YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

A View ofthe Evidences of Chriflianity at the
Clofe of the pretended Age ofReqfon :
IN
EIGHT SERMONS
PREACHED BEFORE
THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
AT ST. MARY'S,
IN THE YEAR MDCGCV.
AT
THE EECTURE
FOUNDED BY
THE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M. A-
CANON OF SALISBURY.

BY EDWARD NARES, M. A.
HECTPR OF BIDDENDEN, KENT, AND LATE FELLOW OF
MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD.

OXFORD,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE AUTHOR.
SOID BY J. COOKE, OXFORD i BY MESSRS. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S
CHURCH YARD ; LONGMAN AND CO. PATERNOSTER ROW ;
J. HATCHARD, PICCADILLY, LONDON i AND BY
J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE.
1805.

IMPRIMATUR,

Die 30 Aug.
1805.

-WHITTINGTON LANDON,
Vice-Can. Oxon.

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF PORTLAND,
CHANCELLOR -,
TO
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JOHN LORD ELDON,
HIGH STEWARD ¦,
TO
THE REVEREND THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
AND
I HEADS OF COLLEGES
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
(By whofe Appointment the following Sermons were preached ;)
TO THE WORSHIPFUL
THE MAYOR
AND CORPORATION OF OXFORD,
IN TOKEN OF RESPECT AND VENERATION FOR THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES
OF A CITY, WJ1ICH HIS FATHER HAD LONG THE HONOUR OF
REPRESENTING IN PAKLIAMENT,
THIS VOLUME
IS MOST RESPECTFULLY AND MOST GRATEFULLY
INSCRIBED
BY THEIR OBEDIENT
AND VERY HUMBLE SERVANT,
EDWARD NARES.

EXTRACT FROM THE
LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
OF THE LATE
REV. JOHN BAMPTON,
CANON OF SALISBURY.

I give and bequeath my Lands and

" Eftates to the Chancellor, Matters, and Scholars
" of the Univerfity of Oxford for ever, to have
" and to hold all and lingular the faid Lands or
" Eftates upon truft, -and to the intents and pur-
" pofes hereinafter mentioned ; that is to fay, I
" will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of
" the Univerfity of Oxford for the time being fhall
" take and receive all the rents, iffues, and pro-
" fits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and
" neceffary deductions made) that he pay all the
" remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity
" Lecture Sermons, to be eftablifhed for ever in
" the faid Univerfity, and to be performed in the
" manner following :
. " I direct and appoint, that, upon the firft
" Tuefday in Eafter Term, a Ledturer be yearly
" chofen

[ vi ]
" chofen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by
" no others, in the room adjoining to the Print-
" ing-Houfe, between the hours of ten in the
" morning and two in the afternoon, to preach
" eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year fol-
" lowing, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between the
" commencement ofthe laft month in Lent Term,
" and the end of the third week in Act Term.
" Alfo I direct and appoint, that the eight Di-
" vinity Lecture Sermons fhall be preached upon
" either of the following Subjects — to confirm
" and eftablifh the Chriftian Faith, and to con-
" fute all heretics and fchifmatics — upon the di-
",-vine authority of the holy Scriptures — upon
" the authority of the writings of the primitive
" Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the pri-
" mitive Church — upon the Divinity of our
" Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift — upon the Di-
«' vinity of the Holy Ghoft— upon the Articles
" of the Chriftian Faith, as comprehended in the
" Apoftles' and Nicene Creeds.
" Alfo I direct, that thirty copies ofthe eight
" Divinity Lecture Sermons fhall be always
" printed, within two months after they are
" preached, and one copy fhall be given to the
" Chancellor of the Univerfity, and one copy to
" the Head of every College, and one copy to the
« Mayor ofthe city of Oxford, and one copy to
" be put into the Bodleian Library ; and the ex-
" pence

[ vii ]
" pence of printing them fhall be paid out of the
" revenue of the Land or Eftates given for efta-
" blifhing the Divinity Le&ure Sermons ; and
" the Preacher fhall not be paid, nor be entitled
" to the revenue, before they are printed.
" Alfo I direft and appoint, that no perfon
" fhall be qualified to preach the Divinity Lec-
" ture Sermons, unlefs he hath taken the Degree
" of Mafter of Arts at leaft, in one of the two
*f Univerfities of Oxford or Cambridge; and that
" the fame perfon fhall never preach the Divi-
" nity Ledture Sermons twice."

CON-

CONTENTS.

SERMON I.

Acts v. 38, 39.
And now I fay unto you, Refrain from thefe
men, and let them alone : For if' this coun-
fel or this work be of man, it will come to
nought :
But if it he of God, ye cannot overthrow it.
P. 1.
SERMON II.
Acts v. 38, 3g.
And now I fay unto you, Refrain from thefe
men, and let them alone : For if this coun-
fel or this work he of man, it will come to
nought :
But if it he of God, ye cannot overthrow it.
P. 57.
b SERMON

x CONTENTS.
SERMON III.
2 Esdras iv. 12.
Then faid I unto him, It were better that we
were not at all, than that we fhould live
fill in wickednefs, and to Jufifer, and not
to know wherefore. P. 105.
SERMON IV.
EcClesiasticus XV. 12.
Say not thou, God hath caufed me to err;
for he hath no need of thejinful man. P. 153.
SERMON V-
Jeremiah yi, 16.
Thus faith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways,
and fee, and afk for the old paths, where
is the good way, and walk therein, and ye
fhall find rejl for your fouls. But they
faid, We will not walk therein. P. 201.
SERMON VI.
Psalm xc. 2.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or
ever the earth and the world were niade ;
thou art God from everlajling, and world
without end. ¦ P. 275.
SERMON

CONTENTS. xi
SERMON VII.
Jude, ver. io.
But thefe fpeak evil of thofe things which
they know not. P. 355.
SERMON VIII.
Psalm cxlvii. 19, 20.
He fheweth his word unto Jacob, his fiatutes
and ordinances unto Jfrael.
He hath not dealt fo with any nation; neither
have the heathen knowledge of his laws. P. 445.
SERMON IX.
Titus ii. 15.
Thefe things fpeak, and exhort, and rebuke
with all authority. Let no man defpife
thee. P. 509.

ERRATA.
P. 62. 1. 7. for difference read indifference
— 79- L 8. toi have a better read have had a better
— 137. 1. 12 from the bottom, for Viola read Voila
— 208. 1. laft, for notejfential read moji ejfential
— 220. 1. 10. read The fecohd and third ages are of more than ttso millions of
years;
— 374-"L J8- for real manhood read mere manhood
— 421. 1. 33. for primus KaAfuimus

Acts v. 38, 39.
Arid naiv I fay unto you, Kef rain from thefe men, and let
them alone .' For if this counfel or this work be of martt
it will come to nought i
But if it be of God, ye Cannot overthrow it.
IN this advice of Gamaliel tliere was, no
doubts much of prrodence and good fenfe ; of
equity and common juilice it may be allowed
tp have had its fhare ; of reverence; towards
God it was not deftitute ; but of good will
to the caufe of Chriftianity we may fcarcely
at all fufpect it ('): and yet no friend ctiuld
have fet Chriftianity in a more advantageous
point of view, or have more properly put it
upon the true footing of its own pretentions,
It affumed to be " of God (*)," and what is
more remarkable, even when every fort of
opposition and hollility was to be appre
hended a, it affumed to be fo fecure, as to be
above being overthrown not only by men,
but by all the malice and Stratagems ofthe
powers of darknefs (3); We are able to
». How much this ftrengthens. the evidence for Chriftianity,
fee Lejlics Works, vol. ii. 163.
b count

a SERMON I.
count the years that have elapfed fince this
cautious and wife advice was given ; and
though we may not pretend to fix the term
that Gamaliel might have in contemplation,
as to the iffue ofthe experiment; yet we may,
I think, be morally certain that he had no ex
pectation that it would have maintained its
ground, as it now has done, for more than
eighteen centuries.
That it has continued fo long, mull not in
itfelf be admitted as a demonstration of its
truth. It is impofiible to fay how long it
may pleafe God, for particular ends, to fuffer
error to prevail. That great and high pur-
pofes may be anfwered by its existence, and
continuance under certain circumflances, only
the Infidel would doubt. It feeras certainly
to arife out of the nature and neceffity of
things ; the freedom of the human mind and
human will depending on the pofiibility both
of error and of vice.
The mere duration therefore of any religi
ous Yyfleni cannot prove it to be " of God(4),"
unlefs it fhall feem to have prevailed in oppo-
Jition to man. For human error may in the
courfe of time become fo wilful and invete
rate, as to delay the interposition of the Al
mighty

SERMON I. 3
•mighty to remove it, and to difpel the dark-
nefs of fuch infatuations. The blindnefs of
the Jews is exactly cotemporary with Chrif
tianity itfelf. No argument is therefore even
yet to be drawn, from the mere continuance
of the Chriftian religion.
But though error may be fuffered to pre
vail, where men are headstrong and obstinate
in refifting the truth, and bent upon cherish
ing and upholding their own mistakes; yet,
that any Syftem,, affuming to be " of God,"
Should maintain itfelf againSl every fort of
oppqjition on the part of man, is a cafe widely
different. So many able, and I think unanfwerable,
works have been written to prove Christian
ity to be " of God," that the fubject feems
exhausted; but Still many of thefe arguments
muft needs reft on ground disputed by the In
fidel (s) ; on miracles which he is difpofed to
deny (6); on testimony which he is determined
to doubt; on the fulfilment of prophecies, the
authority and application of which he is un
willing to admit. But another question may
eaSily prefent itfelf to the inquisitive mind,
and my text fuggefts it, namely, what would
probably have been the fate ofChriftianity-
b 2 at

4 SERMON I.
at this time, had it been, as Gamaliel, in all
likelihood, meant to insinuate, of man §
There is no doubt but that every proof
which can be brought forward, to Shew it to
have been " of God," mufj: at; the fame time
tend to prove it to have been not of man :
but there is Still this difference between the
two enquiries ; in the one we intend to de
monstrate its inherent Strength and validity ;
in the other, we endeavour to prove, ifi may
fo fay, its want of weaknefs, or the abience
of thqfe things which would prove it hu
man (7).
If the Revelation we adhere to be truly "of
" God," it is, no doubt, proper to dwell on its
high pretenfions, and point out its, divinity :
but it is no lefs an object worthy of our con
sideration, to examine into the probable
chances that have occurred, of its failure,
had it been " of man ." When we advance
againSl the Deift, the Stupendous miracles ac
companying its SirSl establishment ; the un
impeachable charajfter of the, Sacred writers ;
the extraordjnaxy and exact accomplishment
of the prophecies foretelling the advent of
Meffiah; it is evident that all thefe- are
in themfelvesfubjeds of doubt and difpufca- tion ;

SERMDN I. $
tion; and before they can be admitted by the*
Deifl to prove the divinity of our holy Reli*
gion, they muft themfelves be proved and
demonstrated to the Satisfaction of the unbe
liever. But in Shewing that had it been " of
" mdn," there is every pothole reafon to
think it muft have failed, as a mere hu
man invention, we lay out of the question
« all the more immediate testimonies of its di
vinity, all thofe marks and characters which
the DeiSt is diSpoSed to controvert (8), and
\ve reft the whole argument on fuch de
monstration as muft make an impreflion on
any ingenuous and difcerning mind.
Had then Chriftianity been " of man," We
may naturally conclude, from what has
paffed in the world Since its firft introduction,
that it would before this have failed, either
through fome inherent defect, or from fome
Outward Opposition. I fay from what has
paffed in the world Since its Sirft introduc
tion, becadfe on this will depend the whole
question, as fuggefted by the advice of Gama
liel. Had Christianity been no object of no
tice, or fubject of enquiry, to any but its
ovvn difcrples, it might have endured juft as
long as it has done, whether founded in error
b 3 or

6 SERMON I.
or in truth. It would have depended on
the temper and disposition of thofe only who
embraced it : but records of indifputable ve
racity tell us that it was from the SirSt, and
has been even to our days, as much an ob
ject of attention to its opponents, as to its
friends and admirers. It has been in a Slate
of very critical trial and probation from its
very firft appearance ; it has been affailed by
every weapon fuited to fuch an attack; it
has been perfecuted by the violent, derided
by the Infidel, fpurned at by the wicked,
mifreprefented by the ignorant (9) .
It would be endlefs and altogether ufelefs
to enumerate the different Struggles it has had
to make, (if we may fo fpeak with due rever
ence,) Since its firft appearance. Any body at
all acquainted with the hiftory ofthe Church
will eaSily call to mind what perfecutions it
has undergone, and what variety of opposition
it has met with. It would be beyond my
purpofe to record mere facts; it would rather
be my with to examine into the fpirit of
thefe different attacks ; to Shew how earnest
ly every opposing principle among mankind
has been fet on work to overthrow it ; and
much furely its triumph over fuch multiplied affaults

SERMON I. 7
affaults Should ferve to Strengthen our confi
dence in its divine authority.
Had it been " of man," it muft be admitted
man might have overthrown itb: if man
therefore has always been in fome way or
other in opposition to it, what power but
that of God could have upheld it ? I Shall
here however beg leave to connect Chrifti
anity with the Revelation to the Jewilh na
tion, which preceded it. I Shall beg leave
to consider the Old and New Testaments as
infeparable. The opposition to thefe Revelations has
been conftant Since the difobedience of our
firft parents ; but previous to Chriftianity it
confifted much in outward acts of violence,
or idolatrous practices, and did not appear
fo much in the Shape of objections to the re
vealed principles and doctrines, as in the
adoption of contrary and erroneous fyftems
of Religion.
The various oppositions we have to exa
mine have both thefe characters ; having
appeared either in the Shape of contradiction
or competition ; either in the form of objec-
b " Tout ce qu'ont fait les hommes, les hommes peuvent le
« detruire." Roujfeau, Entile.
b 4 tions

8 SERMON I,
tions to the truths revealed, or as Syftems of
a rival tendency. Before Chriftianity, other
religions and other SyStems were embraced
as distinct matters ; when they came into
competition with the true Religion, the lat
ter was treated with open contempt ; its
merits and foundations were fcarce at all, if
ever, canvaffed ; and therefore God's truth,
when vindication became neoeffary, was to
be vindicated only by manifest and fenSible
interposition ; open and confpicuous venge
ance on his enemies and blafphemers (,0).
But Since Chriftianity, Revelation has not
only not been oppofed, but has fcarcely been
fo much as Slighted or neglected, without
fome pretended excufe, insinuating either a
want of authority, or fome other great defect
on the part of Revelation.
As the mode of attack has been altered,
fo of courfe has the mode of defence. God
no longer vifibly interpofes, but having fup-
plied Christians with the weapons proper
for refilling all attacks on the part of man,
he has abandoned it to our care and protec
tion, with a full affurance that it Shall not
fail. While time can make no change in
the Revelation committed to our charge, it
is

SERMON I. 9
is operating every poffible change in the
constitution of human affairs : multiplied ex
periments and accumulated Stores of wifdom
have greatly improved the condition of the
human mind ; impofture has every day lefs
chance of making its way, while truth may
at leaft have the advantage of a more fatif-
factory examination.
. Revelation therefore, as it becomes every
day more expofed, Should obtain the greater
credence, if it continues proof againSl fuch
afiaults : and it muft be remarked, that Infi
dels themfelves give ground and fupport to
this triumph of Revelation, becaufe in re
jecting it as an object of fuperftition only,
and vain fancies, they pretend to have made
fuch advances in knowledge, as to fee things
more clearly, and to fathom them more
deeply, than their predeceffors. The advance
ment of human knowledge is affigned as the
principal reafon for rejecting fuch errors. A
hope is alfo held out to us of Still further
improvement. But it will furely admit of a
question, whether fuch improvement is want
ing in particular points; or whether we
have not ample reafon to be fatisfied with
what has been already difcovered ; the very
possibility of improvement depending on a
thorough

io S E R M O N I.
thorough appfehenfion and acknowledgment
of fome defe&. But this may be difcuffed
hereafter ; at prefent let it be fufficient to
admit to the fulleft extent the great advance
ment of human knowledge, as that muft
certainly heighten the critical Situation of the
Jewifh and Christian Revelations, if after all
they are but human inventions.
Chriflianity was not confined to " a cor-
" ner" at its birth, nor is it difpofed to take
refuge in a corner now. It ftands expofed
to view, and to every affault on the part of
the Infidel ; and the Infidel has indeed more
vantage ground than he had; for, if not en
tirely through the fuperior learning of the
prefent age, yet through the great accumu
lation of learning tranfmitted to us, through
ages paft, as well as through the overthrow
of almoft all pagan fuperftitions, and irra
tional prejudices, he has every means of de
tecting its weak parts, or of inventing fome
fyftem in opposition to it c.
Whatever weapon could be raifed againSl
imposition is at the Infidel's command. There
is learning enough in the world to detect
errors, and wit enough to fabricate other
c See. Sherlock's IXth Difcourfe, pp. 264, .265. Syftems,

SERMON I. n
Syftems, and better, if this be really defective.
There is, and has been ; for indeed no mode
of affault, I believe, remains untried : the
heavy artillery of learning and criticifm, as
well as the lighter weapons of wit and ridi
cule have been repeatedly brought into the
field. The effects they have had in each
affault it is not my object to enquire. It is
certain they have not prevailed. Revelation
maintains its ground, not upheld by partial,
prejudiced, or interested adherents, but ready
to anfwer to every charge of error or incon
sistency, and prepared to undergo any com-
parifon with rival fyftems.
Nor is this faid without reafon : for though
we would grant that Infidels have every ad
vantage that the accumulated learning, and
multiplied enquiries, of a long lapfe of ages
can give them, whereby they muft needs, be
admirably qualified both to raife objections,
and to drefs up any new Syftems ; yet the
benefits of fuch accumulated learning and
curious enquiries being equally open to be
lievers, believers are at leaft as well qualified
to judge ofthe objections and fyftems of their
opponents, as fuch opponents can be to
judge of the. grounds of their faith. Nor

xi SERMON I.
Nor is theology a fcience of fo confined a
nature, as that the Infidel may expect to at
tack Revelation With any weapon which the
profeffed Theologian is unable to wield in its
defence. Perhaps of all fciences none can
afford topics for argument agaihtl: Revela-
lation, but the following : History, Criti
cism, Ethics, Physics, and Metaphysics ;
and there is not one of thefe, if we except
Phyfics, of which the profeffed Theologian
muft not be a competent mailer. Of Hi/lo
ry he ought to know all that Can in any
Way corroborate or confirm the historical
records ofthe holy Scriptures; for a Contra
diction in facts and events would greatly in
validate its authority. In Criticifm he Should
be Well Skilled : a falfe interpretation of the
original writings, in which the Word of God
is conveyed down to us, being either a fnare
or a fupport to the unbeliever. Of Ethics
he ought to know much, in order to be com
petent to judge of the internal evidence of a
religion affuming to come from a God of in
finite purity and perfection. And the fame
may be faid of Meiaphyfics, which muft ferve"
to throw much light on the information
there given us of Spiritual beings and Spi
ritual

SERMON I. 13
ritual agency. Phyfics, though no indifpenf-
able object of Study to the Theologian, muft
yet be too interesting in general to be en
tirely omitted : but as arguments of a peculiar
nature have been drawn from this branch of
fcience, more will be to be faid. upon it here
after. We muft however note here, that the
Infidel can make no progrels in this feience,
which is not attainable by the Theologian (");
and therefore, that the latter may be able to
follow Ijim wherefoever his objections may
lead. And perhaps, in this instance the times are
much altered : in former days, when, within
the pale of the Church, controversies were
carried on with all the parade and intricate
formalities of the moft fubtle logic, it was.
the occupation of a man's whole life, to ftudy
the uSe of thofe cumberfome Weapons d: be
sides that general knowledge at the fame time
was difregarded and even difcountenanced,
and they had other means of Silencing all di
rect opposition to the holy Scriptures than.
thofe of argument aijd: reply. But at prefent
the Infidel may be fure of being met fairly
d "In illis temporibus ingeniofa res fuit.effe.Chriftianum."
Erafmus. in

14 SERMON I.
in the field, and oppofed with whatever wea
pons he may choofe for conducting the at
tack. Believers are no longer to be defpifed
as bigots ; as prejudiced and partial advo
cates. There are numbers to be found ca
pable of coping with the moft fubtle and
the moft acute on the Side of infidelity ; ca
pable of examining as minutely and as large
ly into the merits of every point advanced
againSl Revelation, as thofe on the other Side
can pretend to, in investigating the merits
of the doctrines they oppofe.
The fupporters of Revelation defire no
thing more, than fair enquiry, and diffufive
argument. They wish Revelation to be exa
mined in all its points and bearings ('*); and
let it be considered, that there are fome
points, in which if Revelation Should be
found deficient, it muft be given up. If any
hiftory, or historical relics0, of unqueflion-
able authenticity, Should be found to contra
dict its records': if nature, or natural effects
and phaenomena, Should be found in positive
oppofition to the word of Scripture : if a

e See Minute Philofopher, p. 287. Dial. vi.
f Divine Legation of Mofes, B. iv. §. 5.

falfe

SERMON I. 15
falfe interpretation of the original writings
Should have been impofed upon the world as
truth : if the moral precepts could be proved
to be inconsistent with the undoubted attri
butes of God ; or the notions of the Deity
we find therein, abfurd and irrational ; then
I know not how Revelation could be fup-
ported. It would be ImpoSfible not to ac
knowledge it to be " of man."
But if, on the contrary, it Should be found,
that Revelation, taking its origin from the
moft remote periods, including in it much
of historical fact, fhall not, in regard to thofe
facts, have been contradicted by any after-
difcovery, of more or equally authentic re
cords : if the wide circle of the whole globe,
not fo much as the half of which was
known, or had been traverfed, when the fa-
cred Books were written, has fupplied no
one undoubted historical testimony againSl
them (,3) : if Revelation, tranfmitted to us
in a feries of compositions of fuch a date as
to be entirely prior to all thofe obfervations
and experiments, which have laid open to
us fo many wonders in the natural world,
Shall be found to have conformed itfelf to
the true fyftem of nature, as far as common Ian-

i6 SERMON L
language Would allow, and in no instance to
have fpoken in direct contradiction to the
operations of nature : if the door has- been
ftudioufly fet open by the advocates of Re
velation, for a clofe and critical examination
of Holy Writ in its original, languages, and
no falfe interpretation is infifted upon : if all
its moral precepts Shall, be found not only
conformable to the purefl dictates of reafon
and confoience, but to be fo felect in. their
nature, fo clear in their enunciation, fo prac
ticable in their directions, fo forcible ia re
gard to their fanctions, that no human wif-
dom ever attained to fuch a fyStem in any
other instance ; if its notions and represent
ations of the Deity, and the world of Spirits,
the operations and nature of the human
foul, Shall be found either confonant, or far
fuperior to all that has been difcovered under
the fyStem of natural religion ; then furely
the iffue of the enquiry mufi be, that fuch a
Scheme of Religion, fuch a connected chain
of facts (,4), fuch a fyStem of precepts, muft
be " of God," and of God only !
Now, undoubtedly, much of this has been
already amply proved and demonstrated.
The queliion however will from day to day
become

SERMON I. 17
become more interesting, becaufe, as it is
the office and effect of time in general to
overthrow all falfe opinions and unreason
able prejudices, fo muft it ferve to confirm
and eftabliSh truth.
In the lapfe of ages there will be different
periods, no doubt, more friendly than others
to the developement of truth, as well as pe
riods more favourable to the prevalence of
error and prejudice. During fome ages, the
human mind may be fupine, indolent, and
placed in adverfe circumstances as to its exr
panfion and its energies. At others, more
favourable occasions will occur, in which it
Shall be in the way of every advantage con
ducive to the advancement of knowledge,
and the confequent difcovery of the moft
important truths. Such periods we may well
trace in the revival of learning in Europe,
and the glorious reformation of the Church.
We have recently paffed a period of no
fmall importance, though of a very question
able character. It has been oftentafiouSly
indeed denominated the Age of Reason. I
do not mean to allude only to the work of a
fimple individual, distinguished by this title;
but allowing, him the credit of having ad-
c opted

18 SERMON I.
opted a term admirably expreSlive not only
of his own deSigns, but of that of many
others who have made themfelves conspi
cuous in the period I am alluding to, I pro-
pofe to adopt it as a general title for that
asra, in which Reafon has been peculiarly op-
pofed to Revelation (IS), and, I think I may
fay, actual experiment made of its Strength
and its effects g.
A question naturally arifos, How has Chrif
tianity paffed through this period ? Has Rea
fon in this conflict got the better ? Has She
recommended herfelf fo as to be henceforth
folely relied on, to the exclusion of all pre-'
tended Revelations ? Has She, in delivering
man from the rubbifh of ancient prejudices
and fuperflitions, fet him upon a fure foot
ing ; fortified his foul againSl every terror ;
cleared it of every doubt and perplexity; and
given it either the enjoyment or certain hope
of eafe and happinefs ? Has She established a
clear and indifputable rule of right, whereby
a man may not only regulate his actions
with prudence and decorum, but become a
* See, as to the probable refill t, ProfefTor Brown's Appendix
to Leknd's View of Deifiical Writers, 1798.
kind

SERMON I. 19
kind and good neighbour to all around him?
Has Reafon, in this her firft appearance upon
earth, (for fo the affumed title would insi
nuate,) fhewn herfelf fuperior to thofe falfe
apparitions of her that deceived the world in
ancient times ? Has She done fo much for us
in this her own peculiar age, as to enable
us not only to difcard Revelation with con
tempt, but to fee the emptinefs of thofe vain
pretenders of former days, who, affuming
her name, fought to enlighten the world in
the fame bold manner, and to releafe it from
the bondage of error and darknefs ?
If She" Shall be found to have done this
for the world, let it be her age ! If She has
appeared fuperior io Chriflianity, more di
vine, more encouraging, more falutary in
her doctrines and precepts, let us not live
any longer in error, let us hail her as She
deferves : let us fall proftrate at her feet, as
a meSIenger of better tidings than the Gofpel
of Chrift has proclaimed muft needs de
mand every testimony of regard and grati
tude! (,6)
We have, I conceive, no need to enquire,
whether the author, from whom we more
particularly derive the title of the Age of
c 2 Reafon,

ao SERMON I.
Reafon, was fincere in calling it fo, with re
ference to other difcoveries befides his own:
it is enough to be certain that he at leaf, ap
prehended, from the general complexion of
things, that fuch a happy period was juft
then arrived ; and if we examine into the
circumstances of thofe particular times, we
cannot fail to be fatisfied, that a correspon
dent .fpirit prevailed throughout the whole
continent of Europe (I7).
Reafon had at that time certainly a large
confederacy of chofen troops, all bent upon
the fame object, all building on the fame
hopes, all equally confident of fuccefs againft
their devoted opponents, the advocates for
Revelation, the friends of focial order and
regular government. All ancient opinions
were declared to be prejudices, and a war of
extermination denounced againft them. Rea
fon could expect no period of greater ad
vantage for the trial of her Strength, and
advancement of her caufe. It matters little
whether the. moft has been made of thefe
advantages; it is enough to know thatfhe has
fuppofed herfelfftrong enough to combat an
cient prejudices with ejfecl ; that She has at
leaft been fenfible of her own command over
fuch

SERMON I, at
fuch weapons as fhe thought to be ft efficient
for the overthrow of the ftrong holds She
meant to carry by affault. If it Shall turn out
that She has ufed thefe weapons amifs, or
thought herfelf ftrong when in fact She was
weak, it will not alter the cafe ; we may yet
be able to judge of thofe arguments, which
have appeared to her to give her the victo
ry (l8). She muft be left to be her own
judge as to their Sufficiency, when She claims
the victory ; it is ours to judge whether She
has deceived herfelf or not.
Formerly Reafon might feem to have had
a hard taSk to vindicate her own fupremacy
in matters of judgment, for fhe was too
rafhly refufed all fort of interference: but
of late She has been invited to interfere (I9) ;
She has been refpectfully appealed to; She
has had every right and pretenfion, to which
fhe could fairly lay claim, adjudged to
her (ao.) If She would prefume beyond her
fair and reafonable claims, her right to judge
muft needs be questioned and examined.
To fubmit to human reafon without juft
grounds, to appeal to her where She can
have no pretenfions to pafs a judgment,
would neceffarily be to fubmit, and to ap-
c 3 peal,

aa; SERMON I,
peal, without Reafon. It would be fubmit-
ting, and appealing, and rebelling againft
her decrees at the fame time.
And furely Reafon muft acknowledge forM
things to be fo above comprehension, as to
be paft her judgment. To make her the
fole judge in fuch matters, would therefore
be to act in contradiction to her own fenfe
of right and authority. It muft always,
therefore, be the part of a wife man, to be
cautious how far he fubmits himSelf to thofe
who pretend to inftruct him in the judg
ments and decifions of human Reafon ; for
many may exceed their commiflion.
What human Reafon may approve, and
affent to, it muft always be of importance
to us to know ; but it cannot be, that no
truths can exift independent of human Rea
fon. Unlefs we believe in the Wild notion
of the eternity of the world, and all things
in it, we muft fuppofe, that before there was
any fuch faculty as human Reafon, many
things muft have been brought into exist
ence ; many things even peculiarly adapted
to the ufe of man, and which, therefore, we
might well fuppofe, if any neceffity could
exift for the confent of human Reafon, would at

SERMON I. 23
at lealt have been rendered plain and intelli
gible to the understanding of man. But is
this fo ? Does the fun Shine by our content,
or Spread abroad his rays in a way familiar
and evident to our apprehension ? Is man's
own body exactly what he would wjfh and
defire ? Would he not have contrived fo as
to have had it laft longer than it ufually
does, and free from all thofe ills and infirmi
ties, to which it is now liable ? Would he
not have referved to himfelf a right to in-
fpeB thofe nice and delicate organs of life
and motion, on which his very existence
feems fo much to depend, irillead oifhutting
them entirely out from his own obfervation
and management ; as is now evidently the
cafe with regard to the human frame ?
This is not faid with a view to depreciate
Reafon : it is a high and moft distinguishing
faculty ; but yet it would certainly appear,
that how much foever we may be to depend
on it as a directing faculty, it was not be
stowed upon us in any unlimited degree.
Man was. meant to be left in ignorance (*'),
as to many points ; of which there cannot,
I think, be a Stronger proof, than in the very
inftance I have adduced, the peculiar con*
c 4 trivance

S4 SERMON I.
trivance of the human frame ; the internal
parts efpecially ; which, till anatomical ob
fervations had multiplied greatly, muft have
been wholly unknown to us, though all our
vital functions depended on thofe concealed
organs : and after all, we can only reafon
from arialogy ; the internal constitution of a
living being nOne can examine into.
Many other instances might certainly be
brought forward, to Shew that, in certain
cafes, man's Reafon, however it might be
left free to Speculate upon fuch matters, was
not originally mednt to be made the judge,
or even permitted to interfere. Man is fairly
fhut out from his own obfervations in regard
to the moft effential functions of his bodily
frame : if he has a greater natural infight
into his fpiritual condition, it is repugnant
to analogy; and the hiftory of the world af
fords no proof of fuch a thing.
So far from man being better acquainted
with the modes, circumstances, and condi
tion of his future life, he cannot know natu
rally whether his foul is to furvive the decay
and diffolution of his prefent bodily organs.
Can it admit of a question, whether Reafon
was fuperadded to the other faculties man has in

SERMON I.

H

in common with brutes, in order to inform
him of his fuperior and peculiar destination ?
Certainly man cannot know more of what
is to become of him hereafter, by any appli
cation of his Reafon, than the brute that we
fuppofe will periSh, as to the a&ual certainty
Of the matter (M): Reafon may fupport con
jecture fo far as to raife in man the utmoft
expectation of a future life h, and therefore,
one would think, Should induce him to ex
pect alfo, that he Should be fuperriaturally
informed of it, and fupernaturally instructed
in the terms and conditions leading thereto-
And this is enough for man. The mo
ment Reafon has carried him far enough
to induce him to conjecture that he has an
intereft in a future State, in a world distinct
from this, he may naturally expect fome
mode of intercourfe will be kept open.
Reafon feems to be the fame in man with
that capacity of improvement pointed out by
a celebrated writer1, as the distinguishing
characteristic of our clafs of being. But a ca
pacity of improvement in man, as man, mult
*> See Butler's Analogy, chap, i.
1 Roujfeau. See his tract on the Origin of the Inequality of
Man. needs

36 SERMON I.
needs be limited; man could never attain to
the perfections of an angel in this Stage of
his being. All beyond what his fenfes in
form him of, or Revelation exprefsly dif-
elofes to him, can amount to no more than
conjecture. I would not depreciate Reafon, as the
writer juft alluded to feems to have done ; I
cannot regard it as a faculty " only of ufe to
" exalt the individual at the expence ofthe
" Species ;" I confider it as a noble, a glori
ous faculty ; capable of leading us to fuch a
knowledge and judgment of the things around
us, as both to amend our condition here, and
fit us to anticipate the enlargement of our
faculties in a fuperior State of being. No fa
culty could be more fuited to give us the
confoling hope of a progreffive State of im
provement hereafter, being certainly compe
tent to raife our notions at leaft above this
fublunary Slate, though incapable at prefent
of actually penetrating, of itfelf, the veil that
conceals from us the regions above. Reafon
has its origin as it were in heaven, being
fitted already probably for the full fruition
of it, when fupplied with fenfes Suitable ; or
rather when fo entirely fpiritualifed as to
comprehend

SERMON I. a?
comprehend by intuition, what it can now
only behold, as through a glqfs darkly (*3).
The limits, within which human Reafon is
at prelent confined, are furery capable of be
ing clearly afcertained. And I Should not be
very unwilling to allow, that fo, far we might
conceive the age of Reafon to be arrived, that
indeed Reafon has now every aid at command,
that it could defire or expect. Except the
barrier obvioufly interpofed between this
world and the next, It is able to cope with
almoft every difficulty in the investigation of
truth. I cannot conceive that much in the
line of Hiftory remains to be difcovered. I
cannot conceive that Criticifm can be carried
further than it has been. I do not think Me-
taphyjics is likely to be applied with greater
effect than it has been, to the curious, but
too often unfatisfactory, objects of its en
quiry. Ethics can fcarce be better understood
than they already are in theory, however in
practice men fail of acting up to the Standard
they Should govern themfelves by. And even
in Phyftcs, I apprehend, fo far from advanc
ing nearer to the truth of matters by further
experiments, we run a chance only of con
vincing ourfelves more and more of our
own

*8 SERMON I.
own ignorance, it being impoftible to know
any thing determinate of many paft tranf-
actions. But if Reafon be natural, and not alto
gether an acquifltion, as one writer of this
age of Reafon would maintain k; it yet Should,
in the prefent Slate of the world, when it fets
up for a judge, be affifted by all the acquired
knowledge poffible. Reafon has no right to
act peremptorily of herfelf, in opposition to
Revelation, without being competent to exa
mine and to judge of every pretenfion Reve
lation hath to urge. It is indeed difficult
now to fay how it would be pojjible for Rea
fon to act of herfelf, and wholly unaffifted.
Every book that is written is the judgment
of fome man's Reafon on fome given point :
none therefore but a perfeclly illiterate per-
fon can be expected to argue upon the mere
principle of his own unaffifted Reafon. When
fuch Stores of wifdom are accumulated, as is
now the cafe, the age of Reason cannot be
an age when Reafon is to act without regard
to thefe intellectual treafures (S4) ; but when
Reafon Shall be fo far enlightened as to be
k See Roufeatts Letter to the ArcUiJhop of Paris. Mifcell. vol. iii.
competent

SERMON I. 29
competent to judge of every thing that has
been added by man in the way of invention
or difcovery; when Reafon Shall be fo in
formed, as to be in many instances incapable
of being deceived ; when it neither can be
blinded by art, nor is any longer Silenced by
perfecution ; when it is both able to judge,
and may do fo : but above all, when it
knows its own powers, and grafps at nothing
beyond its reach.

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON I.

Page I. note (i).
" JN ON certe quod Evangelio faveret, fed quod
" homo eflet moderatus." Beza. ,Dr. Doddridge how
ever juftly obferves, Gamaliel could not be very mode^
rate, if he was the author of the prayer againft the
Chriftians, ufed in the Jewiih fynagogues, as is reported
of him. Gamaliel, befides all other prejudices, might,
from particular circumftances, have been influenced
againft Chriftianity by a family pride and jealoufy : fee
Jenkins's Reafonablenejs of Chriflianity, vol. ii. 503. The
edict of Antoninus in favour of the Chriftians, addrefled
to the ftates of Aiia, has much the fame fentiment, re
commending moderation, and cafting the care and de
fence of idolatry on the Gods themfelves ; intimating
alfo, that the Chriftians would never be driven by force
to forfake the worfhip of the eternal God, in whom they
trufted. Vid. Juflin Martyr. Apol. ad Ant.
Page 1. note (a).
It affumed: to be " o/God."] That it affumed to be
from Heaven, is another thing. This is the pretence of
all religions : but of Chriftianity it may be faid, that it
affumes to be a Revelation from that very God whom
the Deifl is willing to acknowledge, a God too pure
and too good to fuffer us to be deceived in his name.
See Jenkins's Reafonablenefs, &c. part iv. chap. 2.
Page I. note {3).
"Fundamenti loco ponatur perire non pofle fundi -
" tus Ecclefiam Chrrftianam, nunquam extin&am iri in
" terris. Nunquam revivifcet et dominabitur Paganif-
" mus aut Judaifmus ; nunquam prsevalebit Lex Moho-
" metis, aut alia qusecunque, per totum terrarum or-
bem,

33 NOTES ON SERMON I.
bem, extinilo Evangelio, et Religionis Chriftiana: pro-
feffione. Hoc certum ratumque ex verbis Chrifti. Sea
qui promilit fe confervaturum incorruptam ; incorrup-
tam dico aut doctrina aut moribus ; quinimo nos mo
nent eadem oracula facra futurorum fcandalorum, Apo-
ftafiae futuras, Antichrifti futuri." Burnet de Fide et Offi-
ciis Chriflianorum, c. ix.
Page 2. note (4).
The mere duration of any fyflem cannot prove it to-be
" o/God."] See White's fecond Bampton Leclure. "Re-
" ligionis autoritas non eft tempore seftimanda, fed Nu-
" mine, nee colere qua die, fed quid cceperis, convenit
" intueri." Arnobius contr. Gentes.— -It is well known
that the Pagans pleaded prefcription in favour of their
tenets againft the Chriftians 5 the Catholics againft the
firft Reformers, 8cc. fee Bayle fur les Cometes. Bifhop
Law, in his difcourfes on the Theory of Religion, con
cludes that both Popery and Mahometanifm will be found
to have accomplifhed fome wife and good ends.
Page 3. note (5).
Many of thefe arguments muft needs reft on ground dif-
putcd by the Infidel^ " Omittamus fane teftimonia Pro-
" pbetarum," fays Lactantius, lib. i. c. 5. " ne minus
" idonea probatio videatur ab his, quibus omnino non
" creditur ;" and he blames Cyprian for having done
the contrary, lib. v. c. 4. Cyril of Jerufalem (Catechef.
xviii.) advil'es the not arguing out of the Scriptures
againft thofe who do not acknowledge them. " Toi> piv
" ovv xexgycro Xoyois irpo;'''EXXyjva;- tot; ydp rd syf^rpa. p.9
" ¦aa.^a.lrxjip.ivGic, dfpatpol; ^d'/oxiroi; oitXoie £* Xoyia-ptav povtv
" kx) d'jeohl^BUJv." Mr. Gibbon wifhes the apologifis had
been difcreet enough to have acted exactly as Lactantius
profeffes to do, and as Cyril recommends in the paf-
fages cited. Not that we would grant to Mr. Gibbon, '
that the evidence from prophecy ought to "be kept out of
fight, in arguing with Deifts and Infidels. A prophecy,
the precife date of which is afcertainable, arid the ac-
compliibment certain and circumflantial, affords an ap
peal applicable to every mind.

Page

NOTES TO SERMON I.

33

Page 3 . note (6) .
On miracles luhich he is difpofed to deny.] Rouffeau
in his Letters from the Mountains, written in defence
of his Emile, averts, that not only miracles are no ade
quate proof in themfelves of a divine miffion, it being
impoflible, from our imperfect knowledge of nature,
and from the furprifing deceptions of magic and artifice,
to know what are truly miracles ; but that our Saviour
never infifled upon his own miracles as any proof of his
miffion. But we may fafely affure ourfelves, that St. John
thought other wife; fee chap, xv. 24; and that Grotiusfo
underftood him, whofe comment upon the words' Ei
td epya. pi) eiforftrtx, is as follows; that befides the doctrine
which he preached, (and which Rouffeau would have to be
the only adequate proof of his miffion,) " Alterum adfert
" argumentum, quo adverfarii reddantur inexcufabiles :
" miracula sua \" See alfo John x. 37, 38. xiv. 11.
Matth. *i. 4, 5. Luke vii. 2%. and Bifhop Gibfon's
Firft Pafloral Letter, pp. 37, 38. Enchirid. Theolog.
The author of Chriflianity not founded on Argument af-
ferts alfo, that our Lord could have no fuch meaning as-
to convince by his miraculous works ; no fuch inten
tion as to prove his own truth and cbaratler by thefe
inftances of his power ; in full contradiction, fays Bifhop
Law, in his Theory of Religion, to thofe many paffages,
where he exprefsly appeals to his works, as direcl proofs
of hiscommiffion. Dr. Morgan, in his Moral Philofo-
pher, pretended alfo that Chrift made no appeal to
his miracles. See Leland's View of Deiftical Writers,
Letter X. As to Rouffeau's pretence, that miracles muft
be inadequate proofs, from the imperfection of our
knowledge of natural caufes and effects, Mr. Leflie had
long ago replied to this objection in his admirable
Method with the Jews ; where he (hews, that though
we may not always know when we are cheated, yet
we can certainly tell, in many cafes, when we are not
cheated ; as in the cafe of the three Jews caft into Ne
buchadnezzar's fiery furnace. For " though we can-
" not tell all the whole nature of fire, yet this we cer-
" tainly muft know, that it is of the nature of fire to
,( burn." And this is applicable, as he further fhews,
to many, if npt to all, the rrriracles ofthe Scriptures.
p Rouffeau

34 NOTES TO SERMON I.
Rouffeau will not admit that he denies the miracles re
lated in the New Teftament ; but that he fliould have
been letter fatisfed, if, inftead of a lame perfon being
enabled to walk, one had been made to walk that had
no legs ; or, inftead of a paralytic being made to move
his arm, a man with but one arm (hould fuddenly have
had two. But furely the miracle of the loaves and ffhes
was of this kind, and this very miracle Rouffeau men
tions with becoming refpect. I fhall have more to fay
on the fubject of miracles elfewhere.
Page 4. note (7).
There is alfo this difference between the two en
quiries: to prove Chriftianity to be "of God," we muft
be in a great degree confined to the immediate teftimo-
nies cotemporary with its firft promulgation, or depend
ing thereon : but to prove it not to be " of man," we
may refer to every thing relating thereto in the hiflory
ofthe world, from its firft creation to the prefent time.
Page $. note (8).
We lay out of the quejlion all thofe math and cha~
takers which the Deifl is difpofed to controvert.'] This
is the admirable plan of Bifhop Butler, as he explains it
himfelf. " I have argued," he fays, " upon the princi-
" pies of others, not my own ;" meaning hereby, not
the proving any thing from their principles, but notw ith-
¦ (landing them : " and therefore," he adds, •?' I have
" omitted what I think true, and of the utmoft impbrt-
" ance, becaufe by others thought unintelligible, and
" not true." Analogy, Part II. ch. viii. 418. and note.
Page 6. note (9).
Of the many unfair and unreafonable attacks Chrifti
anity has had to encounter, fee an account in Archdeacon.
Paley' s Principles of moral and political Philofophy, Book
V. chap. ix.
" It is a convincing argument for the truth of the
" Chriftian Religion, and that it ftands upon a moft fure
,e bafis, that none have ever yet been able to prove it
" falfe, though there have been many men of all forts,
*' many fine wits, and men of great learning, that have
" fpent themfelves and ranfacked th« world for argu--
" meat

NOTES TO SERMON I. 35
*c ment againft it, and this for many ages." Prefident
Edwards's Mifcell. Obfervations.
Lord Shaftefbury is very unwilling to admit that we
have a fair account of fome of the early opponents of
Chriftianity, Mifc. v. c. 3. See however what is faid
of Origen in Jenkin's Reafonablenefs of Chriflianity , vol.
ii. 522. and the whole of that chapter, where he
fhews that the arguments of the opponents of Chrifti
anity were generally all anfwered before their works
were loft. It has been faid alfo, that the Chriftians
deftroyed many works of their opponents ; yet many
certainly remain, and were preferved by Chriftians, as
Maximus Tyrius, Marcus Antoninus Philofophus, Celfus,
Plotinus, Porphyry, Philojlratus, Julian, Libanius, Hiero
cles, Jamblichus, Eunapius, and Proclus. See Bryant's
Authenticity of the Scriptures. Porphyry's work, it is
true, was ordered to be burnt ; yet copies remained for
both Apollinaris and Jerome to examine fome time af
ter the edict for its deftruction. If however fome works
of the opponents of Chriftianity have perifhed, fo have
fome of the apologetical writings of the Chriftians ; as
thofe of Ariflides and Quadratus, Apollinaris and Melito
of Sardis, &c. A great lofs the Church fuftained alfo in
the Commentaries of Hegefippus. „
Befides the attacks that have been made on it, Chrif
tianity has had much to encounter from the extrava
gant additions and incumbrances, with which it has
been loaded at different periods, and for which it has
very unjuftly been rendered refponfible. Nothing per
haps in modern times has been more hurtful to the
caufeof Chriftianity, than the corruptions ofthe Church
of Rome. Thefe have enabled Infidels to fpeak of it in
terms which were almoft juftifiable, becaufe they were
oppofing thofe, who infijled upon it, that there could be
no Chriftianity without all thofe abfurd and very cor
rupt additions which they had annexed to it. Thefe
were called Chriftianity, exclufively almoft ofthe New
Teftament, and therefore no wonder they were receiv
ed as fuch, and treated as fuch, by the profeffed enemies
of Chriftianity in general. " I do not," fays Dr. Beat-
tie in his Evidences ofthe Chriftian Religion, " think my-
" felf concerned to anfwer any objection of thofe writ-
" ers, who miftake the corruptions of Chriftianity, for
d 2 " Chriftianity

36 NOTES TO SERMON I.
" Chriftianity itfelf;" in which he was certainly right:
and this would well apply to moft of the modern Deifts,
efpecially French and German, who continually confidcr
Popery to be the only fyftem of Chriftianity ; or pretend
to do fo; for that many, who have declaimed moft loudly
againft Papal Chriftianity of late years, have known
how to diftinguifh, upon occafion, between genuine and
corrupted Chriftianity, fee Mirabeau's Speeches, vol. ii.
p. 269 — 274. and Bifhop Horfley's Charge to- the Clergy
of Rochefler, at his fecond Vifitation, 1800. It is re*
markable that Juftin Martyr and Origen continually
complain, in their writings, ofthe true Chriftians being
confounded, by their adverfaries, with the fectarifts and
heretics who affumed the title of Chriftians. Mr. Ful
ler, in his Gofpel its own Witnefs, obferves, that Mr.
Paine was obliged to have recourfe to " corrupted
¦ " Chriflianity-," to furnifh him with arguments againft
Revelation, IntroduB. p. 8; and he admirably proves his
point. Another evil has arifen alfo out of the corrup
tions ofthe Church of Rome, viz. that many of the re
plies made to Freethinkers on the continent, being by
the hands of Papifts, have rather done injury than fer-
vice to the caufe. This may be feen in the Abbe Non-
nette's Erreurs de Voltaire, in which certainly the latter is
often admirably expofed, but at the fame time fome of
the moft exceptionable tenets of the Catholics ftrenu-
oufly defended, and fome very public characters grofsly
mifreprefented, as any Englifhman would difcover, who
would take the pains to examine his account of
Henry VIII. Ann Boleyne, Cranmer, and the Queens
Mary and Elizabeth. Many of our own Proteftant
writers, on the other hand, during the latter part of the
17 th century, went fo far in their writings to prove their
fecefjionfrom the Roman tenets, as to afford arguments for
the Freethinkers 5 and the Puritans of England occa
sioned the fame mifchief. See Chriftianity as old as the
Creation ; where every argument is fupported by paf-
fages (detached and unconnected paffages indeed!) from
fome of our ablefl and heft Divines. Confult alfo the laft
chapter of Warburton on Grace.
As it is of importance to clear our own faith
from the imputations thrown on Chriftianity in con-
fequence of the corruptions of other Churches, I fhall add

NOTES TO SERMON L 37
add to this long note, that moft certainly much of
what is advanced by the moft celebrated Freethink
ers of the continent, and of modern times, as Vol
taire, Rouffeau, Helvetius, &c. is in no manner' ap
plicable to our Church and our tenets. Though we
fay, there is but one true religion, we do not fay, " Que
" tout homme foit oblige de la fuivre fous peine de
" damnation." If this- implies an acknowledgment of
all its doctrines without conviclion ; we -fay, whoever is
faved, will be faved through Jefus Chrift, be he Jew, ¦
Turk, Infidel, or Heretic, and according to the terms
of the Gofpel in fome way or other ; which are not
therefore to be flighted or derided, but gratefully re
ceived and embraced, when competently propofed : and
we affirm, that they may be competently propofed,
without putting the " artifan qui ne vit que de fon tra-
" vail; le laboureur qui ne fait pas lire; la jeune fille
" delicate et timide ; l'infirme qui peut a-peine fortir
" de fon lit," to the trouble M. Rouffeau ftates, of deep
ftudy, profound meditation, abftrufe difcuffion, and long
journeys. See Emile, vol. iii. Thofe who do not, or can
not receive the light of Chrift's Gofpel, will always be
diftinguiflied from thole who wilfully reject it.
Page 7. line 3, &c.
" Quicquid fictum et commentitium, quia nulla ra-
" tione fubmixum eft, facile diffolvitur." LaQantius de
Ira Dei, §. 11.
" A rigid examination is the only teft of truth. For
*c experience hath taught us, that even obftinacy and
" error can endure the fires of perfecution. But it is
f genuine truth, and that alone, which comes out pure
" and. unchanged from the fever er tortures of debate."
Brown on the Characleriflics.
" Error contains in it the principles of its own mor-
" tality." Godiuin, Pol. Jufiice, B. I. c v.
" II n'y a que la verite qui dure avec le temps."
Bailly. .It was a faying of Voltaire's, "I am weary
"of hearing people repeat, that twelve men were fuffi-
'¦' cient to eftablifh Chriftianity : I will prove, that one
" man is able to overthrow it." Vie de Voltaire par Con-
dorcet. He forgot that, as Gamaliel fays, " haply he
*' might be found to fight againft God." Acts v. 39. ¦
D 3 Page

38 NOTES TO SERMON I.
Page 8. note (io.)
Open and cbnfpicuous vengeance on his enemies and
blafphemers.] The true God was only regarded as
the tutelary God of the Jews, and every oppofition
to his religion therefore was dire£tly made a trial of
ftrength between the rival Deities. See i Sam. ch. ivv
_5 — io. The miftake of Ahaz' in this point, 2 Chron.
ch. xxviii. affords a curious inftance of the notions of
thofe times : Smitten by the Affyrians for his wicked-
nefs, he concluded their Gods had prevailed, and there
fore began to " Sacrifice to the Gods of Damafcus that
" fmote him, faying, Becaufe the Gods of the kings of
" Syria help them, therefore will I facrifice to them,
" that they may help me. But they were the ruin of th*
" king, and of all If r ael." This character of thofe ear
ly times is not fufficiently'confidered by thofe who ob
ject to the condu&t of the Jews under their Theocrati-
cal government : and as it is a favourite objection in
this age of Reafon and fenttmental refinement, I fhall treat
of it at fome length. There are two modes of ftating
this objection : in one, the Bible is accufed as defcrib-
ing the God of the Hebrews as a fanguinary tyrant,
delighting in blood, and exercifing vengeance on his
enemies without rule or meafure. In the other, the
Bible is only charged with a grofs inconfiftency; and it
is alleged, that however earneftly upon fome occafions
the attributes of mercy and goodnefs are afcribed to
God, the method of his dealings with the Canaanites,
and his judgments in general, as reprefented in the
Jewifh records, are in no manner reconcileable to fuch
attributes. The firft objection is falfe, and not worthy
of attention : upon the latter, one queftion immediately
occurs, which perhaps fhould be previoufly anfwered,
before we can be acknowledged to be proper judges of
the cafe. If we can reconcile all that paffes in the
world, and before our eyes, with thefe attributes of
mercy and goodnefs in the Deity, as attributes of con
ftant, unqualified, and uninterrupted energy, then we
may be adequate judges of the fubject in debate. If
we can prove, that it is impoffible that any human crea
ture fhould be fubjedted to pain and diftrefs with the
connivance and confent of a merciful and good God, then

NOTES TO SERMON I. 39
then we muft needs have recourfe to the Manichean
God of evil, to help us through the difficulty, not only
of interpreting the Scriptures of the Jews, but the
common events of this vifible world.
I fhall apply myfelf to do away this charge ofinconfifl-
ency, not only becaufe it is the only charge that can with
any juftice be alleged againft the Jewifh Scriptures, but
becaufe it feems to admit, what fhould be admitted,
namely, that thefe very ancient and remarkable books do
contain very juft defcriptions of God's goodnefs, mercy,
and beneficence, if they were not blended with other
defcriptions of a contrary nature. And it is remarka
ble, that many, in ftating their objections to the incon-
fiftencies in queftion, exprefsly refer to the very paffage
I fhould felect in proof of the confiftency of the Bible.
In the 34th chapter of Exodus we have a remarka
ble defcription of the Deity, in the proclamation of the
name of God, at the renewal of the tables. And the
Lord paffed by, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God,
merciful and gracious, long-fuff'ering, and abundant in
mercy and truth ; keeping mercy for thoufands, forgiving
iniquity and tranfgreffion and fin, and that will by no
means clear the guilty : vifiting the iniquities of the fa
thers upon the children, and upon the children's children,
unto the third and to the fourth generation. It is to be
remarked, that this is reprefented as proceeding from
God himfelf. This is a divine revelation of his own
attributes. Who could write fuch a legend as this ?
Who could put together fuch apparent contradictions,
and expect to be believed ? Was it a fool who wrote
this? No, fays the Pbilofopber, not a fool, for his reafon
had difcovered to him one of the moft important facts
in the hiftory of the univerfe ; namely, that God is mer
ciful and gracious, long-fuff'ering, and abundant in mer
cy and truth : a fact, on which the human reafon may
fafely rely, as a fecurity againft all vain terrors, the
fears of hell, and torments of futurity. No, fays the
Socinian, not a fool, becaufe he juftly defcribes God as
too merciful, and too forgiving, to need any atone
ment for fin. [See Prieflley's Appeal to the ferious and
candid Profeffors of Chriflianity.'] It is remarkable, as I
faid before, that both the Philofopher and the Socinian
fhould exprefsly refer to this pafltige in proof of God's
D 4 ever-

40. NOTES TO, SERMON I.
everlafting goodnefs and mercy, and yet not notice the
iriconjijlency of the paffages, other wife, than by fairly
leaving out (which they do) all the other parts ot the
defcription. Shall we fay then, that he who was wife
enough to fatisfy the Deift and Socinian, as to the moft
glorious attributes of the Creator, had not wit or wif-
dom enough to fee, that vengeance could not belong to
a merciful God ? Is the text interpolated ? No. How
could it ? Would the interpolator of the fecond part
have feen no contradiction to his interpolation in the
preceding terms ? Would he not have expunged as well
as interpolated ? Certainly, had he had but fo much dif-
cernment as a modern Socinian. Whoever therefore
wrote, or even by interpolation made this paffage to
run as it does, muft have conceived it equally poffible
for the fame God to exercife mercy, and to execute venge
ance ; he muft have conceived it to be no contradic
tion to reprefent the fame Deity as tranfcendent in kind-
nefs, yet " extreme to mark what is done amifs." Or,
as Laftantius exprefsly defcribes him, " erga pios in-
didgentijfimus Pater, adverfus impios reEtiffimus Judex."
Thofe then who admit that this paffage contains a juft,
and (as in the cafe of the Socinians) an autborifed ac
count of God's attributes in one particular, may not
reject the other part of the account, becaufe it contra-
di£ts their preconceived notions of things. And as
the hiftorical accounts of God's dealings with mankind
correfpond with this defcription, the next queftion is,
what was the wickednefs to be punifhed and corrected,
and. what were the meafures purfued ? I fhall felect the
viojl prominent act of divine vengeance, God's deal
ings with the Canaaniles, and other enemies of the
Jews. It has been ufual to account for thefe meafures of feve-
rity three ways ; firft, by comparing them with natural
calamities, as earthquakes, famines, peflilence, &c. as pro
ceeding from God's appointment, though by the in-
itrumentality of mere natural cauf'es, and without notice
or warning ; which fhould be attended to, becaufe it is
undeniable, that it makes the cafe of the Canaanites
lefs objectionable even, than fome events continually
paffing before our eyes. But of this hereafter. Se
condly, fome are fqr referring the whole to God's ab
solute

NOTES TO SERMON I. 41
folute decrees ; too much to the entire exclufion of all
moral confiderations whatfoever. [See Jamiefon on the
Ufe of Sacred Hiflory.] And thirdly, others conceive
God's word to have been fo pledged by the promife
made to Abraham, as to have admitted of no alterna
tive. But the fimpleft folution is to be found in the
Scripture itfelf, and the circumftances of the times
when the events happened. Let us but fuppofe the
cafe, (the real cafe fully appears to have been fo,) that
except what God had been juft pleafed to reveal of
himfelf to, Mofes, no nation in the whole world then
knew or acknowledged the one t-^ue God : that, through
a corruption of the religion derived by tradition from
Adam, they had been brought to put their truft'm nura-
berlefs tutelary Deities, to the exclufion of the very
name of God. And let us fuppofe further, that the
only people, among whom there was any chance of
God's being juflly acknowledged and duly worfhipped,
were in a ftate of perfecution, defpifed and oppreffed.
God never a£ts fo as to over-rule the human mind, but
to guide it by notices and warnings, and motives. Let
us now proceed a ftep further, and fuppofe fuch a cafe
to be in contemplation, that the knowledge of the true
God was to be revived in men's minds; by openly con
vincing them of the vanity and folly of putting their
truft in idols; the danger oi defying the God of Ifrael,
and of the raanifeft and certain benefit of trufting folely
to his care and protection. The firft cafe could only
be proved by the difcomfiture of thofe who trufted in
idols : the fecond, by fome moft impreffive vindication
of the majefty and power of the true God ; and the
laft, by a conftant fupport of thofe, who were known
and acknowledged to put their truft in Him. Is not
all this peculiarly confident with the fpirit. of Mofes's
appeals to God, whenever the Ifraelites offended, that
he would not withdraw his protection from them, for
fear that thofe, who looked upon them as under the
peculiar care of God, fhould fay, " Becaufe the Lord
" was not able to bring this people into the land, which
" he fware unto them, therefore he hath flain them in
" the wildernefs." (Numbers xiv. Deut. ix. 28.) Is
not this confiftent with what Jethro fays to Mofes,
after the latter had recounted to him " all that he had
" done

4-i NOTES TO SERMON I.
" done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Tfrael's
" fake?" "Now I know that the Lord is greater than
" all Gods; for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly
" He was above them." Exod. xviii.
But there cannot poffibly be any cafes adduced fo
ftrong as thofe recounted in the 18th chapter of the
firft book, and 19th chapter of the fecond book of
Kings ; and in the 3d chapter of the book of Da
niel. I never read thofe hiftories without conceiving
that I have then a full view of God's difpenfations
in Judea, and of the neceffity arifing out of the cir-
cumftances of the times, for his efpecial interpofition.
In all the three inftances we have a mighty king
at the head of a confpiraoy and confederacy againft
the living God, and whole nations concerned in the
event. In each cafe idolatry is refifted and expofed
with fuch a rational and holy confidence in the true
God ; fuch a fteadyand determined reliance on his juft
vindication of his own infulted honour, as every dif-
paffionate man muft allow the occafions exprefsly called
for. In the two inftances of Ahab and Nebuchadnezzar,
how fatisfactory and convincing are the conclufions of
each relation ! the ftrong emotions of the fubjects of
the former, on the defcent of the fire from heaven, and
their fudden exclamation, The Lord he is God, the Lord
he is God. In the latter, the proclamation of Nebu
chadnezzar himfelf, " Then Nebuchadnezzar fpake
" and faid, Bleffed be the God of Shadrach, Mefhech,
" and Abednego, who hath fent his angel and deli-
" vered his fervants that trufted in him, and hath
" changed the King's word, and yielded their bodies
" that they might not ferve nor worfhip any God ex-
" cept their own God. Therefore I make a decree,
" that every people, nation, and language, which fpeak
" any thing amifs againft the God of Shadrach, Me-
" fliech, and Abednego, fhall be cut in pieces, and
" their houfes fhall be made a dunghill ; becaufe there
"is no other God that can deliver after this fort." Nor
even in the fecond inftance adduced is the cafe lefs
ftriking. How muft Sennacherib and all his people
have reflected upon his vain boaft againft Judah, when
he enumerated, not the nations, but the Gods of the
nations, againft whom he had prevailed ! " Have the
" Gods

NOTES TO SERMON I. 43
*.' Gods of the nations delivered thofe which my father
" deftroyed, as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the
" children of Eden, which are in Thelafar ? Where is
" the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the
" king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and IvahP"
Thefe indeed are, all three of them, very confpicuous
inftances of the defiance of the God of Ifrael. But let
us remember alfo, that though God was, certainly, to
thefe idolaters, chiefly " the God of Ifrael only," that
is, the tutelary Deity of the Jews ; yet their proceed
ings, and the tendency of their defiance was, to reject
him alfo as the moral Governor of the world : theiry«-
erifices and oblations, their trefpafs offerings, and vows,
were all devoted to their own Gods, and refembled
their grofs and impure nature. This is fo well known,
that it need not be infifted on. It was not the religion
of the world only, but the morals, that required cor
rection, for they were intimately connected with the
idolatry of the times. The defiance of the God of If
rael therefore was not.lefs than a defiance of God and
all his moral attributes; and every thing connected
with morality, as well as religion, depended on the
vindication of God's irrefiftible fupremacy.
There could be no harm, under thefe circumftances,
in God's adting by the Ifraelites as though he was their
tutelary Deity, the great object being to detach the pro
fane nations from their idols. The acknowledgment
of God in his proper character would have followed
upon fuch a converfion. This is only mentioned in al-
lufion to the conftrudtion Lord Boliugbroke is pleafed
to put upon the covenant made with Abraham. [See
Leiand's View of Deiflical Writers, vol. ii. 125. 5th
edit.] There is a paffage in the book of Wifdom, in
which the diftindtion is beautifully pointed out. " Nei-
" ther is there any God but thou, that careft for all."
ch. xii. 1^. This is fuppofed evidently to allude to the
ancient worfhip of tutelary Deities.
But here another queftion is dated. Suppofing the
interference of God to be neceffary, " If God wifhes to
" punifh," fays M. Volney, " are not earthquakes, vol-
" canoes, and the thunderbolt in his hand ? Does a God
" of clemency know no other way of correcting but
"by extermination?" (Rivolut. des Empires, ch. xiii.)
We

44 NOTES TO SERMON I.
We anfwer, Yes ; he employs perhaps earthquakes,
volcanoes, and lightning, as well as extermination, even
to this day. The queftion is, was there fpecial and ap
parent reafon for the very mode of correction recorded
in the Scriptures ? And to this we anfwer, Yes. We
have already fpoken of the cafe of defiance, and we will
venture to fay, that if the hiftorical parts of the Old
Teftament are carefully examined, almoft every cafe
maybe refolved by this fingle circumflance; that it was
a cafe of actual defiance againft God, and wherein vic
tory and fuccefs would have led to the moft extenfive
and fatal confequences. But to return to M. Volney.
We are bound to conclude the mode of extermination
to be neceffary for fome high purpofes, if we will but
allow the Scriptures to fpeak for themfelves ; for to
fhew that God did not delight in the blood of his ene
mies, as fome choofe to infift, David is not even al
lowed to build the Temple of God, but Solomon is
preferred. And why ? Becaufe the former " had fhed
" blood abundantly, and made great wars ;" and the
latter was to be " a-man of rejt." i Chron. xxii. 8, 9.
And yet, that David was an inftrument in God's hands,
in moft cafes, he himfelf infinuates, ib. xxviii. 3, 4.
M. Volney alfo betrays great ignorance by his queftion,
as it has been moft ably fhewn, that earthquakes, fa
mine, peftilence, &.c. were not the proper punifhments,
thefe being referred by the Pagans to the agency of
their falfe Gods : [fee Owen's Sermons, and Jenkin'.s
Reafonablenefs, &c] The character of thofe ages was,
that " they deemed either fire, or wind, or the fwift
" -air, or the circle of the Jlars, or the violent " water,
" or the lights of heaven, to be the Gods that govern the
" world :" it was fitting they fhould be taught " how
" much mightier He is, who maketh Xhem." Wifdom
xiii, 2. 4.
In the defcription of the Deity, which has been the
principal fubject of this long note, we find it afcribed
to the Deity, " that he will vifit the fins of the fathers
" upon the children, unto the third and fourth gene-
f rations." This happens to be a part of the Deca
logue, and that part which Mr. Paine, in his Age of
Reafon, choofes to affert, " is contrary to every princi-
" pie of moral juftice." But I fuppofe Mr. Paine would not

NOTES TO SERMON I. 45
not deny, that in the common courfe of things children
do fuffer for the fins of their fathers, confequentially,
though not vindictively '. and that this was in the view
of the divine Leg'tflator may be feen by comparing
Deut. xxiv. 16. and the reference made to it in the
cafe of Amaziah, 2 Kings xiv. 6. And this will be con
fident with Ezekiel xviii. The fon is not to fuffer for,
but often in confequence of, his father's iniquities.
And let this be recollected, that at all events God can
forefee a time for compenfation, a time to come, when
the fon fhall no more be puniflied for the iniquity of his
father, but "-When the righteoufncfs of the righteous
" fhall be upon the righteous, and the wickednefs of
*' the wicked upon the wicked." If the queftion had
related only to the policy of the cafe, we might cite
Cicero in defence of the meafure, who praifes it as a
wife proceeding. " Parentium fcelera filiorum pcenis
*' lui — hoc prtsclare legibus comparatum eft, ut caritas
" Hberorum amiciores parentes reipublica? redderet."
Epifl. ad Brut, epift. xii. and in the xvth epift. he calls
it " et antiquum et omnium civitatum." Had Mr.
Paine been capable of reading Cicero, he would fcarce
have ventured to fay, that no lawgiver would have
thought of fuch an expedient ; and he might alfo have
learnt from the following references, how general the
notion was, that children were to fuffer for the fins of
their parents. Theognis 729. he. Solon 25. &e. Oracu-
lum Delpb. apud JEUan. Var. Hifl. lib. iii. 43. Plutarch.
de his qui J ero numine puniuntur. Hor. Od. xxviii. 30.
lib. i. et vi. 1. lib. iii. Virg. Georg. i. 501. et jEneid.
viii. 484.
That Mofes bad as delicate feelings in regard to the
proniifcuous deftrudlion of the righteous and wicked
as any Freethinker whatever, may be feen in Numbers
xvi. 22. when God, through Moles, directs the I'frael-
ltes to have no mercy on the Canaanites, as Deut. vii. 2.
nor to pity the idolaters, Deut. xiii. 8. It is no more
than a judicial fentence of death, as^may be feen by
the cafe of the murderer, Deut. xix. 13. See alfo
Deut. xxv. 12.
A queftion often arifes in the difcuffion of this point,
which is not unfrequently determined againft the Bible;
namely, whether God's txprefs direction is in reality, as
to

46 NOTES TO SERMON I.
to its moral effects, different from his permiffion ; and I
mention it the more freely, becaufe in another cafe In
fidels feem to have decided it, againft themfelves. In
the queftion of neceffity they make no difference be
tween the permiffion and immediate diredtion of mo
tives. See the King of Pruffia' 's Letters to Voltaire: " Car
" que Dieu nOus donne la lib ertede mal faire, ou qu'il nous
" pouffe immidiatement au crime, cela revient a-peu-pres
" au meme; il n'y a que du plus ou du moins." There
fore if we had only fatalijls to deal with, there would
clearly be no queftion about this: for that evils happen
through God's permiffion without an impeachment of
his mercy, &c. none doubt but Atheifts. " Quod perr
" mittitur a caufa potenti," fays the learned Dr. Burnet
ofthe Charter- Houfe, " quodammodo approbatur ; fi non
" abfolute, faltem comparate." It has been very well
obferved by the learned Dr. Leland, in his reply to Tin-
dal, that " if all the events that are related in Scripture
" had been barely recorded, without affigning any reafon
" for them at all, they would not probably be thought
" an objection either againft Scripture or Providence^
" fince many ofthe fame kind occur in the hiftory of
" all ages and nations." Part ii. ch. 12, 13. And in
deed this is moft true ; and it would be difficult to fay
by what fentiment the unbeliever is led to be fo com
panionate towards every idolater whom the holy Scrip
tures defcribe as fuffering under the hand of God,
while the daily calamities that are fuffered to fall pro-
mtfcuoufly on the juft and unjuft, the old and the
young, give no fhock to his reafon. God by his fer-
vant Mofes commands the earth to open, and fwallow
up the impious Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The Deift
is fhocked. His reafon revolts. God permits a quantity
of matter to ferment and kindle in the bowels of the
earth, and overthrows a beautiful and fertile country,
inhabited by millions of perfons. The Deift contem
plates the l'cene, compaffionates the fufferers perhaps,
but falls into no diftruft whatfoever of the mercy and
loving-kindnefs of the God" of nature ! — M. de Voltaire
compaffionates Agag; andyet,letthepunifhmentbe judg
ed of as it may, he could not without prejudice appear
very amiable in M." de Voltaire's eyes ; for what had
he done? " His fword had made women childlefs." 1 Sam.

NOTES TO SERMON I. 47
r Sam. xv. 23. That M. de Voltaire was liable to fuch
prejudices, fee his Steele de Louis XIV. where he can find
excufes enough for many moft flagitious crimes.
This note is already too long ; I fhall therefore bring
it to a conclufion with this general remark upon the
Bible hiflory, confidered in regard to the times to which
it refers. In the holy Scriptures then we certainly
read of many nations and individuals being forewarned
of evils coming upon them unlefs they would repent,
and of many evils being averted from them upon their
repentance : we read of many grofs wickedneffes ade
quately punifhed, fuch as murder, incejl, adultery, theft,
and treachery : we read of nothing more frequently than
. the difcountenancing of idolatry in all its forms, and
with all its horrid and difgufting rites. But in profane
hiftories, efpecially thofe that reach back to the times
and events recorded in Scripture, we read of fimilar evils,
without any notice or warning, falling promifcuoufly on
the deferving and undeferving, without mitigation or
alternative. We read of incefts, rapes, > murders, and
every poffible atrocity committed without fcruple, and
without any fpecific punifhment. And we read of the
groffeft idolatry accompanied with the bafeft and moft
abominable practices, and with fcarce one inftance of
true and genuine religion. Of wars we read in both
hiftories, and of the ruin and deftrudtion of divers peo
ple : but in regard to the wars in the land of Canaan,
independent ofall other confiderations, two things are
noticeable which are generally overlooked : firft, that
the Canaanites had warning given them of what- was
coming upon them, and for what caufe, as appears from
what Rachel fays, Jofhua ii. 9, 10, otc. and what the
Gibeonites declared to Jofhua, chap. ix. Secondly, that
all the cities and nations, which the Ifraelites deftroyed,
appeared in arms againft them ; not one of them made
overtures of peace, or teftified a wifh for it; nay, fome
of them even made war againft thofe who did do fo,
and merely on that account. See Jofhua x, 4.
Page 13. notefli).
Which' is not attainable by the Theologian.] Mr. Gibbon
is tempted to ridicule the Abbe de la Bleterie's Wifh, tliat
.fome Theologien Philofophe would undertake the refuta-. tion

48 NOTES TO SERMON I.
tion of Julian : " a ftrange Centaur !" he remarks. See
note3i. ch. xxiii. Such Centaurs however have exifted,
do exift, and always may exift.
Page 14. note (12).
Tbey wifh Revelation to be examined in all its points and
bearings.] Without any fear of its not being found able
to endure the examination and fcrutiny of Reafon, as
Mr. Hume prefumesto infinuate, vol. ii. Effays, p. 146.
See Dr. Campbell's excellent remarks in his Differtation
on Miracles, pp. 232, 233. and the conclufion oi Bifhop
Warburton s Tract on Grace.
Page 15. note (13.)
" Upon this general view ofthe Scripture, I would
" remark, how great a length of time the whole rela-
" tion takes up, near fix thoufand years of which
" are paft ; and how great a variety of things it treats
" of: the natural and moral fyftem or hiftory of the
" world, including the time when it was firft formed,
" all contained in the very firft book, and evidently
" written in a rude and unlearned age ; and in fubfe-
" quent books, the various common and prophetic
" hiftory, and the particular difpenfation of Chrifti-
" anity. Now all this together gives the largeft fcope
" for criticifm, and for confutation of what is capa-
" ble of being confuted, either from reafon or from
" common hiftory, or from any inconfiftence in its
" feveral parts. And it is a thing which deferves, I
" think, to be mentioned, that whereas fome imagine,
" the fuppofed doubtfulnefs of the evidence for reve-
" lation implies a pofitive argument that it is not true ;
" it appears, on the contrary, to imply a pofitive argu-
" ment that it is true. For could any common relation,
" of fuch antiquity, extent, and variety, (for in thefe
" things the ftrefs of what I am now obferving lies,)
" be propofed to the examination of the world, that it
'" could not in an age of knowledge and liberty be con-
" futed, or fhewn to have nothing in it to the fatisfac-
" tion of reafonable men ; this would be thought a
" ftrong prefumptive proof of its truth." Butler's Ana
logy* Part II- chap. vii. p. 380. Page

NOTES TO SERMON I. 49

Page 16. note* '(14).
Such a connected chain of facts.] ' We may add fo uni
form a hiftory in all refpects. For, as Juftin Martyr
well obferves, the agreement of the facred writers is
argument fufficient of their infpiration, compared with
the inconfiftencies and contradictions to be found in all
the fyftems ofthe Pagan philofophers, Plato and Ariftotle
not excepted ; and confidering the fubjedts upon which
they agreed. His expreffions are very ftrong; they in-
ftrudt US, favs he. ""SlvrttQ I? ho; r6v,a.loi; x\ «./«? yXwrlrf;

Kai ¦

" Sountov, xa) tap) dvdpuntlvi); t|>tij£ijy ddavacrla;, xa) rijj jatra
" rov jSjov rovrov ci.sXXoucrri; xtilcrtta;, xa) Ksp) tfavlcuv wv avay-
" xaiov ij|U,Tv lr)v z'lSevai — dxoXovQw; xa) trvo,<puivui; aXXyXol; —
" xa) raura ev Statp6p.oi;roTto~; xa) y^povot;." Cohort, ad Gra-
cos, p. 7. edit. Sylburg. 1593. See alfo his introduction
to the Ariflotelian Doctrines, where he notices the
agreement of the facred writers in regard to the crea
tion, as well as in refpect to the Deity himfelf.
Page 18. note (15).
Mr. Paine' s Age of Reafon perhaps was the moft mif-
chievous book that appeared, from its fmall fize and
popular ftyle : but many other writers continually de
scribe the sera of the French revolution by the title he
adopted for his book. See Dr. Darwin's Zoonomia,
Godwin's Polit. Juflice, and Wolftonecrofi 's View ofthe
French Revolution. But the greateft diftindtion of this
peculiar Age of Reafon is, affuredly, the abfurd and
idolatrous deification of her in the French republic:
and the fpirit of the age may. be well difcerned in
the painting of the celebrated David, hung up in the
' Hdtel des Invalides, delineating the triumph of man
over Religion and Royalty, the Goddefs of Reafon be
ing defcribed as encouraging and approving the over
throw of thrones and altars. This overthrow is height
ened in the piaure alluded to by every thing vio
lent, horrid, and iniquitous. All of which, it is fhock-
ingto fay, has been, in the courfe of the revolu
tion, fully realifed. And as to the cataflrophe of this
great ftruggle, furely we may now (1804) apply*yvha't
Lactantius lays, to their deification of both Reafon and
e Liberty.

50 NOTES TO SERMON I.
Liberty. " Has ergo falfas confecrationes fequitur quod
" neceffe eft. Qui enim virtutes fie. colunt, id eft, qui
" umbras et imagines .- virtutum confedtantur ; ea lpia
"quae vere funt, tenere non poffunt !" Lib. i. 20. _ I am
forty to add to this note, that our own metropolis was
difgraced by a temple of Reafon. The following is a
concife account of the dedication of fuch temples in the
city of Paris, taken from the addrefs of a refpedtable ma
gistrate of the United States to the grand jury of Lu
zerne county, and inferted by Mr. Fuller in his Trail
on Deifm. " They ordered ' the Temple of Reafon ' to be
" inferibed on the churches, in contempt of the doc-
" trine of Revelation. Atheiftical and licentious ho-
" milies have been publifhed in the churches inftead of
" the old fervice, and a ludicrous imitation of the
" Greek mythology exhibited under the title of ' the
" ' Religion of Reafon.' Nay, they have gone fo far as to
" drefs up a common (trumpet with the moft fantaftic
" decorations, whom they blafphemoufly ftyled the
" l Goddefs of Reafon,' and who was carried to church on
" the fhoulders of fome Jacobins, feledted for the pur-
" pofe, efcorted by the National Guards, and the confti-
" tuted Authorities. When they got to the church,
" the ftrumpet was placed on the altar erected for the
" purpofe, and harangued the people ; who in return
" profeffed the deepeft adoration to her, and fung the
" Carmagnole and other fongs, by way of worfhipping
" her. This horrid fcene — almoft too horrid to relate-*-
" was concluded by burning the Prayer-book, Confef-
" fional, and every thing appropriated to the ufe of
" public worfhip : numbers in the mean time danced
" round the flames with every appearance of frantic
" and infernal mirth." I fhall only add, that this was
at the very time when the National Convention applauded
and. f auctioned i\\& fpeech of M. Dupont, wherein he proT
feffed himfelf an Atheifl; and wherein were the follow
ing curious expreffions : " Thrones are overturned I
" Sceptres broken ! Kings expire ! And yet the altars
" of God remain ! A fingle breath of enlightened Rea-
" fon will now be fufficient to make them difappear —
" Nature and Reafon^ thefe ought to be the Gods of men !
" Thefe are my Gods \" Page

NOTES TO SERMON I. 51
Page 19. note (16).
" Quos equidem fi putarem fatis idoneos ad bene vi-
" vendum duces effe, et ipfe fequerer, et alios ut feque-
" rentur hortarer." Lactantius, lib. i.
Page 20. note (17).
" The fufpicion, that the theory of what is called the
" Chriftian religion is fabulous, is becoming very ex-
" tenfive in all countries." Age of Reafon. " The
" Chriftian theory" (Query, what does this mean ?)
" is little elfe than the idolatry of the ancient mytho-
" logifts, accommodated to the purpofes of power and
" profit. And it yet remains to Reafon and Philofophy
" to abolifh the amphibious fraud." Our prefent age,
fays M. de Gebelin, Author of the Monde Primitif,
has made the moft rapid ftrides towards perfection.
" Notre fiecle eft le fiecle des decouvertes et des lu-
" mieres ;" probably, " nous touchons au moment de
" la grande revolution, que le retabliffement du grand
" ordre eft referve a notre fiecle." M. de Gebelin did
not rely upon Reafon, but upon the vifible order of
Nature, to fet us to rights. In this, both himfelf and
Rouffeau, who was for trufting every thing to confcience
or feeling, differed from moft other modern Deifts. In
other reipedts they may both be confidered as confpi-*
cuous characters of the Age of Reafon. M. de Gebelin
was a believer in animal magnetifm, ancient forcery,
aftrology, &c. Of the latter he fays in one of his writ
ings, '* dont, malgre les abus, on n'a jamais pu demon-
" trer ni l'incertitude, ni l'inutilite." They were both
advocates for the fyftem of " perfectibility ;" but fo
widely different in their ideas, that while M. de Go
belin's doctrine was " Perfedtionnez vous," Rouffeau'a
was, " Ne vous perfedtionnez pas."
Page 21. note (18).
Lactantius had philofophen to deal with, of whom he
fays, " aut omnino nihil fciunt, idque ipfum pro fum-
" ma fcientia prae fe ferunt ; aut qui non perfpiciunt
" etiam quae fciunt ; aut qui, quoniam fe putant fcire,
" quee nefciunt, inepte asroganterque defipiunt." Lib.
ri. 18. Inflitut.
s 2 « If

53 NOTES TO SERMON I.
" If this age," fays Bp. Berkeley, " be Angularly
" produaive of infidels, I fhall not therefore conclude
" it to be more knowing, but only more prefuming,
" than former ages." Minute Philofopher, p. 345-
Page 21. note (19).
She has been invited to interfered] That fome of the
primitive Fathers of the Church encouraged and invited
the examination of their doarines, fee Church's Anfwer
to. Middleton, ch. viii. §. 9. where he defends Tertullian;
Though the Fathers recommended fubmiffion to God's
Revelation, when once known to be a Revelation ; yet
they by no means precluded enquiry into the truth of
the Revelation. See Athanafii Opera, tom. ii. 325. and
Clemens Alexand. Strom, lib. v. p. 550. cited by Ed
wards in his Prefervative againfl Socinianifm, pp. 9. 15.
See alfo pp. 16, 17. of the fame work, as to the pro
vince oi Reafon in judging of a divine Revelation, and
Bp. Stilling fleet 's Origines Sacra, pp. 148, 14Q. B. II.
chap. viii.
With regard to many of the works with which the
prefs has teemed in this age oi Reafon, we may obferve
with Mrs. Weft, in her admirable Letters to her Son,
that " their authors do not audacioufly demand to be
" heard at the bar of manly Reafon : they know that
" tribunal unfavourable. It is to juvenile readers that
" they apply." We might add, that, for the fame rea
fon, the weak and illiterate have been appealed to, in
works not calculated to deceive the welHriflructed. It
is remarkable, that even Dr. Prieftley and Dr. Geddes
are to be fufpeaed of fuch defigns : the former in the
preface to his Early Opinions, &c. fays, " Leaft of all
" can I expedt to make any impreffions on thofe who
" are advanced in life : my chief expeaations are from
" the young and from poflerity." And the latter, in, the
preface to his Verfion of the Pentateuch, expreffes a
hope, that, by his " free manner of interpreting the Bi-
" ble, he may procure its being read and ftudied by
-' fafhionable fcholars, and the fans of fcience." p. 13.
It is alfo well obferved by Mr. Fuller, in the introduc
tion of his work, entitled The Gofpel its own Wit-
nefs, that, " notwithftanding all the boafts of Reafon
" among modern Deifts, not one in ten of them can be
" kept

NOTES TO SERMON I. 53
" kept to the fair and honourable ufe of this weapon.
" On the contrary, they are driven to fubftitute dark
*{ infinuation, low wit, profane ridicule, and grofs ab-
" ufe. Such were the weapons of Shaftefbury, Tindal,
V Morgan, Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Hume, and Gibbon;
" and liich are the weapons of the author of the Age
" of Reafon." Page 21. note 20.
" Si les Deities avoient pu fe choifir une 6poque pro-
" pre a provigner leurs fentirnens, laquelle auroient-
" ils preferee ? reduits, comme ils le font, a combattre
" avec des fophifmes, ils auroient du choifir un fiecle
" ou Ton fe piquat plus de briller que de raifonner ; ou
" le bei efprit jouat de grand role, oil le ridicule fur-
" tout fut de tous les fleaux le plus redoute ; ou la li-
" cence des mceurs donnat a la religion un air auftere
" et fauvage. N'eft-ce pas la le tableau de l'Europe
" depuis au moins quatre-vingts ans ?" See a fmall
work, entitled, L'Impie d'emafqui. The author con
cludes, from the fmall fuccefs of Deifts with fuch ad
vantages on their fide, in addition to their own talents,
and their indefatigable exertions, that they never can
be expeaed to prevail. Page 23. note (21).
Man was meant to be left in ignorance.] I would here
obferve, that the peculiar maimer, in which the internal
vifcera are fecluded from our own infpeaion, would
feem to offer a complete reply to the fancy of thofe
who have conceived, that one time or other " Mind
"would become omnipotent over matter," infoniuch as -to
give us " a power of maintaining the human body in
" perpetual youth and vigour." Godwin. This is one
ofthe moft brilliant profpedts modern philofophy feems
to have opened to us. There would appear however
to be a precife barrier eftablifhed in the human frame,
which we are forbidden to pafs, if the following ac
count of Ganglions be admiffible ; namely, that being
attached wholly to nerves which fupply the organs
which have involuntary motion, and being wow-electric
bodies, they are the checks which prevent our volitions
from extending to them. See the Philofophy of Medi
cine, vol. ii. p. 174. and pp. 179, 180 ; where the em-
e 3 barraffments,

54 NOTES TO SERMQN I.
barraffments, that might have enfued from fubjedting
the vital involuntary motions to the will of the indivi
dual, are well detailed. In Nieuwentyt's Religious Philofo-
pher it is obferved, that thofe parts only that have their
nerves from the cerebellum, as the arms, hands, legs,
&x. are fubjea to the will, and not thofe which derive
their nerves' from the cerebrum, as the heart, arteries,
ftomach, bowels, &c. See alfo Synopfis Metaphyficee
Glafg. Part. iii. cap. i. edit. 4; and fome good re
marks on what God has concealed from us, in the Dia
logue on Syftematic Phyfics, in the Spectacle de la
Nature. " Ubi ergo fapientia eft ? Ut neque te omnia
" fcire putes; quod Dei eft; neque omnia nefcire,
" quod pecudis. Eft enim aliquod medium, quod fit
" Hominis, id eft, fcientia cum ignoratione conjunaa et
" temperata." Lact. Inflit. lib. iii. 6. See alio lib. ii.
cap. 8. Page 25. note (22).
As to the aBual certainty of the matter.] " Hardly do
" we guefs aright at things that are upon earth, and
" with labour do we find the things that are before us;
" but the things that are in heaven who hath fearched
" out ? And thy counfel who hath known ? Except
" thou give wifdom,and fend thy Holy Spirit from
" above." Wifdom ix. 16, 17. How valuable an exam
ple alfo have we for the modeft ufe of our reafon in
regard to fuch (peculations, as well as for our reliance
on Revelation alone, in the cafe of the prophet Eze
kiel; who being afked, in the Valley of Bones, whether
they could revive, only replied, " O Lord God, thou
" knoweft." chap, xxxvii. ver. 3. See alfo fome admira
ble and very applicable paffages, Ecclefiafticus iii. 21 —
25. Without Revelation, fays Archbp. Tillotfon, "man
" is fecure of nothing he enjoys in this world, and un-
" certain of every thing he hopes for." But left thefe
references fhould be difputed, fee the 4th Reflexion,
§. 18. of the Philofophie du Bon Sens oi the Marquis
d'Argens, and Mr. Gibbon's 15th chapter; where is the
following remark : " As the moft fublime efforts of
" philofophy," fays he, " can extend no further than
" to point out the defire, the hope, or at moft the pro-
*f bability of a future ftate, there is nothing but a di-
" vine Revelation that can afcertain its exiftence." Page

NOTES TO SERMON I. 55
Page 27. note (23).
What we can now only behold, &c] That our merely
bodily faculties are capable of more than the common
ufes we put them to at prefent, it feems reafonable to
conjeaure, from the application of optical inftruments,
which do not alter the organ of vifion, but only tend to
vary the medium through which we behold objeas.
Page 28. note (24).
The age of Reafon cannot be an age when Reafon is to
aft without regard to thefe intellectual treafures.] " In
" difquifitions on which we cannot determine without
" much learned inveftigation, Reafon uninformed is by
"no means to be depended on." Soame Jenyns. It is
a remark of Rouffeau, in oppofition to la Mothe and
1'Abbe Terraffon, that human Reafon cannot now be
faid to be really advanced as a faculty ; for what it has
gained on one fide it has loft on the other. " Que tous
" les eiprits partent toujours du meme point, et que 'le
" temps qu'on emploie a. favoir ce que d'autres ont
" penfe etant perdu pour apprendre a penfer foi-meme,
" on a plus de lumieres acquifes, et moins de vigueur
" d'efprit." Emile, liv. iv. 206. " In regard to know-
" ledge," fays the ingenious Mrs. Weft, " it is fair to
" fay, we live in a late period, heirs to a rich inherit-
" ance." See her Letters to her Son, Lett. iii.
Of all the Works that fhould be confulted in an age
of Reafon, by thofe who are really difpofed to confider
it as fuch, I would by all means recommend the fol
lowing excellent Traas of Mr. Boyle. I refer to the
folio edition of his works. Vol. iii. article 28. On the
Reconcileablenefs of Reafon and Religion. Vol. iv. art. 10.
A Difcourfe of Things above Reafon. Ib. art. 20. On the
high Veneration Man owes to God peculiar for his Wifdom
and Power. Ib. art. 31. A free Enquiry into the vulgarly
received notion of Nature. Ib. art. 24. A Difqmfition
about the Final Caufes of Natural Things. Vol. v. art. 2.
The Chriftian Virtuofo, with the Appendix, and fecond
Part, articles 10 and 11.

SERMON

SERMON II.

Acts v. 38, 39.
And now I fay unto you, Refrain from thefe men, and let
them alone : For if this counfel or this work be of man,
it will come to nought :
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.
IN my laft Difcourfe I confidered this ad
vice of the learned Jew as fupplying us with
a teft of the truth of our moft holy religion,
not only particularly adapted to the proof of
its being of God, but as including a call
upon every true Chriftian to examine, from
time to time, what has been done, or may
be doing, by man, to bring it " to nought."
I alfo noticed the fignificant title, which
had been given to the age in which we live;
and I confeffed myfelf not unwilling to ac
knowledge, that, from the rapid advance
ment of human knowledge of late years,
Reafon might now have fome advantages
fhe could not command before; fo that
man's

58 SERMON II.
man's oppofition to Revelation, as far as the
latter depends for its reception on argument,
or learnings or difcoveries, may in this late
conteft have appeared more critical than in
former ones (').
There is fcarce one dodrine of Revela
tion, or even a fad; recorded in the books of
Scripture, at which the human Reafon has
not at different times taken offence. She
revolts at the hiftory of the creation of the
earth, and particularly at the low a;ra a£
figned to it ; at the account of the origin of
the human fpecies, the temptation and fall
of man, and introdudion of evil into the
world ; at the call of the Ifraektes ; the in-
ftitution of faerinces ; the extirpation of ido
laters. She will not hear of redemption and
atonement by blood, the Incarnation, or the
Trinity. She will not bear to be told, that
fhe needs any fupernatural infirrudion, but
ftilj confidently maintains, or rather more
confidently than ever was the cafe before,
that the vifible works of God are the only
Revelation we can exped or defjre, not only
of the power, and wiftdom, and majpfty of
the fupreme Being, but of his word and bis
willC). Our

SERMON II. 59
Our reply to many of thefe objedions
would lie in a narrow compafs, if we could
have leave to reduce the feveral queftions to
their true terms, and confine them within
their proper limits ; but where hiftory and
criticifm fhould decide, we are for ever in
terrupted by metaphyfical and moral argu
ments, wholly inapplicable to the cafe. If
we were to comply with all the demands of
Deifts, we fhould not be allowed to ap
peal to the Canon of Scripture, till we had
determined by a priori reafoning both the
utility and neceffity of Revelation in gene
ral. We fhould not be allowed to plead
the evidence of miracles, till we had not
only demonftrated their poffibility, but the
fufHciency and competency of any evidence
to prove them true. It is not recolleded all
the while, that if the Scriptures are but au
thentic, there can be no doubt upon any of
thefe points. And it is a remarkable cir-
cumftance, and can only be referred to the
efpecial bleffing and providence of God, that
if the facred books are not authentic, they
are peculiarly capable of contradidion : and
perhaps never more fo than in this age, fo
much

6o SERMON II.
much boafted, not of Reafon merely, but of
experiment and enquiry.
New objedions there may ftill be none to
notice (3), but only fuch additions to old
ones, as the advancement of knowledge juft;
alluded to, may have ferved to fupply. I have
propofed fome arrangement of thefe objec
tions, by referring them to the feveral heads
of History, Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics,
and Criticism : an arrangement, which, as
far as it can be done, I ftill mean to purfue.
TJnder the head of History I propofe to,
confider the extraordinary defed of all re
cords and hiftorical monuments, that could
be alleged to be in pofitive contradiclion to
the Mofaic writings ; even now that the
whole globe has been traverfed, and every
enquiry of that nature purfued and encou
raged in a way unknown before. Under the
head of Physics I purpofe to give an ac
count of the invincible obftacles, that fet 1
ta be in the way of our attaining to any
clear comprehenfion of the caufes that have
operated in time paft in the body of the
earth ; fo as to enable us to form any con-
jedures from thence concerning the high or
low

SERMON II. 61
low antiquity of the general mafs of our
globe. I fhall notice the confent of many
celebrated naturalifts to the low antiquity of
our prefent continents, as deduced from ob-
fervation, and the extraordinary fads that
tend to corroborate the Scripture accounts
of an univerfal deluge. Under the head of
Metaphysics I fhall have fome remarks to
make on the prefent ftate of the queftions,
concerning the materiality of the foul, and
ihe neceffity of human aclions; and I fhall
have frequent occafion incidentally to notice
the inefficacy of all fpeculative reafonings
on certain fubjeds conneded with Theology.
Under Ethics I propofe to confider the in^
difpenfable neceffity of a divine Revelation
for moral purpofes ; to notice fome of the
moft offenfive moral principles and fyftems
of modern reformers, and to fhew how ably
Chriftianity has been vindicated from the
Ciiarge of omiffions in this line. And under
the head of Criticism I fhall endeavour to
point out the great abufes to which it has
been expofed; its great utility tc fecure
US from the mifreprefentations of modern
Deifts; and the fatisfadory manner, in which
it has recently been applied to confute the

6* SERMON II.
the dogmatical affertions of modern Unita
rians. But there are ftill fome points, which will
require to be confidered in a more general
way, and which cannot be diftindly brought
under any of thefe heads. Such as the very
extraordinary difference lately manifested in
refped to the feparation of the two Cove
nants, and the divine authority of the Old
Teflament ; and in regard to the prejudices?
and prepoffeffions, which have been faid to
ftand in the way of the due exercife of Rea
fon, and more particularly in this place.
An eminent fceptic a lays it down as one
reafon for the ancient Pagan religions being
much loofer than the modern, that the for
mer were traditional, and the latter fcriptu-
ral. In this he may have been right ; but.
when he adds, that having no Canon, the
Pagan religions feemed to vanifh like.a cloud,
when one approached to them and examined
them piecemeal, we may furely infift upon
it, that this want of a Canon could not be
the chief occafion of their weaknefs and i«-
ft ability. A traditional religion may find a
1 Hum*. thou-

SERMON II. e3
thoufand fubterfuges and means of efcape,
when attacked, which will not be the cafe
with a fcriptural One : and fo inconfiftent
are Deifts, that I find this exprefsly admitted
by another Writer, no lefs eminent than the
former for his enmity to our moft holy reli
gion1". The Canon forms one determinate
objed, againft which every bolt may be di^
reded ; it cannot fhelter itfelf under any ob-
fcure tradition, or bring forward falfe le
gends and unheard-of tales to fupport its
linking Credit : it muft ftand - alone, and
fpeak for itfelf0 ; at leaft fuch is the ftate of
things according to the articles of our efta-
blifhed Church. We have no tradition or
infallible judge to decide for us authorita
tively. We admit no Canon but the Holy
Scriptures : thefe may be perverted, (for the
Socinians pervert them d,) but they cannot
be Corrupted or altered e.
We fhould have a juft right therefore to
infift upon referring every queftion to the

b Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Rom. Emp. c. xxiii. p. 71.
' See Letters on Mythology, 120. 126. 130. London. 1748.
* See Edwards's Ptefervative againft Socinianifm, part iv. 71.
e Jenkins's Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity, vol. ii. p. 117.
izuthen-

64 SERMON II.
authenticity ofthe Scriptures; for if they are
but true, we muft ftand reafonably acquitted
of all undue prejudice, in fubmitting to the
dodrines they contain ; and fo have they
been tranfmitted to us, that it is fcarcely
poffible to conceive that any writings could
exift, more capable of confirmation if true,
of contradidion if falfe.
The Author of the Pentateuch wrote of
facts, and the Prophets prophefied of facts.
The Author of the Pentateuch relates, that
the world began at a certain period, (not a
period fo remote, as that no annals could
reach it ; but, in comparifon with the fabri
cated records of many nations, a recent pe
riod,) and that a certain people lived under
a theocracy (4). Thefe are extraordinary
fads to relate, becaufe they muft have been
expofed, from the'very firft, to many contra-
didory evidences, the failure of which muft
be allowed to operate as a confirmation. The
world might manifeftly have been proved,
from the a/ifer-difcovery of regular hiflori-
cal records, from refpedable tradition, from
the fnperior antiquity of arts and fciences in
fome places, to be older. The interior of
the earth, perhaps the form and fafhion ofthe earth

SERMON II. 65
itfelf, might have fupplied chronometers of
irrefragable authority. And as to the theo
cracy, hiftory might have been found to re
cord, not the difcomfiture and overthrow,
but the triumphs of idolatry. The know
ledge of the true God, according to the
Scriptures, was in the early ages confined to
a fmall diftrid comparatively, and we have
the concurrent teftimony of profane hiftory
to prove the general prevalence of idolatry
all around. Do the records of fhe world
teftify, that the knowledge of the true God
was propagated' from this fmall diftrid,
where the theocracy was faid to prevail, to
the overthrow of idolatry ? or did their
powerful and idolatrous neighbours, who
difputed their pretenftons, prevail againft
them ?
Again, the Prophets prophefied of facts to
happen. It is an eafy enquiry, Have they
happened ? have they been fulfilled ? They
prophefied of many fads ; many connected
fads : Have any fuch taken place ? ( s ) Can
we fix upon any feries of events correfpond-
* Leland's View of Deiftkal Writers, vol. ii. Letter 28. and
the Mifcellaneous Obfervations of Jonathan Edwards, §.26.
f ent

6& SERMON II.
ent thereto? They fpecified patticular times,,
particular places, particular perfons: Have
any events tallied in thefe feveral points f
Thefe are all curious enquiries, and depend
on fuch refearches as fhould at all events
give a confequence to the inveftigatidn : re
fearches and enquiries, which, fo far from
fhrinking from, we claim at the hands of
our adverfaries, as an ad of juftice. And
fhall we ftill fubmit to be told, that our re
verence for the Bible is " the effed of pre
judice !" that our " faith is not rational !"
that we " believe without any rational mo-
" fives for belief," and only on the " pofi-
" tive affertions of an affumed authority,
" which we have never difcuffed, and indeed
" durft not queftion !" and that, in fhoft,
our religion is only " the fruit of unenlight-
" ened credulity !(6)"
Such mifreprefentations, Which have been
but too common in all ages, have been more
unjuftifiably than ever revived of late. A ce
lebrated feceder from the eftahlifhed Church,
in one of his publications, is thus pleafed to
fpeak of the inftitution of thefe very lec
tures: " Even public ledures," fays he,
" have been eftabliffeed, and ftipends an
nexed

SERMON II. 67
" nexed to the preachers of them, 720; to en-
" courage men in the ftudy of Scriptures,
'.' and in interpreting them in the fenfe that
" approved itfelf to their own judgment, but
" in agreement with that which was dic-
" toted by others." And could it be then
to encourage the idle and unprincipled, that
thefe ledures were founded ? Could they be
defigned to fandion hypocrify, and reward
ignorance ? Was it to ftifle learning in its
very cradle, and to preclude enquiry and ar
gument, in contradidion to the public infti-
tutes of the place* which afford every en
couragement, and fupply every help con
ducive to the proper exercife and right con-
dud of both ? The will of the pious and re
ligious Founder is no mandate : it was never
meant to be fo ; it could never operate as
fuch. It is an invitation and encourage
ment, held out to thofe who believe the
fame truths, and ackrwwledge the fame faith,
to affift in the propagation of them for the
behoof of others. It was manifeftly fo de
figned ; and I would venture to afhrm, in
no one inftance has the principle ever been
departed from(').
Another popular writer has alleged as a
F 2 charge

68 SERMON II.
charge againft our Univerfities, that their1
forms of education all tend to encourage and
fupport the "fyftem of permanence," that is,
to inculcate and diffufe what has been dif
covered of old, rather than to affift in the
difcovery of what remains to be known ( 8 ).
But furely, if we have attained to any cer
tainty in any fcience, if the human mind
has reafon to be fatisfied as to the progrefs
made in any branch of knowledge, this
fhould be taught as permanent, unlefs fome.
very unexpeded events fhould occur, to over-
fet the principles on which it is founded.
The fcience of aftronomy, for inftance, muft
furely be taught as fettled in regard to its
moft important principles, by our great
countryman ; not however to the exclufion
of any proper and juft examination of thofe
principles themfelves.' And can we doubt
whether our moft holy religion fhould be
taught and inculcated on a footing of per
manence, by thofe who are entirely fatisfied
with its dodrines and morality, and fo af-
fured of the authenticity of the facred vo
lumes, as to believe that no lefs than a fe
cond manifeft interpofition of God could ever
prove them falfe ? The queftion then, if- it
has

SERMON II. 69
has any immediate reference to Religion,
fhould be reduced to this : Is any thing fo
taught in the Univerfities as permanent, as
to preclude enquiry ? Far otherwife : and it
might be particularly infifted on, that even
fuch inftitutions as are exprefsly formed for
the fupport and defence of old eftablilh-
ments and received opinions, muft provide
for the due examination and refutation of
all adverfe fyftems : argument muft be op-
pofed to argument, teftimony to teftimony,
criticifm to criticifm.
It would be well for the world, if this
¦" fyftem of permanence" had been univer-
fally adhered to with the fame manly fteadi-
nefs and cautious prudence, which have not
only diftinguifhed the Univerfities of this
land, in thefe times, but the country in ge
neral. We have juft caufe to pride ourfelves
in the refledion, that we have not, like
others, madly abandoned to the rude de
mands of fpeculators and reformers, opi
nions and principles, fyftems and inftitutions,
fandioned by experience, and recommended
by the confent and approbation of the wife
and good, and learned of all ages. We have
manfully Withftood the indifcriminate outcry
f 3 againft

7o SERMON II,
againft prejudices, not precluding enquiry,
but very wifely turning our enquiries on the
new principles propofed to us. We were
not to be deluded into the ftrange belief,
that indifference to all Religion, both fpecu-
lative and practical, was the beft qualifica
tion for the examination of divine truths,
and that all reverence and refped for the
Bible were to be laid afide, before we could
be competent to judge of the dodrines it
contains. Thefe preparatives, if not ex
prefsly infifted on, have been in more in
ftances than one approved and recommend
ed, as the only means of attaining to " a ra-
" tional fyftem of faith (')." Thofe who
begin to argue with us by perfuading us to
diveft ourfelves of prejudices, fhould always
excite our fufpicion. What they call preju
dices may be very valuable principles ; and
inftead of fecuring ourfelves from delufion
by furrendering them at difcretion, we may
very poffibly be parting with the beft means
of fecurity againft deception of the worft
kind. No man comes into the world capa
ble of helping himfelf; nobody comes into
the world fo unconneded as to depend en
tirely upon his own individual powers and
difcern-

SERMON II. 71
difcernment : he muft require help and guid
ance, and to have the path of life pointed
out to him, by thofe who have travelled the
road before him, Muft he negled all fuch
diredions, and lofe himfelf in a wildernefs,
in opder to have a better chance of difcern-
ing his way, as the random information of
thofe he happens to meet may feem reafon
able or not ? Had he not better keep fteadily
to the " old paths," and be fearful of quit
ting them, except it fhall be made clear and
certain, that they lead to deftruttion P(10)
Why fhould we not fufped thofe who would
endeavour to perfuade us, that ourfelves, and
our fathers, and our fathers' fathers, have all
been deceived ; that parental care has only
been exerted to feduce us into error; and
that, if we will but believe this, we fhall be
more in the way to be happy, and better
able to diftinguifh between truth and falfer
hood ?
It is thus that any principles may be got
rid of; and the times afford us a memorable
inftance of an expedient of the fame nature
in morals, which fucceeded, to the difgrace
of the age, and the difguft of every feeling
mind. Under pretence of amplifying and
f 4 enlarging

7a SERMON II.
enlarging the glorious principle of univerfal
benevolence, fo perfedly and fo corredly in
culcated and enforced, both by precept and
parable, in Chrift's Gofpel, every private
connexion was fhamefully mifreprefented,
and the firft duties of life, the parental, the
filial, the conjugal, were all trampled upon,
and made a mockery of! For the good of
mankind, as it was pretended, the fon led
his father to the fcaffold, the father drove
his fon to the field, the mother beheld with
out lamentation the mangled carcafe of the
fruit of her own womb, fallen in the caufe
of rebellion and infurredion, and every tie
of private affedion and confanguinity was
abandoned to riot* in the exceffes of a frantic
zeal, for the exaltation of the fpecies, and
the affertion of rights, entirely incompatible
with the peace of fociety, and the fecurity
of individuals (").
Here was a fyftem founded on the over
throw and mockery of ancient prejudices ; for
every feeling and affection, if foftered in the
bofom of a private family only, was alfo
denounced as among the prejudices*, which
k See Helvetius de V Homme, fe£t. n.
ftood

SERMON II. 73
ftood in the way of the fyftem to be efta-
blifhed, of univerfal anarchy, for fuch was in
fad manifeftly the end aimed at by thofe
well acquainted with the plot.
We cannot wonder then, fince man has
been once fo deluded, as to be made to aban
don the firft principles and feelings of his na
ture ; to caft off all regard and affedion for
his offspring, all refped and reverence for
the authors of his exiftence, all the common
charities and ties of fecial life, if it fhould
have been thought as eafy a matter to bring
him to rejed the facred truths of Revelation
by reprefenting the facred writers to be im-
poftors and fabulifts h. It is not difficult to
deted an impoftor, who would perfuade us
that he has a commiffion from heaven, by a
careful examination and fcrutiny into his
credentials : but it would be immediately
repugnant to our feelings to exped to find
an accredited prophet of the Moft High, in a
perfon we had been previoufly taught to
defpife. If the "fyftem of permanence,"
with which thefe modern Reformers are

h See St. Bafil's noble refufal to abandon fuch prejudices t°
Eunomius. Lib. i. p. 201. edit. Steph. fo

74 SERMON II.
fo offended, fhall have taught us to reve
rence and refped the facred writers, this is
no prejudice that can ftand in the way of
truth. It is eafy to call Mofes a mythologifl.,-
and the Prophets vifionaries ; but nothing
can be more difficult than to prove them
fuch. ' The Bible is a book which claims to
be judged of in a manner very different from
the way too generally adopted ; not in de
tached parts, nor as a common hiftory, but as
a record of events peculiarly conneded iu
themfelves, and peculiarly diftinguifhed from
any modern events, by every circumftance of
time, place, cuftom, religion, and politics.
It prqfeffes to be a marvellous account ; this
is its very pretention: but if allegory is to be
turned into fact, and fact into allegory, at
any man's pleafure, there is no end to the
confufion it muft occafion. The fruit of the
free of knowledge has been of late, more
rafhly than ever("), refolved into an allegory,
and the real origin of fin thus reduced to a
fable; while the figurative and typical reprer
fentations, whereby the Prophets were in-
ftruded in the courfe of future tranfadions,
have been expofed and ridiculed as real
events; and this (in more inftances than
one)

SERMON II. 75
one) in direct contradiction to the Pmphets*
own words ('3).
Prejudices are not always errors, though
a foreign writer of fome eminence has en
deavoured to identify them (*4). Prejudices
may be very valuable principles ', and none
more fo than the prejudices of a public
education ; a circumftance which feems
to have been acknowledged by the re*
formers themfelves, who have not negled*
ed the aid of national and revolutionary
fchools, to give effed to their own boafted
fyftems of Truth and Reafon (IS).
The divine authority ofthe Old Teftament,
through a weak fpirit of accommodation and
conceffion which has feized upon fome
minds, has lately been as much in danger from
the treachery of friends, as from the affaults
of enemies. We have been admonifhed by a
minifler of Chrift" s Church to lay afide all
ft theological prepoffeffions" concerning the
divine legation of Mofes, and infpiration of
the Prophets, for purpofes as difgraceful
to the fcholar, as the Chriftian ; to accom
modate ourfelves to the objections of Freret,
' See Notes to Parrs Spital Sermon, p. 102.
Bolingbroke,

76 SERMON II.
Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Boulanger, Diderot,
and Paine; fo, fays he, that we need no longer
fear "the erudition" of the firft, " the fenfe" of
the fecond, "the wit" ofthe third, "thefcur-
" rility" ofthe fourth, "the declamations" of
the fifth, or " the farcafms" of the laft ! One
would fcarcely conceive, after fuch a propofal
as this, that it could be to the Old Teflament,
that Chriftianity makes her firft appeal, and
fends us for her chief credentials. No preju
dices whatfoever in favour of Mofes and the
Prophets, which we fhall have derived from
our forefathers, or imbibed by education, need
be fufpeded of biaffing our judgments im
properly ; for it fhould be remembered, that
when Chriftianity firft made this appeal, fhe
was under perfecution, and it was hex future
eftablifhment that depended on the iffue1^.
Every prejudice which is now thought to fa
vour the Church, and to give an imaginary
importance to the evidence of Scripture,
was then againft her : it was not the appeal
of numerous adherents, conneded by the
leaft fhadow of temporal intereft, but it was
the appeal of Chrift crucified! of impaled and
* See Stilling fleet's Origines Sacra, p. 197. foi. edit.
imprifoned

SERMON II. 77
imprifoned apoftles ! of a few wandering
outcafts ! of dying martyrs ! and yet fhe pre
vailed ! Her credentials were examined and
admitted ; the appeal was profecuted, the
prophecies were fearched, and the Church
increafed daily ! And fhall this evidence be
now difputed? Shall we be told, that it is in
complete, and muft be perverted to be made
to apply ? The appeal is ftill open. It is a
curious and interefting enquiry ; but in en
tering upon it, let it be thought no prejudice,
but a meafure both equitable and juft, to ap
proach thefe extraordinary records with re
verence and refped ; remembering that if
the prefent exalted ftate of the Chriftian
Church, in thefe realms, has rendered them
fufpicious to her adverfaries, the firft ap
peal was made when the Church was in
difgrace; when the power of the mighty,
and the wifdom of the wife, were againft it ;
when the evidences referred to were only
in the hands of a defpifed and perfecuted
people, while the appeal was propofed to the
whole world (I(S); to the might and majefty
of ancient Rome, the learning and philofo
phy of Greece, to the infatuations of the
Jew, the corruptions of the Pagan. Thefe were

78 SERMON II.
were the firft to whom the evidence was of
fered ; and I know not what advantage any
can exped to gain by decrying thofe preju
dices (I7), and that "fyftem of permanence,"
which lead us to refped thefe facred writ
ings; except indeed, which is furely the
truth, they would turn us entirely afide from
the confideration of them ; for if the prefent
prejudices of refped and veneration were
laid down, and the very worft prejudices of
the ancient pagan world affumed in their
ftead, even againft thefe Chriftianity has
prevailed, and is entirely competent to do fo
ftill. We appeal then with renewed confidence
to the canon of Scripture. It is open alike
to believers and unbelievers. We appeal
from Chriftianity to Mofes and the Prophets,
becaufe their evidence, when duly examined
and cohfidered, is in itfelf miraculous. No
" fyftem of permanence," no prejudices or
prepoffeffions concerning the divine authority
of the Hebrew writers, need ftand in the
way ofthe full difcovery of truth, if the cafe
is to be decided by fair reafoning, regular ar
gument, and found criticifm. The common
plea, that, under fuch circumftances, Reafon (that

SERMON II. 79
(that is always, Reafon as oppofed to Reve
lation) cannot obtain a bearing, may not
any longer With propriety be urged. Re&*
fon has furely now had her bearing. I can
not conceive that Infidelity or Atheifm could
ever find more to fay, than is to be found in
many produdions of thisageoffi!e!a/2>»,or that
they could ever have a better opportunity of
being heard : a circumftance which the au
thor ofthe Ruins of Empires, as free a writer,
and as adventurous a critic, as any the age
can boaft, fo fully acknowledges, as to glory
in the impojjfibility of any idea being any
longer effedually fuppreffed, either by the
interpofition of power, or the influence of
authority (l8).
We may furely hope then, that this age of
freedom will have put us in poffeffion of every
objedion that can be urged againft Chrifti
anity, fince, by the confeffion of Infidels
themfelves, notwithftanding the continual
outcry againft prejudices, and the undue in
fluence of authority, we find that they have
been able to promulgate their fentime'nts
without reftraint and without fear. And in
deed their works will prove it. Their works
will amply fhew, that, contrary to the affer- tion

80 SERMON II.
tion of the very author whofe complaints I
have had particular occafion to notice in this
difc6urfe,/ett> have " refrained, through fear
" of perfecution, from the publication of un-
" palatable opinions, or felt compelled to pub-
" lifh fuch opinions in a. frigid and cenigma-
" tical fpirit V
1 Godwins Pol. Juft. b. iv. c. 6.

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON IL

Page 58. note{\).
J-VJ-AY in this late contefl have appeared more critical
than informer ones.] It is enough for us to know that
it has appeared io to thofe who have been moft a&ive
in their oppofition to revealed Religion. The more
confident their expectations have been, the more con-
fpicuous and decifive muft be the triumph of Revelation.
Now whatever becomes of the queftion, whether the
French revolution was owing or not to the confpiracies
of the Free-Mafons and Illuminati, as ftated by the Abbe
Barruel and Profeffor Robifon, I can feel no difficulty
in referring to their very curious publications, as well
as to the work, entitled, Memqires pourfervir a I'Hifloire
du Jacobinifme, par M. I' Abbe Barruel, in proof of the
critical ftate in which Chriftianity was fuppofed to be
by all the Deifticai and Atheiftical writers, whofe pro
feffed objefct was, de faire valoir la Raifon." (See Wei-
fhaupt's Letters under the name of Spartacus.) It is im-
poffible not to fuppofe, from the ftyle and character of;
the books circulated and recommended throughout
Europe atthat time, that the progrefs oi Reafon was ex
pected to give the finifhing ftroke to Chriflianity, nof
merely as an eflablifhed Religion, but as a revealed Re
ligion. The ftate of things at that time is well defcrib-
ed by Profeffor Robifon in his Account of the German,
Union. " The freedom of enquiry," fays the learned
Profeffor, " was terribjy abufed ; (for what will the
" folly of man. not abufe?) and degenerated into a
<' wanton licentioufnefs of thought, and a rage for fpe-
f cuktion and fcepticifm on every fubject whatever.
" The ftruggle, which was originally between the Ca-
" tholics and Proteftants, had changed, during the gra-
ff dual progrefs of luxury and immorality, into a contefl
g " between

8a NOTES TO SERMON II.
" between Reafon and Superflition. And in this contefl
" the denomination of Superflition had been gradually
" extended to every doctrine which profeffed to be of dt-
" vine Revelation, and Reafon was declared to be for ¦ cer-
" tain the only way by which the Deity can inform
" the human mind." Robifon's Proofs, p. 278- 3d edlt-
This perhaps is as correct and as unprejudiced an ac
count as could be given of the fpirit of the times; and
whatever fhare thefe Infidel writers may have had in
the political difturbahces that enfued, there can be no
doubt that their confidence of fuccefs againft Chrif
tianity muft have been much increafed by the progrefs
of the French Revolution, and the overthrow of the
Gallican Church. What advantage they really expect
ed to derive from the advancement or knowledge, it.
may be difficult to fay ; but many of them feem princi
pally to have fixed upon phyfiology in its different
branches, as moft likely to afford the ftrongeft proofs
againft the divine authority of the Bible. Voltaire was
for making phyfics the touchftone of all pretended re
velations. Speaking of the Koran, he fays, " On y voit
" furtout une ignorance profonde de la phyfique la plus
" fimple et la plus connue — c'eft la la pierre de toucbede*
" livres que les fauffes Religions pretendent ecrits par
" la Divinite." It is not to be queftioned that M.
de Voltaire meant in many of his writings to apply this
touchftone to the holy Scriptures, with a confidence in
its efficacy to reduce them to the ftandard of thefalfe
Religions he pretended to have in view. It is fome fatif-
facYion furely to be able to refer to fuch advocates for Re
velation as Grotius, Bacon, Selden, Puffendorf, Pafcal,
Newton, Boyle, Locke, Addifon, &c. when he adds,
" le vulgaire, qui ne voit point ces fautes, les adore."
Nothing can be more difficult than to teach modefly to
a minute philofopher. This age of Reafon has produced
many in ' our own nation, who have pronounced opi
nions, to be not only indefenfible, but pofitively abfurd
and irrational, which were unqueftionably entertained,
and publicly avowed, by the truly learned men whofe
names I have juft mentioned: fee for inftance the writ
ings of Dr. Toulmin, whom I fhall have occafion to no
tice elfewhere. Mr. Gibbon has ventured to infihuate,
that the reafon oifuch men wasjiibdued, rather than fa
tisfied,

NOTES TO SERMON II. 83
tisfied. (See chap. xx. ofthe Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire.) We have only to refer to their works, to fee
whether they were men likely to haye their reafon ra
ther fubdued than fatisfied : it would be well for the
reputation of Mr. Gibbon, if even this excufe could be
alleged for his being, as he frequently is, in his works,
the advocate of Idolatry. At all events it may be affert-
ed, that Mr. Gibbon is the firft who has thrown fuch an
imputation upon them, and as it is matter of mere con-
je£r.ure,it may reafonablybe paffed over; though we can
not refrain from faying, that no eminence which Mr.
Gibbon has attained as a writer would difpofe us to bv>w
to' his authority as a judge of Bacon, Newton, Boyle,
&Ci and as to his candour and honefty, we fhall have
more to fay of it elfewhere.
To return to the fubjeft we had quitted. Diderot,
in his Syfteme de la Nature, congratulates himfelf upon
the probable downfal of theology from the advance
ment of phyfical knowledge. " La vraie Phyfique ne peut
" qu'amener la ruine de la Theologie." Booki. chap. 7.
But Mr. Paine goes farther, and even pretends that the
point is accomplifhed. " The fyftem of a plurality of
"worlds," fays he, "renders the Chriftian fyftem of
" faith at once little and ridiculous, and fcatters it in the
" wind like feathers in the air. The two beliefs cannot
" be held together in the fame mind ; and he who
" thinks he believes both has thought but little of
" either." Mr. Paine purfues this idea at fome length*
I will venture to fay, there is no perfon who thinks he
believes both more thoroughly than the writer of this
note ; and indeed he has thought a good deal about both,
notwithftanding what Mr. Paine ventures to affert.
And had the above paffage of Mr. Paine's occurred to
him when he publifhed a book exprefsly upon the fub-
je6t, (A. D. 1 801.) he would have been happy to have
referred to it, as the beft explanation of his intentions,
which were certainly in one inftance miflaken. [See Cri
tical Review of the work, entitled, Eij ®so;,%U Mso-injy.]
The intention of the work was no other than to fhew,
that the holy Scriptures did not contradict the notion of a
plurality of worlds. Upon this fubje& ofthe plurality of
worlds, I fhall beg leave to add fome references I had not
an opportunity of making in the book I have juft no-.
G 2 ticed,

84 NOTES TO SERMON II.
ticed, but which are exceedingly applicable, and would
in themfelves be fufficient anfwers to" the dogmatical
affertion of Mr. Paine. See Sherlock's Xlth Difcourfe3
vol. i. p. 320. Clarke's Evidences of Natural and Re
vealed Religion, pp. 354, 355. 8th edit. Introduction to
Dr. Thomas Burnet's boqk de Fide et Officiis Chrifliano-
rum (the extract from the preface found among his .pa
pers). Gifborne's Walks in a Forejl, Walk III. New _
Theory of Redemption, publifhed 1789. vol. ii. p. 79. &C
and Fuller on Deifm, or The Gofpel its own Witnejs, Part
II. chap. v. Page 58. note (2).
Upon all the fubjects here enumerated1, it is almoft
fufficient to refer to Leland's View of Deiflical Writers,
5th edition, with an Appendix by Profeffor Brown, on
the prefent Times, 1798. I fhall however fubjoin the foi:
lowing notices of fome French works, which, I muft
confefs, I have had myfelf no opportunity of examining.
" M. Bergier a fait pour la France ce que Leland a voit
" fait pour les trois Royaumes : il a frappe a grands
" coups fur leDitHonnaire philofophique; la Philofophie de
" I'Hifloire ; I'Examen important ; le Sermon des Cin-
" quante; le ChrifiianifmS devoile, &c. Perfonne jufqu'i-
" prefent n'a refute" M. Bergier." And again, " M.
" Campbell devoile les fophifmes de Hume. M. le,
" Profeffeur Caftillon fit plus; apres avoir traduit et
" commente M. Campbell, il reprit en bloc tous fes ar-
" gumens ; il en fit, pour ainfi dire, une chaine ferreej
" il preffa, il fomma M. Hume de la brifer, ou de fe
" rendre. M. Hume a garde un profond filence."
Page 60. note (3).
Nothing is more common than the revival of old ob'
jeStions, with a view to the very probable advantage of
their appearing new to the ignorant ; as Cicero fays in
his Orator, c. 3. " Ego- autem et me fsepe nova videri
" dicere intelligo, cum pervetera dicam, fed inaudita'
" plerifque." It is upon .the ftrength of an " inaudita
" plerifque," that fo many obfolete objections are con
tinually revived. The learned Profeffor Jenkin re
marks, and with much propriety, though it may not
perhaps be univerfally admitted, that it appears from
the feveral apologies of the Chriftian Fathers, in vindi*
cation

NOTES TO SERMON II. 85
cation of our Religion, that all was at the very firft al
leged againft it, which can with any pretence or colour
be objected. Vol. ii. 403. Both Eufebius and Jerome
declare of Origen's book againft Celfus, that all objec
tions that ever were, or ever may be, made to Chrifti
anity, will find an anfwer in it : fee the former, Adverf.
Hieroclem ; and the latter, Epifl. ad Mag. Orat. Roman.
See alfo Leng's Boyle's Lectures, Serm. V. 127. and
the Abbe Houtteville's excellent Difcourfe on the
writers for and againft Chriftianity, in which is an ad
mirable account of all the apologetical works, as well as
of the writings they were intended to confute ; and he
remarks, that not one ofthe adverfaries of Chriftianity
ever returned to the charge. [See his account of Eufe
bius.] I muft again refer to Dr. Leland's View ofDeijii-
cal Writers, for an account of the feveral anfwers and
replies that have been made to the numberlefs objec
tions advanced againft Chriftianity, and which, no doubt,
will be continually repeated. There is not one of
Paine's objections in his Age of Reafon, that has not
been refuted long ago ; fome of them even by Jofe-
phus in his book againft Apion. I fhall make no fcru-
ple of inferting the following extract from Mr. Lacking-
ion's Confeffions, becaufe I have no doubt but the cafe
occurs continually; and thofe who are not aware of the
deception may derive advantage from the hint given
them. " I alfo procured a Bible interleaved with blank
" paper, and tranfcribed many ofthe remarks and ob-
*' jections of Infidel writers to various texts ; and oppo-
" fite to fome texts I even wrote my own objections.
5C Having bad fuch a long acquaintance with the au-
" thors in favour of freethinking, I am able to remark,
" that Thomas Paine, and other modern Infidels, in-
<{ ftead of confulting the Bible, have copied the objec-
" tions to it, from thofe authors that preceded them,
" which objections have been ably anfwered over and
¦" over again, by men of deep learning and great abili-
<e ty. Thofe anfwers I, like other freethinkers, ne-
" glectcd to. read, until a few years fince. Now I have
" read them, I am afhamed of having been fo eafily
" duped, and cheated out of my Chriftianity." Letter
II. publifhed 1804,
c 3 Page

85 NOTES TO SERMON II.

Page 64. note (4).
In the Divine Legation of Mofes, vol. iii. P- 4*0. there
is an excellent remark on the hazard the Jewifh Legif-
lator ran in pretending to eftablifh the belief of a theo
cracy, if his pretenfions had been unfounded ; for this
could not be eftablifhed without pretending alfo to an
extraordinary and particular Providence : upon which
Mofes never makes any fcruple to infift, by way of giv
ing a proper fanftion to his laws ; appealing even to his
enemies to judge. " Their rock is not as our rock, even
" our enemies themfelves being judges." Deut. xxxi.
32. There is nothing that has been more mifreprefented
than the Jewifh theocracy. Lord Shaftefbury certain
ly means to allude to it, where he enumerates among
the attributes which it is hazardous to afcribe to the
Deity, that of being " favourable to a few though for
" flight caufes, and cruel to the reft." It is in this
light that all Deifts willperfijl in regarding it, though if ,
the very books which record this preference are true,
no fuch objection can lie againft them ; for what is it
that they exprefsly tell us, but that God did not felect
the Ifraelites for their " own fakes," but " for his own
" holy name fake, which had been profaned among the
" heathen?" Ezekiel xxxvi. 22,23. fee alfo Deuteronomy
ix. which is ftrong to the purpofe. Nor need any other
conftruftion be put on the calling of Abraham, in which
the whole originated : for though this may feem more
perfonal and particular, yet there were many moral
caufes leading thereto, and it was undoubtedly the ef
fect of God's forefight, as is plain from Gen. xviii. 19.
If God forefaw his future righteoufhefs and eminent
piety, could he not forefee alfo the iniquity of thofe na
tions whom his pofterity were to difpoffefs ? could he
not forefee all the abominations which it became fo ne-
ceffary afterwards to caution the Ifraelites againft ? Le
viticus xviii. xix. xx. We do not pretend to enter into
the queftion of God's forefight upon this occafion; the
difficulties attending it have long been acknowledged:
but all thefe difficulties may be faid to arife, not from
the uncertainty either of man's free-will or God's fore
knowledge, but from the impoffibility of denying either: there

NOTES ON SERMON II. 87
there is no foundation therefore whatever for our
doubting of God's forefight in this particular ; and the
author of the Hiflory of Ancient Europe (Dr. Ruffel)
might have been fpared the fhock, that his feelings feem
to have fuftained in reflecting on the promife of a de-
Arable country having been made to Abraham and his
feed " before the inhabitants had become idolaters, and a
" prophetic curfe denounced againft them, before they
" were a people." See p. 130.
There is no doubt that before the fentence was put in
execution they not only were become idolaters, but the
moft execrable of all idolaters, as may be collected
from the feveral chapters of the book of Leviticus al
ready referred to, and the commentators upon thofe
chapters ; Patrick efpecially. The conduct of the If
raelites themfelves God particularly expreffes. his fore
knowledge of, Deut. xxxi. 21 • " For I know their
" imagination, which they go about, even now before I
"have brought them into the land which I fware:"
which, if Dr. Ruffell chofe to refer to the Bible at all,
fhould have had its proper weight with him. And I
cannot help adding from the fame authority, (and the
Bible has at leaft the claim that all other books have, to
be allowed to fpeak for itfelf,) that the evidence of
God's foreknowledge was a matter of peculiar import
ance at thofe times, as we may fee by the intimation
given us of the general defign of prophecy, Ifaiah
xlviii. 5. " I have even from the beginning declared it
" to thee ; before it came to pafs I fhewed it to thee :
" left thou fhouldefl fay ; Mine idol hath done them, and
" my graven image, and my molten image hath com-
" manded them."
As to God's felection of the Ifraelites, and how
much it has fince been turned againft the Deifts, by
their prefent ftate of depreffion and difperfion, (and this
in fulfilment of the ancient prophecies,) fee Lejlie's Me
thod with the Jews, nth. foi. edition of his .works,
vol. i. pp. 71,72.
Though I have already treated pretty largely of this
fubject in a note to my firft Difcourfe ; yet, as there is
no objection in regard to which Deifts are more confi
dent in their attacks upon the Jewifh difpenfation, I
fhall hope to be excufed for offering fome further re-
g 4 marks

88 NOTES ON SERMON II.
marks in this place ; with references to a few of the
authors who have written moft perfpicuoufly upon the
fubject, and are acceffible to the generality of readers.
It is rafh in man to attempt to decide what may be
cruel, or not fo, as a difpenfation proceeding from God.
In this mixed fcene of things there are many evils,
which cannot be corrected without the facrifice of
much prefent eafe and prefent happinefs. It is always
fufficient for us, in paffing a judgment upon fuch e-
vents, to be able to diftinguifh what will be the actual
confequences. Let us fuppofe one man to lofe a limb
by violence, and through the malice and revenge of an
inveterate enemy ; and another by, the hand of a fkil-
ful practitioner, capable of forefeeing that the lofs of
his limb was neceflary to the prefervation of the reft of
the body, and of life itfelf: could we hefitate to de
cide, that in the firft inftance there would be much to
blame ; in the laft, much to be even admired and com
mended ? Shall not the forefight of the practitioner
render his an act of kindnefs and benevolence ? But as
this may not be thought entirely to meet the cafe, let
us fuppofe a man to be forewarned of his death, unlefs
he fhould fubmit to the lofs of a limb; would his
death, upon his neglect of this notice, be imputable to
him who gaye him the advice? How the Ifraelites
were dealt with in this Tefpect, fee 2 Kings xvii. and
Patrick on the chapter. See alfo the exact cafe, Eze
kiel iii. 18, 19. ib. xxxiii. I — 9. Confult alfo Origen
contr. Celf. b. iv. p. 311. and b. vi. p. 314. edit. Can
tab, and c. xvii. ofthe Philocalia in the fame edition,"
p. 104.
I am not pretending to refemble God's ways to our
ways, or his thoughts to our thoughts : but as it is
moft unqueftionable, that many evil occurrences take
place in the world, which the pr.ofpect of good to en-
fue reconciles to our feelings, fo we may confidently
believe, a fortiori, that where there is a conftant and
unerring forefight of confequences, many events, ac
companied with the moft terrifying effects to our un-
derftandings, may not be ultimately bad ; and therefore
it cannot be poffible for us to fay what may be the
real nature of any events brought to pafs through the
exprefs will of God. It was apparently bad for Jofeph to

NOTES ON SERMON II. %
to. have fallen under the difpleafure of his brethren,
and to have been fold to the Ifhmaelites : but Jofeph
lived long enough to draw a different conclufion, for
wifely did he comfort his repenting brethren ; "As for
" you, ye thought evil againft me ; but God meant it
" .unto good, to bring it to .pais, as it is this day, to
"fave much people alive." Gen. 1. ao.
It is generally granted, that whatever knowledge the
Ifraelites might have had of a future ftate, fuch a belief
was not fo prevalent, nor by any means fo clear, before)
as fince the times of the Gofpel. What we know now
of another life to come, was in a great meafure wanting
in thofe times. The profperity of a hardened finner
therefore is not likely now to do fuch mifchief in the
world, becaufe we well know that there is a time to
come, when God's providence will be amply vindi
cated ; but this was not the cafe in the times of which
the Bible gives an account. I have already taken no
tice, not only that the idolatrous nations of old were
corrupt in their manners beyond all that we can poffi-
bly conceive, in our prefent ftate of refinement and ci'-
vilization, but that their whole fyftem of religion (and
policy even) tended to a defiance of the fupreme God.
" Who is the Lord," (the God of Ifrael,) fays Pharaoh,
" that I fhould obey his voice V Exod. v. %. This is
the clue to the circumftances of thofe times ; and if we
follow up the hiftory, we fhall find, I think, that there is
fcarcely one incident, which this matter oi\Iefiance will
not ferve to explain. The grofs extravagancies of ido
latry, the cruel and licentious rites attached to it, are
irrefragably confirmed by every teftimony of profane as
well as facred hiftory : and if any men had been bold
and virtuous enough to ftem the torrent of iniquity,
and affert the infulted majefty of the true God, would
not Reafon have been confounded, if they had been
entirely abandoned, and no fupport afforded them on fo
great and glorious an occafion ? We have a right to
afk fuch queftions in an age of Reafon ; an age, which
has produced one very bold Philofopher; fo bold as to
argue againft the very exiftence of God, from the pre
fent. refifiance that is made to him in the daily commiffion
oi fin of all forts; and this is adduced in argument
againft Dr. Clarke's evidences of God's attributes ; parr
ticularly

9o NOTES ON SERMON II.
ticularly of his infinite power. See Diderot's Syfieme de
la Nature., Nay, he goes fo far as to reft all his argu
ments againft the being and providence of God, upon
the very fact of his being fuffer ed to exifi to publifh fuch
a work. We know from Chriftianity how fuch acts of defiance
may have their due reward in time to come, and the
world in general is at all events too enlightened to be,
feduced into alheifm by fuch attempts. But this was
not the cafe in times paft. Prosperity and adverfity, or
rather, profperous and adverfe fuccefs in their wars and
conflicts, were the only criterions of men's faith. What
ever object they chofe to worfhip was acknowledged, in
proportion to the temporary fuccefs that attended their
feveral undertakings. This was their common mode
of reafoning, as may be collected from every hiftory we
poffefs of thofe remote times. The exprefs interference
of God therefore was neceflary to vindicate his fupre-
macy and providence, at fuch times, upon the Deift's,
or rather the Atheift's own principles ; and indeed Di
derot leaves us no alternative between the acknow
ledgment of God's interference on occafions, and the
total denial of his providential government of the
world. The next queftion then is, How is this interference
defcribed to have happened ? Often certainly with moft
dreadful difplays of God's power in punifhing; but
might there not be mercy in this very feverity ? Severity
is certainly mercy where nothing lefs will be effectual
to the fuppreflion of fuch iniquities and abominations,
as tend to corrupt and deprave the whole of human
nature. *
Mr. Gibbon, fpeaking of Aurelian's punifhments,
[Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. ii. 18.] fays,
" a few fuch examples impreffed a falutary confterna-
" tion. His punifhments were terrible, but then he
" had feldom occafion to punifh more than once the
" fame offence." Here then the principle is fully ad
mitted as falutary in its confequences ; and that this
was the object to be obtained by the Jewifh laws is
evident from Deut. xiii. where, as a reafon for the fe
verity of the punifhment denounced againft idolaters,
it is exprefsly faid, " And all Ifrael fhall hear and fear,
"and

1C

NOTES ON SERMON II. 91
" and do no more any fuch wickednefs as this is among
" you." So again, fpeaking of the Canaanites, the
Scripture faith, " He gave the kingdoms of Canaan to
" be an heritage unto his people." Why? That all the
nations of the world might know that the hand of the
Lord is mighty, and that they might fear the Lord
continually : " and they joined themfelves unto Baal-
" Peor, and provoked him with their inventions; fo
" the plague was great among them. Then, being
" ehqflifed, they turned to their God." Such was the
object of the calamities that were permitted to befal
them, and fuch, no doubt, the means necefifary to re-
ftrain and to convert them ; or at leaft to prevent the
contagion fpreading ; which nothing but the manifeft
correction of idolatry could accomplifh, without in
trenching too much on the freedom of the human
mind. Much to the fame purpofe may be feen in the third
part of Dr. Edwards's Prefervative againft Socinianifm ;
Jenkin's Redfonablenefs of Chriflianity ; (Part II. chap. 2.)
Burthogge on the Divine Goodnefs; Nicholls' s Conferences;
Leland's Anfwer to Tindal ; Owen's Sermons at Boyle's
Lectures ; Bryant on the Authenticity of the Scriptures ;
and Watfon' s Apology for the Bible. In a fmall work
of M. Petitpierre of Neufchatel on the Divine Goodnefs,
there are fome good arguments to prove feverity to be
a main branch thereof. See alfo Robert Robinfon's Ser
mons, Difcourfe on early Piety, and Lindfey on Divine
Government. Voltaire, that he may have an opportu
nity of imputing to the Jews the worft motives that he
could, obferves, that in order to be convinced that the
idolatry of the neighbouring nations was not the true
caufe of their hatred, we need only cohfult their hifto
ry, where we fhall fee that they themfelves were fre
quently idolaters. Nobody denies this ; it is what wa,
would particularly infill on : their difpofition towards
idolatry was the precife occafion of God's feparating
them from their neighbours with fo much ftrictnefs
and feverity; not to encourage their hatred oi them,
but to keep them from the evil communication of their
corrupt notions and practices. " After the doings of
" the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, fhall ye not do ;
" and after the doing of the land of Canaan, whither
" J bring you, fhall ye not do ; neither fhall ye walk in
" their

gs NOTES TO SERMON II.
" their ordinances. Ye fhall do my judgments, and
" keep mine ordinances to walk therein. I am the
" Lord your God." Le'vit. xviii. 3, 4. See alfo Levit.
xx. 26. And is it not clearly fhewn in the hiftory of the
Bible, that the Ifraelites were punifhed for every in
ftance of apoftafy ? Idolatry was carefully pointed out
to them as the immediate object of their enmity, whe
ther they chofe to make it fuch or no ; and this they
had many opportunities of proving; whenever it turned
out not to be the object of their defigns, they were
themfelves checked and punifhed.
But let us confider, laftly, the character and conduct
of the Prophets, for they were the principal minifters of
God's difpenfations. How then are they reprefented ¦
as interfering ? By expofing in the fight of the infidel
1 the error of his way, and upholding the righteous be
liever by the moft comfortable encouragements and
captivating promifes. Had they made no pretentions
to a commiffion from Heaven, we fhould almoft have
expected a vifible difplay of God's providence in their
favour, fo commendable was their zeal, fo important to
the whole world the object and the courfe of their pro
ceedings. See this afriply proved in Law's Theory of
Religion, Difc. II. where are to be found abundance of
ufeful references. See alfo Lawman's Differtation on the
civil Government of the Hebrews.
I would however willingly be contented to refer ta
the book of Jeremiah alone, illuftrated by Dean Pri-
deaux's account of thofe times, in his Connection of
the Old and New Teflaments, to fatisfy any reafonable
and well-difpofed mind, of the goodnefs of Providence^
, as difplayed in the miffion and interpofition of the an
cient Prophets. I would only wifh the whole cafe to
be confidered, and then let it be faid, whether in any
inftance the wicked were punifhed without fufficient
warning; whether all previous pains were not take*
in the cafe of the idolaters, to convert them to the true
faith, (Jeremiah li. 8, 9.) in the, cafe of the Ifraelites,
to preferve them in obedience ; (fee Jeremiah, ch. vii.)
I have offered but two references in proof; but many
more might be adduced. It is befides too often over
looked, that the Ifraelites were particularly enjoined to
offer peace to the Canaanites, on condition that they re
nounced

NOTES TO SERMON II.

93

nounced their falfe Deities, and acknowledged Jehovah
for their only God. See Deut. xx. io. Nor was war to
be commenced, till fuch terms had been rejected. See a
note to Dr. Henry Owen's i %th Sermon at Boyle's Lec
ture, and Jenkin' s Reafonablenefs of the Chriftian Religion,
Part II. ch. ii. It is alfo to be obferved, that God's
conduct towards the Ifraelites was generally known to
the Gentile nations, and this alone ought to have ope
rated as a warning. See Numbers xiv. 14, ij. Deut. ii.
25. Jofhua ii. 10. 1 Sam. iv. 10. vi. 6.
Page 65, note (5).
They prophefied of many facts ; many connected facts :
Have any fuch taken place ?] See the feveral diftindt
prophecies relating to our Saviour enumqpated and
brought together in the Penfees de Pafcal, xv. Leflie's
Method with the Jews, xii. and his Truth of Chriflianity
demonfirated, p. 140. foi. edit, of his works. They are
well fummed up in Juftin Martyr's Dialogue with Try
pho, and his Apology to Antoninus, and by others of the
apologetical Fathers. But I fhall add the following more
acceffible references. Jenkins Reafonablenefs and Cer^
tainty of the Chriftian Religion, Part II. ch. v. and ch. xii,
Bryant on the Authenticity of the Scriptures. Jamiefon on
the Ufe of Sacred Hiflory, vol. i. part 1. §.2. and Fuller's
Gofpel its own Witnefs, Part II. ch. i.
Suph an accumulation of prophecies, diftinctly ful
filled, might furely have inclined Rouffeau to truft a lit
tle to their evidence. He requires three things to make
a prophecy credible, the conjunction of which he con
ceives impofifible, Firft, that we fhould be witneffes to
the prophecy; fecondly, to the accomplifhment of it
alfo; and thirdly, that it fhould admit of demonftration,
that the prophecy and event could not have coincided
by any accidental circum fiances. See his Emile, torn.
iii. 103.
Could Rouffeau imagine a prophecy more credible, if
accomplifhed in the very lifetime of the prophet, than
fix or feven hundred years after his death ? Could he
think that he did juftice to the evidence of prophecy,
by refting. its validity on one individual inftance of' a
prediction verified by the event ? That one prophecy
might be accidentally verified is no argument one way or

94 NOTES TO SERMON II.
or the other. This is what none would deny : but one
prophecy may, by the addition of circumfiantial marks,
be multiplied into many. That the Jews fhould be
difperfed might have been accidentally fulfilled; but
that they fhould be fcattered and fifted among the na
tions, without head or government, be a by-word and
a reproach, and that this difperfion fhould take place at
a time and after a manner marked and fpecified by the
cleared notices, this muft not be called one prophecy,
though it relates to one event. See Hurd on Prophecy,
Serm. iv. p. in. and Prideaux on Daniel's Prophecy, in
the ift vol. of his Connection &c. See alfo Jortin's Dif-
courfes on the Truth ofthe Chriftian Religion, p. 177. note,
2d edit.
Such prophecies as thefe are not individual predic
tions in any fenfe of the word, and therefore fucb a
prophecy as Rouffeau would difpute the truth of, any
body elfe would alfo. He totally paffes over the evi
dence we depend upon ; namely, an accumulation of
many fuceeffive prophecies, uttered by many different
prophets, " at fundry times, and in divers manners,"
moft circumftantially fulfilled, though marked by va
rious defignations of time, place, and perfons.
Mr. Paine, in the firft part of his Age of Reafon, has
a curious way of getting rid of the proof from prophe
cy. He tells us, in his great wifdom, that we miftake
the meaning of the name ; that the Jewifh Prophets
were not altogether the foretellers of future events, or
rather, that they were merely " poets, and therefore,"
fays he, " it is altogether unneceffary to offer any ob-
" fervations upon what thofe men, filyled Prophets, have
" written. The axe goes at once to the root, by fhew-
" ing that the original meaning of the word has been
" miftaken." According to this very wife argument,
no poet could be a prophet, no prediction could be .ex-
preffed in poetical numbers. We are happy to reflect,
that Bifhop Lowth thought otherwife, and that he was
quite as competent as Mr. Paine to judge of the ori
ginal meaning of the term ufed for a prophet.
It is fhocking to fee fuch attempts made to deceive
the unlearned, and they cannot be too often pointed
out, though otherwife quite beneath our notice. See
Mr. Paine well expofed for his attack upon the ancient pro-

NOTES TO SERMON II. 95
prophecies, in Fuller's Gofpel its own Witnefs, to which
I have often had occafion to refer, and which is an ex
cellent antidote to the poifon of modern Deifm.
Page 66. note (6) .
See Dr. Geddes's Introduction to his Verfion of the
Pentateuch, where is the following extraordinary paf
fage : " On the whole then, I think it may be laid down
" as an axiom, that the bulk of Chriftians, whether
" Papifts or Proteftants, cannot be faid to have a ratio-
" nal faith, becaufe their motives of credibility are not
" rational motives, but the pofitive affertions of an af-
" fumed authority, which they have never difcuffed,
" or durft not queftion: their religion is' the fruit of
" unenlightened credulity. A very fmall number of cu-
" rious and learned men only have thoroughly exa-
" mined the motives of their religious belief, in any
" communion ; and it will be found, I prefume, that
*' the more curious and learned they were, the lefs
" they generally believed. Hence perhaps the old
" adage, Ignorance is the mother of Devotion." pp. 5, 6.
Mr. Gibbon had no better excufe to make for Newton,
Boyle, &c. being believers, than that their reafon was
rather fubdued than fatisfied. He was willing to ac
knowledge that otherwife they were great men, as ge
nerally reputed to be. But Dr. Geddes prefumes far
ther. Notwithftanding the great reputation of the be
lievers alluded to, for learning and ufeful curiofity, he
would infinuate, that infidelity could be the only proof
of either ; and propofes a criterion, which would leave
Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Locke, and numberlefs others
that might be mentioned, to take their place in the
loweft rank of plebeian philofophers . If Ignorance is the
only parent of Devotion, we could little have expected it
to fpring up in fuch foils ; ftill lefs could we have,fup-
pofed, that Devotion would have furnifhed many critics
fully capable of detecting the errors, into which the
learned tranflator himfelf had fallen. See the Reviews
in general of Dr. Geddes's work; particularly the Bri-
tifb Critic ; Profeffor Findlay on the Infpiration of the
Jewifh Scriptures ; and fome very brief but excellent
remarks on Dr. Geddes's Prefaces, by the Rev. John
Earle. London, 1799. Page

96 NOTES TO SERMON II.
Page 67. note (7).
See Lindfey' s Hifiorical View of ih,e State of the Uns?
larian DoHrine, &c. London, 1783. It is not the Lec
ture founded by Mr. Bampton only, but Lady Moyer's
Lecture in the metropolis, and " fome appointments of
" the like fort among Diffenters," that Mr. Lindfey
objects to ; and, to take his own account of matters,
his objections all proceed from a jealoufy of having $he
Trinitarian or Athanafian doctrine (as he conftantly
terms it) fo generally inculcated. But had any perfon
founded a Lecture for Unitarian teachers, we may rear
fonably conclude Mr. L. would have bad no fuch ob
jections ; for in his preface he exprefsly condemns the,
Univerfities for difcouraging the propagators of fuck-
doctrines, <l- Inftructors," fays he, "not of one or two.
" individuals only, but of fucceffiye numbers, in a long
" feries, of ingenuous youth ; whofe wide difperfion
" and various future diftinction might effectually con7
" tribute to fpread light and truth through the world.','
Pref. p. xxiv. It is evident then that Mr. Lindfey
thinks it commendable to aflift in the propagation of
light and truth ; we have only therefore to claim for
Mr. Bampton and Lady Moyer the common right of
being allowed to judge what is light and truth, and
their care to propagate them cannot but be highly com7
mendable upon Mr. Lindfey's own principles.
Page 68. note (8) .
See Godwin's Political Jufiice, chapter on National
Education. I apprehend Mr. Godwin could never
mean, that what has been difcovered of pld fhould not
be inculcated and diffufed, merely becaufe it'was difco
vered of old. He could only mean then, that the dif-
covery of new things ought to be more promoted in
the Univerfities, and that too great regard is at pre-
ient fhewn to ancient fyftems^ To prove this point, it
would be incumbent on Mr. Godwin to tell us what
-branches of knowledge he thinks capable of improve*
ment, and that due affiftance is not provided in the
Univerfities for facilitating fuch improvements. Now
to fpeak of Oxford, more particularly, public lectures
are there read in Anatomy, (as important a fludy, and
where

NOTES TO SERMON II. 97
where difcoveries might be as valuable, as in any fci
ence whatfoever). There are public lectures in Botany,
Chemiftry, Mineralogy, Afironomy, and Natural Philofo
phy. And I will venture to fay, that every one of
thefe Lectures is fo conducted, as not only amply to
teach what has been difcovered, but to encourage and
aflift every ingenious and attentive ftudent in profecut-
ing his own ftudies, with a view to the further im
provement and advancement of the feveral fciences.
So far from any of thefe fciences being taught on a
" Jyfiem of permanence," any perfon who will take the
pains to enquire may eafily fatisfy himfelf, that they
are all taught and inculcated as fully upon Mr. God
win's own favourite fyftem of perfectibility , as he him
felf could in reafon defire. And thefe are all fciences,
which we admit are to a certain degree improveable.
But Mr. Godwin is not a teacher of any of thefe fci
ences, nor much interefted, probably, in their improve
ment. He is a teacher of Political Jufiice, of Natural
Religion, and Moral Philofophy : and thefe he thinks
improveable, as fully as w.e think the others to be. Po
litical Juftice We leave to him to advance as much as
ever his talents will enable him : we believe it to be
well underftood by our legiflators in general ; and if
not advanced to the higheft degree of perfection, we
are certain that our moft glorious conftitution has left
the door open for any truly practicable improvements,
and that any that are really fuch ftand a fair chance of
being adopted.
As to Natural Religion and Moral Philofophy, we muft
beg leave to demur : thefe we look upon as both of
them interwoven with the general doctrines of Chrif
tianity ; and Chriftianity we believe to be op God.
Therefore we look to no improvements in thefe two
branches of knowledge, [fee Hall's Fafi Sermon, 1804.
p. 38. 3d edit.] except fuch as may be entirely practi
cal. We teach and inculcate thefe upon " a footing of
" permanence ;" but fo far from precluding enquiry- into
the principles of either, that every branch of know
ledge, requifite to the due underftanding of every quef
tion connected with them, is particularly taught and
particularly infifted on, as the fitteft qualification for
academical honours and academical degrees. Mr. God-
it win

98 NOTES TO SERMON II.
win may depend upon it, that the courfe of fludies re
commended and adopted in the Univerfity at prefent,
is capable of rendering any man a fit judge of, his com-
pofitions, however fcientific ; and that i_f they are not
received there with the fervour of admiration Mr. G.
had been led to expect, it is becaufe, upon examination,
they have not been thought deferving of it.
Mr. Godwin has talents ; his books have acquired a
name, and confiderable reputation, and have no doubt
been as much read at Oxford as in any other city of
the world ; and perhaps more read there than any
where, if we except Cambridge, and the Irifh and
Scotch Univerfities ; in none of which we believe any
work of fuch notoriety and upon fuch a fubject would
ftand a chance of being overlooked.
Mr. Godwin will, no doubt, refort to the favourite
plea of prejudice, which we fhall have to fpeak of elfe-
where ; for the prefent we quit this fubject with a moft
earneft hope, that none of Mr. Godwin's infinuations
will lead the world in general to fuppofe, that national
education is not as well underftood in the feveral Uni
verfities of the King's dominions, as by the ingenious,
but too often dogmatical and miftaken, author of Poli
tical Jufiice, &c. &c. Page 70. note 9.
Dr. Geddes's beft hope of introducing his free in
terpretation of the Bible to public notice is, that it
may find readers difpofed " to weigh his arguments in
" the fcale of reafon, devoid oi theological prepoffeffio?is;"
and the Do£tor is not backward to explain what theolo
gical prepaffeffions he wifhes removed out of his way;
fuch, in fhort, as lead us to regard the facred writers of
the Old Teflament as any thing better than the " rude
" unpolifhed" propagators of " popular traditions arid
" old fongs." Preface, p. iii. He would have us look
upon " the Hebrew Scriptures" as " erroneous, incon-
" fiftent, and abfurd;" p. xi. as "inexplicable, and
" fometimes ridiculous." p. xiii. Thefe are Dr. Ged
des's preparatives. The preparative of " indifference"
I conceive to be recommended by Dr. Prieftley and
Mr. Bel (ham, in fhe following paflages. Speaking-of
the converts to his own way of thinking, the former fays,

NOTES TO SERMON II.

99

lays, " It cannot be denied, that many of thofe who
"judge fo truly concerning particular tenets in religion,
" have attained to that cool unbiaffed temper of mind
" in confequence of becoming more indifferent to religion
" in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it."
And this indifference to all religion he confiders as
" favourable to a diftinguifhing between truth and
" falfehood." Difcourfes on various Subjects, p. 6$. The
latter, (Mr. Belfham,) in his Sermon on the Importance
of Truth, affirms, that " men who are the moft indiffe-
" rent to the practice of religion, and whofe minds
" therefore are leaft attached to any fet of principles,
" will ever be the firft to fee the abfurdity of a. popular
" fuperftition, and to embrace a rational fyfiem of faith."
As thefe paffages have been felected before in proof
of what they are here applied to atteft, and as upon that
occafion complaint was made, that the authors had
been mifreprefented, I muft beg leave to refer to the
IVth Letter of the fecond edition of Mr. Fuller's Com-
parifon of the Calviniftic and Socinian Syfiems, where the
point is difcuffed at length.
Page 71. note (10).
Rouffeau (Emile, tom. iii. 115.) afks, why, " if a
" Chriftian fhould be thought to do well by following
" the faith and profeffion of his fathers, the fame fhould
" not be thought of the Turk?" We do not difpute
the inference he would draw; but in endeavouring to
convert a Turk, we would maintain, that it is not a right
method to begin with ridiculing Mahomet, and laugh
ing at the credulity of his forefathers, Let the Turk
refpect Mahomet as a prophet, and the Koran as true,
till the former is clearly (hewn not to have been a pro
phet, and the latter is convicted of falfehood and error.
M. Rouffeau defies " tous les intolerans du monde de
" r6pondre a cela rien qui contente un homme fenfe."
We join with him, and claim no more for ourfelves
than what he would claim for the Turk : that preju
dices, which are really groundlefs and hurtful, fhould
be removed, not by clamour, mockery, and contempt,
but by fober reafon and irrefiftible arguments.
11 2 P age

ioo NOTES TO SERMON II.
Page 72. note (il)-
. In the Jacobin club at Paris, the members were fworn
to denounce to the club every man who fhould oppofe
its decrees, whether friend or relation, father, mother,
fifter, or brother. Page*]\. note (12).
The fruit of the tree of knowledge has been of late,
more rafihly than ever, refolved into an allegory 7] The
clofe connection to be traced between the redemption
and the fall of man, had long ago determined all fin-
cere Chriftians to refift every attempt to allegorize this
moft important hiftory; not to fupport their own pri
vate opinions and particular tenets, but for a reafon
that no true Chriftian could be fufpected of disregard
ing; namely, the folemn references made to it as to a
true hiftory by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14,
•and by our bleffed Lord and Saviour himfelf, Matth.
xix. 4, 5. But according to Dr. Teller of Berlin, and
other foreign expofitors, thefe references were only to
mere " fragments of fome unknown writer;" " Egyp-
" tian or Chaldean fables." According to Dr. Geddes,
only to " an ingenious piece of ancient mythology ; "
" popular traditions, and old fongs !" See Note 1 .
Page 75. note (13).
Have been expofed and ridiculed as real events, &C.J M.
de Voltaire pretends to believe, that Ezekiel eat the roll
of parchment in reality, which the Prophet exprefsly
afferts to have been a mere vifion. See Lettres de quelques
¦ Juifs Portugais, &c. where is much more to the fame
purpofe. He even, through a wanton defire of expofing
the Jews, affirms boldly, that they were Anthropophagi,
'and cites to this purpofe Ezekiel xxxix. 17, 18 ; from
which paffage it is impoffible not to be able to collect,
the exprefs views of the Prophet, which had no rela-
. tion whatever to men, but to the fowls of the air, and
the beafis of the field, as reprefented in vifion, and by a
moft fublime figure. Page

NOTES TO SERMON II.- lot
Page 75. note (14.)
-See " Les Prejuges Detruits," by F. M. Lequinio,
Paris, 1793. To prove his point of prejudices being er
rors, he remarks, that, like the prejudices in favour of
afirology and ghofls," the prejudice of nobility was ge-
" neral throughout France three years ago ; now it is
" perfectly annihilated by a decree." What would M.
Lequinio now fay of the prejudice for royalty, .which alfo
fome years ago was thought to be perfectly annihilated
in France, by many different decrees ?
Page 75. note (15).
It is remarkable, that M. Dupont's famous fpeech in
the National Convention at Paris, 1792, in which he
declared himfelf to be an Atheifl, had for its principal
fubject the inftitutibn of public fchools for the educa
tion of youth ; and he particularly exprefl'es a hope in
his fpeech, that a crowd of difciples from all parts of
Eurbpe would flock, to partake of the inftructions of
French Atheifts, and that thefe " young'ftrangers, im-
" bibing fuch principles, on their return to their re-
?' fpective countries, might fpread the fame lights, and
" operate, for the happinefs of mankind, revolutions
" fimilar to that of France, throughout the world."
Have we not reafon to rejoice in having rejected fuch
fyftems oi perfectibility ? See Mrs." Hannah More's re^
marks on this fpeech, p. 24.
M. Volney's Law of Nature, or fequel to his Ruins
of Empires, was called The Catechifm of a French Citi
zen. I am very forry to fay I have an Englifh tranfla-
tion of this book, in which the title is propofed to be
changed for The Catechifm of good Senfe and good Peo
ple. I have carefully read it, and find much in itthat
is contrary to common fenfe, and much that is entirely
oppofite to truth. Page 77. note (16).
, While the appeal was propofed to the whole world.] Upon
the word appeal it has been well faid by Dr, Jenkin,
h 3 vol. i,

102 NOTES TO SERMON II.
vol. i. 309, that " the hiftory of Chrift, (many of the
" moft confiderable things being done in the fight of
" enemies,) though an hiflory to future ages, was ra-
" ther an appeal to that very age, whether the facts
*' were true or not." And again, vol. ii. 403. " Our
" religion appeared in a time the moft unlikely for an
*' impofture to pafs undifcovered, and therefore the
" moft feafonable for truth to manifeft itfelf; fince that
" muft. needs be true, which neither learning, nor pre
judice, nor vice, nor intereft could prove falfe." As
to the obftacles in the way of the firft promulgation of
Chriftianity, fee them well fummed up in Salifbury's
Tranflation of Bullet's Heathen Tefiimonies, pp. 127, &c.
Page 78. note (17),
Before we are led to abandon the faith of our fore
fathers, in confequence of the clamour of the times
againft prejudices, we fhould do well to confider St.
Auftin's account of his being feduced into the error of
the Manichees. " Quid enim aliud me cogebat, an-
" nos fere novem, fpreta religione quae mihi puerulo a
" parentibus infita erat, homines illos fequi et diligen-
" ter andire, nifi quod nos fuperfiitione terreri, et fidem
" nobis ante rationem imperare dicerent. Se autem, nul-
" lum premere ad fidem, nifi difcuffa et enodata veri-
" tate : Quis non his pollicitationibus alliceretur? Aug.
de Utilitate credendi, eap. 1.
Page 79. note (18).
Helvetius makes the following remarks on the times.
" Ce fiecle eft, dit- on, le fiecle de la Philofophie,
" Toutes les nations de l'Europe ont en ce genre pro-
" duit des hommes de genie : toutes femblent aujourd'-
" hui s'occuper de la recherche de la Verite. Mais
"dans quel pays peut-on impunement la publier? il
" n'en eft qu'un ; c'eft l'Angleterre." After this was
written, all reftrajnts were taken away abroad, while
England had the good fenfe to interpofe fome falutary
checks. Neverthelefs, Infidel Reafon had her hearing
in all countries. I queftion whether Atheifm could ever

NOTES TO SERMON II. 103
ever have more to urge than is to be found in Diderot's
Sjfleme de la Nature, or infidelity and blafphemy more
than we have in Mr. Paine's Age of Reafon, which,
however fuppreffed by public authority, was long
enough extant for examination, and has been accord
ingly moft ably and repeatedly anfwered.

11 4 SERMON

SERMON III.

a Esdras iy. ia.

Then faid I unto him, It were better that we were not at
all, than that we fhould livefiill in wickednefs, and to
fuffer, and not to know wherefore.
W E cannot wonder that the origin of evil
fhould in all ages, have been a fubjecl of
moft curious and anxious enquiry. That an
imperfect work fhould come from the hands
of a perfect Being muft always have feemed
to imply a contradiction; and yet fuch is
the confiruciion we are compelled to put
upon the prefent appearances of things. The
exiftence of God, few, if any, can poffibly
doubt; and the exiftence of evil, both moral
and phyfical, none can pretend to deny. To
make God the immediate author of evil can
not fail to fhock every thinking mind ; and
yet, to refer it to any caufe independent of
God, muft needs be ftill more repugnant to
our

106 SERMON III.
our feelings. And what comfort can there
be in either cafe ? If God is the author of
evil in this world, why not in other worlds1?
If now, why not for ever and ever? If there
exifts any independent caufe of evil, how is
the world ever to be fet free from its ty
ranny ? ( ' ) If the exiftence of evil is indif-
penfably necefTary, bow is this neceffity ever
to be overcome ?
There can be no comfort then derived
either from the Manichean fcheme of two
principles, or the Platonic doctrine of the
neceflary imperfection of matter, both of
which long furvived the introduction of
Chriftianity, and were, as is well known,
the leading features in moft of the oriental,
and even later, herefies. In either fyftem*
it is true, there is an appearance of reverence
for the Deity, whicb may feem to extenuate"
its errors. In regard to the laft more par
ticularly, matter is fo diftinct from, and fo
incapable of comparifon with, any purely
fpiritual exiftence, that perhaps of all pbi-
lofophical gueffes concerning the origin of
evil, it was the leaft offence to refer it to
a See Lew's Theory ef Religion, p. 240.
matter,

SERMON III.

107

matter, as arifing from the very neceffity of
its fubordinate and imperfect nature : but if
matter is fo incapable of perfection as to be
the very caufe of evil, what are we to think,
not of this prefent ftate only, but of any
future one ? for neither Reafon nor Revela
tion will teach us that matter is to be anni
hilated. From Revelation we learn the very
contrary ; for though we read that the pre
fent " heavens and earth fhall pafs away,"
we are yet taught to expect " a new heaven
" and a new earth V Though we read that
this " corruption muft put on incorruption,
" and this mortal immortality0," yet we are
taught to believe that there will be a refur-
rection of the flefkf on purpofe that " every
" one may receive the things done in his
" body." Reafon will fcarcely teach us that matter
will be annihilated; for Reafon, unenlighten
ed by Revelation, has been led to deny the
very poffibility of its non-exiftence, and con-
fequently of its creation. We have no proof
then, that I can find, of any effential evil in-
rent in matter ; an opinion, which led the
b 3, Peter iii. 12, 13, c J Cor. xv. Gnoftics

iq8 SERMON III.
Gnoftics to deny the refurrection of the
body : of its fubordination to fpiritual fub-
ftances, a right apprehenfion of the difiinc-
tion between our own fouls and bodies
ought fufflciently to affure us ; though phi-
lofophical proofs without number of this
fubordination, inferiority, and dependence of
matter are certainly not wanting. Subordi
nation however does not neceffarily imply
pofitive imperfection ; a miftake which lies
at the foundation of another eminent folu-
tion of the origin of evil, that I mean of a
fcale of Beings, and which has undoubtedly
a fimilar tendency to preclude all hope of
future improvement d.
But to return. The difficulties attending
this great queftion are obvious enough ; and
indeed the exiftence and attributes of God,
the immortality of the foul, the origin of
evil, and the removal of its effects, all in
volve queftions, concerning which any truly
wife and modeft man would not only defire,
but I may certainly add, expect alfo, to be
fupernaturally informed.
While the reft of the Pagan world were
d New Theory of Redemption, vol. ii. 165. 229.
eager

SERMON III. 109
eager. to follow their own inventions, Socra
tes and Plato could acknowledge the blind
nefs of human nature, and the neceffity of a
divine inltructor : and fo fuperior did Cicero
efteem their judgment to be in all fuch mat
ters, that he expreffes a degree of indigna
tion at the very thought of the name of
philofopher being beftowed on thofe felf-
fufficient reafoners, who pretended to fee
further than the two great Sages of ancient
Greece6. But may we not with ftill greater
propriety difpute the wifdom of fuch as yet
refufe to be enlightened by the truths con
tained in the facred writings ? for, in regard
to the origin of evil in particular, it muft be
evident, that if the Scriptures are of any au
thority, all the difficulties above enumerated
are folved at once.
God is there reprefented as the author of
evil, in the only fenfe in which it is poffible
he fhould be ; as allowing the pojjibility of
evil, that man might enjoy the ineftimable
gift of free will. From the abufe of free
will in a being of a higher order, we have
intimation of an oppofing principle, but of
e Tufcul. Difput. lib. i. 23. See alfo lib. iii. I.
no

no SERMON III.
no independent one (*). As foon as we hear
of him in the Bible, we read of his depend
ence on the Supreme, his fubjection to his
irrefiftible power and will. As foon as we
read of him as an enemy to our nature, we
have intimation of God's protection againft
him. And it is the fame in regard to earthly
things : as foon as we read of the introduce
tion of evil, and the corruption of matter,
and the dhTolution of the body, we have in
timation of a remedy; we are taught to re
gard them not as evils of neceffary perma
nency, but as recoverable and temporary.
But this beautiful and fatisfactory folution
of all our doubts and difficulties, concerning
the origin of evil, being by the author of the
Pentateuch neceffarily expreffed, not fabu-
louftly, pcvB-tKuf, but yet, h puS-a %ypet,Ti f, as it •
were, in terms and defcriptions fo little cor
respondent to prefent experience, as to rer
femble fable more than fact ; it has been
one of the conceffions moft peremptorily
demanded of us of late, that we fhould agree
to acknowledge it to be no better than a
mythological reprefentation of things, a de-
r Ariftot. Mctaphyf, £.&. *'. xi(p. if. in fine.
fcription

SERMON UI.

in

fcription " merely imagined to account for
" known pha;nomena."
That there is an air of mythology runs
through the Mofaic account of the genefis,
and fall of man, it would be quite unnecef-
fary to deny ; for how could the relation of
fuch events be kept free from the marvel
lous?^) Who could expect to have the
creation, the origin of man, and the origin
of evil, defcribed as facts at all familiar to
us ? Muft not they all be events fo impoffi-
ble for us to have any prefent experience of,
that as far as fable is beyond the bound of
experience, fo far the utmoft truth in fuch a
hiftory muft have a fabulous caft. The world
is eternal or created ; if created, its creation
muft have been prior to all the ordinary pro-
ceffes of nature. Man and other animals
and vegetables were always propagated ac
cording to the prefent mode, (which would
appear to be a phyfical impoffibility,) or the
ael of creation preceded this method, and
muft have been extraordinary and miracu
lous. Evil was always in the world, and
the whole vi'fible fcene of things imperfect
from eternity, or there muft have been a pe
riod for its introduction, adequate caufes lead-

iis SERMON III.
leading thereto, and reafonable grounds for
its exiftence.
It was the defign of Celfus, as Origen tells
uss, to attack Chriftianity through Judaifm ;
that, by invalidating the authority of Mofes
and the Prophets, he might fap the founda
tions on which the Gofpel flands. This me
thod has been continually reforted to fince
by Deifts and Infidels, but it was referved for
our own times to fee thefe facred authorities
flighted and abandoned both by Jews and
Chriftians. It is well known in what terms
a celebrated tranflator has fpoken of the au
thor of the Pentateuch (4), to the furprife
of all true Chriftians ; and a recent tranfac-
tion on the continent has brought as much
difgrace on the Jewifh fyhagogue. I allude
to an extraordinary memorial prefented to a
very confpicuous member of the Chriftian
church in the kingdom of Pruffia (5), by
fome Jews ; in which, under a hope of bet
tering their condition in fociety, they freely
offer to renounce all belief in the divine le
gation and infpiration of Mofes. As the ob
ject in the latter cafe was confeffedly a
s Origen contr. Celf. lib. i. edit. Cantab, p. 17.worldly

SERMON III. 113
Worldly one, I do not mean to dwell on it ;
befides that an admirable reply to their
ftrange memoir upon the fubject has already
appeared, and I have no particular informa
tion to ftate as to the event ; but in regard to
the conceffions propofed by the celebrated
tranflator and commentator alluded to, ' it
fhould furely be enough to know that
they cannot be acceded to, but in contempt
of the pofitive declarations of our bleffed
Lord himfelf.
The ftrict Connection between the Old
and the New Teftaments, between the fall
and redemption of man, our Lord himfelf
has taught us to acknowledge and main
tain (6) ; and what becomes, (I fay it with
fubmiffion,) what becomes of his wifdom,
and purity, and excellence, if he could re
gard with fo much refpect what modern
Philofophy has learnt to defpife ? His wif
dom, and purity, and excellence, as collected
from the hiftories of his life, I believe none
are difpofed to difpute ; and in thofe hifto
ries we read that he declared, , that though
" one were to rife from the dead," he could
not inftruct us better than Mofes and the
i Pro-

n4 SERMON III.
Prophets \ There we read, that to the in
credulous Jews our Saviour afferted, that had
they " believed in Mofes, they would have
" believed him ''." There we read, that upon
the moft awful and folemn occafion poffible*
when he had to fubdue the laft prejudices of
his difciples, and to convince them of the
truth and defign of all that had befallen
him, he expounded to them in all the Scrip
tures the things concerning himfelf, begin
ning at Mofes and all the Prophets k. Nor
is the connection between the two cove
nants all that is determined by thefe declar
rations of our bleffed Lord ; but it is well to
remark befides, fince St. Paul's authority has
been difputed by the fame adventurous, cri
tic, in regard to the infpiration of the Jewifh
canon, that thefe references of our Saviour
eftablifh the point beyond alt controversy;,
for how could Mofes and the Prophets have
teftified of him, but by infpiration from
heaven ' ?

h Luke xvi. 31. * John v. 46. k Luke xxiv. sf.
1 See Earlis Remarks, p. 62. and Profeffor Findlay on a Tim.
iii. 16. in anfwer to Dr. Geddes, publifhed 1S03.
In

SERMON III. 115
'* In what light then can we regard the
bold affumption of the celebrated tranflator,
that to acknowledge the hiftory of the fall
to be no better than " an ingenious piece of
" ancient mythology, and to compare Mofes
" to Pilpay and JEfon, is by no means to
" weaken the authority of Scripture ?" To
me it appears, I muft 'confefs, not only that
the authority of Scripture would be weak
ened by fuch an interpretation, but that if
the hiftory of the fall is by any means capable
of fuch a conftrucf ion, we might as well be
without any Revelation at all. For, as my
text expreffes it, " It were better that we
"were not at all, than that we fhould live
" ftill in wickednefs, and to fuffer, and not
" to know wherefore."
When We take a Pagan mythology to
pieces, we come perhaps to fomething like
the truth. Ofiris turns out to be the fun,
and Ifis the moon ; but the fun and moon
are realities, and we are content to reft where
this folution of the allegory leaves us. But
let the ferpent ftand for our unruly appe
tites, and the tree of knowledge for our
confciences, and what do we learn thence ?
Still have we to enquire, why have we un-
1 2 ruly

n6 SERMON III.
ruly appetites ? why do our confciences fo
affed us ? If the ferpent is fuppofed to be a
figure only, for temptations in general, and
the tree of knowledge for the fruits and
confequences of fin, we muft look further
for the literal fenfe of thefe very things fo
reprefented by allegory : for what could
operate as temptations to the Protoplafts of
man ? How could compliance with any de-
fires become fin ? or how could fin produce
pain ? Pain of confcience I mean ? We muft
ftill fearch for evil, fuch evil as fhould induce
pain of confcience, in fome contradiction to an
exprefs law; otherwife remorfe of confcience,
and pain, and fin, are all idle words. So that
if thefe reprefentations of Mofes are but fi
gures, they cover no literal truths: if the
account of, the fall be an allegory, it is an
allegory without a key. It may feem, to
explain prefent appearances, while we con
tent to call fin the tranfgreffion of a law ;
but without the tree of knowledge there
was then no law ; without the ferpent no
temptation. Such a law as the Apoftle re-
prefents to have been written in the hearts
of the Gentiles by the finger of God, would
in the cafe of the Protoplafts have been
without

SERMON III. 117
without an object. The reft of mankind
muft have been born, and civil fociety efta-
blifhed, and property diftinguifhed, before
the firft human pair could have become mo
ral creatures, and then not the whole of the
Decalogue could have applied to them. Be
fore thefe events, not one law of the Two
Tables could have applied to their condi
tions, as muft be evident to any perfon ca
pable of reflection"1.
Celfiis then was much nearer the truth
than he apprehended, when he alleged that
the Mofaic hiftory did not admit of being
allegorized, or rather refolved into allegory";
and his learned antagonist needed not to have
been fo forward to exprefs his jealoufy, that
what was eafily granted in the cafe of the
Egyptian and Grecian mythologies fhould
be denied to the cofmogony and fall, as de-
fcribed by Mofes : for it is certainly not a
fanciful reprefentation ofthe creation of man,
and the origin of evil, that we want; but
the exact and pofitive hiflory of thofe events,
as the firft and indifputable foundations of
religious and moral refponfibility.
m Vid. Tbeodoretum mp) wfomia?, hoy. 1 . p. 3^0.
11 Origen ccntr. Celf. lib. iv.
1 3 I know

n8 SERMON III.
I know it will ftill .be repeated, that
Chriftianity will anfwer 'many of its moft
important ends, ftanding alone. This is cer
tainly true : the exquifite morality of its
precepts and rules of conduct ; the annun
ciation of a future life, where it is believed,
will remain for our inftruction and our com
fort. Our Saviour's bright example will re
main to animate and encourage us ; but the
whole that relates to our redemption, in the'
atonement made for fin, as a difpenfation of
falvation from the foundations of the world,
is gone !
Thofe perfons wafte their time greatly, who
would pretend to reduce the queftion, con
cerning the utility and neceffity of Revelation,
to a mere queftion of morals. Our anfwer to
fuch a queftion is not to be fought for in
any laboured comparifon, too often obtruded
upon us, of Chriftian and Pagan morals, re
vealed and philofophical doctrines : the in
difputable fuperiority of fanctions and mo
tives, in the cafe of a revealed religion, is
entirely fufficient to meet every objection
drawn from the capacity of the human
mind, and competency of reafon, to difco-
ver a rule of life. In the way of fpecula- tion,

SERMON III. 119
tion, we may multiply precept upon precept,
And maxim upon maxim ; but the will and
authority to enforce fuch decrees muft ftill
be wanting °.
Redemption from fin and death is at all
events a diftinct matter ; this muft be, if at
all, according to God's own purpofes. Rea
fon can never prove to a man that he needs
no redemption, nor yet can it ever point out
to him what will be efficacious to redeem
him from fin and death (7), provided the
neceffity of redemption fhould be admitted.
Here then is a queftion of utility quite dif
tinct from every other; which muft in no
cafe be loft fight of, and which begins with
the Biblei This is a queftion, which cannot
depend on man's difcoveries, or his powers
of reafon, but on his feelings and his necef-:
fities. Let a man be ever fo perfuaded that
he may of himfelf difcover a rule of life, this
further queftion will ftill remain; Is this all
that man ftands in need of p.? Now I will
venture to affert, that this is a queftion which
* See the Notes to King's Origin of Evil, p. 66. Note X. i.
p See Leland's View of Deiflical Writers, Letter xxvii. p. 63.
jth edit.
14 man

120 SERMON III.
man cannot refolve. In the books of the Old
and New Teftament we read of redemption
being neceflary ; man cannot fay it is not ;
therefore the utility of the doctrine muft;
ftand or fall with the books in which it is
contained. A man's faying he needs no re^
demotion cannot poffibly amount to any ar
gument againft the authenticity ofthe Scrips
tures; and if the Scriptures are true, man
does need redemption, for they fay fo.
Morality is of fo much importance in this
life, of fo much confequence in a worldly
view, that the very worft of men muft wifh,
under fome circumftances, that the precepts
of the Gofpel were of univerfal obligation.
As a code of moral laws, therefore, none will
be difpofed tp reject it : but to aflert, that in
the mere morality of the Gofpel confifts the
whole of Chriftianity, muft be either a grofs
mifconception, or a moft perverfe mifrepre-
fentation of matters (8).
The Gofpel alone may tell us what we are
to do ; but it is only in conjunction with the
Old Teftament, from which it never fhould
be feparated, that it tells us what we are.
Thus connected it gives us that account of
the fpecies, which it would not only be vain, but

SERMON III. iaI
but entirely abfurd to feek for otherwife.
No philofophical investigation of matters can
ever inftruct us thoroughly either in the ori
gin of man, or the origin of evil. If we
will not be informed of thefe matters hifto-
rically ( 9 ), and I may add, in regard to the
creation at leaft, fupernaturally, we muft be
contented to be ignorant; and what is more,
we fhould be contented to be filent : for
furely we have great reafon to complain,
when metaphyficians pretend to inftruct the
world upon thefe points, If they can prove
the Scriptures not to be authentic, they are
free to do it ; but even this would confer no
value on their fpeculations : moral theories
and phyfical, theories of the world are equal
ly ufelefs and precarious, when once we quit
the light of Revelation, and the teftimony of
hiftory. Naturalifts indeed may Speculate
on the origin of this vifible world at their
will; for we fhall affuredly conduct ourfelves
tbe fame, whether the globe we dwell on
fhall be thought to have originated from a
chaotic mafs, or to have been Struck from
the fun by collision with a comet: but let us
once be perfuaded that evil is inevitable, and
that all our aft ions flow from neceffity, and the

iii SERMON III.
the Confequences are obvious. Arid if thfr
time and occafion would ferve, I could Shew
at length, that there is no one doubt or dif
ficulty, whieh formerly ferved to perplex
and embarrafs thefe qtieftions and enquiries,
from which men have, in this celebrated age,
been able to extricate themfelves. We are
ftill disputing as much as ever, not only
about the freedom or neceffity of human ac
tions, (which will be the fubject of a future
difcouffe,) but about their moral fitnefs and
unfitnefs ; the operation and effects of mo
tives ; the true distinction between Substance
and idea ; the fallibility of our facultiesj arid
fenfes, even to the doubt, and fometimes tb the
very denial, of the existence of matter; though
with fome, on the contrary, every thing is ma
terial, even the human foul. If the moral fit
nefs and unfitnefs of actions may be thought
in any inftance to be duly determined, ftill are
we left in want of any clear perception of
the obligation that is to govern us ; for obli
gation, in the abstract, is itfelf among thofe
things, whofe nature, foundation, force, I
had almoft faid whofe very existence has
been as much questioned by modern meta
physicians, as any other point whatsoever. We

SERMON III. 123
We need not then wait for any Age of
Reafon to enlighten us upon thefe points; for
we may depend upon it, that the further we
recede from the firft beginning of things, the
more vain all fuch refearches will be. Let
us remember what it is we are enquiring
after. We do not want to be told that man
exifts, that he is a dependent being, that he
is fubject to both moral and physical ills :
we require to be informed, not fo much
what man is, as what he has been, and is to
be. We want to know, if I may with pro
per reverence fo exprefs myfelf, what was
in the contemplation of the Creator when be
firft made man ; what intimation he gave him
of his condition and future deftiny-; or whe
ther any fuch intimation was ever given (,0).
We want not to be told, that there is a God
above us, and evil around us ; but we want to
know how thefe are to be reconciled. They
will not be reconciled by any meafures of
compenfation and mercy in Store, tvithout
further explanation ; for thus both compen
fation and mercy would feem reflections on
the Deity, who might have made us fo as
not to Stand in need of either. If God has
fpoken to us, then compenfation and mercy may

T24 SERMON III.
maybe brought into the fyftem with the
moft glorious effect : but if we are neither
affured that God has accounted to us for the
exiftence of evil, nor taught us how to exer-
cife the faculties he hath endowed us with;
both compenfation for our fufferings, and
mercy for our failings, would be our very
birthright, and God would appear a debtor
to the work of his own hands q.
From the account that Mofes has given,
we may learn that God, when he made the
firft rational inhabitant of this earth, gave a
rational account of his holy will and defign.
He gave a law, when he gave being, and
both compenfation and mercy, if I may fo
exprefs myfelf, were firft in his divine fyf
tem ; for our free will (if not as an inftru-
ment of happinefs univerfally, yet as the
indifpenfable diftinction of the high rank we
hold in the fcale (") of being) was compen
fation for the poffibility of evil ; and the
hopes of redemption from the confequences
of evil, on certain conditions, was mercy.
It is granted, by thofe moft difpofed to

1 It is well faid by St. Augufline, " Non aliquid delendoK
" fed omnia promittendo, Deus fe facit debitorem." treat

SERMON III. 125
treat this account as a mythological tale,
that even as fuch it is excellent and incom
parable r. But if it only Stood upon the foot
ing of other legends, that have been invented,
as a noble writer fays; to folve this great
difficulty of the origin of evil for the vul
gar * ; if it was entirely unconnected with
other facts, and not determined by any cir
cumstances of time, and place, and perfons,
we. might be perfectly indifferent as to its
truth. But it muft never be forgotten, that
it is accompanied with the hiftory of the
origin of the earth, and of man ; that a
determinate sera is afligned to it by the or
der and fucceffion of the Patriarchal fami
lies ; that we find it exactly where we ought
to look for it ; in the oldeft book extant ; in
the only book which gives " fuch a view of
" our world, and its inhabitants, and their
*' affairs, as muft appear to an eye obferving
"from above, not from the earth; which
" gives an account of the original caufes of
" things, the true Springs of events, and de*
T Geddes's Firft Preface, p. xi.
5 See Lord Sbcftejbury's Moralifts, Part I. fe£t. 1.
" clares

ia6 SERMON III.
" clares the end from the beginning';" in
the only book that pretends to give us an
account at all circumftantial of the firft of
the human race ; in the only book, which,
fetting out from a particular period, has any
thing like a regular chronology and a regu
lar feries of events, to which we may refer,
and which we may alio compare with othei?
existing records : laftly, as it more particu
larly concerns ourfelves, in the only book to
which our Saviour and his Apoftles fend us
for a juft account both of the origin of man
and the origin of evil.
But befides what we learn hence of the
origin of man and of evil, we are alfo hereby
informed of the occafion of death, and in*
Structed in the means of redemption ; nei
ther of which could ever be otherwife afcer-
tained, than through the means of hiftory
and revelation : and yet they are fo neceflary
towards a due comprehension of the prefent
fcene of things, and as fuch are fo inti
mately connected with each other, that,
without them, all that is now, all that is
*. Burgh on tie Dignity of human Nature. paft,

SERMON III, 127
paft, and all that is to come, are equally in
explicable. For that man may be removed to a ftate
of greater perfection than the prefent, few
will pretend to deny : the Deift has hopes
of immortality, and the Socinian feels af-
fured of it. Now a future life of perfect
happinefs and immortality involves in it the,
leading principles of redemption. Why an
other life, or any removal hence, if this life
is perfect already ? But if this is not perfect,
why is it not fo ? Did God render it necef-
farily imperfect at firft ? How then is he to
be expected td grant hereafter what he at
firft withheld ? The whole is explained by
the Mofaic account. Things were perfect,
and may be rendered fo again ; and thus, as
an acute writer has obferved, " there is fo
" neceSfary a connection throughout the fa-
" brie of redemption, that you muft either
" admit or reject the whole together ; there
"is no accepting of one part without the
" other. The Scripture fully harmonizes with
" itfelf in the three particulars of innocence
" paSt, depravity prefent, and righteoufnefs
" to come ; the laft of thefe eSfentially in-
" volving

128 SERMON III.
" volving both of the preceding fuppofi-
" tions." To conclude : This is the mythology we
muft fet afide, if Mofes was a fabulist. The
good tidings of redemption are to be found
in the very beginning of the Bible : there
we are inftrufted not folely in the origin of
evil, of which only hiflory, and certainly not
metaphyfics, can ever fatisfaftorily inform
us ; but of redemption from its confequences,
of which Revelation alone, and certainly not
metaphyfics, could ever properly allure us.
It is not a fyftem of philofophy or religion
brought forth from caves or hollow trees ;
not derived from fuch deities as Jupiter and
Apollo (") ; not refting on fanciful conjec
tures, or fubtle reafonings ; but an open de
claration of facts, accompanied with the
moft public and folemn appeals to heaven ;
aSfuming to be derived from that very God,
whofe fupremacy and providence the Deift
and the Chriftian equally acknowledge.
Without fuch an explanation of matters, this
world is a my fiery (I3), which the wicked
muft be left to folve and interpret as he
pleafes ; while the good will remain without any

SERMON III. 129
any certain hopes of remedy or relief. But
the myftery once folved as it is folved by
this account; the origin of evil once ex
plained fo as to fecure man's hopes, and
vindicate God's providence, every difficulty
vanishes. We know our Maker ; we fee
our Judge ; and we can comprehend our
felves.

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON III.

Page io5. note (i).
IF there exifis any independent caufe of evil, how is the
world ever to be fet free from its tyranny P] How very
unphilofophically, to fay no more, does Rouffeau fpeak,
when he fays, " Mais ce monde eft-il 6ternel ou cree ?
" y a-t-il un principe unique des chofes, y en a-t-il
" deux ou plufieurs, et quelle eft leur nature ? Je n'en
" fais rien, et que m'importe ?" Thefe are queftions, he
adds, " inutiles a fa conduite, et fuperieures a fa Rai-
" fon." Emile, lib. iv. vol. iii. p. 40.
Is it of no importance to us to be informed whether
there exifts an independent caufe of evil ? Let the Ma
nicheans pufh their arguments as far as they pleafe ;
let them appear to fome to be better advocates for the
purity and perfection of God, as far as their do&rines
are applied to folve only the prefent appearances of
things ; yet, what are we to think of futurity ?
Mr. Gibbon reckons the following do£trines, which
the Gnoftics borrowed from Zoroafter, fublime ones ;
viz. the eternity of matter, the exiftence of two prin
ciples, and the myfterious hierarchy of the invifible
world. Decline and Fall, ch. xv. He calls Auguftin's
converfion, alfo, from Manicheifm, " a progrefs from
" Reafon to Faith." This may have been fo, perhaps,
as far as Reafon is to be confidered as inadequate to
acquaint us with the real origin of evil : but if Mr.
Gibbon meant to infinuate, that it was a progrefs from
principles confonant to Reafon, to thofe that were not
fo, this we pofitively deny.
Bayle affuredly meant to infinuate no lefs, in his
notes to the articles Manicheens, Marcionites, Pauliciens,
Origene, Zoroaflre, in his critical Dictionary, where he
pretends, that to argue againft fa3s is abfurd; and
k 3 there-

13* NOTES TO SERMON III.
therefore, though it fhould be ever fo contrary to Rea
fon, that moral evil fhould have entrance into a world
formed by a Being infinitely good and holy, yet we
muft fubmit to believe fo, on the authority of the Old
Teftament, which the Manicheans, as he obferves,
were confiftent enough to reject. The axiom, " ab a£tu
" ad potentiam valet confequentia," is as clear, fays
he, as the propofition that two and two make four.
We grant this, but are far from yielding to the confe
quences he would draw. Evil is in the world, we are
certain : that God is good and pure, we are alfo cer
tain : therefore the poffibility of evil obtaining to a
certain degree under the providence of a good God, is
evident to us from the fail ; but it by no means appears
to us to follow from thence, that it would be moft rea
fonable to refer the origin of evil to an independent
principle of evil, becaufe this muft for ever preclude us
from all expectation of its removal. And as all the ar
guments which M. Bayle puts into the mouths of the
Manicheans (and it muft be admitted that he does the
utmoft juftice to their caufe) tend to the eftablifhment
of God's moral attributes of goodnefs and purity, it
may furely admit of a queftion, whether, to argue phi-
lofophically only, that fyftem which provides for the
removal of evil in time to come, is not much more con
ducive to the glory of the Deity, than that, which, to
account for prefent appearances, excludes all hopes of
the melioration of things ? Or which, by way of ren
dering the prefent fyftem poffible in the eye of Reafon,
•would make it impoffihle for the providence of God to
induce a change ?
This is the great point to be confidered, upon a view
of the exifting facts ; the poffibility of a change. The
fact of the exiftence of evil, both moral and phyfical,
is fully admitted by all ; but every philofophical fyf
tem, which refers it to a caufe independent of God,
neceflarily involves the improbability, or rather impof-
fibility, of any change for the better ; and muft dero
gate more from the attributes of God, than any con
clufions to be drawn from the prefent permiffion of evil,
with a profpeCt of its removal in whole or in part.
M. Bayle pretends to exclude all a priori reafonings
upon the fubjeCt ; but it is furprifing how continually he

NOTES TO SERMON IH. 133
he departs from this fyftem. Every argument on the
Manichean fide may reafonably be considered as an ar
gument a priori, and chiefly founded on a petitio princi
pii of the poffible exiftence of two principles ; whereas,
in adopting the plan of reafoning a pofteriori, from the
exiftence of faCts, we are guilty of no petitio principii,
in fuppofing the exiftence ofa good principle; for that is
what the Manicheans admit as well as we. His reafon-
ings againft the Origenifts [art. Origene, note e. edit.
1738. Bafle] confift entirely of d priori arguments, re-
gardlefs oi faits. For he would infift upon it, that a
good God cannot permit evils in any degree, or upon
any conditions; though this is incapable of proof d prio
ri, and d pofteriori the evidence oi facts is againft him.
He fays indeed, that the ftrongeft arguments of the
Manicheans are founded on the hypothefis of a few
being faved, and the reft eternally damned : but the
exiftence of two independent pripciples implies the ne
ceflary exiftence of evils, both natural and moral, to
eternity, by the acknowledgment of M. Bayle himfelf,
(fee his Eclair off ement at the end of his Dictionary, p.
630.) and this in direCt oppofition to a perfectly good
and pure principle.
Nothing lefs than an eternal independent principle of
evil would anfwer the ends of the Manicheans, as
Bayle argues, art. Zoroaflre, note v. ii. p. 559 ; be
caufe, " quod eft caufa caufse eft caufa caufati ;" there
fore, fays he, if Arimanius was a creature, then God
muft be the caufe of evil, by creating Arimanius, the
evil principle. We fliall not flop to argue this point
with M. Bayle; thofe who think the queftion may be
decided metaphyfically, may confult the Summa of St.
Thomas, particularly Part I. Quseft. xlix. and the 2d
article of the fame queftion ; where he contends, that
there can be no firft principle of evil, as there is a firft
principle of good; becaufe all evil being defect, pre-
fuppofes good as its fubjeCt. Therefore evil can never
prevail over good, becaufe, " deftruCto omni bono,
" (quod requjrituf ad integritatem mali) fubtrahitur
" ipfum malum cujus fubjeCtum eft bonum." And
perhaps this is as good a metaphyfical argument againft
two independent principles as any. St. Auguftin ar
gues much in the fame way, De Civit. Dei, xi. 9. xii.
K3 6.7.

i34 NOTES TO SERMON III.
6. 7 . and our learned Barrow feems difpofed to adopt
his reafonings, vol. ii. Serm. ia. But to return.
We would contend then againft the Manicheans, and
upon M. Bayle's own plan or argument, that alW pofte
riori reafoning ivom facts would lead us to acquiefce in
the fcriptural account of things, in preference to any
philofophical fyftem extant, though they fhould all
proceed upon the principle of not referring the origin
of evil to a good caufe. We have already noticed, in
the Difcourfe itfelf, the tendency of the two other fyf
tems ; namely, that of a fcale of beings, and the effen-
tial malignity of matter, to preclude all hope of any
future extermination of evil ; and therefore thefe alfo
muft be confidered, however well defigned, as reflect
ing on the Deity.
Many have been difpofed to allow all thefe feveral
fyftems the merit of endeavouring to provide for the
honour of God, and to exculpate him, as a Being of
purity and perfection, from being the caufe of evil. But
the Manichean fcheme, of all others, feems the leaft
entitled to fuch indulgence, as precluding all inter
ference of the good principle, except by compromife and
conceffion, (which was Bayle's amendment of the hy-
pothefis,) and which muft efpecially derogate from the
honour of God.
The Platonifts, (as reprefented by Plutarch, who was
for efpoufing their doCtrine in preference to that of He-
raclitus, in bis *u^oyoVia, cited by Cudworth, b. iv. 6.)
though they contended for the eternity of matter, and
its efl'ential depravity, yet referred the order of the
world to the change wrought on matter by God ; Ou ydp
ex. rou p.^ ovroc: tj yevsens, a\\' 1% t5 p/>; -naXuig p/ijf 'mavur;
$X°*fos ¦ One fuch change does not abfolutely preclude
a fecond ; fo that this error leaves an opening for im
provement at leaft, and that through the power and
will of God. Indeed the true Platonic idea feems to
have been, that evil, and that chiefly phyfical evil, is
only neceffary in regard to the things of this lower
world ; [lee Max. Tyrius, Differt. xxv.] and that Mind,
or God, would in the end get the better of this necef
fity. See Wife againfi Atbeifm, vol. i. p. 136. and Cud-
worth, as before.
The Gnoftics, indeed, when they came to blend the
phi-

NOTES TO SERMON III. 135
philofophical notion of two principles with Chriftianity,
generally acknowledged Chrift to be fent to overcome
the evil principle : flee Mofheim :] but M. Bayle will
not allow fuch Mariicheifm to be reafonable ; he infifts
upon it, that the evil principle muft be independent, or
God the fole caufe of evil, and that Reafon cannot de
termine otherwife.
The fyftem of a fcale of beings has for its fupporters,
as is well known, the celebrated Archbp. King, and
his learned commentator. Pope has illuftrated it in verfe,
heedlefs, as it has been fuppofed, of the bad tendency
of the principles with which he was fupplied by Bo-
lingbroke. The objection to this fyftem feems to be,
that it makes evil, both, moral and phyfical, fo necef
lary, as to leflen, if not deftroy entirely, the probability
of a change. For, as an able writer has well remarked,
to confider man in his depraved fiate, as occupying his
¦proper rank in the fcale of beings, is not only contra
dictory to the Scriptures, which particularly fpeak both
of a preceding and a future different ftate of man ; but
tends to preclude all hope of change, which could
not happen upon fuch principles, withqut the diffolu-
tion of that very chain of being, and' corifequently
without injury to the creation. [See New Theory of Re
demption^ hook ii. ch. 8.] For as Pope himfelf ar
gues, " ¦ -¦ on fuperior powers
" Were we to prefs, inferior might on ours :
" Or in the full creation leave a void,
" Where, one ftep broken, the great fcale's deftroy'd.
" From nature's chain whatever link you ftrike,
" Tenth or ten thoufandth, breaks the chain alike."
Epift. I. 243.
This is certainly very hazardous doCtrine, when we
are taught befides to believe, that
" All fubfifts by elemental flrife,
" And paffions are the elements of life.
" The general order, fince the whole began,
" Is kept in nature, and is kept in man." Ib. 169, &c,
M. Bayle objeCts alfo, as is well known, to the fyf
tem which refers the origin of evil to the abufe of free
will : but of this we fhall have more to fay elfewhere.
I fhall conclude the prefent note by oblerving, that
k 4 this

I36 NOTES TO SERMON III.
this circumftance of a future change, and redemption from
evil, though reafonably to be expected upon the fuppo-
fttion of a good principle, yet muft tferve to evince the
pofitive neceffity of a divine Revelation, while Infidelity
and Atheifm ftill (belter themfelves behind the old ar-

puiffante, Dieu n'a, ni pu,
" tures cheries complettement heureufes en ce monde,
" quelle raifon a-t-on de croire qu'il le pourra, ou le
" voudra dans un autre ?" Syfleme de la Nature, ch.vii.
Part II.
We anfwer, that God has effectually done away, this
difficulty, in the Revelation he has been pleafed to
make of his moft holy will and purpofes, from the firft
creation of man.
It is the Scripture only that can fecure us alfo from
the revival of the ancient error of the eternity of mat
ter, and its effential imperfeCtion ; for Rouffeau fully
acknowledges, in his Letter to the Arcbbifhop of Paris,
that if it was not for the Scriptures, he fhould think
this the moft reafonable account to be given of things ;
and he even doubts whether the. Scriptures do contra*
diCt it ; for he fays it depends entirely on the word N"D,
which may be mif-tranflated. But we have little to
do with the word N~a in determining the queftion con
cerning the origin of evil, if the Scriptures are ac
knowledged to be of any authority ; for they not only
difcover to us the very means whereby evil was intro
duced into this world, but exprefsly affu're us, that, pre
vious to the fall of man, every thing upon the earth, or
in the fyftem, was in its nature good. See Gen. i. io.
12. 18. 21. 35.31.
The author of the Syfiime de la Nature fays, " tout
" le monde convient que la matiere ne peut s'aneantir
" totalement, ou ceffer d'exifter." If fo, the philofophi
cal notion of the depravity and effential imperfeCtion
of matter ftrikes direCtly at the doCtrine ofthe refur-
reCtion of the body : but, as Origen fays, the body has
not naturally any malignity in it. iucrt;. Sh tnupourvs ou
[Mctoa,' a ydp i) cpvcri; [yw^ovrcif] [uaporyroc: hrt, to ywiyn-ichi
rrjs [/.txpirrjTos s%s ri)v komIgcv. Contr. Celf. lib. iii. p. 136.
edit. Cantab. Many objeCtors have conceived, that the
refur-

NOTES TO SERMON III. 137
refurreCtion of the body is denied by the Apoftle, 1 Cor.
xv. 50. " Now this I fay, brethren, thatfiefh and blood
" cannot inherit the kingdom of God." They are well
anfwered by Mr. Granville Sharp, in his Treatife on
the Law of Nature in Man, p. 400. Though, as the
objection is an old one, a fufficient explanation is to be
found in almoft every commentary upon the paffage ;
and indeed, as Mr. Sharp obferves, the Apoftle himfelf
explains his meaning in the very next words. It is not
the fubftance, but the corruptibility of the body, that is
to be done away. Page no. note (2).
We have intimation of an oppofing principle, but of im
independent one.] Mr. Paine, in his Age of Reafon, pre
tends that the Scriptures reprefent Satan as great, if not
greater than the Almighty ; as defeating by ftratagem,
in the Shape of an animal of the creation, all the power
and wifdom of the Almighty ! as having compelled the
Almighty to the direCt neceffity either of furrendering
the whofe of the creation to the government and fove-
reignty of Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption
by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himfelf
upon a crofs in the fhape of a man : as making the tranf-
greffor triumph, and the Almighty fall !
Diderot, in his Syfteme de la Nature, refembles the
oppofition between Jehovah and Satan to the ftruggles
between the good and evil principles of the feveral
heathen nations: "a caufe de tantd'effets oppofes qu'on
" vit dans la nature, on admit pendant long-temps plu-
" fieurs dieux. Telle eft fur-tout l'origine du dogme
" fi ancien et fi univerfel des deux principes. Viola la
" fource des combats que toute l'antiquite fuppofe entre
" des dieux bons et mechans, entre Ofiris et Typhon,
" Oromafde et Arimane, Jupiter et les Titans, Jehovah
" et Satan." M. Holland, in his excellent Reflexions
Pbilofopbiques on the above work, is contented to
obferve, " Pour ce qui eft des combats que l'autetar fup-
" pofe avoir ete livres entre Jehovah et Satan, il ne peut
" les avoir trouves que dans Milton." In what light
Satan appears as the opponent of the Deity in the
writings of Milton, we need not fay ; it muft be well
known, that in the two immortal Poems of that great
writer.

138 NOTES TO SERMON III.
writer,' the whole objeCt is to prove, that the " tranfc
" greffor" could not "triumph," nor " the Almighty
" fall." So that if the combat invented by the Poet,
and engrafted on the plain and fimple narrative of Mo
fes, may be held to inftruCt us in Scripture truths, we
may exprefsly refer to it as an admirable reply to the
impious fuggeftions ofthe author of the Age of Reafon;
while it being a faCt, that no relation of any combat is
to be found in the Scriptures between Jehovah and Sa
tan, Diderot's comparifon falls at once to the ground.
It is not to be denied, however, that the doCtrine of
two principles, and the Mofaic relation of the fall of
man, and introduction of evil into the world, have been
often confounded, though nothing can in reality be
more contrary; fo much fo indeed, that the learned
author of the Divine Legation of Mofes would infift
upon it, that the hiftory of Satan, in the book of Job,
was exprefsly defigned to guard the Jews againft the
error of two principles, which they had been in danger
of imbibing, during their captivity in Babylon. [Book vi.
§. 2.] Though the learned author might be miftaken
as to the true hiftory of the book of Job, he had affur
edly difcernment enough to be entirely correCt in his
judgment of the character of Satan, and of his fubjec
tion to the Supreme Being, as they are reprefented in
Scripture ; nor can he be wrong in fuppofing, that the
doCtrine of two independent principles is direCtly op-
pofed in the Scriptures, if not by the character of Satan
in the book of Job, yet by the evident allufion to the
Magian fuperftition, and the vindication of God's fu
premacy, in the Prophecy of Ifaiah, xiv. 6, 7. "I form
"the light, and create darknefs ; I make peace, and
" create evil. There is no God befides me;" which the
learned author particularly refers to. "And yet," fays
he, " we have heads weighty enough to get to the
" bottom of this matter;" that is, as he expreffes him
felf, who, contrary to the Scriptures, would believe, that
the Jews obtained their notion of Satan from the Chal
deans. Now this is a miftake the world is ftill in dan
ger of being led into.* In Mr. Lindfey' s Converfations
on the Divine Government, publifhed fo lately as 1803,
the Jewifh notions of an evil being are exprefsly fup-
pofed to have been derived from the Chaldeans; '¦' who
" pro-

NOTES TO SERMON III. 139
" probably might have pointed out to them," fays he,
" or they might themfelves imagine, that the ferpent,
" who is reprefented as aCtingfuch a principal part in
" their own facred hiftory, was the evil principle of the
" Chaldeans." Mr. Lindfey's objeCt is to prove, that
there is no evil Being whatfoever, and that the Jews
could derive no fuch idea from their own books. We
may reafonably afk, why fhould they be more eafily led
to think the ferpent might be the evil principle of the
Chaldeans, than the Satan of Jews and Chriftians?
" With whofe hiftory," fays Warburton, " it is evident
" they were acquainted in their captivity ; and nothing
" could better fecure them from the dangerous error of
" the two principles, which was part of the national re-
" ligion of the country, into which they were led cap-
" tive." So entirely do Bifhop Warburton and Mr.
Lindfey differ upon this fubjeCt. But in regard to the
true character of the tempter and feducer of mankind,
in the Mofaic hiftory, I have endeavoured in the Dif-
courfe itfelf to ftate it as concifely as I could ; and I am
fure the account I have given is confonant to the words
of Scripture; for there we undoubtedly read of "an
" oppofing principle, but of no independent one."
This fnould never be loft fight of, becaufe all our
hopes muft reft on the poffibility of a redemption and
deliverance from the evils of this world. Ofthe poffi
bility of an oppqfition to the will of God we have daily
experience, in the conduCt of the hardened (inner ;
and therefore it is of the »utmoft importance to be able
"to look back to the firft beginning of moral evil ; that
is, to the account given us in the Scripture of the
firft Being, " Who durft defy th' Omnipotent." 
Paradife Loft, -b. i. 49.
where, fo far from finding any independent principle,
any triumphant tranfgreffor, the truth certainly is, as I
have reprefented it, that, " as foon as we hear of him
" in the Bible, we read of his dependence on the Su-
" preme; as foon as we read of him as an enemy to
" our nature, we have intimation of God's protection
" againft him." Gen. iii. 14, 15. Lord Bolingbroke
pretends, indeed, that the fuppofition of an inferior de
pendant Being, who is affumed to be the author of all evil, is

i4o NOTES TO SERMON III.
is more abfurd than the doCtrine of two independent
principles. See him admirably anfwered by Leland, in
bis View ofDeifiical Writers, Letter XXX. note, p. 149.
vol. ii. 5th edit. Page in. note (3.)
For how could the relation of fuch events be kept free
from the marvellous ?]
" For man to tell how human life began
" Is hard ; for who himfelf beginning knew ?
Paradife Loft, b, viii. i(p.
" The account is what we fhould call, in reference
" to our experience, miraculous ; but was it poffible i,t
" fhould be otherwife ? I bejieve the greateft Infidel
" will not deny, that it is at leaft as plaufible an opi-
" nion, that the world had a beginning, as that it had
" not. If it had, can it be imagined by any man in his
" fenfes, that that particular quality fhould be an ob-
"jeCtion to the narrative, which he knows it muft
" have ? Muft not the firft production of things, the
" original formation of animals and vegetables, require
" exertions of power, which in prefervation and propa-
" gation can never be exemplified ?" Campbell on Mir
racles, Part II. §. 7. See alfo §. 6. p. 213.
That an extraordinary mode of production was in-
difpenfably neceflary, feems to be a fair conclufion,
from the famous problem concerning the Hen and the
Egg. Macrobius, lib. vii. The eternity of the world is
contradicted by that very problem. See Nichols's Con
ferences, vol. i. p. 18. and confult Macrobius for the
arguments on the fubjeCt. It is not a little remarka
ble, that Mofes, in his Cofmogony, has exprefsly fet
tled the queftion, in the cafe of herbs and trees.
Gen. i. 12. Page 1 1 a. note (4).
It is well known in what terms a celebrated tranfiator
has fpoken of the author of the Pentateuch.] See Notes
(6) and (13), Sermon II. At the ejid of Dr. Geddes's
critical remarks on the Pentateuch, we haye his creed
as to the divine infpiration of Mofes, in Latin verfes,
{faulty

NOTES TO SERMON III. 141
{faulty ones, fee Brit. Crit. vol. xix. p. 5.) thus englifhed
by himfelf. " You afk me ferious, whether I believe
" That Mofes was infpir'd ? My friend, receive
" This ferious anfwer : Yes, he was infpir'd
" With tYatfame flame which Numa's bofom fir'd.
" Numa, Lycurgus, every other fage
" Who legiflated for a barbarous age,
" All drank from wifdom's fount, or wifdom's rill ;
" Large draughts, they drew — but Mofes larger ftill.
" Yet think not all the draughts that Mofes drew
" Were limpid draughts ; fometimes a (limy hue
" Beting'd the waters. Since the world began
" One man drew purely ; — Jesus was that man !
" Jefus alone, full of the godhead, brought
" A code of laws divine, that lacketh nought.
" Then dumb let other legiflators be,
" And Jefus only legiflate for me."
See Good's Life of Br. Geddes.
Inftead of other legiflators being dumb, it is cer
tainly remarkable, that Jefus fliould have faid of the
Jewifh legiflator and his fucceffors, " If they hear not
" Mofes and the Prophets, neither will they be per-
" fuaded though one rofe from the dead." Such was
the opinion of our Lord himfelf, as to the authority of
Mofes and the other facred writers of the Old Tefta
ment. But , to anfwer Dr. Geddes in his own way;
" If Mofes was a. mere human legiflator," fays a very
amiable modern, writer, "how comes it that his infti-
" tutions are ftill obeyed ? He flourished- 'many ages
f before Lycurgus, Solon, or Numa, who were efteemed
" the wifeft of mankind, in the ages in which they
" refpeCtively lived ; and they travelled to remote re-
" gions, to form a body of laws that fhould combine
" every poffible advantage, which collective wifdom
" could beftow. Thefe laws were folemnly impofed,
" and received with reverence ; and the nations for
" whom they were defigned grew powerful and re-
" nowned, under the influence of thofe inftitutions.
" Yet, of thefe nations, hiftory is now the only repofi-
" tory. No people, no body of men, not even a few
" exiles are influenced by what a goddefs whifpered to
" Numa, in 'the Egerian Grot/ or by what Lycurgus, " from

HZ NOTES TO SERMON III.
" from his own perpetual exile, bound his countrymen
" to obey : while the Jews have continued a diftinCt,
" unmixed people, and, under every difadvantage, pre-
" ferved their law and their cuftoms." See Mrs. Wefts
Letters to her Son. How exaCtly Dr. Geddes agreed
with Lord Bolingbroke in his opinion of the Bible,
fee Earle's Remarks, p. 66. For an anfwer to Lord Bo
lingbroke, fee Leland's View of Deifiieal Writers,Le,t-
ters xxviii. xxix. xxx. vol. ii. 5th edit.
Page 112. note (5).
I allude to an extraordinary memorial prefented to a
very confpicuous member of the Chriftian church in the
kingdom of Pruffia.] This memorial was addreffed by
certain Jews to M.Teller, Confeiller du Confifloire fu-
perieur, et Previt a Berlin, about fix or feven years ago.
In it they exprefs a defire to be admitted into fociety,
upon . an equal footing with Chriftians, on profeffing
their belief of five general propofitions of moral theo
logy, or pure Deifm, which they fubmit to his confi
deration. They acknowledge themfelves to be quite
prepared to renounce their faith in the divine origin of
their Law, and exprefs a hope and expectation, that
Chriftians will be induced to accede to fuch a common
form of belief, to the exclufion of all particular doc
trines. The Jews were admirably anfwered by M. de
Luc ; and a further correfpondence took place between
bim and M.Teller on the fubjeCt; in which the authen
ticity and literal fenfe of the three firft chapters of Ge-
nefis are ably vindicated, and the indifpenfable impor
tance of the hiftory they contain, evinced by many
ftrong arguments.
The Jews, in their memorial, having afligned, as a
caufe for their indifference in regard to the truth of
the Mofaic records, the recent advancement of human
knowledge, M. de Luc applies himfelf to examine into
the real ftate of knowledge, as it relates to the biftory
oiman; and with great judgment and force of reafon-
ing fhews, that this is the very branch of fcience leaft
capable of improvement, and in which, if Revelation is
once abandoned, the leaft certainty is to be expeCted.
Having fhewn that fome fciences admit of conclufive
reafoning, (fuch as Geometry, Aftronomy, &c.) while
others

NOTES TO SERMON III. 143
others do not, he thus proceeds to ftate the need of
Revelation, from the manifeft uncertainty that muft en-
fue from every man's having to form a religion for
himfelf. " II. y a plus ; on voit par l'experience, que
" moins l'entendement a de moyens furs et precis pour
" former quelque jugement fur un objet, plus chaque
" homme fe croit en droit d'en decider : dans les fci-
" ences fondees fur des lumieres qui peuvent etre ac-
" quifes avec certitude, on voit rarement ceux qui n'en
" ont pas fait leur etude, fe meler d'en raifonner. Mais
" quant a la Religion, vers laquelle tend tout le fujet
" que je traite ici, en vue de votre memoire ; parce
" qu'elle doit fervir. de bafe a la morale, et par celle-ci
" a Vordre facial ; des qu'on n'admettra pas une rive-*
" lation immediate de l'Etre Supreme, faite a certaines
" epoque.s pour tous les hommes ; et qu'ainfi on ne
" voudra de Religion, qu'autant que la Raifon feule
" pourra y conduire, chacun fe fera une Religion pour
" foi, s'il s'en fait une ; car la pretention a la Raifon eft,
ft et ne peut qu'.etre, egale chez tous les hommes; et vu
." la fublimite de l'objet, vers lequel aucune connoif-
" fance humaine ne peut fervir d'echelon, l'ignorant en
" parlera meme avec plus d'affurance que l'homme qui
" s'en fera occupe le plus profondement." He infifts
upon i,t, that no abftraCt propofitions can be a fufficient
bans of morality, and refers to the writings of M.
Fichte, Profeffor of Philofophy at Jena, to fliew how
little agreement is even now to be expeCted in regard
to the decisions of pure Reafon. M. Fichte, he ob
ferves, had by anticipation, as it were, exprefsly con
tradicted the very firft of their five propofitions. " II
"y a un Dieu — etre incree — unique — infini—Ae Createur-
" — Confervateur et Juge de I'univers." But according
to M. Fichte, the idea of a creation diftinCt from the
Creator is an abfurdity. " Je voudrois, qu'il eut plu a
" mes adverfaires de me donner fur ce fujet, pour la
" premiere fois, un mot intelligible, qui me fit entendre
" ce qu'ils veulent exprimer en difant, Dieu a cree le
" monde, et comment on peut fe faire une . idee d'une
" telle creation. Tant qu'ils n'auront pas donn? ce
" mot, j'aurai droit de penfer qu'il faut avoir perdu I'ef-
" prit pour croire a un Dieu comme ils y croient, et que
"mon Ath'eifme . ne confifte qu'en ce,que je voudrois " garder

s44 NOTES TO SERMON III.
"gardermon efprit." I have ventured to tranfcribe
this paffage from M. Fichte's Appeal to the public, as
I find it in M. de Luc's Lettre aux Juifs, becaufe it
certainly ferves to prove M. de Luc's point, viz. that
no advances, that have been recently made in human
knowledge, may encourage us to expeCt any greater
agreement among men, in regard to any abftraCt pro
pofitions; and that nothing lefs than a divine revela
tion can ever be expected to produce a general ac
knowledgment of the very firft principle of Religion,
namely, that there exifts a Creator ofthe univerfe, a
Creator who is diftinCt from the vifible creation. " J'ai
" dit," fays M. Fichte, as I find him cited in another
place, " que l'idee de Dieu, comme fubftance a part,
" etoit une idee impoflible et contradiCtoire." Accord
ing then to M. FiGhte, both Jews and Chriftians have
loft their wits, who pretend to believe the creation of
the univerfe, as generally received. And we have pofi
tive proof, to ufe M. de Luc's own words, " que les
" idees d'un Createur et d'un monde cree peuvent etre
" rejetees par les hommes, quand elles ne leur font
" prefentees que comme des idies de la Raifon."
But M. de Luc proves further, that every one ofthe
Jews' five propofitions is contradicted by the fyftem
of M. Fichte. " Jugez par la, Mefiieurs," M. de Luc
concludes, " quels peuvent etre les ecarts de 1' efprit hu-
" main, quant aux dogmes ; tandis que vous confide-
" riez ceux que vous propofez dans votre memoire,
" comme etant appuies fur le commun confentement de
" tous les hommes, d'apres les lumieres natUrelles !" I
fliall have occafion to notice M. de Luc's correfpondence
with M. Teller hereafter. Page 113. note (6.)
Thefirict connection between the Old and the New Tefia*
¦ments— our Lord himfelf has taught us to acknowledge and
maintain.] Tertullian, in his book adverfus Judaos, has
ably pointed out the connection between the two Tef-
taments. See Houtteville's Critical and Hiftorical Dif-
courfe. See alfo Lactantius, lib. iv. St. Cyril of Jerusa
lem gives this definition of Chriftian faith : " 'H w/rv
—iracrav -rrtv ev ty 7r«Xai« >£ xotlvy [JiaS-jjxr) fubintell.] Ti)S
eJdfsiaf yvulcny. eyKstiohitirou. Catechef.V. And in his
VUib

NOTES TO SERMON III. 145
Vllth LeBure he deprecates every feparation of the
two Teftaments : OJ yd(> dvefypeSa. rwv. a'^e-nv.iZv r-Zv rip
iacc/.c/.i7.v rij; xatvyj; JiaS-vjxijj d.Tio<^\c\\<ivruiy d\xd nu ~Kpir<Ji
•srato&ricropg&ii, tw \eyovrt wept rs 'IsfoJ, (the temple ofthe
Jews,) ix tjSeiIe 0V1 iv rot; t,ou Tiarpo; jiou Set \i.e elvai ; ac
knowledging, as Cyril remarks, that the temple of Je-
rufalem was his Father's houfe. The fame Father, in
his Xth Lecture, fpeaks of John the Baptift, as, rpoirov
riva, cruvdtfruiv d^fdrepcc; ev avrw rd; 8ia§r>xa;, tfa\alav xa)
kcuvTjv. " Quodammbdo congluiinans infeipfo ambo Tef-
" tamenta," as Grodecius renders it. See alfo Difc. xvi.
What was heretical in the days of Cyril is fo now.
The Old and New Teftaments are infeparable ; and no
true Chriftian can think himfelf authorized to ". put
"afunder" what God has by fo many notices "joined"
and connected. " 'Axrftui; pev ydp," as Origen fays,
{contr. Celf. lib. \\.) ~X.pis-ia.voT; ¦] sta-asyur/rj es~tv diro rujv le-
P'Zv Mwiicreaj;, s£ rwv ¦mp'o<prjrtxMv ypoift^dfaiy." The fepara
tion indeed is never propofed, but with fome defign
of getting rid ofthe peculiar doCtrines of our moft holy
religion. The Deift is for the feparation, becaufe, con-
heCtedj the evidence of a divine interpofition is too
ftrong to be refilled : the great chain of prophecies and
events muft be broken, or his caufe is loft : the hand
of God muft be acknowledged. The Socinian is for
the feparation, becaufe atonement and redemption by
blood are too prominently Shadowed forth, in the typi
cal facrifices of the Jewifh law, to be difputed or re
filled. For, as an elegant writer has lately obferved of
the Old Teftament, " If this remains as a type, then
" the Chriftian doCtrine of atonement muft be received
"as the fulfilment; and therefore," fays (he, "the
" Socinians impugn its authority." See Weft's Letters
to her Son.
But befides the Jewifh facrifices, the fall of man fo
evidently implies the need of redemption, that the So
cinian is equally interefted in getting rid of this-;
which Dr. Prieftley plainly difcovers, in his Letter to a
Philofophical Unbeliever, Part II. Pre'f. p. xiii. where,
without any attempt to argue the point, he gives us
merely his own opinion of the fubject. " I believe the
" facred writers," fays he, " to be men of probity ;
" but neverthelefs men, and eonfequenfly_/a//zW<?, and
1. " liable

146 .NOTES TO SERMON III.
" liable to miftake with refpeCt to things, tO( which
" they had not given much attention, or concerning
" which they had not the means of exaCt information ;
"'which I take to be the cafe, with refpeCt to the ac
count which Mofes has given of the creation axii'fall
"of man." The Jews are guilty of a prejudiced fepa.
ration of the two Covenants, when they unreafonably
deny that their Law is typical. See Leflie's Method
with the Jews'i p.,78- f°l. edit.
There is alfo a fet of Geological Deifts, who openly
affert the independence ofthe two Covenants ; having,
as they think, good ground to difpute the Mofaic ac
count of the creation, of the deluge, &c. In order to
render their opinions palatable, they affure the world,
that Chriftianity has nothing to do with thofe chapters
of the book of Genefis, in which thefe faCts are re
corded. See Difcburfes V. and VI.
While fuch motives exift then for inducing men to
con.Sid'er the two Teftaments as feparable, it may be
well to repeat the admirable caution of Bifhop Warbur
ton. " I reply then," fays he, " that it will admit of
"no difpute, but that if they may have liberty of in-
" venting two chimeras, and of calling one Judaifm, and
" the other Chriflianity, they will have a very eafy vic-
" tory over both." This is an old trick, and has often
been tried with fuccefs : but fure the Deift is not to
obtrude his' own inventions for thofe religions he en
deavours to overthrow. Much lefs is he to beg the
quefiion of -their falfity ; as the laying it down that the
Jewifh and Chriftian are two independent religions cer
tainly is; becaufe Chriflianity, claims its titles of divi
nity from and under Judaifm. If therefore Deifts will
not, yet Chriftians muft of neceffity take their religion aa
they find it : and if they will remove infidel objections
to either religion, they muft reafon on the principle of
dependency ; and while they do fo, their reafonings will
not only be juft and logical, but every folution, on Such
a principle, will, befides its determination on the parti
cular point in queftion, be a new proof of the divinity
of both in general ; becaufe fuch a relation, connection,
and dependency between two religions of fo diftant pe
riods, could not poffibry come about but by Divine
provision. For a Deift therefore to bid us remove his
"ob.

NOTES TO SERMON III. 147
¦ - , - , -- f
f ' objections on the principle of independency, is tb bid
" us prove our religion true on a principle, that implies
" its falfehood : the New Teftament giving us no other
" idea of Cbriftianitywan as of a religion dependent on,
" connected with,, and the. completion of Judaifm."
Divine Legation of Mofes, book v. §.5.
Page 119. note (7).
'Nor yet can it ever point out to him what will be effica
cious lo redeem him from fin and death.] Porphyry, that
great enemy to Chriftianity, confeffed that no fyftem of
philofophy had fupplied him with a method of delivering
men's fouls. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. x. c. 32. In this
then mpft efpecially the utility of Revelation confifts,
and upon this ground we may reafonably prove the
truth and divinity ofthe holy Scriptures by Origen's
teft ! , ro ydp ev ruiv Wo Set crs irapaSsfatrSai sir) rcvrcov rdiv
ypauptav rj on. by. s'tcr) Qeorfvevroi, eire) sx e]a-) cupixifioi, w; iito-
Xau,~tdvei h aifis-o;, 15 w; Tfiroj rfapa.$ei-a.tr$rau, on irfsi anv u><£e\
bipoi Qe6itvevs~oi eltriv. Philocalia, c. xii. Thofe who will
nqt acknowledge redemption to be neceflary, are not
qualified to judge ofthe utility of Chriftianity.
Page 120. note (8).
But to offer t, that in the mere morality of the Gofpel
confifts the whole of Chriftianity, mvft be either a grofs mif-
conccption, or a moft perverfe mifreprefentation- of matters.]
All, fays Rouffeau, {Letters from the Mountains, Letter
III.) that we ought to believe ihfpired, is what relates to
our duty ; for to what -.purpofe fhould God give the reft
by infpiration ? I anfwer ; our duty is founded, in the
Gofpel of Chrift, on our hopes. God has- been pleafed
to make hisfervice perfect freedom. We are no longer
fervants under the Gofpel, we are heirs of the promifes;
joint-heirs with Chrift in the kingdom of heaven; To
know our duty from infpiration is a great fecurity; but
to know our profpeCts of forgivenefsy and the promifes
of pardon through. Chrift, from infpiration, is a founda*
tion for the moft glorious hopes and moft comfortable
encouragements. > God might have given us no more
than.rules of .praCtice ; but the doctrinal words of comfort
are ofthe moft intrinfic value. Thofe who are difpofed to
l 2 regard

148 NOTES TO SERMON II.
regard duty before doctrine, would do well to confult.an
admirable note to Bifhop Burgefs's Sermon on the Di
vinity of Chrift ; where he Shews, that " to objeCt that
" practical duties are more important than religious
" opinions, is foreign to the fubjeCt, and implies the
" denial of what is not denied. It is fruitlefs to en-
" quire which of two duties be the more acceptable,
" where both are indifpenfable; and dangerous to form
" comparifons of two indifpenfable duties, where the
" preference, of one tends to the depreciation of the
" other." Page 121. note (9).
If we will not be informed of thefe matters hiftorically —
iv e muft be contented to be ignorant .] The learned Arch-
bifhop King fays indeed, that, though there had been
no hiftory of. the fall of man, we fliould have had
a proper anfwer to make to the infidel ; fince though
the mifery and corruption of mankind is really la
mentable, yet it is not fo great, but that it may be re
conciled with the good Providence of God. This may
be fo ; but it is much better not to have to rely on hu
man Reafon to determine fuch a point for the world in
general, for Reafon will always find fomething to op
pofe to Reafon : and however clear the anfwer might
appear to the Archbifhop, he muft have known, from
the difpofition of Bayle, whom he was anfwering, that
nothing fhort of an hiftorical account of matters could
fatisfy the Scruples of a Manichean.
Page 123. note (10).
What intimation he gave him of his condition and future
deftiny ; or whether any fuch intimation was ever given ?]
This laft is in faCt the great enquiry. Mr. Hume's ar
guments to prove that we cannot prefume ever to
reafon or even to enquire concerning what has been, or
may be ; that is, "(to ufe his own words) " in regard to
" the origin of worlds, and the Situation of nature,
"from and lo eternity ;" do not at all preclude us from
the enquiry, whether a Revelation has been made. A:
Revelation accompanied with fuch circumftances as
contribute to clear up the moral doubts that muft
othervyiie ncceffarify perplex us in our paffage through life,

NOTES TO SERMON III. 149
life, and fupported and confirmed by proofs affeCting the
fenfes, or capable of being judged of and appreciated by
Reafon, muft needs become one 6f thofe events, not
only fubjeCt to, but imperioufly demanding our notice
and examination. Mr. H. would certainly not pre
clude enquiry and examination in the cafe of the Pagan
mythologies ; the mere attempt to impofe them on the
world, renders them fit fubjeCts of enquiry. The quef
tion is not, as Mr. Hume would infinuate, how does
God aCt, or will God aft, feparate from the vifible works
of his hands; but whether God has, or has not, operated
in an extraordinary manner to enlighten and inftruCt
the world. We ftill appeal to fails, not to metaphyfics.
Page 124. note (11).
If not as an inflrument of happinefs univerfally, yet as
the indifpenfable diflinction of the high rank we hold in the
fcale of being.] Though the fcale of being may be liable
to objections', when confidered as the caufe and occafion
of the prefent exiftence of evil; (fee Note 1.) yet that a
fcale of being prevails we cannot queftion. Bayle,
who contends that the doCtrine of free-rwill is deroga
tory to the honour of God, ventures to affirm, " that
" Adam and Eve would have looked upon God's re-
" ftraint to keep them from falling, as a new favour, as
" great as the precedent one of free-will." NoteM. art.
Pquliciens. Hqw differently does Rouffeau judge of the
gift of free-will ! " Murmurer de ce que Dieu ne l'em-
" pechepasde faire le mal, c'eft murmurerdecequ'illafit,
" d'une nature excellente, de ce qu'il mit a fes aCtions la
" morality qui les ennoblit, dece qu'il lui donna droit ii la
" vertu." Emile tom. iii. 51. And in another place he ex-
preffes himfelf much more ftrongly, where he obferves,
that, without the chance of moral evil, man would be no
better than the angels; " et fans doute," he adds,
" l'homme vertueux fera plus qu'eux." Liv. iv. And
certainly he is right as far as regards the evil angels.
See 1 Cor. vi. 3. The good angels Mr. Bayle fuppofes
not to be free, by way of perplexing thofe who affert
free-will to be by its abufe the caufe of evil; but this
is .to fuppofe free-will mvft be abufed : which is far
from being the Cafe. See note' 90. p.241'. King's Ori-
l 3 gin

150 NOTES TO SERMON III.
gin of Evil, 4to edit, and note 93. p. 247. Indeed the
true objeCt of man's free-will feems to be, that he Should
be capable oipraife, reward, and approbation in the pre-
fence of God ;• and which the Protoplafts might have
merited by preferving their innocence ; for they would
have refembled Milton's "inviolable faints," Par. Loft,
b. vi. whofe
"Cubic phalanx firm, advanc'd entire,
" Invulnerable, impenetrably arrri'd ;
" Such 'high advantages their innocence
" Gave them above their foes, not to have Jinn d,
" Not to have difobey'd."
And it is certainly reafonable what Juftin Martyr Says
of the poffibility of moral evil ; s yap dv r]y eirati/erov SSh
ei ix -c\v sir d[L,p6rega. (xa.xlx.vxa) dpelvjv) r^sifetrSou, xa) Suva.Li.tv
eT%s. Pro Chriftianis Apol. 1. See alfo his 2d Apol. p. 63.
edit. Sylburg. '
The atheiftical Author of the Syfteme de la Nature
fays, the fyftem of the frfeie-will of man feems only in
vented to put it in man's power to offend God, and to
vindicate the latter from ' all blame on account df the
evil committed by man, through the abufe ofthe fatal
gift {la liberte funefie) be had beftowed on him. But
the circumftance of the Tree of Life in the" Mofaic ac
count plainly proves,- that man's offence, and the evil
confequences thereof; were not more' in the contempla-;
tion of the fupreme Legiflatdr, when he gave the law,
than hisfirict obedience and the bleffings flowing there
from, and which might'hsve been as well thefruils of his
liberty. M. Holland's excellent remark upon this objecr
tion oi the Syfteme de la Nature is as follows; "Un bien
" dont on peut abufer, mais" dbnt le bonufage mene in-
" failliblement au bonheur, n'eft point un prefent/zi«e/?£j
" et ne le devient que par notre propre faute. P. 6^'.
P. IS. See alfo Clarke ort the Attributes, p. 123 ; where he!
maintains, that, if liberty is not a perfection in man,
though liable to abufe, it would follow, that a Stone
muft needs be more perfeS than a man, infomuch as it
wants liberty, reafon,' and knowledge; through which5
alone a man does certainly become capable of mifery.
But it is never fufficiefttly considered by thofe who
objeCt' to the abufeof free-will, as being a fufficient 'So
lution of the origin of evil, that, according to the Scrip tures,

NOTES TO SERMON III. 151
tures, it was not abufed, but in exprefs contradiction to
God's command ; and certainly St. Thomas argues rear
fonably, " Si minifter faciat aliquid contra \mandatum
" domini, hoc non reducitur in dominum Sicut in cau-
" fam. Et fimiliter peccatum, quod liberum arbitrium
" committit contra praeceptum Dei, non reducitur in
" Deum Siput in caufam." Summa, Part. II. Quseft.
Ixxix. Art. 1. Juftin Martyr fays that Plato borrowed of
Mofes the following remark, in regard to the origin, of
moral evil; that man's own choice, renders him the
caufe of evil, but God is faultlefs ; AinVEAo/xsva, &eo; 8\
dvainoc. Apol. ad Ant, P. p. 63. and the paffage of
Mofes referred to certainly bears him out; 'Ui ifpo rtpocr-
ittvu era ro dyaSrov xa) ro xaxov Ixkk^aj, ro dyafiov. What
Juftin Martyr further fays in the fame place on the fub
jeCt of free-will is alfo much to the purpofe. See be
sides the. anfwer to the VHIth Queftion ad Orthodoxos,
attributed to Juftin Martyr ; a fpurious work probably,
but very ingenious. Confult alfo Bifhop Stilling fleet' s
Origines Sacr. B. iii. cliap. 3. §. vi.
" The permiffion of evil," fays Dr. Price, in his ad-
rftirable remarks on Dr. Prieflley's ftrange fcheme of
Fatalifm and Materialitm, " is to be accounted for
" chiefly, by the impoffibility of producing the greateft
" good, without giving active powers, and allowing
'¦c fcope for exercifing them." Add, that without the
freedom of the human will, God could have been no
moral governor, or.have difplayed any of the perfections
of juftice, mercy, and the like: fee Clarke's Sermons, vol.
v. p. 91. Page 128. note (12).
Not derived from fuch deities as Jupiter and Apollo.]
Ti sv Kpls raZra. dvoxpivano 6 Zev;, 15 6 AffoWuiv, i) ri; aXXo;
[j.a.vnxos ®eo; ; fays Maximus Tyrius in regard to the
very queftion ofthe origin of evil. ' 'Axivujp.ev ,-he goes
on, rtov ffoopjj'rs Xeyovro;-, (it is Jupiter that addreffes the
Gods;) ' 'il TtQTtot, olov Si; vu §ei; fiporo) a'mowvrcxi •
'££ ypiewv ydp facri xdx lju.ju.Eyar ol 5e xa.) auro)
jUtpycriy drao-Sa\lr,criv virep popov a\ye' sp^scri.
Horn. Od. d. 33.
Max. Tyr, Differtat. xxv. l 4 Page

152 NOTES TO SERMON IH.

Page 128. note (13.)
Without fuch an explanation of matters', this world is a
myftery &c] " The world, inftead of being, as the
" vanity of fome men has taught them to affert, a la-
" byrinth of which they hold the clue, is in reality full
" of enigmas, which no penetration of man has hitherto
" been able to folve." Godwin. We grant this to Mr,
Godwin. It is God holds the clue, and man can know
no more, in regard to many moft important points,
than what God is pleafed to reveal to him. It would
be well if Deifts and Free-thinkers would attend tq
this. ,

SERMON

SERMON IV,

ECCLESIASTICUS XV. 12.
Say not thou, God hath caufed me to err ; for he hath no
need of the finful man.
JlN my lali Dilcourfe I endeavoured to Shew,
that however highly we may be difpofed to
eSlimate the faculty of human Reafon, and
whatever advantages may have accrued of
late, from the progrefs and advancement of
human knowledge, tpwards the due exerciSe
and application of its powers ; and laStly,
whatever importance wp may be inclined to
allow to metaphySical enquiries, where the
fubjeci is fuitable, and certainly attainable;
there are fome questions connected with
theology, and particularly thofe that relate
to the moral government ofthe world, which
are wholly incapable of being folved by Spe
culative reafoning. Such are indisputably thofe
that regard the origin of man, and the ori gin

154 SERMON IV.
gin of evil. And therefore, that if the
Scripture account of thefe two moSl impor
tant and interesting events is fabulous, fo.
far from our deriving any fatisfaction from
the detection of fuch an impoSlure, the world
could only become, from fuch a circum
stance, a greater myStery to us than ever.
The particulars of the account may to
fuperitciajl enquirers appear allegorical ('),
becaufe the prefent appearances of things
might be defcribed under fuch Sigures. But •
we ought to remember, that, in looking" for
the origin of evil in the Bible, as a revela
tion from God; ' of the firSt beginning ' bf
thiSigs; it is not a deferiptio'n of prefent ap
pearances; -' but an explanation, we are in
feareh'of. We do' not Want to ' know, in the
way of defcription, that man is liable ' to
temptations; but,* m the' way Of explanation,
why there was a tempter :¦ — that the laws'
of God have * been xmiverfally infringed ; but' '
what -law" 'was firft broken, and how man'
became capable" of traMfgreSling any law of '
Gdd?-— that death is an event common to '
all; but how it became fo ? Thefe are" facts'
and events, certainly 'not capable of being
explained by' allegory; and a figurative re-"
prefentation

SERMON IV. 155
prefentation of fuch matters is altogether ¦-<
ufelefs. Yet they muSt' appear, when duly con
sidered, to be of fuch awful importance
to us, that if man could be fuppofed to have
ever had any claim upon his Maker, hq
might, I think, mpSt , reafonably have ex-,
peeled to have been either historically or
fupernaturally informed ofthe firft beginning
of things ; that is, by fome mode of commu
nication, more certain and intelligible than
through the medium. of the visible works of
nature. Thefe , may ferve to difclofe ; to us
the power,, and. the wifdom, and the majeSty:
of God ; but they cannot, inform us of bis
will and defign in £he creation of man. It is
written, fays the great Lord Bacon, " Coeli
"- enarrant gloriam Dei," " The Heavens de-
" clare the, glory „ of, God;" but it is not
written, " Cceli. enarrant voluntatem Dei."
His will , and pleafure with : regard to man
pauft be fought for elfewhere ; de illis pro-
nuntiatui:, " ad legem et tejlimonia^"
And yet, when Reafon Shall have feduced
us to difqard Revelation, She bas no appeal to

De Jug. Spient. lit), is,
make,

156 SERMON IV.
make, but to the volume of nature. This,
we are Still told, with the utmoSt confidence,
is fully fufficient for our instruction, not only
in all virtue and godlinefs of living, but iu
the only true religion, and the worShip due
to the Creator. And we are told besides,
with a manifest insinuation that Christianity
is defective in this refpect, that the volume
of nature is univerfally legible. It may
be well therefore to record, as an event pe
culiarly connected with this age of Reafon,
and the more instructive on this account,
that a view of nature, in the very fame pe
riod of time, in the fame country, amidSt the
fame advantages and disadvantages of culti
vated fociety, has but lately made a pro-
feSTed TheiSt of one ofthe moSt popular writ
ers of the Continent, and an AtheiSt of a Se
cond. Christians may differ as to the inter
pretation of the language of Scripture; but
none deny the finger of God in it : whereas
in this cafe it appears that a clofe Study of
the volume of nature, a philofophical con
fideration of the whole fyStem, metaphyfi
cal, phyfical, and moral, terminated in atfte-
ifm (a). The cafe is undeniable. Even an
AtheiSt muft here be believed oh his word, Had

SE:RM,ON IV. 157
Had not the author of The Syflem of Na
ture b, to which I allude, been a confirmed
AtheiSt, it is impossible he could have writ
ten, much more have published, fuch a work :
indeed he claims to be believed upon this
very grounds
This furely will not be received as an un
important digression, when it ferves fo Strong
ly to Shew the fallibility of human Reafon,
upon fuch. fubjects ; and when we know be-
fideSj which is true, that the work above men
tioned, which is argumentative from begin
ning to end, appeared at the very time when,
.of thofe confederate with the author in the
overthrow of all revealed Religion, one very
eminent writer d was infiSting upon the full
¦Sufficiency of natural Religion, as well for
instruction in the worShip due to God, as in
the conduct and regulation of our own lives ;
while another ' was aflerting of the book of

b Published under the name of Mirabaud. The real author
is generally fuppofed to have been. Diderot.
c " Si ce Dieu tout-puiffant eft jaloux de,fea prerogatives —
" comment permet-il qu'un mortel comme moi ofe attaquer fes
"droits, fes titres, fon exiftence meme ?" Ch. iii. part. ii.
i Voltaire.
e Rouffeau, Emile, tom. iii.
Nature,

SERMON 'IV.
Nature, that " none were exCufable for neg-
" lefting to Study it,' becaufe it fpeaks to all
" conditions of men, a language intelligible
" to every mind :" and that " ivhbever could
"fay, there is rio God, mufiVbe a falfmer,
" or infane :" and while here at home,
the author of the Age ofReqfd'n was confi
dently alluring us, that " the visible creation
" is the only word of God, which every man
" can redd, and which reveals all that is ne-
" cellary for man to know of Godf."
But this is mere fophiStry : there is nothing
more eSTential to our forming correct notions
of the Deity, than that we Should be pro
perly instructed respecting the origin of evil:
arid that we are not to expect to derive fuch
instruction from a mere view of the vifible
creation, belides the instances adduced above,
is evident from the gjreat diversity of opinions
that have prevailed upon this fubject ; many
of which, fo far from ferving to elevate our
thoughts to an independent Being, or to a
furlreme moral Governor of the world, have
a manifest tendency to rob the Deity of both
thefe attributes. For as it would feem im-
f Age of Reafon, pp. 26, 27. poSfible

SERMON IV. 159
poflible to reconcile the falfe fyftems of an
tiquity with the independence of the Su
preme Being; fo I think it would be equally
impoSlible to bring the modern fyftems to
accord with his moral government of the
world. The Socinians, and modern Unitarians, as
they Style themfelves (3), deny, as is well
known, the existence of an evil Being ; and
will not receive the common interpretation
of the Scriptures, in regard to the tempta
tion and fall of man. The tranfgreSIion of
our firft parents, according to the latter espe
cially, as fet forth in a very recent publi
cation6, proceeded, not from the violation
of one plain, eafy, and intelligible restric
tion, the compliance with which might
as fully have established their freedom of
will, and constituted them moral beings, as
their difobedience and tranfgreSIion ; a re
striction fo communicated as to be their in
struction and fecurity, rather than a fnare to
them : but:, as the publication alluded to
fets forth, from " the feljifh, jealous, malig-
s Lindfey on the Divine Qovernment, 1802. See p. 215.
" nant,

160 SERMON tV.
" nant, cruel, impure, envious, fraudulent,
" ambitious defires" implanted in them. This
is the prefent Socinian opinion of the origin
of moral evil I Every corrupt defire and bafe
principle that can be thought of, implanted
in our firft progenitors by God himfelf! Can
fuch a reprefentation of matters be thought
consistent with God's attributes of mercy
and goodnefs ? Is not this to fay, in the very
worft fenfe of the expreSfion, that " God
" hath caufed us to errh?"
And what other interpretation can we
put on the reafonings of thofe modern re
formers, who Still contend fo earnestly for
the doctrine of neceffity? Never was this
doctrine carried to fo great an extent as it
has been of late : we are confidently told,
that there is no operation of the mind of
body, that can be free. We are not free to
act, nor free to choofe, nor free to deliberate
about our choice, nor free to will whether
we Shall deliberate or not(4). Our judg
ments, and our feelings, and our moft. hid-
h Compare Mr. Hume's notions, as admirably fet forth in
Bp. Home's Letters on Infidelity, Letter V.
den

SERMON IV. 161
den fentiments are all alike fubject to the
law of necessity1 ; and to pretend to be free,
we are told, is to pretend to act without
motives k. According to the moft modern
fyftems, we are fuch mere machines, that
one writer has even ventured to aSTure us ',
that, in the cafe of murder, " the aSTaffin can
" no more help the murder he commits,
" than the dagger can, which he em-
" ploys." (5) That is, for it is fo explained,
that the caufes and motives, that determine
the one, are as neceSTary and irrefiftible as
thofe that determine the other.
It is in vain to plead any distinction be
tween rational and mechanical motives (5) ;
in the modern Syftems all motive's are alike
mechanical in their Operations, and mind is
univerfally as paSIive as the dulleft matter m :
indeed the foul itfelf is considered, by one
' See Prieflley's Mvflrations, pp. 287, 288. Syftime de la Na
ture, &c.
k Pol. Jnflice, b. iv. c. 7. and Prieflley's Free Difcujfton of
the Dodrines of Materialifm. Dr. Price's anfwer was, that he
could conceive no affertion more groundlefs.
1 Godwin, Pol. Juft. p. 689. Compare Letters on Infidelity,
before cited. Lett. V.
m " Mind is an agent in no other fenfe than matter is an
*' agent." Godwin, Pol. Juft. vol. ii. 317.
M popu-

162 SERMON IV.
popular writer, as altogether material n. We
are not fuSfered to appeal to Scripture to
decide for us, nor to common fenfe, or com
mon feeling : for the Chriftian Revelation
would, we are told, have been openly ad
apted to the doctrine of necessity, had the
bulk of mankind been philofophers ° ! And
when it is admitted and granted to us, that
all men have a confcioufnefs of a power to
do what they will, we are taught to look
upon this only as a deception (7); a decep
tion fo ill managed indeed, that while na
ture is faid to have defigned to impofe upon
men in general, She has inadvertently given
to fqme fagacity enough to fee through the
impofture p.
No circumstances of character or difpofi-
tion(8), no cultivation of good habits, or
encouragement of evil ones, can be fuSFered
to make any difference between the virtuous
and the wicked, as neceffary beings ; they
are equally propelled by motives, over which
they have no power, and governed by caufes
tlie molt certain and irrefiftible. Inftead of
n Prieftley. ° "See Prieflley's Free Difcuftion, &c
f See Beat tie on Truth, p. 313.
being

SERMON IV. 163
being in any inftance the authors or begin
ners of any events whatfoever, to ufe their
own expreSTions, men are only " the vehi-
" cles through which certain caufes ope-
" rateq." The very firft principles of Reli
gion are turned againft us ; laws founded on
rewards and punishments, we are told, muft
infer, that fuch motives have a regular and
uniform influence on the mind, and there
fore eftabliSh the doctrine of neceSfity r. But
furely, if this reafoning is right, the com
mon courfe of events muft appear to be in
open contradiction to it ; for how could pun
ishment itfelf ever become neceSTary, if the
mere dread of it was fuSficient, as a restrain
ing motive, to prevent tranSgreSfion ? How
could fome incur punishment, and others not,
if the motives had an uniform influence ?
And how, after all, could any expect to be
punished by a moral Being, for actions alto
gether neceSTary and unavoidable ?
But the numberlefs inconsistencies to be
met with in the works I have in view, would
1 Polit. Juft. b. iv. c. 8. or as Diderot expfeffes it, " Inftru-
" mens paffifs entre les mains de la n6ceffitd." Syflemt de la
Nature, ch. vi.
* Hume's Effays.
m 2 amply

1 64 SERMON IV.
amply ferve to Shew, how difficult it is by
any arguments to fupport a fyftem fo en
tirely in opposition to our common fenti
ments and common feelings. Such incon
sistencies it would be eafy to point out, and
they might be inSifted upon with considera
ble effect, if the cafe required it: but there
is one inconsistency, into which all thefe
writers have fallen, which I think may well
ferve us as a fecurity againft the bad effects
to which the doctrine naturally leads. For,
exclusive of the falfe notions it muft tend to
give us of the Deity, as moral governor of
the world, I know no danger fo great to be
apprehended from this fyftem, as that very
obvious one, of fetting men entirely free
from every fenfe of fefponfibility. To ex
pect to be punished by a good God, for ac
tions which he himfelf is fuppofed to have
rendered as neceflary and determinate as the
revolutions of the ftars, or the falling of
heavy bodies, if not contrary to the fyftems
of modern philofophy, muft aSluredly be al
lowed to be entirely contrary to the plainest
dictates of common fenfe and common rea
fon. It may be well therefore to notice, that
none

SERMON IV. 165
none of the modern advocates of this doc
trine allow us to draw fuch a conclufion (9); .
they even go fo far as to aSTert, that their
fyftem is not only friendly to religion and
morality, but indifpenfably neceSTary to both :
that, fo far from rendering us incapable of
oSfence, or not amenable to juftice, it is the
only Syftem under which we can become
either amenable to juftice, or capable of of
fence. This may feem very extraordinary, and I
am far from thinking it capable of being
rendered in any manner intelligible : but it
is of this importance to us certainly, that it
reduces the queftion to a mere nullity. If
we can by any arguments be Shewn to be
capable of morality, and amenable to the
juftice of God or man, under a fyftem of
Strict neceSfity, we are only brought to the
fame ftate, in which both common fenfe and
religion would place us. And while there
is certainly no advantage to be gained by
the exchange of one fyftem for the other,
we Shall do well to reflect, that, before we
can adopt the fyftem of fatalifm, we muft
confent to abandon every distinction which
now feems to raife us above brute matter,
m 3 and

1 66 SERMON IV.
and to elevate us to a refemblance of the
Deity ! a refemblance, it is true, of finite to
infinite ; but which may with reverence be
Spoken of, and which enters into the de
fcription of the Mofaic cofmogony. Inftead
of the plain and Simple account of things,
which the Scripture gives us, that God was
pleafed, from the firft moment of man's
creation, to fet before him, for his free
choice, " good and evil, life or death5," we
muft bring ourfelves to think fo unworthily
of our Maker, as that he hath neceSTarily
" caufed us to err," as my text expreSfes it ;
and that a Being of infinite perfections, of
power infinite, of wifdom infinite, of goodnefs
infinite, " had need ofthe Sinful man!"
Inftead of believing, as the Scriptures
teach us, that moral evil among men had its
origin in the wilful infringement of one tri
fling restriction amidft the moft magnificent
profusion of favours, we muft believe, at the
hazard of all the confequences that common
fenfe would naturally deduce from fuch a
fyftem, that moral evil proceeds from the
original, constitution of our nature, and is,
s Deut. xxx. 15. and

SERMON' IV. 167
and ever has been, altogether inevitable.
We muft be contented to believe, that we
have no certain and authentic account of the
firft beginning of things, though fuch a con
clufion muft compel us to acknowledge, that
we have no account more authentic of the
confummation and end. If moral evil was
not introduced into the world, as the Scrip
tures reprefent, we have no right, nor any
reafon to perfuade ourfelves, that it will be
abolished, as they propofe. For it is only
thofe who are prepared to believe, that " in
"¦ Adam all died," who may be allowed to
hope, that " in Chrift all Shall be made
"alive'." But to advert once more to the doctrine
of neceSfity. Having ventured to pronounce
it to be an inconfiftency to conceive penal
laws to be reconcileable to a Syftem of fatal -
ifm, I Shall, for my own vindication, offer
one example, fuch as the time will allow
me, of the method in which one of the
greatest opponents of free-will and free
agency" would attempt to reconcile them.
He is fpeaking, it is true, only of the laws
' 1 Cor. xy. 22. " Diderot.
M4 of

1 68 SERMON IV.
of man ; but if man can have a right to
puniSh a neceSTary being, knowing him to
be fuch, we can fcarce deny the fame power
to God. " If," fays he, " there fhall be
" found any perfons fo constituted as to re-
" fift, pr be infenfitble to, the motives, which
" actuate the reft of mankind, they are not
" fit to live among them ; and their rebel-
'- lious and unfociable wills not admitting of
" being modified fo as to become conforma-
" ble to the general interest, the fociety will
" naturally oppofe them, and inflict pains
" and penalties on thefe beings, upon whom
" the motives prefented to them have not
" had the effecls that were tq be expect-
" ed." (t0)
This is the way in which we are taught
to acknowledge the juftice and propriety of
penal laws, under & Syftem of neceSfity. I
am much mistaken, if any expressions could
have been felected more thoroughly in con
tradiction to the very fyftem itfelf. It is a
point however, whictrwe muft leave to Fatal
ists themfelves to fettle; it has only been my
object to Shew, that in not fet ting us free
from the operation of penal laws, and moral
refponfibility, it is a Syftem from which we can
reap

SERMON IV. lfJ9
reap no poffible advantage ; and as we may
never expect to be able by any arguments to
render it more reconcileable to our common
feelings than to the word of Scripture, even
as a philofophical fpeculation, it may be
considered as ufelefs and nnfatisfactory.
The fame may, I think, be faid of 'the
doctrine concerning the materiality of the
human foul ; which, if granted, is now held
not to ftand in the way of our belief of its
immortality hereafter", or of its capability
of happinefs or rnifery ; or to be at all in
opposition to the language of the holy
Scriptures. But if this be fo, it needs not, it
is plain, though ever fo capable of proof, in
terfere either with our hopes or our faith.
The queftion indeed, has been revived of late
years, and the materiality of the foul Strong
ly infifted upon, for a particular end and
purpofe : a purpofe, which feems to betray
the caufe it vyas meant to fupport ; namely,
to overthrow the doctrines of the pre-exift-
ence and divinity of Chrift, as profeSTed by

* See Hartley, p. 305, conclufion of the firft part of his Ob
fervations on, Man ; and Pr'teftby's Difquifitions. See alfo Dr. Le-
land's Vkw-ef Deiftical Writers, vol. ii. p. 11. 5th edit.
the

i7o SERMON IV.
the established Church of thefe realms (").
But if thefe doctrines cannot be overthrown
by a critical examination of the Scriptures,
whence alone we profefs to deduce them,
we may Surely well expect them to be proof
againft fuch metaphyfical and abftrufe dif
quifitions as the one alluded to.
Though it muft ftill be acknowledged
then, that Reafon, unenlightened by Revela
tion, muft be wholly incompetent to Solve
fuch queftions as thefe; yet it may be of
importance to us to be aflured, that what
ever advances She may be fuppofed to have
made in other branches of knowledge, her
lateft Speculations on the origin of evil, and
the moral government of the world, fo far
from tending to remove any exifting doubts
and perplexities, have been more than ever
uncertain and unfatisfactory ; ferving indeed
to determine nothing, except perhaps that
ftrange contradiction, that men are capable
of being in a ftate of religion and morality,
under a courfe of things entirely incompa-'
tible with either ; for how can we be capa-
ple of morality, where every motive muft
have a determinate effect, and we are not
free to choofe between two ? And how can we

S E R M O N IV. 171
we be prepared to ferve and worfhip God,
as a good and' gracious Being, when we are
taught to believe, that he has placed us in
this world, only " to live in wickednefs, and
"to fuSfer, and not to know wherefore?"
And this incompetency of Reafon to cer
tify us of the truth of fuch important mat
ters, (an incompetency actually capable of
demonstration,) muft furely not only incline
us to fet but fmall value on fuch vain Specu
lations (Ia), but difpofe us the more readily
to believe, that fomewhere or other the true
and authentic hiftory of the origin of the
world muft have been always preferved;
that the hiftory of man, from his firft crea
tion, muft have been recorded; and that the
only queftion which really concerns us is,
where is the truth to be found ?
Now I believe thus much may be fafely
aSTerted, that if the MoSaic cofmogony is not
the true one, few will be found to contend
for any others that are extant; and therefore,
if Ifhould appear to dwell longer on this part
of my fubject than is neceSTary, I hope it will
be considered, that every thing which re
lates to revealed Religion depends ultimately
pn the authenticity of the Mofaic account of

x1% SERMON IV.
of the creation and fall of man. For, as to
the Christian Revelation, if we may truft to
the testimony not only of Prophets and
ApoStles, but of our Lord himfelf, it was
certainly not more defigned to carry us for
ward to the end of time, than backward to its
beginning ; the new revelation having con
tinual reference and relation to the old. A
connection, I muft add, the more fit to be
infifted upon at prefent, becaufe, in fome
yery recent tranfactions on the continent, its
importance has been in the moft extraordi
nary manner difputed, and the authority of
the Pentateuch particularly called in quef
tion. I cannot conclude therefore this part of
my Lecture, without earnestly exhorting
thofe of my hearers, who may be at all lia
ble to be Jed aftray by the falfe philofophy
of the times, not to fuSfer themfelves to be
deprived of the ancient and venerable ac
count, which the Scriptures give of the firft
beginning of things, and more efpecjally of
the origin of moral evil, till they have exa
mined carefully into every circumftance, that
can be expected to throw light upon the
fubject. It is not the hiftory of a Single un
connected

SERMON IV. 173
connected event, or of a few fuch, as I re
marked before, but of many events, clofely,
and I may add marvelloufly connected. And
though it fhould feem to refemble, as an emi
nent Freethinker has aSTerted of it y, " thofe
" fabulous accounts j which every nation
" gives of its origin;" though it fhould be
" full of prodigies and miracles;" though it
mould " give an account of a ftate of the
" world, and of human nature* entirely dif-
" ferent from the prefent"," of " our fall
" from that ftate ;" of the " age of man ex-
" tending to near a thouland years ;" and of
" the destruction of the world by a deluge ;"
let us remember, that if it is a record of
that high authority, and that great anti
quity, which we fuppofe it to be, then thefe*
are the very things we might expect to find
in it : a State Of the world certainly dif
ferent from the prefent, and a ftate of hu
man nature entirely fo, as well as of our fall
from it ; for nothing lefs can account for the
prefent ftate of thefe things. Changes and
revolutions there muft have been, or the

y Hume.
2 See Lelanls View of Deiflical Writers, yoI, ii. Letter xxviii.
p. 98.
work

174 SERMON IV.
work of God will appear to have been ori
ginally and radically imperfect. Prodigies and
miracles alfo we might expect to read of, if
we will but confider the Pagan accounts of
their own grofs idolatries; by means of which,
without prodigies and miracles, the true God
would for ever perhaps have been excluded
from this world of his own making : and as
to the longevity of the patriarchal ages, and
the destruction of the world by a deluge,
they are not only fupported by other histori
cal teftimonies of much repute, as is well
known % but the latter especially is, as it is
my intention to Shew in a future Difcourfe,
in a very extraordinary manner confirmed
by phyfical obfervations.
s Vid. Jofeph. Antiq. Jud. lib. i. c. 3. Grotius de. Veritate R.
Cbrifl. c. 16. and Dr. Adams's Anfwer to Hume. See alfo Fa-
ber's Horce Mofaiaz, vol. i. p. 119. and feci. 1. ch. iv. on the
Deluge.

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON IV.

Page 154. note{i).
1 HE particulars ofthe account may tofuperficial enquirers
appear allegorical, &c] All profane hiftories, which af-
cend fo high as to the origin ofthe world and of man
kind, are fo fabulous and abfurd, and fo little to be re
garded as authentic in their prefent drefs, that we can
not be furprifed that thofe who are difpofed to regard
the Mofaic cofmogony in the fame light as other an
cient hiftories, Shall look for fable, when it treats of fuch,
remote and primaeval matters.
I have already admitted that an air of mytholo
gy runs through the Mofaic hiftory of the gene-
iis and fall of man : but I have intimated at the fame
time, what is certainly the truth, that the firft origin
of things muft have been in every particular not only fo
different from, but in fome inftances fo contrary to pre
fent experience, [fee Campbell on Miracles, pp. 213, 313.
and Wallace's various Profpects of Mankind^] that the
trueft poffible account muft to us have appeared mytho
logical. Nothing is more mythological to read of,
perhaps, than a miracle : but it is capable of pofitive ,
demonstration, that the world could not have exified
without many miracles. See Campbell as above.
It may have been an ingenious device^ and a very art
ful one, ofthe Pagans, to pretend to refolve their my
thologies into allegories; for nothing elfe could poffibly
excufe the grofTnefs and abfurdity of moft of them.
[See them admirably expofed for their attempts, by
Arnobius in his 5th book contr. Gentes.] But to fup
pofe that there is no hiftory of the firft beginning of
things, but what is both mythological and fabulous, is,
on many accounts, exceedingly unwife, and contrary
to Reafon. Much

175 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
Much ill, I apprehend, has arifen from an injudicious
manner of beginning our refearches. Many are too
apt to think, that it is only the veracity ofMofestbatis
concerned in the real character and authenticity of the
firft three chapters of Generis; and they feem to regard
it as a matter of perfect indifference, whether he wrote
what is there written, of the origin of man and of evil,
mythologically, allegoricaltyy or hiftorically ; whether
he was really the author of them, or only the collector
of antiquated traditions, and fanciful legends ; or whe
ther indeed he had any thing at all to do with them.
This was certainly the cafe with Dr. Geddes, and is
-the cafe with many German commentators of the pre
fent day, particularly M. Teller of Berlin, Eichhorn,
-Heizelmann, Crugel, &c. who. all agree in treating
the firft three chapters of Genefis as fabulous, but with
-little agreement among themfelves in other refpects.
Thus M: Teller thinks the fecond and third chapters
¦more ancient than the firft, while M. Eichhorn thinks
the latter the moft ancient of the three ; a difference of
opinion which affects M.Teller's chief argument ; who
contends, that the firft chapter is allegorical, but the
others hieroglyphical, and for that reafon more an
cient. In fact, they know nothing at all about them ;
which muft be the cafe with all who pretend to
judge of them, merely as the introduction to an ancient
•book. The true way for a Chriftian tb confider the matter,
is to begin with the teftimony of our Saviour, and the
Apofiolic writers, to the truth of this very ancient ac
count of things. If we have any authentic informa
tion in regard to the end of the world, and the futufe
hopes and expectations of man, it is unqueftionably
only in the Gofpel bf Jefus Chrift ; in the Evangelical
hiftories and writings of the Apoftles ; in our Lord's
own declarations, and the infpired evidence of his Dif*
ciples. Now if this information is " from above,"
fhall we fuppofe that our Lord himfelf and his holy
Apoftles were ignorant of man's true beginning, or
would have purpofely and exprefsly connected the heS1-
venly and fublime doctrines they had to communicate,
with a parcel of Chaldaean and Egyptian fables ? for fo
M.Teller regards them; M. Eichhorn, &c. Dr. Geddes' alfo,

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 177
alfo, and Dr. Prieftley; much to their difgrace, as
Chriftians, at all events.
The more the Mofaic account may feem to us my
thological in ftyle and mp.tter, the more cautious we
fhould be how we regard it as fuch, when we know of
a furety, that not only St. Paul, but our Saviour re
ferred to it, in the moft folemn and Striking manner.
" For as in Adam all die," faith St. Paul, " even fo in
" Christ fhall all be made alive!" "The firfi man
" Adam was made a living foul ; the laft Adam was
" made a quickening fpirit." " The firft man is of the
" earth, earthy ; the laft man is the Lord from hea-
" ven !"_ 1 Cor. xv. What fhould we think of St.
Paul, if, in this moft folemn manner, he had ventured
to bring into comparifon, our Saviour and Prometheus,
or any -other truly mythological perfonage ? Or,
when our bleffed Saviour reminds the Pharifees,
" Have ye not read, that he which made them in the
"beginning, made them male and female; and faid,
" For this caufe fliall a man leave father and mother,
" and fliall cleave to his wife, and they twain fhall be
" one flefh :" that he had ho truer hiftory in view than
a mere Oriental legend ? Let us remember alfo, that,
according to common ideas, and the ufual courfe of
things, this reference was to the moft mythological part,
perhaps, ofthe whole relation.
When we fhall have fatisfied ourfelves of the mani
feft unreafonablenefs, and indeed the grofs impiety, of
fuppofing that our Saviour and his holy Apoftles could
make fuch folemn appeals to a mere mythological tale,
" popular traditions and old fongs," (as Dr. Geddes is
pleafed to call them,) let us confider what are the
circumftances which render the Pagan mythologies in
general fo offenfive. Are they not, that they give us
very unbecoming notions of the Divine Nature, as well
as of the interference of Providence in the affairs of
men ? But how do we find the Divine Nature repre
fented in the reft of the Mofaic writings, and the other
books of the Old Teftament ? moft of them certainly
written in times fo remote, as to be ftigmatized as
eminently rude and barbarous: moft of them the
works, according to Mr. Hume, of " an ignorant and
" barbarous people, written in an age when they were
N u ftill

Iffr NOTES TO SERMON IV.
" ftill more barbarous." See his Effays. " Shall wft
" affert," he goes on to fay, " that in more ancient
" times, before the knowledge of letters, or the dif-
*' covery of any art or fcience, men entertained the
" principles of pure Theifm? that is, while they were
" ignorant and barbarous, they difcovered truth ?" EJ-
fays, vol. ii. 417.
The advocate for the infpiration of the Jewifh Scrip
tures might thank Mr. Hume for this remark. The
very remote and incomparable antiquity of the Bible
is not to be difputed : confult Jofephus, Philo, Jufiin
Martyr, Grotius, Stilling fleet, &c. &c. Neverthelefs
therein are to be found innumerable defcriptions of
the Deity, not only the moft fublime, but the moft juft
and appropriate that can be conceived. " Nous voyons
" avec la plus grande certitude hiftorique," fay the
Jews in their memorial to M. Teller, " que Moife
" trouva deja chez les premiers peres defa nation, comme
" un h6ritage refpeffable, des dogmes purs, et des prin-
" cipes de religion clairs et degages de toute Idolatrie,
" et de tout Atheifme. Ces Patriarches avoient fur-
" tout cherche a conferver la doctrine d'un Dieu fpi-
" rituel, imperceptible aux fens. Nous ne trouvons
" cette doctrine dans la meme purete chez aucune au-
" tre nation." Mr. Hume thinks the truth could not
have been difcovered fo early as the times of Mofes :
the Jews of Berlin think they were difcovered much
earlier. Mr. Hume is not to be excufed for his want of
difcernment, or want of honefty, in pretending that the
Bible does not contain the principles of pure Theifm :
the Pruffian Jews are not to be excufed for their dulnefs,
in not regarding fuch correct ideas ofthe Divine Nature,
as a certain proof of the infpiration of the facred Writ
ings. What indeed Mr. Hume's ideas of pure Theifm
were, it maybe difficult to fay: but there is little doubt
that he would have objected to the facred books, as
far as they reprefent God to be infinitely fuperior to
mankind; for this muft have the fault he cenfures, of
checking all rivalfhip and emulation on the part of man, to
the lofs of all the virtues that aggrandife a people, includ
ing particularly "activity, fpirit, courage, magnanimity,-
" and love of liberty." Thefe qualities, it feems, are
only compatible with a religion, in which the gods are
conceived

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 179
conceived to be little better and little fuperior to man,
as in all the Pagan fyftems. Another recommendation
the Pagan fyftems poffefs over the facred books, in Mr.
Hume's idea; they allow us "fo be more at eafe in
" our addreffes to fuch deities." See his Natural Hiftory
of Religion, §.x. p. 454; a work more calculated to prove
the abfolute neceffity of revelation than almoft any I
ever perufed ; though certainly written with a defign
as oppofite as poffible.
Jofephus, with great propriety, challenges his readers
to examine thoroughly into the matter, and to fay
whether Mofes had not invariably afcribed to the Deity,
not only his proper nature, but actions fuitable to
that nature ; free from all the vanities and abfurdities
of the Pagan mythologies ; though he lived in times fo
remote, as to have been at liberty to invent, had he
feen fit ; " for he lived," fays he, " full two thou-
" fand years ago, a diftance of time to which the
" poets dare not carry up the birth of their gods, the
" actions of their anceftors, or the eftablifhment of
" their laws." The paffage is very remarkable. "USy rol-
vvv ris; evrev'-opuevs; rol; (3i£\Kii; itapav-aXw r^v yvjixijv ®euj
it^ocraye-yeiv, xa.) Soxi^dc^eiv rov r^ere^ov 'No^oSe-fyy, e] rrtv re
cpucriv avrS d^iui; xarevorjtre, xa) rr\ 8vvd[j.ei Tt^ertssas; de) rag
irpd^ei; dvre^xe, FIASHS JCA0APON TON IIEPI ATTOr
¦JTAAEAS AOrON THZ ITAP' AAA012 A2XHM0N02 MT-
©OAOriAS1 Kalroiye, otrov en) pijxei y^ovoo xa) ttaXaiiriyfi,
•KoW-tjV e^uiv dSetav -^/evScvv irXacrwarcuv yeyovev yap itpo erolv
Sio")(iXi'j)v, i(f otrov nthrfio; alwvo; s S' avliuv ol tfoiijra) rd; yeve-
crei; ruiv, <3euiv, jx-rjnye rd; rujv dvDpunfciiv itpd^ei;, yj re; vofus;
dveveyxiiv er6\p.rj<ra.v. Ant. Jud. lib. i. p. 3.
Notwithftanding this, Mr. Paine is pleafed to affert,
in his Age of Reafon, (and I cannot forbear to record it,
as a Standing reproach to his tafte and difcernment, and
no unequivocal fign of his great, ignorance,) that " al-
" moft the only parts in the book called the Bible, that
" convey to us any idea of God, are fome chapters in
" Job and the xixth Pfalm." — " I recollect no other ;
" thofe parts are true deiftical compositions ; for they
" treat of the Deity through his works ; they are
" founded upon natural philofophy."
But is God to be regarded only as the Creator ofthe
univerfe ? merely as the efficient cauf^of the vifible
N 3 fcene

180 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
fcene of things ? Have we nothing to do with his pro
vidential government of the world, and the mode of his
exiftence ? Other Deifts are not fo eafily fatisfied : they
think it a great thing to be able to comprehend his moral
and metaphyfical attributes; unity, fpirituality, omnipotence,
ubiquity, infinity, and, above all, his goodnefs and mercy.
But ancient as the Bible is, and proud as modern Deifts
are of their firft principles of theology, there is not one
of thefe properties and attributes of the Divine Nature,
which is not duly affigned to God in the writings of
Mofes and the Prophets, in fuch fublimity of language,
and with fuch force of expreffion, as, not only never
have been exceeded, but, in the opinion of fome of the
moft unexceptionable judges, never have been equalled.
See Lowth' s Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, LecL I. Addi-
fon's Evidences ofthe Chriftian Religion. See Sir William
Jones's opinion in his Anniverfary Difcourfes at Calcutta;
Bifhop Walfon's Apology, pp. 136, 151, 208. and, for a
comparifon between the Hebrew and Pagan defcriptions
of the Deity, Richards' s Bampton Lectures, Serm. VI.
Serm. VIII.
When we have fatisfied ourfelves that St. Paul and
others ofthe Apoftles, and even Jefus Chrift himfelf, re
ferred to the Mofaic cofmogony, as a true and literal
hiftory of the commencement of things — when we
have duly weighed and confidered the exceeding great
abfurdity and impiety of fuppofing they could refer to
nothing better than a mythological legend — when we
have certified ourfelves that the beginning ofthe world,
of man, and of evil, muft have been fo entirely different
from the common courfe of things, and, as far as re-1
gards the creation of animals and vegetables, fo inde
pendent of all fecondary caufes, as to be, in every fenfe
of the terms, perfectly marvellous and miraculous —
when we have brought ourfelves to reflect, that,
ftrange and unufual as the account may feem, every
part of it is of fo great importance, that we could
not do without it, (for this I think demonflrable, in
refpect to the origin of man, and the origin of evil — )
Then we; may be prepared to examine more minutely
into the drift ofthe hiftory, and to appreciate the pe
culiar importance ofthe feveral incidents.
It would be impoffible to go through the whole, in
a note,

NOTES TO SERMON IV. i8t
'a note, already perhaps' too long : but I fhall felect two
of the incidents, becaufe they are particularly impor
tant if true, and have been particularly expofed to ri
dicule on a fuppofition of their being falfe. The firft
is the creation of woman ; the other, the law given to
the Protoplafts. The former is unqueftionably of great
importance, becaufe, as we have feen above, our Sa
viour referred to it, and to fettle a very important point
in the laws of fociety. The fecond is very important, be
caufe no lefs than the introduction of fin, and fall of
the human race, and confequently the redemption of
mankind, are all intimately connected with it.
Firft then, in regard to the creation of woman. That
the fecondary caufes for the propagation of the fpecies
could not operate in the production of the firft man, or
the firft woman, is moft evident. But though it is a pecu
liar merit in the Mofaic cofmogony, that where fecond
caufes could not be fuppofed to act, they are totally
kept out of fight ; yet in regard to the creation of man
and of woman, the facred Hiftorian has entered more
than in any other inftance into the modus operandi of
-creation : and certainly not without reafon. How the
world in general was created, we need not be informed
as to the exact quomodo of its formation and arrange
ment : but it is not to be concluded therefore, that we
need not have been inftructed in the quomodo of man's
creation, or in that ofthe woman ; for the terrefirial na
ture of man's body, as diftinct from the foul, and on
which many important theological queftions are known
to depend, is thereby particularly Shewn, and the iden
tity of nature in the two fexes exprefsly demonftrated;
the former being neceflary not only to the due appre-
henfion of man's nature, but the vindication of God's
power and providence; for the terreftrial nature of man's
body became afterwards a leading dogma in profane
philofophy ; whereupon the philofophers always en
deavoured to fix the origin of evil: fo that it would
feem to be moft reafonable that this diftinction in the
human nature fliould have been particularly noticed.
For to fliew that God made man ofthe duft ofthe ground,
was a vindication of his power over matter, to which
often has been attributed a neceflary and indepen
dent exiftence, which in after-times was particularly
n 3 the

18a NOTES TO SERMON IV.
the doctrine of the Stoics, as is well known. But to re
turn to the origin of woman.
In the. creation ofthe human fpecies, there was a
foundation to be laid for the future fociety of the dif
ferent members of it, and for the moral as well as phy-
ffcal union in particular ofthe two fexes. Of two ra
tional beings, to which fhould the. dominion of the
new world be affigned ? Was Adam to invefi himfelf
with the fuperiority in virtue of his Strength and man
hood ? and was he to receive woman at the hands of
his Maker, as he received the fowls ofthe air, and
the beafts of the field, as a being altogether inferior
and diftinct ? Was it not better that every foundation
of endearment fliould be laid at the firft ; and, to obvi
ate jealoufy and rivalry, and much more any undue
affumption of fuperiority, that there fhould be an
equality of rights, and the fame manifeft identity of na
ture, as was to be provided for in the after propagation
ofthe fpecies ? Kfarav Sarov'AvSpar^; yvvaixo;, fays Plu
tarch, 8% ca; SecritoTT/jv xr-r^aro;, d\X' w; *TXHN ZI2MA-
T02, 0-op.itaSievra xa) truLj,rfe<pux6ra rii euvola.. A fentence,
fays Wollafton, [Religion of Nature, 159.] which ought
to be written in letters of gold !
And that there was fuch occafion for marking the
identity of nature in this inftance, we may particularly
conclude from the reafoning of Mr. Hume. " For,"
fays he, " were there a fpecies of creature intermingled
" with men, which, though rational, were poffeffed of
tC fuch inferior ftrength, both of body and mind, that
" they were incapable of all refiftance, the neceffary con-
" fequence, I think, is, that we fhould be bound -by the
" law of humanity, to give gentle ufage to thefe crea-
" tures ; but fliould not, properly fpeaking, lie under a7iy
" refiraint oi juftice with regard to them ; nor could
" they poffefs any right or property exclusive of fuch
" arbitrary lords." Eflfays, vol. ii. 2$6, 2$J.
It could not be of importance to the brute irrational
animals to be certified of this identity of nature fo par
ticularly; [fee the Summa of St. Thomas, P.I. Quaeft. '
xcii. art. 2.] but the phyfical inftincts and appetites,'
which would guide them to what was right, were not
likely in mankind to be the foundation of all thofe
moral virtues, and chafte affections, on which the
good

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 183
good of fociety in general, and the happinefs of private
fife more particularly, were to depend : and therefore
I look upon the whole to be fully and adequately ex
plained in the 23d and 24th verfes of the fecond chap
ter, to which our Saviour alluded in the paffage al
ready referred to. Matth. xix. 4,5, 6. fee alfo Mark
x. 6, 7. There I find the divine inftitution of marriage,
and all the private virtues, and charities flowing there
from : there I find " God's beft gift to mankind;" that
union of fouls, and interefts ; that participation of pains
and pleafures ; which tend to heighten all the enjoy
ments, and mitigate all the fprrows of life ; and which
expanding itfelf in the propagation, nurture, aud edu
cation of children, lays the foundation for every com
fort and fecurity derivable from fociety.
But none of thefe things can have their proper
foundation in a mere fable. No allegory, no poetical
mutbos, could poffibly ferve our purpofe. Dr. Geddes
could derive all thefe things equally with ourfelves
from the Mofaic cofmogony : but in treating the latter as
a mere fable, he totally and entirely deftroys its ufe ;
befides contradicting St. Paul, and invalidating or ren
dering void his whole argument. 1 Cor. xi. 8, 9.
See, as to the peculiar appointment of woman's crea
tion, Leflie's Works, vol. i. 242. Theodoretus nte%) U^ovola;,
Aoy. <f. 141. Dr.Priefiley'sCompar'ifon of the Inftitutions of
Mofes and the Hindoos, ,p. 153 . and Dr. Jamiefon's Hiflory
of the Pentateuch.
I have dwelt the longer on this, becaufe it is almoft
alleged to be the very reafon of M.Teller's infidelity, as
to the truth of the three firft chapters of Genefis; for he
thus excufes himfelf: " Voila fur quoiil faut prendre
" parti, a moins de vouloir donner gain de caufe aux
" railleries fines et groffures des ennemis de la Religion,
" Combien de fois n'a-t-on pas tourne en ridicule la
" cote d'Adam ?" To which M. de Luc very properly
anfwers, " Quand on ne fait pas meprifer le ridicule de-
" raifonnable, on merite d'etre victime;" and then pro
ceeds to ftate the extreme folly of pretending to object,
where we have no means whatever^ of deciding the
cafe : " II eft evident qu'on ne fauroit rien affirmer ni
" nier a priori fur la maniere de la creation, foit en gene-
" ral, foit dans aucune de fes parties."
N 4 I pro-

184 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
I proceed now to the law given to the, Protoplafts,
which has been regarded as hieroglyphical, allegorical,
and wholly fabulous ; and which, if we were in all
cafes ignominioufly to give way to raillery and ridicule,
would be among the firft parts of the Mofaic records
to be abandoned. That " the whole human race fhould
" be condemned for eating an apple," is an old taunt,
and will, no doubt, perpetually be revived, becaufe it is
certainly according to the letter of the Scripture, except
indeed as to the abfurd and groundlefs defignation of
the particular fruit. The law is thought trifling : why
fo? Can the wilful tranfgreffion of any exprefs com
mand of God be fo ? But what if murder, theft, adul
tery, or perjury, had been forbidden ? would not this
have been an ufelefs and unneceffary fuggeftion of mo
ral diforder in a ftate of perfect innocence, which might
have been preferved ? Befides, how were any of thefe
crimes poffible? or how indeed, as Slated already in
another place, could any ofthe laws ofthe Decalogue be
brought to apply to the fituation of the Protoplafts ?
Thefe things are certainly not fufficiently thought of,
when men object to this particular part of the Mofaic
hiftory. Whatever was the law, the tranfgreffion of
Adam might be proved to be, a complication of fins. [See
Edwards's Prefervative agaivfi Socinianifm, Difc. II. p.
34.] At all events, if the offence be considered as trifling,
it is a good remark which one author makes, that, " in-
" ftead of contending againft God for ordaining the for-
" feiture of what he gave them, for fuch a trifle of of-
" fence, the proper argument is certainly againft our firft
" parents, for not fulfilling fuch a real trifle of obedience,
" where there had been fuch magnificence bf favour."
New Theory of Redemption, vol. i. 162. The fame au
thor in another place obferves, " Nor is it the leaft
" furprifing that immortality was forfeited by one of-
" fence, when the obfervance of one Single circum-
" fiance was the only thing required in order to its
" prefervation." In fhort, when all the circumftances of the cafe are
fairly taken into account, (many of which cannot be
adverted to at prefent,) we Shall furely be brought
readily to acquiefpe in the opinion ofthe learned Bifhop
Bull, that " this precept to Adam was no fuch flight
" and

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 185
u and eafy precept as fome have fancied ; but was at
" once a bridle to the delicioufnefs of his fenfe, and a
" check to the curiofity of his reafon ; a great experi-
" ment of his felf-denial, and in general a call to the
" divine life" — That it laid " a far greater reftraint on
" man's rational appetite; for the tree forbidden was by
" God himfelf ftyled the tree of knowledge; and it was
" a motive that feduced Eve, that the fruit of it was
" good to make one wife." Sermons, vol. iii. 1087. 1089.
See alfo the Summa Theologia; of St. Thomas, Part
III. Quseft. clxiii. Art. 1. and Parad. Loft. b. vii. 543.
b. viii. 323. " Oj xevo~i; hti.reoo-aix.ev fx-i^oi;, ov$e< dvarfofclx-
" roi; Xoyots, d\xd [J,ero7; ~n.vev[i.a,hs ta'tf, % Svvdpi,si /3f lisci, x]\
" reQr,\o<rt x^S'ri" Juft- Mart. Dial, cum Tryphone.
Page 156. note (2) .
In this cafe a clofe fiudy of the volume of nature, deter
minated in Atheifm.] It cannbt be fuppofed that I mean
to infinuate, that a ftudy of nature is likely in general to
lead to Atheifm. I have adduced the fact alluded to,
only to Shew how incomparably fuperior the light of
Revelation is, to the cafual, variable, and often perverfe
deductions of Reafon ; and how indifpenfably neceflary
its authority is, to eftablifh the truth and certainty of
fome ofthe moft important principles of religion and
morality : even indeed, ofthe very being and exiftence
of God ! And as it is the principal object of thefe Lec
tures to fliew, that, in this boafted age of Reafon, we are
not arrived at any greater certainty as to thofe matters,
than heretofore, how can this be better proved than
from the declarations and conceffions of Infidels them
felves ? I have therefore thought it not amifs to fliew
whither Reafon may conduct us, when reftrained by no
authority, and fenfible of no fuperior. And while Vol
taire, and Rouffeau, and Helvetius; Hume, Gibbon,
and Paine, have been endeavouring to convert men, as
they would term it, from Religion to Reafon, from
Chriftianity to Deifm, under a pretence that our Rea
fon is light fufficient, and cannot fail to fecure us in all
due obedience to God, and love to man, it maybe well
to know that tlieir cotemporary, friend, and affociate,
Diderot, thought himfelf able, by the very fame means they

i86 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
they would have adopted to convert a man from Chrif
tianity to Deifm, to convert him further, from Deifrri
to Atheifm, viz. a ftudy of nature, and an appeal to our
own feelings and judgment. For the requifites he in
fills on are exprefsly as follow : " La reflexion ; de \i-
" tude, des connoiffances ; une longue chaine d'expe-
" riences ; V habitude de contempler la nature, la fcience
" des vraies caufes de fes phenomenes divers ; de fes
" combinaifons, de fes loix ; des etres qui les compo-
" fent, et de leurs differentes proprietes — Pour etre
" Alhee, il faut l'avoir Meditee!" Syfieme de la Nature,,
ch. xiii. Part II.
Are not thefe the very qualifications which the Deift
would infift upon, as invariably fufficient to prove the
exiftence and attributes of God? But how are men to he
expected to agree in any conclufions to be drawn from
a view of nature, when Spinoza could fo exclude final
caufes, as to ridicule it as a childifh fancy to think,
that eyes were defigned to fee with, teeth to chew
with, the fun to give light, &c. &c. ? How are men to
be expected to form correct notions of the Deity with
out Revelation, when Mr. Hume infifts upon it, in his
Natural Hiftory of Religion, that polytheifm and idola
try muft have been the primitive religion of uninftructed
man ? when Lord Bolingbroke afferts, that " the firft
" true principles of all theology could not be efta-
" blifhed till the manhood of philofophy ?" and when
Lord Shaftefbury could take the pains to arrange and
claffify the many different opinions men might come
to entertain concerning Providence, feparately or mix
ed ; as, firft, they might be fimply Theifts; Atheifts ;
Polytheifts ; Damonifts : or thefe might be mixed ; as,
firft, Theifm with D^monifm ; Secondly, D&monifm with
Polytheifm, &c. &c. See the whole in his Enquiry con
cerning Virtue, Part I. §. 2.
Nor, if Voltaire, Helvetius, &c. had known what
they were about, could they have fuppofed, that they
were better advocates for the fufficiency of Reafon.
For thus does the former contradiet himfelf, in his
Poem on Natural Religion :
" Je ne puis ignorer ce qu'ordonna mon maitre ;
" II m'a donne fa loi, puifqu'il m'a donne l'etre : " La

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 187
" La morale uniforme, en tout temps, en tout lieu,
" A des fiecles fans fin, nous parle au nom de Dieu.'"
Afterwards, fpeaking of the Chinefe, Tartars, 8cc. he
fays, " Differents dans leurs moeurs, ainfi qu'en leurs bommages,
" Ils lui font tous tenir un different langage.
" Tous fe font done trompes"
The poem concludes with a prayer, which begins,
" O Dieu, qu'on meconnoit, 6 Dieu, que tout annonce!"
Helvetius alfo, though forward to affure his fellow-
creatures that they require no guide, nor need any fu-
pernatural instruction, fays of the prefent fcene of
things, " Les Verites font par la main du ciel femees
" 5a et la, dans une for it obfeure, et fans route. Un
" chemin borde cette foret ; il eft frequente par une
" infinite de voyageurs. Parmi eux il eft des curieux, a
" qui l'epaiffeur et l'obfcurite meme du bois infpirent
" le defir d'y penetrer : ils y entrent ; mais embarrafies
" dans les ronces, dechires par les epines, et rebut6s des
" les premiers pas, ils abandonnent l'entreprife, et re-
" gagnent le chemin." De F Homme, vol. ii. 307.
Rouffeau's confeffion and acknowledgment of his
own ignorance we have already noticed, Note 1. Difc. II.
But all thefe advocates for Natural Religion are, and
ever have been, notoriously inconfiftent in regard to
the fufficiency of human Reafon. See Dr. Leland's ad
mirable Reply to Tindal's Chriftianity as old as the Crea
tion ; and his View of Deiftical Writers, Letters ix.
xxvi. Page 159. note (3).
The Socinians, and modern "Unitarians, as they ftyle
themfelves,] Mr. Fuller, in his comparifon of the Cal
viniftic and Socinian fyftems, very reafonably excufes
himfelf for applying generally the name Socinian to
the Anti-Trinitarians, in the following terms : " The
" reafon why the term Socinian is preferred in the fol-
" lowing Letters to that of Unitarians, is not for the
" mean purpofe of reproach, but becaufe the latter
" name is not a fair one. The term, as conftantly ex-
" plained by themfelves, Signifies thofe profeffors of
" Chriftianity, who worfliip one God. But this is not
" that

188 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
" that wherein they can be allowed to be distinguished
" from others ; for what profeffors of Chriftianity are
" there, who profefs to worfhip a plurality of Gods ?
" Trinitarians profefs to be Unitarians alfo : they, as
" well as their opponents, believe there is but one God.
" To give Socinians this name therefore e»clufively, '
" would be granting them the very point, which they
" feem fo defirous to take for granted ; that is to fay, ,
" the point in debate." Preface, p. ix.
Page 160. note (4).
We are not free to act, nor free to choofe, nor free to de
liberate about our choice, &c] " Voici comment on peilt
" reduire la queftion de la liberte de l'homme : la li-
" berte ne fe peut rapporter a aucune des fonctions
" connues de notre ame. Car l'ame, au moment ou
" elle agit, ne peut agir autrement; au moment ou elle
" choifit, 11 e\ peut deliberer autrement; au moment
" qu'elle veut, ne peut vouloir autrement, parce qu'une
" chofe ne peut exifter et ne point exifter en meme
" terns. Or, c'eft ma volonte telle qu'elle eft qui me fait
" deliberer ; c'eft ma deliberation telle qu'elle eft qui
" me fait choifir; c'eft mon choix tel qu'il eft qui me
" fait agir ; c'eft ma determination telle qu'elle eft qui
" me fait executer ce que ma deliberation m'a fait
" choifir; et je n'ai delibere que parce que j'ai eu des
" motifs qui m'ont fait deliberer, et parce qu'il n'etoit
"pas poffible que je ne vouluffe pas deliberer. Ainfi la
" liberte ne fe trouve ni dans la volonte, ni dans la de-
" liberation, ni dans le choix, ni dans Paction ; quand
" done peut-elle exercer fa liberte ? C'eft aux theolo-
" giens a nous le dire." Syfieme de la Nature, vol. i.
221. Note. But are not deliberation and choice at leaft
ufelefs in a fyftem of neceffity P
The continual inconfiftencies, into which thofe writers
fall who would fupport the doctrine of neceffity, may
be feen as well as any where in that atheistical work.
The xivth and xvth chapters feem to be in complete
contradiction to the xiiith. In the latter the author
recommends fatalifm, becaufe " c'eft le Fatalifte qui doit
" etre humble et modere par principe ; (we are not in
clined to difpute this confequence ; Dr. Hartley alfo
Strongly infifts upon it;) "n'eft-il pas force de recon-
" noitre

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 189
H noltre qu'il ne poffede rien qu'il n'ait regu?" Cer
tainly: but in ch. xiv. the author quarrels with the
fuperftitious, (that is, the religionifts, who teach the doc
trine of future rewards and punifhments,) and urges on
the other hand, that man be taught to lay afide all
fuch vain fears ; " qu'il apprenne a s'eftimer lui -meme;
" qu'il ait V ambition de meriter l'eftime des autres."
We are exhorted not to concern ourfelves about " no-
" tre fort a venir," but feek to be ufeful to our cotem-
poraries and pofterity ; " qu'un amour legitime de nous-
" memes nous faffe gouter d'avance le charme des lou-
" anges que nos voulons meriter ; et, lorfque nous en
" fommes dignes, apprenons a nous aimer, a nous eftimer
" nous-memes." This is for thofe, who by the natural
confequence of the fyftem are " forces de reconnoitre
" qu'ils ne poffedent rien qu'ils n'aient recu :" that
is, either phyfically or morally, for fo the whole work
imports. Dr. Hartley's expreffion is, that the fyftem of
fatalifm muft produce the " moft profound humility
" and felf-annihilation, fince according to it we are
" entirely deftitute of all power and perfection in our-
" felves." This very learned and pious author indeed
refers what we have to the grace and gpodnefs of God ;
but the author of the Syfieme de la Nature, only to the
accidental motions and combinations of matter. But to
proceed. The character of the virtuous man is thus
defcribed : " L'interet de l'homme vertueux eft de me-
" riter par fa conduite I'amour et I' approbation des au
tres, et de ne rien faire qui puijfe le d'egrader & fes
" propres yeux." And in his definition of Virtue, be
fays, " La vertu n'eft que Yart de fe rendre heureux foi-
" meme de la f'elicite des autres'' Of the virtuous man
he alfo thus fpeaks, in another place : " Quand I'univers
" entier feroit injufte pour l'homme dubien, il lui refte
" l'avantage de s' aimer, de s'eftimer lui-meme: nulle
"force ne peut lui ravir l'eftime meritee par lui-meme."
In his xviith chapter he reproves thofe who are weak
enough to think the foul Capable " de refifter les 3m-
" pulfions de fes organes, he." But in his vindication
of penal laws, he fuppofes the cafe of perfons " affez mal
" conftitues pour refifter aux motifs qui agiffent Sur
," tous- les autres," Speaking oifuicide, the author fays
this is lawful and natural, when pains and troubles be- fet

i9o NOTES TO SERMON IV.
fet us ; and his proof muft be admitted to be irrefiftible!1
For the fame nature, fays he, that by a courfe of fatal
ity brings thefe diftreffes upon us, " a travaille.pendant
" des milliers d'annees a former, dans le fein de la
" terre, le fer qui doit trancher nos jours !!!" Could any
one fuppofe that the very fame writer who brings thefe
heavy charges againft nature, fhould yet in exprefs
terms have affirmed, " L'on ne peut trop le repcter,
" c'eft dans l'erreur que nous trouverons la vraie fource
*£ des maux dont la race humaine eft affligee ; ce n'eft
" point la nature qui la rendit malheureufe." Part. S.i
c. 16. Again. "Une nature qui s'obfiine a rendre notre
" exiftence malheureufe, nous ordonne d'en fortir; en
" mourant nous rempliflbns un de fes decrets." Sam-
fon, Eleazar, le Meffie, and all the Chriftian martyrs,
were, it feems, filicides ! And yet, according to the Same
author, thofe are not fuicides who expofe themfelves to
the loSs of life for the good of the community. In his
excufe for fuicide he is for once confiftent: "Si l'homtfie-
" n'eft libre dans aucun inftant de fa vie, il l'eft encore
" bien moins dans l'adte qui la termine." But what'
then becomes of the very term fuicide?
Such are a very few only ofthe numberlefs incon-
Siftencies this author falls into; but there is not one
that is not common to all other writers upon the Sub
ject. I fhall only take notice of one thing more at
prefent, becaufe it concerns thofe who think a fyftem
of ftrict neceffity confiftent with moral refponfibility,
and a ftate of future rewards and punifhments. " S'il eft
iyjufie," (it is God he is fpeaking of,) "comment croire
"qu'il puniffe des creatures qu'il a remplies de foi-
" bleffes?" Let it be remarked, that this is the obfer-
vation of a rigid Fatalift. Our anfwer certainly is, that
the wicked do not fin through any weaknefs. But how
other Fatalifts will anfwer it, We know not.
Page 161. note (5).
The affaffin can no more help the murder he commits,*
than the dagger can, which he employs.] So fays Mr.
Godwin in one place: but in another he argues, that
there would be no injuftice in thrufting a drawn Sword'
againft the bofom of a friend, except that the neceffary'
connection of caufes and effects had taught us to forefee that

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 191
that the fword would wound. Are we to fuppofe then,
that the dagger of a murderer is as capable of forefee
ing this confequence, as the murderer himfelf ? If not,
the murderer may be guilty of an injufiice in the act,
which muft conftitute a moft effential difference. But
we Shall be reminded, that Mr. Godwin's principle on
ly is, that the murderer could no more help the murder
he commits, than the dagger he employs, &c. becaufe
the motives that govern him are irrefiftible. But why
has not the motive arifing from the certain and necef-
fary forefight of no wound being inflicted, except the
dagger is fo employed, as ftrong as any oppofite mo
tive ? Is there no room in the fcheme of the Fatalift
for a preference P Certainly there is, for Mr. Godwin
affures us fo. "The doctrine of neceffity," fays he,
" does not overturn the nature of things. Happinefs
" and mifery, wifdom and error, will ftill be diftinct,
" and there will ftill be a connection between them.
" Wherever there is a diftinbtion, there is ground for
" preference and defire, or, on the contrary, tor neglect
" and averfion. If therefore by virtue we mean that
" principle, which afferts the preference of happinefs
" and wifdom to mifery and error, its reality will re-
" main undiminished by the doctrine of neceffity."
Pol. Juft. B. iv. ch. 8. Nay, preference in one place is
made the very charadteriftic of virtue. " Virtue, con-
" fidered as a perfonal quality, confifts in the difpofit'nn
" of mind, and may be defined a defire to promote the
" benefit of intelligent beings in general ; the quantity
" of virtue being as the quantity of defire. Now defire
" is another name for preference.'-* B. iv. ch. 5.
In another place Mr. Godwin defines virtuous con
duct to be a " conduct propofing to itfelf a certain end."
The definition is good : but what fhall we fay to the
argument that follows ; that no otherwife than a knife
has a capacity' of cutting, has man a capacity of walk
ing ? So that a knife that cuts well, is a knife that
propofes to itfelf to cut Sharply !
Page 161. note (6).
It is in vain to plead any diflinction between rational
and mechanical motives.] See upon this fubject Dr.
Prieflley's Free Difcuffion of the Doctrines, of Maferialifm; in

i9s NOTES TO SERMON IV.
in which, not only the Doctor's own arguments in fup
port of his fyftem are given at length, but the anfwers
and remarks of his friend Dr. Price. As Dr. Prieftley
was himfelf the editor of this work, we may naturally
conclude that he thought he had the beft of the argu
ment : but we think it can fcarce poffibly appear fo to any
perfon elfe in the whole world. Dr. Price's anfwers
and objections are invariably ftrong and pertinent, and
many appear to us to be fo conclufive, as to admit of
no poffible reply. Dr. Prieftley would infill upon it,
that the advocate for free will, in profeffing a freedom
of action, profefles to act without motive; and there
fore can feel no remorfe, nor even give offence. " For,"
fays he, " what can a man have to blame himfelf for,
" when he acted without motive, and from no fixed
" principle, good or bad? And what occafion has he
" for pardon, who never meant to give offence ?" But
if a man refufes to be governed by a good motive, fuch
inaction alone might amount to offence ; much more if
he refifts it, or acts in direct oppofition to it. What
motive ought to be greater than the will of God ? Yet,
how many neglect, and how many even openly oppofe his
commandments ? But confult his Free Difcuffion, pp.307, .
308. Dr. Price makes an admirable distinction of mo
tives in his reply. According to him, motives are only
certain reafons, on the view of which, or certain rules
and perceptions, according to which, the mind deter
mines itfelf. According to Dr. Prieftley and other Fa-
talifts, they are fubftances, which operate mechanically
on the mind, and leave it no dominion over its deter
mination, p. 342. See this point well argued in an
Effay on Liberty and Neceffity, by Philaretus, in anfwer
to Toplady, pp. 90, 91. See alfo Clarke's excellent Re
ply to Leibnitz, as to his adopted comparifon of a ba
lance. Confult alfo the xxift chapter and the former
part of the xxiiid chapter of the Philocalia of Origen;
where a good account is given of the confiftency of
the freedom of man with God's over-ruling providence,
and many paffages of Scripture are reconciled.
Page 162. note (7).
We are taught to look upon this only as a deception.]
Notwithstanding the eminent piety of Dr. Hartley, I
cannot

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 193
Cannot get over the reflection, which his fyftem feems
to caft on the Deity, in the distinction he makes be
tween the popular and philofophical language upon the
head of free-will ; a diftinction Dr. Prieftley is very ea
ger to infift.upon. "That the popular language may
ferve to convey to us juft ideas of men's actions, as far
as they fuppofe themfelves to be free agents, we can
readily admit ; but that the fame will ferve to vindi
cate God's providence, we cannot allows It would
furely feem, that as by this fcheme he would fliew man
to be only nominally, and not philofophically/r^, by
the fame fcheme he reprefents the Deity as only nomi
nally, and by no means philofophically, jufi, in the al
lotment of rewards and punifhments.
Page 162. note (8.)
No circumftances of character or difpofition, &c.J Cha
racter and difpofition feem to be ftubborn obftacles in
the way of fatalifm. Let them be regarded as they
will in many cafes, it would at leaft appear, that one
neceffity muft be oppofed to another. A motive inca
pable of producing its proper and natural effect, muft be
hindered by fome impediment ; and in moral concerns
fuch impediment muft often operate in the way of re-
Jiftance. The following expreffions of Mr. Hume (fee
his Differtation on the Paffions) feem furely to afcribe
fomething to character quite independent of any ne
ceflary force of motives; for what fhould neceffarily go
vern us more than the view of the greateft poffible
good, or the fenfe of any prefent and prefling uneafi-
nefs ? His words are, " Men often act knowingly againft
" their intereft : it is not therefore the view of the
" greateft poffible good, which always influences them.
" Men often counteract a violent puffion in profecution
" of their diftant interefts and defigns : it is not there -
" fore the prefent uneafinefs alone, which determines
" them. In general we may obferve, that both thefe
(< principles operate on the will ; and where they are
" contrary, that either of them prevails, according to
" the general character and difpofition of the perfon."
How far character or difpofition may check or fruftrate
the operation of motives, we read in another place.
" If I have no vanity, I take no delight in praife. If I
o " be

r94 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
'" be void of ambition, power gives me no enjoymenf.
" If I be not angry, the punifhment of an adverfary is
" totally indifferent to me," &c. Effays, vol. ii. 240.
Mr. Godwin, the pupil of Mr. Hume, or rather his
echo upon this fubject, fays, the idea correfpondent to
the term character inevitably includes in it the afifump--
tion of neceflary connection. This may be granted,
without however excluding contingency. Mr. Godwin
meets the objection, that " in giving advice, or pro-
" pofing arguments to a friend or neighbour, we make
" a reierve for a certain faculty of liberty he is fuppofed
" to poffefs, which may at laft counteract the beft di-
" retted projects," by anfwering, that " in regard to
" matter the fame thing happens. When an experi-
" ment fails, which had many times before fucceeded,
" the philofopher does not apprehend any liberty of
" choice in his retort and materials, but the counter -
" operation of fome hidden caufe." But what is this
to the purpofe ? We are not to be told, that matter is
no agent; that a retort has no free choice : the queftion
is, whether man is an agent, and whether himfelf may not
be the counteracting caufe? But why does Mr. God
win refer us to matter at all, if matter and fpirit be
identical ? If they are not identical, then fpirit may be
active, though matter cannot be fo; and thus Mr. God-r
win's argument falls to the ground.
Mr. Hume confiders it as a proof that all men have
ever agreed in the doctrine of neceffity, that a manu
facturer reckons as furely upon the labour of his fer-
vants, as upon the tools which he employs. Affuredly;
as far as he can be certain of the application of a given
quantity of labour : but is he ever afraid of a combina
tion among his tools, indicative of a choice and option
whether they will work or no ? Is' he obliged to vary
the obligations, by which his tools, at different times,
are compelled to- perform the tafk affigned them ? Mr.
Godwin alfo indeed afferts, that " a labourer no more
" fufpects that his employer will alter his mind, and
" not pay him his daily wages, than he fufpects that
" his tools will ref ufe to perform thofe functions to-
" day, in which they were yefterday employed with
" fuccefs." Whoever is wife enough to conclude it to
be a phyfical impoflibility, that the wages of a labourer fhould

NOTES TO SERMON IV. 395
fliould ever be withheld, may be wife enough to re
gard it as a phyfical poffibility, that a workman's tools
may refufe to do the work affigned to them : and thofe
only who can believe both thefe things can admit, that
there is any propriety in the comparifon. Confult
Beattie on Truth, Part II. ch. ii. iii. pp. 327, 328. in re
gard to fuchcomparifons.
Whatever continues free in a cafe of compulsion,
muft furely be confidered as confederate in a cafe of
compliance. Rouffeau has an applicable expreffion in
the following fentiment: " Je fuis cfclave par mes vices,
" et libre par mes remords." Emile, liv. iv. and Malle-
branche aflerts, that "we are free to deny our confent."
B. i. ch. 2. which cannot, I think, be doubted ; and
furely Mr. Godwin intimates as much, when he ad-
vifes, " Comply when the neceffity of the cafe de-
" mands it; but criticife while you comply;" Pol. Jufi.
b. iii. c. 6. 2d edit. ; that is, withhold your confent,
which you may do; and^ while you fubmit, exercife
your judgment, which no coercion can reach. Nay,
what fhall we think of Mr. Godwin's opinion of the
freedom of confent, when he fays, in one place, " We
" are fick', and we die, becaufe in a certain fenfe we
" confent to fuffer thefe accidents." Pol.'Jufi. 4to. edit.
vol. ii. 519. " Difcover the Secret intrufted with you ;
" I will not, for that is in my power. But I will
" throw thee into chains if thou doft not. Man !
" what doft thou fay ? Me wilt thou fetter ? My feet
" thou mayft: but my purpofe not Jupiter himfelf can
" overcome." Bifhop Butler obferves, that the moft
abandoned would wifh to obtain their ends by innocent
means, if they could. Does not this fhew that they
muft give their confent to the violation of fome moral
principle within them, when they do wrong ?
So far from oar being fubject to an univerfal neceffi
ty, both moral and phyfical, it would certainly appear,
that there are fome principles, which no neceffity
¦•whatfoever can reach ; except indeed the will and
power of God, who could at once deprive us of exift
ence : which is fit to be noticed, becaufe Fatalifts have
often confounded free-agency with independence. To
be able to do fome things of ourfelves can never im
ply, that we are able to do every thing. If God ha"s
o 2 created

196 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
created any felf-motive, Mi-determining agents, fuch
creation can never make them {eM-exifient. And yet
.even Voltaire could think it a wife argument in proof
of neceffity, that no man could change his own na
ture: " Si l'on etoit libre," fays he, " quel eft l'homme
" qui ne changeat fon naturel? mais a-t-on jamais vu
" fur la terre un homme fe donner feulement un gout?"
The Abbe Nonnette well enough replies, Would one fay
a hunch-back was not free, becaufe he could not mend
his own Shape ? The Scripture fays, " Thou canft not
" make one hair white or black ;" and even this has
been brought in proof of the doctrine of neceffity, be
ing, the doctrine of Scripture : but the Scripture does
not fay we cannot rife from our bed, or ufe our hands
and feet, without being compelled by an abfolute ne
ceffity. But it is not my defign to go farther into this ab-
Strufe fubject, than to notice the ftrange and inconfiftent
opinions, that have been held and avowed. As Lord
Shaftefbury determined in regard to the fpeculations
concerning identity, we had better, I think,*take our
free-agency " upon truft;" for though argument and
fpeculation and debate may go on to eternity, conduct,
in all probability, will be the fame. [See King's Origin
of Evil, pp. 200. and 247. note 93] Men will always
act as though they were free ; for I cannot think any
thing can be more juftly applied to the fyftem of uni
verfal neceffity, than what Mr. Godwin fays of the
doctrine of felf-love ; " It is not eafy to conceive an
" hypothefis more lingular than this. It is in direct
" oppofition to experience, and what every man feems
" to know of himfelf: it undertakes to maintain, that
." we are under a delufion of the moft extraordinary
" kind ; and which would appear, to a perfon not
" trained in a philofophical fyftem, of all others the
" moft improbable." Pol. Jufi. b. iv. c. 10.'
Page 165. note (9.)
None ofthe modern advocates of this doctrine allow us to
draw fuch a conclufion.] Mr. Hume thinks the doctrine
of neceffity abfolutely effential to the fupport of religion
and morality. Dr. Prieftley thinks it a far better foun
dation for Ethics than that of philofophical liberty.
We

•NOTES TO SERMON IV. 197
We cannot doubt but the very pious Dr. Hartley had
perfuaded himfelf' fo. Godwin thinks, that to act in
dependently of motives, that is, in his fenfe of the
term, to act. freely, is to have our conduct as indepen
dent of morality as of reafon. Mr. Belfliam's whole
object, in his Philofophy of the Mind, is to reconcile the
dbctrines of materialifm, neceffity, and the felfifh fyftem
of morals, with religion and virtue. Mr. B. infills
upon it, that whatever is true Should be difclofed. The
Edinburgh Reviewers have ably expofed this maxim,
and have Shewn, that even if thefe doctrines could be
fuppofed to be true, they might be of important detri
ment to fociety. Even the atheiftical author of the
Syfieme de la Nature allows no indemnity to the per-
verfe, under a fyftem of neceffity, if indeed his argu
ment does not overthrow the whole of the doctrine
itfelf: " Les loix ne font faites que pour empecher les
" hommes affocies de fe nuire : elles peuvent done pu-
" nir ceux qui troublent la fociete. Soit que ces affo-
" cies l'oient des agents n'eceffiles, foit qu'ils agiffent li-
" brement; il leur fuffit de fcavoir que ces agents peu-
" vent etre modifih." Ch. xii. Part. I.
But the beft account to be giyen of the ftate of the
queftion, as applicable either to our prefent conduct or
future profpects, is to be found in the celebrated work
of the learned BiShop Butler. Having fhewn by many
clear and indifputable arguments, that God at prefent
governs the world by the method of rewards and pu
nifhments, in the natural confequences of virtue and
vice, he draws thefe two conclufions : " If it be incre-
" dible, that neceffary agents fhould be fo rewarded and
" punifhed in the natural confequences of their actions,
" then men are not neceffary, but free ; fince it is mat-
" ter of fact, that they are thus rewarded and punifhed.
" But if, on the contrary, (which is the fuppofition we
" have been arguing upon,) it be infifted, that men are
" neceffary agents, then there is nothing incredible in
" the farther fuppofition of neceffary agents being thus
" rewarded and punifhed; fince we ourfelves are thus
" dealt with."
All fpeculations upon the fubject therefore are really
unneceifary ; fince, if we are free, and know ourfelves
to be fo, we muft believe that we are refponfible both
03 to

198 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
to God and to man for the whole of our conduct and
our actions, and that rewards and punifhments await us
accordingly both here and hereafter. But if we can
for an inftant fuppofe ourfelves neceflary beings, then
we are affured by Fatalifts themfelves, that it does not
fet us free from the obligations of morality with re
fpect to this life ; and by the very learned Bifhop But
ler, that it neither deftroys the proof of a moral go
vernor, nor contradicts our being in a ftate of religion,
with refpect to God, or with refpect to a life to come.
See his Analogy, Part I. ch. vi.
Page 1 68. note (io).
Syfieme de la Nature, Part I. ch. xii. I have endea
voured to keep to the exact terms the Author himfelf
ufes. I have rendered " peines" by our Englifh ex
preffion oi pains and penalties, becaufe they are both in
cluded in the French term; and the author unques
tionably had a view to legal punifhments, as well as co
ercion ; and the whole is avowedly in vindication of
penal laws. " Se trouve-t-il des hommes affez mal
" conftitues pour refifter ou pour etre infenfibles au-x
" motifs qui agiffent fur tous les autres, ils ne font point
" propreS a vivre en fociete, ils contrarieroient le but
" de l'affociation, ils en feroient les ennemis,~ils met-
" troient obftacle a fa tendance, et leurs volontis rebelles
" et infociables, n'ayant pu etre modifies convenable-
" ment aux interets de leurs concitoyens, ceux-oi fe
" reuniffent contre leurs ennemis ; et la loi, qui eft
" l'expreffion de la volonte generale, inflige des peines a
" ces etres, fur qui les motifs qu'on leur avoit prefentes
" n'ont point les effets que l'o« pouvoit en attendre." The
author makes no objection whatever to the penal laws
of a ftate ; indeed he extends them far beyond what ever
entered yet into the mind of the moft fanguinary le
giflator ; for, upon his fyftem, madmen, and ideots, and
children are as proper Subjects of the pains and penal
ties of the law, as the wicked and perverfe : for his de
finition of'a punifhable crime is in fact, " toute action
" nuifible, de quelque fource qu'elle foit partie ;" and
certainly, at all events, none are fo inacceffible to or
dinary motives, as fools, and madmen, and children. And
yet the fame writer can argue againft the Tbeiftical Fa-
talift

NOTES TO SERMON IV. J99
talift in the following ftrong terms. " Eft-il rien de plus
" inconfequent que les idees de quelques Theiftes, qui
" nient la liberte de l'homme, et qui cependant s'ob-
" ftinent a parler d'un Dieu vengeur et remunerateur ?
" comment un Dieu jufte peut-il punir des actions ne-
" ceffaires ?" Ch. vii. Part II.
Page 170. note (fi).
Dr. Prieftley is not the firft Unitarian who has dif
puted the immateriality of the human foul ; (See Ed
wards's Prefervative againft Socinianifm, Part IV. p. 38.)
but perhaps he is the firft who has fo openly avowed
his motives for fo doing. He acknowledges that it
proceeded from an apprehenfion, that the doctrine of
<' a feparate foul had been the foundation of what ap-
" peared to him the very groffeft corruptions of Chrif-
" tianity, and of that Antichriftianifm which began to
" work in the Apoftles' times, and extended itfelf fo
" dreadfully afterwards ;" " I mean," fays he, "the
" Oriental philofophy of the pre-exiftence of fouls,
" which drew after it the pre-exiftence and divinity of
cf Chrift, §cc. Among thefe alfo I rank the doctrine of
" atonement, for the fins of men by the 'Sufferings and
" death of Chrift," See the Introduction to his Free Dif
cuffion ofthe Doctrines of Materialifm, in a correspondence
between Drs. Prieftley and Price. At pp. 240, 241, he
fays further, " In fhort, it is my firm perfuafion, that
" the three doctrines of materialifm, of that which is
" commonly called Socinianifm, and of philofophical ne-
" ceffity, are equally parts of one fyftem, being equally
" founded on juft obfervations of nature, and fair de-
" ductions from the Scriptures." I have already had
occafion to notice this publication ; fee note 6. Dr.
I'rice's arguments are unanfwerable in. many inftances ;
but it is particularly curious, that in his objections he
has almoft forced Dr. Prieftley into a voluntary illustra
tion of the Trinity ; that is, in fact, into an acknow
ledgment of the reafonablenefs of the doctrine, contrary
to his own principles : for in anfwer to Dr. Price's ob
jection, " would not any number of living bodies be one
" foul, one Sentient principle, fuppofing their organ iza-
" tion the fame ?" Dr. P. replies, " 1 anfwer, that dif-
" ferent fyftems of matter, organized exactly alike,
04 " muft

200 NOTES TO SERMON IV.
" muft make different beings, who would feel and
" think exactly alike in the fame circumftances. Their
" minds therefore would be exactly fimilar, but numeri-
" colly different." Surely this is at leaft coming very
near to an unity of volition and operation with a distinc
tion of perfons. See Free Difcuffion, p. 78.
Page 171. note (12).
Mvfi incline us to fet but fmall value on fuch vain fpecu-
lations.] What are we to think of the advances men have
made in metaphyfics, when we confider the prefent State
ofthe queftion concerning matter itfelf: a queftion of
no fmall importance, when it is made to include tlie
nature of the human foul. Dr. Prieftley attributed
motion to matter. His friend Dr. Price pofitively de
nied it. Diderot, in his Syfieme de la Nature, fays, " le
" mouvement ne peut itre qu'une propriete de la mati-
" ere." Rouffeau fays, " Mon efprit refufe tout acqui-
" efcement a l'idee de la matiere non-organifee fe mou-
" vant d'elle-meme, ou produifant quelque action."
Emile. Dr. Darwin, though he afterwards feems to de-
fert his own principles, fays, in the outfet of his Zoono-
mia, " The whole of nature may be faid to confift of
" two effences or fubftances ; fpirit and matter. The
" former has power to commence or produce, the latter
" to receive or communicate motion." According to
one difcovery in France, the mind is thought to confift
of a fine fpecies of cryfials ! See a paper by La Metherie
in the, Journal de Phyfique. At all events, Metaphyficians
are by no means yet agreed as to the poffibility or im-
poffibility of matter's thinking. See Home's Effays3
3d edit. p. 286,

SERMON

SERMON V.

Jeremiah vi. 16.

Thus faith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and fee, and
afk for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk
' therein, and ye fliall find reft for your fouls. But they
faid, We will not walk therein.
-W HENEVER we perceive a difpofition in
the world to place a more than ufual confi
dence in the powers^of Reafon, we may well
expert not to be indulged in any attachment
or adherence to old opinions. Reafon, in fuch
a cafe, becomes a faculty altogether modern.
It is only the wit and wjfdom of the prefent
day, that is ever dignified with the title;
nor is the title even then bellowed on the
fober talent of enquiry and investigation, fo
much as on the adventurous propensity to
invention and difcovery, reformation and
change. The former procefs is too Slow, and
has too much of fubmiSiion and accommo dation

202 S E R M O N V.
dation in it : the latter is fure to be popular
for the time; for opposition, merely as fuch,
is grateful to many minds,, and novelty al
ways has its charms.
It is upon this principle that fo much ill
will has been expretTed of late to every thing
taught and inculcated upon a footing of per
manence, as I had occafion to notice in my
fecond DiScourfe ; and that we have been fa
rudely called upon to abandon our laws and
our Statutes, our creeds and our catechifm-s,
to make way for the fuperior fyStem of per-
feclibility '('); which, in the jargon of the
times, we have been told, is " the only falu-
" brious element of mind3:" that is, as I
conceive, (if it is poffible to give any mean
ing to fo Strange an expreffion,) we muSt
fuSfer ourfelves to be perfuaded, that Since
knowledge in general feems to be progref-
five, and always capable of further advance
ment, it is not wife to fuppofe, that we have
hitherto attained to any degree of perfection,
or certainty, even on points the molt im
portant. And thus religion and morality
mult be left to take their chance among
a Godwin, Pol. Juft. vol. ii. 397. 4to. edit. other

SERMON V. 203
.other things, which the fuperior wifdom of
the times is to new-model and improve.
But this cannot be the cafe, if either of
them is founded on Revelation, or can be
fuppofed to be fo ; and therefore it is of the
utmoSt importance to us to be aSTured, that
they have Such a foundation; that there cer
tainly exists fuch a Revelation ; that it has
.fome fuch marks of authenticity, as the In
fidel cannot controvert; and that, if we have
not fuch a Revelation in the holy Scriptures,
(a Revelation of God's will and defign in
the firft creation of man,) fo far from having
any reafon to experSt greater improvements
in the way of morality and religion, we have
the utmoSt affurance which the nature of
things can fupply, that nothing more certain
or Satisfactory is to be expected, either from
God or man.
That it , is exceedingly worth our while,
independent of all other considerations,
to examine into the truth of the JewiSh
and Christian Revelations, I have already
endeavoured to Shew, by an examination of
fome of thofe points, which Reafon cannot
decide for us, but which thofe Two Revela tions

204 SERMON V.
tions certainly do b. Reafon can never in
form us whence we came, or what is to be
come of us (*); who placed us here, nor for
what end, nor what was the origin of the
globe we dwell on. Of thefe things the
Scriptures inform us. Reafon can never tell
us when the world began, though its eter
nity is incomprehensible, and inconsistent
with our moSt common notions of God's at
tributes. This the Scriptures decide for us.
Our reafon and our confcience will both in
form us, that we are wicked and corrupt;
but that God cannot be confidered as the
immediate author of fuch wickednefs and
corruption. Thefe difficulties the Scriptures
will reconcile for us. Reafon can never teU
us, how thefe things are to end ; how we
are to be fet free from the evils that now
befet us ; how the moral government of God
is finally to be vindicated. All thefe things
alfo the Scriptures amply difclofe to us.
Such information as the above, then, being
to be derived folely from the Scriptures, as
the facred and infpired records of God's
b Vid. Abbadie de la Verit'e de la Religion Cbretienne, feft. iii.
ch. 3. dealings

SERMON V. 205
dealings with mankind from the firfl, be
ginning of things, and of his purpofe and
defign in the creation both of the earth and
of man; it would be the utmoSt folly to Suf
fer ourfelves to be deprived of fuch impor
tant information, by any objections that fall
Short of pofitive contradiclion.
I cannot help regarding it as a point en
tirely fettled, that nothing amounting to po~
fitive contradiclion can poffibly be alleged
againft the peculiar credentials of the Jewifh
and Christian Revelations, fuch as prophecy
and miracles (3). Men may difpute the ap
plication of particular prophecies, or the tef
timony concerning particular miracles ; but
that prophecy or miracles are in themfelves
impoffible, or have not been brought into
the fyStem of God's providential government
of the world, as the JewiSh and Christian
records atteft, is wholly incapable of proof.
Thofe who have endeavoured to invalidate
their authority, by pretending that the for
mer cannot be kept free from the reach of
chance; or that no evidence can be fufficient
to certify us of the truth of the latter, have
not in any manner proved their points. If
one prophecy Should not have every requisite infiSted

206 SERMON V.
infifted on by a late celebrated writer, as fuf
ficient to prove it to be above the reach of
human conjecture, or the contingencies of
common events ; yet the accumulation and
agreement* of many fucceffive prophecies
certainly may : a cafe by no means properly
confidered by the writer alluded to c. And
as to the poffibility of a fufficient evidence
of miracles, the very writer who has put
himfelf moft forward to deny it, has by an
extraordinary oversight exprefsly admitted
it, in contradiclion to his own arguments ;
as has been Shewn in the clearest and fulleSt:
manner d. But pofitive contradi&ions having
been fought for, where indeed it was moSt
reafonable to look for them, in the historical
records of the world, and in the body of the
earth itfelf, I fhall proceed, according to the
plan I fet out with, to take a view of the
prefent Slate of hifiory and phyfics, as far as-
they may be thought to affecT: the authenti
city of the Scriptures. And firft, in regard
to the historical records of the world.
They who pretend to have the moSt ex-
c Rouffeau.
d See Iceland's Anfwer to Hume, and Campbell on Miracles. :
alted

SERMON V. ao7
alted ideas of God"s majeSty, are too apt to
regard every thing lefs than infinite as un
worthy of his notice, and as inferring fome
limitation of his will or his power. That an
eternal Being fhould be reprefented as doing
any thing in time, is thought a derogation
from his majeSty ; and therefore the Mofaic
cofmogony is objected to, not only in refpecl:
to the periodical operations into which it is
divided, but for the fmall antiquity it feems
to affign to our globe or fyftem. As to the
particular date, be it what it will, it has been
well obferved, in reply to thofe who are
willing to grant the world not to be eternal,
that if it ever had a beginning, it muft at
one time or other have been juSl as old as
we account it to be now ; and fuch objec
tions would have been juft as valid then, as
far as concerns the will and defign of God.
But in regard to the fact itfelf, of the new
creation or arrangement of any world or
fyftem, modern difcoveries would rather
feem to juflify fuch an hypothesis. For
though we can never fpeak with too much
diffidence upon fuch fubjarSts, yet I cannot
forbear to remark, that the lofs of fome Stars
noticed in ancient catalogues, as well as theap-

208 SERMON V.
appearance of new ones, have led fome very
eminent and pious astronomers to the con
jecture, that, in the courfe of God's pro
vidential government of the univerfe, fome
Syftems are from time to time diSTolved, and
others called into being; and that things may
continue fo till the period fixed for the final
confummation of all things (4 ).
Such has been lately the conjecture of
wife and good men ; but we. muft not re
gard it as more than a conjecture; and I
have no other view in mentioning it, than
to Shew, that it is not unreasonable to fup
pofe, independently of the light of Revela
tion, that the very period of the commence
ment of our fyftem, particularly. of the globe
we dwell on, may be affigned, and has been
recorded : that it may be regarded as of a
determinate age, and its date afcertained, by
enquiry into the hiftory of man, and the
origin, courfe, and progrefs of arts and fci
ences. For as there can be no doubt, that
the chief purpofe of the creation of this
globe muft have been to make it the feat
of rational, focial, and intelligent beings,
the newnefs of fuch arts and fciences, as are
not effential to man as fuch, muft be a fen-
fible

SERMON V. 209
llble proof of the low antiquity of this ha
bitable World. But this argument has been
fo often reforted to, that I need not dwell
on it longer, than to remark generally, that
we are certainly able to trace many of the
moft important difcoveries, and motl necef
fary arts, to a certain point : to fuch a State
of rudenefs and imperfection, that is, as may
at once ferve to Shew, that their improve
ment has been gradual, and that their firft
invention cannot have been very diftant and
remote (s).
But we ought always to remember, that,
when once we give up the Mofaic sera of
the creation of man, as fabulous, we have
comparatively an eternity before us(6). The
world may be ten years, or ten thoufand, or
ten thoufand times ten thoufarid years older*
•,A fmalf difference will not fuit the purpofes
of thofe, who would infift upon the low an
tiquity of the globe being incompatible with
the prefent appearances of things ; and to
affign any very high antiquity at pleafure
will ferve them no better. A few centuries
will make no difference in regard to the- for
mer objection, and many will only involve
them again in doubts as to the late inven-
p tio?

210 SERMON V.
tion of arts and fciences, and the lofs of all
monumental records.
But the moft remarkable circumftance of
all, and that on which I chiefly propofe to
infift at prefent, is the want of all evidence
pofitively contradiBory to the aera affigned
by the Scriptures. There can be no doubt
as to the great antiquity of the book of Ge-
nefis. There is no reafonable doubt to be
entertained of its being written and com-
pafed by Mofes e : we have no difficulty in
determining the part of the world in which
it was written ; and we may, by reference
•to other existing annals of the world, and
other histories of mankind, be morally cer
tain of, many of the circumstances, under
which it muft have been written, fuppofing
it to be a merely human composition. What
knowledge Mofes might have had of the
world in general, it is neither poffible nor
neceSTary to conjecture ; but what he could
not have known of the world, is almoft ca
pable of demonftrationf. It would be next
e See Gray on the Old Teflament.
f How ignorant the early Pagan hiftorians were of the fi-
tuation, affairs, and concerns of other countries, befides their
own, may be feen in Jenkins Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity, vol. i.
P-95-

SERMON V. 211
to an abfurdity to fuppofe that he could
have had any knowledge of the great conti
nent of America ; of the weftern parts of
Europe ; of much of Afia, and much of A-
frica. Of Egypt, Phoenicia, and Chaldaja,
we may grant that he knew as much as
could be known ; but it is remarkable, that
thefe very countries (till very lately, that
their annals came to be better underftood)
were fuppofed to have laid claim to an anti
quity totally irreconcileable with the Mofaic
gera of the creation. Had, the author ofthe
book of Genefis then had no determinate
period in view, it is reafonable to fuppofe,
that, for the credit of his hiftory, he would
either have pofitively contradicted thefe ac
counts, or minutely conformed himfelf to
them. But inftead of this, while he even
afcribes to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Af-
fyrians, Midianites, and Canaanites, who were
enemies and objects of averfion to his coun
trymen, a higher antiquity than to the If
raelites g ; yet, regardlefs of all the extrava
gances the world has Since been amufed
p. 93. See alfo Wottons and Bakers Reflections on Learning, for
the knowledge the ancients had of geography.
s See Jamiefon on the Ufe of Sacred Hiftory, ift Difquifition
prefixed.
p 2 with,

cis SERMON V.
with, he proceeds in a narration, the moft
artlefs and the moft regular, to deduce the
whole race of mankind from one common an
cestor ; to whofe creation he affigns a parti
cular sera, as well as to the earth itfelf, their
intended habitation and dominion. Certainly,
to have written at a particular period ; to have
written and published fuch an account be
fore one half, or even one fourth part of the
world was known, or had been traverfed ;
and to have done this in the very midfl of
nations laying claim to an antiquity, far ex
ceeding the aera fixed on, muft have been as
bold an impofture as could well have been
attempted (7).
But it is now, as nearly as can be, upon
the loweft computation, three thoufand years
fince this account was written ; in which
time the globe has been gradually explored,
and every enquiry made, that could be made,
Into the hiftory and antiquities Of the fe
veral nations into which it is divided. That
much is loft that might aid fuch enquiries,
it would be vain to deny ; but that much re
mains to be difcovered, it is not reafonable to
fuppofe. Of what is loft, fragments of great
'importance have been preferred ; and to
many,

SERMON V. 213
many, fuch reference's are fubfifting, as may
ferve to inform us of the general nature
of their evidence. Of what remains to be
difcovered perhaps we have little or nothing
to expect but from the Eaft. The literary
Stores of ASIa, to fay the moft of them, are
now perhaps only exploring — but already we,
know much — much that is without doubt
exceedingly corroborative of the Scripture
hiftory of the earth and of man. I do not
mean to take up your time with any ex
amination of the correfpondences particu
larly to be difcovered, between the Oriental
mythologies and the Mofaic account of the
early ages of the world ; nor is it my inten
tion to trace fuch refemblances through the
very curious, but too often obfcure, mazes of
etymology. If all that can reafonably be
done in this way has not yet been done (8),
yet certainly fuch investigations have been
purfued far enough to enable us to draw
this general conclufion ; that even if the
Hindu Scriptures could be proved to be older
than the Mofaic writings, yet as Mofes might
certainly have written, all that he has written
of the hiftory of the SirSt generations of men,
from tradition, the many correfpondences and
p 3 refeinblances

2i4 SERMON V.
refemblances that have been traced in the
Hebrew and Hindu Scriptures, as well as
in many profane hiftories, can only tend to
Shew that they were all equally derived from
one common fource \ Mofes does not tell
us himfelf, that his is the oldeft record of
thefe traditions : but as far as it is in agree
ment with other hiftories, it requires only
common fenfe to diftinguifh it as the moft
authentic ; and his infpiration as a Prophet is
totally a distinct consideration.
There are many things connected with
the hiftory of man, of which we muft now
be contented for ever to remain ignorant;
and yet they have been confidered as of no
fmall importance in fuch investigations as
thofe I am treating of; fuch, for inftance, as
the origin of languages. It has been thought
that, had the world begun, as we fuppofe it
to have begun, with a firft pair, all lan
guages now existing might be traced to one
1 parent Stock ; and were this clearly practica
ble, it might certainly be expected to throw
h See this difcuffed in the 16th vol. of the Britifh Critic,
.pp. 148, 149, 150, iii anfwer to the flrange advertifement pre
fixed to the 5th vol. of the Aflatic Rejearcbes, which is furely an
interpolation.
much

SERMON V. ti$
much light on the origin of nations. But
though fome have thought this poffible (9),
and it muft unquestionably be granted that
very Striking refemblances have been traced
between the different tongues, idioms, and
dialects of nations the moft remote ; yet, as a
queftion which concerns the Scriptures, we
muft remember, that if the Scriptures are
true, we read of a confufion of tongues ' for
wife purpofes ; to further the difperfion of
families, and for the difcomfiture of an impi
ous project : a confufion which would infer,
if not a feparation into a multiplicity of
diftinct tongues, yet at leaft a feparation
of one language into a great variety of dia
lects k; a variety which time, and the fur
ther feparation of tribes and nations, the
later invention and adoption of different al
phabets to exprefs the feveral forms of
fpeech1, and many other circumftances, muft
have continually increafed ; fo as to have
long rendered fuch an enquiry too preca
rious to be depended on. It would be
' See Hartley on Man, prop, cxxiii. p. 3J3. edit. I79i» and
Stackboufe's Hiftory ofthe Bible.
k See Bryant's Mythology.
' See Jackforis Chronological Antiquities,
p 4 much

si6 SERMON V.
much more to our purpofe to endeavour
to inform ourfelves how the connection
between the different races of people can
be traced ; and though this alfo muft, in the
nature of things, be now liable to many un
certainties, yet there feems to be great rea
fon for our reliance on the general refult of
thofe curious and laborious enquiries, for
which we are indebted to that very learned
and indefatigable Orientalift, whofe prema
ture lofs, not this place only, nor yet only
the nation, but the world at large has had
fuch great occafion to deplore; namely, that
the world appears, upon the moft diligent
enquiry that can be made into the fubject,
to have been peopled by three great branches
proceeding from one flock. We know that
this very curious invefligation has been
purfued through the four media, of their
languages and letters ; their philofophy ; the
actual remains of their fculpture and archi
tecture ; and laftly, the written memorials of
their arts and fciences m.
It cannot be expected that I fhould do
m See Lord Teignmoutb's Life of Sir William Jones, and the.
feveral Anniverfary Difcourfes and other papers of Sir William,
publiflied in the Afiatic Refearches, and in his Works.
more

SERMON V. 217
more at prefent than refer to the very cu
rious difcourfes and difquifitions, whence we
derive this information : but I cannot help
adding this remark, that if we have not now
every document we might have had upon
the fubje<t, we have fuch a gradation of
documents, as may well deter us from all
poffible expectation of receiving any further
information, truly historical, of the more re
mote ages of the world. The Scripture ac
count is at once the fhorteft and moft regu
lar, indeed the only regular one. What is
at all intelligible in other accounts is eafily
reducible to this ; what is not intelligible
has been proved to be in many refpects fo
clearly artificial, as to take it entirely out of
the line of hiftory.
But, in order to judge properly of the
prefent ftate of our knowledge in regard'
to the hiftory of man, it will be fit to take a
fhort but comprehensive view of the Hindu
chronology, as the laft that has come before
us for examination, and in which there have
occurred as great appearances of antiquity
as in any, perhaps, that has ever been dif
covered fince the firft publication of the Ge-
nefis of MoSes. Any exact conformity with the

siS SERMON V.
the Hebrew records, any perfect fynchron-
ifms, it would be vain and abfurd to expedl ;
and whatever traces may be found of refem
blance in the historical records of the He
brews and Hindus, it is moft certain that
one of the two has deviated fo much from
the plain truth, and run fo far into the la
byrinth of poetical imagery, fable, and alle
gory, as to afford us but little information
truly historical, upon which we may rely.
. The celebrated Afironomical Tables of the
Hindus, however, have been fuppofed to fup-
ply us with data of much more certainty (Ic) ;
and it cannot be denied that they muft for
ever excite our admiration and furprife. To
fay the leaft of them, they evince fuch a know
ledge of the celeftial phaenomena, that their
accuracy and precision in many refpects are
exceedingly extraordinary. It has been fup
pofed capable of proof by very eminent men,
that the calculations mufi have been derived
from aBual obfervation ; and if fo, they carry
us fo far back as naturally to occafion no fmall
furprife, not only in regard to the advanced
State of that curious fcience in ages fo remote,
but as we confider the comparative want of
inftruments for the purpofe of obfervation. It
has

S E R M O N V. 219
has been afferted indeed fince, that wrong
dates have undoubtedly been affigned to thefe
Tables ; and, befides other ftrong objections,
very curious calculations have been made,
to fhew that they need not, at all events, be
indifpenfably referred to aclual obfervation ;
fince it was poffible to aSfurne fuch epochs as
the Tables affign, without the rifk of much
perceptible variation". Both thefe circum -
ftances are undoubtedly of the very firft im
portance, if we chofe to infift upon them :
but I fhall rather confine myfelf to the ge
neral refult ofthe cafe, fuppofing every thing
to be granted that is required of us, in regard
to the great antiquity of thefe Tables.
It is well known that the Hindu chrono
logy is principally divided into four ages, all of
an extravagant length ; the largeft period ex
tending to the immenfe amount of nearly too
millions of years. I have already obferved,
that if we once quit the Mofaic aera, we have
comparatively ah eternity before us. For if
that account is hot true, we fhall not, I think,
be inclined to tfuft to any Pagan mythology,
" See Mr. Bentley on the Surya Siddbanta in the 6th vol. of
the Afiatic Refearches,
but

22o SERMON V.
but fhall be contented to acknowledge, that
we are without any certain account whatever
ofthe beginning of things. Now in the Hindu
chronology we already have a computation.
of only one period of nearly two millions of
years ; and we have nothing, in the mere na
ture of things, to fet againft the poffibility of
fuch a duration of our fyftem and of man
kind, even without any reduction of thofe
years to lunar or diurnal revolutions. The
fecond or third ages are of more than one
million of years; and the fourth or prefent
age is, by their accounts, to laft upwards of
four hundred thoufand years.
Now it is certainly very remarkable, that,
though time is much wanted to account in any
manner for fuch a progrefs in the fcience of
aftronomy, as fhould enable us to refer the
Hindu Tables to the aera they point to ; yet
thofe who have examined them with the great
eft attention, and have expreffed the greateft
confidence in their antiquity, have not been
able to difcover any other proper monu
mental or hiflorical records, to confirm fuch
a ftate of things ; nor (fuppofing them actu
ally the fruit of obfervation) do they yet
ferve to carry us back further, than to fuch
a period

SERMG N V. 221
"a period as might well be brought into agree
ment with the Scripture chronology. I do
not fay into exact agreement, nor is the
agreement to be traced directly; but yet into
a degree of conformity not at all to be ex-
^pecte'd, if the world is either fo old as the
Hindu records pretend, or even at all older
than the Mofaic aera of the creation, accord
ing to the largelt Scriptural computation ex
tant ; I mean the computation of the Sep
tuagint. According to this computation, the
commencement of the fourth Hindu age, in
which W7e are fuppofed to be at prefent,
does not carry us beyond the aera of the
deluge0: and as every Indian age is fuppofed
to be terminated by a deluge, all this part
of their chronology and hiftory is Strictly
pofidilunian. The two firft ages are, by thofe
"moft attentive to the fubject, entirely fet
afide, as fabulous ; therefore we have only
the two laft ages for the hiftory of man,
amounting, according to the Hindu compu-

0 The aera of the flood, according to common copies of the
LXX. is 3028 before Chrift ; according to Grabe's' Septuagint,
•3246; according to Perron, 361 7. M.Bailly fixes the commence-
' ment of the 4th Hindu age at 3 10a. tation,

222 SERMON V.
tation, to eight hundred and Sixty-four thou
fand years, added to what is expired of the
current age. But as the former has been
held by one very eminent writer P to have
confiSled only of lunar years, or years of
months, upon reduction they are brought
dow~n to two thoufand four hundred folar
years; which added to three thoufand one
hundred and two, the years fuppofed to
.have elapfed from the commencement of
the fourth age to the Chriftian aera, make
in all five thoufand five hundred and two
years, leaving a difference of only Six years
; between this account and one computation
of the Seventy 1.
It is not poffible in a difcourfe from the
pulpit to go further into fuch calculations :
but fuch a conformity in accounts apparently
fo contradictory is too Striking and remarka
ble to be entirely pafTed over ; more especi
ally as it would feem to be the winding up
p M. Bailly. See note 9.
q The computation of the Conftantihppolitans and Grabe's
. Septuagint, of the years from the creation to the birth of Chrift,
amounts to 5508 years, 3 months. There are two accounts ex
tant, which come ftill nearer ; that of Cedrenus in Chevreau,
which is 5 $06; and that of Julius Africanus, Theophanes, Euty
chius, &c. which is 5500.
Of

SERMON V. 223
©f all chronological accounts of the world.
It is no long time fince the Chaldaean*
Phoenician, ^Egyptian, and even Grecian an
tiquities, were thought to be quite irrecon-
cileable to the holy Scriptures ; and I ought
to add to thefe, the Chinefe annals, which,
though fo much more recently made known
to the world, have by fome been fuppofed
to be the moft ancient and moft accurate ac
counts of all. The very learned author of
the Origines Sacrce conjectured, from the
particular aera of the publication of the
Egyptian and Chaldaean dynafties, that they
were exprefsly defigned to invalidate the au
thority of the Septuagint tranflation of the
Old Teftament r : but it has fince been dif
covered that both accounts are capable of
being brought to agree, if not with the He
brew, which has been firongly infifted upon,
yet very nearly with the Greek chronology
of Scripture, by a judicious feparation of all
that is clearly fabulous and artificial, and fuch
a reduction of diurnal and lunar to folar
years, as is not only reafonable, but exprefsly
authorifed by the teftimony of very anei-
* See alfo Wottons Reflections on Learning, ch. ix. *d edit.
ent

224 SERMON V.
ent authors ; of the propriety and juftice
of which we cannot poffibly doubt, from
many inftances that might be adduced of
different accounts being thus brought to a
perfect agreement. This is fuppofed to be the
cafe, very particularly, with the feparate ac
counts given by Callifthenes and Epigenes
ofthe Chaldaean obfervations, which accord
ing to the latter amounted to the amaziog
fum of feven hundred and twenty thou
fand years s; but according to the former to

s Plin. Nat. Hifl. vii. c. 56. There can be no doubt ofthe
accidental omiffion of" millia," in. this and the following paf
fage of Pliny, and that the numbers fhould be 726,000, and
.48.0,000, that is fo many years of days. Cicero indeed
makes the. Chaldaean records amount to only 470,000 j
" cccclxx millia annorum." de D'winat. 1. i. 195 Diodorus
.Siculus to cccclxxiii thoufand, lib. ii. Pliny's reference is
for the purpofe of fhewing that the ufe of letters had been, as
he fays, eternal. Now as the Chaldaeans had a computation of
at the leaft 470,000 years, according to Cicero ;, it muft proba-
bably have been to _/«&& computations that Pliny meant to re
fer. Both Mr. Bryant and the President Goguet cite Pliny,
without noticing the inconfiftency and probable omiffion ; and
the latter even makes ufe of the authority of" Epigenes againft
the affumed antiquity of the Chaldaeans. But I think Mr.
-Jackfon has clearly fhewn that the reading in Pliny is erro
neous. See his Chronological Antiquities, vol. i.218. For the
reckoning of CSllifthenes, fee Simplicius, Comment, in Ariftot.
deCcslo, lib. ii. only

SERMON V. 225
only nineteen hundred and three. Now
feven hundred and twenty thoufand days
make, as nearly as can be, nineteen hundred
and feventy-one years : and as Epigenes is
thought to have been fixty-eight years poste
rior to Callifthenes, the accounts may be faid
to agree exactly.
It can fcarcely by any reafonable man be
thought, that we are not going upon fure
grounds in fuch calculations ofthe age of
the world, when the fame method of com
putation ferves to bring into agreement,
(much more nearly than could be expected)
not only the ancient Phoenician, Egyptian,
Chaldaean and Hebrew accounts, but the
more recently difcovered annals of China
and India ! I fhall not pretend to difcufs
the very curious but intricate queftion rela
tive to the differences fubfifting between
the Hebrew and Greek chronology of the
Scriptures ; very learned men having be-
ftowed extraordinary attention on the fub
ject ', without producing on either fide that
yniverfal confent which might have been ex-

* See note 9. v
q pected

S26 SERMON V.
pected from their very interesting and la
borious undertakings. Nor do I conceive
it to be of any material confequence ; be
caufe though the Hindu chronology in this
particular infiance has been thought more
conformable to the Greek than to the He
brew computation, yet, fo far as it exceeds
the latter, it depends on circumstances which
only become probable through their fup
pofed agreement with the reckoning of Jo
fephus and the Seventy. I think it is
enough for us to know, and with, that I
Shall conclude, that, fo far from any hiftori-
cal evidence pofitively contradiBory to the
Mofaic aeras of the creation and deluge, hav
ing been difcovered, even now that the
whole globe has been traverfed, and much
new light thrown upon the fubject, what
has moft recently come to our knowledge,
fo far as it can be thought to have any
foundation in truth, feems peculiarly ca
pable of being brought to agree with all
the other annals of the world : that all the
chronological tables, which have any proper
hiftorical records at all to fupport them,
are Strictly pofidiluvian, while fuch as feem to

SERMON V. 227
to carry us back to a former ftate of the
globe are either manifeftly and indisputa
bly fabulous, or, however corrupted in nu
merous inftances, contain fufficient marks
of being all derived alike from divine re
velation, or patriarchal tradition.

Q 2 NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON V.

Page 202. note (i).
1 0 abandon our laws and our fiatutes, &c. to make way
for the fuperior fyfiem of perfectibility I]
." Law tends, no lefs than creeds, and catechifms, and
" tefts, to fix the human mind in a ftagnant condition,
" and to fubftitute a principle of permanence in the
" room of that unceafing perfectibility, which is the
u only falubrious element of mind." Pol. Juft. vol. ii.
397- Nothing can be more difficult than to fatisfy the de
mands of Deifts and Infidels. An immutable and per
manent fyftem, it feems, is in flo manner admiflible ;
and yet there is no objection td the Chriftian religion
more frequently or more confidently infifted on, than
its want of univerfality, its late appearance, and its
gradual propagation. This was the chief argument of
Mr. Blount's famous book, which he chofe to call The
Oracles of Reafon. He was ably anfwered, as is well
known, by Df . Leland, and by Dr. Clarke, in his Evi
dences of Natural and Revealed Religion. Such a fcheme
of Revelation has alfo often been fhewn to be analogous
to the ordinary difpenfation s of God's providence, par
ticularly by Bifhop Butler, in his celebrated work, and
by Dr. Leland and Bifhop Conybeare, in their An
fwers to Tindal's Chriflianity as old as the Creation. See
alfo Law's Theory of Religion, with the references, p. 5.
and Mr. Bryant on the Authenticity ofthe Scriptures.
If we required any new cafe of analogy, perhaps a
Stronger could not be found, than in the favourite fcheme
oi perfectibility, which modern Deifts make fuch a ftir
about ; for perfection here, as a gift of God, would, no
doubt, have been comparatively as acceptable to man,
Q q as

230 NOTES TO SERMON V.
as falvation hereafter ; efpecially fuch a ftate of perfec
tion as has been held to be attainable ; namely, the uni
verfal prevalence oi 'omnipotent truth, and the entire fub
jection oi matter to mind: io that the foul Shall be free
from all error and weaknefs, and the body releafed
from the apprehenfion, and even from the ftroke of
death. [Godwin] For the Creator, who firft placed us
in this ftate of never-ceafing perfectibility, could affur
edly as eafily have rendered us invulnerable, perfect,
and immortal at once. Rouffeau^ upon the general
principle of perfectibility, goes fo far as to fuggeft the
poffibility that many " Animaux antropoformes," fuch
as " les orang-outans, pongos, enjoios, beggos, man-
" drilles," &c. may yet turn out to be " viritables
" hommes," when proper opportunities occur for them,
" developper leurs facultes." Ouvrages, tom. i. p. 152.
But to be ferious.
If the fyftem of perfectibility fo much talked of is at
all founded in fact, it fhould certainly tend to filence
all objections- againft Revelation on the fcore of its
prefent apparent want of univerfality, its gradual pro
grefs, and the ftate of trial and probation, in which it
places us. For not only has Chriflianity, in its intro
duction and eftablifhment, been thus conformable to all
that we can collect of God's providence from a view of
nature ; but it happens to be befides, in itfelf, the moft
glorious fcheme of perfectibility that ever was propofed
to the world.
" There is not, in my opinion," fays the immortal
Addifon, " a more pleafing and triumphant confidera-
" tion in religion, than this of the perpetual progrefs,
" which the foul makes towards the perfection of its
" nature, without ever arriving at a period in it. To
" look upon the foul as going on from Strength to
" ftrength ; to confider, that fhe is to Shine for ever
" with new accellions of glory, and brighten to all
" eternity-; that She will be ftill adding virtue to vir-
" tue, and knowledge to knowledge, carries in it fome-
" thing wonderfully agreeable to that ambition, which
" is natural to the mind of man. Nay, it muft be a
" profpect pleafing to God himfelf, to fee his creation
" for ever beautifying in his eyes, and drawing nearer
"to him, by greater degrees, of refemblance. Methinks " this

NOTES TO SERMON V. 331
tc this Single confideration of the progrefs of a finite
"fpirit to perfection, will be fufficient to extinguifh all
*•' envy in inferior natures, and all contempt in fuperior.
'• The cherubim, which now appears as a God to a
" human foul, knows very well, that the period will
" come about in eternity, when the human foul fliall
" be as perfect. as he himfelf now is : nay, when fhe
" fhall look down upon that degree of perfection, as
" much as fhe now falls fhort of it," &c. Speculator,
No. III. See alfo an excellent Difcourfe by Seed, in
the 2d vol. of his Pofihumous Works, on the Chriftian
life being a progreffive fiate ; and compare Philippians
-iii. 12, 13,14.
What a picture of the perfectibility of man is this,
compared with the ftrange notions and fanciful con
ceits" of many of our modern Deifts! This fyftem of
perfectibility has indeed God for its author; and for its
object, not the worldly attainments of this life -only,
but the delights of heaven, and the glories of an eter
nity ! Every fyftem of perfectibility however muft have
fomething permanent, either for its object or its foun
dation. Mr. Godwin himfelf depends on " the under-
" Handing growing every day founder and Stronger;"
not from its purfuit of a phantom, but " by perpetual
" communication with truth." The great queftion be
tween us ftill therefore feems to be, "What is truth?"
or rather, What is the truth, and where is it to be
found ? If in any inftance it is clearly and amply made
known to us, we- cannot, according to Mr. Godwin's
own argument, have too conftant or too fteady a com
munication with it, for the very purpofes of perfectibi
lity. Now it is undeniable, that fome truths are fo
known, as that we may act upon them with the great
eft certainty, as the principles of Geometry, &c. Is it
the fame then with any religious and moral truths ? or
are thefe left dependent, and for ever fo, on the cafual
difcoveries and deductions of human Reafon ? Thofe
who make truth the only rule of action, independent of
the revealed will of Go3, muft certainly conclude the
latter to be the cafe ; and how uncertain a rule this
muft be, may be well judged, from the deductions
which the' learned Wollafton was himfelf obliged to
make from his general propofition, that " Truth is dif-
q 4 " coverable

232 NOTES TO SERMON V.
" coverable by Reafon." " I would have it minded,"
fays he, " that I do not fay, men may not by virtue of
" their freedom break off their meditations and enqui-
" ries prematurely, before they have taken a fufficient
" furvey of things ; that they may not be prepoffeffed
" with inveterate errors, biaffed by intereft, or carried
" violently down with the Stream of a feet or fafhion,
" or dazzled by fome darling notion or bright name ;
" that they may not be unprovided of a competent
" flock of praicognita and preparative knowledge ; that
" (among other things) they may not be ignorant of
" the very nature of reafoning, and what it is that
" gives finews to an inference, and makes itjuft; that
"they may not want philofophy, hiftory, or other
" learning requifite to the understanding and ftating
" the queftion truly ; that they may not have the con-
" fidence to pretend to abilities, which they have not,
" and boldly to judge of things, as if they were quali-
" fied, when they are not ; that many understandings
" may not be naturally grofs, good heads often indif-
" poled, and the ableft judges fometimes overfeen
" through inadvertency or hafte : I fay none of thefe
" things ; the contrary I confefs is manifeft." Religion
of Nature, feet. iii. 9.
It is true indeed, that he makes a distinction between
Reafon and right Reafon: a diftinction that Should always
be carefully attended to; but which is continually over
looked. But from this account it would certainly ap
pear, firft, as the learned author himfelf adds, that
" not every truth is difcoverable by Reafon ;" and Se
condly, that but few of thofe that are difcoverable are
likely to be duly confidered and appreciated, amidft
fuch a variety of hindrances, and fuch a multiplicity
of difqualifications.
The main difference between the Deifts and Chrif
tians, in regard to the great and weighty truths of reli
gion and morality, is, that the former ftill think they
are only difcoverable in the way of fpeculation ; the
latter fuppofe, that all that is neceffary to be known all
concerning truths, as Bifhop Pearfon ftyles them, has
been difcovered to us, by exprefs declarations of God's
will, in the Gofpel of Jefus Chrift. Creeds and cater
•chifms then, which fet forth thefe fundamental truths, are

NOTES TO SERMON V. 233
are no more to be condemned, or to be regarded as ad-
verfe to man's perfectibility, than the Elements of Eu
clid, or any other collection of principles. Thofe who
will infill, that fuch creeds and catechifms do not con
tain the truth, muft prove their point by reference to
Scripture, which is the acknowledged teft and crite
rion ; but to condemn them generally, is to beg the
queftion, both as to their truth and their pernicious
tendency. For if they are really pernicious, they can
not be true ; but if they are true, they cannot be per
nicious. If founded on truth, it cannot be matter of
juft regret, but rather of the contrary, that the mind
fhould be brought to " a ftagnant" and fixed " condi-
" tion." What harm, for inftance, can be likely to ac- ,
crue, or rather, what good may not be ' expected to
flow, from the mind being brought into a fixed ftate,
in regard to the very important truths contained in
thofe two beautiful fummaries of the Church Cate
chifm, which contain our duty to God, and our duty
to our neighbour ? Can fuch inftruction, of fuch forms
of belief, and principles of conduct, be faid to take any
man out of a ftate of perfectibility P Neither can law in
general be faid to tend to fix the human mind in a ftag
nant condition, in any way that is prejudicial, while it
may be confined, and always fhould be fo, to the mere
impofition of fuch wholefome reftraints, as have both
truth and equity for their foundation : for truth and
equity fhould. be binding, without all doubt, and inva
riably and permanently fo.
Tefts will always be' mifunderftood and mifreprefent-
ed : it is certainly not an uniformity of opinions, that
is either the fubject or occafion of them ; but clearly,
and indifputably, a diverfity of opinions and principles.
" The intent," fays Bifhop Sherlock, " is to keep
" Diffenters out of the State, not to force them into the
" Church;" and which, he obferves, is evident, from
the circumftance of. " their meetings being tolerated
" by the very Act, (ift William and Mary,) which ex-
" prefsly extends the teft to them." At all events a
great miftake is made, when they are confidered as
qualifications in themfelves, inftead of the proofs of
previous quali ficatiohs, as they fhould be. They are
only enquiries, on the part of the State, into the ac
knowledged

234 NOTES TO SERMON V.
knowledged principles of the individual.. If they were
compulfory, they would manifeftly foon be ufelefs ; a
general conformity of opinion would render every fort
of teft unneceffary.
As to the queftion concerning the univerfality of the
Chriftian difpenfation, we ought always to diftinguifti
between the propagation of Chriftianity, and its effects.
" As no man ever denied," fays Dr. Clarke, " but that
" the benefit of the death of Chrift extended back-
" wards to thofe who lived before his appearance in the
" world; fo no man can prove, but that the fame bene-
" fit may likewife extend itfelf forwards to thofe who
" never heard of his appearance, though they lived
" after it." Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion,
p. 356. The univerfality of Chriflianity, as a difpenfa
tion of falvation, is certainly by no means to be mea-
fured by the extent of its propagation, according to
the judgment and opinion, not only of our own Pro-
teftant Divines, but of many of the ancient Fathers ;
notwithftanding Mr. Gibbon fo peremptorily afferts the
contrary, upon the fole authority of Tertullian. See
Rett's Vth Bampton Lecture : the paffage there referred
to from Jufiin Martyr, Apol. ad Ant. P. p. 65. edit. Syl-
burg. 1^93 ; in which he not only expreffes a hope,
that " Socrates, and thofe who refembled him in vir-
" tue, would efcape the divine difpleafure in another
" life; but, with a peculiar allufion to the general bene-
" fits imparted by the divine Logos, dignifies them
" with the appellation of Chriftians ;" is certainly very
Striking ; and, though it efcaped the notice of Mr. Gib
bon, has been cited by another Infidel for a very dif
ferent purpofe ; namely, to prove that the primitive
Chriftians were fo tolerant, as to account a virtuous man
a Chriftian, though otherwife an Atheifi. This is Helve
tia's representation of Juftin Martyr's opinion upon the
fubject, in which certainly the teftimony of that holy
Father is as much mifreprefented, as in the other cafe
it was overlooked or flighted. Juftin's expreffion is,
r.otv a&eoi ho\uLr$rt\ctax, though they may have been ac
counted Atheifts ; as for inftance, ~2.wxpdrr\; ^ 'KgoLxXetro;,
x, oi ojJ'Oiot aurol;- that is, oi u.ard Xoys filujeravres, who un
der a fyftem of natural religion, or Pagan ifm, lived
agreeably to the divine will. - It has often certainly been

NOTES TO SERMON V. 23.5
been Strongly infifted upon by fome of our beft Divines,
that the doctrine of the Scripture is, that the virtue of
Chrift's oblation was effectual from the creation to the
pardon ofthe truly penitent and fincere. See Barrow's
Sermons, on Univerfal Redemption, Serm. XL. See alfo
Leland' s Anfwer to Tindal, Part II. ch. xvi. Seed's Pofi-
humous Works, vol. i. Serm. V. Edwards's Prefervative
againfi Socinianifm, Difc. II. 109.
Mr. Gibbon however perfifts' in afferting, not only
that it was the opinion ofthe primitive Church, that the
wifeft and moft virtuous ofthe Pagans would be con
demned for their ignorance or difbelief of the divine
truth, but that it is ftill the public doctrine of all the
Chriftian Churches, and particularly that the minifters
and members of the eftablifhed Church of thefe realms
muft believe fo, as the undeniable conclufion to be
drawn from the viiith and xviiith of the Articles. From
Dr.Chelfum's remarks, it would feem that this affertion
concerning the two Articles did not appear in the firft
edition of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
If fo, its infertion in a note to the Svo edition may be
regarded as Mr. Gibbon's laft appeal in proof of his
unwarrantable charge againft us. Now, affuredly, this
undeniable conclufion, which Mr. G. pretends to draw
from the viiith and xviiith Articles, will not be gene
rally conceded to him. The firft of the two Articles
merely ftates the fimple propofition, that the three
Creeds ought thoroughly to be received and believed ;
and for the beft of all poffible reafons, becaufe they
may be proved by moft certain warrants of holy Scrip
ture. If Mr. Gibbon would infill upon interpreting
thefe creeds differently from other people, he alone
Should be anfwerable for the conclufions he draws.
But the damnatory claufes ofthe Athanafian Creed are
too generally held to relate to the abfolute and indifpenf
able neceffity of knowing and embracing the Gofpei :
whereas, they only relate to the keeping the terms of
our faith pure and undellled, when once known and pro
feffed: which I fhall have occafion to explain elfewhere.
As to the xviiith Article, we might almoft infift
upon its afferting the very contrary to what Mr. Gib
bon would infer: for it is exprefsly defigned to eftablifh
the univerfality of the Chriftian redemption, fo much fo

236 NOTES TO SERMON V.
fo as to pronounce thofe anathematized who prefume
to fay that any are, or will be, faved, but through Jefus
Chrift. The Gentiles will not be faved by their obedi
ence to the law written in their hearts, exclufive ofthe
atonement and mediation of Jefus Chrift ; though fuch
obedience will be the condition of Chrifl's merits
being applied to them, under any circumftances of in
vincible ignorance of the Gofpel ; as the not having
bad it duly preached to them, or ever propofed to
them, as an object of faith. The Article was not
meant to be oppofed to the univerfality of Chrifl's
redemption, but to the dangerous doctrine of indiffer
ence : for though the Pagan of old times may by his
virtues retrospectively become the object of Chrifl's
atonement and mediation ; yet it does not follow that
fuch obedience to the law natural will fave thofe who
wilfully reject and defpife the terms of the Gofpel, and,
in fpite of our Lord's own affurance, that " ho man
" cometh to the Father but by him," perfift in trufting
to their own righteoufnefs to fave them, and to fuch
forms of worfhip as their fancy leads them to adopt.
The Article does not ftate, that the virtuous Pagan who
lived before the times ofthe Gofpel will not be faved
through the efficacy ofthe blood of Chrift : but it ana
thematizes thofe, who, in contradiction to the word of
God, and fince the promulgation of Chriflianity, maintain,
that any will be faved except through the merits and
mediation of Jefus Chrift. And moft wholefome doc
trine this is, for " in vain did Chrift reveal the Gofpel,
" and in vain did he command it to be preached
" through the whole world," if men are to be faved
exclufively fcf Chrifl's interpofition. The Article is de
figned in fhort, not to fhut, but to open the doors of
the Church; for fince not even the Pagan, to whom the
Gofpel was never preached, can be fayed except
through Chrift, much lefs is it to be expected that
thofe to whom the '¦ pure word of God" has been
preached, and the terms of thc.Chriftian covenant made
known, will be freely juftified upon any other terms.
To prefer, and to truft to, any other mode of falvation, is
now no lefs than to " defpife the riches of God's mercy,"
and to neglect the covenant of his grace, " which at the
" firft began to be fpoken by the Lord, and was con-
" firmed

NOTES TO SERMON V. 237
'* firmed to us by them that heard him ; God bearing
" them witnefs, both with Signs and wonders, ana
" with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghoft,
" according to his own will." Hebrews ii. 3,4.
Page 204. note (2).
Reafon can never inform us whence we came, or what
is to become of us.] See Lord Bolingbroke's Works,
vol . v. and the xvth chapter of Mr. Gibbon's Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, already referred to in
the 22d Note to Sermon I. The former acknowledges
the infufficiency of Reafon to inform us of our entrance
into the world; not indeed without expreffing his in
credulity in regard to the accounts we have : " Reafon
" will tell us no better how men came into the world,
" than hiftory or tradition does." And as to our de
parture from this world, Mr. Gibbon affures us, that
however Reafon may ferve to point out the probability
of a future fiate, " only Revelation can afcertain its ex-
" iftence." Page 205. note (3).
Nothing amounting to pofitive contradiclion can poffibly
he alleged againft the peculiar credentials of the Jewifh
and Chriftian Revelations, fuch as prophecies and mira
cles.] Though every expedient Should be tried to get
rid ofthe evidence of prophecy and miracle, yet thus
much is certain, that " nothing is abfolutely incredible,
" but what is impoffible." See Church's Anfwer to Mid
dleton, and Leng's Boyle's Lectures, Sermons xiii. xiv.
Now that neither prophecy nor miracle is impoffi
ble, is at leaft tacitly acknowledged by thofe who have
been moft eminent for their incredulity; Mr. Hume
and Rouffeau particularly: all their objections turn
ing, not upon the impoffibility of either, but upon the
incompetency of their evidence; and both of them
having, in the midft of their objections, fuppofed cafes,
in which not only prophecy and miracle would be both
poSIible. and reafonable ; but their evidence, and the
teftimony concerning them, complete. Rouffeau in
deed fuppofes his cafe to be fo much in the extreme, as
not to be within the reach of poffibility : but Mr,
Hume's

238 NOTES TO SERMON V.
Hume's cafe is fuch a conceffion as affects his whole
argument againft miracles. See Dr. Campbell' ^.excel
lent Differtation on Miracles, Part I. §.3. in which this
is fully proved. See however alfo Dr. Leland' s xviiith
aiid xixth Letters in his View of Deifiical Writers, 5th
edit, and Dr. Adams's Anfwer to Hume. Rouffeau's
three requifites, which he infifts upon as indifpenfable
in the cafe of prophecy, have been already Shewn, in
the Notes on Sermon II. not to be applicable to a
chain and feries of prophecies ; and therefore cannot af
fect thofe belonging to the Jewifh and Chriftian dif-
penfations : and befides that they are inapplicable to
a chain of prophecies, while the two former requifites
are unqueftionably not by any means effentially necef
fary to the proof even of a Single prophecy ; with re
gard to the third, an accumulation and coincidence of
many prophecies, through a long fucceffion of ages,
Hich as the prophecies of Scripture, is in itfelf demon
stration enough, that the fulfilment of them could not
• be the refult of accidental circumftances. At all events,
in regard to miracles, Rouffeau would not be thought
to depy their poffibility, if we may truft his own words :
for, in his 3d Letter from the Mountains, he fays, " Do
" not conclude, becaufe I do not look upon miracles
" as effential to Chriftianity, that I therefore reject mi-
" racles. No, Sir ; I neither have rejected them, nor
"do I reject them. There is a wide difference be-
" tween denying a thing, and the not affirming it;
" between pofitively rejecting, and negatively not ad-
" mitting it." Indeed the poffibility both of miracles
and prophecy is indifputable ; without the former the
world could not have exified, and the latter is imme
diately connected with the moft confpicuous of God's
attributes, viz. his omnipotence and omnifcience.
To allege, as Mr. Hume does, that we have the evi
dence of an uniform experience againft the truth of
miracles, is a petitio principii. It is firft incumbent on
him to prove, that there never were miracles; then only
could he affert a conftant experience in proof againft .
them. But fuppofe pafi experience was thus uniform
in favour of his argument, it could amount to no proof
againft miracles in time to come. Becaufe God has
operated no miracles in five or fix thoufand years, may he

NOTES TO SERMON V. 239
he not in the hundred millions of years, which the
world may endure ? May he not interfere to put na
ture one inah out of her courfe in all that time ? " Ex-
" perience," as Dr. Leland admirably obferves, " may
" affure us, that facts or events are poffible, but not that
" the contrary is impofjible." View of Deiftical Writers,
vol. i. 317. See alfo a fmall work by M. A. J. Rouftan,
entitled, Lettres fur I'Etat prifent du Chrifiianifme : Lon-
dres, 1768 ; where this point is ably argued.
As to the probability of miraculous interpositions on
the part of God, it is well remarked, by the learned
Profeffor Jenkin, in his Reafonablenefs and Certainty of
the Chriftian Religion, vol. i. p. 26, that " it is an ex-
" travagant thing to conceive, that God fliould exclude
" himfelf from the works of his own creation, or that
" he fhould eftablifh them upon fuch inviolable laws,
" as not to alter them upon fome occafions, when he
" forefaw it would be requisite to do it. For unlefs the
" courfe of nature had been thus alterable, it would
" have been defective in regard to one great end for
" which it was defigned; viz. it would have failed of
" being ferviceable to the defigns of Providence upon
" fuch occafions." Apply this to the cafes of Ahab,
Nebuchadnezzar, and Sennacherib, alluded to in Note
10. Sermon I. What horrible confequences might
have flowed, in each of thofe inftances, from the daring
defiance of God, had he not interpofed by miracles !
Confult alfo Profeffor Vince's two Sermons on Chriftianity,
1798 ; where he argues againft Hume, that " the moral
" good and tendency of miracles puts them upon a
" footing with the common phyfical effects produci-
" ble in the courfe of nature. The latter, being ap-
" pointed by God to minifler to the phyfical wants of
" man, do not differ in principle from miracles wrought
" by the fame Providence for moral ends and pur-
" pofes." Had God never, in any age of the world, interpofed
miraculoufly, we may judge what notions would have
been entertained of his Providence, from the conduct of
thofe eminent Infidels of this age of Reafon, MM. Vol
ney and Diderot : the latter having denied the very being
of God, from his own power of writing againft it; and
the former conflantly arguing againft the Scriptures, from

140 NOTES TO SERMON V.
from the frequent inftances of profperity and fuccefs at
tending unbelievers. But the Old Teftament tells us it
was notfo at firfi: and the New, that henceforth ,fuch
differences and diftinctions are referved for a future life.
See alfo Leland' s Anfwer to Tindal, as to the probabi
lity of miraculous interpositions, Part I. ch. iii. where
he very well argues, that though God be immutable
and perfect, yet, unlefs man were fo too, there is no
reafon why God may not add to bis former laws, and
vary the methods of his Providence.
Mr. Hume is pleafed to afk, "What reply can be
" made to thofe who affirm, that miracles have always
" been confined to the early and fabulous ages ?"
"The reply is eafy," fays Bifhop Home ; " that mi-
" racles were performed by Chrift and his apoftles, in
" the age of all others efteemed fhe moft polite and
" learned ; and that the adverfaries of thofe days never
" thought of denying the facts." Letters on Infidelity,
Letter SX. But fuppofing miracles had been confined
to the early, and what Mr. Hume choofes to call in
discriminately the fabulous ages. There might have
been good reafon for this : and the very credulity of
thofe ages, fo far from bringing true miracles into dis
credit, might be efpecially alleged as one reafon for
fuch an interpofition on the part of God. For if they
were credulous only through ignorance of the opera
tion of natural caufes, (and fuch ignorance Rouffeau in-
fifts upon as the ground of all miraculous pretenfions,)
that very ignorance might give the more knowing
among them fuch a power of deceiving them, that
when the whole world were given to idolatry, it muft
have been peculiarly neceffary not only for God to in-
terpofe generally, but that the true prophets fhould
have a command of fuch credentials, exprefsly to coun
teract the delufions of the falfe prophets and magi
cians. Origen argues very well, contr. Celf. lib. iii.
that when all the neighbouring nations were pretend
ing to have intercourle with their Gods, and through
their auguries and oracles to have knowledge of future
events, and to perform miracles and wonders, it would
have been ftrange and. unaccountable, if the only wor
shippers of the true God, who were taught to hold
thole falfe Gods in contempt, had had no predictions and

NOTES TO SERMON V. 241
and miracles to oppofe to fuch delufions; if it" were
only to vindicate the omnipotence and providence of
the Creator of the univerfe, to give them a proper
confidence in the grounds of their own faith, and to
convert idolaters from the error of their ways. The
paffage is admirable, and the argument particularly
flriking. Camb. edit. p. IT3. And certainly the defign
and intent oi' prophecy, at leaft in thofe early ages, may
be faid to be exprefsly fo explained, Ifaiah xlviii. 5.
" Before it came to pafs I fhewed it thee ; left thou
''fhouldeft fay) Mine idol hath done them, and my
" graven image, and my molten image hath commanded
" them." And the IJrim and Thummim of the Jews,
the oracle of the true God, has been thought to have
been exprefsly oppofed to the oracular images of the
Pagans. See Jackfon's Chronological Antiquities, vol. iii.
239. Sn Sfaiah xliv. 6, 7. prophecy is particularly in
fifted on, as the diftinguifhing credential of the true
God. The objections to the Scripture prophecies, on ac
count of their obfcurity, have been fufficiently anfwered
by many writers ; fee however very particularly Bifiiop
Hurd's 1ft and Hid Sermons on Prophecy ; Leflie's Truth
of Chriftianity demonfirated, p. 149. foi. edit, and Jen-
kin's Reafonablenefs and Certainty of Chriflianity, b. ii.
ch. 7. where the fubject is very ably handled, and
many fubftantial reafons affigned for the obfcurity of
the genuine prophecies.
As to the fecondary and typical application of many
of the prophecies, fee alfo the fame authors, and Le-
land's VHth Letter in his View of Deifiical Writers.
There are fome very ingenious Letters upon the fub
ject likewife in the Orthodox Churchman's Magazine
for March and April, 1804. As to the point itlelf of
fecondary fenfes, it is certain, that any fupernatural
prediction may as eafily embrace many objects as one;
and at all events there are prophecies enough applica
ble to Chrift in a primary fenfe, to fatisfy any reafona
ble enquirer, as has been abundantly fhewn bv, Bifhop
Chandler, in his Defence of 'Chriflianity, fromm&.Pro-
phecies of the Old Teflament, 1725. and many other au
thors. See alfo Juftin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho.
That Chriftianity appeals to the teftimony of mira-
r cles,

S4* NOTES TO SERMON V.
cles, has been already Shewn, in anfwer to RoufTeatt,
Note 6. Sermon I. That She alfo appeals to the tefti
mony of prophecy cannot with any reafon be doubted.
But there is one appeal of this kind recorded by the
Evangelifts, which is certainly very remarkable; I
mean the converfation which our Saviour is reprefented
to have held with the two difciples, on their way to
Emmaus, Luke xxiv. when, " beginning at Mofes,
" and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all
" the Scriptures, the things concerning himfelf." Had
not the Evangelift been fully affured in his own mind
that fuch things were eaSily to be difcovered, by any
who would diligently fearch the Scriptures of the Old
Teflament, could any circumftance in the whole hiftory
of our Saviour's miniftry have been more worth pre-
ferving than this converfation, in proof of his Mefliah-
Ship ? Would none of our Lord's difciples have fecured
this evidence for us ? Would St. Luke, in particular,
who feems to have written exprefsly to fupply what
might be wanting in the other Gofpels, have omitted
it ? Would not the Holy Spirit of God^ have dictated
this important teftimony to the Evangelifts, had it not
been a matter of certainty, that the predictions of Mo
les and the Prophets were perfpicuous enough to thofe
who would refer to them for their own conviction }
The omiffion of this difcourfe appears to me a pofitive
proof of the Evangelift's fettled perfuafion, that the fact
was eafily to be eftablifhdd : for it would otherwife have
expofed the caufe he was engaged in, to mention it with
out neceSfity. Common fenfe would have dictated it
to him to fupprefs a reference, which could not be Satis
factory; and above all, not to have reprefented our Sa
viour as reproving his difciples for a flowDefs of heart,
in not difcovering what was not to be found in the
writings referred to ; or, as others would infer, which
could not be brought to apply, but by art and fubtlety,
quibble and conceit. Several, I know, have endeavoured
to find a reafon for the fuppreffion of this difcourfe, as
for inftance, Dr. Burnet, in his Treatife De Fide et Of-
fiiciis ffferiflianorum, p. 120. c. 7. and feveral have at
tempted to fupply the chafm ; but it is beft fupplied by
a general reference to die Old Teflament, beginning
the chain of prophecy with Mofes, and purfuing it up
wards

NOTES TO SERMON V. 243
wards through the Succeeding prophets; not confining
ourfelves merely to the events of Chrifl's death, and
refurrection, and exaltation, as fome have done rather
injudiciously, (fee Mede's Difcourfe on Luke xxiv. 45.
and Doddridge's Notes on the place, in his Family Ex-
pofitor, feet. 197.) but the general circumftances of his
ministry. A modern divine, Mr. Clowes, of Manchefter, a
great advocate for the reveries of Baron Swedenborg,
concludes from ver. 45. where Chrift is faid to " have
" opened the underflandings" of his difciples, that
their acquaintance with the mere letter of Scripture
was not fufficient. But certainly the expreffion, ver. 25.
" O flow of heart," implies a capacity in the difciples
to have underftood and to have applied the prophecies,
without any miraculous illumination. See the introduc
tion to Clowes' Sermons, pub. 1803.
The gift of prophecy being clearly affigned to Mofes
by our Lord himfelf, not only in the paffage referred
to, but in many other parts of the New Teftament ;
and being demonftrable befides from the ftate and con
dition of the people of Ifrael, from their firft original
to the deftruction of Jerufalem, which, as Profeffor
Jenkin has obferved, was the perpetual fulfilling of
prophecies contained in the books of Mofes ; we can
not have any difficulty to believe, that he had alfo the
.power of working miracles; and thus the fulfilment,
not only of the Mofaic, but of the^ Scripture prophe
cies in general, may reafonably be held to authenti
cate all that we read in the facred hiftory of the mira
culous powers with which the Prophets of God, and
the Apoftles of Jefus Chrift, were feverally inverted.
One credential is a reafonable proof of the exiftence of
the other ; a prophecy accomplifhed is a miracle. See
this teft infifted' on in Sykes's Connection of Natural and
Revealed Religion, chap. ix.
Page 208. note (4).
" The total difappearance of a ftar may probably be the
" deftruction of its fyftem, and the appearance of a new
"ftar, the creation of a new fyftem of planets." Vinee's
Afironomy, vo\;\.ch. 27. And at the conclufion of the 2d
vol. the lamelearned author obferves, " the difappearanee
B % "of

244 NOTES TO. SERMON V.
" of fome ftars may be the deftruction of that fyftem at
" the time appointed by the Deity for the probation of
" its inhabitants; and the appearance of new ftars may
"be. the formation of new fyftems, for new races of
" beings then called into exiftence to adore the works
" of their Creator. Thus we may conceive the Deity
" to have been employed from all eternity, and thus
" continue to be employed for endlefs ages ; forming
" new fyftems of beings to adore him, and tranfplant-
" ing thofe beings already formed into happier re-
" gions, where they have better opportunities of medi-
" tating on his works ; and ftill riling in their enjoy-
" ments, go on to contemplate fyftem after fyftem,
" through the boundlefs univerfe." Dr. Herfchel has
given us a catalogue of ftars formerly feen, now loft j
Phil. Tranf. 1783.
To prove that the world cannot have been eternal,
Dr. Sykes obferves, in his Connection of Natural and Re
vealed Religion, that " it implies no contradiction to
" fuppofe the earth, the fun, or any planet, to be away,
" and the fpace, which now they fill, to be left empty:
" and what is fuppofable, without any contradiction,
" to be true of any one of the worlds of the univerfe,
" is likewife fuppofable of any, or of all, the reft.
" Now if you can fuppofe one world away, that world
" cannot exift by any neceffity in its nature : and if
" one world may be removed without contradiction,
" fo may all the reft ; and in courfe none of them can
" be neceffary in exiftence or duration."
Page 209. note (5.)
Though the invention, improvement, progrefs, and
perfection of fome arts and fciences may feem to be in
volved in much obfcurity; yet it is undeniable, that
many of the moft important may be traced back, as S
have obferved in the Difcourfe, " to fuch a ftate of
" rudenefs and imperfection, as muft ferve to fhew,
" that their firft invention cannot have been very dif-
" tant and remote." Among thofe of moft material
importance to man, we may certainly reckon medicine,
furgery, and pharmacy in all its branches ; writing;
printing, and, as particularly connected with both, the
art of making paper. Even the firft difcovery of fire, and

NOTES TO SERMON V. 245
and its ufes, is noticed in the records of moft nations.
The application, befides, of the magnetic virtue of the
loadftone to the purpofes of navigation, a difcovery fo
indifpenfably neceffary to the commerce and commu
nication of the different nations of the globe, may
¦certainly be traced to no very remote sera. Confult, on
the newnefs of arts and fciences, Sir Ifaac Newton's
Chronology ; Dr. Wotton's and Mr. Baker's Reflections
on Learning; Univerfal Hiftory, b. i.; the third part of
Bifhop Law's Theory of Religion; Nicholls' s Conferences,
Part I. Campbell on Miracles ; and very particularly the
Prefident Goguet's very learned work on the fubject,
with the Differtations annexed to the third volume.
To talk of the lofs and revival of fuch arts as the
foregoing is abfurd ; for, if fome trifling arts, or fome
not of indifpenfable utility, may have vanifhed or de
generated in the lapfe of ages, yet, as Dr. Wotton, in
the preface to his very learned work, reafonably afks,
who hath fuffered, fince the days of Tubal-Cain, the
' ufe of metals to be loft in the world ? the ufe of letters
to be intermitted, fince the days of Cadmus ? When
have the arts of planting, weaving, building, been laid
afide ? or the ufe of the loadftone forgotten ? See alfo
the Prefident Goguet's Preface, p. vii.
Befides the argument drawn from the novelty of arts
<ind fciences, there are circumftances connected there
with, which have not, as far as I know, been ever duly
confidered and enquired into; namely, the confumption
of exhauflible commodities, fuch as the products of
mines of all forts. It is propofed as a queftion in the
Let Ires de quelques Juifs a M. Voltaire, whether there-
was not formerly more gold and filver in the world,
than now. See p. 397. and in a note, p. 407. the ac-
. count of Agatharcides, preferved by Photius, of the
.immenfe quantity of gold among the Alileans and Caf-
fandrins, in the fouthern parts of Africa, is particularly
noticed. Dean Prideaux has given us the fame ex
tract, in his attempt to fettle the true country oiOphir.
.Connection*, Part I. b. i. where may be alfo feen the
immenfe amount o*f the gold fupplied by David for the
building of the temple. But in the fifth book the
learned author particularly treats of the J'uper abundance
oi gold and filver in thofe early times, where he has
r 3 occafion

245 NOTES TO SERMON V.
occafion to fpeak of the extravagant fum offered by
Haman, for the deftruction of the Jews, Either iii. 9.
See particularly pp. 311, 312. and notes f, g, h, &c. See
alfo the account of the Spanifh mines worked by the
Phoenicians, in Gibbon' s Roman Hifiory , vol. i. ch.vi. 258.
It is generally admitted, by thofe who have treat
ed of the origin of arts and fciences, either profef-
fedly or hiftorically, that the precious metals were ori
ginally found on the furface of the earth, and were
procurable in great abundance, without the labour of
digging for them : they were alfo employed for pur-
poles, Sor which they were not fitted by nature ; as for
arms, and tools to cultivate the earth. See Diod. Sie,
lib. i. The Egyptians put gold and filver to all forts of
ufes. Herodot. lib. iii. And this was found to be much
more recently the cafe with the Mexicans and Peru
vians, when the Spaniards firft explored America. M.
Bailly, in his eccentric Letters on the Atlantis of Plato,
feems to make it an argument of the great antiquity
of his favourite hyperboreans, that arms and tools of
brafs and gold have been found in abundance near the
river Jeniica. Now, befides that the want of iron in
struments is a direct proof of the little progrefs they
muft have made in metallurgy ; if he had turned to
the 5th book of Lucretius, he would have found, that
fuch has been the progrefs of things from the firft.
Gold and filver were firft ufed, then brafs, and laftly
iron. So far, therefore, from fuch relics being any
proof of the perfection of the arts in fuch countries,
they evince the very contrary ; and whatever peo
ple they belonged to, fo far from being marks of re
finement, or of any great degree of perfection, they
plainly Shew them to have been in a comparative ftate
of rudenefs, and in the very infancy of civilization.
And thus perhaps what we read of the profufe fplen-
dor, and riches, and copious ornaments of ancient
buildings, inftead of Supplying arguments for the great
antiquity of the world, may rather ferve to demon
strate in a direct manner the novelty of our continents,
and even lay a foundation perhaps for curious calcular
tions in regard to the duration of our globe, in its pre
fent habitable ftate : for that many minerals both of
ufe and ornament are in a ftate of actual exhauftion, we

NOTES TO SERMON V. MT
we cannot, I think, poffibly doubt. Coals have not been
in general ufe many centuries, and yet fome mines are
already entirely exhaufted, and forges and manufactories
at an end, that had been erected for the particular local
advantages of the fuel they fupplied. I am obliged to
cite from memory, but I am pretty well affured, that
there is much that is very curious upon this fubject to
be found in Williams's Mineralogy, or Natural Hiftory of
the Mineral Kingdom, printed in Scotland.
The conceit of the growth of minerals, which feems
to have been chiefly founded on a mistaken notion
of flalactical depofitions, is now too generally ex
ploded, to afford any expectation, in the prefent ftate
of things, of an adequate fupply and replacing of fuch
confumed and confumable commodities; nor are we
Sufficiently acquainted with the operations of nature, in
the production of metals, to afcertain the probability,
or even poffibility, of any copious renewal of thofe ar
ticles : and yet it is calculated, that in our town of
Birmingham alone, the quantity of gold and Silver an
nually employed in gilding and plating, and thereby
difquaVified from ever afterwards appearing in the fib ape
qf thofe metals, amounts to more than 5o,oool fterling ;
equal to the 120th part of the whole annual importa
tion of thofe metals into Europe, at the rate of fix mil
lions a year. See Smith's Wealth qf Nations, b. i. ch. II.
May it nob admit of a queftion, whether the operations
of nature, abfolutely neceffary for the production of
metallic veins, the dislocation and fracture of Strata to
afford room for them, and the formation of fuch exten
sive beds of coals, and other bituminous matters as we
meet with, may not be fo violent as to require that the
globe fhould be uninhabitable at the time ; and there
fore, that the origin or renewal of our race muft needs
he referable to fome fuch cataftrophe as an univerfal de-
buge, or a general arrangement of the materials of the
globe; and that not very remote ? But this will be con
fidered more at large in the Notes to the next Dif
courfe, Page 209. note (6) .
When once we give up the Mofaic eera of the creation
of man, a$ fabulous, we have comparatively an eternity
before us,\) If the aSTumed antiquity of Some nations
p 4 exceeded

24& NOTES TO SERMON V.
exceeded the Mofaic account by only a few years, or a
few ages, we might be more difpofed to examine their
pretenfions : but when we come to. 470,000 years, (the
Chaldean account, according to Cicero,) to the Egyp
tian, Phoenician, Chinefe, and above all the Hindu
annals, of millions of years, it is impoffible to conceive
the art of writing to have been fo late a difcovery, as
to have fecured to us no records, that can be at all re
lied on. Dr. Toulmin, a modern writer on the anti
quity of the world, who, from the dates, of his publi
cations, appears to have been, in the year 1780, only
affured of the immenfe antiquity of the globe, and not
to have conjectured it to be eternal till the year 1785,
(what progrefs his ideas afterwards made we know '
not,) fets afide all accounts of the origin of the earth
and of man as barbarous tales, fabricated in the rude
infancy of fociety. Now none of thefe accounts them
felves can be proved to be older than Mofes, as he
muft know, to whatever extent their hiftories are carried
back ; and yet their times are called the rude infancy
of fociety, by a man who infifts upon the eternity of the
world. He tells us, " human teftimony or tradition,
" even granting them their utmoft latitude, are but of
" the moft limited extent ; that it is only in the ad-
" vanced fiate of refinement, that the art of writing
" could at any time or in any country poffibly have
" taken its origin ;" and he adds, as if it followed as
an immediate conclufion from the above premifes,
" Reafon will be found to announce, without the flia-
" dow of hefitation, that the human fpecies, &c. fluc-
" tuating in their increafe and decreafe, their barba-
" rifm and refinement, actually have flourished, amidft
" the unceafing revolutions of nature, through an eter-
" nity of exiftence!"
This fame art of writing is a great ftumbling-block to
Deifts and Atheifts. If the firft written hiftories give
us an account of the origin of things, they were bar
barous ages, and could tell; us nothing but fables; but
when they want to make the world very old, then
writing is the invention of a refined age, and that age
nobody knows how remote. Voltaire forgets himfelf
fo far as to let us into this fecret. Moles, fays, he,
could not have written the Pentateuch, becaufe at that
time

NOTES TO SERMON V. 249
time they knew no, method of writing but thehierogly-
phical. They had nothing to write upon but wood,
and brick, and ftone, and therefore could never write
fuch a great book {gros livre) as the Pentateuch :
which is certainly a very fmall book, as the whole
Bible, is, comparatively. But when, on another occa
fion, the fame carelefs writer (to fay no worfe of him)
has to fpeak of Sanchoniathon, that favourite rival of
the Jewifh legiflator, then, he was at leaft contempo
rary with Mofes, and ufed alphabetical characters, and
derived his hiftory from the writings of Thaut, who
flourifhed 800 years before him. See Lettres de quel
ques Juifs, &c. Page 212. note (7).
Muff have been as bold an impnfiure as could well have
been attempted.] " Neque vero cuiquam prudenti cre-
" dibile fiet Mofem, qui non iEgyptios tantum hoftes
" habebat, fed et plurimas gentes alias, Idumaeos,
" Arabas, Phoenicas ; vel de mundi ortu et rebus anti-
" quiffimis ea aufum palam prodere, quae aut aliis
" fcriptis prioribus revinci poffent, aut pugnantem fibi
" haberent perfuafionem veterem et communem." Grot.
de Verit. 1. i. §. 16.
When Mofes is accufed or fufpected of writing in
conformity with the cofmogonies of other nations, this
at leaft muft be granted, that they are as much in con
formity with him. Now it is remarkable, that while
the former are fo enveloped in fable, that no philofopher
pretends to compare his own fyftem with them ; the
latter is fo fimple and fo clear, and fo connected with the
hiftory ofthe earth and of man, that it is particularly
open to examination, and capable of being verified. Had
there been any foundation for the extravagant chrono
logy of Manetho, Berofus, or the ftill more ancient
records of Sanchoniathon, how could Mofes ever have
dreamt of Succeeding in an attempt to convince tlie
world that none of thefe nations had exified for folong
a term as 2500 years ? Mr. Volney calls Mofes on one
occafion artful and fubtle, and yet conceives he bor
rowed his cofmogony from India ; agreeing with M.
Dupuis all the while in afcribing fuch an age to the
world as is wholly and entirely inconfiftent with the
Gencfis

250 NOTES TO SERMON V.
Genefis of Mofes. Had Mofes gone beyond the records
of ancient nations, and carried his chronology much
higher, he might indeed with reafon have been reputed
at leaft as cunning as the Chaldeans, who, as Lactan
tius fays, (fpeaking exprefsly of their chronological ex
travagancies,) " in quo quia fe poffe argui non puta-
" bant, liberum fibi crediderunt effe, mentiri." Lib. vii.
14. fee alfo the notes to that chapter in the variorum
edition. But where could Mofes's art or fubllety be, in
beginning his hiftory with a fact fo perfectly in oppofi-
tion to known and acknowledged records, had any fuch
really exifted as it is pretended, and in the very midft
of the nations to whom thofe records are affigned ? for
while Mr. Volney, M. Dupuis, and others, have con
cluded that Moles borrowed from the Hindus, the
German New Expofitors, MM. Teller, Eichhorn, &c.
fuppofed his cofmogony was borrowed from the Chal
deans and Egyptians. And yet So little did he refemble
thofe he is faid to have borrowed from, that the learned
Dr. Craven very properly enquires, " How was it that
" the Jews drew not waters from the fountains of
" Chaldea and Egypt, or rather, whence had they their
" clear and pure waters, when all the fprings were
"every where muddy and corrupt?" See his Dif-
courfes on the Jewifh and Chriftian Difpenfaiions, p. 51.
About 500 years before Chrift, Democritus and many
other philofophers, who maintained that the world had
had a beginning, applied themfelves to prove the new-
nefs of it by all the means that hiftory and critical
knowledge could furnifh; yet we do not iee that it was
ever undertaken to refute them folidly: though, had
the pretended Babylonian and Egyptian antiquities
been true, nothing would have been eaSier. See Goguet,
vol. iii. 283. Page 213 . note (8) .
If all thai can le reafonably done in this way has not yet
been done, &c] Nothing appears to be more difficult
than to keep etymology within its proper bounds,
when it is made the foundation of any Syftem. Though
the very learned and refpectable Mr. Bryant laid down
rules for the conduct of fuch enquiries, it is very
doubtful whether he was not guilty of infringing them

NOTES TO SERMON V. 251
them himfelf; and that many of his followers have
done fo, is paft all doubt. Etymologies therefore muft
always be left to tell their own ftory, and the difcern-
ing reader, to Separate what is reafonable from what is
fanciful ; for that the whole is fanciful can never be
pretended. As to the comparifon of ancient mytholo
gies with the Mofaic writings, this certainly alfo ad
mits of being carried too far ; and the Abbe Houtteville,
in his ingenious difcourfe of the Authors for and againft
. Chriftianity, has given a very proper caution upon the
fubject in his review ofthe writings of the celebrated
Bifhop of Avranches, M. Huet. The Bible tells the
Story in a plain and Simple manner; it exprefsly, and
upon all occafions, defcribes idolaters as apoftates ; as
having " gone aflray," and " turned afide" from the
true and primitive religion; as having wilfully "be-
" come abominable, filthy, and corrupt." Their fables
and abfurd additions therefore muft be to themfelves ;
the original need not be too feduloufly fought for in
the midft of fuch rubbifh ; it is miraculous, and there
fore proof enough in itfelf of the divine authority ofthe
Pentateuch, and ofthe Hebrew accounts ofthe Deity,
that, when every other part of the world fell into fuch
corruptions, the knowledge ofthe true God was preferved
among the Jews. And it may be a fit anfwer to make
to thofe who think the facred writers had a motive to
impofe upon the world in the ambition to appear as the
founders of a religion, and the firft minifters of a divine
revelation, that they particularly difclaim the merit they
might have pretended to, of being the firft to promul
gate the true religion ; for they conftantly refer to a
time preceding the very firft beginnings of idolatry ;
" I have declared, I have faved, and I have fhewed,
" wbentbere was nq firange God among you :" which is
the more to be attended to, becaufe Mr. Hume, and
many of his way of thinking, peremptorily infill upon
it, that Polytheifm, or Idolatry, was, and neceffarily
mufi have been, the firft and moft ancient religion of
mankind. Mr. Hume even refts his argument on the
teftimony of the moft ancient records of the human race :
" The farther we go back to antiquity, the more of ido-
" latry do we find ; no marks, 'no fymptoms of any more
" perfect religion." See his Nat. Hiflt. of Religion. Can any

2$3 NOTES TO SERMON V.
any thing be more perfectly falfe ? Again he fays, "As
" far as writing or hiftory reaches, mankind appear to
" have been univerfally Polytheifts." Mr. Hume, I
know, thought that true hifiory began with Thucydides;
but neither Mr. Hume, nor any other Freethinker, can
abfolutely annihilate the teftimony of the Bible. Could
Mr. Hume pretend that King David did not exift be
fore Thucydides? nor the Book of Chronicles, in which
the prayer and thankfgiving of that righteous king are
recorded, and in which is that noble teftimony to the
unity of God, not as a new or philofophical difcovery,
but as derived from revelation and tradition, " O Lord,
" there is none like thee, neither is there any God be-
" fides thee, according to all that we have heard with our
" ears." I Chron. xvii. 20. and 2 Sam. vii. 22.
Inftead then of fearching for refemblances in the
Pagan mythologies, which the Infidel is too apt to
turn againft us, as fuppofing all to be equally my
thological, let us for ever infift upon- the notorious
and marked difference between them ; efpecially in re
gard to the acknowledgment of that great and fun
damental truth of all, the unity of God : which not
only Mr. Hume, but Lord Bolingbroke afferted to be a
difcovery impoffible in the earlieft ages of the world.
" This rational, this orthodox belief, this firft true
" principle of all theology, was not eftablifhed, nor
" could be fo, till — (when ?) the manhood of philo-
" fophy." And yet, like Mr. Hume, who calls Mofes
a barbarous writer of a more barbarous age, Lord Bo
lingbroke affures us, the notions of the facred penmen
were plainly thofe of an ignorant people, and an un-
philofophical age. And Voltaire, with his ufual flip
pancy, fpeaking of the Jews, fays, " vous demandez
" quelle etoit la philofophie des Hebreux— 4'article fera
" bien court — ils n'en avoient aucune." His friend
Diderot however lays it down as a maxim, that the
idea of the unity of God could not be, but " le fruit
" tardif des meditations "humaines." It is incredible
how men will perfift in overlooking the marvellous ac
counts which the Scriptures of the Old Teftament con
tain, of the being, and moft undoubted attributes of
God. Every Freethinker admits that the Jews were a
barbarous people, and. lived in an obfcure corner, and
were

NOTES TO SERMON V. 2$}
Were in no manner addicted to philofophy ; and yet in
their writings, the antiquity of which it is impoffible to
doubt, the pureft Theifm, the moft orthodox and fun
damental principles of all theology, and actually a moft
correct chain of philofophical reafoning, are to be found,
Infidels themfelves being judges : for Lord Bolingbroke
and Diderot, whom I have cited, both admit that
Abraham was a pure Theift ; and the former, that the
unity of God was acknowledged in the world previous
to his vocation, (of which there is no record but the
holy Scriptures :) and Mr. Paine admits that " the
" xixth Pfalm, and fome parts of Job, are true deifti-
" cal compositions, and are founded upon natural philo-
" fophy, fince they treat of God through his works."
And yet the facred writers made no claim to be ac
counted philofophers ; (fee Leland' s View of Deiftical
Writers, vol. ii. 107.) they left philofophy to inftruCt
the heathens, as it ought to have done, and gratefully
acknowledged, that they had the additional light of di
vine Revelation ; fee Pfalm cxlvii.
As to the collateral teftimony to the truth of the Mo
faic cofmogony, which Pagan mythologies are thought
to fupply, it feems to be a cafe Sufficiently admitted by
Deifts ; while Mofes is continually held by them to be
a plagiarist, and to have borrowed, as it has been ftated
before, from the Egyptians, Chaldaeans, Phoenicians, and
laftly from the Hindus. And Lord Bolingbroke exprefsly
afferts it to be his opinion, " that three or four ancient
" neighbouring nations feemed to have a common fund
" of traditions, which they varied according to their
" different fyftems of religion, philofophy, and policy."
Vol. iii. of his Works, p. 282. We want no more than
this to be granted ; only Lord Bolingbroke in another
place is pleafed to fay, " We have nothing to do with
" the antediluvian wbrld." But we fhall infift upon it
that we have every thing to do with the hiftory of the
antediluvian world, as recorded in the Genefis of
Mofes, where we not only have a regular account of
the creation of the earth and of man, and of the origin
of evil, but ofthe patriarchal religion, in which the unity
of God was an acknowledged tenet. How much more
right and reafon have we to infift upon no arguments being

$$4 NOTES TO SERMON V.
being drawn from the poffibility of the world beihff
older, and of there having been more ancient records!
If any exift more ancient than the Bible, let them be
produced : whatever is not extant in any fliape at all, is
out of the queftion. Are metaphyfical reafonings,
as Goguet obferves, to deftroy hiftorical evidence ?
But even if any are extant older than the Pentateuch,
the date of the record of the cofmogony is not the
matter we are fo much concerned with, as the dates of
the events recorded, and the true nature of the primitive;
unadulterated religion ofthe Patriarchs ; in which unquef-
tionably, according to Mofes, the unity of God was a
diftinguiShing feature; a matter of Revelation indeed in
the firft inftance, but which the facred writers do not
appear to have been fo unphilofophical as not to have
enforced and fupported with fuitable arguments. In
deed, if they are not to be fuppofed to have been
infpired, I think it would be eafy to Shew, (nor
would the proofs which I have been at the pains to
collect be withheld, but that there is not room to in-
fert them,) that, as wninfpired writers, they are better
Philofophers than any of the fages of antiquity, Plato
not excepted ; more fublime Poets than any of the an
cient bards, Homer and Pindar not excepted; and.
more refpectable, more honeft, more undaunted advo
cates of the truth, than any of the ancient Theifts, So
crates not excepted. Their defcriptions of the Deity,
their expofure ofthe abfurdities of idolatry, their forti
tude in the vindication of God's majefly, and contempt
of all popularity, acquired with any Sacrifice of their
religious principles, are the points we have to attend to,
when we compare them with the priefts and prophets,
poets and philofophers of Pagan nations.
As to the collateral teftimonies to the truth of the
Bible, fupplied by hiftorians and other profane writers,
fo many have been at the pains to collect them, that
they need" not be given at length ; and I have already
referred to fome writers, in whofe works they will be
found, at the end of Serm. IV. Many more might have
been mentioned; but whoever wifhes to purfue the fub
ject, fhould by all means confult the references in Dr.
Doddridge's Lectures on Pneumalology, Ethics, and Di
vinity,

NOTES TO SERMON V. 255
vinity, publifhed in 4to, Lond. 1763. an admirable
addition to Grotius's celebrated 16th feet, of his firft
book De Veritate, 8cc. Page 215. note (9).
But though fome have thought this poffible, &c] The
origin of languages feems to be a refearch which anti
quaries cannot refill ; but few theories upon the fub
ject feem to have met with any extenfive encourage
ment. As a theological queftion, it is fomewhat incon
fiftent -to expect to trace the languages of the earth
back to any one common flock, as I have fhewn in the
Sermon ; neverthelefs it is a reafonable remark of L
Cafaubon's, that thofe languages feem to have retained
moft ofthe Hebrew, that belong to countries moft in
the neighbourhood of Paleftine. " Eft enim veriffi-
" mum, linguas ceeteras eo manifefliora et magis ex-
" preffa originis Hebraicae veftigia fervafl'e, et nunc
" fervare, quo proprius ab antiqua et prima hominum
" fede abfuerunt." The fame is obferved in regard to
other particulars by Dr. Hartley, in his Obfervations on
Man, Prop, exxiii. 4to edit. 1791 . As many are ftill bufy
in tracing out the analogy of languages, and fame the
mod remote and unconnected have been lately held to
agree, I fhall infert the following criteria, which have
lately appeared in the Edinburgh Review of General
Vallancey's Profpectus of an Irifh Dictionary. " The
" Hebrew, Arabic, Chaldee, Syriac, and Phoenician,
" are indeed dialects of the fame original language ;
" and it may not be improper to mention the criteria
" by which we fupport our affertion. Thefe dialects;
" have the major of their words nearly the fame both
" in fenfe and found ; their verbs are formed of a fimi-
" lar number of letters. ; their moods, tenfes, numbers,
" and perfons, are formed in the fame manner, and by
" the fame letters or particles. All the fix dialects
"agree in the declenfion of their nouns, and in the
" genius of their construction : the nations which
" ipoke them were contiguous, fimilar in cuftoms
" and manners, and their written hiftory records the
" fact of their common original. Thefe are the criteria
" by wbich we maintain, that the affinities of all the
,c tribes of mankind may be difcovered with tolerable " accu-

255 NOTES TO SERMON V.
" accuracy." Too much certainly has been made of
very Slight and partial refemblances, and the mania for
radicals has often reminded us of the expedient of
Pfammetichus recorded by Herodotus, and which upon
the authority of the word Beckos, as is well known,
transferred to the Phrygians the honour of being of Su
perior antiquity to the Egyptians : but only for a
time; for G^ropius Becanus had the ingenuity after
wards to wreft the palm from the Phrygians, by fhew-
ing, that though Beckos fignified bread in Phrygia, yet as
3Bctfot fignified baker in German, the Germans were
certainly the people pointed out by the exclamation of
the Egyptian boys. The enquiry however, when con
ducted with fobriety, is Certainly always curious, but
not, I think, fo much connected with- theology as has
been often fuppofed. On the origin of alphabetical cha
racters, fee Shuckford's Connection, b. iv. and Warbur
ton' s Divine Legation, but particularly the Difcourfes
of the learned I. Johnfon, Vicar of Cranbrook,
Vol. ii. Page 218. note (10).
The celebrated Afironomical Tables of the Hindus,
however, have been fuppofed to fupply us with data qf much
¦more certainty.] I fhall endeavour to comprefs what I
have to fay upon this head into as fmall a compafs as
poffible, though fo many circumftances in the hiftory
ofthe world feem to admit of being brought together
in illuftration of the point I have to eftablifh, that
much that is very curious muft, I fear, be unavoidably
omitted. The world has been fo long amufed with
chronological extravagancies, as far as figures only are
concerned, that it is not to be wondered, that when
the Hindu records came to be examined, they fliould
alfo be found to abound in fimilar perplexities. A
people whofe geographical fyftem of the earth makes
the circumference of the globe 2,455,600,000 Britifh
miles, (fee Mr. Wilford's paper, art. xviii. ofthe 5th vol.
of the Afiatic Refearches,) and their mountains 49 1 miles
high, may well he expected/ not to be behind hand
with other nations, in their accounts of the antiquity
of their country : a people who could invent for their
god Brahma a year compofed of the multiplication of
two

NOTES TO SERMON V. 257
two thoufand ages, (each of above four millions of our
years,) - by 360, may well be expected not to ftand
upon much ceremony either with time or numbers in
the fabrication of a chronological fyftem. This is not
faid merely to expofe them ; it is their character by all
accounts, to be confummately Skilful in calculations,
and in the combination and .resolution of numbers.
Sir William Jones difcovered^ in the dp-ration affigned
. to the feveral Indian Yugs, or ages, an arrangement,
exceedingly curious: to give it in his own words,
*•' the duration of hi (tori cal ages," fays he, "muft needs
" be very unequal and disproportionate, while that of
" the Indian Yugs is difpofed fo regularly and artifici-
" ally, that it cannot be admitted as natural and pro-
" bable. Men do not become reprobate in a geometri-
" cal progreffion, or at the termination of regular pe-
" riods; yet fo well proportioned are the Yugs, that
" even the length of human life is diminifhedas they
" advance, from an hundred thoufand years in a.fubde-
" cuple ratio ; and as the number of principal avatars
" in each decreafes arithmetically from four, fo the
" number of years in each decreafes geometrically, and
" all together conftitute the extraordinary fum of four
" millions three hundred and twenty thoufand years ;
" which aggregate multiplied by feventy-one is the
" period in which every Menu is believed to prefide
" over the world. — The comprehenfive mind of an In-
" dian chronologlft has no limits ; the reigns of 14
" Menus are only a fingle day of Bramba, 50 of which
" have elapfed, according to the Hindus, from the time
" of the creation." Sir William adds, that, .poffibly
this is only an aftronomical riddle. (See the paper in the
ift vol. of Afiatic Refearches; on the Gods qf Greece, Italy,
and India.)
The celebrated M. le Gentil, who has done fo much
to elucidate the fubject of Indian aftronomy, confeffes
that at firft he difdained to meddle with fuch extrava
gancies. (Mimoires de I' Acadimie, 1772.) It is to him
however, that we are chiefly indebted for the Aftronomi
cal Tables, which will be the fubject of this note, and
which may not be, treated with indifference, after the
refpect that has been fhewn to them by two fuch
eminent and very learned men, as M. Bailly and Yro-
s feffor

358 NOTES TO SERMON V.
feffor Playfair. The great queftion feems to be, whether
they were derived from actual obfervation, and what
are the dates to be affigned to the particular obfervations
on which they depend. Both M. Bailly and Profeffor
Playfair, it is well known, refer them to actual obferva
tions; and M. Bailly has fixed on the epoch 3102 before
our aera, which is that of the Tables of Tirvalour,'m
preference not only to the epochs 1569, and 1656, which
are thofe of the Narfapur Tables, but to the epoch of the
Tables of Chrifnabouram, viz. 1491 of our Sera. M.
Bailly however is for carrying back the Indian obferva
tions ftill further, namely, to j 200 years before the Kali
Yug, or to 4302 before Chrift : but this he profeffes to
be only conjecture. What M. Bailly and Profeffor
Playfair moft decidedly agree in, if I miftake not, is,
that the places of the fun and moon, at the beginning
of the Kali Yug, or 4th age ofthe Hindus, mufi have been
determined by actual obfervation; and that two elements
ofthe Hindu aftronomy, viz. the equation ofthe fun's
center, and the obliquity of the ecliptic, feem to fix the
origin of this aftronomy 1000 or 1200 years earlier.
Now the Kali Yug commenced anno 3102 before our
aera; according to M. Bailly, Freret, and others.
I do not mean at all to difcufs the queftion concern
ing the fact or aera ofthe actual obfervation infifted on,
nor concerning the antiquity either of the Tables them
felves, or ofthe celebrated aftronomical work, the Surya
Siddhanta. A few obfervations upon each will be fuf
ficient, as it is principally ; my defign to examine into
the ftate of the queftion, as it relates to the chronology
of the Bible, fuppofing what is moft extraordinary
in the cafe to be true. As to the fact— Mr. Marfden,
who does juftice to M. Bailly's very curious reafohings
Upon the fubjecVand to the Indians' early knowledge
of aftronomy, and fome parts of mathematics connected
therewith, is difpofed to queftion the verity and poffibility
of fuch an obfervation, at fuch a period, arid conceives
that the fuppofed conjunction was later, and fought
for as an epoch, and calculated retrofpedtively ; [Phil.
Tranf actions, 1790;] and he Shews it to have been wide
ly mifcalculated. ; Mr. Bentley's calculations in the
6th Vol. of the Afiatic Refearches, to fhew that fuch
epochs might be affumed without much hazard of arfy
perceptible

NOTES TO SERMON V. 259
perceptible variation, are certainly very curious, and
muft be well known to every aftronomer : his conjec
tures concerning the age of the Surya Siddhanta do
not appear to be generally affented to. As to the epoch
of 3102, which M. Bailly fixes on, he acknowledges to
have chofen it in preference to others ; firft, becaufe
there was an eclipfe at that time; and fecondly, becaufe
there was, according to the Indians, a conjunction of
all the planets. But this latter circumftance was not
true ; and M. Bailly himfelf fays, the appearance of
Venus muft have been affumed through " le gout du
" merveilleux." See the Difcours Priliminaire to his
Afironomie Indienne, &c. p. 28 ; and confult Mr. Marf-
den's paper in the Phil. Tranfactions already referred to.
St is not however with the fact itfelf that we have fo
much concern at prefent, as I obferved before, as with
the evidence M. Bailly would adduce in corroboration
of the point he wifhes to prove ; and which led him
into a courfe of chronological refearches by no means
undeferving our regard ; as I think they particularly
ferve to fhew, whatever M. Bailly's real intention might
be in bringing them forward, that, of all the embarraffed
and extravagant computations of antiquity, none can
with any reafon be thought to afcend higher than the
patriarchal ages, nor with any clearnefs beyond the
flood. It feems pretty generally agreed, that of all
fciences aftronomy was the earlieft cultivated ; and
there is great reafon why it Should have been fo. For
in the night, the ancients probably had no other guide
but the ftars; and, at all events, no other means of mark
ing time, than by the riling and fetting ofthe different
constellations. [Affemannus de Aftronom. Arabum,\.\I]
So that fome imagined that Adam and Eve had correct
notions of aftronomy inftilled into, them for their ufe ;
(fee the AlmageftoiRicciolus;) a conceit which, however
fanciful, at leaft Serves to Shew the great and almoft in
difpenfable importance attributed to the fcience in
early ages : and we know that Jofephus accounted for
the longevity of the Patriarchs, by the neceffity there
was that they fhould outlive the period of the annus
magnus, (600 years,) for aftronomical purpofes; and his
referi&nces upon this head are numerous. Ant. Jud. lib. i.
ch. iii. §.9. (The Chaldaean Neros was a term of 600
s 2 years.)

35o NOTES TO SERMON V.
years.) Nor is it out of our way to notice what he
fays of the proficiency of the family of Seth in the
knowledge of aftronomy, and ofthe pillars they erected
to preferve their obfervations ; for M. le Gentil, in his
paper on- the Indian aftronomy in the Mimoires de I'Aca-
dimie 1782, inclines to think that even the preceffion of
the equinoxes, was known before the flood, and that
there was much more than time for fuch a difcovery
from Adam, according to the chronology of the LXX.
and Jofephus; and that this was one of the pieces of
knowledge preferved by Noah; in which alfo M. Caffini
feems to agree with him. He even obferves, that the In
dian Tables we are particularly treating of have a lapi
dary form, and conjectures therefore that they were
originally engraved on ftones ; and as they feem to af-
cend beyond the deluge, they might have been pre
ferved through it ; a circumftance which, he himfelf
adds, Jofephus feems to confirm, with evident allufion
to Seth's pillars. But to return to M. Bailly. In the
Preliminary Difcourfe to his Indian Aftronomy, he feeks
to eftablifh the certainty of the third Indian age, and
to reduce it to a near conformity with the Greek chro
nology of Scripture. M. Bailly's account of the Hin
du ages is as follows.
The Indians count 17 ages from the birth of
Brama : we are in the 18th. — The firft 14 ages
amount to " mille cinquante millions d'annees :" in fi
gures 1050,000,000 of years. Thefe are evidently fabu
lous. The laft four ages are thofe which chiefly fall
under confideration, and according to thefe the world
is to laft 4,320,000 years, according to the following di-
vifion ;
The firft age .... 1,728,000 years.
The fecond .... 1,296,000 . .
The third  864,000 . .
The fourth .... 432,000 . .
Thefe are the chronological extravagances which M.
le Gentil confeffes he at firft difdained to meddle with.
The two firft M. Bailly thinks fabulous; but the third
he is difpofed to admit as real, fubject to fuch reduc
tions, as the cuftom of diftant ages feems fully to au-
thorife. No cafe feems more determined than that
the ancients had years of all lengths and defcriptions ;
oS

NOTES TO SERMON V. 261
of two weeks or fifteen days, half a month— of one, or
two months ; fix months, &c. or thirty, and fixty days,
&c. All thefe were known in India, particularly that
ofthe fortnight, or dark and bright halves of the moon :
indeed both day and year, we are affured, in India,
mean no more than the Saros ofthe Chaldaeans, viz. a
revolution. I have obferved, that M. Bailly gives up the two firft
ages as fabulous ; it is only the third and fourth that he
meddles with, and the third which he labours to efta
blifh; for the fourth, or Kali Yug, is generally admitted
to be the current age from the flood. His aim is to
Shew that the Hindus are not without historical re
cords, which might juftify the chronology he contends
for. But it muft be recollected, that when M. Bailly,
or any other perfon, is fo ready to give up an extrava
gant computation, merely becaufe it Seems fo; if the
Scripture account of the creation of the world is not
true, no reafon appears for confidering fuch a duration
of ages as either imaginary or exaggerated ; for the
great queftion is, whether the world is of the age
Mofes affigns to it, or oi immenfe antiquity, if not even
eternal. We are not enquiring into a difference merely
of days or years, or even centuries ; not how long a
patriarch lived, or a king reigned : but when the
world was firft inhabited, when deflroyed, and when
re-peopled. Thefe are epochs to be determined out of
an infinity of time ; for if the Bible is not true, Infidels
acknowledge no precife limits to the duration of the
earth, and fome ftill contend for its eternity. As dif
ferent nations however are known to have adopted a
variety of years, not folar and lunar only, but hebdo
madal and diurnal, if I may fo fay; years of weeks,
and days ; we certainly appear, by a due examination
into their modes of reckoning, if not to get a key ca
pable of opening all their myfteries, yet one which
may enable us to reduce many of their extravagances
upon pretty certain grounds, and by companion to
difcover what is clearly artificial from what may be
real. I have already mentioned in the Difcourfe, the
method adopted for adjufting the accounts of Callif-
thenes and Epigenes ; a circumftance to which M.
Bailly particularly alludes in his Indian Aftronomy,
s 3 and

262 NOTES TO SERMON V.
and which is certainly a very good inftance of the
means that fhould be adopted for reducing the extra
vagant accounts of antiquity : but I think it may be
moft manifeftly fhewn, that many computations ofthe
ancients have either no connection at all with hiftory,
or are fo manifeftly artificial as to allow us to be very
indifferent about the real value and. importance of fuch
reckonings as feem to exceed the Bible chronolog}', but
which have no hiftorical records to fupport them.
If I refer chiefly to the authority of M. Bailly
upon this occafion, it is for the following reafons :
firft, that his talents and ingenuity are univerfally ac
knowledged ; Secondly, that his teftimony on the fide
of Scripture is the more valuable from his known he
terodoxy upon other occafions ; and thirdly, becaufe,
as he had in this inftance a favourite point to eftablifh,
we may reafonably fuppofe, that he has made all he could
make of the hiftorical records of India. In his PrelU
minary Difcourfe then prefixed to his Traite del' Aftro-
nomie Indienne et Orientate, the reader will find fome of
the moft curious chronological computations of anti
quity brought into fuch an agreement as is certainly
very furprifing, and the more to be attended to, be
caufe, whatever M. Bailly's notions at other times were,
concerning the peopling of the globe, and the progrefs
of arts and fciences, he was here certainly proceed
ing upon what he held to be an undoubtedyiz<2; namely,
that the. pofitions of the fun and moon in 3102 A. C.
were derived from actual obfervation. He acknow
ledges that the obfervation is " affectee d'une erreur
" que nous ne pouvons apprecier qu'en connoiffant la
" maniere d'obferver de ces anciens peuples." How
ever the fact he himfelf fully believes to have been fo,
and that this obfervation was further connected with a
previous one, as I flated before. He allows the obferva
tion was not difficult to make, but that it appears to be
authentic and original, becaufe, had the Indians only
borrowed or adopted it, they muft have adopted other
things with it, as the obliquity of the ecliptic, &c. &c.
which is not the cafe. But M. Bailly could not but be
aware, that any hiftorical record in fupport of fuch an
epoch would be more Satisfactory, than the mere fact
of fo remote an obfervation (landing alone. He does not
admit

NOTES TO SERMON V. 263.
admit indeed, that the one would be more decifive than
the other, (though, in fearching for hiftorical records,
he tacitly, at leaft, allows this:) but he obServes, "Si l'on
" trouvoit un manufcrit Indien, ou il fut dit expreffiment
" que l'an 3102 avant notre ere au minuit entre le 17
" et le 18 Fevrier, les Brames ont obferve la lune dans
" io3 6° o', et le foleil dans 10s 30 38' 13", il n'y auroit
" pas lieu d'en douter : il feroit evident que cette de-
" termination feroit une obfervation. Eh bien, ce que
" les Indiens ne difent pas, fe derive directement de
" leurs Tables."
But we muftconfefs, if it can be fuppofed poffible that
fuch epochs might have been affumed, which Mr. Marf-
den and Mr. Bentley feem affured of, the want of any
hiftorical records of thofe times would lead us at once to
queftion the antiquity and originality of the very Tables,
in which the observation appears. M. Bailly however has
Spared no pains to difcover hiftorical records corroborative
of his fuppofition ; and as his purpofe would be anfwered
by eftablifhing the exiftence ofthe 3d as well as ofthe
4th Hindu age, he labours to do this, and with great
ingenuity ; which, though it may not have been alto
gether fuccefsful, is, I think, very inftructive : for from
thence we learn, that, among all the moft known nations
of antiquity, there was a fort of agreement in dates,
and revolutions, and cycles, which was really moft extra
ordinary: in dynafties alfo, and many other particulars,
(See Faber's Horce Mofaicee, vol. i. 125, 126. and
Goguet's Orig. qf Arts and Sciences,, vol. iii. 325.)
M. Bailly fixes upon the families ofthe fun and moon,
that is, the dynafties of Surga-bans and Chandra-bans,
as the antediluvian inhabitants of the world ; which
he compares with the Peris of the Perfians, whom he
would alfo refcue from the gulph of non-entity, and
the demi-gods of Egypt. The utmoft he claims for
them all is, that they fliould be confidered cotemporary
during the third Indian age, which he conceives to
have confifted of lunar years, and which he reduces to
2400 folar years; which added to 3102, the date ofthe
Kali Yug preceding our aera, make together 5502. And
according to. Chiooiades . and Chryfo.cocca, whom he
cites, the Perfians, it feems, carried back the year of the
world to 5507 ; a proof, fays M. Bailly, of their being
derived from the fame fource. Certainly the conformity
s 4 is

254 NOTES TO SERMON V.
is curious. M. Bailly concludes that the Kali Yug was
the beginning of the Hindu reckoning by folar years ;
and he thinks the princes ofthe races of the fun and
moon were poffibly defigned to fignify thofe who
reckoned by lunar and folar years respectively. But
here feems to be an inconfiftency; for if the computa--
tion by folar years only commenced with the Kali Yug,
how can the children of the fun be carried baGk to the
third age ? a circumftance of fome moment, becaufe it
is one point with M. Bailly to prove their correfpon-'
dence with the reign affigned to the fun in Egypt,'
of 30,000 years; which, upon reduction into lunar years,
agree nearly with the 3d Hindu age, in which the
children oi the fun are faid to have reigned. The
Egyptians indeed do appear to have reckoned by lunar
years or months before the flood ; and this ferves to re
concile their account with the computation ofthe LXX.
and the Chaldaean reckoning : (fee Jackfons Chronologi
cal Antiquities :) but I queftion whether the fame may
be faid of the third Hindu age; becaufe the term< af
figned to it by M. Bailly, in iblar years,, multiplied. by
360, makes exactly 864,000; but 864,000 divided by
28, leaves a fraction : fo that the third age would.
furely appear to have confided of years oi days, like all
the others. M. Bailly himfelf makes this reduction of
the feveral ages, and the refult becomes curious, from
another conformity, which mufi be confidered as in
one inftance at leaft fabulous ; for the products ofthe
four ages feverally, divided by 360, amounts in all to
exactly 12,000, which is the very period affigned by
the Perfians for the duration of the world, which they
alio divide into four quarters or ages. To make this
evident, we muft underftand that to every Hindu age
an interval was affigned of different lengths ; to the
ift one of 800 years, to the 2d 600, to the 3d 400, and
to the 4th 200. The ages with their intervals are in
folar years of 360 days each,
ill 4800  in days . . 1,728,000;
2d 3600  1,296,000.
3d M°°  864,000.
4th 1200.  432,000.
igooo- 4,320,000.
Now as the conjecture of the Perfians concerning the
duration

NOTES TO SERMON V. 265
duration of the world mufi have been merely fanciful, fo
in all likelihood were the Hindu ages ; as well as nu
merous other computations with which, the world has
been amufed. For though M. Bailly contends for the
reality of only the 3d and 4th ages,, the two firft might
almoft as reafonably be infifted on; for the kings of
heaven and kings of earth in the Chinefe annals
are faid to have reigned altogether exactly 432,000
years,, which is not only the amount ofthe 4th Indian
age, but multiplied by 7 (the days in a week) pro
duces 3024,000 days, which is exactly the number of
days in the two firft Indian ages, and which, M. Bailly
fays, agrees with the two firft Chinefe races of Tien-
hoang, and Ti-hoang,and with the Dives ofthe Perfians ;
as the third Chinefe race of Gin-hoang agrees with the
third Hindu age and the Peris of the Perfians : fo that,
confidering M. Bailly's general opinion concerning the
age of the globe, we may reafonably fuppofe, that
though, in his Preliminary Difcourfe to the Treatife on
Indian Aftronomy, he profefles to fet afide the two firft
Indian ages as fabulous, he would have been under no
difficulty to have found vouchers for their reality, had
he chofen it ; though nothing can tend more to prove
the fabuloulhefs and contrivance of the whole, than
the above numerical coincidences, whatever may have
been the origin of them, and the caufe of their agree
ment. The fact feems to be, that beyond the Mofaic
aera they are clearly fabulous and artificial, though all
of them may perhaps have been contrived and founded
upon traditions concerning both the antediluvian and
poftdiluvian ftate of the globe: for M. Bailly has cer
tainly moft ingenioufly reduced many ancient accounts
to a near conformity with the Greek and Samaritan
chronology of Scripture, though the numbers by which
they reckoned, and- the unexpected refults that arife in
many inftances from the refolution and comparifon of
thofe numbers, muft ftill induce us to fuppofe they
were not ftrictly historical, but in moft inftances fanci
ful and fuperftitious. Berofus's 120 Sari, which he fays
preceded the deluge, at. 360Q years a Saros, amount to
432,000 years. This then agrees with the Chinefe and
with the Sdindus, but it is not the number of the third,
but of the fourth Hindu age ; it is not antediluvian, but

266, NOTES TO SERMON V.
but poftdiluvian. This number M. le Gentil tells us
reprefents in India a certain number of revolutions of
the equinox at 54 feconds a year. Mimoires de I' Acad,
1782. The Chinefe again fay, that the heavens were
10800 years forming : now 10800 is the amount of
fhe three firft Hindu ages in folar years, with the inter
vals. Here then is a conformity fcarcely to be con
fidered as accidental. Again, by the Perfian account
the earth is given to the Dives for 7000 years prior to
the birth of Adam, and then fucceeded the Peris for 2000
years: now the 7000 years agree with the two firft Hindu.
ages without the intervals, and the 2000 with the
third Hindu age in the fame manner. I have not taken
notice of Mr. Bentley's remark, that the cyphers were
added to the Hindu ages to convert them into poetic
years ; which the reader will find in the 5th vol of the
Afiatic Refearches ; though this muft certainly contri
bute to fhew how arbitrary and fanciful they muft be,
and how little they have to do with real hiftory ; at
leaft beyond a certain period : for as the Kali Yug is
clearly the current poftdiluvian age of the world, I
would by no means pretend to fay that the third
Hindu age is not quite as refpectable, as a chronologi
cal period, as the Egyptian or Chaldaean dynafties, or
the period affigned by Abugiafar to the Peris, which
M. Bailly has made fo much of. My only idea upon
the fubject is, that the traditions concerning the true
chronology of the globe, both antediluvian and poft
diluvian, are at the bottom of all the extravagant com
putations of the ancients ; that they have prelerved
what is true, in .a form more artificial than can be con
fiftent with the hiftory itfelf; that they have in many
inftances carried them back beyond the aera of the
creation, through what M. Bailly calls " le gout du
" merveilleux," and perhaps in the way of rivalry, of
which they have all been accufed; and that many are
entirely aflronomical, and, as Mr. Bryant fays of Ma-
netho's famous cycle of 36525, belong rather to an
ephemeris, than to true hiftory.
Numberlefs have been the attempts to refolve the
number juft alluded to ; perhaps Mr. Bryant's is as
fimple as any : it was the amount, he fays, of the days
in a cycle of 100 years ; for if one year confifts of 365
days

NOTES TO SERMON V. 267
days and one fourth, in one hundred years they would
make exactly 36525. Syncellus's account is, that it
was the multiplication of 146 1 by 25, or the two great
cycles of the fun and moon multiplied into each other,
which completes the revolution of the Zodiac by the
reckoning of the Egyptians and Grecians. M. Freret's
explanation of Syncellus's account he himfelf thinks
original. He tells us the Egyptians divided their Zo
diac into 365 degrees ; the number ofthe days in their
year : but as the year was a quarter of a day fhorter
than the true folar year, they added 36500 quarters of
a day, or 25 years, to their period, for the greater ex-
actnefs. See Mar/ham upon this curious number;
Shuckford' 's Connection, b. i. and Jackfon's Chronological
Antiquities. Jamblichus, it is well known, makes the
writings of Hermes amount to this very fum of 36525;
which might alone ferve to Shew, how little it had' to
do with real hiftory.
I have endeavoured to exprefs myfelf as clearly as I
could, upon this curious point of Hindu chronology ;
becaufe, as it is fuppofed to involve a real fact, and a
real epoch, I think it the beft view that can be taken
of the Hindu chronology. For the folutiOn of the my
thological and aftronomical intricacies of the fyftem,
I muft refer at once to the writings of Sir William
Jones, Mr. Wilford, Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Davis, Mr.
Bentley, and Mr. Maurice. M. Bailly's endeavour to
authenticate the exiftence of the third Hindu age, ap
pears to have brought out fome curious facts in the
hiftory ofthe world; and though the precife limits
affigned to the fourth, or current age, muft Shew how
much of conjecture and fancy there muft be at the bot
tom of their computations ; yet it is well to know what
is admitted to be fabulous, and what is the refult of
fuch reductions and comparifons with the annals of
other nations, as M. Bailly thought it worth his while
to enter into. Thefe I Shall now ftate in his own
words : for the calculations on which he relies, I muft
refer to the work itfelf. " La duree du troifieme age
" Indien eft appuyee fur la duree correfpondante de cet
" intervalle donne de 2222 ans par les Chaldeens,"
(i.e. 120 Sari, according to Suidas,) " et de 2256 ans
" par Jofeph et les Septante. Si l'on joint a ces deux
" temoisr- o

268 NOTES TO SERMON V.
" temoignages ceux qui refultent des 30,000 annees du
" regne du Soleil en Egypte, et les 2000 ans du regne
" des Peris en Perfe, on verra que l'exiftence et la du-.
" ree du troifieme age Indien font etablis fur les anti-
" quites des fix plus anciennes nations du monde, fa-
" voir, les Chinois, les Indiens, les Perfes, les Egyp-
" tiens, les Chaldeens, et les Hebreux; et on aura, fui-
" vant ces differens peuples, un tableau des differentes
" durees qu'ils donnent a cet intervalle, en exceptant,
" les Chinois, qui femblent en avoir conferve la me-
" moire, et non la chronologie.
"LesSeptante - - 2256 ans1.
"Les Chaldeens - 2222.
" Les Egyptiens, regne du foleil - 2340.
"Les Perfes, regne des Peris - 2000.
"Avec l'intervalle Indien - - 2400.
" Les Indiens, troifieme age. Race du foleil 2000.
"Avec l'intervalle - - 2400.
" Par les 78 generations - - 2340.
" II nous femble done demontre, autant que les faits
*' de cette haute antiquite peuvent l'etre, qu'il y a eu
*' un intervalle femblable a celui que nos livres'faints
" comptent entre la creation et le deluge, dont les
?' Chinois, les Indiens, les Perfes, les Egyptiens, et les
'.e Chaldeens ont conferve la memoire ; non-feulement
" la memoire de fon exiftence, mais celle de fa duree,
" et avec une certaine conformite, en admettant, comme
" cela eft vraifemblable, que ces differentes nation^
" partent de differentes epoques." De I'Afironomie In
dienne et Orientate ; Difcours Preliminaire, Part II. pp.
exxvi. exxvii.
I am not myfelf intending to prove the exiftence of
the third Hindu age, or to give being to the dynafties
of the fun and moon, which have much more reafon
ably, perhaps, been concluded to be only folar and lu
nar cycles: but fuppofing them to have been hiftorical,
and that the obfervations in the Tables of Tirvalour
were really of the remote age attributed to them, ftill,
fo far from their being in contradiction to the holy

¦ There are computations exifting, (fee note, p. 222,) which come
within two of M. Bailly's computation, and which he. feems to have, becn-
- unacquainted with. Scrip-

NOTES TO SERMON V. 269
Scriptures, they feem exactly to carry us back to the
patriarchal ages, in which aftronomy has always been
fuppofed to be particularly cultivated, and of which
times many profane nations feem to have preferved a
certain Sort of chronology, much refembling what M.
Bailly has conceived of the third Hindu age ; that is,
mixed with fable, and requiring reductions and other
arrangements ; but thus indeed being capable of being
brought into a near, agreement with the computation
of the Septuagint, Jofephus, and the Samaritan verfion
of the Pentateuch. Beyond this nothing feems at all
to be known or difcovered ; and this is much further
than the ableft Orientalifts will admit, that we have
any true hiftory : Sir William Jones's fummary of the
whole matter being, " that the two following propo-
" fitions be confidered as indubitably eftablifhed ; that
" the three firft ages of the Hindus are chiefly mytho-
" logical, whether their mythology was founded on
" the dark enigmas of their aftronomers, or the he-
" roic fictions of their poets ; and that the fourth or
" hiftorical age cannot be carried back farther than
" 2000 years before Chrift ; that whatever be the com-
" parative antiquity of the Hindu Scriptures, we may
" Safely conclude, that the Mofaic and Indian chrono-
" logies are perfectly confiftent; that Menu, fon of
" Brahma, was the Adima, or firft created mortal, and
" confequently our Adam." See Sir William Jones's
Works, vol. i. pp. 309. 326.
The commencement of the Kali Yug, by every reck
oning, comes near to the Septuagint chronology of the
flood; nearer to the Samaritan ; and if 3102, which is
the epoch M. Bailly and M. Freret affign to it, be at
all right, coincides exactly with Jofephus, for that is
the very term of years he reckons from the flood to
the Chriftian aera; and that every Hindu age is fup
pofed to terminate with a deluge, is well known. . As
to the difference between the Greek and Hebrew chro
nology of the Scriptures, it feems to be a point that
never can be adequately fettled : but I apprehend no
man's faith in the main articles of the facred hiftory
will ever be fhaken by the differences fubfifting. There
is fomething fingular, however, in the fufpicions that
have been formed on the fubject ; for while fome have fup-

270 NOTES TO SERMON V.
fuppofed, that the Egyptian and Chaldean dynafties
were framed to invalidate the chronology of the Sep
tuagint, which happened to appear at the fame time,
(fee Origines Sacra:, p. 29.) others have apprehended,
that the Seventy extended the Hebrew account, in or
der to put the Jews upon a par with the Egyptians and
Chaldaeans ; though indeed a few centuries were but a
very inadequate addition for this purpofe. Thofe, who
are cUrious in this matter muft confult the authors who
have written exprefsly upon this fubject, as Baronius,
and Voffius, Pezron, and le Quien ; and they will find a
very good account of the controverfy, under the article
Chronologie, in the Dictionnaire des Arts et des Sciences.
The Preface to the 8vo. edition of the Univerfal Hiftory,
1747, Should alfo by all means be confulted, where is a
table drawn up from Strauchius, Chevreau and others, of
the different computations of time between the creation
and birth of Chrift, as adopted by various authors. Mr.
Jackfon's Chronological Antiquities axe entirely in defence
of the Greek chronology ; to a conformity with which
he very ingenioufly reduces the Egyptian and Chal
daean records. Attempts have been made alfo, as in
all other inftances, to fettle this controverted point in
chronology by the aid of aftronomy. See Bedford's
Scripture Chronology demonftrated by Aflronomical Calcu
lations. But whatever becomes of the queftion, the great and
moft important truths of the holy Scriptures cannot be
affected by it ; the creation, the fall of man, the de
struction of the world, &c. &c. And if any profane ac
counts fhall feem to be nearly in agreement with the
Greek chronology, it is, I think, as much as can be re
quired or expected. Tbere is one obfervation I cannot
forbear to make with refpect to the Indian Tables. M.
Bailly is very unwilling to admit, that the miffionaries
could have any concern with them ; and he particu
larly draws an argument to this purpofe from the cir
cumftance of thelndian Tables of mean motions agree
ing neareft with Caffini's, which did not exift in 1687,
when the Siam Tables certainly did. If, fays he, the
miffionaries communicated the European aftronomy to
Afia, they could in 1687 only have known the Tables of
Tycho, Riccioli, Copernicus, Bouillard, Kepler, Longo-
montanus,

NOTES TO SERMON V. 271
montanus, or the Tables of Alphonfus. He alfo fays,
that the Indian aftronomy differs in fo many points
from all others, that it muft have been original. P. lxxv.
Now it is fomewhat remarkable, that in M. Bailly's
Tables of comparifon, Tycho Brahe's Table of mean
motions comes the neareft but one to the Indian Table ;
and at p. xii. M. Bailly notices it as a remarkable
thing, that in the Narfapur Tables an annual inequality
is attributed to the moon, Similar to what Tycho
Brahe had difcovered : an inequality not known at
Alexandria, or in Arabia. It is well known, that the
Chinefe1 Tables occasioned fimilar furprife, till Caflini
and Picard difcovered their extraordinary agreement
with the Tables of Tycho Brahe ; and upon queftion-
ing Father Couplet, (who was a very fincere man,) he
acknowledged, that his brethren had reformed the Chi
nefe Tables by them . See Renaudot on Chinefe Learning ;
who adds, that he had heard the fame from Couplet's
own mouth. Couplet went to China in 1650, and re
turned in 1680.
As to the motive alleged by M. Bailly for preferring
the epoch of 3102, becaufe of the fuppofed conjunction
of the planets, it feems trifling, and rather to refemble
fome fanciful methods of fixing the epoch of the crea
tion ; two of which, as not unfuitable to the fubject of
this note, occur to me at this moment. The one to
prove the truth of the Hebrew, the other of the Greek
chronology of Scripture. " A remarkable aftronomical
"epoch," fays M. la Place, irl his Traiti du Micaniqne
cilefie, Paris, 1802, " is that in which the great axis of
' the terreftrial orbit coincided with the line of the
' equinoxes ; for then the true and mean equinoxes
' were united. I find, by the preceding formulas,
1 that this phenomenon took place towards the year
* 4004 before Chrift, a period at which the majority
' of our chronologifts place the creation ofthe world."
The author of the other I know not ; but his argu
ment is drawn from the revolutions of the great comet
which appeared in 1680, and whofe period was deter
mined by Sir Ifaac Newton to be 575 years : and he
makes out, that, according to the Greek chronology,
(I know not which computation he could adopt,) twelve
revolutions would exactlyhaye been completed in 1680,
¦ . ' as

272 NOTES TO SERMON V.
as well as 230 revolutions of Saturn, 575 of Jupiter,
and 3600 of Mars. Such are the refults of retrofpective
enquiries after aftronomical epochs, and which may
poffibly have been the very way adopted to fix the
commencement of the Indian Kali Yug. But this I pre
tend not to decide : if the epoch of the Tirvalour Tables
was derived from actual observation, it is certainly very
extraordinary; but we may not pronounce it impoffi-
ble. According to fome computations, and even ac
cording to Dr. Grabe's Septuagint, 144 years might
then have elapfed after the deluge. M. Bailly confeffes it
was not a difficult obfervation ; and as to the want ©f
inftruments, even Tycho Brahe bad no affiftancp from
the telefcope. The fcience of aftronomy, to a certain
degree, was probably of the firft importance; and the
invitation to the Study of it great in thofe eaftern cli
mates, where, as Sir Robert Barker tells us, in his cu
rious paper on the obfervatory of Benares, " without
" the affiftance of optical glaffes, the Bramins have an
" advantage unexperienced by the obfervers of more
" northern climates. The ferenity and clearnefs ofthe
" atmofphere in the night-time in the Eaft Indies, ex-
" cept at the feafons of changing the monfoons, is dif-
" ficult to exprefs to thofe who have not feen it, be-
" caufe we have nothing in comparifon to form our
" ideas upon. It is clear to perfection ; a. total qui-
" etude fubfifts ; fcarcely a cloud to be feen ; and the
" light of the heavens, by the numerous appearance of
" ftars, affords a profpel^t both of wonder and contcm-
" plation." Philofophical TranfaBions, 1777.
I fliall conclude this long, and I fear tedious note,
with the following paffage from an old tranflation of
a work of the celebrated Amyraut. " Furthermore,
" whereas it was well faid by one, that things of great-
" eft antiquity are beft ; and the philofophers thcm-
" felves, when they treat concerning God and religion,
" extremely cry up antiquity, and attribute much to
" the dictates of their anceftors ; as if nature itfelf had*
" fuggefted to them, that there was a fource of all
" thefe things, from which they that were neareft it
" drew the pureft and fincerefl waters ; whereas, accord-
" ingly as they are derived through feveral minds, as fo
" many feveral conduit-pipes, they become corrupted "and

NOTES TO SERMON V. 273
" and tincted with extraneous qualities, and contract
" impurity. Sf there be found a doctrine, that has all
" the marks of antiquity, and there appears nothing in
" the world that equals it, it ought not to be doubted,
" but that the fame proceeded from him that is
" more ancient than all, as being author of all things.
" If the language in which it was revealed be as the
r<r mother and ftock, from which others, though very
" ancient, are fprung; if it defcribes the hiftory of the
" world, and of men, and their propagation upon the
" earth ; if it\ affords the demonftration of times, and
" that without it the knowledge of .chronology would
" be more intricate than a labyrinth ; if it deduces its
'f hiftory from point to point with an exact correfpond-
" ence ; if it clearly and certainly relates hiftories, that
" are as the body of the fabulous Shadows that we See
" in the writings of the moft ancient authors in the
" world ; who will doubt, but all which they have is
" taken from thence, and that we ought to refer what
" is therein depraved and corrupted thereunto, as to
" its principle, and have recourfe thither to learn what
" we are ignorant of? If there be found a religion,
" all whole parts accord together with an admirable
" harmony, although it has been propounded at feveral
"times, and by feveral perfons in feveral places; if
" there be a difcipline, a doctrine, a book, a fociety,
" in which God himfelf fpeaks to men in a ftyle and
" manner agreeable to the eminence of his majefty,
" difplays his juftice to them moft terrible in its ap-
" pearance, discovers his power in its highefl magnifi-
" cence, and gives them to found the breadth and
" length, depth and height of his infinite mercies :
" laftly, if examples of an incomparable virtue be found
" therein, with incitations and instructions to piety;
" fuch as, are not to be paralleled any other where in
" the world ; 'tis an indubitable argument, that they
" are proceeded from fome other than the human
" mind, or the fchool of man !"

SERMON

SERMON VI.

Psalm xc. 2.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth
and the world were made; thou art God from eyer-
lafting, and world without end.
HAVING in my laft Difcourfe taken a ge
neral view of the chronology of the world,
as far as it appears capable of being afcer-
tained, from our prefent knowledge of the
hifiory of man; I propofe in this Difcourfe
to confider what it has been judged poffible
to colled concerning it, from a phyfical exa
mination of the earth itfelf
In what manner the natural hiftory of
the earth has been reforted to, for proofs
either againft or in fupport of Revelation,
will be beft underftood from a brief view of
the prefent ftate of the feveral queftions that
have arifen upon the fubje<a. T 2 And

a76 SERMON VI.
And firft, there are ftill many who object
entirely to the Scripture account of the form
ation of the earth ; they think it altoge
ther unphilofophical, as well as unbefitting
the majefty of God. They think the Six
days' operations a limitation of God's power,
as far as the Deity only is concerned ; and
quite inadequate to the production of fuch a
mafs, if every thing is to be referred to the
operation of fecondary Caufes, (which they
generally pretend,) to which, for want of
any means of actual meafurement, they
are in the habit of affigning whatever time
they pleafe ; for time is inexhauftible. Some
will not admit of any beginning at all;
while others contend for a multiplicity, in
deed an infinity of revolutions ; and fuppofe,
that we are only tenants for a time, of a
manfion, the materials of which at leaft have
already endured for ages without limit. All
thefe invent and promulgate their different
theories at pleafure ; and as it is the conftant
practice to begin with fetting alide all pre
ceding fyftems, we have, as it were, a new
one every day.
Other geologifts there are, who confine
their views more to the period and to the
pheno-

SERMON VI. 277
phenomena of the deluge, as recorded by
Mofes ; and though thefe in their objections
generally run into the fame extravagances
in regard to the high antiquity of the globe,
yet they are contented to fet afide the cata-
ftraphe of the deluge ; believing, with fome
reafon, that with this, the other parts ofthe
relation will fall of courfe.
Now of thefe feveral objectors and oppo
nents of Revelation, to fome the reply gene
rally made is, that the Scripture account of
the creation is no fit fubject for philofophi
cal fpeculation : that it was not defigned to
be a philofophical, but a miraculous account,
independent of the common courfe and ope
ration of all fecondary caufes. And this
^ furely is the moft reafonable reply that can
be made(J). Others, however, oppofe to
thefe adverfe theories, theories of their own,
either rendered conformable to, or elfe regu
larly deduced, as they think, from the very
words of Scripture. Thefe have great fcope
for their fpeculations ; and however unfa-
tisfactory and unphilofophical many of them
. may appear, they are at leaft as ingenious as
any others, and feem at leaft to have, in the
very words of Scripture, (what the reft cer-
t 3 tainly

278 SERMON VI.
tainly want,) fome fure foundation to fup
port them.
It is thus that one very eminent naturalift,
and very pious Chriftian (*), who has parti
cularly distinguished himfelf by his zealous
endeavours to ftem the t6rrent of modern
infidelity, has fuppofed that, confiftently
with the defcription of Mofes, the arrange
ment of the chaos could only have com
menced with the introduction of fome aclive
principle among the other elementary ma
terials, capable of producing what he calls a
ftate of liquidity ; and this principle, upon
philofophical grounds, he conceives to have
been that firft grand display of light, fpoken
of in the Genefis, as proceeding, not from
any phyfical fource or caufe whatfoever, but
folely from the power and will of God.
This introduction of light into the chaotic
mafs is made the beginning of a courfe of
fuccefjive and distinct operations, which, feems
to be abfolutely neceffary to account for the
prefent Structure of the globe, though too
generally overlooked ; for which, if we are
to find a philofophical reafon, it muft fure
ly, in many inftances, point to the procefs
of chemical precipitation from a fluid, the
moft

SERMON VI. 279
moft uncertain of all operations to judge of,
as a pqji event ; and this, if the conjec
ture of the writer alluded to does not ferve
to explain it, may furely be expected to baffle
every enquiry of modern theorists. The
balls of our globe moft undoubtedly muft
have owed its arrangement to fome caiifes
not now operating : to fpeak philofophically,
the chaos, which feems to be univerfally ad
mitted in fome way or other, was probably
a more complex menftruum than any that
has ever fince exified - ; and the operations
that took place in it, befides being efpecially
directed by the will of God, as the firft dif-
pofer of all fecondary caufes, muft have de
pended upon a variety of circumftances, of
which we are now quite incapable of judg
ing. This is not only acknowledged by
fome of the moft eminent naturalifts of the
prefent age, but might, one would think, be
obvious to every perfon at all acquainted
a Anajagoras fays, before the N&, or God, fet things in or
der, irdna, ^pijftasTa h S^tS tsepv^hce, all things were corfufed
together. And Anaximander called the fea, t?; w^irm ly^ao'iai
teQaitos, the remainder of the primitive moiflure. See alfo the
©EOroNlA of Hefiod, and Ovid. Metam. lib. i. Homer call?
the ocean, TeWis •mi.trtcrgi. Jl. xiv. 346.
T 4 with

28o SERMON VI.
with chemistry, and the extraordinary effects
flowing from every poffible mixture of he
terogeneous matters. Whoever knows any
thing of the great and incomprehensible va
riety producible by the elective attractions
of different fubftances acting freely in fome
common menftruum, and the many different
accidents by which fuch attractions may be
influenced, fet in motion, retarded or acce
lerated, could fcarcely, one would imagine,
prefume to determine, that the circum
ftances either of the folid or fluid parts of
the globe were at the period of their firft
arrangement the fame as at prefent : and
till this is afcertained to a certainty, not
withstanding every help we may have de
rived from the advancement of knowledge,
all our fpeculations concerning paft tranf-
actions muft be in the greateft degree vague
and hypothetical. ( 3 )
But though this is moft undoubtedly the
cafe, yet the very rapid progrefs lately made
in thofe two particular branches of natural
philofophy, mineralogy and chemiftry, has
led many to fuppofe, that the times are pe
culiarly favourable for fuch enquiries and
fpeculations (4). And Reafon has been bu-
flly

SERMON VI. a8i
fily at work, to apply thefe new difcoveries
to the fabric ofthe earth; and in an avowed
difregard of Revelation, to account philofo-
phically for its origin, its firft arrangement,
and its prefent condition and appearances.
Had not fuch fpeculations already led many
to abandon their belief of the revealed ac
count of the creation of the earth, and
eventually alfo of fome of the moft impor
tant truths of our moft holy religion, I
fhould be among the firft to think fuch dif-
cuffions unfit for the pulpit. But as phyfics
have thus been forced into connection with
theology, it may be well to review the Mo
faic account, in the face of thefe new difco
veries, and at the fame time to compare it
with one at leaft of the moft modern theo
ries of human Reafon. I fhall begin with
the latter.
Among the feveral theories Strictly philo
fophical and rational, (that is, according to
the prefent acceptation of thofe terms, en
tirely independent of Revelation,) and in
which all the new difcoveries in mineralo
gy, chemiftry, and meteorology are made
the moft of, I fhall felect one, which has
recently appeared on the continent, as being in

28a SERMON VI.
in fome meafure founded on the conjecture
of one of the moft admired foreign Natu
ralifts of the age. According to this theory
then we are to conceive, that our planet is
a fragment of the fun ; detached by the
lhock of a comet, and drawn back to and de
tained in its prefent orbit by the force of the
fun's attraction : that this fragment was de
tached in a highly ignited ftate, from its
parent mafs, which is concluded to be, from
its mofi obvious effects, a mafs of fire- This
fragment is fuppofed to form the nucleus of
our globe, and to- have brought with it the
vaporous atmofphere of the comet, with
which it was enveloped ; and by means of
which it became incrufted in time, by the
deposition of the earthy particles originally
held in folution. I need not, I am fure, de
tain you with an account of the author's
hypothefes, as to the feveral chemical ope
rations that enfued, which he regularly
traces, from the firft motions and combina
tions of the feveral fubftances, fixed and vo
latile, to the composition and arrangement
of our principal ftrata. The fum and fub-
ftance of the whole really is, that this theory
is not only contrary to fome of the firft
princi-

SERMON VI. 283
principles of geometry and mechanics, but
involves in it the notion of the fun's being a
folid mafs of fire ; which has been lately
fhewn to be highly improbable, if not de
cidedly falfe, by many truly fcientific expe
riments and obfervations ; and thirdly, it de
pends on the vain affumption, that the true
method of the compofition of our mineral
fubftances is capable of being afcertained,
though no fuch analysis has been at all ef
fectual, to the enabling us, in any one in
stance, to produce fuch fubftances, by any
mixture of the affigned ingredients. (s)
This may ferve, I think, as one fpecimen at
leaft of the application which Reafon would
make of the new difcoveries in phyfics, to
frame a world ! if not in direct oppofition
to the Mofaic account of the creation, yet
manifeftly in contempt of it.
Let us then turn to the Scripture account,
and fee what that really is.
Not rafh, or vain, or abfurd enough to
pretend to know the fpecific caufes, that
operated phyfically in the firft production of
this world, Mofes, in his relation of events,
is at once pious, rational, and majestically
fublime. It was his duty and office to re
cord

a84 SERMON VI.
cord the aB of creation ; not to meddle
with the mode of it : to tell us that God
made the world, not how he made itb.
An eminent Sceptic has obferved, with
reference particularly to the facred writers,
" that there is no greater temptation to a
" man to tranfgrefs the bounds of Strict
" truth, than to have the credit of being a
" miffionary, prophet, or embafTador from
" heaven c." Had Mofes then been unduly
influenced by any fuch temptation, why did
he not fuppofe, that thofe to whom he ad-
drefTed himfelf would expect him to difclofe
more to them than he attempts to tell ? why
did he not pretend to be let more deeply
into the fecret, as every Pagan mythologift,
every ancient philofopher, and above all,
every modern theorift has constantly done ?
Why do we not read, in his account, of the

* 'O ttiii yt irtfl f xr'criuf ityXv c^ia'h.i^pu;, roaarov ^iLtas iS'toafei',
on h do%Yi Itw'hiciv 5 ©eos toj vga-tlr ^ rriv ym' i 06 yn rit uofxros ify
dttaToccrxaiaroi' i|«pKS~» JsyB/xsno; rou tubwavxa ot-iirw ^ o^axoo-fM-
aa.no, hctyysThcu'—ris & J oicria ra-vr^i; irigitgyuQicrScu., u$ Ltctraiov
*) utalpehit; to~; avMacrv irugnricraTo. Bafil. adverf. Eunom. lib. i.
238. edit. Steph. See alfo Pbiloponus nipl Kotr^oTroii'af, x. ct.
where are fome excellent remarks to the purpofe.
c Hume. jumble

SERMON VI. 205
jumble of atoms, the combinations and op-
pofitions of the dry and the humid, the hot
and the cold ? why do we not read of the
prolific virtues of the fun eliciting living
creatures from the turbid chaos d ? Why is
there fo little faid of fecond caufes (6) in
this particular part of the Mofaic records,
but for this exprefs reafon, that fecondary
caufes themfelves were then to receive their
origin, and to have their firft principles of
motion imprefTed upon them ? for in other
parts of the Pentateuch it is thought to be
no derogation from the majefty of God, to
defcribe him as operating by the interven
tion of fecondary caufes. This is a point of
Angular correctnefs in the hiftory of Mofes,
which no mythplogift, no merely human
writer, has attended to. All fecondary caufes
are peculiarly Shut out, as they fhould be,
where the Spirit of God muft neceffarily
have been the fole caufe of motion, and of
ah the operations that then took place. We
particularly read of the earth bringing forth
grafs, and other vegetable productions, be-
d See Cudworih, and Univerfal Hiftory j vol. i. and Dr. Leland 's
View of Deiflical Writers, Letter xxx.
fore

286 SERMON VI.
fore the fun was appointed to fpread abroad
his rays : and as to the production of fowls
and fifties, cattle and creeping things, and
even man, the Lord of all ; no fecondary
caufe, in either cafe, that could be naturally
adequate or applicable, is affigned ; but the
fowls are made from the water, and man
from the duft of the ground.
Is this account irreconcileable to Reafon ?
What is it then that it tells us ? Not that
the world is eternal, which only a few of
the ancient, and very few modern philofo
phers have ventured to maintain ; but that
" in the beginning God created the heavens
" and the earth ;" let this expreffion, ac
cording to the idiom of the Hebrew lan
guage, exprefs more or lefs. That this crea
tion was out of nothing, feems plainly to be
implied6 by the next circumftance related
of the earth, namely, that its firft creation
c Cbalcidius, in his Commentaries on Plato's Timteus, draws
the fame conclufion from this expreffion. See him cited by Bp.
Stillingfleet, Origines Sacra, b. iii. ch. a. 278. See alfo Bar->
row's Sermons, vol. ii. Serm. xii. §. 7. and Theodoret. Hift.
lib. i. c. 19. where is a curious argument to the purpofe. Buf-
fon has made ufe of this interval between the creation of mat
ter and production of light,
was

SERMON VI. 287
was deftitute of order, mere matter : " And
" the earth was without form, and void."
As to the fubfequent reduction of it into
order, and fucceffive creation of plants and
animals from the fowls of the air to' man
kind ; to deny the poffibility of it is abfurd,
and to queftion the probability, a mere im
pertinence. For why might not the crea
tion be effected by fucceffive acts ? and why
not in a given time ? As for the distinct pe
riods fpecified, and the proportional differ
ences in the productions of the fix days, it
is enough to affert, what Reafon cannot
controvert, that to an omnipotent and eter
nal Being there can be no limitations in re
gard to time or modes of acting, but what
are entirely dependent on his own fupreme
will. To Him undoubtedly a thoufand years
are but as a day. He might make the wprld
in a moment, in a day, in fix days, in fix
thoufand days ; he might have made only
plants on one day, and feathered fowl on
another, and creeping things and beafts on
another; or he might have made every thing
in one day, by his almighty fiat.
Had Mofes pretended to give an account
of the primary qualities of matter, and the
feveral

288 SERMON VI.
feveral proceffes by which the body of this
earth obtained to be what it is ; we might
well have fuppofed his account to be fabu
lous, merely from thefe two confiderations :
firft, that no knowledge of fuch proceffes
being to be derived from tradition, or de
duced by argument, we could only know
them from Revelation ; and fecondly, the
revelation of fuch matters would be altoge
ther fuperfluous, being wholly void of ufe.
We do not need to know, nor could we
therefore reafonably expect to be informed,
of the exact primary modifications and mo
tions of matter, by which the world acquired
its prefent form : but to know that God
created the very matter whereof it is formed,
and that his divine Spirit reduced things to
the order in which we now behold them,
and even that this came to pafs in fix days,
are all points of extreme ufe and impor
tance ; establishing God's omnipotence and
felf-exiftence in the fulleft manner, and lay
ing the beft and fureft foundation for the
obfervance of the Sabbath. In regard to
which latter circumftance, it muft be re
marked, that we have here, and no where
elfe, a regular hiftorical record of the hebdo madal

SERMON VI. 289
madal divifion of time ; which is now, and
was in the earlieft ages, by all accounts, fo
very generally adopted. It has been lately
faid, that the Indians mufi have communi
cated this fubdivifion of time, which was
exactly the fourth part of their month of
twenty-eight days, to the weftern parts of
the world ; and confequently, that we alfo
derive it from thence f ; and the remarkable
coincidence of the names of, the days of the
week, and the circumftance of their being
reflectively dedicated to the fame deities
and planets, is alleged as the proof of this.
But there can be no doubt, that as Chriftians
we derive it folely from the books of Mofes;
and the adoption of the names of the days,
though, for what we know, derived, as they
allege, from the Eaft(7), has been entirely
accidental. Mofes either wrote before fuch
names had been given to the days of the
week, or fubfequently. If he wrote pre
viously, then there is no reafon to doubt of
his account being the true one ; if fubfe
quently, and he wrote only from his own
f Bailly, Hifloire de VAfironomie Indienne et Orientate. Dif-
eours Prelimihaire.
u inven-

290 SERMON VI.
inventions, or borrowed what he wrote, as
has been insinuated, it muft be granted, that,
inftead of adopting, it is moft likely he
would particularly have rejected a divifion,
which muft have appeared to give fuch
countenance to the moft prevailing idolatry
of thofe times. The hebdomadal divifion,
though originally of divine institution (8),
might very probably, from the mere coin
cidence of numbers8, have led afterwards to
the planetary distinction of the daysh, among
a people who had fallen off from the worShip
of the true God ; and, as Maimonides re
ports of the Chaldaeans, would acknowledge
no other Gods but the ftars, to whom they
made images and ftatues : to the fun, of
gold ; to the moon, of filver ; and to the reft
of the planets, of the feveral metals dedi
cated to them ' : which clearly fhews, that

5 Philoponus irspt Kor^owoti*?, Aoy. £'. y.t(p. tY. p. 282.
h See Leng's Vlth Boyle's Lecture, p. 180 ; Campbell on Mi
racles, 218. Note; Jenkins Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity, vol. i.
101, 102, &c. ; Jackfon's Chronological Antiquities , vol. i. p. 21.
Note; and Law's Theory of Religion, p. 48; where he pofitively
affirms, in oppofition to Le Clerc, Not. ad Grot, de Ver. lib. i.
16. that the method of reckoning by weeks was much more
ancient than the obfervation of the Seven planets.
' Mofe Nevocb. p, 3. c. 29. the

SERMON VI. 291
the oriental hebdomadal division of time, fo
far from being merely aftronomical, was in
fome inftances at leaft entirely idolatrous.
But to return from this digreffion.
That the fabric of this globe befpeaks an
origin much anterior to the aera affigned by
Mofes, depends on fpeculations, which, how
ever cautioufly conducted, may never be al
lowed fo difprove a fact k, capable of almoft
pofitive demonstration (9). That the chief
ufe of this globe of earth is to be the abode
of man, cannot be doubted. The great and
moft material fact therefore to be decided is,
When did man firft Stand in need of this
abode ? It matters nothing to us what the
world was previously ; without fuch an in
habitant as man, it could be no more to us
than what- the wild and defolate and unfre
quented parts of the earth are at this day :
of which, as it concerns no man to take no
tice, fo need we not be folicitous as to fuch
a ftate of the globe we dwell on. Surely
our Reafon may be brought to afTent to thefe
three propositions; that in the beginning
God created the mafs it confifts of; that it

k The origin of the human race.
u 2 was,

a92 SERMON VI.
was, previously to the introduction of our
great progenitor, "without form, and void,"
whether in its firft original ftate, or, as fome
writers have fuppofed1, by the diSfolution of
a former ftate ; and that it was reduced to
the order we now fee it in, for the efpecial
purpofes of our race, by the immediate de
cree of God's providence. In what manner
the Strata became fo arranged as we fee
them ; what time was neceffary for the form
ation of fuch depositions from a watery
fluid, or for fuch concretions from an ig
neous one, as we now behold, it may be
amufing to calculate; but it can be of no
ufe or certainty : of no certainty, for the
reafons already Stated ; of no ufe, becaufe,
fhould the mere matter of this globe even
be proved to have fubfifted ages and ages
before the creation of Adam, and to have
undergone numberlefs revolutions, I know
not that it could be of any concern to our
race™. We date our title to the pofieSfion of
it, and dominion over it, from Adam ; and
have no need to afcend higher. I fay from
Adam, not only becaufe we are told fo in
1 See Note (3). ™ See Note (3). the

SERMON VI. 293
the firft chapters of Genefis, but becaufe
our Saviour and St. Paul have alfo infifted
upon it.
One event certainly is recorded by Mofes,
to which the face of the earth might be
expected to bear teftimony : I mean the de
luge. Such a revolution could fcarce fail to
leave moft durable traces behind it; but yet,
in what degree, and to what extent, it may
noiu be very difficult to determine. But that
there are evidences of a fubmerfion of the
continents of the prefent earth, none can
deny ; and therefore, before we enter upon
enquiry how or when fuch diluvian matters
were deposited as we find them, it muft be
admitted to be extraordinary, that this great
event, recorded by an hiftorian whofe know
ledge of the face of the earth muft have
been circumfcribed within limits of a known
extent, is not to be fet afide from any direct
want of evidence, even in fituations and
places not known to exift at the time he
wrote. Let us recollect, that it is of an uni
verfal deluge that Mofes writes ; and that
he affures us the waters covered the very
tops of the hills. It may be fo, fome will-
fay : on the tops of the hills in the neigh-
u 3 bourhood

294 SERMON VI.
bourhood of Judea he obferved fhells and
other marine exuviae ; the fpoils of a partial
deluge of thofe regions : and it was eafy to
perfuade his countrymen, that a flood, ex
tending over all that tract of country known
to them, had extended over all the world.
But how might fuch a mythologifi have been
detected, when new difcoveries had brought
to light all that we have fince learnt of Eu
rope, Africa, Afia, and the whole continent
of America ? If the marine exuviae in one
part of the globe are allowed to be an evi
dence of a partial deluge, would not the
want of fuch reliquice in any extenfive re
gion, be a proof againft the univerfality of
the Mofaic deluge ? Here again then I muft
maintain, that the want of contradictory evi
dence ought to be allowed to operate as a
confirmation. I enter not at prefent into the queftion,
whether the then continents were over
whelmed, and the bottom of the fea left dry ;
or whether we now fee only the remains of
the very waters that covered the hills de-
fcribed by Mofes ; becaufe all I propofe to
enquire after is, whether there are not, in
all parts of the globe, marks and Signs of
the

SERMON VI. 295
the water having covered all that is now dry
land ? The poffibility of fuch a catastrophe
as the deluge is a diftinct question ; and the
effects defigned by it, as related by Mofes,
render it a queftion, which regards only the
providence and power of God, Which thofe
mult have leave tb meafure by their own
Reafon, who have fo little Reafon as not to
fee the abfurdity of it (I0). However, I can
not but obferve, that fome of the lateft dif
coveries in meteorology may ferve to Shew,
that hitherto we have been incompetent to
judge even of the phyfical caufes, that may
have operated : and fome of thefe, particu
larly the convertibility of water into air n, or
air into water, may have had a very material
effect, and fliould teach us to be cautious
how We apply our feeble calculations, tb
meafure and determine any reputed acts bf
Providence. The ninth verfe of the first chapter bf
Genefis tells us, that fuch was once the ftate
of the globe, that, in order that the dry land
•fhould appear, all the waters under the hea
ven required to be gathered together infb
" See Mi de Lues Experiments with the Hygrometer.
u4 one

296 SERMON VI.
one place : and why might not a mere re
vocation of this decree reftore things to their
pfiftine ftate, when no dry land was vifible ?
The cataftrophe of the deluge, for what we
know, may be fully fufficient to account for
all thofe furprifing circumftances of foffil
bodies found in places where no correfpond*-
ent animals or vegetables now exift (") ; for
befides other conjectures, that have been
formed, the occafion of the deluge, as re
prefented by Mofes, may poffibly have been
fufficient to vindicate the idea, that the in
clination of the axis of the globe underwent
a change at that time " ; or if not then, per
haps before, or perhaps fince ; we know no
thing certain. That elephants once existed
in Siberia, and crocodiles in our own coun
try, proves nothing contradictory to the Mo
faic records, which give intimation of at
leaft two very important changes and revo
lutions ; namely, the curfe of the earth, and
the deluge. As far as a change of climate
only is fuppofed to be intimated, the vera
city of Mofes on this head is not more rea
fonably to be questioned, than the veracity
8 See Howard's Scripture Hiflory. of

SERMON VL 29?
of Juvenal, Horace, Diodorus, Strabo, Ovid*
Polybius, and Varro ; all of whom, as is
well known, have actually defcribed things
quite different from what we now experi
ence in the places they mention^ The two
former fpeak of fuch fevere winters at Rome
as are never heard of now* Many paSTages
of Horace fuppofe the Streets of Rome full
of fnow and ice ; but in our days the Tyber
no more freezes at Rome, than the Nile at
Cairo. However, of this we may be afTured,
that philofophy can fupply no actual proof
againft the probability of fuch a cataftrophe
as the Mofaic deluge; while we have this con*-
ftantly to allege in fupport bf it, that the con
tinental parts of our globe all bear teftimony
to a fubmerfion of them at one time or
other : that naturalifts of the higheft emi
nence, in contradiction to many falfe proofs
that have been brought forward of the high
antiquity of our prefent continents, have af
fured us, that their obfervations have led to
an entirely different conclufion ; and that as
far as the fuperficial parts of fhe earth can
be held to fupply proper chronometers, they
all tend to prove the fmall antiquity of our
prefent

s98 SERMON VI.
prefent continents'": that no one monument
of human art, or even human exiftence,
clearly prior to thofe times, has been yet
difcovered : no medals, no infcriptions, no
titenfils, no ornaments of man have been
found, indicative of a greater antiquity than
that affigned by Mofes q : while the fact itfelf
undoubtedly ftands corroborated by many
collateral testimonies (,a). And this latter cir
cumftance is certainly moft to our purpofe ;
for it is not the phyfical hiftory of the earth
We require to be instructed in, by the means
of Revelation ; but the hiftory of man, as a
moral and religious being.
The earth is folid and compact enough for
our ufe ; fertile enough ; abundant in all
things needful both for our fupport and our
comfort : yet it certainly does not appear fo
methodically arranged as to fuffer us to fup
pofe it to have been free from great revolu
tions and catastrophes. Ufeful as it is, and
beautiful as it is, in its very irregulari
ties, we might furely be juftified in con-
» See Notes (2) and (11).
« Minute Pbilofopler, Dial. vi. 287.
eluding,

SERMON VI. $99
eluding, that an irregular arrangement of
the original depofitibns of the chaos, might
from the very firft have been more fitted to
our wants and purpofeSj than one more uni-
fornu ; If the ftrata had continued in what
was apparently their firft form, in concen
tric coats, we fhould have known perhaps
only the outermost, or m fome excavations
a fmall number more. What a want of va
riety in regard to foils, and confequently
perhaps to the growth and production of
plants, might this have occasioned ! How
many mineral fubftances, both of ufe and
ornament, might have for ever remained
concealed in the bowels of the earth ! and,
inftead of the richly variegated face of nature,
which now ferves tb delight the eye, and ex
hilarate the heart, oner uniform plain would
have extended through all countries, inter
rupted only by the ftill more uniform fcenery
of the watery element.

r See Milton's Paradife Loft, b. ix. 115. Tbeodoretus B-Ep> rfpo-
*>f»s, *oy. 0. Nichols's Conferences, vol. i. 3 j, 36. Ray on the
Creation, 34, &e. Derbam's Pbyfico-Tbeology, b. iii. ch. 4. Suli-
vans View qf Nature, vol. i. lot,. Liebknecbt' s Elementa Geo-
grapbks General, (de Montium vfu.J Walhrius, §. xxyiii.
What

3oo SERMON VL
What particular revolutions may have oc-
cafioned the many dislocations of ftrata;
which now ferve to vary the face of the
globe, and to which we owe the abrupt
precipice, the towering Alps, the cataract
and volcano, and other bold features of na
ture, it is vain to enquire; Fire may have
done much, and water more ; but of the
ravages of water we have a fuccinct ac-
count ; not written by a naturalist; not com-
pofed from a furvey and examination of the
Several parts of the globe ; not framed to
fupport ah hypothesis ; but Simply related as
an act of God, to punifh a wicked and difo-
bedient race. The fecondary caufes put in
motion for this purpofe were fuch as we
might expect would produce great altera
tions in the face of the globe. " The foun-
" tains of the great. deep Were broken up,
" and the windows of heaven opened ; and
" there was a continuance of rain on the
" earth for forty days and forty nights."
The effects of thefe events muft, we may well
fuppofe, have been both awful and extenfive;
even perhaps to the actual deftruction and
fubmerfion ofthe then fubfiSling continents;
which is the theory of one celebrated Natu ralist

SERMON VI. 301
ralift of the age s, founded on very extenfive
obfervations, and fupported by our own ver
sion of the Scriptural account of the curfe,
" Behold I will deftroy man, with the earth;"
a reading, which the Septuagint and Vulgate
countenance'. At all events, we may con
clude it to have been a ' moft Stupendous re
volution ; and fuch as not only may ferve us
moft fitly to account for fome of the moft
ftriking phenomena and irregularities ob-
fervable in the great mafs of the globe ; but
without which it feems in many inftances
impoffible to account for fome of the moft
obvious appearances.
Even as a queftion in philofophy, if we
reject the Mofaic account, we muft fubfti-
tute another ; and this distinction between
us will ftill fubfift, that we, who have ocular
demonftration of the fact, namely, of the
univerfal fubmerfion of our continents, at
one time or other, cannot by any hypothefis
explain it to the general fatisfaction of the
world ; while Mofes has both recorded and
s De Luc. See Notes (3) and (11).
1 See Foxtons Remarks on Burnet's Arcbaologia, at the end of
his Dollrina Antiqua de Origin. Rerum, p. 162. Note; and Ja-
rmefon on the Ufe of Sacred Hiflory, vol. i. 241.
ex-

oa SERMON VI.
explained a fact, of which he could not, in,
the nature of things, when he wrote, have
had any fenfible or experimental knowledge ;
but which, befides all other teftimonies, the
face of the whole globe, and the obferva
tions of naturalifts, have been fince found,
in a moft furprifing manner, to corroborate*
and confirm (,3).

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON VI,

Page 277. note (1).
AND this furely is the moft reafonable reply that can be'
made.] The Jews, whofe Memorial I had occafion to
notice in my third Difcourfe, give the following reafon
for rejecting the Mofaic records, as facred documents.
M La religion qu'on nous a enfeignee etoit toute rem-
" plie de principes myftiques. L'hifloire du monde pri-
" mitif etoit myfterieufe, obfcure, incoherente; les e.r
" venemens etranges, et reffemblans fi peu, jufques dans
" les plus petites nuances, aux phenomenes du monde
" ou, nous vivons, qu'ils nous paroiflent prefque incroya-
"bles." It is true, befides the books of Mofes, they
confefs, that they had been taught to regard the Tal
mud of equal authority; and therefore they might with.
fome reafon be fufpicious of this part of their educa
tion : but to object to any account of the origin of
things, merely becaufe of its difagreement with prefent
appearances, is no lefs than abfurd ; though it may feem
to have the countenance of fo eminent a philofopher as
Mr. Hume. For it is certainly in the' higheft degree
unphilofophical, to make experience the fole teft either
of paft or future events : the utmoft we can Jearn from
experience is, the ufual courfe qf nature ; but how or
when fuch became the ufual courfe of nature, muft for
ever baffle our refearches : thefe things are for ever
confounded. Nature will admit the oblerver and expe-
rimentalift enough into her fecrets, to enable them to
cooperate with her in converting to the ufe of man the
faireft of her productions, and to calculate upon the
probable refult of many curious operations : but when
fhe herfelf was fet to work, and how fhe became em
powered to do what flie has done and ftill does, fhe cannot
.inform

304 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
inform us, if fhe would. Nor can fhe in any manner affure
us how long the prefent courfe and chain of operations
may continue. The creation mufi have been miraculous :
the feed muft have exifted before the tree, or the tree
before the feed ; the hen before the egg, or the egg
before the hen ; and each of thefe, with a view to pre
fent experience, is a miracle. And in the fabric ofthe
very body of the earth, let us afcend as high as we
pleafe; let us bring its fubftance from the fun or a co
met; let us fet attraction, and gravity, fermentation,
depofition, cryftallization, and what we will to work, in
order to its arrangement, this is reajly nothing to the pur
pofe ; things could not be as they are now, when thefe
firft began to operate: and that they have eternally ope
rated is not merely diSEcult to prove, but is a proposi
tion, which abfolutely refills all proof.
Epicurus, had he but admitted into his fyftem a Pro
vidence, and final caufes, might have defended his ato-
mical combinations againft the philofopher for ever,
upon his own plea, of things being otherwife in the
world now, than when it was produced : for though
nothing could be more abfurd, than to fancy .that a jum
ble of unintelligent atoms could be more capable at one
time of producing things than at another 5 yet cer
tainly, had God chofen Jo to form the world, and all
things in it, it would be "no argument againft fuch a
cofmogony, that fince that time things have been
otherwife propagated and continued. Such a jumble
of atoms might, under the providential direction of
God, have formed the firft man ; whereas the firfi mart
could not have been formed, as the fpecies has been
fince propagated. In all theories of the world, there
fore, there is certainly a point where we mufi flop, and
where miracles muft be reforted to ; but it requires no
fmall degree of prudence to know exactly where to
flop. " If we would give credit," fays the learned Dr.
Nieuwentyt, in the Preface to his Religious Philofopher,
" to thole who pretend to tell us fueh things, as how
" God made the world, put all things together, pro-
" duced and continued motion, &c. otc. we muft needs
." conceive, that there was no more wifdom requisite
" to bring this glorious frame of the world into Such a
" beautiful order as we fee it, and to continue it in the
" fame,

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 305
" fame, than what the authors of fuch books were
" matters of." This is certainly moft true ; and yet,
how many ftill continue forward and eager to difclofe
to us, not only what the prefent appearances of the
earth may be faid to indicate, and by what principles
of motion fhe feems to be governed ; but whence fhe
came, and exactly how every thing came to be as it is !
The queftion, as it concerns the facred books, is merely,
whether philofophers can difcover any thing in the
works of God, that pofitively contradicts the Mofaic
hiftory. That the Mofaic hiftory fhould contradict
their preconceived notions of things, is not to be won
dered at ; efpecially when they are unreafonable enough
to expect, that it fhould be at all conformable to the
prefent courfe of things.
In judging of the Mofaic cofmogony, we do not
want philofophers to tell us, whether God could make
the world in fix days, or according to the order de-
fcribed by Mofes ; whether he could make man of the
duft of the ground, and infufe into him the breath of
life : we are entirely affured of the poffibility of thefe
things ; and what is more, of the abfolute neceffity of
fome fuch commencement of things. And therefore
we do not even require philofophers to tell us, whether
a more fit method could have been devifed ; it is a
point they never can refolve. " God has left us no
" anfwer to thofe that afk, why he did not make the
" world in a day, or why not fooner; nor why he made
" fo many creatures, that feem to be of no ufe ; and a
" thoufand other queftions. God has referved fuch
" kind of objections to the anfwer of his own fove-
" reignty." Wolfley on Atheifm.
It has been very well faid by one author, that, in order
to know God thoroughly, we fhould be Gods ourfelves ;
and the fame may be faid, in many refpedts, of his
ways and his works. We muft not be too inquifitive
into the quomodo of things. How caufes now operate,
we may be permitted to investigate; but how the
cause of causes fhall operate, let us prefume not
to determine. " A quoi d'abord," fays M. de Luc, in
his Reply io the Jews' Memorial, " voudriez-vous pou-
" voir comparer le monde primitif, c'eft-a-dire fans
" doute, le commencement des chofes obfervables, pour que
x "'la

3o6 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
" la Raifon humaine, qu'ici vous etabliffez jtige, put Id
" comprendre, et decider, s'il a du etre ou ne pas etre k
" la maniere decrite par Mo'ife? II eft impoffible que
" vous trouviez aucun objet de comparaifon, ni dans
" l'obfervation ou I' experience, ni dans aucun principe
" d priori ; pretendre le trouver, c'eft n'avoir pas refle-
" chi fur la nature de la chofe, qui tient a l'acte de
" crier." This is ftrongly put, but does not at all ex
ceed the truth. The mode of creation we can have no
means of afcertaining ; and it is abfolutely vain to fpe-
culate beyond what now appears to be the courfe of
things. " Homo naturae minifter, et interpres, tantum
" facit et intelligit, quantum de natura? ordine, re, vel
"mente, obfervaverit : nee amplius fcit, aut poteft."
Nov. Org. lib. i. aph. i. which an eminent modern geo-
logift renders, "Man is but the minifter and interpreter
" of nature, and can neither extend his power nor his
*( knowledge a hair's breadth beyond his experience and
" obfervation of the prefent order qf things." Playfairrs
Illuftration qf the Hutlonian Theory , p. 18.
Whether the world was made according to the fame,
rules and methods, it is impoffible for us to know;
though the world is now preferved by mechanical laws,
(and yet not that univerfally, fee Profeffor Jenkin, vol.
ii. ch. 9.) there is no reafon to fuppofe it to have
been fo made at firft. " The origin of the univerfe,"
Says the fame learned writer, " was by the immediate
" hand of God, before the appointment of the feveral
" laws, which afterwards were to take place : and we
" might as well endeavour to reduce the working of
" miracles to the Handing laws of nature, as the crea-
" tion of the world. For certainly, of all miracles,
" the creation of the world muft be the greateft ; not
" only as it Signifies the production of matter and mo-
" tion out of nothing, but as it was the putting things
" into fuch order, as to make them capable of the laws
" of motion ordained for them." " On ne me perfua-
" dera pas," fays Wallerius, (I have only a tranflation
to refer to,) " que le Tout-puiflant fe foit fervi, dans
" l'ouvrage de la creation, des loix que lui-meme a
" didtees a la nature." De I'Origine du Monde, §. xix.
Mr. Hume, in his pofthumous works, as cited by
Dr. Darwin, in his Zoonomigj feci:, xxxix. 4. 8. con-
eludes,

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 307
eludes, that the world might have been generated,
rather than created; and the Doctor inclines to think,
that, "if we may compare infinities, it would feem to re-
" quire a greater infinity of power to caufe the caufes of
" effects, than to caufe the effects themfelves." But
God, as Mofes reprefents the cafe, in firft caufing the
effects, caufed alfo the caufes of fucceeding effects :
man, and other animals, and the vegetables of the
earth, were created by his fiat ; all perfect in their
kind, and with inherent powers oi future propagation.
It is wifeft then to regard every thing as proceeding
now according to the laws qf God ; but not to make
fuch rules and principles, and modes of action, (as too
many do,) laws of invincible neceffity to God himfelf.
The planets certainly appear to perform their revolu
tions round the fun by the niceft combination of two
mechanical forces ; but how impoffible is it for us ever
to affign the phyfical caufes, which enable them to de-
fcribe their feveral orbits ! If we fhall have truly dif
covered the principle of attraction, the projectile force
will for ever elude our refearches : and perhaps, after
all, there is no other attraction or projectile whatfoever
concerned, than the will of God. What the earth is,
we may with reafon enquire ; what it has been, none
can certainly tell us better than Mofes ; (his infpira
tion out of the queftion.) Where it is, we may with
reafon alfo endeavour to difcover ; but whence it came,
none can ever inform us but God himfelf: and as this
information feems to be withheld, in the only records
of the creation accounted facred, we may well regard
it as a matter of no poffible concern to us, while we
have faith in the leading doctrine ofthe whole; name
ly, that " in the beginning God created the heavens
" and the earth." " For my part," fays the cele
brated M. Huygens, in the conclufion of his KOSMO-
©EilPOS, or Conjectures concerning the Planetary Worlds,
" I fhall be very well contented, and fhall count I have
" done a great matter, if I can but come to any know-
" ledge of the nature of things as they now are ; never
" troubling my head about their beginning, or how
" they were made ; knowing that to be out of the
" reach of human knowledge, or even conjecture."
It is not to evade the force of any philofophical theo-
x 2 ries

308 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
ries then, that the Theologian infifts upon the Mofaic
cofmogony being a miraculous relation of things ! it is
truly unphilofophical to fuppofe it would have been
More credible, had it not been fo: it is its peculiar
diftindtion, and exactly ferves to place it on a different
footing from all the world-making fyftems 6f other na
tions ; though Mr. Paine is pleafed to infift upon it,
that they are all alike: and Dr. Toulmin (whofe works
I cite merely becaufe I know they have been publifhed,
for more unphilofophical works I never read,) affirms,
that no account of the creation carries with it more
the face of probability, than the Gentoo Fable of
Burmha. The Gentoo Fable of Burmha is certainly
miraculous enough ; but the miracles are not miracles
operated by God towards the production of the vifible
things of this earth, but the miracles of Burmha him
felf, and his family ; which have no relation whatever
to the vifible order of things. (See an ingenious and
lively Anfwer to this ftrange writer, by the Rev. Ralph
Sneyd, 1783.) Mofes relates the miracle of the crea
tion in a mere hiftory of the effects produced by the
fiat of God : other colmogonifts, even when they refer
thefe effects to the will of God, will perfift in telling
us, not what fupernatural, but what natural caufes ope
rated to produce thefe effects ; whereas Mofes is philo
fophical enough to refer the firft effects folely to the
caufe of caufes ; thofe effects themfelves indeed includ
ing the caufes of fubfequent effedts and operations. I
call this philofophical, becaufe I fee no other poffible
way of accounting for the prefent ftate of things : for
even had the world been formed according to fuch laws
of motion as are now neceffary for its prefervation ;
had the feveral ftrata and mineral beds been produced
according to fuch proceffes as we fhould fuppofe capa
ble of fimilar effects now ; yet, not only the animals of
the earth, but the whole tribe of vegetables muft have
been miraculoufly brought into exiftence. No cryf-
tallizations, no fermentations, no elementary combina
tions whatfoever will now, I apprehend, be fuppofed
capable of having produced a Single blade of grafs.
The advancement of knowledge, which has determined
us to reject all ideas of fpontaneous or equivocal gene
ration, muft particularly ferve to prove to us the necef fity

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 309
Sity of a miraculous interpofition in the firft inftance, in
regard not only to animals, but to vegetables; no com
binations of matter that we know of, or laws of motion,
being adequate to produce either a perfect plant with
out feed, or a perfect feed without the parent plant.
I fliould not have dwelt fo long upon this, but that
among thofe who have been eager to treat the cofmo
gony of Mofes, as a mythologue or allegory, fome have
apprehended that the whole is to be confidered as an
Oriental hyperbole, which, not making any diftindtion
between the mediate and immediate adts of God, refers
every thing to the Deity by a mere figure of fpeech.
This is exprefsly alleged by the Jews of Berlin, as one
reafon for their incredulity : but the cafe is not appli
cable, where the queftion relates to the creation ofthe
world. Every thing may be faid to be immediately
the act of God, by fuch a figure of fpeech, while the
act of creation and miracles muft alone be really fuch,
without any figure of fpeech. Thus when God is faid
to have " planted a garden eaftward in Eden," this may
feem, from the mere ufe ofthe term "planted," to be
only a figure of fpeech : but when it is added, that out
ofthe ground the Lord God made every tree to grow
that is pleafant to the fight and good for food, this
may reafonably be regarded as no figure of fpeech, or
Oriental hyperbole ; for how could trees grow at the
firft beginning of things but by the immediate agency
and appointment of God? And I think the nth verfe
of the ift chapter of Genefis fufficient anfwer to every
fuch objection ; for I know not how grafs could ever
have grown, (to fpeak philofophically), or herb, or
fruit-tree, had not God originally caufed them to Spring
out of the ground, all of them in a condition to yield
feed, and fruit, (whofe feed is in itfelf,) for the future
fupply and maintenance of man and beaft.
Page 278. note (2).
It is thus that one very eminent naturalifi, and very pious
Chrifiian, c^c] Though in the preceding note I have
expreffed myfelf generally unfriendly to all fuch fyftems
and theories as carry us back to the firft commence
ment of things, it being my fettled opinion that no, ob
fervations whatfoever will ever inform us of the exact
x 3 truth

gio

NOTES TO SERMON VI.

truth of matters ; and that even if this globe of earth
was formed by fuch phyfico-mechanical laws, as ope
rate at prefent in its prefervation, yet that they muft
have operated at the aera of the creation, under fuch
extremely different circumftances, as to baffle all our
enquiries ; yet I am by no means defirous of paffing
over fuch teftimonies, either for or againft revelation,
as the body of the earth may be thought by any to
fupply. My object is only to difcover what the refult
feems to be, of the application of this teft : and as
modern opinions are what I have chiefly propofed to
examine, through the whole courfe of thefe Lectures,
M. de Luc's theory may reafonably take the lead,
among thofe which have been recently advanced in
corroboration of the Mofaic cofmogony ; for this ve
nerable and very eminent naturalift is perfuaded, that
the holy Scriptures are entirely in correfpon dence
with geological phaenomena. He looks upon the de
luge, and the chronology of that event, to be capable
of pofitive proof; and though his fpeculations afcend far
beyond that period, yet as the deluge was the fulfil
ment of a prophecy, he juftly regards the confirmation
of this event to be a direct proof of the divine authority
of the Scriptures, and to be fufficient to eftabliSh the
divine miffion ofthe author ofthe Pentateuch.
His idea is, that at the deluge the ancient continents
funk, and the original bed of the fea became dry, form
ing the continents which we now inhabit; the Summits
of our higheft mountains having been iflands in the anci
ent fea. As thefe new continents muft immediately have
become fubject to a new fet of operations, which have
continued from that time, and the effedts of which are
therefore both vifible and raeafurable, he apprehends,
that we have in thefe effedts decifive chronometers ;
and as many of them are independent of each other,
and agree only in the epoch of their commencement,
they afford a body of evidence of irrefiftible force. Of
the operations that preceded the deluge according to
this celebrated naturalift, the following is a fhort ab
stract. He agrees with his cotemporaries, MM. de la
Metherie, de Sauffure, Dolomieu, Pini, &c. that all the
fubftances that form the mais of our continents, the
bafon of the fea, &rc. including granite, muft at fome
diftant

NOTES TO SERMON VI. $it
diflant epocha have been fufpended in a liquid which
covered the globe, whence they were at fucceffive
Eeriods chemically precipitated. But he is lingular in
is opinion ofthe firft determining caufe or indifpenfa
ble preliminary of fuch precipitations : he refers it, as I
have ftated in my Difcourfe, to the introdudtion of light
among the other elements, which by inducing, ac
cording to its now known phyfical properties, liquidity,
gave room for the eledtrive attractions, and all othet
phyfieo-mechanical operations. He thinks our conti
nents were built up ftratum upon flratum, at the bot
tom of the fea ; then reduced to ruins, and now ele
vated above the prefent fea, by the finking of former
continents ; the epoch of which event he judges, from
very extenfive obfervations, not to be more remote
than the deluge. Coal firata, remains of terreftrial
animals, bortes of quadrupeds, and impreffions of frefh-
water fifh, he thinks belonged to the iflands of the pri
mitive world, which funk, and above which the fea
afterwards produced frefh ftrata or beds, before its re
treat at the deluge. Of the accompanying changes of
the atmofpbere and of climates, I fhall have occafion to
fpedk elfewhere.
This is the fummary of M. de Luc's theory, as far as
it applies generally to the fubjedt of this difcourfe.
M. de Luc is too well known as an obferver, and as a
very curious experimentalift, to make it neceffary to
ftate, that he has been particularly careful and induftri-
ous to colledt facts to fubftantiate his theory ; many of
which are certainly exceedingly curious and important.
See his Hifiory of the Earth and qf Man, addreffed to
her Majefty, his Letters to M. de la Metherie in the
Journal de Phyfique, and his Geological Letters in the
2d and following vols, ofthe Britifh Critic.
I have thought it right to give this ftatement of M.
de Luc's principles at length, becaufe he has very re
cently had occafion to recal the attention of the public
to his arguments upon this head ; and as the whole that
relates to the age of our continents, according to this
theory, depends upon obfervation, it is but reafona
ble that it fliould be made known, not only to natu
ralifts, but to theologians. Befides, whatever becomes
of the general queftion, and how much foever it may
x 4 bs

3ia NOTES TO SERMON VI.
be oppofed, I confefs I find in this theory fome gene
ral principles laid down, which feem highly credible,
and of great importance : as firft, in regard to the de
rivation of our firata from chemical precipitations.
Though the origin of granite, and confequently its
chemical precipitation from a liquid, is ftill a matter of
difpute, and will perhaps for ever be fo ; yet that many
of our firata have been fo precipitated, feems very pro
bable from their contents. How fhall we ever account
otherwife for a fucceffion of diftinct ftrata ? What can
ever have determined the fea to depofit at one time
only calcareous, at another only aluminous, at another
only arenaceous matter ? I cannot help agreeing with
M. de Luc, that the change from one fpecies of ftratum
to another indicates a change of caufe ; and therefore,
that the mafs of our continents does feem to be the pro-
dudt of fucceffive operations during which the producing
caufes have undergone fucceffive changes. This is a
thing very much overlooked, and for which no other
theory, that I know of, has duly provided.
Now if fuch has been the origin of our principal
ftrata, I Shall venture to pronounce, that no argument
in regard to time can be drawn from the effects of fuch
operations. And if it pleafed Qod to form the globe
by the intervention of phyfical caufes, I know none fo
likely to have been employed, as fire, and chemical at
tractions ; for however Slow and gradual fome of the
changes in the body of the earth may have been fince
it became an habitable globe, yet when it was to become
fuch by the determination of God's pleafure, it would
be abfurd to fuppofe that its arrangement would be left
to depend on any proceffes, that might unneceffarily re- '
tard the execution of fuch a decree of the Almighty.
Though time is really nothing to an infinite and eternal
Being, and the courfe of things may ferve to fliew, that a
gradual and progreffive operation of caufes and fucceffive
production of effects, are quite confiftent with the provi
dential government of the world ; yet I cannot bring
myfelf to believe, that this or any other planet was
fubjedted to any protracted courfe of operations, when it
was firft ordained to become habitable. The fix days
of Mofes appear to me incomparably more philofophi
cal than Buffon's correspondent epochs of nature : ac
cording

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 313
cording to which the earth was for 37,206 years not
only uninhabitable, but abfolutely too hot to touch :
then inhabited for many thoufand years by creatures
capable of living in boiling water : in about 6o,coo
years, and not before, fitted to fuftain terreftrial ani
mals, when elephants and rhinocerofes were for 15,000
years the lords of this lower creation : and man, for
whom alone it now feems to have been created, could
not enter till after a period of full 75,000 years : and in
93,000 years, or thereabouts, the race is to be frozen
out of the world again ; for as it began with being
too hot to touch, it will then be too cold to inhabit.
Such calculations are furely a burlefque upon philofo
phy, and almoft impious, as applied to God. The
world may have been reduced to order, certainly, by
fome courfe of phyfico-mechanical operations ; but if
fo, I think certainly by the quickeft and moft adtive
poffible. In his Natural Hiflory, M. Buffon makes a
refledtion on the Protogcea qf Leibnitz, which I cannot
help thinking quite as applicable to his own epochs of
nature. " The grand defect of this theory," fays he,
" is, that it is not applicable to the prefent ftate of the
" earth : it is the paft, which it explains ; and this paft
" is fo far back, and has left fo few remains, that we
" may fay what we pleafe of it, and the probability
" will be in proportion as a man has talents to eluci-
" date what he afferts. Befides, it offends againft the
le unity of creation ; for if it was as he fuppofes, it muft
" neceffarily be admitted, that fhell-fifh, and other in-
" habitants of the fea, exified long before man, and all
" other terreftrial animals. Now, independent of Holy
" Writ, is it not reafonable to think, that all animals and
" vegetables are nearly as ancient as each other?" Now
nothing could take place upon fo great a fcale fo fud-
denly perhaps as chemical precipitations; nothing could
be more active or penetrating than fire ; either as the
caufe of liquidity, as a lifting force, or poffibly for the
purpofes of confolidation. To the fact of moft of our
mineral ftrata having been formed by chemical preci
pitations, we have then the confent of many eminent
modern obfervers ; and we find them agreeing in ano
ther principle, namely, that no fuch precipitations take
place now in the fea, nor any operations, which bear the

314 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
the ftighteft analogy to thofe productions of mineral
fubftances in ftrata, which took place formerly in our
globe. Depofitions the fea ftill makes ; but is not fubr
ject to. chemical precipitations. The Huttonian theory,
it is well known, differs very much from this, not only
in regard to the origin of the granitic and other mine
ral beds, but particularly in refpect to fuch an inter
rupted courfe of operations ; its chiefeft principle being,
that fimilar firata are ftill and for ever forming at the
bottom of the fea, and confolidating there, by means
of a central or fubterraneous heat.
I Shall not pretend to decide between thefe two the
ories : of the operation of caufes, which have long fince.
ceafed lo operate, we can certainly judge but very im
perfectly ; nor yet of what is paffing at the bottom qf the
fea; or of the effects of fubterraneous heat; of which,
notwithftanding the great progrefs lately made in fuch
enquiries, it is certainly and confeffedly very difficult
to determine any thing certain. I fliould incline how
ever to think it much more probable, that the earth
owes its firft arrangement either to caufes not now ope
rating, or to an extraordinary, perhaps a miraculous
modification of exifting caufes, the action of which
ceafed, or was fufpended, when the purpofes were ful
filled, for which they were defigned; fuch as the forma
tion and confolidation of the Several ftrata ; and, I
fliould be difpofed to think, even their elevation ano\
dislocation. In volcanic countries, and in fome feas, very violent
and very extenfive effects have been known to have
been produced fuddenly, or within a very fhort fpace
of time ; but the general features oi the globe remain
much as they were : and if the Huttonian fyftem be
true, I think it muft ftill be granted, that many natural
operations are for the prefent at leaft fufpended, and
will be fo, probably, while the earth continues habita
ble. Let the rivers of the globe convey what they
will to the fea, and volcanos eject what they will from
the body of the earth, in a few places, we are lenfible
now of no effedts correspondent to thofe which muft
have originally raifed the Alps, and other granitic
mountains ; and enabled them, according to the Hut
tonian fyftem, to break through or Separate the general mafs

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 315
mafs of fuperincumbent ftrata. I do not mean to deny,
that they may have been elevated, as the Huttonian
fyftem ftates ; but let their elevation have been owing
to whatever natural caufe theorifts may choofe to af-
fign, I think the fufpenfion of the action of fuch caufes
is proof enough of fome efpecial interpofition on the
part of Providence ; and that the ftate of the globe
does in fact conceal from us many fecrets, as well as to
what is paft, as to what is to come.
St is a favourite maxim, which philofophers have
adopted from Seneca, and Profeffor Playfair makes it
the motto to his Illufirations qf the Huttonian Theory,
" Nunc naturalem caufam quasrimus et affiduam; non
" raram et fortuitam." But furely the lifting forces,
which this theory fuppofes to have operated in the ele-*-
vation and protrufion of the granitic maffes, as well as
the operations of fire neceffary upon this fyftem to their
production, muft be accounted rather among the rare
and fortuitous caules, to which this globe is fubject ;
not lefs fo at leaft than the finkings and fubfidings, and
precipitations of M. de Luc's theory.
Thefe two theories may be confidered as the ex
tremes of modern geology, as far as the hiftory of the
earth may feem to be connected with the hiftory of
man. M. de Luc apprehends, that not only our pre
fent continents are of fmall antiquity, not exceeding
the aera of the deluge, (from which period they fupply
us with certain chronometers,) but that every phyfical
operation on the globe may be traced back to the exact
sera of the creation, according to Mofes. Dr. Hutton
and his followers imagine the whole globe to be of
immenfe and unfathomable antiquity ; fubject to pe
riodical revolutions, which depend on caufes that ope
rate fo Slowly, as entirely to preclude all calculations
upon the fubject. With regard then to both thefe
theories, I fhall endeavour to fix upon fuch parts a®
Seem to me to be of moft concern to the Theologian,
and then leave every reader to judge for himfelf.
Both theories are in agreement as to the original
formation of what are commonly called the ftratified
parts of the globe, at the bottom of the fea ; and of
their fubfequent fracture and diflocation by cataftrophes
of great extent and inconceivable violence : for I fee
° but

p6 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
but little difference, in point of force and violence, be
tween the fudden finking of immenfe continents, and
the protrufion of Alpine rocks, through an immenfe
body of fuperincumbent ftrata; even though this fhould
not be very fudden. If we can find our way backto
any fuch revolution of the earth, I think we need enquire
no further ; any fuch revolution I conceive to be, if
not phyfically miraculous, yet morally fo ; and to form
a moft important epoch in the hiftory of man. Very
many things concur to carry us back to fuch a period ;
for whether the Mofaic deluge was univerfal or not,
whether it is the fame, of which traces are to be
found, more or lefs disfigured, in every profane hiftory
or mythology, without exception, there can be no
poffible doubt, but that nearly at that very aera, or in
deed exactly fo, many things immediately connected
with the prefent population qf the earth, feem to have
had their origin and commencement. M. de Luc's
hypothefis in regard to the deluge (not to afcend higher
at prefent) is, that at that time ancient continents
funk, and that the prefent continental parts of the
globe were fuddenly abandoned by the fea ; and to ufe
the expreffion of another moft eminent obferver, (M.
Dolomieu) delivered over to the dominion of man.
Such a revolution muft of courfe have fubjedted the
raifed firata, as M. de Luc obferves, to a courfe of
frefh operations ; fuch as the growth and decay of ve
getables, the action of rain, and frofts, and rivers, &c,
and thefe are all proceffes and operations, the products
and effects of which, he contends, are capable of mea
furement. Such an antiquity affigned to our continents
is Certainly a very low one, comparatively with the ex
travagant calculations of many other theorifts, the Hut-
tonians in particular : and yet, fo far from being lingu
lar in affigning fuch a date to our continents, the ob
fervations of MM. Dolomieu and Sauffure, whofe
names carry with them a moft diftinguifhed authority,
brought them certainly to the fame conclufion, as to
the low antiquity of the prefent continents. See the
Journal de Phyfique, 1792, and the Voyage dans les Alpes
oi M. Sauffure, §. 625.
M.Dolomieu's expreffion is very ftrong: "Jedefen-
" drai une verite qui me paroit inconteftable, et dont "il

NOTES TO SERMON VI*. 317
" il me femble voir la preuve dans toutes les pages de
" 1'hiftoire, et dans celles ou font confignes les faits
" de la nature — Que l'etat de nos continens n'efi pas
" ancien : qu'il n'y a pas long- temps qu'ils ont ete don-
" nes — a I'empire de l'homme." Here then we have
a reference to facts, which obfervation muft be left to
decide upon ; and upon which I fhall only offer thefe
remarks ; namely^ that many cafes already adduced
feem to carry very great force with them : fee, as one
reference only, M. de Luc's Vth Geological Letter, in
the 4th vol. of the Britifh Critic ; while the Huttonian
fyftem of a gradual detritus, fufficient to account for
not only the formation of all that is exifting, but for
the removal alfo of all that is miffing of our ftony ftra
ta, appears, on many accounts, entirely inadmiffible :
for though we certainly cannot meafure, or in any
manner judge ofj the quantity of materials, which in
the lapfe of innumerable ages the rivers of the earth
may have tranfmitted to the fea ; yet, as many rivers
empty themfelves into lakes, and have been in other
ways making depofitions, which admit of meafurement,
we have, I think, undoubted facts to oppofe to the
fuppofition, that fuch caufes have been operating for an
indefinite time.
I know all thefe points have been repeatedly can*
vafl'ed and examined ; but not by any means to the re
moval of all difficulties upon the fubject. I think this
particular circumftance of lakes, which M. de Luc fo
much infifts on, is an invincible obftacle in the way of
the Huttonian fyftem ; and Profeffor Playfair is obliged
himfelf, in this inftance, to have recourfe to hypothe-
fis, to remove the difficulty, though contrary to his
own principles. See his Illufirations , p. 365. At p. 403,
he oppofes to M. de Sauffure's notion of a debacle, the
circumftances of the longitudinal valley on the eaft of
Mont Blane; which, as he obferves, has its opening in
the middle : and he would infer, that it not only could
not have been fo formed by a dibacle, but muft have been
produced by the running of the two ftreams from the
Col de Segne and Col de Ferret. But the ftream from
the Col de Segne pafles through the Lac de Combal,
which would furely not have exifted till this time, had
that

gift NOTES TO SERMON VI.
that ftream been the vehicle of fucb a detritus as muft
have been neceffary to the formation of the valley.
As to the circulation of habitable worlds, by the means
of continual decay and renovation, it feems to imply,
(fo ufeful and fo beautiful is the prefent variegated face
of nature,) that before the earth could ever have af
fumed a ftate entirely fuitable and defirable for man's
habitation, one perfect world at leaft muft have been
deftroyed and worn to pieces ; or its inhabitants muft
have lived without the advantages of any loofe mate^
rials ; and this for ages and for ages. Compare fedtions
114. 116. 117. 126. of Profeffor Playfair' s Illufirations .
1 only fay, that this feems to be a confequence of the
fyflem; decay, or wafting, being made the firft proceffes
in the produdtion of all our firata.
It is furely better to fuppofe, that as many of the
Joofe materials of' the globe, as well as many of the
moft indurated, feem of indifpenfable utility to man ;
whatever phyfical operations may have taken place in
the firft production of either, were by the Special pro
vidence of God accelerated, by fome violent cataftro-
phes, external or internal, or both combined ; or by
Such proceffes as precipitation, (for even our fands have
been fufpedted, and I think with reafon, of being che
mically produced ; fee both De Luc and Sauffure ; and
our pebbles of having been formed originally in no
dules, and not to be owing entirely to attrition;) fee
Douglas on the Antiquity qf the Earth, 49. Upon the
fufperifion of fuch operations, nature pofftbly began or
refumed her courfe of gradual and progreffive changes',
which, as long as it Shall pleafe God to continue with
out any general interruption, may ferve, and furely
muft ferve, to fupply fome chronometers connected
with the hiftory of man. That this globe of earth has
continued exadtly in its prefent fituation and condition
for fuch a length of ages as may allow for the gradual
wearing away of our deepeft valleys, and transporta
tion of the miffing materials, I cannot bring myfelf to
conceive ; but fhould much rather agree to any fyftem,
which, by the fudden finking and fubmerfion of former
continents, or violent elevation of pre-exifting ftrata,
or by debacles, which M. de Sauffure has recourfe to,
may

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 3^
in ay allow us to fuppofe, that the prefent diverfified
flatc of the globe is coeval with the prefent race of
man. Revolutions, that feem to extend to the very
foundations of the earth, (and the vifible condition of
the globe feems only referable to fuch,) whether our
valleys have been fuddenly depreffed by finkings, or
our mountains raifed by extraordinary lifting forces ;
whether water Shall have undermined the pillars of the
earth, and let the ftrata drop ; or fubterraneous fires,
and elaftic fluids, driven up from below all the granitic
and porphyritic matters], which form our higheft ridges;
Such events could fcarcely have been unaccompanied with
great changes in the condition of the inhabitants of the
earth : and the only queftion will be, whether fuch
revolutions may have had any moral ends; which thofe
who believe God to be the moral governor of the
world will not hefitate to admit, and thofe who do not
believe fb cannot contradict. Of one fuch revolution
the Mofaic writings give a fuccindt account ; and per
haps of more than one ; for what may have been the
phyfical effects of the curfe qf the earth, we know not:
but while the face ofthe globe bears teftimony to vio
lent and great cataftrophes, and every human theory
has recourfe to them; cataftrophes in which the fea
feems undoubtedly to have changed its bed, either by
depreffion or elevation, and by which of courfe the in
habitants of the earth muft have been univerfally or
partially overwhelmed ; to find, in the oldeft book ex
tant, an account of fuch a revolution, in which the
very foundations of the earth were fhaken, and " all
" the fountains of the great deep broken up," is cer
tainly a very extraordinary circumftance, and one,
which, inftead of ftanding in the way of theorifts, they
feem particularly to want. For though fome may be
difpofed to think the globe is in ruins, yet they are
habitable ruins ; and no doubt fuch cataftrophes enter as
much into the defign of God's providence, as the moft
regular, Slow, and gradual operations. Let the philo
fopher then continue to invefligate his "^ caufas natura-
" les et affiduas," the common and vifible courfe of
nature ; but let him not pretend to exclude the more
rare cataftrophes and revolutions, which not only have
been recorded, but which the hiftory of man and the
face

320 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
face of the globe feem evidently to confirm. I muft
not fay that Profeffor Playfair excludes them, for he
exprefsly avows the contrary ; but in the length of
time, which he allows for the gradual excavation of
our valleys, and reduction of our mountains, he certain
ly afcends far beyond the aera of the deluge, which we
conceive to have been unqueftionably one of thofe ge
neral cataftrophes and revolutions, the sera of which is
affignable. We may miftake for ever, in our enquiries
into the fpecific caufes of the fubmerfion of our conti
nents ; but that what is dry land was once fea we can
not doubt; and the hiftory and chronology of the
world feem to carry us pretty regularly back to the
very asra of the Mofaic deluge.
What was the phyfical ftate of the globe preceding
this muft be mere matter of conjecture ; though I have
already faid, that the notion of chemical precipitations
from a liquid feems almoft neceffary to account for the
fucceffion of diftindt ftrata ; and a fluid ftate of the
globe, at leaft fuperficially, feems not only to be con
fiftent with the Scriptures, and to be demonstrable from
the figure of the earth, but to be a point, in which
philofophers, ancient and modern, have been always
more agreed than in any thing elfe; the Huttonians
being almoft lingular, if not entirely fo, in their denial
of it. Whether liquidity was introduced, as M. de
Luc has fuppofed, I prefume not to judge; but I am
very certain, that his notion is not more conjectural
than many that have met with a much better reception
in the world. Nor is it altogether original ; Wallerius
having exprefsly attributed to the introduction of light
the firft fluidity of the chaos, and the commencement
of the attractive influences. See his Origine du Monde,
paragraph, xiv. xvi. xvii. Nor is the opinion of Leib
nitz far different ; " Calor autem motufve inteftinus ab
" igne eft, feu luce, id eft, tenuiffimo fpiritu permeante:
" atque ita ad motricem cauf'am perventum eft, unde
" facra quoque hiftoria cofmogenia initium capit Proto-
" gaea." §§. ii. iii.iv. Profeffor Playfair might have
known, that the title of M. de Luc's tenth Letter to
M. La Metherie, as well as the reafonings in it, were
no fuch novelties as he feems to think them. See his
lllufirations, p. 479. Still I think all thefe fpecula tions

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 3%i
tions are too conjectural to found any folid argument
on. Mofes does not tell us what fpecific phyfical ef
fects the firft introduction of light wrought upon the
chaos, except that, as before the earth was " without
" form and void," and " darknefs on the face of the
" deep," this was the firfi ftep towards its change :
and philofophers may fpeculate upon it as they pleafe ;
it is enough to know they cannot difprove it. Mr.
Kirwan makes it the fource of all the volcanic opera
tions that have taken place : other theorifts have af
figned to it different offices ; but very many agree in
conceiving it to have been either the caufe or imme
diate coniequence of the firft commotions .that took place
in the chaotic mafs; and this long before its chemical
or phyfical properties were at all underftood. Befides
thofe theories whofe authors are well known, I have
many others now lying before me, which it is quite
unneceffary to cite : but there is not one of them,
which does not pretend to explain matters, with the
fulleft confidence, that whether light was the firft caufe
or the firft coniequence of motion in the chaos, it could
not have been otherwife than according to the exact
terms of their respective fyftems. M. de Luc and Wal-
lerius, though they make it the firft phyfical caufe of
fluidity or liquidity, very properly refer its production
to the immediate act of God ; and thus we are brought
back to a miracle, where, if not before, all enquiries
fliould certainly terminate. Page 280. note (3).
And till this is afcertained to a certainty — all our fpe
culations concerning paft tranfactions mufi be in the~great-
efi degree vague and hypothetical^ It has been gene
rally thought, that the great attention which has lately
been paid to experimental philofophy in all its branches,
and particularly to chemiftry, muft enable us in time to
account for many geological phenomena, which have
hitherto been inexplicable; and that we are every day
making advances towards a more correct knowledge of
the Structure of the globe, and the nature of the caufes
that have operated in the production of both the flrati-
fied and unftratified parts of the earth. St is undenia
ble, that many very important difcoveries have already
y been

$22 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
been made, and that many more may reafonably be ex
pected to follow, from the peculiar attention paid to
chemiftry ; but whatever help we may receive from it,
in judging of the prefent operation of natural caufes,
or in prognofticating future effects, I think it fcarcely
allows us to be very confident, as to any fatisfadtory
folution of paft operations. The very knowledge we
have obtained of many fubftances hitherto entirely mif-
underftood, and whofe properties were formerly alto
gether miftaken, fliould certainly make us extremely
cautious, not only of forming theories, but even of pro
nouncing any thing to be capable of being reduced to
a certainty, concerning the action of any phyfical caufes
in time paft.
I have in the preceding note alluded to the opinion
of many modern philofophers, that moft of our ftrata
owe their origin to chemical precipitations : to mecha
nical precipitations from a liquid they muft at leaft be
referred ; but this feems fcarcely fufficient in any man
ner to account for the order and difiinction of the feve
ral ftrata; they would furely in all inftances be more
mixed and confounded one with the other. And yet
not only are they now found to be clearly Separable
into ftrata of diftindt fubftances and materials; but often
the animal and vegetable reliquiae, imbedded in the fe
veral ftrata, are found to be oi diftindt fpecies, and to
vary confiderably. This led M. de Luc to conceive,
that whatever had been the determining caufe of fuch
precipitations, it had not only affected the menftruum
at the moment, but fo changed its nature, and the na
ture alfo of the fuperincumbent atmofphere, as to have
had an effedt on animal life. And he thought he had
difcovered fuch caufes, in the periodical developement
and evolution of different elaftic fluids, from the bottom
of the primitive ocean. It is not my bufinefs to verify
this or any other hypothefis ; but only to fuppofe it
poffible, in order to Shew how little we muft know of
Such operations, when every experiment in chemiftry
tends to prove, that the whole fyftem of chemical folu-
tions and precipitations muft depend on fuch curious
affinities, and fuch an infinite variety of poffible combi
nations of fubftances, as to elude all our enquiries. And
if chemical precipitations are rejected, and the aqueous origin

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 323
origin of things fet afide, can we promife ourfelves
more certainty from the adoption of the Vulcanic fyf
tem ? Can we pretend to decide more clearly any thing
concerning the poffible action and effedts of fire in time
paft ? I think not. I really apprehend, that to judge
fairly of the matter, the determination of the fpecific
caufes, that may have operated in time paft in the body
of the earth, may be faid to become every day more
difficult, from the. very difcovery of the many different
ways, in which the adtion of all phyfical caufes what
foever may be modified and affected. For to refer at
once both to the Neptunian and Vulcanic theories,
what can we be faid to know, or what are we ever
likely to know, for certain, concerning the power of
water So become an univerfal folvent, in particular cir
cumftances, or of the adtion and effects of fire, under
different circumftances of compreffion?
St is furely very juftifiably. faid by Mr. Kirwan, Irifih
Tranf. vol. v. " that water, in certain circumftances,
" and with the addition of certain fubftances, may be
" admitted as an univerfal folvent, fhould not be de-
" nied, merely on account of our ignorance of thofe
" circumftances and auxiliary fubftances." And the
whole of the Huttonian theory may certainly be faid
to depend on the effects of fire operating under circum
ftances, which we have now no means of afcertaining.
Leibnitz depended for his fyftem on fome unknown ac
tion of fire. " Is enim noftrorum furnorum efficaciam
" immenfo gradus durationifque exceffu fuperans, quid
" mirum eft, fi tunc produxit, quse nunc homines imi-
" tari non poffunt?'? And in another place, in a very
animated ftyle, " Unde prona fufpicio eft, quod exiguis
" fpeciminibus nos ludimus, naturam magnis operibus
" executam ; cui Montes funt pro alembicis, Vulcani
" pro furnis." Protogaa, §§. iii. x.
I do not mean to deny, that we may every day ap
proach nearer to the difcovery of the properties both
of fire and water, and of the circumftances by which
they may be feverally modified and affected ; but yet
no difcoveries can ever affure us of the exact circum-?
ftances, by which they may have been modified and af
fected in time paft. We may learn generally the ef
fects of preffure on fire, or by what circumftances the
y % Soluble

324 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
foluble properties of water may be increafed or dimi
nished: but all thefe accidents and modifications muft
ftill have been always fubject to every poffible variation
of degree and intenfity, fo as not to admit of any calcu
lations fo fure, as to found any folid argument upon them.
I believe both fire and water have' been the chief agents
in the feveral revolutions that have affected thofe parts
of the globe, which we have it in our power to exa
mine ; but to what extent, or under what precife cir
cumftances, I neither think it poffible to determine, nor
do I fee any great ufe in determining it, if we could.
We are pretty generally agreed who made the world ;
why it was made we cannot doubt ; how it was made
can never be a matter of any effential concern to man,
when fo many millions of the human race pafs their
lives, and fulfil the ends of their creation, without a
thought upon the fubject, beyond what they conceive
to have been revealed to them in the fhort account of
the great Jewifh Legiflator ; and therefore Calvin de
duced an argument for the divinity of the Pentateuch
from the very omiffion of all fuch philofophical fubtil-
ties. " Artes reconditas aliunde difcat, qui volet. Hie
" Spiritus Dei omnes flimul fine exceptione docere voluit."
In Gen. i.
As far as an examination into the vifible products
either of fire or water may enable us to apply thefe
chemical agents with more certainty and more effedt,
in our laboratories, and in artificial procefles of manifeft
utility, its importance muft be evident and undeniable:
but then this fhould always be the acknowledged ob
ject of fuch enquiries ; for though we may find many
different ways of converting to our ufe the exifting
materials of the globe, it can only be by combining
and modifying what does exift : we can never form a
new material, or multiply what is already provided for
us ; and yet it would appear, that nothing lefs could
ferve to prove any theory; fynthefis being generally
the only certain proof of a perfect analyfis.
We may repeat even in this age, fo much and fo
juftly extolled for its advancement in knowledge, what
was admirably faid long ago upon the Subject of Syfie-
matic Phyfics, by the entertaining author of the Specta
cle de la Nature: " An experience of fix thoufand years " is

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 325
" is fully fufficient to inform us of what is acceffible or
" interdicted to us. So long as man, in his refearches,
" has bufied himfelf about what is fubmitted- to his
" government, his efforts were always rewarded with
" new difcoveries : but fo long as he prefumed to dive
" into the intimate ftrudture or the feveral parts of the
" univerfe, which he is not appointed to put in motion,
" his ideas were never any thing but an odd medley of
" fancies and uncertainties. If he ftudies the meafures
" of quantities and the laws of motion, not indeed to
" fathom the heavens, or to weigh in a balance the
" maffes of the celeftial bodies, but to know the order
" of his days ; if he obferves the relations, which the
" afpects of the heaven have with regard to his habita-
" tion, and the progrefs of the light through the me-
" diums, which he offers thereto ; the helps which he
" may find from the equilibrium of liquors, or from
" the weight and celerity of the bodies he is mafter of,*
" or from all the other experiments that fall under his
" eye, and efpecially under his hand ; in fhort, if he
" applies experiments to the neceffaries of life, this will
" be a fyftem of phyfics full of certainty, and produc-
" tive of great advantages." See the Vltlth Dialogue
of the Spectacle de la Nature ; where, allowance being
made for the language of the times in which it was
written, much that is very fenfible and very applicable
to the fubjedt before us may be found. I cannot for
bear tranfcribing the concluding fentence : (I copy from
the Englifh edition of 1739:) " Our reafon always em-
" ploys itfelf with fuccefs, when it Strives to render ex-
" perimental truths ufeful to us ; when it prudently
1 ' makes ufe of God's favours, and praifes him for the
" fame : this is the whole fum of man's knowledge."
So much would not be faid upon this fubject, but
that it is, and ever will be, perhaps, the cuftom of the
world, to compare all philofophical theories of the
earth with the Mofaic cofmogony; from which two
evils feem to have arifen. Thofe theories, which have
been framed without any regard to the revealed ac
count of things, have been thought to imply a philofo
phical contempt of the facred writings, as inconfiftent
with the vifible ftate of things ; while many theories,
which have been feverally invented to confirm every
y 3 article

325 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
article of the Bible cofmogony, having been found to
he inadmiffible and notorioufly unphilofophical, have
made people fufpicious of all fuch explanations of mat
ters, to fuch a degree, as to make them apprehend that the
Bible contains nothing of real fadt as to the firft origin
of things : whereas I fliall make no fcruple of declar
ing, that if I faw any neceffity for believing the feveral
articles of the Scripture cofmogony, to the extent that
fome very eminent divines and philofophers have judged
it to be neceffary, I fhould not hefitate to rejedt all phi
lofophical hypothefes, that have recourfe to time inde
finite, or to any production of minerals, which they are
not able to imitate, and confirm fynthetically. But my
ideas of the fubject do not require this ; and that I
may not be fufpected of evading any fyftem that feems
to affect the chronology or cofmogony of the Bible, I
Shall in few words ftate what my own fentiments are
upon the fubjedt. Firft, then, I am perfuaded, that the
earth exhibits fufficient proofs of violent revolutions and
cataftrophes ; and though none fuch can be fuppofed
to happen without the efpecial regard of God, and con
fequently for purpofes of the moft awful importance,
yet I do conceive that there may be in nature forces fuffi
cient for the production of fuch effects, without any
other miracle than the determination of God's provi
dence, to place things in fuch circumftances as to pro
duce fuch violent and unufual phenomena. I believe
in fome fuch revolutions all the ftrata of the earth have
been fradtured and diflocated ; and that the fea has co
vered our continents, once certainly, but perhaps many
times; and I conceive the Mofaic deluge to have been
indisputably one fuch cataftrophe, and to be confirmed
by many very extraordinary circumftances in the hiftory
and appearances of the earth, an'd of the prefent race
of mankind. I do not regard the marine productions,
which are found much below the fuperficies of the
globe, to be proofs of the Mofaic univerfal deluge,
otherwife than as they clearly evince not merely the
poffibility, but actuality of fuch a cataftrophe as a ge
neral depreffion or elevation of the waters of the fea :
and as Mofes could not attain to the knowledge of any
fuch event as the univerfal fubmerfion of the conti
nental parts of the globe, (fuppofing fuch to have
taken

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 327
taken place,) otherwife than by tradition or revelation,
I conceive we have an indifputable proof either that
the event was authentically tranfmitted, or miracu-
loufly revealed to him. I am not certain, nor do I
hefitate to acknowledge it, but that what is commonly
called the Mofaic cofmogony might be the asra of fuch
another revolution ; when, after a new arrangement
of things, Adam and Eve were truly introduced into
the world as he defcribes, as the Protoplafts of the very
race to which we belong. I do not pretend to fay,
this was not actually the very asra of the very firft
creation of our planet and our fyftem ; much lefs would
I pretend to <3ecide, that there has not been time fuffi
cient fince, for the production and ordering of all our
mineral fubftances, by the operation of known phyfical
caufes : for I contend that there is now no knowing
how. the operation of fuch caufes may have been in
time paft retarded or accelerated. But I think it poffible,
without any impeachment of the veracity of the author
of the Pentateuch, that this globe and our whole fyftem
may be much older than the race of Adam ; nor would my
faith in the Bible be in the fmalleft degree Shaken, by
any philofophical proof that could be brought of ante
cedent revolutions in the body of the earth, let them
afcend as high as any theorifts require, fhort of infi
nity. This is not faid by way of evafi on. I pub! i fhed
the fame opinion four years ago, before the Huttonian
theory, which has been thought fo adverfe to the ac
count in the facred records, had been openly vindicated
by fo eminent an advocate as Profeffor Playfair. I fhall
beg leave to refer to my book, entitled El> ®eo; "Els Ms-
cinjf, from p. 75. to p. 129; where I have fully expreffed
my fentiments concerning the creation and hiftory of
man : and I make this reference the more particularly,
becaufe I find the Huttonian theory excufed by the
learned Profeffor, upon grounds entirely conformable
to the notions I have there avowed.
It is but a piece of juftice due to Dr. Hutton and his
learned advocate, to extract the paffage. " On what
" is now faid is grounded another objection to Dr.
" Hutton's theory, namely, that the high antiquity
" afcribed by it to the earth is inconfiftent with that
y 4 " fyftem

328 NOTES TO SERMON VL
" fyftem of chronology which refts on the authority
" of the facred writings. This objection would, no
" doubt, be of weight, if the high antiquity in quef-
" tion were not reftridted merely to the globe of the
" earth, but were alfo extended to the human race :
" that the origin of mankind does not go back beyond
" fix or feven thoufand years, is a pofition fo involved
" in the narrative of the Mofaic books, that any thing
" inconfiftent with it, would no doubt ftand in oppofi-
" tion to the teftimony of thofe ancient records. On
" this fubjedt, however, geology is filent ; and the hif-
" tory of arts and fciences, when traced as high as any
" authentic monuments extend, refers the beginnings
" of civilization to a date not very different from that
" which hasjuft been mentioned. On the other band,
" the authority of the facred books feems to be but
" little interefted in what regards the mere antiquity
" ofthe earth itfelf; nor does it appear that their lan-
" guage is to be underftood literally concerning' the age
" of that body, any more than concerning its figure or
" its motion. It is but reafonable that we Should extend
" to the geologift the fame liberty of fpeculation,
" which the aftronomer and mathematician are already
" in poffeflion of; and this may be done, by fuppofing
" that the chronology of Mofes relates only to the hu-
" man race." See Playfair' s Illufirations ofthe Huttonian
Theory, §.125. This is the vindication which the learned
Profeffor oppofes to the charge alluded to; and though
I am not prepared to fubfcribe generally to the fyftem
he defends, I cannot but agree with him in believing •
that the chronology of Mofes relates chiefly, if not ex
clusively, to the human race. Profeffor Robinfon feems
to be ofthe fame opinion, in his Proofs qf a Confpiracy ;
where fpeaking of Voltaire's confidence in the phe
nomena of the earth being in contradiction to the
Mofaic writings, and the feveral disputes upon this fub
jedt, he fays, " For my own part, I think the affair is
" of little confequence ; Mofes writes the hiftory, not
" of this globe, but ofthe race of Adam." Pqftfcript,
p. 544. 3d edit. As to the particular epochas of the
revolutions of our globe, 1 fully conceive, that two at
leaft are afcertainable, viz. the firft previous to the in
troduction

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 329
traduction of the Protoplafts, if that was not the ori
ginal creation of this planet; and the fecond the deluge
of Noah.
I know that many divines, and many philofophers,
have thought it not allowable to refer the aera of the
creation of our globe to any period beyond that
fuppofed to be fixed by the introduction of the race of
Adam ; and fome have imagined it to be wrong, not to
include in this account even the whole ofthe vifible
univerfe ; (fee Jamiefon on the Ufe of facred Hifiory,
vol. i. J 63.) I know that Origen imputes to Celfus,
who profeffed to believe that the world had been fub
jedt to many revolutions, a defign to have it believed
that the world was not created, lib. i. p. 16. edit,
Cantab. But I muft agree with Profeffor Playfair, that
there is a great difference between doubting of the
precife aera ofthe beginning or end ofthe world, and
afferting, that it had no beginning, and will have no end.
But to prove, that the idea of a pre-exiftent ftate ofthe
earth, is no new invention to meet the objedtions oirno^
dem theorifts, or evade their calculations, I might refer >
to a work publifhed by a M. Engel, in which he con^
ceives that the angels inhabited the earth before man; an
opinion which even M. de Luc feems inclined to coun
tenance; fee his Lettrcs fur la Terre et l' Homme.
And our celebrated chronologift, Mr. Jackfon, ex
plains the paffage of the earth being " without
"form and void," Gen. i. of its being for the time
void of inhabitants: and he further fuppofes it poffi
ble, that the chaotic ftate of the earth might not be
its firft creation, but the diffolution of a former ftate,
whofe period was determined, in order to a new form
ation of a different fyftem. And he likewife thinks,
the angels might have been the inhabitants of the pre-
exifient orb. See his Chronological Antiquities, vol. i.
Whether this was fo or not we fliall undoubtedly
never know, unlefs God is pleafed to reveal it to us;
which we may not expedt here, and hereafter it may
be no fuch fubjedt of curiofity. I do not think philofo
phers have hitherto by any means proved, that the firft
creation of the globe muft unquefiionably be referred to a
period more remote than the origin of the prefent race
of mankind: and if they ever fhould prove it, I certainly think

330 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
think the Bible does by no means contradict the poffi
bility of fuch a fyftem of things. " Immo licet me
" non lateat," fays a fenfible writer, " effe pios pa-
" riter et eruditos viros, qui facrum hiftoricum mundi
" creationem non tarn <pv<nx.ujc quam ij9wcoj defcripfiffe
" exiftimant ; ego tamen verbis ejus unice inhaereo, et,
" fi modum creationis percontari pergas, ingenue fateor,
" nihil me habere, quod tibi reponam, nifi illud effa-
" turn divi Pauli, II<Vsi voa\uv y-ocrr^ricrSica ts; alcovx; fiyjjt.ali
" ©£oo, eij to p,ij BKfaivoij.Bvwy ra ^Xitro^eva, ysyoysvai."
Heb.xi. ver. 3; "Otiofaenim eft apud antiquos quofdam
" Ecclefiae Patres difputatio, annon mundi hujus partes
" et regiones fuperiores, ac ille prascipue, quem angeli
" inhabitant, beatiffimus mundus orbi noftro per ignota
" multa fascula praeextiterit ? Otiofa etiam Cartefiana
" hypothefis, quafi paratus jam et omnibus vitae com-
" modis inftrudtus orbis, in aere per multa faecula flui-
" taverit ante, quam Adam, primus ejus incola, a Deo
" ad ilium habitandum conderetur. Ecquid, quaefo, fi
" haec omnia cognita penitus atque exploratiffima ha-
" beremus, meliores inde reddi poffemus ? Sed in illo,
" quem Mofes nobis in fua cofmopoeio infinuat, con-
" ceptu, quod Deus univerfum hoc ex nihilo condiderit, ni-
" hil otiofi latitat. Potius hie omnia ad pietatem, omnia
" ad religionem confpirant. Quantam enim divinae po-
" tentiae admirationem conceptus hie in animis noftris
" excitare debet ? Quantum timorem erga potentiffi-
" mum Numen nobis infpirare ? quantum fiduciam nof-
" tram in Deum acuere? et profedto, idea, quod Deus
" vaftum hunc terrarum orbem ex nihilo produxerit,
" quod voluntas ejus, quae, utitadicam, unicoverbo fiat
" declarata fuit, tot innumeris, ut philofophi loquun-
" tur, modificationibus, et partium, quibus componitur,
" difpofitionibus non poffibilitatem tantum fed exifien-
" tiam dederit, longe major eft, quam ut humanus in-
" telledtus pro dignitate illam affequL valeat." Vid.
Preefationem Chrifi. Ludovic. Scheidii ad Protogaam cele-
berrimi Leibnitii. Page 280. note. (4).
The rapid progrefs lately made— 'in mineralogy and che
miftry has led many to fuppofe, that the times are peculiarly -
favourable for fuch enquiries and fpeculations.'] Profeffor Playfair

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 331
-Playfair concludes his Illuftrations of the Huttonian
Theory with a note exprefsly on " the Prejudices relating
" to the Theory of the Earth," at the fame time en
deavouring to fhew, " that the mafs of geological know-
" ledge is now in that ftate of fermentation, from
¦" which the true theory may be expected to emerge."
P. 516. If this is really the cafe, I wifh all theo-
rifts may, as the learned Profeffor himfelf directs,
keep to their object, and not attempt to explain the firft
Origin of things. Seep. 511.
I have faid fo much in the preceding notes upon the
invincible obftacles, which feem to ftand in our way in
enquiring into the nature ofthe phyfical operations that
have taken place in time paft in the body ofthe earth,
that for fear I fhould be thought to have any unrea-
fonable prejudice againft geological fpeculations in ge
neral, or to depreciate the manifold and important dif
coveries ofthe age we live in, I fliall beg leave to ftate,
that my only object is to fecure that refpect to the
Bible, which I think philofophy can never be able to
fhake. — Though the Mofaic cofmogony, and hiftory of
the firft ages, is fimple, and free from all phyfical ex
plications of' things; yet fome few points are touched
npon, which if philofophy fhall not approve, it niay not
be admitted, I think, to contradict : as for inftance, Gen.
i. 9. is I think fufficient authority for us to believe
that unqueftionably fuch was once the condition of this
globe, that its fuperficial parts at leaft were in a ftate of
fluidity ; and as all our obfervations tend to fliew, that
our ftrata were formed under the water, my faith in
this point would never be fhaken by any philofophical
calculations to prove the contrary : for though it
fliould be fhewn ever fo clearly that, according to our
prefent knowledge of the folubility of mineral fub
ftances, it muft have required to hold in folution the
fpheroidal Shell of the earth, 625 times its bulk of
water; (fee Playfair, 493 ;) yet I fliould conclude^ that,
by fome circumftances or other unknown to us, the mi
neral bodies ofthe globe were then rendered fbluble in
proportions different from thofe which our experiments
difcover to us. And, I think, our moft recent dif
coveries in this line would particularly authorife fuch
a fuppofition. To take two inftances from the Hutto nian

552 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
nian theory. To account for the exiftence of Kilkenny
coal, of all others the moft deftitute of bitumen, this
theory fuppofes it to have been fufed with an entire ab-
fenee of preffure : whereas to account for pyrites, the
fame fyftem fuppofes them to have been formed by
fufion under a ftrong preffure, by which its Sulphur, a
fubftance at leaft as volatile as bitumen, is kept in com
bination with the iron. Now thefe fubftances have been
found in conjunction. The inference is plain. Again, an
objection has been made to the igneous origin of granite,
from the circumftance of the cryfials of quartz and
feldfpar mutually impreffing each other : whereas our
experiments formerly taught us to believe that thefe
two minerals were fufible at very different tempera
tures : it has fince however been difcovered, that the
cafe is otherwife, when they are reduced' to powder;
by which fmall change of circumftances, the feldSpar
is made to act as a flux on the quartz. This point has
been afcertained by Sir James Hall's experiments, and I
think by M. d'Arcet alfo ; fee his Mimoire fur I' Action
d'un Feu egal, &c. p. i. §. 49. referred to by M. de
Sauffure, Voyage dans les Alpes, vol. i. 166. I think
therefore, even if we had not the authority of fo great
a naturalift as Mr. Kirwan for fuch a conclufion, we
might reafonably infift upon the fuppofition, which I
have expreffed in Mr. Kirwan's own words, in the Ser
mon; namely, that the chaos, whenever, or how often
foever, it may have exifted, may have been at the time
" a more complex menftruum than any that has fince
" been known." Irifih. Phil. Tranfi. vol. vi. Profeffor
Playfair himfelf acknowledges that one of the moft
important principles involved in Dr. Hutton's theory
was till lately, not only unknown, but could not be
difcovered ; namely, the detention of the aerial fluid in
limeftone expofed to the adtion of fire, under circum
ftances of great compreffion. Now let us only fuppoSe
this difcovery never had been made, what falfe hypo-
thefes might have been framed as to the operations of
nature in time paft ! Red porphyry, M. le Comte de
Buftbn tell us, is compofed of an infinite plumber of
prickles of the fpecies of echinus, or fea-chefnut. They are
placed pretty near each other, and form all the fmall
white fpots which are in porphyry. Who would not
upon

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 333
upon fuch authority have determined porphyry to have
been of aqueous origin, and to have contained marine
reliqukE ? M. de Sauffure thought he had clearly dif
covered the whole hiftory of fubterraneous fires, when
the Canon Ricupero affured him, that JEtna had thrown
out abundance of pyrites : he was undeceived when he
difcovered them to be only cryftals of fchorl. But the
worthy Canon himfelf would not be convinced of the
miftake ; and thus the paft operations of nature became
liable to fuch mifreprefentations, as obliged the able
naturalift, to whom we owe the fact, to record it,
though at the hazard of expofing a very worthy man
and very zealous obferver.
Now though all our late difcoveries and experi
ments undoubtedly tend to fecure us more and more
from errors of this nature, and therefore geology
may be faid to be greatly advanced ; yet certainly be
fore Philofophy may be allowed to contradidt Revela
tion, we have a right to infift upon fuch a correct and
precife knowledge not only of the probable, but of the
poffible circumftances, under which nature may have
acted in time paft, as no progrefs in human knowledge
can afford us an expectation of; while the difcoveries
we make daily in chemiftry, of the infinite ways in which
the combined actions of difterent fubftances may be mo
dified, fhould ferve to convince us, that after all the re-
fearches we can poffibly make into the primitive, or even
into any remote ftate ofthe globe, our conclufions may
be fallacious; for caufes may have operated then, which
operate no longer, or under circumftances which may
never again occur. Now among other things, the
time or period of fuch operations muft be for ever un
certain; for we know, more than ever we knew before,
that every operation depending on the action of fire,
on the folution of fubftances, and above all on the de-
velopement of elaftic fluids, may have been accelerated
or retarded, increafed or diminifbed, by fuch a variety
of accidents, as is paft all calculation ; and therefore I
think we may agree with M. de Luc, that " time may
" never be fubftituted for caufes;" and that we had
better not have recourfe to time indefinite to account
for any geological phenomena, till we are able to point
out fome fpecific and determinate effects that have
been

334 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
been produced within a given fpace of time.— There
are many very important points which remain to be
afcertained, and which are particularly ftill in difpute
between the Vulcanifts and Neptunifts; fuch as the di
minution ofthe general quantity of the aqueous fluid,
from the decompofition of water, and other caufes ; a
fact pretty generally admitted ; and which perhaps the
difcovery ofthe formation of water from the combuf-
tion of the inflammable and vital airs, may render
more uncertain than ever. The different effedts of
quick or flow refrigeration of fufed matters, is a point
not afcertainable, or feems to be fo. The non-exiftence
of air in lavas, and its exiftence in almoft all, if not
every foffil, prefents many difficulties, as well as the
circumftance already noticed, of the evolution or deten-»
tion of volatile matters under different circumftances of
preffure. Thefe notions of the difficulty of judging of
paft operations are not taken up by way of evafion, any
more than other obfervations I have ventured to make i
I find it to be the opinion of others, and to have been
advanced where there was no queftion of theology to
interfere. The author of the Comparative View of the
Huttonian and Neptunian Syftems, very juftly, I think,
remarks, " that when we confider what he has been at
" the pains to examine into, viz. the influence of ag-
« gregation in preventing folution, the power of tem-
" perature in promoting it, the incalculable effects
" refulting from the exertion of complicated affinities,
" and the poffibility of fubftances being compounds,
" which our imperfect knowledge ranks as Simple, we
" can have no hesitation in admitting the conclufion
" which each feparately eftablifhes, that foffils may
" have been formed by water, though apparently infolu-
" hie in that fluid. And if an induction From facts fhall
" render probable their aqueous origin, their prefent
" infolubility will form no objedtion of real force."
This is only advanced indeed in regard to one point in
geology, namely, the folubility of quartz; but I think
it applies to all. The Huttonians may think fuch an
argument a geological evafion: but I am fure it is no
theological one; for, it muft be remembered, much that
Mofes relates is miraculous ; that is, he fpeaks of mi
raculous interpositions on the part of God, in the revo
lutions

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 335
lutions that have befallen the globe ; it is therefore no
wonder that the phyfical poffibility of them is not clearly
to be feen ; and as to the probability of their having
been miraculous, the difficulties that for ever ftand in
the way of fueh refearches, and the endlefs difputes
they give rife to, muft furely be admitted to be no
contemptible proofs of the very fact.
Page 283. note (5.)
Though no fuch analyfis has been at all effectual to the
enabling us in any one infiance to produce fuch fubftances,
by any mixture of the affigned ingredients. .] M. Dolomieu,
in his paper " Sur les Pierres compqfies et les Roches," in
the Journal de Phyfique, infifts upon it that we can have
no knowledge df the Specific chemical operations which
took place at the birth of our globe, it being impoffi
ble to recompqfe any one ftone after the mofi curious and
nice analyfis : and this certainly appears to be a fair
conclufion to draw, as I have already intimated. The
theory, of which I have given a Iketch in my Sermon,
has for its author a M. C. Schmeider, and it was pub-
liflied at Leipzig in 1802, under the following title t
" Die Geognofie nach Chemifchen Grundxatzen," i. e.
Geognofy (or Geology) explained on the principles of
Chemiftry. I only know it from fome extracts which I
have feen, and I would by no means refer to it upon fo
partial and imperfect a knowledge of it, if my purpofe
was only to expofe it ; but being founded on the cele
brated fcheme of Buffon, viz. that of deriving our
planetary fyftem from the fhock of a comet upon the
body of the fun, I have the more particularly referred
to it, becaufe this very fuppofition feems to be as ftrong
an inftance ofthe grofs miflakes we are liable to fall
into, by Stepping an inch beyond what facts will bear
us out in, as any circumftance whatfoever. Dr. Her-
Schel's papers in the Philofophical Tranfadtions, on the
fun's heat, muft be now pretty generally known : butj
independent of thefe, the nature of the fun has been
much too long a matter of doubt to juftify any perfons
affuming its ignition, as a foundation for a new theory.
I have already had occafion to advert to this in my
hook on the' Plurality of Worlds ; fee pp. 122 — 128-;
which I am forry to have occafion to refer to fo often ;
but

335 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
but thefe notes being already much longer than I ex-
pedted, I do not like to tranfcribe it, though it is par
ticularly applicable to the fubjedt we are upon : fee alfo
Wallerius, fedt. vii. and Lambert's Syftem qf the World,
ch. iv. To Shew however how eafy it is to make a
world, I fhall give one fpecimen here of M. Schmeider's
method. After having determined with Buffon, that
our globe was ftruck from the fun by a comet, he thus
proceeds methodically to arrange matters. " L'atmo-
" fphere chaotique de la comete coula autour du globe mi-
" tallique ardent, etfut melee avec les exhalaifbns vapo-
" reufes: la folution des alkalis et des terresiut d6com-
" pofee par Vacide carbonique : ceci dut donner bientot
" une coagulation du fluide, dans laquelle les parties ho-
" mogenes s'agregerent, et le fluide expanfible devint un
" liquide: par ce liquidele noyau metallique fut iteint, mais
" il ne cefl'a pas d'agir : il ceffa de decompofer Voir avec
'" lequel il ne venoit plus en contact; mais il cOmmenca
" a decompofer Veau par fa chaleur. Une oxydalion
" fermentante fut produite, comme dans les ruines bru-
" Ian tes des maifons confumees, et qu'on eteint par l'eau ;
" l'odeur briilante indique Voxydation. De cette ma-
" niere, non-feulement \'eau a diminue, dans le fluide
" chaotique, mais il s'en eft fepare encore plus d'acide
" carbonique et mephitique et de principes aqueux, &c. &c."
I forbear to proceed, becaufe I am confident it would
be to no purpofe. Lord Shaftefbury long ago prepared
a rod for fuch world-makers. " We have," fays he,
" a ftrange fancy to be creators. — Every feet has a
" recipe ; when you know it, you are mafter of na-
" ture ; you folve all her phenomena ; you fee all her
"defigns, and can account for all her operations; if
" need were, you might perchance too be of her labo-
" ratory, and work for her : at leaft one would imagine
" the partizans of each modern fedt to have had this
" conceit. They are all Archimedes's in their way,
" and make a world upon eafier terms than he offered
"to move one." Moralifls, Part I. fedt. i. In regard
to the theory we have juft had occafion to notice, M.
de Luc has admirably obferved, that we may in vain
challenge M. Schmeider te produce ftones by fuch pro
ceffes as he has been at fuch pains to defcribe, becaufe,
no doubt, he would always allege, that he had no
fragment

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 337
fragment of the fun, or. tail of a comet, to go to work
with ; and there could not be a better burlefque upon
the whole fyftem. " Where waft thou when I laid
" the foundations of the earth ? declare, if thou haft
" understanding. Whereupon are the foundations
" thereof fattened ? or who laid the corner ftone
"thereof?" Job xxxviii. Page 285. note (6).
Why is there fo little faid of fecond caufes in this part of
the Mofaic records F\ We might furely add, why do we
read fo little, or rather nothing, of caufes, entirely un
natural and monftrous, if Mofes borrowed; as fome
would infinuate, from Pagan mythologies ? — The fo-
briety of the facred text upon many topics is a ftrong
proof of its infpiration, when we confider what incre
dible Stories the Talmud and other writings of the
Jews contain. This is the more particular, as the
latter have been made a reafon for fufpecting the Pen
tateuch, &,c. of containing exaggerations and interpo
lations. See Monthly Review qf Dr. Jamiefon's Ufe of
Sacred Hifiory, Aug. 1804. The canon of Scripture
was complete before the Tanaim or Mifhnical Doctors
began to add their traditions to them ; fee Prideaux's
Connection, vol. ii. 67. The Rabbins adopted Indian
fables ; fee Wilford on Egypt and the Nile, Afiatic Re~
fearches, vol. iii. Page 280,. note (7).
Though, for what we know, derived, as they allege, from
the Eaft. .] M. Mallet, in his remarks on the Edda,
would derive the names of the days of the week from
the Eaft, with the other doctrines of the Celts : his
principal objedt indeed is, to identify the Scandinavian
and Oriental mythologies. St is certainly very proba-,
ble, that we do derive the names of our days from the
Eaft: fee upon this fubject M. le Gentil, Mimoires de
VAcadem. — Sciences, I771- Part IL Maurice's Indian
Antiquities, vol. v. Halhed's Preface to his Code of Gentoo
Laws ; Kinderfley's Specimens of Hindu Literature.

Page

338 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
Page 290. note (8).
The hebdomadal divifion, though originally qf divine
inftitution. ,] Dr. Geddes conceives the fix days creation to
have been exprefsly invented by Mofes to account for
the Jewifh fabbath. We might reafonably afk, what
then could be the true account ? It is much better Said
by Profeffor Jenkin, in his Reafonablenefs qf Chriflianity,
book ii. c. 9, " If God faw fit to appoint one day in
" feven to be a day oirefi, this was fufficient reafon
" for the affignment of fix days to the work of crea-
" tion, independent of all other reafons." Some have
imagined, and among others St. Auftin, (de Civit. Dei,
lib. ii. c. 6.) that the divifion of the work of creation
into fix days, was an invention of Mofes to accommo
date himfelf to the dull minds ofthe Jews; and that
this idea receives confirmation from Gen. ii. 4, 5, &c.
where Mofes appears to collect the whole again into
the compafs of one day. But what bungling work
would this be, to ufe artifice, and then betray himfelf !
There is fomething very extraordinary in the inftitution
of the Sabbath, as to both its moral and phyfical effedts;
and it is not unreafonable to fuppofe, with Profeffor
Jenkin, that God might have been gracioufly pleafed
to conduct his own operations after a method, which
Should ferve for ever as an exemplar and model for the
works of man. It has always ftruck me as a remarkable
circumftance, that Apion, who feems to have fpared no
pains, nor fcrupled any mifreprefentations, to invalidate
the antiquity of the Jews, when he exprefsly touched
upon the circumftance of their fabbath, (Jofephus cdntr.
Ap. lib. ii.) and went out of his way, to invent a paltry
reafon for their obfervation of the feventh clay, fliould not
have infifted upon the higher antiquity ofthe hebdoma
dal reckoning. This he would furely have done, had. it
been a point at all capable of proof in thofe days!, or
had it even been fufoedted; efpecially if there had beefi
any grounds for what Dion Caffius afferts,,lib. xxxvii.
namely, that both the hebdomadal reckoning, and
diftindtion of days, was derived from the Egyptians.;
for this would have much better fuited Apion's argur
ment, (which was defigned to prove that the Jews de
rived .every thing from Egypt,) than a frivolous critique on

NOTES TO SERMON VL 339
en the term fabbath. But there is another circum
ftance which ftrikes me, upon this head, namely, that
Apion, in his ftrange attack upon the Jewifh labbathy
clearly acknowledges the Seventh day to have been
originally a day of reft. Now it is remarkable,' that
this alfo feems to have defcended with the hebdoma
dal _ mode of reckoning, as Philo obferves ; for after
noticing the backwardnefs of all nations to adopt the
cuftoms of their neighbours, he writes, 'Aaa' 01?% wfotd
r\iketepa g%sr itdvld; ydp itdyetai xa) crvveiris-peipei, f$'a.g£d<ioeK
eXXyva;, ^vetpuira;, vy<riu!ta;, sSvtj rd kwa, td ktrrfepia, Evpca--
TtYjv, Acriciv, aitcctrav rijv ohov[Aevr/v, d-rtb ifepdtuiv hit) ttepata'
ti; yap ty-i/ iepdv exslv-fjv kg$bjj.riv ex Ixtetlpijxev, 'ANE2IN
IIONX2N xa) 'PA2TI2NHN.aiirtu te xa) toi; irXTjtricigouiriv, ax
eXeuSegoi; piovov, aXXa xa) SouXmg, paAAos' Se xa) iiro^uyioip
01081 i <p6dvei ydp y exxsyetpia xa) fpb; tfdcrav dyeXr^v, xa) aera:
ifpo; witqgstriav yeyovev avfipwitov, xaddtfsp SovXa Qepaireuovta
tov pvcrei Secrntot-tyt, <p8dvei xa) ttpo; SevSpaiv xa) cpvtwv avacrav
iosear oi yag spvo;, s xXiiSoy, dXX' sSe itetaXov' etpelrcu tect,elv,
^ xdgTToii bvttvaUv SpeipacrSai, itavluiv SiattetLLevcuv xat exe'ivijv tijv
ypepdv, xa) wtriteQ iXev&epidv dyovtuiv , KOINX^ KHPtrMATS
p.rthvo; eift^avovto;'. Tiep) /3is Hiuicr. 447, edit. Paris, 1552.'
See alfo Eufeb. Evang. Prcepar. 1. xiii. 12. where there
is as much in regard to the umver'M facrednefs of the Se
venth day. Now when we confider that Plato was for
referring the origin 6f all feftivals and day's of reft, to
the inftitution ofthe gods, moved thereto by pity for
thofe that were born for painful labour, we may, I think,
Well conceive the hebdomadal mode of reckoning had
the very origin Mofes affigns to it. Plato's expreffions'
are curious, " ®eoi Se olwrsicavte; tb tuiv avSpwrttuv eitirfovov
" iretpvxb; ,yevo; 'ANAITATAA2 te aitol; twv IIONI2N htd-
" c-ato tuiv ebgrtov dpotgd; to?; ®eoTs." De Leg. lib. ii. If
we put then thefe things together, and confider that
the Jewifh reckoning of their days may be faid tb
have been ftrictly hebdomadal, that is, they were named
only1 according to their order, as firft, Second, third,
&o. and every feventb day alone was diftinguifhed by
a title, and that title Significative of reft — fee Jofephus
cont. Apion, and Antiq. Jud. lib. i. Parkhurfi's Heb.
Lexicon, &?c. a circumftance which Apion feems tb
have paid regard to, even while he was endeavouring
to find another origin' for the term itfelf, and which,
from the account of Philoj appears to have been gene-
z 2 rally

34o NOTES TO SERMON VI.
rally tranfmitted. with the hebdomadal mode of reckon
ing; while Plato exprefsly refers the Stated days of
reft in the Pagan religions, to the gods, in commiferation
ofthe labours qf man; we can fcarce, I think, forbear to
regard the fabbath as the true caufe and origin of the
hebdomadal divifion of time ; more especially if it was
obferved by the Patriarchs, which I think is fcarce to
be doubted ; fee Patrick on Gen. ii. 3 ; and hence poffi
bly all the myftery concerning the number seven,
which feems to have been a puzzle to the world al
moft as long as it has endured. I know fome are ftill
for referring the hebdomadal reckoning, to the lunar
revolutions of 28 days, which were adopted in the
Eaft, and which led to the fubdivifion of four weeks of
feven days each, named after the planets. This would
include -fomething of aftronomy, and fomething of
idolatry ; but the circumftance of the feventh day be
ing a fabbath, or day of refi, would ftill remain to be
accounted for. And this inftitution is all we have to
do with. Tacitus, in his ftrange conceit about the
Jews, that they meant to do honour to Saturn, by
keeping Saturday holy, notices its fabbatical character,
" Septimo die otium placuiffe ferunt." Hifior. lib. v. c.
4. It is curious, that the Chriftians in TertuUian's
time fhould be accufed of worfhipping the fun, from
their obfervation of Sunday; and that the Jews in Taci-
tus's time, for a fimilar reafon, Should be fufpedted of
honouring Saturn: but the one error may well ferve to
explain the other. Page 291. note (9).
Depends on fpeculations, which, however cautibufly con
ducted, may never be allowed to difprove a fact, capable of
almoft pofitive demonftration.'] Dr. Toulmin, whofe two
works on the antiquity and eternity of the world I have
before had occafion to mention, with an inconfiftency
which, it feems, he was himfelf unable to difcern, in
order to prove the great antiquity of our globe from
effedts, flow, progreffive, and uniform, (for this is the
chief drift of his argument,) prefents us with many cu
rious and well authenticated accounts of the amazing
effects of volcanoes, earthquakes, and inundations . From
thefe we learn, that when nature even now acts upon a
great

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 541
great fcale, fo far from requiring ages upon ages to
produce a habitable world, or deftroy one already in
habited, fhe can in not many days fend forth from the
bowels of the earth, matter that would extend more
than four times round the globe ; which is the amount of
Borellus's calculations ofthe lava that had flowed from
iEtna in the eruption, 1669. We learn from other
accounts, that thirty days only are requisite to form an
ifland fix miles in diameter, or indeed only the half of
this time, that is, fifteen days, to elevate from the
bottom of a fea three hundred and twenty yards deep,
an ifland nine miles long, four and a half broad, and
which rifes 360 feet above the water. We fhould be
careful furely, from the teftimony only of thefe few
facts, how we pretend to affign any fixed time for the
works of nature in time paft. Dr. Toulmin relies
much on Mr. Brydone's celebrated data for calculating
the age ofthe world from the converfion of lava into
vegetable mould : but fince this fadt was received as an
undoubted principle to judge from, it has been, un
luckily for thefe fyftem-framers, difcovered, that fome
lavas contain ingredients, difpofing them to this pro-
cefs much fooner than others, fo that no certain con
clufion can be drawn from this teft. See Watfon's Let
ters to Gibbon; and Kirwan onjlony Subftances, Iriflh Phil.
Tranf. vol. v. This circumftance is the more particu
lar, becaufe it feems, in one inftance, to correfpond
with Dr. Toulmin's own ideas. I fliall ftate the very
cafe he adduces, and the reflections he makes on it.
" The late Emperor of Germany, in order to fatisfy
" his curiofity in fo important a particular, having firft
" obtained permiffion from the Grand Signior, caufed
" fome piles of wood to be drawn up, on which the
¦" bridge which Trajan had thrown over the Danube
" had been founded. They examined attentively thefe
" wooden piles, and obferved that the petrifaction was
" advanced no more than three fourths of an inch in
" fifteen hundred and fome odd years. From this cir-
" cumftance they concluded that a piece of wood of
" equal thicknefs, and forty feet in length, would be
" petrified an inch in twenty ages; and would employ,
" to arrive at its total tranfmutation, ninety-fix thoufand
" years. And. from hence, fay they, we may judge of
z 3 " the

343 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
" the time that any petrified trees difcovered in the body
" of the earth have been buried." Now, fays Dr. Toul-
min, and I think he is very right, this reafoning is far
from being conclufive. For, *' in certain circumftances
" and fituations, petrifaction may be fuppofed tb ad-
f vance in a manner totally different, and with much
" greater rapidity, than in the waters of the Danube."
So much depends on circumftances and fituation, in all
the operations of nature, that, without the precife
knowledge of both, it is abfurd to rely on calculations
founded entirely on data of our own invention. In this
reflection I might alfo hoaft of having Dr. Toulmin on
my fide: " How abfurd," (fays he upon one occafion,)
" and fruitlefs, every recourfe to calculation on the
" fubjedt ofthe world's and nature's firft exiftence !"
And fo fay we : but then Dr. Toulmin would have his
calculations as well as others; and they appear to have
fo outrun all his expectations, that not being able to
flop, after making the world inconceivably old, he de
termined at length that it muft have been eternal.
Page 295 • note (io).
The effects — as related by Mofes — have regard only
to the power and providence of God ; which thofe mufi
have leave to meafure by their own Reafon, who have fo
little Reafon as not to fee the abfurdity of it.~\ We cannot
difpenfe with obferving, fays Buffon, that Burnet,
Woodward, Whifton, and moft of thefe authors, have
committed an error which deferves to be cleared up ;
which is that of having looked upon the deluge as
poffible by the action of natural caufes, whereas Scrip
ture prefents it to us as produced by the immediate
will of God. There is no natural caufe which can pro
duce on the whole furf ace of the earth the quantity of wa
ter required lo cover the higheft mountains : and if even we
could imagine a caufe proportionate to this effect, it
would ftill be impoffible to find another caufe capable of
making the water to difappear. I like his caution
about meddling with a miracle: but I ftill think natu
ral caufes might have been made ufe of. At leaft I
cannot help difregarding entirely all calculations to
the contrary. An univerfal deluge, fays M. de Vol
taire with the utmoft confidence, is impoffible^ the fea

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 343
fea might gradually, he tells us, have overflowed the x
continents; but then it muft have taken up as much as
two million two hundred thoufand years, to do it com
pletely. Philqfoph. Diet. art. Deluge. I think Dr.
Halley was as able to calculate as Voltaire; and he has
ventured toaffure us, that if, at the time of the deluge,
the centre of gravitation was by divine power removed
towards the middle of the then inhabited parts of the
world, a change of place but the two thoufandth part
of the radius of this globe were fufficient to bury the
tops of the higheft hills under water. Mifc.Curiof.
vol. i. Difc. on Gravity. Reafon anfwering reafon, fays
Sir Walter Raleigh, all the waters mixed within the
earth are fully fufficient to cover the fpace of 30 miles
in height. The extravagant altitude of hills he was
willing to allow for. This may be fanciful ; but cer
tainly many as grave and fober calculations have been
made on the one fide as the other. There is a very in
genious one, by Sir Henry Englefield, to be feen in
Geddes's Verfion of the Bible, Gen. vii. 20; a calculation
which might have fobered the fcepticifm ofthe critic,
had he not been particularly inclined to difpute all the
facts related by Mofes. The author of the Pentateuch
certainly hints, at leaft, at the operation of natural
caufes; and, fo far from thinking them not fufficient, or
that there was a want of water to have gone further,
had it been neceffary, he particularly tells us, " the
" fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven
" were flopped, and the rains of heaven reftrained:"
which plainly intimates, that whatever fecondary caufes
God was pleafed to employ to bring the deluge on,
they required a check from proceeding further than
was neceffary.
When we argue againft any reputed adts of Provi
dence, furely for our own credit we ought to be cer
tain that we have afull'comprehenfion ofthe feveral cir
cumftances that require to be confidered. Thofe an
cient philofophers who contended that the torrid and
frigid zones were uninhabitable, fancied they had
found a fair objection againft the providence of God.
But how infignificant do all fheir reafonings now ap
pear, fince we know that thefe large portions ofthe
globe are not only habitable, but that God has fo dif-
z 4 pofed

344. NOTES TO SERMON VS.
pofed matters, as to render the former at leaft in many
refpedts pleafant and delightful ! Lucretius was one
of thofe philofophers alluded to ; and fo very confident
was he that he knew perfedtly how to argue the mat
ter, that he begins the fubjedt with an " aufim confir-
" mare"— " Hoc tamen ex ipfls Coeli rationibus aufim
" Confirmare —
" Inde duas porro prope partes fervidus ardor,
" AfRduufque geli cafus, mortalibus aufert." ' Lib. v.
Sise alfo Ariftot. Meteor, lib. ii. c. 5. Pliny has the
fame, only he contradicts himfelf in other places.
They might reafon truly after all, as a very learned
writer has obferved, " in regard to the ordinary effects
" of the fun's prefence or abfence : but there is a con-
" currence of feveral other things, which temper the
" air, which they could not underftand." Orig. Sacr.
Part II. 91. How much more juft muft this remark
appear, now we know, that the heat ofthe fun's rays
depends on the modifications they become fubject to
in their paffage through the atmofphere, and at the
furface of the earth ! If we look back to many old
objections advanced againft the truth of the Mofaic
and Chriftian revelations, we muft acknowledge, that
the objedtors were not competent to judge ofthe fub
ject ; and let us beware left the fame fhould prove to be
the cafe with us. Even the Ark, upon which fo much
has been faid, has as many calculations in its favour, as
againft it : and fome very curious ones : fee Burgh's
Dignity qf Human Nature, p. 465. and Hartley on Man,
p. 371. "So," fays the latter very learned author
" that what was thought an objedtion in this particu-
" lar, is even fome evidence."
We are undoubtedly arrived at one certainty in rer
gard to the poffibility of an univerfal deluge, whether
our calculations will prove the fact or not : we know
that the fea has one time or other covered all our con
tinents, and depofited regular marine reliquiae, to the
height of 14190 Englifh feet above the level ofthe fea.
Hift. de I' Acad, des Sciences, 1770. Playfair' s Illuftrations,
p. 200. Now if we enquire of philofophers, how it
happens that the fea no longer overflows thefe parts, an4

>

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 345
and in what manner it can have abandoned its ancient
bed ; if fome tell us, that it could not have retired
fuddenly, others will as confidently affure us, it could
not have retreated gradually; and therefore I muft con-
fefs, that I have long been fatisfied, let what will be
come of the phyfical poffibility of an univerfal deluge,
that this very circumftance of the fea's retreat is, in
refpect to the utmoft efforts of human knowledge, (to
difcover the exact ftate of the cafe,) miraculous ; and
as one miracle is as credible as another, I am quite
ready to believe that, which is confirmed by many
ftrong circumftances in the hiftory of man, which is
exprefsly recorded as an act of God's providence, and
which is fo confiftent with the natural appearances of
the body of the earth, that (whether philofophers can
find water enough, or not, to cover our globe, in the
common Slorehoufes of nature) we cannot poffibly
doubt the general fadt of the water's having covered
the continental parts of the earth, though Mofes could
not have been acquainted with the evidences we havQ
for the fact, even had he been a profeffed geologift.
Page 296. note (11).
The cataftrophe of the deluge, for what we know-, may
he fully fufficient to account for all thofe furprifing cir
cumftances of fqfjil bodies found in places where no corre-
fpondent animals or vegetables now exifti] I have already
obferved, in Note (3), that we are not to attribute to
the Mofaic deluge the depofition of all the marine re
liquiae we find in our ftrata ; and therefore I hope I
fliall not be fufpedted of a defire to folve every diffi
culty by a miracle, to the exclufion of all examination
and enquiry. Of things poffible, we are certainly not
competent judges; but of what is probable, we may be
allowed to form conjectures. That our ftrata have been
formed under water feems an unqueftionable fact ; and
under water abounding in marine animals of different
defcriptions, cannot be doubted. That much vegeta
ble matter has been overwhelmed alfo feems certain;
and therefore we muft conclude, that at one time or
other the fea has covered the continental parts of the
globe, fubf'equently to the exiftence of animals and
growth of vegetables': and we are therefore certainly
inhabiting

346 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
inhabiting " a dry land," which has undergone great
changes. Why fhould we wonder then to find things
in the bowels of the earth indicative of fuch changes ?
" When we are informed, that the earth which we
" now inhabit is the burying-place of a former earth, it
" is as reafonable, that we Should dig up the remains
" and ruins of it, as that we Should find the bones and
" coffins of former generations in the earth of a church -
" yard." Jones's Sermon on the Natural Hifiory of the
Earth, &c. We read of great changes, we have the evi
dences of fuch changes under our feet ; and yet fhall we
fuffer nothing to folve our doubts, but our own furmifes
and theories, founded on the common courfe of things?
Whereas the very circumftance that fuch changes have
happened, as we are unable to account for according
to our preSent notions of things, Should make us very
diffident of affigning caufes at random ; much more of
difputing a record, which exprefsly tells us of a differ
ent ftate of things. Whether Mofes had ever told us
io or not, our own obfervations would now ferve to
convince us, that as our continents are evidently in a
fioftdiluvian ftate, there muft have been alfo an antedi-
uvian ftate of things, in which nothing perhaps was
exactly as we fee it now. We have the teftimony both
of facred and profane hiftory, to the fadt of men's lives
having been formerly much longer than they now are :
this would feem to indicate of itfelf very important
changes in the phyfical conftitution of the globe, though
it is not within the bounds of probability, that we
Should ever be able to trace what thofe changes have
exactly been. Nor do I think it will ever be more
poffible for us to account exactly for the remains of
tropical animals now found near the polar regions.
The only queftion concerning them feems to be, whe
ther they lived and died where we find them depofited,
or whether they have been violently tranfported thi
ther by the waters of the deluge. Mr. Kirwan has
efpoufed the latter opinion, in oppofition to fome ofthe
imoft eminent of his cotemporaries : he apprehends,
that at the time of the deluge an immenfe torrent
flowed northward, carrying with it the products of the
tropical countries. See his Paper in the 6th vol. of
the Irifh Tranf actions. Thofe

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 347
• Thofe who have imagined they lived and died where
we find them, have generally concluded, that the cli
mate has undergone a change ; but this feems now to
be thought unneceffary. The body of a rhinoceros has
recently been difcovered, fo little changed, that we
muft fubftitute one wonder for another, it feems, and
rather believe that tropical animals could formerly
endure a Siberian climate, than that a body buried in
a warm climate could have refifted putrefaction. See
Playfair' s Illufirations, pp. 473, 474. The fame phe
nomenon is fuppofed to invalidate every hypothefis of
a violent transportation ; as the body could not have
refifted the deftrudtive effects of fuch an inundation.
But without pretending to fettle thefe differences, I
muft confefs, I fhould rather incline to think the cir
cumftances of the globe changed, than the nature and
conftitution of tbefe animals. And though I am con
vinced by no hypothefis, yet I do not fee why the Hut
tonian theory, as Profeffor Playfair infifts, is the only
one that can refolve our doubts upon this head ; or
why this fingle inftance Should feem fo calculated
to exclude every other hypothefis. I do not fee why
even the rhinocerofes found in Siberia may not have
enjoyed there a much higher temperature, during their
lives, and yet their bodies, buried at the time of the
deluge, or finpe, been expofed to cold fufficient to pre-
ferve them from putrefaction. I only fpeak of the
poffibility of things ; and fo far, I muft fay, M. de
Luc's theory feems the leaft exceptionable, by con-
nedting both thefe facts ; for he fuppofes, that, by the
fudden finking of the fea, the level of which is always
the fenfible bafe of the atmofphere, lands, which for
merly occupied the lower regions of the air, were
raifed to a much colder region. There is no doubt,
but that this may have happened ; and though perhaps
it is no nearer the exact truth than other hypothefes,
yet it is certainly ftrictly philofophical, confidering that
the effect of the fun's rays is now well known to de
pend fo immediately on the condition of the atmo
fphere, and the ftate of things at the furface of the
earth. That fuch changes do take place upon a much
fmaller fcale, and more gradually, I have fhewn in the
Sermon, by a reference to many authors, who deforibe things

348 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
things differently from what we perceive them to be
now. If paft changes feem to have been more rapid
and more extenfive, we certainly read of correfpondent
cataftrophes. The Chinefe, in their account of the
deluge, have actually preferved a tradition, that at the
time of the deluge the heavens funk lower towards the-
north. See Faber's Hora Mofaiaz. See alfo the Ap
pendix to Douglas's Differtation on the Antiquity qf the
Earth. M. de Luc very judicio.ufly obferves, that we are ftill
too ignorant of the compofition of the atmofphere, to
fpeak decifively upon fuch Subjects ; and I doubt we
are much too ignorant of many other things, to ,be»
able to folve various geological phenomena, efpecially
fuch as we are fpeaking of: for how do we know what
fpecific caufes may have operated in the body of the
earth, to retard or prevent the effects of putrefaction in
the body of the rhinoceros alluded to ? which is ac
knowledged to be an inftantia fingularis. We happen
to have an apparent caufe in the coldnefs of Siberia ;
but this is far from being a key to all our difficulties,
as eVery one muft perceive. If it tells us how the dead
body has been preferved, it by no means informs us
how the living body was enabled to exift. We muft
Still acknowledge fome great change; and the only
queftions will be, when did this happen, and how did
it happen ? Upon both thefe fubjedts there is as much
diS'cordancy of opinion, as upon any other ; fome mak
ing the prefent State of things to be very ancient, and
others comparatively recent. M. de Luc has certainly
diftinguifhed himfelf moft by his enquiries into the re->
cent origin of our continents ; his refearches being dU.
redted principally to five claffes of phenomena : the de
posited materials of vegetation continually accumulat
ing ; the change of vegetables into turfy, earth; the
diminution of fertility on the high' mountains, from
the accumulations of fnow and ice ; the depofitions of
the waters of the mountains, and the fubftances, which
the rivers carry to the fea : but all his facts adduced ta
prove the low antiquity of our continents certainly de
fer ve to be well confidered.
I have already given one extract from M. Dolomieu,
in confirmation of M. de Luc's hypothefis of the low
anti-

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 349
antiquity of our continents: I fhall tranfcribe two more,
together with a fimilar teftimony on the part of M. de
Sauffure. They muft be well known to naturalifts, but
not fo generally known, perhaps, to theologians ; who,
without any means of verifying fuch facts from adtual
obfervation, Should at leaft be freed from all alarm
arifing from the extravagant calculations with which
the world have been amufed, and in regard to which I
have endeavoured to fliew, firft, that they muft ail be, in
the nature of things, extremely precarious ; fecondly,
that they do not appear immediately to affect the Scrip
ture hiftory of man, even if they fhould feem to be well
founded; and thirdly, that they are difallowed by
many very eminent and refpedtable naturalifts. In Ro
sier' s Journal XL. M. Dolomieu, in his Paper fur les
Pierres compofees, &c. thus exprefles himfelf: " Je di-
" rai done avec M. de Luc, l'etat adtuel de nos con-
" tinens n'eft pas ancien ; je penferai avec lui qu'il
¦" n'y a pas long-temps qu'ils ont ete donnes ou rendus
" ainfi modifies a I'empire de l'homme." And again,
" Je dirai auffi qu'il n'y a point de mefure pour le temps
" dans les epoques anterieures, et que 1'imagination
" peut y prodiguer des fiecles avec autant de facilite
" que les minutes." Ib.
M. de Sauffure's teftimony is to the following effect:
" Les blocs de pierre, dont eft charge le bas, de ce gla-
" cier, invitent a une reflexion affez importante : lorfque
" l'on confidere leur nombre, et que l'on penfe qu'ils
" fe depofent et s'accumulent a cette extremite du gla-
" cier a mefure que ces glaces fe fondent, on eft etonne
" qu'il n'y en ait pas des amas beaucoup plus confide-
" rabies : et cette obfervation d'accord en cela avee
" beaucoup d'autres, donne lieu de croire, comme lefait
" M. de Luc, que Petat adtuel de notre globe n'eSi
" point auffi ancien que quelques philofophes I'ont ima-
" gin6." Voyage dans les Alpes, vol. iii. 29. I know
there are philofophers, perhaps as eminent, who may
be furprifed to fee obfervations revived, which they ap
prehend their theories have effectually contradicted. I
can only judge for myfelf; I haye carefully examined
all that have come in my way, and I conSefs I fee no
reafon whatever for withholding the evidences I have
adduced.
> > As*

350 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
As to the queftion concerning the fpecific Caufe of
fuch changes as have happened, it has been common
to refer them to a change in the pofition of the axis of
the globe ; a circumftance I have noticed in the Ser
mon. But fome very eminent aftronomers, and among
thefe MM. Caffini and Le Gentil, have declared it to
be their opinion, that the deluge did not occafion any
change in the axis of the globe, or at all affect the ce
leftial movements : and I believe there is in Rozier's
Journal a Paper by the celebrated M. Lalande^ exprefsly
to prove this. Whether it did fo happen, or that the
centre of gravity was altered, as many others have fup
pofed, I cannot pretend to judge ; but I muft notice,
that Dr. Toulmin, who believes that the pofitions of
the axis of the globe may have been changed, infifts
upon it, that if this change has taken place, it muft
have been an event of ll a flow and gradual progref-
" fion." We need only afk, why fo ? and I afk it the
more particularly, becaufe the fame dogmatical writer
profeffes to think, that every thing related of an unU
verfal deluge muft needs imprefs us with infurmounta--
ble incredulity : " In Short," fays he, " they never can
" be reconciled, never can be thought reconcileable to
" Reafon, by the fenfible and enlightened part of the
"human fpecies." And yet he is difpofed ¦ to think
the pofition ofthe axis of the globe has been changed;
which, for what we know, may have been, and in the
eftimation of many fenfible and very curious writers
actually was, the very caufe, under the providence of
God, of the other changes at leaft, that took place at
the time of the deluge ; only he is certain this could
not have happened quickly or fuddenly ; and there we
muft leave him.
As to the extindtion of animals, now found in a fof-
fil ftate, though a curious circumftance, I cannot fee
that it furnifhes any pofitive argument, in regard either
to the high or low antiquity of the globe. For though
it may be intimately connedted with the other phyficaj
changes, which the globe has undergone, it tells us
nothing with regard to the particular period of fuch
changes. M. de Luc notices the fucceffion of different
fpecies of organized bodies to be found in our flratas
many of which are not now to be met with. And as
his

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 351
his hypothefis is founded on the fuppofition of fuccef
five precipitations from a liquid, he conceives, that the
determining caufes of fuch precipitations wrought fuch
changes in the remaining fea, and in the atmofphere,
as materially to affect the animals inhabiting them; and
even to occafion the extinction of many, as of the cor-
nua ammonis, belemnite, &c. This is undotibtedly very
plaufible, and relates to a difficulty too often overlook
ed. See alfo the Protogtea of Leibnitz, §. 26. The exact
periods of fuch operations ftill remain infcrutable,
though M. de Luc's epochs of nature (for he alfo con
ceives the fix days of Mofes to have been fix periods)
are certainly by no means fo extravagant as M. Buf-
fon's. ;
The remains of marine animals we know to be conr
vertible into a mineral fubftance, of great ufe and im
portance in the economy of the world ; and therefore
man may have been as much benefited by their ex-
tiradtion, as by their exiftence. Their great abundance
during the period of the formation of our ftrata, may
reafonably be thought a fpecial act of God's provi
dence ; and as we are taught to believe, that the wai
ters exifted before the dry land of the globe, their pre-
exiftence is highly probable ; and it is remarkable, that
in this particular all our geological enquiries tend to
confirm the Mofaic account. As to the extinction of
terreftrial animals, this may alfo have happened, and
certainly feems to have happened, in fome inftances, by
a change of climates ; but fome may become extinct by
accident, and I think this a circumftance deferving our
confideration. M. de Sauffure thinks it probable, (Voyage dans les
Alpes, vol. iii.) that both the chamois and the marmotte
will foon be extinct ; and we know, that in the ao
counts of fome of the Roman triumphs and feftivalsj,
we read of many camelopards exhibited for the amufer
ment and wanton fport of the people : an .animal now
fo rare, as fcarcely ever to be feen or known. The
poffibility of the extinction of any fpecies of animals,
if the world has endured for a vaft fucceffion of ages,
much more if it was defigned to endure for ever, is a
circumftance, which may afford much matter of Specu
lation to phiSofophers. In the three inftances above, it

352 NOTES TO SERMON VI.
it would not be difficult to meafure the time, at leaft be*.
tween the great abundance of certain fpecies, and fuch
a ftate of rarity, as borders upon extinction. In the
mean time, no new animals are brought into exiftence
to fupply their places, nor any provifion, that I know
of, made for fuch a renovation of things. This may
furely not be confidered as affording any argument in
proof of the great antiquity of the prefent ftate of
things, when we find, from the foflil remains of ani
mals that are dug up, many fpecies are already become
extinct; and we have certain proof, that many are pro
ceeding to extindtion, not imperceptibly, but rapidly. •
I have already had occafion to notice the expence
and confumption of metals and fuel, without any ade
quate means of renewal difcoverable. I believe our
own country would fupply inftances among the ani
mals, correfpondent to the above. Not to dwell upon
the extindtion of wolves, which was brought about by
defign, many fpecies of -wild birds are every day be
coming more rare, as quails, buftards, the wood growfe,
or cock of the wood, &c. If it fhould be faid, that
thefe wild animals are diminifhed by the depredations
of man, and that they are not miffed in confequence of
the greater increafe of domefticated animals ; yet both
thefe circumftances being immediately connected with
the progrefs of fociety and civilization of man, become
in themfelves chronometers by no means defpicable :
they point to an end, and furely alfo to a beginning.
Thofe that are only found in a foflil ftate, give intima
tion of a former ftate of things, and a revolution of
great extent; all which we have recorded. Thofe
whofe decreafe and extinction are meafurable and af-
Signable, feem fo connected with the population of the
world, and the progrefs of fociety, as to keep pace with
both. What may be renewed or multiplied ' by art
and care, for the ufe of man, may be long continued ;
but nature feems evidently to point both to a begin
ning and an end, by no means fo diftant from each
other, as fome feem to fuppofe. Though calculations
can never determine what muft depend only on the
will and providence of God, yet the wafte and pofitive
deftruction of many confumable commodities, (fome of
which, as metals, are thought to owe their production to

NOTES TO SERMON VI. 3$3
to convulsions, which have Shaken the very foundations
ofthe earth ; fee Playfair, 254, and Wallerius, §. xxiv.)
added to the vifible decreafe and probable extinction of
wild animals, feem to point to a period not very diftant,
when, to repeat M. Dolomieu' s expreffion, our prefent
continents " ont ete donnes ou rendus ainfi modifiis a
" I'empire de l'homme." Page 298. note (12). ;
While the fact itfelf undoubtedly fllands corroborated
by many collateral teftimonies.'] There is no fact of anti
quity, perhaps, of which fuch a variety of proofs can
be adduced, as of the deluge. It is interwoven with
all mythologies, and directly alluded to by many an
cient hiftorians. Befides the references already ad
duced, fee Revelation examined with Candour, Differta-
tions xiii. xiv. and Dr. Jamiefon on the Ufe of Sacred
Hiftory, vol. i. Difquifition i.; where the Pagan confirm
ations of this event, as well as of the creation, are
not merely referred to, but very ingenioufly, and with
out extravagance, reconciled with the Mofaic records.
That author alfo fhews, that what the Pagan accounts
omitted was exadtly what Mofes, as an inspired writer,
was likely to be commissioned to record, as God's warn
ing to the world, &c. not noticed by Berofus, in his
account of Xithuthrus. Page 302. note (13).
But which, befides all other teftimonies, the face of the-
whole globe, and the obfervations of naturalifts , have been
fince found, in a mofi furprifing manner, to corroborate
and confirm.'] Mr. Hume, fpeaking of the Pentateuch,
obferves, that it is not corroborated by any concurring
teftimony. Surely, that the traditions of all nations,
and the records of all Succeeding ages, and all fubfe-
quent difcoveries, fliould generally concur with the
facts reported by Mofes, is the moft convincing tefti
mony we could require, confidering the nature of thofe
facts. Rouffeau alfo is for infifting on univerfal figns , as
a teft of a Revelation. Now we may furely aflert, that
we have fuch in the teftimonies alluded to ; and much
ftronger than thofe on which he would found his Natu
ral Religion. The latter have continually been miftaken
a a and

354 NOTES TO SERMON VL
and mifunderftood : but the defedt of all contradictory
evidences in regard to the facts and events recorded by'
Mofes, hiftorical, miraculous, and natural ; as well as
the confirmation they have conftantly received, from
the face of nature, the reports of travellers, and the con
fent of naturalifts, may well be adduced as figns, "qui
" font de tous les temps,' et de tous les lieux, egale-
" ment fenfibles a tous les hommes, grands et petits,
" favans et ignorans, Europeens, Indiens, Africains,
" Sauvages." Ernile, vol. iii. 91.

SERMON

SERMON VII.

Jude, ver. 10.
But thefe fpeak evil of thofe things which they know not.
IN my former Difcourfe I have endeavoured
to Shew, as briefly as I could, but with a
view to particular queftions, and fuch as ap
peared to me of the firft importance, that in
the three branches of Metaphyfics, Phyfics,
and Hiftory, notwithstanding the acknow
ledged advancement of human fcience, Rea
fon cannot with propriety, at this day, boaft
of any advantages obtained over Revelation.
I Shall now proceed, under the head of Cri
ticism, to notice fome things, which the
conducl of our opponents renders peculiarly
neceSTary. Under the head of Criticifm, then, we have
three things to complain of: firft, the con
tempt thrown on Learning and Criticifm in
a a 2 general,

356 SERMON VII.
general, for particular ends : fecondly, the
frequent abufe of Criticifm and authorities :
and thirdly, demands made upon us, which
we are under no obligation to anfwer.
And firft, as to the contempt thrown on
Learning and Criticifm in general. The au
thor of the Age of Reafon has ventured to
aSTure the world, that only living languages
are of ufe in the advancement of know-
ledge('); and we know, that, in this expref
fion, the chief knowledge he had in view
was fuch as he efpecially thought conducive
to the overthrow of revealed Religion. A
much more eminent writer" on the conti
nent, with exaclly the fame views, but with
an air of levity quite unbefitting the fiibjecT:,
afiures us alfo, that in the day of judgment
we Shall not be queftioned, whether we have
miftaken one Hebrew letter for another, as
a Caph for a Beth, or a Yod for a Vau. We
know the impreflion that fuch infinuations
muft be calculated to make on the minds of
a large majority of the people ; and there
fore it may not be amifs to Shew, that as far
as Criticifm and Learning are become necef-
* Voltaire, fary

SERMON VII. 35?
fary to the promulgation and due under
standing of our moft holy Religion, they have
been efpecially rendered fo by the conduct:
of thofe very perfons, who, for reafons, no
doubt, well known to themfelves, thus pre
tend to object to their utility and import
ance. For though there can be no danger
from fuch vain and confident aflertions, and
from Such quarters, to the caufe of literature
in general ; no danger, furely, of any being
turned afide from the important ftudy of the
dead languages by the cavils of a Paine, or
the farcafms of a Voltaire ; yet, in refpect to
Revelation, and Chriftianity more particu
larly, fuch infinuations are always likely to
receive fupport from a common prejudice
among believers themfelves ; a prejudice
continually made a handle of by Deifts,
namely, that a religion efpecially defigned
to be preached to the poor, muft have been
fo communicated, as to require no extraor
dinary capacity, nor any great extent of
learning, in thofe who were to derive from
it the bleSIings and benefits of instruction,
of hope, of comfort, and falvation !
But all this may be granted, and yet Learn
ing and Criticifm lofe nothing of their im-
a a 3 portance ;

358 SERMON VII.
portance; while it will be eafy to Shew,
that fuch disparagement and contempt of
both, as I have above alluded to, have an
immediate tendency to deprive us of the
only weapon, which can effectually defend,
not the learned only, but the people at large,
from the delufions of fophiftry, and the mif
reprefentations of ignorance ; from both of
which, it is not too much to fay, the world
has never been more in danger, than during
this boafted age of Reafon. For though
Criticifm and Learning are treated in this
contemptuous manner by Deifts, when they
interfere with their views ; yet they do not
difdain to apply them in fupport of their
own caufe, to the great abufe of both, and
the greateft poffible injury to the caufe of
truth. The very work entitled the Age of
Reafon, which was exprefsly intended to be
diSTeminated among all ranks of people, and
would have been fo, but for the timely and
wife interpofition of the Legislature, though
certainly not either learned or critical in the
Strict fenfe of thofe terms, yet contained
much reading mifapplied, and many very
ignorant attempts at Criticifm, for the bafeft
and moft cruel purpofes. But

SERMON VII. 359
But a more appropriate example could
fcarcely perhaps be adduced, than in the cafe
of the laft writer I had occafion to mention.
The unlearned will, no doubt, be eafily per
fuaded, that it is unworthy of God's majeSty
and juftice, to queftion any ignorant per
fon concerning any doctrines he may have
efpoufed, through the mere mistake of one
Hebrew letter for another : yet very much
more than what that author would reprefent
to us may unquestionably depend on fuch
an error ; nor would it be difficult to fliew
at length, as a proof particularly applicable,
that the very writer in queftion has much
aggravated a very futile charge, which he
has advanced againft the divine authority of
the Bible, by the unwarrantable infertion or
mifconftruction of one of the very letters
he mentions (a), though he was himfelf per
haps quite unaware of this, and unaware be
fides, that it was an error in the translation
he ufed. The injury done to the caufe of
truth is neverthelefs the fame ; nor can fuch
an error be accounted fo venial a one, in a
perfon who prefumptuoufly undertook to
inftrud mankind better than the Bible it
felf, and would by his indecent cavils have
a a 4 infi-

360 SERMON VII.
insinuated, that there is no utility in a branch
of fcience, of which he was himfelf inex-
cufably ignorant, and which alone could
have enabled us to detect (as has been the
cafe in many inftances) the falfehood of his
affertions, and the fophiftry of his argu
ments. Again, nothing is more eafy than to per-
fuade the ignorant, that Learning and Criti
cifm are unneceflary to the due understand
ing of the Bible ; and yet, upon the very
pretence of fuperior learning and wifdom,
to pafs upon them a new fenfe for every
fcriptural term that may be called in quef
tion b. A knowledge of the dead languages
muft necefTarily be of the moft efiential ufe,
where the living and vernacular tongues,
into which they may have been translated,
are thus liable to perverfion, and mifrepre-
fentation. It is fcarcely poffible to conceive,
that any unlettered Christian could misin
terpret the received verfion of the New Tef-

h See the IVth Part oi Edwards's Prefervative againft Soci
nianifm ; his account of the figurative mode of interpreting
Scripture, reforted to by the Socinians, and their great abufe
of Scriptural terms.'
tament,

SERMON VII. 361
tament, in regard to the important doctrines
of redemption and atonement by the blood
of Chrift ; efpecially when he had been in
the habit of hearing or reading the ancient
accounts of the Jewifh facrifices, and the
Apoftle's comparifon of the Chriftian obla
tion, in the Epiftle to the Hebrews. But
when men will come forward to allure them,
that the redemption and atonement they
there read of do by no means Signify re
demption and atonement by the blood of
Chrift, as a facrifice for the fins of the whole
world ; and that not only the Greek terms
for thofe expreffions, but the Hebrew, from
which they were regularly derived, or by
which they muft at all events be explained1,
mean otherwife ; and that neither the an
cient Hebrew or Chriftian writers had any
idea of fuch an atonement for fin ; how
would the truth fuffer, if there were not
fome perfons to be found, competently
lkilled in thofe languages, to inveftigate the
original meaning and defign of the facred
writers, as well as of the Christian Fathers

c See Magee on the term a.p.*pU, in the 27th note to his
firft Sermon on Atonement.
and

362 SERMON VII.
and Jewifh Rabbis ; and to certify the un
learned, that the common interpretation and
fenfe of thofe expreffions are what Should
be received, and fuch as may be fafely relied
on ; and that they were fo ufed and under
ftood by the very writers cited and referred
to ! I am not merely fuppofing a cafe that
might happen ; the cafe really has hap
pened ; and I think I may with, confidence
refer at once to the valuable works of Bull,
Stilling fleet, Leflie, Edwards, as well as of
our own cotemporaries Horfiey and Magee,
for fuch proofs of ignorance or prevarica
tion, or both, on the part of certain exppfi-
tors of the Scriptures, as muft amount to a
pofitive demonftration of the cafe. (3)
Who could ever fuppofe, that when our
Saviour is faid to have been made man, to
have been made flefh, to have taken our na
ture upon him, to have heen horn of a virgin,
and fo forth, that the birth and fubfiftence
of a mere human creature was intended?
Are thofe who have been taught to believe
in the preexiftence. and divinity of our Sa
viour, to be robbed of their faith by the
vain aflurance, that thefe expreffions are
idiomatical,and not defigned to exprefs more, than

SERMON VII. 363
than that our Lord was born into the "world
like all other human beings d ?
But indeed without the advantages of fo
lid Learning and found Criticifm, to coun
teract and expofe the ignorance or prefump-
tion of modern Deifts, it is not the character
of our bleffed Lord only that may be mifre-
prefented, but his very exiftence may be
brought into queftion. It has been aSTerted
in times paft, that the greateft infidel that
ever lived had never pretended to disbelieve
that there was fuch a perfon as our Saviour
Chrift e : this was referved for more modern
times ; for our own boafted times of Reafon
and knowledge. A foreign writer f, very
popular, and ftill I believe living, has ven
tured to affert, that the existence of Jefus is
no better proved than that of Ofiris, or Her
cules, F6t, or Bedou; and attempts are made,
by a long criticifm on the name of Chrifi,
to perfuade us, that our Saviour was no
d See in Bifhop Horfley's Tracts his I Vth Letter to Dr. Prieft
ley, and the Firft Supplemental Difquifition.
e See Jenkin's Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity, Part iv. ch. 2.
and Leland's View of Deiftical Writers, 5th edit. vol. ii. 365.
f See the Notes to M. Volney s Ruins or Revolutions of Em
pires ; and Note (4) at the end of this Difcourfe. other

364 SERMON VII.
other than the Indian Vifchenouz; that the
Hindu and Chriftian Trinities are identical ;
and that the whole of Christianity is derived
from the books of the Mithriacs, and is
capable of being refolved into an idolatrous
worfhip of the vifible Fountain of Light.
He even cites the Chriftian Fathers in proof
of this, and Tertullian in particular, whom
he makes to fay, that. " many fuppofe, with
" greater probability, that the Sun is our
" God ; and they refer us to the religion of
" the Perfians." But when Tertullian is
allowed to fpeak for himfelf, fo far from
countenancing any fuch opinion, we find him
exprefsly pointing out the origin of their
error and mifialie; which was, that the
Chriftians prayed to the Eaft, and kept Sun
day facred; Diem Solis. All his arguments
to prove our Saviour to have been the vi-
fionary Deity of India, turn on the etymo
logy of the Greek title given to our Saviour,
which he traces through the Sanfcrit, He
brew, Arabic, and even Spanifh ; wholly re-
gardlefs all the while of St. Johns etymo
logy of the title, and of its intimate and
« I ufe M. Volney's fpelling.
un-

SERMON VII. 365
•
unquestionable connection with, the Hebrew
rv&Q; wholly regardlefs of his own favourite
authority, TertuUian's exprefs allufion to its
proper and acknowledged fignification, in
his Treatife againft Praxeas ; wholly regard
lefs of to open appeal to the public records
of Rome, in attestation of the birth, death,
and refurreclion of our Lord(4).
One fuch inftance out of the very many
that might be adduced, if the time would
ferve, of the great abufe of Criticifm for the
purpofes of infidelity, ,may, I hope, be fuffi
cient, not only to vindicate the ufe and im
portance of found Learning, in thefe days,
and efpecially of the knowledge of the dead
languages ; but to prove, that there never
was a time when they were more indifpenf-
ably neceffary to the caufe of truth in ge
neral. For whether the Bible be authentic
or not, whether it be the work of man, or
the word of God, it muft equally merit to
be protected from fuch mifreprefentation
and abufe,. fuch grofs perverfion, and fuch
freaks of fancy.
But found Criticifm is not only particu
larly wanted at prefent to fecure us from
the wanton attacks of Infidels ; but for the
purpofe

366 SERMON VII.
purpofe of maintaining and enforcing, even
among Chriftians, the moft important and
peculiar doctrines of the Gofpel. That of
atonement in particular is ftill difputed, and
every attempt made to explain away the
moft obvious pafTages that can be held to
bear the fmalleft allufion to it ; though if
ever one event was explanatory of another,
if any two' incidents may be faid to be con
nected with each other in the way of type
and antitype, of fhadow and fubftance, fure
ly it may be infifted on, that the death of
Chrift, and the Jewifh facrifices under the
law of Mofes, were exactly fo related to
each other : nor can I think it poffible for
any truly candid, ingenuous, and unpreju
diced perfon to deny the refemblance and
analogy traced out at large by the Author of
the Epiftle to the Hebrews \ If the bloo4
of Chrift had no atoning virtue, if his death
was not Strictly facrificial, what are we to
underftand by the ninth and tenth chapters
of that argumentative and moft, instructive
Epiftle ? The expreffions are fo clearly il-r
h See alfo the references in the 27th note to the firft oi Dr.
Magee's Sermons on Atonement, p. 142. luftrative

SERMON VII. 367
Iuftrative of all that we could poffibly con
ceive of atonement and redemption through
the blood of Chrift, that if attempts had not
repeatedly been made to explain away their
literal meaning and genuine fenfe, by the
moft unwarrantable explications of them,
One could fcarcely fuppofe it poffible, that
the cafe could admit of a doubt5. But
thefe expofitors, when Criticifm fails them,
have alfb their recourfe to Reafon ; and we
are affailed with demands, which we are
certainly under no obligation to anfwer or
regard. Human Reafon, adrnitted as a judge
on fuch a fubject, will, no doubt, find much
to object to ; for fin cannot be too eafily
pardonable, nor God too unconditionally
merciful, for her purpofes k. She will al-

¦ " That Chrift fuffered and died as an atonement for the
" fins of mankind, is a docirine fo conftantly and fo ftrongly
" enforced through every part of the New Teftament, that
" whoever will ferioufly perufe thofe writings, and deny that
" it is there, may with as much reafon and truth, after reading
" the works of Thucydides and Livy, affert, that in them no
" mention is made of any fa6ts relative to the hiftories of
" Greece and Rome." Soamejenyns's Internal Evidence, p. 29.
k Mr. Paine confeffes, that he thinks it is " man's greateft
" confolation to believe, that he ftands in no need of redemp-
" tion."
ways

368 SERMON VII.
ways fancy fhe renders God honour by every
deduction fhe can make from the apparatus
of redemption. She will have ,no blood to
be fhed by the decree of God ; fhe will not
have the innocent to fuffer for the guilty ;
fhe will not have God to require atonement,
or man to need it. But all a priori judg
ment of the cafe is fuperfeded. We may
not reafon as to what might have been,
when the Scriptures are admitted to be the
word of God ; it is our part only to enquire
what has been ' ; to examine deeply and mi
nutely into the hiftory of facrifices, the
Jewifh above all; to take the account of our
Saviour's ministry from the written records
of it, from his own declarations therein
tranfmitted to us ; and to weigh well the
moft extraordinary correfpohdency of doc-
1 " The Chriftian Religion is a Divine Revelation, of the
" evidences of the truth of which right Reafon is. to judge.
" The difference between the Socinians and our Churches on
" this article feems to be this : we apply reafoning to the evi-
" dinces of Revelation, and they to all the doctrines of it. . Ac-
" cording to us, Reafon has done its office when it has ob-
" tained evidence, that Godfpeaks: according to them, Reafon
" is to reject what is fpoken; if it cannot comprehend it." See
Notes to Claude's Eflfay on the Compofltion of a Sermon, vol. i.
trine

SERMON VII. 369
trine on this point, to be found in the two
covenants. This is*. not a queftion now determinable
by any Speculative views of the attributes
of God, or the condition of man. It is a
queftion, that has been before the world
from its firft creation. To be determined
with precifion, when the moft obvious fenfe
of Scripture is difputed, it requires a deep
infight into the hiftory and antiquities of the
moft remarkable people that ever lived on
the face of the earth : it requires a moft cri
tical knowledge of the feveral languages in
which the Scriptures were firft written ; not
merely to afcertain the doctrine faid to be
contained- therein, for without perverfion it
is plain enough ; but to be able to detect
and expofe the various misinterpretations,
which have been put upon the feveral terms
applied to this great doctrine, as well as
upon the feveral cuftoms and ceremonies
connected therewith : it requires a capacity
of examining not only into the opinions of
the ancient Fathers of the Chriftian Church,
but into thofe of the ancient Jews alfo ; for
all thefe have been fummoned to give their
b b tefti-

370 SERMON VII.
teftimony, but often in a moft unjustifiable
manner. I have enumerated thefe feveral requifites
for the due underftanding and decifion of
this particular point of controverfy, not only
to evince the abfolute neceffity of real Learn
ing and juft Criticifm, but to fhew, that fo
far from our having reafon to apprehend
any ill effects from the advancement of
knowledge, in regard to fuch queftions,
we have certainly much more reafon to
complain of a great want and deficiency
either of learning or honefty, in many who
have of late rejected thefe doctrines without
due enquiry, or attempted to explain them
without a proper attention' to the merits of
the cafe ; who have been convicted, upon evi
dence the moft clear, and proofs the moft po
sitive, either of ignorance as to the exiftence
of ancient authorities, or prevarication in the
ufe of them.
It would appear to be peculiarly provi
dential, and may probably therefore enter
into the very plan of divine Providence, that
where things are at all capable of decifion
by found Criticifm, there has never been
wanting

SERMON VII. 371
wanting a conftant fucceffion of learned
men, duly qualified to controvert the many
bold and dogmatical affertions, by which
the ignorant are in conftant danger of be
ing confounded and mifled. If we had
no power of examining into the real merit
of fuch affertions, we fhould be at this mo
ment compelled to believe, that " the doc-
" trines of Atonement, Incarnation, and the
" Trinity, have no more foundation in the
" Scriptures than the doclrines of tranfub-
" fiantiation or tranfmigration™;" that "there
" are very few texts that even feem to affert
" the pre-exiftence of Chrift ;" and that "on
" a full review of the religions of all nations,
" ancient and modern, we fhould find them
" utterly deftitute of any thing like a doc-
" trine of proper atonement"." Affertions
more completely unfounded could fcarcely
have entered into the mind of man ; for in
m See Prieflley's Anfwer to Paine. It has been well obferved,
that " the doctrines of redemption and grace appear very e-Vi-
" dently to deiflical .'writers to be the doftrines of the Bible,
" though fome nominal Chriftians cannot find them there."
See The Age of Infidelity, Part I. 62. Mr. Paine could find
them there, though Dr. Prieftley could not.
n See note (3). b b 2 regard

372 SERMON VII.
regard only to the latter, it is, in pofitive
contradiction to what has been alleged, ca
pable of the moft certain proof, that all na
tions whatfoever before Chrift, Heathens as
well as Jews, univerfally held, that the dif-
pleafure of an offended Deity was to be
averted by the facrifice of an animal : nor
are any of the other affertions lefs open to
confutation, as has been amply fhewn, by a
learned Profeffor in a fifter Univerfity, in a
work which may well encourage us to hope,
that affertions will never again be received
as proofs, nor fophiftry ever prevail over real
learning °.
Connected with this doctrine , of atone
ment: is that moft important doctrine of all,
the Trinity. How much the human Reafon
has revolted againft this doctrine, I need not
fay. She has thought herfelf competent
entirely to fet this afide, and to treat its de
fenders with the moft ignominious con
tempt. If this doctrine had been entirely of
man's invention, they might be allowed, in
diffenting from it, to fufpect the authors of
0 Magecs Difcourfes on the Scriptural Da&rines of Atonement
and Sacrifice. London, i8or.

SERMON VII. 373
, it of fome affectation of myftery, and they
might with the utmoft reafon be jealous of
admitting any affumed equality with the
fupreme Father of heaven. But as a theo
logical queftion, and it cannot be any thing
elfe, this alfo now admits of no a priori
judgment. None have any right to enquire
of us, whether three perfons may fubfift in
the unity of one effence, as a merely fpecu-
lative doctrine: but as they, who from the
firft have held this doctrine, have afferted,
that they find it in the Scriptures, the whole
muft depend on the interpretation of certain
paffages there : and as the appeal is open,
it is abfurd to prefume, that there is no
foundation whatever for fuch a doctrine to
be difcovered in the words of Scripture ; for
who could poffibly be fo fenfelefs as to fay
fuch a doctrine was to be difcovered there,
unlefs they felt affured in their own minds,
that the Scripture would, upon reference, be
found to fupport them ? I know nothing
upon the face of the earth that could firft
have induced men to fay, they believed in
one God and a Trinity of Perfons, if they
regarded thefe two parts of their creed as
b b 3 incom-

374 SERMON VII.
incompatible p; I know nothing that could
have induced the believers in one God to
worShip Chrift and the Holy Spirit, un
lefs they believed them in fome manner
or other to be co-equal, and co-exift-
ent". The modern Unitarians, as they perfift
in calling themfelves, ftill continue to affert,
that the mere humanity of Chrifi is the clear
and indifputable doclrine of the New Tefla
ment \ Surely then they muft acknowledge
it to be ftrange, that fome of thofe, whom
they moft boaft of, as advocates for the
Unity, and adverfe to the doctrine of Chrifl's
Divinity, fhould yet have given a Trinitarian
meaning to moft of the paffages infifted on ;
or a meaning certainly incompatible with
real manhood ; and that they fhould have
found expreffions in the Gofpel leading
them to imagine that " prayer and invoca-
P " If the Scripture had not told us of Three in heaven, we
" had never fpoke of a Trinity." • Leflie.
i Socinus acknowledged Chrift to be an obje£t of prayer, as
being exalted to the dignity and majefty of a true God, (Deus
verus,) in reward of his obedience and fufferings.
* See Prieflley's Hiflory of Corruptions, vol. i. p, 6, « tion

SERMON VII. 375
*' tion were due to Chrift V'—" that he had
" a pre-exiftence;" — ;" that the Divinity was
" united to him, composing, together with
" his human foul and body, one Chrift ;" —
and that this Divinity was " the Supreme
" Being :" and yet thefe, without doubt,
were feverally the tenets of Arius, Socinus,
Erafmus, Grotius, Petavius, Epifcopius, San
dius, Clarke, and Tucker '; all of whom are
claimed at Igaft by the Unitarians of the
prefent day, as the friends of their party (5).
Shall we then be told, that the doctrines of
Christ's pre-exiftence, divinity, and incarna
tion, have no better foundations in Scrip
ture, than thofe of tranfubftantiation arid
tranfmigration ? When our Saviour is repre
fented as expreffing himfelf fo before the
* See the extracts from the Racovian Catechifm in the ift vol,
ai Leflie, p. 219.
' Arius's opinions are well known. Socinus complains of his
being thought to deny Chrifl's being a true God; " Quafi nos
t' Chriftum verum Deum effe negamus, quod tamen a nobis non
" fit." Op. tom. ii. p. 645. See alfo Edwards's Prefervative
againft Socinianifm, Difc. I. pp. 9, 10. Erafmus in his Para-
pbrafe on John i. 1. calls Chrift ex Deo vero, Deus verus, and
much more to the fame purpofe. For the tenets of Grotius,
Petavius, Epifcopius, and Sandius, fee Leflie's IVtb Dialogue of
Jiis Socinian Conlroverfy : of Clarke and Tucker, fee note (5).
b b 4 whole

376 SERMON Vtf.
whole Sanhedrim affembled in council ", as
that the Jews conceived he made himfelf
equal with God, we may well conceive the
expreffion recorded had this direct purport ;
and we may furely be excufed for thinking
the fame ; efpecially as our Saviour's own
explanation^ recorded by the fame Evangelift,
does not tend to convict them of an error
in judgment. When he more openly de
clared, equally to the furprife and aftonifh-
ment of the Jews, that He and the Father
were One, and they drew the fame inference,
they had done before • namely, that he had
made himfelf God, by this declaration ; is it
to be confidered as a mere random, irra
tional, unfounded interpretation, that we nut
upon the fame words, efpecially when, as in
the former cafe, our Saviour did not deny
the propriety of the inference they had
drawn (6) ? The queftion has been rendered
intricate by the numerous difcuffions it has
undergone : when our Saviour fpoke him
felf to the point, he was fo intelligible to
the Jews, that they would have ftoned him
for blafphemy. This makes the queftion of
u See Doddridge on John v. 17. Family Expofitor, feci. 47. the

SERMON VII. 377
the Trinity aiiioft awful and important one ;
for the denial of it evidently tends to fix
the charge of blafphemy on Chrift. And
this confideration fhould be uppermoft in
'the minds' 6f all thofe who engage in fuch
enquiries. Let them not fancy- they are under any
'obligaticm to explain the Trinity, but under
the deepeft arid moft indifpenfable obliga-
tirin to confider the true extent of our Sa
viour's meaning, when he claimed, in the pre-
' fence of the 'Jews, this unity with the Fa
ther. Let them hot fiiffer themfelves to be
led too far in the inveftigatibn of this moft
important queftion. Thofe who will ftill
infift upon its being a contradiction, to ac
knowledge a Trinity' in unity, muft be con
tented '"with the anfwer provided for us in
the Creed which goes bf the name of Atha-
nafius. That was written, whoever was
the author, with a far better defign than is
generally imputed to it : it was in all likeli
hood intended not only to meet particular
herefies and errors, but to repel the charge of
Tritheifm, alleged 'againft the true believers.
It' ' was.' drawn" up, no doubt, to fhew, that
they, who/ in their acknowledgement of Fa
ther,

378 SERMON VII.
ther, Son, and Holy Ghofi, either confounded
the perfons, or divided the fubflance, dif
fered effentially from the true believers; and
therefore that the latter of courfe were not
obnoxious to any fuch charges : and as
both thefe errors gave a handle to unbe
lievers, to accufe them of fuch " damnable
" herefies," (to ufe St. Peter's own terms,)
as either the denying the Lord that bought
.them, or of giving way to idolatry, the
damnatory claufes, as they are called, what
ever was their original object, muft be held
to exprefs the horror with which fuch errors
were viewed by the true believer, and the
extreme danger of them. Thefe may ftill
therefore ferve to fhew, that the Trinitarians,
in acknowledging the Divinity of Chrift,
think their doctrine grofsly mifreprefented,
whenever it is fo Stated as to imply any
thing contrary to the divine Unity ; ' any
thing bordering upon idolatry on the one
hand, or a denial of Chrift on the other (7):
charges continually brought againft them,
and in terms that fhould preclude all fur
ther argument, if they were but true. For, if
there are really any perfons capable of affert
ing, as it has been more than once alleged, that

SERMON VII. 379
that " there are three Creators, and yet but
" one Creator* ," fuch men need never be ar
gued with; the proof of fuch an affertion
would be entirely fufficient to preclude all rea-
foning upon the fubject (8) . But after having
faid, as the Creed alluded to does fay, "that
" the Godhead, of the Father, of the Son,
" and ofthe Holy Ghoft, is One ;" to affirm
further, that " the Father is God, the Son is
" God, and the Holy Ghoft is God," is only
to exprefs the fame thing differently, which
it is a matter of abfolute neceffity to do,
where we are at all obliged to fhew, in
what manner we believe three to agree in
one. We have been forced, in this arid
many other inftances, into a fort of a priori
reafoning concerning the nature and moral
government of God; which, if left to herfelf,
the Church would always with humility de
cline'': " For," as a very able writer obferves
x Lindfey on the Two Creations, in the 2d vol. ofthe Theologi
cal Repofltory.
? "Oti Liiif 0 ©so; vlfo *%«» tovto irirEvs' to h iruf, iun Kohvrrguy pi
ta' fyitat ydo ovx wfaiu;. Cyrill. Hierof. Catech. xi.
n«{ ywa. to» won 0 ©eoj, s iroXviroayLtotu. Ka> iruf itmipnti to
-irvivy.ee oy.otbc: ov TrohvirpctyiAOVtii' aKka. Tftrsvu ott v.ctv vloc\ ysvvccTat
u'f'p'tTvc xa) diruSzc, xa) to irytviia, Exgropwinu ttfpitaf y.a) aVasSas.
Atbanafii Dial. I. edit. p. 40. Stephan.
on

3«o SERMON VII.
on another occafion, " what God could or
" could not have done it prefumes not to
"pronounce; what God declares he has
" done, that merely it aflerts ; and on his
" exprefs word alone it is founded. But it
" is to.be remembered," he proceeds to re
mark, " that on this, , and on many other
" occafions, that a ^)nor^ reafoning, which fo
p. "¦ frequently , misleads thofe who object to
" the doctrines of Qur> Church, is imputed
" by them to us. Not .being themfelves in
" the habit of bowing with humble reve-
" rence to the facred word, they confider
"not that we fpeak vierely its fuggeftions ;
" and that, if, we do at any time philofo-
" phize, hVis.but to follow, not. to lead, the
" meaning of , Scripture." And this was
the intention, no doubt, , of the ancient
Fathers of the Church, whofe illustrations
of their doctrine have been lately fo offici
ously brought forward to prove2, not the
infufficiency of human Reafon to explain a
divine myftery, but that a divine myftery
incapable of being adequately explained,
and accounted for by human j. Reafon, is
z See Prieflley's Early Opinions concerning Chrift.
therefore

SERMON VII. 381
therefore impoffible : a coriclufidn which
has been fo often and fo effectually refuted,
as no longer to deferve our notice. The
ancient Fathers never meant to Inform us
what the Trinity really was a, but only how
it might in fome degree be illuftrated ; and,
for this end, they certainly difcovered many
fimilitudes, which, though not Strictly ap
plicable, were fufficient to fhew, that a
Triune fubfiftence was not, in the nature of
things, either an abfurdity or an impoffi-
bilityb. As thefe Fathers of the Chriftian Church
were frequently accufed of having formed
their notions of the Trinity on the model
ofthe Platonic Triad of principles ; fo, from
what has fince been difcovered of a Trinity
a El{ 0405 nojTnp, e?5 Ki/gio?, 0 powytrnz alta Yio;, *t to Hkvuoc to
uyits, 0 5r«pax?iiiT«f. Kai avtxpxts ricttt tlSitcu ruvra' <pvau c%, %
virofacrtv j/,h woAawpayftom' Et yao tit yiy^ap,jneiov, I^eybftEH*- a yiygx-
nstas, fti to>.iunaa>^.a' ai'ragKe; rijut e1o*s»«( wpo; auhf {at, otj Iri nosfij,
xa) Tior, »a» dyiot IIiEVftx. Cyrill. Hiercf.Ca.tech. xvi.
b See Huntingford on the Trinity, §. xv. Bifhop Beveridge is
cenfured for fuch fimilitudes, in Robinfons Notes to Claude's Ef-
fay, vol. i. p. 17. but I think without reafon. Though all fuch
illustrations muft be inadequate, as the Bifhop of Gloucefter ob
ferves, yet there is no harm in Ihewing, that in nature, and in
human cafes, unity and multiplicity may be combined, and of
ten are fo, in

382 SERMON VII.
in the Oriental mythologies, fome have
been of late induced, perverfely enough,
to think, and to qffert indeed, that we derive
the doctrine entirely from thence ; and, as I
had occafion to obferve before, that the
Hindu and Chriftian Trinities are identical,
and equally fabulous. We cannot be too
particular therefore in fatisfying ourfelves,
that the Trinity is the doctrine of the New
Teflament, prior to all other confiderations c.
Thofe that have no veneration for the cha
racter of our bleffed Lord, muft be left to
their own notions : but even among Infidels,
it muft be confeffed, that many have been
found to bear the moft willing and the
ftrongeft teftimony to the purity and per
fection, both of his life and doctrine, as re
prefented in the Gofpel d. Now it is princi
pally from our Saviour's own declarations
and conduct, that we deduce the doctrine
of the Trinity : we know that he fell under
the imputation of blafphemy for affuming
c How much the Platonic Trinity differs from the Chriftian,
fee Bifhop Burgefs's Sermon on the Divinity of Cbrifl.
d Mr. Paine profeffes the higheft refpect for the character of
Jefus Chrift. Rouffeau's fketch of- it, in his Letter to the Arcb-
bifhop of Paris, is very ftriking and very juft.
an

SERMON VII. 383
ah equality with God, and that he did not
repel the charge by any objections made to
the interpretation put on his words; fo that
our notions of the Divinity of Chrift are not
founded on any fuch vifionary bafis as a
mythological legend, or philofophical fpe-
culation, but admit of proof from his own
perfonal declarations, attefted and interpret
ed by living witneffes. It cannot in any
manner be pretended, that the Grecian or"
Oriental Trinities admit of any proof fo
certain and direct. And as a previous quef
tion, I cannot fee that we have any thing
to do with any traces of a Trinity, that may
be difcoverable either among Jews or Pa
gans. After having commenced our en
quiries with our Lord's own declarations,
his own claim to a filial identity of nature
with God the Father, and having difcovered
in the courfe of our refearches, that however
the Evangelifts and Apoftles have defcribed
him as a man, and the Prophets foretold
him as fuch, they yet alfo all agree in afcrib-
ing to him the brightest characters of Divini
ty ; after having taken into the account the
peculiar form of baptifm of our Lord's own
inftitution ; then we may be well entitled to

384 SERMON VII.
to regard every other intimation of fuch a
mode of fubfiftence in the Deity, either
among Jews or Pagans, but efpecially the
former, as a remarkable confirmation of the
Chriftian Trinity.
Whatever faint or imperfect revelations of
it God might have vouchfafed from the firft
creation, we are to look chiefly to the New
Teftament for an account of the perfon and
character of the Saviour ofthe world ; and fup -
pofing the Trinity true, the fulleft difcovery
of it might moft fitly be referved for the times
of the Gofpel : then it became as effential
for man to know God's method of redemp
tion and fanctification, as under the Law it
had been of importance. to him to have a re
velation of his method of creation and provi
dence. God forefeeing the need of fuch fur
ther difcoveries in time, might well vouch
safe fome intimation of fuch a mode of fub
fiftence from the earlieft times, as it would
certainly appear that he had done \ So that
in all likelihood, as has been conjectured
e See Cudworib, b. i. ch. j. Horfley's Tracts, 40— 45. and
his fecond Letter to Dr. Prieftley, p. 100. See alfo Leland's View
of Deiftical Writers, Letter xxxiii. and Bifhop Huntingford on
tbe-Tnnity, §§. xvi. xxv. xxviii.
and

SERMON VII. 385
and afferted, revelation and tradition were
indeed the original fources whence both
Jew and Gentile, both the philofophers of
the Weft, and the mythologifts of the Eaft,
derived whatever notions they appear to have
had of a Trinity in Unity.
May the Almighty and Everlasting God,
who has given us grace in the con
fession of our faith, to acknowledge
the glory of the eternal trinity, and
in the power of the dlvine majesty ta
worship the Unity, keep us stedfast in
this faith, and evermore defend us
from all adversities !

c c

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON VII.

Page 356- note (l).
1 HE author of the Age of Reafon has ventured to afifure
*tbe world, that only living languages are of ufe in the ad
vancement of 'knowledge '.] To do Mr. Paine juftice, he
has not faid this without flating his reafons ; which
are, " that there is now nothing new to be learned
" from the dead languages : all the ufeful books being
" already translated, the languages are become ufelefs,
" and the time expended in teaching and learning them
" is wafted." Part I. of the Age of Reafon, p. 37. But
then, to do ourfelves juftice, we muft not truft Mr.'
Paine too far, when he aflerts, that human language
may never be the " vehicle of the word of God," ber
caufe of " the continually progreffive change, to which
" the meaning of words is fubject; the want of an
" univerfal language, which renders tranflation necef-
" fary ; the errors to which tranflations are again fub-
"ject; the miftakes of copyifts and printers ; together
" with the poffibility of wilful alteration, &c." Ib. p.
.19. If tranflations have been capable of conveying to
us all that is ufeful in the writings of antiquity in fo
great perfection, as to render the ftudy of the original
writings altogether ufelefs, then we may certainly be
faid to have the benefits of fuch an univerfal language
as Mr. Paine thinks indifpenfably neceffary to a divine
Revelation : but if tranflations are fo liable to error as
he fuppofes, and copyifts and printers fubject to mif-
take, and the originals always in danger of wilful al
terations, what can poffibly fecure us from fuch evils,
but a, critical knowledge of the original languages, and
original works, wherewith we may compare the tranf-
Jationjs, and whereby we may be able to correct the
c c 2 miftakes

388 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
miftakes of copyifts and printers, and to detect and ex
pofe all wilful alterations ?
What an able critic Mr. Paine became, by trufting
to tranflations, and neglecting the ufe and ftudy of the
dead languages, we may judge from his arguments
about the book of Job. It is impoffible to expreSs the
courfe of his difcoveries in Qriticifm better than in the
following few words of a very able writer who an-
fwered him ; and who thus fums up his arguments :
" The book of Job is a Hebrew translation from an A-
" rabic original ; becaufe the Englifh tranflation con-
" tains four or five Greek words." See Age of Infideli
ty, Part II. 41. This is literally Mr. Paine's argument.
After adopting the opinions 01 Ab en-Ezra and Spinqfa,
that it is a translation into Hebrew from another lanr
guage, he adds, " the aftronomical names, Pleiades,
" Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek, and not Hebrew
" names ; and as it does not appear from any thing
" that is to be found in the Bible, that the Jews knew
" any thing of aftronomy, or that they ftudied it, they
" had no tranflation for' thofe names into their own Itm-
" guage ; but adopted the names as they found them
" in the poem." The Englifh reader, who may have
neglected the ftudy of the dead languages upon the
wife advice of Mr. Paine, (but indeed I hope he will
have found very few fuch readers,) would be furprifed
to learn, that, fo far from the Hebrews having been un
able to translate thefe Greek names, the Greeks have
appeared to be much more unable to tranflate the He
brew. For let the real fignification, or the derivation
of the terms in Job be what they may, there' they cer
tainly are, in the original, in true Hebrew characters,
Job ix. 9. riD'3, ^'D3, W — and not one word do we
read of either the Pleiades, Orion, or ArBurus ; though
in Mr. Paine's Englifh Bible (for when he wrote the
fecond part of the Age of Reafon he had one, and not
before) no doubt he found the names as he writes
them. But whoever was the author of the Greek ver
fion of the book of Job, he certainly knew fo little
which particular conftellations were meant, that in the
two paffages where they are mentioned, he renders W]f
in the firft by TlXeidSx, but in the fecond by 'Eo-irepov :
and the author of the Greek verfion of Amos, (ch. v.
ver. 8.)

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 389
ver. 8.) where two of the fame conftellations are again
mentioned in the originaj, fairly leaves them out ; as if
he totally wanted fome correspondent Greek terms.
Nor indeed is the author of the Vulgate more uniform,
than the author of the Greek verfion, as to ivy : he has
Arcturum in the firft inftance, and Vefperum in the laft : .
and as to the term nD*D, he renders it differently in
three different places. Mr. Paine's favourite commenr
tator Aben-Ezra allowed no place at all for the Pleia
des, but was for fubftituting the Hyades in their Stead;
another clutter of ftars in the Bull. This is more upon
the fubject, perhaps, than the cafe required ; though
Mr. Paine's object was no lefs than, by this rare piece
qf criticifm, to rob the Bible of the book of Job ; and
merely for this reafon ; that he thought it too good to
be in fuch company. In his opinion it is deiftical ; but
how Jqb himfelf could be accounted a Deift I know
not, who was " continually" making fin-offerings for
his family, left fome of his many "fons fhould have fin-.
" ned in their hearts 5" which certainly favours a good
deal qf an inftituted method of atonement. Job i. 5.
and xiii. 7. 8. See Magee's fecond Sermon on Atonement,
and Note 33. p, 136. I Shall advert to one more criti
cifm qf Mi-- Paine's, fuggefted by another Short remark
of the fame able writer already referred to.
Mr. Paine infifts upon it, in the fecond part of the
Age qf Reafon, p. 6. that Mofes cannot be confidered
as the author of the Pentateuch, without rendering
him truly ridiculous and abfurd : for in the xiith chap
ter of Numbers, ver. 3. it is faid, " Now the man Mo-
" fes was very meek above all the men which were on.
" the face of the earth." " If Mofes faid this of htm-
" Self," fays Mr. Paine, " inftead of being the meekefi
" of men, he was one of the moft vain and arrogant of
" coxcombs." This is an old objection, as indeed all
JMr. Paine's are, without exception. Now the authqr of
the Age of Infidelity fuggefts, from the origin of the
term \3tf, that this meeknefs of Mofes was not fo much
a virtue as a weaknefs ; and I muft confefs I think hp
is right : and though a dead language is here of ufe to
ijluftrate the point, yet I think our own living lan
guage would fupply an eafy argument againft Mr.
Paine. There can be no doubt, from the context, that
c c 0 the

390 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
the meeknefs here attributed to Mofes had a reference
to the refehtment of wrongs. Now in the claffification
of the paffions, fome are allowed to be purely defert-
five, and defigned for the fecurity of the individual.
On opening then the firft book of morals that falls in.
my way, I read, that " if thefe paffions are fo weak as
" to prove infufficient for their end, as well as if they
" are fo ftrong as to carry us beyond it, in both cafes
" they are unfit to anfwer their original defign ; and
" therefore are in an unfound and unnatural State." See
Profeffor Fergufon's Elements qf Moral Philofophy. I ap
prehend therefore, that the meeknefs of Mofes would
in this particular inftance rather imply that diffidence,
which is oppofed, not fo much to haughtinefs and
pride, as to that refentment of injuries, which is fome
times both becoming and neceflary. And if we con
fult the whole paffage, we fhall, I think, certainly con
clude, that the interpofition of the Deity upon the oc
cafion was exprefsly connected with the weaknefs and
unreafonable diffidence of his Prophet. See verfes 4 and
1-4. It is thus that Cicero, where he recommends cle
mency, meeknefs, and gentlenefs of fpirit, as virtues be
coming a ftatefman, is particularly careful to add, that
though meeknefs and clemency be laudable virtues,
yet no further than as they leave room for a juft feveri
ty, whenever the occafions of the public require it.
" Et tamen ita probanda eft ntamfuetudo et dementia, ut
'" adhibeatur, reipublices caufa, feveritas, fine qua admi-
" niftrari civitas non foteft." De Officiis, lib. i. c. 25-
Upon which Graevius has a note very applicable to the
cafe of Mofes. And Muretus has a good remark : " Ut
" rribrofitas odium, ita nimia facilitas contemtum pa-
" rit." See Verburgius's edit. Note 70. p. 3489.
I do not mean to deny, that meeknefs is allied to
, many virtues, and to fome particularly confpicuous in
the character of Mofes ; but in the paffage alluded to,
though without reference to the Hebrew it would
feem as if an act of weaknefs had been moft in the
contemplation of the writer; yet a knowledge of the
'original muft be neceffary to determine this.
So far then from agreeing with Mr. Paine in the
conclufion he draws, and which he has expreffed fo
Smartly in the following words; "The author is with- " out

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 391
rt out credit, becaufe, to boaft of meeknefs is the re*
" verfe of meeknefs, and is a lie in fentiment;" /Should
argue, that to acknowledge a weaknefs. is a virtue, and
therefore Mofes was meek both in the good and bad
fenfe of the'term ; and in this particular inftance, per
haps, Superlatively fo. For what was the real cafe ?
Aaron and Miriam were difputing his divine miffion ; of
which if Mofes had been duly fenfible, he fhould have
Suffered no private affections to incline him to compro-
mife fo great an infult to the prophet of God: but
though he was therefore blameworthy, for fuch an ill-
judged lenity and diffidence, and even thereby as it
were confederate with Aaron and Miriam, as verfes 4
and 14 would imply ; yet, confidering the near rela-
tionfhip of the offenders to him, it was certainly an
amiable weaknefs, and, had not the honour of God, and
the future authority of his Prophet, been fo immediately
concerned, no doubt a venial one. After all, it is in a
parenthefis, and therefore might poffibly have been add-
.ed by way of note, fuch having been conjectured to
have been the original way of writing notes ; fee Age
of Infidelity, p. 17 : and if fo, whether it were a virtue
or a weaknels, Mofes would have nothing to do with
it. In neither of the cafes above can we fay, that we
have been mifled by the translators. If they have mif
taken the particular conftellations alluded to in the firft
cafe, it is of no fort of moment ; for if they were con
ftellations, (which is not generally admitted, fee Park-
hurfi under tyy II. and Bates's Crit. Heb.) whether He
brew, Arabic, Grecian, or, Englifh, they are only men
tioned to fet forth the glory of God. In the. laft cafe,
whatever idea we attach to the term meeknefs, we
cannot be wrong in fuppofing it to have been a parti
cular trait in the character of Mofes : but as it certain
ly admits of two fenfes, or at leaft the virtue carried
to excels may become a weaknefs, like many others,
we cannot pretend to determine that Mofes meant to
boafi, even if he himfelf was the very author of the
words. But where tranflators may not miflead, interpreters
may ; and if the dead languages, Learning, and Criti
cifm were to be given up, 1 am confident we Should
c c 4 Soon

393 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
foon know as little of the word of man± in times- pafty
as of the word of God. For let us fuppofe the Bible
to be only an ancient book, but to contain things ufe
ful ; and let us further imagine Mr. Paine to be per-
fuadedj that the Englifh tranflation was fufficient to
communicate to him all that it was neceffary for him
to know of the Bible, and therefore that the Hebrew
might be laid afide : ndw without dreaming qf any
fuch arguments and objections as Mr. Paine might in
time to Come choofe to invent, the translators might
reafonably have Substituted the modern names of the
moft conspicuous conftellations, for the three unintelli
gible terms, (for they are fo in a great meafure,) which
occur in the original paffages of the book of Job.
But how would Mr. Paine himfelf be confounded,
(at leaft one would think it impoffible it Should be
otherwife,) if, pretending to criticife the Bible, and to
advance objections, which, according to his own exr
preffions, " no Bible believer, though writing at his
" eafe> and with a library of church books about him,
" fhould be able to refute," (fee the Preface to the fe
cond part of the Age qf Reafon,) he fliould, relying
upon the tranflation, infift upon a difficulty in the He
brew original, from which it fhould be found, upon
examination, the Hebrew original was totally free ?
If tranflations are fo correct as entirely to fuperfede
the ufe and ftudy of the dead languages, which is what
Mr. Paine infifts upon in one place, then fuch tranSlar
tions fhould be implicitly relied on : but if tranflations.
are liable to be So faulty and erroneous, as he alfo
ftrongly infifts in another place, then no arguments
fhould be deduced from them, but fuch as the originals
would ferve to fupport, as well as the tranflations. Mr.
Paine confeffes his own ignorance of the Hebrew lan
guage, (p. 54. Part II. of the Age qf Reafon,) and yet
pretends to inftruct us in the ufe of Hebrew terms ;
fo mueh fo, that in endeavouring to deprive us of all
faith in the Hebrew Prophets, after infilling upon it,
that a Prophet, a Poet, and a Mufi ci an, were Synon i-
mous, when he undertakes to determine the meaning
and import of the older term seer, for want of He
brew °i he fairly refers us from the Englifh to the French.:
intimating pretty plainly, that he conceives it to have
fignified

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 393
fignified no more than a wizard ; though in the He
brew there is a diftinct term for the latter, and they are
particularly enumerated (Deut. xviii. 10, 11.) among
the abominations of the heathens. This is the more
particular, becaufe he pretends alfo, that the Jewifh
Prophets were not raifed to a higher rank than that of
wizards, but through the fraud of the Chriftian Church,
and the ignorance and Superflition of modern times :
whereas nothing can be more diftinguifhed, in the Old
Teftament, than the Prophets of God, and the wizards
of the Gentiles. For in the fame chapter of Deutero
nomy already referred to, where wizards are denounced
as among the heathen abominations, punifhments are
awarded to thofe who will not liften to and obey the
Prophets of God. Nay, would he but have conde-
fcended to let the Bible fpeak for itfelf, which he never
does, he would alfo have found, from the fame chapter,
that it was exprefsly to reftrain the Jews from follow
ing after wizards and necromancers, and fuch fort of
" conjuring, Strolling gentry," that the prophetical of
fice was firft eftablifhed : upon which head Origen ar
gues admirably againft Celfus, that it was a matter of
abfolute neceffity that they fliould have Prophets 5
" For," faith he, " it being written in their law, that
" the Gentiles hearkened unto oracles and divinations,
" but God would not fuffer it to be fo among them,
" it prefently follows, Deut. xviii. 13. A Prophet will
" the Lord thy God raife up from the midfi of thee, &rc.
" Therefore," fays Origen, " when the nations round
" about them had their oracles and feveral ways of di-
" vination, (e'tts .Sta. xXySovuiv, etre fa oIujvujv, eire fa' oorlSuiy,
" etrs fa' syyarptfJiu^uiv, e'vre x, fad rw ryy 3arwy]» ditayfeX-
" Xou.evu)v, site xou fad, XaXfazluv yeve&Anx.Xoyo6vrci]v,) all
" which were Strictly prohibited among the Jews ; if
" the Jews had had no way of foreknowing things to
" come, it had been almoft impoffible, confidering the
" great curiofity of human nature, to have kept them
" from defpifing the Law of Mofes, and apoftatizing to
" the heathen oracles, or fetting up fomething like
" them among themfelves." Contra Celf. lib. i. p. 38.
edit. Cantab. See alfo Notes to Sermon V.
Mr. Paine tells us, indeed, that neither Seer nor Pro
phet ventured to meddle with any concerns, but thofe of

394 NOTES TO SERMON VIL
of the times then paffing ; and that their prophecy! ngd
had never any reference to any difiant future time.
This is eafily faid by Mr. Paine, and, according to his
mode of Criticifm, eafily proved. The very remarkable
prophecy of ifaiah concerning Cyrus is divided be
tween the xlivth and xlvth chapters, as is well known.
In the former part the rebuilding of Jerufalem only is
mentioned ; in the latter the conquefts of Cyrus are
foretold ; and the circumftance of his being named in
the prophecy fo many years before its accomplishment,
is exprefsly mentioned as the pledge of its truth. All
this latter part Mr. Paine totally paffes over; and, from
the laft verfe of the xlivth chapter, takes occafion to
declaim againft " the audacity ofthe Church, and priefi-
" ly ignorance," for impofing this book upon the world
as the writing of Ifaiah ; when, by their own chrono
logy, he died one hundred and fixty-two years before
the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of Jerufalem
was iffued. Indeed, we muft acknowledge, that fuch
ignorance and audacity would have exceeded every
thing of the kind that we have fince read of in the
annals ofthe world. But Mr. Paine regards the decree
of Cyrus as authentic. Now Cyrus was certainly nei
ther an audacious churchman, nor an ignorant prieft;
he was the very perfon concerned ; and by all accounts,
(and it happens that we know a great deal of Cyrus
from profane hiftory,) he was too fhrewd to be eafily
impofed on, and too great to impofe upon others ; nor
was there a motive to induce him to do fo in this in
ftance. Cyrus himfelf then, in the very proclamation
he iffued upon the occafion, exprefsly acknowledges
his fenfe of the truth of this prophecy, and adopts it as
the motive for his clemency and indulgence to the
Jews. See Ezra i. 2. See alfo Jofephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xi.
c. 1. " He caufed it to be proclaimed," fays Jofephus,
" throughout all Afia, on KTP02 O BASIAET2 AErEI-
" — litt'i [j,e 6 ©so; o peyiro; trj; oixsftfvijj unt'elafe jicwi)Ja,
" tuEWOficif tStov Eivctf ov ro tuiv 'lo-par/Xiluiv eSvos ¦axpocrxuvii- jy
" yd? TOTMON nPOEfTIEN ONOMA AIA TfiN nPO«i-
" TilN, -/ij oti tov vctov ctutS o'l-KoSoij.rjcr'jo ev 'lepo<roXvfj.ois ev trj
" 'IsSala x^P?-" This, fays Jofephus, he learnt from
the writings of Ifaiah, which had already been extant
aio years, 140 before the temple was defrayed; another
material

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 395
material circumftance, which Mr. Paine totally omits.
Indeed if dead languages are no longer of any ufe,. liv
ing languages are as little fo, while they are liable to
be fo grofsly perverted, and fo fhamefully abufed.
Page 350.. note (z).
Nor would it be difficult lo flbew at length, as a proof
particularly applicable, that the very writer in queftion has
touch aggravated a very futile charge, which he has ad
vanced againft the divine authority qf We Bible, by the
unwarrantable infertion or mifconftruction of one of the
very letters he mentions. .] I do not defign to make this a
very ferious point of criticifm ; for by fome perhaps it
may be thought to be no better than quibbling; M. de
Voltaire's remark, befides, having too much of levity
in it to be treated with great attention. But as his
defign was, like Mr. Paine's, to invalidate in every way
poffible the authority of the Pentateuch, it way be well
to Shew, that fuch flippancies are inimical to truth, and!
that the unwary and the ignorant may be grofsly de
ceived by them. We fhall not, fays M. Voltaire, be
queftioned, in the day of judgment, whether we have
miftaken a Caph for a Beth, or a Yod for a Vau. Let
M. Voltaire then be more correct in his charges againft
the Bible ;¦ becaufe, if it is quite a trifle to miftake one
Hebrew Letter for another, the truth is more in danger
of being perverted by fuch critics, than by all the
priefthood, either of the Synagogue or the Church. M.
de Voltaire has a long argument upon the twenty-three
thoufand men that fell by the hand of the children of
Levi, in the cafe of the molten calf, Exodus xxxii. 28.
M. Voltaire underftood nothing of Hebrew ; how much
Greek he knew I cannot pretend to fay : but it is cer
tain, that, like a true catholic, he defcended as low as
Latin at leaft for the text of his argument : for in the
Vulgate translation ofthe Bible, and the Vulgate only,
(if we except the Arabic, which is not regarded of
much authority; ke Whitby,) the number of perfons is
really as he dates, viz. 23,000; though in fome copies
it is more, even 33,000 : but in the Greek verfion it is
only ei; tpi%iXi3i dvSpai, about three thoufand, as our ver
sion alfo has it. And this is in agreement with the He
brew, WH -abx nit^tM; only, unfortunately for M.Vol taire,

396 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
taire, fomewhere or other there has happened a miftake
about a Caph. The numeral power of this Hebrew
letter is well known to be 20, fo that here feems to be
undoubtedly either an unwarrantable infertion, or a
mifconftruction of a 2, as I have dated in the Difcourfe,
on which the credit of the Bible is made to depend. It
is certain there is a D in the original ; but it is not a
numerical, according to the ableft judges, but an ad
verbial prefix, anfwering exactly to the Latin term cir-
citer, and which has been carefully preferved in the
other verfions of the Bible. I hope this will not ap
pear trifling, when we have to do with fuch trifling
critics. Had M. Voltaire been ever fo little acquainted
with Hebrew, and felt a real concern for the truth,
inftead of making us indifferent about fuch miftakes,
he fhould have cautioned us againft them ; for it is no
torious, that fuch miftakes are eafy, from the great Si
milarity of the letters ; and whether the Bible be true
or not, if M. de Voltaire thought it of importance to
the world, that its credit fhould be impeached, he mud
be held to have acknowledged the ufe and importance,
of Criticifm, even while he was abufing it, and turning
it into ridicule.
M. de Voltaire was a bad or a very difingenuous cri*
tic in Latin, as well as Hebrew. In order to prove
that the Jews were not the only people acquainted
with the unity qf God, he adduces the following line
from Virgil, to Shew that the heathens alfo worshipped,
one God, viz. Jupiter.
Difcite juftitiam moniti, et non temnere Dives.
A Latin Scholar muft fee that this line exprefsly afferts
a plurality of Gods : but a plain Englishman would
know nothing about it ; nor yet a plain Frenchman ;
and therefore, in fupport of his argument, M. Voltaire
makes no fcruple to tranflate it,
Soyez juftes, mortels, et ne craignez qu'un Dieu !
Surely, for the vindication of truth, the feeurity of
man, and even the honour of God, a critical knqwledge
of the dead languages was never more neceffary. Bifhop
Warburton has noticed M. de Voltaire's great igno
rance, in the 6th fection of his fourth book of the Di
vine Legation of Mofes, note (t) : an ignorance always inex-

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 397
inexcufable in a perfon who pretends to tell the world
fo much, as he pretends to tell us in his writings, about
the Hebrews, and Arabians, and Greeks, and Ro
mans. But it is not only for the purpofe of detecting the
fallacies and ignorant affertions of fuch writers as Mr.
Paine and Voltaire, that Learning and Criticifm are
neceflary : much greater Scholars have defcended to
fuch low arts, as t'hey ought certainly to be afhamed
of. I blufh for the frequent mifreprefentations and pre
varications, and tricks of fuch a writer as Mr. Gibbon :
he has even condefcended, as it would appear, to adopt
the very mifreprefentations of Voltaire; where he en
deavours to di'fgrace Marcellus as the encourager of
mutiny and fedition, becaufe he would not be a foldier,
on the intolerant terms of worfhipping the heathen idols.
Mr. Gibbon refers to Ruinart' s Acts of the Martyrs, and
Voltaire exactly agrees in mtfreprefenting the matter.
Marcellus's own fpeech, as related in the A Sis of the
Martyrs, is exceedingly fine. Another inftance of Mr.
Gibbon's artifice (for it really is no lefs) is to be found
in his account of the number of Chriftians at Antioch.
To take their number as low as poffible, he appeals to
Chryfofiom, to Shew that they amounted to only one
hundred thoufand perfons : " while," fays he, " it is at
" the fame time admitted, that the whole number of
te its inhabitants was not lefs than half a million." The
paffage from Chryfofiom referred to he acknowledges
he adopted from Dr. Lardner : the amount of the popu
lation from John Malela. Now it is curious, that in
the fame page from which Mr. Gibbon confeffes he
borrowed Chryfoftom's account of the number of
Chriftians, his account alfo of the population is to be
found, amounting only to two hundred thoufand. But,
inftead of taking St. Chryfoftom's calculation in this
lafi particular, he prefers John Malela's ; an author, of
whom, on another occafion, he is pleafed to fay, " the
" authority of that ignorant Greek is very flight." See
the Abbe Nonnette's Erreurs de Voltaire, and Chelfum's
Remarks, 3d edit.
It cannot but be regarded as a curious circumftance
jn the hiftory of this age of Reafon, that two of the
ableft Sceptics it lias to boaft of fliould have been ad
vocates

398 NOTES TO SERMON VSL
vocates" for the exploded fyftem of Pagan mythology s
I mean Mr. Gibbon and Mr. Hume : the latter a pro
feffed admirer, (fee his Natural Hifiory qf Religion,) the
former a ready apologift. I do not pretend to recon
cile inconfiftencies ; I kndw Mr. Gibbon in one place
commends the fuperior intelligence of thofe " wifeft of
" the heathen," whofe " fecret contempt penetrated
" through the thin and aukward difguife of their po-
" pular religion." Decline and Fall, ch. xv. But then,
in another place, he fpeaks almoft in raptures of the
" elegance" of their mythology ; " the gaiety, cheer-
" fulnefs,.and Splendour" of their feftivals; and the li
berality with which they admitted foreign Deities and
foreign rites, and which of courfe he admires as the
extreme of toleration. But his partiality for the vain,
fantaftical, and often impious ceremonies of l^aganifm
is by no means the greateft difgrace, which Mr. Gib
bon has brought on this age of Reafon. In his Stric
tures on the Conduct of the Primitive Fathers of the Church,
he has tacitly recommended and approved fuch a bafe
and unmanly fubmiffion of Reafon, as is truly difguft
ing : and if other Deifts have a juft regard for the ho
nour and privileges of human Reafon, as they pretend,
Mr. Gibbon ought to rank very low in their eftima-
tion. I am truly afhamed when I read his laboured
vindications of Pagan toleration, accompanied with the
moft infidious representations of the commendable, up
right, honeft, and honourable refiftance, which the pri
mitive Chriftians made to all the fooleries and abfurdi-
ties of idolatry: a refiftance the more to be admired,
when contrafted vVith the mean compliance of thofe
" wifeft of the heathens," who, " when they knew God,"
as Mr. Gibbon pretends, "glorified him not as God;"
who " profeffing to be wife became fools ;" — " who
" changed the glory qf the incorruptible God into an
" image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to
"four-footed beafis, and creeping things ;" — "who changed
" the truth of God" (if they really had a due apprehen
fion of it, as Mr. Gibbon infifts) " into a lie, and wor-
"f hipped and ferved the creature more than the Creatok,
" who is bleffed for ever. Amen." A refiftance the more
manly and creditable, the more apparently trifling were
thofe acts of fubmiffion, which might have faved their
lives,

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 399
lives, at the expence of their veracity, their faith, and
their integrity. " An eafy pardon," fays Mr. Gibbon,
" was granted to repentance ; and if thev confented to
" eaft a few grains ofincenfe upon the altar, they were
" difmiffed from the tribunal with fafety and applaufe."
— An eafy pardon granted to repentance I — Repentance?
For what ? For worshipping and adoring the true God,
in preference to flocks and flones; murderers, adul
terers, and tyrants ? " A few grains ofincenfe?" In-
cenfe ! to whom ? to, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and a whole
rabble of fuch Gods and, Goddeffes ! — " Difmiffed with
" applaufe !" — human,, popular, vulgar applaufe ! in-
dead of-rr-the approbation of an all-feeing God — the fa-
tisfaction of their own confeiences — the confent of
their own reafon— the admiration of every honourable
and honeft man ! Hear one of thefe very martyrs de-
fcribe their conduct;, and the motives by which they
were governed ; and which Mr. Gibbon is pleafed to
reprefent as obftinacy and folly ; — " '~E%e1ag6[s.evoi, ax d]p-
" vsiueSa, fad to <roveitira.cirouj eautoi; fj.y^ev (paoXov, dcretes SI
" yysLjJvoi MH KATA IT ANT A AAH0ETEIN, 6 seal $IAON
" Tt} ©Ety ' yivvJa-KOfiev." Juft. Mart. Apol. 1. But in
deed it is but too evident, that Mr. Gibbon muft have
yielded tq fome very difgraceful prejudices, when he
cenfured, as he has done," the noble fortitude of the
firft Chridian martyrs. Upon occafion he could fee
the foul crime of diffimulation in as hateful a light as
ourfelves : for though he could juftify the conduct bf
the Pagan philofophers for their conformity to a fyftem
of religion, which in their hearts they defpifed; and
cenfure the behaviour of the martyrs, as obftinate and
perverfe; yet he feems to have thought very differently
qf any fuch compliance with Chriftian rites. Thus, for in
ftance, he fpeaks of Julian's occafional conformity, after
he became an apo date: " But as every act of diffimulation
" mud be painful to an ingenuous fpirit, the profeffion
" bf Christianity increafed his averfion for a religion,
" which oppreffed the freedom of his mind, and com-
" pelled him to hold a conduct repugnant to the nobleft
" attributes of human nature, sincerity and coir-
" rage." Decline and Fall, ch. xxiii. This is the
fame author who blames the Chriftian Fathers for re
fusing to join in the Pagan rites ! In another place he
• fpeaks

4oo NOTES TO SERMON VII.
fpeaks of the Pagan fenators, who reluSantly renounced
the worfhip of Jupiter, in the prefence of Theodofius,
as eager to throw afide " the mark of odious diffimula-
" tion." ch. xxviii.
I would recommend to any young perfon who fhould
be prejudiced againft the primitive Fathers, and primi
tive Chriftianity, by Mr. Gibbon's Strictures, not to
form their judgment from his chofen authority, Tertul
lian; but to read the Short epiftle of Juftin Martyr to
Diognetus, and his Dialogue with Trypho ; the former
of which is a beautiful Summary of Chriftianity-, and
the latter abounds in Chriftian charity. Let him read
befides Athenagoras' s Apology ; and as to the general
conduct of the primitive Chriftians under perfecution,
and otherwife, he will find a much more juft account
in Mr. Bryant's elegant and concife Treatife on the Au
thenticity of the Scriptures, 2d edit. X793.
I am forry to have ftill to add to this long note : but
Mr. Gibbon's views and representations of Pagan tole
ration alfo require fome counterpoife, and therefore I
cannot forbear to add the follqwing admirable remark
of Dr. Leland, to be found in the introduction to his
excellent Anfwer to Tindal. " I cannot well reconcile
"the extravagant accounts of that liberty, which ffou-
" riShed among the Pagans, with the excufe he makes
" for the philofophers ;" (the excufe is common with
other writers, and, though a difgraceful one, is the only
excufe that can be made for them;) " that if they
" feemed to countenance the fuperftitions of their coun-
" try, it was ' becaufe it was not fiafe to talk otherwife ;'
" and that they were obliged to ufe ( fioftening expref--
"fionsf and that therefore they ' writ under great dif-
" advantages." On this fubject of Pagan toleration,
which has been fo continually mifreprefented, tlie
reader may further confult M. Pauw's Recherches Phi-
lofophiques fur les Grecs ; the Abbe Nonnette's Errturs de
Voltaire, vol. i. Warburton' s Divine Legation of Mofes,
b. ii. §§. 5. 6. Rett's Hid Bampton Lecture, and the re
ferences there ; and Fuller on Deifm, Part I". ch. 5.
Page 362. note (3).
It is far from my intention, and from the defign qf
this work, to difcufs the feveral fubje&s qf controversy alluded

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 401
alluded to in the Difcourfe. The fubject of this Ser^
mon is Criticifm in general; its ufe and abufe; with
reference, however, particularly to the prefent times,
and the Age of Reafon, the chief topic of thefe Lectures*
It cannot, I think, be queftioned but that the two doc
trines of Atonement and the Trinity are thofe concern
ing which Biblical Criticifm has been lately moft occu
pied, and poffibly always will be fo. The firft and
leading objections to the received notions of atonement
and the Trinity, have nothing indeed to do with Cri
ticifm. They are principally metaphyfical ; a priori
arguments on the part of Reafon, as to what God can
or cannot do, or be expected to do ; what mufi be his
precife mode of exiftence, &c. — which are fuch mere
impeftinencies, where the queftion really relates to
facts, that they are not worth confidering. I muft
confefs, I never can with any patient hope of improve
ment entertain fuch queftions as, whether God could
require a facri fice ? or whether he could not have for
given us without a facrifice ? whether his Unity may
be, in the poffibility of'things, confiftent with a Tri
nity? &c. 8cc. Thofe who regard the Bible as a revela
tion from God, have only to fearch and enquire
whether fuch doctrines are to be found there. And in
fuch a cafe, nothing but Criticifm, found and honeft
Criticifm, can ferve to fober the intemperance of hu
man Reafon, to correct the miftakes of ignorance,
and to point out the mifreprefentations of prejudice or
incapacity. That it will in all cafes be effectual, or that it ever
will be even in one inftance effectual, to the converfion
of a Deift or Socinian, I do not pretend to fay : not that
I mean to charge any with fo perverfe an obftinacy, as
to be blind to all truth ; but becaufe the object ofthe
former being to deny the ufe, and neceffity, perhaps
even the poffibility, of a divine revelation, every argu
ment drawn from the facred books may for ever con
tinue questionable ; and the object ofthe latter being
confeffedly to explain away the literal meaning of the
text, no bounds can be fet to the interpretations
which fancy may fuggeft, or prejudice invent. But as
long as Revelation is quedioned, and the literal meaning
of the Scriptures difputed, Criticifm muft be of the.
d cl utmoft

403 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
utmoft ufe, to open the eyes of thofe who are in danger
of being mifled. If thefe queftions were entirely con
fined to the learned, I hope I fhould never be found
deficient in refpect for any man's talents and attain
ments, or an enemy to any inveftigations honeftly
purfued, and decently conducted, let the conclufions
they led to be what they might. But when thofe
who cry out moft loudly for the unlimited exercife of
Reafon, will allow no man to have any reafon but them
felves, or thofe who think as they do ; (for the title
of rational Chriftians furely implies this, which Dr.
Prieftley, Mr. Belfham, and Mr. Lindfey, infift upon as
being fynonimous with Unitarian ; " rational, that is,
" Unitarian Chriftians," are Dr. Prieflley's own words ;
and Mr. Belfham and Mr. Lindfey have the fame ; fee
Magee, and an excellent note in Fuller's Calviniftic and
Socinian Syfiems compared, p. 42;) when, under pretence
of learning, and great reading, and an uncommon ap
plication of " time, labour, patience and candour," the
common people are given to underftand, that the Bible
does not contain doctrines, which the regular miniftry
of the Church have been careful to inftruct them in ;
when the ftrongeft affertions are advanced which ad
mit of being proved to be in direct opposition to the
truth, it is impoffible to overlook fuch extravagant af-
fumptions, and mifchievous attempts.
It is not againft the' truly learned or truly confcientious
Deift or Socinian, then, that any ftrictures I have to ad
vance are intended. I wifh every fuch opponent of
the Trinity, or of the doctrine of atonement, or even
of Revelation, to make the utmoft ufe of his critical
Skill and knowledge. If the whole depends on the
teftimony of antiquity, the true meaning of certain
Hebrew and Greek phrafes, and the true interpreta
tions ofthe cuftoms of paft times, let every authority
be carefully confulted and examined: but let us not be
told, without examination, that things are fo, or not fo :
let not the mafs of the people be deceived into a no
tion, which we think a vain one, namely, that the
literal terms of the Bible are only calculated to mif-
lead them, and that the doctrines of the Trinity and
atonement, are the . mere fabrication of incompetent
Criticifm, or bold Impofture. It

NOTES TO SERMON VII'. 403
_ It is too common with the unlearned to fancy Cri
ticifm unfriendly to the caufe of truth. They do not
like to be told, that their falvation is to depend on the
conftruction of a Hebrew or Greek term, the fubftitu-
tion of a Caph for a Beth, or a Jod for a Vau: (fee
Note 2 :) and God forbid it Should, in regard to them
felves. But if it is of confequence to them to know the
terms of falvation, (and if it is not, Revelation itfelf is of
no life,) then it is fit they fliould know that it is only
from bad Critics they are in danger ; found Criticifm is
their only fecurity, and the truly learned their only
friends. A few inftances, perhaps, will ferve to illuftrate
this ; and if I felect them chiefly from the writings of
Dr. Prieftley and his aflbciates, it will be partly on ac
count of their notoriety, and partly becaufe, though the
Doctor particularly has treated thefe Subjects with all
the parade of learning in fome editions of his works,
where they are open to Criticifm, and have accordingly
been amply criticifed ; yet his opinions have been alfo
vended and circulated, by himfelf and other editors,
in a different fhape ; Stripped ofthe criticifms, and re
ferences, and citations; and in plain English: in which
publications, (and I have one lying before me, dated
three years after the valuable .edition of Bifhop Horf-
ley's charges and correspondence,) difputed affertions
are repeated without proofs, and yet, as folly proved,;
as unanswerable, though anfwered and refuted long
before ; as correct, though known to have been them
felves corrected, by fuch an application of Criticifm as
cannot be difputed.
It' might well furprife an unlearned Chriftian ofthe
Church of England to be told, as Dr. Prieftley tells us,
that " from a full review of the religions of all ancient
" and modern nations, they appear to have been ut-
" terly deftitute of any thing like a doctrine of proper
" atonement." Any found Critic being an honeft
man would certainly never have faid this : but I do
not mean to fay that Dr. Prieftley was not honeft in
making fuch an affertion ; for he challenges us to find,
" in the range of the whole Jewifh and Heathen world,
" a fingle fact in contradiction." This is at leaft fair,
and it is well for the truth, that Critics have not been
wanting to make fuch an enquiry. I will venture to
D d 3 fay,

404 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
fay, that the learned Profeffor Magee alone (for a re
ference to his very learned Notes upon the fubject,
in his late publication on atonement, is furely fuffi
cient) has proved this affertion to be as contrary to
fact, as any thing could be. It is a fortunate circum
ftance therefore, that Criticifm is ftill cultivated fufti-
ciently to refcue the world from the ill effects of fuch
confident, but ill founded affertions. — Again, as the
opinions of the primitive Fathers of the Church will
always be reforted to as authority of no fmall weight
and refpectability, when their teftimony is adduced, it
is highly important that their words fliould be correctly
tranflated ; and if terms which give a particular turn,
if not the whole force, to a fentence, are overlooked or
omitted, it is well to have Critics who are capable of re
storing them to their proper places. That fuch accidents
have befallen Dr. Prieflley's references and tranflations,
maybe feen in Bifhop Horfley's Tracts, Letter I. §. 7.
Letter VI. §§. 12 — 23. Letter X. §. 4. And that other
modern Unitarians are liable to fuch overfights may
be feen alfo, 1 think, in the review of Mr. Jones's Deve-
lopement of Facts, Brit. Crit. vol. xviii. 630.
Any Trinitarian might well be Startled to learn from
Dr. Prieftley, that "'we find nothing like Divinity
" afcribed to Jefus Chrift before Juftin Martyr," and
that " all the early Fathers fpeak of Chrift as not hav-
" ing exifted always." — And if there were no Critics
capable ofcondruing Greek better than Dr. Prieftley ;
if there were not fome capable of reading what he
never read, or of reading what he had read with more
attention and better judgment; had there never been
fuch fcholars as BiShop Bull, and Bifhop Horfley, to
examine into thefe matters, thefe very affertions might
have paffed for indifputable truths. But I muft confefs
I think the contrary is as clearly proved, as Criticifm
can prove it ; and this is a queftion merely of Criticifm.
How the Ante-Nicene Fathers exprefled themfelves
we know; who is moft capable of interpreting their
•expreffions, is another queftion : but we may be fure,
that when Dr. Prieftley, in rendering the celebrated
paffage of Theophilus, which he conceives to be the
firft introduction of the term Trinity, tells us, Theo
philus wrote, that the " fourth day was the type of
" man,

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 405
" man, who needs light, that the word may be God,
" and the Man wifdom," Dr. Prieftley was not capa
ble of underftanding his authority. Dr. Prieftley cer
tainly here makes the learned Bifhop of Antioch talk
nonfenfe againfi the Trinity, when he fpoke as plainly
as he could in favour qf it, according to the language
and manners ofthe times : "tetdptrj fa) toito; k?\v 'AvQpdntH'
6 tfpocrSe-r]; tS cpuito;' Iva ij ©eoj, Aoyo;, "MocpiafAvStpwrios.
" The fourth day was the type of Man, who needeth
" light, that there might be, God, the Word, or Logos,
" the Wifdom, Man." Which, as Bifhop Horfley fays,
is fo clear, that the fenfe could hardly be miffed at
firft fight, by a fchool-boy in his fecond year of Greek:
and indeed, confidering what the context expreffes, he
is certainly right. See.Theoph. adAutolyc. lib. ii. p., 106.
Oxon. 1684. See alfo the note there.
Dr. Prieftley is dead and gone, and his Criticifms
are at an end. As an able and indefatigable experimen-
talifj;, his name will live for ever; and from the cha
racter he bore among his friends, we are forbidden to
fufpect him of any intention to deceive. The forego
ing inftances therefore muft be plaqed to the accqunt
either of his incapacity, or his careleffnefs in forming
his opinions upon theological Subjects, and in deliver
ing them to the world. But the harm that Dr. Prieftley
did not defign, his writings may ftill produce ; and it
is therefore, that I have thought it my duty to bear
teftimony to the equivocal character of his affertions,
that they may not be received as truths by any mean's
indifputable. I have chofen the three inftances ad
duced from the works of Bifhop Horfley and Profeffor
Magee, becaufe it gives me an opportunity to refer to
publications, which may fupply many other inftances
to the fame purpofe, and which, in this particular line
of Biblical Criticifm, are truly an honour to the age. I am
forty to fay, that my own collections from the works of
Dr. Prieftley might furniSh many more; but I muft con
tract what I have to fay. Any perfon competent to
read the able, and, in moft cafes, unanfwerable argu
ments of the two great living Critics referred to, will
lament to be told, that an edition of fome of Dr. Priefl
ley's writings is exfant, evidently prepared for the pe-
rufa!, and fuited to the pockets, of the lower claffes of
d d 3 people ;

406 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
people : in which, as though no queftion had evef
arifen upon the fubject, the following is the account
given ofthe death of Chrift, as defcribed in the Apo-
ftqlic writings. " The death of Chrift is compared, toa
" Sacrifice in general, because he gave up his life in
" the caufe of virtue and of God ; and more efpecially
" a. facrifice for fin, because his death and refurrec-
" tion were neceffary to the confirmation of the Gof-
" pel, by which finners are brought to repentance, and
" thereby reconciled to God. It is called a curfe, ee-
" cause he died in a ftate of fufpenfion, which was
" by the Jews appropriated to thofe perfons who were
" confidered as reprobated by God. And it is called a
" Paffover, because it may be confidered as a fign of
" our deliverance from the power of fin, as the paffover
" among the Jews was a fign of their deliverance
" from the Egyptian bondage. It is alfo called a Ran-
" fom, because we are delivered by the Gofpel from
" fin and mifery. On the fame account, he is faid by
" his death to bear or take away our fins ; fince his
" Gofpel delivers us from the power of fin, and confe-
" quently from the punishment of it."
If this was only the opinion of a plain unlettered
Englifhman, it might pafs for one interpretation among
others; and it would deferve our indulgence, as a mere
conjecture, which every man thinks, and may feel in
deed in this country, that he has leave to form. But
when it is officioufly fet forth as the fentiments of a
man who profeffed to be a Critic in Greek and Latin ;
(and indeed in Hebrew, for his Criticifms virtually
extend as far ;) who is known to have boafted of the
pains he had taken " to read, or at leaft look carefully
" through, many ofthe moft capital works of the an-
" cient Chriftian writers ;" it is really lamentable,
that people fhould be fo mifled. There is no Latin or
Greek or Hebrew in the whole, book ; but then we are
encouraged to do without them, by trufting to the ufe
Dr. Prieftley had made of them ; for we are here told
confidently, what has been denied by moft eminent
Critics for many centuries paft, that Chrift could not
have been a facrifice in the literal fenfe of the term ;¦
that he could not have been the antitype of the Jewifh
facrifices, the pafchal lafnb, or fcape-goat ; that the
tenor

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 407
tenor of the Scripture language is, that God is effen-
tially merciful and gracious, without the leaft reference
to any other being or agent whatfoever, and difpofed to
forgive us freely and gratuitously, upon our repentance
and amendment, without any other atonement or fatif-
f action ; that facrifices for fin under the law of Mo
fes were never confidered as flanding in the place offin-
ners ; that redemption means no more than deliverance
in general ; that to die for us, means only for our
fakes ; and that to bear the fins of mankind, is no
more than to bear or take them away : upon which
laft obfervation, as it is accompanied with a critical
afifirtion, I cannot forbear flopping to make fome re
marks. " Befide the manifeft injuftice, and indeed abfurdity,"
fays Dr. Prieftley, "of an innocent perfon being punifli-
" ed for one that is guilty, the word does not fignify to
" bear or take upon another, but to bear away, or to re-
" move by whatever means." There are two Hebrew
words, (-for of the Greek term, dva,<pepui, ufed by St.
Peter, I fhall have tq fpeak elSewhere,) out of which
Dr. Prieftley had his choice, nut: and blp. Which of
thefe he alludes to we cannot fay ; but they are both
difcuffed, and their meaning amply forutinifed by Pro-
fefibr Magee, in the very learned and curious Notes
to his Sermons already referred to. As this is the
moft modern Criticifm upon thefe terms, it luckily in
cludes all Dr. Prieflley's objections ; which are in fact
only Dr. Taylor's and Mr. Dodfon's revived. Dr. Ma-
gee's conclufion upon the fubject is, that when joined
with the word sin, they are conftantly ufed, through
out Scripture, either in the fenfe of forgiving it on the
one hand ; or of ' fuflaining, either directly or in figure,
the penal confequences of it on the other ; and that they
were undoubtedly fo applied by Ifaiah in the cele
brated prophecy of our Saviour, who was to be
" wounded for our tranfgreffions," and " fmitten for
" our iniquities," by whofe " chafiifement" our peace
was to be effected, and by whofe " bruifes" we were
to be healed. Such a pofitive affurance, that the ori
ginal word does not fignify to bear, or take upon another,
could only be calculated to turn the attention of the
unlearned .reader afide from the doctrine of Chrifl's
d d 4 having

408 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
having been a real facrifice and a proper atonement,
by " bearing our fins in his own body on the tree,"
1 Pet. ii. 24 ; a paffage the terms of which have alfo
been difputed, but which the fame learned Profeffor has
likewife confidered at length, and ably vindicated
from the mifreprefentations of Socinian Criticifm. But
the Englifh reader who knows not a word of Hebrew,
or Greek, or Latin, may, I think, be eafily made to
comprehend how much the truth is violated by any
unqualified affertion, that to " bear fins," in Scripture
language, does not admit of the fenfe oi bearing the fins
qf another, as a weight, or burthen, or punifhment; for
both the original words, b~20 and nun, are fo ufed in
fome paffages of Scripture, as to admit of no other mean
ing ; but particularly excluding the meaning Socinians
would infift upon, that of " bearing away." The Deift
and Infidel, who find fuch fault with the fecond Com-
-mandment, particularly Mr. Paine, will not fuffer us, I
fancy, to depart from this meaning, wherever in the
Old Teftament the fons are fpoken of as bearing the
iniquities of their fathers. If any, in defence ofthe de
nunciations, they are fo offended with, were' to pretend
that the fons were no otherwife to bear the iniquities of
their fathers, than by removing them and bearing them
away, I believe fuch Criticifm would be thought no
better than a quibbling evafion ; and yet I think the
Socinian .could interpret thofe paffages no otherwife
with any confiftency. The moft Striking paffages, in
which this expreffion occurs, are Lamentations v. 7.
Ezekiel xviii. 19, 20. in the former of which the term
.b~ZD occurs, and in the latter j*tt>:. The whole chapter
of Ezekiel is fufficient to convince any ingenuous mind,
that to bear muft here mean not only to bear the ini
quities of another, but to partake in the weight and
punifhment of them- As for the other unqualified af
fertion which the paffage contains, that " there is a
" manifeft injuftice, and indeed abfurdity, in fuppofing
" that an innocent perfon could be punifhed for one
" that is guilty ;" I know not why, if good is to
enfue, even in the eye of reafon, an innocent perfon
may not be permitted to fuffer for the fins of another,
as juftly as to fuffer for no guilt or crime of his own :
which appears to have certainly been the cafe with our
bleffed,

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 409
bleffed Lord at all events, Socinians themfelves being
judges. But at leaft, St. Peter was blind to this very
manifeft injuftice and abfurdity; for he even tells us, and
furely with great propriety, " that it is better, if the will
" of God be fo, that we fuffer for well-doing, than for
" evil-doing ;" 1 Peter iii. 17 : and howdoes he illuf-
trate it ? By the very cafe of our Saviour ; " For
" Chrift," faith he, " hath once fuffered for fin, the
"juft for the unjvft, (that he might bring us to God;)"
ver. 18. And in the preceding chapter how does he en
courage fervants to the patient endurance of unjnfi
fufferings ? " For this is thank-worthy, if a man, for
" confcience toward God, endure grief, fuffering
" wrongfully. For what glory is it, if when ye be
"buffeted for your faults, ye fhall take it patiently?
" But if when ye do well, and fuffer for it, ye take it
" patiently, this is acceptable to God ; for even here-
" unto were ye called; becaufe Chrift alfo fuffered for
" us, leaving us an example, that ye Should follow his
" fteps : who did no fin, neither was guile found in his
" mouth." Ch. ii. 19—22. I know we fhall be fent
back to our Lexicons, and" Bibles, to difcover the true
fenfe of fuffering for another, which is faid not to
imply any fubftitution of one for another. Profeffor
Magee has confidered this difficulty alfo in the 30th
Note to his ift Sermon; to which I muft refer the read
er, my only object being to fhew, that it is not allow
able to fay in fo unqualified a manner, that there is a
manifeft injuftice and abfurdity in the notion of one
perfon fuffering for the guilt of another ; for according
to our notions, I fee not, but that it might appear
to be always unjuft that the innocent fhould fuffer at
all, and an abfurdity that they Should be made to fuf
fer, of even be permitted to fuffer, for the fake of, and
for the benefit of, the finful and guilty; which is the only
amendment the Socinians offer us. The Racovian Ca
techifm afferts, that Chrift died, as Victima fuccedanea ;
" and I think, (fays the Examiner of Mr. Leflie's laft
Dialogue on the Socinian Controverfy,) " he that
" Suffers with a defign to prevent our fuffering (which
" is granted) truly differs nofiro loco, in our flead."
Not long ago the world was much occupied in
Jearning from Mr. Godwin what were the true princi ples

4i6 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
pies of Political Juftice. Now one of the princi
ples he lays down is to the following effect : " It is
" right that I fhould inflict fuffering in every cafe where
" it can be clearly fhewn, that fuch infliction will pro-
" duce an overbalance of good : but this infliction
" bears no reference to the mere innocence or guilt of
" the perfon upon whom it is made. An innocent marl
" is the proper fubject of it, if it tend to good." Pol.
Jufi. vol. ii. p. 322.
St will ftill, I know, be objected, as Epifcopius of
old objected, that it is a different thing to punifh the
innocent, and to punifh one for the fins of another, of
which he was not guilty. There is a difference, we
acknowledge; but yet a Socinian has been found, who
has granted, that the latter has been the cafe with the
Jews ; and not only fo, but that all nations have learnt
from experience " quod gravia fcelera etiam in liberis
" vindicentur." See Wolzogenius on Matth. Xxvii. 25.
" His blood be upon us, and upon our children;" cited
by Edwards, in the fecond part of his Prefervat'ive
againfi Socinianifm, p. 52. Grotius alfo, in his cele
brated Tract De Saiisfactione Chrifti, c. 4. obferves,
" Ubi confenfus aliquis antecederet, ferme aufim dicere
" omnium eorum quos Paganos diximus, neminem fu-
" iffe, qui alium ob alterius delictum puniri injuftum
" duceret." I have fhewn, that in the cafe of Dr. Priedley there
is good reafon to be fuSpiciqus of his Criticifms, when
he ventures to tell us why it is that our Saviour's Suffer
ings are fpoken of in terms applicable to the Jewifh and
heathen facrifices. His " becauses" are not always
very correct, nor yet Mr. Lindfey's " videlicets ;"
of which I Shall next proceed to give an inftance.
In his Hiftorical View of the State qf the Unitarian
Doctrine and Worfhip, he is very Severe upon Dr. Dod
dridge's mode of Criticifm concerning the two natures
of Chrift, in his parapbrafe on Mark xiii. 32. (Family
Expofilor, feet, clxii.). Dr. Doddridge's mode of Criti
cifm arifes from a difficulty, which is common to the
Trinitarian and Socinian ; namely, that in the New
Teftament many things are predicated of Chrift, which
cannot be otherwife reconciled, than either by the fup
pofition, that he pofleffed two natures, or by explain ing

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 411
ing away fome of the plaineft and fimpleft declarations
of Chrifi himfelf. Dr. Doddridge proceeds upon the
firft plan; Mr. Lindfey adopts the latter. Dr. Dod
dridge's mode of Criticifm has been adopted by many
very able commentators, and very well illuftrated by
the learned Mr. Leflie, in his firft Dialogue on the So
cinian Controverfy. See alfo Jenkin' s Reafonablenefs qf
Chriflianity, vol. ii. 360 ; Burnet on the Articles ; Bifhop
Pr'etyman' s Elements qf Chriftian Theology ; and the Vth
dialogue qf Alhanafius, 183. edit. 1570.
That fuch a mode tof interpretation is natural, fup
pofing the doctrine of the Incarhation to be true, Mr.
Lindfey might learn from a work, which cannot be
fufpected ot any theological bias : and I fhall cite it,
becaufe it may at leaft ferve to fhew, that Dr. Dod
dridge's method of interpretation is not a mere inven
tion of Chriftian divines, fubfequent to the days of E-
rafmus, as Mr. Lindfey would infinuate.
The Hindus, who, it is well known, regarded an in
carnation of the Deity to be an event ftrictly poffible,.
appear, from the Bhagvat-Geeta, to have exactly ad
opted the diftinction Dr. Doddridge is cenfured for,
and to have conceived it to be both natural and reafon
able. Kreefhna, who is fuppofed to be the Deity In
carnate, after having difclofed his divine nature to
Arjoon, in the following terms, among others, " I am
" the Creator of all things, and all things proceed from
" me ;" is thus addreffed by Arjoon : " Neither the
" Dews nor the Dartoos are acquainted, O Lord, with
" thy appearance ; thou alone, O Firft of Men, knoweft
" thy own fpirit." Upon which laft words I find Mr.
Wilkins's note to be, " Arjoon makes ufe of this ex-.
" preffion, as addreffing the Deity in his human foape/'
And thus at the beginning ofthe Xlth Lecture, Arjooff
is alfo reprefented as addreffing the Incarnate Deity :
" It is even as thou haft defcr-ibed thyfelf, 0 mighty
"Lordl I am now, 0 mofi elevated of Men, anxious to
" behold thy divine countenance ; wherefore, if thou
" thinkeft it may be beheld by me, Shew me thy never-
" failing fpirit."
My object in this reference is only to fhew, that
fuppofing an incarnation of the Deity poffible, it is na
tural

4ia NOTES TO SERMON VlL
tural ftill to fpeak ofthe two natures as diftinct, and to
conceive, that the attributes of the Deity may, by the
affumption of the human nature, be concealed from
our view. ,
But to return to Mr. Lindfey. When Dr. Doddridge
refers our Lord's ignorance of the day of judgment to
his human nature, he Supports his paraphrafe by citing
John iii. 13. to Shew, that it could not have regard ter
the divine nature of Chrift, in refpect to which he muft
neceffarily have been, as his own words intimate, both
omniprefent and omnifcient. " No man hath afcended
" up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven ; even
" the Son qfMan, which is in heaven." Dr. Doddridge's
paraphrafe has the confent and approbation of almoft all
other commentators, who acknowledge the Divinity of
our bleffed Saviour : and the paffage jud cited from
St. John is upon all occafions held to exprefs at once
both the hypoftatical union, and the common diftinc-
tion of the two natures. " Quod fe filium hominis
" (id eft hominem) in ccelo effe docet," is Beza's ex
planation, " aperte duas naturas diftinguit, et unam
" hypoftafin confirmat." See his note upon the paffage.
But at all events, the pre-exiftence of our Saviour would
feem to be eftablifhed by it. Mr. Lindfey, however,
denies this ; and after blaming Dr. Doddridge for his
" quibbling arts," and the liberties he takes with the
exprefs words of our Saviour, he tells us, that it has
been thought by fome to be made out to full fatisf ac
tion, that the words in queftion hold forth nothing of
the kind which is here inferred from them ; but are
thus to be underftood :
And no man hath afcended up to heaven .J videlicet,
No man knows the whole mind and will of God, for
the falvation of mankind.
But he that came down from heaven.} videlicet,
But I, who have my commiffion from God, who am
his Prophet, his Meffenger, and the Meffiah.
Who is in heavenl\ videlicet, Who am intimately
acquainted with the counfels of God.
Mr. Lindfey fubjoins, " Indolent and fuperficial in-
" quirers among. Christians, and unbelievers of like
" character, may object to fuch a construction of our
<s Lord's words ; that the real meaning fliould be fo re-
" mate

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 413
" mote from the found of the words." But is nqt this,
by Mr. Lindfey's own acknowledgment, to make our
Saviour quibble ? Is there any worfe way of equivo
cating, than to have a real meaning remote from the
found of the words we utter ? And yet it is in this way
that the " rational Chriftians" expound every fpeech of
our bleffed Lord, which has been thought to infer his
pre-exiftence and divinity, his omniprefence and omni
potence. St is thus alfo that they explain all that the
Apoftles have told us of the efficacy of the blood of
Chrift ; and fo remote do they make the real meaning
of their expreffions to be, from the found qf the words
made ufe of, that though the Apoftle to the Hebrews
infifts upon it, that the object of Chrifl's appearance
"upon earth was to " put away fin by the facrifice of
" himfelf," and that accordingly " Chrift "was once qf-
"fered to bear the fins of many ;" yet we are taught to
believe his paffion was no facrifice, his blood no atone
ment : we are confidently affured, that " Jefus Chrift
" never profeffed himfelf to be a Being of any other
" nature than the human, and that his Apoftles never
" believed or declared him to be more." Lindfey, p. xi.
Trinitarians can never make a better defence for
themfelves than by affirming, that they cannot believe
otherwife, confiftently with their refpect for the Since
rity and integrity of our Lord and his Difciples. But
Mr. Lindfey is highly offended with this mode of de
fence, and confiders it as a bafe afperfion of the cha
racters of Chrift and his Apoftles. Bifhop Newton,
from a full confideration of the many paffages in the
New Teftament, which have been generally held to
affign to Chrift the attributes and diftinctions of the
Godhead, concludes with reafon, that if fuch language
is not to be confidered as implying the proper divinity
of Chrift, our Saviour himfelf, and his holy Apoftles,
mud lie under the imputation of being blafphemere and
importers; which is fo' fhocking and incredible, that
we have no alternative, but tq believe that God was
actually in Chrift reconciling the world to himfelf;
that is, that Chrift was God. Is this to afperfe the
characters of Chrift and his Apoftles ? Is it not to vin
dicate and defend the integrity of their words? Suppofe the

4i4 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
the Bifhop had rejected their evidence, and affigned as
a reafon, that he bad difcqvered? that though the ex
preffions were literally fo intelligible, as thaj no one
could miftake them ; yet that it was fo much the way
of Chrift and his Apoftles to ufe words remote in found
from the real meaning they defigned to exprefs, that
he would not believe them, though they told him the
fame thing over and over again : — I believe it would be
generally admitted, that this would be indeed a grofs
afperfion of their characters. ' It is odd enough that
Socinus is in the fame fcrape with the Bifhop : he, it
feems, judged, from the character given to our bleffed.
Lord in the Gofpels, that prayer and invocation were
fo evidently due to him, that he declared, if it was not
fo, " Chrift and his Apoftles muft have been moft rer
" markable impoftors and falfifiers, and no credit can
" or ought to be given to any thing they fay." To do
Socinus juftice, it fhould be known, that he alfo care
fully prefaces his remark with an affurance, that Chrift
and his Apoftles had clearly taught the propriety and
lawfulnefs of invoking Chrift. " Sic enim cum ab ip-
" so, turn ab ApoftoHs edocti Sumus." And yet, what
are Mr. Lindfey 's reflections upon this ? " Such vehe-
" ment affeverations, and fuch unworthy infinuations
" concerning our Lord and his Apoftles, betray a mind
" too much heated with prejudice and felf-opinion, to
" inquire with a proper temper after truth." So much
for Socinus fingly : but when the Bifhop comes to be
joined with him, " I would be far from faying," fays
Mr. Lindfey, " that Socinus or Bifhop Newton were
" men void of true piety, as I believe they had a great
" deal ; and it is a difpofition of mind that is particu-
" larly difcernible throughout all the writings of the
"former. But this may be faid concerning them, from
" the licence which they both gave .themfelves in
" afperfing the characters of Chrift and his Apoftles, on
" the fuppofition, that their words were not agreeable
" to their interpretation of them; that they were men
" of ftrong paffions, unreafonably attached to their own
" conclufions, and impatient of contradiction about
" them ; and perhaps, (which is the beft apology that
" can be made for them?) weakly imagined, that all
" Reve-

u

NOTES TO SERMON VIL 415
" Revelation would fall to the ground, and come to
" nothing, if their particular fyftems concerning it
" were not to be embraced, and univerfally prevail."
It is certainly a great blunder in Mr. Lindfey's Cri
ticifm, that he cannot difcover, that to give ftrong cre
dit to any doctrine, which we conceive to have been
exprefsly taught by our Saviour and his Apoftles, be
caufe they would otherwife feem to have been impof-
tors and falfifiers, is to defend and do honour to the
integrity of their characters. How Mr. Lindfey could
argue himfelf into the contrary fuppofition we can only
judge from his own words : " It is wholly unaccount-
" able," fays he, " how men Could bring themfelves
" to ufe fuch terms as thefe concerning the bleffed Je-
" fus ; that he muft be thus undervalued and fet at
" nought, as a grofs impoftor, a foul blafphemer, or
" downright madman, if he be not what fome men
" take him to be, and do not come up to all that their
" warm imaginations have figured to them concerning
" him." Indeed they do no fuch thing: th'ey only
fay, his expreffions fo palpably convey to us the no
tion of his divinity, and his title to invocation, that
we mufi believe both, becaufe the bleffed Jefus was in
his whole life fo pure, fo holy, fo correct, that we
¦could believe any thing fooner than that he could im
pofe on us, or blafpheme God, or indulge any frantic
ideas of his own equality with him. This is the fub-
dance of both Bifhop Newton's and Socinus's defence ;
-and as it is the befi reafon to be affigned for our belief
of the Trinity, it is well to vindicate it from fuch
ftrange and inconfiftent Criticifm. Bifhop Burnet adopts
the fame method of vindication of his belief of the di
vinity of Chrift : " When all thefe things are laid to-
" gether, in that variety of expreffions, in which they
" lie Scattered in the New Teftament, it is not poffible
" to retain any reverence for thofe books, if we ima-
" gine they are written in a ftyle fo full of approaches
" to the deifying of a mere man, that without a very
" critical Studying of languages and phrafes," (and we
might add, upon Mr. Lindfey's authority, and the
cuftom of other rational Christians, a fubfiitution of fome
meaning very remote from the found of the words ufed,)
" it is not poffible to underftand them otherwife. Ido-
" latry

416 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
" latry and a plurality of Gods feem to be the mairl
" things that the Scriptures warn us againft ; and yet
" here is a purfued thread of paffages and difcourfes,
" that do naturally lead a man to think that Chrift is
" the true God ; who yet, according to thofe who de-
" ny his divinity, only acted in his name, and has now
" a high honour conferred on him by God."
Bifhop Newton is alfo reproached by Mr. Lindfey
for expreffing his belief, that the Socinians and Unita
rians were of that defcription of heretics, whom St. Pe
ter alludes to, 2 Peter ii. 1. and whom he charges with
the fin of denying the Lord that bought them : for the
Socinians neither admit the divinity of Chrift, nor ac
knowledge that he made atonement for our fins. But
this, fays Mr. Lindfey, is a miftake of the Bifhop's.
" The Apoftle fpeaks not of Chrift, but of God ; for it
" is not the ufual language of Scripture concerning
" Chrift, that he bought or redeemed us." This is
really very extraordinary Criticifm. Who was " the
" Lord'that bought us," but " the Son of man, who gave
" his life a ranfom for us ?" Matth. xx. 28. Mark x. 45.
The " one Mediator, the man Chrifi Jefus, who gave him-
" Jelf a ranfom for all." 1 Tim. ii. 5. 6. But Mr. Lind
fey fays it was God who bought us. Well then ; the
Son of man in Matthew and Mark, and the one Mediator
in Timothy, muft have been God : and fuch is the real
amount of Mr. Lindfey's argument againft Bifhop New
ton. No doubt, had the Bifhop undertaken to prove
the divinity of Chrift from the above paffages of the
two Evangelifts and St. Paul, Mr. Lindfey would not
have failed to point out to us, that it was only " the
" Son of Man," the Man Chrift Jefus," who paid the
ranfom. The fact is, it was paid by Chrift Jefus, who
was truly Man. Mr. LindSey fays, it was paid by God,
and the Trinitarians maintain, that Jefus Chrift was
truly God alfo. Where then is the difference between
us ? Mr. Lindfey fays it is the ufual language of Scrip
ture, that God bought and redeemed us : St. Matthew,
St. Mark, and St. Paul affure us, that Chrift Jefus, the
Son of Man, paid the ranfom : what muft we infer r I
do not mean to make Mr. Lindfey a Trinitarian againft
his own confent ; I only mean to fuggeft, that the di
lemma he has here brought himfelf into Seems to be a
Strong

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 417
ftrong cafe for the application of his Biblical Criticifm,
by which the found of the words ufed requires to be
confidered, and reprefented as very remote from the
writer's real meaning ; where nothing lefs than a forced
videlicet can poffibly extricate him.
Mr. Lindfey, p. 254, laments the confequences of
Socinus's inveterate opinion concerning the propriety
of invoking Chrift, and cenfures the Racovian Cate-
chifms for adopting the error. The compilers, he fays,
were miftaken, in alleging, that Chriftians are ever>de-
fcribed in the New Teftament as thofe that called upon
the name bf the Lord Jefus. All the paffages that are
fo rendered fliould, fays Mr. Lindfey, have been trans
lated, " thofe that were called by the name of Jefus."
He inftances Acts ix. 14. 21. and 1 Cor. i. 2. If Mr.
Lindfey can find an authority for determining the figni
fication of tsj eitrx.a,\au,svss to ovopa. to he paffive in thefe
places, his Criticifm might be liftened to : but at the
very beft, he could only depend on the verb being
fometimes ufed actively, and fometimes paffively :
¦whereas we have againft him the authority of many
moft eminent critics ; we have the example of the
LXX, who have uniformly eitiY.xXei§scu to ovopo;, tS Kujis,
to exprefs the invocation of God; we have Mr. Lind
fey's own acknowledgment, that in the cafe of Stephen
it is ufed actively, and that he certainly died " calling
^f upon the name of the Lord Jefus ;" and we have
the profane teftimony of Pliny to the cuftom of invok
ing Chrift among the primitive Chriftians, whom he
defcribes as " addreffing themfelves in prayer to Chrift
" quafi Deo." The great Mr. Locke has been charged
•with a wilful endeavour SsXeoeiv urfoSscrei, by the fame
fort of Criticifm ; and Mr. Lindfey can fcarcely, I think,
efcape a fimilar imputation. See Wells's note on the
laft paffage cited by Mr. Lindfey, 1 Cor. i. 2. It fhould
be remarked, as the learned Dr. Wells obferves, that
the KjXkyovia., Acts vii. 5. indifputably determines the
fignification of em-ActXH^evov to be "calling.w/>ow," in the
cafe of Stephen. See Leigh and Parkburft, and confult
Bifhop Horfley' s Xllth Letter to Dr. Prieftley.,
Page 365. note (4)'.
I hope I, fhall not do M. Volney any injuftice, in the
remarks I have to offer upon the very extraordinary
E.e fufpi-

418 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
fufpicions he has expre'ffed concerning the real exiftence
of our bleffed Saviour. Living altogether in the coun
try, with no command of books, but fuch as my own
'fmall collection fupplies, I am obliged fometimes to
trud to tranflations, which may be faulty : and in this
particular inftance, I muft acknowledge, I -have only
an Englifh edition of his Ruins to confult ; a fpirited
tranflation certainly, and therefore perhaps correct.;
but without a name, and of a very ordinary appear
ance. Nor have I any opportunity of examining Some of
the many authorities to which M. Volney refers. I Shall
meddle with no more, therefore, than what I can im
mediately reply to : and if I miftake M. Volney's ar
guments, through any error in the tranflation I ufe, I
fhall hope to be excufed, when it is confidered, that as
it is my object to prevent the world from being milled
by the abufe of Criticifm, Criticifm is never more ab-
ufed, than when it is made the means of dazzling the
eyes of the vulgar, by cheap editions and officious
tranflations. I have briefly ftated in the Difcourfe the fum of M.
Volney's arguments concerning the origin of Chrifti
anity; in proof of which he alleges, in his note, that
there are abfolutely no other monuments of the exift
ence of Jefus Chrift, as a human being, than a paffage
in Jofephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 3 ; (it Should be
c. 4 ;) a fingle phrafe in Tacitus, Annul, lib. xv. c. 44;
and the Gofpels. The firft, he fays, is unanimoufly ac
knowledged to be apocryphal ; and the fecond is fo
vague, and fo evidently taken from the depofition of the
Chriftians before the tribunals, that it may be ranked in
the clafs of evangelical records. It remains to enquire,
of what authority are thefe records ? [i. e. the evange
lical records, or Gofpels.] " All the world knows,"
fays Faufius, who, though a Manichean, was one of
the moft learned men of the third century — " All the
" world knows, that the Gofpels were neither written
" by Jefus Chrift, nor his Apoftles ; but by certain un-
^;knqwn perfons, who rightly judging, that they fhould
"mot obtain belief reflecting things which they had
"not feen, placed at the head of their recitals the
" names of cotemporary Apoftles." For this piece of
evidence M. Volney cites Beaufobre, vol. i. and Bu-
rigni's

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 419
rigni's Hifl. des Apologifies de la Religion Chretienne.
The latter he calls a Sagacious writer, who bas demon-r
ftrated the abfolute uncertainty of thofe foundations of
the Chriftian religion. And thus he concludes, as I
have Slated in my Difcourfe, that " the exiftence of Je-
" fUs is no better proved, than that of Ofiris and Her-
" cules, Fot or Bedou;" " with whom," fays M. de
Guignes, " the Chinefe continually confound him, for
" they never call Jefus by any other name than Fot/'
Hifl. des Huns. As to this laft circumftance mentioned
by M. de Guignes, which M. Volney feems to depend
on a good deal ; I muft juft flop to obferve, that the
name and religion of F6t, or Foe, in China, is faid, ac
cording to that refpedtable Orientalift Renaudot, to have
been introduced into China by an embaffy, which had
been fent from thence to difcover the Prophet of the Weft,
whom Confucius had feen iu vifion, and foretold. But,
inftead of profecuting their jqurney weftward beyond
India, they conceived Fot to be the Prophet they were
in fearch of, and fo returned:, introducing his name and
worfhip, idolatry, and the doctrine of the transmigra
tion of fouls, inftead qf Chriftianity, which they might
have imported; for this event is faid to have taken place
thirty-five years after the death of our Saviour. See
Renaudot's edition of two Arabic accounts of China,
written in the ninth century; and Couplet's Chronolo
gical Abridgment.
Now if, according to M. Volney's method of Criti
cifm, a vulgar error of the Chinefe is to be brought
forward as a proof againft the fact of Chrifl's real ex
iftence, the tradition juft referred to is, I think, fully
entitled to as much credit. How much more credit it
is entitled to, I do not pretend to fay ; but why it may
not ferve to account for the mifnomer alluded to, I fee
no reafon whatever: and the work I take it from,
though not the fiory, is referred to by M. Volney him
felf. To proceed to M. Volney's only evidences, or
monuments of the exiftence of Jefus Chrift. The ce
lebrated paffage in Jofephus has never been unanimoufily
pronounced to be apocryphal ;; but this is a trifle : it
has certainly been fufpected, and too much fo to be
brought forward as any decifive proof one-way or the
e e 2 other;

420 NOTES TO SERMON VIE
other; though we have lately feen its authenticity in-
lifted upon, by a critic as vifionary, I think, as M. Vol
ney. See Jones's Developement of Facts, and Analyfis of
the Epiftle to the Romans. But if. the paffage is. apocry
phal, if Jofephus has fupplied us with no decifive ac
count of the life and miniftry of our Lord, I think it
has been proved, that, fo far from his filence being any
demonftration of Chrifl's non- exiftence, it is a particular
proof that he did exift; for the report of his exiftence, of
his miracles, &c. muft have been prevalent when Jofe
phus wrote ; and there is much reafon to think, had fuch
reports not been true, he mufi have had many motives to
prove them to have been falfe. See Bifhop Berkeley' s Mi-
nutePhilofopher,~D\a\. vi. 295, 296. Jenkins Reafonablenefs
qf Chriftianity, vol. i. 311, 312. and Profeffor Bullet's
Jewifh and Heathen Teftimonies; where this is admirably
Shewn. But M. Volney does not feem to have known,
that in two other paffages Jofephus fpeaks firft of James
the brother of Chrift, tov dSeXcpbv ta 'lycrS ts Xeyopkvs Xoire,
and of John the Baptift; both pretty ftrong acknow
ledgments of his human exiftence.— Let us proceed tb
Tacitus. Tacitus by no means himfelf refers us to the deposi
tions of the Chriftians : what he particularly affirms of
Chrift might juft as probably, if not more probably, be
derived from the public records, of Rome, and perhaps
from the reprefentations of Pontius Pilate himfelf. His
words are, not that the Chriftians only afferted this of
Chrift, but as a well known matter of fact ; "Auctor
" nominis ejus, Chriftus ; (qui) Tiberio imperante, per
" procuratorem Pontium Pilatum fupplicio affectus e-
" rat." The account he gives at the fame: time ofthe
character of the Chriftians could never be derived
from their own depofitions; and what is more, fo far
from faying he learnt their name only from themfelves^
he exprefsly fays, the vulgar, that is, the common peo
ple of Rome, called them Chriftians. " Quos— valgus
" Chriftianos appellabat." And then follows the reafon
of this appellation ; which, as he was writing for pof-
terity, and regarded Chriflianity only as a vain and
pernicious fuperftition, (exitiabilis fuptrftitio,) which
would fcon come to an end, was both proper and ne
ceffary.

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 421
ceflary. But the allufion to Chrift is fuch as, I think,
to leave no poffible doubt of Tacitus's own belief of
the fact of his human exiftence.
As to the teftimony of the Gofpels, if we had no
other means of tracing their authenticity and their real
character, as hiftorical records, I muft confefs I Should
be ftrongly inclined to queftion the opinion of that
Fauftus the Manichean of the third century, whom M.
Volney has fingled out ; efpecially when he tells us, all
the world knew they were fpurious. It is true, he cites
Beaufobre and M. Burigni. I wifh I had their works
to examine, becaufe I much queftion if Beaufobre could
mention this opinion of Fauftus, without fome notice of
its extravagance : at all events I fhould expect to find
fuch a mark put upon it by M. Burigni, if he really is
fo fagacious a writer as M. Volney pretends. But I
have not their works by me, and I muft fay I do really
not think it worth while to go much out of my way,
either to verify or refute any criticifm of M. Volney's.
But -M. Volney totally fuppreffes the evidence of the
primitive Fathers. Why fb ? Does he include them
among Fauftus's " whole world," who knew the Gof
pels to be fpurious ? Tacitus, it feems, was no lefs, pro
bably, than an Evangelifl; and yet the primitive Fathers,
who had all been either Jews or Pagans, are not no
ticed, except indeed in one inftance to give their tefti
mony rather againft Chrift. Now it fhould be remem
bered, that their evidence has generally been accounted
particularly valid, becaufe they were not originally E-
vangelifts, but converts. They themfelves claim to be
trufted, in making profelytes, as having been manifedly
themfelves overcome by the weight of evidence : " De
" veftris primus," fays Tertullian; " fiunt non nafcun-
" tur Chridiani." And Judin Martyr with great anima
tion, in his Cohortation to the Greeks, exclaims, "ExQere,
ntaiSevSyte- yeve&e cu; eyur oti xdyui rjiLtjV w; ufieTf. But if
their declarations concerning Chrid and his religion are
to be fufpected, furely their appeals are not. No writer,
much lefs an apologid, would appeal to records in the
hands of their enemies, if no fuch records ever exified :
but Tertullian and Juftin Martyr make fuch appeals :
fee the former, adver. Marcion. lib. iv. c. 7. 36. et ad-
ver. Jud. c. 9. Apolog. c. 21. and Juftin. I Apolog. ad
e e 3 Antonin.

422 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
Antomn. Pium, p. 59. edit. Sylburg. 1593- They make
fuch appeals to prove the birth, death, and refurrection
of Chrifi ; they appeal to the public records of Rome ;
to the reports of Pontius Pilate; records, which St.
Chryfofiom tells us were in being when he wrote, 4©o
years after the birth of Chrift ; In Chrifti Natal, tom. v.
edit. Sav. The cenfual Tables at Rome bore evidence
not only to his birth, but that he was, as the Prophets
foretold he fhould be, (%a,td a-ap-Ad,) of the lineage of
David, and that he was born at Bethlehem. Julian^
who had the Roman archives in his keeping, and in
his power, neither queftioned the truth of our Saviour's
life and miracles, nor refuted what Tertullian and Juftin
bad afferted of them. To which we may add, that Juf
tin Martyr had to do with Crefcens, the Cynic philo
fopher, whom he challenged to difpute the caufe of
Chriftianity with him, before the Senate of Rome. We
cannot well doubt, therefore, but he. would, be correct
in his appeals, and confident in fuch challenge. See
Jenkin' s Reafonablenefs of Chriflianity, and Addifon's E-
vidences of the' Chriftian Religion.
M. Volney's object, in 'thus endeavouring to fet afide
the human exiftence of Jefus Chrift, is, as I have dated
in the Sermon, in order to be able to perfuade us, that
he was no other than the Indian Vichenou, and that
the Hindu and Chridian Trinities are identical, and
equally fabulous. His account is really io extraordi
nary, that I cannot give it in any words but his own :
it begins as far back as the fall of man, which he con
fidently affures us is only an adronomical legend. "All
" the pretended perfonages mentioned in the Penta-
' " teuch, from Adam to Abraham, or his father Terah,
" are, it feems, mythological beings ; dars, condella-
" tions, countries. Adam is Bootes ; Noah is Ofiris,
" Xithuthrus, Janus, Saturn; that is to fay, Capricorn,
" or the celedial genius that opened the year. Ac-
" cordingly, when we read, that in the beginning a
" man and a woman had by their fall brought Sin and
" evil into the world, we are to underftand the celeftial
" virgin, or conftellation Virgo, and the herdfman Bqo4
" tes, who fetting heliacally at the autumnal equinox,
" refigned the heavens to the wintry conftellations,
" and feemed, in finking below the horizqn, to ihtro-
• " duce

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 423
" duce into the world the genius of evil, Ahrimanes,
" reprefented by the conftellation of the Serpent. By
** the woman Seducing the man, we have a lively
" image of the Virgin fetting before Bootes, and ap-
" pearing to draw him after her," &c. &c. Nothing
but M. Volney's great celebrity could have induced
me tq copy fo far ; I muft contract the remainder as
well as I can. " The fruit, by which man was feduced,
" is the bundvof fruit, (in fact the ear of corn,) which
" the Virgin holds in her hand. The cherub placed
" at the entrance of the garden of Eden is the riling
" of Perfeus, fword in hand, on the oppofite fide of the
" heavens, as ths Virgin and Bootes fet. The offspring
" of woman, foretold to crufh the ferpent's head, &c.
" is the Sun, which, at the period of the fummer foU
" dice, at the precife moment that the Perfian Magi
" drew the horofcope of the new year, found itfelf in
" the bofom. of the Virgin ; and which, on this ac-
" cqunt, was reprefented in their aftrological. pictures
" in the form of an infant fuckled by a chafte virgin ;
" and afterwards became, at the vernal equinox, the
" Ram, or Lamb, conqueror of the condellation ofthe
" Serpent, which difappeared from the heavens." We
¦have now proceeded far enough to be able to compre
hend', if it is really comprehenfible, the curious etymo
logical proof M. Volney advances of our Saviour's hav
ing been no other than a fanciful; fymbol of the Sun.;
which it feems, among the many adrological and myf-
terious names bedowed on it, was called fometimes
Chris, or Gonfervator; and hence the Hindu God Chris-
en, or Chrifina; and the Chriftian Chriftbs, the Son "of
Mary. For, fays he, the Greeks ufed to exprefs by X,
or Spanifh iota, the afpirated ha of the Orientals, who
faid haris, in Hebrew heves, flgnifies the Sun ; but in
Arabic the meaning of the radical word is, to guard,
topreferve; and oi haris, guardian and preferver. It
is the proper epithet of Vichenou; which demqnfirates
at once the identity of the Indian and Chriftian Trini
ties, and their common origin. It is manifeftly but one
fyftem ; its principal trunk is the Pythagorean fyftem
of the foul of the world, or lou-Piter^ The epithet Piter,
or Father, having been applied to the Demiourgos of
Pktto, gave- rife, to an ambiguity, which caufed an en-
e 64  quiry

424 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
quiry to be, made refpecting the fon of this father: ia
the opinions of the philofophers the fon was under
ftanding, Nous or Logos, from which the Latins had
their Verbum. — We may obferve farther, he concludes,
that if Chris comes from Harifch with a Schin, it will
fignify artificer, an epithet belonging to the Sun. Thefe
variations, which muft have embarraffed the ancients,
prove it to be the type of Jefus, as has been already
remarked, in the time of Tertullian : " Many," fays
this writer, ' " fuppofe, with greater probability, that
" the Sun is our God, and they refer us to the. religion
" of the Perfians." Apologet. c. xvi.
I have already Stated in the Sermon, that Tertullian
mentions not a word of Chriftos being a type of the
Sun. He certainly does ftate two. caufes for the error
he alludes to, which, it muft be confeffed, were plaufi-
ble enough ; namely, that they prayed to the Eaft,
'{ denique inde fufpicio, quod innotuerit nos ad orien-
" tern precari ;" and that the Sunday was a feftival
with them, but which he exprefsly denies to have been
at all connected with the worShip of the Sun. " iEque
" fi Diem Solis laetitiae indulgemus, alia longe ratione
" quam religione Solis, &c." For an account of the
cuiftom of praying to the Eaft, fee Bingham's Antiquities,
b. xiii. c.8. That no idolatry was intended by it we may
be fure ; fee the anfwer particularly directed to be
given to Heathens by the author of the Queftions to
Antiochus, under the name of Athanafius, Quaft. 37. —
One of the greateft abominations which the Prophet
Ezekiel is reprefented to have feen, when he was car
ried in a vifion to Jerufalem, was tbe apoftafy of certain
ofthe Jews, who turning their backs towards the Temple
of God, directed their faces to the Eaft, and worshipped
the Sun; fee Ezekiel viii. 16. and Prideaux on the paffage
in the ivth book of the ift Part of his Connection. This
may appear to be a proper reafon for the anfwer above
directed to be given to the Heathen, if not for the ce
remony itfelf : for as the anfwer feems to imply that
there was an obvious neceffity for giving glory to God
as the Creator, and true Light ofthe world, in. opposi
tion to thofe who worshipped the created light ofthe Sun,;
fo the Prophet Malachi's appellation ofthe Sun qfRightr
eoufnefs would feem to be exprefsly oppofed to the vifi ble

NOTES TO SERMON VII; 425
ble fountain of light. Juftin Martyr (Dial, cum Try
phone, p. 274. edit. Sylburg) particularly draws a com-
parifbn between the believers in Chrift, and the idola
trous worfhippers ofthe Sun. Formerly, fays he, God
fuffered men to worfhip the Sun ; but nobody at any time
was known to fuffer death fooner than renounce their
faith in the Sun : but for the name of Jefus fome of all
nations have been found to fuftain all kinds of fuffer-
ings and punifhments, fooner than be brought to
deny him. Therefore is it that David fays, To ovoua,
ATTOT eif tbv cuuivtx.' uvea tbv rjXtov dvciteXei. Pf. lxxii. 17.
Vulg. ¦" Sit nomen ejus benedictum in fecula. Ante
" Solem permanet nomen ejus;" which agrees with
the LXX. St. . Cyril of Jerufalem, in his vith Cate
chetical Difcourfe, fpeaks of fome who took, not
Chrift for the Sun, as M. Volney would do, but the
Sun for the Chrift ; tbv Se Xotrbv tbv -tjxiov tovtov xaXovcriv.
But thefe were of thofe who acknowledged two princi
ples, and therefore Cyril Shews their inconfiftency in
allowing the Chrift to be the fon of the good principle,
and, yet confounding him with the Sun, apart of this
world, which, according to them, proceeded from the
bad principle. In his xith Lecture he alludes again to
the Same herefy, <piiMi6oS'u>cra,v ol Xeyovte; tbv ijAiov eivou tbv
Xptrov iJAi'ov ydp ks-i Sr^ioupya;, ovx '° faw (paivoiieyos.
I wonder M. Volney, in the difpofition he was in to
prove our Saviour to haVe been no more than the Sup,
fliould fix upon an etymological quibble, which totally
betrays his caufe, when he might certainly have de
duced a more plaufible argument from the circum
ftances juft alluded to; which I have brought forward
merely to fhew, that his fufpicions appear to be, in
fome refpects, no new ones, but that the primitive Fa
thers were amply prepared to combat them.
That the Orientalifts fhould, at the firft introduction
of Chriftianity among them, miftake the origin and
meaning of the term Xpirbs, as it is evident the Ro
mans did, (fee Lactantius, lib. iv. 7O ls not to be won
dered : and perhaps this may have led to the inter
polation of the celebrated poem of the Bhagvat, and
the more eafy introduction of fome parts ofthe fpurious
Gofpels, as Sir William Jones fufpected/. fee his Paper
on the Gods of Greece, paly, and India, in the ift vol. of
the

425 NOTES TO SERMON VIL
the Afiatic Refearches: ' where, by the bye, he cenfureS
the Miffionaries for having given the Hindus ground tq
think that their Trinity was the fame as the Chriftian,
and ably points out the effential difference both of the
Hindu and of the Platonic Trinities. That fuch interpo
lations might be poffible, we may now the more readily
conclude, from the difcovery that Lord Teignmouth
has given us intimation of, in the Preface to his Life of
Sir William Jones; namely, that the celebrated and
very curious flory of Safcyavrata (in all refpects fo con
formable to the true hiftory of Noah) had been inter
polated into the Purana, which fell into the han«ls of
Mr. Wilford: an interpolation fo ingenioufly managed,
as to efcape the detection as well of Sir William Jones,
as of Mr. Wilford himfelf.
But whatever miftakes may have happened in time
paft, in regard to the derivation and true meaning of
the term Xpiroj, M. Volney can never be excufed as a
modern Critic, for the manner in which he has endea
voured to account for the name. As he pretends to be
converfant in the writings of Tertullian, he ought not
to appear to be ignorant, as he does in this inftance, of
the true and orthodox meaning ofthe term : for in his
treatife againft Praxeas, fpeaking of the very term, he
fays, " fi tamen nomen eft Chrifius-, et non appellatio
" potius; unctus enim fignificatur ;" in which he was
extremely right. Chrift is not a name, but a title;
" Chriftus non proprium nomen eft," fays Lactantius,
" fed nuncupatio poteftatis, et regni :" a paffage M.
Volney would do well to examine, becaufe it begins
with noticing the name as well as the title of our
bleffed Lord; " Jefus quippe inter homines nominatur;"
fee his Infiitut. lib. iv. c. 7. It is true, M. Volney does
not quite pafs over the name of Jefus, any more than
the title of Xpirb; ; for he remarks that Chrifios, the fon
of Mary, was at other times called Yds by the union
of three letters, which, according to their numerical
value, form the number of 608, one ofthe folar periods.
" And behold, O Europeans," fays the Orator, " the
" name which with a Latin termination has become
" your Yes-us, or Jefus; the ancient cabaliftical name
" given to young Bacchus, the clandeftine fon of the
" virgin Minerva, who in the whole hiftory of his life,
"and

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 427
"and even in his death, calls to mind the God of the
" Chriftians ; that is, the Star of the day, of which
" they are both of them emblems." It is odd enough,
that when M. Volney was fo bufy to find in the term
~X,$ts~o; a Confervator, or preferving power, that is, the
Indian Vichenou, he fhould not have made ufe of this
name of Jefus, for this literally is Confervator, upon the
moft claffical authority : it being the very word chofen
by Tacitus for rendering the Greek term Swnjp, which
every fcholar knows to be the exact equivalent of the
Hebrew j?iiyin*. But M. Volney was aware probably
that this would have overfet his argument; for, as Lac
tantius obferves, "Jefus inter homines nominator," this
name would have been rather too ftrong a proof of his
human exiftence; including both his human nature and
his faving power, according to Juftin Martyr, who ex
prefsly obferves, " 'lyo-H;, xa.) 'Av&f unis, xa) ~2tutrlpo;, ovojj-cx..
" xa.) (njpwiav 'i%ei." Apol. i. Befides, had he fixed upon
Jefus, Confervator, to prove the identity of the Chriftian
Logos and the Indian Vichenou, he muft have allowed
that there had been many Vichenou s among the Jews,
for this name of Jefus was in common ufe.
But at laft, to be ferious, as the 'fubject demands.
Though M. Volney might hold the Gofpels in con
tempt, it is no reafon why we fhould : and at all events,
when he chofe to criticife the Bible term of Xpirbs, he
fhould at leaft have allowed the Bible to explain it in
its own way. Now it happens that twice in the Bible
it is mentioned together with its own orthodox interpre
tation : in the firft the difciple Andrew informs Simon,
" 'E.u^-K.a.pev tbv Mecrcrlxv, o hri {J,eSe(;[x,y]vevb[i.evov h Xp<r»'f '
" We have found the Meffias, which is, being interpreted,
"the Chrifi." John i. 42. In the. fecond, the woman of
Samaria tells our Lord himfelf, " OXla. oti Me<rcria.$ spx£-
" rou, 6 Xey6[>.ev<& Xpiros' I know that Meffias cometh,
" who is called (otherwife, or by interpretation in the
" Greek tongue; Wells) Chrift." John iv. 25. Now
M. Volney had no right to pafs over this interpreta
tion. If it is not ignorance, it is Stratagem, to pretend
that the term Chriftos had any other derivation than is
here affigned to it : and as the Hebrew itS'D does not
anfwer to one of M. Volney's abfurd conceits, and the
Greek Xfiroy is a.literal translation, ¦(X«rof /«?, dirb to,
xe%p7crQa,if

4^8 NOTES TO SERMON VIL
xe%flTo-5ai, as Judin fays, and as rwn from the root nil'C,)
we can only regard M. Volney's attempt to fet afide
our Saviour's human exidence by the means of Criti
cifm, as a great abufe of time and of talents, and a
Shocking attempt to miSlead the unlearned, who always
deferve to be protected from fuch mifchievous defigns.
And the wifh to do this may, I hope, be admitted
as an excufe for my having dwelt fo long on a fobjecty
not otherwife deferving of it, and in regard to which
the learned could not want any help.
I cannot however quite difhiifs M. Volney without
one or two more remarks. In a note, p. 135, the reader
is defired to obferve in general.* that in the pictures
drawn of the feveral religions of the earth, the writer
has endeavoured to give as accurately as poffible the
letter and fpirit ofthe opinions of each party. But I
muft maintain, that, in regard both to Judaifm and
Chriftianity, he has not kept even to the letter, much
lefs to the fpirit, of the facred books : of whieh S need
Select no other inftance than the very fird paraphrafe he
gives us. " In the beginning," fays he, " God (after
" having paffed an eternity without doing any thing)
" conceived at length the defign (without apparent
" motive) of forming the world out of nothing : that
" having in fix days created the whole univerfe, be
" found himfelf tired on the feventh. — " We cannot
wonder after this to find all the vulgar notions revived,
of the whole world being damned for eating an apple,
ofthe tyranny of God, &c. &c. Indeed M. Volney is
in no inftance more accurate than Mr. Paine, in his repre-
fentations of true and genuine Chrifiianity. M. Volney
acknowledges, that from a view of all the different fyf
tems of religion, notwithdanding their diflimilitude in
fome points, their refemblance in others was not lefs
flriking ; each claiming the fird depofit and the ori
ginal difcovery. Does not this' imply that there was a
firft-depofit ? and if fo, which is likely to be that firft
fyftem, the moft corrupt, or the moft pure? M. Volney
thinks the moft corrupt. But in M. Volney's view ofthe
progrefs of natural religion, he reduces it to the follow
ing heads :
I. Origin of the idea of God : worfhip of the ele
ments, and the phyfical powers of Nature. II. Worfhip

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 429
•II. Worfhip of the ftars, or Sabeifm.
III. Worfhip oi fymbols, or Idolatry.
IV. Worfhip of two principles, or Dualifm.
V. Myftical or moral worfhip, or the fyftems of a
future ftate.
VI. The animated world, or worfhip ofthe Univerfe
under different emblems.
VII, Worfhip oi fire, (the folar fire principally,) as
the foul or vital principle of the Univerfe.
VIII. The world a machine. WorShip of the De
miourgos, or Supreme Artificer.
M. Volney refers the whole to Egypt, and pretends
that Mofes drew from thence ; and though he admits,
that he meant to form a feparate religion, to the exclu
fion of fymbols, yet he finds in his God Jehovah, mrv,
or, as it is written in the tranflation I ufe, Yahouh, the
foul qf the world, and its fymbols in the fiery bufh. Nay,
he finds the very name of Ofiris in the fong of Mofes,
Deut. xxxii. to which very chapter of the Bible I
Should willingly refer the reader in proof of Mofes's
correct ideas of the God of heaven. But what can we
fay about Ofiris ? " Thefe," fays M. Volney, " are the
"literal expreffions of the book, of Deuteronomy,
?' ch. xxxii. The works of Tfiour are perfect. Now
" Tfour has been tranflated by the word Creator : its
'/ proper fignification is to give forms, and this is one
" of the definitions of Ofiris in Plutarch." Its proper
Signification is, I believe, fo far to give forms, that as
it fignifies a rock, and is as fuch, in the fong alluded to,
made an emblem of the fiability, might, and powerful
protection of God ; fo, as a piece of a rock or fharp ftone
was often ufed as a knife, it might in that feme give
forms : but I verily fee no other connection that can
be traced, and am f lire that the word, as applied in Deu
teronomy, has only the fenfe affigned to it above. See
Parkhurft under IS. M. Volney has much more on the
term Yahouh, but it is really too trifling to regard, I
fhall conclude with referring to the Hebrew Scriptures
in general, for a proof how carefully and particularly
the feveral errors of natural religion, ftated and enu
merated by M. Volney, were excluded by the religion
of the Jews ; as the worfhip of the elements, ftars, fym
bols, idols, the two principles, and the folar fire. I
need

430 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
need not point out the paffages ; it requires but little
pains to difcover them. £^375- note {$)•
All of whom are claimed at leaft by the Unitarians of
ihe prefent day, as the friends of their party.'] That is,
they would make them out tq be fuch, if they could ;
for though the differences fubfifting feem to be invin
cible, yet their general agreement in detracting from
the full divinity of our Saviour, conftantly entitles them
to a manifeft preference, when their opinions are com
pared with thofe Trinitarians who are commonly ftyled
Athanafians. This may be plainly feen in Mr. Lindfey's
Hiftorical View ofthe Unitarian Doctrine; from which I
have taken many of the names mentioned in the Dif
courfe. And though it is veryunpleafant to have to notice
perfon alities, yet Mr. Lindfey indulges in them with
Such freedom, and with fuch profeffions of impartiality,
that they certainly deferve to be noticed. He pretends to
lay it down as a canon of Criticifm, that " we have no
" grounds or pretentions whatfoever to affeft, that the
" religious perflations of others, whatever they be, are"
" efpoufed by them upon bad and interested views, and
" not owing to fincere conviction," p. 143 : and yet he
uniformly fpeaks of the Trinitarians as people of
" narrow prejudices," fee particularly p. 31 ; of " weak
" Superflition ;" as " idolaters," p. 3; and as interpret
ing Scripture with a " laboured partiality." And fpeak
ing of Bifhop Newton, he fays, " amidft thefe extolled
" popular writers, and learned men in high offices in
" the Church, the generality of Chriftians have little
" chance for coming at the knowledge of Chrifl's true
" character." But Socinus and Erafmus and Dr.
Clarke, &c. &c. though embracing doctrines very re
mote from the prefent Unitarian faith, are invariably
learned and worthy, pious and fincere. But to come
to the fubject of this note. Mr. Lindfey is pofitive
that the Scriptures reprefent our Saviour as having
been " in all refpects a human creature ;" that is, that
the mere humanity of Chrift is undoubtedly the doc
trine of the New Teftament. Surely then it muft be
matter qf reafonable furprife to Trinitarians, that this
Should

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 43x
fhould feem not to have been at all clear, even to thofe
who have been held to deny his proper divinity. Mr.
Lindfey has noticed thefe errors of his friends in the
work alluded to; and indeed it well became him to en
deavour to account for them in fome way or other.
From his own ftatement then, it appears, that Socinus
held, that " befides the one only true God of the He-
" brew Church, the Chriftian Church acknowledges
" another true God, namely, the Man Jefus of Nazareth,
" called the Chrift, who in the reigns of Auguftus and
" Tiberius was firft born, exhibited and made known
" to the world, and had then the Divine Majefty heT
" flowed upon him, by the- Creator of heaven and
" earth." This is Mr. Lindfey's tranflation of So-
cinus's own words, which he allows are more extraor
dinary in him than in an anonymous writer he cites di
rectly afterwards, and whom he alfo claims as an Uni
tarian; but who, with Socinus, was an advocate for the
worfhip of Chrift, and who went fo far as to propofe
the following as Specimens of a becoming mediatorial
worfhip of Chrift. " I worfhip thee, the mod high
" and independent God." And again, (which I think
no Trinitarian ever arrived to,) " I bow the knee be-
" fore thee, the immortal God, who waft filain, and haft
"redeemed me to God by thy blood: to thee be glory
" for ever." — " I do not wonder," fays Mr. Lindfey,
" that this worthy perfon, who appears convinced that
" prayer is to be addreffed to Jefus Chrift as a great pre-
" exiflent Being, but not the Supreme, fhould neverthe-
" lefs fo frequently ftyle him God ; and fometimes be
" drawn, as in thefe inftances, to fpeak of him in lan-
" guage that can properly be ufed only of him, who is
" the only true God." Now we muft confefs we are
equally furprifed at both, (if the mere humanity of
Chrift is the plain and evident doctrine of Scrip
ture,) that Socinus and this anonymous writer, who
are thought to be more than nominal Unitarians,
Should either have fuppofed from the words of Scrip
ture, that Chrift was to be. invoked in prayer, or that
he was, in any fenfe ofthe words, a true God. We are
equally furprifed, if the mere humanity of Chrift is
the plain doctrine qf Scripture, that fo learned and
pious a Divine as Dr. Clarke fhould ever have thought " the

433 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
" the fame Perfon, who, according to St. John, in the
" fulnefs of time was made man, and dwelt among us,
" did before dwell with God, acted in the capacity of a
" divine Perfon, as the vifible image qf the invifibte
" God, by whom God made all things, and by whom
" all things were from the beginning tranfacted be-
" tween God and the creature." It does not fatisfy
us to be told by Mr. Lindfey, that Dr. Clarke "did not
" enough confider the objections which lay againft fuch
" an interpretation."
Ruarus is another perfon claimed by Mr. Lindfey as
an Unitarian, and yet he fcruples not to conclude an
epiftle with Romans ix. 5. " May the Lord Jefus,
" who is God over all bleffed for ever, pardon my
" dulnefs." The Latin of this laft paffage does not
appear; but of one immediately preceding we have the
Latin in a note, which runs thus : " Si hoc eft crimen
" meutn, faecul'o contra ivifle, id mihi tecum ipfo'commu-
" ne Iagtor, et cum omnibus viris probis, cum fanctis
" Apoftolis, cum ipfo Domino ae Deo meo Jefu Chrido."
M. Ruari Epifiolis, vol. ii. p. 86. •>
.Bifhop Hoadley obtains Mr. Lindfey's praife for his
forms of prayer, which never conclude with any re-
queft to God for Chrifl's fake. But after , befto wing
this commendation, he laments, that the Bifhop after
wards adopts fome of the prayers of the Liturgy 'which
end fo, and one particularly which concludes, "through
" Jefus Chrift our Lord; to whom, with thee, and the
" Holy Ghoft, be all honour and glory, world without
" end." Much of Mr. Lindfey's book is taken up with an
account of Mr. Tucker, now well known to be the
author of " The Light of Nature purfued," published
under the fictitious name of Search. Mr. Lindfey af-
fures us he was a fincere Chriftian, and a firm believer of
the Divine Unity ; and I fee no reafon to difpute it. If
he was not a believer,; alfo of the Trinity, I am much
miftaken, if his confent to this doctrine is to be mea-
fured by the difficulties he found to evade it. Mr.
Lindfey acknowledges he was driven tq adopt " in-
" genious contrivances and refinements :" and fo I
think any one will believe, when he is told, that, in or
der to get rid of the Trinity, he conceives the Scrip tures

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 433
tures to reprefent God under a triple defcription, £s
one fupreme Being acting in three different characters,
Father, Son, and Spirit : he fpeaks alfo of " the divine
" operations being performed by three Perfona (Per-
" fons) in one God, not jointly, but each having a
" diitinct Share in them." " The union with man-
" hood, and all done in virtue of that union was the
" work of the Son : the affiftance afforded occafionally
" to men in general was the province of the Holy
" Spirit ; and all the reft of the Father." There is
much more to the fame effect ; but I Shall State but one
more expreffion : " It appears," fays he, " that Jefus
" was a real man, like unto us in all refpects, fin
" only, excepted; and that the Divinity united to him,
" which together with his human foul and body com>-
" pofed one Chrifi, was the fupreme Being fubftan-
" tially and imfeparably prefent with, him, fupplying all
" imperfections in the created parts." How much is
it to be lamented, fays Mr. Lindfey, that this worthy
aird leaarned man Should adopt fucb language, when
he only intended to fay, that the Man. Chrift- Jefus
had extraordinary powers and affiftances from God
above all other men 1 We know not what Mr.
Tucker intended to fay : we know what he has faid.
We believe that he was juftly accounted worthy ; and
of his learning we have ample proofs'. Can it then be
fuppofed, that Mr. Tucker confidered the tenets of
modern Unitarians to be altogether confident with
the plain- and evident language of the Scriptures'?
Could he conceive that the doctrine of the Trinity has
no more foundation in the Scriptures than- tliat of
Tranfubftantiation? In regard to the atonement he
trifles in a way unbecoming the ferioufnefs of the fub
jedt,. and not confiftent with his general character.
His object Mr. Lindfey reprefents to have been, to
give to the Trinitarian Sbrmis of worfhip in the
eftablifhed Church, an Unitarian meaning. But as
there is no doubt but, that he meant to keep' within
the terms of the Scripture language, it mud be evi
dent how much the latter may be held to fupport or
countenance the Trinitarian interpretation, Unitarians
themfelves being judges. Dr. Prieflley's xviith ch.
of his ivth book of the Early Opinions concerning
F f ' Chrift

434 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
Chrift may alfo be confulted : his Philofophical Uniia*
rians were certainly much perplexed by the Scriptural
expreffions concerning Chrift. See alfo the Slid Part of
Edwards's Prefervat'ive againfi Socinianifm.
Page 376. note (6).
Efpecially when, as in the former cafe, our Saviour did
not deny the propriety qf the inference they had drawni]
Amidft the multiplicity of texts and paffages, which
have been made the fubject of difpute and controverfy,
in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, if I was re
quired to fix upon thofe, on which the doctrine might
be moft faid to depend, I fliould certainly felect this
representation of our Saviour's conduct with the Jews,
as the moft ftriking, and one which no Socinian Criti
cifm which has fallen in my way has appeared at all
capable of fetting afide. And I am the more affured it
is a difficulty they never can get over, from one of the
reafons ftated by the celebrated M. Abauzit, who was
certainly too acute to ufe fuch an argument, but in de-
faultof all others. He conjectures, that our Saviourwould
probably have explained himfelf more fully, had not
the Jews taken up flones to call at him, and by fo do
ing obliged our bleffed Lord to retire; " oblige Jefus.
" Chrifi a fie retirer." Now it is remarkable, that our
Saviour did explain himfelf, notwithftanding the Jews
eaft flones at him, and even "fought to kill him:" and
in fo doing, fo far from Shrinking from the charge of
making himfelf equal with God, or explaining away
his former declarations, he only increafed the fufpicions
of the Jews the more, and aggravated their wrath
againft him : fee John v. and x. Befides, at his trial he
was not perfonally affaulted, or at all molefted, when
he was required to anfwer to the charge of blafphemy
preferred by the High Prieft. He muft have known
that any acknowledgment of his being the Son of God,
in the Jewifh fenfe of the terms, would fubject him to
the penalty of death ; and yet he never denied it. It is
not furprifing that the argument to be drawn from this
circumftance of our Lord's conduct fliould have been
fo often and fo much infifted on. The true merits of
the cafe are admirably ftated in Bifhop Burgefs's Ser
mon preached before the Univerfity of Oxford in 1790,
entitled,

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 435
entitled, " The Divinity qf Chrifi proved from his own De-
" claralions, attefied and interpreted by his Uving Wit*
" nefifes the Jews." I muft acknowledge, that the argu
ments there ufed, had I not been previoufly affured of it,
would have abundantly fatisfied my mind of the proprie
ty of regarding this as the fundamental proof of the doc
trine of Chrift'sDivinity. See alfo Leflie' 's Socinian Contro-
verfy,D\a\.\\l. and Bp. Stilling flee I on Scripture Myfteries;
Enchirid. Theolog. vol. ii. 326. See alfo Fuller's Socinian
and Calviniftic Syftems compared, Letter III. where it is
exceedingly well argued againft the modern Unita
rians, who reprefent the doctrine of the Trinity to be
the main obftacle in the way ofthe converfion of Jews,
Heathens, and Mahometans, (an old charge often re
futed,) that if our Saviour's Divinity is a ftumbling-
block to modern Jews, they muft greatly differ from
their anceftors ; for they appear to have always attached
the idea of equality to that oifonfhip in refpect of God :
and the blafphemy of which they accufed our Lord was
not that of any infringement ofthe divine Unity, 01?
Polytheifm ; but that he, as Jefus of Nazareth, pre
tended to be the Son qf God: " For a good work we
" ftone thee not, but for blafphemy; and becaufe thou,
" being a man, makest thyself God." John
x- 33-
Page %>]%. note (7).
The interpretations I have put upon what are com
monly called the damnatory claufes of the Athanafian
Creed, I conceive to be ftrictly juftifiable from the very
words ofthe Creed. The firft claufe only.ftates the
value and importance of the Catholic Faith, as before all
other things neceffary to falvation. The fecond re
prefents the extreme danger of abandoning that Faith
when once instructed in it, of fuffering any fuperfti-
tious additions to be made to it, or in allowing it to
be defiled by any idolatrous abominations. It is only
applicable to Chriftians already in the profeffion ofthe
Faith, as the expreffions fhew. " Ante omnia opus eft
" ut teneat Catholicam Fidem." And again, " Quam
" nifi quis integrum fervav erit." " Rogo et 'admoneo
".vos, fratres cariffimi," fays Csefarius, (Bifhop of Aries
in 503,) " utquicunque vult falvus effe, Fidem rectam et
" Catholicam difcat, firmiter teneat, inviolatamque con-
Ffa " fervet."

436 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
" fervet." The lad claufe of the Creed in its native
language, as the learned Waterland calls it, runs,
" Hsec eft Fides Catbolica, quam nifi quifque fideliter>,
"firmiterque crediderit, falvus effe non potent :" with
which he parallels the following paffage from St.
Auftin ; " Cavete dilectiffimi, ne quis vos ab Ecclefise
" Catholicse Fide ap xxnitate feducat. Qui enim vobis aJU
" ter evangelizaverit pra?terqu.am quod accepiftis, ana*
" thema fit." Augufi. tom. v. 592. So alfo we are
told in claufe 27. "That it is neceffary we believe
" rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jefus Chrift."
For, fays Dr. Waterland, to corrupt and deprave this
doctrine is to defeat, and fmftrate, in a great meafure,
the whole Gofpel of Chrift, which bringeth falvation.
Compare Heb, x. 38, 39. Upon the two firft claufes,
Profeffor Jenkin fays, " But this fuppofes, jhat he hath
" already attained, or is able to attain to the know-
" ledge which is neceffary to Faith ; for no man can
" hold that Faith, the general knowledge whereof he
" cannot attain." See more on, the Athajnafian Creed,
in the 2d vol. of his Reafonablmefs. qf the Chriftian Re
ligion, p. 439.
Creeds and Catecbifms. appear to have given fuch
qffenpe to many, who choqle to regard them as ira-
tolerable refirictions, and only of human invention-,
that 1 am inclined to agree with Dr. Waterland,
that it would perhaps have been better if the more
ancient title of this Creed in particular had been re
tained ; Expofitio Catbolica; Fidei ; Expofitio Symhqli
Apofiolorum: for it is undoubtedly nothing more than,
an explanation ofthe true Trinitarian Faith,, contained,
in the fhortpr Summary of the Apoftles' Creed; an
explanation, every word of which perhaps was imme
diately oppofed to prrors prevalent, in fome Shape or
qther," when it was firft cqmpofed : for as it would not
have been neceffary, fo it probably never would haye
been thought of, but for the prevalence and inveteracy
of thqfe very errors. It would be eafy even now tq
point out the feveral fpecific heretical doctrines of anti-.
quity, which it expEeSsly oppofes : but I much dqubt i£
rnodern times are free from the very errors alluded to».
though diftinguifhed by different marks, and. different
appellations, Amqng the Anti-Trinitarians ofthe pre sent

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 437
fent day, though how generally reduced to Socinians and
Simple Unitarians ; fo little in agreement are they one
with another, fo much perplexed do they all appear tq
be in their expofitions of the Scripture, and fo embar-
raffed by the literal terms, that I doubt whether there
are not ftill among them, as of old, Arians, Pelagians,
Semi-Pelagians, Eutychians, and perhaps every divifion
and fubdivifion of every different herefy of ancient
times. It is well therefore riot to abandon this " Pro-
" pugnaculum Primi Symboli Apofiolici," as Luther calls
it. I am forry it gives offence to the ignorant and un
learned : but indeed I think it is only to the ignorant
and unlearned that it need give offence. And though
it may be thought that no flumblmg-block fliould be
laid in the way ofthe unlearhed; yet I am affured, that
if this Profeffion of Faith was to be withdrawn, it would
be the occafion of many worfe ftumbling-blocks being
laid in their way. It would be made a caufe of triumph
to thofe who have gained no victory ; and a great caufe
of diflrufi to thofe who, having never been deceived, may
not, without great hazard to themfelves, and great de
triment to the caufe qf truth, be encouraged to entertain
fufpicions of it. This Profeffion of Faith excludes none
from falvation but thofe who will not be laved. No
body will be faved hereafter but by Chrift ; and that
according to the Gofpel-terms of falvation, whether
known or unknown. To be acquainted with thofe
terms is no indifferent matter : it is, in fact, tq be no
longer in darknefs in regard to man's greateft glory
and chiefbft good; and therefore cannot but be " be-
" fore all things" defirable; as a practical obedience to
themj after they are known, muft be " before all things
" neceffary." We may know from the expreffions of
thofe who ftill impugn the doctrines of the Trinity and
Incarnation, what a very ferious and important dif
ference there is between us. They interpret the Scrip
tures fo, as to fancy it to be idolatry to worfhip Chrift
and the Holy Ghoft : we interpret them fo, as to be
lieve, that if Chrift was not God, and to all intents
and purpofes " One with the Father," he was a blaf-
phemer ; as the Jews^ upon the fame evidence, of his
own conduct and declarations, concluded. They will
not unite with us^ for fear of being held to worfhip
Ff3 the

438 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
the creature as much as the Creator: we will not unite
with them, for fear of being guilty of denying the
Lord who bought us, and withholding from the Son
that honour which he himfelf affured us was due to him.
The fpirit of the damnatory claufes is truly Scriptural,
provided the doctrine ofthe Creed is fo: and as we be
lieve the latter, we cannot inculcate it better, than in the
ftrong terms of the Gofpel, that fo the confidences
of men may be awakened, and their fears raifed, and
feducers have the lefs hold of them. None will queftion
or difpute the merciful charity of the bleffed Jefus;, and
yet in his holy Gofpel there is mention but of two
ways, one leading unto deftruction, the other bringing
unto life, (Matth. vii. 13, 14;) of two forts of men,
whereof fome believe, and they are faved; fome believe
not, and they are damned, (Mark xvi. 16. John iii.
18;) and of two ftates, one bleffed where Lazarus is, the
other curfed where Dives abides, . [Luke xvi.] Some
of the moft modern interpreters of. this Creed, and
thofe not only moft eminent for their learning, but in
the higheft ftations of the eftablifhed Church, regard
thefe claufes only as Scriptural admonitions, and by nq
means as denunciations: fee the prefent Bp. qf Bangor' s
excellent Sermon on the fubject, preached before the
Univerfity of Oxford, November 16, 1800; and Bifhop
Burgefs's Sermon on the Divinity of Chrifi, mentioned in
the preceding note. " It is not the writer of the Creed,"
Says his Lordfhip, " nor the church, nor the minifter,
" nor the communicants, who accompany him in the
" Service, that denounce condemnation againft unbe-
" lievers in the Catholic Faith : they pronounce the
" fentence of the Scripture, not their own wills and
" wifhes. But objectors fay," he adds, (and this ought
certainly to be attended to,) "that the Alhanafian doc-
" trine is not the doctrine of Scripture ; and therefore
" that the damnatory fentence againft the disbelief of
" this doctrine is not the fentence of Scripture. When
" objectors to the uncharitable fpirit of the damnatory
" claufes urge this, they defert the ground of their ob
jection:" and nothing can be more true. The
Scriptures' alone muft determine both the purity of the
doctrine, and the validity of the fentence. At all events
wc may furely be permitted to pafs fentence on our
felves;

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 439
felves ; and therefore where the original defign of the
preed is not underftood ; where for want of learning,
and reading, and the ftudy of ecclefiaftical hiftory,
men are ignorant of the numberlefs herefies, and the
infinite diverfity of opinions that have been entertained
upon the fubject, from the firft eftablifhment of Chrif
tianity to the prefent day, by thofe who are defirous of
being thought wife beyond what is written ; it may
reafonably be received as an expofition ofthe Creed, cal
culated to exonerate the true believer from the imputation
continually thrown upon him, in fpite of his own mofi fo
lemn declarations ; namely, that of believing in a Trinity
of Perfons, abfolutely inconfiftent with the Unity ofthe
Godhead. This is a charge we deny. This we admit
would be^no better than idolatry. This we affert would
not be to, keep the Catholic Faith " whole and unde-
" filed." This would be fo foul an abomination in
the fight of God, that, in our opinion, he that doth fo
wilfully, " cannot be faved." And therefore it may
well deferve to be retained as a ftanding proof of our
fincerity, againft the very uncharitable charges of thofe
who diffent from us ; who ftill continue, in defiance of
all good manners, in defiance, as we think, of found Cri
ticifm, and certainly in defiance of true Chriftian cha
rity, to affert, that we cannot believe what we profefs to
believe ; though we maintain the contrary, at the ha
zard of the utmoft penalties the Scriptures have de
nounced againft thofe who are guilty of what our
enemies moft unjuftly accufe us ; namely, the fouleft
idolatry ; the " changing the truth of God for a lie,
" and worfliipping and lerving the creature more than
"the Creator, "02 E2TIN ETAOr/HTOS E12 T0T2 AI-
" WNA2 AMHN !"
Page 379. note (8).
The proof of fuch an affertion would be fufficient to
preclude all reafoning upon the fubject.'] The Unitarians
continually declare, that the Trinitarians affirm three
in numbers to be but one, which " to abide by and not
" difcern is not to be a man." See this objection ably
handled by Bifhop Stilling fleet on the Trinity, p. 57-
Where he properly afks, can they fuppofe, that before
their time there were no men in the Church ; none of
Ff4 common

440 NOTES TO SERMON VH.
common fenfe to tell the difference between one and
three ? It is a remarkable circumftance to this purpofe,
which the Bifhop notices, that Boethius, equally Skilful
in philofophy and Chriftianity, wrote not only very
learnedly on arithmetic, but very well, and very ably
alfo, on the Catholic do6trine of the Trinity. Chrift
faid, " I and my Father are one;" 'EN E2MEN. _ We
know, that the Unity of the Godhead is the main te
net of Revelation ; therefore we muft reconcile thefe.
Dr. Prieftley insinuates, that the Fathers would have
faid, there were three Gods ; " but the Scriptures hav-
" ing exprefsly afferted the contrary, they could not
" do it in words." Early Opinions, vol. ii. 350. This
is fo far the cafe with us. We fay not there are three
Gods, becaufe the Scriptures are exprefs as tb the U-
nity of the Godhead : but we neverthelefs fay, there
are three that are God ; Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ;
becaufe Chrift hath told us fo. In the form of bap-
tifm, whom could our Saviour mean by the Son but
himfelf, the only begotten Son of God ? Would he ever
have fo affociated two creatures with God, in a form of
baptifm, into the faith and worfhip of his heavenly fa
ther ? See Leflie, vol. i. 348.
Mr.' Hume fays, though to perfons of a certain turn
of mind it may not appear altogether abfurd, that feve
ral independent beings endowed with fuperior wifdom
might confpire in the contrivance and execution of one
regular plan, yet this is a mere arbitrary fuppofition. All
things in the univerfe are evidently of a piece; and
this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one au
thor. > All this may be granted ; yet Mr. Hume adds a
note exceedingly applicable, I think, to the queftion of
the Trinity ; which depends not on arbitrary fuppofi-
tions, but on the authority whence we derive the doc
trine. Mr. Hume's note is as follows : " The ftatue
" of Laocoon, as we learn from Pliny, was the work of
" three artifts ; but it is certain, that were we not told.
" fo, we fhould never have concluded, that a group of
" figures, cut from one ftone, and united in one plan^
" was not the work and contrivance of one ftatuary.
" To afcribe any fingle effect to the combination of ie-
" veral caufes, is not furely a natural and obvious fup-
" pofition." ' Upon Pliny's authority Mr. Hume was
contented

NOTES TO SERMON VIE 441
contented to believe, that three artifts might have co
operated in the Laocoon, though quite contrary to the
conclufion he fliould naturally have formed. In like
manner the doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on
any conclufions we may form from a mere contempla
tion of the univerfe ; but totally and entirely on our
Saviour's own declarations. It is therefore that I have
very particularly infifted in my Sermon upon the pro
priety and utility of beginning all our enquiries into
the doctrine of the Trinity, with the New Teftament.
If this doctrine does not feem, by reafonable and found
criticifm, deducible from thence, we have no other
foundation to reft on. For my own part, I look folely
to the New Teftament for the revelation of this doc-,
trine; conceiving it to be quite immaterial, as a previous
queftion, what traces of it are difcoverable either among
Jews or Pagans. For I think, that, fuppofing the doc
trine true, we might reafonably conceive, that the re
velation of it would be chiefly referved for the time of
the Meffiah. Before the Meffiah became incarnate, the
world was not in any need of knowing that the unity
of the Godhead extended to three . Perfons, though
Such a circumftance might have been revealed, if
God faw fit. The Jewifh and Pagah Trinities would
certainly feem to prove, that it had pleafed God to
make fuch a difcovery of his mode of exiftence from
the very earlieft ages : but ftill the incarnation of the
fecond Perfon, and his written word, are the principal,
if not the only authorities, both in point of time and
record, that I fhould think it abfolutely neceflary to
refer to. St. Auftin acknowledges, that he found much
ofthe Chriftian doctrine in Plato; but that the incarna
tion of the Logos was ftill peculiar to the Gofpel. " Sed
" quia Verbum caro factum eft, et habitavit in nobis,
" non ibi legi." Confeff. Op. vol. i. p. 128.
In a recent publication of Dr. Jamiefon, on the Ufe
of Sacred Hifiory, the learned author obferves ; " The
" Incarnation ofthe fecond Perfon of the holy Trinity
" is the great revelation ofthe New Teftament: there
" therefore we are tq look for it. But that the fame
" fecond Perfon fhould be the appearing Divinity of the
" Old Teftament, is highly probable, from the terms
" of Scripture, the opinions -of the Jews themfelves,
r "and

442 NOTES TO SERMON VII.
" and the confiftency of the thing. So far the Jews
'' may be faid to have had the Trinity revealed : but
*' its full revelation is to be fought for in the New
" Teftament only ; in the act and accomplifhment of
" the redemption."
That traces, not at all obfcure, of a Trinity in Uni
ty, and in fome inftances perhaps of a Trinity of Per
fons, and Unity of Divinity, are difcoverable in the re
cords of all nations, cannot be denied. But I muft con-
fefs, that had it never been revealed to either Jew or
Gentile, till the incarnation of the Meffiah, this would
have been a circumftance in no way interfering with
¦my belief, had it been as clearly difcoverable as I think
it now is in the New Tefiament. The difficulties that
have arifen alfo concerning the late admiSIion of the
perfonality and divinity of the Holy Spirit, would oc
cafion me no embarraffment ; no, not though it fhould
appear to have arifen, as Dr. Prieftley intimates, out of
the doctrine and divinity of the Aiyo; : for I think the
form of baptifm alone might lead us to make the en
quiry, and to bring us to the conclufion, that as there
is a Father, and Son, fo alfo a Holy Spirit, in the Unity
of the Godhead. If in this I differ from Mr. Maurice,
who has lately taken fuch great pains to elucidate the
fubject, and to whom we are fo much indebted for his
very learned account of the Afiatic Trinities, it is not
for want of duly confidering his arguments, or the very
curious analogies he has been at the pains to trace: but
I muft confels I do not quite agree with him, that if
" the doctrine of the Trinity could not be found in the
" Hebrew Scriptures, as clearly revealed as circum-
" fiances would admit, its being a genuine doctrine of
" Chriftianity might juftly be liifpected." Indian An
tiquities, vol.iv. There is only one cafe, in which I
think this of importance ; and that is, in regard to the
perfonal character of our bleffed Lord, as reprefented
in the Jewifh prophecies : and in this particular inftance
I think it has been very clearly proved, and efpecially
of late by Bifhop Hunlingford, in his work on the Tri
nity, that the Prophets had a clear apprehenfion of the
exalted nature of our Lord; and that, as well as the
Evangelifts, if they defcribe him fometimes as a man,
at others they attribute to him alfo the brighteft and
moft

NOTES TO SERMON VII. 443
moft indifputable marks of Divinity. Believing the
Trinity to be the doctrine of the New Teftament, I
confider the Jewifh and Pagan Trinities as' remarka
ble confirmations of it ; not effential to the verification
of our Lord's own declarations, but exceedingly corro
borative qf that interpretation qf our Lord's words, which.
Trinitarians have adopted.
As to the Chriftian Trinity being a copy of the Ori,
ental, or a modification of the Platonic Trinity, the
grounds on which we profefs to believe it render all
fuch doubts and fufpicions nugatory. The records from
which we deduce it are in our hands. Whatever the
Socinians may pretend, even if the Ante-Nicene Fa
thers in general had not profeffed any belief in the Tri
nity, neither Iheir omiflion of the doctrine, nor yet
Juftin Martyr's adoption of it, would determine our
faith. If any of the Fathers have overlooked it, or
any of them Platonifed in their expofitions of it, this
is really nothing to us. We fay it is ftill in the Scrip
tures ; we fay it is undoubtedly deducible from the
terms and expreffions there ufed, by fair and impartial
criticifm . The teftimony of our Saviour is paramount
to every other. To pretend that he borrowed the doc
trine, is abfurd; becaufe there are fome who deny that
it ever was his doctrine : and as to thofe who believe
otherwife, if it was poffible to prove him capable of
borrowing fuch a doctrine, fo far from being God, he
could not have been a Prophet of God, but a Pagan,
and Impoftor; and thus we fliould be brought back to
the firft evidences and credentials of Chriftianity,,which
tend to fhew, that in the nature of things it was impof
fible he could be either. To pretend that it is a corruption
of Chriftianity is alfo nothing to the purpofe ; and Dr.
Prieftley might have fpared himfelf the pains, both of
queftioning the orthodoxy of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
and of expofing the many inadequate explanations of
the Trinity, that he has raked together : for while we
have reafon to think we have the very words of Chrift
to judge from, we can be refponfible only for our own
criticilms, our own interpretations, and our own opi
nions.

SERMON

SERMON VIII.

Psalm cxlvii. 19, 20.
He fheweth his word unto Jacob, his ftatutes and ordi
nances unto Ifrael.
He bath not dealt fa with any nation; neither have the
heathen knowledge, of^w laws.
IN this divine hymn we have a lively de
fcription of the providence of God, as it is
to be colle&ed from, a, view and confiderar
tion of the natural effects of the vifible
world. " Great is our Lord, and great is
" his power; yea, and his wifdom is pfinite.
" Who covereth the heaven with clouds*
" and prepareth rain for the earth ; and
"maketh the grafs to grow upon the moun-
" tains, and herb for the ufe of men. Wha
*' givefh fodder unto the cattle,, and feedeth
" the young ravens that call upon him. He
" maketh peace in thy borders, and filleth
" thee

446 SERMON VIII.
" thee with the flour of wheat. He giveth
" fnow like Wool, and fcatterefh the hoar-
" frofl like aShes. He caftefh forth his ice
"like morfels ; who is able to abide his
" froft ? He fendeth out his word, and melt-
" eth them ; he bloweth with his wind, and
" the waters flow." Such providential act. s
of goodnefs, daily exhibited before our eyes,
Should be fuflicient to encourage us to repofe
a confidence in the Almighty, under any
preSTure of misfortune and calamity, and
notwithstanding any fpeculative doubts, that
may chance to arife in our minds, from the
temporary prevalence of evil and diftrefs.
But, fays the holy Pfalmift, (as a more fure
and certain encouragement to his defpond-
ing countrymen,) in addition to all thefe
natural notices of his providential care and
concern for his creatures, in addition to thefe
confpicuous and continual mercies, which
are common to us with the heathens, " Un-
" to thee, O Jacob, he has given his word ;
" his flatutes and his ordinances unto Ifrael.
" He hath not dealt fo with any nation;
" neither have the heathen knowledge of
" his LAWS."
Such was the holy PfalmiSl's opinion of
the

SERMON Vlll. 44?
the diftindtion between natural religion and
revealed. He was wife and considerate
enough to acknowledge Revelation to be a
great and moSt fingular privilege and bleST-
ing ; an additional fecurity to all that could
be fupplied by the reafon of man, from a
contemplation of the vifible works of God.
And the wife and prudent of all ages might
well be expected to make the fame acknow
ledgment; for it is not too much to fay,
confidering the deplorable blindnefs and ig
norance, into which thofe nations have
fallen, who have loft or neglected the bene
fits of revealed knowledge, the difference is
no lefs than between light and darknefs,
truth and error. Neverthelefs, there have
always been many in the world who have
thought otherwife, and who, fo far from re-
. garding Revelation as any valuable or necef
fary addition to the light of nature, have
both questioned its utility, and denied its
existence. And this brings me, in profecu-
tion of the original plan of thefe Lectures,
to confider, under the head of Ethics, the
prefent State of moral philofophy, as oppofed
to, or independent of, divine Revelation.
So much has been faid and written upon the

448 SERMON VIIL
the fubject of the fufficiency of human Rea
fon to difcover a rule of life('), that it muft
be quite unnecefTary to difcufs this point at
prefent : and as it has rather been the ob
ject of thefe Lectures to grant all that can
with any degree of propriety be granted,
and to draw conclufions from the ftate of
the feveral queftions after fuch conceffions,
I fhall propofe to admit, that human Reafon
might poffibly have difcovered every precept
of morality to be found in the Scriptures.
This is indeed to grant as much as can be
with any reafon expected a; for as to the
purity and excellency of the Christian pre
cepts, I believe no Deift pretends to difpute
them ;. while it is quite certain, that no fyf
tem of pure Reafon wholly free from ex
ceptions has ever been known to exift, from
one end of the earth to the other.
The utmoft the human Reafon has ven
tured to charge Chriftianity with, as a fyf
tem of morality, is, firft, the pretence of a
divine interpofition, where no neeeffity ex-

* See, as to the Chriftian precepts not to be found in Pagan-
writers, a Tract, intitled, The Strength and Weaknefs of human
Reafon, 2d edit. 1737. p. 188. ifted:

SERMON VIII. 449
ifted: fecondly, a few omifllons and exceSTes,
which have been firft invented in order to
Slander her, and then exceedingly magnified
in the handling of them : and thirdly, (an
objection which would fcarcely have been
thought of, had any more folid ones been to
be found,) that the Chriftian fyftem is defi
cient in arrangement and philofophical pre
cision. In regard to the neceffity of God's inter
pofition for moral purpofes, I conceive no
one even of this boafted age of Reafon
would have the hardihood to maintain, that
it will ever be in the power of man fo to
enforce his precepts, as to render them bind
ing on the heart and difpofition. And yet,
is the fpeculative morality of individuals a
matter of fmall concern ? Reafon has pre
tended indeed to devife restraints for the A-
theift: but the fhifts fhe has been driven to,
to fupport her pretentions, muft, I think, for
ever be regarded as the moft conclufive evi
dence of her extreme weaknefs. The love
of glory, and regard to reputation, for in
ftance, are the fanctions fhe would fix upon
to enforce morality among Atheifts : and
when it is objected, that this only provides
Gg for

450 SERMON VIII,
for the open and confpicuous conduct of the
Atheift, not for any fecret fins he may be
guilty of; any concealed indulgence of bafe
and immoral practices ; fuch confummate
wits as Lucretius and Bayle could invent
no further restraints, but the apprehenfion,
which the Atheift might feel, left his hypo-
crify and artifice fhould come to be difco
vered in the wanderings of a disturbed fleep,
or the paroxyfms of a fever.
The abfurdity of fo precarious a reftraint
is too manifeft to be much infifted on ; nor
indeed is it on account of its mere abfurdi
ty, that I have adduced an inftance fo well
known, and already fo well expofedb ; but
becaufe it particularly ferves to demonstrate,
on the implied acknowledgment of Deifts,
if not of Atheifts themfelves, the abfolute
neceffity of a divine will, an all-feeing Judge,
and a future ftate, to give effect to the very
beft moral laws : and that the queftion re
lating to the fufnciency of human fyftems of
ethics muft ultimately turn, not on the
force or propriety of the precepts, but on
the want of proper motives, and adequate
* Divine Legation of Mofes, b, i. §. 5.
fanctions;

SERMON VIII. 451
fanctions ; and that this is a point, which
Reafon cannot get over. I do not deny,
that Reafon has attempted it, as in the cafe
adduced above : but it may be further re
marked, that if her pretentions -werejuf, fo
far from proving any thing againft the ne
ceffity of Revelation, this in itfelf would
tend, I think, particularly to eftablifh it.
For if we grant what has been required and
infifted upon, in this inftance, namely c, that
the Atheift is capable, to a certam degree,
of the moral fenfe ; that he may have com
petent ideas of the effential difference be
tween good and evil ; that he may be as
fenfible as the Theift to the temporary ap
plaufe of the world, and all outward cir
cumftances of honour and reputation: ftill
fhould thefe things ferve to fecure his obe
dience to the laws of right and reafon, where
his own purpofes are to be anfwered by
them ; yet, not being decisively obligatory,
they give nofecurity to the Theifi; they only
ferve fo much the more to expofe him to

c See Toland 's Adiifidamon ; Shafteftury's Cbaracteriflics,
vol. ii. 267 ; Bayle's Penfees diverfes fur la Coniete, c. 179 ; and
Diderot's Syfieme de la Nature.
g g2 the

4.$» SERMON VIII.
the artful and infidious attempts of the
Atheift, and to fupply the latter with a pro
tection and defence againft the juft fufpi
cions of the reft of mankind. If Reafon
therefore was fufficient to difcover fuch mo
tives for the right government and conduct
of our lives, motives as applicable to the
Atheift as the Theift; yet, for the peace, and
happinefs, and fecurity of the world, a di
vine Revelation would ftill be, on this very
account, peculiarly neceffary. For it is cer
tainly not only of importance to us to know
upon what motives we ought to act our
felves ; but it is, generally fpeaking, of ex
ceeding great importance alfo, that we fhould
know what motives govern others.
What fecurity can we have, that others
will act upon the fame principles two days
together, who acknowledge no other foun
dation for their moral conduct, but the fpe
culative judgment of themfelves, or their
fellow men ? What fecurity can we have,
that the man who to-day thinks himfelf re-
fponfible for the refults of a deliberate
choice, fhall not to-morrow fall into the'
wildeft notions of moral neceffity, and dif-
charge himfelf of all refponfibility whatfo ever

SERMON. VIII. 453
ever for the confequences of his own ac
tions ? What fecurity can we have, that he
who might readily be brought to fee the ab
furdity of difputing the authority, or quef-
tioning the veracity, of a divine Inftructor,
may not become fuddenly and fecretly dif
pofed both to renounce the authority, and
diftruft the veracity and abilities of a mere
human legiflator ? In the cafe of the Jews
abroad, whom I alluded to in my third Dif
courfe, it has been well urged againft them d,
that in renouncing their behef of the divine
origin of their law, fo far from bettering
their condition in Chriftian focieties, which
was the object of their addrefs, they would
do well to confider that their prefent to
leration, privileges, and immunities, were
to be afcribed to their fuppofed acknowledg
ment of the fame God, and fubmiffion to
•his revealed will ; that much of their credit
among Chriftians neceffarily "depended on
their acknowledgment ofthe divine authority
of the Decalogue ; and that it was the height
d See M. de Luc's Lettre aux Juifs, Auteurs d'un-. Memoire
adreffe a M. Teller, §.7.
Gg3 of

454 SERMON VIII.
of abfurdity to imagine, that by abandoning
Mofes and the Prophets, and reducing their
laws of morality, and the Decalogue in parti
cular, to a level with the merely human con
ceptions of Plato, Socrates, or more particu
larly their own cotemporary Mendelfohn,
they would produce a greater confidence
among Chriftians, either as to the duties
they were willing to impofe on themfelves,
or their fteadinefs in practising them.
And this is affuredly moft true : for who
would be contented to reft the fafety of his
property, of his reputation, and good name,
or Of his domeftic comforts, on the cafual
interpretation of the book of nature, on the
talents of their fellow-creatures for ratioci
nation and reflection, on their judgment
and metaphyfical conclufions, on their felf-
formed opinions of right and wrong, and
whatever distinctions of juft and unjuft they
may happen to fix upon ; who might have
the fecurity of a divine law, not only written
on tables of ftone, but deeply impreffed on
the heart of every neighbour and fellow-crea
ture, with the weight and force of a celeftial
mandate, " Thou shalt not steal," "Thou
" SHALT

SERMON VIII. 455
"shalt not commit adultery," "Thou
" shalt not bear false witness," " thou
" shalt not covet ?"
Let any man confider the names, the re
putation, the confequence of thofe fpecula
tive philofophers of this boafted age of Rea
fon, who have ventured to affert, that a di
vine revelation is unneceffary for the enforce
ment of the laws of morality; and let him
then decide upon the neceSfity merely with
a view to his own happinefs and fecurity, as
arifing out of the confidence he would wifh
to repofe in his neighbours and affociates. I
would venture to affirm, that no appeal could
be made more likely to evince the pofitive and
indifpenfable neceffity of an exprefs revela
tion of the will of God, in cafes of mere
morality, or that have regard to the duties
of fecial intercourfe. And this is an appeal
which involves no queftion concerning the
advancement of human knowledge; or the
talents and abilities of particular writers ; it
relates distinctly to the principle, not the
precepts, of morality. I only require every
man to determine for himfelf, from the die-
tates of his own heart, and his own feelings,
whether it is at all probable, or even poffible,
g g 4 that

456 SERMON VIII.
that any principle of univerfal obligation, and
unquefiionable authority, can be difcovered
and put in force by mere human Reafon (*).
That fuch a principle has not yet been
difcovered I have a right to affume, from
the coneeffions of modern philofophers them
felves ; morality being exprefsly enumerated
among thofe things which the fyftem of
perfeclibility is to advance and improve6.
One writer congratulates himfelf, that the
time is come for fhewing morality to be a
phyfical and geometrical fcience, and as fuch
fufceptible of calculation and mathematical
demonftration f.
To which I fhould be tempted to reply,
(without the leaft intention to deny the
great ufe and importance of method and
arrangement in all fyftems purely human,
or the leaft wifh to depreciate unneceffarily
either the labours or the talents of modern
moralifts ; but with a view only to the prin-

c "There is no fcience that is not capable of additions ; no
" art that may not be carried to a ftill higher perfection. If
" this be true of all other fciences, why not of morals ?" Polit.
Juft. 2d edit. b. i. c. 8.
f See the Advertifement prefixed to the Englifh i2mo edition
of Volney's Law of Nature. ciple

SERMON VIII, 457
ciple of morality,) that the time for this
geometrical fyftem of morality is indeed
arrived, if we will confent to abandon
the exquifite fimplicity of Chriftian ethics,
for the complexity of modern claffifica-
tionsg; the natural dictates of feeling and
affection, for the intricate deductions of mo
ral and metaphyfical calculations'1; if we
will confent to abandon thofe fublime but
intelligible principles both of religion and
morality, the love of God, and the love of
man, for the precarious principle of "utility,"
or the glorious " omnipotence of truth ;"
if we will confent to be governed by rule
rather than fentiment ; to be actuated by an
s See the Edinburgh Review of lur. Bentbam's Principes de
Legifllation, No. vii. art. i.
h See Lloyd's Chriftian Theology, 253, 254. Note. " Mo-
" rality itfelf is nothing but a calculation of confequences — "
" an eftimate of confequences." Godwin. " How is it," fays
Mr. Hall, in his excellent Difcourfe on the Faft 1803, " that,
" after the lapfe of fix thoufand years, we have, in contempt of
" the experience of paft ages, undertaken to manufacture a mo-
" rality of our own j to decide by a calculation of intereft, by
"a ledger-book of profit and lofs, the preference of truth to
" falfehood, of piety to blafphemy, and of humanity and juftice
" to treachery and blood ?" See alfo the Edinburgh Review re
ferred to above, for fome excellent remarks on the modern
fyftems of moral arithmetic. artificial

453 SERMON VIII.
artificial rather than a real fenfibility ; and
to have every emotion, every feeling, and
every action towards our fellow-creatures
fixed and determined by the precife claims
of moral worth and rigid juftice '; fo ha
zardous to judge of, fo difficult to adjuft !
I have already had occafion to fpeak of
the great uncertainty of modern metaphyfics
in determining the principles of human ac
tions; and it is no fmall objection to modern
ethics, that they are made to depend fo much
upon them. It is not enough now that the
moralift fhall be able to fuggeft motives ;
motives muft be analyfed, and their opera
tions accounted for in the fullest man
ner k. It is not thought fufficient to direct
1 " Juftice would require," fays Mr. Godwin, " that if Fe-
*' nelon and his valet were in equal danger from fire, the
" valet himfelf ought to choofe rather to die than Fenelon
" fhould. Was the former my brother, father, or benefaftor,
" I ought ftill to prefer the life of Fenelon, as more valuable.
" What magic is there in the pronoun ' My,' to overturn the
" decifions of impartial truth ? I ought to prefer no human
" being to another becaufe that being is my father, my wife,
" or my fon ; but becaufe, for reafons which equally appeal to
" all underftandings, that being is entitled to preference." Pol.
Jufl. vol. ii.
k See Brown on the Characteriflics, p. 158. " And here we
" fhall find another metaphyfical cloud retting upon this path,

SERMON VIII. 459
the human faculties to their true end, and
point out proper means ; but the nature and
infallibility of fuch faculties muft be previ-
oufly determined; their comparative ener
gies, and their very exiftence, proved and
demonstrated. And if fuch fpeculations
could increafe our certainty, or fix morality
on a furer bafis, they might well be com
mended and encouraged : but conducted as
they have been of late, they certainly tend
only to involve us in greater perplexities, to
fupply continual frefh matter of doubt and
difputation, and to unfettle our confidence
in other and far better principles, immutable
in their nature, and of univerfal obligation.
Nor is it faying too much to affirm of
modern theories, as has been faid of the
ancient ones, that there has been nothing
adduced by one modern philosopher that has
" in itfelf plain and eafy to all mankind : for the very notion
" of the motives to virtue hath been as much confounded by
"moral writers, as the idea of virtue itfelf. And here we
" might travel through another fyftem of logomachies ; while
" one aflerts, that we ought to be moved to love and purfue vir-
" tue becaufe fhe is beautiful ; another, becaufe virtue is good ;
" another, becaufe virtue \sgood in itfelf; a fourth, becaufe vir-
" tue is truth; a fifth, becaufe it is agreeable to nature; a fixth,
" becaufe it is agreeable to the nature of things''
not

46o SERMON VTH.
not been contradicted and oppofed by another.
Two ofthe moft popular writers of the conti
nent, Rouffeau and Helvetius, differed totally
and effentially in regard to the principles of
their refpect ive fyftems. Rouffeau infifted
continually on the original purity and good
nefs of man : Helvetius fpeaks of man as ra
dically bad l. According to the former, every
virtue under heaven is to be found among
the favage tribe : according to Helvetius,
favages have no notion of juftice or hu
manity, or even natural affection. According
to Rouffeau, education and example are for
ever the corruptors of primitive purity and na
tive innocence : according to Helvetius, only
education and example can render men feel
ing and humane m. According to Rouffeau,
1 Helvetius pretends indeed to deny this ; and afTerts, that
he differs from Rouffeau only in this ; that as the latter pre
tends that man is born without vice, fo be would maintain that
he is equally born without virtue. But though Helvetius has
admirably detected fome of Rouffeau's contradictions, he could
not fee his own; for the following is his account of the ftate of
nature. " Quel feroit dans toute fociete l'homme le plus de-
" tefiable ? l'homme de la nature, qui n'ayant point fait de
" convention avec fes femblables, n'obeiroit qu'a\ fon caprice
" et au fentiment acluel qui l'infpire." See alfo below,
m " La nature eri avoit fait des fangliers."
men

SERMON VIII. 46!
men are the beft law to themfelves : accord
ing to Helvetius, before the exiftence of
fettled compacts and inftituted laws, there
can be neither peace nor juftice among men.
Helvetius differs as widely from our own
countrymen, Shaftefbury and Hutchefon;
declaring, in terms of ridicule and. contempt,
that he could no more form an idea of a
moral fenfe, than of a moral caftle, or a mo
ral elephant !
Such are the difeordances of modern
ethics and modern metaphyfics ", without
touching again on the endlefs difputes on
the fubjects of neceffity and materialifm,
which I had particular occafion to allude to
before ; fuch are the difeordances which have
refpect only to the principle of morality. But
philofophers are little lefs agreed as to pre
cepts and to duties ; which is not to be won
dered at, when we confider that, with fome,
the paffions require to be restrained by the
moral fenfe; with others, the paffions them
felves are the only moral fenfe we have to truft
to : with fome, nature is an unerring guide
n Confult alfo Dr. Dwight's two Difcourfes referred to in
Note (2). to

46a SERMON VIII.
to all that is good, and fit, and right ; with
others, the dictates of nature are made an
excufe for all that is bafe and horrible ; for
revenge, for filicide, for oppreffion, for am
bitious war, for luft and rapine.
But let us not, in avoiding one error, fall
into another. The high importance of
Christianity as a code of moral laws muft
not lead us to fuppofe that it is nothing
more. This is an error, which, I am forry
to fay, has infected fome, who might well
be expected to judge more highly of Chrif
tianity. We find it ftrongly expreffed in
one publication °, which, (to rob no man of
his good name,) the public have been in
formed, is written by a determined enemy
to real impiety ; fo good a moral Chriftian,
(the warmth and beauty of the praife will, I
hope, excufe my repetition of it,) that With a
feanty income, and no (known) profpects of
ecclefiaftical preferment, he " administers
" medicine to the fick, gives alms to the
" needy, offers instruction to the ignorant,
*" vifits the fatherlefs and widows in their
" affliction, and keeps himfelf in no cora-
0 See Fellowes's " Religion without Cant!'

SERMON VIH. 463
" mon degree unfpotted from the world V
I have to lament, the neceffity of combating
opinions fo recommended, and fo fupported :
but the error is great, and the more dan
gerous from the very fupport it has re
ceived. In a publication of the perfon fo
highly and, no doubt, fo juftly commended for
its great moral worth, we not only find the
general propofition laid down, that " Chrif-
" tianity is nothing more than a rule of life"
but a wifh is expreSfed, that " this fliould be
" made the fubjeel of every religious dif-
" courfe, fo that one Church might ferve for
" allft And indeed this could not fail
to be the cafe : one Church may ferve for
all, when the doctrinal parts of the Gofpel
are fo flightly accounted of, that Jew, Turk,
Infidel, and Heretic, may have free leave to
expunge or difcredit whatever reflectively
oppofes their feveral ideas. One Church
may ferve for all, when all that human Rea
fon fees fit to object to fhall be given up on
that very account. Inftead of our convert
ing Infidels by fuch accommodation, as has
P See the Notes to Parr's Spital Sermon, p. 81.
been

464 SERMON VIII.
been well obferved, Infidels may thus obtain
the credit of converting us.
For individual opinions there is no ac
counting ; but references we may be allowed
to queftion : and in proof of the proposition
thus infifted upon, we find no lefs authori
ties cited, than Bifhop Taylor, Clarke, and
Cave. Not to difpute the meaning of fome
detached paffages, that may be felected from
the works of thefe great men, in favour of
Christian morality, (and perhaps too ftrongly
expreSfed, in order to meet the more dan
gerous errors of fanaticifm prevalent in
their days, and which has been fhewn to
have been the cafe with fome of our beft
divines q,) I fliall content myfelf with Select
ing fome paffages from one of thefe great
authorities ; of which the leaft we can fay
is, that they can by no means be reconciled
with the notion and opinion, that the Chrif
tian difpenfation is notMng more than a rule
of life.
Now, in the incomparable writings of
Bifhop Taylor, I find the Gofpel difpenfa-
* See the laft chapter of Warburton on Grace. tion

SERMON VIII. 465
tion defcribed in the following terms. Speak
ing of the glorious myfteries revealed in the
Gofpel by the infpiration ofthe Spirit, "what
" power of the human underftanding," faith
he, " could have conjectured that God
" fliould fo love us, as to be willing to be
" reconciled to us, and yet that himfelf muft
" die that he might pardon us r ?" And
fpeaking of repentance, he calls it fuch a
grace " as could not have been granted, un-
" lefs Chrift had died to purchafe it5." And
again, fpeaking of the foul of man, " In
" God's account," fays he, " it is valued at
" the price of the blood, and fhame, and tof-
" tures of the Son of God'." It is true, in
his Sermon upon the Miracles of the Divine
Mercy, he does fay, " the whole religion of
" a Chriftian is nothing hut juftice and
" mercy":" but, that he might not be mifun-
derftood, he particularly adds, " as it relates
" to others." And we fay the fame; and the
Prophets faid the fame. The Chriftian re-.
ligion, as it relates to the fecial duties of a
Chriftian, is nothing but juftice and mercy ;
r Serm. on Whitfunday. s Serm. XII. p. 1 14.
4 Serm. XIX. jp. 118. u Serm. XXVI. p. 252.
Hh it

466 SERMON VIII.
it is as it regards the individual, or the fpe
cies in general, that it is of infinitely more
importance : " For," to apply again the
words ofthe fame high authority, " what is
" the fecretof the myftery; That the Son qf
" God fhould take upon him our nature, and
" die our death, and fuffer for our fins, and
" do our work, and enable us to do our
" own*!" It cannot furely with any fairnefs
be alleged after this, that Bifhop Taylor re
garded Chriftianity as " nothing more than a
" rule of life. f'(3) Thefe characters of Chrif
tianity, as they regard our conduct, involve,
duties of a peculiar nature owing to God ;
not only as our Creator, but as our Redeemer.
They involve the duties of piety and devo
tion ; of love, reverence, adoration, fubmif
fion, affiance, refignation Y; of prayer, con-
feffion of fins, thankfgiving, praife. Thefe
involve, as the indifpenfable fruits of our
faith in Chrifi, the duties owing to ourfelves;
f elf -government, chaflity, purity, humility,
temperance ; and the proper regulation of
pur appetites and paffions : none of which
* Serm. XXVII. p. 264.
y See Leland 's Deiftical Writers, Letter xxxv^ are

SERMON VIII. 467
are fufficiently provided for, if even fo much
as thought of, in many of the " rational"
fyftems of the prefent day. And it is not
to be palled over, that though the author of
the Age of Reafon could confent to adopt
into his creed the two duties of " do-
" ing juftly" and " loving mercy," in the
very terms ufed by the Prophet, inftead of
the other beautiful precept of the infpired
writer, "the walking humbly with his
" God," he thought fit to fubftitute a fecial
virtue of eafier practice. But to return from
this digreffion.
Chriftianity has been accufed both of
omiffions and excefies in the preceptive
parts. I have already obferved, that thefe
were firft invented in order to flander her,
and then exceedingly magnified in the
handling of them ; and nothing, I think,
can be more true. They have certainly
been invented, becaufe, in regard to the
omiffio7is that have been more particularly
infifted upon, it is eafy to prove, and it has
been amply proved, that all that is true and
found and valuable, in patriotifm, friendfhip,
and valour, if not directly enjoined in the
Gofpel, is certainly virtually recommended
h h 2 there :

468 SERMON VIII.
there : and if they are recommended there
rather as branches of univerfal benevolence,
philanthropy, and charity, than as diftinct
virtues, it is exprefsly to the exclufion of all
that contributed to render them exceptiona
ble as Pagan and heroic virtues. Nor is it lefs
eafy to prove, in refpect to the exceffes with
which Chriftianity Stands charged, that while
no virtue which fhe inculcates, and which is
defigned to be of general obligation, does in
the leaft exceed the bounds, which the
calmeft reafon of mankind would approve,
every precept that carries the afpeet of pe
culiar restraint, fuch as the non-refiftance of
evil, perpetual patience, and a neglect of all
we eat, drink, and wear, * is palpably con
fined to the firft Apoftles, who, from the
very nature of their high and important
functions, were to exhibit extraordinary ex
amples of mildnefs, patience, and benignity;
and even as applicable to the Apoftles, com
mon fenfe might ferve to point out to us,
that they do not require to be urged or
underftood to the utmoft extent of the let
ter. How much both thefe omiffions and ex
ceffes have been magnified, cannot be better
evinced

SERMON VIII. 469
evinced than in the cafe juft allttded to ; the
temporary injunctions laid upon the Apo
ftles, having firft been unwarrantably, and in
one inftance very injudicioufly z, extended to
Chriftians of all ages, and of every denomi
nation, and then adduced to prove even this
extraordinary principle,, that " God had con-
" flituted a world upon one plan, and a reli-
" gion for it on another." Patriotifm and
friendship have alfo been grofsly miirepre-
fented, and with difterent views. As Pagan
virtues they have at one time been extra
vagantly extolled, in order to faften a re
proach on Chriftianity for the omiffion of
them in the Gofpel ; while at another time
they have been vilified in fuch unqualified
terms, through an indifcreet defign of vin
dicating their Omiffion, as to render them
(though, under proper regulations, fo impor
tant to fociety in general, as Well as to indi
viduals in particular) apparently incompati
ble with' the fpirit of our moft holy religion.
But as* thefe mifreprefentations of Chriftiani-'
z' See Mr. Jenynss Internal Evidence of the Chriftian Re
ligion.
h h 3 ty

470 SERMON VIII.
ty have been repeatedly noticed and admira
bly expofed by various writers, I need not
take up more of your time with them at
prefent (4).
It is further objected to Chriftianity, that,
as a fyftem, it is deficient in arrangement
and philofophical precifion. This might be
an objection, if morality depended altogether
upon arrangement, or philofophical precifion
was its principal excellence. I have already
obferved how much is to be attributed to
arrangement and precifion in fyftems purely
human ; but in divine laws, perfpicuity and
authority are all we have to attend to.
One would imagine, that the two great
commandments of the Gofpel, the Law, and
the Prophets, " Thou fhalt love the Lord
" thy God with all thy heart and foul and
" mind, and thy neighbour as thyfelf," were
not materially deficient in arrangement or
philofophical precifion : and yet one modern
philofopher of no fmall celebrity has ven
tured to pafs his cenfureupon the latter, and
to affure us, with fome mixture indeed of
faint commendation, that " it is not mo-
" delled with the ftrictnefs of philofophical " accu-

SERMON VIII. 471

" accuracy \" If it has the divine authority
to back it, it may well be excufed for its want
of philofophical accuracy, more efpecially as
in its own fublime Simplicity it ftands clear
of many philofophical doubts, which might
for ever obstruct our view of the duties re
quired of us. It is further explained by the
precept, that " ive fhould do unto others, as
" ive would they fhould do unto us ;" that is,
under a fuppofed change of circumftances,
which is manifeftly implied (J). And how
many difficulties, both metaphyfical and mo
ral, might be fettled by this one rule of ac
tion ! How does fuch a precept recommend
itfelf to our obfervance ? Is it left to depend
•on any vague notions of a moral fitnefs or
unfitnefs of actions ? on any nice and criti
cal difcernment of moral beauty or moral
deformity ? It is made to depend in fact on
nothing merely theoretical or fpeculative;
but on two of the moft fimple principles, by
which a rational being is governed, fenfa-
tion and reflection. Nor does it require any
nice and curious difcrimination of time, per-
a Godwin's Pol. Juft. vol. i. p. 126. See Dr. Parr's note
upon this remark in his Spital Sermon, p. 41.
h h 4 fons,

47»

SERMON VIII.

fons, places b; all thefe are provided for by
the very occafion that occurs, be it what it
may. The moft untutored; peafant muft know,
for he muft feel, that under any trouble or
affliction he would wifh to be treated kindly,,
and under all circumftances whatfoever,
juftly and fairly. Nor could the obligation,
be doubtful : we mufi be fure, that we
fhould think others morally obliged to help
us and to ferve us under certain given cir
cumftances, and therefore this fenfe of their
obligation Should point out to us our own
duty. It is remarkable befides, how in this
precept, the felfifh and philanthropic fyf
tems, upon, which there has been fo much
b " This is a peculiar advantage of this rule, (inferring the
" excellent wifdom and goodnefs of him who framed it,) that by
" it very eafily and certainly we may difcern all the fpecialties
" of our duty, without looking abroad, or having recourfe to ex-
" ternal inftruftionsj fo that by it we may be perfect law-
" givers, and flulfuljudges, and faithful monitors to ourfelves
" of what in any cafe we fhould do. For every one by internal
" experience knoweth what it is to love himfelf; every one is
¦'f confcious , how he ufeth to treat himfelf; each one confe-
"¦ quently can prefcribe and decide for himfelf, what he ought to
" do toward his neighbour; fo that we are not only 0so^ax7oi,
" taught of God, as the Apoftle faith, to love one another, but
" uvTo$®out.Tot, taught of ourfelves how to exercife that duty."
Barrow's Sermons, vol., i. 337.
difpute,

SERMON VIII. 473
difpute, are here blended together. Univer
fal benevolence is not left to depend on any
fuch visionary notions, as that felf and kin
dred:",, friends and relations, are to be paffed
over : here it is left to originate in felf,
which, for wife purpofes, and not for- the
encouragement of any extravagant or exclu-
five felf-loved, has been rendered of the moft
interesting importance to us ; fo that in mak
ing felf the object of every fecial duty, by
fuch a fuppofed change of circumftances,
what would othecwife be relative becomes
perfonal ; and our own feelings are made
the judge-, and our own rights and claims
the meafure of every duty ; and the fanc-
tion which the holy Gofpel has provided is
moSt appropriate ; " For with the fame mea-
"fure that ye mete ivithal, it fhall be. mea-
" fured to you again." Luke vi. 38.
But through what intricate roads and
perplexed ways muft we travel to arrive at
this precept, metaphyfically ! that is, ac
cording to the modern; method of tracing
c See a, long note in Lloyd's Chriftian Theology, p. 232,
publifhed 1804; Halls Difcourfe on Modern Infidelity, p. 61.
6th edit. ; and Fuller's Gofpel its own- Witnefs, p. 30.
d See Fuller on Deifm, pp. 50, 51. 2d edit. out

474 SERMON VIII.
out the principles of morality. Our fenfations
muft firft be analyfed, then our powers of
reflection ; and it is a great chance if our en
quiries do not terminate in fuch feepticifm
as tends to the denial of both. Our relation
to other beings muft undergo fuch a fcruti
ny, that, inftead of being made clear and
Convincing, we fhall lofe perhaps much of
our conviction, that we are even related to
ourfelves. Whatever fitnefs or unfitnefs
may appear in fuch or fuch actions, we may
not depend on them, till we have afcertained,
not only the faculty by which fuch fitnefs
or unfitnefs is perceived, but whether, after
all, the fitnefs or unfitnefs be in the actions
themfelves, or only in our own minds. But
it would be endlefs to purfue thefe matters
further, and it is fit that I fhould come to a
conclufion. Human knowledge is of the utmoft im
portance, and we may well contemplate its
progrefs with admiration and delight : we
may well rejoice in that fpirit of refearch
and enquiry, which may truly be faid to
have distinguished the age we live in ; that
infatiable ciiriofity, that critical fagacity, that
nice difcernment, that indefatigable induf- try,

SERMON VIII. 475
try, which have been of late applied with fo
much effect, and fo much benefit, to natural
philofophy in all its branches, and which
never were, nor ever I think can be, exceeded.
But let us not fancy, that, becaufe fo much
is doing, and fo much has been found to do,
in fome particular branches of knowledge,
nothing has been done in others, in times
paft. " In this part of knowledge, in difoine
" philofophy," fays the great Lord Bacon, in
his moft curious eftimate of the learning of
his times, " fo far from noting any deficien-
" cy, I rather note an excefs." And the re
mark is but too applicable to the times in
which we live. In religion and morality
there is no deficiency; no room for improve
ment, no want of the aid and fupport of
human philofophy. To apply the words of
an excellent writer, " Chriftianity, iffuing
" perfect and entire from the hands of its
" Author, will admit of no mutilations, nor
" any improvement. It is dogmatic ; not
" capable of being advanced with the pro-
" grefs of fcience, but fixed and immutable6."
e See Hall's Faft Sermon, and Lloyd's Chriftian Theology, pp.
<5j, 66. Let

476 SERMON VIII.
Let us never then be induced to abandon
this great light, to follow after the phantoms
of a disputatious philofophy. . Let the philo
fopher purfue his refearches into the things
of the earth ; let him inveftigate the Struc
ture of the globe, or carry his views upward
to thofe parts of the univerfe which the Al
mighty feems in fome degree to have fub-
mitfJed to his notice and inflection : but let
him be content to ftudy man, as a mo
ral and accountable being, in the wovd of
God alone, who made man : let him be con
tent to learn from thence, what only the'
word of God himfelf could ever have fatif-
factorily difclofed to us, the ways of his pro
vidence, and the perfections of his nature.

NOTES

NOTES TO SERMON VIII.

' Page 448. note (l).
uO much ha.s been faid and written upon the fubject of
the fiufficiency of human Reafon to difcover a rule of life,
&c.~\ It feems to me to be a great abufe of terms, to
talk of the fiufficiency of human Reafon to difcover A
rule of life, where we can intend no more than its com
petency to do fo. That human Reafon, by a long courfe
of experience .and obfervation, may attain to a juft dis
crimination of right and wrong, and to the difcovery of
a proper rule of life, as far as precept goes, I Shall not
give myfelf the trouble to difpute ; becaufe it would
prove nothing againft the original neceffity of a divine
Revelation. When we talk of the fiufficiency of human
Reafon for moral and religious purpofes, we ought to
be able to Shew, that human Reafon, befides being
competent to fuch difcoveries in time, was originally fuf
ficient for thefe ends, both in point of time, and with a
view to every occafion that might arife for the exercife
and application of Reafon. Thofe mod difpofed to
queftion the hiflory of the Bible, are yet very fond of
going back to the origin of the fpecies, and of tracing
the progrefs of Reafon from a State of Complete igno
rance, to one of ample refinement and information : in
which, not content to tell us what may have beeri
man's firft thoughts, they uniformly infift upon telling
us what they mufi have been : and if we will take their
words for it, they appear to have been neither ho
nourable to God, nor ferviceable to man. Lord Bo
lingbroke, Mr. Hume, and Rouffeau have all agreed;
that Polytheifm mull have been man's firft religion,
Idolatry his firft worfhip. But Reafon muft have been
a bad minister or inftruclor, if ihe could not at the very firft

478 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
firft keep him from fuch grofs errors. Diderot, indeed,
in his Syfieme de la Nature, has lately undertaken to
prove, not only that polytheifm muft have been, in the
early ages of the world, the natural refult of men's ob
fervation of nature ; but that it muft be much more fo
now, that the courfe and progrefs qf philofophy has tended
to remove men's prejudices. This is to rob us even of the
advantages Lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Hume would
promife us, from the cultivation of our Reafon ; the lat
ter having affured us, that the true principles of Theifm,
or the belief of one almighty and wife Being, the
Creator, the Preferver and Ruler of heaven and earth,
refults from the greateft improvements of the under
ftanding in philofophy and fcience : and though the for
mer pretends, that it requires " cultivated talents" to
difcover the unity and exiftence of God ; yet he fays,
that to minds enlightened by learning and philofophy,
this tenet flows fo naturally from a confideration of
God's works, that " it is plain enough, that the know-
" ledge of the one true God would have been acquired
" by men, and would have been preferved in the world,
" if no fuch people as the Jews had ever been." But
we fee, that even in the 18th century of Chriftianity,
this is not the neceflary fruit of the application of Rea
fon and " cultivated talents" to the ftudy pf nature ;
and therefore Lord Bolingbroke was very premature,
at leaft, though he wrote in times of great refinement,
in afferting fb ftrongly as he does, that " the tables of
" natural law are hung up in the works of God, and
" are fo obvious, that no man who is able to read the
" plainefl characters can miftake them." And again,
that " the wifdom, as well as power, that appears in
" the whole conftruclion, order, and harmony of the
" univerfe, mufi have carried, at all times, the fame ge-
" neral conviction into the breafl of every man who
" obferved, and reflected on his own obfervations."
As to the morals of a people, whofe religion was of
neceflity polytheifm, and worfhip, idolatry, I confefs
I am not fblicitous to be informed what they were ; be
caufe I am perfuaded, that befides the great chance of
their being very incorrect, if no revelation was given
at firft,, and the Bible account is not authentic, we know
nothing at all about the firft beginning of things; and
that

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 479
that the mere conjectures even of a Bolingbroke and
Hume are of no more importance than the fancies and
reveries ofthe moft plebeian philofophers that ever exifted.
The fiufficiency of Reafon, however, is out of the quef
tion, certainly, if it was not fufficient at the very firft to
guide man to the truth, omnipotent truth ; on which,
according to Mr. Godwin, the whole order and har
mony of the univerfe, moral and phyfical, is to de
pend. For Reafon could never have been otherwife
than the moft distinguishing faculty of man's, nature ;
and therefore, to fuppofe it not fufficient to preferve
man from error at the firft beginning of things, is, I
think, to acknowledge it to be totally infufficient ; and
even worfe, to be the very occafion of leading us aftray.
For, as Cicero has well obferved, that as in phytic it
matters nothing whether a difeafe be fuch, as that no
man does, or no man can, recover from it ; fo neither
does it make any difference, whether by philofophy no
man is, or no man can be, made wife or good : — " non
" intelligo quid interfit, utrum nemo fit fapiens, an nemo
" efife pqffit." De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. So to pretend,
that Reafon is fufficient to difcover all that man needs
to know of religion and morality ; and yet, that fop
ages and ages man was not in a condition to make fuch
a ufe of his Reafon, is abfurd and prepofterous. To
talk of a remote and fpeculative, where a proximate and
practical fiufficiency is required, (to ufe the words of an
excellent writer upon the very fubject,) is noanfwerto the
difficulty. " Could fo wife, fo righteous, and merciful
" a Being as God is, bring millions of creatures into
" life, with fuch a poor provifion for their happinefs, as
" that not one in ten thoufand Should be likely to 00-
" tain it ? This is fo near akin to an abfolute infufifi-
" ciency, that it cannot fail to bear hard on the pertec-
" tions of God." See a Tract on the Strength and
Weaknefs of Reafon, London, 1737, ad edit.
To reject Revelation, and yet to regard Reafon as
a faculty, which was originally defigned to depend on
the gradual developement of truth, to fo great a de
gree, as that neither the nature of God nor the nature
of man Should have been difcoverable for many ages,
is to rate the ufe of Reafon and the importance of truth
fo low, as to make them of far lefs confideration than the

480 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
the gratification ofthe appetites, and thepurfuit bf ob
jects, which we enjoy in common with the brute crea
tion. But that Reafon fliould have been abufed in the
courfe of ages, and truth obfcured, and revealed know
ledge abandoned and loft, is nothing wonderful in the
hiftory of man; and therefore, though I think it abfurd
to fuppofe, that man's intellectual powers were ori
ginally fo weak, or fo depraved, as to hurry him head
long into error ; yet, that Since the fall this has been
the character of human Reafon, and that from the very
firft it was liable to be depraved, S am far from deny
ing. All that we read of the polytheifm and idolatry of
the early ages of the world, I firmly believe to have
been, jointly with the evil effects of a moral depravity,
the fruits of erroneous reafoning upon the vifible works
of nature. But what right have Deifts. and Snfidels to
affiime, that this was the primitive ftate of things ? The
Jewifh records muft be allowed to be of a certain age ;
and generally older, even upon the loweft computation,
than any other existing records of antiquity. I have
already, I think, remarked, that they fpeak of idolaters
always as of thofe who had gone afiray ; who had aban
doned a primitive religion, and an original faith in one fu
preme God; who had " turned afide," and "become fil-
" thy, abominable, and corrupt." And it is not ill
obferved by Bifhop Warburton, though fo contrary to
the conclufions of Lord Bolingbroke, Mr. Hume, and
others, that " idol worfhip has none of the appearances
" of an original cuftom ; but has all the circumftances
" attending a depraved and corrupt inftitution." Div.
Leg. vol. i. 461.
But, befides that the Bible thus fpeaks of a pure reli
gion, which prevailed anterior to idolatry, that fo pure
a theology as that of the Jews fhould have prevailed in
thofe early ages, and in the midfl of idolatry, is a bet
ter proof of the real fact, than any that mere reafoning
and conjecture can fupply : for the authors of the Sa*
cred Books have certainly never been regarded by De
ifts as perfons of fuch refined and " cultivated talents,"
as to be naturally fuperior to their neighbours, much
lefs to the fages and philofophers of Greece and Rome.
Lord Bolingbroke exprefsly fays, that " the notions of
" the

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 481
" the facred Penmen were plainly thofe of an ignorant
"people, and unphilofophical ages." Mr. Hume, that
the Bible is the work of " a barbarous and ignorant
" people, wrote in an age when they were ftill more
"barbarous:" [what this means I do not pretend to
difcern.] And yet, all the tenets of thefe " ignorant
" and barbarous" writers feem to be immediately di^
retted againft the moft glaring errors of idolatry. In
the Jewifh theology we have no deified elements, no
terreftrial, aerial, or aquatic Gods. The God of the
Hebrews is all in all. " The earth is his, and all that
" therein is." — " It is the Lord that commandeth the
" waters; it is the glorious God that maketh the thunder.
" It is the Lord that ruleth the fea." — " He giveth rain
" upon the earth, and fendeth waters npon the fields." —
"He vifiteth the earth, and bleffethit; he maketh it
" very plenteous : he water eth her furrows, he fendeth
" rain into the valleys thereof: he maketh it foft with
" drops of rain, and bleffeth the increafe of it." Se
condly, the God of the Hebrews, as Creator, is with a
moft emphatic diftindtion fet high above the moft glo
rious works of his own hands, which are allowed to
have been the firft objects of Gentile Superflition . Such
are the heavenly bodies ; meteors ; elementary princi
ples ; mountains, groves, and rivers ; birds, beafts, and
reptiles; kings, and heroes; and above all, even the in
visible fpirits, which, under various denominations,
were ever fuppofed to exift without the boundaries of
this world. The cxlviiith Pfalm alone would feem to
be exprefsly directed againft alTiuch errors. " O praife
" the Lord of heaven, praife him in the height. Praife
" him, all ye angels of his; praife him, attnis host.
" PraiSe him, sun and moon; praife him, allye stars
" and light. Praife him, ali ye heavens, and ye
" waters that are above the heaven^. For he fpake
" the word, and they were made; he commanded,
"and they were created. Praife the Lord upon
" earth, ye, dragons and all deeps: fire and hail,
" SNOW^nd Vapours, wind and storm, fulfilling
"his word; mountains and all hills; fruitful
" trees and all cedars; beasts and all cattle;
" worms and feathered fowls ; kings of the
" earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of
ii "th©

48a NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
" the world." Thirdly, that great and prevailing er
ror, common in the Eaft particularly, namely, the doc
trine of two coeval and coequal principles of good
and evil, light and darknefs, is in the Jewifh records
peculiarly let afide ; " 1 am the Lord, there is none
" elfe ; there is no God befide me. I form the light,
"and create darkness; I make peace, and create
" evil." Ifaiah xiv. To which Bifhop Lowth adds,
and furely with reafon, ver. 19. " I have not fpoken in
" secret, in the dark place of the earth ;" not
like the ancient oracles, fuch as the Cumasan Sybil,
Virg. Mtx. vi. 43. and the oracle at Delphi. See Strabo
and Diod. Sic. And again, in oppofition to the equivo
cal and falfe anfwers of the heathen oracles, " I am
" Jehovah, who fpeak truth, who give direct
" answers."
In all thefe paffages it is furely not too much to fay,
that there is a marked oppofition to the moft grofs
errors of Paganifm, very Striking and particular. In
regard to the sun and fire alone, (if not the fame
object of worShip,) this tends to exclude perhaps the
Ofiris of the Egyptians ; the Mithras of the Perfians ;
the Jupiter and Apollo of Greece ; the Serapis oi Egypt;
the Ormus and Oromazes oi Perfia ; the Vefla and Vulcan
of Rome. The records themfelves, from which we ex
tract thefe paflages, declare, that the Creator revealed
himfelf at firft to Adam, the parent of the human kind;
and afterwards to Abraham, particularly called. forth
from a nation of idolaters. In either cafe, whether to
guard man at firft from the delufions of error, or after
wards to withdraw hirn from the abominations of ido
latry, the interpofition of the Creator was furely not
without reafon, and particularly confiftent with his
brighteft attributes of goodnefs and beneficence. Lord
Bolingbroke, I know, acknowledges that the unity of
God was known and believed in the world previous to
the vocation of Abraham ; but not by any means by
way of corroborating the Scripture account of a primi
tive Revelation to Adam ; but, on the contrary, exv
prefsly to prove, that it was not a tenet peculiar to the
Ifraelites. And though in the following paffage be
would feem to allow the neceffity of a Revelation; "For,"
Says his Lordfhip, " without Revelation the. unity of
"God

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 485
" God could not be the primitive faith of any one peo*
" pie, till obfervation and meditation, till a full and
" vigorous exercife of reafon, made it fuch. By confi-
" dering the phenomena feparately, men could not ar-
" rive at a knowledge of the one Supreme Being ; and
"fuch men as we fpeak of (the race of Adam, &c.)
" were not capable of taking a comprehenfive view of
"the harmony ofthe whole." Phil. Works, Effay ii.
Yet, in another place, he takes care to tell us, that
" we have nothing to do with the antediluvian world."
This is an eafy way of fetting afide the teftimony of
the Scriptures certainly, but a very clumfy way of
proving them falfe : for they fpeak not of the doctrine
of the Unity as the difcovery of obfervation and medi
tation, but of direct and immediate revelation : and
what right can Lord Bolingbroke or any Deift have
to fay,, that it did not originate as Mofes has related ?
The dull minds of the Jews, which they advert to
fb often, can only ferve to increafe our furprife at the
correct theology of their facred records. The learned
Dr. Campbell reminds Mr. Hume of an affertion he
has made in his works, " that if a traveller were tranf-
" ported into any unknown region, and found the inha-
" bitants- ignorant and barbarous, he might before-
*e hand declare them idolaters ; and there is fcarce a
"poffibility of their being miftakeni" "I know,"
fays Dr. Campbell, " no Satisfactory account that can
" be given of the exception of the Jews, on the prin-
" ciples of the Effayift. Neverthelefs, nothing is more
"eafy, than to give a fatisfadtory account of it, on the.
" Chriftian principles. This account is that which is
" given in the Bible itfelf. It is, that the religious te-
" nets of that nation were not the refult of their rea-
" fonings, but proceeded from divine Revelation. The
" contrail we difcern between the Ifraelites and the
" ancient Greeks and Romans is remarkable : the
" Greeks and Romans, on all the fubjects of human eru-
" dition, on all the liberal and the ufeful a'rtB, reafoned
" like men ; on the fubject of religion, they prated like
" children. The Ifraelites, on the contrary, in all the
" fciences and arts, were children; but in theit notions
" of religion they were men : in the doctrines, for exv
" ample, of the unity, the eternity, the omnipotence,
lis " th»

484 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
" the omnifcience, the omniprefence, the wifdom, and
" the goodnefs of God ; in their opinions concerning
" providence, and the creation, prefervation, and go-
" vernment of the world ; opinions fo exalted and
" comprehensive, as even by Mr. Hume's own acknow-
" ledgment could never enter into the thoughts of
" Barbarians." Campbell on Miracles, feet. vii.
I have dwelt the longer on this, becaufe if there is
any point in difpute between infidels and believers, in
which the former appear to have turned their own
weapons againft themfelves, it is, I think, this particu
lar one, of the fufficiency of human Reafon. They firft
object to the utility of Revelation, becaufe of the fuf
ficiency of human Reafon to difcover, not only a rule of
life, but the nature of God, and the methods of his
providence ; and yet, by their own account, fo infuffi-
cient does it appear to have been, in the firft ages of the
world, that for many generations error muft have taken
place of truth ; and for no other reafon, but becaufe in
thofe firft ages of the world, while ignorance and bar-
barifm prevailed, men could not difcover the true nature
of God, or the ways of his providence. They will not
admit, that God did reveal himfelf to man at the origin
of things, becaufe polytheifm and idolatry appear to
them to have been the firft religion and worfhip of
mankind ; and becaufe, as mankind were at firft uni
formly ignorant and barbarous, it could not have been
otherwife ; nothing but a divine revelation being fuffi
cient to difcover to them the moft important truths of
religion, the unity of God in particular. Thus the
fufficiency of Reafon is held to be proved, by a pofitive
acknowledgment of its infuffidency ; and the inutility of
Revelation demonstrated^ by a clear confeffion oi its ab
folute neceffity. Befides which, polytheifm and idolatry
are affumed to be the primitive religion of the world,
in pofitive contradiction to the oSdefl hiflory of the
world extant ; and thofe very religious truths, which
they declare to have been not difcoverable by an ig
norant and barbarous people, nor otherwife than by
exprefs Revelation, the unity bfGod particularly, are
found in the books of a nation particularly Stigmatized
by Infidels themfelves for their ignorance and barbar-
ifm, and referred by the authors of thofe books, not to

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 485
to their own difcoveries, but to an exprefs revelation of
God. r J
If any perfons would wifh to fatisfy themfelves of the
indifpenSable neceffity of a divine Revelation in the firft
ages of the world, upon the Infidel's Own view of
things, I would refer them' at once to Mr. Hume's
Natural Hifiory of Religion. This treatife never fails
to make the fame impreffion upon my mind ; an im-
preflion as contrary as poffible, in all likelihood, to the
author's intentions : and as I do not like to be de
ceived by fuch impreffions, I have been made happy,
by finding that it has appeared exactly in the fame
light to writers of diftinguifhed eminence. Dr. Mac-
laine in particular, in his Letters to Mr. Soame Jenyns,
exprefsly remarks, " that perhaps no book is more ad-
" apted to fhew the unfpeakable advantages of a divine
" Revelation." P. %zo. As for the fufficiency of hu
man Reafon, where polytheifm and idolatry have pre
vailed, Infidels themfelves have given it up, as has al
ready been fhewn ; and they could not furely have done
otherwife. . See the abfurdities of polytheifm well ex
pofed by the Apologetical Fathers of the Church, par
ticularly Arnobius and Lactantius.
The abfurdities of idolatry, befides the many admi
rable defcriptions of them to be found in different parts
of the holy Scriptures, cannot be more fully difplayed,
than in the Epiftle afcribed to the prophet Jeremiah,
at the end of the book of Baruch. As to the extrava
gances of Paganifm, that is, of natural religion, fee
Bifhop Gibflbn's Second Pafioral Letter ; and the 2d part
of Dr. Nichols's Conference with a Theifi. Indeed they
have been fo often expofed, and with fo much effect,
that it is not at all neceffary to dwell upon the fubject.
Two things only I would obferve, namely, that if Rea
fon was not fufficient to inftruct Pagans in the higher
truths of religion in the infancy ofthe world, it ought
at feafl to have been fufficient to have preferved them
from fuch grofs errors, if the book of nature had been
fo generally legible as Infidels pretend ; and fecondly,
that if the light of nature was fo fufficient as others in
fift, the errors of the Gentile world can be only attri
buted to their great perverfenefs; and their numberlefs
abominations will be lefs excufable by far than the Bi-
1 i 3 ble

485 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
ble (which is often accufed of great uncharitablenefs
in this particular) would reprefent them to be. For
though it is true, that it appears to have been, accord
ing to the Bible, God's peculiar ,care, by his prophets
and minifters, often to fet before the wicked the errors
of their ways, that they might be converted and live ;
yet, what the Scriptures reprefent to have been done
only on fpecial occafions, Deifts would pretend to be
always the cafe : and where the Scriptures allow for
man's weakneffes, and provide a Special remedy for his
lapfe, Deifts often infift: upon the irrefiftible light of Na
ture ; and in fo doing leave no plea for the tranfgreSfor.
The Scripture makes allowance for thofe who have had
no means of " knowing their Mailer's will ;" and have
affured us, that they "fhall be beaten with few Stripes."
But many Deifts infift, that all have the means of fully
knowing their Mailer's will ; and therefore leave no
room for fuch a mitigation of punifhment. See this ad
mirably argued by Dr. Leland, in many parts of his
Anfwer to Chriftianity as old as the Creation.
In regard then to morals: if, as Lord Bolingbroke and
Mr. Hume have fhppofed, the human race muft have
fet out with erroneous notions as to religion, Reafon in
its rude and uncultivated ftate being not only by their
accounts infufficient to inftruct them in the more fub-
lime truths of religion ; but infufficient befides to fe
cure them from the groffeft errors and abfurdities qf fiuper-
fiition and idolatry ; it would be unreafbnahle to fuppofe
they could have been much better off in regard to moral
inftruction and information. Lord Bolingbroke acknow
ledges, that " experience and obfervation,?' which ac
cording to him would appear to have been their only
means of inftruction, " require time ; and Reafon, that
" collects from them, and is improved by them, comes
" flowly to our affiftance." I believe a greater truth
could not be advanced; Rouffeau particularly infifts
upon it; " L'une des acquifitions de l'homme, et m6me
" des plus lentes, eft la Raifon." But if nature is at all
uniform, and man the fame now as at firft, (and if he is
not, how can Deifts pretend to argue the matter? for it
is only the book of God that tells us otherwife,) I fee
not how it was poffible, confidently with the goodnefs
we generally, afcribe to the Supreme Being, that man
Should

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 487
Should be left to wait the iffue of thisj'W examination
of nature, aided only by fuch a cautious and dilatory
auxiliary as Reafon, by their own acknowledgment,
muft ever have been. If all things now poffible were
poffible at firft, (and what have Deifts who difown Re
velation to allege to the contrary ?) furely moral ills of
the blacked malignity might have prevailed, before
Reafon and experience could have fortified man againft
temptations, even perhaps to the extinction of the fpe
cies. Lord Bolingbroke thinks this was provided
againft by the very principle I fliould myfelf have fixed
on, as the moft likely to feduce man into error. Ad
mitting that Reafon would come too flowly to man's
affiftance, he adds, " but then, God implanted in all
"men the principle of felf love ; and this prompting
" him continually to feek his. own happinefs, fecures his
" conformity to the laws of nature." A Stranger prin
ciple furely could not have been fixed on to fecure
man's virtue ; for certainly nothing fo commonly tends
to inflame the paffions and bewilder the reafon, as this
very principle of felf-love : [fee Pope's Eflfay on Man,
Epift. iii. 369.] which Lord Bolingbroke in another
place feems (as much as his friend Mr. Pope) to be
aware of; for he fays, that " while the paffions are for
" ever active, and eafily excited by every object of ap-
" parent good, Reafon all the time is zfiuggard, which
" cannot be fo excited, but mud be willed into ac-
" tion : and as this can rarely happen when the will
" is already determined by affections and paffions, fo
" when it does happen, a fort of compofition takes
" place ; and if affections and paffions cannot govern
" abfolutely, nor fubject Reafon to ferve as their in-
" flrument, they require and obtain more indulgence
" from her than they deferve, or than fhe would fhew
" them, if fhe was entirely free from their force, and
" from their feduction." Now furely a principle, which
particularly fets in motion thofe paflions and affections,
which are always Struggling to get the better of Rea
fon, and reftrain and circumfcribe her power, even
where they cannot fubdue her, is a ftrange fubflitute
for Reafon herfelf. And I believe we have in the book
of Genefis the moft rational account that could be
given of the firft operations of this active principle, and
1 i 4 of

488 NOTES TO SERMON VH1.
of its fatal triumph over Reafon ; a victory, from which
Reafon never has recovered. From that time to this, felf-
love, with her numberlefs paffions and defires, has been
warring againft the foul, and againft Reafon too. And if
we take a view of Infidel philofophy at this very time,
I think it will appear, that even " the remote andfpecu-
" lative" fufficiency of Reafon is as questionable as the
" proximate and practical."
Some of the Pagan philofophers of ancient times had
certainly, by their fpeculative fufficiency of Reafon, at
tained to fome of the moft fublime precepts of the
Gofpel-morality. Even in regard to the regulation of
the heart and thoughts of man :
" Nam fcelus inter fe taciturn qui cogitat ullum,"
fays Juvenal,
" Facti crimen habet.'' Sat. xiii. 209.
Democrilus alfo in Senlentiis ; " 'AyaSbv otf rb jw-ij dfonziv,,
" dXXa ro jj.ijSsv E©EAEJN." And again, " Ao'kijxo; dvijp 39
" dSo-Kipo; /ix. i\\ div -mpolcrcra povov, aMa Xj l£ civ BOTAETAI."
It is true- thefe maxims could not have the authority of
a revealed law, becaufe of the doubts they were under
in regard to the Being who was to take cognizance of
the " taciturn fcelus ;" but the maxim itfelf is certainly
found and good. Neverthelefs the Pagan philofophers
of modern times have fhewn a difpofition to difmifs it
from their codes ; and M. Volney in particular has af
ferted it to be a " law oi Nature," that there is " no
" crime or merit in intention." And, for the credit of
modern philofophy, I cannot forbear to add his fpecu
lative proof of this negation. " For," fays he, " it is
" only an idea, without reality." See the fourth chap
ter of his Law of Nature ; which an Englifh editor is
pleafed to call "the Catechifm of Good Senie and Good
" People." What would Juvenal have given to have
lived in fuch an age of Reafon ! or Cicero ; for Cicero's
good fenfe was not of this Stamp: Nature and Reafon
both taught him a different leffon. " Quam fimilitudi-
" nem," fays he, fpeaking of the beauty and fymme-
try oi objects oi fenfe, " natura, RATioque, ab ocu-
" lis ad animum transferens, multo etiam magis pulchri-
'( tudinem, conftantiam, ordinem in consiliis factif-
" que conlervandum putat : cavetque ne quid indecore " effce-

NOTES TO SERMON VIII, 489
" effoeminateve faciat : turn in omnibus et opinioni-
" bus et factis, ne quid libidinofe aut faciat aut cogi-
'¦' tet." De Offic. lib. i. c. 4. But Mr. Hume, fol
lowing the opinion of a French philofopher, affures tha
world, that " if we would obtain all the advantages of
" life, adultery muft be practifed : that female infidelity,
" when known, is a fmall thing ; when unknown, no-
" thing." Such is the progrefs the age has made in
Ethics : fuch the fpeculative fufficiency of Reafon in
thefe days to difcover a rule oi life: fuch the fuperiority
of our modern philofophy to that ofthe times of Cicero
and Juvenal. And it fhould be noticed, that this is an
age of Honour as well as Reason; fo that where
there has been found a fufficiency of Reafon to counte
nance adultery, there has been found an equal fuffi
ciency of Honour to excufe infidelity. But it would be
endlefs to purfue this comparifon further; nor do I
think it at all neceffary. Whoever wifhes to have a cor
rect view of " the immorality and abfurdity of Deifm,"
and of " the nature and danger of Infidel philofophy,"
may without much expence gratify their wifhes, and
acquire much valuable information, from two modern
publications upon the fubject, both I think tranfatlan-
tic : the one by Mr. Fuller, entitled The Gofpel its own
Witnefs; the ad edit, publifhed in 1800: the other,
Two Difcourfes addreffed to the candidates for the Bacca
laureate in Yale College, 1797, by Dr. Dwight, Prefi
dent of the College. This work has feen three edit,
tions, and well delerves it.
l?age 456, note (2) ,
I only require every man to determine for himfelf, from
the dictates of his own heart, and his own feelings, whe
ther it is at all probable, or even poffible, that any princi
ple of univerfal obligation, and unquefiionable auihority,.
can be difcovered and put in force by mere human Reafbn.l
Long ago Lactantius decided this queftion by an ar
gument, that I think can never be refuted. Speaking
exprefsly ofthe Pagan fyftems of philofophy, compared
with Chriftianity, he Says, " Quid ergo ? Nihilne illi
" fimileprsecipiunt ? Immo permulta : et ad verum.
" frequenter accedunt : fed nihil ponderis habent ilia
" praecepta, quia funt hjimana ; et auctoritate majori, "id

49Q. NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
" id eft divina ilia carent. Nemo igitur credit ; quia
" tarn fe hominem putat effe qui audit, quam eft ille
" qui prsecipit." Inftitut. lib. iii. 27. Nothing more
true could be faid upon the fubject, as far as regards
human laws and fyftems of philofophy ; and his illus
trations of the point are very good. Neither legiflator
nor philofopher can ever reach the heart. The edict at
the legiflator, and the precept of the philofopher, muft
equally depend, for their effect, on circumftances totally
out of the reach of either. No power of man can re
strain an Atheift from a fecret fin. But it is faid, what
men cannot do to reftrain their fellow men, nature can.
The moral fenfe, the love of virtue for its own fake,
the fear of difgrace, the vifible order and harmony of
the univerfe, are capable, we are told, of enforcing the
laws of morality, though it fhould be granted, that
there is no God : " etiamfi daremus, non effe Deum,
" aut non curari ab eo negotia humana." This might
do for fuch moralifts as Machiavel, Hobbes, Toland, and
Bayle : but we Should fcarce have expected to find it in
Grotius ; from whofe writings, however, we have ex
tracted the paffage juft cited. See the Prolegomena to
his work De Jure Belli ac Pads, §. 11. It is a doctrine
not defenfible in philofophy, and can never therefore
be advanced by Deifts, but to weaken the authority of
divine Revelation.
It is an abfurdity to fuppofe an A theifi would be re-
ftrained by any fpeculative notion, however he might
be difpofed to fubmit in common life to the {landing
laws of fociety : and I think we are obliged to M.
Bayle for Supplying us with an argument againft him
felf, when he tells us what his own fecurity would be
againft the evil machinations of an Atheift. Pie would
rely on the Atheift doing him no fecret injury, through
fear of difcovering the fecret in his Sleep, or in the de
lirium of a fever. Againft trufting to fuch a fecurity,
men need not, I think, be much cautioned. But indeed
Bifhop Warburton has fhewn it to be a principle juft as
likely to act in an oppofite manner upon the mind of an
Atheift : for, fays he, very properly, this might juft as
well prevent the Atheift from acting virtuoufiy, even in
public, and the fight of men, left in his Sleep he fhould
tell the truth, and let all the world know, that.he acted only

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 491
only from a felfifh vanity, and a defire to be thought
better than he really was. Surely this contingency
might alarm him as much as the other, if a regard to.
reputation is to be held fufficient to refrain him from
acts of immorality : for he muft be fuppofed to have an
equal dread of rendering himfelf in any other way con
temptible and ridiculous, which certainly fuch an acci
dent could not fail to be the occafion of. But in get
ting rid of the utility of Revelation, the Deift infifts
upon the law of nature being the law of God, and
therefore obligatory enough to be binding on all Theifts
at leaft, who may reafonably be thought to compofe
the majority of mankind. But if this be true, fo far
from proving the inutility of a particular Revelation, it
fupplies us, S think, with two very ftrong reafons for
the peculiar neceffity oi a divine Revelation : for what is
the law of nature, which our paffions and appetites often
point to ? Is it a law fo precife and determinate, that
no one Theift can interpret it differently from another?
Are the licentious and the temperate equally obedient
to the law of nature ? Are the libertine and volup
tuary, in the gratification of their natural appetites, to
be allowed to think they are fulfilling the laws of God
as truly as the chafte and fober ? Is the law of nature,
as a law of God, fo accommodating to men's fancies,
that to fome adultery fhall appear no crime, affaffina-
tion no injury, revenge honourable, Suicide glorious,
abortion and infanticide politically juft ? All thefe have
been confidered by fome profeffed Theifts to be, under
certain circumftances, no lefs than the law of nature,
and confequently the law of God ; fo contrary, I will
venture to fay, to the decided opinions of Theifts in
general, that the latter would never be brought to al
low, that the volume of nature could poffibly admit of
any fuch interpretation. It is enough to know how
ever that fome, who have not only been held to be in
their fober fenfes, but who have been numbered among
the philofophers of the age, have fo read the volume of
nature. Could Theifts ever be fo divided about the
interpretation of the fixth, feventh, eighth, and tenth
Commandments ? Could any written law be liable to
an abufe like this ? Yet to fuch abufe the law of nature
ever is and ever has been liable. M. Volney

493 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
M. Volney himfelf acknowledges, that the great mafs
of mankind (for So I think the ignorant, whom he
fpeaks of, comparatively are, and always will be)" are
" liable every inftant to commit miftakes, the moft per-
" nicious , to themfelves or others." — "Above 3000
" years fince," fays he, " the wifeft of men obferved,
" that the number of fools is infinite ; and the world
" has not changed." And when he is afked, how it
happens that- philofophers deceive themfelves, his anfwer
is, " From their nature as men." And yet, if God has
given us no other law but the law of nature, we have
no interpreters of that law but men ; who by a diftinct
law of nature, it feems, are for ever liable to be de
ceived : for this is M. Volney's own affertion, which
he repeats in another place : " Man is ignorant by na-
" ture; and ignorance is, an obftacle in the way of all
" her laws." — " Are ignorance and folly common?" is
another queftion of his celebrated Catechifm. The an
fwer is, " Yes, very common ; they are the habitual
" and general difeafes of mankind." This is the opi
nion of one who thinks the. law of nature the only law
of God ; while, by his own confeffion, the number of
thofe who are amenable to it, and yet incapable of
learning their duty from it, is now, and ever has been,
infinite ! Surely, fince all profeffed Deifts are fo in
clined to look to the law of nature as the only meafure
of their duty, it fhould have occurred to them, that a
good and gracious God could not but be fenfible of tho
imperfection of a law, which the ignorant cannot com
prehend, and the wife may fo continually miftake.
But if Deifts are fincere in their, belief of the Super
intendence of an omnifcient and gracious Providence,
they muft furely be brought to fee the great improba
bility alfo of man's being left to depend entirely on a
law, that fhould leave no difference between the Theift
and the Atheift. When the Atheift once knows, that
the law of nature is regarded as the only law of God,
there is not an action of his life, in which he may not
infult his God, and make a mockery of man. Every
compliance with the law of nature will gain him the
credit of being a faithful and obedient fervant of the
moft High ; and then not even the fanctity of an oath
will fecure the Theifi from his deceptions. " Fruftra
" quippe

NOTES TO SERMON VIIL 4$3
" quippe jurando quis adigitur per Deum, quem non
" credit, adeoque nee metuit," fays Puffendorf ; and
Hobbes admits it in his work De Cive, c. ii. §. 31.
And if we may take an Atheift's own word forthe truft
we ought torepofe in a perfon who has nothing to fear,
Diderot himfelf affures us, that " Tout homme qui n'a
" rien a craindre, devient bientot mechant." Certainly,
however, in regard to oaths and imprecations, in the
cafe of an Atheift, the great God of heaven may be in
voked to confirm any teftimony, and his holy name
profaned to fanction any hypocritical pretence. And
this, I think, may ferve to prove not only the expedi
ency of a written law, to which the Atheift fliall be
obliged to conform as well as the Theift, but the ne
ceffity alfo of fome arbitrary laws, an habitual con
formity to which may increafe the fecurity of the
Theift. For though there may be no means entirely
of guarding againft hypocrify in an Atheift; yet the
more frequent occafions there may be provided, for
men to teftify their belief in God, and in the immuta
ble fanctions of his righteous laws, the more fecurity
muft neceffarily arife to fociety in general. Any man
may profefs to believe in God, to compafs fome parti
cular end : but the Atheift's pretence of belief might
be timely fufpected, if he was known to have paffed
his life in an habitual contempt of God's fabbath, and
other holy inftitutions. I would not fay any thing to
render man more fufpicious than neceffary of his neigh
bour : but our habitual truft and confidence in God can
never, I think, be rendered certain to man, .but by ah
open and uninterrupted courfe of rational devotion.
For while the Atheift may have many motives to be
virtuous without religion, it muft coft him great pains,
even to pretend to be religious without virtue : that
" fervice" to God, which, having the confent of the
heart and foul, is to the true Chriftian " perfect free-
" dom," would to the Atheift be the hardeft and moft
hatefal bondage, a burthen moft intolerable. I confefs,
without external devotion, and even inftituted forms of
devotion, I know no means of diftinguifhing between a
Theift and an Atheift: I would not confound them
without neceffity ; but it is incumbent on the Deift to
teach us how. to diftinguifh them. Even Polybius could

49+ NOTES TO SERMON VIll.
could acknowledge the beneficial effects of religions^
inftitutions,. to fupport the. fanctity, of oaths ; which, he
fays, were more binding upon the Romans, who pub
licly worfhipped the Gods, and believed the doc
trine of future punifhments, than ten written Sureties
among the Greeks, with as many feals, and twice as
many witneffes : avriyf a-tp-el; Ssx.a, xa) cr<ppayiSx( roa-airct;
xa) pdprvpocs SmXacrlas. 'lrop. A. r. edit. BaSil. 192.
As to the fuperiority of fanctions and motives, in the
Cafe of a revealed religion and a written law, it can
not poffibly be quedioned. Natural religion is grofsly
deficient both in regard to fanctions and to motives ;
to fanctions, becaufe no obfervation of nature, no con
templation of the vifible fcene of things, can poffibly
affure Us of a future ftate, that is, of rewards or punifh
ment to come; in regard to motives, becaufe while re
vealed religion calls upon every man alike to " fear God
" and keep his commandments," natural religion directs
every man to do only what feemeth good in his own
eyes :,fee Spinofa, as cited by Dr. Leland in his View of
Deiftical Writers, Letter VI. vol. i. p. 85 . 5th edit. Natu-*
ral religion is undoubtedly a religion man makes for him
felf: " L'homme n'a qu'a confialter les deflirs defon cceur,
" pour favoir ce qu'il fe doit a lui-m§me, et ce qu'il
" doit aux autres ;" fays Diderot. He even goes fo far
as to affure us, " des que le vice nous rend heureux,
" il doit aimer le vice :" which, though not intended
to encourage vice, is a dangerous maxim in the prefent
ftate of things. " Ce que Dieu veut," fays Rouffeau,,
" qu'un homme faffe, il ne le lui fait pas dire par.un
" autre homme ; il le lui dit lui-m6me, il l'ecrit au
"fond de fon cceur." I have only to confult myfelf,"
he adds, " concerning what I ought to do. All that
" I feel to be right is right. Whatever I feel to be-
" wrong is wrong. All the morality of our actions
" lies in the judgment we ourfelves form of them."
Emile. " It were to be wiShed," fays Mr. Godwin,
" that no human being were obliged to do any thing
" but from the dictates of his own underftanding."
And again, " the moft natural and obvious of all pro-
" ceedings, is for each man to be the Sovereign arbiter
" of his own concerns." And a good -deal to the fame
purpofe in another place : " If I learn nothing but
" what

a

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 49S
" what I defire to learn, what fhould hinder me from
" being my own preceptor ?" Certainly nothing. Any
dunce at fchool might anfwer this enquiry, I think;
and any mailer of a fchool muft fee the wifdom of it.
And yet I know not but this is a juft defcription of the
principle upon which every Deift embraces his natural
religion in preference to Revelation. Each wifhes to
be his own preceptor ; that is, according to Mr. God
win's definition, " to learn nothing but what he him-
¦" felf defires to learn." Such perfons may well be
expected not to fee, nor to acknowledge, the utility
of a divine Revelation. As they will be their own
inftructors, no doubt they will alfo choofe to be
their own judges ; and as they infift upon being a law
unto themfelves, we may be affured that felf-gratifica-
tion will be their chiefeil motive, and the approbation
of their own judgment their higheft Sanction. Com
pare the fanctions and motives of Chriftianity, as they
are brought together in Bifhop Gibfon's fecond Pafiorai
Letter ; fee alfo Ogden' s XlVth Sermon on the Superi
ority of the Chriftian Religion over all other Religions ;
and Paley' s Principles of Moral and Political Philofophy.,
b. ii. ch. 4. where he fpeaks of Mr. Hume's 4th Appen
dix to his principles of morals.
By what has been faid, I am far from meaning to
deny that there is a law of nature to which we are re-
Sponfible ; that there are natural fanctions provided by
God to enforce this- law ; and that it was defigned to
lead us to every thing juft and right. " What makes
" then the evil, dangerous, and defperate doctrines of
" natural religion?" Bifhop Taylor, who puts this quef
tion, Shall give the anfwer : " Not the obfcurity ofthe
" thing, but the cloud upon the heart : for fay what
" you will, he that hears muft be the expounder ; and
" we can never fuppofe but a man will give fentence in
" behalf of what he paffionately loves." Men have
differed fo much in their interpretations oi the law of
nature, that there is now fcarcely an immorality to be
named, which the Deift may not find fome various
reading of the volume of nature, to juftify ; fome ac
commodating glofs, to fupport him in it. I have al
ready mentioned Some grofs violations of the law qf
nature, whiph philofophers of modem times have found
means

495 NOTES TO SERMON VIlI.
liieans to vindicate; as ad ul teryj affafii nation, fuicide,
abortion. Mr. Godwin (who pofitively declares not
only that Alexander and Casfar, but that Milton's Sa
tan may be Called virtuous, for refenting the unjuft in
equality between him and God) thinks robbers gene
rally act upon a perfuafion in their own minds, that
the property they covet is comparatively of fmall va
lue in the hands of the prefent poffeffor, and that great
advantage would accrue from its being in their hands ;
and therefore " the transfer ought to be made," and
they " do what they think right" in bringing this about.
Pol. Juft. vol. i. 99. 4to edit.
Such is the morality to be deduced from the book of
nature, when left to man's own interpretation j The
eighth and tenth Commandments of the Decalogue are
furely more explicit : of the expediency of the latter I
leave all men now to judge from the account juft given
of the grievous miftakes we may be liable to, in fram
ing for ourfelves a fyftem of duty and moral action in'-
dependent of Revelation ; and I return with confidence
to the appeal I have made in my Difcourfe, " to every
" man's own feelings, to decide upon the neceffity of
" a divine Revelation, in addition to the light of nature,
" with a view to his own happinefs and fecurity, as
" arifing out of the confidence he would wifh to repofe
" in his neighbours and affociates." " Will you dare
" to affert," fays M. Linguet, in his critical analyfis of
Voltaire's works, " that it is in philofophic families we
" are to look for model's of filial refpect, conjugal love^
" fincerity in friendfliip, or fidelity among domef-
" tics ?" Linguet was an admirer of Voltaire, but
difapproved of his oppofition to Chriftianity. This is
noticed in Mr. Fuller's Gofpel its own Witnefs ; to
which I muft again refer for proofs ofthe immorality
of modern Deif'm : they are too numerous to tran-
fcribe ; and I cannot pretend to place them in a Slronger
light, than Mr. Fuller himfelf has done.
Page 466. note (3).
It cannot furely with any fair nefs be alleged after this,
that Bifhop Taylor regarded Chriflianity as " nothing
" more than a rule of life."] I have only felected a
few paffages from Bifhop Taylor, to fhew, that however he

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 497
he may have appeared to Mr. Fellowes, from fome de
tached expreffions, to have regarded Chriftianity as
" only a rule of life," he was certainly by no means
unmindful of the doctrinal parts of Chriftianity, and
particularly of the atonement by the blood of Chrift.
The paffages that might be adduced from Dr. Clarke,
whom Mr. Fellowes alfo cites, are, innumerable : and
from Dr. Cave's works (as many of them,, as I have by
me to refer to) I could, if it was neceflary, produce
enough, in a fhort fpace of time, to fatisfy aiiy reafon;i-
ble mind. But I muft confefs, that Mr. Fellowes's
opinion of Chriftianity in this inftance feems to me lb
little confonant to the tenor of the New Teftament, that
had Bifhop Taylor, Dr. Clarke, and Dr. Cave, been un
exceptionable wjtneffes in his favour, it would have
had no weight with me. If Chriftianity is " nothing
" more than a rule of life," then not only, as St. Paul
faith, is " our preaching vain," but certainly .Chrift
hath died in vain.
I am not acquainted with all Mr. Fellowes's works ;
and indeed I have not yet had any opportunity of
reading the particular publication to which Dr. Parr
alludes in his note : therefore I cannot pretend to
judge of any opinions of Mr. Fellowes, but fuch as are
ftated in the treatife I have particularly cited ; " RelU
" gion without Cant." It is in this publication I find
the propofition fo ftrongly infifted on, that ".Chrif-
" tianity is no more than a rule of life." But this
is alfo accompanied with many affertions that muft
be held to imply, that fome very important tenets
of the Church of England are not Gofpel truths. I
muft declare, though I am forry to do it, that not
even the eloquence of Dr. Parr could perfuade me that
it is very correct morality to continue in open and pro
feffed communion with a Church, whole tenets we
think it neceffary to dlfavow. This indeed is enough
to fix upon the Church the charge which Socinians
are fo forward to advance, (but which I had hoped was
not -true), J namely, that many members ofthe Church
are not fincere, in their profeffions, and would quit it, if
they had a fair opportunity. Mr. Fellowes has rea
fon indeed to be gratified with Dr. Parr's eulogium,
becaufe it is the teftimony of a neighbour ; and be
lt k Sides

498 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
fides its eloquence, it is fuch a hiftpry of his character^
as none but a neighbour could fupply. May he long live
to exercife the charity for which he is fo warmly com
mended ! Nor would I wifh to reftrain his pen; which
has written much that I admire, and much that I could
commend. But indeed he would do well to be more
confiftent ; for though he wiShes Chriflianity to be even
preached and promulgated as " no more than a rule qf
" life," yet he does not Scruple to fpeak of "the mercy
" of God," as " operating through the atonement of
" Chrift." Is fuch a doctrine as this then to be fup
preffed, and the ranfom which Chrift paid for our fins
to be never mentioned, becaufe it may chance to be
objectionable to the Jew 'and Turk, Infidel and Here
tic ? John the Baptift did not take this method of
turning men to repentance. When the Pharifees and
Sadducees came to his baptifm, he told them he had a
new doctrine to deliver to them, not in any manner ac
commodated to their prejudices, but in direct oppofition
to them. When St. Paul had to do with the Stoics and
Epicureans at Athens, he little heeded the fcorn and
derifion with which they treated his new Gods j Jefus
and Anaftafis, (fee Cave's Life of Paul,) but continued
to preach " Chrifi crucified, and the refurrection of the
" dead:" nor did he fail of making converts ; among
whom was Dionyfius the . learned Areopagite.— This
mode oi fiup'pr effing the great doctrines of Chriftianity
is, in my humble opinion, entirely incompatible with
the engagements of a Minifter ofthe Church of Eng
land. I am as much an enemy to the doctrine of Faith
without works, as Mr. Fellowes can be : but I am very
certain, that the doctrine of works without Faith is
not the doctrine ofthe Church of England, nor yet in
deed of the Church of Chrift. " The form of found
" words," originally delivered to the faints, was to be-
preached and promulgated whole and entire, and not
" accommodated by a bold retrenchment of myfteriea
" to the blindnefs and the pride of human reafon."
It is unp]eafant to me to dwell fo long on this fubject ;
but if ever there was a time, when the Church required5
to be protected fromthe intrufion of fecret enemies, and'
the reproach of falfe friends, it is the prefent ; where
the Unitarian party and other Diffenters are continually
insinuating,

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 499
Infirraating, that there are many among us, whofe Faith
belies the language of their lips. Many fuch charges
occur in the writings of Dr. Prieftley and Mr. Lindfey.
Mr. Lindfey has certainly taken the only ftep to be
taken upon fuch occafions, to fecede from a fociety
whofe tenets and principles he did not approve. Mr.
Lindfey however, who has himfelf had the confiftency
to fecede, has particularly praifed and commended a
mode of conduct in two of his friends, which appears
to metobe without aground of excufe. The cafesl allude
to are thofe of Dr. Chambers of Achurch inNorthamp-
tonfliire, and Mr.Evanfon of Tewkefbury. Thefe gentle
men, it feems, difapproved of many ofthe profeffed doc
trines of the Church of England : but having prefer
ment which they did not choofe to relinquifh without
compulfion, they took upon them, in the performance of
the public fervice, (which they were bound by a volun
tary engagement to adhere to,) to omit every part of the
Liturgy which they did notapprove; a conduct which ap
pears to me difhoneft both in the fight of God and man.
Yet Mr. Lindfey calls it a " noble effort ;" and com
mends it as an act of manly fpirit, and courageous ho-
nefty : which is the more remarkable, becaufe in his
own; cafe he had fet an example, by feceffion and re
signation of his preferment, of the only proper conduct
to adopt on fuch an occafion ; and in only a few
pages further, where he takes occafion to notice the
feceffion of Mr. Maty, he introduces a letter from that
able fcholar and well-intentioned man, in which the cafe
is put in the ftrongeft light. " Finally, I can neither
" Submit to acquiefce in Silence, after having made
" my objections known, nor take upon me to alter the
" fervice of the Church, as long as I continue to profefs
" my felf a minifter of it."
But to return from this digreffion. I cannot wifh to
drive any perfon fo learned and ingenious, and of fo good
a moral character as Mr. Fellowes is reprefented to be,
out ofthe Church, and more particularly from the fervice
of theChurch, ifi could keep him in it. As therefore he
pfofeffes to have morality io much at heart, I would be-
ieech him duly to confider, how much the morality of
a Chriftian muft be, and is generally acknowledged to
be, connected with the doctrinal tenets of the Gofpel :
k k a in

joo NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
in proof of which that I may refer to authority the leaft'
exceptionable poffible, I fhall chiefly have recourfe to
Dr. Samuel Clarke, whom Mr. Fellowes, as I have ob
ferved in my Difcourfe, cites for the very purpofe of
proving that Chriftianity is " no more than a rule of
" life." Now Dr. Clarke has particularly drawn out
for us the following fcale of moral perfections. " From
" what has been faid, we may obferve ; that moral vir-
" tues, and what the Scripture calls the fruits of the
" Spirit, are one and the fame thing under different deno-
" minations : when confidered in themfelves, in their
" own abfolute and intrinfic nature, as being difpofitions
" of mind effentially and unalterably good, they are
" ftyled virtues: when confidered with regard to
" their effects, in the vifible actions and practice oi men,
" they are called morality. When confidered with
" refpect to. the root and fpring, the fountain or princi-
" pie from which they Slow ; namely, a right fenfe oi
" the reafon and truth of things, and a juft regard to
" God the Judge of all; they are then ftyled reli-
" gion. Laftly, when confidered with refpect to th&
" extraordinary Supports they receive from the revelation
" of the Gofpel in particular, as being therein explained
" with clearer and more difiinct declarations, enforced
" with ftronger and more powerful motives, encouraged
" and promoted with all the helps and affiftances of the
" Spirit of God; in this refpect, they are called tha
" fruits ofthe Spirit." Sermons, vol. iii. Serm. IX.
Surely from this we learn, that the morality of the Gof
pel is not mere morality; but morality recommended by
the promife of extraordinary helps and affiftances ; en
forced with ftronger and more powerful motives than
any other fyftem of morality whatfoever. And what
motive can be ftronger than the knowledge and affur-
ance of God's hatred of fin ? And how can this be
made fo confpicuous and clear to us, as by a due re
flection on the death oi Chrift? the very object of
which, according to Dr. Clarke himfelf, was, to dif-
courage fin. " To punifh tinners," faith he, " and
" deftroy wickednefsout of his kingdom, is indeed the
" neceffary office even of that Governor who is good-
" neis itfelf; and therefore, in order to difcourage fin, he
" thought jfit it fhould be pardoned by no eafier me-
" thod

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 501
w thod than by the incarnation and death of his Son."
Serm. IX. vol. ii. And again, (which will particu
larly, I think, ferve to fhew how much it was this
learned Divine's opinion that the doctrines oi Scripture
Should be made the foundation of Chriftian morality,)
" The Gofpel," fays he, "Shews us, that God is a be-
" ing of purer eyes than to behold iniquity : fo far hating
" wickednefs, as that he did not think fit to pardon fin,
" without fo great a tefiimony againfi it as the death of his
" Son ; and yet, at the fame time, of fuch effential mercy
" and goodnefs, that he would rather give his own Son a
*' ranfom for finners, than not find a method of pardon-
" ing them, confiftent with the wifdom qf his. infinite and
" eternal government. By giving us confequently the ex-
" ample of Chrift in his life, and in h\s fufferings ; the
" affiftances of his Spirit; the affurance of a reward for
" virtue, in a happy immortality ; and a more exprefs
" declaration of his wrath from heaven, againfi all un-
" righteoufnefs and ungodlinefs of men : by thefe means
" does the Gofpel, in the mofi effectual manner, ' teach
'us, that, denying 'ungodlinefs and worldly lufis, we
'fhould live foberly, righteoufly, and godly in this prefent
* world.' And 'to them, who are thus taught by it,
" and to them only, it is, ' the grace of God which
' bringeth falvation." Serm. XII. vol. ii. Thus, ac
cording to Dr. Clarke, (Mr. Fellowes's own authority.)
and thus only, is Chriftianity to be confidered as "-a
" rule of life :" not by fuppreffion of its Angular and
important doctrines of atonement for fin, the corruption
of man, the wrath of God againft all evil doers, and
the gracious affiftances ofthe holy Spirit, but by the
particular aid and addition oi all thefe " extraordinary
" fupports ;" which raifes it far above all other fyftems
of" morality;" all other "religions" ofthe world; all
other "rules of life ;" all other means of " falvation !"
Page 470. note (4).
But as thefe mifreprefentations qf Chriftianity have been
repeatedly noticed and admirably expofed by various wri
ters, I need not take up more qf your time with them at
prefent.'] I confefs my own mind is fo fatisfied with
the unanfwerable arguments that have been adduced, by
many eminent writers, in vindication ofthe Gofpel from
k k 3 thefa

503 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
thefe mifreprefentations of the preceptive parts, that I
cannot wiSh to do more than barely to refer to fuch
works as are eafily to be confulted : and that we may
have the fatisfaction of knowing that the friends of
Revelation keep pace in learning and in zeal with its
opponents, I Shall be happy in referring chiefly to living
authors, who have particularly applied their thoughts
to; the fubject. See Dr. Parr's very able and learned
Difcourfes, his Spital Sermon, April 1800 ; and his Fafi
Sermon oi 1803; Mr. Hall's Fafi Sermon ofthe fame
year ; and his Difcourfe on Modern Infidelity : fee alfo
the works of an author I have often had occafion to
cite ; Mr. Fuller ; particularly The Gofpel its own
Witnefs, Part I. ch. iv : confult alfo Bifhop Watflbn's
Apology for the Bible ; and Profeffor Brown's Appendix
to 5 th edition of Leland' 's View qf Deiftical Writers; a
work which itfelf will fupply enough upon the fubject
to fatisfy any reafonable mind : fee particularly his
Letters in anfwer to Lord Shaftefbury, Letter V. and his
VSIth Letter to Mr. Collins ; Letter XIV. in anfwer to
Mr. Chubb, and Letter XXI. to Mr. Hume. The two
next I have to cite, I am forry to fay, are now no
longer to be ranked among living authors , though they
lived long enough to witnefs and deplore many of the
follies of this age of Reafon; and Strenuous were they
in their endeavours to Stem the torrent of modern infi
delity : but, alas !

-Fugaces-

" Labuntur anni ! nee pietas moram
" Rugis et mftanti feneftae
" Afferet indomitseque morti !"
"In full age and hoary holinefs," they are gone to reft !
I fpeak of Dr. Beattie and Dr. Machine. They have
both written admirably upon the mifreprefentations al
luded to in the Difcourfe, and Should by all means be
confulted ; fee Beattie' s Evidences qf Chriflianity, vol. ii.
p. 105—120; and Dr. Maclaine's very ingenious Letters
to Mr. Soame Jenyns on his Internal Evidence qf the
Chriftian Relig'con. There are fome excellent remarks
alfo in Leng's Boyle's Lectures, Sermon XXI.
I fhall only add to this note, for the information of
thofe who may not have paid much attention to the
fubject,

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 503
fubject, a Short fpecimen of the views that have been
taken of patriotifm, in this age of Reafon : (one ofthe
¦virtues which the Gofpel has been accufed of not ex
prefsly recommending.) It has been well fhewn, that
ancient patriotifm was by no means a principle which
the Gofpel could generally countenance ; fee Lactan
tius, lib. vi. §. 6. I fliall endeavour to fhew, that mo
dern patriotifm would as little deferve to be generally
inculcated, as a principle of Chriftianity, as the patriot
ifm to which Lactantius alludes.
In endeavouring to eradicate every prejudice oi edu
cation that may be thought to Hand in the way of this
exalted virtue of modern patriotifm, Helvetius ranks
among the moft obnoxious of thefe prejudices, that of
"filial affection :" he adduces a high authority to
prove that it is no natural principle. He thinks it
muft be admitted by thofe who allow the fifth Com
mandment of the Decalogue to proceed from God.
" Si les hommes," fays he, " etoient, comme on le dit,
" portes l'un vers l'autre par une attraction forte et
" mutuelle, le Legiflateur celefle leur eut-il commande
" de s'aimer leurs peres et meres ?" [We thank him
for this irrefiftible proof of the neceffity of a divine Re
velation to fupply the defects of the law of nature ;
but this by the bye.] It would have been well, if, af
ter making this ufe ofthe word of God, he would
have had the decency to treat the principle of filial af
fection as at leaft a virtuous and good principle, being,
by his own infinuation at leaft, exprefsly enjoined by
God : but not fo : he not only denies that God has
laid the foundation for fuch an affection by any inftinc-
tive propenfity or attachment ; but he infifts upon it
that he has given rather " une force repulftve," " dans
" le defir naturel de l'independence," which feparates
the daughter from the mother in marriage, and in
duces the fon, for the fake of gain, or honour, or mere
pleafure, to quit, " avec plaifir, les foyers paterncls." He
is fo careful then of the public good, and public happi
nefs, as to recommend fome wholefome refirainls to be
placed upon this private charity of life: " La trop grande
" force de ce lien," he remarks, " feroit funefte aux
" etats ;" " la premiere paffion du citoyen doit etre
" celle des loix et du bien public" — "I'amour filial
k k 4 " doit

504 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
" doit etre fubordonne dans l'homme a I'amour patrio-
" tique." It is well that he has not left us to find out
for ourfelves the fpecial reaSon for moderating and re-
ftraining this dangerous principle. " Qu'on en legi-
" time V execs, qu'on le declare le premier des amours,
" un fils eft des-lorsen droit de piller fon voifin, &c. &c.
" pour foulager le befoin d'un pere, ou pour augmen-
" ter fon aifance." This right to rob and Steal, &c. &c.
which M. Helvetius conceives muft flow from any
fuper-indulgence of filial affections, is a right, it feems,
which his favourite law of nature confers : for certain
ly no law of God or man authorifes theft and robbery,
" pour augmenter Paifance" of either father or mother :
but, according to Helvetius, it really is a law of nature:
for he fays, it is only the phyfical wants of man which
keep him in a ftate of fociety ; that we affociate folely
for the fake of prey, "comme les animaux carnaffiers,
" tels que les renards et les loups :" and, for fear we
fliould Still fufpect any thing amiable to be at the bot
tom of thefe focial and domeflic ties, he affures us, that
the fociable principle argues nothing good, for, " les
" loups font fociete, et ne font pas bons." In another
place he obferves, unlefs the love of one's country be
made the firft of moral duties, a man may be a good
father, hufband, fon ; but he cannot be a good citizen.
" Que de crimes," he concludes, "I'amour des parens
" n'a-t-il pas fait commettre !"
If fuch be modern patriotifm, I am heartily glad that
Deifts have not an opportunity of charging Chriftianity
with any encouragement of it. Lord Shaftefbury how
ever, I muft fay, when he accufed the Gofpel of an
omiffion in regard to the virtue of patriotifm, feems
not to have had fuch an ill opinion of filial affection
either as Helvetius or Mr. Godwin ; for he pronounces
it to be abfolutely wrong to prefer an indifferent perfon
to one's father. Enquiry concerning Virlue,h. i. Part II.
Much has been written to vindicate Chriflianity
from this charge of omiffion of fome public virtues of
high importance : and from the above it may appear
how neceflary it has been, of late, to vindicate her
from the charge of overlooking the private charities
and virtues of focial life. For my own part, I am per
fuaded that patriotifm is, as far as it need to be, coun
tenanced

NOTES TO SERMON VIIL 505
tenanced by the Scriptures; but never at the expence of
thofe private affections, which are, under all circum
ftances whatfoever, an honour to our nature; and
which are moft particularly calculated to form the bafis
of the trueft and moft unexceptionable patriotifm. I feel
affured alio, that the Scriptures not only regard paren
tal affection as a natural principle, but that the rank
they affign to it in the fcale of natural principles is, if
not the firft, moft clearly the fecond. S conceive that
no other conclufion can be drawn from thofe paffages in
-Scripture, in which it is ftated, that " a man fhall
." leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife;"
and that, " if a man come not to Chrift, and hate not
¦" his father, and mother, and wife, &c. he cannot be
" his difciple," but that the parental affection is only fe
cond to the conjugal, as a focial principle ; but that even
thefe, the higheft and mofi binding of all earthly ties, muft
be facrificed to the love of God, and his laws, if the cafe
requires it. The term " hate," which St. Luke ufes,
I concfeive to be fully explained by the correfpondent
paffage of St. Matthew ; " He that loveth father and
" motherwort than me:" which I am difpofed to re
gard not only as another ftrong proof of the cafe in
point, but as no trifling argument for the divinity of
our bleffed Saviour ; fo ftrong are the expreffions, and
yet fo perfonal, that if the love of God is intended,
(and nothing lefs I think can be,) then Chrift was
God. Page 471. note (5).
It is further explained by the precept, that we fhould do
unto others, as ive would they fhould do unto us ; that is,
under a fuppofed change of circumftances, which is mani-
fejtly implied.'] " Some men are io fubtle and difin-
" genuous, that they will labour to puzzle and perplex
" the nioft fimple truths, and to put obfcure conftruc-
" tions upon the brightest maxims." With this re
flection Mr. Pyle begins an excellent difcourfe upon
the very fubject of this great Chriftian precept ; in
which he thews the true nature, meaning, and limits oi
this grand duty : for limits it certainly has ; fince, to
refer again to the fame excellent writer, " we are to
" require

5o6 NOTES TO SERMON VIII.
" require of other men, and always to pradtife towards
" them, not what a corrupt notion of our own interefl,
*' nor what a wild fancy and imagination may prompt
" us to wifh were done ; but what appears laudable
" and honourable, equitable and reafonable to be
" done." The law therefore does not require, that 3
magistrate fliould acquit a criminal, or a creditor a frau
dulent debtor : but we are only bound by it (as another
eminent Divine expreffes himfelf) " to obferve in aU
" cafes that behaviour to others, which on fimilar oc-
" cations we could, with juftice and, reafon, expect to
" receive from them." See Carr's Sermons, vol. ii. p.
228. See, on the union and coincidence of felf- love and
benevolence, the references in Parr's Notes to his Spital
Sermon, p. 34.
May I be allowed to conclude this part of my fub
ject in the words of the ingenious Mr. Baker, at
the clofe of his valuable Reflections upon Learning.
" And now having gone through the feveral forts of
" learning, and obferved the various defects, arid oft-
" times uncertainties, which they are fubject to : the
" conclufion is obvious ; that fince no fatisfaction is to
" be met with from them, we are to feek for it fome-
" where elfe, if happily it may be found. It may be
" found, but not in our own powers, or by our own
" Strength ; and that which our moil exalted Reafon,
" under all its improvements, cannot yield us, is only
" to be had from Revelation. It is there we may
" feeurely reft, after the mind has tried all other ways
" and methods of knowledge, and has tired itfelf with
" fruitlei's enquiries. And were there no other ufe
" of human learning, there is at leaft this in it : that, by
" its many defects, it brings the mind to a fenfe of its
" own weaknefs, and makes it more readily, and with
" greater willingnefs, fubmit to Revelation. God may
" have fo ordered in his wife Providence, thereby to
" keep us in a conftant dependence upon himfelf, and
" under a neceffity of confulting him in his Word ;
" which Since profane men treat fo neglectfully al-
" ready, they would have it in greater contempt, and
" it would be much more vile in their eyes, did they
" find any thing within them} equally perfect, which
"might

NOTES TO SERMON VIII. 507
" might guide them in their courfe, and ' bring them
* to the haven where they would be.' But this fince
" they do not meet with, it ought to wean them from
" an opinion of themfelves, and incline them to feek
" out fatisfaction fomewhere elfe, and to take shel-
" ter where it may be found 1"

SERMON

SERMON IX-.

Titus ii. 15.
Thefe things fpeak, and exhort, and rebuke with all au
thority. Let no man defpife tbee.
IN thefe directions of the Apoflle to Titus,
we have a fummary of fome of the princi
pal duties of the ministerial oSEce. Firft,
" Speak;" rewret XaXet : Secondly, " exhort;"
«Cg</ taaqcLxaAet : and thirdly, " Rebuke with
" all authority;" y&j sAeyxe (asto. woa-ris £7riT.a,-
yi\s. And then follows, pu^ets o-a Tse^itpoovstrcj,
" let no man defpife thee." The firSi would
appear to refer to the mere enunciation of
the Word; which in the primitive times was
* This Sermon, having been preached before the Univerfity,
by appointment, on the Sunday immediately fubfequent to the
conclufion of the preceding Lecture, and the fubject being ac
cidentally fuch as eafily to connect with the view there taken
*f Modern Infidelity, is here added. aSligned

5*o SERMON IX.
aSIigned to the public Readers and Deacons.
The fecond extends to the preaching' of the
Word, with exhortation, intreaty* and ad
vice ; the office more particularly of the Bi-
fhops and Prefbytersh. And the third to the
exercife of eccleSiaftical difcipline and cen-
fures, which of courfe belonged to the fupe-
riors of the Church. None of thefe things
were to be intermitted ; but eipecially the
latter, which was to give eSFecl: to the other
two ; and to which, in all likelihood, the
words, " let no man defpife thee," more
immediately apply : that is, as I conceive,
let none defpife your authority, or alTume
to themfelves a licence to tranfgrefs, for
want of having the laws of God properly
enforced upon them, and Secured in all re-
fpecl: due to them.
But there is another fenfe given to the
verb mfitpoovea'-, by which it is held to Signify
not merely a defiance or negleel;, but fuch a
kind of contempt, as from one who loohs

b See Potter on Church Government j and Bingham's Origines
Eccleflaflicce. c See Erafmus on the paffage ;. Leigh's Critica Sacra ; and
Parkburft.
down

SERMON IX. 5U
down upon another as his inferior in power*
in ftation, or in wifdom. And perhaps it is
to this latter fort of contempt, more parti
cularly, that the Clergy of our own days
are expofed; which amounts rather to a
contempt of God's Word, than of his mini
fter. For there are many difpofed to fcofF
at our preaching, and defpife our exhorta
tions, and defy our reproofs, through a felf-
conceit of their own fuperior talents, and
unlimited freedom, which fets them above
all advice and affiftance, all ecclefiaftical in
terference, and even, as they think, the in
terpofition of God himfelf.
There is no doubt but that we have much
relaxed in the exercife of fome of thofe ex
ternal powers, with which the Church firft
invested its minifters. Ecclefiaftical cenfures
are now feldom heard of; and excommuni
cation fubfifts rather as a civil than an eccle
fiaftical punifhment; is feldom, if ever, de
nounced for moral pravity, or any acls of
mere irreligion. Is this relaxation in disci
pline to be regarded as a mark of indiffer
ence, or of timidity, or of any fenfe of weak
nefs in the Clergy ? By no means. It is to
be attributed to the conduct and manners of
the

51a SERMON IX.
the other members of the Church, which.
have rendered thefe acls of difcipline of none
effecT;. Excommunication, for inftance, muft
needs have loft its power of reforming, when,
in confequence of the prevailing manners of
the world, the two paffions, upon which it
ufed to work, fhame and fear, have loft
their effecl. " Note that man," faith the
Apoftle, " and have no company ivith him,
" that he may be qfhamedi ;" and, through
the wholefome operation of that Shame, re
formed and brought to repentance : for this-
was the great object of that particular a6t of
difcipline, as well as to terrify others by the
example6. But who is there that would now
difdain to aflbciate with the excommuni
cated } or what fear do the generality of
men ftand in, either of temporal or eccle
fiaftical difgrace, for their evil doings ? The
Sacraments alfo are fo lamentably neglected,
that to be excluded from them is no difho-
nonr, as in times paft ; and it would feem to

' d 2 ThefT. iii. 14.
e See Beza, Grotius, and Doddridge on the paffage ; and
Leigh's Critica Sacra, voce 'Enyfao/MH. See alfo Bingham's Orig.
Eeclcf. b. xvi. ch. ii. §.12. - be

SERMON IX. 513
be a greater inconvenience to many to be
driven to the altar of God, than from it. It
would be making a mockery of God's holy
inftitutions to expofe them to fuch flight and
fcorn. But the age has claimed to be regarded as
an enlightened age ; and if fo, the Clergy
might well expedt to have more rather than
lefs influence, and to be able to relax in
matters of external difcipline, through a hope
of having more internal authority. They
might reafonably expect to be able to lay
afide compulfion in enforcing the laws of
God, when good fenfe and reafon were to
be affiftants in the caufe. For the laws of
God are ftill pretended to be the objedt of
all men's refearches, though' too many dif-
dain to look for them where alone they are
to be found. But, as Solomon fays, " Seefi
" thou a man wife in his own conceit P there
" is more hope of a fool than of him1 .'" It
is not the Clergy who are defpifed in thefe
days, as I obferved before ; it is Revelation
itfelf that is fet at nought, and the laws, and
ordinances, and doctrines of the Gofpel, that

* Proverbs xxri. 12.
l1 ai*e

514 SERMON IX.
are flighted and contemned. But, as it ha*
been admirably faid of ridicule, that it can
never be the teft of truth, becaufe truth muft
in the end be the teft of ridicule 6, the fame
may be faid of contempt. Contempt can
never prove either things or perfons to be
contemptible ; thefe muft be proved to be
contemptible, to Sanction the contempt.
Certainly, it muft be granted, many laws
may be contemptible, and a vain aflumption
of authority is always fo : but the laws we
have to adminifter we conceive to be the
exprefs laws of God ; and that they were
revealed from above, together with many
other circumftances intimately connected not
only with our well being in this life, but
with our falvation and redemption from fin
and mifery in the life to come. We con
ceive, that by a regular fucceffion from thofe
who were firft appointed to promulgate this
Revelation, it is our peculiar office to teach
our brethren, to inftruct them in the truth,
to admonifh them of the confequences of
their actions, to point out the way of falva
tion, and of happinefs here and hereafter. ;
* Preface to Letters en Infidelity. Oxford, 1784.
and

SERMON IX. 515
and even to open to them the gates of hea
ven. The moft fatal contempt then that
we are expofed to is a denial of all this ; ei
ther an open refufal on the part of others to
be instructed, or a manifeft diftruft of our
miffion and appointment. Some fay we
never were fent ; and many, that they need
no teaching. Thofe who think we never
were fent deny the fact of Revelation : thofe
who fay they need no teaching deny the
utility of it. The fact of Revelation it is
their bufinefs to difprove who deny it : the
utility of Revelation may, I think, be made
apparent, from the very conduct of thofe
who fo peremptorily deny it. To prove it
from the Scriptures is to little purpofe in
fuch a cafe : even the ways of God and the
thoughts of God muft, it feems, be fubmit-
ted to the teft of Reafon. In proving the
utility of Revelation in the way I propofe,
I fhall hope to prove alfo the utility of that
authority we prefume to be delegated to us ;
and to fhew how confiftent with right Rea
fon it is to expedt, that there fhould be fuch
a conftitution of things.
Now it is exceedingly obvious, and always
has been fo, if the generality of the world
1, 1 2 would

5i6 SERMON IX.
would but have attended to it,- that thofe
who put themfelves moft forward to expofe
the Priefthood, who moft notorioufly re
nounce their authority, and defpife their in
terference, are never fo much bent upon
eftablifhing their great point of man's in
dependency, as when they are employed in
withdrawing thofe from their dependence
on the Church, who fhould be taught by
the Priefthood ; for no other reafon, but that
ihey may have leave to inftruct them them
felves, and to rule and direct their confidences
as they pleafe. It is a fnare and a delufion,
therefore, to pretend that fubmiffion to the,
Priefthood is Slavery; that every man is felf-
taught, who will attend to the dictates of his
own judgment, and the emotions of his own
heart ; and that every man is at liberty to
ferve God in the way that feemeth beft in
his own eyes, when thefe teachers them
felves aflume the direction \
I have already obferved, that any vain af-
h Mr. Paine has affured the world, that " every man's mind
" is his own Church." The fectarifts between the reigns of
Charles I. and Charles II. inculcated the fame maxim ; and it
is much, infifted on in a pamphlet, that made fome noife in its
time, entitled, The Sufficiency of the Spirit's Teaching, by a man
of the name of How. fumption

SERMON IX. 517
fumption of authority is juftly contemptible;
and nothing certainly could be more fo, than
to pretend to be the minifters of God's word
and will, without his efpecial appointment
and confent. But do not they affume this
very authority in the moft unwarrantable
manner, who prefume to tell the world, not
only that God never has revealed himfelf to
man, otherwife than in the vifible creation ;
but that he never could dofo~P Do not thofe

"' It is very well obferved by a fenfible French writer, that
among Deifts and Infidels, " le grand mot de religion naturelle
" n'eft qu'un leurre dont ils fe fervent pour nous detacher plus
'* aifement du Chriftianifme :'' and he then notices the multi
plicity of difcordant opinions, out of which we muft be content
to take our choice, if once we reject Chriftianity. They are
indeed innumerable. The few that are mentioned by the au
thor alluded to are ftill too many to introduce into a note;
but Mr. Soame Jenyns has given us a fhorter fummary of the
wanderings of human Reafon, which was not only not extra
vagant when he wrote it, but may ferve for a faithful picture
of the exact ftate of the cafe at prefent. " Reafon," fays he,
" when left to the guidance of her own wild imaginations, has
" perfuaded fome, that there is no God ; others, that there can
" be no future ftate : fhe has taught fome, that there is no dif-
" ference between virtue and vice ; and that to cut a man's
" throat, and to relieve his neceflities, are actions equally meri-
" torious. She has convinced many, that they have no free-
" will in oppofition to their own experience ; fome, that there
" can be no fuch thing as foul, or fpirit, contrary to their own
l 1 3 " percep-

$A SERMON IX.
affume this authority, who, without the
fmallefl pretenfion to a divine miffion, ven
ture to affure the whole world, that any ex
ternal revelation of God's will and defigns is
unneceffary ? who venture to tell their fel-,
low creatures, not only how they are to be
faved, but how they mufi be faved ? who
venture to fecure them againft all future pu
nifhment of fin, all fear of hell, or a judg
ment to come ; without being in any man
ner able to anfwer for the evil confequences
of an error in judgment ? " When Noah
" followed the direction of God in building
" the ark for the faving of his houfe, the
" world was againft him. To them no ark

" perceptions ; and others, no fuch thing as matter, or body,
" in contradiction to their fenfes : by analyfing all things fhe
" can fhew, that there is nothing in any thing ; by perpetual
" fifting fhe can reduce all exiftence to the invifible duft of
" fcepticifm ; and by recurring to firft principles prove, to the
*' fatisfaction of her followers, that there are no principles at
" all." I think I might almoft venture at once to appeal to
the foregoing Lectures, in proof of every thing here afferted j
in proof that the wanderings of human Reafon are always
equally ftrange, and that the great advancement of knowledge,
which many are fo proud to boaft, has not ferved to bring Deifts
and Infidels into agreement upon any of the moft effential
points either of religion or morality.
<c was

u

SERMON IX. $i£
was neceffary, becaufe they had in their
" fupreme wifdom previoufly determined a-
" mong themfelves, that there would be no
" flood k." The cafes furely are parallel.
It is common, and always has been fo,
but perhaps never more than of late years,
for the greateft Infidels to pretend to know
the whole will of Heaven, far better than
thofe who have the teftimony of hiftory, and
prophecy, and miracles, and therefore of the
fpirit of God himfelf, to fupport their com-
miffion. Nor is this to be much wondered
at. By denying the poffibility of an external
and fupernatural revelation, they eafily fall
into the folly, which Lactantius has fo ably
expofed', of people who pretend to know
every thing concerning fome diftant city,
the name only of which had reached their
ears. They may, fays he, defcribe every
thing upon conjecture as they pleafe, though
liable to be confuted by the firft traveller
who fhould vifit the place : " Atqui hoc
" idem faciunt philofophi," fays he, " qui
" difputant quid in ccelo agatur :" and he
adds, " Quod fi exiflimarent defcenfurum
k Eflfay on the Church. ' Inftitut. lib. iii. c. 3.
Ll4 "effe

520 SERMON IX.
" effe aliquem qui eos delirare, ac mentiri
" doceret, nunquam quicquam de Us rebus
*' quas fcire. non poffunt, difputarent." And
thus abfurdly, without doubt, . do all thofe
act, who pretend to affert, that they can
difcover all the ways of heaven by the light
of their own reafon ; and prefume, that as
they have never themfelves had any inter-
courfe with thofe who have been in heaven,
they need never believe, that any can, at any
time, have come from thence to inftruct
mankind. But it might be affirmed, that
the very nature of man, as well as the hifto
ry of man, and even the vifible condition of
things, all confpire to prove the extreme
probability of fuch a Revelation, if right
Reafon may really be fuffered to decide.
For if this globe of earth, which we in
habit, has a connection with the reft of the
univerfe, and man is immortal, or even ca
pable of immortality, it is not reafonable to
confine his views, or even his knowledge,
entirely to the fppt he at prefent inhabits™,
K See Seneca's Preface to his Natural Q.ueflions. e( O quam
" contempta res eft homo, nifi fupra humana fe erexerit!" —
* Surfum ingentia fpatia funt, in quorum poffefftonem animus
" admittitur." — "Cum ilia tetigit, alitor, crefcit i ac'velut
" vinculis

SERMON IX. 531
We fee, it is true, no beings now defcending
from heaven to inftruct us ; we fee none
afcending thither to give us affurance of our
own afcent : but we neverthelefs expect,
that our being will be extended beyond the
grave ; and that when we appear to have
totally done with this earth, we may ftill
not have done with the univerfe. We may
reafonably regard ourfelves, therefore, as in
habitants of the univerfe, and fitted already
to hold fome fort of converfe and communi
cation with the beings above us. Though we
have therefore no fenfible communication at
prefent with any other parts of the univerfe,
beyond this terraqueous globe, yet that we
have all an intereft beyond the confines of
this earth, if fome doubt, almoft all believe,
and none can pofitively deny.
That God fliould have communicated with
man then, in fome ftage of his exiftence, is
moft confonant to Reafon, if it is moft rea
fonable to fuppofe man is to live again : and
this I believe will be pretty generally grant-

" vinculis liberatus, in originem redit. — Et hoc habet argu-
" mentum divinitatis fuae; quod ilium divina delectant : nee ut
(< alienis intereft, fed ut fuis.''
ed,

5a* SERMON IX.
ed, from the almoft univerfal confent of men,
learned and ignorant, Jew and Greek, Pagan
and Chriftian. For though indeed fuch wife
and eminent men as Epictetus, Seneca, Ci
cero, Casfar, Pliny, Catullus, Perfius, Horace",
and more that I could mention, feem upon
fome occafions to have doubted of it; yet
they certainly did not entirely difbelieve it,
and have fometimes argued otherwife °: and
that they doubted at all, if it proves any
thing, can only ferve to fhew, that if we are
to live again; if this great and confoling
doctrine is true ; we require to be affured of
it otherwife than by argument, or the mere
conjectures of philofophy p. It is not from
" See Epictetus apud Arrian. lib. iii. c. 13. Seneca s Confolatio
td Marciam, c. 19. Cicero pro Cluentio, lxi. Tufcul. Difput. lib. i.
11. epift. iii. 4. lib. vi. epift, xxi. lib. vi. Cafar apud Salluf-
tium in Bello Catilinario. Pliny, Nat. Hifl. lib. ii. c. 7. lib. vii.
c. ^j. Catullus ad Lefbiam, 5. Perfius, Sat. v. 152. Hor. lib. I.
Od. xxiv. 5. Od. xxviii. 15. lib. iv. Od. vii. Epift. lib. i. Ep.
xvi. 79.,
0 This is particularly the cafe, as is well known, with Cicera
and Seneca.
p Mr. Hume calls the queftion concerning Providence and a
future ftate, " the moft fpeculative queftion of all philofophy."
EJfays, vol. ii. §. n. Is not this as much as to admit the un
certainty of fuch enquiries, where Reafon only is our guide j
and to prove the unfpeakable blemng and benefit of a divine
Revelation ? beings

SERMON IX. 523
beings like ourfelves that we can learn it ;
only from God; for " He it was who made
" us all, and not we ourfelves."
As for the instrumentality of man in car
rying on a fyftem of revealed religion, ori
ginating from God himfelf, I fhall hope to
be able to fhew, that this alfo is quite con-
fonant to Reafon, and deducible from the
common courfe of things. For if men are
not to be governed thus, by a divine Reve
lation in the firft inftance, and human in
ftruction in the fecond, we muft fubmit to
be governed, as I have partly fhewn already,
by human inftruction and human authority,
in the firft, and laft, and every inftance. This
perhaps may feem ftrange to fome ; but in
deed natural Religion has her priefts and her
prophets, and, I may add, flands in need of
both. Many of the laws inftituted by man are
ftrictly moral laws, and univerfally allowed
to be neceffary to jreftrain men's paffions ;
fo much fo, that among the many ftrange
fyftems of Deifts, it has been infifted on by
more than one celebrated writer q, that the
1 Mr. Hobbes has infifted upon the laws of the fiate being
the only ftandard of morality, in the fullefi manner : but other
writers

5H

SERMON IX.

civil law is the fole foundation of right and
wrong, and that even religion has no obli
gation, but as enjoined by the magistrate.
Not however to infift upon fuch an abfurdi
ty, the moral and reftraining laws alluded
to may. certainly be regarded as an addi
tional instruction on the part of wife legifla
tors, engrafted on the law of nature, and to
a certain degree explanatory of it'. And
writers have intimated as much, particularly Lord Boling
broke, who allows of no other fanctions or penalties, than the
laws of the land, to enforce the law of nature. See his Works,
vol. v. p. 90.
r See Puffendorf De Officio Hominis et Civis ; and Buddaus's
.Hifloria Juris Naturalis, prefixed to the London edition of 1758,
§§. 3, 4, &c.
Helvetius in the 3d ch. of the 7th feet, of his Treatife De
THomme, has the following note. "Tout crime non puni
" par la loi eft un crime journellement commis. Quelle plus
'* forte preuve de l'inutilite des religions ?" In anfwer to
which, we might furely infift, that no better proof could be ad
duced of the abfolute need of Revelation. The morals of a
nation, Helvetius pretends, depend folely on the magiftrate and
the eftabliflied civil laws. And yet he fays elfewhere, that
Reafon without Revelation is able to .inftruct man in every
moral duty. Now if the latter is the cafe, why any laws to
-enforce the practice of morality ? Or if fome laws are neceffary,
as Helvetius admits, and thofe crimes are common which the
civil law does not reach, what can reftrain men from fuch
crimes, but a revealed law ? to enforce. at leaft all fuch. dictates'
of Reafon, and duties of the law natural, which the law of the
ftate

SERMON IX. 525
may we not afk here, if the vifible works of
God are fo inefficacious in regard to this
great objedt of the right government of
men's paffions, that weak and fallible men
are obliged to give them their fupport, fliall
not God himfelf rather have added exprefs
laws to this effect ? The contrary would be
to make men both wifer and better than
God, in providing for the order of the
world. In regard alfo to other knowledge deduci
ble from a view of nature, how fhould we
ever know all that is to be known of God's
power, fkill, and infinite wifdom, as displayed
ftate had not meddled with ? In both cafes, it is evident, ac
cording to Helvetius himfelf, that extraordinary fanctions and
additional motives are wanting. M. Helvetius indeed has a
curious way of getting rid of this conclufion in another place.
' " On veut,'' fays he, " que la morale foit l'ceuvre de Dieu :
" mais elle fait en tout pays partie de la legiflation des peuples.
" Or la legiflation eft des hommes. Si Dieu eft repute l'auteur
" de la morale, c'eft qu'il l'eft de la raifon humaine, et que la
" morale eft l'ceuvre de cette raifon." But human laws are
clearly intended to govern thofe who will not be governed by
the law natural;, therefore the law natural is not fufficient, with
out a further interference on the part of God; though, M. Hel
vetius pretends, only through the medium of the human Rea
fon : but why not by revealed laws, and human miniftry and
apoftlefhip ?
in

526 SERMON IX.
in the Structure of the world, but from na
turalifts, qfironomers, anatomifls, chemifls, and
other experimental philofophers, wifer than
the generality of mankind, and indeed alonei
capable of inveftigating fuch curious matters ?
Natural religion therefore muft not only
be taught, but in many inftances even its
moft important laws enforced by additional
ordinances, and additional fanctions. The
queftion then does not lie fo much between
revealed and natural religion as is generally
thought, and fo often pretended, as be
tween a divine and human expofition of the
laws of nature, and the will and attributes
of our Creator: and it is indeed no fmall
inconfiftency into which Deifts and Free
thinkers fall, that while they pretend againft
Revelation, that every one is competent to
judge for himfelf, and fhould be left at li
berty to do fo exclusively, yet they perfift in
thinking for the reft of the world, and judg
ing for them moft decifively; having all
the while no afjurance to give them of fu
ture rewards or punifhments, in cafe they
fhould be right ; and what is more, of any
indemnity for rejecting Chriftianity, fuppof
ing it to be true. I fhall

SERMON IX. Sa7
I fhall now hope to have fhewn, upon the
mere footing of Reafon, that the Chriftian
Priefthood is not to be flighted, nor their au
thority /ufpedted, becaufe they claim to be
a body fet apart for the inftruction and re
gulation of their fellow creatures; for fuch a
body is neceflary for the propagation and
fupport even of natural religion8: that their
" Mr. Hamilton Reid, in his account of Infidel Societies, pub-
lifhed in 1800, gives an account of the proceedings in the me
tropolis, which I fhould- have concluded to be true, from its
being fo confonant to the common courfe of things, even if wc
had had no pofitive voucher for it. " Next to fongs in whicb.
" the Clergy were a ftanding fubject of abufe, the tables ofthe
*' club-rooms were frequently ftrewed with penny, two-penny,
" and three-penny publications, as it were fo many fwivels
" againft eftabtifhed -opinions ; while, to enable the members
" to furnifh themfelves with the heavy artillery of Voltaire,
*' Godwin, &c. reading-clubs were formed : but ftill, it fo hap-
" pened, that thofe who defpifed the labour of reading, took
" their creeds implicitly from the extemporaneous effiifioiis of
" others, whofe talents were comparatively above their own.
" And yet, thefe people were invariably in the habit of ridi-
" culing Chriftians, in concert with the orators, for being
** blindly led by Priefts." See alfo on the fame fubject an ex
cellent publication on the confequences of fcbifm, entitled
" Unity the Bond of Peace i" publifhed anonymoufly 1802. It
is remarkable, that many of the cheap works diffeminated
among the people to withdraw them from the Church, have both
the form and name of Creeds and Catechifins ; perhaps in de-
fifion, but ftill with a tacit acknowledgment, that Creeds and
Catechifms

5a8 SERMON IX.
pretenfion to a divme miffion is not in Rea
fon to be defpifed or flighted as fuch, be
caufe, as beings connected with the univerfe
as well as with this fmall planet, an inter-
courfe with fuperior beings is exceedingly
probable, and muft be poffible. It appears
alfo that their claim to be the accredited
minifters of fuch a Revelation is not in reafon
to be flighted or defpifed, becaufe without a
perpetual miracle human inftruments muft
be employed ; and becaufe the Chriftian
Priefthood derive their authority through an
uninterrupted fucceffion, from thofe who
have teftified, and fealed their teftimony with
their blood ; thus attefting that they had po
fitive and indifputable proof of God's pre-
fence and power, and efpecial confent, in the
peculiar circumftances of their own miffion
and appointment.
There is certainly therefore nothing unrea-
fortable, nothing to which a true philofopher
can find caufe to object, in the constitution
of the Chriftian Church : and after what has
been faid, I cannot pretend to give a more
Catechifms are ufeful, where the people are to be inftrudted;
and any important principles of belief or practice impreffed
upon their minds. juft

SERMON IX. 529
juft defcription of it, than in the words of a
moft celebrated and zealous defender of it.
" In this," faith he, " the Church differs
" from all other focieties ; becaufe they be-
" long to this world, and their rights and
" privileges are confined to it : whereas the
" Church extends to both' worlds, the vifible
" and the invifible, and is partly on earth,
" and partly in heaven. In its earthly
" members it is vifible ; in its rulers it
" is vifible ; in its worfhip it is vifible ; in
" its facraments it is vifible : but being alfo
" a fpiritual fociety, it hath a life which is
" hidden ; and in the inward and fpiritual
" grace of all its outward ordinances it is
" invifible. As a kingdom, in which God
" is Judge, and Chrift is a Mediator, and an-
" gels and faints departed are members ; it
" takes in the heaven itfelf, and is the hea-
" venly Jerufalem, which is the Mother of
"us all; infomuch that when we are ad-
" mitted into it, our converfation is in hea-
" ven, and the angels of heaven are our fel-
" low fervants; all making one great family
" under Jefus Chrift, in whom all. things are
" gathered together in one, both which are
" in heaven, and which are on earth. On
M m " which

530 SERMON IX.
" which confideration, what is rightly done
" in the Church on earth, ftands good in
" heaven, as if it had been done there ; and
" the apoftles of Chrift received from him
" the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with a
" power of binding and loofing, which ex-
" tends to heaven itfelf: and when Chrif-
" tians go to heaven, they are not carried
" into a new fociety, for they are already,
" by the grace of God, translated into it by
" baptifm V
Such is the Chriftian Church, and fuch
the character of the Chriftian miniftry. It
is melancholy to think how many fuppofej
that by flighting our authority they in fact
leffen, if not wholly defiroy it ; as if it was
in the power of man to abrogate an ordi
nance of God ! Authority we claim none>
but fuch as we maintain to have been dele
gated to us by God for the good of others.
We are to render " an account"," it is moft
true ; and fo far it is a charge of the greateft
perfonal importance to ourfelves : but the
account we have to render will relate to the
condition of thofe, who are amenable, or
fhould be fo, to our adminiftration. We
4 EJfay on the Church, ch. ii. u Hebrews xiii. 17.
know,

SERMON IX. .531
know, for the Lord hath fpoken it by the
mouth of his Prophet*, that if we " fpeak
' not to warn the wicked from his wicked
" way, to fave his life," though " he die in
" his iniquity, his blood will be required at
" our hands :" but by the fame authority
we are affured, that if we do " warn the
" wicked, and he turn not from his wicked-
" nefs, nor from his wicked way, he fhall
" die in his iniquity ; but we fhall have de-
" livered our fouls." Neither will the ac
count we have to render relate only to thofe
who willingly fubmit themfelves to our au
thority, and continue ftedfaft in the unity of
the Church ; but it muft in the nature of
things extend to thofe alfo, who fhall have
gone out from us, and to thofe who fhall
have neglected the heavenly call ; the Sche
matic, whom we could not reclaim, and the
Infidel, whom we have not been able to
convert. We are not the minifters of Chrift
in any low fenfe of the word ; we are the
" paftors" of " his flock y" his " minifters
" of reconciliation2;" the " Stewards of his
" myfteries a ;" the " ambaffadors of his
* Ezekiel iii. 18, 19. y Ephef. iv. 11. 1 Peter v. 2.
z a Cor. v. 1.8, io. a 1 Cor. iv. 1.
m m 2 " grace."

532 SERMON IX.
" grace b." Thofe who defpife the Chriftian
priefthood, therefore, and oppofe their au-
thorit}r, rejedt all the graces and benefits, of
which they are appointed the difpenfers.
But the contempt cannot but be much
aggravated by men's perfifting to feek and
to accept all thefe difpenfations at the hands
of others ; for pardon and grace are not of
fuch fmall concern in the eyes of fallen man,
as that he may be under any circumftances
wholly indifferent about them. Thofe who
will not have even God himfelf to " bind"
them, will fuffer any man to fet them free.
And therefore it is, that every herefy, and
even every fyftem of infidelity, has its own
means of grace, and meafures of fecurity,
which God never fanctioned, and which
right Reafon can never approve. Hence not
only all the extravagances, which fuperfti-
tion and enthufiafm have engendered and
ftill encourage, but the inadequate and un
holy expedients of Deifm and Infidelity. If
fuperftition has in fome inftances impofed
burthens, which God never required at our
hands, Deifts and Infidels have continually
b a Cor. v. 20. affumed

SERMON IX. • 533
affumed a power of abfolving all men from
the weight and punifhment of their fins,
without the fmalleft pretence to a divine
commiffion, and yet with the moft confident
affurances, that whatever they fo " loofe on
" earth, fhall be loofed in heaven." Thus
men are taught to believe, that they fhall be
faved, either by morality without devotion,
or by eledtion without morality : by Since
rity without faith, or faith without fincerity:
by immediate infpiration without teaching,
or by reafon and nature in difiegard of
both : by God's mercy alone, without re
demption or atonement ; or finally by anni
hilation and deftruction, which are to cancel
all delinquencies, and preclude all judg
ment c.
This is but a very brief fummary of the
many different expedients invented by man
for his own fecurity, in contempt or in abufe
of God's holy word, and the means of grace
which he himfelf has appointed. It is a de-
c " Non ignore plerofque confcientia meritorum, nihil fe
" effe per mortem magis optare quam credere ; malunt enim
" extingui penitus, quam ad fupplicia reparari." Minutius
Felix.
m m 3 plorable

534 SERMON IX.
plorable inconfiftency that fome men fall
into, that while they affect to defpife not
only the reproofs, but the abfolutions of the
Chriftian miniftry, they are ready enough to
adopt the feveral expedients fuggefted by
the reafon of man ; though their great varie
ty alone might, one would think, be fuffi
cient to occafion a juft fufpicion and diftruft
of their power and efficacy.
But to conclude. If ever there was a
period wherein the Chriftian miniftry might
glory in the purity and perfection of the
laws they have to enforce and to administer;
in the fublimity of the doctrines they have
to publifh and proclaim ; in the confolations
they have to offer ; the hopes they have to
propofe ; the profpects they have to unfold;
the found advice, the fure affiftance, the
ready help, the heavenly encouragement they
have to fupply : if ever the Church might
be fet open with a reafonable hope, that
every prudent and wife man would obey
the heavenly call, and eagerly enter into the
fanctuary of Chrift's mercy ; furely it muft
be in an age like the prefent; wherein fo
much has been done, and is doing, in vari ous

SERMON IX. 535
ous parts of the world, to perplex and con
found d, if not entirely to deftroy, the very
firft and moft elementary principles of reli
gion and morality: when, in ' regard to fu
turity, fome would confidently affure us,
that death is a perpetual Sleep e: when others
have been known to boaft of their difbelief,
not only of Revelation, but of the very ex
iftence of God himfelf f: when many, after
decrying Chriftianity as a fyftem of the
bafeft fuperftition, have bowed down again
to ftocks and ftones, trees of liberty, and
goddeffes of Reafon g ! when others would
degrade us from the rank of free agents, to
fubjedt us to a fatality as blind and irrefifti-
d What perplexity and confufion the German Novelifts have
endeavoured to introduce into modern Ethics, may be judged
of from the titles of their works, as the ingenious Mrs. Weft
has well obferved : " The Pitiable. Adulterefs;" — " The Noble
*' Lie ;" — " Generous Revenge ;"— " The Honeft Thieves ;"—
" The Guiltlefs Parricide ;" — " Errors of Virtue ;"— " Amia-
" ble Indifcretions ;" — "The Innocent Slanderer;"— and "De-
" licate Anger.'' Letters to her Son, vol. iii. p. 155.
e When the religion of Reason was proclaimed in France,
it was decreed, and engraved on their tombs, that " Death is an
" eternal flleep'.'
f See M. Dupont's Speech ; which, with a few exceptions,
was applauded by the whole National Convention of France,
e See Note (15). Sermon I.
m m \ ble

536 SERMON IX.
ble as the afcent of light, or the defcent of
heavy bodies h :- when fome would rob the
foul of its immaterial effence, and render
it as naturally corruptible as the mouldering
urn, as tranfitory as the morning cloud ' :
when fome, in their luft for liberty, would
give an unlimited freedom to the worft
paffions of human nature, and abfolve men
from ties and connedtions, which were de
figned to be the chief bonds of fociety, the
joy of every heart, and the fource of every
comfort k : when fuicide, adultery, concu
binage, and even, in one inftance, infanti
cide, have not only been approved, but, I
may fay, even inculcated and recommend
ed1. Surely we may well fay, with the
h See Sermon IV.' and the Notes. '¦ Ibid.
k See Note from Helvetius, Sermon VIII. Note (4). and
Parrs Spital Sermon.
1 See Godwin's Works ; Hall's Sermon on Modern Infidelity,
pp. 46. 52 ; Fuller on, Deifm, Part I. ch. iii. vii.
1 find in a publication before me the following fhort ab-
ftradt of Mr. Godwin's moral and political principles, as they
are to be collected from his original work on Political Juftice,
&c. Original I call it, not as the product of his own genius ;
for perhaps there is not one pofition in it that was not bor
rowed from French Infidels and French Revolutionifts ; but to
diilinguifh it from fubfequent editions, which I may not have
feen, but in which I believe Mr. Godwin found occafion to re-
traa

SERMON IX. 537
Apoftle, " This is not the wifdom that de^
traft much of what he had originally infifted on, as indifputa
ble truths. Mr. Godwin then, in his Political Juftice as well
as in his other works, certainly endeavours to eftablifh thefe
pofitions; " that to love our parents, our children, or our coun-
K try, is contemptible fuperftition ; that to make or to obferve
"promifes or oaths, is immoral; that gratitude is a vice;
" marriage an odious monopoly; remorfe a prejudice; and
'" crimes miftakes .- that the murderer is no more an objea of
" indignation or punifhment than the dagger with which he
" kills ; that all property is ufurpation, all government ty-
" ranny, all laws oppreflion, and all religion impofture." This
is, to my certain knowledge, a juft account of the doctrines Mr.
Godwin has thought fit to ihculcate and maintain in his writ
ings. But there is ftill one particular pofition not immediately
noticed in the above abftract, which, as it may interfere with
what I conceive to be a great Chriftian duty, I fhall offer fome re
marks upon, and with that conclude. St. Peter expects us to
*' fubmit ourfelves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
" fake ; whether it be to the king, as fupreme, or unto go-
" vernors, as unto them that are fent by him, for the puniflh-
" ment oi evil-doers, and for the praife of them that do well."
Els ixcfixricrw Ka.xo7eoim, irrawoii c% uyct&oirciwv. He enjoins to
" honour all men ; to love the brotherhood ; to fear God ;
" and to honour the king." But Mr. Godwin, in his tender
concern for morality, truth, and juftice, affures us, that he
thinks them in the utmoft danger in monarchies of all forts.
The outward appendages of royalty, in giving diftindtion to
the individual, are, be fays, a violation of truth and juftice, and
an offence to virtue, as rendering them of confequence in the
'eyes of the multitude. But the cafe is greatly miftaken, or
much mifreprefented. If thefe things were defigned to exprefs
the worth of the man, inftead of the ftate and dignity of the
prince;

538 SERMON IX.
" fcends from above; but is earthly, fenfual,
prince ; or to fet one man above another, merely as man ; then
both truth and juftice might occafionally be violated ; and
virtue equally offended, if fuch paraphernalia were oppofed to
the amiable qualities of a good heart. That fuch a miftake as
Mr. Godwin himfelf makes, is not likely however to be general,
we might conclude from his own remarks ; " Is it poffible," he
afks, " that an individual, who by fevere labour earns a fcanty
" fubfiftence, if by accident or curiofity he becomes a fpectator
'" of a royal progrefs, fhould not mentally apoftrophize this ele-
" vated mortal, and afk, what has made thee to differ from
" me ? If no fuch fentiment pafs through his mind," Mr. God
win adds, " it is a proof that the corrupt inftitutions of fociety
" have already divefted him of all fenfe of juftice.'' That fuch
a fentiment paffes through the mind of many a man who has
not learnt to govern himfelf by the Chriftian precept, of ho
nouring thofe who are in authority over us, I have no doubt ;
but juftice, I will venture to fay, is moft violated by not " ren-
" dering to every man his due, cuftom to whom cuftom, ho-
" nour to whom honour."
In regarding a king as a different man from ourfelves, it may
be either as a king or a man. If we mean to take account
of his moral character, or religious principles, or of the fafhion
of his body, then every thing appertaining to royalty can only
be confidered as adventitious ; he is then fimply a man ; and
truth and juftice would be violated, if we were to regard him
as a god 6r an angel ; if we were to account him good, merely
becaufe he was great, or wife, merely in that his trappings
were fplendid. But if we defigned to take account of him as
a prince, if his ftate and authority are legal, juftice fhould re
quire that we regard jhofe differences only which are adventi
tious to the man ; for in thefe only can it be pretended, that
any difference or diftindtion confifts. Who indeed can make
a king,

SERMON IX. 539
" devilifh." How different the wifdom that

a king, is ftill another queftion. Mr. Godwin fays, " No au-
" thority is fo paramount as to make that to be law, which
" abftract and immutable juftice had not made to be law pre-
" vioufly to that interpofition ;'- and therefore he concludes,
that " Legiflation is not applicable to human fociety." We
fhall not flop to difcufs this point : it is enough to know, that
in the very fame page, in which this legijlative authority is
queftioned, a delegated executive authority is admitted; fa that,
for what I can fee, a king certainly may be made, though ab-
. ftract and immutable juftice Ihall have made no exprefs provj-
fion for fuch an appointment. But ftill fliould a king be made,
it is, it feems, impofture. " It muft be laid down as a firft
" principle, that monarchy is founded in impofture. It is falfe,
" that kings are entitled to the eminence they poffefs.'' This is
another grofs miftake or mifreprefentation, or both ; not per
haps as men, but certainly as executive governors ! However,
" All impofture is trifling with morality and truth." We grant
it; but it is no impofture to make one man great, though
millions continue in a low and mean condition. It might be
impofture to infift upon one man being accounted good, and the
reft vile and wretched. But when Mr. Godwin fays, that " by
" a monarchical inftitution the ftandard of intellectual merit is
" no longer the man, but the title," he either fays what is not
the truth, for want of underftanding the queftion before him ;
or underftanding it properly, he fays what is not the truth
concerning it, which is worfe. The king's title alone is made
no ftandard of intellectual merit, in any fenfe whatever, or under
any form whatfoever of monarchical government.
But " Virtue is offended by monarchy." How ? Why, " the
" firft leffon of virtue is, Fear no man ; the firft leffon of mon-
" archy is, Fear the king. The firft leffon of virtue is, Obey
" no man ; the firft leffon of monarchy is, Obey the king."
We

540 SERMON IX.
is from above : " That," fays the Apoftle,
We muft not miftake Mr. Godwin's terms : in a marginal note
he is confiderate enough to tell us, that be means to fpeak of
fortitude and pufiUanimity ; fo that virtue in the above paffages
is not what an uninformed Englifhman would fufpect, and by
which, I think, he might be eafily mifled, but the Latin "virtus!'
However, the firft leffon, I am certain, of limited monarchy
(which is the monarchy we have the happinefs to live under, and
which Mr. Godwin includes in his ftrictures) is ftriftly confiftent
with Chriftianity, morality, and juftice; Honour the king; Fear
and obey the laws he has to adminifter. But we have not yet done.
'' Juftice, truth, and virtue revolt with indignation,'' fays Mr.
Godwin, " againft the maxim of our conftitution, that the
" king can do no wrong.'' Juftice, truth, and virtue all con-
fpire to give to a king of this country fuch a, fecurity. He
has no means of doing wrong to any individual, but with
the advice and cooperation of his minifters ; and therefore
thefe latter are fitly made refponfible, not for the acts of the
king, but for their own concurrence and fupport. We muft
not venture to defend the maxim as 2. fiction of law or politics ;
for no doubt the very word fiction will condemn us : but that
Mr. Godwin's interpretation of the maxim is in defiance of
common fenfe, may I think be fufficiently feen, in a critique
which has lately appeared, on a work in which fuch fictions
are particularly objected to : fee the Edinburgh Review, No.
vii. Art. 1.
Mr. Godwin concludes with telling us, that ariftocracy
agrees with monarchy in many refpedts, and democracy
has alfo its evils. Mr. Godwin prefers the latter; and con-
fiftently enough ; for he affures us, that the thing moft necef
fary in a government is, " to remove all reftraints which hold
" the mind back from its natural flight." That this is moft
likely, to happen in a democracy, at leaft in the firft eftablifh ment

SERMON IX. 541
" is firft pure, then peaceable, "full of mercy
ment of a democracy, few, I think, will doubt. But Mr. God
win in his remarks on ariflocracy notices the origin of its
name, and the correfpondent Roman title, " Optimates." Really
Mr. Godwin would feem here to have fome ground to reft his
arguments on, when he would infer, that the title of dominion
was defigned to be a ftandard of moral excellence : but though
even here there would be a manifeft fallacy, it ought furely
to have ftruck Mr-. Godwin, that neither in the Greek title,
Baa&sv; , nor yet in the Roman Rex, nor yet in the ,Englifh
title of King, is there the fmalleft allufion either to moral vir
tue, or intellectual merit.
But to conclude : If all that Mr. Godwin has afferted could
• be fuppofed true ; if monarchy was really the impofture he
pretends ; if truth and juftice were fo much violated, in the
ftate and fplendour of princes, as that we were taught to
think they muft be good in proportion to their greatnefs, and
wife in proportion to their fplendour ; what could ferve to ftrip
the veil off, but the pure and equal laws of Chriftianity ? It
has been objected to the Gofpel, that it lays down no rules for
the adminiftration of public affairs, but applies its precepts
and its fanctions to the hearts of individuals only. " The ob-
" fervation," fays a very learned contemporary of Mr. Godwin's,
" is^ I grant, defenfible, when properly underftood. For let it
" not be imagined, that magiftrates, legiflators, and warriors,
" as fuch, are unconcerned in thofe precepts here, or in thofe
" fanctions hereafter: they too are individuals; tbey are endowed
" with moral faculties ; they are placed in a ftate of moral pro-
" bation ; tbey are invefted with, privileges which ever muft be
" accompanied by correfpondent and commenfurate duties ;
" and therefore they ougkt to remember, that the obfervance
" and breach of thofe duties are fubjeas not only of applaufe
" or cenfure from men, but of reward or punifhment from
" God."

542 SERMON IX.
" and good fruits, without partiality, and
" without hypocrify™."
May it pleafe God of his infinite mercy to
" bring back into the way of truth, all fuch
" as have" fo " erred, and been fo" fatally
" deceived ;" may it pleafe him to grant,
that " his Church, being always preferved
" God." See Parrs Faft Sermon, 1804. Thefe obfervations are
juft: Chriftianity affords us a fecurity againft the man as well as
the monarch; Chriftianity muft above all things tend to make the
great good, and the mighty virtuous ; Chriftianity muft pecu
liarly tend to warn bim, who can do no wrong in the fight of
man, that in the fight of God he is as amenable as the loweft of
his fubjeas, to the ftriaeft laws of morality, truth, and juftice.
Chriftianity will teach the prince, that, however he may be
raifed above his fellows in this world, by the outward appen
dages of ftate and royalty, nothing will elevate him above the
meaneft of his vaffals in the world to come, but virtue, and
piety, and godlinefs of living. Let us never forget that Chrifti
anity, and Chriftianity alone, fupplies us with this mighty pro
tection againft all evil rulers, in every defcription of political
government. But let us not forget at the fame time, that
Chriftianity may ennoble the man, far beyond all the trappings
and fplendour, and titles and privileges, that diftinguifh the
monarch : let us not forget, that, if the laws of the ftate enjoin
us to honour the king, the laws of Chriftianity may oblige us
to love the man : let us not forget, with fuch an example be
fore us, as our own Throne at this moment exhibits, that if it is
poffible for the fceptred monarch to dazzle the eyes of his
flaves and vaffals, it is not lefs poffible for the Cbriflian king to
intereft the hearts of millions of faithful fubjeas !
m James iii. 13. 27.
" from

SERMON IX.

543

" from falfe teachers and falfe apoftles, may
" be ordered and guided by faithful and true
" paftors ;" and may he " give to all his
" people increafe of grace, to hear meekly
" his word, and to receive it with pure af-
" fection, and to bring forth," in the con
duct of their lives, " the" bleffed " fruits"
of his moft Holy " Spirit."

THE END.

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08844 6662

'¦