AN ANSWER TO A BOOK ENTITLED, Tractatus Theologico Politicus.  
LONDON: Printed for Charles Brome, at the Gun, at the West End of St. Paul's. 1697.   

To the Right Honourable, Charles Earl of Winchelsea, Viscount Maidstone, Baron Fitz-Herbert of Eastwell, etc.  
My Lord,  
THIS Treatise being by me designed, for the Vindication of Revealed Religion, against those Deistical and Sceptical Notions which are too frequent in this Age, had there been no singular obligations to induce me, yet could I not have found a more proper Patron than your Lordship; whom all must acknowledge to be a Favourer and Protector of Religion, Virtue, and whatsoever is Praiseworthy amongst men. I am very sensible, that my small Station in the Church, might very well have excused me, from engaging in an argument which may justly require a Person of more Dignity, Learning, and Leisure, but I am at the same time very well satisfied, that your Lordship and all good men will not expect much, where but little is given; and therefore in the same plainness and sincerity wherein I at first wrote it, I presume to dedicate it to your Lordship, as a small token, how much, I am,  
Your Lordship's most Humble, and Obliged Servant, Mathias Earbery.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
THough I am not of the Opinion, That whosoever writes a Book, aught to write a Preface (for some are so good that they need none, and some so bad that they don't deserve one) yet I think myself to lie under an obligation, to give the World an Account of those Reasons, which induced me to Answer a Book, which if it had its due deserts, aught to be confined to silence and darkness for ever. 1. I might here allege in the first Place, that the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, has not as yet the honour, to receive an entire confutation, from any one Learned Hand, that I know in Europe. Bishop Boyl in his little Body of Divinity, and almost all our Moderns, who have wrote in Vindication of the Scriptures, have taken notice of Divers of its dangerous positions, as they lie scattering up and down, in almost every page of it, from whence I might have leave to conclude, that if those Learned men did think, that it was necessary to Answer the chief Objections, against the Authority of the Scriptures one by one; a Collective Answer to the whole Book, would be more satisfactory to the world, and more beneficial to the public Good. And therefore I was not induced to undertake this task, because I thought none could do it better, but because none before me had began so useful a work. I considered also in the second place, that most who have wrote upon this Subject, have either done it in such a Philosophical manner, as is not easily intelligible by the Vulgar, or have proceeded against him, and his Party, by such Philological Arguments, as though very Learned, yet at most are but Conjectural, and therefore never can convince a stubborn Sceptist, though they are very pleasing to Ingenious Men. Now though this way of Writing, is very taking, whilst the Argument is only tossed too and fro amongst Learned Men, yet it is not sufficient, when such Deistical Principles begin to be Popular, and seize upon the minds of those, who though they want Reason, yet stand in need of no Obstinacy to defend the same. And therefore since this Book has, as I am informed, received lately some impressions in our own Language; I thought it might not be amiss to administer the antidote, in the same vehicle, in which the Party has presented the Poison; and waving all Conjectural Arguments that are drawn from humane Authority, or whose force depends upon the knowledge of Books, or are too remote from common Sense, to be understood by all Men; I have laid down chief such Principles, as all may understand, and all who understand them must needs admit to be true: And I hope that it will be apparent from thence, That they who Renounce their Religion, into which they are Baptised, must Renounce their Reason too, which they boast to be their only guide. Nor am I ignorant, that the Author of this Book, was very well versed (pardon so favourable an expression) in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets; understood the Original Language, and had made a diligent search, to find all weak places, wherein he might Assault and Ruin the impregnable Fortress of Revealed Religion. Mr. Hobbs had another way of trifling with those Books of Scripture, and wresting some particular places to his odd Opinions: But this Author gins at the very Root and Foundation, by taking away all Divine Authority, from Prophecy, Miracles, or Inspiration, and making all the sacred Penmen, to be no other than either Madmen, or Impostors. Now though such sentiments, ought rather to be punished by the Judge, than refuted by the Divine, yet since too much liberty has relaxed the Reins, both of Civil and Ecclesiastic Power, it is necessary that such Weapons should be used, as are therefore left us, because they could not easily be taken away. And I thought it would be at least some punishment, as it were, to the very Sbades and Manes of this Author, to show the world, that he, who so long has found a place in the Libraries and Hands of very Learned Men, does scarce for his stupidity, and trifling way of arguing, merit to obtain a place amongst the lowest forms of inferior Animals: And I am sure if he could say nothing to the purpose against Revealed Religion, his little Disciples of the Town, can say a great deal less. But indeed the greatest motive of all, was the general disposition of men of all Degrees and Capacities in this Age, to ridicule our Religion as much as they can, nay, a great deal farther than their own Abilities will give them leave. How will some Little People vent a Jest upon the Bible, or argue against Moses, who never read a Chapter in it, with that Attention which is due to those Sacred Writings; And never, even in their Younger Days, knew any thing beyond a Play or a Romance. I will not say, That too much Liberty has given Opportunity to Deism, to grow up with those other Weeds that infest this Nation: Though if I should, it might be found to appear not very unlibely to those who consider, that Mr. Hobbs' Leviathan, was brought forth in the like times of Liberty, and that this Author pleads for nothing more than Liberty to Exclude the Conscientious Fear of God out of the World: But certain it is, That the General Corruption of Manners, Contempt of the Clergy, Bold Agitation of the Socinian Controversy, amongst the Greatest Men of the same Church, do render discourses of this Nature very necessary, to stop the Mouths of those Mockers, whom St. Peter long since Prophesied should come in the last days, saying, Where is the promise of his Coming?  
For since the Fathers fell asleep, All things continue as they were, from the beginning of the Creation. I will add but one word more, and that is, To acquaint thee, that my design being only to Answer this Author, I have followed him exactly (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to the End of the 7th Chapter, and there left him, as being weary of going further after a false light to no purpose. For having considered all his Cavils, against the Prophets, Prophecy, Divine Law, Miracles, and Interpretation of Scripture, I thought it altogether needless to proceed any further.  
And thus having given thee an Account of my design, I must leave the performance to thy favourable censure, and wish thee a hearty Farewell.   

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE OF Tractatus Theologico Politicus.  
THere was not long since a young Gentleman, whose Name was Scepticus, who was pleased to retire from the noise of the Town, into the more refreshing Solitude of the healthful Country. He was of a fiery Genius, always eager after new things, and most pleased with those Thoughts, which he thought were farthest removed out of the Road of the Vulgar. He had began his Studies with a diligent Perusal of the Classic Authors, from whom he received a deep impression of all those Beauties, both of Thought and of Expression, which are so visibly Eminent in those Ancient Writers; from thence he proceeded to the Perusal of the Moral Write of the Ancient Philosophers, but presently taking a disgust at Notions he thought too obvious and common, he flew from thence to the Atomical Philosophy, as it stands revived by Des Cartes, Gassendus and others. This pleased him for a season extremely, because it gave no deference to Authority, but let lose the mind of man, to enjoy its primitive liberty of Thinking, and gave him vast Ideas of what mighty things might be done by mere Matter and Motion. But coming abroad into the World, and finding that Religion was the grand Theme of all men's discourse, as well those who lived according to its Rules, as those who did not, he resolved to apply his mind to search into its abstrusest Mysteries. And it happening at that time the Socinian Controversy was revived with a great deal of heat, he applied his mind very diligently to read all the Socinian Authors. He was a long time much pleased with their Write, because they seemed to Interpret Scripture with an air and freedom, which he of all things most affected, and extol▪ d Human Reason to such a height, as was most agreeable to the Towering thoughts of his own Ambition. But finding at last, that those Writers had an excellent knack of making the Scriptures speak whatsoever was agreeable to their own Sentiments; It bred in him an Admiration of the Ingenuity of those Writers, but a contempt of the Scriptures themselves, which he easily perceived, had no command over these Authors, whom he most admired. It was his misfortune at the same time to light upon the Tractatus Theologico Politicus, of Spinosa. This turned him a perfect Deist, he threw away his Bible, and set up this Book in the room of it. He now thought himself to be set at liberty above the slavish condition of those, who thought they were to be ruled by their Bibles; and so fond was he of this Author, that every Summer, he carried him into the Fields with him in his hands, and each Winter he wore him in his Muff. There lived in the Neighbourhood an Old Grave Divine, who, in compassion to his Youth, did often pay this Young Man a Visit; and had often been laughed at by him in the Pulpit, for his Zeal for Religion. He came to him one day in his Garden, as he was reading in this Author, and seemed altogether ravished with the Entertainment; and being well acquainted with him, was thus familiarly pleased to accost him.  
Logic. Sir, you seem mightily pleased; Pray what Book is that you hug, with so much Extacy and Rapture?  
Scept. It is a Book so agreeable to my Reason, which ever since my Childhood, struggled for Freedom from Popular Errors, that I embrace it as my Deliverer from the Darkness, under which I was bred, by ignorant Nurses, Tutors and Masters; and as such I recommend it, to the perusal of all those, who rather desire to be Men betimes, than live long, till they are overgrown Children, with long Beards and shallow Brains, trembling at the Thoughts of Invisible Powers.  
Logic. I suppose than you are feeding upon a Limb of Hobbs' Leviathan, and are just now returning Thanks (to the Lord knows what) for the plentiful Collation.  
Scept. Hobbs was indeed a very pretty Fellow, and not easily scared with Religious Bugbears. But this Author deserves rather to be esteemed his Tutor than his Scholar; He has such a Knack of Exposing all the Defects of those Books you call the Scriptures, with that Strength of Reason, and Solidity of Judgement, that apparently shows it to be the Work of the Incomparable Spinosa.  
Logic. I suppose it is then his Tractatus Theologico Politicus. Pray what is the Design of that Celebrated Book?  
Scept. That is best known by the Preface, 
See the Pref. of this Author.  where he first shows, That if Men lived always in Prosperity, and by their own good Conduct could become Masters of their most desired Events, they would never be entangled with the vanity of Superstition. But when they are driven into those Straits, from which they cannot expedite themselves, they are apt to believe any thing; the Mind is tumbled up and down between Hope and Fear, and not knowing where to rest on Earth, looks up for a support from Heaven; Implores the Deity with Tears disgraceful to any Woman; runs after Augurs, Soothsayers, and Conjurers, and hunts for inspiration, in Fools and Madmen. An example of which he gives us in Alexander, who had in any difficulty recourse to his prophets, as Servants of his Gods, but in prosperity forgot both them and their Masters.  
Logic. And what does he infer from hence?  
Scept. That Men are prone to Superstition by Fear only, and not by any Innate Sense of a Deity, as you Divines would make us believe.  
Logic. But what if this Grand Supposition, That Men are only Superstitious in Adversity, is altogether false, and to be refuted by Ten Thousand Instances, both National and Personal, Ancient and Modern? The Jews were never more superstitious, (if the Idolatrous Worship of the Sun, Moon and Stars, is Superstition) than in their Highest Prosperity: For than they became ashamed as it were of the Rites and Ceremony: taught by Moses, and grew ambitious of rivalling their Neighbouring Nations, in all the Gallantry and Pageantry of their superstitious Worship. So that your admired Author, by poring upon Quintus Curtius, for one single Instance, has quite forgot the numerous Examples to the contrary, which he might have found in almost every Leaf of the Bible, or Page of Livy's History.  
Scept. Don't tell me of Jews; I believe we know little of them, but what some Modern Impostors have conveyed to us; it is apparent to me, that all the rest of Mankind, are driven to superstition by Fear only.  
Logic. Not so neither. Pray what Nation showed less Fear, and more Superstition than the Ancient Romans? And what Nation had ever more Victories, and more Altars than that Famous Monarchy? Who were ever more punctual in returning Thanks to their supposed Deities, than their Senate and Generals? And yet I am inclined to think, that they did not much fear their Enemies, when they returned Thanks to their Gods that they had beat 'em, and that it was rather a sense of Gratitude than of Fear, which was the Mother of that Pompous Devotion.  
Scept. You talk of whole Nations by the Lump; can you give any Instance to the contrary in a single Person?  
Log. Yes, Sir, that I can, without tumbling over any large Volumes of History: Nabuchadnezzar was a Fortunate Prince, and Great Conqueror; nor did I ever hear that he was very much a Coward; and yet he kept (see Dan. 2. 2.) several Nurseries of Magicians, Astrologers and Sorcerers, to interpret Dreams, predict Futurities, and instruct his Court and People in the superstitious Customs of that Age and Nation.  
Scept. But though he was secure for the present, yet perhaps his fear of future Evils inclined him to so much Superstition.  
Log. What then do you think of his Gratitude to Heaven, when he was returned to his Reason and his Throne (Dan. 4. 27.) and no Passion but Joy could find room in his Breast, was that also the Effect of Fear?  
Scept. I am not in love with Scripture-Examples: Let us have One out of some honest Pagan Author.  
Log. Then your own admired Curtius, shall be my next Witness, even in that very Alexander, whom with equal front and ignorance, citys to the contrary; for no man was ever more superstitious than that Grecian Conqueror, when he was in the midst of all his Triumphs, and as far from Fear as from Adversity; it was then that he fancied himself to be the Son of Jupiter, an Enthusiasm not easy to be paralleled, and impossible to be exceeded by any) and the joy of this, joined with his other good fortune, so far transported him, that it quite excluded all that superstitious Fear, which his Soothsayers endeavoured to raise, by forbidding his entrance into the fatal City of Babylon.  
Scept. Alexander, though a Great Man, yet was but One Man: You cannot deny, that Fear, by its natural Energy, is the only cause of Superstition, nor can you assign any other.  
Log. Yes, Hope and Love are as certain Motives to what you call Superstition, as Fear or Sorrow. For have not Men Worshipped a Wrong Deity, or the True God the Wrong Way, (which is the Whole of Superstition) out of hopes of being made more Happy? Else how came the most Ancient Pagans to Deify the most benign of their Friends and Benefactors?  
Scept. I hope you will at least grant, that Superstition arises from the Passions of Mankind, as may sufficiently be seen by its mutable Nature, and not from any Idea of a God, that is obvious to the Reason of all Men.  
Log. All Religion (which your A— calls Superstition) does not take its Original from the Passions, but from the Reason of Mankind. No man that is not perfectly mad, would Love, or Fear, or Worship a God, or any Invisible Power, unless he was first fully persuaded of the real Existence of such a Being or Being's, that can hurt, or else relieve him: For the Passions, though never so violent, could never hurry on a Man to Worship a What he thought to be a Non-ens, that had no Existence but in his own Fancy. And this is the Reason, Why Beasts, that are capable of Hope, and Fear, and Love, (or at lest something very like those Passions) are yet strangers to all manner of Religion, viz. because they have no praevious Notion of a Deity, to stir up those Passions in them: Otherwise an Hare, that flies from all things, would be as superstitious as the Alexander the Great, who made all to fly before him.  
Scept. My Notion is, That it is the Fear of Mankind, working violently upon the Understanding, that created all Notion of Invisible Powers.  
Log. And my Notion is, That it is the Reason of Mankind, that could not solve the Creation of the World, and the Original of Man, but by having Recourse to some First Cause, which excited the Passions of Man to adore their C●●●tor, and those other Invisible Powers, which they presumed did govern the World under him.  
Scept. I do not speak of Natural, but that which you Divines do call Revealed Religion. This is that Grand Cheat that the Priests in all Ages have dressed up in Various Habits to please the Vulgar, who are always of a mutable Temper, and to keep them in subjection to those Monarches who want a Bridle to restrain unruly Subjects. But nothing is more fatal to a Commonwealth than too much of what you call Revealed Religion, which is the Mother of Seditions and Tumults, and a great Enemy to a free Trade. And truly, this (I hope I speak to a Friend) makes me very much wish we could see a Commonwealth in England, that we might enjoy the liberty of thinking and speaking of Religion as we pleased, which now is too much restrained. And my Author tells you, That the Grand Design of his Book was to plead for such a liberty.  
Log. I can see no Reason, why Religion should not be as necessary to support a Commonwealth as a Monarchy: For do not Commonwealths call in the help of Oaths, to bind their Subjects to Allegiance, as well as Monarches? And may not Divisions about Religion, that cause Seditions, as well arise where this Liberty is, as where there is none? For suppose One Numerous Party, not contented with Liberty, will aim at Dominion over the other, may not Civil Wars on this account as well rise up in a Commonwealth as in a Monarchy? In all the Species of Government, there is some Supreme Power, either in One, or in a few, or in a great many, which (as the Apostle teaches) ought not to be resisted, not only for Wrath; but Conscience-sake: And if you take away Conscience from the Subject, and leave nothing but Wrath to restrain his Rebellion, there will be no One Form of Government in the World, that can be much more secure than another, from private Plots and Contrivances of revolting Subjects. Besides, your Author seems to me to be very ignorant in History, when he would confine Religion to Monarchy, as Storks are said by Nature to be confined to a Commonwealth. For never did Superstition flourish more than in the City of Rome and others, whilst they were under a Republican Government; which gave occasion to S. Paul's Reproof to the Athenians; I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. And yet the Subjects of both, were as glorious for Arms and Learning, as any of our Modern Republics. I must confess, as for what you say, that Religion is an Enemy to Free Trade, is partly true, because it takes away from Trade, the freedom of lying, and cheating, and defrauding, which some perhaps think essential to it: But if you Gentlemen desire a Commonwealth, that you may barter away our Religion for a Free Trade, I say, pray God bless the Monarchy of England.  
Scep. Prithee don't think we desire to take away your Religion: Your Reason ought to be your Only Religion, and that I am sure no man desires to take from you. My Author's Design is only to take off those Prejudices which the Vulgar entertain of the Scriptures, who despise Reason, and think that the Scriptures are the Only Oracles of Truth— In order to this my Author promises to demonstrate, That Prophecy, or Revelation, is nothing else but strength of Fancy. That the Ancient Prophets were only Men of a strong Imagination, and of a weak Reason. That the Divine Law is nothing else but fatal Necessity. That Miracles are only those Works of Nature of whose Cause we are ignorant. That the true way of interpreting those Books you call Scriptures, does show that they are of Humane Invention, and that every individual man has a Right and Authority to interpret Scripture as he pleases. And that—  
Log. No farther, I beseech you; this is Task enough for one time. Let us therefore leave his Preface, and proceed to the Book itself, that we may see,  Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu. 
Scep. With all my heart: And first let's begin with his Definition of Prophecy, and so orderly examine the strength of all his Invincible Arguments.  
Log. I am content; and also further promise, That if he brings any Objections against Revealed Religion, which I cannot answer; I will then become of his Opinion, and subscribe to whatsoever you will have me.  
Scep. It is as fair as I can wish it to be— Thus therefore he gins:  
Explicit Praefatio, & incipit hoc loco primum.   

DE PROPHETIA.  
A. Prophesy, or Revelation, is the certain Knowledge of something (or Things) revealed unto Men by God: How do you like this Definition?  
The. Very well, provided the Author thinks as he speaks; and does not impose upon us (as his Custom is) by ambiguous Terms.  
A. Well then: Mind the Consequence: All Natural Knowledge may properly be called Prophecy; for those things which we know by Natural Light, depend upon the sole knowledge of God, and his Eternal Decrees: But our Mob-Divines, that stand gazing with their Mouths open to Heaven, to catch Wonders, exclude Natural Reason from Prophecy; as if the one descended from Heaven, and the other sprang from Earth only: And yet humane reason is Divine, in as much as the very faculties were by God Created; and it is only excelled by Prophecy in two things; First, that Prophecy extends its bounds further: And Secondly, it cannot be caused by the Laws of Nature.  
The. And Pray Sir, what Charms can you see in such a Jargon of Discourse, as should draw your minds away one step from revealed Religion? For here is a very absurd confusion of Natural Knowledge, and that which proceeds from Divine Revelation. No Man that apprehends the necessary Connexion of two Terms, was ever yet called a Prophet, by any but this A.— If Natural Knowledge might properly be called Prophecy, than every Man that by his Natural Reason, could comprehend all the necessary Properties of a Triangle, or the undoubted certainty of Mathematical Axioms; or those self-evident Propositions, which are known by a bare perception of the Terms, would be a Prophet; and so not only () all the Lord's People would be Prophets, but all the Devil's People too; for as much as some Propositions, by the sole Light of Reason, are evident to all Mankind.  
A. You mistake my Author; for he tells you, page 2. That tho Natural Knowledge is Divine, yet the Teachers of it cannot be called Prophets: Because whatever they Teach, others (without the help of Faith or Credulity) may know as well as themselves.  
T. This only shows with how much Confidence and Stupidity your Infallible Author contradicts himself; for p. 1. he asserts, Ex traditâ definitione sequitur cognitionem naturalem Prophetiam vocari posse— What more evident, than that he may be called a Prophet, who is endowed with natural Knowledge, if natural Knowledge may be called Prophecy?  
A. That is but a small mistake: His true meaning is, That Reason is not less certain and Divine than Revelation its self.  
T. Natural Things are called Divine upon a Threefold Account; as they are the Workmanship of God; and in this sense all things that have a real Subsistance, may be called Divine, as they are the Works of God: But the word (Divine) is not frequently used in this signification, because it is too general, and comprehends so much, that it determines too little. Or, 2. Things are more frequently called Divine, that for their Excellence seem to have some resemblance of the very Nature and Perfections of God: This Homer styles his Hero, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and Grace is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Apostle: And indeed in this Sense, the rational Faculties of the Soul may not be improperly called Divine, forasmuch as they were not only given us by God, but do still bear his Image and Inscription upon them. But (3dly, and lastly), Those things are most properly styled Divine, which are immediately produced by the Power of God, not according to the regular Laws of Nature, but in a manner altogether superior to them: And in this most proper signification, Creation, Prophecy and Miracles are the Works of God, and bear all the Characters of Divinity upon them; because the First Cause is only concerned in the Production of them, without the Concurrent Efficacy of Inferior Agents. Hence it is that the Evangelist, reckoning up the Genealogy of our Blessed Saviour, names the other Patriarches as Sons of Men, because they came into the World, according to the usual manner of Generation; But Adam he calls the Son of God; for though his Body was out of preceding matter, yet it was form by the immediate Power of God, without Observation of the regular Course of Nature. The very Magicians could say, when they saw Lice miraculously produced by Aaron's Rod, That this was the very Finger of God; because they knew it was not within the Bounds of the Power of Nature, and that it could not be done by those Inferior Invisible Powers, which they invoked. And the Prophets call their inspired Writings, The Word of the Lord, because not deduced from the settled Course and Order of things, but delivered to them immediately by God himself; in respect to which it is called by St. Peter, the Sure Word of Prophecy.  
A. What do you infer from hence?  
T. That your Author trifles, when he equals Humane Reason to Divine Inspiration, saying very boldly, That (Aequali jure, ac alia (cognitio) quaecunque illa sit, divina vocari potest) when it is evident, That the one is founded on the Natural Order of things, and therefore subject to those Imperfections, which are common to all the Works of Nature: The other comes immediately from God, and has no imperfection in it. Our Reason, though first given us by God, yet is corrupted by ourselves: The Idolatry and Superstition of the first Ages of the World, do abundantly show how much Natural Reason is subject to be led aside into Error, by Sense, Passion, Interest and Example, in the things that belong unto God: There is a Light of Nature, but it is no more than a glimmering Light, which discovers some, but not all things, that are necessary to be known, so clearly and distinctly as may make it completely beneficial to Mankind. Besides, it is often darkened by Inadvertency, Lust, and Male-Organization of the Body, and a thousand other Impediments: But Revelation is such an impression upon the Mind of the Prophets, as gives a discovery of something unknown before; for to reveal, is to detect something that before was covered, and always creates a threefold certainty in all inspired Authors: 1. It renders them sure that it is God who speaks to them; 2dly, That they rightly apprehend what he means: 3dly, That whatever he reveals, is infallibly sure; For that God will not deceive, is the very Basis of all Humane, and of all Divine Knowledge. Your Author therefore very truly asserts, That Revelation exceeds the Bounds of Humane Reason, because it extends itself to the hidden things of God, viz. The Knowledge of a future Happiness, and the ways and means by which we may gain the same; as also, because it cannot be caused by the regular Order of Nature, but must proceed immediately from God; but then he very absurdly endeavours to equal Humane Reason to it, when in the same breath he confessed, that it is exceeded by Divine Revelation.  
A. You talk of Certainty in Divine Revelation; but for my part, I have no Idea, how a Mortal Man can be certain what or when God speaks to him.  
T. Prophecy being ● complex Idea, as signifying the discovery of something made unto Man, by the immediate Power of God, we can have no distinct Knowledge of its manner of producing Certainty in the Mind of Man, unless all the simple Ideas, which compound the same, extend into our Understanding, by our Senses, or were obvious to it by a simple intuition: But the Manner of God's speaking to Man by Revelation, being altogether Supernatural, it cannot be completely understood by those, who have had only Experience of the use of Natural Faculties. Suppose a Man born into the World with a Sixth Sense, whereby he could discern the Properties and Differences of External things, it would not follow, that because other men had not a complete Idea, how he perceived the differences of things, that therefore he had no perception at all. A man so framed by God, might have clear and distinct perception, and yet not be able by any force of Words, to make his Neighbours understand the manner of it. For the Words that now are, do signify some Ideas which have already been common to Mankind; but where the thing itself was always unknown, there Words, whose signification extends no further than to things that are already known, can never explain them to us. A man that never had the Experience of the Illumination of a Prophetic Spirit, can no more have a complete Idea of what it is, than a blind man can have of Colours; he may be taught by rote to give definitions, but all the definitions that can be given, will never give him the true Idea of Light or Colour.  
A. Then Prophetical Light is something, but you don't know what.  
T. Yes, We know as much of the Nature of Divine Revelation, as is necessary for us to know; and he that inquires after more, ought not to be gratified in his needless curiosity. We know from the Nature of God, and the Constitutiou of our own Souls, that it is not impossible for God to communicate his Will and Pleasure to whomsoever he pleases; for it would be strange indeed, if God, who made the Soul capable of understanding every thing else, should not be able to make it capable of understanding himself, whenever he should vouchsafe to speak to it. For why should not Man be as capable of knowing when God speaks to him in a supernatural way, as when his Neighbour speaks to him, according to the usual course of Custom and Nature. All things are possible with God, that do not imply a contradiction in the Terms, or are not directly repugnant to the essential Purity of the Divine Nature; but it is no more a contradiction (though more unusual) for God to speak to Man, than it is for one Man to speak to another; nor is it repugnant to the Divine Purity, to teach Man his Will, to obey which is Man's utmost perfection. We also know, from as Authentic Records of Antiquity, as any are now extant, That some Men, Eminent for Wisdom, Learning and Virtue, have affirmed, That God has spoken to them; and we have Reason enough to believe that they were certain of it, because they exposed their Lives and Fortunes, and all that is dear to Flesh and Blood, in compliance to the Doctrines they received from God: and that no room might be left for doubt, the same God that thus spoke to them, gave them power to do such things, as quite surpassed the power of Nature, and to foretell such Events, as were not possible to be guessed at by any humane Understanding. If therefore we, who by Faith believe the Doctrines taught by these inspired Authors, are deceived, we are deceived by God himself, who alone could give such Gifts of Prophecy and Miracles to the Sons of Men: And if our Faith is deceived by God, we know not but that our Reason is deceived too: For if God can deceive in one, why may we not think he may do it in the other? And then our A— is so far from being certain to get the Victory, by such Disputes, over Revealed Religion, that he cannot be certain that he disputes at all.  
A. What Mathematical Certainty have you, that the Records of these men's Prophecies are true?  
T. Matters of Fact are never the less true, for not being capable of Mathematical Demonstration. It is as true, that Julius Caesar came into England, as it is that the whole is equal to all its parts, though the Truth of his coming hither, cannot be demonstrated by any Problem in Euclid.  
A. I have heard, with great patience, your long discourse of God's speaking unto Men, and the wonderful and unintelligible Certainty from thence arising. But what (as our Author tells you) if this Notion of God's speaking unto Men, prove a mere Fancy, proceeding from a mistaken Hebraism; I hope you will be judged by the Scriptures themselves.  
T. Yes, upon these Conditions: 1. That the Authority of Scriptures may be as well urged for as against themselves. 2. That every difficulty in those Sacred Writings, shall not presently be judged a Falsehood, till there be some further demonstration of its absurdity. 3. That you allow the same liberty of deducing Consequences from Texts of Scripture, a● you take to yourselves. 4. Then that due regard be had to the Writings of the New, as well as of the Old.  
A. With all my heart. 1st. Then God revealed the Law to Moses by a true Voice, as we are told, Exod. 25. 22. but this was the only true Voice from God that ever was heard. The words of the Decalogue, according to some Men, were not spoken; they only heard a confused Noise, and so perceived the Law as then written in their Hearts; though, in truth, those Notions of Good and Evil were engrafted there long before. Nay, it is evident, that what you call Revelation, was only the Appearance of some Images to the sight, or Phantacy of the Prophet. See Chron. 22. how God shown David his Anger, by an Angel holding a Sword in his hand; and the same happened to Balaam. By Images not real, but depending upon the Phantacy of the Prophet, God revealed to Joseph, that he should have the Dominion over all his Brethren. Observe Numb. 12. 6, 7. and you will see what slight assurance was given to the other Prophets— If there be a Prophet amongst you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a Vision, and will speak unto him in a Dream.  
T. Confident Assertions, without Equivalent Strength of Reason, impose upon none but those that are willing to be cheated. It is spoken without Authority of Scripture, that God pronounced the Law only with a true and real Voice; All that we can learn from Exod. 25. 22. is, That God promised to be ready to communicate his Will to Moses, from above the Mercy-seat, and from between the two Cherubims: But that place of Scripture does not explain the manner of that Communication, so as to determine it to a real Voice; much less does it exclude all former Revelations from that privilege. Nay, nothing is more evident, than that other Revelations were made by a real Voice, before the delivery of the Law of Moses. Immediately after the Fall (Gen. 9 10.) we read, that God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy Voice in the Garden, and I was afraid. Or if our bold Author will turn this into Figure (as indeed he ventures to turn so whatsoever he pleases) yet in the 18th of Genesis, we read of a Revelation made by a real Voice, or there is no description of a real Voice in rerum natur●●; For the three Angels that appeared as Men to Abraham, and eat as Men, without doubt spoke as Men, when the promise was made to Abraham, that Sarah should bring forth a Son. When God was about to destroy the Old World, Gen. 6. he foretold that dismal Execution of Vengeance to his Servant Noah; and if you will stick to the Words of the Scripture, according to our first agreement, gave him a punctual description of the Ark he should make, and the Persons and Living Creatures, that should enter into it, which it is hard to imagine could be done without a real Voice; Or at least, it is as rational to suppose one here, as in the place cited out of Gen. 25. 22. But your Author is still more 
Quod Revelatioper solas imagines continget patet ex primo paralip. Ch. 22. v. p. 5. v. p. 3.  impudent or unwary, when he tells us it is evident from Chron. 22. that Revelation is sometimes made by Images only, and that none are capable of receiving the revealed Will of God, but only by the help of Imagination; and that the Words or Figures were sometimes real, that is, existing without the mind of the Prophet; and sometimes imaginary, that is, framed by the mind of the Prophet himself. From whence he infers, That the Certainty of Prophecy is not Mathematical, but only Moral; or rather, according to those Principles, nothing but a Fanciful Whimsy, that may as well be false or true. Now by this Author's leave, no such conclusion; nor indeed can any conclusion at all be drawn from the Mediums of Divine Revelation, that concern the Certainty or Fallibility of it: For all the Mediums of Revelation being supernatural, we may call 'em by what Names we please; yet still we must borrow those Names from some Natural Things, because of those only we have complete Ideas. He that is a Prophet, must be certain it is God who speaks to him, but the bare hearing of a Voice, or the seeing of an Image, will not create this Certainty, according to the Laws of Nature: For Voices and Words may be framed by other invisible Powers; and therefore we are not so foolish as to conclude that Moses was a Prophet of God, because he heard a Voice, or saw a Figure, but because he was enabled to show forth sensible Demonstrations, that the power of God was with him. But though we do not conclude the certainty of Revelation from the Mediums of Revelation, so is it the greatest madness in the World, to infer from thence the Uncertainty of it: For we who have not seen those Figures, nor heard those Words, nor felt those Divine Impressions, can frame no complete Ideas of them. And your bold Author draws Conclusions from such Premises, which 'tis plain he could never understand, unless he can pretend that himself has been inspired. Supposing it therefore true, that 
Preter haec nulla alia singenda, etc. p. 7.  the Scripture made mention of no other Mediums of Revelation than Signs, or Figures, and Words, yet cannot he from thence infer any Necessity of the Uncertainty of Divine Revelation, unless he could give us complete Ideas of what manner of Impressions those Words, or Signs, made upon the Minds of the Prophets; Which is a matter impossible for him to teach, or us to learn. One Man can inform another of his Mind, by Words and Figures, and why must God be excluded from that power which he gives his Creature? But after all, it is not true, that Words and Figures are the only Mediums of Divine Revelation, which the Scriptures mention. There is a Communication of the Spirit of God, immediately infusing Knowledge into the Mind, without any Organs of Speech, or Corporeal Representations; which yet is as infallible as the other. Joh. 16. 17. Our Saviour promises his Disciples, That the Spirit of Truth should lead them into all Truth: And this Communication of the Spirit we call Inspiration, using a Metaphorical Word to express a Notion, which we cannot possibly receive from the bare knowledge of Nature. And though this Spirit appeared to the Apostles, (Acts 2.) in the shape of Cloven Tongues, yet we read it bestowed upon them, and upon others in the Primitive Times, the Gift of Drivers Languages, before utterly unknown unto them, by a secret and invisible Operation. If therefore the Spirit of God can reveal to the Mind of Man, without the help of those Mediums, the signification of Words; why may it not also, after the same, or any other manner, communicate the certain knowledge of Things, which is all we contend for.  
A. I wonder you will mention the Spirit of God, which our Author shows, is a Word of Various, and consequently dubious signification. The Scripture-Phrase, That the Spirit of God is in the Prophets; That Men are filled with the Spirit of God; and the like, does signify no more, than that the Prophets were good Men, and that they perceived the Will of God, as all Men (though perhaps in a less degree, must needs do by the Light of Nature.) But all this is but the Imagination of the Prophet, considered with relation to the Apprehensions of the Vulgar: And pray, Sir, what certainty is there in bare Imagination?  
T. If by Imagination you understand the Power of the Mind, to receive, retain, or frame the Images of External Objects, it may be considered with relation to things present, past, or to come. External Objects, when present, impress such Vivid Images upon the Brain, as will not suffer the Mind to doubt of their real Existence. The same Certainty (though something short of Infallibility,) is left upon the Mind, by Objects represented to the Senses, when the Objects themselves are past and gone. He that sees an Horse or Elephant present, by the Images impressed on the Brain, knows that they are present, and by reflecting on the same Images the next day, he knows that they were present: And thus far Imagination is a certain Repository of Knowledge; though not altogether infallible, because through defect of the Organs, (as in Mad Men) the Images framed by the Mind itself, are apprehended as existing without it; but those who are in their Wits, are never imposed upon by their Imaginations after that manner, as to think they hear Voices, when they hear none; or see Images of things, that are not near them. Men thus deluded by Imagination, always show signs of the Distemper, in inconsistency of Thought, and wild Roving of Expression, which I defy any man to observe in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets, though some things therein are hard to be understood, and may seem uncouth to us, by reason of long distance of Times, Ignorance of the Customs, Histories and Language of those Times, and many other Reasons, which I forbear to mention, as obvious enough without it. In short, either God did send Messages to his Servants the Prophets, by the visible appearance of Angels, and spoke to them in Voices, or their Imaginations framed all these Appearances to itself, from the shattered Images of other External Objects. If the first of these is true, your Author very impertinently concludes the Uncertainty of Prophecy from the Uncertainty of Imagination; for that Faculty does faithfully enough receive and preserve the Images of things really presented to it; and herein the Certainty of Imagination differs not from the Certainty of our Senses. If he means the latter, the Prophets than were no better than Pious Mad Men, and all the Sacred Writings are mere Fictions of the Mind, which own all the little Truth that is in them, to mere Chance, which I perceive, however disguised, is the genuine meaning of your admired Author. But if Moses and the other Prophets, were distempered by a less Imagination, how comes it to pass, that they are all so constant in the Doctrine of Piety? For I am sure our Modern Mad Men (who are never consistent with themselves, or one another,) are very much different from his description of the Ancients: Or how come their Predictions to be verified by the Event? Or how come the whole Nation of the Jews to be such Fools as to follow Mad Men? Or how did such a Mad Man as Moses, attain the power of working Miracles, and of leading the Children of Israel through the Wilderness, and governing them with Prudence and Moderation? But if God himself made these Revelations to them, it is nonsense to infer any uncertainty for the Mediums God uses for the Work; For it is in his Power to create Certainty of Divine Revelation, without the help of Mediums, as in the case of Inspiration, or by whatsoever means he pleases, as those of Words of Figures.  
A. You know very well, that the Mind can compound various Images, and thence conclude more Propositions than can be known by deductions from the sole Light of Reason; and thence it is the Prophets teach more of Religion than can be known by Nature only.  
T. The true Reason is this: God knows more than Man, what is necessary to make him happy; and therefore those who are taught by God, can declare more concerning the means of Salvation, than those who are guided by the sole Light of Nature.  
A. Well, still I have some Reason to think, that Prophecy was the pure Work of the Imagination. 1. The Prophets perceived and uttered all things by Parables and Riddles, expressing Spiritual things after a Corporal manner. 2. It was, as Imagination always is, very inconstant, not adhering to the Prophet, but coming by fits and starts, according to the unsteady leaps of Fancy.  
T. But I have better Reasons to persuade me, that your Author is in a most egregious error for futurities; i e. things which neither are, nor have been, cannot make impression upon the Fancy, according to the Laws of Nature, which may produce any tolerable degree of Certainty; and therefore when Futurities are foretold, which depend not upon any necessary connexion of natural causes, it must be asserted by the supernatural Power of God. The Mind may indeed be imposed upon by help of the Imagination, several ways, in respect to things to come; as when from the remembrance of what is past, it concludes that the same will happen again, though there be no necessary connexion between the Cause and the Effect: Or, (2.) When from its vast Magazine of Images, it chooses out, and joins those together, which ought not to be joined, and concludes their future Existence, from an ill conceived Notion of their bare possibility of Being. And herein the Mind frequently imposes upon its self, by its own Passions and Desires, concluding such things will be, which it most desires should come to pass hereafter. But such possible and impossible compositions of the Fancy, or conclusion of the deluded Reason of Mankind, are of so vast a number, that it is impossible all, or any great number of them should prove true, without the Predictions were made by God himself. How could Imagination, out of thousands of possible Circumstances of our Saviour's Birth, pick out all those by the Prophets, which would certainly come to pass, as we can easily prove from the holy Scriptures? or how could it avoid predicting something that was false, if it had only probability to work upon, which is the only Object of Fancy, in regard to future Events, which never made any impression upon it? We therefore conclude the certainty of Prophecy, not from the Nature of Imagination, but from the knowledge and power that God has, to make whatsoever impressions he pleases upon it. And though the Prophets frequently did perceive and speak by corporal representations of spiritual matters, that might very well be presumed to be done, in compliance to the apprehensions of the people, who at that time were very ignorant, standing more in need of Milk than of robuster diet. And though God did declare his mind, as one man may to another, by Hieroglyphic Representations, yet those never disturbed the Reason of the Prophet, nor caused him to entertain gross conceptions of God. Fancy let lose, makes such a Medley of Religion, as may be found in the Metamorphosis of Ovid, or the Iliads of Homer, or the Remains of Orpheus; but it cannor produce such a regular Structure of Divine Doctrine, and so agreeable to Natural Religion, as is contained in the Law of Moses, and the Gospel of our blessed Saviour.  
A. But why did they not prophesy always?  
T. Why does not one man always speak to another?  
A. Because Man is a free Agent, and can speak to his Neighbour when he pleases, or can let it alone.  
T. And so is God, who does not send all men to be Messengers of his Will, but some only, chosen out of Mankind for so great a work. Nor does he choose to speak always to them, but at such times and seasons as pleases him.  
A. What then do you conclude from this long discourse?  
T. I conclude, that since no Man can frame a complete Idea of Prophetic Dream, or Vision, or Inspiration, who is not himself a Prophet, no Man can conclude any incertainty in Prophecy, from the mention the Scripture makes of those Mediums of Divine Revelation.  
A. I will consider what you say, and tell you my Opinion at our next meeting. Farewell.  

Conference II.  
T. SIR, You seem very much pleased: I hope you received some satisfaction by my last discourse.  
A. It bore some Face of Reason at first appearance, but my Author has furnished me with some New Objections, which I fear, with all your Priest-craft, you will never be able to answer. You talk of Prophets, as 
p. 15.  Great Men inspired by God, when it is evident, that their Minds were as far inferior to other men's, as Reason is superior to Fancy. Solomon was a wise man, but no Prophet. We must not therefore seek the knowledge either of human or divine things from the Writings of Prophets, i. e. of Men led by Fancy, but Philosophers, who are guided by Reason.  
T. That is, from Men taught by themselves, and not taught by God.  
A. If a man was sure that these Prophets were taught by God, he would desire to have no better Masters: But alas! they were not certain of their own Inspiration, by the Revelation itself, but some other little sign, adapted to their human Education, Opinion, or preconceived knowledge.  
T. If they perceived the Will of God by Imagination (which are the words of your Author), and yet remained doubtful of it, than it follows either that God was not willing, or not able to give them assurance that himself spoke to them. If you say, he was not willing, you contradict the Testimonies of Scripture, by which you pretend at first you would be judged, and you subvert all Fundamentals of Natural Religion, which teaches nothing more plainly, than that God cannot deceive. If you say, he was willing, but not able, you must deny him to have that power, which is not only contained in the Idea of a Deity, but manifested in the other works of his hands. The Prophets therefore doubted not but it was God who spoke to them, though they sometimes required a sign, to confirm the truth of some Promise made to their Posterity; as Gen. 15. 8. where Abraham required not a sign, that he might be certain it was God that spoke to him (for if he had not been well assured 
Act. 7. 3.  of that, we cannot think he would have left his Father's house, to sojourn in Canaan, in Obedience to a Divine Command, as we read in the 12th Chap.) but that he might thereby assure his Posterity of the Promise, to engage them to a nearer and stricter Covenant with their God. Or perhaps Abraham was desirous by some farther Revelation, accompanied by a sign, to know something more particular concerning the Time, and other Circumstances, of his Posterity Conquest of the Land of Canaan, which God vouchsafed to give him, as we read in the latter part of the same chap. But your Author trifles, when he infers from this 15th ch. of Gen. that the Patriarch required a sign, that he might be certain the Promise was made by God himself; since it is evident from v. 6. that he believed in God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, before the sign there mentioned was given to him. As for Judges 6. we read, that Gideon was informed by an Angel, in the shape of a Man, that he should free Israel from the Midianitish slavery, of which at first he doubted; but after the consumption of the food he brought by fire, and the disappearance of the heavenly Minister, he perceived it was an Angel of God. But what is this to your Author's purpose? Suppose the certainty of one or two Revelations depended upon a sign, does it thence follow, as he wildly concludes, that no Prophet could he sure of a Divine Revelation without a sign? Do we not read of many Divine Revelations, of the truth of which the Prophets never doubted, wherein there was no sign given, but the certainty arose from the perspicuity of the Revelation itself. God does not confine himself to any one way of speaking to Mankind, but (Heb. 1. 1.) in divers manners spoke in time passed unto the Fathers by the Prophets. Sometimes indeed, as in this instance of Gideon, the person to whom God by his Angel appeared, was not at first certain that it was God, till by further illumination, and repeated signs and wonders, he was suffered no longer to doubt of it. When 
Numb. 3. Act. 7. 30.  Moses first saw the Bush burning with fire, and the Bush not consumed, he turned aside to behold it, as a strange sight; and when God sent his Angels to Abraham, he took them at first sight for Men, and made accordingly provision for their reception; and when God called twice unto Samuel, he supposed it was the voice of Ely: And yet he made afterwards such manifestation of himself, to Moses, and those 
See Exod. 4. 2, 8, 9, 14. ver.  other good men, that they wanted no sign to be themselves assured of his presence, but rather to convict others, that they were sent by God. We don't say, that God, by every appearance of an Angel to the Sons of Men, darted an infallible certainty into their Minds, that left no room for suspicion, but that he could do so whensoever he pleased, as is evident by Reason; and that he did frequently do so, as is no less plain from the Scriptures; and that he added sometimes Signs, for the satisfaction of those to whom the Revelations were made, (for, with the Jews, we will not call them all Prophets), and sometimes he added none, when the perception was clear enough without it.  
A. Is not Natural Reason superior then to Revelation, since that is supported by Signs, and the other perspicuous enough without it?  
T. The consequence is vain and fallacious. The substance of the Decalogue is plainly true by the light of Nature, yet it was confirmed to the Jews by Signs and Wonders, at its most remarkable promulgation, Exod. 20. God therefore by confirming Natural Light by Signs and Wonders, according to your Author, did that which was superfluous, As if the unlearned, obstinate, or unthinking part of the people of Israel, stood in no need of being roused up as it were to Natural Duties, by Supernatural Signs and Wonders: Or as if the Decalogue, by addition of Miracles, became inferior to the very same Laws, without any such addition, which is altogether as true as that 4 and 2  less than 4. As for Duties which are known by Revelation only, (such as Circumcision, Baptism and Supper of our Lord) when once they are made known, by supernatural methods, they no ways give place to the unwritten Law of Nature, because they become branches of that general Obedience to God, which is the adequate Law of human Nature. When God bid Abraham sacrifice his Son, he was as much obliged to kill him, as he was obliged before that Command to preserve his Life.  
S. I won't dispute with you about small matters, but this is evident, that Signs were 
p. 18.  given to the Prophets, according to their preconceived Opinions, and their different Capacities: so that the same sign which rendered one Prophet certain of divine Revelation, would have wrought no such effect upon another. If their Temper was sanguine, they fancied nothing but Triumphs, Victories, Messiahs, Peace and Plenty: If their blood was vitiated with melancholy humours, they dreamed of Wars, Tumults, Blood and Devastations.  
L. The sign was, for the most part, the power of working some supernatural effect, given to the Prophet, to convince rather others, than himself, that he was sent by God, and delivered his Message to the people; and because all Mankind have not the same temperature of body, nor labour under the same prejudices of Education, nothing can be a sufficient sign, but what is so far above the ordinary works of Nature, that Men of all Temperatures, and all Opinions too, if they are in their Senses, must needs confess, that it is the immediate work of a superior invisible power. Upon this Foundation we raise the certainty of the Mosaic, and of the Christian Religion; Let any man, of what Temperature, and possessed with what Prejudices you please, provided he be not stark mad, (for Bethlem is to be excluded from all Disputations) consider what Moses did in the sight of all the Egyptians, and the people of Israel, and what our Saviour did in all parts of Judea, and let him then persuade himself, or others, that all this was done, or possible to be done, by the ordinary course and power of Nature. If he can do that, we will yield our Cause, and confess our Religion was never confirmed by Signs from Heaven; for Effects that may be, or may not be Natural, may be some Indications, but no Demonstrations of a superior invisible power. The truth is, the Sparks of your Principles, were never, I believe, so mad as to confess the truth of all those mighty works, recorded to have been done by Moses and the Prophets, or our Saviour himself, and yet doubt of their divine Mission; for I presume every man who believes our Saviour to have raised himself, or others from the Grave, must necessarily believe his divine Mission: And as for the minor Prophets, their Messages being of less extent, and less consequence to mankind, there was no necessity that all of them should have their Commission signed from Heaven, and recorded to posterity, by the same number and perspicuity of supernatural Wonders, as was that of Moses, and of our blessed Saviour. Your Author therefore very impudently, and ignorantly too, asserts, that the Sign was adapted to the Temperature, or Opinion, or Imagination of the Prophet; when it was always some supernatural work, adapted to convince the Reason of all Mankind, and impossible to be gain-sayed by any.  
S. Did not Elisha call for a Musical Instrument, 
p. 19  before he could foretell joyful things to Jehoram, and his two Confederates? which he could not do before, because he was angry at him, 2 King. 3. 15. Ezekiel being impatient of Life, was enabled to foretell dreadful tidings to the Jewish Nation, Ez. 3. 14. Jeremiah was a melancholy, and consequently a continual Messenger of Evil to his brethren: Micah troubled with the same disease, always prophesied dreadful Events to Ahab; which plainly shows, that Prophecy did much depend upon the natural Temperature of the body.  
L. No more than my sending a merrily disposed Servant upon an Errand, does show that my Errand was an effect of the sanguine complexion of my Servant's Body. God, who knows the Disposition and Temperature of all human Bodies, may choose those that are best adapted for each particular Message he sends to Mankind; but that is no Argument, that the Message itself is any effect of their natural disposition. For we are not so mad as to believe these Men were inspired, because they spoke of things agreeable to their own humours, but things above the reach of humane knowledge. Elisha might dispel some melancholy Fumes, by the harmony of Music, but I would feign know the Name of that Musical Instrument, which could inspire his mind with the knowledge of those two futurities. 1. That the ditches should be filled with water, without any preceding rain. 2. That 
Vid. ver. 17, 18.  the Israelites should overcome their Enemies. Moses was angry with Pharaoh, when he foretold the destruction of all the first born of Egypt, but it was not his Anger, but God himself, or one of his Angels, that at midnight smote all the first born of the land of Egypt, Ex. 12. 20. Micah always prophesied Evil to Ahab, because Ahab always was an ill man, and there was evil decreed against him by God, which accordingly came to pass, not by Micah's indignation, but by the just Judgement of God. If these men's predictions had been an effect of bodily temper, (and if your Author says not that, he says not one word to the purpose) they must frequently have been proved false by the Event: For Truth is seldom seen, much less foreseen, by those who speak and act according to the unsteady motions of bodily temper. Besides, it is clearer than the Light, that these inspired Authors did not prophesy, as your Author insinuates, according to their own Inclinations, but according to what they received from the Spirit of God. The Scriptures bear witness, that Moses was a very meek man; and therefore, according to your Author's silly Hypothesis, all Revelations proceeding through him, should have been full of nothing but Meekness and Gentleness, and the Sanctions should have consisted chief of alluring promises; and yet we Read in Exod. 20. That the Law of Moses was delivered in a terrible manner, by Thunder and Lightning in the Mount. And Deut. 28. 15. Moses utters so many Curses against the transgressor of the Law, as must needs proceed from something very much different from the description he gives of his own meek and gentle Spirit. Elijah will be allowed by your Author, to have been a person of a fierce disposition, as may be seen by his calling for Fire down from Heaven, upon the Captains of Fifties, and killing the Worshippers of Baal; and from our Saviour's rebuke to his Disciples, when they would have had him call down for Fire from Heaven, after Elijah's Example, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: and yet not only so, but he was incensed against Ahab, by provocations of the highest Nature, because by his and Jezebels command, (1 King. 19 14.) The Children of Israel had forsaken the Covenant of his God, thrown down his Altars, and Slain his Prophets with the Sword, and he only was left, and they sought his Life also. Nay, Ahab had made up the measure of his iniquity, by depriving Naboth of his Vineyard, and his Life, yet when the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, he became the Messenger of good News to Ahab, 1 King. 21. 29. Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the Evil in his Days. Isaiah was undoubtedly a Person of a very Sweet and Aimable temper, of a Noble Family, and well practised in all the Arts and Language of a flourishing Court, as this A— well enough observes from that flowing vein of Eloquence which runs through all his Writings; and his Prophecy is so full of Promises of good things to the Church, that he is styled, the Evangelical Prophet; and yet he was sent by God as a Messenger of ill News, even to the good Hezekiah. Is. 39 6. Behold the days come, when all that is in thy house, and that which thy Fathers laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon, nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And if any man read ch. 53. of his Prophecy, he will find such a description 
Isa. 53.  of a suffering Messiah, as could not have entered into the Head of such an accomplished Courtier, without the assistance of divine Inspiration. Jeremiah was a man of sorrow, and yet your Author cannot say, that none but Revelation of sorrowful things were made to him, for he foretold the Restauration of the Jews, and the precise time of it, which certainly was not very sorrowful matter. I could heap up innumerable instances of the same Nature, to show your Author's Foundation he would build upon, (Viz. That Prophecy was adapted, to the Natural temper of the Prophet, from whence he would undoubtedly insinuate, it was only an effect of it) is false, and repugnant to the United Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures. Besides, who could inform this Temerarious Author of the Natural Constitution of the Bodies of the Ancient Prophets? Who knows not that the humours of the Body, are much altered, both for the better and the worse, by External accidents, whether sad, or joyful. What wonder then that those Prophets who lived in the Peaceable and Flourishing State of the Church, as Isaiah did for some time, and to whom joyful things were for the most part revealed, should be of a joyful Spirit, and the contrary be recorded of these, who were sent upon sad and mournful Messages? Which is most likely, that the message should be cause of the Joy? Or the Joy be the cause of the message?  
S. To me, the Scales seem to hang even.  
L. But then, are those predictions, whether Joyous, or Mournful, Proved always to be true by the event? I hope that is enough to turn the Scale on the Prophet's side.  
S. You may say what you please, but still you shall never make me believe, but that if God spoke to Man, he would always speak in the same Style, and that Style would be the most elegant and florid of any other. But if you compare the first of Isaiah from Ver. 11. to 20. with the 5th of Amos, from 21 to 24 ver. etc. You will find that the Style of the Prophets is not always the same, but according to their several capacities; it is sometimes brief, and sometimes long; sometimes elegant, and sometimes rude; in some places very plain, and in others full of obscurity.  
L. Difference of Style is no Argument of difference in things, nor is the Elegance, or Rudeness of a Language, essential to the conveyance of Truth. The History of Sallust is as true as that of Livy; for he wrote of things done in his own time; whereas Livy is full of fabulous Relations; and yet I never 
p. 20.  heard any Critic affirm, That his Style is as complete and elegant. It is enough for us to believe, that God revealed his Will to the Prophets, and other inspired Authors, but left the Narration to the natural Abilities of the Prophets, whose Style might vary, but not their conceptions of the will of God.  
S. But why then did he not always choose Men of the most elegant Style to be his Prophets.  
L. Because it being intended for the good of all Mankind, it ought to be adapted to the meanest Capacities. As men of great, natural and acquired Abilities, were fittest to stand before Kings and Princes, so were Rustics and illiterate persons most fit to speak to the capacity of the Vulgar.  
S. Well, I will grant, that difference of Style is no very material Objection; but what if the Hierogliphics, and Prophetical Representations were various also? Did not Isaiah see God sitting upon a Throne high and lifted up, and his Train filled the Temple, Is. 6. But Ezekiel beheld him as a fire, of the colour of Amber. Is it not plain, that both saw God in the same manner, as their respective imagination did before the Vision represent him to them?  
L. Not in the least: All that the Scripture says, is, That God made himself known by those different Representations to Isaiah and Ezekiel; does it therefore follow, that they made these Representations to themselves, out of their own Fancy? If these Hieroglyphics were really represented to them by God, what necessity was there, that they should be adapted to erroneous prejudices of the Prophet? Such Revelations would be productive of Error, and God would thereby become the Author, Abetter, and Confirmer of Falsehood in the World; which none will affirm, but those who think God to be nothing else but the settled course of dull and stupid matter. If the heat of their own Imagination coined these Images to its self, than Isaiah and Ezekiel were perfectly mad men, and their writings no more worthy to be preserved, than the rambling discourses of the Inhabitants of Bedlam. Nay, admitting this, they must be presumed to have been the greatest Fools of all the Jewish Nation. For, how could men instructed in the Mosaic Law, which forbids all corporal Representations of God, because they saw no similitude of him in the Mount, frame such gross conceptions of God, as of a King sitting upon a Throne, or a flaming fire? Or if they used to fancy God after that manner, how does it come to pass their writings are not tarnished by such gross conceptions, but that in them we find clear Notions of his spiritual and incomprehensible Nature?  
S. Ay, but the Revelations to the Prophets did vary not only in the manner, but in the perspicuity of the Revelation its self. Those made to Zachariah were so obscure, that without an Explication they could not be understood by that very Prophet. And Daniel could not understand his, when they were explained by an Angel to him. Why therefore should we trouble our Heads with the Writings of those Men, who scarce knew what they wrote themselves?  
L. He is a Prophet that certainly knows that God speaks to him in a supernatural manner: of this Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, nor any of those doubted, whom the Jewish Church received as Prophets. As for the Subject-matter of their Prophecy, it was not necessary 
p 20.  that the Prophet should understand all that was enclosed in that, much less that he should perceive it by the first View of the Hieroglyphical Representations, till informed of the matter by an Angel sent from God: For he being only a Messenger from God, it is necessary he should be certain that it is God that sends him; but 'tis not equally necessary that he should always understand the whole Subject-matter of his Message. For even Temporal Monarches send enclosed Instructions by their Ambassadors; and since the Message itself did not so much concern the Prophet, as some part or Age of the Catholic Church; and therefore it was enough for him to deliver the Message faithfully, as he received it, without Explaining all that is hard to be understood therein: And yet after all, the Scripture only says, That the Angel explained the Hieroglyphics to Daniel, and that Daniel fainted and was sick, 
Dan. 7. 28. and 8. 27.  and his thoughts much troubled him, perhaps by contemplation of those many Evils that were to befall his people.  
S. O you mistake the matter; for we read, ch. 11. 14. That the Angel came on purpose to make Daniel understand what should befall his people in the latter days— And the matter still remained obscure, because none at 
Chap. 21.  that time had strength enough to imagine such a wonderful business.  
L. This seems to me to be one of the most absurdest assertions that ever dropped from the Pen of an Author pretending to Reason. For, 1. It sets bounds to the power of God, as if he was willing, but not able to declare his mind to Daniel, nor to any of that are, with plainness and perspicuity suitable to the Subject. 2. It supposes strength of Imagination to hear a real voice, which is a new stroke of Philosophy. 3. It supposes Daniel able to hear some words of the Angel, but not all that concerned his people, as if the Angel was so short-breathed, as not to be able to tell out all the story, or Daniel so weak in his capacity, that it was beyond the power of God himself to enable him to understand the matter.  
S. I cannot conceive, but that if the Prophets had been taught of God, they must have known all things; but we see the Author of Joshua's History Erroneously apprehended the Sun to turn round the Earth; whereas all modern Virtuoso's agree, that the Earth turns round the Sun. Solomon understood not the true proportion between the Periphery, and Diametre of the Circle. Nay, I can show you, from the testimonies of the very Scriptures, That the Prophets had very vulgar and erroneous Apprehensions of God himself.  
L. If you can make out that last thing, I will acknowledge you speak much to the purpose.  
S. Adam apprehended God as ignorant of what he had done, and hid himself from him; which shows, he had no other Notion of him, than his being the Creator of the World. In the same manner was God revealed to Cain and Lamech, as ignorant of Humane Affairs. And it appears from Gen. 18. 4. Abraham knew not that God was an Omnipresent and Omniscient Being.  
L. Did God tell Adam, or Cain, or Lamech, that he was only the Maker of the World, but ignorant of Humane Affairs.  
S. No.  
L. How then can God be said to be revealed as thus ignorant, unto them, when it is Evident their ignorance preceded the Divine Revelation, and was not occasioned by it? We do not say, that inspired Authors knew all things; for Omniscience is an incommunicable Attribute of God; much less, that they knew all things before God was pleased to reveal his mind unto them; but, that they had an infallible certainty, that God did speak to 'em, and that whatsoever he said was true. As for your Supposition, That Adam knew God only as the Creator of the World; it is almost as much as to say, Adam knew God only, as he knew all that is to be known of him. For the visible things of the Creation, make known an invisible power of Godhead. We cannot suppose Adam could know, that himself and the whole world was made by a superior Being, and yet at the same time not know, that this superior Being was endued with Wisdom, Goodness and Power. Nay, so far is it from Truth, that Adam, when he hid himself in the Garden, only knew God as Maker of the World; that he had received a Command from him as Lawgiver, at the very moment, for aught we know, of his Creation, Gen. 2. 16, 17. And the Lord commanded the man, saying, Of every Tree of the Garden thou mayest freely eat— But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, tho● shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. If therefore Adam apprehended not God as Omniscient and Omnipresent, he needed not have hid himself from him; for he was pretty sure, that God did not with bodily Eyes behold him taking the Forbidden Fruit; but his Fear, Amazement and Confession, without doubt, arose from the Notion he had of his invisible Power and Godhead. For Omniscience and Omnipresence are inseparably intervoven into the very Notion of a God, as he is Creator of the World. For the First Cause must be united to every Effect; otherwise there would be an Effect without a Cause; and this First Cause must know this Union; otherwise it would act by chance; from whence it unavoidably follows, That if the first Cause know any thing, it must know all things, since all things have a like dependence upon it. Tho the Scripture therefore represents God, as walking in the Garden, etc. Yet this may well be understood of some Angel sent by God upon that message, it being familiar with the Scriptures to ascribe some things to God, which were apparently done by the Ministry of his Holy Angels— Nor does it follow, that Adam thought God to be ignorant of humane Affairs, because he endeavoured to hid himself from him; For all Fear, and especially that which has Gild for its Parent, is apt in its own Nature, to disorder men's Reason, and to make them do absurd things, for which no sufficient Reason can be given. If a man for Fear, whether real or imaginary, should, to avoid the Sword of his Enemy, throw himself down a precipitating Rock, into the Waves of the Sea, or run into the Flames of a devouring Fire, it does not follow, that this man thought that the Water could not drown, nor the Fire burn, nor the Rock dash him to pieces; but we may rather conclude, that the imagination of some impending danger, made such violent impressions upon his Brain, as for the present drove thence the use of clear and impartial Reason. Adam was sensible of Gild, and the Fear of Punishment threw him into absurd and ridiculous measures to escape it; but we must not ascribe that to his Reason, which was manifestly an Effect of his Fear and Terror. Besides, whatever your Author observes of the Ignorance of Adam, or Cain, etc. reflects nor Diminution upon revealed Light, but rather upon his adored Light of Nature. For if Adam thought God was not Omniscient or Omnipresent, it was because the Light of Reason gave him no truer a Notion of a God. Your Author indeed would insinuate, That God was revealed to him as ignorant of Humane Affairs; but than it must be in some Bible that lies under the Author's sole possession; for no such thing is mentioned in any of those which I have hitherto seen in the World.  
S. But was not God revealed as ignorant of Humane Affairs to Cain, when he asked him, (Gen. 10. 8.) Where is Abel thy brother?  
L. No: the direct contrary is more apparent: for when Cain denied the Murder, in a very surly Dialect, viz. Am I my Brother's Keeper? He was made to understand, that though his Murder was hid perhaps from Man, it was open to the sight of God.  
S. But does not his Question suppose he thought otherwise?  
L. Wicked Men may think as they please; but their thoughts throw less Aspersion upon revealed Light, than they do upon the Light of Nature. Cain committed Murder upon Abel, will your Author therefore conclude, that God was revealed to Cain as approving Murder? or that Murder is agreeable to the Light of Nature? And yet Cain's speaking against Natural Light, in seeming to disown the Omniscience of God, is no more an Argument, that he thought God not to be Omniscient, than the kill his brother, was an Argument, that he thought God to be a lover of Injustice, or an approver of the shedding of innocent blood. Wicked men will corrupt their natural Notions of moral good and evil, as well as the more speculative Ideas of the Attributes of God; but all that we can conclude from thence, is the necessity of Divine Revelation, to prevent Atheism, Deism and Idolatry, or Polytheism; and to ensure the most binding Sanctions of Rewards and Punishments, upon the immutable Laws of Nature.  
S. Some Men will deny Motion, when their Tongues are running so fast, that no Man can be heard but themselves. Was not Abraham ignorant, that God was Omnipresent and Omniscient, when he begged of him not to execute his Sentence of Vengeance, till he knew whether all were worthy of that punishment, or no? And does not God himself speak thus (at least in the Imagination of Abraham,) Gen. 18. 20. Because the Cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the Cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I shall know.  
L. Abraham's words to God, viz. Peradventure there be Fifty righteous in the City, contain no more than a Petition, that God would spare a great number of wicked persons, for the sake of a few righteous therein; He does not presume that God did not know how many righteous there were there, but he prays, that if Fifty were found, all the wicked might for their sakes escape their intended destruction. In v. 20. we have an Assertion, That God had knowledge of the sin of Sodom, for the Cry was great before him. And what we read, v. 20. of God's descending to know whether it was so or no, is but the continuation of a Metaphor drawn from the like Actions in Men; a Figure used in most Authors, and not unfrequent in the holy Scriptures; where we often read of his Hand, his Arm, or his Eyes; and yet the Jews were never so stupid as to worship God under the Sculpture of any such Corporeal Representations.  
S. If you would read the 3d and 4th Chapters of Exodus impartially, you would find, that Moses himself had no adequate Notion of a God: For God was revealed to him, as ignorant of humane Actions. For though God told him, Chap. 3. v. 28. That the People of Israel would hearken to his Voice; Moses, Chap. 4. v. 1. Answered, Behold they will not believe me, nor hearken to my Voice, for they will say, the Lord hath not appeared unto thee.  
L. Believing, being an Act of the understanding and the will, jointly co-operating together, none but God can foresee, which way the will of Man, when left to its Native liberty, will incline itself. As for Men, they can only make probable Conjectures of it, from reason and experience in humane Affairs: But Moses could not conceive from either of these, how it was likely, or possible, that the children of Israel should believe him upon his bare word, that he was sent by God to deliver them from Egyptian Slavery; his assertion therefore, Behold they will not believe me, proceeded not from his ignorance of the Nature of God, but from his knowledge of the manners of Men, and especially the children of Israel, who, he easily conjectured, would not believe him, without a Miracle, nor indeed, was it at all reasonable that they should have been so Prodigal of their assent, to one that had no Commission signed from Heaven, by the Power of working Signs and Wonders. But how does his suing for the Power of Miracles, at all argue that he had no true Notion of God? Or how do errors (provided they were such, though indeed they were not) occasioned by the deficiency of Natural Light, reflect any Aspersion upon the plenitude of Divine Revelation? For whatever Moses might say to God, we don't read that God ever said unto Moses, that he was ignorant of humane Actions. Some Divines indeed, who with your Author pretend to the highest adoration of humane reason, have asserted, that God is ignorant of those future contingents, which depend upon the free will of Man, and if this be true, Moses, interpreted by your Author, had as true a Notion of God, as many of the Ancient Philosophers, or some of the Modern Arminians, Socinians, and Priests themselves, though it is clear by the Holy Scriptures, that God by his Prophets has foretold those Actions, which depend upon the free will of Man.  
S. And is this all you have to say?  
L. No, I will add, that though God had told Moses, ver. 18. of the 3d Chapter, That the Children of Israel would hearken to his Voice, Yet at the same time, he informed him, ver. 20. That he would stretch out his Arm, and Smite Egypt with all his Wonders. The Words therefore of Moses, Behold they will not believe me, nor hearken to my Voice, imply no contradiction to those words of God himself, v. 18. Chap. 3. Because they relate to a different time. It was true, what God told Moses, that the children of Israel would hearken to his Voice, when it was confirmed by Signs and Wonders, which were wrought in the Land of Egypt, and it was true, what Moses said to God, that they would not believe him, nor hearken to his Voice, before those Signs and Wonders were wrought before them. It does not appear from hence, that Moses doubted of the Knowledge of God, but only longed for that assistance of his Power, by which God had told him, he would free the Israelites from the slavery of Bondage and Error. Besides, (Ex. 4. 8.) God was revealed to Moses, as foreknowing, that though the Israelites might at first despise, yet at last they would hearken to the voice of Moses.  
S. All this seems to me to be nothing but Evasion Moses himself had wrong Notions of the Nature of God. He looked upon him as a Being, that always was, is, and ever shall be, and for that reason called him Jehovah, but he taught nothing of his Nature, but that he was Merciful, Living, and very Jealous of Tranferring his Honour 
p. 24.  to another.  
L. If Moses conceived no right notion of a God, Pray let us know your Author's Opinion upon that Subject.  
S. My Author gives no Definitions, but it is plain from the 26th page, that he looks upon Moses Conceptions of Love, and Mercy, and Jealousy, (which are humane passions) when ascribed to God, to be very erroneous, mean, and vulgar.  
L. They cannot be conceived erroneous, unless you can prove, that Moses thereby ascribes something to God, that is imperfect, or vicious in its own Nature, which I presume you will never be able to do. Love, as it is a humane passion, may be vicious when placed upon a wrong object, as when we love those things which are forbidden, or when it is too remiss, or too vehement, in respect of those objects upon which it is placed: But as it is a Principle of doing Good, and Fruitful of Beneficial Emanations to Men and Angels, it is the Perfection and Glory of the Divine Nature, in so much that the Apostle is not afraid to say, that God is Love itself.  
S. But what think you of Pity, Mercy, Jealousy, are those passions worthily ascribed unto God?  
L. Yes, very worthily, provided you remove from thence those imperfections, which unavoidably arise from the Nature of a humane Soul, and the contexture of a humane body. All our Affections are accompanied with some violent perturbation of the body, which cannot be in God, who is an incorporeal Being. Wherefore tho Pity, Jealousy and Anger be attributed to God, for want of proper and intelligible Names to express something that is like them in the Divine Nature; yet we cannot conceive Moses so stupid, as to think that God felt the same perturbations that Men are sensible of in their afflictions. The Scripture represents God as resolved to punish unrepenting sinners; and this Resolution it calls his Anger; and it shows us, that God is ready to secure the afflicted, and to extend his Pardon to some, who according to strict Justice are unworthy of it; and his Propensity to those voluntary Favours Moses calls by the Name of Mercy: and his Eternal Decree, That his Honour should not be given to his Creatures, by an easy Metaphor is styled Jealousy. But all this includes no Erroneous Apprehensions of God, it only expresses these attributes which are known by the light of Nature, in such words as are most intelligible to all the different Degrees of Men in the World.  
S. You may fancy what Figures you please, but can you show any good reason, why Moses must be understood to speak in a Figurative sense?  
L. Because in this Life we all see God, darkly, as through a glass, and therefore cannot in all things speak properly of him as he is, but must be compelled by necessity to transfer some words from those things we more perfectly understand, to signify those Perfections in God, which are less perfectly understood by us.  
S. I wonder you will deny, That the Revelation was adapted to the Capacity of the Prophet, when so many Instances of it are brought by this Author, extracted from your very Bibles. Moses thought God was in a peculiar manner, Governor of the Jews, but that the Government of other Countries was left to inferior Deities, who were called, the Gods of other Nations. See for this, Exod. 15. 11. and 2 Chron. 32. 19 He also absurdly dreamt, That God, who is every where, was confined to live in Heaven. For this, see Deut. 33. 27. Ionas presumed himself able to fly from the very presence of God. Solomon despised all the Laws prescribed to a King, though he was esteemed the wisest of all the Jewish Nation. The Doctrine of Ezekiel, is directly opposite to the Doctrine taught by Moses; as you will find, if you compare his 18 Chap. with the 7th. Ver. of the 31 of Exod. or the 18th. of the 22d. of Jeremiah. Samuel believed, that God never repent of his Decree, See 15. Sam. ver. 29. Jeremiah taught, that God, upon condition of Repentance, did reverse his Decree of Judgement against notorious Sinners. It appears from Gen. 4. v. 7. That Man has power to resist Temptation; but St. Paul teaches, That Man has no Government over his own Thoughts, or Actions, but by the singular Calling and Grace of God. See the 9th. to the Romans. And when he ascribes Justice to God, he Corrects himself, by saying, He spoke after the manner of Men. From whence it is as clear to me as the Sun, that what you call Divine Revelation, or Divine Inspiration, never made any man wiser than he was before, but either left him, or confirmed him, in those very Prejudices of Opinion, in which at first it found him: Unless in matters of Morality, for therein the Prophets were guided by known, and undeniable Maxims.  
L. You muster up the whole strength of your Author's Forces, which consists more in number, than in true Worth and Dignity. We do not deny that God condescends in the manifestations of his Will, to accommodate himself to the weak capacities of his Creature Man, but that does no ways incline us to believe, that he ever reveals to Man any thing that is false, or that he confirms him in his preconceived Errors, or that whensoever he is pleased to reveal himself in a Supernatural manner, he cannot, or does not do it with the same degree of Perspicuity, as one man can tell his Thoughts to another. God indeed, has declared more to one Prophet than to another, but since he never speaks any thing but truth to any, this is so sar from being an Argument against reading any of the Prophets, (for so I call all Inspired Authors) that it is a strong inducement to peruse them all, that so what we miss in one, we may readily find in another. If Revelation discovered nothing new to Mankind, nor confirmed truths of an eternal verity, it would be altogether needless, and if it by being adapted to Men's erroneous Prejudices, confirm them in the same, it would be pernicious, and God himself would be the Author, Abettor, and Divulger of Falsehood in the world, which I would have all young Men seriously to consider, who are addicted to these Deistical Notions. Epicurus, who removed the Deity from all thoughts of humane Affairs, pays more honour to the Divine Nature, than those who with your Author, suppose him to meddle therein, only to confound natural Light, and to contradict himself, and to send his Servants to plant, and propagate Falsehood in the World.  
S. You seem now to be very hot, but▪ can you disprove the Author, whom you rashly Condemn, because he speaks truth more freely than is consistent with the Interest, or Humour of the Clergy?  
L. I desire to be believed no farther than as you find what I say is agreeable to the Testimony of Scriptures, by which it will appear, that God has Revealed nothing to Inspired Authors, that any man can condemn of Error. Secondly, That he has declared to them such truths, as were directly repugnant to their Preconceived, Erroneous Opinions. And Thirdly, I will show you, that the places of Scripture used by your A—, are no ways Subservient to his present design, and purpose. If your Author would Argue fairly against the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, he should have produced such places in them, which he could easily and plainly convince of Error in matters that belong to the Happiness of Mankind. But how much he fails in this, will appear by a Discussion of these Instances, which are alleged by him. Moses taught the Jews, that that very God, who made the Heaven and the Earth, was their God, who was revealed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and who then by Signs and Wonders, had brought them out of the Land of Egypt; which plainly shows that he had right Conceptions of the Unity of the Divine Nature, as the first, and only cause of all things. But at the same time he knew, that the Heathens worshipped other created, invisible Powers, which they called Gods, though unlike unto the true God, in all the Glorious Attributes of the Divine Nature; and this is all that can be gathered from the 11th. ver. of the 15th. Chap. of Exodus, Who is like unto thee, O Lord, amongst the Gods? Moses does not here assert, that there are more Gods than one, but only intimates, that there were more Being's than one, which were (though falsely and equivocally) called Gods by the deluded Pagans. But why do we wonder, that invisible Powers in compliance to the common Dialect at that time in the World, are styled Gods, when Magistrates themselves, by no improper Figure are dignified with the same honourable Appellation, Ps. 6th. and 7th. I have said you are Gods, and all of you the Children of the most High, but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the Princes. Will any be so absurd to conclude from hence, that the Psalmist thought, that there was little or no difference between God and Man? Nor does it at all appear from the 19th. ver. of the 32d. Chap. of the Chron. That the Jews thought, that God left other Nations, to the Government of other Gods, substituted by him; the words are these, And they spoke against the God of Jerusalem, as against the Gods of the People of the Earth, which were the work of the hands of men. It was not the Besieged Jews, but the Besieging Pagans, who called those inferior Being's, by the name of Gods, which were worshipped by the deluded Pagans; the Jews acknowledged them only as the work of the hands of men. In the 17 Chap. of the 2d. of Kings, gives only an Historical Account of the Sentiments of those Pagans, who were translated into the Regions of Israel, from remoter Nations; they indeed had the same Apprehensions of the God of Jerusalem, as others had of their Topical Deitys, who were confined to the Government of certain Places, Persons, Arts, or Sciences, according to the Opinion of the Ancients, and therefore mingled some Ceremonies of the true, with all the Superstitions of a false Religion. But the Author of this History, is so far from approving, that he utterly condemns, as well their Notions, as their Practices. In the 23d. ver.— They fear not the Lord, neither do they after his Statutes, or after their Ordinances, or after the Law and Commandment, which the Lord commanded the Children of Jacob, whom he named Israel.  
S. Why then does the Scriptures call them Gods?  
L. Because an Historian relating what others have said, or are wont to say, must speak in the same Dialect, if he will keep exactly to the truth; nor is any Author obliged to speak always properly, when he may be better understood by a Figure.— The Apostle speaks of some, whose God was their Belly, and tells us, that Covetousness is Idolatry, and yet I never read of the God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Venture, that were worshipped by the Ancient Greeks, or Romans. Persius makes him at most but a Master of Arts.—  
Magister Artium ingeniique;  
Largitur Venture.  
And Money itself was not Invested with Divine Honours in juvenal's time, if you will believe the Poet.  — Nullas numorum ereximus arras. 
I wonder your A— should forget one place of Scripture more conduceing to his purpose than any he has hitherto Cited, in the 4th. ver. of the 4th. Chap. of the 2d. to the Corinthians; Satan is styled, the God of this World, how plainly might he infer from thence, that Satan was revealed to the Apostle, as the God of this World.  
S. But what say you to Moses' Opinion, That God lived in Heaven, is not that an Error unworthy of a Philosopher? And altogether Pagan?  
L. If Moses had taught, that God was so confined to Heaven, as to be excluded from the Earth, or from any part of the Universe or from the Knowledge and Government of Humane Affairs, it might have given this A— some very specious pretence to cavil; but all that Moses says, in the 26th. ver. of the 33d. of Deut. is,— viz. There is none like unto the God of Jesurun, who rideth on the Heavens in thy help, and in his excellency on the Sky.— God is every where, but his goodness, and power streams forth more upon one place of the Universe, than another, for even as the Apostle observes in inanimate Being's, There is one Glory of the Sun, and another Glory of the Moon, another of the Stars, for one Star differeth from another Star in Glory. So much more may we apprehend that God bestows a greater Degree of his Glory upon those places that are receptacles of the blessed Saints and Angels, than upon those which are designed to the use of sinful men. And God is said, Emphatically, to be there, where he displays the strongest Influences of his Grace and Glory! Your Author therefore very absurdly endeavours to disparage Revelation, as adapted to Erroneous Opinions of the Prophet, when hitherto he has given no Instance of one Error in them.  
S. What do you think of Moses' desire to see God?  
L. I think seeing God in Scripture language, implys no more than a mere exact knowledge of him, than we usually have in this present Life; for so speaks our Saviour, Blessed are the pure in Spirit, for they shall see God. And the Apostles speaking of a future State, assures us, That then we shall see him as he is.  
S. But Moses, Exod. 33d. 18th. desired to see God with his Bodily Eyes.  
L. Then God should have been revealed unto him under a Bodily Shape, if your Author's Hypothesis was true, that God was always revealed to his Prophets, according to their Conceptions of him. But your A— confesses that Moses, nullam Dei, imaginemi n cerebro Formaverat, had form no Image of God in his Brain, and therefore that God appeared under no Image to him. If therefore Moses had form no Image of God in his Brain, he did not apprehend him as Corporeal; for we always think of Bodies under some Image or another, framing, or compounding Images of Bodies that we have not seen, from the Images of those Bodies which have been seen by us; nor could he desire, that God should appear in any Corporeal shape to him; and then his desire of seeing God, can signify no more, than knowing something more exactly of his Spiritual Nature.  
S. My Author says plainly, it implys a contradiction, for a man to see God; but because Moses believed God to be visible, God gave this Reason as consentaneous to Moses erroneous Opinion,— There shall no man see me and live.  
L. And yet the true meaning of those words, according to a known Hebraism, is no more than this, That no living man shall see God, which is a Revelation directly contrary to the Apprehensions of Moses, as he is represented by your A—  
S. My Author tells me, that that signifies no more than, that God is not to be seen, by reason of Humane imbecility, and that God would not add the other Reason, viz. That it was repugnant to the very Essence of God to be visible, because that was above the Apprehensions of his Servant Moses.  
L. Your A— makes Moses think whatever he pleases; in the 24th. Page, he will have him think that God could not be expressed by the Image of any thing that has been seen, though he was visible, in the Apprehension of Moses; but in the 26th. Page, he asserts, That Moses form no Image of God in his Brain, and that therefore God appeared not in any Image to him, though other Prophets affirm they saw God: But if Moses thought God to be visible, he must needs form some Image, though perhaps no true one, of God in his mind, because we think of all Corporeal Being's under some Figure or another, and if so, your A— most grossly contradicts himself; and if you consult the Text itself, you will see nothing in it, from whence you can conclude, that Moses thought God to be visible.— For we read ver. 18. that he said, Show me, I beseech thee, thy Glory; which implys no more than a desire to see, not the Divine Majesty its self, but some Created Being, that might sustain some very visible Signatures of the Glory of God— for whatever Glory God communicates to any Creature, as representative as it were of himself, may very properly be called the Glory of God. What is Recorded of Moses' seeing the back parts of God, implys no more than this, viz. That God is seen in the Effects of Revealed Being's, but is not visible to us in the Act of Conversation.  
S. I cannot deny, but that seeing in Scripture, signifies no more than knowing, or perceiving, and therefore I am not unwilling to understand this place, as speaking only of a clear and distinct perception.  
L. I will not stand to confute some other ridiculous questions of your Author, Viz. Where he says, That God threatened (Exod. 33. 2, 3.) to send his Angel only to drive off the Hittites, etc. In compliance to Moses Erroneous Opinion, that other Nations were Governed by other Deities: When himself before had owned, that Moses taught, that God whom the Jews Worshipped, was the same that was from all Eternity, and made both the Heaven and the Earth: And therefore it could not be an Error in Moses, to think, that God made use of Angels in Governing the World, when at the same time, he taught, that no other Being was to be Worshipped, but the Lord Jehovah. His Observation, that Moses ascended the Mount to speak with God, because, conceiving God to dwell in Heaven, he could not so well imagine him (as he terms it) in any other place, is ridiculous to the highest Degree of Extravagance. What is more unphilosophical, than to confine imagination to a Mounr, which runs beyond the very bounds of the Universe, into imaginary Spaces, as far as it can have any Notion of possible existence. As if a Man could never Pray to God whom he believes to be in Heaven, unless he raised his imagination, by ascending into the upper Room of his House, or clambered up all the Stairs of the Monument. Nor is he much more successful in his other instances, upon which he endeavours to lay his rotten and deceitful Foundation. He tells us, That Ionas thought he could fly from the presence of God, and go into Regions, subjected to other Powers, which were created by the supreme God: But if this 
Ionas 1.  was so, Ionas must have very odd Notions, of those Being's, who were substituted by God to govern other Nations; he must think that they were blind, and socould not see him come into their Territories, (and yet Angels are styled Watchmen in the Holy Scriptures) or that they were negligent, and would give no Account of him, to their supreme Lord and Master, and that reflects much upon Him, who made, or employed them, or as Traitors to their Lord, who would willingly conceal a Rebel, which is altogether as absurd, as any of the preceding suppositions. But Pray, why does flying from the presence of God, necessarily imply a design to avoid his knowledge, as confined to the Land of Canaan? Is not Cain (Gen. 4. 16.) said to have gone out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelled in the band of Nob, before ever God had given the Land of Canaan to the Children of Israel. From whence it is to me evident, that to go from the presence of the Lord, signifies no more than removing from that place, where the Revelation of the presence of God is made, to some remoter Region. And Ionas fled to Tarshish, not thinking to avoid the sight of God, but rather fearing Man, more than God; he would not by proclaiming Destruction to Nineveh, draw upon himself the rage and tumult of a Popular Fury. Solomon acted contrary to the Law prescribed by Moses to a King of Israel, by multiplying Horses, and Wives, and Chariots, but it does not follow, that therefore God was revealed to him, as approving that in one place, which he condemned in another: For Transgression of a Law, does not argue Error in Judgement, but rather strength of Appetite in most Criminals, few of which there are but can say, 
— Video meliora, proboque,  
Deteriora sequor.  The same Solomon, persuaded by his Wives in his latter Days, went to the Temples of strange Gods, (I presume rather in compliance to their desires, than to any inclination of his own.) Will your A— hence conclude, according to his way of Arguing, that Solomon was taught by Inspiration, the Adoration of a plurality of Deitys, when it is as contrary to Scriptures, as it is to Reason itself. As for his imagination, that the 18th. Chap. of Ezekiel, is repugnant to the 7th. ver. of the 34th. of Exod. and to the 18th. ver. of the 32d. of Jeremiah, it is not much more hard to be confuted than any of the other. God is declared in the 7th. of the 34th. As visiting the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, unto the third and fourth Generation. And this is a truth, which all Men must observe, whether they will or no, it being interwoven into that constant order of things, which God has settled in the World. If God takes away an Estate from a wicked Father, the Son, though pious, becomes the poorer for it, and the innocent Babe often expires by a Disease, that is gotten by the vicious Intemperance of a guilty Parent. For God, as Sovereign of the World, may by virtue of his indisputable Prerogative, inflict whatever temporal Evils he pleases, upon the most innocent Person, without Injustice, either by his Father's Sins, or any other means whatsoever, because he can recompense his light sufferings here with an eternal weight of Glory hereafter. Nor does Ezekiel deny this truth, in the 18th. of Ezekiel, but only affirms, That the Son shall not be punished eternally for the sin of his Father: For that Ezekiel speaks of eternal Punishments, which are always afflicted according to Merit, seems to me evident from the 26th. ver. When the Righteous Man turneth away from his Righteousness, and committeth Iniquity, and dieth in them; for the Iniquity that he hath done, shall he die. Where a distinction is manifestly made between Dying in Iniquity, which is the case of every Sinner, who dies without Repentance; and dying for Iniquity, which must note futute Punishments in the World to come, which are called in Scriptures a second Death.  
S. Ezekiel seems to me rather in this Chap. to speak of God's distribution of Temporal Punishments. For the Jews had taken up the Proverb, The Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. Because the Fathers had commited many grand Transgressions, and the Children were led into Captivity for them.  
L. And no doubt, but the Children also had filled up the measure of their Father's Iniquity; but admitting even this, which yet ought not to be admitted, there is nothing like a contradiction in these two places, when the Son does suffer for the Father, if he himself is innocent, it is not to him a Punishment, nor always a misfortune, and God does not visit his Transgressions upon him, because nothing but wilful Sin is the Object of the Divine Anger. For external Evils, they may be turned to our Spiritual advantage, and therefore Ezekiel truly affirms, That the Son shall not die (i. e. be punished in anger with an utter excision) for the sin of the Father. And yet the Son, by the vice and folly of the Father, may fall into very great poverty and afflictions, and by aiding, assisting, and consenting to his Father's Crimes, may make himself partaker of the guilt, and then is as obvious to Experience, as to Reason, that God does visit the Iniquity of the Fathers, upon the Children, to the third and fourth Generation. His other instance of Samuel's telling Saul, (1 Sam. 15. 29.) The strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent; for he is not a Man, that he should repent; is no contradiction to what Jeremiah says, 18. 7. At what Instant I shall speak concerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: If that Nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil, which I thought to do unto them. Repentance in God can signify no more than his not inflicting those punishments, which he has threatened by his Prophets: But it does not follow, because God would not release the punishment of Saul, (which is all that can be gathered from the words of Samuel,) that therefore God would not avert his threatened punishment from any other repenting Sinner: For God is not a Man, (as the Text says,) that he should mistake feigned, for a real repentance. There are some appearances of contradiction in the most elaborate Authors, that ever yet wrote in this World, and the Commentators upon Aristotle himself, are as hard put to it to reconcile some places that look like contradiction, as any of those who have wrote upon the Text of the Old and the New Testament.  
S. Whatever you may say to the contrary, Revelation was always adapted to the capacity of those to whom it was made; which makes me think there was nothing Supernatural in that which is so called.  
L. I will then desire you to tell me, what you think of the Revelation made to Noah, that the World should be drowned with water. What natural capacity was there in Noah to conceive a thing so improbable, as such a Deluge, when the greatest Wits in these days, who believe it was done, are so much puzzled to find out the manner of its doing.  
S. Perhaps being well skilled in Astronomy, he might from the Stars be informed of some strange alteration in the Wether.  
L. And perhaps he might not, nay, it is certain he could not, nor are there any natural means to be conceived, whereby he could be informed of that impending danger; and unless you can conceive that Noah was so stark mad as to build an Ark, and take all manner of Beasts and Fouls into it, out of a fantastical Fear, that he should be drowned upon the dryland; you must confess, he did it by virtue of a Supernatural Revelation,  
S. Have you any other instance of the like nature?  
L. Yes, more than I shall at present take pains to enumerate; but however, I will gratify your curiosity with two or three, which will abundantly show the falsity of your A—s so much boasted Proposition. We read in the 18th. Chap. of Gen. that Sarah was informed by the Angels, (10th. ver.) That she should have a Son. But who, except Spinosa will say, that this Prediction was accommodated to the capacity of Sarah, (or her Lord Abraham) when Moses tells us in the 11 th'. and 12 th'. ver. That Abraham and Sarah were old, and well stricken in age, and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of Women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old, shall I have pleasure, my Lord being old also.  
S. A Woman might easily imagine what she earnestly desired.  
L. If you except against a Woman, let us consider the Revelation made unto Moses, which you will find to be directly contrary to the Apprehensions, and above the Natural Conceptions of that mighty Prophet. I would feign learn how it was at all agreeable to the natural Conception of Moses, that the lifting up his Rod should be able to work all those Signs, and Wonders, which it did in the Land of Egypt.  
S. Tho it was not a Conception agreeable to reason, yet it might be to his Fancy, and we all know the strength of Fancy in producing wonders.  
L. Imagination, without doubt, has very great force upon the imagining Person, but that it should be able to have force upon Objects placed without him, so as to work any visible effect upon them, is to me, till I am better informed, a very absurd supposition. I know some of the Ancients have been possessed with an Opinion, that the very Eyes of an Envious Person, do dart a Kind of Poison upon those who are in a Great Station. And the Poets presumed they had the same, or like effect upon other Animals.  Nescio quis Teneros oculus mihi fascinat agnos. 
And my Lord Bacon says something to solve this Phaenomenon, by the Effluviums of the Animal Spirits: And if the matter of it were true, which I do very much question, his Lordship's solution of it, would be the best that could be given. But supposing it true yet such weak Effluvia's as are engendered by the strength of imagination, whatever impression they can make on the tender parts of humane Bodies, yet you cannot without Madness suppose them able to turn Aaron's Rod into a Serpent, (or to make it more like a Living Creature) or turn a whole River into Blood, to divide the Red Sea, slay all the first Born of Egypt, and do works of the like stupendious Nature.  
S. Did not Pharaohs Magicians do something very like it?  
L. All you can infer from thence is only this, viz. that they were assisted by some invisible Powers, which is more than Men of your Principles are willing to grant, who deny their existence, or at least their intermeddling with humane Affairs.  
S. But suppose, such things done (as you Divines call it) by invisible Powers, how shall a Man know whether those Powers are Good, or Evil.  
L. God being the Fountain of all Goodness, no Revelation is made, or confirmed by him, that is repugnant to the immutable Law of Nature, which consists in unfeigned Love to God, and to our Neighbour. The Pagan Priests made great pretences to Prophesy and Miracles, but it was to confirm a superstition, contrary to Natural Light, and therefore those seeming Signs and Wonders, are justly ascribed to the Operation of Lying and Deceitful Spirits. For these are known Maxims, that Good cannot proceed from Evil, and that a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and we may as well conceive that light can be the Fruitful Mother of Darkness, as that Satan can be the Author, Abetter, or Confirmer, of the Precepts of the Decalogue, or the most Holy Rules of Practice delivered by our Blessed Saviour.  
S. Does not your own Apostle say, that Satan can transform himself into an Angel of Light?  
L. We don't say, that Evil Spirits do never Encourage a seeming Sanctity, that is gross Wickedness in a Religious dress, but that they can't be Abetters, or Promulgers, of that real and genuine Sanctity, which is prescribed by the Mosaic and Christian Religion, and of the excellence of which we have as clear Perception, as we have of the Truth of any Mathematical Proposition. But to pass by Moses, and descend to the other Prophets. What Pre-conception by Nature could Isaiah have, that Cyrus should be King of Persia, that Jerusalem should be destroyed by the Chaldeans, and that that very Cyrus, (See Isa. 44. 28.) Should rebuild the Temple, saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, and to the Temple, thy Foundation shall be laid. If Revelation was adapted only to the Capacity of the Prophet, certainly, Isaiah was a Person of the largest Natural Capacity, that ever yet was Born into the World, or, as I believe, ever will be Born hereafter.  
S. You keep to instances in the Old Testament, it would be more to my satisfaction, to hear something of this Nature to be alleged out of the New.  
L. What think you of the Doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God; and of the Holy Trinity, which are founded upon Divine Revelation? These could not be adapted to the Capacity, or Opinions of any one inspired Author, since they are above the conception of all Mankind.  
S. I fear you mistake this Author. His meaning is not, that nothing is taught in Scripture, which exceeds humane conception, for (as he shows, p. 28.) The Prophets were ignorant of speculative things, and were of contrary Opinions amongst themselves, and therefore they might give Vent to some odd Opinions, which are altogether irreconcilable to the reasonable conceptions of other Men.  
L. I have already examined all those places of Scripture, upon which he would ground this wild assertion, and I hope, have plainly showed, that no such thing can be deduced from them. But to come closer to the purpose. Your Author must Acknowledge, either that the Prophets (as he calls all Divinely inspired Authors) were assisted and taught by God, or that they were guided by their Natural Fancy, Reason, and Judgement. If Prophecy does come from God, and if it be according to his own Definition, in the very first Words of his Book, the certain Knowledge of some things revealed to Men by God, he cannot overthrow the certainty of it, in Speculations as well as Practics, until he can destroy the very Idea, which all rational Men do entertain of God. He must suppose him either to be nothing else, but the settled course and order of Nature, and then he, and his Disciples must quit the Name of Deists, and set up in the open Defence of Atheism: Or, he must bring upon the Stage an unthinking, ignorant, or deceitful Deity, that told his Servants a parcel of Idle, Contradictory, and Lying Stories, to amuse the world with a Noise of Divine Truths, whereas they were in reality nothing else, but the Erroneous conceptions of fanciful Men. But if on the other hand, he Acknowledge nothing at all of Divinity, in those whom we receive as inspired Authors, he must then show his Reader, how the Prophecies and Miracles of those Men, are reconcilable with the ordinary Course and Power of Nature.  
S. He does show you, in his 4th Chapter, that there neither is, nor can be any such thing as a Miracle.  
L. We will discourse that point more narrowly some other time, but at present, I will only urge one instance more, that utterly overthrows your Authors sandy Foundation. We read, in the 2d Chapter of the Acts, that when the Apostles were all with one accord in one place, there appeared unto them Cloven Tongues, and sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other Tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now I would feign learn from your Author, who some say was a School Master, and therefore aught to be well versed in the Didacticks, whether there be any way in Nature, to teach any one Man, much less a Number of Men, the Words, and Idioms of many Foreign and unknown Languages, in a moment, or instant of time?  
S. I must confess, I cannot well conceive how such a thing could be done, without the assistance of some invisible Power; but still this only proves an infused knowledge of words, but not of things.  
L. If you grant an infused knowledge of words, it is the greatest Folly in the World to deny the possibility of an infused knowledge of things. For it is much more easy to conceive, that God can declare his will to some chosen Persons, and leave the manner of expressing it to their natural and acquired Abilities; than that he should infuse, simul & semel, in one instant of time, the knowledge of several Languages into the minds of unlearned Men.  
S. I for my part, am resolved never to be a Bigot in speculative Matters, and since he speaks so much for Morality in all parts of his Book, I cannot choose but have a good Opinion of him.  
L. Morality, and Mathematical Demonstration, serve many times for canting terms, to be specious covers to Wickedness and Nonsense. He grants, the Prophets had clear Perceptions of Morality, for so may all Mankind besides, but that we are not bound to believe them in any thing that is speculative; that is, we may Lawfully reject all the Credenda of the Mosaic, or the Christian Religion. As for Example, according to his way of arguing, when the Scripture tells, You must Love the Lord your God, with all your Heart, with all your Soul, It only teaches you, that you should be Pious; but you are not bound to believe from thence, that there is a God, or that he Governs the World, or that he alone is to be Worshipped, for these, according to his Hypothesis, are speculative Opinions, concerning which the Prophets had contrary and repugnant Notions: And thus your Author would plant abundance of Piety, but not one grain of the Knowledge of God in the World. After the same manner, when the Apostle says, 2 Thes. 1. 7. That the Lord Jesus Christ shall be revealed from Heaven, with his mighty Angels, v. 8. in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, v. 9 Who shall be punished with Everlasting Destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the Glory of his Power. We are to Learn, that we are to obey the Gospel in being Just and Charitable, but we must not thence, infer, that those who are unjust and uncharitable, Shall certainly be Punished with Flaming Fire, or with an Everlasting Destruction from the Face of the Lord; And I will now leave it to your Judgement what Friend he can be to Piety, Justice, or Charity, who divests them of the certainty of a future reward, and leaves them no other Encouragement, than what arises from the Government of the passions in this Life, which though it be a considerable part, yet it cannot be the whole of humane Happiness. Or, whether he is not an Encourager of Impiety, Injustice, and Oppression, and all manner of known and unknown Vices, who takes away from wicked Men, the Terror of being tormented with the Devil and his Angels. For though our Saviour says, Mat. 12. 16. If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself, his Kingdom cannot stand. He will have this Argument only adapted to the Opinion of the Pharisees, but no proof that there is a Devil, or any Kingdom of malicious Spirits, and so good night to your Author's Morality.  
S. When you read his 4th. Chap. you will see how earnestly he Pleads for Virtue.  
L. If you will bring me what he says, another time, I will gladly admit all that is true, and oppose nothing but notorious Falsehoods.   

Conference III.  
S. WEll, Sir, according to my promise, I have read over the 4th. Chap. of my Author, (passing by his third, because it chief concerns the Jews,) wherein, I find him to be a very zealous Advocate of true Virtue and Goodness, which I value more than any Speculative Opinion, so much contended for by the Sons of the Clergy.  
L. If obedience and submission to God, is the principal Law of Nature, than it is as much our Duty, to believe a Truth when revealed, as it is to obey a Commandment when it is promulged, and then it follows, that what he calls Speculation, is neither more nor less than a practical, necessary Duty.  
S. Your error proceeds from your false Apprehensions of a true notion of a Law. He shows you in his 43d. Page, that the word Law, absolutely taken, signifies that, according to which every individual, or some of the same species, do all, or some one thing, by a certain and determinate Reason; and that it depends either upon the necessity of Nature, or the consent, or authority of Men.  
L. Then farewel at once to all Divine Laws, but those which he fancies depend upon the necessary motions of matter, or are confined by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate, or receive their strength from the mutual consent of some determinate Society of Men.  
S. I hope you will not deny, that Corporeal Necessity is a Law, when all Authors speak in the same Dialect; does not Cartes make mention of the Laws of Motion?  
L. Cartes, and other Philosophers, have the liberty to Transfer words from their proper Signification, to denote such things as are best understood by a metaphorical Expression. And hence it is, that those Observations, which ingenious Men make of the necessary rest of motion of matter, are called (but figuratively) by the name of Laws; but your A— shows no 
Legis nomen absolute sumptum, etc.  small plenty of ignorance, when he would have the word Law, to signify, absolutely, corporeal necessity of Nature, which properly speaking is not capable of receiving 
Nomen Legis per Translationemadres Naturales applicatumvidetur.  a Law. Nay, he seems to contradict himself, for he says in the 44th. Page, that the word Law, seems to be applied to natural things, by Translation, and if by Translation, than not absolutely, or properly, as in this place he so boldly affirmeth.  
S. But what need this strife about words, if we are agreed upon the thing itself? Why may not my Author claim the same liberty of Speech, as is allowed to Des Cartes, Gassendus, or others of our modern Virtuoso's?  
L. Because he designs thereby to establish a fatal necessity in the very minds of Men, which renders them uncapable of receiving a Law, properly so called, which always supposes a liberty of choice, and is attended with the Sanctions of Rewards and Punishments; for though in the 44th. Page he tells us, That some Laws depend upon the free Arbitration of Men, yet he adds, That he must needs grant, that all things are determined by the universal Laws of Nature, both to Operate, and to Exist, in a certain, and avoidable manner; and indeed if all things that are, are material, and the Soul its self nothing but a particle of rarefied matter, and all matter is bound by the necessity of nature, to such and such particular Rules; it follows, those Laws of Men which seem most Arbitrary, are as much subject to fatal necessity, as any other operation of dull, and unthinking matter. All the difference is, that in the descending of a Stone, or the ascending of the Fire, we can see and understand the Concatenation, and Co-ordination of necessary causes, but this Chain is less visible in the determinations of the Will, to what we call Moral Good or Evil. But still there is a Chain, that binds a Man as strongly, as if its invincibility was manifest to the Eyes of all Men: and if so, than he that kills his Father, or Mother, acts by the same necessary Laws of Nature, as he that Honours and Obeys them. And this is the best, and truest account, that I can give of your Author's Scheme of Morality.  
S. You must needs mistake him, for he has these words,  Dico tamen has leges, ex placito Hominum pendere. 
L. That is, because your A— would Monopolise the liberty of contradicting his own Assertions, but observe his caution, he does not say absolutely, that these, or any Laws do depend upon the free will of Man, but that they may be said to do so. First, Because Man being a part of Nature, whatsoever is done by the necessity of Humane Nature, though it be done by the general, and  force of Nature, yet because they proceed immediately from Humane Power, therefore the Sanctions of those Laws may be said to proceed from the will of Man. But what is this to the purpose? If there be a general force of Nature, which determines all things even the very Soul and Will of Man, to make Laws whether it will or no, than the making these Laws, or the paying Obedience to them, are no free, but necessary Acts, and Men are morally good or evil, not by free choice, but by a necessary compulsion: And this he plainly acknowledges in his second reason, and only adds, that the Universal consideration of fate, and concatenation of causes, cannot serve us, to form right conceptions of Law, and that therefore though all Actions are predetermined by fate, yet it is better to talk of them as Free and Arbitrary.  
S. Let us not quarrel about words, but come to the Definition of the thing, he tells you, that a Law is a Manner of Living, which a Man prescribes to himself, or to others, for some End, best known to himself. How do you like this Definition? 
p. 44.   
L. I should rather have approved of it, if he had defined it a Manner of Living, prescribed by a Superior to an Inferior, and always attended with the Sanction of Rewards and Punishments.  
S. Every Man Loves the Product of his own Brains; but Pray, why is your Definition to be preferred before my Author's?  
L. For several Reasons. First, because it does not exclude God from the Legislative Power, which is most slily done in your Author's Definition. A Law is a Rule, or Manner of Living, or Acting, that is supposed to proceed from some Rational, Intelligent, or thinking Being. And if your Author believes that any such Being, is really existant, why must he be excluded from the Legislative Power, and his Creature, Man, only Entitled to it?  
S. Does not my Author expressly say, (p. 45.) That the Law is to be Distinguished into Divine and Humane?  
L. Yes: But he tells you, that by a humane Law, he means such a manner of Living, as is conducive to preserve our lives, or the common wealth, and by a Divine Law he intends no more than a Law made, that has respect to the true Knowledge and Love of God. So that a Law made by God, to preserve a Commonwealth, or the Life of Man, according to his Notion, is a humane Law, and a Law made by Man, which is referred to the Love and Knowledge of God, becomes a Divine Law. God is therefore absolutely excluded by him, from any, so much as Vote, or share of the Legislative Power.  
S. Well, what is your next Exception?  
L. I think in the 2d place, that he does not accurately enough define a Law, by a manner of Living prescribed by a Man to himself. For Law implies Superiority in the very essential Notion of it. If a Man prescribes a certain way of Living, or Acting to himself, it is at most but a resolution, which may, upon alteration of circumstances, be revoked without a Sin. If indeed, he calls God as a Witness to such a resolution, it becomes a Vow, and has in Lawful matters, all the Force and Virtue of a Law; but that force arises from the Superiority of the Person, Viz. God himself, unto whom that Vow is made.  
S. Do not Senators make Laws, that bind themselves?  
L. Yes, and very justly too. For the Authority of a Collective Body of Men, is Superior to the Authority of any one Member of it, and he, or they that offend against it, in all Democratick Governments, are to be looked upon, out of the Senate, but as Subjects to that Superior Power which is in the collected Body.  
S. This at most, is but a vain Logomachy; Pray, what have you more than this, to object against this Definition?  
L. I say, Thirdly, that he very unskilfully leaves out the Sanction of Rewards and Punishments, which are essential to a Law.  
S. Cannot a Superior prescribe a Rule to an Inferior, without adding threats, or promises?  
L. Yes, he may: But then the obligation to obedience arises from the Good, that may be gained by that Obedience, or by the Evil, that may be avoided by it. If a Superior, by which I understand one that has Power and Right over me, command me to do a thing, it follows, that my disobedience must needs expose me to the dire Effects of his Displeasure, and that is a sufficient Sanction to constitute a Law, without any express threatening of any one particular punishment, the Power of Inflicting, which is supposed as essentially inherent in the Superior Person. And the same is to be said of promises.  
S. I think my Author shows very well, that cunning Lawgivers allure the vulgar to obedience, to wholesome Laws, by propounding to them a quite different end, from that which is essential to the Law its self. For my part, I am willing to be Virtuous, for the reward, that by the necessity of Nature, must needs Spring from Virtue its self; but I have no great Opinion of other Allurements, by which you Divines would entice Men to follow your own Direction.  
L. I easily grant you, that there is a pleasure of mind, arising from all Acts of Genuine Virtue, as there is a regret and torment, that attends upon Vice: And that the certain pain, or pleasure, which Accompanies these, with the addition of what probably may be farther expected from God, are the very Sanctions of the Law of Nature. But if there were no pain, or pleasure, that followed any Action, either by necessity of Nature, or free will of God, I cannot conceive how there could be any such thing as a Law. For to what purpose is a Law, when the Transgression brings no Inconvenience, nor the performance of any pleasure, or profit to the Subject?  
S. How many Laws are daily Transgressed, and yet no Punishment inflicted on the offenders? Do they therefore cease to be Laws?  
L. No. Because though punishment is not actually inflicted upon all that offend, yet it is threatened to all, and the very danger of incurring the penalty, is a sufficient Sanction. But in a penal Law, if all possibility of offending God, or Man, or ourselves, were taken away, it would then lose the very Nature of Law, and revolt again into its first State of Indifferency. To gain therefore Good, and to avoid Evil, is the true Ends of all Laws; and your Author very much mistakes the point, when he represents rewards and punishments, as adapted only to govern the vulgar, who know not the true End of Laws, and have not Learned the great Art of being Virtuous for Virtues sake. For rewards and punishments, are adapted to work upon the will and affections of all mankind, even the Author himself, who would not have ventured to write such a Book, if he had lived in a Country, where he had been sure to have been punished as he deserves for it. He that Loves Virtue, or hates vice, must do it either for some Good, or Evil, essentially inherent, or accidentally annexed to them, and if God by Moses and our Saviour did explain, confirm and enlarge these Sanctions, or adapt them in some cases to the apprehensions of the vulgar, it does not follow, that obedience to these Laws is servile, but rather that it is a reasonable service.  
S. Is he a just Man, that forbears to steal for fear of hanging?  
L. No: but yet he may be a just Man, who forbears to steal, for fear of running into that Evil, which reason shows is intrinsically inherent in it, or which God by his Prophets has threatened, as consequential to it. And therefore to dissuade Men from having any regard to rewards, or punishments, is the same thing as to dissuade them from Acting like Men, or choosing what is best, like unto rational Creatures.  
S. Notwithstanding your Pulpit-Cants, my Author gives you a more noble Scheme of Virtue. He shows you, that our understanding being our best part, our chiefest happiness consists in the perfection of that most excellent faculty. That all certain knowledge we can have, depends upon the knowledge which we have of God, because nothing can exist, or be conceived without God, as also because we may doubt of all things, whilst we have no clear conception of God: Hence he tells you it follows, that all things which are in Nature, according to the manner of their Existence, or Perfection, do involve, or express our conception of God, and that therefore by how much the more we know Natural things, so much the more we acquire a more perfect conception of God, or may be said to know the very essence of God. And he is most happy, who loves the intellectual Knowledge of God above all things, and is most delighted with it. And these mediums of this knowledge, as far as conducive to this End, may be called the Laws of God.  
L. Perfection of the understanding, cannot render a Man completely happy, unless he can prove that there is no other faculty in the mind of Man, but that of understanding only. For suppose, a Man has a good understanding, but an irregular Will and Affections, that Man cannot be said to be completely happy. For happiness being a full Enjoyment of all good things, it must be equally extended to all the faculties of the mind, or it ceases to be true happiness. Our Saviour speaks more emphatically to the purpose, Ye know these things, happy are ye, if ye do them. His Reason, why all the certainty can be had by Man, depends upon his right Knowledge of God, is very false and deceitful, Viz. Because nothing can be, or be conceived without God. By which obscure Circumlocution he means no more, in plain terms, than that there is no other God than the Universe, and that all things that are in Nature, as he says, do involve a conception of God, and that by knowing natural things, we know the very Essence of God. For if God himself is not matter, an accurate knowledge of matter, cannot give us entrance into a more accurate Knowledge of God. The 
Rom. 1. 20.  Invisible things of God from the Creation of the World, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his Eternal Power and Godhead; says the Apostle St. Paul. That is, Our Knowledge, that some visible things are made, which could not make themselves, leads Man to an Acknowledgement, that they were made by the Eternal, Invisible Power of the Godhead. But this Knowledge arises not from an accurate discussion of all the properties of matter, since it may be deduced from the knowledge of its bare Existence. For the very Creation of Matter, shows the Invisible Power of God, though his wisdom is more visibly seen in the various Modification of it. But still it does not follow, that they who best know Natural things, do best know the very Essence of God, unless God himself be nothing else but the matter of the Universe. Suppose, a Man should be a great Virtuoso, and very ingenious in rendering an Account of the concatenation of secondary causes, and yet should deny the invisible Power of God, would you say, that by how much the more perfectly he knew natural things▪ so much more perfectly, he knew the very Essence of God.  
S. Will you deny what he so zealously asserts, That the knowledge and love of God is the happiness of Man, the very end and scope of all humane Actions, and the chiefest Good that can be attained by us. Is it not nobly said by him, That we are to love God as our chiefest Good, not for fear of any punishment, nor for love of any thing with which we are delighted, but merely for himself.  
L. If your Author, who so often makes mention of the word God, would have told us distinctly what he meant by it, this 46th page would have seemed to have had something like Natural Religion in it. But if you reflect upon the preceding words, and the whole scope of his book, you will find, that God signifies no more in him, than the whole Compages of Nature, and that he who knows Natural Things, knows the very Essence of God; and then to know God, and to love God, though splendid Terms, yet in reality signify no more than to turn Virtuoso, and study the Works of Nature, and to love the World, and hug its Enjoyments as your whole happiness, without troubling your head with the thoughts of the Joys of Heaven, or the fear of Hell, which your Author rejects, as conceptions unworthy of a true Philosopher.  
S. I, for my part, own an incorporeal Deity, though I don't believe all the Stories you Parsons tell us of him; and I believe my Author is of the same mind.  
L. I do not find it appear in any part of his Writings But this I observe, that by God he understands a Being, that cannot speak intelligibly to mankind, but by the fixed course of Nature, and that suffers us to be abused by Juggling Tricks and Impostures, that Vaunt themselves as Divine Revelations, and that cannot work a miracle, unless your Author gives him leave, and from whom you are to expect no Good, and to fear no Evil. So that all his morality, is reduced to the Love and Knowledge of God, and that is either the Universe, or an otiose, unactive Being, which is next to nothing.  
S. Some men are resolved to approve of nothing. Pray, what can you say, concerning those consequences, which he draws from his Notion of the Law of Nature?  
L. If you tell me what they are, I will give you my impartial opinion of them.  
S. He says, reason is universal, Revelation limited.  
L. That the Law of Nature, rightly understood, is Universal; will easily be granted by those who understand what humane Nature is. But your Author cannot infer from hence, that it is a greater Good to mankind than Divine Revelation, because it is a more general good. For though a diffusive Good in respect of its diffusive Nature, is to be preferred before that which is restrained and confined, coeteris paribus, yet it is not to be so absolutely, or without exception. Virtue is a greater Good than the light of the Sun, even in your Author's Opinion, who calls it the chiefest Good of man, and yet more men receive benefit from the Light of the Sun, than from Genuine Virtue, if you will believe the Greek Proverb,  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
S. Ay, but this is the great advantage of reason above Revelation, that it does not require an Historical belief, which can never work in us the Love of God; for that is only to be deduced from such common Notions, as carry their own certainty along with them.  
L. The great defects of History, are uncertainty, deficiency, superfluity and impertinency; when these are absent, History is very completive of the intellectual faculties of man. For History is nothing else, as my Lord Bacon well observes, but a Narration of the various Operations of Individuals circumscribed to Time and Place, and its chief end is to advance memory, which is as it were the great Store-House, or Magazine of Knowledge. Uncertain History is a Narration of such things, as either never were done, or have not been well attested, so as to leave no room for doubt. And this defect in History destroys the very end of it, which is to give us a certain account of what has been done already, that so we may know how to Act ourselves for the future. Deficient History, is an imperfect collection of remarkable Occurrences, wherein many things are omitted, which are worthy a wise Man's observation. And though this destroys not the End of History, which is certainty of knowledge, yet it Answers not the Expectations of a Thirsty Soul. Impertinent, or Superfluous History, is a Narration of such Actions, or Circumstances of Action, as for their turpitude, or meaness, deserve not to be recorded. And this is a defect, which can no other ways be supplied, than by a total abolition of those trifling Authors.  
S. What is it you would infer from hence?  
L. That Faith grounded upon true and useful History, may give us a right knowledge, and due love of God.  
S. How can Faith, that rests upon humane Authority, contend for certainty with Reason, that proceeds by such common Notions, which are admitted as true by all men.  
L. Natural Reason does enable men to understand, that God ought to be loved, as the first cause of all those good things, which his Creature Man does enjoy. But then there is a certainty in Sense, as well as in Reason, though after another manner: And therefore, if the Senses of some Men have been rationally convinced, that God has bestowed other Benefits upon them, than those that were bestowed at their Creation, or conveyed by the invisible Hand of his Providence: Why should not such a knowledge excite them to all imaginable Love, and Gratitude to their great Benefactor? The certainty of a Benefit received, is all that every good Man requires, in order to be Grateful; and whether that certainty is grounded upon abstracted Reason, or a true, faithful Narrative of a matter of Fact, is not much to the purpose— So absurdly does your A— asserts, Nec fides Historiarum quantumvis certa, Dei cognitionem, & consequenter, nec etiam Dei amorem vobis da●e potest.  
S. He does not deny that it can't give us Motives to love God, but it can't work in us the love of God, whether we will or no.  
L. No more can his adored Reason; for many of the greatest pretenders to Reason, have been the most impious Men in the World.  
S. You Divines represent God to the Vulgar, as a Lawgiver, and his Commands you call his Laws; but alas, you mistake the point. For Eternal Verities are the only Laws of God, who Acts by the necessity of his own Nature: For the Affirmations, and Negations of God, do always involve an Eternal verity and necessity in themselves. If God had said to Adam, Thou shalt not Eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it would imply a contradiction to say, that he did Eat of it.  
L. Does not your Author in some places say, That to know and to Love God is the Divine Law?  
S. Yet I think, he does.  
L. Then according to his way of arguing, all men (even the Author himself) do know and Love God, and must do so whether they will or no, to the End of the World: And then there is no difference between Virtue and Vice, for both are done according to God's Will, according to your Author's sentiments, for both are the Effects of an Eternal necessity, of causes linked together. The Apostle says, This is the Will of God, even your Sanctification: Therefore all men are actually sanctified, God bid Abraham Sacrifice his Son, therefore he was Sacrificed; is not this a pretty way of arguing, to make sport for Children and Fools?  
S. Moral Propositions in themselves, are nothing but Eternal Verities, and it was the Prophets only, who were led by fancy, and the Vulgar who are guided by sense, who apprehend them as Laws given by God, The Lawgiver, whom they look upon as a just and merciful Prince, setting upon a Throne, and distributing rewards and punishments, to all his Subjects.  
L. Your Author must either grant, that God is a wise and understanding Being, and a free Agent, or nothing else but the Mass of Dull and unthinking matter. If he embrace the latter, he should be Master of so much courage as to tell us, and not to play always in the dark, with his two ambiguous Terms of God and Nature. If he will allow, that God is a wise Being, and a free Agent, I cannot conceive any reason, why he should deny him to be a Lawgiver, since Wisdom, Power, and Authority, are inseparably interwoven into the very Notion of a God, without any gross conceptions of his setting upon a Throne, like an Earthly Monarch. And if there is an Eternal reason, why God should be Loved, and Innocence Protected, etc. Which every Man is conscious to himself, that he can do, or let it alone; and besides, If God shows Man by Divine Revelation, what he would have done, and promises Rewards and Punishments, why must these Dictates of God and Nature be denied to be Laws, and I know not what Eternal Verities shuffled into their Room?  
S. Because my Author shows, that all Moral Propositions are so.  
L. Your Author shows nothing but mere Leger-de-main. It is an Eternal Verity that God is to be Worshipped, but it is no Eternal Verity that he is so. A Moral Proposition is a Divine Law, and an Eternal Verity in respect to that Goodness, which is Essential to it; but not for any Active necessity that attends the fame. For if the Will and Understanding be the same Thing in God, Then God Wills all the Treasons, Marthers, and Adulteries, which he understands have been committed in the World.  
S. Since you despise my Author's Scheme of Morality, Pray, let us hear one of your own drawing up.  
L. I will refer that to Dr. Cumberland's excellent Treatise of the Law of Nature, where he proves by reason equivalent unto, if not surpassing Mathematical Demonstration, that the Law of God, and the whole rational universe, is the whole of the Law of Nature, and attended with sufficient Sanctions of Rewards and Punishments, that are by God inseparably interwoven into the Nature of things.  
S. You do not hear me speak against the Natural Law.  
L. But by embracing unsound Principles, you utterly destroy the whole Force and Efficacy of it. Your Piety terminates in the adoration of such a Piety, as tamely suffers the World to be abused into a belief of Miracles and Prophecy, and Inspiration, without any rational possibility of a redress, and Acts by the inflexible necessity of his own Nature, so that all our Prayers, can make no more an impression upon him, than upon a Stone-Wall. Your Justice has no Prospect of a future reward, and so in private is left at liberty, to Act what is most conducive to the preservation of life and limb. And your Temperance has no other restraint, nor so much neither, than what Nature has given to those Beasts that Perish. Thus your Deism gins with a fair pretence to Moral Philosophy, but the End thereof is nothing else but a licentious Liberty and Corruption of Manners.  
S. I must confess, If there were rewards in Heaven, and Punishments in Hell, they would be great Encouragements to Virtue, and Suitable determents from Vice. But you ground your hopes upon inspired Authors, and they pretend to prove their Divine Mission by Miracles, whereas my Author proves, that there never was, nor can be such a thing as a true Miracle, wrought in the Universe.  
L. Then I will Discourse that point with you, at our next Meeting, for I am loath to tyre you with too long a Discourse.  
S. With all my Heart. For if I was well satisfied in that point, I should be better affected to the Christian Religion.   

Conference iv OF MIRACLES.  
S. SIR, you are well met: I remember, at our last Conference, you often appealed to Miracles, as the greatest Confirmations of revealed Religion. But I have since that time carefully perused the Sixth Chapter of my very Ingenious Author, wherein I find such Arguments against Miracles, as make me very much doubt, whether there ever was, or can be such a thing as a Miracle, done in the World.  
L. I desire not to hear your Opinions, but would gladly be a Partaker of your Reasons.  
S. My Author very Judiciously observes, 
p. 67.  that it is, and always was the Mob of mankind, that are and were the great Miracle-Hunters, and Miracle-makers'. It is they, who think nothing to be the Work of God, that is done according to the usual Course of Nature, but feign and believe Wonders, on purpose, that they may be thought the very Darlings of Heaven, And that the Universe was made for the sake of Man, one of the most inconsiderable Creatures in it.  
L. Our belief of Miracles, is grounded upon that reason, which is common unto all Mankind, not only the Unlearned Vulgar, but also the most sublime Philosophers, who must needs Acknowledge, that if matter was at first Created by a Spiritual Being out of nothing, and received from it those Determinations of rest, or motion, which we call its Laws, it may be again produced, or altered by the very self same Power, which is all that is necessary to constitute a Miracle. The possibility therefore of a Miracle, is as evident to all Learned men, who have not said in their Hearts, that there is no God, as any one proposition in Enclid, and is as deducible from the true Idea of a God, as any of the most Legitimate Conclusions, that can be deduced from clear and undoubted premises. Your Author therefore with as much Haughtiness as Falsehood, pretends to throw the belief of Miracles upon the Vulgar only; as if all the Jewish and Christian Kings and Emperors; all the Greek and Roman Philosphers, by Miracles converted to the Christian Faith; all the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, that were, or ever shall be in the Church of God; were no better than an ignorant and unlearned Mob, in respect to himself, and two or three upstart Philosophers, who value themselves upon the opposition they endeavour to make, against the most common Notions of all mankind.  
S. You begin to be too warm; Pray, let us debate this matter; with more Reason and less Passion. My Author rerefers you to his Fourth Chapter of the Divine Law, where he has largely proved, That whatsoever God determines, does involve 
p. 68  an Eternal necessity, because the understanding of God, is not really distinguished from his Will. And since nothing is necessarily done, but by Virtue of a Divine decree, it clearly follows, That the Universal Laws of Nature, are the only Decrees of God. If therefore any thing should happen in Nature, that is repugnant to her Universal Laws, the same thing would be repugnant to the Divine Nature, decree, and understanding.  
L. Your Author's affected obscurity in this Paragraph, is a sign of want of Judgement, or else want of Courage, to speak what he really thinks. He that would destroy the possibility of Miracles, must prove that there is no God, who has the same liberty of will, which we experience to be in ourselves. And then indeed it would clearly follow, that if there was no God, nor no free Invisible Agents, there could be no such thing as a Miracle performed in the World. But Pray, how does your Author prove this Grand Assertion?  
S. Oh, Sir, very Mathematically. He 
See p. 49.  does it by the properties of a Triangle. For it is the same thing to say, that God understands that the 3 Angles of a Triangle are equal to 2 Right ones, as it is to say, that he wills it should be so. For the truth of that proposition, depends not upon the Nature of a Triangle, but the very Nature of God, in whom will and understanding are the same things.  
L. That a Triangle must needs have 3 Angles, equal to two Right ones, depends upon that Eternal truth in things, which is antecedent even to the Divine volition. Because it implies a contradiction in the very Terms, to deny the same; and it is no limitation of the Power, or Will of God, to say he cannot will, or do these things, which imply a Contradiction in the very Terms. God's understanding, or will, no more altars the essential Properties of a Triangle, than the understanding of a man, because they flow from the very Idea of it. But is there the same necessity, that matter should be always tied to the same Rules of Motion, as there is, that the 3 Angles of a Triangle, should be equal to two Right ones? Does it imply a contradiction in the very Terms, that matter should be created by a Spiritual Being, or receive its Laws of Motion from him, or have those Laws controlled, or suspended by the same Power that made them. If Nature be nothing indeed but matter and motion, and God be nothing else but Nature, than there can be no Miracles; not because the understanding, or Will of God are the same, but because, according to this Hypothesis, there can be no such thing as Will, or Understanding in God. Your Author in his Annotations tells us, that by Nature he understands not only matter, but alia infinita; but Pray, what alia infinita are these, that are comprehended under the word Nature? If a Spiritual and Intelligent Being, let him show reason, why he cannot as well alter the course of the World, as he could at first Create it?  
S. Because it would argue mutability in God, which all sound Philosophers do acknowledge to be an Imperfection, that is unworthy of the Divine Nature.  
L. This cannot be owned by those Philosophers, who believe that the world was not ab aeterno, but Created by God. For there is more of Mutability in Creation of the whole Universe, than in the additional Creation of some parts of it only, which is all that we can understand by the word Miracle. I grant, indeed, that the Universal Laws of Motion, which God has given to the Universe, are sufficient, to preserve the World in that Beauty and Order, wherein we now both see and enjoy it; and that we may from thence Learn the great Wisdom of our Heavenly Father, who could settle such a course and order of things, by Chaining each effect to its most immediate cause, as might be sufficient to support the World to all Ages, without the frequent interposition of a Miraculous Power, to alter, or to amend, as it were, the work of his Hands. For if this settled course and order of things, did not give us a right Notion of the Wisdom, Goodness, Power, and other Glorious Attributes of our great Creator, the Love of God could not be any Branch of the Law of Nature, which yet in words, at least is more than once acknowledged by your own Author. Miracles, therefore, as your Author well enough observes, are not at all necessary to sustain, or preserve the Universe, since that may be, and is done by the settled and ordinary course of Nature. But yet there are other reasons, which render Miracles highly necessary to mankind, at some times, and upon some signal occasions, so that without them, we should be the most miserable Creatures of the whole Universe.  
S. I would gladly hear what those reasons are.  
L. When Revelation is necessary to show men the way to Happiness, than Miracles are equally necessary to show men, that such Beneficial Revelations do come from God. All men desire Happiness, and are conscious to themselves, that it is not in their own Power, but in the Gift of God. But they never can come to a certainty, either what Degree of Happiness God will bestow, nor upon what conditions, nor what Atonement will be accepted for Sin, without the Benefit of Divine Revelation, and such Revelation cannot be made evident, without the rational Demonstration of a Miraculous Power. For either God must make this Revelation to all mankind, which would disorder, in a manner, the whole Course of Nature, by changing the Natural Faculties of the mind, into Supernatural Endowments, or he must bestow a Divine Power upon those few, to whom he immediately reveals his Will, whereby they may be known to be sent by God.  
S. Will you pretend then, that God's readiness to confer Happiness, and to forgive Sins, are not known by the Light of Nature?  
L. I grant, that the Great Benignity of the Divine Nature, is easily deducible from all the Works of his Hands, by all the Rules of unerring Reason: And if we were Conscious to ourselves of no Sin, we might be certain that we should receive no Evil from him. But supposing ourselves innocent (which yet is a very wild supposition) we cannot from the good things we enjoy by the Divine Bounty in this Life, absolutely conclude what Good Things we shall enjoy in a futute State. And much less, since we are guilty of known Breaches of the Divine Laws, can we be sure of the Remission of Sins, and the Donation of Eternal Happiness, since it depends upon the free Goodness of God, which is not determined by any necessary Rule of Action. A Deist therefore expects Pardon from God, just so as a Condemned Criminal hopes Forgiveness, from a mild and gracious Prince. He has some General Notion, of the Good-Nature of his Sovereign, and therefore has some hopes it may be extended to him, as well as to others. But a Christian has the same assurance of a conditional Forgiveness of Sins, as a Malefactor has, that Sees and Reads a Proclamation of Pardon, under the broad Seal of his offended Prince. Tho Miracles therefore are not necessary to support material Being's, yet they are to assure mankind, of its Happiness, and which do you think is of greatest moment? The Stateliness of the Habitation, or the felicity of those Rational Creatures that inhabit in it?  
S. If Miracles were necessary to promote the Happiness of all mankind, why are not all men made Partakers of their Beneficial influence? Why must Miracles be wrought only in some Ages of the World, and in the sight too of only one Nation, not very Famous for War, or Learning? Why must all the Gentiles Perish, because they knew not a matter of Fact, that never was made known unto them? These are prejudices against your revealed Religion, which I can never conquer, and am therefore forced to fly from that confined Light, to the more diffusive Light of Nature.  
L. Whilst man kept that integrity, wherein he was at first Created, there was no absolute necessity of Miracles to make him happy, who was happy enough before in the Enjoyment of his own Innocence. Nor was there any great need of Miracles, whilst a traditionary knowledge of the Decree of God, to save mankind, was kept alive in the World, by the long Lives of the Ante-diluvian Patriarches. But when all Flesh had Corrupted their ways before God, and the Knowledge of one supreme Deity, which some will have to be a Connate Notion, was almost totally eraced out of the minds of all mankind, as is evident from humane, as well as Divine Historians, than it was very expedient that God should make a farther Revelation of himself, confirmed by Miracles, without which it could not have had the force of a rational Evidence, To save mankind from utter perdition. And therefore, God first called upon the World by Noah, the 8th Preacher of Righteousness, and then called Abraham out of his Father's Idolatrous House, and made a Covenant with him, that he and his Seed, should serve him. And when the State of the World required, that a manner of adoring God should be settled in it, though not absolutely best in its own Nature, yet most suitable to the Genius of the Jews, and that posture of affairs, which was then Predominant in the World; the Wickedness and Folly of Man, in abusing the Light of Nature, rendered it necessary, That Moses should be sent to the Israelites, to bring them out of the Land of Egypt, with Signs, and Wonders, and show them after what manner God would then be Worshipped. So that Miracles are necessary, first, when a new manner of Worship is to be planted in the World: And therefore Moses was endued with the Power of Working Miracles, to convince the Israelites, that the Ceremonial Law was Divine, though additional to the Law of Nature. Or Secondly, When the true manner of worship is in danger of being lost, And therefore Elijah and Elisha in the Time of Ahab, when Idolatry made its greatest encroachment upon the true Religion, by Divers Signs and Wonders from Heaven, called back the Israelites, to the true Worship of the only God. Or Thirdly, When a manner of worship, that is of Divine institution is to be altered, or disannulled, as was the Ceremonial Law by the coming of our Saviour.  
S. But what must become of those, who never saw nor heard of these Miraculous Revelations?  
L. They have the Light of Nature, Let them use that well, and leave themselves to the Mercy of God. The Scriptures no no where say, That all those who have not seen nor heard of a Miracle, shall be Damned, though it teaches, that if they be saved, it must be by Virtue of the Name of Jesus. And therefore the strength of your argument is quite lost, unless you can prove that wild assertion. Besides, the knowledge of revealed Religion, is not put up in so narrow a corner of the World, as men of your persuasion do seem to imagine. For there is no Nation, but what may embrace the Gospel, if they please to listen to its rational evidence, and I would feign know what injustice it is in God, to suffer them to Perish, who either knowing nothing of the Miraculous Demonstration of the Gospel, make an ill use of the Light of Nature, or those who hearing its rational evidence, abuse their reason in not consenting to it?  
S. But still you do not clear the main difficulty, objected by my Author, that the Power of Nature, is the very Power of God. How then can a Miracle be done by Natural Power?  
S. Your Author first begs his Question, and then very boldly Triumphs in the Victory, as if extorted by force of reason. He presumes it granted as a first Principle, That there is no other God but Nature, and that this Nature is fixed and immutable, not a free Agent, but a perpetual slave to fatal necessity. And thence strongly concludes, That if there be no Power but that of Nature, than there can be (oh, wonderful demonstration!) no supernatural Power. But we, on the other hand, proceed by a more plain and intelligible way of reasoning. We suppose, That since Matter is a dull, unactive Principle, it could not make itself, nor reduce itself into that decent and useful order, in which now we see it. 2d. That it was created by a Superior Being: That that Superior Being must be endued with all manner of Perfections, as being the first Cause of all Perfections in the Creature. 3. That Wisdom, Understanding and Liberty are Perfections, and therefore consequently must be in the highest degree in him, who is the first Cause of them. And Lastly, That his Wisdom is seen in all the works of his hands. If therefore your Author would argue fairly against us, let him attack boldly any one of these Propositions, concerning the Nature of God; and if we cannot defend them, we will become Worshippers of the great Goddess Nature— But if God is an Understanding Being, he must be a free Agent: And if he be a powerful and free Agent, what should hinder his stopping, or disordering the regular course of Nature, when the doing so is conducive to his own Glory, and the general Benefit of all Mankind? Unless you can prove by Scripture, that he has sworn by himself, he would never do it.  
S. Does not my Author tell you, That it is a foolish thing to limit the power of Nature, and to say, her Laws extend to some things only, and not to all?  
L. Your Author speaks herein, as little like a good Philosopher, as a good Jew, or a good Christian. If the Laws of Nature are fixed and immovable, they may be observed; and the Observation of them, we call, the study of Natural Philosophy. To say therefore with your Author, That the Course of Nature is fixed and immutable, and yet that her power extends to all things; 
Potentiam Naturae infinitam esse omnino credendum est.  is a contradiction in the very Terms: for if she could do all things, she could alter her settled Course, and move in an Order quite contrary to what now she steers. Nor does he mend the matter, by asserting in the same page, That the (fixed) Laws of Nature, extend to all things that are comprehended in the Divine Understanding. For the Divine Understanding must needs comprehend as well what is impossible as what is possible to be done; and the Mutability, as well as the Fixation of the Rules of Motion in material Bodies: into such notorious Absurdities does your Author run, whilst he endeavours to destroy the credibility of Miracles, by jumbling together the Names of God and Nature.  
S. If there be a fixed Course of Nature, how can there be a Miracle, which is neither more nor less than an interruption of it?  
L. Because it is fixed by a Superior Intelligent Being, who can unfix the same, when it is for his own Glory, or the General Benefit of Mankind. If Nature did not keep, for the most part, a settled Course, we could have no distinct Notion of a Miracle; but she is so steady, that she gives us time to view her, and from that view to frame such Axioms of Possibility and Impossibility, as are as evident to our Reason, as any of those principles, which some (though I fear not truly) do stile Innate Notions.  
S. I am still of my Author's mind, That we call those works Miracles, whose natural Causes we do not understand.  
L. No: We rather call that work a Miracle, which we know is done, not by a Natural, but by the immediate Energy of some Supernatural Power. For the Course of Nature being steady, nothing is more easy than to observe, when her Course is broken; i. e. when something is done, that we are sure is repugnant to those fixed Rules which she is bound to observe in all other cases.  
S. Prithee what are those Rules? How do you know that they have ever been broken?  
L. The first Rule, Ex nihilo, nihil fit; Out of nothing, there can come nothing; is as clear by its own light, as any One Proposition we can easily frame unto ourselves. Either therefore Matter made itself; that is, it was a Cause before it did exist, which is a Wild Absurdity, or it was made by a Superior Being, and its very Production the beginning of Miracles. We all know that mutations of bodies may be made by the regular Laws of motion; but that Matter should make itself, or be produced out of nothing by her own Laws of motion, is repugnant to the common sense of mankind. If Matter therefore was made, there was a time when it did not exist, and therefore its motion from non existence to existence, could not be according to any fixed Rule of Nature, which had then no being, and consequently God did not always work by fixed and unalterable Rules, to which the very Notion of Creation is directly repugnant.  
S. You ramble too wide from our present purpose: Can you prove that any thing yet was ever done, since the Creation, that was certainly repugnant to any One fixed Law of Nature? which may be a sufficient Testimonial to a man, that he is sent from God.  
L. It is a Maxim in Reason, That one body acts upon another by Contaction or Protrusion only. If two bodies were placed never so near, and no contiguous body between, they might remain to all Eternity in that posture, without affecting each other, or producing any alteration in them. If therefore any man can produce an alteration in bodies, by the sole word of his mouth, all men will conclude this man does act by virtue of a Supernatural Power. When therefore the Children of Israel saw Moses turning water into blood, or bringing Lice and Frogs, etc. upon the Land of Egypt, by the lifting up his Rod; or our Saviour curing diseases by the word of his mouth, or raising men from the dead, etc. they must conclude that this was done by a spiritual, and not by a material power, which can cause no alteration on another body, but by Contraction, or Emission of minute Particles, the secret Operations of which, do constitute the whole body of Natural Magic. Now if the moving of the Wand, or speaking a few words, did produce the wondrous Effects but now mentioned, in the production, or alteration of bodies, by the sole force of Nature, they would do it always, when uttered or applied after the same manner; because the Laws of Nature are fixed and immovable. But since we see they have done it, but cannot do the same thing again, we very rationally conclude, that these alterations were made in Bodies by a Spiritual and a Superior Power. Your Author therefore must not think to shame us off with a Wild Pretence, That what we call Miracles, were some strange works of Nature, so called with respect to the ignorance of the Vulgar: For we are willing the Miracles upon which our Religion is grounded, should be tried by the most known Axioms of Natural Philosophy, and challenge the whole Race of Epicurean Atomists, to show how they could be done, according to any Hypothesis that ever yet was framed, of the Mechanical Laws of Motion.  
S. Does not my Author clearly demonstrate, That the Sun's stopping his course, of which we read in the Book of Joshua, was nothing else but a refraction of Light, the Sky being then full of Hail? And the like may be said of the Dial of Ahaz.  
L. Your Author boldly says much; but he proves nothing. The standing still of the Sun, or the prolongation of Light by any other means, whether Natural or Miracu lous, would have been equally beneficial to the Israelites, in affording them time to slay their Enemies. But because it would be greater Encouragements to the Israelites, to see God himself assisting them in a miraculous manner, and the Scriptures do relate this as a Miracle; and since no sufficient Reason can be given, why the Sun should stop his Course, (or the Earth stand still, which in the Effects is the same thing) unless by the immediate Power of God, we have more Reason to believe the Scripture-Narrative, than the improbable Conjecture of your daring Author. For why must we needs conclude, That because it was possible the Children of Israel might be deceived, that therefore they certainly were so? Or how is it probable, that the Air being full of Hail, should make a whole Nation believe that the day was longer than it ought to be?  
S. Suppose the Earth did stand still, does it therefore follow it must be a Miracle? Might there not be a Concourse of grosser Particles of Matter, in the Liquid Ether, that might stop its Course for a Season, without the interposition of a miraculous Power?  
L. Since we have no infallible Knowledge of all the possible motions that may happen in the Celestial matter, we cannot conclude that New alterations therein, are the immediate effects of a supernatural Power. But since we are sure, that one body works upon another, by contaction only we are sure that Joshua's Prayer could by no force of Nature, cause the continuance of the Sun upon the Horizon, beyond the usual time. But alas, we do not seek for Miracles in the Heavens above, nor in the Seas beneath, most Fruitful of amazing Prodigies. We appeal to the most approved Axioms of Natural Philosophy, as the Tests of the truth of those Miracles, upon which our Religion is grounded. He that admits the Historical part of Revealed Religion to be true, as your Author does more than once, can never pretend to solve all that is therein recorded, by Natural causes, without running into absurdities of the grossest Nature. In compliance to his own Hypothesis, he must believe that the Course of Nature is settled▪ and yet in compliance to the Historical Account of the Scriptures, he must believe that words can cure Diseases, and raise the Dead, etc. And yet that the same words, spoken by another Person, cannot do it, i. e. That the Course of Nature is settled, and that it is not settled, but moves at random. He must admit that one inanimate Body, Acts upon another only by contaction; And he must admit, that words have made alteration in inanimate bodies, which yet can cause no other contaction, than what arises from the modulation of the Air. He must believe it to be a Law of Nature, That the Dead cannot be raised up to Life, because that is known to be above her usual Course, and he must believe that the Dead have been restored to Life, by Virtue of a Divine Command. In short, your Author's endeavour to solve Miracles by Natural causes, is ridiculous to the highest Degree, for he attacks revealed Religion in that place, which is of all others most impregnable; if the Sparks of your Principles, did believe that Moses and the Prophets, and our Saviour, did really do all those mighty things recorded of them, by a due application of Natural causes, why do not they attempt to do the same? Or why do they laugh at all others who do attempt it, as Fools and Madmen? And how does it happen, that no such things were ever well attested to have been done by other Persons, who have made Experimental Philosophy their study, with good success? And how comes it to pass, that they are repugnant and irreconcilable to all the Axioms of Philosophy, that hitherto have been Written, that the more any Learned Man considers them, the more he finds of a Natural impossibility in them? And why can't your Author find out as easy and probable a solution, of all the Signs and Wonders, wrought by our Saviour, as of the standing still of the Sun, or the Passage of the Children of Israel over the Red Sea?  
S. My Author is a wiser Man, than to believe all the strange Stories to be literally true, which you read in your Bibles. He tells you, that whatsoever is there reported to be done, which cannot possibly be ascribed to Natural causes, is to be presumed as thrust in by malicious designing men. And that in telling Wonders, the Scriptures speak to the Fancy, but not to the Reason of mankind.  
L. Nothing speaks less to the fancy, than the Christian Religion, which in its Doctrines and Precepts too, is altogether perfective of humane reason. But if your Author denies his assent to the Historical part of the Bible, and only in some places pretends to give it, to please the States of Holland, why does he give no reason for his dissent? For one substantial reason, would be sufficient in this case, to overthrow the whole bulk of revealed Religion? Why does he not show, that no man can have any certainty of any matter of Fact, unless he see it done with his own Eyes? Why does he not prove that Number, and probity of Witnesses are no sufficient motives to assent? Why does he not produce some Testimonies of Witnesses, that may invalidate the credit of these, who have recorded the Miracles of our B. S. or of his Apostles? There is certainly no more obvious way of ruining revealed Religion, than the disproving those relations of Miracles, upon which its rational Evidence, is most strongly grounded. Either therefore your Author could find nothing to say on this topic, or else through inadvertency, he has omitted those Arguments, which are most conducive to support so bad a cause.  
S. It is enough that he demonstrated before, that the Power of God and Nature being the same, there can be no such thing as a Miracle.  
L. An Historical Account, is to be refuted in an Historical manner, not by Foreign Arguments, which have no force to refute a matter of Fact. We urge the Testimony of a sufficient Number of highly creditable Witnesses, that Miracles have been done; your Author denys all, because according to his reason, it is impossible any such thing should be. This is just as if a blind man should endeavour to confute all those who testify there is such a thing as light, by giving his reasons that oblige him to think, that there can be no such thing. When a thing is well attested to have been done, it is a vain attempt to make men Renounce their senses, in compliance to his reason.  
S. You think you have gained a great point, when you have brought a man to acknowledge, the reality of your boasted Miracles; But alas, you fight for that which can do you no good when you have gained it. For Miracles can never make us understand, either the Essence or Existence, or Providence of God.  
L. According to my Notion of a Miracle, it is a work that is done by the immediate Finger of God, and that a work we know to be done by God alone, should not so much as render us certain of the Existence of a God, is to me an unaccountable Riddle. Again, a Miracle is a work that we know cannot be done, according to the Mechanical Laws of matter and motion, but is therefore ascribed to a free, Spiritual and Powerful Agent, and yet that all this should be no demonstration of the Spirituality, Freedom, and Power of the Divine Nature, is to me the 2d part of the same Riddle. Again, a miracle is a work that is wrought, to give some men a Testimonial, that they are sent on some errand by God, to his Creature man, and yet that this should be no Argument of God's Providence, nor at all prove that he takes any care of mankind, is the third and last part of the Riddle, which I humbly beg you would be pleased to unfold to me.  
S. That I will, and very briefly too. We gather the Existence of God, from known and received Notions, but if there were any superior Power, that could alter these Notions, it must necessarily destroy the very knowledge of a God, or at least compel us to doubt of his Existence.  
L. It is not by Miracles, but by the very light of Nature that we understand, that there is a Being, superior to our Faculties, who can alter them for the better or the worse, according as he pleases. But then the same reason tells us, that Truth is one of his most adorable perfections, and from thence we conclude, that he has given us right Faculties, and will not become the Author of deceit. But it seems, your Author thinks, that he can never be secure of the Truth of his Faculties, if he should once believe that there is a God, who is a Powerful and Voluntary Agent.  
S. No, there is a further reason, for if any thing be repugnant to Nature, it is repugnant to those first Principles, from whence we conclude the Existence of Nature itself. And what certainty is there, if you destroy first Principles?  
L. A Miracle is so far from being repugnant to first Principles, that it is altogether declarative of them. Is it not to be admitted as a first Principle in reason, That there is a God who made the World?  
S. Heavens forbidden I should deny it.  
L. And that can annihilate the World?  
S. I see no reason to deny it.  
L. If then alteration of some part of the Universe, be less than annihilation, you must grant it possible, and what then is there in a Miracle, that is repugnant to the first and most obvious Principles of Reason?  
S. But he tells you, that whether a Miracle be a work, either which proceeds from Natural causes, which cannot be explained, or has no other cause than the immediate Will of God, yet still it exceeds the reach of humane understanding, and we can understand nothing from that, which exceeds the very Standard of our Faculties.  
L. There is nothing in a Miracle, that exceeds the bounds of humane understanding, but only the manner of the Divine Operation in the Production of it. Our senses bear Witness that the work is done, and our reason concludes, that none but God could do it. But we do not know the manner of the Divine Operation: Nor no more do we comprehend the manner of the Divine Operation in the Creation of the World; but does it therefore follow, that Creation, because it exceeds the bounds of humane understanding, can give us no true knowledge of the Essence, Existence, or Providence of God?  
S. I cannot well answer your last Argument; but in the 72d page, I think my Author argues very well; viz. That if any thing was done, above the power of Nature, or contrary to Nature, it would be repugnant to that Order, which God has appointed by universal Laws to be eternal; and the belief of such a thing would make us doubt of all things, and bring us at last to Atheism.  
L. And pray why so? What do you understand by Nature, but those Laws of Motion by which God does preserve the Universe in that Beauty and Order wherein we now enjoy it? These we acknowledge to be sufficient to give us knowledge of the Existence and Wisdom of God, which would be known by the Work of his hands, though there were no such thing as a Miracle. Nor do we say, That a Miracle is absolutely necessary to punish ill men, or to reward the good; God can do that by his Providence, and the settled Course and Order of things: And though God does it by Miracles sometimes, yet that is not for want of Power to do it otherwise, but only that these Miracles may the more be considered as Testimonials of a Divine Mission. Tho therefore the frequent interruption of the settled Course of Nature, would render the Endeavours of those Vain, who gave their minds to the study of Natural Philosophy; yet the interruption of it at some certain Times and Seasons, when God is pleased to communicate some particular message to mankind, is no obstruction to the study of Nature, and is a great and necessary introduction to a completer knowledge of the Will of God. For what proportion of time is there between the Miraculous Ages of Moses and our Saviour, and the duration of the World? And how small is the Number of well attested Miracles, in respect to all the other works of Nature?  
S. Suppose there were real Miracles, yet my Author proves from Scripture, that they can lead us into no true Knowledge of God. For a Prophet of the false Gods, might work Signs, and Wonders, and yet deserve to be Stoned for his pains. See Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. Verses.  
L. A Miracle is an appeal to our senses, that what is done, is not done by any Visible or Material Being. But because there are Bad, as well as Good Invisible Agents, we are to Judge of the reality of a Miracle, by the Good or ill Doctrines, which it is alleged to support. The Magicians of Pharaoh, and the Pagan Priests in all Ages, alleged Miracles, to destroy the true Notion of a God, and to loosen all the sacred Bonds of Morality, but neither were these Miracles well attested, nor were they to be regarded, because they tended only to destroy and corrupt Natural Religion, and Natural honesty too. And indeed the Pagan Superstition, seems to me to have been nothing else but a Diabolical Revelation of certain Names of Deities, Rites, and Ceremonies, as might keep men furthest from God, and corrupt that Idea of him, which is easy enough to be deduced from the Light of Nature. It is very plain, that they knew not the Original of their own Religious Rites and Ceremonies, for so says Antigone in Sophocles.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Sophoc in Antigone.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
Why should a Mortal break immortal Laws,  
Not made by Man, but by the Gods themselves?  
That ever must remain, though none can know  
The Fountain whence those lasting Rivulets flow.  
Nor indeed, is it any wonder that they should not know the Original of those Rites and Ceremonies; which have no Foundation in Nature, nor were so much as of humane institution, but shuffled into the world by the Tricks and Impostures of Evil Spirits. But though Evil Spirits may be Authors of some things that look like Prophecies, Miracle, or Inspiration, yet they never can nor will do any thing to establish a Religion, that gives a true Notion of God, and Teaches a rational worship of him, and tends to the good and benefit of mankind. If therefore we have distinct Notions of Moral Good and Evil, and of Natural Religion, we must have distinct Notions of the usual Effects of Good and of Evil Spirits. The Jews were very sensible, that one Evil Spirit might by Collusion give place, or at least seem to give place to another; and thence maliciously concluded, That our Saviour cast out Devils by Belzebub, the Prince of Devils. But our Saviour's Answer is sufficient, Viz. If Satan be divided against himself, how shall 
Mat. 4.  his Kingdom stand, because ye say, that I cast out Devils by Belzebub? i. e. If I, who teach the true Worship of the true God, cast out Devils by Satan, than Satan is his own Enemy, and Industriously destroys his own Idolatrous Kingdom, which with so much pains he has planted in the World.  
S. If there was so much force in Miracles, 
p. 73.  as you do pretend, methinks, the Miraculous Age of Moses, should have been most Religious of all others, but your own Bible's show, That the Israelites fell immediately into the Idolatrous Worship of the Golden Calf, Notwithstanding the Number of Moses ' s pretended Miracles.  
L. The Jews living in the midst of Idolatrous Nations, and Newly Emancipated from Egyptian Slavery, might be tempted to Act contrary to their reason, in compliance to the corrupt customs of those who lived round about them. But I do not think, that thereby they thought to relinquish the Worship of the true God, but rather to change the manner of it: Or if they did, yet they were quickly recalled by Moses to the true Worship of God. And this must be granted by your Author, to be very much for the honour of Revealed Religion, That the Worship of one God, was not the Legal Religion of any one Nation, but that of the Jews only.  
S. I still fear, that the Scriptures, by Gods doing a thing, do mean no more, than his permitting it to be done by the ordinary Course of Nature. For (Sam. 1. 9 Chap. 15. 16. verses). God is said to tell Samuel in his Ear, that he would send Saul unto him, and yet it appears, that Saul came to him, as led by Natural Motives, Viz. to seek his Father's Asses. In the 105 Ps. 24th Verse. It is said, God turned the hearts of the Egyptians, to hate his People; in the first of Exodus, a Natural cause is rendered of that aversion. 
p. 75.   
L. Suppose you should hear a poor man, that has received an Alms of a stranger, say to himself, God has sent me relief; Can you from hence conclude, that this Poor Man believed, That God never was the Author of a Miracle, but always wrought by Natural causes?  
S. I must confess, I see no reason for such a conclusion.  
L. No more ought your Author ridiculously to conclude, that because the Scripture speaks of some Natural things, as done by God, therefore God never works in a Supernatural manner. For though Saul seems to be led to Samuel by Natural causes, yet the prediction to Samuel, that Saul should certainly come to him, that he should be King of Israel, must needs be ascribed to a Supernatural Power. The Heart of the Egyptians was turned against the Children of Israel, because they feared their Numbers; But 
Exod. 1.  what natural reason can be given of all those other Signs and Wonders, which are reckoned up in the same Psalm?  
S. I must confess ingenuously, that if all things were done by Moses and our Saviour, in that exact manner, according to which they are related, it is impossible to give a solution of them by Natural causes, especially, if Natural causes do always work in a fixed and unmoveable order. But my Author very judiciously shows, that there are many Circumstances in a Miracle, which the Scriptures do omit, especially, when they are Sung in a Poetic Style, which if they were expressed, would plainly show, that what we now admire as Supernatural, was only an effect of Natural causes: And not only so, but many Circumstances of the Miracles recorded, do show that they required Natural causes, to bring them to perfection. See Exod. 9 v. 10. Moses could not bring boils upon the Egyptians, without first throwing up Ashes in the Air. And Exod. 14. 21. We read, That the Red Sea was divided by a strong East Wind. Elisha lay upon the Child, that was supposed to be Dead, and so revived him by the heat of his Body. In short, if any thing is reported in Scripture, that is directly repugnant to the Laws of Nature, or cannot follow from them, my Author's opinion is, that it is added by some Sacrilegious Persons, who designed to impose a Fable upon the World.  
L. A tedious relation of impertinent Circumstances, is avoided by all Judicious, and Faithful Historians. But to omit Circumstances that are material, and the Knowledge of which altars the very Nature and Denomination of an Action, is a Trick only of knaves and impostors. If therefore Moses and the Evangelists, in those Books which are plainly Historical, did designedly omit those Circumstances of Action, which would have convinced the world, that those were only the Works of Nature, which they would make the world believe were the very immediate Works of God, whatever credit their Writings might have met with in After-Ages, they could have found none in their own. For the Jews that saw what was done by Moses, would have known by the Circumstances of the Actions, that were designedly omitted, that whatever he might pretend, there was nothing in them, but what was effected by the sole Power of Nature: And how then could he have persuaded the Jews of his own Age, that he was sent from God? Or how could he have made so many false Revelations public, in the sight of the whole Nation? And why should they be such Fools, as to erect a Government in Church and State, upon a Foundation, which they of that Age must needs have known to be too weak to support it? With what Face could our Saviour, tell the Jews of his Age, that his works testified of him, if there was nothing in them Miraculous, but what was made so to appear by the partial and the unfaithful Relation of his own Friends and Disciples. It is a false Insinuation of your Author, that Miracles are for the most part Sung in a Poetic manner; for they are historically related, as motives to the credibility of revealed Religion; and though some of them are recited in the Psalms, yet the very Poetic Style of David, does not render them more wonderful, than the plain Historical Account of Moses. But with what impudence, if not affected ignorance, does your Author Affirm, that the Circumstances of some Actions, recorded as Miracles in Scripture, do show that they were effected by Natural Causes. When Moses brought a Boyl upon the Egyptians, by throwing up Ashes into the Air, the Action was as Miraculous, as if without throwing up the Ashes, he had only in the Name of God, commanded the Boyl to seize upon the Bodies of the Egyptians. 
Exod. 9 10. v.  Unless your Author can Philosophically prove, that according to the settled Course and Order of Nature, of which he prates so much, one man by scattering a little Dust or Ashes in the Air, might bring Scabs and Boils to infest a whole Nation, We read, That the Locusts came upon the Land of Egypt with a strong East-wind, and were driven away with a West-wind, 
Exod. 10. v. 14. v. 19  both were done at the lifting up of the Rod, and the entreaty of Moses, which we all know, are no Natural means of bringing up, or driving away the Locusts, but such as rendered the Action as Miraculous, as if God had Created Locusts, in the sight of the Egyptians to plague them. The like is to be said of our Saviour's curing the blind man, by anointing his Eye● with Clay made of his Spittle, which the Jews acknowledged to be a Miracle, and so must your Author too, unless he will undertake to cure blindness by application of the same remedy. But your Author is now come to his last remedy, Viz. To deny the whole History of Moses and the Prophets, and our S. where it does at all oppose his Doctrine of Material, or Corporeal necessity; and therefore since he alleges no reasons for his dissent, I shall allege none to refute him, but refer you for satisfaction to those many Excellent Treatises, that have been wrote upon that Subject.  
S. My Author shows, that your own Bible's do assert, that the Course of Nature is fixed and immutable. So you read in the 148th Psalm. He hath also Established them, (i. e. the heavens) for ever and ever; he hath made a decree which shall not pass.  
L. All that you can infer from hence, is this, Viz. That the Heavens are of a long duration the Hebrews making no difference between Eternity and a very long Continuation of Time. Or at most, that some of the Celestial bodies, will not be dissolved and that the very Heavens are so Subject to the Decrees and Laws of God, that no casual Concourse of Atoms, shall be able to resist his will.  
S. But Pray observe the Words of Solomon, the greatest Philosopher of the Jewish Nation, Eccles. 1. 9, and 10. verses. The thing which hath been, it is that which shall be, and that which is done, is that which shall be done, and there is no new thing under the Sun. 10. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which hath been before us, etc.  
L. If you would be pleased to cast your Eye upon the 8th verse of that Chapter, you will find that Solomon is there speaking of the toil, labour, and satiety of all Worldly Enjoyments, in which nothing is New, but the old Vexations of Humane Life, return continually upon us— as Virgil not unaptly expresses it,  — Redit labor actus in Orbem. 
But here is not one word, that has any relation to Miracles, nor can by any force of reason be distorted to that sense. For suppose Solomon's meaning is, that nothing was New in his Time, nor would be for the future, what is this to the Doctrine of Miracles? for Miracles were no New Things in the Time of Solomon, for they commenced almost with the beginning of the World, and therefore they might happen again and again, and yet no new thing be done in the World.  
S. But what think you, of the 14th verse of the third Chapter of Eccles. I know that whatsoever God doth, it shall be for ever, nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it, and God doth it, that men should fear before him.  
L. I think thereby Solomon declares what we all acknowledge, viz. The Perfection and Stability of all the Works of Nature, which nothing can alter but the immediate Power of God, by whom all things were at first Created. But I can never think, that Solomon, who had right conceptions of God, could mean thereby, that God had divested himself of the Power of Acting contrary to the Laws of Motion of his own making. But only that he does it seldom, and not to support the Universe, which might continue as it is without it, but to transfer some part of his Authority, to those who are Commissioned by him.  
S. I must Ingenuously confess, you have removed several of those prejudices, which I have imbibed from this Author, and I begin to see more of the reasonableness of assenting to revealed Religion, than I had before considered. But still I would beg your assistance, to dispel two doubts, which do much perplex me.  
1. The first is, since Natural Religion is grounded upon Reason, why is it not a better guide to Happiness than revealed Religion, which stands altogether upon an Historical basis?  
2. If the way to happiness is contained in the Scriptures, which is the best way to come to a right understanding of them?  
L. You impose a greater task upon me, than I am able to undergo, after so long a fatigue. But if you think it worthy your labour, to meet me at any other convenient Time, I will deliver my Thoughts upon those Subjects, with all the brevity and perspicuity, that you can expect from me.  
S. Your proposal is fair and generous; I will wait your leisure to morrow Morning; in the mean time all Happiness attend you.   

Conference V.  
S. WEll Sir, have you considered of what last Night I propounded to you?  
L. Yes, I have, and hope to make it evident unto you, that without Divine Revelation, we had been involved in ignorance, and misery, and that the Light of Nature, could not have showed us the way to true Happiness.  
S. That is the thing I desire to hear from you.  
L. I hope, you will grant, that the Soul is immortal, and at least capable of a lasting Happiness or Misery.  
S. I was always one of those Deists, which never did deny it; although I know there are some who very confidently do.  
L. And that the mind of Man cannot be very happy, till it be pretty secure of lasting Joys in a future State, or at least freed from the danger of Living in perpetual torments.  
S. I must confess this to be true, of all those who give themselves any tolerable liberty of thinking.  
L. Then you will grant also, that the greater certainty men have, both of what true Happiness is, and how it may be obtained, so much the better it is for them.  
S. None can doubt it.  
L. Then it follows, that the Confirmation of Natural Light, by Revelation, is one of the greatest Benefits that God can in this World bestow upon Mankind.  
S. But what Confirmation can reason receive from History? This seems to me, to be like the Suns receiving Light from a farthing Candle.  
L. To understand this well, we must consider, that there are as it were 3 Mediums of certainty, by which the mind of Man arrives to the Knowledge of Truth. The first is Reason, which apprehends common, plain, and universal Notions, and draws right conclusions from them. The second is Sense, by which we Judge of the Truth of Matters of Fact, and are certain of what Impressions External objects do make upon our Organs, though it does discover to us, the true Nature of things, and the third is Revelation, to which we assent, because we are assured it comes from God, the Fountain of Truth: Now though Reason and Sense, are the only Mediums of certainty in the works of Nature, with which the Scriptures do not directly meddle, yet Reason is defective in showing us the way to supernatural Happiness in two respects. First, because many things belonging thereunto, are not deducible from reason alone. And Secondly, because many things that are deducible from thence, in their own Nature, yet are not Actually deduced by the Generality of Mankind.  
S. Pray, Sir, a little Explanation: You seem now like Socrates in Aristophanes, to walk upon the Clouds.  
L. It is not deducible from reason alone, that God will never annihilate the Soul; Or what will be its future State, or that he will forgive great Sins, upon condition of Repentance; or that there are 3 Persons in the Trinity; or that the Son of God would be Incarnate in the Flesh; or make satisfaction for Sins; with other Articles of the like Nature.  
S. But it is deducible, that there is a God, and that he is to be loved, and feared, and that our Neighbour is not to be injured, and that temperance is conducive to preserve health, wealth, and reputation.  
L. But you must observe, that not one half of Natural Religion, or Morality, that is deducible from reason, was ever actually thence deduced by one half of mankind. What is more obvious to reason, than the Unity and Spirituality of the Godhead, and what was more common all over the World, than the worship of many Deities and Corporeal Representations of the Gods? What attribute in the Divine Nature shines more illustriously to the Eye of Reason, than Universal Love and Benignity? And yet that hindered not the Pagans from burning their Children to Moloch, and giving the Fruit of their bodies, for the Sins of their Souls. How few were there amongst their very Philosophers, who believed the immortality of the Soul? and some of them denied the difference between Moral Good and Evil.  Nec natura potest justo secernere iniquum. 
S. Prithee add no more, I am satisfied that the greatest part of mankind, live more by sense than by reason; and that they never use their reason any further, than just to serve the uses of the Animal Life.  
L. Tho therefore reason is Natural to all Men, yet it does not follow, that all men are endued with all possible degrees of Natural knowledge in Morality, any more than in Mathematics, where all is deducible from plain and obvious Principles, and yet very few are well versed in that Noble Science.  
S. Why, will you say, that there is a greater certainty in Revelation, than in Reason?  
L. Yes, there is: For Miracles are as so many Appeals, both to sense and to reason too. The senses hear, or see something done, which reason tells 'em, is done by the invisible Power of God, and if by God, than Signs of a Divine Mission, in the Person that performs them, and if the Mission be Divine, the same reason tells us, that the message must needs be true. So that Miracles give Testimony to Divine Mission. 1. If they be wrought openly, and the effects permanent, to distinguish them from juggling Tricks and Impostures. 2. If they are directly repugnant to some known and universal Law of Nature, to distinguish them from mere Natural Wonders. 3. If they are brought to give Testimony to such Doctrines, as are not repugnant to Natural Religion, or good manners, to distinguish them from the delusions of Evil and Malicious Spirits. And 4 , When they are agreeable to Prophecies, which like so many lines, though drawn at several times, tend to one centre, as it happened in the Person of our B. S. now it is evident, that when sense and reason both conspire together, and Act as it were in consort, it forces the assent of all sorts and degrees of men, more strongly than dry speculation: And therefore since it is necessary for the Good of Man, that the Will of God should be known, it was convenient it should be made known in such a manner, as would convince the reason of the Learned, and the very senses of the less thinking part of mankind, and this could be done no other way so commodiously, as by Prophecy and Miracles.  
S. Your reason, good Sir, for that?  
L. If some things necessary to be known, are not deducible from reason, as it is now, would you have thought it better, that God should have quite altered the frame of humane Nature, and given new faculties to discern his Will?  
S. No, that would have been too violent a force upon the mind— I do not like that.  
L. Would you have had him spoken in a supernatural way to all mankind? By an immediate voice from Heaven?  
S. I cannot but see many absurdities in that wild supposition.  
L. Would you have had him spoken to some select Persons, without any Corporeal representations, by the sole operation of his Spirit?  
S. I cannot see how that could have mended the matter; for I can no more frame a Notion of certainty in bare Inspiration, than in the Hieroglyphical representations made to the Ancient Prophets.  
L. Would you have had him sent his Messengers on his Errands, without any visible Power of Prophecy or Miracles, to be believed upon their bare word?  
S. He might, if it had pleased him; but then I do believe very few would have given them credit.  
L. Would you have Miracles wrought every day?  
S. I should be glad to see a Miracle, or two, for my own satisfaction: But I must confess, if they were very frequent, they would not in a short time be distinguishable from the Works of Nature.  
L. Then I perceive you Sceptists desire something, but you know not what. For, give your thoughts the utmost liberty of ranging, yet you will never find a more commodious way of Gods speaking to mankind, than that which is recorded in the Scriptures; because it is fuited to all the faculties of the Soul, and is apt consequently to force the assent of all mankind: And if we consider the subject matter of it, we shall find, that it reveals to man all those necessary Truths, which are no ways deducible from reason alone; and Secondly, it gives light, perspicuity and lustre, to all those Moral Duties, which are indeed deducible by operose deductions from reason, but have not been thence Actually deduced by the less thinking part of mankind.  
S. I should have a better Opinion of Scripture, if you could give me some rules, of interpreting those Ancient Writings; for I had rather go to no Oracle, than to an Oracle that has a double meaning.  
L. The obscurity of the Scriptures, is very much insisted upon by the Romanists, to make room for an infallible guide and interpreter; and from them taken up by the Deists, to destroy all the whole frame of revealed Religion. But the Scripture is neither so obscure, as the Romanists pretend, nor so absurd as you Deists do make it. And First, I think it would be very much to the purpose, to reduce Scripture to those several heads of the Subject matter, that is contained in them. For,  
First, For some things are the pure and proper objects of humane reason, in which Natural Religion and Revelation, are not at all concerned; such as are the motion of the Earth or Heavens, and other Phaenomena's of the works of Nature. Of these it is not necessary, that the Scripture should speak in the most proper, and the most Philosophical terms. It is enough that it excites us to our duty, by the contemplation of their Beauty and Order; and therefore your Author's Observation of the Errors of the Author of Joshua's History, concerning the motion of the Sun, is little to the purpose, unless he can prove, it was the design of that book, to give us a system of Astronomy.  
Secondly, Other things in the Scripture delivered, are matters of pure Revelation, which reason could never discover, but receives them as additions to it. Such as are the Doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, Sacraments, and the like, which my Lord Bacon in his Book, de augmentis scientiarum, wishes reduced into one Body, that so we might distinctly view, what knowledge is altogether supported by Divine Revelation, and what is owing to the unerring rules of humane reason: For whatsoever is delivered by Revelation, is to be received with the same firmness of assent, as a first Principle, but with this difference, that we may safely venture to draw legitimate conclusions, from first Principles of reason; but we must be more modest in matters of mere Revelation, lest otherwise we wade beyond our depth. For here we must acquiesce in nothing but the Scriptures.  
Thirdly, Other matters are intelligible, by Reason and by Revelation too, as visible by a double Light. Thus the whole substance of the Decalogue, excepting only the Circumstantial part, of the precise time of worship in the Sabbath, and our Saviour's Divine Sermon in the Mount, and other precepts of morality, are so many branches of Natural Religion. Revelation only confirms, what reason, as it were, guessed at before, and makes that obvious to the meanest capacity, which before was known to the more thinking part of mankind, and adds the certainty of future rewards and punishments, which alone can engage a man to act with vigour. And therefore we rightly enough interpret moral duties, by known Principles of humane reason. For otherwise, we should run into many absurdities, by adhering to the very Letter of the Decalogue its self. If we do not interpret the 2d Commandment in this manner, every Picture in our Houses, every Sign in our Streets, would be so many breaches of the Divine Commandment; Thou shalt not make to thyself any Graven Image, nor the Likeness of any thing, etc. All Executions of Criminals, and slaying of men in a just War, would be downright Murders, if the Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, was to be taken in a strict and literal sense, nay, the Scriptures would contradict themselves, when in some cases, they command Criminals to be put to Death.  
Fourthly, Other things are Matters of History. Such as are the Narrations of what happened to the Jews, and what Prophecies and Miracles were wrought amongst them. And of these we Judge, as of other Matters of Fact, Viz. By the Number and Credibility of Witnesses. And here we appeal to the common sense of mankind, for these Miracles which are History to us, to those who saw them, were matters of sense. The Wisdom of God, is wrapped up in the Scriptures, as it is in the works of Nature, and is thence to be deduced, by observing Method and Order, without which all things appear to the understanding, without shape, or beauty.  
S. Is this all you would advise?  
L. No. I would be glad to see, if the work were possible, an Authentic History, Synchronical, with all parts of those sacred Writings. For want of this, many have carped at Moses' History, who yet can find out nothing so Ancient, nor so agreeable to all the remnants of past events, that were preserved in the Fables or Histories of Pagan Writers. Where we have a Synchronical History, it agrees very well with the Prophecies of Daniel, and no doubt, but if an Account could be found, of whatever happened to the Neighbouring Nations about Palestine, it would clear many Passages in the other Prophets, which now seem trifling, absurd, or unintelligible.  
S. What do you think, of an exact Knowledge of the Hebrew words, and all the Idioms of that Language?  
L. I think it very useful, but that defect is sufficiently supplied to the Vulgar, by faithful Translations of Learned Men. I therefore in the last place would recommend, what is touched upon by your Author, an exact History of the Books of the Scripture, viz. By whom written, for what end, at what time, what was the Natural disposition, abilities, and qualities of the respective Penmen (for Authors I must not call them) with other Circumstances of the like Nature.  
S. Then I perceive you will agree with my Author in the manner of interpreting, though not in the Divine Authority, of those sacred Writings.  
L. So far as it agrees with truth and no farther. I approve of a Collection of those places that seem to agree, and of those which seem to be most repugnant. But 
Vid p. 86.  then I do not infer from thence, that the Opinions of the sacred Writers were really repugnant; because then some of them must have been false, and to ascribe falsehood to inspired Writers, is the same thing as to ascribe it to God himself: And because I find no seeming opposition in those Writings, which may not be reconciled, by an exact knowledge of the Language, comparison with the Context, and Attention to the true Scope and Design of Holy Persons. As for what your Author says, that we are not to reject the literal sense of any inspired Pen Men, because it is absurd, since in speculative matters they are guilty of great absurdities, it is not to be admitted by a rational Man. In those things indeed, which are intelligible from Principles of reason as well as Revelation, if any thing is plainly absurd and impossible to reason, we may and aught to fly to a Metaphorical sense and meaning. But we must not do so in matters of mere Revelation, because they being deducible from no Principle of Reason, we are not competent Judges of what is absurd or possible in them, but we give assent to them, for no other cause, than because they are delivered by God. Nor do I wish for an Historical Account, of the Lives and Dispositions of the Ancient Prophets, that from thence, like your Author, I may ascribe what I think to be erroneous, to the Education, Ignorance, or Stupidity of the Prophet, because Inspiration equals the understandings of Men, and leaves nothing to Natural abilities, but only the manner of expression; And that I must confess, might be guessed at from such an Historical Account of the Books, and the respective Penmen.  
S. I have heard you hitherto, with some delight and satisfaction, but I fear you will not be able, to assign any better method of interpreting Scripture, than that which is propounded by my judicious Author. For as nothing unfolds Nature better than a Natural-History, so is Scripture best interpreted by a History of the Scripture itself. And this History must not only contain the Properties and Idioms of the Original Languages, in which they were at first Written, (of which we have discoursed something already) but secondly, a Collection of the sentences of each Book, which are reducible to the same General Head; that so Scripture may not be expounded by any Notions of reason, but by sentences Collected from its self.  
L. I cannot see how this can at all advance the design of the Author.  
S. Then I will open your understanding with a clear instance. Moses says in 
p. 86.  one place, that God is a fire, and in another, that he is a Jealous God. Now you Divines, would presently conclude, that fire was to be taken in a Metaphorical sense, because it is contrary to Natural reason, to think, That an immaterial God, should be a material fire: Not considering, that Moses might teach, that God is a fire, though that Doctrine 
p. 87.  is absurd, and contrary to reason. And unless the word fire, in the 31st of Job and the 12th verse, had been put to signify wrath or Jealousy, nothing had been more plain, Than that Moses had taught the Israelites, that God was a fire, i. e. the refined part of the most sublimated Aether. Now since Moses teaches that God is Jealous, and the Scripture no where says, That he is void of Passions, thence we may conclude, that Moses did believe, or at least was willing to make the simple Israelites believe, that there 
Vid. sig.  are the same Passions in God as there are in Man. And pray consider, how many Absurdities there would be in the Christian Religion, if you Divines, in Propositions repugnant to common Sense, did not (to save the Credit of your own Profession) fly from a Literal to a Metaphorical Sense and Meaning.  
L. That Scripture is very well expounded by Scripture, in most Cases, is a Proposition which we are more fond to defend than your very Author; but yet we are unwilling to exclude that use of common Sense and Reason, without which it is impossible to understand the meanest Author. When we read any Historian, Orator, or Poet, we readily guests what words are used in a proper, and what in a Translated sense, by the very contexture and position of the words, without turning over the whole History, Poem, or Oration, to find out a Metaphor, or Catacresis, that lies open to the first view of the Reader. And let any Man read the 23d of Deuteronomy, and the 23d and 24th verses, and Judge whether Moses therein could be conceived as teaching the Israelites, That God is a real fire, though Job had never spoke one word of the matter. 23. Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the Covenant of the Lord your God, which he made with you, and make you a Graven Image, or the likeness of any thing, which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee. 24. For the Lord thy God is a Consuming Fire, even a Jealous God. How is it possible, That Moses should be conceived as teaching the Israelites, that God is real Fire, when in the same breath he forbids them to make any likeness of him; which the Israelites must needs have done, every time they struck a light, or went to Oven, if God had been a real fire. Suppose Job had never used the word fire in all his complaints, could not the Israelites have understood Moses, when he expresses the Activity, and Vehemence of God's Indignation against Idolatry, in such plain words? Viz. Thy God is a Consuming Fire, even a Jealous God. Besides, with what impudence, does your Author, expound Moses by Job, when according 
p. 9  to his Canons of Interpretation, Non licet mentem unius Prophetae, ex locis clarioribus alterius concludere neque explicare, nisi evident issime constet, eos unam eandemque fovisse sententiam— We must not conclude the mind of one Prophet, from the more express places of another, unless we are certain that both were of the same Opinion. And again he tells us, in the 95th page, that we must not hope to solve all repugnancies in the scriptures, by comparing one place with another, since that only can illustrate some few places by chance, Quando quidem nullus propheta eo fine scripsit ut verba alterius aut sua ipsa ex professo explicaret. No Prophet wrote on purpose to explain his own, or another Prophet's meaning.  
S. Methinks it is something odd, to say, That no Prophet wrote any thing to explain his own meaning.  
L. It is no other than your Author obtrudes upon you, under the name of solid Reason, whereas he is full of Inconsistencies, and seems never to know his own mind. In the 87 th'. Pag. notwithstanding the illogical deduction of a universal Proposition, from a single instance, he concludes from this passage of Moses, That the knowledge of the Scriptures is to be Deduced only from themselves; but from the very next Line, to the end of the Chap. he contends earnestly to prove, That the knowledge of the true Sense of the Scriptures, is to be gained not from the Books themselves, but from an History of the Books, and the various chances that have happened to them, viz. a Narration of the Lives, Manners, and Affections of the respective Penmen, who they were, at what time, to whom, and upon what occasion they wrote each Book; so that according to your Author, the Interpretation of Scripture is to be taken 
ex solis biblii.  from the Scriptures alone, and yet without such an extrinsic History, which himself confesses to be wanting, it is impossible to know the true sense of them.  
S. I must confess, that my Author is a little too guilty of contradicting himself, for great wits have short memories: But still you do not show any Reason, why we should not believe that God, in the Opinion of Moses, was subject to Humane Passions, since it is not where contradicted in the Scriptures themselves,  
L. Because the Scriptures themselves do teach, That God is a Spirit, John 4. 24. and that consequently, he cannot be subject to Passions, which are always accompanied with some Perturbations of the Body; and since by Nature we have no distinct, and Adequate Comprehension of the Principles, and manner of Operation of the Divine Nature, in distributing Rewards, and Punishments, it was impossible for Moses to express God's first Resolution of rewarding the Good, and punishing the Bad, in more proper terms than those of Love and Anger, etc. Tho therefore those Expressions are Figurative, when applied to God, yet since they are the most proper that we can find, for what we cannot fully understand, it is plain that Moses had right Conceptions of God, when in words, he ascribed those Passions to him.  
S. Then you interpret Scripture by Reason.  
L. I do not make my Reason, the Standard of Divine Revelation, but I hope, that I may make the same use of my Reason, in Interpreting Scripture, as you, or any sensible Man would do, in Reading any Humane Author.  
S. It would be hard to deny you that liberty; besides I am so much a Friend to Truth, that I must ingenuously confess, that it is not plain to me, that Job in that place by Fire, does either understand Jealousy 
Vid. Job 31.  or Anger, but rather the crime of Adultery, or Fornication, for thus he speaks, v. 9 If my heart hath been deceived by a Woman, or if I have laid wait at my Neighhours door; Then let my Wife grind unto an other, and let others bow down upon her. For this is an Heinous Crime, yea it is an Iniquity to be punished by the Judges. For it is a Fire that consumeth to Destruction, and would root out all mine Increase. Now it seems to me, that it is not Jealousy, which is no very expensive passion, but the being deceived by a Woman, and the guilt of lying in wait at his Neighbour's Door, which Job calls here a Consuming Fire, that would soon bring Destruction upon his Body and Estate.  
L. And yet your admired Author, makes use of such forced Interpretations of Scripture, to affix absurdities of his own Invention, to those Sacred Writings, and thereby to destroy their Divine Authority. For indeed the whole contexture of the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament, do give us such clear Notions of the Unity and Spirituality of the Divine Nature, that they cannot be distorted, to savour any Opinion that is contrary to Natural Religion, without open violence, as well as secret Art and Cunning: Tho it must be confessed at the same time, that they teach some things above our Reason, be cause they came from an Author who knows more than in this Life can be understood by us.  
S. If you rightly understand the Ambiguities of the Hebrew Language, which my Author very learnedly reckons up, in the 93. Pag. and the great want we have of a certain History of the Books themselves, and the Lives of the Authors, you would easily perceive that we know little or nothing of the true sense of Scriptures, unless it be in those places which treat of Moral Precepts, for they are so plainly Intelligible, that they retain the same perspicuity in all Languages.  
L. We know that the Hebrew, as well as all other Languages, is subject to some Ambiguities, which may create Error, but we do not see that these Ambiguities are so frequent, or of such consequence, as to shake our Belief of any one Fundamental Article of Revealed Religion. But with what Gygantick confidence, would your Aurhor raise a Stupendious structure, upon this narrow and rotten Foundation? There are some ambiguities, in some places, that may sometimes arise, concerning the true meaning of some few Texts of Scripture— Therefore we can never be certain of the true meaning of any one Text therein, those only excepted, which contain Moral Precepts, for of those we were certain before hand. But we can never understand, from thence, that there was such a People as the Jews, or such a man as Moses, or such a Person as our Saviour, who did wonderful things in Judea, nor any Apostles sent out by him, for these are all speculative matters, which (though the New Testament was wrote in Greek, yet) are altogether obscured by the ambiguities of the Hebrew Language. Can you think your Author would have descended to this absurd way of arguing, if his cause would have boar a better? Is not our Faith on our Saviour, grounded upon plain Narrations of such Matters of Fact, as are as easily intelligible in one Language as another, and will not History as well bear a Translation as the Problems of Euclid? Does not he pretend to expound Scripture by some Hebrew History, (if he could get one for his purpose) and yet is all History so obscure, that it is impossible to be expounded?  
S. You cannot deny, but that a History of the Lives of the Prophets, would much conduce towards the better understanding of Prophetical Writings.  
L. It might give light to some few places, but is far from being absolutely necessary to expound all. Why may we not as well understand the Scriptures, without such a History, as the works of Plato, or Cicero, or Levy? Besides, in what Language must this Expounding History be wrote? Not in Hebrew, for than it must be subject to the same ambiguities, as the Bible itself— Nor in any of the Eastern Tongues, for then the matter would not be much mended; Nor in any Foreign dialect, for than it would not pass for Authentic, as wrote by one not skilled in the Jewish Affairs. Then by whom must this History be wrote? By an Author that pretends to be inspired, than Spinosa will have the same prejudice against him, as against the other Prophets, and Penmen of the Holy Scripture, whom he exposes as Madmen, and will not allow them to say one thing, (unless in Morals) that can be understood, or that aught to be believed by us: If this History is wrote by an Author that pretends to no Inspiration, though that one thing might recommend him to Spinosa, yet it will give all thinking men just cause of caution, that they be not imposed upon, by a man whom they know to be as fallible as themselves: And therefore unless they can be well satisfied, that his integrity is greater, his understanding clearer, and his opportunities of knowing all the important Matters of Fact, of those Ages, more advantageous, than those of the Holy Penmen, they will see no reason, why they should rather Correct Scripture by the Historian, than the Historian by Scripture.  
S. Ay, but my Author gives you such a History of Scripture, as makes all the Pentateuch, Books of Joshua, Judges, etc. To appear to be a Novel Invention, most likely to be jumbled together by Esdras, as he well Conjectures, and that the other Books of the Old Testament, received as Canonical, are not of that Antiquity which you Divines ascribe to them.  
L. But than you should consider, that your Author is a Person upon whose Judgement we cannot rely, since we can have no reason to be satisfied with the integrity, or Authority of such an Historian. How little his integrity is, we have already seen, by his pretending to be a Deist, and to advance the Law of Nature, which consists chief in Loving God; when it is plain from his Chapter of Miracles, that he is really an Atheist, as every man must needs be, that holds the infinity, and immutability of the Power of Nature: As also by his partial Distorture of Scripture, by denying it the same liberty of using words in a Translated sense, which is given to all other Writings. As for clearness of Judgement, which is the second Commendation of an Historian, I cannot see how your Author can pretend to that, whom I have showed, to have laid down so many false propositions, drawn so many false conclusions, and so frequently to have contradicted himself. And as for his opportunities of knowing the Matters of Fact, of the most grand importance of those Ages, we all know, that he is as ignorant of them as ourselves, and therefore we had rather believe those who lived in Ancient times, and were Eye-Witnesses of what our Saviour did, or suffered for our sakes, than a Modern upstart, whom we are sure can understand, at most, no more than ourselves of the matter?  
S. But though you slight his Authority, yet if he can prove by solid reasons, as he attempts in his 8th Chapter, That the Pentateuch was not wrote by Moses, etc. You are bound to yield to them, and to deny its Divine Authority.  
L. But if his Reasons, are fallacious, and Conjectural (as I could easily demonstrate, had we Books and leisure in this place, to go through the Argument, which yet at best would be but loss of time) than you cannot blame me, if I withdraw my assent from his Pernicious Doctrines. But to bring matters to a short issue. Do you believe, that the Account the Evangelists give of the Life of our Saviour, and the Acts of his Apostles, is altogether unintelligible by the Hebriasms, and various Lections?  
S. No, I think no man of common sense or modesty, will pretend to say so.  
L. Do you think, that all therein recorded of them, could be done by any Natural, or Diabolical Power?  
S. You have already demonstrated the impossibility of the first, and the absurdity of the second assertion.  
L. Then if our S. and his Apostles, who proved their own Divine Mission, did bear Testimony to the Writings of Moses, and the other Prophets, all your Author's Criticisms, or Conjectural fancies of Esaras, Vanish into nothing. For with what truth could our Saviour have said, Mat. the 19th and the 7th. That Moses Commanded to give a Bill of Divorcement, and that Moses, for the hardness of their Hearts, suffered them to put away their Wives? or St. John 19 17. That the Law was given by Moses, if the whole Pentateuch had been a Fiction of Esdras? Our Saviour therefore has confirmed the Law of Moses, and the Divine Authority of the Old Testament, by a new addition of Signs and Wonders, impossible to be gainsaid by the Cunning, or Malice of Man.  
S. You have now given me full satisfaction, concerning the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, into a dislike of which I was led by the Sophistry of this intrieguing Author. For it mightily pleased me, to hear his project, to deduce all knowledge from Natural reason, which as he teaches, p. 98. Proceeds from plain and obvious Notions, to the most obscure and remotest objects.  
L. Let Natural reason proceed never so cautiously, yet she can never ascend so high, as to understand clearly those supernatural things which concern a future State, of which she has here, no complete Ideas. And besides, if God is a free Agent, it follows, he can prescribe what conditions of salvation do best please him: And Natural reason can never ascend to the knowledge of what a free Agent will have done, from any known or obvious Maxims in Nature.  
S. No more than one man, by reason alone, can tell what is the will and pleasure of another— But I will ask you one Question more, Viz. Who ought to be the Interpreter of Scripture? 
* P. 103. penes unumquemque snmmum jus, summaque authoritas, de religione libere judicandi, etc.  for Spinosa gives away that Authority to every private Man.  
L. The ambiguous use of the word Interpretation, has been the cause of much Error, and much Mischief in the World, it is a Multiplied Idea, which will breed confusion in the understanding, if it be not carefully resolved into its first Principles. For first, sometimes to interpret Scripture, is put to signify only, a right apprehension of what is the true sense of Scripture, and an expression of that true sense, in plain and proper terms: And this belongs to every individual Man, to whom the Gospel is Preached. For every man has a right to understand those truths that are alike beneficial to all mankind, and which are therefore promulged, that they may be made known unto all: And as every man has a right to understand as much as he can of Divine truths, so also may be Communicate that knowledge by Speech to others, though the public Exercise of that Office, do most properly belong to the Ministers of God. But others, by the word Interpret, do understand, the Power of affixing what sense they please upon the Scriptures, and constraining others to admit the same, be it what it will, as true and genuine. But such an Authority as this, can neither belong to every Private man, nor to any humane Power whatsoever. For no man can have Authority from the God of Truth, to oppose truth itself, and it is gross nonsense, to call Contradiction of Scripture, an Interpretation of it. There is no room for Interpretation, but in places that are obscure and dubious, but plain Texts expound themselves, and to pretend that every man has a right▪ of affixing a contradictory sense, to the most easy, express, and intelligible Texts of Scripture, is as much as to say, Every Man 
Summum jus. summa authoritas.  has a right to be a Fool, and to deceive himself, and to live in Error, and be nursed up in the ignorance of those things, that most concern his Happiness, and to give the Lie to his great Creator. Instead of believing the Scriptures, to be the Word of God, every private man, according to your Author's Hypothesis, may believe them lawfully to be the invention of Satan, or the dictates of Madmen, or the invention of some cunning Politicians. What is more plain than our Saviour's words, Mat. 16. 17. Verses. Go you into all the World, and Preach the Gospel unto every Creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.  
Suppose a man discoursing upon these words, should pretend to teach from hence, that no Gospel either was, is, or ever aught to be Preached to the World; That no man ought to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that there is no Condemnation to unbelievers either in this World, or in the World to come. Would you call this an Interpretation of that Text of Scripture?  
S. Not if I was in my right Senses.  
L. And yet your prodigal Author gives this large Authority to every private Man, of Interpreting Scripture after this absurd, and erroneous manner.  
S. Perhaps, he only means, it is in every Man's Power to Interpret Scripture as he pleases.  
L. So it is in every Man's power to be Erroneous, and to Act contrary to the Law of Nature; but has he therefore a right to Murder, Steal, or commit Adultery? But he does not only say, Summum jus libere sentiendi de Religione penes unumquemque esse, but, Summam Authoritatem Scripturam 
p. 103.  Interpretandi, apud unumquemque esse.  
S. Methinks the right of Interpreting Scripture, ought rather to be given to some Body of Men, who are most likely to preserve it.  
L. I have already showed you, That Contradiction is no Interpretation, and, that no Humane power, can have Authority to oppose Divine Revelation, unless you could prove, That Man is more Omniscient than God.  
S. God forbidden, that I should attempt that; for now I begin to hate the very name of Deism, as it stands Opposed to the Belief of Revealed Religion.  
L. And you would hate it more, if you considered, from the Dregs of how many Sects and Factions this Poison is Extracted, and how much it tends to destroy all Morality, and use of right reason in the World. From the Papists, it takes the Doctrine Deficiency, and Obscurity of the Scriptures, and the necessity of a Living Interpreter. From the Quakers, it take the Doctrine of 
See chap. 12. p. 144, 145  of the Light within, as sufficient to Salvation, (which he calls, The Law of Nature, and they term, the Spirit,) and of vilifying the Scriptures, as mere Paper, and Ink, as he expressly calls 'em, Chap. 12. Pag. 145. Vereor ne nimis sancti; etc. Simulachra et imagines, hoc est Chartam et atramentum pro Scriptura adorent. In which words, he makes Reverencing the Scriptures, to be a kind of Idolatry. From the Independent, it takes the Renunciation of Catholic Communion, and makes every Man, as they do every Congregation, to be a Church as it were to himself, and it borrows something of the Doctrine of Fatal Necessity from the rigid Preshyterian. Then as to its tendency to Immorality, it takes from us all certainty of the means of Grace, and hope of Glory, through the Mediation of our Blessed Saviour, and leaves us nothing to Adore, but a careless, deceitful, and inflexible Deity, and whilst it pretends to leave us Piety, it really robs us of the true Ided of God: It leaves Justice and Charity, no other encouragement than they can find in this world, and God knows that is often little enough; and it gives the full Reins to Lust, and Appetite, to Eat, Drink, and be Merry, for all beyond the Grave, is but Conjecture, or idle Speculation: Nay, it drives the mind unto an assent to so many Absurdities, and Contradictions, as must at last centre in downright Atheism; for a Man may as well believe, that there is no God at all, as believe that there is a God, who has exerted his own power to abuse the World; and Atheism in a few Years would run up again into the old Pagan Idolatry, (since Humane Nature cannot be long without Religion,) or some Superstition of (if possible) a more ridiculous, and pernicious Nature.  
S. Sir, you need add no more, I am fully satisfied of the necessity of Revealed Religion, and only beg your Prayers to Almighty God, that I may increase in all useful Knowledge, and Walk worthy of so Heavenly a Vocation.  
L. I am glad if any weak endeavours of mine, can contribute any thing to the Vindication of that Religion, into which I was at first Baptised, and which is now so much opposed by the Fraud, and Malice both of Men, and Deviss; And may God, who has begun this Conversion in your heart, assist you, always with his Grace, and make you perfect in every good Work, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  
S. I thank you for your Christian endeavours, and wish you an hearty farewell.   
FINIS.   

Books Printed for Ch. Brome, 1697.  
THE Snake in the Grass, or Satan Transformed to an Angel of Light discovering the deep and unsuspected subtlety, which is Couched under the pretended simplicity of the Quakers. The Second Edit. with Additions. Price 4 s. bound.  
Satan Disrobed from his Disguise of Light, or the Quakers last shift to cover their Monstrous Heresies, laid fully open, in a reply to Thomas Ellwood's Answer (Published in May, 1696.) to George Keith's Narrative, of the proceeding at Turner's— Hall, June 11. 1696. By the Author of the Snake in the Grass. Price 1. s.  
A Discourse proving the Divine Instituon of Water Baptism, by the Author of the Snake in the Grass. Price 1 s.  
The Quakers Set in their true light, from the Year of their rise, 1650. To the Year of their Progress 1697, by Francis Bugg, Senior. Price 1 s.  
The Case of the Quakers, Relating to Oaths Stated; wherein they are Discovered, to oppose Prophetical, to pervert Evangelical, to falsify Ecclesiastical, and to Contradict their own Doctrines. Price 6 d.  
Arithmetical Recreations, all performed without Algebra, with several Arithmetical Problems, and their Answers, by Will. Leybourn, the Second Edit. Enlarged and Amended. Price 1 s.  
The Reformed Monactry, or the Love of Jesus, a sure and short, pleasant and easy way to Heaven, by the Reverend Mr. Luke Beaulieu. Price 1 s. 6 d.  
An Essay concerning Preaching, Written for the Direction of a Young Divine, and Ufefull also for the People, in order to Profitable hearing; together with a seasonable Defence of Preaching, and the plain way to it, by Dr. Glanvil. Price 1s. 6 d.  
Dr. Combers Works, on the Common Prayer, in Folio and Octavo.  
Friendly and Seasonable Advice to the Roman Catholics of England, by Dr. Combe. Price 1 s.  
A Manual of Prayers, for the use of the Scholars of Winchester College, and all other Devout Christians. To which is added, three Hymns for Morning, Evening, and Midnight, newly revised, by the Author of the Practice of Divine Love. Price bowed 1 s.  
The Plague of Athens, which happened in the Second Year of the Peloponnesian War. First described in Greek, by Thucydides. Then in Latin, by Lucretius, now attempted in English; By the Right Reverend Father in God, Thomas, Lord Bishop of Rochester. Price 6 d.  
The Poems of Horace, Consisting of Odes, Satyrs, and Epistles, Rendered in English, and Paraphrased, by Alexander Brome, Gent. and several other Persons Price bound 4 s.  
Songs and other Poems, by Alexander Brome, Gent. Price bound 3 s.