CD
•CM = O
loo
WV
P*!
M't
WWM
:
w
m
wy
m
«
vv^V,v-,wV-
KWtf:
w ' w W , 3' - ' v V v'
T H r,
WORKS
OF T II K
RIGHT REVEREND
WILLIAM WARBURTON, D.D
LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.
A NEW EDITION, IN TWELVE VOLUMES.
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED
A DISCOURSE BY WA\T OF GENERAL PREFACE;
CONTAINING
SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE, WRITINGS, AND CHARACTER OF THE AUTHOR;
B Y R I C H A R D HUE D, D.D. ry
LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER. *J\
VOLUME THE TWELFTH. A
Printed by Luke Hansard rf- Sons, near Lincrin's-Inn Fields,
FOR T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, IN THE STRAND.
I SI I,
CONTENTS
o F
VOL. XII.
, ,
CONTROVERSIAL TRACTS;
PART II.
I.— REMARKS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS;
PAET II. and Last — continued - - pp. i — 59
IL— LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE " LETTERS on the Spirit of Patriotism, The Idea of a Patriot King, and The State of Parties, #c." occasioned by the Editor's Advertisement - pp. do — 70
III.— A VIEW OF LORD BOLINGBROKE'S PHILO
SOPHY, complete, in Four Letters to a Friend; fn which his whole System of infidelity and Naturalism is exposed and confuted: — With an APOLOGY FOR THE TWO FIRST LETTEES, prefixed: - - pp. 71 — 340
IV.— REMARKS ON Mr. DUVID HUME'S ESSAY ON
" The Natural History of Religion " - pp. 341 — 37$
V.— REMARKS ON NEAL'S " History of the Puritans? entered in an Edition of that Work in the Library at .Durham - - pp. 377— 404
CONTEXTS OF TWELFTH VOLUME.
VI. — A LETTER from an AUTHOR to a MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT; concerning LITERARY PROPERTY,
PP- 405—416
APPENDIX:
CONTAINING
LETTERS, between Dr. MIODLETON and Mr. WAR- BUKTON, in 1736; and between Dr. LOWTH and D*. WAR BURTON, ii> 1756 - - pp. 417 —
REMARKS
' ON SEVERAL
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS,
IN ANSWER TO
The REV. DRS. STEBBING and SYKES:
Serving to explain and justify the two Dissertations in the Divine Legation, concerning the command to Abraham to offer up his Son ; and the Nature of the Jewish Theocracy ; Objected to by those. Learned Writers.
PART II. and Lnft— continued.
SOON after the publication of Dr. STEBBING> Examination ; another Book came out against me, as much larger in bulk as honester in ks production : for it carried the name of its Author, Dr. A. A. Sykes, in the front. To this Gentleman, likewise, I sent a civil message; to inform him, that I had seen his Book,, in \\hich he likewise professes to " examine my Account" (for they are all Examiners, and would be Inquisitors^ " of the Conduct of the Ancient Legislators — of the " Double Doctrine of the Philosophers — of the THEO- " CRACY OF THE JEWS — and of Sir /. Newton's " Chronology :" That I supposed he would think him self neglected to have no notice taken of him : that I \vas not at leisure to go through the whole ; but that if he would point out to me which of the Four Parts he chose to -trust to, I would endeavour to give him the satisfaction he seemed to want. To this, he sent me \vord back, " That he should not be, in the least, concern- " ed, were I to forbear ail notice of him : but, if I took " any, that he hoped I would keep to the merits of his " Book : that he was not to chuse for me ; but that he " thought, one or two of the parts were more immediately " to the purpose to clear up : but expected that this " should be done in such a manner as every good man VOL, XII. 13 '" wishes;
2 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" wishes ; in the love of truth, and in the spirit of one " that seeks it: and that then I should find, in him, a " mind open to conviction.'' All this was very well ;: and, from the reasonableness of the demand, who would not believe, but his book was a- standard of candour, politeness, and ingenuity? at least, who would have suspected the contrary? So that his civil prelimi nary, when interpreted on the principles of the Double- Doctrine, is in plain English this, — That the liberties which he and old holiest Mr. P. have so freely taken* with my book and character,- should be entirely over looked, or received as compliments : and that I should address myself to their conviction; as to the service of my two best friends, who wrote only to recommend the truths I had advanced ; by putting me in a way to re move all doubts and difficulties concerning them. " And " therefore, that I should keep to the merits of his 11 book;" that is,., be tender of his bad logic, and worse criticism ; overlook, his ill expression ; anil find out his- meaning if I can. And, indeed, who would not engage in any labour for the sake of finding so rare a curiosity,, as a " mind open to conviction*." in an Answerer by pro* fcssion ? Well then, be it so. Since they profess to Iyer so opm, let them be received with good humour, at least,, and suffered only to expose themselves ;
" Laugh where we must, be candid where we can, " But vindicate the WAYS OF GOD to Man."
However, this is a mere act of good- will ; and what the Doctor has not the least claim to ; as may be seen by the preliminary conversation between him and his old friend Mr. P. part of which I- shall here beg leave tQ transcribe for the reader's entertainment :
" You know very well (says Dr. .Sykes to the Rev. " Gent, to whom lie addresses his Examination) our " old friend Mr. P*** ; he calls Mr. IFarburton's book w a learned Romance; and he says, WITH SOME " HUMOU R, that the digressions in it about the Mysteries, " the Hieroglyphics*, the Book of Job, are, or may be
" deemed,
* Foreigners seem to have a different opinion of The Divine iottt from these two learned friends. The Journal dcs Sgavanz, l/'4-K in ail Abstract of. a French translation of part of 27/e 13 Divine-
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 3
" deemed, so many ingenious Novels, which serve to " relieve or divert the reader. J3at then he goes so far <( as to doubt whether Mr. Warburton writes for utility " or for truth. For he has told us so much (says he) " about the practices of those old Philosophers, and " how much they were wont to lie for the public good-~ " and he declares himself to have come from the schools " of those Heathen Philosophers, THAT I CANNOT BUT
" THINK HE MAY BE REASONABLY SUSPECTED tO
" have received an infection from them, and to hove " learnt to lie for the public good, as his masters did "" before him. It is true (says our friend) that Mr. " Warburton does not think those men to be altogether " free from blame ; and it may be said in his favour, " that what he blames a little in them, he would not do " himself: but yet his censure of themis so very soft, " and he is so tender of their moral character, while he " is so ready to flame out against, and to shew no mercv
" to
Dhine Legation, speaks thus'of the discourse on the Hieroglyphics: " II regne une si belle analogic dans le systeme de JM. Y>'ai burton, " & tomes ses parties tiennent les ut;es aux aatres par un lien si " naturel, qu'on est porie a croire que Torigine & les progres de " 1'Ecriture & dn Language out ele tels qu'il Jes a deems. Le " Public doit avoir bien de ^obligation au Tradu&eur de lui avoir " fait connoitre un Ouvrage si curieux. Mais il auroit et6 a " souhaiter, pour rend re la Irfture de sa traduciion plus agreable, 4t qu'il ne se fut pas si fort attache a rendre mot a mot le texte " Anglois."
The judgment of the Jesuits of TreTotuc, in their Journal of July 1744, differs not much from that of Paris. " M. War burton n'a pu, sans une erudition profonde, une lecture inurement digerea & des reflexions ' infinies trailer avec cant de precision, de jus- tesse, & deTiettete, un sujet de lui meme si difficile a mettre eri
oeuvre Les plus savans homines se sent laisse seduire sur
1'origine des Hieroglyphes, & la plupart ont regarde un effet da peu d'experience rfcs Egyptians, comme un rafinernent ae la plus mysterieuse sagesse, C'est cette erreur que M. Warbu1 ton s'applique particulierement a detruire dans la premiere parti?. II }e fait de la maniere la plus natuielle— — ce n'tst point un Systeme fonde suit DES IMAGINATIONS VAGUES. Ses raison- nctnens, ses preuves, sent appuiees sur des FA ITS, sur la NATURB des chosen, <fe sur les principes Its plus lumineux du SENS JCOMMUN." But as to this last testimony, I shall not chuse to jnsist upon it; lest it should be norv said, that these famous mo dern practisers of the Double Doftrine, and the Apologist for the ancient inventors of it, hud too close an understanding vrith out -another. ^ 2
4 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" to others, who do not think as he does, that one cannot " help imagining, that in his opinion, the good end they " had in view, did sanctify the means they used, and that " it was no great fault in- them to have external and in- " ternal doctrines* ;." <§ur. £$c. Now a man so apt to Jiame out would have been as apt to call this a piece of dull scurrilous buffbonry, in another writer; but in so candid a disputant as Dr. Syk-es, who writes, we see by his own words, " in the love of truth, and in the spirit of one who seeks it," I can consider it only as the effect of a pious zeal for the interests of Revelation, which is apt to warm itself in a conversation- between two such friends; and a charitable fear that the author of the Divine Legation was indeed artfully undermining the foundation, while he pretended to new-fortify the struc ture of Religion: and they, good mer^ as faithful sentinels, thought it their duty to give the alarm. But here, their candid simplicity of manners, which makes them utter strangers to all the tricks of free- thinking, has put them upon a false cry. It would be charity therefore to set' them right; and, as they have minds so open to convic tion, indeed but justice. And, for this, all the return I ask, is only to share with them in the pleasure, which a clear conviction, that their suspicions were groundless, must needs give them.
In order, therefore, to this, it would seem sufficient to observe, that if indeed the Divine Legation were written to undermine Revelation, and (as is said) by an author initiated in " the cabinet councils of old lawgivers," and just come " from school, from Heathen Philosophers," he must have learnt very little of his masters : for it is- certainly the most bungling, ill-contrived attempt that was ever made against Revelation. But if this be not enough, let us go further, and consider how an artful Freethinker would probably have executed such a design as is here laid to my charge. And the same intimacy in the cabinet councils' of old lawgivers, and in the schools of Pagan .philosophers, which makes it so unlikely that I could have
* An Examination of Mr. Warbiirton'* Account of the, Condud of' the Ancient Legislators, of the Double Doctrine of the old Philo sophers, of the Theocracy of the Jews, and of Sir Isaac Newton's 'Chronology, 17.44-
dona
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 5
no better on so good a ground ; may enable me to shew how well a scheme of this nature might be executed by another :- As the many unhappy examples we have amongst us, of real attempts against Religion, will enable the reader to judge how near I keep to probability. And thus qualified, I take the liberty to set our Undcrininer to work.
In the first place, I will suppose it not unlikely, that, -in order to conceal his purpose, as well as to carry on his attacks more regularly, he should begin with an outwork of Religion, on pretence of some defect in its construction, that might prejudice the defence of tliejbrt -itself. For instance, let us suppose it -to be -that illustrious testimoay of Paganism, recorded by P Megan, for the unnatural darkness at the Crucifixion*. Where some mathemati cal unbeliever might very fitly serve him in the post of .engineer. When he had tried what could be made of tihis, he might then come closer to his work.
And, as MIRACLES and PROPHECIES are the two great credentials of the Divine "Legation of Jesus, he might now proceed directly to the sap.
And first, of the Miracles. The distempers cured :by Jesus were of two sorts; natural, and supernatural. When the latter ar,e removed, the other (as .the Free thinkers tell us) are easily dealt with. The force of imagination, in the patient, Riight be supposed to go a great way ; and natural virtue, in the agent, a greajt -way farther. Thus, long since (say they) distempers fled at Vespasian^ touch ; and very lately at Abbe Parish •tomb : but, in the still more famous case of Greatrakes the Irish Stroker, both causes seemed to concur to pro duce the most extraordinary effects. But neither natural virtue, I wist, nor force of imagination, could fright -the Devil. Here now is a difficulty worthy .of l\im,
; Nunc animis opus, JEiaea'4! .nunc pectore firmo. What has he then to do, but, -under pretence of freeing the Gospel-history from superstition, to write the Scrip ture Doctrine of Demoniacs*]', that is, to persuade us
* See a Dissertation on the^Eclips* mentioped by Phlcgon — By .A. A. Sykes, D.D.. 173?.
t See An Enquiry iato the Meaning of the Demoniacs in 'the New Testament, 1737.
B 3 that
6 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
that there never was any? For you must know, the Scripture Doctrine of a thing, is the phrase in fashion, to prove — nothing. And in this service he would have the hardy and valiant Hobbcs for his precursor in the Kingdom of Darknes** ; or his captain of light-Horse a bat re Vestrade.
\\ e have now only one stroke more to perfect our mine ; and that stroke is at Prophecies. Now Theology has divided the prophecies, that relate to Jesus, into two sorts ; such as foretcl his mission in a primary and literal sense, and such as foretel it only in a secondary and figurative : but the Freethinkers assure us there was no need of this division ; for that all the prophecies, which relate to Jesus, relate to him only in a secondary and figurative sense. At this open, then, coiiies in our Underminer ; and shcwsf, that all pretence of pro phecies to a double meaning is senseless and fanatical. And here he approaches under the cover of the great Collins ; who had so deeply intrenched himself before the place, that he could not of a long time be forced ; and our Undcrminer may be excused if he too hastily^ concluded, that therefore he never 'would.
I might now turn to the learned Doctor, as little con cerned as he is in all this ; and ask him whether this would not be doing like a workman. I own him indeed a very incompetent judge in such matters. His single ness of heart, his simplicity of manners, his zeal for reli gion, his total estrangement from Freethinkers and their arts, make him very unfit to be appealed to on this occa sion. Yet mcthinks there is something so striking in the sketch here chalked out, that the most unexperienced man must feel both its natural and moral fitness for its end. Here we see a cautious, indeed, but a regular, a steady, and determined purpose. The approaches are made in form ; the trenches opened ; the battery played \ the breach stormed ; and at last the old hollow fortress
* The title given by Hohbes to the Fourth Part of his Leviathan.
f See the Principles and Connection of Natural and Revealed Religion distinctly' considered. By A. A. Sykes, D.D. 1740. p. 221, & seq.
f See Divine Legation, Book VI. § 6.
of
OCCASIONAL INFLECTIONS. 7
of Religion blown up into air. If ever this should hap pen, my main concern would be for old Mr. P. For what must be that good man's sorrows to see the Abo mination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place ; •while he could start .thus at his oxen shadow? For it must be his own and not mine if he saw infidelity so riiear a book, whose purpose was to shew {the use of Re ligion in general, to human Society ; and the superior fitness of Revealed Religion in particular : the truth of the Jewish, from the administration of an equal pro vidence ] and the truth of the Christian, from the com pletion of Jewish prophecies concerning it
But now 1 talk of prophecies, let me ask the learned Doctor; but, gently in his ear, how it comes to pass, that when it was the subject of prophecies only which ^occasioned all this hostility, he should leave my confuta tion of his Discourse on Double Senses unanswered ; and turn his pen to the four subjects above-mentioned? Did this forbearance suit a hand so accustomed to slaughter r or did this reserve indicate a mind so open to conviction? But perhaps in this he would emulate the great Scipio ; who. when he had lost his own, had the courage to carry the war into his enemy's country. I must pursue him therefore with the same disadvantage that the Carthaginian left the rich Campania of Italy., to follow his adversary through the barren sands of Afric. for the true explanation of the nature of the double sense of prophecies (of which I had shewn he had given £i notion destructive of the connexion between the Old *and New Testament, through his ignorance of the very £erms of .the question) is of the highest importance to re ligion : whereas the subjects, foj the sake .of which he hath forsaken this, are of infinitely less importance. And '#hese too he has handled in so unusual a manner, that alt wre can collect from the first of them, vn the conduct of the ancient legislators, is, that, in his opinion, Moses was but of the same species with the Pagan lawgivers* :
as
* That 1 do Dr. ~Sykes>no wrong, -when I say he regards Moses as of the same species, and puts .him upon the very same footing- with the Heathen legislators, appears from his own words: " This ^ doctrine (of a future state] was universally believed. Now ••**' Moses, as a legislator, was to lay down laws to the Jews, and he
B 4 " was
8 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
as to the double doctrine of the old philosophers, he has fairly shewn that he knew no mere of it than of the double sense of prophecies : and with regard to Sir I. Newton's Chronology, he mistakes the very question; imagining that I disputed the truth of his Greek, instead of his Egyptian Chronology. So that indeed there was nothing left that I could, in conscience, seize upon, but his Discourse of the THEOCRACY of the Jews. And this, I suppose, was the thing, which, in his answer to my message, he alluded to, when he said, " that he " thought one or two of the parts were more immediately " to the purpose to clear up."
I have another reason, too, to believe that he may esteem this the forte of his new excursions. An extra ordinary providence to particulars, though expressly promised by, and, as I have shewn, a necessary con sequence of, the Law of Moses; yet, partly from the nature of the thing, and partly from mistaken passages of misunderstood books of Scripture, is not entirely free from objections. Here then he thought he could do something ; though it were but retailing the objections of others. And truly, as ill as he has managed these ad vantages, he was not mistaken in his choice. For the rest — it is all over such argument ! and such criticism ! as one might well conceive should be reserved to close the scene of letters in an age like this • when every science
,il was to incorporate their national religion into their civil law. ". This was done, not by inculcating nhatwas universally received and " bettered by them; but by inculcating such points as were to make the " national religion of the jews. And in this he did EXACTLY what " olhor legislators did: what was USEFUL TO THE STATE, he ad- " mitted into the body of his laws; and so FAR as it was useful " to the stale, BUT FURTHER THAN THAT NEITHER HE NOR " ZALI.UCUS CONCERNED THEMSELVES," p. 59, 6'0. In which short period are contained these four propositions - That it is tiot the practice of legislators to inculcate what is universal In believed — • That a future state does not make one point of national religion — [And for a good re'-ison. Because]-— That a future state is not use ful to society — That, further than the &ood of the state, Moses con cerned himself no more than Zaleucus, or G.ny other Heal hen legislator* How much no\v has this author to r.bank me for; when, instead of exposing the other three parts of Iiis book, which abound with these beauties in every pagD, I confined myself to this, where the natural obscurity of the subject hides both his blunders and"hU blushes ?
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 9
was retiring from its professors, to DICTIONARY- MAKERS and BOOKSELLERS.
REMARK T. — He begins his examination of the .nature of the Jewish theocracy in this manner: — • '" This form of government of the Jews, being properly " called a theocracy, there are two points which Mr, " JVarburton has largely considered. The first is, in *' relation to the origin, continuation, and duration of this " theocracy. The other is in relation to the exercise of '" an extraordinary Providence over particular persons, " as well as over the state in general. In relation to " the former ot these points he tells us, That most " Writers suppose it to have ended with the " Judges, but scarce any bring it tower than the " Captivity : on the contrary, I hold that in strict " truth and propriety it ended not till the coming of " Christ*. Here it is that he attacks Dr. Spencer^ *' Dissertation on the Jewish theocracy, a treatise by *' no means in the number of those on which Spencer " raised his reputation : he goes on a wrong " hypothesis; he uses weak arguments; and he " is confused and inconsistent in his assertions}'. " Are we not now, from hence, to imagine, that Dr. " Spencer was one of those writers that supposed the c theocracy to have ended with the Judges, or, at c furthest, with the Captivity? And yet Mr. ffrar burton " is forced to own that Spencer " supposes" [I say he positively asserts] " that some obscure footsteps of " it remained to the time oj' Christ. Yes, and longer ' too, for his words are, ad extrema usque politics su& " tempora, i. e. quite to the latter times of their " policy, even to the last times of expiring Judaism^" I had observed, that most U7riters suppose the theo- pracy to hare ended with the Judges; scarce any bring it lower than the Captivity ; I myself suppose it continued to the time of Christ: that Dr. Spencer wrote a weak and inconsistent treatise on this subject. Well, and what says our Answerer to this ? " Are we
* Div. Leg. Book V. § 3. init. f Ibid.
+ An Examination of Mr. Warburton's Account, £c. i6s — 1/0.
" not
to REMARKS ON SEVERAL
*e not DOW (says he) from hence to IMAGINE that Dr, ^ Spencer was one of those Writers that supposed the " theocracy to have ended with the Judges ? " * What demands of imagination his trade may have upon him is hard to say. JBut, froai my words, a reasoner would Conclude nothing but that I meant to prove what I said; namely, that Dr. Spencer's Book of the theocracy was weak and inconsistent. Eew Answerers have stuck at *i misrepresentation ; but then it was to carry on their business, the manufactory of false argument. Our Examiner, on the contrary, seerns to do it only to keep his hand in use ; for argument he could make -?ione, though he had the laying together of his owia premisses. In a word, the whole is a studied mis representation of all I said on this subject. The jnethod of which was as follows : first, to shew*, that the theocracy continued to the time of Christ. Secondly, to confute Le Clerc's arguments for its c :ising with the Judges. And this makes up the body of the Discourse concerning the duration of the theocracy. Having done this, I proceeded in these words — Thus the dispute ended [namely between Le Clerc and P. Sinton]; and for further satisfaction Le Clerc refers us to a Book of Spencer's, written professedly upon this very subject. It is his tract De Theocratia Judaica. What is to be found there, besides the arguments Le Clerc borrowed from it, and which have been considered already, I shall now, teirh some reluctancy, inform the Reader f.. Then I go on to give a character of this Tract, as quoted by the Examiner. And to justify this character, I consider what is there said that may seem to contradict what I had before observed concerning the duration- of the theocracy. Now the Reader sees that this is only an accessory to the body of the discourse, given, partly, to enervate the authority which Le Clerc built upon it ; and partly, to strengthen and conirm what had been advanced by myself. Yet our simple-minded Doctor, after having concealed all thi§, says (quoting the beginning of Sect. 3. Book V«) " HERE it is that
* Div. Leg. Book V. § IIL t Ibid,
he
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 1 1
he attacks Dr. Spencers Dissertation;" whenas the very mention of Dr. Spencer docs not commence till fourteen pages afterwards : and, as if that were not enough, goes on in this manner : — " Are we not now 4' from hence to imagine that Dr. Spencer was one of " those Writers that supposed the theocracy to have c( ended with the Judges? $c. And yet Mr. W. is " FORCED to own that Spencer supposes,'' 8$c. I should not have been so long in laying open so immaterial a cheat, but as it was convenient the Header should, on his first acquaintance with our Doctor, be let a little into his manners,
IT. But he will not only shew, that my arraigning Spencer was absurd ; but that the charge against him is unjust. " His first charge against him is, that he thought " the theocracy was established by degrees, and abro- " gated by degrees. A conceit highly absurd (says " Mr. Warburton) as God was legislator. But wherein " lies the absurdity of this gradual progress and gradual " declension, even in cases where God was legislator? " 1 suppose he will say that the theocracy began at the ." instant of the Horeb covenant; and not when the " Children of Israel were delivered from Egypt ^ and fe were first under the immediate protection of God. — " But Spencer INTENDED BY HIS WORD THEOCRACY, " all the time that the Jews were under the direct power ""and immediate dominion of God; which certainly " began at the deliverance of the Jews hom+Egypt, "• and \vas completed in the highest and fullest sense at *l the Horeb covenant, when God was constituted their ".King*." I called Spencer's notion of the gradual progress and gradual declension of a theocracy, an ABSURDITY. He says, no: and how does he prove it is not? By shewing, that, by the word theocracy, Spencer meant a thing which gradually arose and gradually declined. But is not this tie very absurdity I complain of? I call an opinion absurd: and he, to free it from this censure, tells us — what that opinion is. But as I do not suppose he will be ever able to ansvver question, I will try if I can answer his — " Wherein
* Exam, of Mr. W's Account, &c. p. 170, 171.
« lies
12 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
x< lies the absurdity of this gradual progress and gradual " declension even in the cases where God \vas legis- " lator?" The absurdity, learned Sir, lies here: whea God is pleased to assume the character of Civil Ma gistrate, he must, like all other magistrates, enter on hi% office at once ; and (as common sense requires) leave it at once. Now the government, under such a magistrate, is, what we properly call a THEOCRACY : therefore to talk of the gradual progress and gradual declension of this mode of civil relation, is the same absurdity as to talk of the gradual progress and gradual declension of paternity, or any other mode of natural relation. Whether this was a blunder or a sophism, is of no con sequence ; if the detection of it does but shew the Reader what good reason I had to suppose, that the theocracy began at the instant of the Horeb covenant; an$ iiow much Spencer wag mistaken in the use of the term, if he intended by it, ail the time that the Jews were under the direct power and immediate dominion of God. For, in that case, he should have used the word legislature, and not theocracy. — But I had best stop here, lest this new distinction should still further embar rass this able advocate of Dr. Spencer.
III. However, he goes on to support his reason-ing in this manner: — " So when Dr. Spencer speaks of its "" declining gradually — of the government of God being lessened — of its making a nearer approach to its ceasing, I think., if there be any absurdity or inconsistency in this manner of speaking, it may be " justified by Mr. Warburtoris own authority. He " himself tells us, that indeed in the period immediately preceding their [the Jews] captivity, on the gradual i withdrawing the extraordinary providence from " them — they began to entertain doubts concerning " God's further peculiar regard to them as his " chosen people*. So that he here expressly owns " a GRADUAL WITHDRAWING of the extraordinary " providence from the Jews. And where is the ab- " surdity of Dr. Spencer's gradual declension or jmmi- '" nution of the theocracy, which Mr. IVarburtoii^
* Div. Leg. Book V. § 2.
4i gradual
46
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. ij
w gradual withdrawing of the extraordinary providence ** is not liable unto ? or was not the gradual withdrawing. " of the extraordinary providence a proper imminution " of the theocracy*?" He is so fond of this argument ,thathe repeats it again at p. 218. " Dr. SpfiNCERano! '*"' Mr. WARBURTON seem to express themselves so '"' exactly alike about the imininution o F THE THEOCRACY, " that one would wonder how it should happen that Dr. " Spencer 's notion is a conceit highly absurd, and Mr. "' War bur tons should be so consistent, and easy, and u. natural." To all this I answer, that our advocate has here fairly convicted himself of a degree of ignorance that I never would have ventured to suspect of him, which is, the not knowing the difference between the
FORM OF GOVERNMENT and the ADMINISTRATION of
it. Now Dr. Spencer talked of a gradual decline of the form of government ; which I thought absurd. I, of the gradual decline of the administration of it L; which, whether it be equally absurd, may be seen by a parallel instance. For though, not long since, I spoke of paral lels, similitudes, and resemblances, as weak instruments for the discovery of truth ; yet they are often of more use than better things for the detection of falsehood. If I should say then, that there was, during the reigns of James the First and Charles the Second, a gradual withdrawing the protection of the people, and the equal administration of justice ; I should speak, I presume, both sense and truth : yet if Oldmixon himself should affirm that there was, during this period, a gradual with drawing of the monarchy ; I should go near to say, he talked as much like a fool in this, as he talks like a knave in most other parts of his History.
IV. Well, tut our Advocate will go further; and
shew, that though Dr. Spencer be consistent, yet I an*
not. — " I will observe further (says he) Dr. Spencer
" maintains that some obscure footsteps of the theo-
* cracy remained even to the time of Christ. And
1 Mr. JFarburton holds it ended not till the coming
'" of Christ f. Dr. Spencer is consistent; but it k
* Exam, of Mr. fPs Account, £r. p. 171, 172. f Div. Leg. Book V. * 2,
" far
14 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" far from being clear that Mr. Warburton is so. " For he hath told us, that in the period iinmedi- " ately preceding the Captivity, there was a gradual " withdrawing of the extraordinary providence*. In " another place he tells us, that ajter their perfect " settlement on their return from captivity (when " we know, from' the course and progress of God's " economy, the extraordinary providence would " cease) we hear no more of it amongst them, nor " did they make the least pretence to it, though they " now adhered much more strictly to their religion, " than they had ever done before. They pretended " not — to either prophets, oracles, or extraordinary " dispensation*^. Here Mr. l^arburton mentions " the misfortune at Eethsura, caused by the sabba- (< tical year ; a misfortune of which we have no " instance before the Captivity, and therefore a " plain proof, that the extraordinary providence " was indeed withdrawn^. Again ; the extraor- " dinary providence kept gradually decaying, till " on their full settlemc7it after their return it en- " tirely ceased §. From thefe assertions of Mr. " Warburton I argue, that if the EXTRAORDINARY " PROVIDENCE entirely ceased on the full settlement " of the Jews after their return, it ceased some centuries " at least before the days of Christ; and CONSE- " QUENTLT the THEOCRACY must have ceased some " centuries before the days of Christ. How then is " Mr. Warburton more consistent about the duration " of the theocracy than others are, since he pleads for " its continuance till Christ's time, and yet maintains " that it entirely ceased so long before his time || ? "
The argument, we see, gathers as it rolls. In the be ginning, The ceasing of an extraordinary providence only implied, in consequence the ceasing of the theo cracy. But, before we get to the end of the sentence, an extraordinary providence and a theocracy are one and the same thing. " Mr. Warburton pleads for its " [a theocracy's] continuance till Christ's time, and yet <c maintains that IT entirely ceased so long before his
» Div. Leg. Book V. § 2. t Ibid § 4. J Ibid. § Ibid* j| Exam, of Mr. (F's Account, #c. p. 173, 174.
time."
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 15
".time." Thus again to the same purpose: "Or by " what rule does he form a judgment that WHAT was " gradually decaying to the Captivity, was entirely " to cease after their return and full settlement ; and yet " WAS to continue till Christ's time?'" — Nay, if he begins to talk of rules, let me ask liiai by what rule he found out, " that a monarchy and an exact administra- " tion of justice are one and the same thing?" I sup pose by the genus gtmralissimum of the schools ; and might be borrowed, for aught I know, of a certain pre decessor of his in the Church of Sarum, who, when the Bishop (to whom he was construing in the Latin Testa ment) asked him what the word argent um was governed of, replied, " Of God Almighty, who governs all things.* But times are changed, and now argentum governs in its turn. The truth is, our Examiner was thus grievously misled by the ambiguity of the English word THE GO VERNMENT; which signifies either the MODE of civil policy, or the ADMINISTRATION of it. But was this to be expected in a man who had beer* all his life-long writing ABOUT government ?
Yet thus he runs along, pushing his owrf blunder be fore him, from page to page. And still, as if unwilling to leave it, is at last hardly content to recapitulate his argument in the following manner: — u What HOW is the " difference between these TWO GREAT MEN? Dr. 6i Spencer has dated the abatement of the theocracy from " the end of the time of the Judges : Mr. War bur ton " allows that under the Judges IT was perfectly equaL " Dr. Spencer says that the theocracy suffered some " imminntion under David and Solommi : Mr. War* ct burton says, when the people demanded a king — ' there was a great abatement in the vigour of THIS " extraordinary providence. At last Mr" Warburton f owns a total cessation upon the return of the Jews "• from captivity ; and to the time of the captivity, a 1 gradual decay. Dr. Spencer says, there was a gradual " imminution of the theocracy ; but as for a total cessa- 1 tion before Ckrisfs time, he was not IN CONSISTENT " ENOUGH to maintain that*." What must we do with, our Doctor under this strange idiosyncrasy ? The general * Exam, of Mr. JPs Account, $c. p. 177.
case
16 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
case of such kind of writers, when they stumble, is to run instinctively, as it were, from their own blunders. But our Doctor delights to dwell upon his, affects to enjoy them, though but for a moment, returns again and again to them, as if enamoured of his own image, in them.
V
V. But now for a master-stroke ; worthy an Answerer by profession. " It [the extraordinary providence] had *' ceased (says he) some hundred of years before Christ " came ; as Mr. Warburton over and over confesses. " The difficulty then is to shew that the theocracy con- " tinued, or, ended not till the coming r>/ Christ V
" Perhaps Mr. Warburton will distinguish between- <( the ceasing of the theocracy^ and the ceasing of the " extraordinary providence : he may say that the " theocracy continued till the coming of Ch rist ; the " extraordinary providence entirely ceased at the full " settlement after the return of the Jews from their cap- :" tivity. Let us then grant that the theocracy revived " after the return from the captivity, as he tells usf. " And that that dispensation of Providence soon " ceased after the re-establishment f. We are still as <: much in the dark as ever ; nor will this distinction help '• the matter, or free Mr. Warburton from great self- <f contradiction. For he tells us, one NECESSARV con- " sequence [of a theocracy] was an EXTRAORDINARY " PROVIDENCE. For the affairs of a people under a " theocracy being administered by GOD as KING ; and " his peculiar and immediate administration in human " affairs being what we call an extraordinary provi- " dence, it follows that an extraordinary providence " must NEEDS be exercised over such a people. My " meaning is, that if the Jews were really under a <£ theocracy, they were really under an extraordinary *' providence. In a word, they must be either both *' true or both false, but still inseparable^.
" If this be the case, then it is plain that a theocracy " cannot be without an extraordinary providence. But <c then Mr. Warburton has shewn, and at large insists " upon it, that the extraordinary providence ENTIRELY
9 i» Div. Leg. Book V. § 3. t Ibid. % Ibid § 4.
" CEASED
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 17
" CEASED several hundred years before Chris f$ " coming : Nay he says, that lie knows from the course " and progress of God's economy, that the extraordi- " nary providence WOULD cease at \\^ full settlement " of the Jews after their return from the Captivity*. " He has likewise proved by several arguments, that " the theocracy continued even to the coming of " Christ'l". By this means we are left in inextricable '* difficulties : For first, we have a theocracy subsisting " many hundred years without an extraordinary pro- " vidence, viz. from the settlement of the Jews, after " their return, to the time of Christ : And consequently, " secondly, a theocracy wherein an extraordinary " providence KEEDS not be exercised. Thirdly, we " have a theocracy without a NECESSARY COXSE- " QU.ENCE of a theocracy, i. e. without an extraordinary <( providence. And whereas he asserts that the theo- " cracy and extraordinary providence must be either " both true or both false, but still inseparable, He " himself has shewn them to be separable, by shewing " that the one did in fact subsist without the other for " so many hundred years as were between the settle- " ment of the Jews after their return from captivity and " the coming of Christ^."
The first thing I shall observe is, that the theocracy and the extraordinary providence are now become two again, after they had been so long one. But who can help it ! The Author of The Divine Legation would needs k.ve them two. However, he will still shew they are inseparable ; and that, from the Author's own confession. 1 have here quoted him word for word, without the omission of a syllable ; that when we see what he was resolved not to see, we may the better judge of what he meant, by a mind open to conviction : no more, I dare say, than a man ic/io had been often con- victed ; though never perhaps before in so flagrant an instance. The truth is, I had expressly and particularly considered and confuted this very objection, in the be ginning of Sect. V. Book IV. of ^The Divine Legation, where (on the words — They [the theocracy and extra-
* Book V. § 4. t Iki'l- § 3.
t Exam, of Mr. JFs Account, p. 180— 182.
VOL. XII. C ordinary
iS REMARKS ON SEVERAL
ordinary providence] must be either both trite or both false, but still inseparable, words which our Examiner has twice quoted) i say — The thing here asserted has been misunderstood, as contradicting what I after* wards observe concerning the gradual decay and total extinction of the extraordinary providence, while the theocracy yet existed. But when I say an extra ordinary providence was one necessary consequence of a theocracy, / must needs mean that it was so in its original constitution, and in the established nature of things : Not that in this, which was matter of compact, the contravening acts of one party might not make a separation, for as this extraordinary pro vidence was, besides, a reward for obedience to the theocracy, it became subject to a forfeiture by dis obedience and rebellion, though subjection to the government still continued. To illustrate this by a domestic instance : A voice in the supreme council of the kingdom is the necessary consequence of an Eng lish Barony ; yet they may be separated by a judicial sentence ; and actually have been so, as in the case of the famous Lord Bacon, who was deprived of his seat in the House of Lords, arid yet held his Barony. This was the specific punishment of the rebellious Israelites. They were deprived of the extraordinary providence ; and yet held subject to the theocracy, as- appears from the sentence pronounced upon them by the mouth of the PropJiet Ezekiel : " Ye pollute your- " selves with your idols even unto this day : and shall " I be enquired of by you, O House of Israel? As L
' live, saith the Lord God, I will not be enquired of by " you. And that which cometh into your mind shall " not be at all, that ye say, we will be as the Heathen, " as the families of the countries to serve wood and " stone. As I lire, saith the Lord, with a mighty " hand, with a stretched-out arm, and w ith fury poured " out, will I rule over you. And I will bring you out "' from the people, and will gather you out of the coun- <% tries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand,
1 and with a stretched-out arm, and with fury " poured out. And I will bring you into the wilder- " ness of the people, and there will I plead with you
"face
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 19
" face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in " ^the wilderness of the Land of Egypt, so will I plead " with you, saith the Lord. And I will cause you to " pass under the rod. And I will bring you into the " BOND OF THE COVENANT." Chap. xx. ver. 31 — 37. It is here, we see, denounced that the extraordinary 'providence should be withdrawn; or, in Scripture phrase, that God would not be enquired of by them; that they should remain in the condition of their fathers in the wilderness, when the extraordinary pro vidence, for their signal disobedience, was for some time suspended. But for all that, though they strove to disperse themselves amongst the people round about \ and projected in their minds to be as the Heathen, and the families of the countries to serve wood and stone, yet they should still be held under the government of a theocracy : which, when administered without its na turally attendant blessing of an extraordinary pro vidence, was, and was justly called, the ROD #W^BOND OF THE COVENANT*. He is now fairly and openly convicted. What shall be his punishntent ? That which hath proved, hitherto, his Reader's ; To write on.
VI. He proceeds, " Mr. JVarburtons second ob- <f jection against Dr. Spencer is — in his arguments for " the abolition of the theocracy, instead of at tempting " to prove it on the great principles of civil policy ^ the only way of determining the question with cer-
1 tainty, lie insists much on the disuse ofurim and " thummim, 8$c. He brings the despotic power of
' the kings, as another argument, which I think « proT<es the very contrary. For were these kings " the viceroys of God, whose power was despotic, " theirs must necessarily be the same; not so, if " monarchs in their own right '\\-~~ In his arguments " for the abolition of the theocracy. Has Dr. Spencer " any arguments for the abolition of the theocracy be- " fore the days of Christ f He has no such arguments ;
' nor, I dare say, never thought of such a topic ; be-
" cause he tells us it continued to the last times of their
" policy. He lias indeed a section about the duration
" of the theocracy, in which lie lays down four theses,
t Div. Leg. Book V. § 4. init. f Ibid. § 3.
c 2 " about
20 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" about the gradual declining of the theocracy : And in " one of them he shews it was not at an end in Saul and " David's days, because in their time the divine oracle "' was consulted ; that in Solomon s time, there was a " disuse of ur'un and thummim, which was a most " eminent pledge and indication of the divine govern- " ment : From this he concludes it nearer a?**10"/*?* to " a disappearing. But since he allows it to continue for 5t a thousand or eleven hundred years- after this, how is " it POSSIBLE for him to bring arguments for the aholi- " tion of the theocracy from the ur'un and thummim ? n He could MEAN only an abatement*." Hear now my own words, fairly printed together, in The Divine Legation ; and let the Reader believe it, if he caii: — This treatise is by no means in the number of those vn which Spencer raised his reputation* He goes on & wrong" hypothesis ; he uses weak arguments ; and he is confused and INCONSISTENT in his assertions, I. He thinks the theocracy was established hy de grees and abrogated by degrees. A conceit highly absurd, as God was legislator. He thinks the first step to its introduction was the delivery at the Red seer; and the first step to its abolition, the Israelites demand of him a king : That it was more impaired when Saul and David got possession of the throne : That it approached much 'nearer its end when it be came hereditarily under Solomon: And yet, .for all this, that some obscure footsteps of it remained even to the time of Christ. 2. In his ARGUMENT^/*?;* th? ABOLITION of the theocracy, instead of employing the great principles of civ impolicy, the only meows of determining the question with certainty, he insists much on the disuse of urim and tliummim, §c. He brings the despotic power of the Itings as another argument ; which, 1 thinky proves just the contrary. For were these kings the viceroys of God, whose fewer zvas despotic, t heir power must necessarily be so too : not so., if monarchs, in their own right. 3. Though, as we observed, Spencer, in the second Section of the fourth Chapter, supposes a gradual decay §f the theocracy ; and that even some obscure foot-
* Examination of Mr. IP's Account, p. 182, 1S3.
steps
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 121
steps of it remained to the time, o/ Christ; yet in the following Section he all tht way ARGUES UPON THE
SUPPOSITION OF AN ABSOLUTE AND ZXTIRE ABRO GATION by the establishment of the kings*. And in evidence of this last assertion, I quote at the bottom of the page these following words of Dr. Spencer : — • " Regi minis hujus MUTATI vel ABB.OGATI causa princi- " palis — De regiminis hujus ABROGATI eftectu vel eventu '^brevitcr dissereu-dum est." — Op. Speti. I. p. 241. 243. This then is the whole of what I said of Dr. Spencer on this occasion. Where the Header sees, my sole pur pose was to prove my assertion, that Dr. Spencer argued weakly and inconsistently. In the first paragraph, I shew his arguments for a gradual decay are weak. In the second, that his arguments for an abolition are as weak. And in the third, that he was inconsistent, talk ing one while of the continuance of it to the time of Christ ; and another, of its abrogation under the kings. Now what says our learned Doctor to all this ? Why in the first place, he detaches the second paragraph from the first and third ; though they ail relate to, and con nect with one another ; and quotes U alone as if in.tire and independent. With such a liberty the Header would reasonably think he might have made some shew at least of an argument : hut, by the good provision of Nature, his head was made an exact tally to his heart. I had said that Spencer talked inconsistently in, first, supposing a gradual decay and continuance, to the time of Gkri&tj and yet saying that it was abrogated under the kings. What is his answer? " Since Spencer " allows it to contiiii-i" for a thousand or eleven hundred " years after Solamons time, how is it POSSIBLE for him " to bring arguments for tht- abolition of the theocracy " from the disuse of 21 rim and thummim ? He COULD " MEAN only an abatement.1' That is in plain English — How is it possible , a" man should contradict himself? Or in still plainer — Your charge of INCONSISTENCY must be false, otherwise Dr. Spencer would be INCON SISTENT.
VII. " The third objection of Mr. Warburion (says ' our Doctor) is, that though Spencer in one place * Div. Leg. Book V. § 3.
c 3 ^ supposes
22 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" supposes a gradual decay of the theocracy, and " that even some obscure footsteps of it remained to " the time of Christ, yet in the following Section he " all the 'way argues upon the supposition of an ab- " solute and entire abrogation by the establishment " of the kings*. Here again is Dr. Spencer MUCH " MISREPRESENTED, from not considering \rhat he " MEANT by the ABROGATION of God's government. " Not that the theocracy entirely ceased ; but the go- " vernment received an ALTERATION and ABATEMENT. " And therefore he uses more than once the phrase of <{ Regiminis viutati, in this very Section, and tells us " that when the Israelites desired a king — hac in re " Deus ab arte regis politici non recessit. God DID <£ NOT RECEDE FROM THE ART of a political governor, <c but consented to their requests in order to avoid a " greater evil. Where is the absurdity or inconsistency " of this way of reasoning, unless abrogation is made to " signify a total abolition ; and duration is to be con- " s trued cessation f ?
" Spencer (says he} is much misrepresented ; he did c( not mean by ABROGATION a CEASING, but an ALTER- " ATION and ABATEMENT." In the Jirst place then, it seems that when one charges an author with contra diction in his expressions; if he had a meaning, that was consistent, he is much misrepresented. A good commodious principle for the whole class of Answerers ! Secondly^ he says thai abrogation [regimen abrogatum] does not signify ceasing. Where did he get his Latin f? Cicero, Livy, and all the Roman writers, lawyers, as well as philosophers, use it onjy in the sense of dissolu tion, abolition., and the entire ceasing of an office or com mand. What then does it signify ? why it signifies an ALTERATION and ABATEMENT, But now, where did he get his English ? What! is an alteration of Govern ment only an abatement of it? The alteration of a theocracy we understand : But what is the abatement of it? That indeed I cannot tell. But this I know, that \ve have here a sufficient proof of what I laid to his charge,
* Div. Leg. Book V. § 3.
f Exam, of Mr. W$ Account, p. 185, 186'.
that
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 23
that he perpetually confounds the mode of government with the administration of it : alteration being appli cable to the former; and abatement only to the latter. Thirdly he says — " and THEREFORE Spencer uses more " than once the phrase vi rcgiminis MUTATI in this very *e Section.'' — Therefore! Wherefore i why, because, by abrogati lie meant only abated ; therefore he uses mutati, more than once, to explain himself; that is to say, because, by tetum, I mean />#/•,$; THEREFORE I use cmne, more than once, to explain my meaning. Well, if he did not satisfy us before ; he has done it now. But abrogation must not only signify prorogation, but, what is more, mutati must signify immutati. Till now we thought that mutatus had signified changed; a gross misrepresentation, says he; it signifies unchanged, though indeed abated or diminished.
Fourthly, he says that Spencer tells us, when the Israelites desired " a King — hac in re Deus ab arte " regis poli fid non reccssit ; God did not recede from " the art of a political governor." This the reader is to take as a proof of Spencers holding that God did not give up his office ; and consequently, that there could be no abrogation ; for we have here to do with a vsry subtile reasoner. Seriously, the blunder is a delightful one ! ab arte regis politici non recessit, according to our critic, signifies, that God did not recede from the art or exercise of governing; or did not throw up his office. He has translated the words, we see, verbatim ; so that it is a little hard when he stuck so close to his text, he should be thrown so wide from its meaning : which is, indeed, no more than this, that God con descended to use the address of political monarchy who, when they cannot stop or repel a torrent, contrive to elude it And " where (says he) is the absurdity or £ inconsistency of this way of reasoning?" Nay, for that matter, the reasoning is full as good as the transla tion. But here he should have stopp'd. For so fatal is his expression, when the tit is upon him, that he cannot ask quarter for one blunder without committing another — ( unless ABROGATION is made to signify a total ABOLI- ' Tio\r, and DURATION is construed to be CESSATION ?" I can find (says he) no absurdity or inconsistency in Dr.
c 4 Spencer,
24 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
? without perverting the common signification of words. This is his argument — Jt'ithout calling dura tion, cessation — so far is well, tut he jjoes on— and^ abrogation, abolition. And here he sinks again. For abrogation was abolition, in all nations and languages, till Dr. fykes first pleaded in ABATEMENT.
In a word, the charge against Spencer was of absur dity and contradiction in one instance ami<Ut a thousand excellencies. Dr. Sykes assumes the honour of his de- feiace. But with what judgment he soon lets us under stand, when he can find no other part ot that immortal book to do himself the credit of supporting than his trea tise of the tJieocracy. Like the ancient advocate of Cicero, who, while that great man's character was torn in pieces by his enemies, the flatterers of OB avius, would needs vindicate him from the wart upon his nose, against his friends.
Hitherto the controversy was unnatural. Dr. Sykes became advocate for Spencer against an accusation brought by the Author of The Divine Legation. But both soon return again to their proper business : He to objecting against the extraordinary providence of heaven ; I, to a defence of this certain and necessary consequence of a theocracy.
VIII. " Let us now proceed (says the learned Doctor) to the second point, which relates to the exercise of an extraordinary providence over particu- lar persons as well as over the state in general. The scripture representation of the theocracy, as Mr. Warburton assures us, tra.s, 1. Over the state in general : and 2. Over private men in particular*. I have no doubts about the former of these cases : For where a law was given by God, and he condescended to become king of a nation, and a solemn covenant was entered into by the people, and by God, as their king, and where blessings were solemnly promised upon obedience to the law, or curses were denounced upon disobedience : and this by one who was able to execute whatever he engaged ; no doubt can be about the reciprocal obligations, or about God's performing his part of the obligation, since it is his property not * Div. Leg. "Book V. § 4.
« tO
'
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 25
" to lie nor deceive. Temporal rewards and punish- u ments being then the sanction of the Jewish law, these " must be dispensed by God so as to make the state " happy and flourishing if they kept the law, or else " miserable if they disobeyed it. If they observed and " did all the commandments, which God commanded " them, God had engaged to make them high above (i all nations which he had made, in praise, and in " name, and in honour ; and if enemies rose up against " them, the Lord would cause them to be smitten. " On the other hand, if they grew negligent of the law, " or went aside jrom any of the words commanded " them — to serve other gods, then the Lord was to st send cursing, vexation, and rebuke in all THOU " settest THINE hand unto for to do, until THOU be " destroyed, and until THOU perish quickly. The *c blessings and curses were general and national, agree - " able to the character of a king, and a legal admfnistra- " tion : Such as related to them as a people ; and not " to particular persons *.'"
Here, he assures us, " he has no doubts about the extraordinary providence over the state in general." And he tells us his reason, — because " the Law was given by " God, and he condescended to become the king of the " nation, by a solemn covenant made with the people." This, I say, is his reason, when taken out of the verbiage of his expression, Now if it can be proved that this very reason holds equally strong for an extraordinary provi dence over particulars, this second point, as he calls it, will be soon decided between us. In order to this, let me ask him what those reasons are whereby he infers that, from God's becoming king of a nation, he must administer an extraordinary providence over the state in general, which do not equally conclude for God's ad ministering it over particulars ? Is not his inference founded upon this, That where God condescends to assume a civil character, he condescends to administer it in a civil manner? Which is done by extending his care over the whole. If our Doctor says, his inference is not thus founded ; I must then beg leave to tell him, that he has no foundation at all to conclude, from God's being * Exam, of Mr. /F's Account, &c. p. 186, 187.
king,
26 , REMARKS ON SEVERAL
king, that there was an extraordinary providence exerted over the state in general. If he says, it is thus founded ; then I infer, upon the same grounds, an extraordinary providence over particulars. For the justice of the regal office is equally concerned in extending its care to particulars as to tlie state in general. It may be asked then, what hindered our Examiner from seeing so self- evident a truth ? I reply, an old inveterate blunder, with which he first set out ; and which yet sticks to him. I have observed above, what confusion he ran into by not being able to distinguish between the form of govern ment and the administration of it. Here again he makes the same blind work for not seeing the difference between a legislator and a king. " For where a LAW " (says he) was given by God, and he condescended " to become the KING of a nation," &^c. implying that, in his opinion, the giving a law, and the becoming a king, was one and the same thing. Hence it was, that as the legislative power, in the institution of good laws, extends its providence only over the state in general, he concluded, that the executive power, in the administra tion of those laws, does no more. Which brings him to a conclusion altogether worthy the abilities exerted in the dilucidation of his premisses — u The blessings and *£ curses (says he) were general and national, AGUEEA-
" BLE TO THE CHARACTER OF A KtXG AND A LEGAL
" ADMINISTRATION," — What! Is it only agreeable to the character of a king and a legal administration to take care of the state in general, and not of particulars ? So, according to this new system of policy, it is agreeable to the constitution of England to fit out fleets, to pro tect the public from insults, and to enact laws to encourage commerce ; but not to erect courts of equity, or to send about itinerant judges. What makes our examiner's igno rance in this matter the more inexcusable is, that I had pointed out to him this distinction^ in the following pas sage; the former part of which he has quoted, but dropt the latter, as if determined that neither himself nor Reader should be the better for it. My words are these : It [the extraordinary providence] is represented as ad ministered, i. Over the state in general. 2. Over private men in particular. And such a representa tion
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 27
tion we should expect tojindfrom the nature of the republic; BECAUSE AS AN EXTRAORDINARY PRO VIDENCE OVER THE STATE NECESSARILY FOLLOWS
GOD'S BEING THEIR TUTELARY DEITY [in which capa city he gave them laws]; so AN EXTRAORDINARY PRO VIDENCE TO PARTICULARS FOLLOWS AS NECESSARILY FROM HIS BEING THEIR SUPREME MAGISTRATE*. •
Here then I might fairly leave him, having proved my position on the very same principles, and in the very same manner, he has proved his own. But let us hear him out.
IX. He proceeds to tell his Reader what is the ques tion between us. But we now know enough of him to be upon our guard whenever he begins to tell his story. And, in truth, it is no more than needs. For here he tops his part. " The question then (says he) that now " is to be considered is, whether an extraordinary pro- ' vidence was administered to particulars in such a ' manner, that no transgressor escaped punishment , " nor any observer of the law missed his reward. ' This was the state of the Jews under an equal pro- fr vidence, as Mr. JVarburton tells usf, and by this " means human affairs might be kept in good order 1 without the doctrine of a future state of rewards 1 and punishments. That God did bless particular 1 persons amongst the Jews, as well as now he does in ' all nations, is certain ; but that he so dispensed his ' favours, as that no observer of the law missed his 6 reward, nor did any transgressor escape punish* ' merit, is far from being clear. The nation, considered * as a nation, had this peculiar to it, that when they did ' evil in the sight of the Lord, they were delivered into ' the hands of their enemies. When they repented, and ' put away the strange gods from amongst them, and 1 served the Lord, they were delivered. Instances of r this are frequent in the book of Judges, and in the ' history of the Kings of Israel. But if we descend to 1 an extraordinary providence over particulars, even in " those times, I do not remember what will amount to « proof +."
* Div. Leg. Book V. § 4. f Ibid. § 5.
J Exam, of Mr, JFs Account, &c. p. 18/~, 188.
He
28 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
He says the question between us is, " Whether an " extraordinary providence to particulars was adinini- " stered IN SUCH A MAXNEU, that no transgressor Cc escaped punishment, nor any observer of the Law " missed his reward." On the contrary, he himself owns, in the very preceding paragraph, that the question between us is simply this, whether the extraordinary providence was only over the state in general ; or whether it extended to particulars* And on that occasion fairly quotes the passage where I stated the nature of this extraordinary providence. Nay, in the very paragraph just quoted from him, he owns, in conclusion, that the question is about an extraordinary providence over par ticulars ; without confining or extending it to this or that mode ; for he denies the very thing itself. What then ara we to suppose was his drift in changing the state of the question ; and telling us now, that it is, " whether " the extraordinary providence was administered ix " SUCH A MANX EH that 7io transgressor escaped " punishment, nor any observer of the law missed his 4C reward?" What think you? But to introduce a commodious fallacy under an ambiguous expression ; that should be always at hand to answer his occasions? Which, we shall find as we go along, tliis always is. And indeed the cautious Reader (and I would advise no other to have to do with him) will suspect no less, when he observes that the words [no transgressor escaped punishment, nor any observer of the law missed his reward] quoted from me, are not to be found in that place where I stated the nature of the extraordinary providence; but in another. Where I speak of the consequences of it, in these words: — llre liave shewn at large in the first volume, that under a common or un equal providence, civil government could not be sup ported without a religion, teaching a future state of reward and / iniishmcnt. And it is the great purpose of this work to prove, that the Mosaic religion want ing that doctrine, the Jews must necessarily have enjoyed an equal providence under which Holy Scrip ture represents them to hare lived. AXD THEX, KQ transgressor escaping punishment, nor any observer of the law missing his reward, human affairs must be 6 kept
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS, 29
kept in good order without the doctrine of a future state*. — What now has this Answerer by profession done ? He has taken the words [no transgressor escaping punishment, nor any observer of the lazy missing his reward} from their natural place, misrepre sented their purpose, and given them to the Reader ^3 my DEFINITION of an extraordinary providence to par ticulars ; and, not content with that, has- put this false and sophistical sense upon them, THAT NO ONE SINGLE PERSON, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ever escaped punish ment, or ever missed his reward. And in this mertshmis sense he, by the worst prevarication, repeats, and applies them, on every following occasion, as the sole answer to all my reasonings on the subject of an extraordinary pro vidence. To prepare the Reader, therefore, for a proper reception of all the miserable chicane that arises out of this his nPflTON TEYAOI, I shall here shew, that the words [no transgressor escaping punishment, nor any observer of the law missing his reward] could not mean by any rules of just construction,, that every single person, without exception, was thus punished and re warded ; but only that this very extraordinary providence over particulars, was so exactly administered, as that no one could hope to escape it, or fear to be forgotten by it.
First, then, Let it be observed, that the words are no absolute assertion; but a consequence of something as serted. — AND THEN no transgressor escaping, Sfc. which illative words the honest examiner omitted. Now what had been asserted was simply this, that the extraor dinary providence over the Jews was, in Scripture, re presented as administered over particulars : but that this very administration would of necessity be attended with some inequalities!. Must not then the consequence I draw from these premisses be as restrained as the pre misses themselves? Secondly, I said, that God had promised an equal providence to particulars; but that he hud declared at the same time how it should be admi nistered, viz* in such a manner as would occasion some few exceptions. If therefore Dr. Sykes would not allow me, he ought to have allowed God; at least, the right of * Div, Leg. Ik-ok V. | 5. -\ Ibid, § 4.
explaining
30 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
explaining himself. Thirdly, had the words been abso lute, as they then might have admitted of two senses, did not common ingenuity require, tiiat I should be under stood in that which was easiest to prove, when it was equally to my purpose ? Which is an extraordinary pro vidence over particulars in the manner here explained. But there \Vas still more than this to lead an ingenuous man into my meaning; which was, that he might ob serve, that I used, throughout my whole Discourse of the Jewish economy, the words extraordinary pro vidence and equal providencey as equivalent. By which he would understand that I all along admitted of ex ceptions. Fourthly, If such rare cases of exception destroyed an equal providence to particulars (which providence I hold), it would destroy with it the equal providence to the state (which Dr. Sykes pretends to hold). But if not for the sake of truth in opinion, yet for fair-dealing in practice, Dr. Sykes should have inter preted my words not absolutely, but with exceptions. For thus stood the case. He quoted two positions from the Divine Legation: 1. That there was an extra ordinary providence over the state in general : 2. Over private men in particular. He grants the first; and denies the second. But is not the extent of that pro vidence understood to be, in both cases, the same ? Now in that over the state., he understands it to have been with exceptions, as appears from his own mention of the cases of Achan and of David. Ought he not then, by all the rules of honest reason, to have understood the proposition-denied, in the same sense he understands the proposition-granted ? If in the administration over the state in general, there were some few exceptions, why not in that over private men in particular?
But if now the candid reader will ask me why I em ployed expressions that, w^hen divorced from the context, might be abused by a caviller to a perverse meaning, I will tell him : I used them in imitation of the language of the apostle, who says that, under the Jewish economy, EVERY transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward*. And if he be to be understood exceptions, why may not I ? * Heb. ii. 2.
Having
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 31
Having now exposed, as it deserves, this master fallacy, the rabble of sophisms, which follow it, and pretend to make their fortune by it, are easily dispersed. But before we come to that, we have something further to say to the paragraph in hand. We observed, that, in concluding it, he returns again to the true state of the question. These are his words — " But if we descend to an extraordinary " providence over particulars even in those times [the " Judges and Kings of Israel], I do not remember what " will amount to proof." To assist his bad memory, or long absence from his Bible, I shall quote again from The Divine Legation, the following passages. /// the dedi cation of the first temple, Solomon addresses hi* prayer to God, that the covenant between him and the people might remain for everjirm and inviolate, and the old economy be still continued. And after having enumerated divers parts of it, he proceeds in these words : When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee ; yet if they pray towards this place, and con less thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou dost afflict them : then hear thoii from heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, when thou ha^t taught them die good way, wherein they should walk ; and send rain upon" the land, which thou hast given unto thy people lor an inheri tance. If there be dearth in the land, if there be pesti lence, if there be blasting or mildew, locust or cater pillars ; if their enemies besiege them in the cities of their land ; whatsoever sore or whatsoever sickness there be ^ Then what prayer or what supplication shall be made of any man, or of all thy people Israel, when every one shall know his own sore, and his own grief > and shall spread forth his hands in this house ; then hear thou from heaven and forgive, arad render unto every man accord ing unto all his ways, whose heart thou knowest*. The, Psalmist bears his testimony to the same economy: I have been young (says he) and now am old : yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread f. GOD himself declares it by the prophet Isaiah : Say ye to the righteous that it shall be well with him : for they shall eaUhe fruit of their doings, ' Wo
* 2 Cbron. vi. 28. et seq. f Psal. *xxvii. 25.
unto
32 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
unto the wicked, it shall be ill with him : for the reward of his hands shall be given him*. And again : He that walketh righteously and speakcth uprightly, etc, he shall dwell on high : his place of defence shall be the muni tions of rocks, bread shall be given him, his waters shall be suref. And we learn from a parabolical command in Ezekiel how exactly these promises were fulfilled: And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women ; but come not near any man upon whom is the Mark ; and begin at my sanctuary;};, <§r. But GOD, by the prophet Amos, describes this administration of providence in the fullest manner : Also I have wlthholden the rain from you, when there was yet three months to the harvest, and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city : one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not, withered. So two or ttyree cities wandered into one city to drink water; but they were not satisfied : yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord. 1 have smitten you with blasting and mildew, <§'C.§. And a$ain : Lo I will command, and I will sift the house of hrad amongst all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth ||. Yet all this he had overlooked as not amounting, I suppose, to proof.
X. At last he owns I had allowed, " that the sacred " writings themselves freely speak of the inequality " of providence to particulars in such a manner as " men living under a common providence are accus- " tomedto speak^ Which shews it was impossible I should mean the proposition of No transgressor ever
* Chap. iii. 10, 11.
•fr Chap, xxxiii. 15, iff. J Chap. ix. 4, 5, 6.
§ Chap. iv. 7~ll. i| Chap. ix. 9-
51 Exam, of Mr. fFs Account, &c. p. 138, See also Div. Leg. Book V. § 4.
escaping
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 33
escaping punishment, Sec. in the sense he has put upon it. But this i? so tar from shaming hiai lor his prevari cation, that, alter having given examples to confirm my observation of the Sacred Writers speaking of the in equalities of providence, he goes on thus: " This ob- " jection taken from the complaints made by the Sacred " Writers was so full and strong, that, though Mr. War- " burton promises to prove hereafter that an equal " providence was actually administered, yet, for his " Reader's present satisfaction, he will shew, that these " representations of inequality are very consistent " with that before given of the equality of 'providence. " I will examine with as much brevity as i can, what he " has said ; and leave you to judge whether he has said " enough to give his Reader present satisfaction *."
The iirst remark I shall make on this passage is, that it represents me forced to make an acknowledgment, not out of any regard to truth, but through necessity. — Secondly, where he says that I promise to prove here after that an equal providence was actually admini- stered, he mistakes, as usual, my sense, and supposes I meant, in the third volume of The Divine Legation. Whereas all, who understand that book, know I meant, in the latter part of the second, then in my hands. And even he himself may now see as much by the short view I have given of it, in the first part of these Remarks : where speaking of this matter, I express myself in the following terms : — Here the reader should o ' my argument does not require me to prove more than that an extraordinary providence is REPRESENTED in Scripture to be administered : the prcof of its REAL administration it is the purpose of this /Fork to give through the great MEDIUM cf my theses, — The omission of the Doctrine of a future State of Rewards and Punishments. — If therefore I clearly shew from the whole Jewish history that the matter is thus represented, the inference from my medium, which proves the representation true, answers all objections, both as to our inadequate conception of the manner Jww such a providence could be administered: and as to certain passages in Holy Scripture that seem to * Exam. &c. p. 3.91.
VOL, XII. D clush
34 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
clash with this its GENERAL REPRESENTATION. Ant yet both these objections (to leave no shadow of doubt unsatisfied) are considered likewise. These consider ations our Examiner has now attacked. Let us see with, what success.
XI. He tells the reader, my first consideration is, " That when the Sacred Writers speak of the in- " equality of providence, and the unjit distribution " of things, they, sometimes mean that state of it " amongst their Pagan neighbours, and not in Judea, " as particularly in th%Book of Psalms and Eccle- " sia&tes*." To this he replies,— " dsaph, or who* ** ever was the author of the psalm before cited, com- " plains heavily at the prosperity of the wicked, These' " wicked meirwere, it seems, not Jews, but his Pagan *' neighbours!," <ST- Would not any one, now, believe, that this Psalm before cited was one I had cited, to prove that, in the Booh of Psalms the writers of it sometimes mean that state of providence amongst their Pagan neighbours f So far from it, I had cited it to the very contrary purpose ; as a proof of the ex traordinary providence to the Jewish people, who are there all along spoken of. But what 'then ? He had cited it a page or two before : and his trade required him. to cite it again. Or did he, indeed, imagine, that when I said, The writers of the Book of Psalms sometimes spoke of that state of providence amongst their Pagan; neighbours, I meant in every psalm ? It is- hard to tell. I have sometimes catched him at a worse inference.. However, as he loves to be encouraged, I shall say na more to him of the Psalms, till he has cited, and of course; misinterpreted, every one of them L and then he may hear further from me.
In the other case of Ecclesiastes (thanks however te* the nature of the book) he has argued fairer at least " Much less still (says he) is the reflection of the " preacher in Ecclesiastes designed to relate to his- " Pagan neighbours. It is an universal observation,, " that the work of God is inscrutable even to a wise '* man. On which account the author proposes to
* Dw. Leg. Book V. § 4.
f Exara, oi'MivJF'* Accoimt, p. 19V
« clar®,
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 35
" clare, that no man could judge of cither love or hatred " by what was before him, since all things come alike " to all, there is one event to the righteous and to " the wicked, &c. This was an &n\ among all things " done under the sun, that there is one event to all. " Has he made any exception for Israel ? No : but " he maintains, that the race is not to the swift ; nor " the battle to the strong', neither yet bread to the " wise ; nor yet riches to the men of understanding ; " nor yet favour to men of skill:, but time and " chance happeneth to them all. Eccles.ix. n. Could " a wise man, under an extraordinary providence <( himself, talk in this manner, thus universally, and make " no exceptions for his own nation ? Did he not see a " difference betwixt the people of Israel, and all other " people ? Or if there was such a difference as Mr. " Warburton contends for, could he fail taking notice " of it? Would not his omi people be led into wrong " notions by such universal assertions ? I cannot there- " fore but think, that this solution given by Mr. War- " burton is not only not sufficiently well grounded, but " that it has no foundation at all, viz. that the Psalmist \ " and the Son of David, spoke of their Pagan neigh- *' boars, and not of the Jews, when they expressed " themselves so strongly about the prosperity of the " wicked and the misfortune of good men*." I now begin to think, he had some reason to lament, that a nght good critical and grammatical comment has never yet been wrote upon the Bible^. Till then I shall beg leave to supply his wants with a short account of the general plan and purpose of this famous book. It is a philosophical inquiry into the chief good or summurn bonum, so universal a subject of dispute amongst the ancient Sages ; and managed much in their way ; i. e. chiefly employed in detecting the false notions of happi ness. And that it was not unusual for Solomon to per sonate the garb and manners of the Gentile Sages w?e understand by Josephus, in the story he tells of Solomon sending riddles to the king of Tyre as trials of the abili ties of his wise men ; whose sagacity, at that time, lay
* Examination of Mr. JF's Account, p. 195, l^G.
% Pancip. and Coime*. of Nat. and Rev, Rejig, p, 217.
D 2 chiefly,
36 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
chiefly, as we find by Herodotus, towards such kind of decyphering.
This alone is sufficient to shew us, that the sacred Writer addressed himself to his countrymen, not so much under the idea of a selected nation, as to part of the pos terity of Adam and of the human race at large. Other wise, to what purpose was this philosophical inquiry? For as the chosen people, their law expressly pointed out, and led them directly to, the supreme good : which, indeed, the" sacred Writer, at last ends with: and lie could do no other, both as he was a Jew, and as he ad dressed himself to his countrymen, neither of whom could long divest themselves of their peculiar character. Let its hear the conclusion of the whole matter (says he); fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man*.
But to be a little more particular. The BOOK OPENS in this manner: — Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What profit has a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?-' All things are full of labour. Man cannot utter it : the eye is not satis fied with seeing^ nor the car filed with hearing. The thing that hath been is that which shall be — ami there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thin* whereof it may be said, See this is new ?•- There is no remembrance of former things-, neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come, with those that shall come aftcr'\ ? The propositions are here all general ; and plainly relative to mankind at large : for some of them are not true with respect to the chosen nation ; such as the assertion that nothing was new under' the sun\ <§T. But the following words more expressly declare his meaning to be general* And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wis- doniy concerning all things that are done under heaven — I have seen all the works that are done un der the sun $. In the SECOND chapter he still more professedly assumes the character of an ancient Sage; and inquires whether happiness be to be found in mirth i and jollity ; in magnificence ; in luxury ; in wealth ; in power, or in wisdom. All, but the last, he gives up* * Chap. xii. 13. f Clap, i. 2—12. J Ibid, 13, 14.
This
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 37
This indeed had some pretensions to it : for he found wisdom exceeded folly as far as light exceedeth dark ness *. Yet, when he observed that the same thing happened both to the fool and the rmef ; he. rejected this likewise with the rest.: and, now floundering deeper and deeper in his philosophical inquiries, he sinks at last into gross Epicurism, There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and. drink + , $c. But then adding, and of such good who can enjoy more than I\ ? This recalls his real character, and affords him an opportunity of ending the inquiry in a decent manner, For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight , wisdom, and knowledge, and joy : but to tlie sinner he giveth travail \\, 8$c. Which was done with "the finest address; and prevented what he had said just before, in his personated character, from giving scandal, or being misunderstood. Let me observe too, that there is no way of reconciling this last verse with the 14th, where lie declares, that one event happeneth to all, than by supposing, he there spoke of the state of mankind in general ; and here of the Jewish nation in particular. On this principle, several other contradictory passages, to the same purpose, must needs be interpreted. In the THIRD chapter, having resumed his personated character, he seeks for happiness, and finds nothing but vanity, in the natural constitution of things. In the FOURTH chap ter, he seeks it, and finds the same, in the moral consti tution of things. And here he, all along, speaks of mankind in general / have se,en the travail which God hath given to the sons of men, to be exercised in it. He hath made every thing beautiful in his time : also he hath set the world in their heart ^. — Nay, there are some places where his thought must be confined to other .countries, as where he says (chap. vi. ver. 2.) A man to whom God hath given riclies, wealth, and honour — yet God giveth him not power to eat there of, but a STRANGER catcth it. This could not happen •under Solomon in the Land of Judtea, when inheritances never went out of the twelve tribes. Again, And more over, I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that
* Chap. ii. 13. t Ver. 14. J Ver. 24.
§ Ver. 25.o || Ver. 26. f Chap. iii. 10, 11.
P 3 wickedness
38 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
wickedness was there-, and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there* . Are we to think that Solo mon was afraid of saying, this was in Jud&a, which he governed absolutely ; and so disguised his expression to rnake'us believe he meant it of the world at large? Or could the civil administration of the land, which he gOr verned with so much wisdom and equity, be in the mise rable condition here described ? The fourth chapter begins — So I returned, and considered all the oppres sions that are done under the sun. — Returned! from whence ? From a contemplation of the natural state of things, (spoken of in the preceding chapter) to the moral, every where over the whole face of the habitable globe ; — all the oppressions that are done under the sun. But the 1 3th and 14th verses certainly allude to some fact out of Judaea. Better is a poor and wise child, than an old and foolish King : for oat of prison he cometh to reign ; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor. In the same manner we must interpret the 14th and 15th verses of the ixth chapter; and the 5th, 6th, and 7th verses of the xth chapter. From hence, that is, from the end of the fourth chapter, to the con clusion of the book, the sacred Writer employs himself in miscellaneous reflections illustrating and supporting his main question : partly abstracted, in his assumed charac ter of Sage; and partly practical and didactic., in his character of Preacher : till he comes to the conclusion of his inquiry after happiness, which he places in God : Remember thy Creator, fyc. And in this part, agree able to the character in which he speaks, he sometimes asserts an equal providence, and sometimes an unequal. As where he says, in behalf of the first — It is good that tJtou shouldst take hold of this-, yea, also from this
.withdraw not thine hand : for he thatfeareth God, shall COME FORTH of them all*\ . Whoso keepeth the Commandments shall FEEL NO EVIL THING J. But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he PROLONG HIS DAYS, which are as a shadow] because he
feareth not before God^ . On the contrary he says, in Jhe very following verse: There is a vanity which is
f Ver. 16. •$ Chap, vii. 18, J Chap. viii. 5. § Ver. 13.
don*
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 39
upon the earth, that there be just men unto whom it happenetk according to the work of the wicked : Again, there be wicked men to whom it happeneth ac cording to the work of the righteous*. This is worthy our observation. When, in the preceding verse, .lie had asserted an equal providence; and by the words, prolong his days, marked it to be such a one as we are told in the law, was administered over the land of Judaea \ when he comes to speak in this verse of an unequal providence, he as plainly intimates that he meant it in the world at large. t>y the introductory expression o£ There is a vanity which is done upon the earth.
But, how the Book of Ecclesiattes came to be written ; and how it came to be -cast into this form ; though such an inquiry might tend to illustrate and support our inter pretation ; I shall not at present, nor, perhaps, ever here after, think fit to inform our Ex&minej\ What has been already said, is more than sufficient to justify my assei^ tion, That when the Writer of Eeclesiastes speaks of the inequality of providence, he means that state of it amongst his Pagan neighbours : — The argument stands thus : There are several places in the Book of Ecclesi* astes where an equal providence it asserted; several, •where an unequal. These can be only reconciled by supposing, that, in the first ease, he speaJcs of it as ad^ ministered in the Land of Judcea ; in the second, as in the world at large. Tlie supposition is justified in this manner : i . by shewing, that the very expression, in both -cases, supports this -distinction: 2. that the author some* times speaks in the personated character of a Sage or philosophical inquirer after truth ; in which, he transports himself into die world at large : sometimes, in his own •character of a Preacher, where he confines himself to the Jewish people. — But to go on now with our Examiner.
XII. ff Mr. Warburton (says he) has given us a " second solution of this difficulty, no better, I think, c than the former. We sometimes find particular men ' complaining of inequalities in events, which were ( indeed the effects of a most equal providence : such * as the punishment of posterity for the crimes of
* Ver. 14.
D 4 " their
40 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" their forefathers, and of subjects for their kings, " These are indeed remarkable instances of an extra- " ordinary equal providence, where NO TRANSGRESSOR " COULD ESCAPE PUNISHMENT, NOR GOOD MAN " ESCAPE REWARD, to tell us of transgressing forefathers " escaping, and their INNOCENT CHILDREN BEING " PUNISHED; of wicked kings under no misfortunes, " and innocent subjects suffering en thrir account* !n And thus he goes on, repeating his -apvrw if-'^eJc? for eight pages together. For now this wi/.>tefy of iniquity begins to work. HR must bs content, therefore,, to be reminded (for the fust time) that he here studs charged with putting a PAL^E sense upon, no transgressor escaping punishment, fyc. by which alone his argument is supported. And we shall have irequtnt occasion, as T\e go along, to repeat his crime, and set this black mark upon him. But so gross a misrepresentation does not stand single. It is accompanied with another as gross, which, however, seems rather to he the fault of his cmder- standing. He expressly represents -me as affirming, that, by the law of God, INNOCENT CHILDREN WERE PU- KISIIED FOR TIIEIR GUILTY PARENTS; in a manner that cannot he reconciled to justice, or goodness, or impartiality in an extraordinary pror'ulenct'\\ An atrocious ace isation ! and without a possibility of proof. For in (his d-jcourse, which our author refers to, and understands not, I had shewn, 1. That where the pos terity of guilty parents were deprived of any of their natural unconditional rights for their parents' crimes, there, the posterity were not innocent. Which, I ob served, mkht be understood, from the law itself; where, although God allowed capital punishment to be in flicted j or Lese Majesty on the person of the offender, by the delegated administration of the, Law ; yet con cerning his family or posterity he reserved the inqui sition to himself; and expressly forbad the magistrate to meddle with it 4n the common course oj justice J. For why was the magistrate forbid to imitate -Xjrod's method of punishing, but because no power less than omniscient could, in all cases, keep clear of injustice in
* Exam, of Mr. JF's Account, p. J£$, 197. | Ibid, p. 197. | Div. Leg. Book V. § 5.
such
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 41
such a perquisition? But I observed further, that God had expressly declared why he reserved this method of punishment to himself, in the place where he informs us, how, or in what manner, he was pleased to administer it. Your iniquities (says he) and the iniquities of your fathers together*, §c. 2. 1 had shewn, that where "an innocent posterity suffered for the crimes of suilty parents, it was only in the deprivation of their civil con^ ditionai rights. For the Israelites, as Scripture informs us, were supported in Judcea by an extraordinary ad ministration of providence; the consequence of which were great temporal blessings given them on condition; and to which they had no natural claim. Nothing there fore could be more equitable than, on the violation of that condition, to withdraw those extraordinary blessings from a father thns offending. To confirm which, I shewed, that it exactly corresponded with the practice of all states, in attaint of blood and confiscation f . And now, was it possible for the most arrant Answerer by profession, had he understood what was said, to charge me with holding, that by the law of God, innocent children were punished for their guilty parents in a manner that cannot be reconciled to justice, or good- ness, or impartiality in an extraordinary providence ? Not but we must think that he had read that dissertation. For there is scarce any part of it which, under this head, }ie does not quota: but in so absurd a manner, and to so absurd purposes, as evidently shew, that he understood not what he read. Of which take the following instances :
To prove that the importance of the doctrine or a future state was well understood by Moses, I shew, that the law qf punishing the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, was a provision opposed to the in convenient consequences of its omission. For that the violence of irregular passions would make some sort of men, of stronger complexions, superior to all the fear of personal temporal evil. To lay hold therefore of these, and to gain a due ascendant over the most determined, the punishments, in this institution, are extended to the posterity of wicked men ; which the instinctive fondness of parents for their offspring would make terrible, even to * Isa. Jxv. 7. | Div. Leg. Book V. § 5.
those
42 REMARKS Ott SEVERAL
those who had hardened themselves into an insensibility of personal punishment*. Now this Dr. Sykes ex pressly represents as said to " get rid of this difficulty* " vis. How innocent children being made to suffer for *' their sinning parents can be consistent with the law of *.c an equal providence f." This is scarce indeed to be believed, though we see his end in his prevarication. For. now the answer comes out easy in a mere denial — ** This is not consistent with the law of an equal pro- " vidence." Whereas had he told the reader truth con cerning my purpose, in the observation, then, in order to answer it, he must have proved, that the punishment on the posterity of a wicked man did not lay hold of his in stinctive passions; which, I suppose, would have not been so easy. But indeed I am always ready to suspect, that I attribute more to design in this Writer, than I ought. And, in his repetition of this false representation, there is something so natural, that I am almost ready to ^acquit him of all practice. — " It is certain (says he) " the instinctive fondness of parents will restrain, §c. — " But this is NOT THE CASE in hand. The PREVIOUS *' SUPPOSITION is, that no transgressor is to escape " punishment, &c. The QUESTION THEN is, upon " this supposition, how a guilty parent's crimes can be. " visited upon his innocent children £." For is it possible he should knowingly venture the being detected in so gross a misrepresentation by any one who will but turn to Book V. § 5. of The Divine Legation ?
His next observation collects his scattered absurdities together ; and so frees us at once from the trouble of any further quotations from him on this head.
He says, the Author of The Divine Legation goes on and observes " that this punishment [of visiting tHfe " iniquities of fathers upon children] was only to supply " the want of a future state. But how will this *' extraordinary economy SUPPLY this want? The " children at present suffer for their parents' crimes ; and " are supposed to be punished when they have no guilt. " Is not this a plain act of HARDSHIP? And if there " be no future state or compensation made, the hardship
» Div. Leg. Book V. § 5.
-fr ii'i. am. of Mr. Ws Account, &c. p, 1$9. J Ibid. p. 201.
4 " don«
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 43
" done must continue for ever a hardship on the un- •" happy sufferer *." i. The question is, whether this law of punishing, was a SUPPLY to the want of a future state? If it laid hold of the passions, as he owns above it did, it certainly was a SUPPLY, However, he will here prove it was none. And how ? Because it was a HARD SHIP. 2. He supposes that when children were punished, in the proper sense of the word, they were innocent, which is absolutely false, for then they were always guilty. When the innocent were affected by their parents' crimes, it was by the deprivation of benefits, in their nature for* feitable. 3. He supposes, that if Moses taught no future $tate, it would then follow that there was none. Which puts me in mind of the same sort of confutation which the jirst volume of The Divine Legation underwent. Where speaking of the true foundation of morality, I ob served, (to the discredit of Atheism, which I thought destructive of society) that an Atheist could not, on his principles, find any grounds of moral obligation. Hence it was inferred that, on my reasoning, an Atheist, who transgressed the rule of right, would not deserve punish ment. A conclusion founded in the same logic with our learned Doctor's, that, if an Atheist thought there were no God, then there was none. Otherwise, how the right consequences drawn by him, from premisses which he never could have embraced but through a criminal negli gence or partiality, should be faultless, I then had not, nor yet have penetration enough to discover f.
But he ends his false reasoning on this subject, as all false reasoning must end, when drawn out to that com fortable length with which Dr. Sykes always regales his reader, in complete unintcllectual absurdity. " Mr. " JFarburton (says he) had before him the practice of
* Exam, of Mr. Ws Account, &c. p. 202, 203.
f I would not here be supposed to hint at a very ingenious Writer, who geems to have fallen into this mistake, in a Discourse printed in; the Works of the Learned for August 1743, intitled, Remarks upon some Writers concerning the Foundation of Moral Obligation, A Writer by no means to be ranked with the riffraff now upon my hands. The Discourse here mentioned being one of the most polite, candid, rational performances, I ever saw on that side the question ; and enlightened with a spirit of sublime and finaffeded pietj, superior to all reasoning.
" modern
44 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" modern states in attaint of. blood and confiscation? " and he allows this to be done with the highest equity : " and says, thus it must needs be under a theocracy; " God supported the Israelites in Judea by an extra- " ordinary administration of his providence : the con- *l sequence of which was great temporal blessings given 41 them on condition and to which they had no natural " claim. Could any thing be more equitable^ than on " the violation of that condition to withdraw those " extraordinary blessings from the children of a father *' thus offending* ?
" It is true, that the Jews had no natural claim .to " great temporal blessings. But then they had a claim ^ to them from express promise; which is as good a " claim in the present case as any natural claim whatever. fc They had this claim indeed on condition ; a condition 41 of certain behaviour, which if they complied with, no " observer w^as to miss his reward. The case is put 46 of an innocent child suffering on account of a guilty " father. The innocent child has a right to temporal " blessings by virtue of express promise; and no sin of " the father can deprive him of these blessings without a " violation of the covenant : for if it would, an observer " of the law would miss his reward. It wrould there- *' fore in the present case be so far from equitable to •" withdraw those extraordinary blessings from the " children of an offending parent, that it would be a " direct violation of contract and engagement : it would 4i be a breach of promise in God, and consequently a " thing impossible in itselff." What is it that our Answerer drives at? He grants the Jews had no natural claim to great temporal blessings; he grants, these were given on condition of obedience ; he grants, that a punishment was denounced on posterity for the crimes of their parents. These three things he grants. Yet he affirms " that it would be so far from equitable " to withdraw those extraordinary blessings from the " children of an offending parent, that it would be a " direct violation of contract and engagement." And does not this great Legist see, that a conditional grant,
* Div. Leg. Book V. § 5.
t Exam, of Mr. [Ps Account, #c. p. 20a, 204.
when
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 45
•when conveyed through parents to children, if forfeited by the parent, does riot descend, of right, to the children ; and consequently, may at any time, with the utmost jus tice, be resumed ? For when a thing is given to parents and their posterity, on condition of obedience ; and, at the same time, 'the punishment of offending parents threatened on their posterity, is not the parents' good be haviour part of the condition ? What is it then, that could thus confound the understanding of our learned Doctor? His czcn sophistical prevarications. Which generally reward their inventors as the Devil does a witch, alter having served them in many juggling tricks, at length draws them into a rope, and there leaves 'them. I had said that an innocent posterity were sometimes punished for the crimes of their wicked fathers. I had likewise said that no transgressor escaped punish ment ', nor any observer of the law missed his reward. Now, instead of interpreting the first proposition as I explained it, in the very place where I used it, to signify no more than that an innocent posterity were deprived of civil blessings which their fathers had legally forfeited ; he represents me as saying, that by the law of God, " innocent children were punished for their guilty parents " in a manner that cannot be reconciled to justice, or " goodness, or impartiality in an extraordinary provi- " dence *." Instead of interpreting the second propo sition in the sense of the apostle, from whence I bor rowed the expression, who says that under .the Jewish economy every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence and reward, he will have it to be my meaning that no one single person, without exception, ever escaped punishment, or ever missed his reward : though, as I have shewn, it contradicts all logical rules of interpretation. And now see what comes of it. By applying these prevarications to the place in question, he argues in such a manner as if he never had the least con ception of what others call the common principles of •iense or justice.
XIII. My " third solution of the difficulty (he tells " us) stands thus, admitting the reality of an equal
* An Exam, of Mr. Ws Account, p. 197.
" providence
46 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" providence to particulars, in the Hebrew State, " administration of it must needs be attended with " such circumstances as sometimes to occasion those " observations of inequality, i. e. in plain terms, an " equal providence MUST NEEDS be unequal. Is not " this a plain acknowledgment, that an equal providence " cannot be administered at all, since it needs must be <c attended with such circumstances as must appear un- " equal*?" I say, an equal providence must needs be at tended with such circumstances as to occasion men's observations of inequality. This proposition he affirms is, In plain terms, equivalent to this other, that an equal providence must needs be unequal. Which may per haps be true when he has proved these three points ; i. That his sense of no transgressor escaping punish ment is no prevarication. 2. That some inequalities, in an equal providence, is the same thing as the common providence. 3. That the observations of men must needs be infallible. But to shew his answer jn its full shame, let us consider only the last of them. The reader may take notice that the words, immediately preceding these, [of men's observations of inequality] speak of the false hood of such observations, even in the case of David himself, who owned that he was sometimes too hasty in judging of these matters. And that he understood not the course of God's justice till he had considered the way in which an equal providence must necessarily be administered under a theocracy, and the come-
?uences of such an administration^. Having said this, join it to the proposition in question, by the conjunc tion for ; [for even admitting] and refer to it by the pronoun those, [those observations of inequality.} — But we have here to do with a Doctor, as little like David in his piety, as his sense : who, if the administra tion of an equal providence, under a theocracy, must needs be attended with the appearances of inequality* tvill shew that God could not administer it at all : without doubt, upon this principle, that God either ought not, or cannot do, what man, with the degree of light God has been pleased to give him, cannot comprehend. An
* Exam, of Mr. ff's Account, $c. p. 205. t Div. Leg. Book V. § 4.
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 47
argutnent worthy this great advocate for the light of na~ fcure. But he is not ft man to be serious with. Having done me the honour of giving me this proposition, that an equal providence must needs be unequal ; he will then tell the reader what I must needs infer from it.-— " Is not this (says he) a plain acknowledgment that an * equal providence cannot be administered at all, since'7 — Since what? The reader may imagine his premisses- require hira to conclude thus, — " Since it must needs be- *£ attended with such circumstances as occasion an iin- *l equal providence** But this would be concluding like: other mem No, he says — u since it must needs ba *' attended with such circumstances as to occasion MEN'* " OBSERVATIONS of inequality." And thus he himself at length betrays his own sophistry. The truth is, it wras so hardy in the proposition, that he was even ashamed to repeat it in the inference. And so became the dupe, mot of his returning honesty, but of his deserted courage* His whole argument indeed is one complicated sophistry. First, he takes what is there said of men's observations of inequality to be true observations; whereas, they are there said to be false ones. Secondly, he makes them: to signify that men observed an unequal providence ? whereas, they mean- that men observed some inequalities iji an equal providence: which (whether he understands it or no) is a very different thing.
He goes on thus : " But the instances he brings to " SOLVE this difficulty [namely, the appearances of in- ** equality] are so many clear proofs against the thing; " itself*/' How unlucky! The instances 1 brought were to shew from whence the difficulty arose, not to solve it. But with this writer, to solve or to rai&e a difficulty is indeed much the same. Well, the instances however are these: i. It appears from the reason of the thing that this administration did not begin to b$ everted in particular cases, till the civil laws of the republic had failed of their efficacy. Thus where any? crime, as for instance, disobedience to parents, ivas p.ublic> it became the object of the civil tribunal, an$ is accordingly ordered to be punished by the judge -f. But when private and secret, then it became the, * Exam. &c*.p, 2Q5». t Exod, xxi. 15. and I?.
object
4* REMARKS ON SEVERAL
object of divine vengeance *. Now the consequence of this was, that when the laws were remissly or cor rupt ly administered, good and ill would sometimes' happen unequally to men. For we are not to suppose that Providence in this case generally interfered, 'till the corrupt administration itself, when ripe for vengeance, had been first punished. 2. In this extra ordinary administration, one part of the wicked was sometimes suffered as a scourge to the other. 3. 7 he extraordinary providence to the state might some times clash with that to particulars,, as in the plague for numbering the people. 4. Sometimes the evtra* ordinary providence was suspended for a season to bring on a national repentance : but at the same time this suspension was publicly denounced^. And a very severe punishment it was, as leaving a state, which, had not the sanction of a future state of rewards and punishments., in a very disconsolate, condition. And this was what occasioned the complaints of the impatient Jews'];, after they had been so long accus tomed to an extraordinary administration §.
Now what is our Doctor's answer to ail this? Why still the old song — " If he is obliged in virtue of the " theocracy to see that no transgressor escapes punish- "'ment^*' And again, — " because otherwise, some " transgressors would escape punishment^ " — And again, — u whether an extraordinary providence over par- " ticulars was then engaged so as that no transgressor " should escape punishment, no observer of the law " should miss present temporal blessings, is the point. " to be proved**." And again, — " The great point was " first to have proved, that ever there was such an extra- " ordinary providence to particulars as that no trans- " gressor ever escaped punishment, nor did any ob- " server of tlie law miss his present reward '\'\" This therefore being all his answer, I had given him his reply beforehand. And have now nothing to do but to arraign
* Deut. xxvii. 16, and Prov. xxx. 17-
•j- Isaiah iii. 5. lix. 2. Ixiv. 7.
J Ibid. v. 19. Jer.xvii.15. Amosv. 1$. Zeph. i. 12. MaLii. 17.
§ Div. Leg. Book V. § 4. .
{( Exam, ol Mr. JVs Account, p. 206.
*• Jbid. p, 207. ** Ibid. p. 210. tf Ibid. p. 2l6.
him
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 49 him again, for a gecotti) attempt of putting off his false
o ware.
But his logic is so very entertaining, that he will allow us to divert ourselves with it a little ; especially as he has given us so much leisure, by trusting all to one pitiful sophism. It is where he says, " It appears from the u reason of the thing, that this administration did not " begin to be exerted in particular cases, till the " civil laws of the republic had failed of their efficacy. " Thus, where any crime, as for instance, disobedience " to parents, was public, z> became the object of the " civil tribunal, and is accordingly ordered to be " punished by the judge. But when private and " secret, then it became the object of divine vengeance. " Let this be admitted. Now, says Mr. JFarburton, " the consequence of this was, that when the laws " were remissly or corruptly administered, good and " ill would sometimes happen unequally to men.
" On the contrary, 1 say, that this is no consequence '" at all: for upon supposition of an extraordinary pro- " vidence, equally administered, the guilty persons ought " to suffer by divine vengeance, and the corrupt and •" remiss magistrate too, as being guilty of a crime in not " doing his duty*." Here we see our disputant mistook, which part of the syllogism he was to oppose : and so in stead of the premisses, denied the conclusion. For if he will admit that the administration did not begin to
C")
be exerted till the civil laws had failed, \h<^ consequence is necessary, that, when the civil laws were remissly executed, good and ill would sometimes fait unequally. No consequence, at all, says Dr. Sykes. Why? be cause ".upon supposition of an extraordinary providence " equally administered, the guilty persons ought to suffer " by divine vengeance," &$c. A man is to be tried by the common commission of oyer and terminer. Let this be admitted, says our Disputant. Why then, say I, the consequence is, that he must stay till that time comes. This is no consequence at all, replies he ; for, -upon supposition that he ought to be hanged sooner, he ought to be, tried sooner. But then, good Doctor, if you had .this supposition in reserve, why did you admit my * Exam, of Mr. JV's Account, p. 205, 206.
VOL. XII. E premisses^
50 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
premisses, which, when admitted, ex elude yo ur supposi tion?— I thought I had done with him on this head when I had laughed at him ; but there is something so- malignant against the law itself, in his answer to what I say of the suspension of an extraordinary providence,. that the Reader must bear a little longer with us both. " This suspension (he tells the Reader) I say was pub* " licly denounced. But (he says) not one proof is pro- " duced of such a public denunciation of the suspension " of the extraordinary providence to particulars. The ci only passages referred to for this public denunciation, — u are Isaiah iii. 5. lix. 2. Ixiv. 7. Here is certainly a " great evil threatened to Jerusalem and Jitdah ; but " as for a suspension of an extraordinary providence^ " HERE is NOT OXE WORD. — It is as true now as it was " then, that iniquities will separate between us and God ; " and it has no relation to any suspension of an extra- <( ordinary providence for a particular time*." Was there ever such a reasoner! Suppose from a passage in> jE/r^r, which speaks of the creation of a Dictator, I should infer, that the consular and senatorial, the tribu- nitial and popular powers were all for a time suspended ; would it be sufficient to say,—- No; all which that pas sage proves is the erection of a supreme magistrate ; and erecting a supreme magistrate, which is a thing that may be done now, docs not infer the suspension of those par ticular powers. If to this fine reasoning, it be replied, that the inference was fair, because, Irom other parts of Livy, we learn there were such powers in the Roman state ; which consequently on the erection of an higher must needs be suspended; would not that teach the Reader a ready answer to our Doctor ? Is not an ex^ traordinary providence as clearly declared by the Law of Moses, as the consular and tribunitial power by the law of Rome? And consequently, when God tells his peo^ pie that he will withdraw his face from them for their feins, and return to them on their repentance, is not this as plain a denunciation of the suspension of that extraor dinary1 providence, as the creation of a dictator was a suspension of all the other magistracies ? But so perverse are these Answerers, and so much strangers to their - ^— * of Mi-. W* Account, &c, p, 211, 212.
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 51
Bible, that an extraordinary providence to particulars, which is a Scripture doctrine they dispute with me as if it was my own; and a future state amongst the Jews, which is their own, they would have not disputed, as if it were a Scripture doctrine, — This being premised, let the Bible now speak for itself. Isaiah iii. 'For behold the Lord of Hosts doth take away from Jerusalem and
from Judah the stay and the staff ] the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water, — Thy men shall Jail by the sword, and thy mighty in the war, ver. i — 25. Chap. lix. Behold the Lord's hand is not shortened that it cannot save] neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated between you and your God> and your sins have hid his
face from you, }hat he will not hear, £c. ver. i, 2. Ch. Ixiii. In all their affliction he was affucted, and the Angel of his pretence saved them : in his love and his pity he redeemed them, and he BARE THEM,
AND CARRIED THEM ALL THE DAYS OF OLD. hilt
they REBELLED, andvexcd his Holy Spirit', therefore he zcas turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them, ver. 9 — u. Ch. Ixiv. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee : for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us because of our iniquities, ver. 7.
Well, says he, " But let us admit that a suspension
1 of the extraordinary providence was publicly de-
* nounced, in these passages of the, Prophet. It was a
£ very severe punishment. To whom? Why to all
' the Jews — ALL of that nation, the virtuous and wicked,
< the good and the bad*."— Again, " The Jews had been
much accustomed to an extraordinay dispensation, and
now this extraordinary providence is suspended and
' publicly known to be so. This was a severe punish-
4 merit certainly to ALL good men, because God was
wont, and had engaged himself to inant particular
' blessings to all such ; WHEREAS BY THIS SUSPENSION
' THEY WERE NO LONGER IXTITLED TO ANY OF
4 THEMf." This is his representation of the state of the case : and from this he forms all his difficulties against * Exam, of Mr. Ws Account, p. 213. f Ibid. p. 214.
E 2 my
52 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
my reasoning. Where he got it, I know not : but cer tainly not from the Bible ; the book of all others he seems the least acquainted with. Had he looked into that, he •would have found that he had given the most false and injurious, because most contrary representation of this whole matter. For the Bible tells us, that the severity of the punishment, in this suspension, fell, as it ought, not upon the good, but upon the evil only. Hear God's own express declaration in the very place, where this suspension is denounced, viz. the third chapter of Isaiah ; which, too, our Examiner pretends to have read. SAY
YE TO THE RIGHTEOUS THAT IT SHALL BE WELL WITH HIM: FOR THEY SHALL EAT THE FRUIT OF THEIR DOINGS. Wo tfNTO THE WICKED, IT SHALL BE ILL WITH HIM; FOR THE REWARD OF HIS HANDS SHALL
BE GIVEN HIM, vcr. ID, ii. And we learn, from a parabolical command in EzeJdcl, how exactly these pro mises were fulfilled — And the Lord said unto him. Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city and smite : Let not your eye spare, neither have you pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children and women ; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark ; and begin at my sanc tuary, cSfc. chap. ix. ver. 4 — 6. And now, will our learned Doctor be pleased to take this for an answer like wise' to the concluding words of his paragraph? " The
* great point was first to have been proved that ever 14 there was such an extraordinary providence to parti- " culars — This, I say, should first have been proved ; *' which, I apprehend, has not been done. Nor, in
1 course, will any of these passages from the Prophets " prove a suspension of that equal providence over *' particulars, which SEEMS never to have been ex-v " erted*."
I should not leave the passage, here quoted, without observing, that, where I have made the break, it went on with the old sophism, in this manner,—" As that no * Exam, of Mr. W'% Account, &c. p. 214.
" transgressor
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS, 53
^ transgressor ever escaped punishment, nor did any " observer of the law miss his present reward." But I wave it, as beginning now to pity him. It has been observed of your notorious story-tellers, that, by often repeating a favourite tale, they have at last come to be lieve themselves. And thus if seems to be with our good Doctor. He has urged his own sense of the proposition so often to all my arguments (not less, I dare say, than twenty times) that he now seems in good earnest, to take it for mine.
XIV. But we are drawing towards a conclusion with
him. The Author of The Divine Legation (says he)
u proceeds, in the last place, to give a full and general
** solution of the difficulty. It stands thus : the com-
4( mon cause of thete complaints arose from the
<( gradual with drawing the extraordinary providence.
" Under the Judges it was perfectly equal. When
" the people had rebeUiously demanded a King,
" and— God suffered the theocracy to be administered
4i by a viceroy, there was — a great abatement in the
1 vigour of this extraordinary providence — Prom
" hence to \he time of the Captivity the extraordinary
" providence kept gradually decaying^ till, on their
" full settlement after their return, it entirely ceased.
' This leaves us as much in the dark as any of the solu-
' tions before given. For the extraordinary providence
' over particulars (by which is ALWAYS MEANT such a
( providence that no transgressor escaped punishment,
' nor observer of the law missed his reward) kept
" gradually decaying to the Captivity. After Samuel's
6 time there was a great abatement in its vigour ; and,
1 from this time, it gradually decayed. Its abatement
' then must be in not inflicting constantly temporal evils
* on the one, or in not giving constantly temporal rewards " to the other : or else" — Well, to stop him short, it did consist in not giving constantly. What then? Why then (says he) " it cannot be the former of these notions",
' because if the equal providence was not constant, it
would come to be the same as unequal. For what is
' the common providence, or not extraordinary, but where
• transgressors are often not punished here, but go on and 4 prosper in their wickedness ; and good men are often
E 3 " not
54 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" not rewarded but sometimes suffer*?" A most admi rable argument! and, as well expressed. It cannot (says he) he the former of these notions — meaning, I suppose, that if the former of these notions be mine, he will shew it to be a false one. Well, but his reason : : BECAUSE if an EQUAL providence was not constant, " it would come to be the same as UNEQUAL." Very well quibbled again. What is not perfectly equal must needs be unequal. Therefore, as more than ten may be either eleven or eleven thousand ; so unequal may signify, as well the highest degree of inequality, such as that providence exercised at present, or some small deviation only from equality. And this being so, he only desires you, in courtesy to his argument, to understand it in the first sense. And then with the same success, he will dis pute against the Moon's equal or regular motion round the Earth. You Astronomers, says he (for, to do him justice, nothing comes amiss to him ; he has confounded all men in their turns, and put every science out of coun tenance) you contend for the mjoon's equal or regular motion ; and yet you are forced to confess that there are some inequalities or irregularities in that motion, arising from the sun's attraction, the elliptical figure of its orbit, and its not moving in the plain of the earth's motion. Now if your equal motion be not constant, it 'would come to be the same as unequal. For what is regular motion but that which has no irregularities ? In short, you have a great difficulty to surmount when you at tempt upon your scheme of equality to account for the representations of inequality, which Nature so plainly inakes. As great authors as you are, what has been hitherto published is all confusion, and jull of inex tricable difficulties.
But, to make his argument wear the better, he has lined his quibble with an equivocation. Observe his words: if an equal providence (says he) teas not con stant, IT WOULD COME to be the same as unequal. — But when ? Why the quibble encourages you to under stand presently, which is to the purpose: but if that fail, the equivocation authorizes you to understand many ages afterwards, though it be nothing to the purpose. * Exam, of Mr. Ws Account, £c. p. 217— 9.
This
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS, 55
This equal providence of Heaven kept gradually declining in its vigour, till it became at last the present common unequal providence; and so could he no longer called equal or extraordinary. Thus again, the regular motion of the moon, as our great philosopher, who has so well -accounted for its present irregularities, tells us, will pro bably, for the reasons he assigns, grow more and more •irregular, till it become at last so unconstant, that it will •be no longer a regular but an irregular motion.
But we are not got to the stress of the affair. The old sophism lies yet at the bottom of the inkhorn : but now indeed so worn and hacknied, that it is scr:rce able to support a miserable quibble. Yet it still puts its best foot forward. This choice reasoning being introduced as usual, " The extraordinary providence over particulars ; " by which is ALWAYS MEANT such a providence that " 7io transgressor escaped punishment, nor observer '" of the law missed his reward.'" — ALWAYS MEANT! Yes, truly, I can't but say he is constant enough in this meaning. For which reason I must here, for the tj)ivtr 'ttUtC, remind him whom it belongs to. — " Mr. }l:arbiir- " ton (says he) produces some evidence that an extra- " ordinary providence revived after the return from the '" Captivity. He cites Haggai, Zechariali, Malachi. " But none of these places prove any thing more than a 6 promised blessing to the Jews nationally considered*." Indeed? Why then had he not the honesty to quote those places in The Divine Legation which do prove more ? particularly from the prophet AMOS, where this 'extraordinary providence is considered as administered to particulars. The words quoted in Book V. § 4. of The Divine Legation are these — Also I have withholden the rain from you, when there was yet three months to the harvest, AND i CAUSED -IT TO RAIN UPON ONE
CITY, AND CAUS.ED IT NOT TO RAIN UPON ANOTHER •CITY, ONE PIECE WAS RAIN-JED UPON, AND THE -PIECE "WHEREUPON IT RAINED NOT, WITHERED f-. Btit he
goes on— " It proves a very strong promise t© bless the ' nation of the Jews^ — but as to a proof of an extra- 1 ordinary providence in the sense that NO TEANS-
' GRESSO& WAS TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT, NOR NO * Exam, of Mr. IP's Account, &c. p. 220. t Amos. iv. 7.
E 4 " OBSERVER
56 REMARKS ON SEVERAL
" OBSERVER OF THE LAW MISS HIS REWARD, I Cannot
" see the force of his argument*." But I can see the force of his, though: and therefore here again accuse him, for the feting and last time, of a very vile prevari cation that has run through all his reasoning upon this subject.
And now we are happily got through his whole Exa mination of my Account of the Nature of the Jewish Theocracy. A very singular composition truly ! One part blunder, and two parts fallacy ! Which though it may sometimes make, as a great writer assures us, a good man of the world, has here however made a very bad pamphlet. Arid no wonder. For this kind of com position requires, in both cases, a very nice adjustment. Otherwise, in playing the knave (whether it be on paper or in public) folly is so apt to get the upper hand, that very often the first dupe a designing man makes, is him self : as, not to mince the matter, is the case of our Examining Doctor, whose wantonness in undertaking a subject he did not understand, has so far outstript his art in managing it, that, before his fallacy had time to impose upon others, his too frequent, and indiscreet repetition of it had so worked upon himself, that he became no longer able to judge of any thing I had written : and therefore confesses (and I dare say truly) that what I have
jnTIiERTO PUBLISHED IS ALL CONFUSION, to him, AND FULL OF INEXTRICABLE DIFFICULTIES f.
" But 'tis the sport to have the engineer " Hoist with his own petar." .
We have now passed through our Two Examining Doctors. Happy for them had they but known or under stood that maxim of a certain celebrated French writer,
DE PRENDRE POUR VRAI CE QUE 131 T UN AUTEUIl, SANS REJETTER COMME FAUX CE QU-'jL NE DIT PAS.
In these we find so great a similitude of talents, that Dr. S. might very well be mistaken for Dr. S. were it not for some minuter differences ; a kind of polemic badges, that just serve to tell us to what party either wearer belongs.
But adjusting the merits of such kind of authors, is now the least of my concern. I here bid a final adieu to
* Exam, of Mr. /F's Account, &c. p. 221. t Ibid. p. 222..
controversy,
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS. 57
controversy, unless some verv gross provocation draw ms back. For though I have not overloaded the Public with writings of tlfis sort, nor attempted to engage its attention but on subjects of high importance ; yet even these will receive their best defence and support, by being carefully considered together, in the order I first delivered them. For, as Lord Bacon says excellently well, THIS
HARMONY OF A SCIENCE, SUPPORTING EACH P-AKT TPIE OTHER, IS .AND OUGHT TO BE THE TRUE AN 13 BRIEF CONFUTATION AND SUPPRESSION. OF ALL THE SMALLER SORTS OF OBJECTIONS.
But in taking a formal leave it may perhaps be ex pected, that I should say something why I ever answered at all : and why I answered in this wanner.
To the first of these questions I must needs confess, that I have never yet seen any thing which, in my own opinion, deserved my notice. But I was willing to sub mit to better judgments. The Public (says a Friend) by what T can perceive, thinks there 13 something hi this pamphlet — thinks there may be something in that. — Well, I subscribe to the public judgment. I examine, I write, I confute. And what do I get by it ? The morti fication of being told, that now, forsooth, the Public wonders why I should spend my time upon such Writers. And in this manner I have been served — more than once. The Public says this ; the Public says that : in short, the Public's a wag, and loves to divert itself at the expence of us poor authors. Of which diversion, having so fairly contributed my quota, I shall now beg leave to "retire — Lusisti satis.—
As to the manner in which I have answered some of my adversaries : their insufferable abuse, and my own love of quiet, made it necessary. I had tried all ways to silence an iniquitous clamour; by neglect of it; by good words, by an explanation of my meaning; and all without effect. The First Volume of this obnoxious Work had not been out many days, before I was fallen upon by a furious Ecclesiastical News-writer, with the utmost bruta lity. All the return I then made, or then ever intended to make, was a Vindication * of my moral character, with such temper and forbearance as seemed • SeeVoLXL
affectation
,<$ REMARKS ON SEVERAL
Affectation to those who did riot know that I only wanted to be quiet. But I reckoned without my host. The angry man became ten times more outrageous. What was now to be clone? I tried another method with him. I drew his picture ; I exposed him naked ; and shewed the Public of what parts and principles this tumour was . made up. It had its effect; and I never heard more of him. Oft this occasion, let me tell the Reader a Story* As a Scot-ch Bagpiper was traversing the mountains of Vlstef, he was, one evening, encountered by a hunger* starved Irish wolf. In this distress, the poor man could think of nothing better than to open his wallet, and try the effects of his hospitality. He did so : and the savage BWallowed all tliat was thrown him with so improving a voracity^ as if his appetite was but just coming to him. i he vvhde stock of provision, you may be sure, was soon Spent* And now, his only recourse was to the virtue of the bagpipe; which the monster no sooner heard, than he took to the mountains with the same precipitation that he had come douii. The poor Piper could not so per* f'ectly enjoy his deliverance, but that, with an angry look £t parting, he shock his head, and said, Ay ! arc these your tricks ? — Had I kn'own your humour, you should kdvt had yonr music before supper.
But though I had the Caduceus of Peace in my hands, yet it was only in cases of necessity that I made use of it» And therefore I chose to let pass, without any chastise* ment, such impotent railers as Dr. Richard Grey, and t>ile Bate> a Zany to a Mountebank. On the other hand, \vhen I happened to be engaged with such very learned "and candid writers as Dr. Middleton and The Master vf the C/t&rter+kouse, 1 gave sufficient proof how much 1 preferred a different manner of carrying on a contro versy, would my Answerers but afford me the occasion. ]3ut, alas? as I never should have such learned men long rny adversaries-, and never wo-utd have these other my friends, I found that, if I wrote at all, I must be con demned to a manner, which all, \vho know me, know to be most abhorrent to my natural temper. So, on the whole, I resolved to quit my hands of them at once : and turn again to nobler game, more suitable, as Dr. 8teb- foing tells me, to my clerical function, that pestilent
herd
OCCASIONAL REFLECTIONS- 59
herd of libertine scribblers, with which the island is over run ; whom I would hunt down, as good King Edgar did his wolves ; from the mighty Author of Chris* tiamty as old as the Creation, to the drunken bias*- phemin<? Cobbler, who wrote against Jesus and the Resurrection*.
To conclude, then, if hitherto, in the course of my just vindication, any thing has escaped me, offensive to the candid Reader, I heartily wish it unsaid. Not for the sake of those, the So proper subjects of it, for, Si indignus qui facer em, at illi cligni hac contumeiia sunt madinte : but for the sake of the Public, to whtm I have obligations for their fair and generous reception of my Writings. Not but the candour and equity of their judgment will, I know, always carry along with it what I am now about to say, in alleviation of any harshness that may have escaped me, under all the calumny that envy, in the disguise of false zeal, has so liberally poured out upon me : which is this : That my sole motive in writing The D re hie Lega* tion was the discovery and advancement of Truth, and (in that) the support and establishment of Revelation, And if I needed a voucher, I have the pleasure to ob serve, that the encouragement given to this attempt, is sufficient to shew, that no considerable man, either iij Church or State, did, indeed, ever think that I had any other motive.
* In a pamphlet, intitled, The Resurrection of Jesus demonstrated to have no proof. In answer to a late pamphlet, called, the Resurreo tion of Jesus cleared, &c. London, printed for J. Jackman, iti Fleet Street. Price One Shilling. — But some say this was no Cobbler, but Dr. Morgan's own Apothecary, who now writes by his Master's receipts. Indeed, he is of so strong a complexion as to make it very probable he must be one whose trade it has been to apply him self only to the wrong end of human kind. But whether he be of this, or the other cleaner trade, I would recommend it to the fine gentlemen to consider, if it will not soon be necessary, for their honour, to profess themselves on the side of religion, since infidelity is thus tallen into attainder, and can now descend no lower.
A
LETTER
TO
THE EDITOR
OF THE
LETTERS
the S2)irit of Patriotism, The Idea of a Patriot Kingf and The Slate of Parties, fyc.
OCCASIONED BY
THE EDITOR'S ADVERTISEMENT.
I:- this my Gnidr,, Philosopher, and Friend? Pope to L. B.
SIR,
I AD DRESS this to you, as to a person different from the Author of these Letters. My respect forL. B's character will not suffer rne to think you the same. Your Advertisement is the crudest and most unmanaged attack on the honour of his deceased Friend ; and he appears to be under all the ties of that sacred relation, to defend and protect it.
Your charge against Mr. POPE, is in these words, — " The original draughts [of these Letters] were intrusted " to a man, on whom the Author thought he might en- "' tirely depend, after he had exacted from him, and taken " his promise, that they should never go into any hands, " except those of five or six persons, who were then " named to him. In this confidence, the Author rested " securely for some years ; and though he was not with- " out suspicion that" they had been communicated to
" more
TO THE EDITO*, etc. 61
" more persons than he intended they should be, yet he
" was kept, by repeated assurances, even from suspect-
" ing that any copies had gone into hands unknown to
" him. But this man was "no sooner dead, than he re-
" ceived information that an entire edition of 1500 copies
<c of these papers had been printed ; that tins very man
" had corrected the press, and that he had left them in
" the hands of the printer, to keep with great secrecy till
" further orders. The honest printer kept his word with
" him better than he kept his with his friend: so that
" the whole edition came, at last, into the hands of the
" Author, except some few copies, which" this person had
" taken out of the heap, and carried away. These are
tc doubtless the copies which have been handed about,
" not very privately, since his death. The rest were all
" destroyed in one common fire. — By these copies it ap«
" peared, that the man who had been guilty of this
" breach of trust had taken upon him further to divide,
" the subject, and to alter and omit passages, accorSing
" to the suggestions of his own fancy, What aggravates
" this proceeding extremely is, that the Author had told
" him, on several occasions, amongst other reasons, why
" he could not consent to the publication of these papers,
" that they had been written in too much heat and hurry
" for the public eye. — He chanced to know that scraps
" and fragments of these papers had been employed to
" swell a monthly magazine, and that the same honour'
" able employment of them was to be continued — The
" Editor, therefore, who has in his hands the genuine
" copy — resolved to publish it."
This is the charge. And as to the fact, that " Mr. P, " did print an entire edition of Lord B's Letters without " his consent," it must, as far as I can see, be taken for granted. For the mem accused is dead. Me cannot speak for himself; and his papers, which might have spoken for him, were all of them devised, by the dying man's last Will, to the trust and absolute disposal of his noble friend,
i My complaint (and, I persuade myself, all impartial men will indulge me in it) is, that the charge is inforced
with
fa TO THE EDITOR
with so unfriendly, nay, so vindictive a severity, that the public is even invited to think the worst of the offender's intention: there being nothing so base, or so mean, which the terms of the accusation will not justify them to infer from it.
Since, therefore, you have so far forgot the office of a fair accuser, as not only to avoid assisting the judgment of the tribunal, you appeal to, in the nature of the FACT ; but to prefer your accusation in such terms as must neces sarily mislead it ; let me be allowed to remind the Public of what you have so disingenuously omitted or disguised. Which I shall do no otherwise, than by considering all the possible motives Mr. P. could have for this action, supposing it to have been committed in the manner charged upon him. For though the motive cannot so alter the nature of actions, as to make that right, which, in itself, is wrong: yet it may alleviate the weight of the very worst; it may make others pardonable, which are confessedly bad ; and in some again, it may give even to their obliquities, an amiableness which a truly generous mind would honour; and which the severest casuists would only degrade into the limb us of their spleqdidcl peccata. Whether the crime, in question, be not of this class must be submitted to the tribunal, to which we now Jnake our joint appeal.
In an offence of this nature, committed by one author against another, the motive, that most readily occurs to us, is plagiarism: so that one rni«;ht suspect this breach of trust was accompanied with an intended vio lation of property ; and that the offender proposed as suming to himself the glory of his friend's performance ; especially as he took the liberties here complained of, " to divide the subject, and to alter and omit passages " according to the suggestions of his own fancy." But if, in criminal proceedings, it be held a reasonable answer to the charge of a paltry theft, that the accused was im mensely rich, we shall need no other plea to acquit Mr. P. of this suspicion. Besides, the Author of the Letters was well known to all L. B's friends ; the title-page of surreptitious edition tells us, they were written by a
Person
OF THE LETTERS, 63
Person of Quality ; and the honest printer himself knew the true author, as appears by his applying to Lord J3. with information of the 1500 copies.
As to any lucrative views; if Mr. Fs beneficent; temper, his generous contempt of money, which, made? him at several periods of hi? life refuse an honourable* pension from ministers of more than one denomination, and decline every other way of establishing his fortune than by a noble appeal to the public taste : if this, I say, will not acquit him of so mean a suspicion, I might ap-» peal to the very circumstances of the fact itself, llq prints, at a considerable expence, 1500 copies of an eighteen-penny pamphlet, to lie in the printer's warehouse j and which, according to your own account, did actually lie there till his death. And what book p one, whigh of all the Author's writings, was least calculated to catch the public attention (however this extraordinary Ather^. tisement may now raise their curiosity) as the subject of it Ixad been so often hacknied over in the papers pf ths CRAFTSMAN. Had profit been his point, who can doubt but he had rather chosen some of Lord B's ki&toricql tracts, which he had equally in his possession p
Least of all will it be suspected to have been done to injure L. B. in his fame or fortune ; the book itself being manifestly calculated to support both, by putting him in, that light wherein he most affects to be seen, a dis* passionate and disinterested lover of his country,-^* Had Mr. P. designed to hurt his ease or reputation, hfi would probably have enriched us with his philosophical or theological works, where his noble Friend gives less quarter to religious prejudices, than, here, to political corruptions : arid which, by their being kept unpublished, deprive Religion of one considerable advantage.
In a word, had Mr. P. been conscious to hirqself qf any low, oblique, or unfriendly motive, how happened it that, at his death, he chose it should come to the kiipw* ledge of his Friend ? That he did chuse it, is most cer* tain. " His honest printer," you tell us; " faithfully ^ kept his word with him/7 His last illness wa,§ Ipng
64 TO THE EDITOR
and tedious, and known by him, as well as by his physicians, to be fatal. He might therefore have burnt these 1500 copies with a secrecy equal to the ostentation with which they were all destroyed in one common fire by this de-
Eositary of the writings and reputation of a MAN, whose ist vows to Heaven were for the prosperity of iiis sur viving Friend.
But, if we allow the fact, some reason, after all, must be given for committing it. We have seen the high ab surdity of supposing it to be on any of the motives already mentioned : which, indeed, only envy and malignity can suggest. One, only, remains : and happily, it is that which every man, at first sight, must acknowledge to be the true ; an excessive and superstitious zeal j or Lord Ws glory. He paid, as all the world knows, a kind of idolatrous homage to the divine attributes of his friend. And should this be thought a folly by sober admirers, (a strange one it must be to Lord B. himself) yet, sure his Lordship, though the last, in justice, should be the first, in pity, to forgive It.
He was not only the warmest advocate for his Lord ship's private and pub tic virtues against Iiis adversaries, but even against himself. It was his common subject of complaint, amongst his other friends, that Lord B. was faultily negligent of his glory, even where the good of his country, and the happiness of the world, depended on its being unveiled. That, 'though he seemed to be sent down lather by Providence, from some higher sphere, to be come the conservator of the rights and reason of man kind, yet he suffered his actions to be misrepresented, and his character to be blackened, even where the shew ing himself, truly, tended to the happiness of the erro neous. And this being an important concern, was the reason, I suppose, why his Friend chose to prevent the loss of these Letters : which, likewise, very well accounts for his allaying the extreme splendor of them, so offensive to mere mortals, with that terrestrial mixture of his own. The very circumstance, which you, Sir, well express, where you .say, " he had taken upon him, further to divide the if subject, and to alter and omit passages, according to 10 4< the
OF THE LETTERS. 65
" the suggestions of his own fancy." Perhaps too lie thought himselt something more than a porte-jeaiile of his friend's papers ; for he frequently told his acquaint ance (to whom I appeal on this occasion) that L. B. would, at his death, leave his writings to his disposal — A mutual confidence ! which they placed in one another. But the execution of Mr. P's part, at the same time that it makes the other probable, prevents our having any written evidence of it. But concerning the particular nature of those changes and interpolations, and the difference between the two editions, I shall say no more at present.
Having seen Mr. P's motives for printing, the reader may be curious to know when he thought of publishing. It could not be till he had the author's leave : that, the long detention of the pamphlet in the printer's warehouse sufficiently shews. It could not be in expectation of his death : that, the great disparity in the chance of sur~ vivorship will not allow us to suppose. Besides, to what purpose was the expence of printing, and the hazard of secreting an edition, projected now, when he would have had it equally in his power, if that event happened, to do it then ? We have nothing left, even on your own state of the case, but to believe that he expected very speedily to obtain L. B's concurrence. What grounds he had for such expectation, the prudent disposition of his papers will not permit us to say.
The too eager pursuit then of his Friend's glory being his only motive for this presumptuous liberty (a truth so evident, that, I am persuaded, Mr. P. has not a single friend or acquaintance remaining, who does not-as firmly believe it, as that L. B, wrote the Letters, and that Mr. P. committed them to the press) since this, I say, is the case, his Lordship's known virtue will never suffer me to suppose that you, Sir, and the Author of these Letters, can be the same person.
His known 'wisdom would less endure such an impu tation. Whatever you, Sir, may think, his Lordship's glory will never stand fairer with posterity, than in the
VOL. XII, F lines
66 TO THE EDITOR
lines of this immortal poet. So that to defile the mirror, which holds him up, by a kind of magic virtue, to the admiration of all times and places, would indeed shew him more detached from the world, and indifferent to cen sure, than even you, his apologist, think fit to represent him. It m':ct surely be some fatal necessity that could make him willing to risk so flattering an advantage. And yet your advertisement supplies neither him nor your reader with any excuse of this nature. You thought fit, I will suppose, that some reason should be given for the publication of the Letters. But had not your Book seller done this already, when he so often told the public, that it was " to prevent their being imposed on by a " spurious and mangled edition, of which one or two " scraps had appeared in a Magazine?" Possibly you will say, the reader might expect to know how they came there. Why then did you not seek out and detect the man engaged in that honourable employment, as by a proper irony you call it? Sure it was no difficult mat ter : for you tell us, again, that some of the copies ha d been handed about not very privately since Mr. P's death. Besides, the law would have obligated the pro prietor of the Magazine to discover from whom he had received his stolen goods. Why then so much tender ness for him, who manifested his design by publishing, and so little for him, who only gave suspicion of it, by printing ? Or did the ORDER OF TIIIXGS, which, in deed, (in Mr. P's language of his Lordship) was here violated, require, that vengeance should pursue, and trace up the crime, to the original offender : who had so audaciously stretched his hand to the forbidden tree, and gathered, without leave, of the knowledge of political good and evil ? Or if the seventy of justice required even this ; was it not enough to say, that the mischief came first from Mr. P. by his giving 'abroad too many copies ; without telling their COMMON ENEMIES, that he had printed fif teen hundred ? For it came not from these, (which, you own, " were all destroyed in one common fire") but from a straggling copy which escaped that desolation. As this brand therefore on Mr. Pope's memory wras needless, it could not come from the hand of his noble Friend.
But
OF THE LETTERS. 67
But whatever high notions I myself may have of L. B~ I am not so vain to think my readers must needs sub scribe to them. They may. Sir, for aught 1 know, believe you and him to be the same. And then, I am half afraid, even his character, great as it is, will not secure him from their censure. Are the laws of friendship then so v\e..-.k (may some of them be apt to say) are its bonds so slight, that one imprudent action committed against the humour of a friend, (in a mistaken fondness for his glory, which came near to adoration) that one shall obliterate the whole merit of a life of service, though flowing from the warmest heart that the passion of friendship ever took possession of? Obliterate, will they say. nay pursue, with inexora ble vengeance, the poor delinquent to the foot of the most merciless tribunal; that PUBLIC, one part of which he had much offended by a vigorous war upon the general profligacy of manners ; another, much more offended by the insufferable splendor of his talents ; and no small nor inconsiderable part, by his over-zealous attachment to his very ACCUSER? Unhappy Poet! will they say, who has received the only wound to his honour from the hand of that friend, whose reputation, for many years, he had singly supported against an almost universal prejudice. But more unhappy FRIENDSHIP, if these be thy iniqui tous conditions ! Who after this shall seek, in thee, a solace for the cares of private life ; or believe thee to be, what thou hast been so often boasted, the purest and largest source of public virtue ? Never, after this, wilt thou be thought deserving of a fairer or better pro geny than MODERN PATRIOTISM. Where true love of our country is, there friendship wears a different face. At such time it has been known, that when real and re peated injuries had torn in sunder a well-united friendship, the death of one has buried every past resentment, and revived, in the bosom of the other, all his ancient tender ness : as if the refined and detecated passions of him, who had shaken off mortality, had, by that divine sym pathy of affections which lives in friendship, communicated of their virtue to the survivor. Nay, I have heard, some where or other, of a MAN, who, when his dying friend (at the instigation, and to quiet the impotent passions, of
F 2 another;
68 TO THE EDITOR
another ; for what generous mind lias not been hurt by ill- placed friendships?) had inserted an unkind clause against him in his last U ill, took no other revenge for an injury so unprovoked, t! an by doubling the legacy his deceased friend had left to an oil faithful servant, because the survivor deemed it to be too little.
But the greatest have tl/eir weaknesses. A French author, I have some time read, who has given us a history of the Hermetic Philosophy, brings almost every great name into the number of h;s alchemists. He gives them "all their che, but concludes every various eulogium alike — " now his folly was in hoping <o extract go/d from " baser metals.''' And may we not, after all the good that may be said of our illustrious Poet (and there are few of whom so much can be justly said) lament, that the folly which ran through his whole life was, in trying to extract friendship J row politics?"
However, Sir, let the world think as it may. I must still persist in believing, that that noble Person , had no hand in your Advertisement. On this principle, per haps, it will be said, I might have left it to its own for tune, as not' at ail likely to mislead posterity ; while it represents Mr. P. as mean, low, interested, and perfidious, whose nature, if I were to define it, I should do it by the word FRIENDSHIP; so pure and so warm was the ray of that sacred passion, which animated and governed all his faculties. But when I consider how light a matter very often subjects the best established characters to the sus? picions oi posterity, posterity, often as malignant to virtue, as the a^e that saw it was envious of its glory; and how7 ready a remote age is to catch at a low revived slander, which the times that brought it forth saw despised and forgotten almost in its birth, I .cannot but think it a matter that deserves attention. These Letters, Sir, of your publishing, afford us an indignant instance. The chastity of the fir~$t Scipio Africanus, in the case of the Spanish captive, was .as celebrated, and as notorious as Mr. P's friendship for L. B. But one Valerius Antias (for ca lumny and history, the Oldmlvcn of Rome) " made no " scruple to assert, that, far from restoring the fair
" Spaniard
OF THE LETTERS. 69
" Spaniard to her family, he debauched and kept her/' Ono would have hoped so mean a slander might have slept forgotten in the dirty corner of a poor ped-mt'b* common-place. And yet we see it quoted as a fact f, by an instructor of kings. \Vho knows, but that at some happy time or other, w!:cn a writer wants to prove, that real friendship becomes a great man no more than real chastity:!:, this Advertisement of yours may be advanced to the same dignity of credit with the calnmnv of Valerias Anl'ias ? If it should, I would not undertake to dispute the fact, on which such an inference might be made ; for I remember Tully, a great statesman himself, lorn? ago observed, " Verse amicitiae difficillime reperiuntur in iis, " qui in repuhlica versantur/'
* A. Gellius.
f u Now the refutation of the first Scipio was not so clear and " uncontroverted in private as in public life ; nor was he allowed *'^ by all to be a man of such revere virtue us he affected, and as ** that age required. Ncri'ius was thought to mean him in some <l verses Gellius nas preserved. And VALERIUS ANTIAS made no *' scruple to assert, that, tar from restoring the fail' Spaniard to " her family, he debauched and kept her. Notwithstanding this, " whit authority did he not maintain? in what f-sierm and venera- " tiou did he not live and die?" p. 404, of The Idea of a Patriot King.
The words of Ncci-ius are these,
" Etiani qui res mannas manu s,epe ge-sit gloriose, *' Cujus f.'cta viva mine vigent; qui apud gehtes solus " Fractal: eum suus pater cum pailio uno ab arnica abduxit." These obscure verses were, in Gellivjfs opinion, the sole foundation of dntias's calumny, against the universal concurrence of Hist'-rians. His ego 'cersibus 'credo adductum ^dlcrium An fiat cm adversuffi ccteros oitines tcfipfores de Scipionu moribus senfisse, L. vi. c. 8. And what he thought of this historian's nu.'des v and truth, we may collect from what he teils us of him in another place, where, having quoted two tribunicial decrees, which he says he transcribed from Records [ex annalium nwnumeritis] lie acids, that Valerius Antias made no scruple to give the lie to them jn pu'Jic. " Valerius autem " Antias, contra hanc decretonmi raemonam contraque auctoritates " veterum annalium" — dixit, &c. L. vii. c. 19- And Ltiy in his xxxvi B. quoting this Antias for the particulars of a victory, sub joins, concerning the number slain, " scriptori parum fidei sit, quia 44 in eo augendo non alius intemperantior e.st." And he that will amplify on one occasion, will diminish on another; for it is the game intemperate passion that carries him indifferently to either. I See p. 201, of " The Idea of a Patriot King.'*
r 3 In
70 TO THE EDITOR, &c.
In conclusion, what we may learn from the moral of the tale is this, That excess, though in the social passions, lays us more open to popular censure /than even the total want ot them : because such excesses oiten produce effects that low minds cannot understand; or it they could, they would stfcl want hearts warm enough to teel the value of them.
I arn, Sir, &c.
A
VIEW
OF
LORD BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY,
COMPLETE,
IN FOUR LETTERS TO A FRIEND;
Jn which his whole System of Infidelity and Naturalism is exposed and confuted :
1754.
WITH
AN APOLOGY
FOR THE TWO FIRST LETTERS,
PREFIXED :
Lettre du feu President MONTESQUIEU a FAuteur. Translation of ditto. APOLOGY for the two first Letters.
LETTERS i. II. ILL IV. of the VIEW, &c. addressed to Ralph, Allen, Esq.
LETTRE
du feu President MONTESQUIEU a
J'AY recu, Monsieur, avec une reconnoissance tres grande, les deux magnifiques ouvrages que vous aves eu la bonte de m'envoyer, et la iettre que vous ni'aves fait Fhonneur de m'ecrire sur les oeuvres posthumes de M y Lord Bolingbroke : et comme cette Iettre me parent £cre plus a uioi que les deux ouvrages qui Faccom- pagnent, auxquels tous ceux qui out de la raison ont part, il me semble que cette Lettre m'a fait un plaisir parti- culler. .Fay lu quelques ouvrages de My Lord Baling- broke, et sll m'e>t permis de dire comment j'en ai "etc affeete, certainment il a bcaucoup de chaleur : mais il me semble qu'il ['employe ordinairement contre les choses, et il ne faudroit Tern plover qu'a peindre les choses. Or, Monsieur, dans cet ouvrage ppsthume, dont vous me donnes une idee, il me semble que v.,us prepare une matiere continuelle de triomphe. Celui qui attaque la Religion revelee n'attaque que la Religion revelee ; rnais celui qui attaque la Religion naturelle attaque toutes les Religions du monde Si Ton enseigneaux hornmes qu'ils n'ont pas ce frein ci, ils peuvent penser qu'ils en ont un autre : mais il est bien plus pernicieux de leur enseigner qu'ils n't n ont pas du tout. II n'est pas impossible d' attaquer une Religion revelee, 'parce qu'elle existe par des fails particulars, et que les faits, par leur nature, peuvent etre une matiere de dispute : mais il n'en est pas de m£me de la Religion nature lie; elle est tii'ee de la nature de 1'homme, dont on ne peut pas disputer, et du sentiment interieur de riiomme, dont on ne peut pas dis puter encore. J'ajoute a ceci, Quel peut etre le motif d'attaquer la Religion revelee en Angleterre ? on ly^a telleusent purge de tout prejuge destructeur qu'elle nV pent faire de mal, et qu'elle j peut faire, au contraire, une iniii ate de bieas. Je sais, qu1 un homme en Espagne
ou
[ 73 ]
ou en. Portugal que Ton va bruleiy on qui craint d'etre briile, parcc qu'il ne croit point de certains articles de- pendans ou non de la Religion revelee, a une juste sujet de Tattaquer, parce qu'il pent avoir quelque esperance de pourvoir a sa defence naturelle : mais il n'en est pas de meme en Angleterre, ou tout homme qui attaque la Religion revelee Fattaque suns interest, et ou cet homme quand il reussiroit, quand meme il auroit raison dans le fond, ne ieroit que detruire une infinite de biens pra tiques pour etablir une verite purement speculative.
J'ay ete ravi, £c.
•MONTESQUIEU,
A Paris, ce 26 May 1/54,
LETTER
from the late President MONTESQUIEU
to the AUTHOR. ' SIR,
I All extremely obliged to you for tlie magnificent Present you have been pleased to make me of your Books, and for the Letter you did me the honour to write me on Lord Bbtmgbroke's Posthumous Works. As that Letter seems to be rather more my own than the two Books which accompany it, every reasonable creature being interested therein as well as myself, I enjoy it with particular delight. I have dipped into some of my Lord fiolirigbroke's Discourses ; and, if I may be allowed to say in what manner they affected me, I must own that he writes with a good deal of warmth ; but mcthinks he generally employs it against things, whereas it ought to be employed only in painting them. Now it appeal's to rne that, in the posthumous work of which you have Driven me an account, he hath prepared for you, Sir, continual matter of triumph. He who attacks revealed Religion, attacks revealed Religion only ; but, he who attacks natural Reli gion, attacks all the Religions in the world. Though iueii should be taught to disbelieve the obligations of revealed Religion, they may still think themselves bound by some Other; but it is most pernicious to endeavour to persuade
them
[ 74]
them that they are bound by none at all. It is not im possible to attack a revealed Religion, seeing it depends on particular facts, and facts are, in their own nature, liable to be controverted : but that is not the case with natural Religion ; for it is drawn from the nature of Man, which cannot be disputed, and from the internal senti ments of mankind, \vhichareequallyindisputable. Be sides, what motive can there be for- attacking revealed Religion in England ? In that country, it is so purged of all destructive prejudices, that it can do no harm ; but, on the contrary, is capable of producing numberless good effects. I am sensible that, in Spain or Portugal, a man who is going to be burnt, or afraid of being burnt, because he does not believe certain articles, whether de^ pending or not depending on revealed Religion, hath very good reason to attack it, because he may thereby hope to provide for his natural defence. But the case is very different in England \ where a man that attacks revealed Religion does it without the least personal motive ; and where this champion, if he should succeed, nay, should be in the right too, would only deprive his country of numberless real benefits, for the sake of establishing a merely speculative truth. I was charmed, &c.
MONTESQUIEU*
Paris, May 26, 1754,
AN
APOLOGY
FOR
THE TWO FIRST LETTERS:
"WHICH MAY NOW SERVE FOR
A VINDICATION OF THE WHOLE
SOON after the publication of the two first of these Letters, I had the honour of an anonymous adver tisement, in the warmest terms of friendship lamenting the displeasure, which my treatment of Lord Bolingbroke had given to that part of the Public, where the Adver tiser had an opportunity of making his observations.
There was in this friendly notice so many sure marks of the Writer's regard to the Author of the View ; so much good sense, elegance, and weight of authority in the composition ; and the whole so superior to every thing, but the force of plain and simple truth, that I had as much pleasure in the honour of the admonition, as I had real pain for the occasion.
He assures me I shall never know from what hand it came ; so that when such a Writer will remain unknown, it is foolish as well as indecent to presume to guess.
Yet I arn very confident that a Friend so generous could never intend, by keeping himself out of sight, to deprive me of the means of vindicating my conduct to him. I am rather inclined to think, that he took this method to oblige me to convey my Apology to him, which he had a right to expect, through the hands of that Public, which appear to have none : and which yet, I am persuaded, it was his principal concern, I should first satisfy* lor I must inform my Reader, that the severe
reflections,
76 AN APOLOGY FOR
reflections, I am about to quote, are not Ins proper senti ments, but the sentiments ot' those whom lie is pleased to honour with the name of the Public.
They are introduced in this manner: I am grieved to the heart to find the reception your two Letters meet With from the florid. — I am very sure he is; and so, I think, must every good man be; and more for the sake of that World than for mine. For what must an indif ferent person think of a World, by profession, Christian, of so exceeding delicate a feeling as to be less scandalized at three or four bulky volumes of red-hot Impiety, be cause they come from a LORD, than, at the cool contempt of such an insult, in a Defender of the Religion of his Country, because he may be a poor Priest or an ignoble Layman? Will not every impartial man lament with me so abject a state of things, as that must he, where atheistic principles give less offence to our politeness, than ill- mariners ; arid where, in good company you may be better received with the plague-sore upon you, than the itch ?
It vexes me (says the anonymous writer) to hear so many positively deciding that the Writer must be —
by the SCURRILITY and abuse. -The term is a little
strong. But the best of it is, that it is one of those words the Public think themselves at liberty to apply indif ferently, either to scandalous abuse or to honest reprooj\ just as they happen to be disposed to the Author, or the Subject. The equity of this kind of judgment, so readily passed upon authors, had been sufficiently apparent in the case of one much more considerable than the Author of the'F/ettf. The Author of The Divine Legation of Moses composed a book in support of Revelation ; and sensible that the novelty of his argument would give the alarm, and bring down whole bands of Answerers upon him, he did all he could to invite fair quarter. He pub licly engaged that a candid, and ingenuous Adversary should never repent him of his civility. Answerers, as he foresaw, came down in abundance : but it was not his hap j;o meet with one who treated him \uth common good manners. Of about a hundred of these writers, one or two, and no more, he thought fit to answer ; and (who can wonder!) without much ceremony. This was
THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 77
in the heat of controversy, when his resentments were fresh ; and the injury aggravated by every circumstance of the lowest malice and most barefaced misrepresenta tion. Since that time to the present, a course of 'many years, he has seen these miserable railers, some with names, and some without, go on in all the nonsense and billingsgate with which they set out. Yet though he lias seen all this, and without any other marks of resentment than a contemptuous silence, he could not escape the character of a scurrilous and abusive Writer. It was in vain to appeal to his provocations then, or to his for bearance ever since.
But to return to the Author of the View. He was detected, it seems, by his scurrility and abuse. Surely there must be some mistake, and my Lord's own dirt im puted to his Answerer. The Author of the View seems to be in the case of a scavenger (his enemies, I hope, v. ill take no offence at the comparison), who may not indeed be ovcrclean while at such sort of work ; but it would be hard to impute that stink to him, which is not -of his making, but of his removing.
The Letters are unrccrsally read] and it is almost universally agreed that Lord' Bolingbroke deserved any treatment from You, both as a man personally ill used by him, and a member of that ORDER, WHICH
HE HAS TREATED IX THE LIKE MANNER: — In a LilW
of Vespasian, we read, Non oportere maledici Sena- toribus ; remaledici, civile fasque ext. And the equity of it seems , here to be allowed. But I will claim no benefit from the authority of Vespasian, nor even from that which I more reverence, my anonymous Friend's. The truth is, that nothing personal ever once entered into my thoughts while I was writing those two Letters. — • Had that been the case, it would rather have been the subject of my vanity, than my resentment. For nothing could be more glorious for an obscure writer of these dark and cold days, than to find himself treated in the same manner with the greatest and most famous of the golden Ages of ancient and modern Literature.
—But (says the anonymous letter) it may dishonour a Gentleman and a Clergyman to give him that treat ment he deserved, especially after his death. It is
falling
>8 AN APOLOGY FOR
Jailing into the VERY FAULT so justly objected t& him: even/ body would have applauded your selecting those instances of his railing, arrogance, and abuse, had not you followed his example.- —This Public then takes it for granted, that treating a licentious Writer as BE DESERVES, may dishonour a Gentleman and a Clergyman. Here, I think, we should distinguish. When the tiling concerns only the civil interests of par ticulars, a gentleman has but little provocation for un usual severity of language, and less right to personal re flection, especially on one of superior quality. But when the highest of our religious interests are attacked, the in terests not of this man, nor of that ; not of this community, nor the other; but of our common Nature itself; and where the People are appealed to, and invited to be judges, there, I think, all paltry distinctions of title cease, they vanish before so great an object, and every gentle man who loves his Religion and his Country should take the quarrel on himself, and repel the insult with all his
vigour.
When TRUTH or VIRTUE an affront endures,
Th' affront is mine, my Friend, and should be yours.
POPE.
The manners of a Clergymany if they are to be dis tinguished from the manaers of a Gentleman, consist in zeal for God, and charity towards man. The occasion- will sometimes call out one, sometimes the other : they may be exerted separately, but never at one another's expence ; for they are disposed by Nature to be joint promoters of the common good : as in the case before us, I presume to say, a zeal for God is the greatest charity to man.
Now when opinions of that kind, which the View of L. Holing broke** Philosophy exposes, proceed to their extreme, not to confute them in terms either of horror or ridicule, for fear of transgressing the civil maxims of politeness, would be like that Preacher, the Poet speaks of, who scrupled to mention Hell before his audience at Court. ,
It then, amongst the Christian duties, there be a force to be exerted against deceivers, as well as a patience to be observed in compassion to those who are misled; and
that
THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 79
that the occasion before us was not a time for vigorous measures ; I desire to know when this time comes ?
When men are sincere in their mistakes, after a dili gent and candid search ; when the subject is of small moment, such as the mode of discipline, the measure of conformity, or a distinction in metaphysics ; the mistaken, and even the per verse, should be treated with tenderness. But when the avowed end of a Writer is the destruction of Religion in all its forms ; when the means lie employs, are every trick of prevarication and ill faith ; and every term of scurrility and abuse; when, to use the expression of Cicero, est inter nos non de ter minis, sed de tota possessione contentio ; Then, a practised calmness and an affected management look like betraying the cause we are intrusted to defend , or, what is almost as ill, like defending it in that way only which may turn most to our private advantage : as where, in questions of the greatest moment, we comply with this fashionable indif ference ; or flatter it into a virtue ; when we should have striven to rekindle the dying sparks of Religion by a vigo rous collision with its professed enemies, whose faces (to use the impolite language of the prophet) are harder than a rock*.
Men who have had Christianity indeed at heart have never been disposed, in capital cases like the present to spare or manage the offender. When the incomparable SriLLiNGFLEET undertook to expose the enormity of the Court of Rome, in turning the dispensation of the word into a lucrative trade, he prosecuted the controversy with so much vigour of style and sentiment, as to be reviled by those who found themselves affected by it, with the names of Buffoon and Comedian. The servant of the Lord (said they) must not strive, but be gentle unto all men ; in meekness instructing those who oppose themselves. An answer equally apt and satisfactory. Without doubt, offenders would find themselves much at their ease, when, secure from the resentment of the laws, they understand they have nothing to fear from the ani madversion of the learned.
But this leads me to another consideration, which may further justify the Author of the View, in the account he
* Jer. v. 3.
has
8o AN APOLOGY FOR
has given of this relentless enemy of RELIGION and SOCIETY.
The English Government, secure in the divinity of that Religion which it hath established, and jealous of that liberty which at so much expence it hath procured, doth now, with a becoming consciousness ot the superiority of truth and reason, think fit to suffer this, and many other writings (though none so criminal in the form and manner) to pass through the press, into the hands of the People; writings, in which not only the institutions of positive and national worship have been insulted, but even those very buouNDS OF NATURAL RELIGION,, which hitherto have been esteemed the bond of civil society, as they inforce obedience on the principle of conscience. A bond, which no nation under heaven but our own have ever suffered to be brought in question : because no nation but our own has a perfect confidence in truth, or is in perpetual alarm for Liberty.
But do flagitious Writers therefore become more pri vileged or respectable? Or rather. Is there not the greater need that those evils, which the Public cannot redress, should at least be checked and opposed by a private hand r Why do the* civil laws of all other nations interfere to punish these ofiqnders, but to prevent the mischiefs of their writings ? Why are not the same laws put in execution here, but from the experience, or, at least, from a fore sight, that recourse to them has been, or may prove, in jurious to public liberty ? However, the end is confessed to be of the utmost importance, though these means may be thought incommodious. What is leit then, but to use others of a private nature, where no ill consequences are derived to any but to the instrument employed in the correction of these evils ? Now the mischief done by licentious Writers is from their credit with the people. If their credit be undeserved, the way lies open for the defender of religion to lessen it, either by ridicule or se rious expostulation. The Author of the l'riezv preferred the first, lie thought it more effectual ; for novv-a-da,ys, folly discredits more than impiety : he thought it more generous ; for he had no design of bringing in the magi strate to second his arguments. Nor is he one of those 4 im per-
THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 81
im pertinents who are for directing authority, or who think there is any need of such as him,
To virtue's work, to urge the tardy hall, Or goad the prelate slumb'ring in his stall. He rather thinks it becomes him to follow their example. The CONVOCATION, in their late address to his MAJESTY, lament the depravity of our times, evidenced beyond, all former examples, by the publication of writings which strike at the very vitals of all religion, and shake the foundations of civil government. Yet they are so far from throwing the scandal on the State, or calling out upon the civil Magistrate for redress, that, as if they even respected the slander of their enemies, they engage themselves to his Majesty to exert themselves to the utmost, to maintain the honour, of our most holy faith. Let no one therefore take offence, that a private man has adventured to lend his hand to that work which the whole body of the Clergy hath, with so much glory to themselves, engaged to undertake.
But his Lordship's death is a further objection to the manner in which his writings are treated.
Cuperem ipse Parens spectator adesset !
Had these Essays been published during his life, and had the Author of the View deferred his remarks upon them, in expectation of this good time, the censure might appear to have its weight. But what shall we say if his Lordship was publicly invited to give his Philosophy to the world, by the promise of a speedy answer? If a writer's death may skreen his Works from the treatment they would deserve in his life, he has a very effectual way to secure both his person and his principles from dis grace. Yet, where this is mentioned as an aggravation, it is confessed that in these posthumous Works published by his Lordship's direction, the Author of the View is abused in the grossest manner. Now, what is said in discredit of a living writer, and by one of his Lordship's authority in politics and letters, may prove a real injury: the harm to a dead writer is but imaginary. This is only said to shew, that, had the Author of the Flew retaliated, as he never had it in his thoughts, the return had been still short of the provocation.
VOL. XIL G But
82 AN APOLOGY FOR
But he commits the VERY FAULT objected to Lord Bolingbroke — and in selecting the instances of Jii$ railing and arrogance he follows his Lordship's EX AMPLE. — This would be weighed. Lord Bolingbroke has, in the most contemptuous manner, reviled almost all the Wise and Virtuous of ancient and modern times. lie has railed at the primitive saints ; the modern doctors, the whole body of the Christian clergy ; and, in a word, the whole race of mankind ; which, ever since religion came amongst us, deserves, lie says, to be considered in no other light than as one great aggregate of lunatics. He has abused Moses and Paul; he has ridiculed the SON, and blasphemed the FATHER. Here is another writer, who by his scurrility and abuse is judged no
other than and what has he done? He has fallen
into the same fault, and followed his example. What, Has he likewise railed at all the good, the virtuous, and the pious ? Has he likewise had the arrogance to say, that the world was one great Bedlam ? Has he likewise blasphemed his Creator and Redeemer ? Alas ! DO — • Two such writers would be too much for one age ! And yet, what less can justify this Public in saying, that the Author of the View has fallen into the same fault with Lord Bolingbroke, and followed his example ? All he has done is occasionally telling the world, That his Lordship, once in his life, was for bringing in Popery and the Pretender; and is now for introducing Na turalism, a more specious form of Atheism : that he is overrun with passion and prejudice : that he understands little or nothing of the subjects he handles, which yet he treats with sovereign contempt : that his learning is super ficial, his reasoning sophistical, and his declamation in flated : and that, if ever religion should happen to regain its hold on the people, his philosophic works will run the hazard of being applied to the lowest and vilest uses. This is the substance of what he has said. And if this be falling into the same fault '; and following his Lord ship's example, the Author of the View, for aught I can perceive, must be content to plead guilty.
But we will suppose, the manner of writing only, as
separated from the subject, is here to be understood. Is
5 the
THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 83
the railing at all mankind ; at all religion ; at God Al mighty himself; but of the same species of writing with his, who shall tell the world, that this faiier was once as much an enemy to the civil, as now to the religious constitution of his country; that he reasons ill, and that he declaims worse? Did the politeness of a clergyman or a gentleman require, under pain of being matched with his Lordship in railing and arrogance, that, after the Author of the View had quoted all his Lordship's horrors in principle and expression, he should have added,
" This, good People, is the FIRST PHILOSOPHY, which " is to be substituted amongst you, in the place of RICLI- " GION. But take me along with you; Though this, " indeed, be the bane and poison of your HOPES ; though " it reduce humanity to the most disconsolate and for- " lorn condition, by depriving it of the MORAL Ruler of " .the World, and by dissolving all the ties of CIVIL " government ; Yet, courage ! The Author was a man " of distinguished quality, of uncommon abilities, and of " infinite politeness. His great talents for business " enabled him to see what was best for society ; his " penetration into philosophic matters, what was best " for human nature ; and his profound knowledge of " divinity, what was best for both. Ha had governed " states ; he had instructed kings ; and this last great " Book of Wisdom was the result of all his skill and " experience."
All this indeed I might have said : and, it is probable, a good deal of it I should have said, had the aim of my View been to recommend myself; and to raise a reputa tion from the defeat of tiiis mighty n»an. Had this, I say, been my aim, the raising the character ol an adversary who was presently to fall by my hand, would hardly have been amongst the last of my contrivances. But as I had another purpose, the preventing the mischiefs oi his Book, I took the different method of reducing his authority to its just value ; which, by having been over- rated, had prepared the way tor the easy reception of his opinions amongst a corrupt people.
The Letters, says this Public (whose sentiment* have been, with so much real kindness, conveyed unto me)
G 2 purport
84 AN APOLOGY FOR
purport to be a View of Lord Bolinghroke's Philo sophy. They are a view of his life, morals, politics, and conversation. It mail be true and just. But that is not the question. Whether he made a good treaty, or wrote the Craftsman, neither concludes for nor against the divinity of the Christian Re ligion.
I readily confess, that, had Lord Bolingbroke's morals and politics nothing to do with his religious principles, I had acted both an invidious and an idle part to bring in his Treaties and his Craftsmen into a View of his Philosophy. But I held all these to be the various parts of the same system, which had contributed in support of one another to produce a whole. I can believe he found it for his ease in retirement, to adhere still closer to a set of principles, which having forwarded his practice, enabled him to bear the retrospect of its effects : but I am much mistaken if he did not begin the world with his notions of GOD and the SOUL; hence his rounds of business and amusements
" Now all for pleasure ; now for church and state/
POPE*
The rest followed in course. For, as Cicero well ob serves, Cum enlin DECRETUM proditur, Lex veri rectique proditur : quo a vitio et AMICITIARUM pro* ditiones, et RERUM PUBLICARUM, nasci solent.
But this is not all. I beg leave to say, there was not only a close connexion between his principles and his practice, but that it was necessary to a just defence of Religion against him, to take notice of that connexion.
One of his Lordship's pretended purposes, in his philosophic Essays, was to detect the abuses brought into the Christian Religion by a CORRUPT CLERGY : my aim in this View was to expose a species of Atheism, inculcated on the ruin of all Religion by an IMPJOUSJ
DAYMAN.
Consider, how his Lordship. proceeded. — Not that I place my justification on his example: that, indeed, would be confirming the charge I am endeavouring to refute ; neither would I insist upon the right of retaliation; for, though that be something a better plea, it is the last
which
THE/TWO FIRST LETTERS., 85
which a writer for truth would willingly have recourse to. I quote his Lordship's method with perfect appro bation, as that which right reason prescribes to all who propose the detection of error and imposture. His Lord ship's point, as we said, was to shew, that the Clergy had corrupted the purity and simplicity of Religion. It is not my design to inquire with what ingenuity he has re presented the fact, or how justly he has deduced the con sequences, which he pretends have risen from it. He has shewn some corruptions; he has imagined more; and dressed up the rest of his catalogue out of his own in vention ; all which, he most unreasonably offers as a legi timate prejudice against Religion itself. Well, be it so, that the Clergy are convicted of abuse and imposture. The question, which every one is ready to ask, who thinks himself concerned to inquire into the truth of the fact, is cur BONO ? What END had the Clergy to serve by these corruptions? His Lordship thinks the question reason able, and is ready to reply, That they had a wicked anti- christian yoke to impose upon the necks of mankind : in order to which, they contrived to introduce such kind of corruptions into Religion as best tended to pervert men's understandings, to intimidate their wills., and to impress upon their consciences an awe and reverence for their spiritual tyrants. The answer is satisfactory, and shews the use of this method of detecting error. With his rhetorical exaggerations, with the extension of his list of corruptions, with his ridiculous inferences, I have3 at present, no concern.
As the Author of the Essays had, what he called, a tyrannical hierarchy to unmask ; so, the Author of the View had, what he called, a declared, an impious, an outrageous enemy of all Religion to expose. I believe they are both rightly named. Now, as errors to be de tected, we must trace them to their source ; and as errors influencing practice, we shall find their original to be in VICE.
His Lordship had publicly and openly, in his respect able character of a NOBLEMAN, a STATESMAN., and a PHILOSOPHER, declared Religion to be all a cheat* sup ported only by knaves and madmen ; which indeed was a large party, since, by his own account, it takes in the
G 3 wholo
86 AN APOLOGY FOR
whole body of mankind. His Lordship had been held up to the People* as an ALL-ACCOMPLISHED personage, full and complete in every endowment of civil and moral wisdom : and the enchanting vehicle in which his tri umphant character was conveyed, had made it received, even against the information of our senses. A PUBLIC thus prejudiced, would, on such a representation of his Lordship's religious principles as his Essays contain, and the View collects together, be ready to ask, " Could so sublime a genius be disposed to deprive himself, and us, of all those blessings which Religion promises, had he not discovered, and been perfectly assured, that the whole was a delusion ; and therefore, in pity to mankind, had broke the charm, which kept them from seeing their pre sent good, in loud expectation of a recompence in the shadowy regions of futurity ? " We say, deprive himself, for he seems sufficiently vext, and sensible of his disap pointment, when awaked from the pleasing dream of a life to come. There is no one thought (says his Lord ship) which sooths my mind tike this : I encourage my IMAGINATION to pursue it, and am heartily afflicted ichvn ANOTHER FACULTY of the intellect comes bois terously in, and WAKES me from so pleasing a dream, if it be a dream j\" — In this manner I supposed, that they, for whose use the View w as intended, were disposed to argue ; 1 mean that part of them who yet retain any concern tor another life ; and who have not thrown off, together with their guides, all thoughts of their journey thither. Now, against this dangerous prejudice, the Defender of Religion was to provide. He was first to remove their delusion concerning Lord Bolingbroke's philosophic character ; and to shew, that he had none of those talents of reasoning, of learning, or philosophy, which are necessary to qualify a man to decide on so im portant a question. But this opposed only one half of their prejudice. They could by no means be brought to think that so good a man, so benevolent a citizen, so warm a friend to mankind, as his Lordship's Essays represent him, could be lightly willing to forego that great bond of
* See the Fourth Epistle of the Essay on Man, and the great Poet's other Works.
f Letter xliii. to Swift, in Pope's Works, Vol. ix,
society,
THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. 87
society, that great support of humanity, RELIGION. The Advocate of Religion therefore, unless he would betray his cause, was obliged to shew, that the social light, in which his Lordship puts himself, and in which he had been placed by his poetical Friend, was a false one ; that his moral virtues were the counterpart of his religious principles; And public virtue (according to his favourite Cicero) embracing and comprehending all the private*, it was to the purpose of such a defence, to shew, that his Lordship had been a BAD CITIZEX.
" Prodita laxabat portarum claustra Tyrannis
" Exsulibus "
Now though Religion has the strongest allurements for the good and virtuous, it abounds with objects of affright and terror to the profligate and abandoned ; who, in such circumstances, have but this for their relief, Either to part with their vices, or their religion. All the world knows his Lordship's choice. He himself tells us, it was made on the conviction of reason ; others think, by the delusion of his passions. The world is to determine • and that they might judge with knowledge of the case, the Author of the View attempted to obviate the latter part of this popular prejudice ; which would not suffer them to con ceive any reason short of demonstration, that could induce a man in his senses to part with the soothing consolation of futurity, as his Lordship so justly calls it.
And now, I suppose, every candid reader will allow, at least I am sure the candid Writer of the anonymous Letter will allow, that his Lordship's morals and politics come within the View of his Philosophy ; where the question is of the TRUTH or FALSEHOOD of Religion; and of his Lordship's AUTHORITY to decide in it.
To sum up this argument : His Lordship descants on Romish superstition ; the Author of the Viezv, on his Lordship's Philosophy : not to shew for what end the one \vas established, or by what means the other was produced, is relating facts without their causes; which the Writer on the use of history justly throws into the class of unprofitable things : and' therefore his Lordship, speaking of the corruptions brought by the Clergy, into
* Omnes omnium Charitates P ATRIA una compkxa est.
G 4 Religion,
88 AN APOLOGY FOR
Religion, accounts for them by a SPIRIT OF DOMINTOX; and the Author of the View speaking of his Lordship's religious principles, reminds the reader of his MORAL PRACTICE; but so far only as served that purpose, and was, besides, notorious to all mankind.
Lord Bolingbroke (says this Public) deserved every 'thing of you ; but who are those friends and admirers of his, whom you represent applauding all he wrote ; whom you bring hi unnecessarily upon many occa sions? I dare say they are very jew. You had better have named them.
As unexceptionable perhaps as that: liberty might have been thought, I should certainly have ventured on it, had I conceived it possible for the reader to understand, by $vch friends and admirers, any of those few illustrious persons, whom Lord Bolingbroke's politeness, his distance from business, his knowledge of the world, and, above'all, his ambition to be admired, occasionally brought into his acquaintance ; and who gave dignity and reputation to his retirement. The chief of these I have the honour to know7, and the pleasure of being able to inform those who do not, that they were so far from being in the principles of his Philosophy, that some of them did not so much as know what those principles were ; and those who did, gave him to understand, howr much they detested them. Indeed, nothing but this fact, which I here assert on my own knowledge, can account for the disposition in his Will, concerning his philosophic papers. And were it only for the sake of this fair occasion, of explaining myseltj I could readily excuse all the hard thoughts this Public seems to have entertained of me. As to the friends and admirers who applauded all he wrote, I meant those who persuaded him to change his mind, and give those Essays to the Public, which he had over and over de clared were only for the inspection of a few ; and which those few had given him to understand, were fit for no body's inspection at all. Nay, he seems willing the world should know to whom it was indebted for this benefit, by his letting those places in his Essays stand, M'here he declares his own opinion of their unfit ness for general communication.
But what grieves and hurts your friends most
(says
THE TWO FIRST LETTERS. Sg
(says this Public) is still behind. Poor Pope did not deserve to be treated by you with so much cruelty, contempt, and injustice. In a work where Lord Bolingbroke is represented as a monster, hated both of God and Man, Why is Pope always and unneces sarily brought in, only as his friend and admirer? IVhy as approving of, and privy to all that was ad dressed to him ? Why should he, who had many great talents, and amiable qualities, be described only ^by the slighting epithets of tuneful and poetical. You, say, Pope announced the glad tidings of all these things. /// what work can he be said to have done it, except in his Essay on Alan? This is throwing a reflexion on the excellent Commentary on that Essay.
The Editor of Pope's Works certainly thought with this generous Animadverter, that the great Poet deserved every thing of his friends. For he tells us, " That to " have been one of the greatest Poets in the world, was " but his second praise : that Pope was in a higher class. " lie was one of the noblest works of God : he was an " honest man. A man who alone possessed more real " virtue than, in very corrupt times, needing a Satirist " like him, will sometimes fall to the share of multitudes. " His filial piety, his disinterested friendships, his re- " verence for the constitution of his country, his love and
* admiration of virtue, and (what was the necessary con- " sequence) his hatred and contempt of vice, his ex ten- " sive charity to the indigent, his warm benevolence to " mankind, his supreme veneration of the Deity, and, " above all, his sincere belief of Revelation (the Editor " tells us), shall, amongst other things, be the subject of 61 the history of his Life. Nou (says he) SHALL HIS " FAULTS BE CONCEALED. It is not for the interests " of his virtues that they should. Nor indeed could
i they be concealed if we were so minded, for they shine " through his virtues; no man being more a dupe, to 11 the specious appearance of virtue in others*."
But then, who it was that treated poor Pope with
cruelty, contempt, and injustice, Lord Bolingbroke, or
the Author of the View, let this Public themselves judge;
and, by their freedom from passion and resentment, at a
* See the Editor's AdwtMmwt to his Works,
time
90 AN APOLOGY FOR
trine when a frien d would be most hurt, they -appear veil qualified to judge impartially.
When, on the publication of the Patriot King, Lord Bolingbroke did indeed use the memory of poof Pope with exceeding contempt, cruelty, and injustice, by re presenting him, in the Advertisement to the Public, as a busy, ignorant interpolator of his works ; a mercenary betrayer of his trust ; a miserable, who bartered all the friendship of his philosopher and guide, for a little paltry gain. Who was it then that manifested his hurt and grief for poor Pope ? Was it this Public I Or was it the Author of the Letter to Lord Bolingbroke, on that occasion?
But in what consists the contempt, cruelly, and in justice of the View ? The contempt is in the slighting epithets of tuneful and poetical : the cruelty in giving instances of Pope's unbounded admiration of Lord Boling broke- ; and the injustice in saying that he denounced the glad tidings of the first philosophy, and that he ap proved and was privy to all that was addressed to him.
My using the epithets of tuneful and poetical, in speaking of a man who had many superior qualities, was> I humbly conceive, well suited to the occasion. It is