fame is to be faid, as to its being more or 
 lefs intently and ofderly applied to the obfervation of the evi- 
 dence or God in the word. 
 
 13. Yet whereas they, who are once renewed, do continue ftill 
 children of the light, and have a fpiritual capacity of difcerning 
 the Lord's voice from that o-i-a. flranger, they do for ordinary, in 
 the fcriptur^s, find the authority o{ God evidencing itfelf fuita- 
 bly to the particular exigence of their particular cafes, where the 
 truths that occur are not fuch wherein their prefent faith or pra6^ice 
 is immediately affeded ; or where the truths are fuch as to which, 
 in iheir own abftra6l nature, no more is required fave a bare af- 
 fent,they being only inferted v^ith refpe6t to fome other particular 
 fcope,where the truths are not prefenily affaulted, where they are 
 not immediately called to hazard much upon them, or in other the 
 liiie cafes, they are indeed lefs afle6ied ; but one way or other^ 
 from one thing or another, as much of God fhines in them as 
 is fufficient to engage to a ptefent adherence, and fome becom- 
 ing reverence as to the oracles of God, which may in their fea- 
 fon manifert their ufefulnefs to us, and do at prefent manifeft it 
 to others. And where tru(hs are of a different nature and im- 
 portance, and fuit prelent neceffities, and require more diftinf^ 
 a6lings of faith or obedience, and we are called to lay more 
 ftrefs on them ; in that cafe the evidence of God ihincs more 
 brightly. And fcarce ever will a difcerning and attentive 
 Chridian, who is not grievoufly iadifpofed by fome cafual dif- 
 order, read the fcriptures, or any confiderabie part of them, 
 but fome where or other, in the fcope or particular words, and 
 propofitions, or their contexture, fome light will fhine in upon 
 the foul, enforcing a conviction. That God is in it of a truth, 
 
 14. V/hen the faith of the Lord's people is alfaulted as to 
 the truth o^ the uord ; when in difficult cafes and duties they 
 are called to lay much ftrefs upon the word, and hazard as '^ 
 v/ere their all ', when they are dirireffed with particular and 
 
 ^ I 1 violent 
 
458 AN ESSAY COi\CERNlNG 
 
 violent ternp;jtations, and need comfort ; when under fpiritual 
 decays, and God deiigns to leilore them ; wlicn newly brous^ht 
 in, and need to be confirmed ; when they are hiin)ble and dili- 
 gent, and the liOrd deiigns to reward them gracioufjy, and en-^ 
 courage them to go on ; when difficulted to find duty, and 
 waiting on the Lord for light, in cafes of more than ufual im- 
 portance ; when the Lord has a mind to carry on an}^ to peculiar 
 degrees of holinefi' and grace, and employ them in fpeciaj fer- 
 vices ; and, in a word, wherever any extraordinary exigence 
 requires, then the Lord opens his people's ears, removes what 
 intercepts the di(coveries of his mind, fixes th.cir ear to hear, 
 and fpeaks the word diflin£\iy, powerfully and fvvectly to the 
 foul, and gives them in and by it, fuch a taOe of his goodnefs, 
 wifdom, and power, and experience of his authority in the 
 word, and his gracious defign and hand in its application at 
 pret'ent, as fills the foul with the riches and full ajfurance of 
 faith, peace, joy, and fiedfaflnefs in believing. 
 
 Prop. Xll, ** Whereas there are dilTerent readings of par- 
 " ticular places in ancient copies, and places wrong tranfiated. 
 ** in ourverfions, it may be pretended, that we are, or may be 
 " impofed upon, and affent to truths, or rather to propofitionSj 
 *' not of a divine original, cafually crept into our copies of 
 *' the original, or tranfiation. In anfwer hereto, the forego- 
 *' ing ground of faiih lays.a fufhcient bottom for the fatisfa^iion 
 " of Chriflians, in \o far as their cafe and particular tcmptati- 
 ** ons require." 
 
 To clear tl-is a liitle, I iliall offer the enfuing remaiks : 
 
 1. Where llie authority of God evidences itfelf in the way 
 above explained, and confirmed to the mind, believers have a 
 fiable and fare foundation for their faith, whether they ufe 
 tranjlaiions or the originals ; thorjgh it mud be allowed, where 
 perlons are cripjhie of it, the originals are mofl fatisfying. 
 And this is plainly the cafe, as all real Chriflians from certain 
 experience know, as to all the truths of the grcatefl importance, 
 aud whereon our fail'n or obedience are mere immediately or 
 dlrecfly concerned : fo that as to thefe there is no room left ^ot 
 this obje6Uon. 
 
 2. The witdom of God iias fo carefiiliy provided for the fe- 
 curity and ftability of our faith, as to particular truths of any 
 confiderable importance, againft pretences of this, or an alike 
 ilaune, that oar failii rclls not upon the evidence of one fingle 
 
 tcftimony 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 459 
 
 reftimony, but fuch truths upon a variety of occafions arc often 
 repeated, and our faith leans upan thern, not only as thus fre- 
 quently repeated, but cleared and confirmed by th«?ir connexion 
 to o'her truths which infer them, and to the whole analogy of 
 faith, or current of the fcriptures, with refpc6l to that which is 
 the principal defign of God. So that we are in no hazard of be- 
 ing deprived of any one truth, of any conllderabie influence, in 
 faith or pra6fice, by pretended corruptions, or wrong tranllations. 
 The famous Dr. Owen, who had confidered the whole various 
 readings, and well knew the failures of particular tranflations, 
 obferves, That were all the various readings, added to the woril 
 and moft faulty tranflation, the church of God would not fuQain 
 by it the lofs of one important truth. 
 
 3. Where any perfon is particularly concerned to be fatis- 
 fied which is the right reading of any particular palTage, and 
 how it ought to be tranflated, they may, by the help of the 
 minifters of the gofpel, fuch of them as are particularly fitted 
 with fkill in fuch matters, and by the endeavours of learned 
 men, who have particularly confidered every one of thefe paf- 
 fages, in a humble dependence on God for the blefling of thefe 
 means, (tvhich the wife God has multiplied, fince diiHcultles 
 of this fort begun to create any trouble to the faith of his peo- 
 ple) by thefe means I fay, joined with an eye to the Lord, 
 they may come to be particularly fatisfied. If any man will 
 do his willf he /hall know the do^rine, luhether it is oj God. 
 
 4. Where there is not accefs to thefe means, which will not 
 readily happen to perfons called to fuch exercife, (which rarely 
 befalls the ordinary fort of Chriflians) yet the Lord can eafily 
 relieve the perfon thus exercifed, by evidencing his authority to 
 the confcience in a fatisfying light, or by enabling him to wait 
 for light until the folution comes, or by removing the temptation, 
 when it becomes too ftrong, or by leading him to refi in the 
 particular truth, as fecured by other palTages not queitioned, 
 or by fome fuch like way. 
 
 5. The difficulty as to tranflations Is really of lefs importance; 
 and as to the other about pretended corruptions, ordinary Chrif- 
 lians, whofe confciences are daily afiPe^led with the evicience of 
 God's authority in the word, and his owning it as his word, fpeak- 
 ing by it to them, and conveying divine influences of light, life 
 and comfort, will not fear or entertain any fufpicion fo unwor- 
 thy of God, as that he could allow the word he thus owns, under 
 a pretence of his authority, to impofe on them affertions of hu- 
 man 
 
46o AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 man extracl, and of any ill confequence to their faith or obe- 
 dience. 
 
 6. I fliall only Tub join this one obfervatlon, That enemies 
 gain more by propofmg thefe pretended corruphons in cumulo* , 
 and In fuch a bulky way, as to affright Chriftians who are ca- 
 pable of fuch obje6tions, than by infiftng upon any particular 
 one, and attempts to prove them of equal authority with the 
 reading retained in the approved originals. Their unfuccefsful- 
 ncfs in endeavours of this laft fort difcovers, that there is really 
 nothing of weight in that fo much ooifed obje6\ion about various 
 readings : for if there were any fuch readings as could really 
 make any conuderable alteration, and were fupported with any 
 authority able to cope with the received readings, why do they 
 not produce thefe? Others are of no confideration ; thefe only 
 are to be regarded : and of this fort there are but very few thaj 
 the moft impudent dare pretend ; and thefe few have been dif- 
 proved and dlfallov^^ed by pcrfons of equal capacity and learn- 
 ing. But to leave this, which is above the ordinary Jort of 
 Chriflians, the Lord's people, to whom he has evidenced his 
 own authority, in the way above mentioned, will be moved with 
 none of thefe things. They will not forego the word, but re- 
 tain it as their life, and pay lefpcd to it as the word of God ; 
 and they have good reafon to do fo= 
 
 I iliall now obferve hence, 
 
 1. How juilly divine faith maybe faid to be infallible, as 
 fiandinp: on an infallible ground, the faithfulnefs and truth of 
 God in the word. Through daikncfs we may fometimcs not 
 difccrn, through negligence not obferve, or through the force 
 of temptations interpofmg betwixt us and it, we may lofe 
 fight of the evidence of this authority ; and fo our faith may 
 fhake or fail. But while it fixes on this, it cannot fail, though 
 wc may quit, or by violence be beat off"; the ground is firm, and 
 cannot fail, the fcripturcs cannot be broken. 
 
 2. Hence it is. That the meaneft and weakeA believers, who 
 know nothing of the props others have to fupport them, do cleave 
 as firmly to the word, run with all courage, 3ind as much cheer- 
 fulnefs, all hazards for it, to the lofs of whatever is dear to them, 
 life not excepted, as the mof^ judicious divine, and offentin>es 
 they are much more firm. This is upon no other grounds 
 accountable. This reafon of faith is as mucli expofed to them 
 33 to the mofl learned. 
 
 3. All 
 * <« lu bulk.'" 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 461 
 
 o. All objections arlfing againft this ground of faith ^ will be 
 eafily folved, if" we confider, i. That the fcriptures are a relief 
 provided by fovereign grace, for thofe of the race of fallen 
 iTian, to v/hcrr- God defigns iTiCrcy, and fo God was not obli- 
 ged to adjud it in all refpe6^s to the natural capacities of men in 
 their prefent Oate, but it was meet that the word tliould be 
 fo writ, that room lliould be left for the difcoveries of the fove- 
 reignty of grace, and the other means God defigned to make 
 vjfe of in fubferviency to the word. It was not meet nor necef- 
 fary that all (hould be fo propofed, as to lie open to men without 
 the affillance of the Spirit, and without the miniftry of the word. 
 2. The ward was not defigned alone to conducf us, but God 
 has given the Spirit with the word, who reaches us in and by 
 it, as he fees meet. 3. The word is defigned to be a rule to 
 all ages, and therefore it was not meet or neceiTary, that what 
 concerns perfons in one age fhould be equally expofed in its 
 meaning unto other perfons, who lived in a different time. It 
 is fufiicient, that in every age, what concerns that time lie fo 
 open, that in the ufe of the means of God's appointment, they 
 may reach that wherein they are concerned. 4. The word 
 was defigned for perfons of different fiations, capacities and ca- 
 fes, who ought to reft fatisfied in the obvious difcoveries of 
 what concerns them, in their own particular circumftances, and 
 is required to be believed and obeyed, more particularly in a 
 way of duty, of them, though they cannot fee fo clearly what 
 belongs to others in different circumftances. 5. God has not 
 fyftematically and feparately difcourfed all particular cafes un- 
 der diftin6t heads ; but to leave room for the condu6t of the 
 Spirit, for exciting the diligence of Chriftians to iludy the whole 
 fcriptures, and for other reafons obvious to infinite wifdom, 
 he has digefted them in a method, more congruous to thefe 
 wife ends. 6. The Lord defigning the exercife of the faith of 
 his own, and to humble them, and to drive them to a depen- 
 dence on himfelf, and to punifh the wicked, and give them who 
 will ftumble at the ways of God fomewhat to break their neck 
 on, he has digefted them fo, as that there maybe occaiions, thou<>h 
 always without fault on God's part, for all thofe ends : Wifdom 
 -will be jujiified of her children, and to fome he /peaks in para- 
 kUs, that fdeing they may not fee» 
 
 FINIS. 
 
1 N D 
 
 X 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Authors and Books quoted in the preceding TForL 
 
 A 
 
 IKENHEAD's Speech. 
 Alcoran. 
 
 Amyrauld de Religionibus. 
 A.riilotIe's Ethicks. 
 Auguft. de Civiiate Dei. 
 
 Bayle's great Hift. and Crit, 
 
 Didion. 
 Baxter's Animad. on Herberti 
 
 . De Veritate. 
 
 . ■ Reafon's for Chriftian 
 
 Religion. 
 ■ More Reafons for Chrif- 
 
 tian Religion. 
 Becconfal on the Law of Nature. 
 Blount's Oracles of Reafon. 
 
 Religio Laici. 
 
 Boyle's Excellency of Theology 
 
 beyond Natural Philofcphy. 
 Burnet on the Thirty-Nioe Ar. 
 tides. 
 
 Cxht de Bello Gallico. 
 Cicero's Tufculan Qnefiions. 
 
 De iSiatura Deorunu 
 
 De Lisibus. 
 
 De Amicitia. 
 
 Clarkfon's pradticil Divinity of 
 
 the Pa pi lis. 
 Claudian, 
 
 Clementis Alexandrina Stromata. 
 Clerk's (Le) Parrhafiana, 
 
 ■ Comput. Hiitor^ 
 
 Collin's Difcoarfes de Aniir^abus 
 
 Paganorum. 
 
 Dacier's Plato. 
 Deift's Manuel. 
 Difcourfe on Moral Virtue, and 
 
 its Difference from Grace. 
 Dryden's Hind and Panther. 
 
 Epidetus. 
 
 Fergufon's Enquiry into Moral 
 Virtue. 
 
 Gale's Court of the Gentiles* 
 Growth of Deifm, 
 
 Heid. (Abrah.) de Origine Er- 
 
 roris, 
 Herbert de Veritate. 
 
 De P.elig. Gent. 
 
 Religio Laici. 
 
 Hornbeck de Converfione Gen- 
 
 tilium. 
 Hieroclis Carmina Aurea. 
 Hobb's Leviathan. 
 Howe's Living Temple. 
 Humphrey's Peaceable Difqui- 
 
 fuioRs. 
 
 Jamblichus de Vita Pylhag. 
 Jefuits Morals. 
 
 Lacrtius (Diog.) de Vitis Philo- 
 
 fophorum. 
 Letter to the Deifts. 
 
 Limbarch's Conference u: 
 
 reiius the Jew. 
 Locke on Human Ur.aeri 
 
 o. 
 
464 
 
 Locke's Reafonablenefs of Chrif- 
 tianlty, 
 
 Maximas Tyrius. 
 
 Niccl's Conference with a The- 
 
 ill. 
 Kye (Stephen) on natural and 
 
 revcvlled Religion. 
 
 Ovid, de Ponto. 
 
 Pvletaroorph. 
 
 Owen on the Sabbath. 
 
 Theologuni, 
 
 on the Hebrews, 
 
 . De Juftiiia Vindicate 
 
 Outramus de Sacrificiis. 
 
 Parker's (Sam.) Defence of Ec- 
 
 clefiaiiical Polity. 
 Prudentius (Aurelius). 
 PufiendoifF's Introduction* to the 
 
 liiilory of Europe, 
 
 Refleriicns on the Growth of 
 
 Deifn^. 
 Remonflrant. Apologia, 
 Rivet on Hofea. 
 Rufhworth's HiHor. CoUei^sons. 
 
 Seneca's Epift. 
 
 De Ira, 
 
 De Providentia. 
 
 Siniplicius in Epidetum. 
 Spinoza's Eihicks, 
 Stanley's Lives, 
 Sdliingfleet's Origines Sacrai. 
 
 ^Tuckney's (Anth.) Sermons- 
 Turretine. 
 
 Wiifon's Scripture Interpreter. 
 Wolfelf)-'s (bir Charles) Scrip* 
 
 ture Belief. 
 Videllii Arcana Arminianifmi. 
 
 And his Rejoinder, 
 Videiius Rapfodus, 
 
 r^^^^'^ 
 
n.