' f/* ■ , 
 
 u'.\^> 
 
 j: 
 
 4, 
 
 '^:: 
 
 >y 
 
5f.6. 
 
 ly- 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 ■ PRINCETON, N. J. ' 
 
 Case, i^^^^—r P.Jv'sk, 
 
 SheJf, ...., jj^ Q}t .S.?<^t ' ^ ' ■' - . ^•'. .* - - . 
 
 Booh ^ No,...'. 
 
 
 
 
 -'^. 
 
 ;<>" 
 
z> 
 
 
 
 J/ruCcd^ 
 
 
 
 A\ 
 
 C 
 
laATIONAL EHOUIRYj ^c. 
 
Natural Religion Insufficient, and Revealed Necessary, 
 to Man's Happiness in his Present State : 
 
 OR, A 
 
 RATIONAL INQUIRY 
 
 PRINCIPLES 
 
 OP THE 
 
 MODERN DEISTS; 
 
 IS LARGELY DISCOVERED THEIR UTTER INSUFFICIENCY 
 
 TO ANSWER THE GREAT ENDS OF RELIGION, AND THE 
 
 WEAKNESS OF THETR PLEADINGS FOR THE 
 
 SUFFICIENCY OF NATURE'S LIGHT 
 
 TO ETERNAL HAPPINESS: 
 
 AND PAETICriABLY 
 
 Xhe Writings of the late learned Loan Herbert, the great Patron of Deism, 
 
 to wit, his Books de Vehitate, de Religione Gentilium, and Reliqio, 
 
 Laici in so far as they assert Nature's Light able to conduct us 
 
 to future Blessedness, are considered, and fully answered. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 AN ESSAY ON THE TRUE GROUND OF FAITH. 
 
 Bij the late Reverend Mr. THOMAS HALYBURTON, 
 
 Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. 
 
 A scorner seeketh wisdom cuid Andeth it not : but knowledge is easy unto him 
 that undeistantleth. Prov. xiv. 6. 
 
 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
 God, or whether I speak of myself. John vii. 17. 
 
 Solis nosse Deos & coclinumina vobis, 
 
 Aut solis nescircj datum. Lucan, de Druid. 
 
 ALBANY: 
 PRINTED BY H. C. SOUTHWICK, 
 
 so. 73, STATE-STREET. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 1812. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The God of glory hath not left himself without a 
 witness j all his works do, after their manner declare his 
 o-loiy. Ask now the beastSy and they shall teach thee ; 
 and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee : Or speak 
 to the earthy and it shall teach thee ; and the Jishes of the 
 sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these, 
 that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this ? Job xii. 7, 
 8, 9. Moreover it hath pleased him to instamp upon the 
 consciences of men, such deep impressions of his being 
 and glory, that all the powers and subtilty of hell, shall 
 never be able to eradicate them : Though, alas ! through 
 a custom of sin, and especially against much light and 
 conviction, the consciences of many are debauched in 
 these dregs of time, to an obliterating of these impres- 
 sions, which otherwise would have been strong and vi- 
 vid* The principles of moral equity carry such an evi- 
 dence in their nature, and are also accompanied with so 
 much of binding force upon the conscience, that their 
 obligation on rational creatures hath a most resplendent 
 clearness, and fills the little world with such a strength, * 
 and efficacy of truth, as far surpasseth the plainest the- 
 oretical principles. That one maxim, Matth. vii. 12. 
 Luke vi. 3. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that 
 men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; that one max- 
 im, I say, (to pass others) was matter of so much won- 
 der to some of the most polite Heathens, that ttiey knew 
 not well how to express then- sense of the truth and glo- 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 ry of it ; they thought it worthy to be engraven with 
 letters of gold, upon the frontispieces of their most 
 magnificent structures ; an agreeable and speaking evi- 
 dence of its having been imprinted in some measme up- 
 on their hearts. Nevertheless, all these, though sweet, 
 strong, and convincing notices of a Deity, do yet evan- 
 ish as faint glimmerings, when compared* to that stamp 
 of divine authority, which our great and alone Law- 
 giver has deeply imprinted upon the scriptures of truth, 
 Psal. xix. 7. The law of the Lord is perfecty converting the 
 soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the 
 simple, &LC. I enter not upon this large theme, which 
 great men have treated to excellent purpose ; I only 
 represent very shortly, that the stupendous account we 
 have in these scriptme, of moral equity in its full com- 
 pass, comprised even in ten words, that wonderful ac- 
 count, I say, proclaimeth its Author with so much of 
 convincing evidence, and such strains of glory, as I can- 
 not possibly clothe with words. The greatest men 
 amono- the Heathen nations, have given the highest ac- 
 counts of their accomplishments by framing laws ; but 
 besides the passing weakness of their performances, when 
 viewed in a true light, the choicest of them all have a 
 great deal of iniquity inlaid with them : But all here 
 shineth with the glory of a Deity. Every duty is plain- 
 ly contained within these small boundaries, and all con- 
 cerns thereof in heart and way, are set down so punc- 
 tually, and so fully cleared in the exposition which the 
 Lawgiver himself has given of his own laws, that no- 
 thing is wanting. Here also are all the mysteries of ini- 
 quity in the heart so clearly and fully detected, these 
 evils also pursued to their most latent sources, and to 
 the grand spring of them all, viz, the corruption of our 
 nature, and in so very few words, with so much of shin- 
 ing evidence and power, that no judicious and sober 
 person can deny that the finger of God is there, unless 
 he oiler the most daring violence to his own conscience. 
 And what shall I say of the glorious contrivanceof sal- 
 vation, through the Lord Jesus our only Redeemer? 
 Should I touch at the ground work thereof in the eter- 
 nal counsel of the adorable Trinity, and the several dis- 
 
PREFACE. Tii 
 
 playe of it, until at length the complete purchase was 
 made in the fulness of time ; and if I should but glance 
 at the several strokes of omnipotent power, and rich 
 mercy through Christ, by which the purchased salva- 
 tion is effectually applied to every elect person, I would 
 enter upon a field from w hich I could not quickly or 
 easily get off*. All that I adventure to say is, tliat the 
 discoveries of a Deity in each step thereof, are so relu- 
 cent and full of glory, that the being of the material 
 light under a meridian sun, without the interposition of 
 a cloud, may as well be denied, as these great truths can 
 be disowned. Beyond all manner of doubt, they con- 
 tain matter of much higher, and more glorious evidence, 
 upon the minds of all those Avhose eyes the god of this 
 world hath not blinded, (2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. John i. 5. Deut. 
 xxix. 4.) Yet ah ! mid-day clearness is midnigiit dark- 
 ness to those who have not eyes. But not to insist : 
 If we add to all these, the full history of the heart of 
 man, in the depths of wickedness, contained in that great 
 abyss, together with the several eruptions thereof, both 
 open and violent, as also subtile and covered, together 
 with all the engines of temptations for setting it to work, 
 and keeping it still busy ; if, I say, the perfect account 
 of these things which is given in the word, be seriously 
 pondered, who can escape the conviction, that He, and 
 He only who formed the Spirit within liim, could have 
 given such a display. From all this, I would bewail, 
 were it possible, with tears of blood, the blasphemous 
 •wickedness of those, who, from the grossest darkness 
 and ignorance, oppose, malign, and deride such great 
 and high things. But it is enough ; wisdorv is justijiedhf 
 all her children^ Matth. xi, ] 9. The worthy and now 
 glorified author of this work, had a plentiful measme, 
 beyond many, of the surest and sweetest knowledge of 
 these matters : his soul, (may I so express it) was cast 
 into the blessed mould of gospel truth. AVho is a teacher 
 like unto God ! Sure an enlightening work, by his word 
 and Spirit upon the soul, iilleth it with evidence of a 
 more excellent nature, and attended with a penetrancy 
 quite of another kind, than any mathematical demon- 
 stration can amoujit to. In this case, the soul (2 Cor. 
 
vui PREFACE. 
 
 iii, 3.) is an epistle of Jesus Christ, wherein these great 
 truths are written by himself, in characters which the 
 united force and subtilties of hell shall be so far from 
 deleting, that theii' strongest efforts shall render the un- 
 pressions still deeper, and more vivid. No mathematic- 
 al demonstration can vie with this : forasmuch as the au- 
 thority of the God of truth, that conveys his own testi- 
 mony into the heart with a strong hand, has a glory and 
 evidence peculiar to itself. And though well known to 
 those who enjoy it, yet of a beauty great and mysteri- 
 ous, such as the tongues of men and angels could not 
 suffice to describe. The empty cavils of that execrable 
 herd of blasphemous Atheists, or Deists, as they would 
 be called, amount to a very small and contemptible ac- 
 count, seeing the most subtle of them, fall veiy far short 
 of the objections which unclean spuits propose, and urge 
 in away of temptation, against persons exercised to godli- 
 ness, which yet the Father of lights dispelleth merciful- 
 ly from time to time, and maketli tlicse dark shades to 
 evanish, as the Sun of righteousness ariseth upon the 
 soul with a glory and evidence still upon the ascendant, 
 Mai. iv, 2. Prov. iv, 18. Hos. vi, 3. Nevertheless, the 
 learned and godly author hath encountered these silly 
 creatures at their own weapons, both offensively and de- 
 fensively, and to such excellent purpose, as needeth not 
 my poor testimony. He hath searched into the very bot- 
 tom of what they allege. With great and unwearied 
 diligence did he read their writings carefully from the 
 very first springs, and hath represented fairly their emp- 
 ty cavils, in all the shades of strength they can be al- 
 leged to have, and has refuted them plainly and copiously. 
 On which, and the like accounts, I hope the work wUl 
 be, through the divine blessing, of great use in the 
 churches of Christ. 
 
 JAMES HOG. 
 
3^0 the Public. 
 
 IT would be superfluous for the publisher to add any thing to 
 ihe highly respectable recommendations which are subjoined, as a 
 reason for offering a new American edition of the following work 
 to the public, or as an inducement to the pious and reflecting 
 portion of community to patronize the undertaking. If, unhappily, 
 the enemies of Christianity are, at this period, uncommonly active 
 and zealous in propagating their pernicious doctrines, it becomes 
 the peculiar duty of every one who feels the importance of religion, 
 to encourage the circulation of a work so well calculated as this to 
 check the progress of infidelity, and to promote the cause of truth 
 and virtue. 
 
 "o-j:^* 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 ^E consider Professor H ALYBURTON's celebrated work, on 
 the Insufficiency of Natural REtiGioN, and the Necessitt 
 OP Revelation, as on the whole, the best manual on the subject 
 of Which it treats, now 6xtant. The author, not less illustrious for 
 his talents and learning, than for his piety, has not contented him- 
 self, like most modern writers on the Deistical controversy, with 
 merely standing on the defensive ; but has " carried the war," as 
 one of his eulogists expresses it, " into the camp of the adversa- 
 ry ;" proving, by " unanswerable arguments," as another has pro- 
 nounced, " the utter insufficiency of the Deist's religion for the sal- 
 vation of them, and beating them fairly at their own weapons." 
 We rejoice to he^r that Mr. South wick proposes to give a new 
 
 2 
 
X RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 American edition of this excellent work. Were its merits general- 
 ly known, all recommendation would be mmecessary. 
 
 SAMUEL MILLER, D.D. 
 JOHN B. ROMEYN, D. D. 
 PHILIP MILLEDOLER, 
 GARDNER SPRING, 
 HENRY P. STRONG, 
 Pastors of the Preshyterian Church. 
 
 JOHN SHUREMAN, 
 CHRISTIAN BOURCKy 
 S. N. ROWAN, 
 JOHN BRODHEAD, 
 
 Pastors of the Reformed Dutch Church. 
 
 J. M. MASON, D. D. 
 
 Provost of Columbia College and Pastor of the Associate 
 Reformed Church. 
 
 ALEX. McLEOD, D. D. 
 
 Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 
 
 THOMAS HAMILTON, 
 
 Pastor of the Associate Church. 
 
 JOHN McNIECE, 
 
 Pastor of the Irish Presbyterian Church. 
 
 WILLIAM NETLL, 
 
 Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in the City of Albany. 
 
 JOHN M. BRADFORD, 
 
 Minister of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in the 
 City of Albany. 
 
 ELIPHALET NOTT, D. D. 
 
 President of Union College, Schenectady. 
 
 ALEXANDER MONTEITH, 
 
 Pastor of the 1st Presbyterian Church in the city of Sche- 
 nectady. 
 
 New-York, May, 1812. 
 
 AccrsTOMED from my earliest years, to hear the name of Haly- 
 BURTON mentioned with the highest respect, and his Examination 
 OF THE Principles of the Deists of his own time, greatly ex- 
 tolled, both by the pious and by the learned of his own Church, and 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS. xi 
 
 after repeated and frequent perusals of this judicious and profound 
 treatisefl cordially unite in the character and encomiums given 
 above ; and with becoming deference, earnestly recommend the 
 careful and patient study of it to all, but especially to the youth of 
 our own country. joHN McDONALD, . ^ 
 
 Paslor of the United Preshyterian Church in the City of 
 Albany. 
 
 Albany, May 26, 1812. 
 
TO THE READER, 
 
 READER, 
 
 WHOEVER thou art, the question agitated in the 
 /ensuing discourse is that wherein thou hast a considera- 
 ble concernment. If thou art a Christian, the ensuing 
 discourse is designed to justify thy refusal of that reli^ 
 gion which has now got a great vogue amongst those 
 gentlemen, who set up for the only wits, and aim at 
 monopolizing reason, as if they alone were the peoplcy and 
 wisdom was to die with them. They cry up their religion 
 as the only reasonable religion, and traduce all who will 
 not join with them, as credulous and unreasonable men. 
 Whereas, on the contrary, no man that uses his reasoi^ 
 can close with that which they would obtrude on us as 
 rational religion : nor can any man, w ithout being guilty 
 of the fondest credulity, venture his salvation upon this 
 modern Paganism, that struts abroad under the modish 
 name of Deism^ which I hope the ensuing discourse will 
 evince ; wherein it is made appear, that the light of na- 
 ture is utterly insufficient to answer the great ends of reli-r 
 gion, and that consequently we had the justest reason in 
 the world, if there were none, to wish for a revelation 
 from God, as what is of absolute necessity to our happi- 
 ness ; and since there is one, with the greatest tliankful- 
 fiess tQ embrace it, cleave to it and comply with it, 
 
xiv TO THE READER. 
 
 Reader, if thou hast thy religion yet to choose, which 
 I am afraid is too common a case in this unstable age, 
 then it is high time thou wert bethinking thyself of reli- 
 gion in earnest. 
 
 To-morrow thou wilt lire, thou still dost say ; 
 To-day's too late, the wise liv'd yesterday. 
 
 And if after too long a delay thou mean to avoid an 
 unhappy choice, reason advises thee to consider well, 
 that when the choice is made, care be taken to make it so, 
 as to prevent the necessity of either a second choice, or a 
 too late repentance for choosing amiss. There is a set of 
 men, who cry up at this day natural religion, and especi- 
 ally commend it to such as have no religion. It is such 
 as thou art that they desire to deal with, and among such 
 it is that they are most successful. But if thou hast a 
 mind not to be deceived in a matter of such moment, it 
 imports thee not a little to consider what may be said 
 against that, which it is likely may be offered thee, as a 
 fine, modish, reasonable religion, meet for a gentleman^ 
 a man of wit and reason, I have here offered to prove 
 this all to be said without, yea against reason and experi- 
 ence. Well, first hear and then judge, and after that 
 choose or refuse as thou seest cause. 
 
 As for the management of this useful inquiry, it is 
 wholly suited to that which at first Avas only designed, 
 viz. the satisfaction of the w liter's own mind about the 
 question that is here proposed. I entered not upon this 
 inquiry with a view to oppose any man, or triumph over 
 adversaries, and so did industriously wave those catches, 
 subtleties, and other nicities, used frequently by writers 
 of controversy. My only design was to find the truth, 
 and therefore I chose clearly to state the question, which 
 I found the Deists always avoided, and plainly propose 
 my reasons for that side of it I took, after trial, to be the 
 truth. As to the opposite opinion, I made it my busi- 
 ness to make a diligent inquiry into the strongest argu- 
 ments advanced for it, candidly to propose them in their 
 utmost force, and closely to answer them; avoiding, as 
 much as might be, such reproaches as are unworthy of a 
 
TO THE READER. xv 
 
 Christian, or an inquirer after truth, though I met with 
 ifrequent provocation, and found sometimes how true 
 tliat is, Difficile est non scribere satyram contra satyram,^ 
 
 It was not amusement I aimed at, or to please my own 
 fancy, or tickle the reader's ears with a gingle of words, 
 or divert and bias the judgment by a flood of rhetoiic. 
 I never designed to set v^ for an orator. My business 
 lies quite another way, it is what I lay no claim to, and 
 what I think is to be avoided in discourses of this Idiid. 
 All I aimed at as to language, was to clothe my thougl -ts 
 in plain and intelligible expressions. Tiie reader is to 
 expect no more, and if he miss this I hope it will be but 
 rarely. 
 
 It is not to be expected, that a discourse which was 
 beo-un in an inverted order, the middle part being first 
 writ ; and that was composed in the intervals of business 
 of a very diiferent nature, at spare liours, by one of no 
 great experience, and an utter stranger to writings of 
 this sort, shall be free of blemishes that may olfend 
 nicer palates. Some few repetitions could not, at least 
 without more pains in transcribing tlian I had either lei- 
 sure or inclination for, well be avoided. Nor could a 
 discourse so often intenupted by other business, and 
 upon so very difl'erent subjects, be carried on witli that 
 equality of style tliat were to be wislied, especially by 
 one who was never over much an aliecter of elegancy 
 of language. In a word, the work is long, much longer 
 than I designed ; and yet without wronging the sub- 
 ject, at least as I am otherwise situated and engaged, I 
 could not easily shorten it. If he pleases to inspect the 
 book, he may possibly find, that I had reason for insist- 
 ing at the lengtli I have done. However, every one has 
 not the art of him, who could enclose Homer's Iliads in 
 a nut's shell. 
 
 I am sensible, that what I have discoursed in the first 
 chapter of the ensuing treatise, concerning the Occasions 
 of Deism y will grate hard upon a set of men, wlio have for 
 many years bygone carried all before them, and so have 
 taken it ill to have any censures bestowed on them, though 
 
 * *' It is difficult not to write a satire against satire." 
 
xvi I'O THE READER, 
 
 they did severely animadvert upon the real or supposed 
 faults of others. As to this I have not much to say by 
 way of apology. That Deism has sprung up and grows 
 apace amongst us, is on all hands confessed. Others have 
 offered their conjectures concerning the occasions of its 
 increase. Why I might not offer my opinion also, I know 
 no reason. The principal subject of the ensuing treatise 
 suffers not, though I should herein be mistaken. In pro- 
 posing my conjecture I did not pursue the interest of 
 any party ; but have freely blamed all parties. If the 
 sticklers for the Arminian or Socinian divinity are touch- 
 ed, it was because I thought fhey were to be blamed, 
 and therefore I have withstood them to their face. As 
 to the tendency of their principles I have been sparing, 
 because that debate has been sufficiently agitated in the 
 Low Countries betwixt the contending parties. The 
 reader who would be satisfied as to this, may peruse 
 those who have directly managed this charge, and the 
 answers that have been made, and judge upon the whole 
 matter as he finds cause.* But whatever may be as to 
 tliis, the manner of their management may perhaps be 
 found less capable of a colourable defence. And it is 
 upon this that I have principally insisted. To oppose, 
 especially from the pulpit, with contempt, bufibonry, 
 banter and satire, principles, that sober persons of the 
 same persuasion do own to have at least a very plausi- 
 ble like foundation in the word of God, and which have 
 been, for near sixty or seventy years after the reforma- 
 tion, the constant doctrine of the fathers, and sons of the 
 church of England, and have by them been inserted in- 
 to her articles, and so become a part of her doctrine,t 
 is a practice that I do' not well imderstand how to ex- 
 cuse or free fiom the imputation of profanity, and 
 which hath too manifest a tendency to Atheism, to ad- 
 mit of any tolerable defence. The scriptures, and truths, 
 that have any countenance in them, or opinions which 
 they seem really to persons otherwise solder, pious and 
 judicious, not only to teach, but to inculcate as of the 
 
 * See Arcana ArnruVuiiikmi, by Videllus, and Videlius Ropsodus, with Yi- 
 delius's Rejoinders, &c. 
 t See Bishfip ofSaruni on the Articles, Prcrace, piige 7, 8. 
 
TO THE READER. xvii 
 
 highest importance, are not a meet subject for raillery ; 
 nor is the pulpit a meet place for it. This is that for 
 which principally I have blamed them, and this I cannot 
 retract. If they take this ill, I ask them. Have not otiiers 
 as much reason to take it ill, that the doctrines of tiie 
 church of England taught in her articles and homilies, 
 and professed by her learned bishops, who composed 
 them, and by her sons for so long a tract of time, as 
 consonant to, founded in, and grounded on the word of 
 God, should be so petulantly traduced by Avit, raillery, 
 and declamatory invectives from the press and pulpit; and 
 that too by those who have subscribed to these articles 
 and homilies ? This management has been complained 
 of by sober persons of all parties, churchmen and dis- 
 senters, contra-remonstrants and remonstrants too, as I 
 could make appear, if there were occasion for it : And 
 why I might not also complain, I want yet to be inform- 
 ed. None is charged save the guilty. Others who are 
 innocent have no reason to be angry. And perhaps, they 
 who will be offended at this, would scarce have been 
 pleased if I had let it alone. 
 
 In the tenth chapter of this treatise, I have opposed 
 the opinion that asserts the Heathen world to be under 
 a government of grace. I know it is maintained by ma- 
 ny learned men both at home and abroad, from whose 
 memory, if dead, or just respect, if alive, I designed not 
 to detract. Nor did I design to list them with the Deists, 
 whom I know to have been solidly opposed by several 
 that were of this opinion. But yet I do tliink the opinion 
 itself destitute of any solid foundation, with all deference 
 to them, who think otherwise, either in scripture, reason 
 or experience. And I am further of the mind, that the 
 learned abettors of it, had never embraced an assertion, 
 that exposes them to so many perplexing difficulties, and 
 puts them upon a necessity of using so many, I had al- 
 most said, unintelligible distinctions for its support, if 
 they had not been driven to it by some peculiar hypo- 
 thesis in divinity which they have seen meet to embrace. 
 If any intend to prove what I have denied, I wish it may 
 be done by proper arguments, directly proving it, and 
 not by advancing an hypothesis that remotely infers it. 
 
xviii To THE READER. 
 
 and which, in itself, or, at least as proposed by those 
 whom I have met with, is so darkened by a huge mul- 
 titude of subtile, mysterious and uncouth distinctions, 
 that I can scarce ever project so much tune as to under- 
 stand them. However this much I must say, that so 
 cross does this opinion seem to scripture, reason and ex- 
 perience, that it will go a very great way to weaken the 
 credit of any hypothesis on which it inevitably follows. 
 However, I hope this may be said, and different opin- 
 ions about this point without any breach of charity may 
 be retained. Diversum sentire duos de rebus iisdem incolumi 
 licuit semper amicitia.^ I know the abettors of this opin- 
 ion are hearty friends in the main to the cause I here 
 maintain. 
 
 The scheme I have in the close of that chapter offer- 
 ed by way of digression, of God's government of the 
 Heathen world, is not designed as a full account of that 
 matter, which as to many of its concernments, is of those 
 things that are not revealed, and so belong not us ; much 
 less is it designed to be the ground of a peremptory 
 judgment as to the eternal state of them, who are with- 
 out the church : But only to shew, that any thing we 
 certainly know as to God's dealings with them, in the 
 common course of his providence, may, upon other sup- 
 positions and principles, beside that rejected, be account- 
 ed for. The judicious and sober reader may judge of 
 it as he sees cause. I hope I have, in a matter of such 
 difficulty, avoided any unbecoming curiosity, or affect- 
 ing to be wise above what is written. 
 
 If any blame me for the multitude of quotations, I an- 
 swer, the subject I undertook rendered this unavoida- 
 ble. I have used the utmost candor in them. Some- 
 times out of a regard to brevity I have avoided the trans- 
 lation of testimonies quoted from authors who writ in a 
 different language. Tlie learned will not complain of 
 this : And if any person of tolerable judgment, who is 
 not learned, will be at pains to peruse the ensuing dis- 
 course, he will find as much said, without regarding 
 
 * " It was always allowed, that two persons might think differently of the 
 same things, wtthout breach of friendship." 
 
TO THE READER. xix 
 
 those quotations, as may satisfy his mind upon this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 As to what I have, in the ensuing papers ascribed, to 
 Mr. Gildon publisher of the Oracles of Reason, I had 
 written it before I understood his recovery from Deism. 
 But yet I thought it not meet to alter it, because there 
 are, no doubt, many others who entertain the same no- 
 tions he then did maintain, and my opposition is to the 
 principles and not the persons. As for his recovery, 1 
 congratulate it, and wish it may be such as may secure 
 him from after-reckoning for the hurt he has done. 
 
 If any Deists shall see meet to undertake this debate, 
 I decline it not. If they treat my book as they have 
 done those of others, every way my superiors, and as 
 rats are wont to do — gnaw only the outside, advert to in- 
 cident things that are not to the purpose, and single out 
 rather what seems exceptionable than what is of moment, 
 following him who did so. 
 
 &, quse 
 
 Desperat tractata iiitescei-e posse, relinquit,* 
 
 I have somewhat else to do, than to take any notice of 
 such impertinency. If any shall offer a solid and ra- 
 tional confutation, wliich yet I am not much afraid of, 
 and convince me, not by jest, bufibonry and raillery, 
 but by solid arguments, of my being in a mistake, 
 
 Cuncta recantabo maledicta, priora rependam 
 Laudibus, & vestrum nomen in astra feram.f 
 
 • And leaves out whatever he despairs of being able to ahlne in if they were 
 touched on." 
 
 I " I will recant all my reproaches, I will make amends for my former 
 slanders by praises, and will exalt your name to the st^rs-" 
 
INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 PREFACE, 3 
 
 Recommendations of the work, ..... 9 
 
 Author's address to the reader, . . . , .13 
 
 Introduction, • . .•••.. 25 
 [Wherein it is proved a matter of the highest import and 
 necessity to make a right choice of religion ; and wherein 
 it is further evinced, that no man, without the most mani- 
 fest violence to reason, can turn Heathen, Mahometan, or 
 acquiesce in Atheism or Scepticism, and that consequently 
 every man must acquiesce in the Scriptures, or turn De- 
 ist. Deism undertaken to be demonstrated false and 
 ■ruining. — The author's inducements to this undertaking,] 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Giving a short account of the rise, occasions, and progress 
 of Deism, especially in England ; — the opinions of the De- 
 ists ; — the different sorts of Deists, mortal and immortal, 41 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Mortal Deists who, and what judgment to be made of them 
 and their sentiments, 54 
 
 CHAP. HI. 
 
 Wherein the controversy betwixt us and the Immortal De- 
 ists is stated and cleared, 57 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Wherein the insufficiency of natural religion is proved from 
 the insufficiency of its discoveries of a Deity, . . 64 
 
xxii INDEX. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 PAflE. 
 
 Proving the insufficiency of natural religion from its defec- 
 tiveness as to the worship of God, .... 79 
 
 C H A P. VI. 
 
 Proving the insufficiency of natural religion from its defec- 
 tiveness as to the discovery wherein man's happiness lies, 8& 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Nature's light affords not a sufficient rule of duty. — Its insuffi- 
 ciency hence inferred, , 98 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Proving the insufficiency of natural religion from its defects 
 as to sufficient motives for enforcing obedience, . 108 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Shewing the importance of knowing the origin of sin to the 
 world, and the defectiveness of natm"e's light as to this, . 115 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Proving nature's light unable to discover the means of obtain- 
 ing pardon of sin, or to shew that it is attainable, . .128 
 
 Sect. I. The importance of this difficulty stated, 128 
 
 Sect. II. Shewing the darkness of nature's light as to 
 pardon, - . 136 
 
 Sect. III. Wherein it is inquired whether repentance 
 is sufficient to attone for sin? How far nature's light 
 enables to it ? What assurance nature's light gives of 
 pardon upon repentence ? .... 143 
 
 Objections considered, 169 
 
 Digression concerning God's government of the Hea- 
 then world, shewing that there is nothing in it whence 
 any design of God to pardon them may be certainly 
 inferred, 195 
 
INDEX. sxiii 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Proving the insufficiency of natural religion to eradicate our 
 inclinations to sin, or subdue its power, . . . 204 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 Wherein the proof of the insufficiency of natural religion is 
 concluded from a general view of the experience of the 
 world, 2in 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Wherein we n^ake a transition to the Deists' pleas for their 
 opinion, and take particular notice of the Articles to which 
 they reduce their Catholic religion ; give some account 
 of Baron Herbert, the first inventer of this Catholic re- 
 ligion, his books, and particularly of that which is inscrib- 
 ed De Religione Gentilium^ as to the matter and scope 
 of it, and the importance of what is therein attempted to 
 the Deists' cause, 219 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 Wherein it is inquired, Whether Herbert has proved that his 
 Five Articles did universally obtain, . . . 230 
 
 CHAP. XV. 
 
 Wherein it is made appear that Herbert's Five Articles did 
 not universally obtain, . . . - . . 253 
 
 CHAP. XVI. 
 
 Wherein some general considerations are laid down for prov- 
 ing that many of the best things, which are to be met with 
 in the Heathens, were not the discoveries of nature's light, 
 but came from tradition, ..... 270 
 
 CHAP. XVII. 
 
 Wherein we consider what Herbert's opinion was as to the 
 sufficiency of his Articles, and offer some reflections, show- 
 ing how foolish, absurd and ridiculous the Deists' pre- 
 tences to their sufficiency are, .... 276 
 
 CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 Containing an answer to some of the Deists' principal argu- 
 m^jiits ior Uie sufficiency oi naiural religion, . . 286 
 
jouY INDEX. 
 
 CHAP. XIX. 
 
 rAG£> 
 
 Wherein Herbert's reasons for publishing his books in de- 
 fence of Deism are examined and found weak, . 299 
 
 CHAP. XX. 
 
 Wherein the Queries offered by Herbert and Blount, for 
 proving the sufficiency of their Five Articles are examined, 308 
 
 ESSAY OX FAITH. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Containing some general remarks concerning knowledge, 
 faith, and particularly divine faith and that both as to 
 the faculty and actings thereof, .... 335 
 
 CHAP. H. 
 
 Wherein the nature of that faith, which in duty we are 
 obliged to give to the word of God, our obligation to, 
 and our ability for answering our duty, are inquired into, 339 
 
 CHAP. HI. 
 
 The ground, or the formal reason, whereon faith assents 
 to the scriptures is inquired after ; the Rationalist's 
 opinon about it, and particularly as stated by Mr. Locke 
 in his book on Human Understanding, is proposed and 
 considered, ........ 345 
 
INTRODUCTION, 
 
 XN this sceptical age, which questions almost every thing, it is 
 still owned as certain, that all men must die. If there were any 
 place for disputing this, there are not a few, who would spare no 
 pains to bring themselves into the disbelief of a truth, that gives 
 them so much disturbance, in the courses they love and seem re- 
 solved to follow : But the case is so clear, and the evidence of this 
 principle so pregnant, which is every day confirmed by new expe- 
 riments, that the most resolved infidel is forced, when it comes in 
 his way, though unwilling, to give his assent, and moan out an 
 Amen. The grave is the house appointed for all the living. Some 
 arrive sooner, some later ; but all come there at length. The ol> 
 scurity of the meanest cannot hide him, nor the power of the great- 
 est screen him from the impartial hand of death, the executioner 
 of fate, if I may be allowed the use of a word so much abused. As 
 its coming is placed beyond doubt, so its aspect is hideous beyond 
 the reach of thought, the force of expression, or the utmost eflRirts 
 of the finest pencil in the most artful hand. It, in a moment, dash- 
 es down a fabric, which has more of curious contrivance tlian all 
 the celebrated pieces put together, which the most refined human 
 wits have invented, even when carried to the greatest height, which 
 the improvements of so many subsequent generations, after the ut- 
 most application and diligence, could bring them to. It puts a 
 stop to many thousand motions, which, though strangely diversified, 
 did all concur, with wonderful exactness, to maintain, and carry on 
 the design and intendment of the glorious and divine Artificer. 
 How this divine and wonderful machine was first erected, set a go- 
 ing, and has, for so long a track of time, regularly performed all its 
 motions, could never yet be understood by the most elevated un- 
 derstandings. Canst thou tell how the bones grow in the womb of her 
 that is with child, is a challenge to all the sons of science, to nnfjid 
 the mystery ? Many have accepted it, but all have been h'lhd. 
 Something they could say ; but, in spite of it all, the thing that liiey 
 
 4 
 
26 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fouml a mystery, they left so still. How can one then look on tiie- 
 dissolution of so admirable a contrivance, a machine so curious, and 
 so far surpassing human art, without the deepest and most sensible 
 regret. It untwists that mysterious tie, whereby soul and body 
 were so fast linked together ; breaks up that intimate and close 
 correspondence, that entire sympathy which was founded thereon ; 
 dislodges an old inhabitant ; and while it lingers, being unwilling to 
 remove, deaih pulls that curious fabric, wlieiein it dwelt, down 
 about its ears, and so forces it thence, to take up its lodgings, it can 
 scarce tell where. And upon its removal, that curious fabric, that 
 a little before was full of life, activity, vigour, order, warmth, and 
 every thing else that is pleasant, is now left a dead, inactive, cold 
 hmip, a disordeied mass of loathsome matter, full of stench and 
 corruption. Now the body is a spectacle so hideous, that they who 
 loved, and who embraced it before, cannot abide the sight or smell 
 of it ; but shut it up in a coffin, and not content with that, away 
 they carry it and lodge it amongst worms, and the vilest insects in 
 the bowels of the earth, to be consumed, devoured, torn and rent 
 by the most abominable vermin that lodge in the grave. 
 
 Quantum mutatus ah illo.* 
 
 We have all heard of the afflctions of Job. Two or three mes- 
 sengers arrive, one after the other, and still the last is worst. Eve« 
 ry one tells his story. The first is sad ; but those that follow aie still 
 more melancholy. The disasters are so terrible^ that they fill the 
 \rorld with just astonishment. And yet after all, what is this to death, 
 which alone is able to furnish subject, more than enough, for some 
 thousands of such melancholy messages! One might bring the dying 
 man the melancholy tidings, that he is divested of all his beneficial, 
 pleasant, and honorable employments : While he is yet speaking, 
 another might be ready to bid him denude himself of all his pos- 
 sessions : A third, to continue the tragedy, might assure him that 
 there is a commission issued out to an impartial hand, to tear him 
 from the embraces of his dear relations, without regarding the hide- 
 ous outcries of a loving wife, the meltings of tender infants, the in- 
 tercessions of dear friends : While otliers continuing still the mourn- 
 ful scene, might assure him that he was no more to relish the fra- 
 grancy of the spring, or taste the delights of the sons of men, or 
 see the pleasant light of the sun, or hear the charming airs of mu- 
 sic, or the yet more useful converse of friends. And to make the 
 matter sadder still, if it can v. ell be so, the story might be shut up 
 with a rueful account of the parting of soul and body, with all the 
 horrible disasters that follow upon this parting. 
 
 " How greatly changed from what it once was. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 Thiis the case evidently stands. Not a tittle of all this admits of 
 debate. To every man it may be said, De te fuhula nanafur.'^ 
 What a wo»der is it, that so grave and important a subject is so 
 little in Jthe thoughts of men ? What apology can be made for the 
 folly of mankind, who are at so much pains to shelter themselves 
 against lesser inconveniences, quite overlooking this, which is of in- 
 finitely greater consequence ? 
 
 Here is the light-side of death, which every body may see. — 
 What a rueful and astonishing prospect doth it give us? Where shall 
 we find comfort against that dismal day, whereon all this shall be 
 verified in us ? He is -something worse than a fool or madman, that 
 will not look to this. And he is yet more mad that thinks, that ra- 
 tional comfort in such a case can be maintained upon dark, slender 
 and conjectural grounds. 
 
 It is certain, that which must support, must be something on the 
 other side of time. The one side of death affords nothing but mat- 
 ter of terror ; if we are not enabled to look forward, and get sucli 
 a sight of the other as may balance it, we may reasonably say, that 
 it had been better for us never to have been born. 
 
 Undoubtedly, therefore, no question is so useful, so necessary, 
 so noble, and truly worthy the mind of man as this : What shall 
 become of me after death ? What have I to look for on the other 
 side of that awful change ? 
 
 Those arts and sciences which exercise the industry and con- 
 sideration of the greater part of the thinking world, are calculated 
 for time, and aim at the pleasure or advantage of a present life. It 
 is religion alone that directly concerns itself in the important ques- 
 tion last mentioned, and pretends to offer comforts against the 
 melancholy aspect of death, by securing us in an up-making for 
 our losses on the other side of time. Men, who are not blind to their 
 own interest, had need therefore to take care of the choice of their 
 religion. If they neglect it altogether, as many now do, they for- 
 feit all prospect of relief. If they chuse a wrong one, that is not 
 able to reach the end, they are no less unhappy. The world may 
 call them wits, or what else they please, who either wholly neglect 
 and laugh over all inquiries after religion, or who superficially look 
 into matters of this nature, and pass a hasty judgment : But sober 
 reason will look on them as somewhat below the condition of the 
 beasts that perish. 
 
 It is somewhat to be regretted, that the bulk of mankind found 
 their principles, .^s well as practice and hopes, on no better bottom 
 than education, which gives but too just occasion for the smart re- 
 flection of the witty, though profane poet : 
 
 By education most have been misled ; 
 
 So they believe, because thiy were so bred. 
 
 * " It is of vou that the stow is told." 
 
28 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The priest continues what the nurse began : 
 And thus the child imposes on the maa.* 
 
 Most part seek no better reason for their belief and practice than 
 oustom and education. Whatever these offer in principle, they 
 greedily swallow down, and venture all on so weak a bottom. And 
 this sure is one of the great reasons why so many miscarry in this im- 
 portant matter. It is true, in this inquiring age, many, especially of the 
 better quality, scorn this way. But it is to be feared that the greater 
 part of them, flying to one extreme, as is common in such cases, have 
 Sghted on another and a worse one, if not to themselves, yet certainly 
 of more pernicious consequence to the public. They set up for wits 
 and men of sense. They pretend to have found out great mistakes 
 in the principles of their education, the religion of their country ; 
 and thence, without more ado, reject it in bulk, and turn sceptics 
 in religion. And yet after all this noise, most of them neither un- 
 derstand the religion they reject, nor know they what to substitute 
 in its room, which is certainly an error of the worst consequence 
 imaginable to the public ; since men once arrived at this pass, can 
 never be depended on. Men may talk what they please. A man 
 of no religion is a man not to be bound, and therefore is absolutely 
 unmeet for any share in society, which cannot subsist, if the sa* 
 cred ties of religion hold it not together. 
 
 But in whatever course such persons, on the one hand or other, 
 steer, the more considerate and better part of mankind, in matters 
 of so high importance, will, with the nicest care, try all, that they 
 may hold fast what is good. If a man once understands the im- 
 portance of the case, he will find reason to look some deeper, and 
 think more seriously of this matter, than either the unthinking 
 generality/, who receive all in bulk, without trial, as it is given them, 
 or, the forward ivould-he-mits, that oftentimes are guilty of as great, 
 and much more pernicious credulity in rejecting aU, as the other in 
 receiving all. 
 
 But whereas there are so many different religions in the world, 
 and all of them pretend to conduct us in this important inquiry ; 
 which of them shall we chuse ? The Deists, to drive us into their 
 religion, which consists only of five articles, agreed to, as they pre- 
 tend, by all the world, would persuade us, that a choice is im- 
 possible to be made of any particular religion, till we have gone 
 through, with such a particular examination of every pretender, and 
 all things that can be said for or against it, as no man is able to make. 
 Blount tells us, as Herbert before had done. That " unless a man 
 " read all authors, speak with all learned men, and know all languages, 
 " it is impossible to come to a clear solution of all doubts."! And so 
 
 * Dryd. I/i7ul and Panther. 
 
 t Elounl's Religio Laid, pa^. 91. Ilei-berl's Reli^iv Laid, pag. 12 
 
, INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in effect, it is pretended impossible to be satisfied about the truth 
 of any particular religion. If this reasoning did hold, I should not 
 doubt to make it appear, that no truth whatever is to be received ; 
 and in particular, that their so much boasted catholic religion^ 
 cannot rationally be entertained by any man. If we can be satisfied 
 upon rational grounds about no truth, till we have heard and con- 
 sidered all, that not only has been said, but may be alleged against 
 it ; what truth can we believe? Here it is easy tb observe that some 
 cannot do ought, unless they overdo. The intendment of such rea- 
 soning is obvious : Some men would cast us loose as to all religion, 
 that we may be brought under a necessity to take up with any fan- 
 cy they shall be pleased to offer us ; a man that is sinking will take 
 hold of the most slender twig. The Papists have vigorously pursued 
 this course in opposition to the Protestants, to drive them into the 
 arms of their infallible guide. And indeed the learned Herbert's 
 reasonings on this point, after whom the modern Deists do but 
 copy, seem to be borrowed from the Romanists, and are urged 
 in a design not unfavorable to the church of Rome, of which per- 
 haps more afterwards. 
 
 But to wave this thin sophistry ; any one that will, with a suita- 
 ble application, engage in the consideration of what religion he is to 
 chuse, will quickly find himself eased of this unmanageable task, 
 which the Deists would set him. His inquiry will soon be brought 
 to a narrow compass, and the pretenders, that will require any nice 
 consideration, will be found very few. 
 
 For a very cursory consideration of religion in the heathen 
 world, will give any considerate mind ground enough to rest fully 
 assured, that the desired satisfaction as to future happiness, andthe 
 means of attaining it, are not thence to be expected. Here he will 
 not find what may have the least appearance of satisfying him. The 
 wisest of the heathens scarce ever pretended to satisfy themselves, 
 much less others, upon these heads. All things here are dark, vain, 
 incoherent, inconsistent, wild, and plainly ridiculous for most part ; 
 as will further appear in our progress. Their religions were, general- 
 ly speaking, calculated for other purpose?, and looked not so far as 
 eternity. 
 
 Nor will it be more difficult to get over any stop that the reli- 
 gion of Mahomet may lay in our inquirer^ s way. Let a man seri- 
 ously peruse the Alcoran, and if he has his senses about him, he 
 cannot but there see the most pregnant evidences of the grossest, 
 most scandalous and impudent imposture, that ever was obtruded 
 on the world. Here he must expect no other evidence for what 
 he has to believe, but the bare assertion of one, who was scandal- 
 ously impious to that degree, that his own followers know not how 
 to apologize for him. If you inquire for any other evidence, jou 
 
 I 
 
yo INTRODUCTION. 
 
 are doomed by the Alcoran to everlasting ruin, and his slaves are 
 ordered to destroy you.* He forbids any inquiry into his religion, 
 or the grounds of it, and therefore you must either admit in bulk 
 the entire bundle of fopperies, inconsistencies, and shocking ab- 
 surdities, that are cast together in the Alcoran, without any trial, 
 or reject it : And in this case, no wise man will find it hard to make 
 a choice. 
 
 After one has proceeded thus far, he may easily see, that he is 
 now inevitably cast upon one of the four conclusions : Either 1 st. 
 He must conclude it certain that all religion is vain, that there 
 is nothing to be expected after this life, and so commence Atheist. 
 Or 2dly, He must conclude, that certainty is not attainable in 
 these things, and so turn Sceptic, Or 3dly, He must pretend, 
 that every one's reason unassisted is able to conduct him in mat- 
 ters of religion, ascertain him of future happiness, and direct as 
 to the means of attaining it ; and so set up for natural religion and 
 turn Deist. Or 4thly, He must acquiesce in the revealed religion 
 contained in the scriptures, and so turn Christian, or at least Jew. 
 
 As to the first of these courses, no man will go into it, till he has 
 abandoned reason. An atheist is a monster in nature. That there 
 is nothing to be expected after this life, and that man's soul dies 
 with his body, is a desperate conclusion, which ruins the foundation 
 of all human happiness; even in the judgment of the Deists them- 
 selves.f There are two material exceptions which are sufficient 
 to deter any thinking man from closing with it. 
 
 The one is, the hideousness of its aspect. Annihilation is so 
 horrible to human nature, and has so frightful a visage to men who 
 have a desire of perpetuity inlaid in their very frame, that none 
 can look at it seriously without the utmost dread. It is true, guil- 
 ty Atheists would fain take sanctuary here ; yet were they brought 
 to think seriously of the case, they would not find that relief in it 
 which they promise. I have been credibly informed that a gentle- 
 man of no contemptible parts, who had lived as if, indeed, he were 
 to fear or hope nothing after time, being in prison, and fearing death, 
 (though he escaped it and yet lives) fell a thinking seriously, when 
 alone, of annihilation : And the fears of it made so deep and horri- 
 ble impressions on his mind, that he professed to a gentleman, who 
 made him a visit in prison, and found him in a grievous damp, that 
 the thoughts of annihilation were so dreadful to him, that he had ra- 
 ther think of suffering a thousand years in hell. Guilty sinners, to 
 ease their consciences, and screen them from the disquieting appre- 
 hensions of an after- reckoning, retreat to this, as a refuge ; but 
 they think no more about it, save only this and that in a cursory 
 
 * Alcoran, chap. 4. 
 
 •j- Letter to a Deist, pag-e 135. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 way, that it will free them from the punishment they dread and de- 
 aerve. But if they would sedately view it, and take under their 
 consideration all the horror of the case, their natures would recoil 
 and shrink : It would create uneasiness instead of quiet, and increase 
 the strait rather than relieve them from it. 
 
 Besides, which is the other exception against it, were there never 
 so much comfort in it, as there is none, i/et it is impossible to prove 
 that there is nothing after this life. There is nothing that is tolera- 
 ble can be said for it. None shall ever evince the certainty of the 
 foul's dying with the body, till he has overthrown the being of a 
 God, which can never be done so long as there is any thing certain 
 among men. Further, as there is little or nothing to be said for it, 
 so there is much to be said against it. Reason affords violent pre- 
 sumptions, at least, for a future state. And all the arguments which 
 conclude for the truth of Christianity, join their united force to sup- 
 port the certainty of a state after this life. Till these are removed 
 out of the way, there is no access for any to enjoy the imaginary 
 comfort of this supposition. But who will undertake solidly to over- 
 turn so many arguments, which have stood the test of ages ? They 
 who are likely to be most forward, and favor this cause most, dare 
 scarce allow these reasonings a fair hearing, which plead for a fu- 
 ture state, for fear of rivetting the impression of the truth deeper 
 on their minds, which they desire to shake themselves loose of. And 
 how then will they overthrow them? In fine, he is a madman, who will 
 admit a conclusion, whereof he can never be certain, and wherein, 
 were it sure, he can have no satisfaction. The first forbids the judg- 
 ment, the last dissuades the will and affections from resting in it. 
 
 As to the second conclusion above mentioned, that sets up for 
 scepticism in matters of religion, and bids us live at peradventures 
 as to what is to be feared or hoped after time : it is a course that 
 nothing can justify save absolute necessity. It lies open to the 
 worst of inconveniences. Nothing can be imagined more melan- 
 choly than its consequences, and the pretences for it are vain and 
 frivolous. 
 
 If it be really thus, that man can arrive at no certainty in matters 
 of religion, and about his state after time, how deplorable is man's 
 condition ? His case is comfortless beyond what can be well con- 
 ceived. Nor can his enjoyments afford him any solid satisfaction, 
 while ghastly death looks him in the face, and the sword hangs over 
 his head, suspended by a hair. Will not the prospect of jiis rueful 
 change (of whose dismal attendants we have given some account) em- 
 bitter his sweetest enjoyments ? And will not the horror of the case 
 be much increased by resolving upon a perplexing uncertainty as 
 to what may come hereafter? In how dismal aplight is the poor man, 
 who on the one hand is certain of the speedy arrival of death with 
 all his frightful attendants ; and on the other, is told that he must 
 
35 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 rove in uncertainty, till the event clear him, whether he shall be 
 entirely annihilated, and so plunge into that horrible gulf wherfe 
 Atheists seek a sanctuary ! or if he shall not be hurried headlong into 
 these endless torments, which the consciences of guilty sinners, 
 when awakened, presage ; or, if he shall soar aloft into regions of 
 endless bliss, which sinful mortals have but little reason to expect ; 
 or, finally, whether he is not to launch out into some state reduci- 
 ble to none of these. If here it behoves us to fix, one would not 
 know how to evite two conclusions that are horrible to think of : 
 " That our reason, whereby we are capable of foreseeing, and are 
 *' affected with things at a distance, is a heavy curse ; and that the 
 " profligate Atheist, who endeavors to mend this fault, in his consti- 
 " tution, by a continual debauch, that never allows him to think 
 " any more of what is certainly to come, than if he were a brute in- 
 *' capable of forethought, is the wisest man." 
 
 Beside, as was above insinuated, the pretences for this course are 
 vain. It is true, most of those who set up for wits in this unhappy 
 •age, are mere sceptics in religion, who admit nothing as certain, 
 but boldly question every thing, and live at peradventures. Yet 
 we are not obliged to think that this scepticism is the result of se- 
 rious inquiry, and the want of certainty thereon ; but those gentle- 
 men's way of living is inconsistent with serious religion ; they are 
 therefore desirous to have such a set of principles as if they favor 
 them not in the practices they have a mind to follow, yet shall not in- 
 commode them sorely. This principle gives not absolute security of 
 impunity ; but it seems, and but seems, to justify them in their present 
 neglect of religion, and gives them a majj be for an escape from 
 feared and deserved punishments ; and favors that laziness that can- 
 not search for truth, where it lies not open to the eye, even of 
 those who care not to see it. Their practice and course of life 
 shew them so impatient of restialnts, that they love liberty, or ra- 
 ther licentiousness ; and are not willing to come under any bonds. 
 They greedily grasp at any difficulty that seems to make 
 ever so little against religion ; — an evidence that they bear it no 
 real good will. They neither converse much with books, nor men, 
 that might afford them satisfaction, in reference to their real scruples, 
 which is proof enough that they design not to be satisfied. They are 
 light and jocular in their converse about the most serious matters ; 
 an evidence that their desire is not to be informed. It is a good 
 observation of the wise man, [Prov. xlv, 6.] A scorner seeketh wis- 
 dom and findeth it not, but knowledge is easy to him that under- 
 standeth. This is the real mj'stery of the matter with those gentle- 
 men, whatever they may pretend. 
 
 I know they want not pretences, taking enough with the unthink- 
 ing, whereby they would justify themselves in their infidelity. The 
 principal one is, that they find it easy to load religion with abund- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 83 
 
 ance of difficulties, not easily, if at all, capable of solution. But af- 
 ter all, these gentlemen use those objections as the sceptics did of old, 
 not so much to maintain any settled principle, no not their beloved 
 one, whereof now we speak; as to create them work, and make 
 sport with those who would seriously confute them, and to ward off 
 blows from themselves, who have neither principles nor practice ca- 
 pable of a rational defence. 
 
 It is like indeed, that sometimes they may meet with such, who 
 although they own religion, are yet incapable of defending it against 
 such objections. But this is no wonder, since there are weak men 
 of all persuasions. And their weakness is not, or ought, not to be any 
 real prejudice to the truth they maintain. Besides, every one may 
 know that ignorance of any subject is fertile of doubts, and will start 
 abundance of difficulties ; whereas it requires a more full and exact 
 acquaintance with the nature of things to solve them; and this falls 
 not to every one's share. 
 
 Further, if th s be allowed a reasonable exception against reli- 
 gion, that it is liable to exceptions not easy to be solved, it will hold 
 good as well against all other sorts of knowledge, as against religion ; 
 yea, alid I may add, it concludes much stronger; for the farther 
 any subject is above our reach, the less reason we have to expect, 
 that we shall be capable of solving every difficulty that may be 
 fltarted against it. There is no part of our knowledge, that is not in- 
 cumbered with difficulties, as hard to be satisfyingly solved, as those 
 commonly urged against religion. If this be a sjifficient reason to 
 question religion, that there are arguments which may be urged 
 against it, not capable of a clear, or, at least, an easy solution; I doubt 
 not, upon the same ground, to bring the gentlemen who maintain 
 this, if they will follow out their principle, to reject the most evi- 
 dent truths, that we receive upon the credit of moral, metaphysical, 
 and mathematical demonstrations ; yea, or even upon the testimony 
 of our senses. For I know few of these truths that we receive up- 
 on any of those grounds, against which a person of a very ordinary 
 genius m:iy not start difficulties, which perhaps no man alive can 
 ^ive a fair account of; and yet no man is so foolish as to call in 
 -question those truths, because he cannot solve the difficulties which 
 every idle head may start upon those subjects. I may give innu- 
 merable instances of the difficulties wherewith other parts of hu- 
 man knowledge are embarrassed : I shall only hint at a few. 
 
 That^ matter is divisible into, or at least consists of indivisible 
 particles, is with some a truth next to self-evident. That the quite 
 contrary is tine, and matter is divisible in infinitmn, appears no 
 less certain to many otliers.* But if either of them should pretend 
 
 * Locke on Jlmnan Undenstatiding; edit. 5, page 207.—" I would fain have it 
 instnnredinournotioiiof spivit of any thing more perplexed, or nearer aeon- 
 
34 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 theiusclves ciipiible of solving the difficulties, that He against their 
 respective opinions, it were sufficient to make all men .of sense and 
 learning doubt of their capacity and judgment : For the difficulties 
 on both hands are such, that no ingenuous man that understands 
 Ihem, will pretend himself capable of giving a fair solution of those, 
 which press that side of the question he is incHued to. 
 
 Again, whether we will, or will not, we must believe one side, 
 and but one side, of the question is true ; that either matter is di- 
 visible in infinitum, or not; that it consists of indivisibles, or not; 
 these are contradictions. And it is one of the most evident propo- 
 sitions that the mind of man is acquainted with, tliat contradictions 
 cannot be true, or that both sides of a contradiction cannot bold. 
 And yet agaijist this truth, ^vhereon much of our most certain know- 
 ledge depends, insoluble difficulties may be urged : For it may be 
 pretended, that here both sides of the contradiction are true, and 
 this pretence may be enforced by the arguments abovementioned, 
 which confirm the two <^posite opinions, which no mortal can an- 
 swer. Shall we therefore believe that contradictions uiay be true? 
 
 That motion is possible I am not like to doubt, nor can I, while I 
 know that I can rise and walk; nor is he like to doubt of it, who 
 sees me walk. And yet I doubt not the most ingenious of our athe- 
 istical wits would find himself sufficiently straitened, were the argu- 
 ments of Zefw Ehah'S against motion well urged, by a subtle dis-* 
 putant. I shall offer one argument against motion, which I am fully 
 •satisfied will puzzle the most subtle adversai'ies of religion to solve 
 satisfyingly. Tliere are stronger arguments proving that matter 
 is divisible in ii?^??iiiim than any mortal can solve or answer, though 
 I perhaps believe it untrue. And it is as certain as the sun is in 
 Ihe firmameut, tliat if matter is divisible in infinitum^ it consists 
 of an infinite number of parts — (what some talk of indefinite is a 
 shelter of ignorance, and if it is used any other way than as a shield 
 to ward off difficulties for a while in a public dispute, the users can- 
 not be excused either of gioss ignorance, rooted prejudice, or dis- 
 ingenuity.) This being laid down as proven, and proven it may be 
 by arguments, which none living can satisfy, that matter Is divisi- 
 ble in infinitum, and that consequently it contains an infinite num- 
 ber of parts. Nor is it less certain, that according to these conclu- 
 sions laid down, if one body move upon the surface of another, as 
 for instance, an inch in a minute's time, it must pass by au infinite 
 number of parts; and it is undeniable, that it cannot pass one of 
 
 tradiction, than the very notion of body includes in It ; the divisibility /// 
 infinitum of any finite extension, involving us, whether we gi-ant or deny it, 
 in consequences impossible to be explicated, or made in our apprehensions 
 consistent; consequences that carx'y greater difficulty, and moi-e apparent 
 absurdity than any thing that can follow from the notion of an immaterial 
 £'.ibet;uicc." 
 
INTRODUCTION. 2j 
 
 that Iiifiiiite number of parts without some portion of time. Now 
 if so, what a vast portion of time will it require to make that little 
 journey, which we know can be performed in a moment ! Will it 
 not evidently require an eternity ! What difficulty can any urge, 
 more difficult to be solved, against religion than this? And yet for 
 all this he were a fool who would doubt of motion. 
 
 As to mathematical certainty though many boasts are made of 
 the firmness of its demonstrations ; yet these may, upon this ground, 
 be called all in question. And I nothing doubt, that if men's inter- 
 ests, real or pretended, lay as cross to them, as they are supposed 
 to do to the truths of a religion, many more exceptions might be made 
 against them, than are against those, and upon full as good, if not 
 better reason. In justification of this assertion, I might proceed 
 to demonstrate how trifling even the definitions of geometry, the 
 firmest of all the mathematical sciences, are. Its difinitions might 
 be alleged, upon no inconsiderable grounds, trlffing, nonsensical and ri- 
 diculous. Its demands or its postulates, declared plainly impracticable. 
 Its axioms or self-evident propositions — controvertible, and by them- 
 selves they are controverted. Any one who would see this made 
 <2;ood in particular instances, may consult (besides others) the learnt 
 ed Huetms^s Demonstratio EvangelicUj where, in the Illustration 
 of his definitions, axioms and postulates, he compares them with 
 those of geometry, and prefers them to these, and shows they are 
 incumbered with fewer difficulties than the otlier, though without 
 derogating from the just worth and evidence of mathematical scien- 
 ces. Besides what he has observed, I may add this one thing 
 more, that those sciences deserve not any great reg-ard, save as 
 they are applied to the use of life, and in a subserviency to man's 
 advantage. And when thus they are applied to practice, the diffi- 
 culty is considerably increased, and they maybe easily loaded with 
 innumerable and insoluble inconveniences. For then, their defini- 
 tions cease to be the definition of names, and are to be taken as the 
 definitions of things that are actually in being. Their demands 
 must not be practicable, but put in practice. And who sees not 
 how many inextricable difficulties the practiser will be cast upon I 
 The demonstration may proceed biavely so long as they hold in 
 the theory, and mean by Punctumy id cii/jus pars nulla est ;* and 
 the same may be said of lines and surfaces, and all their figures ; 
 without obliging us to believe that really there are any such things. 
 But when we come to the practice, they must go further, and take 
 It for granted, that there are such points, lines, surfaces and figures. 
 This turns what was before only an explication of a name, into the 
 definition of a thing. And therefore I am now left at liberty to 
 dispute, Avhcther there is any such thing ; or, whether indeed it is' 
 
 ' " A point, is, llial. which has no parts." 
 
3B INTRODUCTION. 
 
 possible that there should be such. And who sees not now, that 
 they are incumbered with as many difficulties as may peihaps be 
 urged against any science whatever. 
 
 It were endless to enumerate the things we must believe, without 
 being capalilc to resolve the difficulties about them. The veriest 
 infidel must suppose that something is eternal, or all things are eter- 
 nal, or that they jumped into being without any cause. Whichso- 
 ever of these positions he shall choose, he is led into a labyrinth of 
 difficulties, from which no mortal wit can extricate him. We must 
 all own, that either matter and motion are the principle of thought ; 
 or, that there are immaterial substances which affect matter, and 
 are strangely affected by what befals it. Whichsoever side any 
 shall choose, he is cast upon inextricable difficulties. IMuch more 
 might be said on this head ; but what has been said is more than 
 enough to shew, that if this course is taken, it saps the foundations 
 of all human knowledge, and there is no part of it safe. 
 
 Besides, this way of questioning religion upon the pretence of 
 difficulties lying against it, is contrary to the common sense of 
 mankind, contradicts the practice of all wise men, and is inconsist- 
 ent with the very nature of our faculties. For, if I have a clear 
 tinexceptionable and convincing proof for any truth, it is against all 
 reason to reject it, because I have not so full and comprehensive 
 knowledge of the nature and circumstances of the object, as is ne- 
 cessary to enable me to solve all difficulties that may occur about 
 it: Yea, such is the nature of our faculties, that to justify in the 
 opinion of the nicest inquirers after truth, nay, to extort an assent, 
 clear proof is sufficient ; whereas, to untie all knots, and solve all 
 bjections, perfect and all- comprehensive knowledge is absolutely 
 needful ; which man's condition allows him not to expect about the 
 meanest things. And the more remote any thing lies from com- 
 mon observation, the less reason there is still to look for a fullness 
 of knowledge and exemption from difficulties. If therefore men 
 will turn sceptics in religion, to justify themselves, they must at- 
 tempt the proofs whereon it is grounded. Sampson-like, they must 
 grasp the pillars that support the fabric, and pull them down. If 
 this is not done, nothing is done. And he that will undertake this, 
 must have a full view of their force, and find where their strength 
 lies : Now a serious view of this will be sufficient to deter any wise 
 man from the undertaking. 
 
 In a word, this scepticism can yield no ease or satisfaction to a 
 reasonable soul. For if a man shall think rationally, his reason will 
 suggest to him, that though all religion at present seems uncertain 
 to him, yet upon trial perhaps he may find the grounds of religion 
 so evident, that he cannot withhold his assent. This will at least 
 oblige him lo a serious inquiry into the truth. Next, in uncertain- 
 ties (supposing, after serious inquiry, he still thinks tlje truths of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 37 
 
 ^'eligiou ^ch) a prudent man will incline to what is moat probable- 
 Finally he will choose and steer such a course of life as ^vill be 
 safest, in case he shall in experience afterwards find, that there is 
 a God, and a future state. All which shew the folly of our scep- 
 tics, and, were it seriously considered, w^ould much mar their design, 
 which is, thereby to justify a licentious life. 
 
 Now we have considered, and sufficiently exposed the two first 
 branches of the abovementioned choice : and consequently every 
 roan must find himself cast upon a necessity of adopting one of these 
 two — He must either betake himself to na/<?ra/ religion, and so turn 
 Deist ; or he must embrace the scriptures, and turn Christian : For 
 as to the Jervish religion, it is not likely to gain many converts. 
 
 If therefore we are able to demonstrate the utter insuffixiency of 
 natural religion, in opposition to the deists, who set up for it, we 
 reduce every man to this choice, that he must be a Christian or an 
 Atheist; or, which is the same upon the matter, a man of 710 reli- 
 gion; (or an insi^cieat religion is in effect none. And to demon- 
 strate this, that natural religion is utterly insufficient, that unas- 
 sisted reason is not able to guide us to happiness, and satisfy us as 
 to the great concerns of religion, is the design of the subsequent 
 sheets. In them we have clearly stated and endeavored with 
 closeness to argue this point. We have brought the pleadings of the 
 learned I^ord JFferberf, and the modern deists,w\\o do but copy after 
 him,' to the bar o( reason, examined their utmost force, and, if I mis- 
 take it not, found them weak and inconclusive. 
 
 As for the occasion of my engagement in this controversy, it was 
 not such as commonly gives rise to writings of this nature. I un- 
 dertook it with no design of publication. I was provoked by no 
 adversary in particular. But every man being obliged to under- 
 stand upon what grounds he receives his religion, I istudied the 
 point for my own satisfaction, and in compliance with my duty. 
 
 As for the reasons of my undertaking this part of the contro- 
 versy, I shall not say much. The only wise GOD, who has deter- 
 mined the times before appointed, and made of one blood all natiom^ 
 of men that dwell on the earth, and has appointed them the bounds 
 of their habitation, lias cut out different pieces of work for them, 
 cast them into different circumstances, and hereby exposed them to 
 trials and temptations that are not of the same kind. As every 
 man is obliged to cultivate in the best manner he can the bounds 
 of land assigned to him, and defend liis possessions ; so every one 
 is concerned to improve and defend after the best form he can, 
 those truths, which his circumstances have obliged him to lake pe- 
 culiar notice of, and which his temptations, of whatever sort, have 
 endeavoured, or may attempt to wje?t out of his hands. 
 
 Besides, we live in a warlike age, wherein every one must be ol" 
 a party in matters of religion. 4nd religion is a cause in whicl), 
 
38 INTRODUCTIONS. 
 
 when disputed, no man is allowed to stand neutral. As all are con- 
 cerned to choose the right side, so every one is obliged to provide 
 himself with the best armour his arsenal can afford, both for the de- 
 fending himself and others that own the same cause, and to annoy 
 the common enemy. Nor is this work peculiarly confined unto 
 those, Avho by office are obliged to it : For in publico discrimine, 
 est omnis homo miles. ^ 
 
 Besides, it is well known, that the most bold attempt that ever 
 was made upon revealed religion, since the entrance of Christianity 
 into the world, has been made, in our day, by men, who have set up 
 for natuml religion^ and who have gone over from Christianity/ unto 
 refined Paganism; under the name of Deism. Two things they 
 have attempted ; — to overthrow revelation, and to advance natural 
 religion. The last work has been undertaken, I may without breach 
 of charity boldly say it, not so much out of any real affection to 
 the principles or duties of natural religion, as to avoid the odium 
 inevitably following upon a renunciation of all religion ; and because 
 they saw that men would not easily quit Christianity, without some- 
 thing were substituted in its room, that might at least have the 
 name of religion. Revealed religion has been worthily defended 
 by many, of old and of late, at home and abroad; but the insnjfi- 
 tiencij of natural religion has been less insisted on, at least in that 
 way that is necessary to straiten an obstinate adversary. And se- 
 veral things incline me to think an attempt of this nature seasona- 
 ble, if not necessary, at this time. 
 
 The times are infectious, and Deism is the contagion that spreads. 
 And that which has carried many, particularly of our unwary youth 
 of the better qiKility, off their feet, and engaged them to espouse 
 this cause, — is the high pretence that this way makes to reason. 
 They tell us, that their religion is entii-ely reasonable, and that they 
 admit nothing, save what this dictates to them, and they endeavoi- 
 to represent others as easy and credulous men. Now I thought it 
 meet to demonstrate, for undeceiving of such, that none are more 
 credulous, none have less reason upon their side, than they who 
 set up for rational religion. 
 
 Again, we have stood sufficiently long upon the defensive part, 
 we have repulsed their efforts against revelation. It seems now 
 seasonable, that we should act offensively, and try how they can de- 
 fend their own religion, and whether they can give as. good account 
 of It as has been given of Christianity. To stand always upon the 
 defensive part, Is to make the enemy doubt ours, and turn proud of 
 their own strength. 
 
 The reaeonableness of this will further appear, if we consider 
 Jhe quality of the adversaries we have to do with, and their manner 
 of nianagement. Tiie enemies who have engaged revealed religion. 
 
 * " In a ll:nv; of public danp^-er every man is a soldier." 
 
INTRODUCTION, 39 
 
 sensible of their own weakness to defend themselves at home, and 
 endure close fight, do commonly make inroads, where they expect 
 none, or a faint resistance. They desrgn not so much to conquer, as 
 to disturb. Jest, buffoonry, or at best sophisms, and such little ar- 
 tifices, are the arguments they use, and the weapons of their war- 
 fare. The best way to make such rovers keep at home is, to car- 
 ry the war- into their own country, and to ruin those retreats they 
 JJetake themselves to when attacked. They have seen what Chris- 
 tians can say in defence of revealed religion. It is now high time 
 to see how they can acquit themselves on behalf of natural reli- 
 gion. It is easy to impugn. It is a defence that gives the best proof 
 of the defender's skill, and says most for the cause he maintains. 
 
 I own indeed that most who have evinced the truth of revealed 
 religion, have said something of the weakness of natural religion. 
 But this has only been by the bye, and in a way too loose to strait- 
 en obstinate opposers, not to speak of the too large concessions that 
 liave been made them by some. 
 
 Finally, natnral religion being the only retreat, to which the 
 apostates from Christianity betake themselves, and whereby they 
 think themselves secured from the imputation of plain atheism, it is 
 hoped, that a full and convincing discovery of its weakness, may 
 incline such as are not quite debauched, to look how they quit 
 Christianity, and engage with that which, if this attempt is success- 
 ful, must henceforward pass for disguised Atheism. 
 
 It now only remains, that I offer some account of the reasons that 
 have induced me to manage this controversy in a method so far 
 different from that which is commonly used. The reasons of this 
 have been above insinuated, and 1 shall not insist much further on 
 them, lest I should seem to detract from performances to which I 
 pay a very great regard. The method some liave chosen, in ma- 
 naging this controversy with the Deists, to me appears inconve- 
 nient. They begin with an endeavor to establish the grounds of 
 natural religion, and by the help of light Iwrrowed from revelation, 
 they carry the matter so far, and extend natural religion to such a 
 compass, that it looks pretty complete-like ; which has too evident 
 a tendency to lessen its real defects, and make them appear incon- 
 siderable. 
 
 Again, I am afiaid that some have gone near to give up the Avhole 
 cause. This fault I would be very loth to charge upon all. Many 
 I know have dealt faithfully in it, and deserve praise. But how to 
 excuse some in this case I know not. One tells us that, "It is 
 " true indeed that natural religion declares and comprises all the 
 " parts of religion, that are generally and in all times either neces- 
 " sary or requisite !"* And much more to the same purpose. 
 This is much such another assertion of the weakness of natural re- 
 
 * Discourse concerning^ Kataral and Revealed Religion, by Stcplicii N\<:«. 
 P,arl 3, Chitp. 1. p;»irc 9r. ^ i . ^ 
 
40 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ligion against the Delstn, as the same author gives us of the per' 
 feclion of the sotnpiures, in opposition to the same persons in another 
 place of liis book. " I could," says he " prove, 1 think, by unde- 
 " niable, unavoidable instances,"! what Mr. Gregory of Oxford 
 says in his preface to some critical notes on the scriptures that he 
 published, viz. " That there is no author whatsoever that has suf- 
 " fered so much by the hand of time as the Bible has." Is this 
 the way to overthrow the sufficiency of natural religion, and to de- 
 fend the scriptures ? This is not the only remark 1 could make 
 upon this author, were it my design. But this may let us see how 
 necessary it is to deal a little more plainly with the assertors of 
 natural religion. 
 
 Further, to adorn natural religion with the improvements bor- 
 rowed from revelation^ is the ready way to furnish those who set 
 up for its sufficiency, with pretences to serve their design, and to 
 straiten themsejves, when they come to shew its defects. And 
 perhaps I should not mistake it far, if I asserted, that the strongest 
 arguments urged by Deists, have been drawn from unwary conces- 
 sions made them by their adversaries. 
 
 And this is the more considerable, that the persons, with whom 
 we have to do in this controversy, are, generally speaking, either 
 of no great discernment, or of small application ; who have no great 
 mind to wait upon the business, or look to the bottom of it. Now 
 when such persons find many things granted, they are ready to 
 think all is yielded, and so run away with it, as if the cause were 
 their own. That such concessions have done no good service, 
 there is too much reason to believe. This I am sure of, it would 
 have beeli long before the Deists could have trimmed up natural 
 religion so handsomely, ainl made it appear so like a sufficient reli- 
 gion, as some have done, who meant no such thing. 
 
 Finally, the apostle Paul's method is doubtless most worthy of 
 imitation, who, when he is to prove justification by faith, and to en- 
 force an acceptance of it, first strongly convinces of sin, and then 
 urges the utter insufficiency of v.orks for accomplishing that purpose. 
 The best way in my opinion, to engage men to close witli revealed 
 religion, is strongly to argue the insufficiency of mdural religion. 
 
 As to the performance itself, and what 1 have therein attained, 
 I am not the competent judge. Every reader must judge as he 
 sees cause. 1 have not the vanity to expect that it should please 
 every body. The vast compass of the subject, the variety of the 
 purposes, the uncommonness of many, if not most of them, with -le- 
 spect to which I was left to walk in untrodden paths, and other diffi- 
 culties of a like nature, with candid and judicious readers will go a 
 great way towards my excuse in lesser escapes. As for the sub- 
 stance of the ensuing discourse, I am bold to hope, that upon the 
 strictest trial it shall be found true, and that it is pleaded for in 
 vrords of truth and soberness. 
 
 t UH supra, page 199- 
 
AN INQUIRY, ^c. 
 
 C H A P. I. 
 
 Giving a short account of the rise, orcasions, and progress of 
 Deism, especially in England ; the opinioiis of the Deists, and the 
 different sorts of them. 
 
 innHERE is no man, who makes it his concern to understand 
 -*- what the state of religion has, of late years, been, and now is, 
 particularly in these nations, but knows that Deisin has made a con- 
 siderable progress. Since therefore it is against those who go un- 
 der this name, that this undertaking is designed, it is highly expedi- 
 ent, if not plainly necessary, that in the entry, we give some ac- 
 count of the occasions and rise o( Deism, the principal opinions of 
 the Deists, and some other things that may tend to clear the mat- 
 ter discoursed in the subsequent sheets. 
 
 It is not necessary that we inquire more largely into the causes 
 of that general defection in principle and practice from the doctrine 
 of the gospel which now every where obtains ; this has been judi- 
 ciously done by others. 
 
 Nor will it be needful to write at length the history of deisjn. 
 This I think impracticable, because the growth of this sect has 
 been very secret, and they have generally disguised their opinions: 
 And perhaps till of late, they scarce had any settled opinion in 
 mattei-s of religion, if yet they have. But though it were prac- 
 ticable, as it is not, yet it is not necessary to our present undertak- 
 ing; and if it were attempted, would require more helps, and more 
 leisure, besides other things, than I am master of. 
 
 One has of late written a pamphlet bearing this title, " An Ac- 
 count of the Growth of Deism in England."* The author of it is 
 not a deist, yet has done what in him lies to promote their cause, 
 by setting off, with all the art and address he is master of, those 
 things which he says have tempted many to turn deists, without 
 any attempt to antidote the poison of them. 
 
 • Printed anno. 1690. 
 
42 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 Another has wrote Reflections upon this pamphlet, wherein he 
 has sufficiently shewn, that those alleged by the former author, 
 were not sufficient reasons to justify any in turning deist. But I 
 conceive that is not the main question. If he had a mind to dis- 
 prove the other author, he should have made it appear, that the 
 particulars condescended upon by his .antagonist, had no real influ- 
 ence into this apostacy. Whether they'gave a just cause for it is 
 another question. I am satisfied they did not. But neither do those 
 reasons of this defection, condescended on by the reflector, give a 
 sufficient ground for it. Nor are there any reasons that can justi- 
 fy any in relinquishing Cluistianity. The inquiry in this case is 
 not, Mhat just giounds have the deists to warrant them in, or en- 
 i;age them to this defection, for all christians own it impossible they 
 thould have any ; but the question is, M'hat lias given occasion to 
 any, thus to fall off from our religion ? Now I conceive both 
 these writers have hit upon several of the true reasons of this; 
 though the first is apparently guilty of deep imprudence, I wish I 
 might not say malice, against Christianity, in proposing those temp- 
 tations, with all the advantage he could give them, and that without 
 nuy antidote : For which and other faults he has been justly, though 
 modcstl}' censured by the reflector. 
 
 Although both of them have given some account of this matter, 
 yet I conceive so much has not been said as may supercede a further 
 inquiry, or make us despair of observing not a few things that have 
 not had an inconsiderable influence, which are overlooked by both. 
 "Wherefore we shall in a few words propose our opinion of this mat- 
 ter. And in delivering it, we shall not pursue the design of any 
 parti/, but make it evident that all parties have had their own ac- 
 cession to the growth of this evil. Though I am sensible that this 
 •cccount will fall heavy upon a set of men in particular, who have of 
 late years claimed the name of the Church of England ; though 
 inijustly, if we take her Homilies, Articles, and consentient judg- 
 ment of lier renowned bishops from the time of the Reformation to 
 Bishop Laud's time, for the standard of her doctrine ;* and I see 
 r.o reason v, hy we ought not. I [)remised this to avoid any sus- 
 pic'on of a design to brand the Church of England, with an acces- 
 tjion to the growth of Deism. And even in speaking of that set of 
 men, whom" I take 'to be principally guilty, I would not be under- 
 stood to speak so much of the design of the men, as of the native 
 tendencT/ of their doctrine and practices. 
 
 Tlie many gioundless, nay ridiculous pretences to revelation, 
 and bold impostures of the Chmch of Rome, and of those who 
 have Euppoiled that interest ; their impudence in obtruding upon 
 
 * See Bishop of Saruiu's Explanation of the Thirlv-ninc Articles, ou art^ 
 17: p. 168. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 43 
 
 the world, doctrines cross to reason, ami sense, awl principle;* of 
 morality subversive of Xhe whole law of nature yf their scandalous 
 endeavour to bespatter the scriptures, and weaken their authority, 
 on purpose to bring tliem into discredit, to make way for the design- 
 ed advancement oi their wild traditions into an equality with them, 
 and to bring the world under a necessity pf throwing themselves up- 
 on the care and conduct of their infallible guidcy though they can- 
 not yet tell us which is he ; their gross ami discernible hypocrisy 
 in carrying on secular, nay impious and unjust designs, under the 
 specious pretences of holiness am] religion { their zeal for a form 
 and skew of religion, a worship plainly t^atrical,t while the lives of 
 their Popes, Cardinals, Monks, ^uns, ami all their highest preten- 
 ders to devotion have been scandalously lewd, even to a proverb ;!^ 
 the immoral morality, atheistical diviniti/, and abominable practi- 
 ces of the Jesuits, those zeaJous supporters and strongest props of 
 the Popish interest, but in very deed the worst enemies of mankind, 
 the subverters of all true pi^fi/, morality, and government in the - 
 world ; tliese, I say, togetliec with many other evils of a like nature, 
 every where observable in that churcli, have been, for a very long 
 time too evident and gross to be denied, or hid from pei-sons of any 
 tolerable sagacity, living among them : And, by the observation of 
 those and the like evils, continued in, approved, justified, and adher- 
 ed unto ; and the cruelty of that church in destroying all those who 
 would not receive, by wholesale, all those shocking absurdities, not 1 
 few who lived among them, and were unacquainted with the power 
 of religion, tkit was necessary to engage them cordially to espons6 
 the reforr^ed interest, got their minds leavened with prejudice;*, 
 and furnished with specious pretences against all revealed religion ; 
 which they the more boldly entertained, because they knew it was 
 less criminal to turn Athiest than Protestant in places where the Pc- 
 gi^h interest prevailed. 
 
 These prejudices once taken up, daily grew stronger, by the ob- 
 servation of new instances of this sort, and the constancy of those 
 of that communion in acting the same part. And men of wit and 
 learning, who soonest saw into this mystery, and had no mward 
 bonds on them, failed not to hand about and cultivate those preten- 
 ces to that degree, that many begun to own their apostacy, if not 
 openly, yet more covertly. 
 
 Not long after the beginning of the last elapsed century, so far as 
 I can learn, some in France and Italy began to form a sort of a new- 
 party. They called themselves 7 heists, or Deists ; imjustly pre- 
 tending that they were the only persona who owned the 0/»e tnit 
 
 t Growth of Deism, p. 5. Reflections on it, p. 8. 
 
 i Sec Jesuit's Morals. 
 
 !) Clarkson's Pjrictical Divinity of P.ipists. 
 
44 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 God. And hereby they plainly intimated that they had rejecteif 
 the name of Christ. They rejected all revelation as cheat, priest- 
 craft, and imposture, pretending that there was nothing sincere in 
 religion, save what nature's light taught. However, being generally 
 persons too fond of a present life, and too- uncertain about a future, 
 they thought it not meet to put too much to the hazard for this their' 
 pretended religion. It was a refined sort of Paganism which they 
 embraced, and they were to imitate the Heathen philosophers, who, 
 whatever thei^ peculiar sentiments were in matters of religion,, yet 
 for peace's sake, they looked on it as safe to follow the mode, and 
 comply with the religious usages that prevailed in the places where 
 they lived. That which made this party the more considerable 
 was that it was made up of men, who pretended to learning, ingenu- 
 ity, breeding, and who set up for wits. They pretended to write 
 after the copy of the new philosophers, who scorned that philosoph- 
 ical slavery, which former ages had been under to Aristotle. They 
 inculcated that credulity was no less dangerous in matters of religion 
 than in matters of philosophy. And herein certainly they were not 
 mistaken. But one may justly suspect, that at the same time, 
 "while they pretended to guard against easiness in believing, they 
 liave fallen into the worst credulity, as well as ruining incredulity : 
 yor none is so credulous as an atheistr 
 
 Much about the same time, some novel opinions began to be 
 much entertained in Holland, in matters of religion. The broaeh- 
 •?rs of them being men learned and diligent, carefully cultivated 
 (them, till they were ripened into something very near-akin to plain 
 f^ocinianism, which is but one remove from Deism. It was not long 
 after this when those new-fangled notions took footing in England 
 and began to be embraced and countenanced by some topping 
 churchmen, who, forgetful of their Articles, Homilies, and Subscript 
 lions, and the conduct of their predecessors, carefully maintained 
 and zealously propagated this new divinily, 
 
 I shall not make bold to judge what the designs of those were, 
 tfho appeared most zealous for these new notions : This is to be 
 left to the judgment of him, who searches the heart of the children of 
 Tnen, and will bring forth things that are now hid. But there were 
 not n few reasons to suspect that the Jesuits had a considerable 
 hand in dipseminating them, and that the others were their tools ; 
 though it is likely they did not suspect this. The Jesuits vaunted 
 that they had planted the sovereign drug of Arminianism in Eng- 
 land, which in time would purge out the northern heresy.* This it 
 ^ould not otherwise do, than by shaking men as to all principles of 
 religion. And it £3 a known maxim, that 7nake men once Atheists 
 
 ■* Ru3hv,-crth's Colic.'!. p.irt 1, paj. 47^. Letter by a Jesuit to the Kec- 
 ^OT of Brussels. Se-pag'. &?, iij'i 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 45 
 
 it will be easy to turn them Papists. The jealousies many disicern- 
 ing people had of this, were considerably increased when it was 
 Been with what violence the abettors of this new divinity appeared 
 against the more moderate part of the church of England, as well as 
 the dissenters, upon the account of some ceremonies, owned hy 
 themselves as indifferent in their own nature ; while at the same 
 time, they expressed a great deal of tenderness if not respect to the 
 Church of Rome, and made proposals for union with her. 
 
 But whatever there is as to this, it is certain that this divinity 
 opens a door, and has given encouragement to that aporstacy from 
 Christianity, that has since followed, and still increases under the 
 name of Deism. 
 
 This divinity teaches us, that no more is necessary to be believ-r 
 ed, in order to salvation, save what is confessed and owned by all 
 that are called christians. Dicunt se non videre wide, aut qvo 
 wodoy prater pauca ista, quit apudomnesin confesso sunt, alia 
 plura adhuc necessaria esse ostendi aut elici possit ;* that is, 
 " They see not how it can be made appear, that besides these 
 " few things, which are by them allowed, any others are necessary 
 " to salvation." Consonantly hereto, they expressly deny any 
 thing to be fimdamental which lias been controverted, or afterr 
 wards may be so.f In a word they teach that we are not necessa- 
 rily to believe any thing, save what is evident to us. And that 
 only is to be reckoned evident, which is confessed by all, and to 
 which nothing that has any appearance of truth can be opposed. 
 Now after this, what is left in Christianity ? The divinify, the pv- 
 rity, the perfection and svfficAency of the scriptures ; the Trinity, 
 Deity of Christ, his satii^f action, the whole dispensation of the Spi- 
 rit, justification by faith atone, and all the articles of the Christian 
 religion, have been and are controveitcd. None of them there- 
 fore is necessary to salvation. Are not men left at liberty, withr 
 out hazard of their salvation, to renounce all, save what is common 
 to Christianity with natural religion ? A nd since even some of its 
 most considerable articles about Ihe attribides of GOD and hi;-; 
 providence, fularercivards and pun I shin eiilf^, have been, or may hfi 
 rontrovertet), why may we not reciron them unnecessary too ? Thf = 
 Deists have borrowed their doctrine of evidence, and opposed it to 
 the Christian religion. One of them tells u?, " If our happiness 
 " depends upon our belief, we cannot firmly believe, till our reason 
 " Ikj convinced of a supernatural religion.'"."!; ^^^^ ^' ^'^'^ reasons of 
 it were evident, there could be no longer any contention about re- 
 ligion. How little does this differ from that divinity which tells «?, 
 
 * Kemonstr. Apol. Fol. 12. 
 
 t n,i. Cjp. 24, Fol. 276; and Can. 2a, Fol. 2£:. 
 
 i Oracles of Reason, pai^. 206. Letter by A, W. to 0. PI 
 
46 AN INQUmy INTO THE 
 
 that GOD is obliged to offer us such arguments to which nothing 
 that has an appearance of truth can be opposed ! And if this be 
 wanting, they are not to be received as articles of faith. Now if 
 after this the Deists can but offer any thing that has an appearance 
 of truth against Christianity, they are free to reject it in cumxilo. 
 
 This divinity reduces Christianity to mere moraliii/. Nothing 
 else is universally agreed to, if that be so. *' The supposition of 
 *' sin, (says one that wore a mitre) does not bring In any new reli- 
 *' gion, but only makes new circumstances and names of old things, 
 *' and requires new helps and advantages to improve our powers, 
 " and to encourage our endeavors : And thus the law of grace is 
 " nothing but a restitution of the law of nature."* . 
 
 And further, lest we should think this morality, wherein they 
 place the whole of Christianity, owes its being to the agency of 
 the sanctifying Spirit, we are told, that "the Spirit of God, and 
 " the grace of Christ, when used as distinct from moral abilities 
 ** and performances, signify nothing/ 'f And a complaint is 
 made of some who fill the world " with a bu2 and noise of the di- 
 " vine Spirit."! Hence many sermons were rather such as be- 
 came the chair of a philosopher^ teaching cthicks, than that of one, 
 who by office is bound to know and preach nothing save Christ 
 and him crucified. Heathen morality has been substituted in the 
 room of gospel holiness. And ethicks by some have been preach- 
 ed instead of the gospel of Christ. And if any complaints were 
 made of this conduct, though by men who preached the necessity 
 of holiness, urged by all the gospel motives, and carefully practised 
 what they preached in their lives, they were exposed and reject- 
 ed, and the persons who offered them were reflected on as enemies 
 to morality ; whereas the plain truth of the case was, they did not 
 complain of men being taught to be moral, but that they were not 
 taught somewhat more. 
 
 After men once were taught that the controverted doctrines of 
 fcligion were not necessafy to salvation, and that all that was ne^ 
 cessary thereto was to be referred to and comprehended under 
 morality^ and that there was no need of regeneration, or the sanc^ 
 tifying influences of the Spirit of Christ in order to the perfornv 
 ance of our duty, it is easy to see how light the difference was to 
 be accounted betwixt a Christian and an honest moral Heathen. 
 And if any small temptation offered, how natural was it fop men 
 to judge that the hazard was not great, to step over from Chris- 
 tianity to Deism, which is Paganism a-la-mode. And to encou- 
 rage them to it, it is well known how favourably many used to ex- 
 
 * S. Park's Defence of Ecclcs. Poll. pag. 324', 
 j Idem ibid, pap. 343. 
 if Eccles. Polit. pag. 57. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 47 
 
 jpress themselves of the state of the Heathens ; little minding that 
 the Christian religion represents them as without God, and with* 
 eut Christy and without hope, children of wrath, and dtad in tres- 
 passes and sins. 
 
 I need not stand to prove that this divinity is nearly allied to So- 
 cinianism> It is well known that they reckon the Socinians sound 
 in the fundamentals, and therefore think them in no hazard, pro- 
 vided they live morally. Hence men have been emboldened to 
 turn Socinians. And every body may see by what easy removes, 
 one may from Socinianism arrive at Deism. For my part I can 
 see little difference betwixt the two. The Deist indeed seems the 
 honester man of the two ; he rejects the gospel, and owns that he 
 does so : The other, I mean the Socinian, pretends to retain it. 
 But I shall not insist any further in discovering the tendency of 
 this new diviniij/ to libertinism and Detswj, since others have fully 
 and judiciously done it from the most unquestionable arguments 
 and documents. And more especially, since in fact it is evident, 
 that wherever this new divinity has obtained, Socinians and deists 
 abound, and many who embrace it daily go over to them ; which 
 I take to be the surest evidence, if it be duly circumstantiate, of 
 the tendency of this tk>ctrine to encourage those opinions, and 
 least liable to any just exception. And perhaps I might add, that 
 few, comparatively verj' few, ^ ho own the contrary doctrine, have 
 gone into this new way, where that' divinity has not been enter- 
 tained. 
 
 But to return whence we have for a little digressed, to the state 
 of religion in England. No sooner were they advanced to power 
 who had tlrunk in those opinions, but presently the doctrines that 
 are purely evangelical, by which the apostles converted the world, 
 the reformers promoted and carried on our reformation from Pope- 
 ry, and the pious preachers of the church of England did keep 
 somewhat of the life and power of religion amongst their people ; 
 these doctrines, I say, began to be decry ed ; justification by the 
 righteousness of Christ, which Luther called Arttculus stantis aut 
 cadentis ecc/csicE,* that redemption that is in him, even the forgive- 
 ness of sins through faith in his blood ; the mystery of the grace, 
 mercy and love of God manifested in Christ ; the great mystery of 
 godliness ; the dispensation of the Spirit for conviction, renovation, 
 sanctification, consolation and edification of the church, by a supply 
 of spiritual gifts, and other doctrines of a like tendency, were, upon 
 all occasions, ^)oldly exposed, and discredited in press and pulpit. 
 The ministers who dared to avow them, from a conviction of the 
 truth, the sense of the obligation of their promises and subscriptions 
 to the Articles, were sure to have no preferment, nay, to be 
 
 * " An article by which the Church must either stand or f;;H.'* 
 
48 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 branded with the odious names o^ Calv mists ^ Puritans^ Fa7iaticSf 
 aiul I know not what. 
 
 The doctrines of faith were not regarded as belonging to the 
 ibundation of religion. The mo7*a/i/y of the Bible was pretended 
 I he only thing that was necessary ; and as much of the dodriney as 
 all, even Socinians, Quakers, and all the rest were agreed in, were 
 Bufilcient. And if any opposed this, though in civil language and 
 by fair arguments, they were sure to be exposed as enemies to rho^ 
 caUiy ; although their adversaries durst not put the contest on this 
 issue v/itli them, that he should be reckoned the greatest friend to 
 morality who was most blameless in his walk, and shewed it the 
 greatest practical regard. They could exercise charity, forbear-* 
 itP.ce, and love to a Socinian that had renoiinced all the fundamen- 
 tal truths of religion ; but none to a poor Dissenter, who sincerely 
 believed all the doctrinal articles ; nay, even a sober churchman, 
 who could not consent to new unauthorised ceremonies, was become 
 uitolerable. So that men, at this time, might, with much more ere* 
 dit and less hazard, turn Socinian, or any thing, than discover the 
 least regard to truths contained in the articles, owned by most of 
 the Reformed churches, and taught by our own Reformers. This 
 is too well known to be denied by any one who knows how things 
 were carried on at that time and since.* 
 
 Further, whereas preachers formerly, in order to engage men to 
 a compliance with the gospel, were wont to press much upon thera 
 their guilt, the impossibility of standing before God in their own 
 righteousness, their impotency, their misery by the fall, the necessi- 
 ty of regeneration, illuminatioH, the power of grace to make them 
 willing to comply, and that no man could sincerely call Christ Lord, 
 and be subject to him practically, save by the Hob/ Ghost; care 
 was now taken to unteach them all this, and to shew them how very 
 little they had lo -t by the fall, if any thing was lost by it, either in 
 jjolnt oi light to discern, or power and inclination to practice duty. 
 They were told havf great length their oivn righteousness would go, 
 and that it would do their business ; they might safely stand before 
 ixod in it ; or if there was any room for Christ's righteousness, it 
 ivas only to piece out their own, where it was wanting. In a word, 
 the peopb ^\'cre told, what fine persons many of the Heathens were, 
 wliD kne\>' iiothing of illumination, regeneration, or what the Bible 
 was, and how little odds, if any at all, thers was betwixt grace and 
 morality. 
 
 • Anyone that would be satisfied in the tmth of this, must peruse the ser- 
 mons and writing's published by that parly of old and of late, and the histories 
 oftiiose times, particularly Rxish-wortli's Collect, the speeches of the lonjj Par- 
 liament, and later writing's, and they wiii find documents more than enoug'h.-. 
 And they may cuhsult also Honorii liejii's Comment, de atatii Ecclesiic jinjli- 
 tunx. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 49 
 
 And, whereas a veneration ofthe Lord's day was a mean to keep 
 people under some concern about religion, and that day was spent 
 by faithful ministers, in pressing upon the consciences of their peo- 
 ple, those new contemned gospel truths, to the spoiling of the whole 
 plot ; care was taken to discredit and bring it into contempt. Mi- 
 nisters, instead of telling them on that day, that they were too much 
 inclined to sin, levity, folly, and vanity, were commanded to deal 
 with them as persons too much inclined to be serious ; and instead 
 of preaching the gospel, they were required, under the highest 
 pains, to entertain them with a profane Book of Sports. And for 
 disobedience many were rejected. And that they might be taught 
 by example as well as precept, a Sundaf/^s evening mask was pub- 
 licly acted, where were present persons of no mean note.* 
 
 Moreover, a state game being now to be played, the pulpit, press, 
 religion and all wers made basely to truckle to state designs, and to 
 the enslaving of the nations, by advancing the doctrines of passive 
 obedience, non-resistance, and jiire-divino-ship of kings ;f whereby 
 men of religion were wounded to see the ordinances of Christ pros- 
 tituted to such projects, as were entirely foreign, to say no worse, to 
 the design of thgir institution : And men of no religion, or who were 
 not fixed about it, were drawn over to think it a mere cheat, and 
 that the design of it was only to carry on secular interest under spe- 
 «iious pretences. 
 
 At length by those means, and some other things, which are not 
 t)f our present consideration, concurring, confusions ripened into a 
 civil war, whereby every one was left to speak, write, and live as 
 he pleased. 
 
 Many who intended no hurt, while they upon honest designs in- 
 quired into, and laid open the faults of the topping clergy, did una- 
 wares furnish loose and atheistical men with pretences against the 
 ministry. And what in truth gave only ground for a dislike of the 
 persons faulty, was received by many as a just ground of prejudice 
 against the very pastoral as priest-craft, and all who are clothed 
 with it, as a set of self-designing men. 
 
 The body of the people, who had been debauched by the exam- 
 ple of a scandalous clergtj, and hardened in sin by the intermission 
 oi ?i}\ discipline, (which of late had only been exercised against the 
 sober and pious who could not go into the measures that were then 
 taken,) the neglect of painful preaching, the hook of sports and 
 pastimes, and who had their heads filled with airy and self-elating 
 notions of man's ability to good, free will, universal grace, and the 
 like, and who now, when they much needed the inspection of their 
 faithful pastors, were deprived of it, many of them, by the iniquity 
 
 * Rushworth's Collect. Part 2, Vol. 1, pape 459. 
 t Bishop of Sarum oii the .Articles, Art. 7, page 152. 
 
 7 
 
50 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 of the times, being forced to take sanctuary in foreign nations ; the 
 people, I say, by these things turned quite giddy, and broke into 
 numberless sects and parties. Every one who had entertained 
 those giddy notions was zealous, even to madness, for propagating 
 them, and thought himself authorised to plead for them, print for 
 them, and preach them. The office of the ministry, that had 
 before been rendered contemptible by the suppression of the best 
 preachers, and the scandalous lives of those who were mainly en- 
 couraged, was now made more so, by the intrusion of every bold, 
 ignorant and assuming enthusiast. The land was filled with books 
 of controversy, stuffed mth unsound, offensive and scandalous ten- 
 ets, which were so multiplied, as they never have been in any na- 
 tion of the world, in so small a compass of time. The generality of 
 the people being, by the neglect of a scandalous ministry, and the 
 discouragement of those who were laborious, drenched in ignorance, 
 were easily shaken by those controversial writings that were disse- 
 minated every where, and became an easy prey to every bold secta- 
 rian. 
 
 3Iany of the better sort set themselves to oppose these extremes, 
 and from a detestation of tliem were carried, some into one evil, 
 some into another ; thereby the common enemy reaped advantage, 
 and truth suffered even by its defenders. Ministers who desired to 
 be faithful, by the abounding of those errors, were forced to op- 
 pose them in public ; whereby preaching became less edifying, and 
 disputes increased, to the great detriment of religion. 
 
 The nation was thus crumbled into parties, in matters both civil 
 and religious, the times turned cloudy and dark. Pretences of re- 
 ligion were dreadfnlly abused on aJl hands to subserve other designs. 
 And even the best both of ministers and people wanted not their 
 own sad failings^ which evil men made the \\ orst use of. The rvord 
 and providence were used in favour of so many cross opinions and 
 practices, that not a few began to run into that same extreme, 
 which some in France and Italy had before gone into. And about 
 this time it was that the learned Herbert began to write in favour of 
 Deism : Of which we shall have occasion to speak afterwards. 
 
 After the restoration, things were so far from being mended, that 
 they grew worse. Lewdness and Atheism were encouraged at the 
 court, which now looked like a Httle Bodom. The clergy turned no 
 less scandalous, if not more so than before. Impiety was, as it 
 ■were, publicly and with applause acted and taught on the stage, and 
 all serious religion was there exposed and ridiculed. Yea, the pul- 
 pits of many became theatres, wherci.'pon men assumed the boldness 
 to ridicule serious Godliness, and the gravest matters of religion ; 
 such as communion with God, confession of sin, prayer by the Spi- 
 rit, and the wliole work of converryion. Controversial writings irere 
 multiplied, and in tlicm grave and serious truths were handled in a 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 51 
 
 jocular way. The scriptuses were burlesqued ; and the most im- 
 portant truths, (under pretence of exposing the Dissenters, to the 
 great grief of all good men among them, and in the church of Eng- 
 land,) were treated with contempt and scorn. The pulpits were 
 again prostituted to state designs and doctrines ; and the gre^it 
 truths oftlie gospel, in reference to man^s misery, and his iccovery 
 by Jesus Christ, were entirely neglected by many ; and discourses 
 of morality came in their place, I mean a morality that has no respect 
 to Christ as its end, author, and ike ground of its acceptance with 
 God which is plain heathenism. The soberer, and the better part 
 were traduced as enthusiastical, disloyal hypocrites, and I know not 
 what. And sometimes they on the other hand, in their own de- 
 fence, were constrained to lay open the impiety, atheism, and blas- 
 phemous boldnes of their traducers in their way of management of 
 divine things. And while matters were thus carried betwixt them, 
 careless and indifferent men, especially of the better and most con- 
 siderable quality, being debauched in their practice, by the licen- 
 tiousness of the court, the immorality and looseness of the stage, 
 •were willing to conform their principles to their practice ; for which 
 this state of things gave them a favourable occasion and plausible 
 pretences- Men whose walk and way looked hke any thing of a 
 real regard to religion, they heard so often traduced as hypocrites, 
 fanatics, and I know not what, that they were easily induced to be- 
 lieve them to be such. They who taught them so, on the other 
 hand, by the liberty they assumed in practice, convinced these gen- 
 tlemen, that whatever their profession was, yet they believed no- 
 thing about religion themselves; and therefore it was easy to infer that 
 all was but a cheat. Besides, the Popish party, who were sufficient- 
 ly encouraged, while the sober Dissenters of the Protestant persua- 
 sion were cruelly persecuted, made it their business to promote this 
 unsettledness in matters of religion. They found themselves una- 
 ble to stand their ground in wa}^ of fair debate, and therefore they 
 craftily set themselves rather to shake others in their faith, than di- 
 rectly to press them to a compliance with their own sentiments. 
 And it is well known they wrote many books full of sophistry, plaii>- 
 ly levelling at this, to bring men to believe nothing; as well know- 
 ing, that if they were once brought there, they would soon be 
 brought to believe any thing in matters of religion. 
 
 On these and the like occasions and pretences, arose this defec- 
 tion from the gospel, which has been nourishsd by many of the 
 same things which first gave it birth, till it is grown to such strength, 
 as fills all well-wishers to the interest of religion with just fears as to 
 the issue. 
 
 Nor was it any wonder that these pretences should take, (especial- 
 ly with persons of liberal education and parts, who only were capable 
 of observing those faults which gaxci'cwsbii fyr them,) since the 
 
52 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 generality were prepared for, and inclined to such a defection, by s 
 long continuance under the external dispensation of the gospel, with- 
 out any experience of its power, the prevalent love of lust, that 
 makes men impatient of any thing that may have the least tenden- 
 cy to restrain them from pursuing the gratification thereof ; to 
 which we may add the natural enmity of the mind of man against 
 the mystery of the gospel. 
 
 There was another thing which at this time had no small influ- 
 ence — the philosophical writings of Mr. Hobbs, Spinoza, and some 
 others of the same kidney, got, one way or other, a great vogue 
 amongst our young gentry and students, whereby many were poi- 
 soned with principles destructive of all true religion and morality. 
 
 By those and the like means, things are now come to that pass, 
 that not a few have been bold to avow their apostacy from the 
 christian religion, not only in conversation, but in print. They 
 disown the name of Christ, call themselves Deists, and glory in 
 that name. They have published many writings reflecting on the 
 Bcriptures, and justifying themselves in rejecting them. 
 
 And we have just reason to suspect, that, besides those who do 
 avow their principles, who are perhaps as numerous in these lands 
 as any where else, there are many, who yet are ashamed to speak 
 it out, who bear them good-will, and who want only a little time 
 more to harden themselves against the odium that this way goes 
 imder, and a fair occasion of throwing off the mask, which they yet 
 think meet to retain. Of this vre have many indications. 
 
 Many have assumed an unaccountable boldness in treating things 
 sacred and serious too freely in writing and conversation. They 
 make bold to jest upon the scriptures, and upon every occasion to 
 traverse them. When once men have gone this length, the vene- 
 ration due to that blessed book is gone, and they are in a fair way 
 to reject it. 
 
 Others have made great advances to this defection, by dissemi- 
 nating and entertaining reproaches against a standing ministry. It is 
 known what contempt has been cast upon this order of men, whom 
 God hath entrusted with the gospel dispensation, and who, by of- 
 lice, are obliged to maintain its honor. If this order of men fall un- 
 rler that general contempt, which some do their utmost to bring 
 them to, religion cannot long maintain its station among us. When 
 the principal means of the Lord's appointment are laid aside, or 
 rendered useless, no other means will avail. 
 
 And hereon, further, there follows a neglect of attendance on 
 the ministry of the word, which the Lord has appointed for the edi- 
 fication of the church, and establishing people in the faith of the 
 truth he has revealed to us therein. When this once begins to be 
 neglected, men will goon turn Bceptical and unconcerned about re^ 
 ligioa. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 53 
 
 And further, it is very observable, that many are strengthened 
 in this neglect, by principles calculated for this purpose ; while the 
 whole efficacy of preaching is made to depend, not on the blessiiig 
 of Christ, whose institution it is, or the infiiiences of his spirit, 
 which he has promised for setting it home on the hearers for their 
 conviction, conversion and edification — but on the abilities and ad- 
 dress of the preachers. It is natural to conclude, that it is better 
 to stay at home and read some book, than to go to hear a sermon, 
 if the preacher iu not of very uncommon abilities : Which is a prin- 
 ciple avowed by many, and their practice suits their principles. 
 
 Besides, which is the true spring of the former, I am afraid igno* 
 ranee of the nature ofrevealed religion, the design of its institutions, 
 and all its principal concerns, is become more common than is usu- 
 ally observed, even amongst men of liberal education and the best 
 quality. And hence maiiy of them entertain notions inconsistent 
 with their own religion, at first out of ignorance, aud afterwards 
 think themselves in honor engaged to defend them, although de- 
 structive to the religion they profess. 
 
 Add to all this, that profanity in practice has, like a deluge, over- 
 spread the lands. And where this once takes place, love to sin ne- 
 ver fails to engage men to those principles, which may countenance 
 them in the courses they love, and design to cleave to. 
 
 This seems plainly to be the state of matters with us at present. 
 And we see but little appearance of any redress. The infection 
 spreads, and many are daily carried off by it, both in England and 
 Scotland. Though it must be owned that Scotland, as yet, is less 
 tainted with that poison : but those of this nation have no reason to 
 be secure, since many are infected, and more are in a forwardness 
 to it than is commonly thought. 
 
 Having given this short, but I conceive, true account of the rise 
 and growth of Deism, it now remains that we consider, what these 
 principles are which they maintain. The Deists, although they are 
 not perfectly one among themselves, yet do agree in two things : — 
 1. They all reject rei-'ea/ef? religion, and plainly maintain that all 
 pretences to revelation are vain, cheat and imposture. 2. They 
 all maintain thatnatwal religion is sufficient to answer all the great 
 ends of religion, and the only rule whereby all our religious practices 
 are to be squared. The first of tJaese assertions only tells what 
 their religion is not, and expresses their opposition to adl revelation, 
 particularly to Christianity ; which has been v/orthily defended and 
 asserted against all their objections by many of late, and I shall not 
 much insist in adding to what they have written to such excellent 
 purpose. The second tells us what their religion is ; and it is this 
 we chiefly design in the following papers to debate with them. — 
 They have long been upon the offensive part, which is more easy ; 
 we design now to put them upon the defensive. 
 
54 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 They who call themselves Deists, although they thus far agree, 
 yet are not all of one sort. I find them by one of their own num- 
 ber, classed into two sorts, mortal and imynoital.* 
 
 The immortal are they who maintain a future state. The mortal, 
 they who demj one. It is m ith the^irsf we are principally concern- 
 ed ; yet I shall in the subsequent chapter ofler a few things with re- 
 spect to the mortal deists. And in what I have to say of them I 
 ehall be very short ; because I conceive, what has already been offer* 
 cd in the introduction, against this sort of men, might almost su- 
 persede any further discourse about them. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Mortal Deists who, and what Judgment to be made of them and 
 their sentiments. 
 
 THE mortal Deists, who also are called nominal Deists, deny- 
 ing a future state, are, in effect, mere Atheists. This perhaps 
 some may think a harsh judgment ; but yet it is such as the Deists 
 themselves, who are on the other side, will allow. 
 
 One who owns himself a Deist, thus expresses his mind — " We 
 " do believe, that there is an infinitely powerful, wise and good 
 " God, who superintends the actions of mankind, in order to retri- 
 *• bute to every one according to their deserts : Neither are we to 
 *' boggle at this creed ; for if we do not stick to it, we ruin the foun- 
 " dation of all human happiness, and are in effect no better thaa 
 '• mere Atheists."t 
 
 A further account of this sort of men we have given us by one, 
 whom any may judge capable enough for it, who considers his way 
 of writing, and the account he gives of himself " I have observed 
 " some," says he, " who pretend themselves Deists, that they are 
 *' men of loose and sensual lives ; and I make no wonder that they 
 *' dislike the christian doctrine of seU-denial, and the severe threat- 
 *' enings against wilful sinners. You may be sure they will not al- 
 *' ledge this reason : But having read Spinoza aiul Hobbs, and be- 
 *' ing taught to laugh at the story of Balaam's ass, and Sampson's 
 " locks, they proceed to ridicule the reality of all miracles and reve- 
 '< lation. I have conversed with several of this temperi.'but could 
 *' never get any of them serious enough to debate the reality of re- 
 *' Kgion — but a witty jest, and t'other glass, puts an end to allfur- 
 
 * Oracles of Reason, page 99. 
 i Letter to the Deists, pag-c 125. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 55 
 
 «« ther consideration."* These are mere sceptics and practical 
 Atheists, rather than real Deists. 
 
 Now, it is to no purpose to debate with men of this temper. If 
 they will Ksten to arguments, many have said enough, if not to 
 convince them, (for I know it is not an easy matter to convince 
 some men,) yet to stop their mouths ; and therefore I shall not of- 
 fer any arguments — only I shall lay down a few clear principles, 
 and from them draw an inference or two, which will make it evident, 
 wliat judgment we are to make of this sort of men. 
 
 The principles I take for Incontrovertible are these which follow j 
 1. He deserves not the name of a man who acts not rationally ; 
 knowing what he does, and to what end. 2. No action which con- 
 tributes not, at least in appearance, to man's happiness is worthy 
 of him. 3. The happiness of a present Hfe, which is all that these 
 gentlemen allow, consists in the enjoyments of things agreeable to 
 our nature, and freedom from those that are noisome to it. 4. Man's 
 nature is such, that his felicity depends not only on these things, 
 which at present he has, or wants ; but likewise on what is past, 
 and what is future. A prospect of the one, and a reflection on the 
 other, according as they are more or less agreeable, exceedingly in- 
 creases his pleasure or pain. 5. The hopes of obtaining hereafter 
 the good we at present want, and of being freed from evils v/e suffer 
 by, mightily enhances the pleasure of what we possess, and allays 
 the trouble that arises from incumbent evils. 6. So strong is the 
 desire every one finds in himself of a continuation in being, as can- 
 not choose but render the tlioughts of annihilation very terrible 
 and irksome. 7. The practice o( virtue as it is the most probable 
 means of aUdimn^future happiness, if any such state be, so it h 
 that which tends most to perfect and advance man's nature ; and 
 so must give the most solid and durable pleasure, even here in this 
 life. 8. It is malicious to do what tends to the obstructing ano- 
 ther's happiness, when it cannot further one's oivn. Few men wUi 
 question any of these, and if any do, it is not worth while to debate 
 with him. Now from these we may see, 
 
 1, It would contribute much to those gentlemen's 77J'f5P??^/e/tc<7?/ 
 to believe, (bo it true or false) that there is n future state of happi- 
 ness, since the hopes of immutable and endless bliss would be a no- 
 table antidote against the Hneasiness of mind that arises, not only 
 from iucnmbcnt evils, but also from those we fear, and the incon- 
 stancy of our short-lived enjoyments. 
 
 2. Tlie generalily of mankind, especially where Christianity ob- 
 tains, being already possessed of the prospect o( future happiness, 
 which supports them under present evils, arms them against the 
 troublesome reflections on past troubles, and fears of the future; 
 
 * Growth of Deism, page 5. 
 
S6 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 and moreover animates them in the practice of these actiong where- 
 by not only their own good, but that of the societies wherein they 
 live, is signally promoted ; all attempts to rob them of this hope are 
 highly malicious, and import no less than a conspiracy against the 
 happiness of mankind, and the good of the society wherein they 
 Kve : And therefore we may say assuredly, that as those mortal 
 Deists are much incommoded by their own opinion ; so their at- 
 tempts for its propagation, must be looked on as proceeding from 
 BO good design to the rest of mankind. 
 
 Here perliaps some of them may say, that this opinion tends to 
 liberate a great part of mankind from the disquieting fears o{ future 
 misery. 
 
 To this I answer, 1 . I believe it true, that their fears of future 
 misery are uneasy to them ; or they have but little hope of future 
 felicity. Their way of living allows them none. But these fears 
 proceed from consciousness of guilt, and are the genuine result of ac- 
 tions, equally destructive to the actors, and the interest of the rest 
 of mankind. 2. These fears have their use, and serve to deter 
 from such evils as are ruining to the persons who commit them, and 
 to human society. 3. While this opinion liberates a few of the 
 worst of men, from these fears, which are a part of the just punish- 
 ment of their villainies, and emboldens them to run on in those evils 
 ivhich ruin themselves and others, it dispirits and discourages the 
 only useful part of mankind, by filling them with dismal thoughts of 
 Gnnihilation. 4. Nor can all that the Deists are able to do, lib- 
 erate themselves or mankind from those fears. The utmost that 
 they can pretend, with any shew of reason, is, that we have not 
 ground to believe such a state. Will this make us sure that there 
 is none ? But of this we have said enough in the introduction. 
 
 By what has been said it is evident, what judgment we are to 
 make of this sort of Deists. Their lives, writings and death, shew 
 them to be mere Atheists. 
 
 Vaninus^ when first he appeared and wrote his Aniphltheafrum 
 Providentim Divintp, set out for such an one that believed a God. 
 But at length spoke out plainly that he believed nonCy and was de- 
 servedly burnt for Atheism at Thoulouse, April 9, 1619. He 
 confessed there were twelve of them that parted in company from 
 Naples to teach their doctrine in all the provinces of Europe.* 
 
 Uriel Accost a wrote for this opinion, as himself tells us in his 
 Examplar Vitcc Humance, which is subjoined to /iimftitr^-'s con- 
 ference with Orobius the Jew.f His last action tells us what man 
 he was. After he had made a vain attempt to shoot his brother, he 
 discharged a pistol into his own breast. This fell out about the 
 
 * See Great Geographical Dictionary. 
 
 f Limburgi Prselatio and Bespon*. Vrileus Accosts Llbro. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 57 
 
 twentieth or thirtieth year of the last century. So they livBy and 
 so they die. 
 
 Were this our desiji^n, or if we saw any need of it, we might give 
 such an account of the principles, practices, and tragical exits of 
 not a few of this sort of persons, as would be suJQScient to deter the 
 sober from following them. But what has been said is sufficient to 
 discover the destructive tendency of their pnme opinion. And 
 further we shall not concern ourselves with them, but ^go on to 
 that which is mainly intended in this discourse. ' ' 
 
 CHAP. HI. 
 
 Mlierein the controversy hetwixt us and the Immortal Deists is stated 
 
 and cleared. 
 
 THE immortal Deists who own a future state^ are the only 
 persons with whom it is worth while to dispute this point about the 
 siifficiency of natural religion. Before we offer any arguments on 
 this head, it is necessary we state the question clearly ; and it is 
 the more necessary, that none of the Deists have had the courage 
 or honesty to do it* And here in the entry Ave shall lay down some 
 things, which we think are not to be controverted on this occasion. 
 And we shall, after these concessions are made, inquire what stil! 
 remains in debate, 
 
 1. We look on it as certain, that all the world, in all ages, hatli 
 been possessed of some notion of a God, of some power above 
 them, on whom, in more or less, they did depend ; and to whom 
 on this account some respect is due. This Heathens have observ- 
 ed. Cicero^ amongst others, hath long since told us, " That 
 *' there is no nation so barbarous that owns not some God, that has 
 ** not some anticipations or impressions from nature, of a God."^ 
 Nor is this any more, than what we are told, Rom. i. 19, 20, &c. 
 that the Gentiles have some notions of truth concerning God, which 
 they hold in unrighteotisness ; that God, partly by erecting a tri- 
 bunal in their own breasts, which they cannot decline, though they 
 never so much would, and partly by presenting to their eyes those 
 visible works that bear a lively impress of his invisible power and 
 Godhead^ hath, as it were, forced upon them the knowledge of some 
 part of that, which the apostle calls vv«s-ov ry ica, or that which 
 moi/ be known of God. Whence they ail in some measure knew 
 God, though they glorified him not as God. 
 
 * Cicero de Natura Deorum, Lib. 1. 
 
58 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 The stories some have told us of nations that have no notion of a 
 God, upon search are found false. And for some lewd persons, 
 who have pretended to a settled persuasion, they are not to be cre- 
 dited. We have suflScient reason to look on them as liars, or at 
 least, not admit them witnesses in this case. 
 
 2. I do think that the knowledge of some of the more obvious 
 laws of nature, and their obligation, hath universally obtained.* — 
 • The Gentiles, all of them, do by nature (hose things, that is, the 
 material part of those duties, which the law of nature enjoins, which 
 shews the work of the law, or some part of it at least, to he written 
 in their hearts, since they - do some things it enjoins. I do not 
 think that this writing of the latv imports innate ideas, or innate 
 actual knowledge, which Mr. Locke hath been at so much pains to 
 disprove,! with what success I inquire not now. Some think, that 
 while he grants the self-evidence of a natural propensifi/ of our 
 thoughts toward some notions, which others call innate, he grants 
 all that the more judicious intend by that expression. Other.* 
 think that Mr. Locke's arguments conclude only the improbability 
 of innate ideas, and that they are to be rejected,^ rather for want of 
 evidence for them, than for the strength of what is said against 
 them.J But whatever there is as to this, neither the apostle's 
 scope nor words oblige us to maintain thenio What is intended 
 may be reduced to two assertions, viz. That men are born with 
 such faculties, which cannot, after they are capable of exercising 
 them, but admit the obligation and binding force of some, at least, 
 ef the laws of nature, when they are fairly offered to their thoughts; 
 and, that man is so stated, that he cannot miss occasions of think- 
 ing of, or coming to the knowledge of those laws of nature. 
 
 " Homines nasci cognitione aliqua Dei instrnctos, haud dicimus : 
 *' Nullam omnino habent,. sed vi cognoseendi dicimus ; neque ita 
 " naturaliter eognoscunt atque sentiunt, insitam potentiam Deum 
 " cognoscendi, ad culhim ejus aliquo modo praestandiim, stimulan- 
 " tem, sponte se in adultis rationis eompotibus, non minus certo et 
 " necessai-fo quam ipsum ratiocinari, exerturam^ unumquemque 
 " retinere, ratio nulla est car opinemur cum sentiamus, " says the^ 
 learned Dr.. Osven.ll 
 
 * I inquire not whether they were acquainted with the proper and true 
 gioiinds of the oblig:ition of those laws they owned obligatory. 
 
 t Locke's Fssay on Human Understanding-, Book 1, Ch 4, § 11. 
 
 i Becconsall of Nat. I^elig. Gh. 6. ^ 1, 2. 
 
 II Theoiogumcn. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Par. 2. — " We do not say that men are 
 " born with any actual knowledge of God, as they have no knowledge at all 
 " when they are born ; but we say that tliey are born witli a capacity of know- 
 " ing- him, and tiiut they do -not so naturally know as they feel this implanted 
 " qapacity of knowing God, which stirs them up to worship him in some man- 
 " ncr. And that this capacity will no less naturally and spc>ntaneously exert. 
 "• iiself in all adults tiiai are jjossc'ssed of reason, than tli:>t of reasoning itself, 
 " there is no reason v.hy \,x should deliver as an opiniosi, ui \vs feel it to be 
 " the case.'' 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 59 
 
 3. It is unquestionable, and has been sufficiently attested by the 
 nations, and even by some of the worst of them, that man has a 
 consciencCf that sometimes drags the greatest and most obstinate of- 
 fenders to it3 tribunal, in their own breasts, accuses them, con- 
 demns them, and in some sort executes the sentence against them, 
 for their counteracting known duty, how little soever they know, 
 A Heathen poet could say, 
 
 -Prima est hcBc iiltio, quod se 
 
 Judice, nemo nocens absolvitiiry vAvproha quamvis 
 Gratia fallacis prcetoris vicerit uniam.'* 
 
 4. We own that those laws of nature, which are of absolute ne» 
 cessity to the support of government and order in the world, and 
 the maintenance of human society, are, in a good measure, knowa- 
 ble by the light of nature, and have been generally known. 
 
 5. We willingly admit that, what by tradition, and what by the 
 improvement of nature's fight, many of the wiser Heathens have 
 come to know, and express many things excellently, as to the na- 
 ture of God, man's duty, the coiTuption of nature, a future state, 
 &c. and some of them have Hved nearer up to the knowledge that 
 they had than others : For which they are Iiighly to be commond-- 
 ed, and I do not grudge them their praise. 
 
 6. I look on it as certain, that the light of nature, had it been 
 duly improven, might have carried them In these things, and others 
 of the like nature, further than ever any went. 
 
 But after all these things are granted, the question concerning 
 the suffiricmy of natural religion, remains untouched. 
 
 For clearing this, it is further to be observed, that, when wc 
 speak of the sufficiency of natural religion, or tltose notices of God, 
 and the way of worshipping him, which are attainable by the mere 
 light of nature, without revelation, we consider itasawe«« in order 
 to some end. For by sufficiency is meant, that aptitvdv of a mean 
 for compassing some eiid, tliat infers a nece^'sarj' connection ]>et%vixt 
 the due use, that is, such an use of the mean, as the person to whom 
 it is said to be sufficient, is capable to make of it, and the attain- 
 ment of the end. 
 
 Now natural religion, under tliis consideration, may be asserted 
 sufficient or not, according as it is looked at with respect to one 
 end, or another : For it is useful to several purposes, and Ins a re- 
 spect to several ends. 
 
 1. It may be considered with respect to hvman socid>>, upon 
 which religion has a considerable influence. "There could never 
 
 P". 
 
 * " This is the first part of the ])unis1imenl, that every guilty person is cor.- 
 " tiemnecl by himself, although wicked interest should have overcome tiic in- 
 " tegrityofhisjudg-e." 
 
CO AN INQTJIRT INTO THE 
 
 « possibly be any government settled amongst Atheists, or those 
 *' who pay no respect to a Deity. Remove God once out of Hea- 
 *' ven, and there will never be any gods upon earth. If man's na- 
 *' ture had not something of subjection in it to a Supreme Being 
 ** above him, and inherent principles obliging him how to behave 
 *' himself toward God, and toward the rest of the world, govern*- 
 *' ment could have never been introduced, nor thought of. Nor 
 *' can there be the least mutual security between governors and 
 *' governed, where no God is admitted. For it is an acknowledging 
 *< of God, in his supreme judgment over the world, that is the 
 *' ground of an oath; and upon which the validity of all human en- 
 *' gagements do depend," says an excellent person.^ And the 
 famed Cicero expresses himself very fully to the same purpose. 
 Speaking of religion and piety, he says — Quibiis sublatis, pertiir' 
 halio vitae sequiturt Sc ma^na confasio, atqne hand scio^ an pietate 
 adversus Deossuhlata, fides diam.^ 8r societas humani generis, <§• 
 una excellentissima virtUy justitia tollatur.^ If the qnestion con- 
 cerned this end, we might own natural religion some way sufficient 
 to be a foundation for human society, and some order and govern- 
 ment in the world : For it is in fact evident, that where revelation 
 has been wanting, there have been several well-formed governments. 
 Though still it must be said, that they wer6 obliged to tradition for 
 many things that were of use, and to l)ave recourse to pretended re- 
 velation, where the real was wanting. J Which shews revelation 
 recessary, if not tothefteing*, yet to the rvell-heing oi%oc\eiy. 
 
 2. Natural religion may be considered in its subserviency to God's 
 moral government of the world ; and with respect to this, it has 
 several considerable uses, that I cannot enter upon the detail of. It 
 is the measure of God's judicial proceedings, v.'ith respect to those 
 of mankind who want revelation ; and as to this, there is one thing 
 that is usually observed, thai it is sufficient tojustifi/ God in pun^ 
 ishing sinners,. That God sometimes, even here in time, punishes 
 ofTe-xlers, and, by the forebodings of their consciences, gives them 
 dreadful presages of a progress in his severity against them, after 
 this life, cannot well be denied. Now certainly there must be 
 some measure, whereby God proceeds in this matter. Where there, 
 is no law, there is no transgression. Punishments cannot be in- 
 flicted, but for the transgression, and according to the tenor of a law. 
 And this law, if it is holy, just, and good in its precepts, and equal 
 
 * See Ch. "VVolseley's Unreas. of Atheism, pag'e 152, Sec. 
 
 ■\ DeNatura Deorum, Lib. 1- mihi. page 5. — " Which being' taken away, a 
 " threat disorder and confusion in life must follow ;. and I know not whether, 
 *' after piety to the God's is taken away, trutli and the social affections, and 
 "justice, the most excellent of the virtues, would riot at the same tiaie be 
 •' tiiken away." 
 
 4 See Amyrald on Relig. Part 2. Cap. 8. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 61 
 
 In its sajidion, is not only the measure whereby the governor pro- 
 ceeds in punishing offenders ; but that which justifies him in the 
 punishment of them. It is needless to speak of the grant of re^vards 
 in this case ; because with respect to them, not only justice but 
 grace and hounty have place, which are not restricted to any such 
 nice measures, in the dispensation of favours, as justice is in the 
 execution of punishments. Now, if natural religion is considered 
 with respect to this end, we say it is sufficient to justify God, and 
 fully clear him from any imputation of injustice or cruelty, whatever 
 punishments he may, either in time or after time, inflict upon man- 
 kind who want revelation. There are none of them come to age, 
 who — 1. Have not fallen short of knowing many duties, which they 
 might have known. 2. Who have not omitte«l many duties, which 
 they knew themselves obliged to. And 3. Who have not done 
 what they knew they ought not to have done, and might have for- 
 born. If these three are made out, as no doubt they may be against 
 all men, I do not see Avhat reason any will have to implead God ei- 
 ther of hardship or injustice. 
 
 There are I know, who think it very hard, that those natural no- 
 tices of God and religion should be sufficient to justify God in ad- 
 judging those, who counteract them, to future and eteriud punish- 
 ments, while yet such an attendance to, and compliance v/ith them 
 as men are capable of, in their present circumstances, is not suffi- 
 cient to entitle us to eternal rewards. 
 
 But if, in this matter, any injuKtice is charged upon God, who 
 shall manage the plea ? Shall they who transgress and contravene 
 those notices do it? But what injustice meet they with, if they are 
 condemned for not knowing what they might have known ? not doing 
 what they were obliged to do, and were able to do ? and for doing 
 what they might and should have forborn ? If all these may be laid 
 to their charge, though there were no more, what have they to say 
 for themselves, or against God ? They surely have no reason to 
 complain. If any have reason to complain, it mu?;t be they who 
 have walked up to the natural notices of God. But where is there 
 any such ? We may spare our vindication till such an one be found. 
 Nor is it easy to prove that man's obedience thougli perfect, must 
 necessarily entitle to eternal felicity. And he who shall undertake 
 to implead God of injustice upon the account of such a sentence, as 
 that we now speak of, will not find it easy to make good hla charge. 
 
 Were the difficulty thus moulded, that it h hard to pretend thiit 
 those natural notices of God are sufficient to justify God in coii- 
 dejntiing the transgressors of them to f«iture punishments, while 
 puiictual compliance with them is not sufilcient to save those, who 
 yield this obedience, from those punlslimejits, which the contia- 
 Tcners are liable to for their transgression — though it were thus 
 moulded, it would be a hard task to make good such a charge. B:ii 
 
62 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 I am not concerned in it ; nor are any, who judge the person?, 
 ■who have gone farthest in this compliance, liable upon other ac- 
 counts ; because they still own their compliance so far available to 
 them, as to save them from those degrees of wrath, which deeper 
 guilt would have inferred. 
 
 3. Other ends there are, with respect to which natural religion 
 may be considered, which I shall pass without naming, and shall 
 only make mention of that which we are concerned in, and is aimed 
 at in the present controversy, and that is, the future happiness of 
 wan in the enjoyment of God. This certainly is the supreme and 
 ultimate end ofretifrion Avith respect to man himself. For that the 
 glory of God is the chi(f end absolnlely, and must, in all respect, 
 iave the preference, I place bej^ond debate. 
 
 Now it is as to this end, that the question about the sufficiency of 
 natural religion is principally moved. And the question, in short, 
 amounts to this, whether the notices of God and religion, which all 
 men by the light of nature have, or at least by the mere improve- 
 ment of their natural abilities without revelation, may have, are 
 sufficient to direct them in the way to eternal blessedness, satisfy 
 them that such a state is attainable, and point out the way how it is 
 to be attained ; and whether by that practical compliance with 
 those notices, which man in his present state is capable of, he may 
 certainly attain to acceptance witli God, please him, and obtain 
 tliis eternal happiness in the <^?ijoyment of him ? The Deists are for 
 the affirmative, as we shall afterwards make appear, when we con- 
 sider their opinions more particularly. 
 
 But before we proceed to offer arziiments, it will be needful to 
 branch this qiiestion into several particulars that are included in it, 
 that v,e may the better conceive of, and take up the iniport of it, 
 and hew much is included and wrapt up in tlii:i assertion. The 
 lestion winch we have proposed in general, may be turned into 
 ^ive subordinate queries : 
 
 '" by the mere light of nature, we can discover an 
 
 eterSl^^^^y^pincs,?, and know tljat this h attainable 1 Unless 
 Ibis is donS^^Hbg in matters of religion is done. It is impossible 
 tlwt nature's hgm can give any directions asjtep^jthe means of at- 
 taining future happiness, if it cannot satisfy Wtlitit there is such 
 a state. -J 
 
 2. Whether men, left to the conduct of the feere light of nature^ 
 can certainly discover and find out the way of attaining it ? that is, 
 whether, by the light of nature, we canknow and find out all f hat is 
 required of us, in the way of duty, in order to our eternal felicity ? 
 If the affirmative is chosen, it must be made appear by nature's 
 light, what duties are absolutely necessary to this purpose ; that 
 those which are prescril^ed are indeed dulses ; and that thr y are aft 
 that are necessary in order to the attainment cf the end, if Uiey ar6 
 
TRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. G3 
 
 complied withal. Although we should have it never so cleaily 
 made out, that there is a future state of happiness, yet if we are left 
 at an utter loss as to the means of attaining it, we are no better for 
 the discovery. 
 
 3. Whether nature's light gives such a full and certain discovery 
 of both these as tlie case seems to require ? Considering what a case 
 man at present is in, to hope for an eternity of happiness, is to look ve- 
 ry high : And any man, Avho in his present circumstances, shall enter* 
 tain such an expectation, on mere surmises, suspicions and may-bees, 
 may be reproached by the world, and his own heart, as a fool. To 
 keep a man up in the steady impression, and expectation of so great 
 thing.s, conjectures, suppositions, probabilities, and confused gene- 
 I al hints, are not sufficient. Again, there are huge difficulties to be 
 huiTOOunted in tlie way to this blessedness, which are obvious and 
 certain. Sensible losses are sometimes to be sustained, sensible 
 pains to be utsdergonc, and sensible dangers to be looked in the 
 iacc. Now the question is, whether is there such a clear and cer- 
 tain knowledge of these attainable, as the importance of the case, 
 the stress that is to be laid on them, requires ? Certain it is, it 
 will not be such notices as mt)st please themselves with, that will 
 be able to answer this end. 
 
 4. Whether the evidence of the attainableness of a future state 
 «f happiness, and of the way to it, is such as suits the capacities of 
 all concerned ? Every man has a concernment in this matter. 
 The Deists inquire after a religion that is able to save all, whereof 
 every man, if he but please, may have the eternal advantage. Now 
 then the question is, whether the case is so stated, as that every 
 man, who is in earnest, if he has but the use of reason, however 
 fthallow his capacity is, how great soever his inevitable entangle- 
 ments and hinderances from close application are, may attain to 
 this certainty about this end, and the Avay to it? Fori-i must be al- 
 lowed that theye is a vast difference among men as to capacity. 
 Men are no- more of one measure in point of the reach of one, wjiick 
 another may easily attain to. Now, may as much be certainly 
 known by the meanest capacity as* is necessary for him to know ? 
 Again, ail men have not alike leisure. That may be impossible to 
 mc, if I am a poor nrxn, obliged to work hard to earn aiy own and 
 family's bread, which would not be so if I hail leisure and opportu- 
 nity to follow my studies. Now^ if these discoveries^ both as to 
 their tnrtli, certainty and suitablenes;-, are not such as the meanest, 
 notwithstanding any inevitable hinderances he may be under, may 
 reach, thoy will not answer the end, 
 
 5. Whether, supposing all tlie former, every man, however sur- 
 rounded vv'ith temptations, and inveigled with corrupt inclinations,, 
 or other hinderances, which ho cannot evitc, is yet able, without 
 any supply of siiperaatLiral strengtli, to comply go far wilha^thoifi 
 
64 AN mauiRY INTO "The 
 
 duties, as is absolutely needful in order to obtain this eternal hap- 
 piness ? Whatever our knowledge is, we are not the better for it, 
 unless we are able to yield a practical compliance. 
 
 The Deists have the affirmative of all these questions to make 
 good. How they acquit themselves in this, we shall see after- 
 wards. The task, as any one may see, is sufficiently difficult. 
 And I do not know, that any one of them who has yet wrote, hath 
 given any evidence that they understood the state of the question 
 in its full exte^kp They huddle it up in the dark, that the weak- 
 ness of their pT-oof may not appear. And perhaps they are not 
 willing to apply their thoughts so closely to the subject, as is re- 
 quisite, in order to take up the true state of the controversy. 
 
 The more remiss and careless they have been this way, we had 
 So much the more to do to state the question truly betwixt us and 
 them. And having done this, we shall next proceed to make good 
 our part of it. 
 
 A negaiive is not easily proven, which puts us at some loss. It 
 lias been denied that it can in some cases be proven. But we hope, 
 in this case, we are able to offer such reasons as will justify us in 
 holding the negative in this debate. And we shall see next whe- 
 ther they are able to demonstrate the q^rmaiive, and offer as good 
 reasons for it, as we shall give against it. And it is but reasonable 
 they should offer better, in a matter of so great concern. 
 
 CHAP. lY. 
 
 Proving the insujficlmci/ of Natural BAigion^ from the insuffi- 
 ciency of its discoveries of a Deity. 
 
 THOUGH it belongs to the asscrters of the sufficiency of natu- 
 ral religion, to justify by argument their assertion, and we are upon 
 the negative, might supersede any further debate until such time, 
 as we see how they can acquit themselves here ; yet truth, not 
 triumph, being the dei'jgn of our c ngaging in the contest, that none 
 may think we are without reason in our denial, and that we put 
 them upon the proof, only to difficult them, we shall now by some 
 arguments endeavor to evince the insufficiency of natural religion. 
 
 The first argument I shall improve to this purpose is deduced 
 from the insufficiency of those discoveries, which the light of na- 
 ture is able to make of God. Nothing is more plain than this, that 
 religion is founded upon the hionjJfdge of tlie Deity ; and that our 
 regard for him will be answerable to the knowledge we have of him. 
 
 That religion, therefore, which is defective here, is lame with a 
 witness : And if nature's light cajinot aiTjrd such notices of the De- 
 
PRINCIPLl:S OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 65 
 
 i(y, as are sufficient or necessary to beget and maintain religion 
 amongst men, then it can never with any rational man be allowed 
 sufficient to direct men in religion. 
 
 Now, for clearing this argument, several things are to be dis- 
 cussed. And first of all, it is requisite, that we state such a no- 
 tion of religion in general, as may be allowed to pass with all, who 
 are, or can reasonably be supposed competent judges in such mat- 
 ters. Religion then, ingeneral, may be justly said to import that 
 veneration^ respect or regard, which is due from the ratioiml creeb- 
 ture in his whole course or life, to the supreme super-eminentlj/ ex- 
 cellent Being, his Creator, Preserver^ Lord or Governor and Be- 
 nefactor. 
 
 The actions of the rational creature, which may come under the 
 notion of religion, are of two sorts : some of them do directly, pro- 
 perly and immediately import a regard or respect to God as their 
 md ; which ihey are immediately and properly designed to express. 
 Such acts are called acts of worship. And religion is more emi- 
 nently thought to consist in these, and that not without reason. 
 Yea, by some it is wholly, and against all reason, confined to them, 
 and circumscribed within those bounds. Again, there are other ac- 
 tions, which, though they have other more proper, direct and im- 
 mediate ends, on account whereof they undergo various denomi- 
 nations, yet they also are, or may be, and certainly should be sub- 
 ordinate to that, which, though it is not the proper, most immediate, 
 and distinguishing end of these actions, yet is the common and ulti- 
 mate end, at which all a man's actions should be levelled. Now all 
 the actions of a rational creature, which are of this last sort, as re- 
 ferred to a Deity, and importing somewhat of religion, may be 
 termed acts of moral obedience. In so far they are religious, and 
 come within the compass of our consideration, as they express any 
 respect to God. And they express and import regard to God, in 
 as far as they can quadrate with the moral law, which is the instru- 
 ment of God's moral government of the world ; and therefore if 
 they are right and agreeable to this rule, they may be termed acts 
 of moral obedience, to distinguish them from these acts, which are 
 solely and more strictly religious, and are called acts of worship. 
 
 But to speak somewhat more particularly of this regard that is due 
 to God, it is as evident as any thing can, that it must be, 
 
 1 . In its formal nature different from that respect, which we 
 may allowably pay to any creature ; that is, it must be given on ac- 
 counts no way common to him with any of the creatures, but on ac- 
 count of those distinguishing excellencies, which are his incommu- 
 nicable glory. None can reasonably deny this, since it must be al- 
 lowed by all, that religions respect due to God, and civil respect due 
 to creatures are different, and must be principally differenced by 
 
00 AN INaUIllY INTO THE 
 
 the grounds whereon llie respect to (lie one or other is paid. Now 
 the grounds whereon this homage is due unto the Deity, are the su- 
 pereminent, nay, infinite excellency of his nature and perfections, 
 and his indisputably supreme, absolute and independent sovereignty 
 overall his creatures, which stands eternally firm and unshaken, as 
 being supported by that siy;er-pm/??fHCj/ q/" his excellency^ his erf a- 
 tion^ preservation y and benefits. Now, none of these grounds are, 
 in any degree, communicable to the creatures ; and so to talk of a 
 religious worsliip due to the creature, is to speak nonsense with a 
 witness. 
 
 2. This veneration we give to God must he intensively, or as to 
 degree, not only superior to that which we give to any creature, but 
 eren supreme. It is not enough, that we love God on accounts pe- 
 culiar to him ; but we must love him with a love superior to that 
 which we give any creature, and answerable to those accounts, 
 whereon we do love him. And the like may be said as to other in- 
 stances. There is no need of insisting in the proof of this. ^\'ould 
 our king be pleased, if we paid him no more respect than we do his 
 servant ? Is the distance betwixt God and the highest creature less 
 considerable, than that which is betw ixt a king and his meanest sub- 
 ject ? Nay, is it not infinitely more ? How can it then reasonably 
 be expected that the same degree of respect we pay to the crea- 
 tures, will find acceptance, or answer the duty we owe to the glori- 
 ous and ever-blessed Lord God? 
 
 3. This veneration must be extensively superior to tljat paid to 
 any of the creatures. Onr regard to the Deity must not be con- 
 fined to one sort of our actions, (those, for instance, which are re- 
 ligious in a strict sense, or more plainly, acts of 7Vorship ;) but it 
 must run through every action of pur life, inward and outward. 
 Every action is a dependent of God's, and ovres him homage. It 
 is otherwise with men ; for to one sort of men, we may owe respect, 
 in one sort of our actions, and owe them none in ap.other. A child, 
 in filial duties, owes his fiithcr respect ; as a subject, he owes his 
 f:;overnor reverence ; and so of other instances of a like nature : 
 But to no one creature is he, in all respects, subject, or obliged by 
 every action to express any regard. And the reason is plain ; he is 
 subject to none of them in all respects wherein he is capable of 
 acting. Bulvrllh respect to God, the matteris quite otheiwlse: what- 
 ever lie has is from God, and to him he is in all respects subject, on 
 Iiim he every way depends. The power your f.ither lias over you, 
 he derives from God, and it is God tiiat binds the duties you ar<ito 
 pay your father on you; and therefore God is to be owned Rusupreine^ , 
 even in every act of duty that you perform to your father, your 
 king, your neighbour, or yourself : for you are in all respects /ij's. 
 "While you are subordinate on various accounts to others, yet still 
 God is in every regard siqjreme and sovereign L'ord and disposer of 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. Gr 
 
 yon and your actions, and therefore you owe Iiim a re^rard in evcty 
 thins you think, speak or do. 1 think this plain enough. 
 
 I hope this account of the nature of religion in general, vnW not 
 be found liable to any considerable exceptions, it beins; no other 
 than such as the first yiew of the nature of the thing oJfers to any 
 that seriously consi«lers it. And from this account it is evident, 
 that religion is founded on the knowledge of a Dclly. A hlincl 
 devotion that is l>egot and maintained, either by profound ignorance 
 of God, or confused notions of him, answers neither man's nature, 
 which is rational, and requires that he proceed in aJl his actions, es- 
 pecially those of most moment, rationally, that is, with knowledge 
 and willingness ; nor will it obtain acceptance, as that wliich ans\vers 
 his duty, whereby he is obliged to serve God with the best and in 
 the highest way that his faculties admit him. The contrary sup- 
 position of Papists is a scandalous reproach to tlie nature, both o-f 
 God and man ; and an engine suited only unto the selfish design of 
 the villainous priests, who, that they may have the conduct of men's 
 souls, and so the management of their estates, have endeavored to 
 hood-wink man, and make him brulisi), where he should be most 
 rational ; and that they may have the best, tltey niakehim present 
 God with the blind and the lame, which his sonl ahkors^. 
 
 This, being, in general, clear, that the knowledge of God is the 
 foundation of all acceptable religion, it is now proper to inquire 
 what discoveries of God are requisite to bring man to si'ch a religion, 
 as has been above described, and to keep him up in the practice of 
 it. Now if We look seriously into this matter, I think Ave^may lay 
 down the following position, as clear beyond rational contradic- 
 tion. 
 
 1. That a particular knowledge of God is requisite to this pur- 
 pose, to beget and maintain this reverence for the Deity, which i.5 
 his undoubted due. It is not enough that we have soma general 
 notions, however extensive. To conceive of God in the general, 
 that he is the best and greatest of beings, optimus maxiinus. Is not 
 enough. Tlie reason is obvious : we nnist have in every sort of 
 actions, nay, in each particular action, that knowledge which may 
 influence and guide us to that respect, which is \\v.e to him, in that 
 sort of actions, or that particular one ; but this general notion hiving 
 no more respect to one than another, will not do. It directs us no 
 more in one than another, unless the paitlculars that are compre- 
 hended under that general be explained to, and understood by the 
 actor. 
 
 2. That knowledge, which will answer the end, must be large 
 and comprehensive. This religion is not to be confined to one 
 particular sort of actions, but to run through all, and thpi< f.:)re 
 there must be a knowledge, not merely of one or tv\-opeifectio;i-of 
 the divine nature, but of all: not simply, as if God were to be com- 
 
68 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 prehended, but of those perfections and prerogatives of Go^, 
 which require our regard in our particular actions, in so far as they 
 are the ground of our veneration, ^s for instance, to engage me 
 to trust God, I must know his powers his care and knowledge : to 
 engage me to pray to him, I must be persuaded of his knorvledgCf 
 of his rvillingness amd power to assist me in the suit I put up ; to 
 engage me to pay him obedience, I must know his authoriiy, the 
 laws he has stamped it on, and that he has fixed a law to these 
 particular actions, either more general or more special. Whence 
 it being evident, that different actions require different views of 
 God in order to their regulation ; and all a man's actions being un- 
 der rule, there must be a large and comprehensive knowledge of 
 God to guide him in his whole course. 
 
 3. It being no less than an universal religion that is to be sought 
 after, the discoveries of God wherein it must be founded, must be 
 plain to the capacities of all mankind ; and that both as to the 
 truth of these discoveries and their use. It is certain that all men 
 are no more of the same measure of understanding than they are in 
 stature. However important the discovery is, if it is above my 
 reach, it is all one to me as if it were not discovered at all. To 
 tell me of such a thing, but it is in the clouds, is to amuse and iwt 
 instruct me. There may indeed, supposing an universal religion, 
 be somewhat of difference as to knowledge allowed, as to some of 
 the concernments of this religion, to persons of more capacity anc^ 
 industry, and who have more time ; but if it is calculated for the 
 good of all mankind, the discoveries must be such, as all who are 
 concerned may reach, as to all its essentials ; for the meanest have 
 as much concernment in them as the greatest. 
 
 4. It is most evident, that these discoveries must be certain, or 
 rx)me recommended by such evidence as may be convincing and 
 satisfi/ing to every mind. Conjectured discoveries, or surmises of 
 these things, built upon airy and subtile speculations, are not firm 
 «-nough to establish such a persuasion cf truth in the soul, as may 
 be able to influence this universal regard, over the belly of the 
 strongest inwi.rd bias and outward rubs. 
 
 5. The evidence of these things must be abiding ; such as may 
 be able to keep up the soul in a constant adherence to duty. It 
 13 not one day that man is to obey, but aln ays ; and therefore 
 these discoveries must lie so open to the mind at all times, as that 
 the soul may by them be constantly kept up in its adherence to 
 sluty. If from any external or internal cause, there may arise 
 ancii obstructions as may for one day keep man from those discov- 
 eries, or the advantage of (hem ; he may ruin, nay, must ruin him- 
 self by failing in his duty ; or at least, if he is not ruined, he is 
 hiUopcD to it. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. €$ 
 
 6. Upon the whole it appears, that to found natural religion, or 
 to introduce and maintain among men that regard which is due to 
 the Deity, there is requisite such a large, comprehensive, certain, 
 plain, and abiding discovery, as may have sitfficient force to injlu- 
 ence to a compliance with his duty in all instances. 
 
 Thus far matters seem to be carried on with sufficient evidence. 
 We are now come to that which seems to be the principal hintrey 
 whereon the whole controversy about the svfficienci/ of natural re- 
 ligion turns ; in so far, at least, as it is to be determined by this 
 aigument. Now this is, whether nature's light can indeed aflbrd 
 such discoveries of God, as are evinced to be necessary for the 
 support of religion? If it cannot, then it is focind insufficient ; if it 
 can, then natural religion is thus far acquitted from the charge laidi 
 against it. Now, to attempt the decision of this question success- 
 fully, it is necessary that we state it right. It is not then the ques- 
 tion, whether in nature there is sufficient objective light ? as; the 
 schools barbarously speak ; that i.«, whether in the works of rrea- 
 tion and providence, which lie open to our view, or are the object 
 ofour contemplation, there are such prints of God, which, if ithey 
 were all ftilly understood by us, are sufficient to this purpose \ for 
 the question is not concerning the works of God without us, but 
 concerning us. The plain question is this, " whether man can, 
 from those works of God alone, without the help of revelation, o^>- 
 tain such a knowledge of God, as is sufluicient to the purpose ineii- 
 tioned.'* 
 
 Now the question being concerning our power, or rather thei ex.^ 
 fentoi our power, I know but four ways that can be thought update 
 come to a point about it : Either, 1 
 
 1 . By divine revelation we may be informed what nature^s UfcM 
 unassisted can do. We would willingly put the matter oh this U^ 
 Sue : Our adversaries will not ; so we must leave it. Or, 
 
 2. Some apprehend that the way to decide this, is, to take our 
 measures fiom the nature of God ; and to inquire, when God was^o 
 make or did frame man, with what /jowers it was proper for him ti> 
 endue him ? or, with what extent of power, considering the iiifinitn 
 wisdom, goodness and power of the Creator ? Tliis w^y the Deistv 
 Would go. Bnt 1. It seems a little presumptuous for us to pro-" 
 scribe, or measure what was fit for God to do, by what appears to 
 us fit to have been done. For when we have soared as high as 
 we can, we must fall down again ; for God's counsels are too deep 
 for ufi, and if we should think this or that fit for God, yet he ha- 
 ving a more full view of things, may think quite the contrary ; and 
 thus all that we can come to here in this way, is but a weak and 
 presumptuous conjecture. 2. If in fact, what we think fit, or con- 
 jecture fit for God to have done, it be evident that God has not 
 done ; that he has given no such jpo.i;fr or extent of it, as we judge 
 
ro AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 necessary, our judgment is not only weakly founded, but plainly 
 f.ilse ; ^-ea, and impious to boot : For if God has done otherwise, 
 it is certain tliat the way which we prescribed was not best ; nor can 
 ive hold by our own apprehension, whatever sheivs it is built on, 
 without an implicit charge of folly against God. 3. Whatever we 
 may pretend the wisdom of God requires to be done for or given to 
 man, if by no divine act there is any evidence that he has so done, 
 though tljere be no proof of his having done the contrary, yet it 
 weakens the evidence of all we can say, if the thing is such in its 
 nature, as would l>e known by experience, if existent ; because, in 
 that case, the whole stress of our argument leans upon a supposi- 
 tion thnt we are capable of judging of the wisdom of God, while it 
 is certain, we have not all those circumstances under our \ieWf 
 which may malce it really fit to act tin's way rather than that, or 
 that way rather than thk's, which on the other hand he certainly 
 has. This way then we cannot decide the case. 
 
 IL We may immediately perhaps judge of the exleiif of man^s 
 <ih'dihi in this sort, by a direct inquhy into the ncdure of tfte powers. 
 But this v/ay is as uncertain as the former ; for there is no agree- 
 Tncnt amongst the most judicious about the natnre of f'hosv potverSy 
 witliout endless controversies. Ami all that are really judicious 
 own such darkness in tliis matter, that will not allow them to pretend 
 "iikpmselyes capable to decide the question this way. It is little we 
 knom o? ihe riufvse, or power.'^, or actings o? spirits: Nor do I be- 
 lieve* that ever any person that understands, will pretend to decide,, 
 the [controversy this M'ay. Wherefore, 
 
 4f. We must, upon the whole, give over the business, or inquire 
 intof the extent of our ability by experience ; and judge what man 
 can/ do by wliat he has done. If not one has made sutTicient dis- 
 coveries of God, it is rash to say that any one can by the mere 
 ^'i^ht of valvre make them : More especially it will appear so, if v,& 
 consider, that all m-mkind must be pretended equally capable of 
 thiese discoveries, which concern their own practice. It is strange 
 lei pretend that all are capable of doing (hat which none has done, 
 if urther, these discoveries are not of th<it sort that may be sufScief-t 
 t/o answer their end, if one in one age shall make some steps toAvards 
 them, and another afterwards impiove them : Bsjt it is necessary 
 that every one, in every age, and at every period of his life, have 
 exact acquaintance v.ith them, in so far as is nee(!ful to regulate his 
 ffiaclice in that period of his life. When I am in one station, I 
 must either fiii in the respect due to God, and so lay myself open 
 to justice, or I must know as much of God, as is requisite to influ- 
 «'nce a due regard in that station, or that part of my life that now 
 runs ; and therefore an universal defect as to those discoveries, 
 must inevitably overtltrow the prtlendcd ahiJift/ of man to make 
 t{i£s8 discoveries, and consequently the sujficicnc^ of ncdurt^S' 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 71 
 
 light to beget or maintain religion, which cannot be supported with- 
 out them. 
 
 Now for clearing this matter, it is to be considered, that what 
 we are upon is a ntgalive, and it belongs to (hose who affirm man 
 able to make such discoveries of God, to show by ^vhom and where 
 these discoveries have been made, or to produce those notices of 
 God that are built on the 7>^<'^€ light of naliiye, that are sufficient to 
 this puipose. Now, none of (hem dare pretend this has been done, 
 oi", at least, shew who has done it, or make the attempt them- 
 selves ; and therefore we might take it as confessed, that it is not 
 to be done. 
 
 But if it is still pretended, that this has been done, though with- 
 out telling us by w horn, or pointing to these discoveries where we 
 may find them : 
 
 I answer, How shall we know this ? May we know it by the ef- 
 fects ef it in the lives of those who either have had no other light 
 save that of nature^ as it wtis with the philosophers of old before 
 Christ, or m ho own no other save that of nature, as the Deists and 
 others who rejected Christianity I Truly, if we judge by this rule, 
 we are sure the negative will be much confirmed 1 For it is plain 
 that those notions of a God, which were entertained by the philo- 
 sophers of old, influenced none of them to glorify him, as God. 
 The vulgar Heathens were void of any respect to the true God ,-. 
 nay, by the whole of their practice [jetrayed tlie profoundest ig- 
 norance, and most contemptuous disregard of him. The philoso- 
 phers, not one of them excepted, wliatever notions they had of a 
 Deity, and W hatever length some of them went in moralifji/, upon 
 other inducements, yet shewed nothing like to that peculiar, high 
 and extensive respect to the one true God which we now inquire after. 
 We may bid a defiance to the Deists, to shew us any thing like it in 
 the practice even of a Socrates, a Plato^ a Seneca, or any othersi 
 of them. Their virtue was plainly built upon another bottom. It 
 has been judiciously observed by one of late, that (here was little 
 notice taken of God in their ethicks ; and I may add, as little re- 
 gard in their practice. Nor are the lives of our Deists, or others 
 since, any better proof of the sufficiency/ of the natural notices of 
 God, to beget and suj)port a due veneration for him. 
 
 If the Deists decline thi^ trial cf the suffic'enq/ of those discO' 
 veries of a God, by (heir inHuence upon practice, then we must 
 look at them in themselves. And here we nuist have recourse, ei- 
 ther to those wlio had no acquaintance wltii the scripture I'cvela- 
 tion ; or to those who have given us accourits of God amongst our- 
 selves ; who though they own not the scriptures to be from Goil, 
 }'et have had access to them, for the impiovement of their own 
 notions about God. The last sort might be cast, as iucomnetei:! 
 witnesses in this ci^e, upon very revelant giouuus. Bui. wc shall 
 
72 AN INatimY INTO THE 
 
 pve our enemies all that they can desire, even as to the advantage 
 they may have this Avay, that they may see our cause is not wanting 
 in evidence and ctrlainty. 
 
 We begin then with those who have been left to the mtre light 
 rif nature, to spell out the letters of God's name, from the works 
 o( creation and providence, without any acquaintance with the more 
 plain scripture account of God. Now what we have to say as to 
 ^em, we shall comprize in a few observations. 
 
 1. As for the attainments of the vulgar Heathens, there is no 
 place forjudging of them otherwise than by their practice. They 
 have consigned nothing to writing, and so we have no other way to 
 guess at their opinions in matters of religion, but either by their 
 practice, or by ascribing to them the principles of those, who in 
 their respective countries, had the disposal of these matters. 
 Whichsoever way we consider the matter, it must be owned that 
 the vulgar Heathens were stupidly ignorant as to the truths of re- 
 ligion. If Vie make their practice the measure of judging, which in 
 this case is necessary, none can hesitate about it. If we make the 
 principles and knowledge of their leaders the standard, whereby 
 we are to judge of their attainments, and make a suitable abate- 
 ment, because scholars must always be supposed to know less than 
 their masters, I am sure the matter will not be much mended, aa 
 the ensuing remarks will in part clear. 
 
 2. As to the pliilosophers, if I had time and opportunity to pre- 
 sent in a hodi/ or system all that has been said, not by one of them, 
 but by all the best of them put together, it would put any one that 
 reads, to wonder, that they, " who were such giants," as an ex- 
 cellent person speaks, " in all other kinds of literature, should 
 *' prove such dwarfs in divinity, that they might go to school to get 
 *' a lesson from the most ignorant of christians that know any 
 *' thing at all."* Any one that will but give himself the trouble 
 to peruse their opinions about God, as they lie scattered in their 
 writings, or even w here they are proposed to more advantage by 
 those who have collected and put them together, will soon be con- 
 vinced of how low a stature their divinity was, and how justly the 
 apostle Paul said, that by their wisdom they knew not Ood. All 
 their knowledge of God was no more than plain and gross igno- 
 rance, of which the best of them were not ignorant, and therefore, 
 Thales, Solon, Socrates, and many others, spoke either nothing of 
 God at all, or that which was next to nothing. And it had been 
 well for others, if they had done so too ; what they spoke, not only 
 falling short of a sufficient account, but presenting most abominable 
 
 Cha. Wolsey's reasonableness of scripture belief. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEII5TS. 73 
 
 and misshapen notions abont God ; of which we have a large ac- 
 count in Cicero de Natura Deonim.^ 
 
 3. Besides that endless variety amongst different personi?, in 
 their opinions about a Deity, which is no mean evidence of their 
 darkness, even the very same persons, who seem to give the best 
 accounts, are wavering and uncertain, say and unsay, seem posi- 
 tive in one place, and immediately in the very next sentence seem 
 to he uncertain and fluctuating. Thus it is with them all, and thus 
 it usually is with persons who are but gioping in the dark, and 
 know not well how to extricate themselves. 
 
 4. They who go furthest, have never adventured to give any 
 methodical account. They wanted materials for this ; and there- 
 fore give but dark hints here and there. Cicero^ who would make 
 one expect such an account, while he inscribes his book De Natura 
 Deorwn, yet establishes scarce any thing ; but spends his time 
 in refuting the opinion of others, without daring to advance his 
 own.-f; 
 
 5. They wlio have gone furthest, are too narrow in their ac- 
 counts, they are manifestly defective in the most material things. 
 They are all reserved about the number of the Gods. It is true 
 the best do own that there is one Supreme ; but then there is 
 scarce any of them positive that there are no more Gods save one. 
 No not Socrates himself, who is supposed to die a martyr for this 
 truth, durst own this plainly. And while this is undetermined, all 
 religion is left loose and uncertain ; and mankind cannot know how 
 to distribute their regard to the several deities. Hence another 
 defect arises, and that is about the snper-eminenci/ of the divine ex- 
 cellencies. Although the Supreme Being may be owned superior 
 in order; yet the inferior Deities being supposed more immediate in 
 their influence, this will substract from the Supreme Deity much 
 of his respect, and bestow it elsewhere. Moreover, about God'a 
 creating power their accounts are very uncertain, few of them 
 owning it plainly. Nor are any of them plain enough about the 
 special providence of God, without which it is impossible to sup- 
 port religion in the world. 
 
 * Cicero, L'lb. 1. P. 4. Qui vero Deo^ esse dixerunt, tantn sunt in varietate ac 
 dissentione constitxiti, ntt eorum molestum sit annumerave senteniias. JVwm de 
 figuris Dcovitm (^ dn locis alqiie sedibns W actione vita, multa dicuntvr, SJc — 
 " But those who have affirmed that there are Gods, have j^one into r,o f^rcat a. 
 " variety and difitrence of opinion, that it i:3 difficult to enumerate their sen- 
 " timents, for many thing's are said by them concerning' the shapes of the 
 " Gods, their places, habitations, and manner of life." 
 
 t Dc Natura Deorum, Lib. 2. JIti, inqiiit, obUtvs es quodinHio Jixerim, facilius 
 me talibus de rebus, qiiodnoii sentirem qiium quod sentirem diccre posse. — " Have 
 " you forgot that I told you at the bcf^'inning', that I could mors easily tcJl 
 *f"what I did »at think, tLan what I UjJught, of these matters !" 
 
 10 
 
74 AN INaUlRY INTO THE 
 
 6. As theh- accounts are too narrow, so in what they do Dtm 
 they are too general. But will this maintain religion ? No, by no 
 means. But there must be a particular discovery of these things. 
 
 Well, do they afford this ? Nay, so far are they from explaining 
 themselves to any purpos^e here, that industriously they keep in 
 dark generals. The divine excellencies, unless it be a few negative 
 ones, they do seldom attempt any explication of. His providence 
 they dare not attempt any particular account of. The extent of it 
 to all particular actions is denied by many of their schools, owned 
 distinctly by few, if any ; but particularly cleared up by none of 
 them.* The laws whereby he rules men are no where declared* 
 When some of them are insisted on in their ethicks, the authority 
 of God in them, w^iich is the only supreme ground of obedience, 
 and that which alone can lay any foundation for our acceptance in 
 that obedience at God's hand, is no where taken notice of. The 
 holiness of the divine nature, which is the great restraint from sin^ 
 is little noticed, except where some of the more abominable evils are 
 spoke of. The goodness of God as a rewarder, is not by any of 
 them cleared up. And yet upon these things the whole of religion 
 hangs, which by them are either wholly passed over, or mentioned 
 in generals, or darkened by explications that give no light to the 
 tjenerals ; at least, and for most part, are so far from explaining, 
 that they obscure, nay corrupt them, by blending pernicious false- 
 hoods with the most valuable truths. 
 
 7. The discoveries they offer are not for the most part proven. 
 )jut merely asserted. Their notions are most of them learned 
 from tradition, and they wCre, it would seem, at a loss about argu- 
 ments to support them. Where the greatest certainty is required^ 
 least is found. 
 
 8. Where they do prodlice arguments, as they do sometimes, 
 for the being and providence of God in general, they are too dark 
 and nice, both in matter and manner, to be of any use to the gen* 
 crallty of mankind. 
 
 To have produced particular instances for the justification of 
 each of these observations, would have been too tedious. Any on«; 
 that would desire to be satisfied about them, may be fully furnished 
 With instances, if he will give himself the trouble to peruse Cicero 
 dp Nafura Deorum, Diogenes Laertius''s Lives (if the Philoso^ 
 phers, or Stanleys Lives ; but especially the writings of the seve- 
 ral philosophers themselves concerning this subject. Nor will this 
 task be very tedious, If he is but directed to the places where they 
 
 ♦ T)octrinam de providentia rerum partictilarisive gratia n veteribv- 
 
 Cquatemts ex eornm lihris qui extant, collect potest J rcmif;sius rredi obnervainuf'. 
 Herbert de Verltute, pag'e 271, 272. — " We •bserve that the doctrine of uni- 
 ♦' versal providence and particular g-racc was but faintly believed by the ar. 
 *' cicnts, so far as ca.n be collected from their boulcs." 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 75 
 
 treat of Ood : For they insist not long on tliis subject, and the 
 better and wiser sort of them are most sparing. 
 
 When I review these observations, which occurred by my read- 
 ing the works of the Heathens, and their opinions concerning God, 
 I cMild not but admire the gross inadvertency, to give it no Avorsc 
 word, of the Deists, (and more especially of the late lord Herbert, 
 •who was a man of learning and application) who pretend that the 
 knowledge of those general attributes of God, his greatness and 
 goodness, vulgarly expressed by Optimus MaxbnuSy are sufficient : 
 Si?ice it is plain from what has been said, 1. That this general 
 knowledge is of no significancy to influence such a peculiar, high 
 and extensive, practical regard to the Deity, as the notion of reli- 
 gion necessarily imports. Of which even Blount was, it seems, 
 aware, when he confesses in his Religio Laid, that there is a ne^ 
 cessity tliat his articles must be well explained. 2. It is plain that 
 the philosophers, and consequently the common people, did not 
 imderstand well the meaning of those articles, or of those general 
 notions concerning God, at least, in any degree answerable to the 
 iiid we now have in view. 
 
 I dare submit these observations, as to their truth, to any impar- 
 tial person, who will be at pains to try them, upon the granting of 
 a twofold reasonable demand. 1. That he will consult either the 
 authors themselves, or those, who cannot be sus])ected of any bias, 
 by their being Christians, which I hope Deists will think just ; sucli 
 as Cicero, Diogenes Laertlus, &c. or those who have made largn 
 collections, not merely of their fif^nera/ sentences concerning God -, 
 but of their explications. In which sort Stanley excels. 2. I re- 
 quire that, in reading the authors, that they do not lay hold on a 
 general assertion, and so run away, without considering the whotr 
 of what the authors speak, on that head. The reasons why I make 
 these demands, are, first, some persons designing, for one end or 
 other, to illustrate points in Christianity with quotations from }Ic;i 
 then authors, take up general expressions, which seem congruous 
 with, or may be the same, which the scripture uses, without con- 
 sidering how far they differ, when they both descend to a particular 
 explication of those general words. Again, some Christians, writinii, 
 the lives of philosophers, and collecting their opinions, are misled 
 by favour to some particular persons, of whom they have conceiv- 
 ed a rnsf idea, and therefore either suppress or wrest what may 
 detract from the person they design to magnify. IM. Dacier, foi- 
 instance, has written the life of Plato : but that account is the issue 
 of a peculiar favour for that philosopher's notions in general; and it 
 is evidently the aim of the writer to reconcile his sentiments to the 
 Christian religion, A work that some others have attempted be- 
 fore. To this purpose Plato's words arc wrested, and such con- 
 structions put on them, as can no other vray be justified, but by sup- 
 
7er AN INQUIRY INTO IHE 
 
 posing that no material points of the Christian religion could be hidf 
 from Plato, or his master Socrates. And yet after all, Plato's gross 
 mistakes, and that in matters of the highest import ; yea, and such 
 of them, as are supposed, generally, to lie within the reach of na- 
 ture's light, are so obvious and discernible, that the evidence of the 
 thing extorts an acknowledgment. To give but one instance ; after 
 the wiiter has made a great deal ado about Plato's knowledge ofthe 
 Trm%,* a story which hath been oft told, but never yet proven, 
 it is plainly acknowledged, that he speaks of the Three Persons of 
 the Deiti/ as of three Gods, and three different jirinciples ; which 
 is, in plain terms, to throw down all that was built before, and 
 prove that Plato knew neither the Triniii/, nor the one true God, 
 Finally, general sentences occur in those authors, which seem to 
 import much more knowledge of God, than a further search into 
 their writings will allow us to believe they had : For any one will 
 quickly see, that in those general expressions, they spoke as chil- 
 dren that understood not what they say, or at least, have but a 
 very imperfect notion of it. And though this may seem a severe 
 reflection on these great men ; yet I am sure none shall impartially 
 read them who will not own it just. 
 
 But now, to return to our subject, this sufficient discover?/ of God 
 not being found amongst those, who were strangers to the scriptures 
 and Christianity, let us next proceed to consider those, who have 
 had access to the scriptures, and lived since the Christian religion 
 obtained in the world. And here it must be owned, that since that 
 time philosophers have much improven natural theology, and given 
 a far better account of God, and demonstrated many of his attri- 
 ])utes from reason, that were little known before, to the confusion of 
 Atheists. From the excellent performances of this kind, which 
 are many, I design not to detract. I am content that a due value 
 be put upon them : but still I am for putting them only in their own 
 place, and ascribing no moi-e to them than is really their due- 
 Wherefore, notwithstanding what has been now readily granted, I 
 think I may confidently offer the few following remarks on them. 
 
 ] . We might justly refuse them, as no proper measure of the 
 abilih/ of unassisted reason, in as much as it cannot be denied, that 
 the light, whereby those discoveries have been made, was borrowed 
 from the sciiptures : of which none needs any other proof than 
 merely to consider the vast improvement of knowledge, as to those 
 matters, immediately after the spreading of Christianity, which can- 
 not, with any shew of reason be otherwise accounted for, than by 
 OAvning that this light was derived from the scriptures, and the ob- 
 servation and writings of Christians, which made even the Heathens 
 ashamed of their former notions of God, But not to insist on this. 
 
 M. Dacier's life of Plato, i^age 141. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 77 
 
 2. Wlio have made those improvements of natural theology T 
 Not the Heathens or Deists. It is little any of them have done this 
 way. The accurate systems of natural theology have come from 
 Christian philosophers, who do readily own that the scripture points 
 them, not only to the notions of God they therein deliver, but also 
 to many of the proofs Hkewise, and that their reason, if not thus as- 
 sisted, would have failed them as much, as that of the old philoso- 
 phei-s did them. 
 
 3. It is worthy our observation, that such of the Christians, who 
 favour the Deists most, such as the Socinians and some others, do 
 give most lame and defective accounts of God. They who lean 
 much to reason, their reason leads them into those mistakes about 
 the nature and knowledge of God, which tend exceedingly to weak- 
 en the practical influence of the notion of a God. And we have 
 reason to believe that the Deists Avill be found to join with them, in 
 their gross notions of God, as ignorant of the free actions of men, 
 before they are done, and as not so particularly concerned about 
 them in his providencCy with many such-like notions, which sap the 
 foundations of all practical regard to God. 
 
 4. But let the best of these si/sterns be condescended on, they 
 cannot be allowed to contain sufficient discoveries of God. For it 
 is evident beyond contradiction, that they are neither full enough 
 in explaining, what they in the general own, nor do they extend to 
 some of those things which are of most necessity and influence to 
 t.up\)ort practical religion. They prove a providence, but cannot 
 pretend to give any such account of it, as can either encourage or 
 direct to any dependence on, trust in, or practical improvement of 
 it. And the like might be made appear of other perfections. 
 Again, they cannot pretend to any tolerable account of the remu- 
 nerative bounty, the pardoning mercy and grace of God, on v/hicli 
 the whole of religion, as things now stand, entirely hangs. Can 
 they open these things so far as is necessary to hold up religion in 
 the world ? They who know what religion is, and what they have 
 done, or may do, will not say it. 
 
 5. In their proofs of these truths, there must be owned a waid 
 of that evidence, Avhich is requisite to compose the mind in the 
 persuasion of them, and establish it against objections. Let scrip- 
 ture light be laid aside, which removes objections ; and let a man 
 have no more to confirm him of those truths save these arguments, 
 the difiiculties daily occurring from obvious providences will jumble 
 the obseiver so, that he will find these proofs scarcely sufficient to 
 keep him firm in his assent to the truths ; and if so, far less will 
 they be able to influence his practice suitably against temptations 
 to sin. Nov/ this may arise, not so much from the real n'eakness 
 of the argument:^, which may be conclusive, as from this, that most 
 of them are rather drawn ab absurdo, than from any clear light 
 
78 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 about the nature of the object known ; and hence there comes ngt 
 that light alon^i;, as to difficulties, which is necessary to remove 
 them. And though these arguments silence in dispute, and close 
 the advei-sary's mouth ; yet they do not satisfy the mind. i>Iore- 
 over some of no mean ^consideration, have pretended that many of 
 these demonstrations, even as to some of the most considerable at- 
 tributes of God, are inconclusive : Particularly they have asserted, 
 that the nnifi/ of God was not to be proven by the light of nature^ 
 nor special providence. But not to carry the matter thus far, it is 
 certain that the force of these demonstrations must lie very secret, 
 that such persons, who owned the truths, and bore them good will, 
 yet could not find it. 
 
 Much more might be said on this head, but I am not willing to 
 invalidate these arguments, or even to shew all that might, perliaps, 
 not ouly be said, but made appear against them. But whatever 
 there is as to this, it is certain (hat the discoveries of God by na- 
 ture's light being small, are easily clouded, by entangling difficulties 
 nrising from the dark occurrences of providence, and the natural 
 weakness and unsteadiness of our minds, which are always to be 
 found in matters sublime, and not attended with strong evidence. — 
 And attention in this case will increase the darkness, and force on 
 such an acknowledgment as Simonides made to Ilieio, the tyrant 
 of Syracuse, That " the longer he thought about God, the more 
 •* difficulty he found to give any account of him." 
 
 6. They must, whatever be allowed as to their validity in them- 
 selves, be owned to be of no use to the generality, nay, to the far 
 greater part of mankind. No man who knows them, and knows 
 the world, will pretend that the one half of mankind is alile to 
 comprehend the force of them. And so they are still in the dark 
 about God ; which quite everts the whole story about the sufficien- 
 cy of the natural discoveries of a Deity. 
 
 7. It is plain, that there is no serving God, walking with or wor- 
 shipping of him, without thouglits, and serious ones too, of 
 Iiim. Now, his nature and excellencies are infinite, how then 
 shall we conceive , of -'tliera ? Our darkness and weakness will 
 not allow us to think of him as he is, and conceive those perfections 
 as they are in him. And to conceive otherwise is dangerous. We 
 may mistake in other things without sin ; but to frame wrong, and 
 other conceptions of God and his excellencies, than the truth of the 
 thing requires, is dangerous anil sinful ; for it f limes an idol. Now, 
 though this difficulty may be easy to less attwRtve minds ; yet it 
 will quite confound persons who are in earnestj/antl understand what 
 tliey are doing, in their approaches to God*'. Nor can ever the 
 i-nindsof such be satisfied in our present state, otherwise than by 
 Ood's telling us, how we are to conceive of him, and authorising us to 
 do it in a way of condescension to our pres£nt dark and iufirni state. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 79 
 
 8. I cannot forbear to notice, as what wants not Its own weight in 
 this case, though in condescension we did a little wave argument* 
 drawn from the practical infiimice of truths, that however great the 
 improvements, as to notions of truths concerning the nature of the 
 Deity may of late have been, yet the effects of these notices in 
 their highest improvement, have been far from recommending them, 
 as sufficient to the end we have now in view. This natural fheobj- 
 gy has rather made men more learned than more pious. Where 
 scripture truth has not been received in its love and power, men 
 have seldom been bettered by their improvements in natural theo- 
 logy. But we see in experience, that they who can prove most 
 and best in these matters, evidence least regard to the Deity in their 
 practice. 
 
 I shall add one observation more, which at once enforces the ar- 
 gument we arc upon, against the sufficiency of natural religionf 
 and cuts ofl' a pretended retortion of it, against the Christian reli- 
 gion ; and it is this : The religion the Deists plead for, and are 
 obliged to maintain, is a religion that pleads acceptance on its own 
 account, which has no provision against guilt and escapes, as shall 
 be demonstrated hereafter ; a religion which consequently must bo 
 7nore perfect, and so requires a more exarJ knorvledge of the Deity 
 in order to its support : whereas, the Christian religion is one which 
 is calculated for man in hh fallen state ; and the fall is every 
 where in it supposed, and a gracious provision made agiiinst defects 
 in knowledge^ and unhalloived practical escapes. 
 
 C II A P. V. 
 
 Proving the lusvfficiencr/ of Natural Religion from its defective- 
 ness as to the worship of God. 
 
 THE argument we are to improve against the sufficieno/ of na^ 
 furnl religion in this chapter, might have been considpretl as a 
 branch of the foregoing : But, that we nr.iy be more distinct, and 
 to shew a regard unto the importance of the matter, we shall con- 
 sider it as a distinct argument by itself. 
 
 Now, therefore, when we arc to speak of the wenship of Gpd, 
 it is not of that inward veneration that consists in acts of tho mind, 
 such as esteem, fear, love, trust, and the like ; but of th(; outward, 
 stated, and solemn way of expressing this inward veneration. That 
 there sliould not only be an inward regard to the Deity in onr 
 minds, intiueming the whole of our out vt^ard deportment ; but that 
 besides, there should bo lixcd, outward, and solemn ways of exer- 
 
so AN INQUIHY INTO THE 
 
 cising and expressing these inward actings, seems evident beyond 
 any reasonable exception — 
 
 1. From the general agreement of the world in this point. All 
 the world has owned some worship necessary. Every nation and 
 people had their peculiar way of worship.* It is true, most of 
 them were ridiculous, many of them plainly wicked, and all of them 
 vain ; but this makes not against the thing in general ; only it be- 
 speaks the darkness of nature's light, as to the way of managing in 
 particulars, that which in general it directs to. 
 
 2. The Deists themselves own this much. Herbert in his trea- 
 tise, de Religione Gentilium^ confesses it a second branch of the 
 generally received religion, for which he pleads that God is to be 
 worshipped. It is true, in his next, while he tells us that virtue 
 and piety were owjied to be the principal means of worshipping 
 him, he would seem to preclude us from the benefit of the former 
 acknowledgment. But yet he dares not assert, that this which he 
 condescends on was the onli/ ivai/, and so pretend the worship we 
 speak of unnecessary : But being to hold forth the sujjiciency of this 
 natural religion^ he was loth to speak any more of, that, which 
 would lead him, if he had considered it, unto a discovery of its 
 nakedness. But others of the Deists do own the necessity of such 
 a worship, and pretend prayer and praise sufficient to this purpose, 
 as he also doth in his other treatises, particularly de Veritate.f 
 
 3. The same reasons wliich plead for inward acts, peculiarly di' 
 tected to this end, plead for outward veneration likewise. If we 
 have minds capable of this irnvtird veneration, so are we capable of 
 outward expressions ; and are under the same obligation to employ 
 those latter sorts of powers to the honor of God, that binds us to 
 the former. Nor is there more reason wliy, besides that transient 
 regard we ought to paj' him in all our actions, there should be inward 
 acts peculiarly designed to express our inward veneration, than 
 that there should be outward stated acts, pecuUarly designed for the 
 aame purpose. 
 
 4. The nature of socidy pleads loudly for this. Mankind a? 
 united in societies, whether lesser, as families, or greater, as other 
 societies, depend entirely on God ; and therefore owe him rever- 
 ence, and the expression of it in some joint and fixed way. Public 
 benefits require public acknowledgments : and this sort of depen- 
 dence on, and subjection to the Deity, should certainly have suita-> 
 ble returns. 
 
 ' Herbert de Veritate, paj^e 271, 272. 
 
 t Herbert de Vcritale, page 272. J\''os intsrea ext;\mvm ilium. Dei cultUm 
 Csiib aligua reh'giotiis specie J ex omni sectdo regiov.e, //etite evicimus,—~" In the 
 " mean time we have proved this external worship of God, under some sp- 
 ** pearaBce of relig-ion, from every age, country- in-i jinti'm" 
 
PRINCIPLES OB' THE MODERN DEISTS. 8t 
 
 5. It is incontrollably evident, that many in the world do shalje 
 «ff all regard to t}>€ Deity, and walk in an open defiance to him, 
 and those laws which he has established. Certainly, therefore, it is 
 the duty of such as keep firn), o|>enly to testify their dependence 
 on and regard to the Deity, which is not suflSoienlly done by the 
 performance of those things, which are materially according to the 
 appointment of Gotl. For what regard to God there is, influencing 
 ':- those outward acts, cannot be clearly discerned by on-lookers, 
 Tvho know not but somewhat, beside any regard to the authority of 
 the lawgiver, may be at the bottom of all. It is therefore necessary 
 that there be public, solemn actions, directly and plainlj'^ importing; 
 our avouchment of a regard to him, in opposition to these afTronis 
 that are publicly offered to him. 
 
 6. This worship is necessary in order to maintain and cherish 
 that inward vcncratiofi. It is well known, howerer, liowmuch we are 
 bound to it, yet the sense of this obligation, and that veneration it- 
 self to which we are obliged, is not so deeply rivetted upon our 
 minds, but it needs to be cherished, and the habits strengthened by 
 actings. It is not so easy for men to do this by inward meditation, 
 who for jnost part are little accustomed to this way, and can indeecJ 
 scarce fix their minds in this inward exercise at all, especially if they 
 have no fixed way of exercising it, but are left at liberty to choose 
 their own way. Religion, therefore, must go out of the world, or 
 there must be stated and fixed ways of exercising it. This is easi- 
 ly justifiable from experience, which shews, that where once public . 
 worship is disregarded, any other sort of respect to the Deity 
 quickly (lills of its own accord. 
 
 7. It is necessmy for the benejif of human society. The founda- 
 tions of human society are laid upon the notion of a God, and the 
 sacredness of oaths, and the fixed notions of right and wrong, 
 which all stand and fall together. Nor is there any way of keeping 
 that regard to tlwse things which are the props of human society, 
 without such a worship of God, as that we plead for. This all the 
 lawgivers of old were satisfied about, and took measures accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 8. If religion has any valuable end, then certainly this must be 
 one main part of it, to lead man to future happiness ; which cannot, 
 with any shew of reason, be alledged to consist in any thing be- 
 sides the aijof/ment of God. And it is plainly ridiculous to sup- 
 pose, that mankind can be kept up in any fixed expectation of, or 
 close pursuit after this, if not animated and encoui*aged by some, 
 nay frequent experiences of commerce betwixt him and the Deity 
 here. And it is foolish to pretend, that this is otherwise to be had, 
 in any degree ansAverable to this end, in any other way than in the 
 "way of designed, fixed, solemn and stated worship. 
 
 11 
 
^2 AN INWIRT INTO THE 
 
 Now, this much being said in the general for clearing the neces- 
 sity of such a Korship and the impertance of it in religion ; it re- 
 mains that we prove the light of nature insufficient to direct us as to 
 the way of it. And this we conceive may be easily made appear 
 from the ensuing grounds. 
 
 1 . The manifest mistakes all the world fell into, who were left 
 in this matter to the conduct of tlie mere light of nature, abundant- 
 ly evince the incompetency of nature's light for man's direction, 
 "with respect to the worship of God. Every nation had their own 
 way of worship, and that stuffed with blasphemous, unworthy, ri- 
 <liculous, ungrounded, impious and horrid rites and usages ; of which 
 there are innumerable accounts every where to be met with. We 
 can no where in the Heathen world find any worship that is not 
 manifestly unworthy of, and injurious to the glorious God. Surely 
 that light that suffered the world to lose their way so evidently, 
 must be sadly defective. Their worship was every \< here such, 
 even where wise men were the instituters of it, that it could not sa- 
 tisfy any person who had any true notion of God ; and was the 
 scorn of the wise and discerning. Nor can it with any shew of 
 reason be pleaded, that these defects and enormities are to be charg- 
 ed not on the defectiveness of nahire''s light, but the negligence of 
 those who did not use it to that advantage it might have been used ; 
 since it has been above proven, that the only way v.e can judge 
 what nature's light can do, is by considering what it has done some- 
 where or other. And these enormities did every where obtain : 
 they were not peculiar to some places ; but wherever men were 
 left to the mere light of nature, there they fell into them. 
 
 2. These ways of worship, viz. prayer and praise, which are con- 
 descended upon by the Deists, and seem in general to have the 
 countenance of reason ; yet, as they are discovered by nature's 
 light, can no way satisfy. Be it granted, that nature's light directs 
 to them in general, and binds them on us as duty ; yet it must be 
 allowed, that this is not enough ; for the difficulty is, how we shall 
 in particular manage them to the glory of God, and our own ad- 
 vantage. The duty is stated in the general, and when we begin 
 to think of compliance with it, we find the light of nature, like the 
 Egyptian task-masters, set us oiu- work, and demand brick, while 
 » yet it allows us no straw. What endless difficulties are we cast in, 
 about the matter of our prayers and praises ? What things shall we 
 pi-ay to God, and praise him for ? How shall we be furnished with 
 Mich discoveries of tlie nature, excellencies, and works of God ; 
 •;uid what things are proper for us, as may be sufficient to guide us 
 in our prayers and praises, and keep us up in a close attenda)ice on 
 these duties in the whole tract of our lives, without wearying or 
 fainting ? Are wc, because we know not what is good or ill for us, 
 to hold in mere generals, as the best of the philosophers thought ? 
 
PRINCIPIiES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 8S 
 
 If so, win the mind of man, for so long a tract of time, he ablfe to^ 
 continue in this general way, without nauseating ? Or, shall we de- 
 scend to particulars ? If so, how shall materials be furnished to ua 
 Cor such particular addresses, who know so little of God's works, or 
 our own wants 7 Again, who shall teach us the way and manner of 
 praying and praising, which will be acceptable to God ? Shall every 
 one's fancy be the rule ? If there be a fixed rule, which, and where 
 is it ? Again, What security have we from the more light of na- 
 ture, as to the success and acceptance of these duties ? It will be 
 to no advantage to except, that God requtres of us no more than he 
 has directed us in ; for this is to beg the main question. Were it 
 once granted, that no more is required than what nature's light di- 
 rects to, there might be some countenance for this plea, that when 
 it gives no directions in, will not be insisted upon, by God ; but fhis 
 is plainly refused, and so the difiiculties remain. Nor is it to more 
 advantage to pretend, that the substance being agreed to, God will 
 not insist upon circumstances of worship : for the diflSculties ob- 
 jected n'spect not merely the circumstances, but the very substan- 
 tial parts of tliesc duties. As to what may be pretended of the in- 
 fiuence of the hopes of eternal life, towards the keeping up men in 
 an attendance on duties ; as to the particular manner of the per- 
 fi)rmance of which, and the grounds of acceptance, they are entire- 
 ly in the dark. This plea shall be fully considered afterwards, 
 and as it is obvious, that no general supposal of benefit can for any 
 long tract of time keep men steady in tlie performance of action:.^^ 
 ajjout the nature and acceptance of which they are in doubt ; so, it 
 shall be made appear there is no ground from the mere light of na- 
 ture for any such hope of future felicity, as can relieve in this 
 case. 
 
 3. The plain confession of the more thoughtful, wise and discern- 
 ing of the Heathen world, plainly proves this.* The followers of 
 the famed Confucious in China, though they own that there is one 
 supreme God, yet profess themselves ignorant of the way in which 
 he is to Ire woi'shipped, and therefore think it safer to ab^stain fioni 
 worshipping, than err in the assignation of improper honour to him. 
 Plato, in his second Alcibiades, which he inscribes, " Of Prayer," 
 makes it his business to prove, " that we know not Jiow to manage 
 prayer ;" and therefore concludes it " safer to abstain altogethei-, 
 " than err in the manner."' Alcibiades is going to the temple to 
 pray, Socrates meets him, dissuades him, and proves his inability 
 to manage the duty, of which he is at length convinced ; whereupon 
 Socrates concludes, " You see, says lie, that it is not at all safe 
 ** for you to go and pray in the temple — I am therefore of tha 
 " mind that it is much better for you to be silent. — And it is ne- 
 
 • Hornbcck de Conversione Ctenliliiim, Lib. 5. C^p. 6. p.ige 47 
 
\ 
 
 84 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 <' cessary you should wait for some person to teach you liow yoir 
 *' ou2;ht to behave yourselves, both towai-ds the gods and men. To 
 *' which Alcibiades said, and when will that time come, Socrates ? 
 *' And who is he that will instruct me ? With what pleasure should 
 ** I look on him ? To which he replio,?, He will do it who takes a 
 ** true care of you. But methinks, as we read in Homer, that 
 ** Minerva dissipated the mist that covered Diomedes,and hindered 
 >i(s *' him from distinguishing a God from a man ; so it is necessary, 
 4N, ** that he should in the first place scatter the daiicness that covers 
 your soul, and esftenvards give you these remedies that aie neces- 
 sary to put you in a condition of discerning good and evil ; for at 
 J' *' present you know not hov/ to make a difference. Alcibiades 
 %J *' says, I think i must defer my sacrifice to that tiuie. Socrates 
 ^ ** approves — You have reason, says he ; it is more safe so to do, 
 <i *' than run so great a risk.* The famed Epictetus was so much 
 i ** of the same mind, that he knew no way but to advise every one 
 iy "< to follow the custom of their country in worship."f Upon the 
 ^ same account Seneca rejects all this worship. And memorable i» 
 t the confession of Jamblichus, a Platonic philosopher, who lived in 
 the fourth century : — " It is not easy to know what God will be 
 " pleaaed willi, unless we be either immediately instructed by God 
 " ourselves, o}- taught by swue person whom God hath conversed 
 *' with, or arrive at the knov/Iedge of it by some divine means or 
 - othcr.";t Thus yc.i see ]iOW much these jrieat men M'ere be- 
 iuisted ia this mrdter, and may easily conclude what the case of 
 the rest 01 mankind was. 7*^ 
 
 4. Th« very nature of the thing seems to plead against the siif- 
 jicieriC;/ of reason in thh point : for it seems plainly to be founded 
 on llw clearest notions ol' Jiajure's li/ht, that the worship of God is 
 to be regulated by the tvUl and pha^m-i'. of God ; which, if he re- 
 veal nof, how can we know it ? Hence it was tliat the Heathens 
 never pretriidjod nffSOH, but always 7£i<elotion for their worship. 
 The governors all of them did tbi.='. And i*Iato tells us, « That 
 * hw:, concerning divine matterrs must be had from the Delphick 
 •' Orai:if::;."ii ' ^ 
 
 I\luch more might be said on this head, were it needful : but I 
 am ripprflsm^ive thu i:s a point that iiie Deists will not be found to 
 "ISr dispule wiiii us ; net only because they are no great friend-; to this 
 .rorshlpf but because they c.vn say ro litlle on this head, Mhichhas 
 any shew of rearitm : of which their famed kader Herbert was suffi- 
 ciently aware, when he tells us in hia third article. That virtue is 
 
 * We have the name account, cf Sccralea Senophoa; cf svhich Stanky, 
 p3!»e 73. 
 •^ Kplctet. Enchii-id. Cap. 58, 
 i St-nec.-i Epb. 9". Jamb! de Vita P>lhai:- Cao. 23. 
 #^ 7! P!ato d*; Ugiiins. 
 
PRINCIPLES OB' THE MODERN DEISTS. 8i> 
 
 the principal worship of God; whereby he owns, that there is in- 
 deed another part ot, which he dare not name, because he knows 
 not what to say about it. 
 
 C H A P. VI. 
 
 Proving the Insitfficienct/ of Natural Eeligion, from its Defective- 
 ness as to the Discover^/ wherein 3Ian's Happiness lies. 
 
 NEXT to the glory of God^ the indisputably supreme end of 
 man, and of the whole creation, of which I &m not now to discourse, 
 the happiness of man, is, past all peradventure, his chief end. 
 Yea, perhaps, if we speak properly, except as abovesaid, it is his 
 cnlr/ end. For whatever man is capable of designing, is compre- 
 hended under this, being either what dotJi, or at least is judged to 
 contain somewhat of happiness in it, or what is supposed to con- 
 tribute to that wherein satisf;iction id understood to consist. Every 
 thing that a man aims at, is either aimed at as good in itself, or 
 contributing to our good. The first is a part of our happiness ; 
 the last is not in proper speech so designed, -but the good to which 
 it contributes, and that still is as before a part of our happiness. If 
 religion is therefore any way useful or sufficient, it must be so with 
 respect to this end. Ancl since religion not only claims some re- 
 gard from man, but pleads the preference to all other things, and 
 demands his chief concern, and his being employed about it as the 
 main business of his life, it must eitlier contribute more toward 
 this end, than any thing else, nay be able to lead man to this end, 
 otherwise it deserves not that regard which it claims, and is indeed 
 of little, if any use to mankind. If then we are able to evince that 
 natural religion is not sufficient to lead man to that happiness, which 
 all men seek, and is indeed the chief end of man, there will be no 
 place left for the pretence of its sufficiency, in so far as it is the 
 fiubject of this controversy betwixt the Deis-ts and us. And this? 
 we conceive may be made appear many ways. But in this chapter 
 we shall confine ourselves to one of them . 
 
 If nature's light is not able to give any tolerable discovery of that 
 wherein man's happiness lies, and that it may by him be obtained, 
 then surf ly it can never furnish him with a religion that is able to 
 conduct him to it. This cannot with any shew of reason be deni- 
 ed. It remains therefore that I make appear, that nature's light iy 
 ■not able to discover wherein man's happiness lies, and its ailaina- 
 bleness. Now this I think ia fully made out by the following cgr- 
 siderations : 
 
86 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 1. They who being left to the conduct of the mere light of nature, 
 have sought after that g"03i wherein man's happiness is to be had, 
 could not come to any agreement or consistency among themselves. 
 This is a point of the first importance, as being the hinge whereon 
 the whole of a man's life musi turn ; tlie spring which must set a 
 man a going, and give life to all his actions, and to this they must 
 all be directed. This, if any other thing onglit to be easily known ; 
 and if nature's light is a sufficient guide, it must give evident dis- 
 coveries of. But, methinks, here is a great sign of a want of thi* 
 evidence ; great men, learned men, v/ise philottophers and industri- 
 ous seaj'chers of truth have split upon this point, into an endless 
 variety of opinions ; insomuch that Varro pretends to reckon up 
 no less than 288 different opinions. May I not now use the argu- 
 ment of one of the Deists, in a case which he falsely supposes to 
 be alike, and thus in his own words argue upon this point, (only 
 putting in, the discoveries of nafiwe^s li^ht about happiness^ or the 
 evidence of those discoveries, in place of the evidence of the reasons 
 of the Christian religion^ against which he argues) : " If the dis- 
 " covcrles of it were evident, there couUl be no longer any con- 
 ** tention or difference about the chief good ; all men would em- 
 " brace the same and acquiesce in it : no prejudice would prevail 
 *• against the certainty of such a good."* '•' It is exery man's 
 ** greatest bupinf r-s here to laboar for his happiness, and conse- 
 " qtiently none would be backward to know it. And, if all do not 
 " agree in it, those marks of truth in it are not visible, which are 
 •' necessary to draw an assent."f But wiutever there is in this, it 
 h a most certain argument of darkncs^, that tiiere is so great a dif- 
 ference, where the seai-cher.'^ are many, it is evi^ry one's interest 
 to find, and the business and search is plied with great applica- 
 tion. 
 
 2. The greatest of the philosophers have been plainly mistaken 
 itl it. They espoused opinions in thi^ matter, which are not capa- 
 ble of any tolerable defence. Solon, the A-henian lar/giver, defin- 
 ed them " happy who are conipetenily fin-ni^hed with, outward 
 " things, act honestly and live temperately."i Socrates held, that 
 tliere was but one chief good, which is knon'fcdgc, if vfe may be- 
 lieve Diogenes Laerlius in his life. Aristotle, if we ma}'' t^ke the- 
 same author's words for it, places it ]\\ virtne, health ^nd outward 
 eonveniencj/, which no doubt was his opinion, since he ap»)roved 
 Solon's definition of the chief good;\\ and herein he was followed 
 by his numerous school. Pythagoras tells us, that the " knowledge 
 " of the perfections of the soul is the chief good." It is true, he 
 
 . * Oracles of Reason, page 206. 
 f Jhid, page 201. 
 
 i Stanley, pag-e 26. Life of Solon, Cap. 9. 
 II Stanley, page 540. 
 
PRINCIPLES OV THE MODERN DEISTS. Si 
 
 teems at other times to speak somewhat differently ; of which we 
 may speak afterwards. Zeno tells us, that it lies in " living ac- 
 ♦' cording; to nature. Cleanthes adds, that " accordin^!; to nature 
 '* is according to virtue." Crysippus tells us, that it is " to live 
 " according to expert knowledge of things which happen naturally."* 
 It is needless to spend time in reckoning up innumerable ethers, 
 who all run tlie same way, placing happiness in that which is not 
 able to afford it, as being finite, of short continoance, fickle and 
 inicertain. It is not my design to confute those several opinions. 
 It is evident to any one, that they are all confined to time, and up- 
 on this very account fail of what can make us happy. 
 
 3. They who seem to come some nearer the matter, and talk 
 sometimes of copformili/ lo God being the chief good ; that it is 
 our end to be like God, and the like ; as Pythagoras and some 
 others ;f but especially Plato, who goes further than any of the 
 rest ;J yet cannot justly be aljedged to have made the discovery, 
 because wc have not any account of their opinions clearly deliver- 
 ed by themselves, but hints here and there gathered up from their 
 writijigs, which are veiy far from satisfying us as to their mmd.— 
 Besides they are so variable, and express themselves so different- 
 Jy, in different places, that it is hard to find their mind ; nay I may 
 add, they are, industriously and of design obscure. This Alcinous 
 the Platonic philosopher, tells us plainly enotigh in his Docirine of 
 Plafo, which is inserted at length in Stanley's lives. He says, 
 " that he thought the discovery of the chief good was not easy, 
 " and if it were found out, it was not safe to be declared." And 
 that for this reason, he did communicate his thoughts about it but 
 to very few, and those of his most intimate acquaintance. Now the 
 plain meaning of all this, in my opinion is, that he could not tell 
 wherein man's happiness consists, or M'hat that is which is able to 
 afford it : or at most, that though one way or other in his travels, 
 by his studies or conveise, he had got some notions about it ; yet 
 he did not sufficiently understand them, and was not able to satisfy 
 himself or otliers about them, and that therefore, he either entirely 
 snppress^ed, or would not plainly speak out his thoughts, least the 
 world should see his ignorance, and that though his words differed, 
 yci in very deed he knew no more of the matter than otliers. For 
 to say, that, upon supposition that his discoveries had been satisfy- 
 ing as to truth and clearness, and that he was capable to prove and 
 explain them, they were not fit to be made known to the world, is 
 to spc nk the grossest of nonsense ; for nothing was so necessary to 
 be known, and known universally, as the chief good,, which every 
 
 * Stanley, pajre 462. 
 
 f IbiiJ, pupe 541. 
 
 4 !!>.■<!, p.<gc ^P?, Cap. S. 
 
88 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 one is obliged to seek after. To know this, 'and conceal the disco- 
 very, is the most malicious and invidious thing that can be thought 
 of. And rather than charge this on Plato, I think it safer to charge 
 ignorance on him. lie speaks somewhat liker truth than others, 
 while he tells us, " That happiness consists in the knowledge of the 
 ** chief good ; that philosophers, wlio are sufficiently purified, are 
 " allowed, after the dissolution of their bodies, to sit down at the 
 " table of the Gods, and view the field of truth ; that to be made 
 " like God is the chief good ; that to follow God is the chief good." 
 Some such other expressions we find. But what does all this say ? 
 Does it inform us that Plato understood our happiness to consist in 
 the eternal enjoyment of God ? Some, who are loth to think that 
 Plato missed any truth of importance which is contained in the 
 scripture, think so : But for my part, I see no reason to convince 
 me from all this, that Piato understood any thing tolerably about the 
 enjoyment of God, either in time or after time, or that he vras fix- 
 ed and determined wherein the happiness of man consists, or that 
 really any such state of future felicity is certainly attainable. All 
 this was only a heaven of his own framing and fancy, fitted for phi- 
 losophers ; for the being of wliich, he could give no tolerable argu- 
 ments. And all this account satisfies me no more that Plato under- 
 stood wherein happiness consists, than the following does, that he 
 linew the way of reaching it, which I shall transcribe from the same 
 chapter o( Alcinoiis^s doctrine of Plato : " Beatitude is a good habit 
 " of the genius, and this similitude to God we shall obtain, if we en- 
 ^* joy convenient nature, in our manner, education and sense, ac- 
 " cording to law, and chiefly by reason and discipline, and institu- 
 *' tion of wisdom, withdrawing ourselves as much as is possible from 
 *• human affairs, and being conversant in these things only which are 
 " understood by contemplation : the way to prepare, and as it werc> 
 ** to cleanse the demon that is in us, is to initiate ourselves Into high- 
 ** er disciples ; which is done by music, arithmetic, astronomy and 
 " geometry, not v.'ithout some respect of the body, by gymnastic, 
 " whereby it is made more ready for the actions both of r/ar and 
 ** peace." I pretend not to nnderstand him liere : But this I un- 
 derstandfrom him, that one of three is certain, either he understood 
 jiot himself, or had no mind that others should understand ; cr that 
 he was the most unmeet man in the world to instruct mankind about 
 this important point, and to explain things about which the world 
 Tras at a loss. When men speak at this rate, we may put what 
 meaning we please upon their words. 
 
 4. It is plain that none of them have clearly come to know them- 
 selves, or inform others that happiness is not to he had here; that it 
 consists in the eternal enjoyment of God after time : and that this 
 is atiainahle. These ai*e things wlicreabout there is a deep silence, 
 aot so much as a word of them, far less any proof. If ever we 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. «9 
 
 were to expect such a thlnj^ we might look for it from those who 
 have not merely touched at this subject by the bye, and in dark 
 hints, but have discoursed of moral ends, on set purpose, such as 
 Cicero and Seneca. Cicero frequently tells, that he designed to 
 enrich his native country with a translation of all that was valua- 
 ble in the Greek philosophers, he had perused them for this end, 
 and thus accomplished, he sets himself to write of moial ends^ 
 which he does in five books. Here we may expect somewhat to 
 the purpose : But if we do we are disappointed. The first book 
 sets off Epicure's opinion about Mppiness with a great deal of rhet- 
 oric The second overthrows it. The third represents the Stoic's 
 opinion. And the fourth confutes it. The Jijth represents and 
 asserts the Peripatetic's opinion, which had been as easily over- 
 thrown as any of them. And this is all you are to expect here, 
 without one word of God, the enjoi/ment of him, or any thing of 
 that kind, which favours of a life after this. Seneca writes again, a 
 book de Vila BeatcL, consisting of thirty-two chapters. Here we 
 may find somewhat possibly. And indeed if one should hear him 
 state the question, as he does in his second chapter, he would ex- 
 pect some great matters from him. Qiiaramus quid oplime factum 
 sit, non quid usitatissimum : Et quid nos inpossessionefelicitatis 
 aterncR constituat,non quid vidgo, veritatis j)cssinio interprcti, pro- 
 halum sit. Vulgus autem tarn chlumydatos, quam coronam voco.^ 
 What may we not now expect ? But after this, I assure you, yoii 
 are to look for no more words about eternity, nor any thing more, 
 but a jejune discourse in pretty sentences, about the Stoic's opin- 
 ion, representing that a man would be happy, if his passions were 
 extinct, and he was perfectly pleased with the condition he is in, be 
 it what it will. Now after this, who can dream that nature^'s light is 
 sufficient to satisfy here ? Is every man able to discover that which 
 philosophers, the greatest of them, after the greatest application, 
 failed so signally about, that scarcely any of them came near it, and 
 none of them reached it ? 
 
 5. Nor will it appear strange, that the Heathen philosophers of 
 old should be so much at a loss about future happiness, to any one 
 who considers how difficult, if not impossible, it must be for any, 
 who rejects revelation, and betakes himself to the mere light of na- 
 ture, to arrive at the wished for, and necessary assurance of eter- 
 nal felicity after this life, even at this present time, after all the 
 great improvements, which the rational proofs of a future state have 
 obtained, since Christianity prevailed in the world. If nature's 
 
 *, " l-et lis inquire what is best to be done, and not wliat is most common ; 
 " and what puts us in possession of eternal felicity, and not wliat is approved 
 " by the vulg-ar — the worst judges of truth. By the vulgar I mean the rich 
 " and jpreat men, as wellaa the mob," 
 
 12 
 
eo AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 light, now tiii&r its highest improvements, proves unable to affor4 
 full assurance, and still leaves us to fluctuate in uncertainty about 
 future happiness ; no wonder that they should be in the dark, who 
 were strangers to these improvements. 
 
 That the arguments for a future state, since Christianity obtain- 
 ed, have received a vast improvement from Christian divines and 
 philc»sophers, cannot modestly be denied. The performances of 
 Plato and Cicero, on this point, which were the best among the 
 ancients, are, when compared with our late Christian writers, but 
 like the trif.es of a boy at school, or the nide essays of a novice, 
 in comparison to tlie most elaborate and complete performances of 
 the greatest masters ; if they bear even the same proportion. He 
 who knows not this, knows nothing in these matters. Yea, to that 
 degree have they impreven those arguments, that it is utterly im- 
 pofivible^ for any man, who gives all their reasons for the continu- 
 ance of the soul after death, with their answers to the trifling pre- 
 tences of the opposers of this conclusion, a fair hearing and due 
 consideration, to acquiesce rationally in the contrary assertion of 
 Atheists and mortal Deists ; or not to favour, at least this opinion, 
 as what is highly probable, if not absolutely certain. 
 
 But after all, if we are left to seek assurance of this from the 
 vnassisted light of nature, that certainly God has provided for, and 
 will actually bestow npon man^ and more especially man who is 
 now a sinner, future and eternal felicity, ^ve will ftnd ourselves 
 plunged into inextricable difficulties, out of which the light of na- 
 ture will find it very difBcult, if not impossible to extricate us. It i.^ 
 one thing to be persuaded of the futui'e separate subsistence of our 
 souls after death, and another to know in what condition they shall 
 be ; and yet more to be assured, that fffcr dvnfh our souls shall 
 be possessed of eternal happiness. It is precisely about this lajrt 
 point tiiat we are now to speak. The arguments drawn from na- 
 1 tire's light \vill scarce fix us in the steady persuasion of future and 
 eternal felicity. There is a great odds betwixt our knovrledge of 
 future punishments, and the grounds whereby we are led to it, and 
 our persuasion of future and cterual rewards. Upon inquiry the 
 like reasons will not be found for both. Our notices alxjut eternal 
 rewards, when the promises of it contained in the scriptures are set 
 aside, will be found liable to many objections, hardly to be solved 
 by the mere light of nature, which do not so much aflfcct the proofs 
 advanced for future punishments. Besides, sijice the entrance of 
 sin, its universal prevalence in the world, and the consequences 
 following upon it, have so long benighted man, as to any knowledge 
 that he otherwise might have had about eternal iKipTiiness, that now 
 it will be found a matter of the utmost ditlicult}', if not a pl;nn im- 
 possibility, for him to reach assurance of eternal iVll'^i'^^' '>■" *he 
 mere light of nature, however Improven. 
 
S PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 91 
 
 The pleas drawn from the holiness ariA justice of God, say much 
 for the certain punishment, after this life< of many noli>rious offen- 
 ders, who have wholly escaped punishment here ; especially as 
 they are strengthened by other collateral considerations clearing 
 and enforcing them. 
 
 But whether the pleas for future and eternal rewards, from the 
 justice and goodness of God on the one hand ; and the sufferings 
 of persons really guihy of sin, but in comparison of others virtu- 
 ous, on the other; will with equal firmness conclude, that God is 
 obliged to, OT certainly will, reward their imperfect virtue, and 
 compensate their sufferings, may, and perhaps not without reason, 
 be questioned. 
 
 That it is congruous that virtue should be rewardedl^ may per- 
 haps easily be granted. But, what that reward is, which it may 
 from divine justice or bounty claim, it will not be easy for us to 
 determine, if we have no other guide than the mere Fight of na- 
 ture. The man who perfectly performs his duty is secured against 
 the fears of punishment, and has reason to rest fully assured of 
 God's acceptance and approbation of what is every way agreeable 
 to his will. He has a perfect inward cairn in his own conscience, 
 is disturbed with no challenges, and has the satisfaction and inward 
 complacency, resulting from his having acquitted himself accordin"; 
 to his duty : His conscience assures him he has done r.othing to 
 provoke God to withdraw favours already given, or to w Ithhoki 
 further favours. And though he cannot easily see reason to think 
 God obliged, either to continue what he freely gave, or accumu- 
 late' further eflfects of bounty upon him, or to protract his happiness 
 to eternity ; yet he has the satisfaction of knowing, tliat he halli. 
 not rendered himself unworthy of any favour. This reward is the 
 necessary and unavoidable consequence of perfect obedienre. 
 
 But this comes not up to the point.. That which the light of na- 
 ture must assure us of is, That virtuous men, on account of their 
 virtue, may claim and expect, besides this, a further reward, and 
 that of no less consequence than eternal felicity. Now, if I mis- 
 take it not, when the promise of God, which cannot be knovra 
 without revelation, is laid aside, the mere light of nature will find it: 
 difficult to fix upon solid grounds, for any assurance as to this. 
 Many thorny difficulties must be got through. Not a feiv per- 
 plexing questions must be solved. If it is said, that tlie justice of 
 God necessarily obliges him, besides that reward necessarily result- 
 ing from perfect obedience, (of which above,) further to recom- 
 pence, even the most exact and peifect performance of our duty, 
 antecedently to any promise given to that effect, with future and 
 eternal felicity ; it may be inquired, IIow it shall be mule appear 
 that virtue, suppose it to be as perfect as you will, can be said tcx 
 mirif, and to merit so great a reward ? May not God, without in- 
 
92 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 justice, turn to nothing an innocent creature ? Sure I am, no mean 
 nor incompetent judges have thought so.* Where is the injustice 
 of removing or taking away what he freely gave, "and did not pro- 
 mise to continue ? Is it modest or safe for us, without the most con- 
 vincing evidences of the inconsistency of the thing, to limit the 
 power of God, or put a cannot on the Almighty. And does not 
 the very possibility of the annihilation of an innocent creature, in a 
 consistency with justice, though God, for other reasons, should ne- 
 ver think fit to do it, entirely enervate this plea ? If God, Avithout 
 injustice, may take away the being of an innocent creature, how is 
 it possible to evince, that in justice, he must reward it with efcrnal 
 happiness ? Again, if we may, for our virtue, claim eternal felici- 
 ty, as due in justice, may it not be inquired, What exercise of vir* 
 tue — for how long a time continued — ^is sufficient to give us this 
 title to eternal rewards ? If the bounty and goodness of God is in- 
 sisted on, as the ground of this claim, the plea of justice seems to 
 be deserted. And here again it may be inquired. Whether the 
 goodness of God is necessary in its egress ? Whether the bounty 
 of God ought not to be understood to respect those things which 
 3.re absolutely at the giver's pleasure to grant or withhold ? Whe- 
 ther, in such mattei^s, we can be assured that bounty will give us 
 Ibis or that, which, though we Mant, is not injustice due, nor secur- 
 ed to us by any promise ? Further, it may be inquired how far* 
 must goodness extend iiielf as to rewards ? Is it not supposablc, that 
 it may stop short of eternal felicity, and think a less rewaid sufB- 
 cient ? Of so great weight have these, and the like difiiculties ap- 
 peared to not a few, and those not of th.e more stupid sort of man- 
 kind, that they have not doubted to assert boldly, that even inno- 
 cent man, without revelation, and a positi^^e promise, could never 
 Ibe assured of eternal rev/ards. And how the light of nature can 
 disengage us from these difficulties, were man perfectly innocent, I 
 do not well understand. 
 
 But whatever there is of this, the entrance of sin and the con- 
 sideration of man's case as involved in guilty has cast us upon new 
 and yet greater difficulties. From this present condition wlierein 
 we find all mankind without exception involved, a whole shoal of 
 difficulties emerge, never, I am afraid, to be removed by imassis^ 
 ed reason. 
 
 Now it may be inquired, what obedience is it that can entitle us 
 to eternal felicity ? If none save that which is perfect will serve. 
 V. ho shall be the belter for this reward ? Who can pretend to this 
 perfect or sinless obedience ? If imperfect obedience may, how 
 shall we be sure of this? How shall he who deserves punishment. 
 
 * See the Excellency of Theology, Sec. by T. TL R. Boil, pag-e 25, '26, 27, 
 &c. :md Consid. about'thc Eecoii. oi" Rea'-:ca"ai)d lltl. W T. E. page 21,22. 
 
. PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 93 
 
 claim, demand and expect reward^ a great reward, yea, the greatest 
 reward — eternal happiness ? If the goodness of God is pleaded, 
 and it is said, that though we cannot expect in strict justice to have 
 our imperfect obedience rewarded ; yet we may hope it from the 
 bounty of God ? Besides, what was above moved against this, in a 
 more plausible case, when we were speaking of innocent man, it 
 may be further inquired, whether, though infinite bounty might 
 deal thus graciously with man, if he were perfectly righteous, it may 
 not yet withhold its fovours, or at least stop short of eternal felicity, 
 with the best among sinner:? ? Again, what degree of imperfection 
 is it that will prejudge this claim ? What may consist with it ? 
 Who is good in that sense, which is; necessary to qualify him for 
 this expectation ? Is there any such person existent ? What way 
 shall we be sure of this ? Is it to be measured by outward actions 
 only, or are inward principles and aims to come in consideration ? 
 Who can know these save God ? If it be said, we can know our- 
 selves to be such : I ansAver, how shall we maintain any confidence 
 of future, nay eternal rewards, while conscience tells that we de- 
 serve punishment ? What if by the mere light of nature vre can 
 never be assured of forgiveness ? How sliall we then by it, be sure 
 of eternal rewards ? If we are not rewarded here, how can Me know, 
 but that it has been for our 'i-ins that good things have been with- 
 held from us ? May not this be presumed to be the consequence 
 of our knov/n sins, or more covei t evils, which self-love has made 
 us overlook ? If we suffer, yet do we suffer more than our sins 
 deserve, or even so much ? If we think so, will w^e be sustained 
 competent judges of the quality of offences, and their demerit, 
 which are done against God, especially when we are the actors ? 
 To whom does it belong to judge ? If we meet with some part, for 
 yc can never prove it is all, of demerit or deserved punishment of 
 your sins here, will this conclude that ye shall be exempted from 
 suffering what further God may in justice think due to them, and 
 you on their account hereafter ? W hat security have ye that yc 
 shall escape with what h indicted on you here ? And not only so, 
 but instead of meeting with what ye fuithcr deserve, obtain rewards 
 which ye dare scarcely say ye deserve ? If God spare at present a 
 noted offender, who cannot without violence to reason be supposed 
 a subject meet for pardon or for a reward, and reserve the who'e 
 punishments due to his crimes, to the other vrorld ; but in the 
 mean while, sees meet to inflict present punishment on thee, thojjgh 
 less criminal, perhaps to convince the world, that even lesser offen- 
 ders shall not escape ; if, I say, he deal thus, is there no way fl>r 
 clearing his justice, but by conferring eternal happiness on thee T 
 Why, if he inflict what further punishment is due to thee, in exact 
 proportion to thy less atrocious crimes ; and punish the other with 
 ey'ik proportioned to his more ati-ccious crimes, and make him up by 
 
94 AN irvQUlRY INTO THE 
 
 the severity of the stroke for the delay of the punishment ; if I 
 Bay, thus he do, I challenge any man to tell lue where the injustice 
 lies ! And may not the like be said as to any other virtuous person, 
 or whom thou supposest to be such, who meets with sufTerings ? 
 
 Nor do less perplexing difEcuIlies attend those other pleas for fu- 
 ture happiness to man, at least, in his present coiuiiiion; which are 
 drawn from God creating us capable of future happiness, implanting 
 desires, and giving us gusts of it : All which would be given iii 
 vain, if there was no happiness designed for man after time. 
 
 But how by this we can be secured of eternal happiness, I do 
 not well see. Nor do I understand how the difficulties which may 
 be moved against this, can be resolved. It may be inquired, whe- 
 ther this desire of happiness, said to be implanted in our natures, is 
 really any thing distinct from that natural tendency, of the crea- 
 ture to its own perfection and preservation, which belongs to the 
 being of every creature, witli such difference as to degrees and the 
 manner,- as their respective natures require ? If it is no more than 
 this, it must be allowed essential to every rational creature : And 
 if every rational creature has an essential attribute, which infers an 
 obligation on God to provide for it eternal happiness, and put it in 
 possession of this felicity, if no fault intervene, doth it not thence 
 necessarily, follow, that God cannot possibly, without injustice, turn 
 to nothing any innocent rational creature ; nay, nor create any 
 one, which it is possible for him again to annihilate without injus- 
 tice ? For if we should suppose it possible for God to do so, and 
 thus without injustice frustrate this desire, where is the force of the 
 argument ? And is it not a little bold to limit God thus ? I need 
 not enter into the debate, whether there is any supposable case, 
 vherein infinite wisdom may think it fit to do so ? That dispute is 
 a little too nice : For on the one hand, it will be hard for us to de- 
 termine it positively, that infinite wisdom must, in any case we can 
 suppose, think it fit to destroy or turn to nothing an innocent crea- 
 ture ; and on the other hand, it is no less rash to assert, that our 
 not knowing any case, proves that really there is none such known 
 to the only wise God. Besides, if we allow it only possible, in a 
 consistency with justice and veracity, for God to do it, I am afraid 
 the argument has lost its force. Further, it may be inquired, whe- 
 ther the rational creature can in duty desire an eternal continuation 
 in being, otherwise than with the deepest submission to the sove- 
 reign pleasure of God, where he has given no positive promise? If 
 submission belongs to It, all ccrtninty vanishes, and v.'e miii-i look 
 elsewhere for assurance of eternal happiness. A desire of it, if 
 God see meet to give it, can never prove that certainly he will give 
 it. If it is said, that the creature without submission or f ujlt may 
 insist upon and claim eternd happiness ; I do not see how this can 
 ha pz'cven. 
 
PRL\Cr?LES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 95 
 
 But again, do not these desires respect the whole man, consist- 
 ing of soul and body? Doth not death dissolve the man? Are not 
 these desires apparently frustrated ? Ho»v will the light of nature 
 certainly infer from those desire?, gusts, &c. that the whole man 
 shall have eternal felicity, Avhile we see the man daily destroyed by 
 death ? Can this be understood without revelation ? Docs the light 
 of nature teach us that there will be a resurrection ? I grant, that 
 without the supposal of a future existence, we cannot easily un- 
 derstand what end there was worthy of God for making such a no- 
 ble creature as man : But while we see man, on the other hand, 
 daily destroyed by death, and know nothing of the resurrection of 
 the body, which is the case of all those who reject revelation, v/e 
 •shall not know what to conclude, but must be twssed in oar mind?, 
 and be at lo.<s how to reconcile those seeming inconsistencies : 
 wliich gave a great man occasion to observe, " That there can be 
 " no reconciliation of the doctrine of future rewards and punisb- 
 *' menis, to be righteously administered upon a supposition of the 
 " separate everlasting subsistence of the soul only."* And for 
 proof of thi«!, he insists on several weighty considerations, which I 
 cannot transcribe. 
 
 But, should we give wp all this, will this desire of happiness prove 
 that God designed it for man, whether he carried himself well or 
 not ? If it prove not that sinful man may be happy, or that eternal 
 happiness is designed for man, who is now a sinner, what are we 
 the better for it ? Are we not ail more or less guilty ? What will it 
 help \j% that we were originally designed for, and made capable of 
 future felicity, if we are now under an incapacity of obtaining it ? 
 Do we not fiml that we have fallen r.hort of perfect obedience : 
 And can those desires assure us that God will pardon, yea reward 
 lis, and that with the greatest blessing which innojcent man was ca- 
 pable of ? Moreover, before we end this discourse, I hope to make 
 it appear, that by mere llrrhl of nohire no man can assuredly know 
 that sin shall be pardoned ; and if so, it is in vain to pretend, that 
 we can be assured of eternal felicity in our present condition. 
 They who have sinned less and suffered more in this life, shall not 
 be so severely punished in that which is to come, as they who havo 
 siimcd more grievou><ly and escaped without punishment here, this 
 reason assures us of : But it can scarcely so much as afford us a 
 colourable plea for eternal rewards, to any virtue that is stained with 
 the least sin. The scriptures mvike mention of a happiness promis- 
 ed to innocent man u[wn perfect obedieiice ; and of salvation to 
 guihy n»an upon f^.ith in Jesus Christ. Beside these two, I kncrw 
 no third sort. As to the last, the light of nature is entirely silent^ 
 as we shall see afterwards. "Whether it can alone prove the fii-st is 
 
 • Dr. Owen on Ilcb. vi. vcr. I, 2. Vol. 3, page 21, 
 
96 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 a question : But that man in his present condition cannot be better 
 for it, is out of question. 
 
 6. Were it granted that these arguments are conclusive, j-et the 
 matter would be very little mended : For it is certain, that these 
 arguments are too thin to be discerned by the dim eyes of the gen- 
 erality, even though they had tutors wjio would be at pains to in- 
 struct them. Yea, I fear that they rather beget suspicions than 
 llrm persuasions in the minds of philosophers. They are of that 
 sort, wliich rather silence than satisfy. Arguments ah ahsurdOf 
 rather force the mind to assent, than determine it cheerfully to ac- 
 quiesce in the truth as discovered. Other demonstrations carry 
 along with them a discovery of the nature of the thing, which sa- 
 tisfies it in some measure. Hence they have a force, not only to 
 engage, but to keep the soul steady in its adherence to truth ; but 
 these oblige to implicit belief as it were, and therefore the mind 
 easily wavers and loses view of truth ; and is no longer firm, than it 
 is forced to be so, by a present view of the argument. Jf learned 
 men were always observant of their own minds, and as ingenuous as 
 the Auditor is in Cicero, in his acknouledgment about the force of 
 Plato's arguments for the immorlaUly of the sow/,* they would 
 make gome such acknowledgment as he does. After he has told, 
 that he has read oftener than once, Plato's arguments for the immor- 
 hdity of iliC sovJ, which Cicero had recommended in the forego- 
 inp" discourse as the befit that were to be expected, he adds, " Sed 
 " nesclo qnomoda, dum lego assc7itior : cum posni librum, ^^ me- 
 " cum ipse dc immnr'aliiak anUiiorum cc^pi cogitcire, assentio o?n- 
 " 7ds ilia elahitur."f In like manner might others say, when I 
 pore upon those arguments I assent ; but when I begin to look on 
 the matter, I find there arises not such a light from them, as is 
 able to keep the mind steady In its assent. More especially will it 
 be found so, if we look not only to the matter, but to the difficulties 
 which offer about it. Yet this steadiness is of absolute necessity 
 in this case, since a respect to this must be supposed always preva- 
 lent, in order to influence to a steady pursuit. The learned Sir 
 Matthew Hale observes, that, " It is very true, that partly by 
 «< universal tradition, derived probably from the common parent of 
 " mankind, partly by some glimmerings of natural light in the na- 
 '*' tural consciences, in some, tit least, of the Heathen, there seem- 
 *' ed to be some common persnasion of a future state of rewards 
 " and punishments. But fust it was weak and dim, and even in 
 " many of the v.'isest of them overborn ; so that it was rather a 
 " suspicion, or at most, a weak and faint persuasion, than a strong 
 
 * Cicero Tiis. Quest. Lib. 1. 
 
 •j- " But. I know not Iiow it happens, that nlthoucr'n I assenttohim aslonp^ fis 
 •' I am readinp;', yet wlien I have laid down the ijnok, and hcsrnn to think with 
 *' «rv.sf/'f 'rf I'lc ;'ivf.'^--''dify of tlic sovU, <V +!:'.i.t xs.sent vanishes." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 97 
 
 «« and firm conviction : And hence it became very unoperative and 
 « ineffectual to the most of tfaem, when they had greatest need of 
 « it } oamely, upon imminent or incumbent temporal evils of great 
 «. pressure. But, where the impression was firmest among them, 
 <* yet still they were in the dark what it was,'* 
 
 7. ft is further to be co^3ide^^d, that it is not the general per- 
 SHasjon that there is a st 'te of future happiness and misery, which 
 can avail ;* but there must be a discovery of that happiness in its 
 nature^ or wherein it consists ; its excellency and suitableness, to 
 engage man to look on it as his chief good, pursue it as such, per- 
 severe in the pursuit over alj opposition, and forego other things, 
 which he sees and knows the present pleasure and advantage of, 
 for it. Now, such a view the light of nature can never rationally 
 be pretended to be able to give : If it is, let the pretender she^ 
 lis where, apd by whom such an account has been given and verifi- 
 ed ; or let him do it himself. And if this is not done, as it never 
 has, and 1 fear not to say never can be done ; it would not mend 
 the matter, though we should forego all that has been abovesaid, (as 
 was above insinuated,) which yet we see no necessity of doing. 
 
 8. I might here tell how faintly the deists use to speak upon this 
 liead. Though upon occasion, they can be positive ; yet at other 
 times they speak modestly about the being of a future state of hap- 
 piness, and tfclls us, " That rewards and punishments hereafter, 
 ** though the notion of them has not been universally received, the 
 *' Heathens disagreeing about the doctrine of the immortality of 
 *' the soul, miy yet be granted to seem reasonable, because they are 
 *^' deduced from the doctrine of providence,— and that they may 
 ** be granted parts of natural religion, because the wisest men have, 
 *• ijliclined to hold them amongst the Heathen,"f &c. and now do 
 in all opinions. And as they seem not over certain as to the being 
 of future rewards and punishments, so they plainly own they caa 
 give no accoimt what they are. *' QiuB vcro, qualifi^ quanta, Sic. 
 *' hcecvita secunda vel mors fuerit ob defectum condltionwn adve- 
 " ritatus isthis conformationem posiulatarumj sciri nequit," say^ 
 the learned Herbert.1[. ' 
 
 • Herbert de Veritate, page 59. 
 
 f Oi-acle of Reason, pag-e 201. 
 
 i De Ver. page 57. & Alibi S(Spius. — " But what, of what kind, and how 
 ,*' g^rent, this second life or death sliall be, can not be known, for want of those 
 * conditions that are required for the confirmation of the truth of it." 
 
 la 
 
AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 CHAP. VIL 
 
 Naturt^s Light awards not a sufficient Rule of Duiif* lis Tnmi^ 
 ciency hence inferred. 
 
 THERE is certainly no other waj of attaining happiness, tha» 
 by pleasing God. Happiness is no other way to be had, than from 
 him, and no oth^r way can we reasonably expect it from him, 
 bnt in the way of duty or obedience. Obedience must either b© 
 with respect to those things which immediately regard the honor 
 cf the Deity, or in other things. The insujjij ciency of natural 
 religion as to worship, has been above demonstrated. ITiat it i« 
 wanting as to the latter, viz. those dnties which we called, for dis«» 
 tirction*s sake, duties of moral ohediencey is now to be proven.—* 
 That man is subject to God, and so ia every thing obliged to regu- 
 late himself according to the prescription of God, has been above 
 asserted, and the grounds of this assertion, have been more thao 
 insinuated. Now if nature's light is not able to aflfbrd a complete 
 directory as to the whole of man's conduct, in so far as the Deity 
 is concerned, it can never be allowed sufficient to conduct man ia 
 religion, and lead him to eternal happiness : While it leaves him at 
 a loss as to sufficient rules for universal virtue, which even Deists 
 own to be the principal way of serving God and obtaining happi- 
 ness. It is one of the princpal things to which this is to be 
 ascribed, and whereon man's hopes must reafonably be supposed to 
 lean, if he is left to the mere conduct of the light of nature. Now 
 the insufficiency of nature's light in this point will be fully made 
 appear, from the ensuing considerations j some of which arc ex- 
 cellently discoursed by the ingenious Mr. Locke in his Beasonor' 
 bleness of Christiamty, w^ delivered in the Scripture.^ If he had 
 done as well in other points as in this, he had deserved the thanks 
 of all that wish well to Christianity : But so far as he follows the 
 truth we shall take his assistance, and improve some of his notioni^ 
 adding such others, as are by him omitted, which may be judged 
 of use to the case in hand. 
 
 1 . Then we observe, that no man Feft to the conduct merely of 
 nature's lifht, has offered us a complete body of morality. Kome 
 p?rts of our duty are pretty fully taught by philosophers and poli- 
 ticians. " So much virtue as was necessary to hold societies to- 
 « gether, and to contribute to the quiet of governments, the civil 
 " laws of commonwealths taught, and forced upon men that lived 
 « under magistrates. But these laws, being for the most part made 
 *' by such, who have no other aims but their own power, reached 
 
 * Eeas. of Christ, page 267. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. m 
 
 « HO further than those things that would serve to tie men toi^ether 
 ** in subjection ; or at most, were directly to conduce lo the pros- 
 •* perity and temporal h ippiness of any people. But natural re- 
 •* ligion in its f u I extewt, was no where, that i know of, taken 
 « care of by the force of nitural reason. J t should seem by the 
 •' little that hitherto has been done in it, that it is too hard a thing 
 " for unassisted reason to establish morality in all its parts, upon 
 " its true foundations, with a clear and convincing light."* Some 
 parts haVe been noticed, anl others quite omitted. A complete 
 system of morality in its whole extent has never been attempted 
 by the mere light of nature, much less completed. 
 
 2« To gather together the scattered rules that are to be met with 
 in the writings of morality^ and weave these shreds into a compe- 
 tent body of morality y in so far as even the particular direction of 
 any one man would require, is a work of that immense labour, and 
 requires so much learning, study and attention, that it has never 
 been performed, and never like to be performed, and quite sur- 
 mounts the capacity of most, if not of any one man. So that 
 neither is there a complete body of morality given us by any one. 
 Nor is it ever likely to be collected from those who have given ua 
 parcels of it. 
 
 3. Were all the moral directions of the ancient sages collected. 
 It would not be a system that would be any way useful to the body 
 of mankind. It would consist for most part of enigmatical, dark 
 and involved sentences, that would need a commentary too long for 
 vulgar leisure to peruse, to make them intelligible. Any one that 
 is in the least measure acquainted with the writings of the philoso- 
 phers will not question this. Of what use would it be to read such 
 morality as that of Pythagoras, whose famed sentences were, 
 *' Poke not in the fire with a sword ; stride not over the beam of a 
 « balance ; sit not upon a bushel ; eat not the heart ; take up your 
 ** burthen with lielp ; ease yourself of it with assistance ; have al- 
 <' ways your bed clothes well tucked up ; carry not the image of 
 <' God about you in a ring," &c. Was this like to be of any use to 
 mankind ? No surely, some of them indeed speak more plain, some 
 of them less so ; but none of them sufficiently plain to be under- 
 stood by the vulgar. 
 
 4. Further, were tliis collection made, and, upon other accounts, 
 unexceptionable ; yet it would not be sufficiently full to be an uni- 
 versal directory. For, 1. Many important duties would be want- 
 ing. Self-denial, that consists in a mean opinion of ourselves, and 
 leads to a submitting, and passing from all our most valuable con- 
 cerns, when the honor of God requires it, is the fundamental duty 
 of all religion, that which is of absolute necessity to a due ackoow- 
 
 * £eas. of Christ, pa^ S6C. 
 
100 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 ledgement of man's subjection and dependence ; and yet we shall 
 find a deep silence in all the moralists abont it. Which" defe'ct is 
 the more considerable, that the whole of our apostacy is easily re- 
 ducible to this one point, an endeavor to subject the will, concerns 
 end pleasures of God to our own. And no act of obedience to 
 hira, can, without gross igiwrance of his nature, and unacquainted- 
 Bess with the extent of his knowledge, be presumed acceptable, 
 which flows not from such a principle of self-denial, as fixedly pre- 
 fer the concerns of God's glory to all other things. Again, what 
 duty have we more need of, than that which is employed in forgiv- 
 ing enemies, nay ia loving them ? We have frequent occasions for 
 it. If we are not acquainted that this is duty, we must frequent- 
 ly run into the opposite sin. But where is this taught among the 
 Heathens ? Further, where shall we find a directory as to the in- 
 ward frame and actings of our minds, guiding us how to regulate 
 our thoughts, our designs ? Some notice is taken of the outward 
 behaviour ; but little of that which is the spring of it. Where ia 
 there a rule for the direction of our thoughts as to objects about 
 ^yhich they should be employed, or as to the manner vv^herein they 
 are to be conversant about them ? These things are of great im» 
 portance, and yet by very far out of the ken of unenlightened na- 
 ture. Divine and spiritual things were little known, and less thought 
 of by philosophers. 2. As this system would be defective as to 
 particular duties of the highest importance ; so it would be quite 
 defective as to the grounds of those duties which are enjoined. It 
 is not enough to recommend duty, that it is useful to us, or the soci- 
 eties we live in. When we act only on such grounds, we shew 
 some regard to ourselves, and the societies whereof we are mem- 
 bers ; but none to God. Where are these cleared to be the laws 
 of God ? Who is he that presses obedience upon the consciences 
 of men, from the consideration of God's authority stamped upon 
 these laws he prescribes ? And yet without this, you may call it 
 what you will ; obedience you cannot call it. It is well observed by 
 Mr. Locke, — " Those just measures of right and wrong, which ne- 
 *' cessity had any where introduced, the civil laws prescribed, or 
 *« philosophers recommended, stood not on their true foundations. 
 *' Thev were looked on as bonds of society, and conveniences of 
 *' common life, and laudable practices : But where was it that their 
 *' obligation was thoroughly known, and allowed, and they received 
 *' as precepts of a law, of the highest law, the law of nature ? That 
 *' could not be without the clear knowledge of the lawgiver, and the 
 *' great rewnrds or punishments for those that would not, or would 
 «' obey. But the relislon of the Heathens, as was before observed, 
 « little concerned itself in their morals. The priests that delivered 
 « the oracles of heaven, and pretended to speak from the gods, 
 " spoke little of virtue and a good life. And on the other side, the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. lOl 
 
 « philosophers who spoke from reason, made not much mention of 
 " the Deity in their ethicks."* 
 
 . 5. Not only would this rule be defective and lame, but it would 
 be found corrupt and pernicious. For, 1, Instead of leading them 
 in the way, it would in many instances lead them aside. We 
 should have here Epictetus binding you to temporise, and " worship 
 " the gods after the fashion of your country.' f You should find 
 Pythagoras " forbidding you to pray for yourself to God," J because 
 you know not what is convenient. You should find Aristotle and 
 Cicero commending revenge as a duff/. The latter you should find 
 defending Brutus and Cassius for killing Caesar, and thereby au- 
 thorising the murder of any magistrates, if the actors can but per- 
 suade themselves that they are tyrants. Had we nothing to con- 
 duct u« in our obedience and loyalty, but the sentiments of philo- 
 fophers, no prince could be secure either of his life or dignity. You 
 should find Cicero pleading for self-murder, from which he can ne- 
 ver be freed, nor can any tolerable apology be made for him. Here- 
 in he was seconded by Brutus, Cato, Cassius, Seneca and others 
 innumerable. Many of them practised it ; others applauded of 
 their sentiments in this matter. You may find a large account in 
 Mr. Dodwel's Apology for the Philosophical Performances of 
 Cicero, prefixed to Mr. Parker's translation of his book de Finibus. 
 And you may find the Deists justifying this in the preface to the 
 Orades of Reason, wherein Blount's killing of himself is justified. 
 Of the same mind was Seneca, who expressly advises the practice 
 of it. We should here find customary swearing commmded,\\ if 
 not by their precepts, yet by the examples of the best moralists, 
 Plato, Socrates, and Seneca. In whom numerous instances of 
 oaths by Jupiter, Hercules, and by beasts, do occur. In the same 
 way we should find unnatural lust recommcndcd.f^i Aristotle prac- 
 tised it. And Socrates is foully belied, if he loved not the same 
 vice. . Whence else could Socrafici Cincedi come to be a proverb 
 in Juneval's days. Pride and self-esteem were among their virtues. 
 Which cives me o?casion to observe, that this one thing overturned 
 their whole morality. Epictetns, one of the best of all their mo- 
 ralists, tells us, " That the constitution and image of a philosopher 
 " is to expect eood, as well as fear evil, only from himself."** — • 
 Seneca urgeth this every where — " Sapiens tarn <ejno animo om- 
 ** nia apnd alios videf, cnniemnitnue, quam Jupiter : Et hoc 
 " se magis suspicit, quod Jupiter iff i illis non potest^ sapiens 7ion 
 
 • Reasonableness of Christianity, page 278, 
 
 f Epict. Enchiri(l. Cap. 38. 
 
 i DioR-. Laert. Vit. Pyth. pape 7. 
 
 fl Seneca delra, Lit). .3. Cap.'lS. 
 
 ^ Dio^. Ixiert Vita Arist.Lib. J. page 323. 
 
 •• Epict Ench.Cap. 27. 
 
102 AN INQUmY INTO THE 
 
 ** wJf."* And again, " Est aliquid quo sapieM anieeedai Deum* 
 " Ille naturae hmejicioj non swo, sapiens crf.f Incomptits 
 ** vir sit externis Sr insuperabilis, Tnir&torque tantum iui.'^X 
 •* Pride and self-esteem was a disease iepideOiical amongst theni, 
 ** and seems wholly incurable by any notions that they had. Some 
 ** arrived to that impudence to compire themselves with, nay, 
 ** prefer themselves before their own gods. It was cither a hor»' 
 *' rible folly to deify what they postponed to their own Belf-estima* 
 " lion, or else it was a stupendous effect df their pride to prefer 
 ** themselves to the gods that they worshipped. Never any maa 
 ** amongst them proposed the honor of their gods as the chief end 
 " of their actions, nor so much as dreamed of any such thing; it h 
 ** evident that the best of them in their best actions reflected &tilS 
 " back to themselves, and determinated there, designing to set up 
 " a pillar to their own fame."H That known sentence of Cicero, 
 who speaks out plainly what others thought, will justify this severe 
 censure given by this worthy person, Vult plane virtus Jionorem ^ 
 Nee virtutis ulla alia mcrces.*"^ Were it needful, I might write 
 volumes to this purpose, that would make one's flesh tremble to 
 read. They who desire satisfaction in this point, may find it large- 
 ly done by others. I shall conclude this first evidence of the cor*- 
 ruption of their moralib/^ with this general reflection of the learned 
 Amy raid in his Treatise of Religions : " Scarce can there befoimd 
 •* any commonwealth, amongst those, which have been esteemed 
 •* the best governed, in which some grand and signal vice has not 
 ** been excused, or permitted, or even sometimes recommended by 
 " public laws."ff 2. Not only did they enjoin wron<r things; but 
 they enjoined what was right to a wrong end, yea even their best 
 things, as we heard just now, aimed at their own honor. We have 
 heard Cicero to this purpose telling plainly that lionor mas tkeit 
 aim. Or of what the poet said of Brutus killing his bwn sons wheQ 
 they intended the overthrow of the liberty of their country, 
 
 Ficif amor patriee lavdumqtie immensa cupi^o,'\,'^ 
 
 js the most that can be pleaded for most of them. Others arc 
 
 * Seneca, Epist. 73.—** A wise man behalds and despises all tiling's that he 
 ** sees in the possession of others, with as easy a mind as Jupiter himself.— 
 " And in this he admires himself the more, that Jupiter cannot use those 
 •* things which he despises, whereas the wise man can use them, but will not. 
 
 f lb. Epist. 53. -" There is something in which a wise man excels God, as 
 ** God is wise by the benefit of his nature, and not by his own." 
 
 \ lb. devita Beata, Cap. 8. — " Let a man be incorruptible and incorrigible 
 *' be external things, and an admirer of himself alone." 
 
 II Sir Char. Wolseley's Reason of Scripture Belief, page 118. 
 
 *• Cicero de .^micitia.'-'" Virtue certainly will have honor, nor la there any 
 •* other reward of virtue." 
 
 ff See instances to this purpose in a discourse of Moral Virtue, and its dif- 
 ierence from Grace, page 225. 
 
 ii " The love of his country, and his immense desire of praise, overcame him.'* 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERI^J DEISTS, im 
 
 plamly blasphemous, as wc have heard from Seneca, designing to 
 be above God by his virtue. At this rate this philosophy talks ve- 
 ry oft : " Let philosophy," says he, « minister this to me, that it 
 ** render me equal to God."* To the maintenance of this, their 
 notions about the sou! of m n contributed much; stllim: it a piece 
 dipt fromGod, *A»-orw»r^«T^©f ir, or a part of God, t» Ai«« Mt^^, 
 aa Bpictetus speass. irlovdce c^iil^ \t divina particula aurce. Cice- 
 ro in bis Somnmn Scip. telle us what they thought of themselves, 
 Deum 9cUo te ess^— " Know thyself to be a God." And according- 
 ly the Indian Brachmans vouched themselves for Gods. And in- 
 deed they, who debased their Gods below men, by their abomina- 
 ble cbaracteri of them, it was no wonder to find them prefer them- 
 selves to them. Nor did any run higher this way than Plato, 
 Let any one read his arguments for the immortalUy of the soid, 
 and if they prove any thing, they prove it a God. Thus they 
 quite corrupted all they taught, by directing it to wrong ends. 
 3. This system would corrupt us as to the fountain of virtue and 
 its principle, teaching us to trust ourselves, and not depend on God 
 for it. We have beard some speak to this purpose already; and 
 Cicero may well be allowed to speak for the rest. " A Deo tantum 
 <* rationem haberhns .• Bo7uim autem rationem aut non bonam a 
 «*■ no6i5."t And a little after, near the close of his book, after he has 
 owned our external advantages of learning to be from God, he sub- 
 join&— ■" Virtutem autem nemo unquam acceptam Deo retulit, ni- 
 ** mirum recte .♦ Propter virtutem enim jure laudamur, ^c in vir^ 
 " tute recte ^loriamur, quod non contingeret, si id donum a Deo, 
 " nonanobis kaberemus."^ 'I'hus we see how corrupt they were 
 in this point, and it is here easily observable whence they were 
 corrupted as to their chief end. He that believes that he has any 
 thing that is not from God, will have somewhat also that he will not 
 refer to him, as his chief end. 4. The corruption of this system, 
 would in this appear, that it would he full of contradictions. Here 
 we shall find nothing but endless jars ; one condemning as abomina- 
 ble, what another approves and praises: Whereby we should be 
 led to judge neither right, rather than any of them. A man who, 
 for direction, will betake himself to the declaration of the philoso- 
 phers, goes into a wild wood of uncertainty, and into an endless 
 maze, from which he should neVer get out. Plenty of instances, 
 confirming these two last meutioncd observations, might be adduc- 
 
 • Seneca, Epistle 48. 
 
 ?• Cicero de Natura Dcorum, Lib. 3. P. mihi, 173 — " We have only reason 
 rom God, but we have {jood or bad reason from oiirselviig." 
 
 ♦ *' But nobody ever acknowledged thai he was indebted to God for his vir- 
 ** tue, and certainly with good reason ; for we are justly praised on account of 
 " our virtue, and we justly boast of it, which could r.ot be thscojic, if Wc lud 
 ** that gil't f;-om Godj and not f.-om ourselves." 
 
104 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 cd. If the reader desire them, I shall refer him to Mr: Lockc'^ 
 Essay on Human Understandmg, book 1 . chap. 3. parag. 9. where 
 he may see it has been customary with not a few nations, to ex* 
 pose their children, bury them alive without scruple, fatten them 
 for the slaughter, kill them and eat them, and dispatch their, aged 
 parents : yea some, he will find, have been so absurd, as to expect 
 paradise as a reward of revenge^ and of eating ahundcnce of their 
 enemies. Whether these instances will answer Mr. Locke's purpose, 
 I dispute not now. I design not to make myself a party in that 
 controversy. But I am sure such fatal mistakes, as to what is good 
 and evil, are a pregnant evidence of the insufficiency of nature's 
 light to afford us a complete rule of duty. If they, who were left 
 to it, blundered so shamefully in the clearest cases, how shall we 
 expect direction, as to those that are far more intricate ? 
 
 6. Be this system never so complete, yet it can never be allow- 
 ed to be a rule of life to mankind. This I cannot better satisfy my- 
 self upon, than by transcribing what the ingenious Mr. Locke has 
 excellently discoursed on this bead. " I will suppose there was 
 ** a Stobeus in those times, who had gathered the moral sayings 
 *' from all the sages of the world. What would this amount to, 
 *' towards being a steady rule, a certain transcript of a law, that we 
 *' are under ? Did the saying of Aristlppus, or Confucius, give it 
 *' authority? Was Zeno a lawgiver to mankind ? If not, what he . 
 *' orany other philosopher delivered, was but a saying of his. Man- 
 *♦ kind might hearken to It or reject it as they pleased, or as it 
 •* suited their interest, passions, principles, or humours. They 
 " were under no obligation : The opinion of this or that philoso- 
 ** pher, was of no authority. And if it were, you must take all he , 
 *' said under the same charactc'r. All his dictates must go for law, 
 ** certain and true; or none of them. And then if you will take 
 ** the moral sayings of Epicurus (many whereof Seneca quotes 
 *• with approbation) for precepts of the law of nature, you must 
 •* take all the rest of his doctrine for such too, or else his authority 
 " ceases: So no more is to be received from him, or any of the 
 " sages of old, for parts of the law of nature, as carrying with them 
 *' any obligation to be obeyed, but what they prove to be so. But 
 ** such a body of ethicks, proved to be the law of nature, from 
 '* principles or reason, and repching all the duties of life, I think no* 
 ** body will say the world had before our Saviour's time." A nd I 
 may add, nor to this day has, by the mere light of n >ture. " It is 
 •* not enough," cortinues he, " that there were \^^ and down scat- 
 *• tered sayings of wise men, conformable to right reason. The 
 " law of nature was the law of conveniency loo : And it is no won- 
 *' der these men of part?, and studious of virtue, (who had occa- 
 " sion to thli-; of any particular part of it) should, by medilation, 
 •* light on the right, even from the observable conveniency and 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 105 
 
 « beauty of it, without making out its obligation from the true prin- 
 « ciples of the law of nature, and foundations of morality." More 
 be adds judiciously to this purpose ; but this is enough. And 
 hence it is plain, that such a system of morality would, if collected, 
 at best be only a collection of problems, which every man is left at 
 liberty to canvass, dispute, or reject ; nay mote, which every man 
 is obliged to examine as to all its parts, in so far as it prescribes rules 
 to him, and not to receive, but upon a discovery of its truth from 
 its proper principles. 
 
 7. It is then plain, that every man is left to his own reason to 
 find out his duty by. He is not to receive it upon any other au- 
 thority than that of reason, if revelation is rejected. He must 
 find out therefore, in every case, what he is to do, and deduce its 
 obligation from the principles of the law of nature. But who sees 
 not, that the most part of men have neither leisure nor capacity 
 for such a work ? Men may think duty easy to be discovered now, 
 when Christianity has cleared it up. But Mr. Locke well observes, 
 " That the first knowledge of those truths, which have been disco- 
 ♦' vered by Christian philosophers, or philosophers since Christi- 
 " anity prevailed, is owing to revelation ; though as soon as they are 
 " heard and considered, they are found to be agreeable to reason, 
 " and such as can by no means be contradicted. Every one may 
 " observe a great many truths which he receives at first from 
 " others, and readily assents to, as consonant to reason, which he 
 " would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond his strength to 
 " have discovered himself. Native ai:d original truth, is not so 
 " easily wrought out of the mine, as we who have it delivered 
 " ready dug and fashioned into our hands, are apt to imagine. And 
 " how often at fifty, and three score years old, are thinking men 
 " told, what they wonder how they could miss thinking of? Which 
 " yet their own contemplations did not, and possibly never would 
 " have helped them to. Experience shews, that the knowledge of 
 " morality, by mere natural light, (how agreeable soever it be to it,) 
 " makes but a slow progress and little advance in the world: 
 " Whatever was the cause, it is plain in fact, that human reason, 
 " unassisted, failed men in its great and proper business of mo^ 
 « rality." 
 
 8. As it is unquestionably certain, that the most part of man- 
 kind are not able, by their own reason, to frame a complete body of 
 morality for themselves, or find out what is their own duty in every 
 particular instance. (I shall not speak of any man's being obliged 
 to dii'Cover what belongs to other people's duty, lest our antagonists 
 should suspect I designed to open a door for priests, a set of men 
 and an office which they mortally hate.) I speak only of what h 
 every one's duty in particular. And I say it is evident, that the 
 most part of mankind are unable to find this, which ii not to he 
 
 14 
 
IQS AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 jdone, but by such strains of reasoning, and connexion of conse- 
 quences, which they have neither leisure to weigh, nor, for want of 
 capacity, education and use, skill to judge of; and as I say, they 
 are unable for this, so I fear this task will be found too hard for the 
 ablest philosophers. Particular duties are so many, and many of 
 them so remote from the first principles, and the connection is so 
 subtle and fine spun, that I fear not to say that it must escape thfe 
 piercing eyes of the most acute philosophers : and if they engage in 
 pursuit of the discovery, through so many and so subtle conse- 
 quences, they must either quit the unequal chace, or lose them- 
 .selves instead of finding truth and duty. And if we allow ourselves 
 to judge of what shall be, by what has been the success of such at- 
 tempts, I am sure this is more than bare guess. 
 
 It is further to be observed, that no tolerable progress could be 
 made herein, were it to be done before advanced years. But it is 
 certain that youth, as well as riper age, is under the law of naturej 
 .and that that age needs clear discoveries of duty the more, that in 
 it irregular passions and inclinations are more vigorous, and it is ex- 
 posed to more temptations than any part of a man's life; and besides, 
 it wants the advantages of experience, to fortify it against the dan- 
 gerous influence of them, which advanced years are attended with. 
 Now it will be to no purpose to me, to find out some years hence 
 what was my duty before, as to obedience ; for now the season is 
 over. The law may discover my sin^ but can never regulate my 
 .practice, in a period of my life that is past and gone. Every man 
 , must have the knowledge of each day's duty in its season. This 
 is not to be had from the light of nature. K we are left at a loss in 
 our younger years, as nature's light will have us, we may be ruined 
 before knowledge come. Much sin must be contracted, and ill ha- 
 bits are like to be very much strengthened before any stop come : 
 yea, they may be so strong, that the foundation of inevitable ruin 
 may be laid. 
 
 Finally, knovrledge is requisite before acting ; at least, in order 
 of nature it is so, and must, at least in order of time, be contempo- 
 rary. Action gives not always time for long reasoning and weigh- 
 ing such trains of consequences, as are requisite to clear duties 
 from the first principles of nature's light, and enforce their obliga- 
 tion. And therefore man left to it, is in a miserable plight, not 
 much unlike to the case of the Romans, Diim deliberant Romani 
 capitur Saguntmn*^ : While he is searching for duty, the season 
 is lost ; and the discovery, if it comes, arrives too late to be of 
 any use. 
 
 It is in vain for any to pretend, that the knowledge of duty is 
 , connate to the mind of man. Whatever may be pretended as to a 
 
 * ** While the Romans were deliberating, Saguntum was taken." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERlSf DEISTS. 107 
 
 (fev of the first principles of morality, and it is but a very feW of 
 which these can be alledged, yet it is certain, it can never be with- 
 out impudence extended to the thousandth part of the duties wc 
 are bound to in particular cases. General rules may be easy ; par- 
 ticular ones are the difficulty, and the application of generals to 
 circumstantiated cases is a hard task. It is but with an ill grace 
 pretended, that these duties are self-evident, and the knowledge of 
 them innate or connate, call it what you please, to the mind of 
 man ; which the world has never been agreed about ; which wise 
 men, when the fairest occasions offered of thinking on them, could 
 not discern ; which philosophers, upon application and attention, 
 cannot make out from the principles of reason. The reason why 
 the knowledge of any truth is said to be innate, is, because, either 
 the mind of man is struck with the evidence of it on its first propo- 
 sal, and must yield assent, without seeking help from any princi- 
 ples of a clearer evidence ; or because its dependence on such prin- 
 ciples is so obvious, that the conclusion is so plainly connected 
 with such principles, that it is never sooner spoke of, than its con- 
 nexion with them, and so its truth appears. Of the first sort few' 
 duties can be said to be. And if they were of the last sort, any 
 person of a tolerable capacity would be able to demonstrate them 
 upon attention. Now how far it is otherwise in this case, who sees 
 not? 
 
 Upon the whole, I must conclude, that nature's light is not suffi- 
 cient to give us such a law or rule as may be a sure guide to those 
 who desire to go right, so that they need not lose their way or mis- 
 take their duty, if they have a mind to know it, nor be uncertain 
 whether they have done it. 
 
 It will not relieve the Deists to pretend, that some of the excep- 
 tions above mentioned may be retorted upon Christians, and im- 
 proven against the scriptures : For nothing but ignorance of the 
 true state of the question can give countenance to this pretence. 
 The scriptures are a rule provided by sovereign grace for falleii 
 man, and by infiniU wisdom are adjusted to God's great design of 
 recovering man to the praise of his own grace, in such a way as may 
 slain the pride of all glory. They are sufficient as an outward 
 mean, and do effectually conduct man to that happiness designed 
 for him, under the influence of the assisting grace provided for him, 
 and in the use of the means of God's appointment. They provide 
 a relief against any unavoidable defects in his obedience, and direct 
 to the proper grounds of his acceptance in it : But men who pre- 
 tend nature's light is able to guide to happiness, are obliged to shew 
 that it affords us a rule of duty ; which of itself, without the help of 
 any supernatural assistance, either as to outward means or inward 
 influences, may be able to lead man to the obedience required ; and 
 this obedience must be such, as answers our original obligation, and 
 
108 AN INdTTIRY INTO THE 
 
 upon account of its own worth, is able to support, not only a hope 
 of acceptance but of future, nay eternal rewards. For such as are 
 lift to nature's light, can neither pretend to any such outward means, 
 nor inward assistance, nor any such relief against defects in know- 
 ledge or practice, as the scriptures do furnish us with. Nature's 
 light Ijys no other foundation for hopes of acceptance or reward, 
 save only the worth or perfection of the obedience itself. And this, 
 if it is duly considered, not only repels the pretended retortion, but 
 gives additional force to the foregoing argument. 
 
 CHAP. VHL 
 
 Proving the Insu^dency of Natural Religion from its Defects as 
 to sufficient Motives for enforcing Obedience. 
 
 IT is warmly disputed in the schools, whether rewards and pun- 
 ishments be not so much of the essence of a law, and so included 
 in its notion, that nothing can properly be stiled law which wants 
 them ? I design not to make myself a party in those disputes. But 
 this much is certain, that laws and government are relatives ; they 
 mutually infer and remove each other. There is no government 
 properly so called, that wants laws, or somewhat that is the mea- 
 sure and standard of its administration. And there are no laws 
 where there is no authority and government to enjoin them.— 
 Whence this plainly results, that obedience, if it does no more, 
 yet it certainly entitles to the protection of the government. And 
 disobedience, not only deprives of any title to that, but lays open 
 to such further severities, as the government shall have power to 
 execute and see meet to use for its own preservation, against vio- 
 laters of its constitutions. But further, to wave this dispute, the 
 nature of man which proceeds not to actions save upon knowledge, 
 makes this much certain, That whatever he may be supposed to 
 be obliged to in strict duty, yet really in fact, he uses not to pay 
 any great regard to laws which are not enforced by motives or in- 
 ducements, that may be supposed to work with him, as containing 
 discoveries of such advantages attending obedience, and disadvan- 
 tages following disobedience, as may powerfully sway him to con- 
 sult his duty as well as his interest, by yielding obedience. If 
 then, natural religion is found unable to discover those things which 
 ordinarily prevail with man to obey, and carry him over any ob- 
 structions which lie in the way, it can never be supposed sufficient 
 to lead man to happiness : For man is not to be driven, but led ; 
 he is not to be led blind-folded, but upon rational views of duty 
 and interest. That natural religion is ^u this respect exceedingly/ 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 109 
 
 d^eCtive is the design of this discourse to demonstrate. All those 
 motives, which usually have any influence, may, I think, be brought 
 under the following heads. 1 . A full view of the authority of the 
 lawgiver and his laws. 2. A prospect of present benefit by obe- 
 dience. 3. A prospect of future rewards for it. 4. Fear of pun- 
 ishment in case of disobedience. And 5. Examples. Now, as I 
 know no motive which may not easily without stretch be resolved 
 into one of those, so, if I make it appear that nature's light is lame 
 as to each of them, I think I have gone a great way to disprove its 
 sufficiency to happiness. Well, let us essay it. 
 
 1. The great inducement to obedience is a clear discover^/ of 
 the authority of the lawgiver, and laws thence resulting. This is 
 not perhaps, properly speaking, a motive, as it is oft used : for in 
 very deed this is the formal reason of obedience ; a regard where- 
 to gives any action the denomination of obedience, and entitles to 
 the law's protection, and other advantages ; yet certain it is, that 
 this should have the principal influence, flora the ground just now 
 laid down, and therefore we shall here speak of it. It will prevail 
 far with man to obey the law of nature, if nature's light clearly 
 discovers how much the law-giver deserves that place ; how well 
 he is qualified for it ; how indisputable his title to the government 
 is, and how far he has interposed his authority ; that the stamp of 
 it is on these laws, to which we are urged to be subject ; that they 
 bear a plain congruity to his sublime qualifications ; that he is con- 
 cerned to have them obeyed ; observes the entertainment they 
 meet with ; entertains a respect for the obedient, and resents diso- 
 bedience. If we are left in the dark, as to all or most of these, it 
 will exceedingly weaken our regard to the law. And that this is 
 plainly the case, is now to be made appear. 1 . It goes a great way 
 toward the recommendation of any law to be fully satisfied as to 
 the qualifications of the framer. But how dark is nature's light 
 here ? It discovers indeed his power and greatness : But its no- 
 tions of his wisdom, justice, clemency and goodness are exceed- 
 ingly darkened, by the seemingly unequal distributions of things 
 here below, the innumerable miseries, under which the world groans, 
 and other things of a like nature ; that truly, very few, if left mere- 
 ly to its conduct, would reach any such discoveries of those glori- 
 ous properties, as would influence any considerable regard to those 
 laws he is supposed to make. 
 
 I dispute not now, what may be strictly known and demonstrated 
 of God, by a train of subtle arguments. For I would not be un- 
 derstood so much an to insinuate the want of objective evidences of 
 the wisdom and goodness of the Deity. Our question respects not 
 so much these, as mail's power of discerning them. It is not ab- 
 solutely denied, that there are many and pregnant evidences of 
 these attributes in the works of creation and providence ; our 
 
no AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 question is only, Whether there is such evidence of those perfec- 
 tions, especially in God's moral government of the world, every 
 where appearing, as may be able effectually to influence the prac- 
 tice, and affect the mind of man in his present state, notwithstand- 
 ing of any obstructions arising, either from the inward weakness of 
 his faculties, or the works of God from without, which to the dar- 
 kened mind of man may have a contrary appearance ? And that 
 which I contend is, That such is the state of things, so they go in 
 the world, and so blind are men's eyes, that there is not so near and 
 clear evidence of these things, in what is discernible by the most of 
 men, as may strike strongly, affect powerfully, and have a lively 
 influence to quicken tO practice. If our governor is near, if he is 
 daily conversant with us, if we have daily indisputed evidences of 
 bis goodness, wisdom, justice, clemency, and other qualifications 
 fitting for government, without any actions that may seem to be 
 capable of a contrary construction, or even of a dubious one, this 
 enforces a regard to his commands. On the contrary, if he is little 
 known, if his way of management is hid from us, if there are 
 instances, which however possibly they may be just, yet have a 
 contrary appearance to us, this weakens regard and quite con- 
 founds. And this is plainly the case as to God, with men left to 
 the mere conduct of nature's light, not through any defect on 
 God's part, but through the darkness of the mind of man in his 
 present state ; and this is the more considerable, that we use to be 
 more sensible of what evil any is supposed to do us, than of what 
 good we may receive from them. Now since this observation is 
 of use to prevent mistakes, I desire it may be carried along through 
 the rest of our remarks. 2. It works powerfully, and strongly ex- 
 cites to obedience, if the indisputableness of the law-giver's title, 
 and the grounds whereon it leans are clearly known. Now as to 
 God, the giounds of his title to the legislative as well as executive 
 power, are the super-eminent excellency of his nature, rendering 
 him not only fit, but the only fit person for it ; his creation of all 
 things, and thence resulting, propriety in them as his creatures, 
 such as his preservation of them in being, his providential care 
 and inspection, and the many benefits he bestows on them. But we 
 have heard already, how dim the discoveries of God's super-emi- 
 Dent excellencies are, which the light of nature affords. As to 
 Bis creation, it was disputed among the learned and quite overlook- • 
 ed by the vulgar, amongst those who were left to nature's light, as 
 baron Herbert well observes and clears. As to his close influence 
 in their preservation, it could not be noticed or known, where the 
 other was overlooked. His providential care and inspection, which 
 perhaps, as to its power of influencing, would go the greatest 
 length, if it can be proven by the light of nature ; yet cannot cer- 
 taiaJy by it be explained, and truly ia ao darkened by many obvi- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. Ill 
 
 ous occurrences in the external administration of the world, that 
 pa3t all peradventure, }t can never suitably affect men, who have 
 no other' discoveries of it, than the light of nature affords. As to 
 God's benefits, thoygh they are many, yet they did not affect so 
 much, because they were conveyed by the intervention of such 
 second causes as did arrest, instead of helping forward the short- 
 sighted minds of men, and detained them in contemplation of the 
 servant who brought the favour, whereas they should have looked 
 further, to him who sent it ; so they should have done, but so they 
 did not. Again, some of their most valuable benefits, their vir- 
 tues, they denied God to be the author of, as we have heard above 
 from Seneca, Cicero and Epictetus. And finally, some of them 
 were inclinable to think, that the benefits were more than counter- 
 vailed by the evils we labour under. Thus were the minds of men 
 darkened, and so they had continued, if we had been without reve- 
 lation. 3. It is of much force to influence obedience, if we have 
 a clear and satisfying discovery of his government in those laws ; 
 that is, that he who is thus qualified for, and rightfully possessed 
 of the government, has made such laws, and stamped his authority 
 on them. However great ideas we have of his excellency and title 
 to give laws ; yet this will have no weight, if we are not clearly 
 satisfied that these are kis laws. Now how palpably defective 
 nature's light is here, has been fully made out in the last chapter. 
 4. It will have no small force, if we had a clear knowledge, that 
 these laws are in their matter fully congruous to the qualifications 
 we desire in a law-giver, such as wisdom, goodness, justice, clemen- 
 cy and the like. But as these attributes are either not known or 
 darkly known by the light of nature ; so the impress of them on the 
 laws of nature has not been discovered, nor is it discoverable ; for 
 I doubt not but it might easily be made appear, that the whole 
 frame of the laws of nature are adapted to the nature of man as 
 innocent, and endued with sufficient power to continue so, which 
 is not the case with him now. And, therefore, how to reconcile 
 these laws to the notions of God and man is a speculation, as of the 
 last consequence, so of the greatest difficulty, which had never 
 been got through, if God had not vouchsafed us another guide 
 than nature's light. 5. If the law-giver is certainly known to have 
 a great regard to his laws, and to take careful inspection of the ob- 
 servation of them ; this will be a strong inducement to regard them. 
 But here nature's light is no less dark, than as to the rest. The 
 whole face of things in the world seem to have so contrary an aspect, 
 that we could never see clearly through this matter, if, without 
 revelation, we were left to judge of God by the mere light of na- 
 ture. The abounding of sin, prosperity of sinners, sufferings of 
 the best, and the like, led some to deny God's providence and gov- 
 
112 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 eminent entirely ; others of the better sort doubted of it, as Clau- 
 dian elegantly represents his own case, lib. 1. contra Rtifinum. 
 
 Sape mihi dubiam traxit sententia meniextti 
 Cuvarent superi terras, an ullus inesset 
 Rector & incerto fluerent mortalia casu. 
 Nam cum dispositi quzsissem fcEdera mundi. 
 Prjcscriptosque mari fines, annisque meatus, 
 Et lucis, notisque vices : Tunc omnia rebar 
 Consilio firmata Dei 
 
 Sed cum res hominum tanta caligine volvi 
 Adspicerem, latosque diu florere nocentes, 
 Vexarique pios : Rursus labefacta cadebat 
 Religio caussaeque viam non sponte sequebar 
 Alterius, vacuo qnz currere semina motu 
 Affirmat magnumque novas per inane figuras 
 Fortuna, non arte regl : quae numina sensu 
 Ambiguo vel nulla putat, vel nescia nostri.* 
 
 I know that Claudian got over this by Rujimis^s death, but such 
 providences have not always the like issue, and I only adduce his 
 words as a lively representation of the strait. Yea, to so great a 
 height came these doubts, that it is to be feared that many were car- 
 ried to the worst side. It is certain, the best of them were so con- 
 founded with those occurrences, that they could not spare reflec- 
 tions full of blasphemy upon Providence. The famed Cato's last 
 words may scarcely be excused for this crime. Finally, it is cer- 
 tain, that there was so much darkness about this matter, that none 
 of them all paid a due regard to God. 
 
 I shall now leave this head, after I have observed one or two 
 things ; and the first of them is, That however some of these truths 
 above mentioned may possibly be made out by a train of subtle ar- 
 guments ; yet such arguments, however they may draw an assent 
 from a tliinking man, not only transcend the capacity of the vulgar, 
 but fail of exciting and affecting even the most philosophical heads. 
 For to draw forth our active powers into action, the inducements 
 must shine with a light, that may warm the mind as it were, not on- 
 ly dissipating doubts about the reality of what it observed, but also 
 
 * " I had often my mind distracted v/ith doubt, whether the gods took care 
 of the world, or whether there was no governor in it, and the affairs of mor- 
 tals fluctuated under uncertain chance. For when I had enquired into the laws 
 of the world, as disposed into order, and the bounds that are prescribed to the 
 sea, and the course of the year and the succession of day and night, then I 
 thought that these things were established by the wisdom of God. But again, 
 wlien I saw that the affairs of men were involved in so great darkness, that 
 the wicked flourished in joy for a long time, and that the godly were harras- 
 sed ; Religion being weakened, expired, and I against my will followed the 
 tract of another opinion, which supposed that the seeds of things have a blind 
 motion, and that new forms of things are directed through an immense void, 
 by chance, and not by art, and which supposes that the deities have either an 
 ambigvious sense or none at all, and that they know nothing of u?." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 113 
 
 shewing its excellency. Upon this occasion I may not imperii* 
 nentiy apply to the philosophers, what Plautus says of comic 
 poets : 
 
 Spectavi ego pridem comicos ad istum modum 
 Sapienter dicta dicere, atqiie illis plaudier 
 Cum illos sapientes mores monstrabant populo : 
 Sed cum inde suum quisque ibant diversi domum, 
 NuUusei-at illo pasto, ut illi jusserunt.* 
 
 " I have often seen, that after the comic poets have said good 
 " things, and that they have been applauded for them while they 
 " taught good manners to the people, as soon as they were got 
 " home, no body was the better for their advice." The other 
 thing I observe is, that any defect as to the knowledge of the law- 
 giver is so much the more considfiral)le than any other, that a re- 
 gard to the law-giver is that which gives the formality of obedi- 
 ence to any action, and therefore the less knowledge there is of 
 him, the less of obedience, properly so called, there will be. Thus 
 far we have cleared how little nature's light can do for enforcing 
 obedience from the discoveries it makes of the law-giver. 
 
 2. A second head of motives to duty is present advantao'e. — 
 Now if nature's light is able to prove, that obedience to the law of 
 nature is like to turn to our present advantage, either as to profit 
 or pleasure, this would be of weight : But it is needless to insist 
 on this head ; for who sees not, that there is but little to be said 
 as to many duties here ? Are they not to cross our present incli- 
 nations ? And for any thing that nature's light can discover, dia- 
 metrically opposite to our present interest and honor ; I mean ac- 
 cording to the notions generally entertained of those things in the 
 world ? So it is but little that it can say upon this head. How of- 
 ten are we so situated, that in appearance nothing stands in our 
 way to pleasure, honor or profit, but only the command ? It were 
 easy to enlarge on this head ; but since it will not be readily con- 
 troverted I wave it. And indeed it were of no consideration, if 
 present losses were otherwise compensated by future advantages. 
 
 3. If nature's light can give a full view o( future rewards, then 
 this will compensate present disadvantages, and be a strong in- 
 ducement to obedience. But the discovery, if it is of any use, 
 must be clear and lively, that it may affect and excite, as has been 
 above observed. Well, what can nature's light do here ? Very lit- 
 tle, as has been above fully dcmonstiated, when we discoursed of 
 the chief end. It remains only now that we observe, that evils 
 and disadvantages discouraging from duty are present, sensible, 
 great, and so affect strongly ; wherefore, if future rewards have 
 
 * Le Clerk Parrhosiana, page 52. 
 
 15 
 
114 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 not somewhat to balance these, they cannot have much influence* 
 Now, it has been made sufScieutly evident, that all which nature's 
 light has to put in the balance, to encourage the mind to go on in 
 duty, against present, sensible, certain and great discouragements, 
 is at most, but a darkj conjectural discovery of rewards, or rather 
 suspicion about them, after time, without telling us what they are, 
 or wherein they do consist. Will this ever prevail with men toi 
 obey? No, it cannot. The prospect of future rewards was 
 not that which prevailed with the most, moral amongst the Hea- 
 thens of old. Their knowledge of these things, if they had any, 
 was of little or no use or influence to them, as their excitement to 
 virtue. 
 
 4. Nature's light is no less defective as to the discovery of pMn- 
 ishments : For however the forebodings of guilty consciences, a 
 dark tradition handed down from generation to generation, and 
 Esome exemplary instances of divine severity, have kept some im- 
 pressions of punishments on the minds of many in all ages ; yet 
 it is well known, that those things were ridiculed by most of the 
 philosophers ; the poets' fictions made them contemptible, and the 
 daily instances of impunity of sinners here, weakened the impres- 
 sions. Besides, evils that follow duty, and losses sustained, arc 
 sensible, present, certain, known, and so affect strongly, and there- 
 fore are not to be balanced by punishments, which are not, or ra- 
 ther, at least, are rarely executed in time, and whereof there is 
 little distinct evidence after time. For be it granted, that the 
 justice and holiness of God render it incredible that so many trans- 
 gressors as escape unpunished here, should get off so; yet certain 
 it is, that nature's light can no way inform what punishment shall 
 be inflicted. 
 
 5, Nature's light can never point us to examples which may 
 have any influence. There are but few of those who wanted re- 
 velation, even of the philosophers, who were not tainted with 
 gross vices. We have strange stories told of a Socrates ; and 
 3-et after all, he was but a sorry example of virtue. He is fre- 
 quently by Plato introduced swearing. He is known to have base- 
 ly complied with the way of worship followed by his own coun- 
 try, which was the more impious, that it is to be supposed to be 
 against the persuasion of his conscience ; yea, we find him with 
 his last brcTith, ordering his friend to sacrifice the cock he had 
 vowed to Esculapius. M. Dacier's apology for him is perfectly 
 impertinent. He is accused of impure amoure with Alcibiades, 
 and of prostituting his wife's chastity for gain. It is evident that 
 in the whole of his conduct, he shews but little regard to God. — 
 Such are the examples we are to expect here. We must give 
 full as bad account of \\\e famed Seneca, Avere it necessary to insist 
 on this head, Hot to mention others of less consideration. 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 115 
 
 Now to conclude, how shall we by nature's light be prevailed on 
 to obey, while it gives so unsatisfying discoveries of the law and 
 law-giver ? Can shew so little of present or future advantage by 
 obedience, or disadvantage by disobedience ? Nor can it offer any 
 examples that are worth following. 
 
 It is certain that the experience of the world justifies this ac- 
 counts What means it, that instances of any thing like virtue are 
 so rare where revelation obtains not ? Sure it must say one of two, 
 if not both ; that either nature's light presents no inducements suf» 
 ficient to influence practise, or that man is dreadfully corrupt : The 
 Deists may choose which, or both, and let them avoid the conse- 
 quences if they can. 
 
 It had been easy to have said a great deal more on this head. 
 The subject would have admitted of considerable enlargement ; 
 but this my design will not allow. I intend to keep close to the 
 argument, and run out no further than is of necessity for clearing 
 the force of that. And where the case is plain, as I take it to be 
 here, I content myself with touching at the heads which clear the 
 truth under debate. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Shewing the Importance of knowing the Origin of Sin to the 
 World, and the Defectiveness of Nature's Light as to this. 
 
 IT is not more clear that the Sun shines, than that the whole 
 world lies in wickedness. The creation groans under the weight 
 of this unwieldy load, which lies so heavy upon it, that it is the 
 wonder ef all who have any right notions of the justice or holiness 
 of God, that it is not sunk into nothing, or exquisite misery before 
 now. The Heathens made bitter complaints of it. And indeed 
 if their complaints had been left upon themselves, and had not been 
 turned into accusations of the holy God, none could have wonder- 
 ed at them, or condemned them. For it is manifest to any one 
 who will not stop his ears, put out his eyes, stifle his conscience, 
 forswear and abandon Ms reason, that the world' is full of sin ; 
 what nation or place is free of idolatnes, blasphemies, the raging 
 of pride, revenge, perjuries, rapes, adulteries, thefts, robberies, 
 murders, and other abominable evils innumerable ? And who sees 
 not, that all these are the effects of strong, prevailing, universal 
 and contagious corruptions and depraved inclinations ; from a sh^e 
 of which, no man can justly pretend himself free ? And if be 
 should, any one who strictly observes his waj, may easily implead 
 him, either cf gross ignorance or disingenuity. 
 
116 AN INaUlHY INTO THE 
 
 To know how things came to this pass with the world, and trace 
 this evil to its fountain, is a business of great importance to reli- 
 gion : Yea, of so much moment is it, that one can scarcely tell 
 how any thing like religion is to be maintained in tlie world, with- 
 out some competent knowledge of it. 
 
 1 . If this is not known, we can never make any right estimate 
 of the evil of sin. If men were by their original constitution, 
 without their own fault, made of so wicked or infirm a nature, as 
 that either they were inclined to it, or unable to resist tempta- 
 tions, amongst the throng of which they were placed, it is impos- 
 sible for them to look upon sin as so detestable an evil as really it 
 is ; or blame themselves so much for it, as yet they are bound to 
 do. If it is quite otherwise, and man was originally upright, and 
 fell not into this case, but by a fault justly chargeable on him, it 
 is certain, that quite other apprehensions of sin should be main- 
 tained. Now such as men's apprehensions are about the evil of 
 sin, such will their care be to avoid it, prevent it, or get it re- 
 moved. And who sees not, that the whole of religion is easily 
 reduced to these things ? 
 
 2. If the origin of sin is not understood, man can never under- 
 Etand what he is obliged to in the way of duty. If we derive 
 this weakness, wickedness and depraved inclination from our first 
 constitution, we can never look on ourselves as obliged to such an 
 obedience, as the rectitude, holiness, and purity of the divine na- 
 ture, seems to render necessary. And if we are uncertain as to 
 this, we shall never know how far our duty extends. And if we 
 know not what is required of us, how can we do it ? To say we 
 are bound to obey as far as we can, is to speak nonsense, and 
 what no way satisfies the difficulty : For this leaves us to judge of 
 our own power, opens a door to man to interpret the law as he 
 pleases, and charges God with such folly in the frame of the law, 
 as we dare scarcely charge on any human law-giver. 
 
 3. Without the knowledge of the origin of sin, we can never 
 know what measures to take, in subduing our corrupt inclinations. 
 If we know not of what nature they are, how they come to be in- 
 terwoven with our frame, and so much of a piece with ourselves, 
 we shall not know v/here to begin attempts for reformation, or if it 
 be practicable to eradicate them. Andi yet this must be done, 
 otherwise we cannot with any shew of reason project happiness. 
 But the rise of corruption being hid, we shall neither know what 
 it is to be removed or where to begin our work, nor how far suc- 
 cess to attempts of this kind may resaonably h,e hoped for. And 
 cf how destructive consequence this is to all religion, is easily 
 peen, 
 
 4. If the origin of sin is not known, we wiil.be at a loss what 
 thoughts to entertain of God's holiness, J7isiice and goodness, yea 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 117 
 
 and his wisdom too. If our natures were originally burdened with 
 those corrupt inclinations so twisted in with them, as now we find 
 them ; or if we were so infirm, as not to be able to resist a throng 
 of temptations, amons; which we were placed, we will scarcely be 
 able to entertain such a high regard for God's holiness, goodness 
 and wisdom in our make, or of his justice in dealing so by us.—' 
 « And if we suppose otherwise, we will still be confounded by our 
 darkness about any other way we can possibly think of, whereby 
 tilings were brought to this puss, and mankind so universally pre- 
 cipitated into so miserable a case. 
 
 5. If the origin of evil is not known, we shall never be able to 
 j.udge what estimate God will make of sin, whether he will look oa 
 it as so evil as to demerit any deep resentment, or otherwise. 
 
 6. Hereon it follows, that the whole state of our affairs with 
 God, will be quite darkened and become unintelligible. We shall 
 not know whether he shall animadvert so heavily on us for our sins, 
 as to ruin us, or so slightly pass over them, as not to call us to an 
 account. If the latter is supposed, obedience is mined ; consider- 
 ing what man's inclinations and temptations are : who will obey, if 
 no ruin or hurt is to be feared by sin ? If the former is supposed, 
 cur hope is ruined. We shall not know what value God will put 
 on our obedience, if this is not known ; whether he will not reject 
 it for the sinful defects cleaving to it. Nor shall we know whether 
 be will pardon us, or upon what terms, if we know not what 
 thoughts he has of sin. And this we know not, nor can we possi- 
 bly understand, unless we know how it came, and came to be so 
 twisted in with our natures. 
 
 Finally, hereon depends any tolerable account of the equity of 
 God's proceedings^ at least of his goodness in dealing so with the 
 world, subjecting it to such a train of miseries. If any thing of 
 sin is chargeable justly upon man's make and first constitution, it 
 will be much to clear his justice, but harder to acquit his goodness 
 in plaguing the world so. If otherwise, it will be easy to justify 
 God : but how then were men brought to this case ? 
 
 Thus we have shortly hinted at those grounds that clear the im- 
 portance of the case. An enlargement on them would have made 
 the dullest understand, that without some satisfying account of the 
 origin of evil, all religion is left loose. The judicious will easily 
 see it. It now remains that we make appear the insufficiency of 
 nature's light. To clear this point, it is evident if we consider, 
 
 1. That most of the wise men of the world have passed over 
 this in silence, as a speculation too hard and high. The effects of 
 it were so sensible, that they could not but notice them, as the 
 Egyptians did the overflowing of their Nile. But when they would 
 have traced these streams up to their source, they were forced to 
 quit it as an unequal chace. The reason whereof is ingenuously, 
 
118 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 as well as solidly given by the judicious Dr. Stillingfleet : " The 
 *' reason was, says he, as corruption increased in the world, so the 
 " means of instruction and knowledge decayed ; and so as the phe- 
 " nomena grew greater, the reason of them was less understood : 
 " The knowledge of the history of the first ages of the world, 
 *' through which they could alone come to the full understanding of 
 " the true cause of evil, insensibly decajang in the several nations ; 
 " insomuch that those who are not at all acquainted with that his- 
 " tory of the world, which was preserved in sacred records among 
 " the Jews, had nothing but their own uncertain conjectures to go 
 " by, and some kind of obscure traditions, which were preserved 
 " among them, which while they sought to rectify by their inter- 
 " pretations, they made them more obscure and false than they 
 « found them."* 
 
 2. Others who would needs appear more learned, but were re- 
 ally less wise, offered accounts, or pretended to say somewhat, ra- 
 ther to hide their own ignorance, than explain what they spoke of. 
 So obscure are they, that nothing can be concluded from what they 
 say, but that they were ignorant, and yet so disengenuous and 
 proud that they would not own it. Among this sort Plato is 
 reckoned, and with him Pythagoras, who tell us, " that the princi- 
 " pie of good is unity, finity, quiescent, streight, even number, 
 " square, right and splendid ; the principle of evil, binary, infinite, 
 " crooked, uneven, long of one side, unequal, wrong, obscure. "f Plu- 
 tarch as is noted by Dr. Stillingfleet, says, that the opinion of Pla- 
 to is very obscure, it being his purpose to conceal it ; but he safth 
 in his old age, in his book de Legibus, If }} 'uiviyfcu* vSi <tvf*,fioXv£e 
 without any riddle and allegory, he asserts the world to be moved 
 by more than one principle^ by two at the least ; the one of a good 
 and benign nature, the other contrart/ to it, both in its nature and 
 operations tj)» fttv ecyttBtjv Ht»t, TjjvJe ivxirixv rttirn >^ f"* tfxv- 
 T/Ain S'ti/tciupye)!- 
 
 3. Another, and perhaps the greater part, did plainly give the 
 most absurd and ridiculous, not to say blasphemous accounts of 
 this matter. Some pretending all the vitiosity inherent in mat- 
 ter, which they supposed not created. The folly as well as 
 wickedness of this opinion, is well laid open by the judicious per- 
 son last quoted. This was what Plato aimed at, as Dr. Stilling- 
 fleet clears from Numenius, a famous Syrian Platonic philosopher, 
 who is thought to have lived in the second century, who giving an 
 account of Pythagoras and Plato's opinions, says, Pythagoras ait, 
 *' Existente providentia, mala quoque necessario substitisse prop- 
 " terea quod sylva sit Sc eadem sit malitia pnedita : Platon&mqvt 
 
 • Origines sacrx, lib. 3. cap. 3. sect. 8. 
 t Origines, sacrx, ibid. sect. 11. 
 
PEINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 119 
 
 <* idem Nummvus lavdat, quod ditas mundi animas auhimnd ; un- 
 " am beneficentissimam ; malignam alteram soil. Si/lvam. Igi- 
 " tur juxta Plaionem mundo bona sua Dei, tanquam patris lib- 
 " eralitate collata sunt ; mala vera matris sylva vitio coko- 
 " rescunt"* The plain case is, they thought God and matter eter- 
 nally co-existeut, and that vitiosity was inherent in matter, and 
 that God could not mend it. To this purpose Maximus Tyrius, a 
 Platonic philosopher, who lived in the second century, speaks, 
 " That all the evils that are in the world, are not the works of art, 
 " but the affections of matter."f Seneca says, " Non potest ar- 
 *' tifex mutare materimn.^^X This way the Stoicks went. — 
 Though they who have studied them, pretend that there was 
 some difference betwixt Plato's opinion and theirs. They who 
 would desire a more full account both of these opinions, and the 
 absurdity and impiety of them, may have it from Dr. Stillingfleet, 
 but a great many of the philosophers plainly maintained two anti- 
 gods, the one good and the other evil. The Persians had their 
 Oromasdes, to whom they ascribed all the good, and Arimanius, on 
 whom they fathered all their evils. How many run this way, 
 any one may learn from Plutarch's discourse of Isis and Osiris, 
 and judge whether he himself was not of the same mind. What 
 was it that drove those great men on such wild conceits, which are 
 so absurd that they are not worth confuting ? Nothing else but 
 their darkness about the rise of sin. And how dismal were the 
 consequences of those notions and of this darkness ? What else 
 drove so great a part of the world to that madness, to worship even 
 the principle of evil I Was it not this, that they entertained per- 
 verse notions about the origin of evils, both of sin and punish- 
 ment ? 
 
 4. Not to insist on those absurd opinions, the latter accounts we 
 have of this matter, by persons who reject the scriptures, after 
 they have taken all the help from them they think meet though they 
 are more polished, are not one whit more satisfactory. For clearing 
 this we shall offer you the most considerable of this sort that have 
 occurred to us. We shall begin with Siraplicius a Phrygian philo- 
 sopher who lived in the fifth century, and was a great opposer of 
 the scriptures. He in his commentary upon the 34th chapter of 
 
 • " Although that there is a Providence, evils necessarily exist in the 
 " world, because matter exists in it, which is naturally the cause of evil.— 
 " And Numenius commends Plato who thought that there were two souls of 
 " the world, the one most beneficent, and the other, viz. matter, malicious. 
 " Therefore according to Plato, the good things that are in the world, are 
 *' conferred on it as it were by the liberality of its father, but the bad things 
 " that are in it, originate from the vitiosity of matter, which is its mother." 
 
 t Max. Ter. Scr. 25. 
 
 4 €eneca de Provid. " The \Yorkman cannot change the nature of the mat- 
 ** ter on wjbdch he works," 
 
120 AN INQUmY INTO THE 
 
 Epiotetus, speaks thus : " The soul of man is nexus utrimqut 
 
 ** mundi, in the middle between those more excellent beings', 
 
 « which remain abore (which he had taught to be incapable of 
 
 ** sin) with which it partakes in the sublimity of its nature and 
 
 ** understanding, and those inferior terrestrial beings, with which 
 
 " it communicates through the vital union which it hath with the 
 
 ** body, and by reason of that freedom and indifferency which it 
 
 ** hath, it is sometimes assimilated to the one, sometimes to the 
 
 ** other of those extremes. So that while it approacheth to the 
 
 ** nature of the superior beings, it keeps itself free from evil ; 
 
 ** but because of its freedom, it may sometimes sink down intd 
 
 " those lower things, and so he calls the cause of evil in the soulj 
 
 ** its voluntary descent into this lower world, and immersing itself 
 
 " in the feculency of terrestrial matter," much more he adds ; 
 
 but it all comes to this, " That because of the freedom of the will 
 
 ^* of man, nothing else can be said to be the author of evil, but 
 
 " the soul."* We have likewise an account from the Oracles of 
 
 Reason much to the same purpose. A. W. a deist in a letter to 
 
 Sir Charles Blount, answering an objection of Sir Charles Wolse- 
 
 ley, against the sufficiency of natural religion, gives this account : 
 
 This generally acknowledged lapse of nature, that it came, may 
 
 be discovered by natural light ; how it came, is reasonable to 
 
 conclude without revelation, namely, by a deviation from the 
 
 right rule of reason implanted in us ; how he came to deviate 
 
 from this rule, or lapse, proceeds from the nature of goodness^ 
 
 originally given us by our Creator, which reason tells us to be 
 
 an arbitrary state of goodness only ; therefore not a necessary 
 
 goodness to which our natures were constrained. In short our 
 
 fall proceeds from our not being able to reason rightly on every 
 
 thing we act, and with such beings we were created : For all 
 
 our actions are designed by us to some good which may arise 
 
 to us ; but we do not always distinguish rightly of that good : 
 
 we often mistake bomim apparens for the bonum reale. Der 
 
 cipimur specie recti. The bonum jumndmn for want of right 
 
 reasoning, is preferred to the bonum hovestnm ; and the bonum 
 
 viciniim, though it be less in itself, often carries it before the 
 
 bonum remotum, which is greater in its own nature. No man 
 
 ever held that we could appetere malum qua malum ;f and 
 
 therefore I wii! not grant him a total lapse in our natures from 
 
 God. For 'we see many born with virtuous inclinations ; and 
 
 ■ though all men at sometimes err, even the be&t, in their actions, 
 
 it only shews that we were not created to a necessitated good- 
 
 • Comment, in Epict. Cap. .34. 
 
 f " An apparent g'ood for a real good. — We are deceived by the appearance 
 of rectitude — A pleasing' g'ood is preferred to an honorable good, and a near 
 to a distant one, but we cannot desire evil as svil.'' 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 121 
 
 « ness. It is enough to prove no fatal lapse, that many are prov- 
 « ed, through the course of their lives, more prone to do. good 
 " than evil, and that all men do evil, only for want of right rea- 
 « fioning ; because the will necessarily follows the last dictate of 
 " the understanding;.''! The next and last whom we shall men- 
 tion, is the learned Herbert, whom the rest do but copy after. — 
 Thus then he accounts for it : " Quod ad malum culpce spedaf, 
 " hoc quidem non aliunde provenire, quern ah arhitrio illo omni- 
 " bus iiisito, ingenitoque, quod tanquam bonum eximium Deus 
 " optimus maximus nobis largitus est ; ex quo etiam a belluis 
 " magis quam ipso intellcdu distinguimur : quum tamen ades 
 " ancipitis sit naturce, ut in utramque partem fiedi possit sit ut 
 *' in malum scepe propendeat Sc dilabatur ; caterum per se est be- 
 " nejxcium plane divinum, ejusque ampliludJnis Sc pvcestantioi, ut 
 " citra illud, neque boni esse possemu^ : ecquis enim boni ali- 
 *' quid efficere dicitur, nisi quando in adversam partem datur op- 
 " tio ? Hinc igitnr malum culpa accidere, quod nohilissima 
 " animts facnltas, in nequiorem sua sponte partem^ nulloque co- 
 •' gente traducatur detorqueaturque.^^ 
 
 These three accounts, in several respects, run the same way. 
 It were easy however to set them by the ears in some considera- 
 ble particulars, and perhaps to shew the inconsistency of the se- 
 veral authors with themselves, on these heads : but this is not 
 my design to spend time on things, whereby truth will not gain 
 much : as, perhaps, they contain the sum of what reason can 
 say on the head, so v^'e shall now show how very far they are 
 from satisfying in the case. The substance of them may be re- 
 duced to these three propositions : 
 
 1 . That Man's body sways the soul, to which it is joined, to 
 things suitable to itself, which are evil. This Simplicius more 
 than insinuates. 
 
 2. That as reason is the guide of the will, which necessarily 
 follows its last dictate ; so the will's inclination to evil flows from 
 our not being able to reason rightly. This the Oracles of Rea- 
 son give plainly as a response in the words now quoted. 
 
 t Oracles of Rcison, pag. 197. 
 
 • De Religione Gentilium, Cap. 13, pag". 164.—" With regard to the evil 
 " of sin, this arises from no other source than our naturaV freedom of will, 
 " which God the best and greatest has bestowed on us as a distinguished 
 " blessing, and by which we are distinguished from the brutes even more 
 " than by reason itself. But as this blessing is of so ambiguons a kind, that 
 " it may be turned either way, it happens that it often inclines to evil and 
 " goes astray. Yet, in itself it is certainly a divine blessing, and of such .in 
 " extent and excellency, that without it we could not be good. For who is 
 " ever paid to do good, unless when he had it in his choice to act in a difter- 
 " ent manner ? The evil of sin therefore proceeds from hence, that the most 
 '• noble faculty of the soul, of its own accord, and without any one forcing 
 " it, is drawn away and turned to the wrong side." 
 
 16 
 
122 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 3. The will is ancipitis naturee,'^ perfectly indifferent, equallj 
 capable of, and swayed to evil and good. This all the three 
 concur in. It is like a nice balance which stands even, but is 
 easily swayed to either side. 
 
 But now it is easy to multiply difficulties against this account, 
 and show how it no way clears, but rather involves the matter 
 more. And, 
 
 1 . I would desire to know whether that inferior part, the body, 
 or terrestrial part of man, call it which you will, sways to any 
 thing, not suited to its original frame and perfection, or not ? If 
 it aims at nothing, bends or inclines to nothing, but what is per- 
 fective of itself, I desire to know how that can be faulty ? How 
 can this body be made a part of a composition, wherein it is faulty 
 for it to aim at what is truly perfective of its nature ? How can 
 it be criminal for the soul to aim at ennobling and satisfying the ca- 
 pacities of that, which is so nearly united to itself ? How is it 
 consistent with the wisdom of God, to unite two beings, the one 
 whereof cannot reach its own perfection without hurt to the 
 other ? If it is said, that it inclines to what contributes not to its 
 own perfection ; then I desire to know how it came to be so de- 
 praved as to have a tendency to its own detriment ? How was it 
 consistent with the wisdom of God to make it so ? How was it 
 consistent with the goodness of Qod to associate it when so made, 
 with another more noble being to which it must prove a burden ; 
 yea, which must sway to that, which proves the ruin of the whole 
 composition ? And how can man be blamed for doing that, to 
 which his nature inevitably must carry him ? For if he is thus 
 compounded, his body, earthly part, or lower faculties sway 
 to evil ; his will is equally inclinable to both ; and, in this case, 
 how can the composition be otherwise, than depraved ? For my 
 part I see not how it could be otherwise ; or how God can just- 
 ly punish it for being so, upon the supposition laid down. 
 
 2. If it be asserted that Me are not, by our original constitution 
 able to reason rightly, in what concerns our own duty, as we have 
 heard from the Oracles of Reason ; then I desire to know if we 
 are not necessitated by our very make and constitution to err ? If 
 we are to believe, what the same Oracle utters, that the will must 
 follow neccssaiily the understanding ; then I desire to know, if we 
 are not necessitated to sin ? If things are thus and thus, we must 
 either believe them to be, or believe that this Oracle gives a 
 false response ; then I desire to know, how God could make us ne- 
 cessarily evil ? How can he punish us for it ? Can this be recon- 
 ciled with the rest of this doctrine, about the arbitrary state of 
 man's goodness ? I might ask not a few other queries, but per- 
 haps these will suffice. 
 
 * Of a doubtful nature. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 123 
 
 3. If the will be, in its own nature, perfectly free and indiffer- 
 ent, then I desire to know, whether there is any thing in that com- 
 position, whereof it is a part, or to which it is joined, or any thing 
 in the circumstances wherein man is placed, swaying it to the 
 worst side ? If there is any thing either in man's constitution or 
 circumstances, swaying him wrong ; then I desire to know, is 
 there any thing to balance them ? Whether there is or is not 
 any thing to keep him even ? I would desire to know how 
 any thing came to be in his constitution, to sway him wrong ? If 
 there is any thing to balance these inducements to sin, or inclina- 
 tions, then man is perfectly indifferent still ; and about this we 
 ghall speak anon. If there is a will, equally capable of good and 
 evil, and man has somewhat in his constitution or circumstances, 
 at least swaying him to evil, then I desire to know how it was 
 posisible for him to evite it ? If he has nothing determining him 
 more to evil than to good, or if any thing that inclines to evil ie 
 balanced, by other things of no less force determining and sway- 
 ing him to good, then many things may be enquired : how comes 
 it to pass, that though man is equally inclinable to good or evil, 
 that almost all men choose evil ? Yea, I need not put an almost 
 to it. It is a strange thing to supppose all men equally disposed 
 to good or evil, and yet none choose the good. 
 
 4. I do not know how this notion of man's liberty, which is 
 easily granted to be in itself, if the notion of it is rightly stated, 
 a perfection, will take with considerate men, that it consists in a. 
 perfect indifferency to good or evil ; for if this is a necessary per- 
 fection of the rational nature, without which it cannot be called 
 good, as Herbert clearly asserts, in his words above quoted ; 
 then I ask, what shall become of those natures unalterably good, 
 of which Simplicius talks ? Is it absurd to suppose, that there 
 may be such ? Are they, if they be, less perfect, because in- 
 capable of that which debases and depraves them ? Is God 
 good, who has beyond dispute no such liberty as this ? Is an in- 
 differency to commit sin or not to sin, a great perfection ? If it be, 
 is it greater than not to be capable of sinning ? They may embrace 
 this notion of liberty who will, and fancy themselves perfect, I 
 •hall not for this, reckon them so. 
 
 5. This account of man as equally inclined to good or evil, is 
 cither an account of man's case as he now is, or as at first made : 
 If man is now otherwise, to wit, inclined more to evil than to 
 good, how came he to be so ? This is the difficulty we desire to 
 be satisfied about. If this be the case he was made in, and still 
 continues in, then, I say, it is utterly false, and contradictory to the 
 cars, eyes and conscience of all the Avorld. "Who sees not that 
 man is plainly, strongly, and I may add universally, inclined to 
 evil ? The wiser heathens have owned it. And it is plainly 
 
124 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 made out against the most impudent denier. Hieroclis' words, 
 as I find them translated by an excellent person, are memorable 
 to this purpose. " Man, says he, is of his own motion, inclined 
 " to follow the evil and leave the good. There is a certain strife 
 " bred in his affections ; he hath a free will which he abuseth, 
 " binding himself wholly to encounter the laws of God. And 
 *' this freedom itself is nothing else, but a willingness to admit 
 *' that which is not good, rather than otherwise."* This is a 
 true state of the matter from a heathen. 
 
 6. The supposition of man's being made perfectly indifferent is 
 injurious to God, who cannot be supposed, without reflection on 
 him, to have put man in such a case. The least that can be said, 
 preserving the honor due to the divine excellencies, is that God 
 gave a law to man, suitable to the rectitude of his own nature and 
 to man's happiness and perfection ; that he endued him with an 
 ability to know this law, the obligations he lay under to obey it, 
 and the inducements that might have fortified him in his obedi- 
 ence against the force of any temptation which he might meet 
 with. If this be not asserted, it will not be possible to keep 
 God from blame, which all that oAvn him, are concerned to take 
 care of : for how could he bind man to obey a law, which he did 
 not make known to him, or at least gave him a power to know ? If 
 he laid him open to temptations, and made him incapable of dis- 
 covering what might antidote their force, if he m ould use it, what 
 shall we think of his goodness ? Further, we must own that the 
 will of man was made inclinable, though not immutably so, to its 
 own perfection : how else was it worthy of its author ? Finally, 
 we must own that man had no affection or inclination in him, that 
 was really contradictory to that law which he was subjected to, 
 and Avhich tended to his happiness and perfection. If this is de- 
 nied, then I ask, were not these inclinations sinful ? Was that 
 being worthy of God, that had no tendency to its own perfection ? 
 But on the contrary, v\'^hat was inclinable to its own ruin ? 
 
 7. This being the least, that can without manifest reproach to 
 the wisdom, goodness and justice of the Creator, be supposed in 
 favor of man's original constitution ; I desire to know, is this the 
 case still or is it not ? If it is not, then how came it to be other- 
 wise ? How comes man really to be worse now, than at first T 
 How is this consistent with the deist's principles, that there is 
 no lapse ? If it be asserted, we are in the same state still, how 
 then comes all the world to be full of wickedness ? How is this 
 reconciieahle with the experiences and consciences of men, that 
 assurer! them of the contrary ? 
 
 8. If it be thought enough to resolve all this, as to actual fallings, 
 
 * Hieroclis Carmin. Aur. Transl. Reas. of Script, Belief, png'. 146. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 125 
 
 Into the choice of man ; yet what shall we say as to tliat darkness 
 as to duty, which we heard the Deists confessing, in their Oracles 
 of Reason ? How came that inability to reason rightly, which we 
 have before demonstrated man under, and which our adversaries 
 will own ! Again, how come we to have vicious inclinations so 
 strongly rooted in our natures ! Strong they are ; for they trample 
 upon our light, the penalties of laws divine and human ; yea and the 
 smartings of our own conscience. The drunkard and unclean per- 
 son finds his health ruined, and yet in spite of all this, his inclina- 
 tion makes him run on in the vice that has ruined him : and the like 
 is evident in other cases innumerable. Deeply rooted they are ; 
 They are some way twisted in with the constitutions of our body, 
 and no less fixed in our souls. So fixed they are, that, though our 
 own reason condemns them, it cannot remove them. Though 
 sometimes fear restrains them as to the outward acts ; yet it can- 
 not eradicate the inclination. Instruction and all human endeavors 
 cannot do it. The famed Seneca that understood so much, who un- 
 dertook to teach others, and perhaps has spoken and writ better than 
 most of the Heathens ; yet by all his knowledge and all his endea- 
 vors, owns this corruption so deeply rooted in himself, that he ex- 
 pected not to get rid of it. Non jjerveni ad sanitatem, ne perveniam 
 quidem : delinimentia magis qnam remedia podagrce, mece compono 
 contentus si rarius accedat, <§• si minus ierminatur.* 
 
 9. Not only so, but further, how come these inclinations to be 
 born with us? Togrowupwith us? That they a»e so, is evident. We 
 no sooner begin to act than to act perversely. We no sooner shew 
 any inclinations, than we shew that our inclinations are evil. Yea, 
 among Christians, where there are many virtuous persons, who give 
 the best example, the best instruction, and use the best discipline for 
 the education of their children in virtue, yet we see the children 
 discover inclinations so strong, as are not to be restrained by all these 
 endeavors, much less eradicated : and so early are they there, that 
 they cannot be prevented by the most timeous care. 
 
 10. It will not help the matter to tell us, that there are some born 
 with virtuous inclinations. Fori. If all are not so, the difficulty 
 remains. How came these to be born otherwise, of whom we 
 have been speaking ! How came their frame to be different from, 
 nay, and worse than that of others ! Are they under the same law ? 
 If so, why have they more impediments, and less power of obedi- 
 ence ? 2. We would be glad to see the persons condescended on, 
 that are void of vicious inclinations, that we might ask them some 
 questions. You say you are born with virtuous inclinations. Well, 
 but have you no ill inclinations ? If you are no drunkard, adulterer, 
 
 „ * ". ^ ^^ ""* '^"'"^ ^" ^ noiind state, nor shall I ever arrive at it. I am com- 
 posing palliatives rather than remedies for my g-out, being content if it at- 
 tacks mo more seldom, .ind proves less violent." 
 
126 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 &c. yet have you no inclination to pride, prodigality, neglect of 
 God, covetousness, or somewhat like ? I fear the man that can an- 
 swer plainly in the negative here, will not be easily found. And 
 till we see him, we deny there is any such. 3. To confirm this, 
 several persons, whom the world has looked on as virtuously inclined 
 from their infancy, have, when seriously acquainted with Christian- 
 ity, owned that they were as wickedly inclined as others ; only by 
 the help of their constitution, they were not so much prompted to 
 those evils, which are most observed and condemned in the world. 
 And this account has been given by persons of judgment, whose 
 capacity, nor ingenuity cannot reasonably be questioned. Finally, 
 the ground whereon A. W. pronounces against an universal lapse, 
 viz. That we cannot appetere malum qua malumy* is ridiculous : 
 For this is a thing perfectly inconsistent, not only with the due ex- 
 ercise, but the very nature of our rational faculties : And if not- 
 withstanding this impossibility of any man's desiring evil as evil, so 
 many are deeply corrupted, no imaginable reason can be assigned, 
 why all men may not be so, without supposing that we can appetere 
 malum qua malum. 
 
 To conclude then, it is upon the whole evident, that reason can 
 never trace this matter to its proper source. Our consciences 
 condemn us indeed, and so acquit the Deity. But without reve- 
 lation we can never understand upon what grounds we are con- 
 demned by ourselves, nor how the Deity is to be justified ; and so 
 this sentence of our consciences involves the matter more, and in- 
 creases the difficulty. It is not from any distinct view of the par- 
 ticular way how we come to be guilty, and how God comes to be 
 free of blame, that conscience is led to this sentence. And there- 
 fore, how to come to any satisfaction about the matter, that may 
 liberate us from the inconveniences above mentioned, which are 
 really subversive of all religion, and can reasonably be supposed 
 available to us, reason can never satisfy us. 
 
 Since these gentlemen, with whom we have to do, find it their 
 interest to deny any lapse, I shall, to what has been said, add a 
 short, but judicious and solid confirmation of this, from a person of 
 a more than ordinary reach, I mean Dr. How : who, after he has 
 quoted many testimonies from Heathen authors, proving this lapse, 
 reasons for it, and confirms it further from arguments not easily to 
 be answered : His words run thus, " If we consider, can it be so 
 " much as imaginable to us, that the present state of man is his 
 " primitive state, or that he is now such as he was at first made ? 
 *' For neither is it conceivable, that the blessed God should have 
 " made a creature with an aversion to the only important ends, 
 « whereof it is naturally capable : Or particularly that he created 
 
 • Desire evil as evil. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 127 
 
 " man, with a disaffection to himself; or, that ever he at first, de- 
 « signed a being of so high excellency, as the spirit of man to 
 « trudge so meanly, and be so basely servile to terrene inclinations ; 
 « or, since there are manifestly powers in him, of a superior and 
 " inferior sort and order, the meaner should have been by original 
 " institution framed to command ; and the more noble and excel- 
 ** lent, only to obey and serve ; as every one that observes, may 
 " see the common case with man is. 
 
 " And how far he is swerved from what he was, is easily con- 
 •' jecturable by comparing him with the measures, which shew 
 " what he should be. For it cannot be conceived for what end 
 " laws were ever given him ; if at least we allow them not to be 
 " the measures of his primitive capacity, or deny him ever to 
 " have been in a possibility to obey. Could they be intended for 
 " his government if conformity to them were against or above his 
 " nature ? Or were they only for his condemnation ? Or for what, 
 " if he was never capable of obeying them ? How inconsistent were 
 " it with the goodness of the blessed God, that the condemnation 
 " of his creatures should be the first design of his giving them 
 " laws .' 'And with his justice, to make his laws the rule of punish- 
 ** ment, to whom they could never be the rule of obedience and 
 <' duty ! Or with his wisdom, to frame a system and body of laws, 
 " that should never serve for either purpose ! And so be upon the 
 " whole useful for nothing. The common reason of mankind 
 " teacheth us to estimate the wisdom and equity of law-givers, by 
 *• the suitableness of their constitutions to the genius and temper 
 " of the people for whom they are made ; and we commonly 
 " reckon nothing can more slur and expose a government, than the 
 " imposing of constitutions, most probably impracticable, and 
 " which are never likely to obtain. How much more incongruous 
 " must it be esteemed to enjoin such as never possibly could ! 
 " Prudent legislators, and studious of the common good, would be 
 " shy to impose upon men, under their power, against their ge- 
 " nius and common usages, neither easily alterable, nor to any ad* 
 " vantage ; much more absurd were it, with great solemnity, and 
 " weighty sanctions, to enact statutes for bnite creatures : and 
 " wherein were it more to purpose, to prescribe unto men strict 
 " rules of piety and virtue, than to beasts or trees, if the former 
 ' " had not been capable of observing them, as the latter were not."* 
 I believe the Deists will not easily overthrow this nervous dis- 
 course. 
 
 I)r. How's Living Temple, Part 2, page 121, 122. 
 
128 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 Proving Nature's Light unable to discover the Means of obtain- 
 ing Pardon of Sin, or to sheiv that it is attainable. 
 
 THAT all have sinned is sufficiently clear from the foregoing 
 discourse. That it is of importance to understand the rise of sin, 
 and that nature's light is unable to trace its original, has been like- 
 wise evinced. But all this were indeed of less consideration, if 
 nature's light could assure us of pardon, or direct as to the means 
 wherebj' it may be obtained. But here it is no less defective, than 
 as to the former. That we are all guilty of sin even the deists do 
 acknowledge ; the Oracles of Reason own that all men at some- 
 times err, even the best, in their actions. And the evidence of it 
 is such, that none can get over the truth, if he is not plainly r&- 
 solved to deny what is most evident. Now this being the case, 
 that we have all transgressed, it is of the highest importance to 
 know whether God will pardon us, or upon what terms he will do it ? 
 If he punish us, what a case are we in ? How can they who fear 
 punishment expect rcAvards ! But because this is a difficulty of no 
 small importance, and the Deists, since they see they cannot clear 
 it, make their business to obscure the importance of the case, and 
 render it more involved ; we shall, therefore, 
 
 1. State the case, and clear the importance of it. 
 
 2. Discover the weakness of nature's light about it. 
 
 S. Speak fully to a particular exception about repentance. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 Wherein the Importance of the Difficnlfji/ is stated. 
 
 If the Deists should allow sin to be so great an evil, as we pre- 
 tend it is, it would exceedingly embarrass them ; therefore they 
 labour to smooth the matter by telling us, that either it is no evil, 
 or one of not ^o great consideration, as is commonly imagined : but 
 the wildness and unreasonableness of this attempt will be easily 
 shewn, by a consideration of the evil of sin. It is not my design 
 to write largely on this head, but only to condescend on a few of 
 those considerations, whereon we insist for proving sin to be ex- 
 ceeding sinful : which, although they are built on rational grounds, 
 yet we are led to them by the assistance of revealed light. 
 
 1 . Sin is a transgression of a km; the highest law, the law of 
 the supreme and righteous Governor of the world. Where there is 
 no larv, there is no transgression. And such as the law is, sucIj 
 is the transgression. There is no more just \\-9y of measuring the 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 129 
 
 tvil of sin, than by considering the law it violates. The law bears 
 the impress of the highest authority, that of the Supreme Ruler 
 of the Universe. Every transgression must therefore import, if 
 not a contempt, yet certainly a want of due regard to this author- 
 ity, which, how criminal it is in man, who is as to being, preserva- 
 tion and well-being, every way dependent, is easily understood. — 
 Moreover, this law is not a mere arbitrary appointment, but such 
 as is the necessary result of the nature of God and man ; and 
 therefore the violation of it, imports no less, than an accusation of 
 the rectitude of God's nature, whence the law results ; and charges 
 unsuitableness thereto, upon the nature of man, as being so 
 made, that, without wrong to itself, it cannot be subject to the 
 rule of God's government. And who sees not how deeply this re- 
 flects on God ? 
 
 2. Sin contradicts the great design of man's being. God made 
 us, and not we ourselves. It is blasphemy to alledge, that infinite 
 wisdom made so noble a creature as man without design. Nor can 
 it reasonably be pretended, that the chief aim of God in making 
 him was any other, than his having the self-satisfaction of having 
 acted as became him, and having made a work every way worthy 
 of his wisdom and holiness. And since man also Avas capable of 
 proposing designs, it is foolish to imagine, that God either could 
 or would allow him to make any other his chief end than the plea- 
 sure of God ; or acting so as to make it appear that he was every 
 way worthy of his Author. But when man sins he plainly coun- 
 teracts what God designed, and he was obliged to design ; for he 
 pleases not God, but himself, and this is doing what in him lies to 
 frustrate God of the design he had in his work, and debase the 
 being and powers given him for the honor of God by employing 
 them against him, and using them in contradiction to his declared 
 will. 
 
 3. Sin misrepresents God. The works of God bear an impress 
 of God's wisdom and power. Man only was made capable of repre- 
 senting his moral perfections, his holiness, justice, truth, and the 
 like. But when he sins, he not only fails of his duty, but really 
 misrepresents God his maker, as one who approves sin, that is di- 
 rectly cross to his will, Avhich is ever congruous to the holiness of 
 his nature ; or, at least, as one, who either wants will or power to 
 crush the contravener; and so he is represented either as unholy, 
 or impotent; or one, who can tamely allow his will to be counter- 
 acted by a creature that he has made and sustains. But what hor- 
 rid reflections are these on the holy God ? 
 
 4. Sin accuses God of want of wisdom and goodness in appoint- 
 ing laws which were not for his creature's good, and he could not 
 obey without detriment ; of envy, in barring the creature by a law, 
 from that which is necessary to his happiness ; of insufficiency, to 
 
 17 
 
V30 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 satisfy the creature he has made, while he is obliged to seek for 
 that elsewhere, which is not to be found in him, in the way of obe- 
 dience ; and of folly, in making such a law, as cannot be expected 
 to be obeyed, in regard the creature subjected to it, gains more by 
 breaking than by keeping of it. 
 
 Finally, to crown all, sin dethrones God, and sets the creature 
 in his room. l^he honor of God's law and authority, and the 
 sinner's good, are wickedly supposed to be inconsistent, and tlie 
 latter is preferred. The will of the Creator and creature cross 
 one another, and the creature's will is preferred. The friendship, 
 favour, and sufficiency of Deity is laid in balance against some 
 other imaginary good, and decision is given against God. These 
 are a few of the many evils of sin. They are not strained ones. 
 This is not a rhetorical declamation against sin, wherein things are 
 unjustly aggravated to raise odium against it ; but a plain account 
 of a few of the evils of it, which yet is infinitely short of w^hat 
 the case would admit. But who can fully represent the evil that 
 strikes against infinite goodness, holiness, justice, wisdom, and 
 sjipreme authority ? Who can unfold its aggravations; save he who 
 knows what God is, and what he is to man, and what man is, and 
 how many ways he is dependent on, subject, obliged and indebted 
 to God ? Well therefore may sin be said to have an infinity of evil 
 in it. 
 
 The Deists, to evade the difficulties arising from this evil of sin, 
 take different courses. Some plainly deny any such thing as evil, 
 or that there is any thing morally good or bad. Thomas Aiken- 
 head, who Avas executed at Edinburgh, Januarys, 1697, for his 
 blasphemies, in his paper he delivered from the scaffold, tells us 
 what his thoughts were in this matter, and upon what grounds they 
 were built. When in his rational inquiries he came to consider, 
 whether vre were capable of offending God, he tells us, " That 
 " after much pondering and serious consideration, he concluded 
 " the negative." The famed Mr. Hobbs was not of a very differ- 
 ent mind, for he plainly asserts, " That there is nothing good or 
 *' evil in itself, nor any common laws constituting what is naturally 
 " just or unjust : but all things are to be measured by what every 
 " man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government ; and by the 
 " laws of society, where there is one." And elsewhere, " Before 
 " men entered into a state of civil government, there was not any 
 " thing just or unjust, forasmuch as just and unjust are the rela- 
 " tlves of human laws ; every action being in Itself indifferent." 
 And whether Spinoza was not of the same mind, is left to those to 
 judge, who have time and leisure to trace his meaning, in his ob- 
 scure and designedly involved way of writing. But surely this 
 proposition in his Atheistical ethicks looks very like it : " Si ho- 
 " mines liberi nascerentur (liber aukm est juxta Spinozam, q\ii 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 131 
 
 « secundum dudum'vel ex ductu rationis agit) nullum boni ^ mail 
 « formarent conceptum, quamdiu liberi essent"* Mr. Hobbs 
 has been learnedly confuted by many, such as Dr. Cumberland, 
 Mr. Tyrell, and almost all who write of the law of nature. Spi- 
 noza has likewise been examined by Wittichius and many others. 
 The first, viz. Thomas Aikenhead, his grounds I shall purpose 
 and examine. 
 
 The first in his own words runs thus, " I thought, says he, a 
 " great part of morality, if not all, proceeded ex arbiirio homi- 
 " num,-f as of that of a kingdom, or commonwealth, or what most 
 *' men think convenient for such and such ends, and these ends 
 *' are always terminated upon being congruous to the nature of 
 " things ; now we see that according to men's fancies, things are 
 ** congruous or incongruous to their natures, if not to the body, 
 *' yet to the thinking faculty." 
 
 The sum of this confused discourse, which probably he learned 
 from Hobbs, amounts to this : God has fixed no law to our moral 
 actions, by which they are to be regulated. These which are 
 called moral laws, are only the determinations of governments, or 
 the concurring judgment of men, concerning what they think 
 meet to be done for their own ends. That which some judge 
 meet and congruous, others may find unsuitable to their nature 
 and ends, and so are not obliged to obey. But 1. Are not all 
 these ungrounded assertions, whereof no proof is offered, but the 
 author's deluded fancy ? Has it not been irrefragably demonstrated 
 by as many as discourse of moral good and evil, that antecedently 
 to any government among men, we are under a law, the law of 
 nature, and that this is the will of God. 2. If all these had kept 
 silence, does not the thing itself speak ? What can be more evi- 
 dent, than that there is a law of nature, and that this is the law of 
 God ? We are certain, that we are made of rational natures, capa- 
 ble of laws and government. We are no less sure that God made 
 us, and made us so. It is self-evident, that to him who made us, 
 it belongs to govern, and dispose of us to those ends for which we 
 were made. And we by our very beings are bound to obey, sub- 
 mit, and subject ourselves to his will and pleasure, who made us 
 and on whom we every way depend, and therefore his will, if he 
 make it known, is a law, and the highest law to us. Again, it is 
 clear that this reason, if we attend to it, tells us that some things 
 are to be done, and ^me things left undone ; such as these, that 
 we are to serve, love, obey and honor him that made us, upholds 
 us, and on whom we every way depend ; that we are to carry to- 
 
 • " If men were bom free (and he is free according to Spinoza, who acts 
 " according to the gaiidance of reason) they would form no conception of 
 " good or evil, as long as they were free." 
 
 t " From the will of man." 
 
133 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 ward our fellow-creatures, as it becomes those, who have the 
 same original with us, who are subjected to Ihe same rule, are 
 obliged to pursue the same ends ; and that we are to dispose o four- 
 selves as the author of our nature allows us. These are all, if not 
 self-evident, yet next to it, and easily deducible from principles 
 that are so. Further, the reason that is implanted in us by God, 
 tells us so, we are to take what it leads us to, while duly used, as 
 the will of God, and so a law to us. " For whatever judgment 
 " God makes a man with, concerning either himself, or other 
 " things, it is God's judgment, and whatever is his judgment is a 
 " law to man ; nor can he neglect or oppose it without sin, being 
 " in his existence made with a necessary subjection to God. Such 
 " and such dictates being the natural operations of our minds, the 
 *' being and essential constitution of which, in right reasoning, we 
 " owe to God ; we cannot but esteem them the voice of God 
 " within us, and consequently his law to us."* 
 
 What he tells us of men's different apprehensions, about what 
 is right or wrong makes nothing to the purpose. That only shews 
 that in many instances we are in the dark as to what is good and 
 evil, which is granted ; but will not infer that there is no fixed 
 measure of good and evil. In many general truths, all who apply 
 themselves to think, understand the terms, and have the truths 
 proposed, do agree. And perhaps, all that is knowable of our du- 
 ty by the light of nature, is deducible from such principles of 
 morality, as all rational men who have them fairly proposed to 
 them, must assent to. And deductions from laws, when duly 
 made, are of equal authority with the principles from which they 
 are inferred. And finally, when men, in pursuance of their per- 
 verse natures, follow what is cross to those dictates of reason, they 
 are condemned by their consciences, which shews them under the 
 obligation of a law, and that acting in a congruity to their natures 
 as corrupt, is not the standard they are obliged to walk by, since 
 their own reason checks them for doing it. They who would de- 
 sire to liave this matter fully discoursed, may read others who 
 have done it designedly, of whom there is great plenty. 
 
 His second reason runs thus : " Also, we do not know what is 
 " good or evil in itself, if not thus ; whatsoever can be attributed 
 " to God, that is good ; and M'hat cannot, is evil. And we know 
 " not what can be attributed to God, but such things as by a de- 
 " duction we ascribe to him, we call perfect,^ and such as we deny 
 " to be in him, we call imperfect, and so we must ignorantly com- 
 " mit a circle. There is no other notion of things in themselves 
 " good or evil." 
 
 Sir Charles Wolseley's Scripture Belief, page 32, 33- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE iMODERN DEISTS. 133 
 
 It is much harder to find the sense of these words, if they have 
 any, than to answer the argument. The design of it is to prove 
 that there is no standard whereby we may judge what is good ant! 
 what is evil. The force of the argument amounts to this, that 
 there is no way how we come to know any thing to be good, but 
 by this, that it may be ascribed to God. But we cannot know 
 whether it is to be ascribed to God, unless we know that it is per- 
 fect or good. 
 
 This is thin sophistry, which I might easily expose, were it to 
 any purpose to discover the weakness of that, which its author 
 was ashamed of and disowned. As to the first proposition, " that 
 there is no other way to know whether any thing be good or evil, 
 hut this, that it can or cannot be ascribed to God." 1. The com- 
 plex proposition is false ; for there are other ways whereby we 
 may know things to be good or evil. And this holds whether we 
 take it in a physfcal or moral sense. We know that to be morally 
 good which God enjoins us to do. We know the will of God in 
 some instances, from the nature God has given us ; and from these 
 instances our reason can infer others. As to physical good, we 
 know things to be good or perfect, by acquaintance with the nature 
 of things, and by the self-evident notions of perfection : for there 
 are some things, such as dependence, subjection, and the like, 
 which without any reasoning about the matter, we understand to 
 be imperfect or perfect. As soon as we understand the terms, and 
 know that a perfection is that which it is better for any being to 
 have than to want : and then what these particular words, depen- 
 dence, subjection, &c. signify. This alone overthrows his whole 
 argument. 2. The maxim which he fixes as a standard, that it is 
 good which may be ascribed to God, and that is not good which 
 may not be ascribed to him ; if it is taken in its full extent, it is 
 false as to moral good, of which the only question is : for it is cer- 
 tain, that it is good for man to be a dependent, a subject, &c. 
 which cannot be ascribed to God. If it is taken in a physical 
 sense, it is not to the purpose ; and besides, it would even in this 
 sense need some caution. 
 
 As to his other proposition, " That Me cannot otherwise know 
 what is to be ascribed to God, than by knowing that it is good or 
 perfect," it can scarcely be supposed to speak of good in a moral 
 sense ; and in any other sense it is impertinent. If it is under- 
 stood in a moral sense it is likewise false, fur we may know that 
 things which are not in their own nature moral perfections, belonsj 
 to Got!, such as power, omnipresence, &c. If it be understood 
 in any other sense, we have nothing to do with it. 
 
 The next head that he adds is, " That all men will confess that 
 " any thing may be morally evil and good also, and consequently 
 " any thing decent or indecent, moral or immnral. Neither^ 
 
134 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 *' though there were things in themselves evil, (if we do not ap- 
 " prehend other things instead of them) can we have any inclina*- 
 " tion thereunto ? Otherwise the will could wish evil." 
 
 But 1. Who will grant him (in any other sense that will be 
 subservient to his purpose) that all actions are indifferent ? I know 
 none but men of his own principles. 2. As for what he pre- 
 tends, that we cannot incline to that which is in its own nature 
 evil, unless it be under the notion of good, I see not what this 
 says for him ; it is enough that we can do that action which is 
 evil and prohibited, yea, and which we know is prohibited, to con' 
 stitute sin and make the sinner deeply guilty. 
 
 But not to insist any further on this inconsiderable trifler, whose 
 undigested notions scarce deserve the consideration we have given 
 them ; and much less did they become the awful gravity of the 
 place where they were delivered. There are others of the deists 
 who think it not safe to venture thus far : because in effect thi« 
 overthrows all religion and establishes plain atheism : yet they 
 may mince the matter and lessen sin as much as they can. 
 
 Herbert goes this way, telling us the sinner's excuse, that *' 1 . 
 " Homines simt natura sua fragiles peccatoque obnoxii. 2. 
 *' Peccata hominum non tarn in Dei contumeliam, quam in pro- 
 " priam utilitalem, sub boni alicujus apparentis obtentu fieri ple- 
 " rumque ; ac licet in eo homines fallerentuTi nihil tamen infen- 
 *' so in Deum animo patratum esse.'^^ That is, " Men are by 
 " nature frail and liable to sin : and they do not sin out of con- 
 " tempt of God, but for their own profit, while sin appears un- 
 " der the shew of good. And although in this men are deceiv-* 
 " ed, yet there is nothing done with any ill design against God." 
 
 A. W. in his letter to Charles Blount, pleads, " That though 
 " the offence is committed against an infinite being, we are but 
 " finite creatures, who commit sin."f 
 
 But now, as to the first of these reasons and excuses, I fear, if 
 it plead any thing, it casts the fault over on God. Are we to ex- 
 cuse ourselves from our frailty ? Well, either we are made so frail 
 that we are not able to obey, or we are not ; if we are able to 
 obey, then where is the excuse when God requires no more of 
 us than he gave us power to perform ? If we are not able, then 
 how came God to subject us to a law we were not able to obey ? 
 If we have rendered ourselves unable, is not this our fault ? 
 
 As to the second, " that w^e do not sin out of contempt of the 
 Deity, but for our own advantage." I answer, 1. The princi- 
 ple that the sinner goes on, according to this apology made for 
 him, viz. I'hat the thing he does, though it crosses the law of 
 God, yet makes for his own advantage, is highly injurious to, and 
 
 • De Relig'. Gentilium, Cap. 5. page 199. 
 7 Oracles of Reason. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 135 
 
 Wasphemous against God : for it supposes that God has barred 
 man from what contributes to his happiness, and supposes that 
 more advantage is to be had by disobedience, which is a high ag- 
 gravation of the fault, 2, I will not grant him, that there is no 
 opposition in the heart to God. What though there be not plain, 
 declared, direct and open hostility ; yet there is an alienation of 
 affection, aversion from converse with, and a neglect of God to be 
 found with all in more or less, of which their actions are a suffi- 
 cient proof. 
 
 As to the third, " that an offence, though against an infinite 
 God, is lessened by the consideration of the sinner's being finite :" 
 I answer, 1. This excuse pleads for all sin alike : for let the sin- 
 ner sin never so deeply, yet he is finite still. 2. If this be well 
 considered, it is perfectly ridiculous : for the measure of sin, its 
 greatness is not to be taken this way, but the contrary ; for 
 provided the object against whom it is committed is infinite, the 
 meaner the person is that commits it, the greater still is the 
 fault. 
 
 But in very deed, all these attempts to extenuate sin, as they 
 are useless to sinners, who are not judged by man, but God, and 
 not to be dealt with according to the estimate he makes, but that 
 which God makes of sin ; so likewise they smell rank of the 
 want of a due regard for the honor of the Deity, and are of the 
 worst consequences to the world, since they tend to encourage 
 sin, open a door to impiety, and embolden sinners to go on in 
 courses they too much incline to. Besides, such excuses for sin 
 do but ill become persons who make such an horrible out-cry 
 against the doctrine of satisfaction upon all occasions, as having a 
 tendency to make forgiveness cheap in sinner's eyes, and to em- 
 bolden men to sin without fear. May not the charge be here re- 
 torted ? Who gives the greatest encouragement to sin, he that 
 asserts the necessity of a satisfaction, or he who extenuates sin to 
 that degree as to encourage the sinner to hope he may get 
 off without a satisfaction ? I shall, to what has been said, subjoin 
 a few words from a late discourse. If the quotation seem long, 
 the excellency of it will easily excuse it ; besides, it is so full to 
 the purpose, and leads so directly to that which is the design of 
 what has hitherto been said. " Furthermore, it is to be consid- 
 " ered, that the rights of the divine government ; the quality and 
 " measures of offences committed against it ; and when or upon 
 " what terms they may be remitted ; or in what case it may be 
 '^ congruous to the dignity of that government, to recede from such 
 *< rights, are matters of so high a nature, that it becomes us to be 
 " very sparing in making any estimate about them, especially a 
 " diminishing one. Even among men, how sacred things are ma- 
 " jcsty and the rights of government ? And how much above the 
 
235 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " reach of a vulvar jiidprment ? Suppose a company of pea- 
 " saiits that understand little more than what is within the com- 
 " pass of their mattock, plough and shovel, should take upon 
 " them to judge of the ri2;hts of their prince, and make an esti- 
 " mate of the measure of ofieiices, committed against the majes- 
 *' ty and dignity of government, how competent judges would we 
 " think them ? And will we not acknowledge the most refined 
 *' human ni:derstanding as incompetent to judge of the rights of 
 " the divine government ? Or measure the injuriousness of the 
 " offence done against it, as the meanest peasant to make an esti- 
 " mate of these matters in a human government ? If only the 
 " reputation be wronged of a person of a better quality, how 
 " strictly is it insisted on, to have the matter tried by his peers, 
 " or persons of an equal rank, such as are capable of understand- 
 " ing honour and reputation ! How would it be resented, that 
 " an affront put upon a nobleman, should be commited to the judg- 
 " ment of smiths and coblers, especially if they were participes 
 " criminis,^ and as well parties as judges ? 
 
 " When the repraliaf of the great Ruler and Lord of heaven 
 " and earth are invaded, his temple violated, his presence de- 
 *' spised, his image torn down thence and defaced : Who among 
 " the sons of men are either great, or knowing, or innocent enough 
 " to judge of the offence and wrong ? Or how fit it is, that it be 
 " remitted without recompence ? Or what recompence would be 
 " proportionable ? How supposable is it, that there may be con- 
 *' gruities in this matter, obvious to the divine understanding, 
 " which infinitely exceed the measure of ours. "J 
 
 From what has been said, it is easy to understand the import- 
 ance cf the case. All mankind are involved in sin, lie under this 
 dreadful guilt, and that not in one, but in many instances. Now 
 if they are not sure that it may be removed, and know not in what 
 way this is to be done ; they must either not take up the case, 
 or they must be under continual disquietments, dread the issue, 
 and fear divine resentments. They can never expect any re- 
 ward for obedience, and consequently they must languish in it, 
 and so all religion that can be available is lost. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 Shewing the darkness of Nature^s Light as to Pardon. 
 
 THE importance of the case being thus cleared, we now pro- 
 ceed to demonstrate the insufficiency of nature's light to help 
 
 . * " Sharers in the crime." 
 t " Royal prerogatives." 
 i Dr. How's Living- Temple, Part 2. page "237, 238, 239- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 137 
 
 out of this strait. And that we may without fear assert it so, is 
 evident from the ensuing considerations : 
 
 1. That h'dit which failed men so far, as to a discovery of the 
 otrait, is not likely to help them out of it. If we understand not 
 where the difficulty lies, and hov/ great it is, we are never like- 
 ly to solve it. Now it is undeniable, that a great part of the 
 Viorld understood not the evil of sin, or of how vast a conse- 
 quence it was to be assured about the pardon of it. The prevar 
 !eut darkness of their minds about the nature, holiness and jus- 
 tice of the Deity ; their own natures and relation to him ; their 
 Ignorance of the nature of sin ; the commonness of it in the 
 world ; their strong inclinations to it, and other things of a like 
 nature, kept them from apprehending the difficulty of the case. 
 But above all, the best moralists amongst the philosophers, such 
 as Socrates and Plato, seemed utterly unconcerned. And the 
 reason is plain, their pride blinded them so, that they idolized 
 their own virtues, and made no reckoning of their sins. 
 
 2. They who had a little more concern about sin, saw some- 
 what of the difficulty of this matter, but found themselves at a 
 loss what way to relieve themselves : and therefore they had re- 
 course, some to philosophy, music and mathematics, for the purga- 
 tion of their souls ; and others to lustrations, sacrifices, and diverse 
 Avashings, and I do not know what other fancies, which had no 
 manner of foundation in reason, no suitableness -to the nature of 
 the difficulty, no divine warrant, and therefore were never able to 
 satisfy the conscience, as to the sinner's acceptance with God, arid 
 the removal of the guilt. These being only the productions of 
 their own imaginations, notwithstanding of all these, their fears 
 continued, and they remained under apprehensions that even 
 death should not terminate their miseries, as Lucretius himself 
 sings : 
 
 At mens sibl conscia facti, 
 Praemetuens adhibet stimulos, lerretque flagcHis, 
 Nee videt interea, qui terminus esse malorum 
 Possit, nee qui sit panarum denique finis, 
 Atque eadem mctnit magis haec in moi-te gravescant.* 
 
 3. They Avho either thought somewhat deeper of the case, or 
 at least seemed to do so, especially at times when the impressions 
 they had of divine justice were quickened by some terrible 
 plagues or judgments, had recourse to things that were so far from 
 relieving, that they really increased the guilt, I mean that abomina- 
 
 * "-But the mind conseious to itself of actual guilt, by fearing' punish- 
 " ment applies slings to itself and terrifies itself v/ith wliips : nor does it 
 " see in the mean time how any bounds can be set to its sufferings, nor what 
 " will at last be the end of its punisliment, and fears lest these same suifcr- 
 " ings should grew more grievous at death." 
 
 18 
 
138 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 ble custom of human sacrifices. This cruel custom almost uni- 
 versally obtained in the world, if we may believe either profane 
 or sacred records ; of which Dr. Owen in his treatise of Vin- 
 dictive Justice gives many instances. They not only sacrificed 
 men, but even multitudes of them. The instances of this kind 
 in the sacred records are known. As to others, Ditmarus quoted 
 by Dr. Owen tells us : " That the Normans and Danes, every 
 " year in the month of January did sacrifice to their gods ninety- 
 " nine men, as many horses, doj^s and cocks."* Clemens Alex- 
 andrianus quoted by the same author, tells what the usage of the na- 
 tions in this matter was, and on what occasion — " Jam vero cum 
 " civiiates (§• gentes tanquam pestes invasissent, scBva postularunt 
 " libamina ; Sr Arisiommes quidcm Messenius, Itkometa Jovi, 
 " trecentos mactavit, se tot 8r tales rite sacrificare cxistimans, in 
 " quihus etiam Theopompus rex Lacedamonvm erat, prceclarcc 
 " victima. Tauri autem populi^ qui hahitabant circa Tauri- 
 " cam Chersonesum, quoscunque kospites apud se ceperint, Dianas 
 " Tauriae eos statim. sacrijicant (inde inhospitalia littora.) 
 " Hcec tua sacrijicia Euripides in scena tragice decantat.^'f Hera 
 are no less than three hundred sacrificed at once, and among them 
 a king. Here are strangers sacrificed. And any one that will 
 read there Avill find how usual it was to sacrifice their children and 
 nearest relations. The custom is barbarous, and fully speaks out 
 the despair of me.n awakened to a serious consideration of sin, and 
 the darkness of nature's light. If it could have pointed to any 
 ether thing that could quiet the conscience, civilized nations, such 
 as those among whom this custom did prevail, vrould never have 
 had recourse to it. 
 
 4. It is no wonder tliat men should be brought to such straits ; 
 for they wanted the knowledge of many things, that were of ab- 
 solute necessity to make them once so much as understand what a 
 case they were in. They knew not, nor, as: has been proved 
 could they know the rise of sin, and therefore could not know 
 what estimate to make of it, nor what God would make of it. — 
 They knew neither the extent of the mercy nor justice of God, 
 without which it was impossible to determine in the case. 
 
 5. The questions that must be resolved before the mind of a 
 sinner, that once understands his state, can be satisfied, are so ma- 
 
 * Dr. Owen de Justitia Vindicatrice, Cap. 4, page 69. 
 
 f " But when, like the plague, they had over-run all states and nations, 
 tliey required cruel ofi'erings. Aristomenes, the ISIessenian, sacrificed 
 three hundred men to Jupiter Ithometes, among whom likewise was Theo- 
 pompus king- of the Lacedemonians, an illustrious victim. And the Tauri, 
 a nation in Crim Tartary, whenever they caught any strangers among them, 
 they immediately sacrificed them to Diana Taurica, whence their shores 
 were proverbially stiled inhospitable. Euripides relates these sacrifices of 
 yours in a trag-ical manner on the stage." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 139 
 
 iiy, so Intricate, and so palpably above the reach of unenlightened 
 reason, that it is foolish to pretend that nature's light will or can 
 satisfy the mind of any man in the case. Men may pretend what 
 they will, who either do not. take up the case, or who are other- 
 wise themselves satisfied by divine revelation ; but they who se- 
 riously, and without partiality or prejudice view the case, will have 
 other thoughts. Who will give me rational satisfaction as to those 
 and the like questions ? Whether, considering the greatness of 
 .sin, the justice, wisdom and holiness of God, and the honor of his 
 government, it is consistent to pardon any sin ? If it be, whether he 
 will pardon all, many or few sins ? What, or what degrees of sin 
 he will forgive ? Whether he will pardon without any reparation 
 for the honor of his laws or not ? Upon what, or what terms he 
 will do it ? If he require reparation, what reparation, and by 
 whom is it to be performed ? How shall we know that he has 
 pardoned ? If he pardon, whether will he remit all punishment due 
 to sin, or how much ? Whether will he merely pardon, or will 
 he over and above re-admit the sinner to grace, and to as entire fa- 
 vor as before he sitmed t Whether will he not only pardon, but 
 reward the sinner's imperfect obedience ? Unless all of these are 
 resolved, the difficulty is not loosed. And who Avill undertake to 
 resolve them and give rational satisfaction that understands the 
 case. 
 
 6. These questions are not only above the reach of man ; but 
 they belong not to him to judge and decide them. The offence is 
 committed against God. He alone understands what the con- 
 tempt of hi:* authority, the disorder brought into his government 
 by sin, and the disobedience of his creature amounts unto : what 
 is fit to be done in the case, he alone is judge, at his tribunal it is 
 to be tried. Man is too ignorant, too guilty and too partial in his 
 own favor to be allowed to judge ? Now where are the decisions 
 of God in the case to be found ? Are they legible in the works 
 of creation or providence, or consciences of men ? In the works 
 ©f creation it cannot be pretended. The works of providence 
 afford innumerable instances of his justice, some of his forbear- 
 ing sinners, even while they continue in their sin, and loading 
 them with ontward effects of his bounty : But where irj 
 the sinner, of whom we can say, God has forgiven him ? Or said 
 that he will forgive ? The consciences of men read them some- 
 times sad lectures of justice ; but never, if they be not informed 
 from revelation, any of forgiveness. 
 
 7. All the pretences that are offered for relief in this case, are 
 absurd, vain and insignificant. They are all reducible to this one 
 head, That God is infinitely merciful ; but this gives not th« 
 least relief. For, 
 
140 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 1 . I ask, must God then of necessity exercise mercy, or is the 
 egress and exercise of this mercy necessary ? If it is not, but 
 still remains arbitrary, and in the pleasure of God whether he will 
 pardon or not ; then I inquire, where is the relief pretended ? 
 Does it not all vanish ? Are we not as much at a loss as before, 
 whether he will pardon, or how far, or upon what terms ? If it is 
 necessary in its egress, then I enquire, how is this reconcileable 
 with the notion of mercy, that seems to respect voluntary and un- 
 deserved acts of favor shown to them, to whom God was not 
 obliged to show any ? How is this reconcileable to or consistent 
 with justice, which is exercised in pmiishing sinners? By what 
 arguments can this be made appear ? Whence is it that there 
 are so many acts of justice, and no instances known to, or know- 
 able by the light of nature, of God's having pardoned any ? 
 
 2. Mercy is either unlimited in its egress or it is not. If it is 
 limited and cannot be exercised, but upon such and such provisos 
 as make the exercise of it consistent with God's aversion to sin, 
 and with the regard he has for the authority of his laws, the 
 concern he has for the honor of his government, and his justice, 
 wisdom and holiness, then we are where we were before : For 
 who can tell whether it be consistent with these things to pardon ? 
 In what case and upon what provisos : if it is not limited to any 
 such qualifications, then I desire to know, how tliis is reconcilea- 
 ble to his nature ? How is such mercy consistent with any exer- 
 cise of justice at all ? What account can be given of the direful 
 effects of justice, whereof the world is full ? By what means can 
 it be reconciled to the holiness of God's nature to pardon impeni- 
 tent sinners ? What need is there for any to guard against sin, 
 since upon this supposition, all sin shall be forgiven ? 
 
 3. Is infinite mercy universal in its extent ? If it is not, then I 
 desire to knovr, what sins, w^hat sinners shall he pardoned T How 
 shall any know whether his sins are the sins that are to be pardon- 
 ed ? If it is universal in its extent, and all sins must be pardoned ; 
 then is there not a door opened for all sin ? How can this be pro- 
 ven ? Why have we no evidence of this in God's providential 
 dealing ? Whence have we so many evidences of the contrary ? 
 If it is said that mercy must more or less be exercised towards 
 all, then I inquire, who tells us so ? Hew far shall it be exercised ? 
 Will it pardon ail cr part ? Upon what terms ? Will it not only 
 pardon, but remunerate the guilty ? 
 
 ' 4. I inquire who are the proper objects of mercy ? Or what is 
 requisite to constitute the proper object of it ? Amongst men, the 
 proper object of that mercy which belongs to governors, is not sin 
 and misery. To spare and pardon upon this score only, is a plain 
 vice in men, especially in governors. But the object of mercy is 
 such sin and misery, as is consistent with the honor and good of 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE xlIODERN DEISTf^!. 141 
 
 the governor, government and the governed to pardon. No-.r, if 
 it be thus in this case, then I sec nothing, but we are where we 
 were, and are plunged into all our difficulties ; and why it should 
 not be thus, I see no reason. For there is no man Avho knows 
 what God is, what sin is, what justice is, that will say it is con^sa- 
 tent with the honor, justice, wisdom and holiness of God to par- 
 don impenitent sinners, going on in their sins. And when they 
 say, that his mercy only requires hira to pardon penitent sinners, 
 then this plainly says, that the exercise of his mercy is confined 
 to those Ti ho are its proper objects, that is, not to miserable sin- 
 ners, for the impenitent are most so ; but to those whom he may 
 spare, in a decorum to his government and congruity to his other 
 perfections. And indeed this is what cannot in reason be denied : 
 and when it is granted, then it remains a question, not yet decided, 
 nor indeed determinable by reason, whether repentance alone is 
 sufficient to this purpose ? 
 
 5. The case of justice and mercy are quite different as to their 
 egress : For justice has respect to a fixed rule, an universal rule, 
 and requires that regard be had to it, in dealing with all that are 
 under that rule : whereas mercy only is conversant about particu- 
 lar instances, according to the wisdom and pleasure of him in whom 
 it resides. 
 
 6. The infiniteness of either of these attributes, neither requires 
 nor admits, that there be infinite numbers of inr.tances of either : 
 but that the acts of justice and mercy be such as becomes the 
 infinite nature of God, when it is proper to exercise them, or 
 when the wisdom, holiness, justice or mercy of God require that 
 they be exercised. 
 
 But the Deists object, 1 . " That upon supposition that God will 
 " not pardon sin, there is no use of his mercy."* I ansAver, we 
 do not say he will not pardon sin ; bat v,-c siiy, nature's light can- 
 not tell whether he will pardon It or not, or whaL Is the case where- 
 in mercy takes place. We own its use, but we say, nature's light 
 cannot tell when and how It is proper to exercise it. 
 
 Again, It is pretended, " That God Is Infmitely merciful, then 
 " he must as the least of Its operations pardon the greatest of 
 " sins,"f This Is plainly denied, and vre have told wherefore 
 above. 
 
 It is further pretended, " That justice has done Its business, 
 « when It has condemned the sinner, and then mercy brings him 
 " off :"J but this Is gross Ignorance. It belongs as much to jus- 
 tice to take care that its sentence be executed, as to see It passed. 
 
 Again, it is urged, " That though God be infinitely just as well 
 " as merciful, yet his justice Is only as inherent, not as extenslvo 
 
 * Aikenhead's Speech. t ^^''^ • ^^^'^ 
 
142 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 *' as his mercy toward us : for we are punished only according to 
 *' our deservings, but mercy is shown us above our deservlngs."* 
 The first part is false. The very contrary assertion, viz. that 
 justice is more extensive, is true, as has been cleared above, if we 
 respect the number of objects. The proof of it is a plain sophism. 
 For 1 . It is not true that mercy bestows its effects, which in their 
 nature are above our deservings, to more persons than justice gives 
 its effects, which are according to desert. 2. The effects of 
 mercy are not more above deserving, than the effects of justice 
 are according to it. 3. The effects of justice are with infinite ex- 
 actness proportioned to deservings. And all that can be said is, 
 that the effects of mercy are suited to the nature of infinite mercy, 
 not that they are given to infinite number of persons, or infinite 
 degrees. 
 
 Further, it is pretended, " That God with whom we have to 
 *' do, is a Father who will not animadvert severely upon his peni- 
 *' tent son."f I answer, as he is a father, so he is a righteous 
 judge. Further, though he be a father, yet he is not such a father 
 as men are, infirm, liable to failings, that needs his children, that 
 may give them occasion or temptation to offend, that is of the 
 same nature with them. And hence no firm argument can be in- 
 ferred from any thing that is known in this matter by the light of 
 nature. Besides, the meanest offence against God is more atro- 
 cious, than the greatest offence against one's natural father. For 
 which nevertheless there is no forgiveness, but punishment without 
 mercy, by the law of nations and nature. 
 
 Finally, all these are but generals, that may well raise suspi- 
 cions in the minds of men, but can never give particular satisfac- 
 tion to any one man, as to his case, or any one of the particular 
 diflSculties that have been mentioned. They no more satisfy, than 
 those notions that generally prevailed, of the placability of the 
 Deity, which had iheir rise at first from revelation, were continued 
 by the necessity of sinners, v/ho having challenges for sin, behoov- 
 ed to take sanctuary some where, and handed down by tradition : 
 But being general, and leaving men at a loss about the means of 
 atoning the Deity, were really of no use if not to keep men from 
 running into downright despair, and keep them up in attendance 
 upon somewhat that looked like religion ; but whereon the minds 
 of such as really understood any thing of the case, could never 
 find satisfaction. 
 
 There is only one thing that seems of any moment, that is ob- 
 jected to all this ; and that is, that nature's light which discovers 
 the sore, discovers a salve for it, to wit, repentance, to which we 
 
 * A. W. in his Letter, Oracles of Reason. 
 
 t Blount's Relig-. La^^ i. page 69. Herbert de Rellg. Gen. pag^e 199. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 143 
 
 shall answer in the following section, that is peculiarly designed to 
 consider this. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 Wherein if is inquired whether Repentance is sufficient to atone for 
 Sin ? How far Nature^ s Light enables to it ? What assurance 
 Dkuture's Light gives of Pardon upon Repentance. 
 
 It now remains that we consider the only exception, which is of 
 moment, and that is, that repentance is a sufficient atonement, that 
 nature's light discovers this, and so we are not left without relief. 
 This is tiie more considerable that several Christians, yea divines 
 of great note, and some of them deservedly of high esteem, have 
 seen meet, in compliance with their several hypotheses in divinity, 
 to drop assertions that seem to favour this. We shall first pro- 
 pose their opinions, who assert this, and then consider it. 
 
 The Deists go all this way as one man. I shall offer one for all, 
 and it is Charles Blount, who not only speaks the sense, but trans- 
 lates the very words of the learned lord Herbert. He tells up, 
 then, *' That repentance is the only known and public means, 
 " which on our part is required for satisfying the divine justice, 
 " and returning to the right way of serving God."* And for 
 clearing this, he premises to it these ensuing considerations, 
 " 1. That he that judgeth man is his Father, and doth look on 
 " him as a frail creature, obnoxious to sin. 2. That he generally 
 " finds men sin, rather out of frailly, than out of any desire to 
 *' offend his divine Majesty. 3. That if man had been made in- 
 " wardly prone to sin, and yet destitute of all inward means to 
 " return to him again, he had been not only remediless in himself, 
 " but more miserable, than it could be supposed an infinite Good- 
 " ness did at first create, and doth still perpetuate human kind. — 
 " 4. That man can do no more on his part, for the satisfying of 
 " divine justice, than to be heartily sorry and repent him of In's 
 " sins, as well as to endeavor, through his grace, to return to the 
 " right way, from which through his transgression, he had erred : 
 " or if this did not suffice for the making of his peace, that the 
 " Supreme God by inflicting some temporal punishment in this 
 " life, might satisfy his own justice. 5. That if temporal punlsh- 
 " ment in this life, were loo little for the sin committed, he might 
 " yet inflict a greater punishment hereafter in the other life, with- 
 " out giving eternal damnation to those, who (if not for the love 
 " of goodness) yet, at least, upon sense of punishment, would not 
 " sin eternall)^ Notwithstanding, since these things may again be 
 
 licligio Laici, page C8, 69, 70. 
 
144 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " controverted, I shall insist only upon that universally acknow- 
 " ledged proposition first laid down."* This proposition, with the 
 explications, he translates from Herbert, only has made some 
 small additions. 
 
 It is no wonder to see those speak so ; but it is a Httle more odd 
 to hear Christians talk so. One who would seem very zealous 
 for Christianity tells us, " That the God of patience and conso- 
 " lation, who is rich in mercy, would forgive his frail offspring, if 
 " they acknowledge their faults, disapproved the iniquity of their 
 " transgressions, begged his pardon, and resolved in earnest to 
 " conform their actions to this rule, which they owned to be just 
 " and right : this way of reconcihation, this hope of atonement, 
 " the light of nature revealed to them. He that made use of this 
 " candle of the Lord, (viz. reason) so far as to find his duty, could 
 " not miss to find also the way to reconciliation and forgiveness, 
 '^ when he had failed of his duty."f Bluch more speaks he to 
 the same purpose. 
 
 But it is stranger to hear divines speak so. And yet we find 
 one telling us, " That the same light of nature, which declares to 
 " us our duty, dictates to us, when we have failed in that duty, 
 *' to repent and turn to God with trusting to his mercy and par- 
 *' don, if we do so and not else. We do find it legible in our 
 '* hearts, that God is good and wisely gracious to pity our infir- 
 " relties, to consider cur lost estate, and necessary frailty, as that 
 •' tlicre is a God, and any worship that is at all due to lum."J 
 
 To the same purpose the learned Baxter speaks in his Reasons 
 of the Chnatian Religion, Part I. Chap. 17. Dr. Whichcote in 
 his sermon on Acts xii. 38. and others too large to quote. 
 
 But now, with all due deference to those great names, I shall 
 take leave to ofTcr the following remarks, wherein I shall clear 
 ijiy own mind, and offer the reasons on which I dissent from 
 them. 
 
 1 . I observe that the Deists speak more uncertainly about this 
 matter ; whereas these Christian writers seem more positive. The 
 Deists seem not to want their fears that repentance may not serve 
 the turn, and therefore they seem willing to admit of temporal 
 punishments, and even punishments after time, only they have 
 not %vill to think of eternal punishments ; as we heard from Her- 
 bert and Blount, who both speak in the same words on this head. 
 But the Christian writers are positive. And I am jealous the 
 reason is not, that they saw farther into the light of nature than 
 the Deists ; but that they lean more firmly to the scripture reve- 
 lation, v/liich assures us that penitent sinners shall be forgive l — 
 
 • Herbert de lielig". Gentil. page 199. 
 
 f Locke's Reasonableness of Cr.ristiar.Ity, page 255, 256. 
 
 + Mr. Humphrey's Peaceable Disquisitions, Chap. 14. pasjc 57- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 145 
 
 Though I must add, the scripture no where says that penitent 
 sinnera shall be forgiven upon their penitence, as that which is suf- 
 ficient to atone the justice of God. And to speak phiniy, howe- 
 ver confident those worthy persons are, that they have read ihis 
 doctrine in the book of nature, I dare be bold to affirm that they 
 had either failed in the discovery, or stammered a little more in 
 reading their lesson, if they had not learned it before-hjind out of 
 the book of the Scriptures ; though the thing seems, when Ihcy 
 have read it there, to approve itself so much to r^asoii, that rea- 
 son cannot but assent to it. It is well observed by one of those 
 authors, with whom we now manage this debate, " That when 
 truths are once known to us, though by tradition, we are apt to 
 be favorable to our own parts, and ascribe to our oun under- 
 standing the discovery of what, in truth, we borrowed from 
 other?, or at least, finding we can prove, what at first we learned 
 from others, we are forward to conclude it an obvious truth, 
 which, if we had sought, we could not have missed. Nothing 
 seems hard to our understandings, that is once known ; and be- 
 cause what we see with our own eyes, we are apt to overlook, 
 or forget the help we had from others, who first shewed and 
 pointed it out to us, as if we were not at all beholden to th^m 
 for that knowledge ; for knowledge being only of Ic.iawn tniths ; 
 we conclude our faculties would have led us into it witljontany 
 assistance ; and that we know these trutlis by the Ptre igth and 
 native light of our own mind'?, as they did, from whom we re- 
 ceived them by theirs, only they had the luck to be b ;fore us. — 
 Thus the whole stock of human knowledge is claimed by everv 
 one, as his private possession, as soon as ha (profitifig by other's 
 discoveries) has got it into his own mind ; and so it is ; but not 
 properly by his own single industry, nor of his own acquisition. 
 He studies, it is true, and takes pains to make a progress in 
 what others have delivered, but their pains were of another 
 sort, who first brought those truths to light, which he afterwards 
 derives from them. He that travels the roads now, appkuds 
 his own strength and legs, that have carried him so iw, in such 
 a scantling of time, and ascribes all to his own vigor, little con- 
 sidering how much he owes to their pains, who cleared the woods, 
 drained the bogs, built the bridges, and made the ways passable ; 
 without which he might have toiled much with litde p'-ogiess. — 
 A great many things which we have been bred in the belief of 
 from our cradles (and are notions grown familiar, and as it were, 
 natural tous,under the gospel) we take for untjuestionahie obvious 
 truths and easily demoni=tiable, without considering; how long^we 
 might have been in doubl, or in ignorance of them, had revelation 
 been silent. It is no diminishing to revelation, thut reason gives 
 its suffrage too to the truths revelation hath discovered. But it is 
 
 19 
 
146 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " our mistake to think that because reason confirms them to U8, 
 " we had the first certain knowledge of them from thence, and in 
 " that clear evidence we now possess them."* How applicable 
 this excellent discourse is to the case in hand, will appear from 
 what we design to subjoin on this head. Though after all, that 
 which the scripture delivers, and reason confirms in this case, is 
 not, " That repentance is sufficient to atone the justice of God, 
 " or that God will pardon a penitent sinner, merely on the account 
 *' of his penitence," which the Deist's case requires. The scrip' 
 tures plainly teach the contrary, and those learned persons, or some 
 of them at least who own them, believe according to the scriptures, 
 the contrary, which makes a considerable difference betwixt then! 
 and the Deists ; though in this case, they seem to speak the same 
 things. But that which the scripture asserts, is, " That peni- 
 " tence is a qualification suitable to a sinner to be pardoned, 
 '• and that it is not suitable to the wisdom and justice of God 
 " to pardon one, who is not sorry for former oflfences, and resolves 
 " to obey for the future."* Reason confirms this indeed, but it 
 is not to the purpose. 
 
 2. But to come a little more close to the purpose ; this repen- 
 tance, which is pretended to be sufficient, consists of two parts, 
 sorrow for the offence, ^u^ a return to obedience. This last part, 
 a return to obedience, what is it ? Nothing, but only a perform- 
 ance of the duties we were antecedently bound unto by the law of 
 creation, which only receives a new denomination from its relation 
 to an antecedent deviation, or sin. This denomination adds no 
 new vrorth to it, nor does the relation whereon it is founded. — 
 Wherefore we can never reasonably suppose, that there is any 
 great matter in this, that can atone for the transgression. It is 
 well if it obtains approbation as a part of our duty. But no rea- 
 sonable mo.n can pretend that it atones for any part of our sin. 
 
 8. Tiiough nature's light discovers our obligation to that duty, 
 which now, because sin preceded, must be called a return ; yet it 
 is a question, if nature's light is able to bring a sinner, that has 
 once gone away, to such a return as is necessary. For 1. We 
 have above proved that nature's light is defective as to motives to 
 obedience, as to the discovery of particular duties, and much 
 more is it defective as to motives to a return : because there is 
 more re^iuired to encourage a sinner to come back, who has once 
 offended, than to engage him to continue. There is a discourage- 
 ment arising from fear of punishment, and falling short of any re- 
 ward he might have expected, upon the account of his sin to be 
 removed, and that is not easily done, as shall be shown. 2 Be- 
 sides, not only discouragements lie in the way of a return, but 
 cross inclinations, aversions from duty, and inclinations to sin. — 
 
 * Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, page 27^i 280, 281. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 147 
 
 Now I am not satisfied that nature's light can remove, or direct 
 how to remove these ; of which we may speak more fully in the 
 next chapter. So that as for this part of repentance we neither 
 see of what use it is as to atonement, nor do we find it clear that 
 nature's light can bring any to it. 
 
 4. The stress of the business then must lean on this sorrow for 
 by-gone transgressions, that is the other part of the composition. 
 But here I am sure it will be readily granted, that every sort of 
 sorrow for sin will not serve. If one is only grieved for the loss 
 he has sustained, the hazard he has run himself into, and the evil 
 he has to suffer, or fears at least for his offence ; this can be avail- 
 able to no man. Wherefore though nature's light may bring a 
 man to this, and has oft done it, yet this signifies nothing in the 
 case. 
 
 5. The sorrow, that only can be pretended, is that which arises 
 purely, or at least principally, from concern for the dishonor done 
 to God. Now as to this sorrow, it is to be observed, that it is not 
 any action of ours done in obedience to any command : but it is a 
 passion, in its own nature uneasy, as all sorrow is, though suitable 
 to a siimer, and, upon the supposition, that he is so, useful per- 
 haps. And it results from the joint influence of prevailing love 
 to God, his law and authority, and a clear conviction of sin's hav- 
 ing injured his honor, and our being, on this account, obnoxious. 
 
 6. It is not easily to be granted, that nature's light can bring 
 any man to this sorrow. Since 1. It is evident that the temper 
 men are naturally of, is quite contrary to that which gives rise to 
 such a sorrow. We are naturally averse from God, as shall be 
 made appear afterwards, and are not under the influence of any 
 such prevalent love to him, and it is not easy to prove that na- 
 ture's light is able to remove this natural aversion of the heart 
 from God : but of this more in the next chapter. 2. God can 
 never appear amiable to a sinner, if he is not revealed as one 
 ready to forgive. We cannot be sorrowful for our sin, if we are 
 not seriously convinced that we have sinned, and see the demerit of 
 sin. If we ?re convinced that we have sinned, and deserve punish- 
 ment, we cannot have prevalent love to God, which is requisite to 
 give life to this sorrow, make it run in the right channel, and pro- 
 ceed on those accounts, which will make it acceptable to God, or 
 available to us, unless he appear to us as ready to forgive, which 
 nature's light doth not discover. 
 
 7. I doubt if nature's light calls us to repentance. I allow that 
 there are several things obvious to nature's light, which may be 
 said to drive us to repentance, because they serve to discover to 
 us these things whereon this sorrow follows, bind the obligation on 
 us to that duty, which, because of the preteding sin is called a 
 return, and serve as arguments to enforce the compliance, provided 
 we had a call or invitation to return, I mean a new call. For 
 
148 AN INaUlRY INTO THE 
 
 clearing this, we are to observe that, were man innocent, and 
 guihy of no fault, and had his obedience no imperfection, neces- 
 sarily c^eavina; to it, and were he under no such inconveniency as 
 might make him dread wrath, or fear his obedience might be re- 
 jected ; in that case a discovery of the obligation he lies under to 
 duty, were a call and invitation sufficient as securing him, at least 
 as to the acceptance of his duty. But where there are those 
 things in his case, sin and imperfection cleaving to the duty, and 
 the performer chargeable with guilt on both those accounts, in or- 
 der to engage him to duty, there is requisite a new call or invita- 
 tion, securing him against those grounds of fear, and giving him 
 ground to expect acceptance. Now it is such a call as this, that 
 only can bring the sinner to repentance. And this we deny that 
 nature's light gives ; though we own that it discovers many things, 
 that may be said in some sense, to lead to repentance : Because, 
 upon supposition of such an invitation, they are improveable as ar- 
 guments to enforce compliance with duty. Thus, If God invite 
 me back again, his goodness discovered in the works of creation 
 and providence, invites to go to him, and all the direful evidences 
 of his anger against sinners persuade the same thing : and there- 
 fore may be said to lead, or rather drive to repentance ; because 
 they have a tendency that way in their own nature, and are capa- 
 ble of such an improvement : But still it is only upon the forego- 
 ing supposition. 
 
 8. To make this matter yet a little more clear, I grant that the 
 light of nature discovers sinful man to be still under an obligation 
 to obey God. As long as God is God, and man his creature, man 
 is under a tie to subjection, and God has a right to man's obedi- 
 ence. This obedience to which man is bound, after once he has 
 sinned, must be called a return. Further the light of nature teach- 
 es, that if man had yielded perfect obedience, he should not have 
 done it in vain. Acceptance, at least, he should have had, and 
 what other reward the goodness of God thought meet. And that 
 man sustains a great loss by sin, that intervenes betwixt him and 
 his expectations from the goodness of God, and besides, exposes 
 riim to the hazard of his just resentment, which, if it is seen, as 
 by nature's light in some measure it may be, will occasion sorrow. 
 Further, nature's light will teach that the more deeply we sin, the 
 more we have to fear, and therefore out of fear and a regard to 
 our own interest and expectation of being freed from those sever- 
 er judgments, which a progress in sin draw on men, may be in- 
 duced to return. Now all th's nature's light discovers : but nei- 
 thrr is this sor o^, which savours of some regard to ourselves, but 
 of little or none to God ; nor this return, which is not that cheer- 
 ful, cordial obedience that God requires and accepts, of any avail 
 in the case. No man, that knows what he says, will pretend, that 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, I4d 
 
 such a sorrow or such a return is suflScierit to atone the justice of 
 God for by-gones, of even obtain acceptance for itself, which has 
 «o much of love to self, and so little of that which respects God. 
 
 9. But the repentance that is available in this case is a sorrow, 
 flowing from prevalent love to God, and grieving, if not only, yet 
 principally for the wrong done to God, and a cheerful following of 
 duty upon prospect of God's being a rewarder of it. Now to call 
 or to make up a sufHcient invitation to a sinner, to such a repent- 
 ance, it is requisite that 1. God be represented in such a way, as 
 a sinner that sees himself guilty, can love him, delight in him, and 
 draw near to him. But this he can never be, if he is not repre- 
 sented as one with whom certainly there is forgiveness. 2. It re- 
 quires further, that God be represented as one, who will accept of 
 sinners' obedience, notwithstanding of their desert of wrath for 
 former disobedience, and this requires still that he be a God that 
 forgives. 3. Further, it is requisite, that he be represented as 
 one, that will accept of obedience, not only from one that has 
 sinned, but that implies sin and imperfection in it. Now this can- 
 not be, if he is not known to be one that is plenteous in mercy and 
 mill abundantly pardon. Now I say the light of nature gives no 
 such discovery of God : and therefore gives no call or sufficient 
 invitation to his repentance. 
 
 10. Nor will it help out here, to say, that the light of nature 
 doth represent God as placable, one who may be pacified : for, 
 should I grant that it does so, yet this cannot invite to such an 
 obedience, so long as 1. It is left a question, whether he be actu- 
 ally reconciled, or positively determined to forgive ? 2. Especially 
 considering, that he has not pointed to, and positively declared on 
 what terras he will be appeased. Yea 3. Since moreover he has 
 given no visible instance, knowable by the light of nature, that he 
 has forgiven any particular persoa. But 4. On the contrary, the 
 world is full of the most terrible effects of his displeasure, and 
 these falling most heavily on the best, even those who go farthest 
 in a compliance with duty. In a word, these dark notions of a 
 placable God, which yet is the utmost that unenlightened reason 
 can pretend to, are utterly insufficient to bring any of the chil- 
 dren of men to that repentance we are now in quest of; it is so 
 sunk, and as it were quite obscured by cross appearances. And 
 all that can reasonably be said, is, that in the providence of God 
 there is such a seeming contrariety of good and evil, that men 
 know not what to make of it, but are tossed by contrary appear- 
 ances. And of this we h.'ve a fair acknowledgment by one, who, 
 besides that he was a person of great learning, was not only a great 
 stickler for the natural discoveries of thifi placability, but one of 
 the first broachers of it, being led to it by the peculiar hypothesis 
 he maintained and advanced in divinity, I mean the learned Amy- 
 
150 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 raid. After he has asserted the natural discoveries of this placa- 
 bility, and alleged that they lead to repentance, yet subjoins i 
 " But there are (says he) motions in the corrupt nature of man which 
 *' fi-ustrates the effect, if God did not provide for it in another man- 
 *' ner (that is by revelation.) For man flies from the presence of 
 *' God through fear of punishment, and cannot hinder the preva- 
 « lence of it in his soul ; so that as a man affrighted beholds nor 
 *' thing stedfastly, but always imagines new occasions of terror, and 
 " represents hideous phantasms to himself ; so we are not able to 
 " allow ourselves leisure to consider attentively this dispensation 
 *' of the goodness of God towards the wicked, nor thereby to as- 
 " sure ourselves of obtaining mercy and pardon. As a lewd 
 " wretch, whose conscience bears him witness of many heinoua 
 *' crimes, though he should perceive some connivance in the ma^ 
 *' gistrate for a time, and his judge shew him some countenance, 
 " cannot but be distrustful of him, and suspect that he does but 
 " defer his punishment to another time, and assuredly reserves it 
 " for him ; especially if he hath an opinion that the magistrate is 
 " not such an one as himself, but abhors the wickednesses com- 
 " mitted by hira. Now are wc universally thus principled, that as 
 *' we hate those whom we fear, so we never bear good will toward 
 *' them of whom we have some diffidence. And the distrusting 
 " the good w ill of any one being a step to fear, is likewise by the 
 *' same reason, a degree of hatred ; unless the distrust proceed 
 *' to such a measure as to be an absolute fear ; for then the cold- 
 *' ncss of affection is turned into perfect hatred. Wherefore man 
 ** thus distrusting the good will of God towards him, consequent- 
 *' ly can have but a very slight affection to him ; yea, he will even 
 " become his enemy in as much as the distrust in this case will 
 " be extremely great."* Thus far he goes. Now methinks this 
 quite overthrows the placability he had before asserted discovera- 
 ble by the light of nature, at least as to any use it can be supposed 
 of for assuring sinners of pardon, or inviting them to repentance. 
 1 1 . But to go a step further, I cannot see that the light of na- 
 ture is able to give us any assurance of this placability. Where 
 is it in the book of nature that we may read this truth, that God 
 is placable ? Is it in the works of creation ? No, this is not pre- 
 tended. Nor can it be, they were all absolved and finished be- 
 fore the entrance of sin, and cannot be supposed to carry on them 
 any impressions of placability to sinners. Is it in the works of 
 providence. Yes, here it is pretended. And what is it in the 
 works of providence that is alleged to evince this placability ? Is 
 it that God spares sinners for some time, and not only so, but be- 
 stows many outward good things on them, whom he spares ? YpSj 
 
 • Amyrald of Religions, Part 2- Chap. 17. page mihi, 253, 254. 
 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 151 
 
 this is that whereon the whole stress of the business is laid. But 
 I cannot see the force of this to assure us that God is placable. 
 For 1 . It is certain that the nature of the things do not infer cer- 
 tainly any such thing. Forbearance is not forgiveness : nor does 
 it intimate any design to forgive. It may be exercised, where 
 there is a certain design and fixed purpose of punishing. And 
 what relation have a few of those outward things, whereby love or 
 hatred cannot be known, unto peace and reconciliation with God? 
 It is, I know, pretended, that even this forbeargmce is a sort of 
 forgiveness, and that all the world sharing in it, are in some sort 
 forgiven. So Mr. Baxter says. If this learned person or any 
 other has a mind to extend the notion of pardon so far as to include 
 even reprieves under that name, we cannot hinder : but it is cer- 
 tain, that no abatement of the punishment, far less the dissolution 
 of the obligation, which is that ordinarily meant by pardon, do ne- 
 cessarily follow upon, or is included in a delay of punishment. 
 The slowness in execution, which may proceed upon many 
 grounds, hid in the depth of divine wisdom from us, may be more 
 than compensated by its severity when it comes. Leaden feet, as 
 some have used the expression, way be compensated by iron, 
 hands. And when men have seriously weighed outward good 
 things, which are thrown in greatest plenty in the lap of the most 
 wicked, and are full of vanity and commonly ensnare, they can 
 see but very little of any mercy designed them thereby. And if 
 any inference toward a placability is deducible, which I profess I 
 cannot see, I am sure that it is far above the reach of not a few, if 
 not most of mankind, to make the deduction and trace the argu- 
 ment. And so it can be of no use to them. 2. All those things 
 are consistent with a sentence standing unrepealed and never to 
 be repealed, if either scripture, which tells us that God exercises 
 much long suffering, and gives plenty of good things to the ves- 
 sels of wrath ; or reason, which assures us that persons continuing 
 obstinate to the last in sin, cannot evite judgment, may be be- 
 lieved. 3. As there is nothing in the nature of the things that can 
 ascertain us of God's placability, much less is there any in the 
 condition of the person, to whom this dispensation is exercised- 
 Were these bestowed on the most virtuous, or were there an in- 
 crease of them, as persons proceeded in virtue, and came nearer 
 and nearer to repentance ; or were there on the other hand a con- 
 tinued evidence of wrath and implacability towards obstinate sin^ 
 ners, this then would seem to say somewhat. But all things are 
 quite contrary,^^he worst have the most of them, and the best have 
 commonly least* of them. What will the sinner say, that God is 
 inviting me by this goodness to virtue ? No, if I should turn vir- 
 tuous I might rather expect to be worse dealt with. That is a 
 bootless way for any thing I can sec in it. Does not the scrip- 
 
152 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 ture and experience tell us, that thus things go, and that such use 
 sinners have made of this dispensation ? And so dark is it, that 
 even they Avho had God's mind in the word to unriddle the mys- 
 tery, have been shaken at it so far, that they have been upon the 
 brink of apostacy, while they saw the way of sinners prosper, and 
 that they mho hate God were exalted. How then can unenlighten- 
 ed reason draw such inferences as these learned men pretend ? 
 Although I have a great veneration for these learned men ; yet if 
 it would not appear presumptuous in one so far below in all re- 
 spects, to censure his superiors, I would take the liberty to say, 
 that in this matter they are guilty of a double mistake : First, In 
 that they measure men's abilities by a wrong standard. What 
 guch men as they may trace by reason, many men are under not 
 only a moral, but even a natural incapacity to discover. It is cer- 
 tain, besides that vast difference which is in the capacities of men, 
 from different education and circumstances, whence it is morally 
 impossible for one who wants that education, and other occasions 
 and advantages which another has, to go that same length and 
 trace those discoveries, which the other who had education and oc- 
 casion may do : there is likewise vast difference even in the natur- 
 al abilities of men (whether that arises from their bodies or souls I 
 dispute not now, nor is it to the purpose ; for if from either it is 
 still natural) so that one has not a natural capacity to trace the 
 truths that others may, who have better natural abilities : and so 
 it is naturally impossible for the former to make the discoveries 
 v/hich the other may. And I fear not to add, that if any such in- 
 ferences may be drawn from these premises, as those learned per- 
 sons pretend, yet many are under a natural impossibility ; and the 
 most under insuperable moral incapacity of tracing those disco- 
 veries. And if it be allowed that any man, without his own fault, 
 is under an incapacity of making such deductions, about the pla- 
 cability of God, from these dispensations of providence, which I 
 think cannot modestly be denied, the v/hole plea about placabili- 
 ty will prove not only unserviceable to the Deists, but, if I mistake 
 it not, unmeet to maintain that station for which it is designed, in 
 the hypothesis of the learned aaserters of this opinion. Another 
 mistake I think those persons guilty of. Is, that men whose minds 
 are not enlightened by revelation, may possibly trace those disco- 
 veries, which they who are guided by it may read in the book of 
 nature. 4. I add, if these things whereon they insist, as disco- 
 veries of thi;? placability in God, serve to raise any suspicions of 
 that sort in the minds of men, and this is the most that can be 
 reasonably pretended, for demonstration they do not amount unto, 
 they are quite sunk by the contrary evidences of God's severity ; 
 which must have so much of force, in as much as they most com- 
 monly befall the most virtuous, which heightens the suspicion. 
 
PlllNCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. lo3 
 
 And besides, as we heard Amyrald observe, the minds of sinners, 
 vvho are convinced in any measure of sin, who are yet the only 
 pei-sons that will think themselves concerned in this matter, are 
 much more inclined to entertain suspicions thah i^ood thoughts of 
 him, whom they have offended, and who, as their consciences as- 
 sure them, hates their offences. H. That which puts the cope- 
 stone upon our misery, and concludes us under darkness, is that 
 nature's licht has no help to guide us over the difficulties laid ia 
 our way, fiom any known instances of any persons led to repent- 
 ance by these means, or pardoned on their repentance. So that 
 upon the whole, I cannot see sufficient evidence of this placabili- 
 ty in tlie light of natme. 
 
 12. If it is alledged here, that if God had no design of mercy 
 in sparing the worltl, it is perfectly unintelligible why he did it. 
 In answer to this, it is to be* observed, that we did not say 
 that God had no design of mercy in sparing the world, but that 
 this liis forbearance of the world is not a sufficient proof and evi- 
 dence of this design ; and that nature's light can give no satisfy- 
 ing account of the reason of this dispensation of God. So dark 
 was this to sucli as had no other light but that of reason, that the 
 most part laid aside thoughts of it as a thing above their reach ; 
 and the more thoughtful knew not what judgment to make, but 
 were confounded and perplexed in their thoughts. They under- 
 stood not M'hat account was to be made of God's producing so 
 many successive generations of men, and tossing them betwixt 
 love and hatred, hope and fear, by such a strange mixture of good 
 and evil — effects of his bounty and evidences of his anger. Yea 
 so far were they confounded, that some of them came the length 
 to set God aside from the government of the world. No less a 
 person than Seneca introduces God, telling good men, " That he 
 could not help their calamities." And Pliny accuses God, under 
 the notion of nature, of no good design, " Naturam, quasi mag- 
 '■• na ^ sava mercede contra fanta stia mvncra usum ; ita lit non 
 '* satis sit a;stimare, parens melior homini, an fristior noverca 
 '* flier it ;" id est, Nature has so cruelly counterbalanced its largest 
 " gifts with horrible evils, that it is hard to say, whether it is not 
 " a sad or cruel step-mother rather than a kind parent to man." 
 So that in fact, men were thus spared and left in this dark condi- 
 tion, as to the reasons of God's dispensations, is evident from ex- 
 perience. The reasons of this conduct are to be sought in the 
 <lepth of tlie wisdom and sovereign justice of God. Chri-itiaus 
 u ho are sound in the faith, w ill own, that all who belonged to the 
 election of grace could not have come into being, if the world had 
 not been thus spared. They will own that the world could not 
 Iiave been preserved in any order, without these effects both of 
 bounty and sc\"ctity, whereby some restraint was put on th.e lusts 
 
 •20 
 
154 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 of men, and some government kept up among them, and they 
 were kept from running to such a height in sin, as would have 
 made it impossible for God, with any consistency to his justice, 
 holiness or wisdom to have preserved the world, till his design in 
 its preservation was reached. And it may be said further, for the 
 satisfaction of Christians (for the deists have no concern in this ac- 
 count, which is bottomed on the revelation they deny) that if 
 God had seen meet to make all that belonged to Adani's covenant 
 at once, they could not have refused to consent to the placing 
 their happiness on that bottom whereon he placed it in the trans- 
 action with Adam, and could not have condemned God for execu- 
 ting the sentence upon all immediately upon the breach of it. 
 And therefore I think they have no reason to quarrel at God's keep- 
 ing them out of hell for a while. Further, God in his wisdom, by 
 leaving so many in this dark case for so many ages, has let them 
 see the shortness of their wisdom to disentangle them from that 
 misery, whereunto by sin they were involved. It was in the wis- 
 dom of God, that the jvorld by wisdom knew not God. Finally, 
 this should make us welcome the gospel, which only can dispel the 
 darkness we are under, as to the whole state of matters betwixt 
 God and us, and lead us to life and immortality, and mercy, par- 
 doning mercy, which the dim light of nature could never discover 
 to us. 
 
 Now if we consider what has been above discoursed, it will be 
 found that we have made considerable advances towards a decision 
 of that which is in debate. 
 
 We have cleared what that repentence is, which with any 
 §]].'=""/ of reason can be pretended available in the present case. 
 
 Wo have evinced that the placability of God, of which some 
 talk, were it discoverable by nature's light, is not sufBcient to bring 
 men to this repentance. 
 
 Further, we have made it appear, that the evidences of this 
 placability brought from nature's light are not conclusive. 
 
 But were ali this given up, which we see no cause to do, the 
 principal point is still behind, viz. " Whether nature's light can 
 " ascertain us that all penitent sinners shall be pardoned upou 
 " their repentance." This the deists maintain, and we deny. 
 Their assertion, " that the light of nature assures us that penitenife 
 " sinners upon their repentance shall assuredly be forgiven," is 
 that which we shall next take under consideration, and demon- 
 strate to be groundlcs, false and o.bsurd, by the ensuing arguments. 
 
 1 . I reason against it from the nature of pardon. Forgiveness 
 or prirdon is a free act of God's will. It is a freeing of the sin- 
 ner from the obligation he lies under to punishment, by virtue of 
 the penal sanction of that righteous and just law which he has 
 violated. Ail divine laws are unquestionably equal, just and 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 155 
 
 righteous, and their penal sanctiona are so too. Certainly there- 
 fore God may justly inflict the punishment contained in the sanc- 
 tion of the law upon the transgressors ; and consequently, we 
 may without fear infer, that to relieve him from that penalty is a 
 most free act, to which God was not necessarily oblicjed. And in- 
 deed, though all this had not been said, the thing is in itself clear ; 
 for we can frame no other notion of forgiveness than this, " Th^t 
 it is a voluntary and free act of grace, which remits the punish- 
 ment, and looses the sinner from that punishment he justly de- 
 served, and which the lawgiver might justly have inflicted on 
 him." Now this being clear, we infer, that such acts cannot be 
 known othenvise than, either by revelation, that is God's declar- 
 ing himself expressly to this purpose, or by the deed itself, some 
 positive act of forgiveness, which is the effect of such a purpose. 
 'I'he deists disown and deny any revelation. And for any effect 
 declarative of such a purpose, we shall challenge the world to pro- 
 duce it. There never was, nor is any one person, of whom we 
 can certainly affirm, upon the information of nature's light, that 
 God has forgiven him, either upon repentance or without. And 
 if there were such persons, it would not bear the weight of a 
 general conclusion, that because God has done it to them, there- 
 fore he will do it to all, in all other instances. 
 
 2. I reason against this supposed constitution from the extent 
 of it, that God will pardon all penitent sinners. If this is not said, 
 he pardons none upon their penitence : for if any penitent sinner 
 can be supposed to remain unpardoned, why may not all ? Besides, 
 if a penitent sinner is punished, then it must be upon somewhat 
 else than penitence, that he who is pardoned obtains remission. 
 For if mere penitence had been sufficient, a penitent could not 
 have suffered. Now if all penitent sinners are forgiven, and na- 
 ture's light assures them that they shall be forgiven, then the ex- 
 tent of this constitution is very large. For, 1 . It makes void the 
 penal sanction of the law as to all sins, however atrocious they 
 are, if the sinner is only a penitent. 2. It extends to all ages, 
 places, and generations of men, that ever have been, or shall be in 
 the world. 3. It reaches to all sorts of persons, even those who 
 are in a capacity to introduce the greatest disorders in the go- 
 vernment of the world, as well as in the meanest offenders. Well 
 then, the deists must maintain that it is thus enacted, and this 
 act or constitution is in all this extent publicly declared by the 
 light of nature, so that all may know it. 4. It reaches to all sins, 
 past, present, and to come ; they shall all be forgiven, if the 
 sinner does only repent. Now against such an extensive consti- 
 tution, we offer the following considerations : 
 
 (1.) All wise governors, who have any regard to the honor of 
 <heir laws, authority, and governments, use to be very sparing in 
 
156 AN INUUIRY INTO THE 
 
 indemnifying trans«^rcssion. And no wonder they should ; for 
 wise and just rulers are not wont to enact penalties, but in pro- 
 portion to offences. And therefore a passing easily from them tends 
 to make transgression cheap, and to weaken the constitution, and 
 so dissolve the government. Now God is no less tender of the 
 honour of those laws, which enact nothing but what is the tran- 
 script of his own righteous nature, and the opposite whereof he 
 has the deepest abhorrency of, as contrary to the same. And 
 can we then reasonably suppose him to be so lavish of forgiveness 
 as to establish it in so strange an extent ? I believe it will be hard 
 for any thinking man to judge so. 
 
 (2.) In all well ordered governments pardon is a particular act 
 of grace, restricted to some time, place and person ; yea a>;d 
 crimes to : and therefore is never extended so universally as here 
 it is, and if it is to the purpose, must be asserted. So ihat the 
 common reason of mankind declares against r>uch a constitution ; 
 for what is or may be pi-etcnded of in^penitent sinners being ex- 
 cluded, is in very deed, no restriction of the law indemnifying 
 transgressors of v.'hatever sort, that are but willing to be indemni- 
 fied. For impenitent sinners are they only who have no will to 
 be pardoned, or who will not accept of favor. Now to indemnify 
 all that are willing to be pardoned is very odd constitution. And 
 before I ascribe this to the wisdom of the great Ruler of the world, 
 I must see better reasons than I am ever likely to see in this case. 
 
 (3.) No wise government ever enacted pardon of such an uni^ 
 versal extent, without further security for the honor of the go-r 
 vernment, into a perpetual and standing law. Pardon and acts of 
 grace are a part of the sovereignty of the governor : and however 
 he may make them very extensive sometimes ; yet he always re- 
 serves it so in his own power, that it shall afterwards be voluntary 
 and free to liim to forgive or not as he shall see cause. 
 
 (4.) Such a constitution is especially irreconcileable with wis- 
 dom and equity, if it h extended to transgressions not yet com- 
 mitted ; for in that case it looks like an hivitatlon to sin. 
 
 (5.) And tills binds more stiongly, if the persons arc strongly 
 inclined to sin. 
 
 (fi.) IMore especially such a constitution Is never to be reconciled 
 with wisdom, if it is universally made known and published with- 
 out any provision made for the securing of the honor of the law, 
 against any abuse of such grace. Now I desire 1o know if na- 
 ture's light discovers such an act and declaration of grace. Where 
 is there any care talren, or any provisos Inserted in the declara- 
 tion that can evidence the regard which God has for his laws, and 
 r^curc againrt the abnse of such kindness 1 Indeed the scripture 
 discovery cf mercy to penitent sinners, on account of Christ's 
 eatisf^cliv)-.-, fauv removes all those difficulties v.hicli otherwise. 
 
\ 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 157 
 
 so far as I can see, are never to be removed : And tlierefore I 
 can never see how such a declaration could be made without the 
 concomitant discovery of a satisfaction to justice, and reparation 
 of the honor of the law-giver and law, and security against abuse 
 of grace. Remarkable to this purpose are the words of the learn- 
 ed and judicious Dr. How : " That prince would certainly never 
 " be so mxich magnified for his clemency and mercy, as he would 
 " be despised by all the world, for most remarkable defects of 
 " government, that should not only pardon whosoever of his sub- 
 " jects had offended him, upon their being sorry for it ; but go 
 " ai)out to provide, that a law should obtain in his dominions, thro' 
 " all after time, that whosoever should offend against the govern- 
 " ment, with whatsoever insolency, malignity and frequency, if 
 " they repented they should never be punished, but be taken 
 " forthwith into highest favor. Admit that it had been congruous 
 " to the wisdom and righteousness of God, as well as his goodness, 
 " to have pardoned a particular sinner, upon repentance, without 
 " satisfaction ; yet nothing could have been more apparently un- 
 " becoming him, than to settle an imiversal law for all future lime, 
 " to that purpose, that let as many as would, in any age to the 
 " world's end, affront him never so highly, invade his rights, tram- 
 " pie on his authority, and tear the constitution of liis govern- 
 *' ment, they should, upon their repentance, be forgiven, and not 
 " only not be punished, but be most highly advanced, and dignifi- 
 " ed." Thus for he. In the subsequent paragraph he learnedly 
 and judiciously shews the difference in the gospel proposal of mer- 
 cy to offenders, from this supposed case of forgiveness without 
 satisfaction. 
 
 8. I inquire, whether is it possible that there may be any crime 
 so atrocious, that it may be possible for God, in a congruity with 
 his perfection, to punish, notwithstanding of the intervention of 
 repentance ? If there may be any such, then certainly it is not 
 merely on account of repentance that sin is pardoned ; and so a 
 penitent cannot always be sure of forgiveness. Further, consi- 
 dering how grievous and sinful every transgression of God's law is, 
 how can I be sure what sins are pardonable upon repentance and 
 what not ? If it is not possible for God to punish any penitent, then 
 1. I would inquire what so great matter is there in repentance, 
 that can bind God up from vindicating his honor against affronts 
 already offered ? 2. To what purpose was the penal sanction since, 
 in the case it was designed ? For when the law is transgressed, it 
 may not possibly take place but the execution is inconsistent with 
 the nature of God. 3. How will this impossibility ever be proven ? 
 Repentance hath nothing in it so great to infer it : for in repent- 
 ance no more can be alledged but a return to duty antecedently 
 due. And as to thi'^^, we are unprofitable servants. And Christ 
 
158 AN INQUIR^ INTO THE 
 
 has told us what reason tells us also, that we deserve no thanks for 
 it. And as for the other pari, sorrow for by-gones, it is the ne- 
 cessary result of that regard to the Deit j, and knowledge of our 
 own sin, that is likewise our own duty. Now what is there, in all 
 this, that should be supposed to be of so great worth, that it must 
 inevitably stop the course of justice ? 
 
 But here it may be objected, not only by Deists, but some, who 
 are veiy far from favoring them, " That God cannot cast away 
 *' from his love and felicity any soul, which truly loveth him, 
 " above all, and v*'hich so repenteth of his sin, as to return to 
 " God in holiness in heart and life."* 
 
 I answer, 1 . The supposition that a sinner convinced of sin can 
 repent without some security given as to pardon, can love God 
 above all, and so repent, as te turn to holiness in heart and life, ap- 
 pears to me impossible. Much less is it possible that an uncon- 
 vinced sinner can repent. The reason is plain, a clear conviction 
 of sin inevitably lays us under the deepest fear of God, and dread 
 of punishment from him, which not only casts out that love, but 
 draws on hatred, or at least, strong aversion ; as we heard the 
 learned Amyrald well observe in the words before quoted. Now 
 it is certain, that suppose one impossibility, twenty will follow.— 
 
 2, If the thing is not impossible, Avhich I think it is, yet certainly 
 it is a case that never happened, and is never likely to happen. — 
 
 3. Supposing it possible, it is a very bold assertion, that no crime, 
 how atrocious soever, would justify the inflicting of the penalty 
 contained in the righteous sanction of the laAV. 4. Much less 
 then is it hard to suppose that it would justify God's denying any 
 reward to the sinner, that he has so sinned. And if it is granted 
 that penitence does not necessarily restore to a prospect of re^rard, 
 all religion and encouragement to it is lost. I cannot forbear quot- 
 ing again the accurate and judicious Dr. How's words, who after 
 he has shown that our offences against God incomparably transcend 
 the measure cf any offence that can be done by one creature against 
 another, presently subjoins, " Yea, and as it can never be 
 " thought congruous, that such an offence against a human govern- 
 " or, should be pardoned, without the intervening repentance of 
 " the delinquent ; so we may easily apprehend also the case to be 
 " such, as that it cannot be fit, it should be pardoned on that 
 " alone, without other recompence :"t whereof if any should 
 doubt, I would demand, is it, in any case, fit, that a penitent de- 
 linquent against human laws and government should be punished, 
 or a proportionable recompence be exacted for his offence not- 
 withstanding ? Surely it will be acknowledged ordinarily fit ; and 
 
 • Baxter's Eeasons of Christ. Relig-. Part 1. pajje 184, 188. 
 f Living Temple, Fart 2. pag-e 210. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 159 
 
 who would take upon him to be the censor of the common justice 
 of the world in all such cases ! Or to condemn the proceedinc;s of 
 aJI times and nations, wheresoever a penitent offender huth been 
 made to suffer the legal punishment of his offence, notvyjthstant!- 
 ing his repentance ? How strange a maxim of government would 
 that be, that it is never fit that an offender, of whatsoever kind, 
 sliould be punished, if he repent himself of his offence ! And sure- 
 ly, if ever, in any case, somewhat else than repentance be fitly 
 insisted on as a recompence, for the violation of the sacred riglits 
 of government, it may well be supposed much more so in the case 
 of man's common delinquency and revolt from God. 
 
 4. I reason against this position, from the consideration of the 
 imperfection of this repentance, which, as it takes place amongst 
 sinful men, is guilty of a double imperfection. Our sorrow and 
 our return are imperfect, in respect of degrees. Our relation to 
 God and his to us requires the highest, the most perfect love and 
 the most cordial obedience. No less will answer our obligations. 
 And our sorrow, if it is required, must be supposed likewise to be 
 such as results necessarily from such a love. Now what can be 
 more evident than this, that none of the children of men love God 
 as they ought, and with that intention and veheraency, which an- 
 swers their original obligation ? Aru\ consequently their sorrov/ 
 and obedience can never come up to it : for they being the result 
 of this love, can never go beyond the principle, which influences 
 them. Again, our return is liable to another imperfection, even 
 a frequent interruption. The case is not thus, that we only once, 
 through infirmity, make an escape ; but even after our supoosed 
 return, it must be allowed that there will be after-deviations. And 
 hence it becomes a question, how can we expect acceptance ia 
 our returns ? How can our repentance, which answers not the de- 
 mands of the law, and our ties to duty be accepted for itself ? 
 And if so, much more may it be a question, how can it be allowed 
 sufficient to atone for other transgressions, yea, how can it be suf- 
 ficient to atone for transgressions, which it takes no notice of? For 
 there are such sins as by the light of nature we are never likely 
 to reach the conviction of ; and therefore it is impossible we 
 should sorrow for them, or repent of them ? However men may 
 please themselves with a fancy of the sulBciency of their repent- 
 ance ; yet a sinner, that understands his own case, will never be 
 able to satisfy his own conscience in this matter. 
 
 I know it is pleaded, *' That we have a harder province to admin- 
 " ister than even the angels themselves ; they not huving so gross 
 " a body as we have, nor exposed to so much evil as we are. But 
 " God knoweth our frame, and upon that account is not ex- 
 " treme to mark what is done amiss. A creature, as a creature, is 
 '•' finite and fallible : and yet we arc not the most perfect of God's 
 
160 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " creation. No^', for fallible to fail, is no more than for frail lobe 
 " broken ; and mortal to die. Where there is finite and limited 
 " perfect ion there is not only a possibility, but a contingency to 
 " fail, to err, to be mistaken, not to know and to be deceived. 
 " And where the agent is such, there is place for repentance. — 
 " Repentance is that which makes a finite being failing, capable of 
 " compassion. If repentance did not take effect, it would be too 
 " hazardous for a creature to come into being. If upon a lapse, 
 " an error, or mistake, we should be undone to eternity, without 
 " all hope of recovery ; who would willingly enter upon this state ?"* 
 Thus speaks Dr. Whichcote. 
 
 To this plausible discourse we answer. Either this reasoning pro- 
 ceeds upon the state of things, according to the covenant of grace, 
 and respects them who have laid hold on it, or it does not. If 
 it does proceed on this footing, w^e say it helps not the Deists : 
 but if, as it seemf7, it be extended further, then I shall make the 
 following remarks on it. 1 . Although we have here many things 
 prettily said, yet I cannot but deeply dislike the discourse, because 
 it aims at the extenuation of sin, and pleads its excuse from our 
 frailty. Now, besides that this bears hard upon the author of our 
 constitution, as if he had made it unequal to the laws he imposed 
 on it, it is a foolish argument, because the case may be as much 
 exaggerated on the other hand by the representing the greatness 
 of the law-giver, the equality of the laws, and the ability of man, 
 at least in his first make to obey. And the one will not signifj' 
 more to give us hope of forgiveness on our repentance, than the 
 other will to make us despair of it. 2. It seems to reflect on God's 
 different conduct with the angels that sinned, who had no place al- 
 lowed them for repentance : for their frame was finite, and so, frail 
 and failablc. The little difference from the grossness of our bodies, 
 if man is not supposed corrupt, and his body inclined to evil, makes 
 no difference that can satisfy ; for still we were under no necessity 
 of sinning from our constitution, if it is not supposed to be corrupt. 
 But to pretend that man was made corrupt, carries our frailty too 
 fir, to make it God's deed. We cannot plead in excuse, any defects 
 in our constitution, that God put not there. 3. It condemns all 
 human laws that spares not penitent transgressors. If it be said, 
 that they are under a necessity to do it ; I answer, whence does 
 this necessity arise ? Is the honor of the divine law less dear to 
 him, and of less consideration than the honor and rights of human 
 constitutions and governments ? But further, I desire to know, will 
 necessity justify the punishment of the penitent ? If not, then here 
 it doth not justify : if it doth, who will assure me that there is not 
 
 * Dr. Whiclicote's select Sermons, Part 2. Sermon 2nd, on Acts xiii. 3?- 
 pag-e 322. 323. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 161 
 
 as great a necessity for this course in divine as human govern- 
 ments ; at least in some instances ? And if in any instance the 
 punishment of a penitent may take place, who will condescend to tell 
 where it may, and where not ? How likewise can it be said that 
 penitence secures pardon ? Further, 4. I say directly to the argu- 
 ment, if divine laws are as much adjusted to man's power, as the 
 constitutiong and laws of human governments are, (and that they 
 behoved to be so, with respect to his power in his first constitution 
 has been made appear) then it is no more hazardous to come into 
 being, than to enter into human society, where frail man may, for a 
 word or a deed, forfeit his own life to justice and all the advan- 
 tages of it, and beggar hia posterity, and that without any prospect 
 of relief by his repentance. If it be said, that the punishments 
 are greater in this case ; I grant it : so are the laws too, and con- 
 sequently the transgressions ; and so likewise are the advantages 
 of obedience ; and without an injurious reflection on God, it can- 
 not be ~^!enied that the laws are, as well at least, attempered to 
 man's abilities wherewith he was created and subjected to them. 
 5. I do not see how it can be injustice to inflict a just punishment, 
 upon transgressors, and such of necessity, that is, which is includ- 
 ed in the sanction of the divine laws. Nor does repentance make 
 that execution unjust ; which, without it, is allowed not only just, 
 but indispensably necessary. This I might largely shew, but 
 others have done it before.* 
 
 5. The falsehood of this proposition may be further evidenced 
 from the nature of the justice of God, that seems necessarily to 
 require that sin be punished. For clearing this, I shall make the 
 ensuing observations : in doing which we shall aim at such a Gra- 
 dual progression as may set the matter in the best light. 
 
 (1.) Justice strictly taken, is " that virtue of the rational na- 
 ture, whose business it is to preserve, maintain, and be a guardian 
 of the rights of rational beings." It is commonly defined, a " con- 
 stant and abiding or fixed will of giving to every one what is their 
 light or due." Whence it has been debated, whether in man 
 there is any such thing as self-justice ; because, according to this 
 account of justice, it seems to be restricted to the rights of others. 
 And this restriction has countenance given to it from that common 
 maxim, that volenti nonjit injuria,f which is founded In this, that 
 a man is supposed capable of parting, without wrong, with his own 
 lights, and consequently is not capable of injustice towards him- 
 self. It is true, man has no rights, which he may not deprive 
 })imself of by his own consent. Yet since man has such rights, 
 though they are but derived onies, aa also his being is, as he cannot 
 
 * See Specimen Refutatlonis Crellii, pagfe 100, 101, 8l-s«qu. 
 7 " Xo injury is done Vo one who is willing " 
 
 21 
 
162 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 deprive himself of without fault, I see not but even such a thing 
 as self-justice may take place among men : but whatever the case 
 be as to men, there is certainly in God to be allowed such a thing 
 as self-justice. For clearing of which I observe, 
 
 (2.) That God, being the fountain of all rights, has certainly 
 rights, which he can by no means deprive himself of. He has a 
 Tight of dominion over the creature, and to the creature's subjec- 
 tion, that he cannot part with. As long as there is a rational crea- 
 ture it is, by its being, inevitably subject to its Creator, and he 
 cannot part with that right he has to govern it. " With the su- 
 " preme Proprietor, there cannot but be unalienable rights, inse- 
 " parably and everlastingly inherent in him : for it cannot be, but 
 " that he, who is the fountain of all rights must have them pri- 
 " marily and originally in himself ; and can no more so quit theni» 
 " as to make the creature absolute and independent, than he can 
 " make the creature God."* Hence inevitably there must be 
 allowed self-justice, which is nothing else, save that fixed determi 
 nation of the divine will, not to part with what is his own unalien- 
 able right, and consequently to maintain it. 
 
 (3.) This justice, in order to maintain God's right of government, 
 obliges him to enact penal laAvs as the measure of the creature's 
 subjection and obedience. A subject cannot be without laws. — 
 And where the creature is capable of transgressing, laws cannot 
 be such without penalties. Without these, they were rather 
 counsels or advices, than laws ; and the person to whom they are 
 given is left at will to be subject to them or not. And if God should 
 thus leave the creature without a penalty, then upon transgression, 
 the transgressor has slipt entirely out under the dominion of God; 
 for he is not actively, in that instance, subject to God. And nei- 
 ther is he passively subject, if there is no penalty. So that by 
 this means God has forfeited or lost his right, which is impossible. 
 There is no other imaginable tie of subjection, but either the pre^ 
 cept or the pena! sanction of the law, whereby rational creatures, 
 as to their moral dependence can be bound. Now if God part 
 with the one, by remitting the penalty, or enacting laws without it, 
 and man cast off the other by disobedience, the creature is, at 
 least thus far, independent. Which, how absurd it is, it is easy to 
 see. Wherefore, in case the creature is made, we cannot but 
 suppose a law must be made to it. And if the creature is capable 
 of viobting that law, there must, for preserving that right, which 
 God has to the creature's subjection, be a penalty annexed to that 
 law. Whence it seems evident, " that God did owe it to himself 
 " primarily, as the absolute Sovereign and Lord of all, not to suf- 
 
 * Living Temple, Part 2. page 270. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 163 
 
 « fer indignities to be offered him, without animadverting upon 
 " them, and therefore to determine he would do so."* 
 
 (4.) The creature being made, justice requires that it should be 
 under such a law as is enacted with a penalty, and such a law be- 
 ing now enacted, there seems to arise a double necessity for the 
 execution of the law, in case of transgression. The one arising 
 from the reason of the law, the other from the law itself : Since 
 upon the grounds already laid down, the law was necessary ; the 
 same grounds enforce the execution of the law : for when the case 
 falls out, for which the law was provided, it is not merely the law 
 or constitution itself, but the execution of it that secures the end. 
 When the creature disobeys, he has in so far renounced an actual 
 dependence on, and subjection to the law-giver and law : and 
 therefore it seems of necessity that either as to these actions he 
 is not subject, or he must be subject to the penalty. Again, as 
 the reason of the law enforces the execution, so does the law it- 
 self. For the law being once made, justice requires that its honor 
 be secured either by obedience, or by the subjection of the trans- 
 gressor to the punishment. 
 
 (5.) To proceed yet further, if the law is not executed, the 
 design, even the principal design of punishment in this case, \h 
 not reached. It is not the only or main design of punishment or 
 penal sanctions to reclaim the offender, or benefit by-standers, or 
 secure the community. It is true, the penal sanction, or law 
 enacting the penalty, is of use to deter from transgressing, and so 
 is of use to the community, and all under the government ; but 
 the execution, if the sanction is punishment after this life, is of no 
 advantage to the offender, nor is it instructive to by-standers, or 
 the rest of the community, who do not see it : wherefore these are 
 not the principal ends of punishment. Though it is to be observ- 
 ed, that any public intimation that the penalty shall not be inflict- 
 ed, could not but be of the worst consequence to the community, 
 as rendering it vain as to all that use, which it has of deterring 
 persons who are under the law from sin. Yet I say, these are not 
 the principal ends of punishment ; but the satisfaction of the law- 
 giver. For the case is not here, as it is in human governments, 
 where the governors and government are both constituted for the 
 good of the governed, which therefore must be the chief aim of all 
 laws : but on the contrary, the governed are made, and the laws 
 made, and penalties enacted for the Governor, who made all things 
 for himself. And consequently, the principal design of punish- 
 ment is the securing and vindicating his honor in the government. 
 Nor is this any such thing as answers to private revenge amongst 
 men. " But that wherewith we must suppose the blessed God to be 
 
 * Living Temple, par^e 271. 
 
164 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " pleased in the matter of punishing, is the congruity of the thing 
 " itself, that the sacred rights of his government over the world 
 " be vindicated, and that it be understood how ill his nature can 
 " comport with any thing that is impure, and what is in itself so 
 " highly incongruous, cannot but be the matter of his detestation. 
 *' He takes eternal pleasure in the reasonableness and fitness of his 
 *' own determinations and actions ; and rejoices in the works of 
 •' his own hands, as agreeing with the apt, eternal schemes and 
 *' models, which he hath conceived in his own most wise and all- 
 *' comprehending mind : so that though he desireth not the deatk 
 " of sinners, and hath no delight in the sufferings of his afflicted 
 *' creatures, which his immense goodness rather inclines him to 
 '' behold with compassion ; yet the true ends of punishment are 
 *' so much a greater good, than their ease and exemption from the 
 *' sufferings they had deserved, that they must rather be chosen, 
 " and cannot be eligible for any other reason, but for that which also 
 *' they are to be delighted in, i. e. a real goodness, and conducible- 
 " ness to a valuable end inherent in them." 
 
 (6.) As justice in a strict sense, of which hitherto we have spo- 
 ken, as it denotes that rectitude of the divine nature, which is con- 
 versant about, and conservative of the divine rights, pleads for penal 
 laws and punishment; so likewise justice in a large sense, as it 
 comprehends all his moral perfections, holiness, wisdom, faithful- 
 ness, &c. and answers to that which is amongst men called univer- 
 sal justice, pleads for the same : for so taken, it comprehends his 
 holiness and perfect detestation of all impurity ; in respect where- 
 of he cannot but be perpetually inclined to animadvert with seve- 
 rity upon sin ; both because of its irreconcileable contrariety to 
 his holy nature, and the insolent affront, which it therefore direct- 
 ly offers him ; and because of the implicit and most injurious mis- 
 representation of him which it contains in it, as if he were either 
 kindly or more indifferently affected towards it : upon which ac- 
 counts, we may well suppose him to esteem it necessary for him, 
 both to constitute a rule for punishing it, and to punish it accord- 
 ingly ; that he may both truly act his own nature, and truly repre- 
 sent it. Again, it includes, thus taken, his governing wisdom, 
 which requires indispenslbly that he do every thing In his govern- 
 ment so as he may appear like himself, and answerably to his own 
 greatness ; so as to secure a deep regard for his government, and 
 all the parts of the constitution. In respect whereof, it might be 
 shown, that the punishment of sin, or the execution of the penal 
 laws solemnly enacted is necessary. Wisdom takes care that one 
 attribute do not quite obscure another, and will not allow that he 
 gratify mercy to the detriment of justice. Again, it includes his 
 faithfulness and sincerity, which seem pledged in enacting the pe- 
 nalty for its c:sccrjjjon. How Is if: consistent v/ith them to enact 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 165 
 
 such severe penalties, if he may remit them without any repara- 
 ion made for the wrong done ? Any one that would see more to 
 this purpose, besides others who have discoursed of Vindictive 
 Justice, may peruse the learned Dr. How's Living Temple, Part 
 2. Chap. 6 and 7, who has learnedly discoursed and improven this 
 subject : to whom we own ourselves Indebted for much light in 
 this matter. 
 
 Thus it seems evident, that whether we take the divine justice 
 in this last and largest notion, as it is comprehensive of all the per- 
 fections of the Deity, or in the former and strict notion as it im- 
 ports a virtue, whose province it is to take care of the preserva- 
 tion of the incommunicable rights of the Deity, and vindicate their 
 honor ; it seems necessarily to forbid the remission of sin without 
 the punishment of the transgressor, or a reparation of the injured 
 honor of the Deity. 
 
 If it be alleged, that by repentance the sinner returns to his sub- 
 jection, and so the honor of God's government is repaired. I an- 
 swer, that upon supposition of the sinner's return being a suffi- 
 cient reparation of the honour of the Deity, there would indeed 
 be no necessity of punishment : but this is the question, and the 
 objection begs what is in question. The principles now laid 
 down, shew that justice, however taken, must take care to pre- 
 serve and vindicate God's honor in case of transgression. The 
 penal sanction of the law tells rs, that the punishment of the trans- 
 gressor is that which wisdom and justice have fixed on, as proper 
 for this end. There is no alternative, punishment or repentance. 
 The law makes only mention of punishment. When therefore 
 the objectors say that repentance is sufficient, we deny it. — 
 They do not prove It, nor can they. God, to whom alone 
 it belongs to determine what is necessary for the vindication of 
 his own honour, must determine the reparation ; we cannot. Yea, 
 it were presumption in angels to do it. God has fixed upon pun- 
 ishment : if he allow of any thing else, the light of nature does 
 not tell it. Nor is there any thing in the nature of repentance, as 
 has been above cleared, that can Induce us to think it is sufficient 
 to this purpose. The most virtuous, who must be supposed the 
 penitents, if there are any such, meet with as heavy punishments 
 in this life as any, which shews, at least, that God looks not upon 
 their penitence as satisfaction. 
 
 6. Against this proposition we reason thus : Every man is en- 
 dued with a power to repent when he pleases, or he is not. To 
 assert the latter, were to yield the cause ; for it matters not to 
 the sinner, whether repentance be a sufficient atonement or not, if 
 jt be not in his power to repent. Besides, it is a question in this 
 case of considerable difficulty, whether it is consistent with the 
 perfections of God to give this power, till once his honor is se- 
 
166 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 cured by a suitable reparation for the injury done it by sin. If it 
 is in the sinner's power to repent when he pleases, then again I 
 insist, 
 
 Either God w^ithout impeachment of his justice may inflict the 
 punishment contained in the sanction of the law on the sinner, 
 notwithstanding of his repentance, or he may not. If he may, 
 then the Deists can never without revelation be sure that he will 
 not inflict the punishment, which is what we say : nor will it mend 
 the matter, to say that though God, without the impeachment of his 
 justice, may punish the repenting sinner, yet he cannot do it with- 
 out injuring his mercy : for what is contrary to one of God's attri- 
 butes, is so to all. And moreover, the justice of God in any par- 
 ticular requires that each of the divine attributes have their due. 
 
 But if it be said, that God cannot in justice punish the repent- 
 ing sinner ; then I desire to be satisfied, if this does not evacuate 
 and make void the penal sanction of the law ? For if every man 
 hath a power to repent when he pleases, and this repentance stops 
 the execution of the sentence, I do not see but any may offend 
 without hazard. 
 
 All that can be said is, that God may surprize man in the very 
 act of sinning, or so soon after it, that he shall not have time to 
 repent, and so man's hazard is sufficient to deter him from sin. 
 
 But to this I answer, that the consideration of this hazard can 
 never have much influence on man, to make him refuse the grati- 
 fying of his senses, in which he finds so much pleasure, so long as 
 in the ordinary conduct of providence he sees that God very 
 rarely takes that course of snatching away sinners in the very act 
 of sin, or so soon after as to preclude repentance. It is not so 
 much what God may do, as what he ordinarily does, that is of 
 weight to determine men, especially when they have so strong mo- 
 tives to persuade them to the contrary, as the impetuous cravings 
 ©f unruly lusts are known to be. 
 
 This argument gives us a clear view how much the Deist's no- 
 tion of pardon upon mere repentance favours sin ; and how un- 
 reasonable the outcries of Herbert and Blount, repeated ad nause- 
 am, against the maintainers of satisfaction really are. They say, 
 the doctrine of satisfaction makes sin cheap. But whether do 
 they who say that sin cannot be pardoned without the sinner's re- 
 pentance and satisfaction, or they who assert repentance alone Is 
 sufficient, make sin cheapest ? 
 
 7. I further argue against this doctrine, that this constitution, 
 grant or allowance of repentance, in case of transgression, is either 
 cc-seval with the law, and has its rise as the law hath, in the relation 
 betwixt God and man and their natures, as being a necessary re- 
 sult of them ; or it is a posterior establishment, and an act of free 
 and gracious condescension in God, to which he W'as not neces- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 167 
 
 sarlly obliged. If this last is said, then I say, this could not be 
 known, but by a revelation or some deed of God, expressive of his 
 mind in this matter. The first is Denied by the deists ; ami we 
 desire them to produce the work of providence whereon it is le- 
 gible, that God without any reparation to his justice for the in- 
 jury done him by sin, will pardon the sinner upon his penitence 
 and admit him to bliss. For though we should admit, that some 
 works of providence singly taken, without observing others which 
 may have a contrary aspect, have somewhat like an intimation of 
 a placability, which we see but little reason to do ; yet we deny 
 positively that there is any that specifies the terms, or particular- 
 ly condescends on repentance, as that whereon he will be pacified 
 and reconciled to sinners. And if any will pretend to draw this 
 from them, I wish they would essay it, and let us see of what 
 form their procedure will be : perhaps they may prove, that it is 
 not consistent with God's attributes to pardon an impenitent sin- 
 ner : but if they think thence to infer, that therefore it is consist- 
 ent to his attributes to pardon one merely upon his penitence, they 
 may make good the consequence if they can ; they will find it 
 harder than it appears. 
 
 If the former is said, that this constitution is co-JBval with the 
 kiw, and is as much a necessary result of the nature of God and 
 man, and their mutual relation, as the law itself : besides what has 
 been said to demonstrate the folly of it, let these three things be 
 considered : 
 
 (1.) The deists do, and are obliged to say, that man is not now 
 from his birth more corrupt than he was at first. 
 
 (2.) JMan at his original v.as, and consequently according to 
 them, still is endued with power sufficient perfectly to know and 
 obey the law he is subjected to. To say that he was subjected to 
 a law, which he was not able to know or obey, is to accuse the 
 Deity of folly and injustice ; as has been made appear. 
 
 (3.) The law to which man is subjected, is exactly suited to 
 God's great design, his own glory and man's happiness. 
 
 These being granted, I conceive it evident, 1. That nothing 
 can be said more injurious to the glorious perfections of God, 
 than that any of them gives ground of hopes, far less assurance of 
 impunity to man, if he break these laws, which are equciily suited 
 to promote God's glory and his own good, and which he wanted 
 neither power to know nor obey. 2. Such a grant would be of 
 no less dangerous consequence to man, because it could be of no 
 other use, than (o attempt a violation of those laws, which it is s& 
 much his interest to obey. 
 
 But some may say, it would be discouraging to man to think he 
 were undone, if he disobeyed in the least. I answer, tliis cotild 
 
16a AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 be no reasonable discouragement if he was possessed of power 
 perfectly to know and obey the law he was subjected to. 
 
 Again, it may be said, that it was necessary there should be 
 such an encourgement to man ; because, though he was entrust- 
 ed with sufficient power to know and obey the law of God ; yet 
 he was for trial exposed to a great many strong and forcible temp- 
 tations to disobedience. 
 
 Foi answer to this ; suppose two men equally able to know and 
 obey the law ; the one knows he may obtain pardon on repentance, 
 the other believes himself irrecoverably lost if he transgress ; I 
 desire the objector, on supposition that both were attacked with a 
 temptation equally strong, to answer me seriously, 1 . Which of 
 those two would in all probability soonest yield ; he that saw a 
 probability of escape or he that saw none ? 2. Since the keep- 
 ing of the law was highly advantageous to both, which of the two is 
 in the best state ; he who has this strong motive to obedience, 
 that he is ruined if he disobey, or he that hath this encouragement 
 and enforcement of the temptation to disobedience, that he may 
 disobey and escape ? Nor will they evade by saying, that this 
 constitution was knowable before, but was not taken notice of till 
 sin fell out : for if it might be known, all the inconveniences men- 
 tioned will follow. Besides, if it was taken notice of after the first 
 sin, it might be a temptation to all succeeding transgressions. 
 
 In fine, if this allowance of repentance be said to have the same 
 rise with the law, and be equally necessary from the nature of God 
 and man and their mutual relation ; it is a plain dispensation with 
 the law, and that equally made public, being notified in the same 
 way as the law is ; which way it is consistent with the wisdom, 
 holiness and justice of God, I know not. 
 
 8. To add no more on this head, if this story about the suffi- 
 ciency of repentance lies so open to the light of nature, whence 
 was it that It was so little discerned ? The name of it, in the sense 
 and to that use we now speak of, scarce occurs among the an- 
 cients, if we may believe Herbert, who read them all with great 
 diligence, and with a design to find what was for his purpose. 
 Speaking of their sins, he says : " Neque igitur mihi dubkim est, 
 « quin eorum pcunituerit Gentiles, qua tot mala accerserunt, licet 
 « rarius quidem i^miitentiiL verbnm inter authores, eo, quo jam 
 « iisiirpatiir sensu, reperiatur.^^* Why does not he doubt of it ? 
 The reason, he goes on, is, because they used sacrifices. But I 
 suppose for this very reason some do doubt if they thought re- 
 pentance sufficient : but of this more by and by. The philoso- 
 
 • Herbert de Relig. GentH. page 198.—" Nor is it therefore a doubt with 
 " me, that the Gentiles repented of those crimes which brought so many 
 " evils upon them, although the word repentr.nce, in that sense which it is 
 " now used, seldom occurs in thciv authors." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 169 
 
 pliers neither taught nor practi-sed it. It is true, Periancler one 
 of the wise men of Greece, had this for his saying : Af^x^Tci* 
 fttrctfiaXcvs, " Repent of thj sin^ ;" that ia, possibly, leave them 
 off". For who can iell us whether he had n riglit notion of repent- 
 ance, or of what avail he thous;ht it ' Seneca say.-;. Qunn panifd 
 pecasse pens est innoct'ns.f This is spoken wiih his usual pride 
 (hat made him think little of r.in. P>ut vdiere is the person that 
 taught repentance, or offered to evince it sufficient to atone tlie 
 Deity ? Most of them contemptuously disregarded it. We fiud. 
 nothing like it in their l)est moi'?list's practice : but on the con- 
 trary, they were so puftcd up with their virtues, that they mode 
 no account of their sins. The priests taught not tliis doctrine, for 
 they inculcated sacrifices as necessary to aloue the Deity. And 
 if we may believe no incompetent judge, bctii priests and people 
 were pei-suaded that repentance is not sufficient to atone the Dei- 
 ty. It is Cassar who tells us, that, " Pro vita hominis nisi vita- 
 "• hominis reddatnr non posse deornm immorfalinm numen place-' 
 " ri arbitmniur 6rfl///."J To which we might add many more 
 testimonies to the same purpose. Nor do we find any thing like 
 Ihis discovery among them ; which is very strange in a matter of 
 importance, if it was so clearly revealed. That which is most 
 like what they would be at, is what we find in Ovid : 
 
 Saepe le\'ant poenas, ereptaque lumina redcliint 
 Quem bene peccati penituisse vides. Et alibi, 
 
 Qnamvis est ig-itur meritis indebita nostris. 
 Magna tamen 6pes est in bonitate Dei'* 
 
 But this is nothing to the purpose : how many of the poets' no- 
 tions, and particularly this one, were traditional ? How evidently 
 were their notions of all things about the gods suited to their own 
 fabulous stories of the clemency of the gods. And besides, we 
 have no assurance that he understood what we do by repentance. 
 Nor indeed could he. But more of this anon. 
 
 Objections Considered. 
 
 IT remains now that we take notice of some considerable ob- 
 jections that dxe made against what hitherto has been discoursed 
 by diftercnt persons, on difFererit views and principles. 
 
 t " He who repents of having- sinned is almost innocent." 
 i Carsardc Bcllo Gal. Lib. 6. See Outramus de Sacrificiis, Lib. 1. Cap. 32. 
 " The Gauls are of opinion that the ^Majesty of the immortal gods cannot het 
 " appeased unless the life of a man be given for the life of man."' 
 
 • De Ponto Lib. 1. Eleg. L 7. — " You see that he who didy i-epents of hir. 
 "offence, often alleviates his punishment, and recovers his lost light. — Al- 
 " though therefore it is not dvie tb our merits, yet there is great hop'' in Ttic- 
 *' goodness of God." 
 
 22 
 
170 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 I. Hay some, if the case is so apparent thai all have sinned, and 
 the relief is so hid, that nature's light could not discern it ; whence 
 is it that all men run not to despair and take sanctuary here ? 
 Whence is it that religious worship was universally continued in 
 Ihe world ? Yea, Avhcnce is it that such a worship universally ob- 
 tained, that seems founded on the supposition of a placable God ? 
 
 To this specious argument we answer, that many things there 
 are in nature, whereof Ave can give no satisfying account. And if 
 there should prove something in morality too, not to be accounted 
 for, it were not to be wondered at. But not to insist on this, I 
 answer directly. A fair account may be given of this otherwise 
 than by admitting what we have oveilln'own upon so many clear 
 aigiunents. Towards which, we shall make the following attempt : 
 1. The natural notices of a Deity, that are inlaid in the minds of 
 men, strongly prompted them to Avorship some one or other. 
 From this natural obligation they could not shake themselves loose. 
 •2. Their ignorance and darkness as to the real horror of the case, 
 made them think little of sin, and consequently apprehend that it 
 Avould not proA^e such an obstruction to acceptance, as really they 
 Isad reason to apprehend it Avas. 3. All Avho allow of revelation, 
 oAvn that the revelation of forgiv^eness, as well as the means of 
 obtaining it, Avas tAA^ice universal in the days of Adam and Noah. 
 4. Though this rcA'clation was in so far lost by the generality of 
 mankind, that it could not be useful to its proper end, yet some- 
 AAhat of it still remained in the AA^orld, and spread itself AA'ith man- 
 kind. 5. All sorts of men found their interest and account in 
 keeping it up. The priests Avho engrossed the advantage of the 
 leligion of the AAorld, found their gain in it. The politicians Avho 
 .niraed at the good of society, found it useful to their purpose. The 
 poets Avho aimed at pleasing, found it capable of tickling the ears of 
 » AA'orld iuA'oIved in sin. And the people Avhose consciences AA'ere 
 harrassed with guilt of atrocious crimes, found some sort of relief. 
 And AA'hat all found some benefit by, was not likely quite to be lost. 
 The philosophers seeing the strait of the case, saw that they 
 could not make a better of it and so acquiesced. 6. Their pro- 
 fane conceptions of the deities, as if they AA'ere persons that allow- 
 ed or practised their evils, did help forAvard. The gods Avhich 
 their OAvn fancy had framed, they could cast into Avhat mould they 
 pleased, as it best suited their interest or inclinations. 7. Satan, 
 Av ho acted a very visible part among them, and bore sway Avlthout 
 controul, no doubt had a deep hand in the matter, and could vari- 
 ously revive, alter and manage the tradition, natural notices and 
 interests of men, so as to make his oavu advantage of them. Other 
 things might be added, shewing the concernment of the holy God 
 m tills matter, which I shall Avave for some reasons that are satis- 
 fying to my;£elf. But what is said, I conceive sufficient to blunt 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 171 
 
 ibe edge of the objection. I shall only subjoin the words of the 
 
 learned Amyrald, vvlio after lie has owned the natural discoveiies 
 
 of placability ; but withal shown their uselessness, and that they 
 
 had no influence nor could have, in the words formerly quoted, at 
 
 length he moves this same objection that we have here proposed, 
 
 and returns the answer, which we shall now transcribe, though it 
 
 is somewhat long, the rather because it comes from a person not 
 
 only of great learning, but one who owned placability might be 
 
 demonstrated by the light of nature, and yet denies tliat it was 
 
 the foundation of the religion that was to be found in the world. 
 
 " But perhaps (says he) it will here be demanded, whence then 
 
 " came it to pass that all nations have each of them had its reli- 
 
 " gion ? And why are not all men dissociated instead of hanging 
 
 " together in religious society ? To which I answer, that the 
 
 •' mind of man is never agitated with the same emotions, nor con- 
 
 " stant in the same thoughts ; the same passion not always pos- 
 
 *' sessing him, nor the same vice. They take their turns, or suc- 
 
 " ceed and mingle one with another. Two things therefore have hin- 
 
 " dered that men, though possessed with fear, have not abandoned 
 
 " all service of the Deity — profaneness and pride : God permitting 
 
 " the profaneness of some and the presumption of others to tem- 
 
 " per the terror of conscience. First, profaneness ; because not 
 
 " weighing sufficiently how much God abominates vice, and how 
 
 " inexorable his justice is, they often have flattered themselves 
 
 " with this thought, that he scarce takes any notice of small of- 
 
 " fences, and such as are in the intention and purpose only, that 
 
 " is, in the aflTections of the will and not in actions really execut- 
 
 " ed. Moreover, they thought he was not much incensed, but with 
 
 " crimes that turn to some notable detriment to the common- 
 
 " wealth, or carry some blot of infamous improbity. Although 
 
 " m^^sculine lust was either justified or excused, or tolerated by 
 
 " the most civilized people of Greece. And they were some- 
 
 " times so besotted in their devotions, that they thought not but 
 
 " crimes of the greatest turpitude with no great difficulty might 
 
 " be expiated by their sacrifices, lustrations, religious processions, 
 
 " mysteries and bacchanal solemnities. On the other side, pre- 
 
 " sumption ; because not sufficiently acknowledging how much 
 
 " tliey owed to the Deity, they imagined that their good works, 
 
 " their offerings, and the exercise of that shadow of virtue, which 
 
 " they pursued, might countervail the oflTences they committed : 
 
 " so that were they balanced together, there might be hope not 
 
 " only to avoid punishment, but moreover to obtain recompence. 
 
 " Upon which groimd it was that Socrates being near his end, 
 
 " and discoursing of the immortality of the soul, speaks largely of 
 
 " his hope, (in case the soul be not extinguished with the body) 
 
 " to CO and live with Hercules and Palamedes, and the other per- 
 
172 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " sons of high account. But as to asking God pardon of the 
 *' oflfences he had committed, he makes no mention at all of it ; 
 *' because though he spoke always dissembllngly of himself, he 
 *' had in the bottom of his soul great opinion of his own viitue, 
 *' and made no great reckoning of his vices, from which notwith- 
 *' standing he was no more exempt than others. And had his life 
 *' been of such purity, that the eyes of men could not discern a 
 *' blot in it (although some have written infamous matters of him) 
 *' yet when the account is to be made up with God, there needs 
 *' another perfection of virtue than that of his to satisfy so exact 
 *' a justice. But yet further, oftentimes these two vices of pro- 
 *' faneness and pi'csumption have met together in the same sub- 
 *' ject, and lulled men with vain hopes into absolute supiuity. 
 * Whence the excess of fear hath been retrenciied, which would 
 *' otherwise have at last turned into despair, and consequently not 
 *' only dissipated all communion in religion, but likcMise ruined all 
 *' human society. For fear rcntraining man on the one side from 
 *' absolutely contemning the Deity by jirofaneness, on the other 
 ** side, profaneness and presum.ption hindered it from precipi- 
 *' tating men into that furious despair which would have over- 
 *' thrown all, and caused more horrible agitations in the mind of 
 *' man, than ever the most' outrageous Bacchides were sensible of. 
 " So that by the mixture, vicissitude and variation of these di- 
 *' verse^ humours has religion been maintained in the world. But 
 " it is easy to judge how sincere that devotion was, which was 
 *' bred of fear, (a passion that is naturally terminated in hatred) 
 " self-presumption, and misapprehension of the justice of God. 
 *' Whereas the certain knowledge of the remission of sins, of 
 " which the special revelation fiom heaven can only give us as- 
 " sured hope, is a marvellous powerfully attractive to piety, out of 
 *■' gratitude towards so inestimable a goodness."* 
 
 II. Some object against what has been proven, That God is 
 good, compassionate and kind ; and that natures of i'v.y excellency 
 take pleasure in exercising mercy, com.passion and kindness, and 
 "ivith difficulty are brought to acts of sevej'ity. 
 
 I answer, 1 . The goodness, kindness, mercy and compassion of 
 God are a prett}^ subject for men to declaim and nvtke harangues 
 about. But when they are made, the}' are little to the purpose; 
 for they aj-e easily answered by a representation of the justice ami 
 Sioliness of God. And the difficulty is not touched, unless men 
 can shew how these seemingly jarring attributes maybe consistent. 
 2. The inferences men must draw from such representations of the 
 nature of God, are such as mil cross the experience of mankind 
 who want revelation, and sec many effects of his bounty, goodness, 
 
 Aniyi-;.ld of K-li^. Tavt 1. Chap. 7- F^o^ ^^h 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 173 
 
 forbearance and patience, but none of his pardoning mercy ; and 
 many of his justice and holy severity. Wherefore we may leave 
 this subject and proceed, though much might be said to clear how 
 little all this is to the purpose. But we conceive this is apparent 
 from what has been above discoursed. 
 
 III. It is said, " That the very command of God to use his ap- 
 " pointed means for men's recovery, doth imply that it shall not 
 ♦' be in vain ; and doth not only shew a possibility, but so great a 
 " hopefulness of success to the obedient, as may encourage them 
 " cheerfully to undertake it, and carry it through.*" 
 
 In ansAver to this, I have above cleared, that men are still oblig- 
 ed to obey ; that there are many things, of which several are by 
 him mentioned in the subsequent sections of that chapter, whence 
 these words are quoted, which might be improven to excite man to 
 a cordial compliance, in case there were a new, clear and plain in- 
 vitation to a return with hope of acceptance. And I admit, that 
 to deny this, as he says, in the words immediately proceeding those 
 now quoted, were to make earth a hell. Yea further, so long as 
 men are out of hell, there is still a possibility in the case : but that 
 there is any such invitation given, or assurance of a hopeful issue, 
 or means directly and specially instituted by God as means of re- 
 covery, knowable by men left to the mere light of nature, I deny : 
 because I see not the shadow, of a proof and evidence to the con- 
 trary that has been offered. 
 
 IV. It is alledgedby the same author, That God's commanding 
 us to forgive others, encourages us to expect forgiveness at his 
 hand. 
 
 .To this I say, 1 .• The learned person owns, " That from this 
 " it doth not follow, that God must forgive all, which he bindeth 
 " us to foigive, for reasons he had before expressed." 2. I say, 
 that this, the command of God to forgive others, lies not so open 
 to the view of nature's light, as that every one can discern it. — 
 And besides, it admits of many exceptions, for ought that unas- 
 sisted nature can discover. 3. It is restricted to private persons, 
 and is not to be extended to public injuries done against govern- 
 ment. 4. When it is found to be our duty by nature's light, we 
 are brought to see it by such reasons as these. That we need the 
 like favour at their hands, that we are frail, &c. which gives us 
 ground to be jealous that the like is not to be expected at his hand, 
 with whom these things have no place, which are the reason of the 
 law to us. So that from this, as it is discoverable by nature's light, 
 no sure inference can be drawn. 
 
 ' Baxter's Reasons of Christ. Rcliff. Part 1, Chap. 17. § 9. patje 186, 
 
174 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 V. It is objected, That sacrifices and all the religious services 
 amongst the Heathens, were only symbolical of a good life and re- 
 pentance.* 
 
 To this I say, 1 . If this were true, Herbert and the Deists arc 
 much in the wrong to the priests who urged the use of them, as 
 men who neglected to inculcate repentance. For any thing 1 can 
 see they were more commendable than the philosophers, who nei- 
 ther taught nor practised repentance, and vilified sacrifices. But 
 2. This is a scandalous falsehood ; for there is nothing more evi- 
 dent, than that by the sacrifices they designed to atone the deities, 
 and expected that they should be accepted in place of the offerers, 
 and their death be admitted instead of what they had deserved 
 themselves. See abundance of testimonies given to this by him to 
 whom we refened, when we quoted Caesars testim.ony to this pur- 
 pose ; I mean Outram. What, I pray, meant the custom that 
 prevailed, not only among the Jews, but Heathens, of offering their 
 sacrifices with solemn prayers to God, that all the plagues which 
 they or their country had deserved, might light on the head of the 
 victim ; and so they themselves escape ? And hereupon they 
 thought that all their sins did meet upon it, and defile it to that de- 
 gree, that none who had touched it dared to return home till they 
 had washed and purified themselves. Suidas reports of the Greeks, 
 *' Quod, ei, qui mnlis overruncandis quotannis destinatus erat, sic 
 *' imprecahanhir, sis 7repf<pi}f^«, nostrum, hoc est, salus <^ redemp- 
 " tio. Atque ita ilium in mare projiciebant, quasi Neptuno sacrum 
 " persolventes.^'f Servius tells us, *' Massilieness, quoties pesti- 
 " lentia laborabant, unus se ex pauperibus offerebat, alendus anno 
 " integro publicis ^ imrioribus cibis. Hicpostea, ornatus verbe- 
 " nis 8r vestibus sacris, circumducebaliir per iolam civitatem cum 
 *' execrationibu^, ut in ipsum reciderent mala totius civitalis ; & 
 " sic proiiciebatur."X But we have stayed too long in rufuting 
 this mad and ungrounded conceit. 
 
 VI. Some, to prove that the works of providence, particularly 
 liis forbearance to sinners and bounty to them, do call men to re- 
 pentance without the word, urge the apostle's words, Rom. ii. 4. 
 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance, and 
 
 * See A. W. Letter, Oracles of Reason. 
 
 t " They cursed the person who was 3'early appointed for averting misfor- 
 " tunes, in this manner, " Be thou our atonement," that is, our safety and 
 " redemption ; and so they threw him into the sea, as performing a sacrifice 
 " to Neptune." 
 
 t " As often as the Massilians were afflicted with the pestilence, one of 
 " the poor offered himself, who was to be nourislied for a whole year with 
 " clean victuals, at tht public expcnce, after which being adorned with ver- 
 •' vains nnd sacred garments, he was led round the whole city with execra- 
 " tions, that the mi.sfortunes of the whole city might fall upon him, and thus 
 " he was cast out." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 175 
 
 iong'Suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God Icadeth thee 
 to repentance ? To this we answer, 
 
 1. Divines, and these not a few, nor of the lowest form, do un- 
 derstand this whole context of the Jews ; and they urge reasons 
 for it -that are not contemptible. If this opinion hold, no more 
 can be drawn from these words, than what has been already grant- 
 ed without any prejudice to our cause, viz. that this dispensation, 
 where persons are otherwise under a call to repentance, gives time 
 to repent, and enforceth the obligation of that call they are under. 
 
 2. But to cut off all pretence of any plea from this scripture, we 
 shall take under our consideration the apostle's whole discourse, 
 from the 16th ver. of the 4th chap, to the 4th ver. of the lid, and 
 give a view of these words, and other passages insisted on to the 
 same purpose, with a special eye to the apostle's scope in the dis- 
 course, and the particular design of every passage. And this we 
 shall undertake, not so much out of any regard to this objection in 
 particular, but to obviate the abuse of several passages of this dis- 
 course of the apostle, by whom we shall have just now occasion to 
 debate almost every verse in this second chapter. If, therefore, 
 our solution of the apostle's discourse seem a little tedious at pre- 
 sent, this disadvantage will be compensated by the light it will con- 
 tribute for clearing many of the ensuing objections. 
 
 The apostle Paul, Rom. i. 1 6. had asserted, that the gospel is 
 the power of God to salvation to every one that believes, to the Jew 
 frst, and also to the Greek, that is, it is the only powerful mean of 
 salvation to persons of all sorts ; neither Jew nor Greek can be 
 saved by any other mean. In the l7th verse, he advances an ar- 
 gument for proof of this assertion, which is plainly this, that reve- 
 lation, which exhibits the righteousness of God, which is the only 
 righteousness that can please God, and on the account whereof he 
 accepts and justifies sinnei-s ; and which exhibits this righteoiisnesSf 
 not upon slender or conjectural grounds, but from faith, that is, 
 upon the testimony of the faithful God, who can neither be de- 
 ceived nor deceive us, proposes this righteousness to our faith, ag 
 the only powerful mean of salvation : but it is the gospel only that 
 doth reveal this righteousness of God from faith, or upon the 
 credit of divine testimony unto faith : therefore the gospel is the 
 only powerful m^an of God's appointment. 
 
 This Is plainly the apostle's argument ; and if we consider it, 
 we will find it to comprize three assertions ; 1 . That the righteous- 
 ness of God revealed in the gospel, and received by faith, is that, 
 on the account whereof, sinners are accepted with and justified be- 
 fore God. This is one branch of his first proposition, which he 
 designs to explain and confirm afterwards, at length. Here he only 
 confirms it by hinting a proof of it from the prophet Habakkuk's 
 words, the just shall live by failh, that is, faith receiving the 
 
176 AN INCtUIRY INTO THE 
 
 Tigtheousness of God revealed in the promise, is the foundation of 
 all the godlj, their hopes of pardon, peace with God, grace to sup- 
 port under trials, and a merciful deliverance from them. As it is 
 by these things they live in troublesome times, so it is the accept- 
 ance of this righteousness, that gives them any right to these ad- 
 vantages. 2. His first proposition implies this assertion, that this 
 righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, is the only effectual 
 mean of acceptance M'itli and justification before God ; or, that 
 there is no other way wherein any of the children of men may ob- 
 tain those advantages, save this way of accepting by faith the 
 righteousness of God, upon the credit or faith of his testimony ; 
 this is the other branch of his first proposition. 3. The apostle 
 asserts in this argument, that the gospel doth reveal this righteous- 
 ness of God ; on which, and on which only, acceptance with and 
 justification before God are to be obtained, from faith to faith. — 
 This is the apostle's assumption or second proposition. 
 
 The apostle having hinted for the present, at a sufficient proof of 
 the first of these assertions, as has been said, passes it. He lays* 
 aside likewise the third of these assertions, designing to clear it 
 afterwards, and addresses himself to the proof of the second in the 
 ensuing discourse from chap. i. ver. 18. to chap. iii. ver. 20. or 
 thereabout. 
 
 The proposition then which our apostle spends the whole context 
 under consideration in proof of, is, " That there is no other way 
 whereby a sinner can obtain justification before, or acceptance with 
 God, but by faith:" Or that " neither Gentiles nor Jews can be 
 justified before God by their own works." 
 
 This he demonstrates, First, Against the Gentiles in particular, 
 from chap. i. ver. 18. to chap. ii. ver. 16. according lo our present 
 supposition, or concession of his adversaries. Next, he proves the 
 same in particular against the Jews, chap. ii. to ver. 8. of chap, iii- 
 And from thence to the close of his discourse he demonstrates the 
 same in general against all mankird whether Jews or Gentiles. 
 
 First, Then, he demonstrates against the Gentiles in particular, 
 that they cannot be justified before God by the works they may 
 pretend to have done in obedience to the law of nature, by the 
 ensuing arguments, which we shall not reduce into form ; but only 
 propose the force of them, by laying down in the most natural and 
 easy order, the propositions whereof they do consist. 
 
 1. The apostle insinuates, ver. 18. that the Gentiles had some 
 notions of truth concerning God, and the worship duo to him from 
 the light of nature, ver. 18. though they imprisoned them : and 
 what here he insinuates, he directly proves ver. 19, 20. 
 
 2, He asserts, that they did not walk answerably to these no- 
 tices, but detained them in iinrighleousncss ; that is, they sup- 
 pressed, bore them dowj-", and would not aljow them that directive 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 177 
 
 power over their practices which they claimed ; but in opposition 
 to them went on in sin. This he had intimated in general, ver. 18. 
 and he proves it, ver. 21, 22, 23. 
 
 3. He proves, that the wrath of God, is revealed from Heaven, 
 especially by instances of spiritual plagues, the most terrible of 
 all judgments, against them for their counteracting those notices of 
 truth. This he also intimated, ver. 18. and proves it, ver. 24, 
 25, 26. 
 
 4. He shews, that the Gentiles being thus, by the just judgment 
 of God, given up and left to themselves, did run on from evil to 
 worse in all sorts of abominations ; and therefore did render their 
 own condemnation the more sure, inevitable and intolerable. This 
 he does from ver. 26 to 32. 
 
 5. To confirm this further, ver. 32. he shews that the fact 
 cannot be denied, in regard that they both practised those evils 
 themselves, and made themselves guilty by their virtual approba- 
 tion of them in others : nor could it be excused, since Ihey could 
 not but know, if they attended to the light of nature, that sucli 
 gross abominations are worthy of death. 
 
 6. The apostle having in the last verse of chap. i. mentioned 
 this aggravation of their sins, that they were against knowledge, 
 takes occasion thence to proceed to a new argument, whereby ho 
 at once confirms what he had said about their sinning against know- 
 ledge, chap. i. ver. 32. and further evinces his main point, that 
 they must inevitably be condemned by a new argument, which he 
 lays down in the ensuing assertion, either expressed or insinuated. 
 
 (1.) He takes notice, that the Gentiles, if he speaks of them, 
 do themselves practise those things, which they judge and con- 
 demn others for. 
 
 (2.) He takes it for granted, as well he may, that he who con- 
 demns any practice of another, doth confess that that practice in 
 itself is worthy of condemnation. 
 
 (3.) He hereon infers, that the Gentiles do practise those things, 
 which, according to their own acknowledgment, are in themselves 
 worthy of condemnation. Now this conclusion directly fixes upon 
 them the aggravation mentioned in the close of the proceeding 
 chapter, viz. That they know the things they do to be worthy of 
 death. And this sufficiently clears the connection. 
 
 (4.) He argues again, that the judgment of God being always 
 according to truth, he will certainly condemn all, who do things 
 that in truth are worthy of condemnation, ver. 2. 
 
 (5.) Hereon by an inevitable consequence, ver. 3. he con- 
 cludes, that God will certainly condemn the Gentiles, which is the 
 main point. 
 
 (6.) As an inference from the whole, he concludes, that as any 
 prospect of escape is vain, so they are precluded from all excuse. 
 
178 AN Ii\aUlRY ir^TO THE 
 
 or shadow of ground for reclaiming against the sentence of God, 
 which, by their own acknowledgment, proceeds only against prac- 
 tices, that are in truth worthy of condemnation. 
 
 7. The apostle having thus locked them up, as it were, under 
 unavoidable condemnation, proceeds ver. 4. to cut off their retreat 
 to that, M herein some of them took sanctuary. They concluded, 
 that God who did forbear them, while they went on in sin, and al- 
 lowed them to share so deep in his goodness, would not punish 
 them so severely. To cut off this plea,^ the apostle first taxes 
 them as guilty of a grievous abuse of this dispensation, while they 
 drew encouragement from it to go on in sin. 2. He argues 
 them of gross ignorance of the genuine tendency of this dealing of 
 God. To argue thus, " God spares me and is good to me, there- 
 ibre I may safely sin against him, and hope for his impunity in 
 <:ommitting known sin^ against him," is mad and unreasonable. — 
 Heason would say, " God forbears me and so gives me time ; he 
 adds to former obligations I lay under to obey him by loading me 
 with new kindnesses, therefore I should be the more studious to 
 please him, and avoid these things which I know will be offensive 
 to him, and be ashamed for former offences." This by the way 
 is the full import of that expression, The goodness of God leading 
 to repentance. But of this more anon. 3. Hereon ver. 5. he 
 infers that their abuse of this dispensation and their not returning 
 to obedience, or answering the obligations laid on them increases 
 their guilt, and so lays up materials for an additional libel, and a 
 more highly accented punishment, ver. 5. 
 
 Having thus shortly given an account of the scope and mean- 
 ing of the words, I shall next lay down a few short observation? 
 clearly subversive of any argument that can be drawn from them. 
 
 (1.) None can say, that the persons, who were under this dis- 
 pensation did, in fact, understand it to import a call to repentance. 
 The apostle accuses them of ignorance of this, and of abusing it 
 fay drawing encouragement from it, that they should escape pun- 
 ishment, though they went on in sin. 
 
 (2.) It is plain the apostle's scope led him to no more, bul this, 
 to evince, that this dispensation afforded them no ground to hope 
 for impunity, no encouragement to proceed in a course of known 
 sin, that it did aggravate the guilt of their continuance in such sins, 
 ynd enforce the obligations they otherwise were under to absti- 
 nence from them, and ihe practice of neglected duties. This is 
 ii'.l the words will bear, and all that the scope requires. 
 
 (0.) The apostle is proving, as we have clearly evinced above, 
 that the persons, with whom he is now dealing, without recours«j 
 to the gospel revelation, are shut up from all access to justifica- 
 tion before God, acceptance with him, pardon and salvation ; ccj^ 
 tainly therefore he cannot in this place be understood to intend 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 179 
 
 that these persons were under means sufficient to lead them to 
 t'hat repentance, upon which they might be assured of forgiveness 
 and peace with God. 
 
 (4.) This same apostle elsewhere appropriates the call to re- 
 pentance unto the gospel revelation, Acts xvii. 30. speaking to 
 the Heathens at Athens, he says, the times of this ignorance God 
 winked at ; but noiv commandetk all men every where to repent. — 
 Here it is plain, that men left to the light of nature, are left witli- 
 eut this call, until the gospel come and give this invitation. 
 
 [5.] Wherefore we may from the particular scope of this verse, 
 the general scope of the apostle's discourse, and his plain declara- 
 tions upon other occasions, conclude, 1. That the repentance he 
 here intends, is not that repentance to which the promise of par- 
 don is in the gospel annexed ; but only an abstinence from these 
 evil, which their consciences condemn them for, and the return 
 to some sort of performance of the material part of known, but 
 deserted duty. Frequent mention is made of such a repentance 
 in scripture ; but no where is pardon promised upon it. 2. This 
 leading imports no more, but that the dispensation we speak of dis- 
 covers this return to be duty, and gives space or time for it. 
 
 [6.] To confirm what has been now said, it is to be observe<3, 
 that our apostle acquaints, that this forbearance and goodness is ex- 
 ercised towards the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, Rona. ix. 
 22. which sufficiently intimates that this dispensation of itself 
 gives no assurance of pardon to these who are under it, but is con 
 sistent with a fixed purpose of punishing them. Vet without thi«5 
 assurance, it is impossible there should ever be any call to repen 
 tance, that can be available to any of mankind, or answer the hy- 
 pothesis of those with whom we have to do. 
 
 8. In the close of ver. 5. the apostle introduces a discourse of 
 the last judgment for two ends : First, To cut off those abusers of 
 God's goodness from all hopes of escape. He has before shewed 
 that they have stored up sins, the causes of wrath ; and here he 
 shews there is a judgment designed, wherein they will reap as they 
 have sown. Thus the words following are a confirmation of the 
 foregoing argument, and enforce the apostle's main scope. Secondly, 
 He does it for clearing the righteousness of God from any impu- 
 tation that the dispensation he had been speaking of, viz. his for- 
 bearance and goodness towards sinners, might tempt blind men to 
 throw upon it : and this he does by shewing that this is not the 
 time of retribution, but that there is an open and solemn distribu- 
 tion designed, wherein God will fully clear his righteousness. To 
 these two ends is this whole account of the last judgment suited. 
 He tells them that there Is a day of wrath and of the revelation of 
 the rigliteous judgment of God. While he speaks of the revela- 
 tion of the righteous judgment of God, he tacitly grants that by 
 
180 AN INdUIRY INTO THE 
 
 this dispensation of forbearance, the righteousness of God's judg- 
 ment is some way clouded or under a veil: but withall he intimates 
 that there is a definite time, a dai/ fixed for its manifestation ; and 
 that this day will prove a day of wrath, that is, a day wherein the 
 vindictive justice of God will signally manifest itself, in punishing 
 such sinners, as they were with whom he deals. In short he ac- 
 quaints them, that the design of this day is to reveal the righteous 
 judgment of God, that is, to manifest to the conviction of angels 
 and men, the righteousness of God's proceedings toward the chil- 
 dren of men, particularly as to rewards and punishments. It Avill 
 be righteous, and therefore such sinners as they shall not escape. 
 It will be revealed to be such ; and so all ground of calumny will be 
 taken away. To clear this, he gives an account of the concern- 
 ments of that judgment, in so far as it is to his purpose ; wherein, 
 
 (1.) He teaches, that there will be an open retribution of re- 
 wards and punishments, God will render, &c. 
 
 (2.) He shews that God will proceed in this retribution upon 
 open and incontestible evidence. He will render according to 
 works. The persons who are to be punished shall, to the con- 
 viction of on-lookers, be convicted by their works of impiety ; and 
 the piety of those to whom the rewards are given, shall in like man- 
 ner be cleared. 
 
 (3.) He acquaints them, that the distribution shall be suitable 
 to the character of the persons, the nature and quality of their 
 works. He will render according to their works ; that is evil to 
 the evil ; good io the good. This is all that is intended by xartt 
 secundum, or according : the meaning is not that he will render 
 according to the merit of their works. For though I own that 
 God will pimish according to the just demerit of sin ; yet that is 
 not intended here by this phrase according to works : for the word 
 m its proper signification intimates, not strict or universal propor- 
 tion betwixt the things connected by it ; much less doth it parti- 
 cularly import, that the one is the meritorious cause of the other ; 
 but the word is, in all languages, commonly taken in a more lax 
 signification, to denote any suitableness betwixt the things con- 
 nected by it. So our Lord says to the blind men, Matth. xix. 
 29. According to your faith be it unto you. Who will say that 
 any faith, but especially such a lame one as we have reason to 
 think they had, did merit that miraculous cure ; or that it was 
 every v;ay suitable unto it ? Since then the ivord of itself does 
 not import this, it cannot be taken so here, unless either other 
 viCxiptures determine us to this sense, or something in the context 
 fix this to be the meaning of it. To take it in this sense as to re- 
 wards, is ^ o far from having any countenance from other scriptures, 
 that it is directly contrary to the whole current of them. And 
 when the vrojd is taken in this sei'£e. then the scriptures plairlj'' 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 181 
 
 tell us that we are not saved or rewarded hy or according to our 
 Tfiorks of righteoiisnesSf but according to his mercy through Jesus 
 Christ, Tit^ iii. 5, 6. Nor is there auy thing in the text or con- 
 text to incline us to take it in this sense, but much on the contrary 
 to demonstrate that this is not the meaning, at least with respect to 
 rewards : for to say, that the reward shall be given us according 
 to our works, that is, for our works, as meritorious of it, flatly 
 contradicts the apostle's scope, which is to prove, that all mankind, 
 Jews and Gentiles, do by their works merit only condemnation, and 
 that none can expect upon them absolution, much less reward. — 
 Besides, the HX)rks here principally intended are not all our works, 
 nor these, which if any had, would have the fairest pretence to 
 merit, viz. the inward actings of grace, faith, love, &c. but out- 
 ward works that are evidences of the inward temper and frame of 
 the actors. This is evident from the word itself, from the 
 particular instances elsewhere condescended upon, M'hen the 
 last judgment is spoken of, and from the design of this general 
 judgment. 
 
 (4.) He shews, that this retribution will be universal, to every 
 one, Src. 
 
 (5.) He illustrates further the righteousness of it, ver. 7. by 
 characterizing the persons who are to be rewarded, they are such 
 as do well, that is, whose actions openly speak them good, and 
 evidence the honesty of the principle whence they flow ; they 
 continue in well doing, their walk is uniform and habitually good ; 
 flowing from a fixed principle, and not from an external accidental 
 cause ; they continue patiently in this course, in oposition to all 
 discouragements : nor do they aim at worldly advantage, but at 
 that glory, honor and irnmortaliiy, which God sets before them. — ^ 
 None but they, who are perfectly such, shall have a reward, if it 
 is sought for, according to the tenor of the covenant of works : 
 and in this sense not a few, nor they obscure interpreters, do take 
 the words ; as if the apostle had said, if there be any among you, 
 who have perfectly obeyed, ye shall be rewarded : but whereas, I 
 have cleared that none of you arc such, ye are cut off from any 
 expectation of reward. But if the sincerity of obedience is only 
 intended, then the meaning is that God will of his grace, according 
 to his promise, and not for their works, give the reward to the 
 sincerely obedient ; and thereby will openly evince his righteous- 
 ness, in dealing with them exactly according to the tenor of the 
 covenant, to which they belong ; so that no person, *vho has any 
 just claim to reward founded upon either covenant, shall want it. 
 
 (6.) To clear the glory of God's kighteousness further, he spe- 
 cifies the reward, viz. eternal life, a reward sufficient to compen- 
 sate any losses they have been at, evidence God's love to holiness, 
 and his regard to his promise^. 
 
182 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 (7.) He, in like manner, clears the matter further, by giving a 
 clescription, ver. 8. of the persons, who are to be condemned, 
 which evinces the apparent righteousness of the sentence to be 
 passed against them. They are such against whom it will be made 
 evident, that they have been contentious, that is, that they have 
 opposed and suppressed the truths they knew, stifled convictions, 
 and detained them in unrighteousness : such as have not obeyed 
 the truth, or walked up to their knowledge, but have obeyed un- 
 righteousness, following the inclinations of their corrupt hearts. 
 As if the apostle had said, the persons who are to be rewarded 
 are of a character that ye' can lay no manner of claim to, but your 
 character ia perfectly that of those who are to be condemned. 
 
 [8.] He specifies tlie punishment, indignation and wrath. 
 
 [9.] To fix the truth and importance of this deeper upon their 
 minds, he repeats an<i enlarges upon this assertion, ver. 9, 10. 
 thereby assuring them that the matter is infallibly certain, and to 
 give a further evidence of the righteousness of God, he adjects a 
 clause and repeats it twice over, viz. first to the Jew and also to 
 the Gentile, wherein he shews the impartialitj^ of God's proceed- 
 ings. He will not suffer one soul,, who has any just claim to re- 
 ward, to go unrewarded, be he Jew or Gentile. He will not allow 
 one sinner, to whom punishment belongs, to escape unpunished. 
 The Jews' privilege shall not save them, if guilty, but judgment 
 shall begin first at the house of God ; nor shall the bare want of 
 privileges prejudge the Gentiles. 
 
 [10.] To confirm this he adduces an argument from the nature 
 of God, ver. 1 1 . viz. that with him there is no respect of persorts, 
 Ihat is, no unjust partiality towards persons, upon considerations, 
 that do not belong unto the rule, whereby the cause is to be tried. 
 
 [11.] To strengthen this and obviate objections, ver. 12. he 
 asserts, that God will proceed impartially in judging them accord- 
 ing to the most unexceptionable rule. He will condemn the Jews 
 for their transgressions of that law, which he gave to them. He 
 will condemn the Gentiles, not for the transgression of the written 
 !aw which they had not, but for their sins against the law of na- 
 ture which they had. And so neither of them shall have ground 
 to except against the rule, according to which God proceeds with 
 them. 
 
 [12.] Hence he takes occasion, ver. 13. to repel an objection or 
 plea of the Jews, who might fancy that they should not be pun- 
 ished or perish, to whom God bad given the privilege of the writ- 
 ten law. To cut of this plea he tells them, that where persons 
 expect justification by the law, it is not the knowledge o( the law, 
 or hearing of it, but obedience to it that will be sustained. Here 
 be does not suppose that any shall be justified by doing the lam i, 
 nay, he j;rove:5 the contrary. It is manifest'y Ym design, in the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 183 
 
 whole tliscourse^ to do so : but he shews that the plea of the Jews, 
 that they had the law, is insufficient ; as if he had said, be 
 it granted, that justification is to be had by the la^ j yet even 
 upon that supposition, ye have no title to it, unless ye perfectly 
 obey it. The law pleads for none, but those who do so. And 
 since none of you do thus obey it, as shall be evhiced anon, yc 
 must perish, as I said, ver. 1 2. 
 
 [13.] Whereas the Gentiles might plead, it would be hard treat- 
 ment if they should be condemned^ since they were without the 
 law ,- he demonstrates that they could not except against their own 
 condemnation upon this ground, because although they wanted the 
 written law, yet they have another law, viz. that of nature ; for 
 the breaches of which they might justly be condemned. That 
 they had such a law he proves against them, ver. 14. 15. First y 
 From their practice : he tells them that by the guidance of mere 
 nature they did the works of the Ian\ that is, they performed the 
 material part of some of the duties which the law enjoins, and 
 thereby evidenced acquaintance with the law, or as he words it, 
 iheT/ shew the work of the law wriUenin their hearts, that is, the 
 remainders of tlieir natural light, or reason, performs tlie work of 
 the law commanding duty, and forbidding sin. Secondli/, He 
 proves that they have such a law from the working of their con- 
 science. He whose conscience accuses him for not doing some 
 things, and approves him for doing other things, knows that lie was 
 obliged to do the one and omit the other, and consequently has 
 line knowledge of the law. This is the apostle's scope, ver. 14. 
 i.;. So that for, in tl>e beginning of ver. 14. refers to and ren- 
 liers a reason of the first clause of ver. 12. that they who had 
 sinned without law, viz. the written law, shall perish without law, 
 that is, not for violating the written law, Avhich they had not. 
 
 [14.] Having removed these objection^';, he concludes his ac- 
 count of the last judgment, ver. IB. wherein he gives them an ac- 
 count, Is/, To whom it belongs originally to judge, it is God. 
 '2dli/, Who the person is to whom the visible administration is 
 committed, it is Jesus Christ. 3<////, What the matter of that 
 judgment is, or what vrill be judged, it is the secrets of hearts. Al- 
 though works will be insisted upon as evidences for the couvictioir 
 ttf on-lookers, of the righteousness of God in his distribution of 
 rewards and punishments ; yet the secrets of men will also be laid 
 open, for the further confusion of sinners, and justification of the 
 severity of God against them. 
 
 Secondlf/, Now the apostle having proven, that the Gentiles are 
 all under condemnation, and so cannot be justified by any works 
 Ihey can do ; and having likewise removed some exceptbns of 
 the Jews that fell in his >vay,^ he proceeds next directly to prove 
 
1S4 AlV maUlRY INTO THE 
 
 the same against the Jews in particular, and answers their objec- 
 tions from chap, ii- ver. 17. to chap. iii. ver. 8. inclusive. 
 
 To prove this charge against the Jews, he makes use only of' 
 one argument, which yet is capable of bearing the weight of many 
 conclusions or inferences. To understand this, we must take no- 
 tice, that the apostle is dealing here with the Jews, who sought to 
 be justified by works. And, 
 
 1. By way of Concession, he grants them several privileges 
 above the Gentiles from ver. 17. to ver. 20. inclusive, viz. That 
 they were called Jews ; that they had the law, on which they 
 rested and pretended some peculiar interest in God, as being eX" 
 ternally in covenant with him, ver. 17. of which they boasted; 
 that they had some knowledge of the law, and pretended them- 
 selves capable of guiding others. This he grants them in a varie- 
 ty of expressions, ver. 18, 19, 20. By which the apostle secret- 
 ly taxes their vanity, and insinuates, that whatever they had in 
 point of privilege, they abused it. 
 
 2. The apostle charges them with a practical contradiction to 
 this their knowledge, and this he makes good against them, par- 
 ticularly against their highest pretenders, their teachers, I. By 
 Condescending on several instances, wherein they were guilty and 
 appealing to their consciences for the truth of them, ver. 22, 23. 
 which I shall not insist in explaining. 2. He proves it further 
 by a testimony of scripture, ver. 24. wherein God complains, that 
 their provocations were such, as tempted the Gentiles to blas- 
 pheme his name. 
 
 This is the argument, the conclusion he leaves to themselves to- 
 draw. And indeed it will bear all the conclusions formerly laid 
 down against the Gentiles. Whatever their knowledrce was, they 
 were not doers, but breakers of the /««', and so could not be jus- 
 tified by it, ver» 13. but might expect to perish for their trans- 
 gressions of it, according to ver. 12. They sinned against know- 
 ledge, and so deserved as severe resentments as the Gentiles, chap, 
 i. ver. S2. Tlicy could not pretend ignorance ; for they taught 
 others tiie contrary, and so were without excuse, chap. ii. ver. 1. 
 
 The apostle next proceeds to answer their objections. The 
 first whereof is brought in, ver. 25. The short of it is this, the 
 j-ws pretended they had circumcision, the seal of God's cove- 
 nant, and so claimed the privileges of it. This objection is not 
 directly proposed, bat the answer anticipating it is introdcced as a 
 conRrmation or reason enforcing the conclusion aimed at, viz. 
 That they could not be justified by the law : and therefore it is, 
 that v/e find the casual particle for in the beginning of the verse. 
 This mucjj for the manner wherein the objection is introduced. 
 To this objection the r?po?tlc answer:-'.. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 185 
 
 1. By a concession ; cimimcision verihj projitetk if thou keep 
 the law, that is, if thou perfectly obey the commands, then thou 
 niayest in justice demand the privileges of the covenant, and 
 plead the seal of it, as a pledge of the faithfulness of God in the 
 promises. 
 
 2. He answers directly by shewinjr, that this seal signified just 
 nothing as to iheir claim of a legal righteousness, because they 
 were breakers of the law. But if thou be a breaker of the law, 
 thi/ circumcision is made uncircumrision. The short of the mat- 
 ter is this ; this seal is only a conditional engagement of the faith- 
 fulness of God : it does not say, thou shalt get the privileges 
 whether thou perform the condition or not : so that by this meons, 
 if the condition is not performed, ye have nothing to ask, and ye 
 are as remote from a claim to the reward, as they who want the 
 seal. 
 
 3. The apostle, to illustrate and confirm what he had said about 
 the unprofitableness of circumcision in case of transgression, 
 shews, that a Gentile upon supposition that it were possible, obey- 
 ing the law, but Avanting the seal of the covenant, would have a 
 better title to the privileges promised, than a Jew, who had the 
 seal, but wanted the obedience, ver. 26. Therefore if the uncir- 
 cumcision keep the righteousness of the law, that is, if a Gentile 
 should yield that obedience the law requires, shall not his iincir- 
 ttnncision, be counted for circvmcision ? That is, shall not he, 
 notwithstanding he wanteth the outward sign of circumcision, be 
 allowed to plead an interest in the blessings promised to obedi- 
 ence, and to insist upon the faithfulness of God for the perform.- 
 ance of the promises made to the obedient, of which circumcision 
 is the sign ? The reason of this is plain, circumcision seals the per- 
 formance of the promise to the obedient ; the Gentile obeying has 
 that, which is the ground whereon the faithfulness of God is en- 
 gaged to perform the promise, viz. obedience, and so a real title to 
 the thing promised, though he wants the outward sign ; wherear 
 the disobeying Jew has only the seal, which secures nothing, but 
 upon the condition of that obedience, which he has not yielded. 
 This is only spoken by way of supposition, not as if any of the 
 Gentiles had yielded such obedience : for he had plainly proven 
 the contrary before. The apostle's reason is this — circumcision is 
 an engagement for the performance of the promise to the obedient. 
 The disobedient Jew has therefore no title to the promise ; where- 
 as the Gentile that obeys having that obedience to which the pro- 
 mise is made, has a real right to it, and so might expect the per- 
 formance of it, as if he liad the outward seal. 
 
 4. To clear yet further the unprofitableness of circumcision 
 without o))edience, the apostle, upon the foresaid supposition, 
 shews, that the Gentile obeying would not onlv have the better ti- 
 
 24 
 
186 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 He ; but his obedience would contribute to clearing the justice of 
 God, in condemning the disobedient Jew, ver. 27 : And shall not 
 imcircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, 
 who hy the leiler and circumcision dost transgress the law, that 
 is, if a Gentile wanting circumcision and the security thereby giv- 
 en, with the other advantages which the Jews have, discover the 
 inexcusableness of your disobedience, who have the letter and 
 circiimcision, or the written law, that is, who have a clearer rule 
 of duty and plainer promise. 
 
 5. To remove entirely the foundation of this objection, the 
 apostle clears the real design of circumcision, and the character of 
 Ihe person to whom the advantages do belong, ver. 28, 29. where- 
 in he shews negatively, that the Jew to whom the promises do be- 
 long is not every one Avho belongs to that nation, or is outwardly a 
 Jew ; and that the circumcision, to which the promises are ab- 
 solutely made, is not the outward circumcision, which is in the 
 flesh, ver. 28 ; but positively, that the Jew, to whom the 
 promised blessings belong, is he who is a Jew inwardly, that is, 
 who has that inward frame of heart which God requires of his 
 people ; and the circumcision, to which blessings are absolutely 
 promised, is that inward renovation of heart which is the princi- 
 ple of the obedience required by, and accepted of God, ver. 29. 
 
 This objection being removed out of the way, the apostle pro- 
 ceeds to answer an instance against what he has now said in the 
 three or four first verses of the 3d chap. The objection is pro- 
 posed ver. 1. and is in short this. By your reasoning, would the 
 Jews say, we have no advantage beyond the Gentiles, and cir- 
 cumcision is utterly unprofitable. To this he answers, 
 
 1. By denying flatly Avhat is asserted in the objection, declar- 
 ing, notwithstanding of all this, the Jews had every way the ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 2. Lest this should appear a vain assertion, he clears it by an 
 instance of the highest consequence, viz. that they had the oracles 
 of God, which the Gentiles wanted, wherein that relief against 
 transgressions, which the Gentiles were strangers to, is revealed, 
 as he expressly teaches afterwards, ver, 21. As if the apostle 
 had said, Though ye Jews fail of obedience, and so are cut oft' 
 from justification by the law as a covenant of works, yet yc have 
 a righteousness revealed to you in the law and the prophets, ver. 
 21. to v*'hich the sinner may betake himself for relief; this the 
 Gentiles who want the law and the prophets know nothing of. 
 
 3. He clear?, that this is a great advantage, notwithstanding that 
 many of the Jews were not the better for it, ver. 3. thus at once 
 anticipating an objection that might be moved, and confirming 
 what he had said. What if some did not believe, that is, though 
 some have fallen short of the advantages of this revelation, shall 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 187 
 
 \re therefore say it was not in itself a privilege ? Nay, it is in 
 itself a privilege, and they by their own fault in not believing, 
 have forfeited the advantages of it to themselves only ; for shall 
 their unbelief make the faith of God without effect ? That is, as- 
 suredly believers will not be the worse dealt with for the unbelief 
 of others ; but they will obtain the advantages of the promises. 
 
 We have insisted much longer upon this context than was de- 
 signed, but we hope that they who consider that the apostle's ar- 
 guments and his whole purposes, are directly levelled at that 
 which is the main scope of these papers, will not reckon this a 
 faulty digression. And besides, we shall immediately see the use- 
 fulness of this, in order to remove the foundation of a great many 
 objections drawn from this context by Mi-. Humfrey : some of 
 whose notions we shall consider after we have removed one ob- 
 jection more, and it is this : 
 
 VII. The words of the apostle Paul to the Athenians, Acts 
 xvii. 27. are made use of for this purpose. The apostle tells them 
 in the preceding words, that the God whom he preached, was he 
 who made the ivorlds, hath made of one blood all nations of men, 
 for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the 
 times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ; that 
 they should seek the Lord, if happily they might feel after 
 him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us : 
 for in him we live and move and have our being. The sum of 
 what is pleaded from this testimony amounts to this, that men left 
 to the light of nature are in duty bound to seek the Lord ; that 
 God is not so far from them, but that he may be found ; and that if 
 they will feel after him, that is, trace these dark discoveries of 
 him, in the works of creation and providence, they may happily 
 find him. 
 
 For answer to this we say, 1 . No word is here to be stretch-, 
 fed further than the occasion and scope of the apostle requires and 
 allows. 2. The occasion of this discourse was, that Paul being at 
 Athens, saw that city set upon the worship of idols, and overlook- 
 ed the one true God, which moved him with wrath, and gave oc- 
 casion to this discourse ; the evident scope whereof is to shew, 
 that they were to blame, that they overlooked the true God, and 
 gave that worship to idols, which was only to be given to God. 
 For convincing them of this, 3. He shews, that the true God, by 
 his works of creation and providence had in so far discovered 
 himself, that if by these works they sought after the knowledge of 
 him, they might find him so far, or know so much, as to under- 
 stand that he alone was the true God, to whom divine worship was 
 due. 4. He owns, that indeed these discoveries were but dark, 
 to wit, in comparison of the discoveries he had made of himself in 
 tlie word ; which h sufficiently intimated by that expression of 
 
188 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 ffeling after him, they might find him, so far as to deliver them 
 from that gross idolatry and neglect of him they were involved in. 
 Here is all that the scope holds out : but he does not say, that 
 they might find him, so as to obtain the saving knowledge of him 
 by these works of providence ; but on the contrary he tells us, that 
 God winked at the times of ignorance, that is, seemed as if he did 
 not notice men, and in his holy and sovereign justice left them to 
 find by their own experience, which by any means they had, that 
 they could not arrive to the saving knowledge of God ; though 
 they might, as has been just now said, have gone so far as to dis- 
 entangle themselves from that gross idolatry for which he now re- 
 proves them. He does not say, that God then called them to 
 saving repentance, gave them any discovery of his purpose of 
 mercy, and thereon invited them to peace and acceptance : but on 
 the contrary, he tells, that now he calls all men every where to re- 
 pent, ver. 30. which sufficiently intimates that they had not that 
 call before. In a word, it is not that seeking or finding of God, or 
 that nearness to God which is here intended, that elsewhere the 
 scripture speaks of, when it treats about men's case who are living 
 under the gospel, and have God in Christ revealed, and the gos- 
 pel call to turn, to seek after and find him to their own salvation ; 
 as the scope of the place fully clears. Any one that would see 
 this place fully considered, may find it done by the learned Dr. 
 Owen, in that accurate, though short digression concerning uni- 
 versal grace, inserted in his Theolog. Pantodap. page 33. There 
 likewise is that other scripture, Acts xiv. ver. 15, 16, 17. largely 
 considered. On which I shall not now insist, seeing there is no- 
 thing in it that has the least appearance of opposition to what we 
 have asserted, if not that God is there said, not to have left him- 
 self without a witness among the nations, in as much as he did 
 good to them, gave fruitful seasons, &c. This is granted : but 
 these necessaries of life are no v/itness that God designed for them 
 mercy and forgiveness, as has been made appear above, and as the 
 Spirit of God tells us there ; for God suffered them to walk in 
 their own way. 
 
 Vni. Some alledge that there is a law of grace connatural to 
 man in his lapsed state, and that in substance it is this, That God 
 will pardon sinners upon their repentance : and they tell us, that 
 this law of grace is as much written in the heart of lapsed man, as 
 the law of nature was written in the heart of innocent man. To 
 this purpose speaks Mr. Humfrey in his Peaceable Disquisitions,* 
 and that with such an air of confidence, as might make one expect 
 better proof than he has offered. 
 
 * Peace. Disquls. Chap. 4. page 56. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 189 
 
 We shall just now examine Mr. Humfrey's arguments. As to 
 the notion itself of a connatural law of grace written in the hearts 
 of all mankind in this lapsed condition, we look upon it as abso- 
 lutely false. It contradicts scripture, reason and experience. My 
 design excuseth me from the use of scripture arguments. Expe- 
 rience I need not insist upon, after what has been already said. — 
 Reason will not allow us to call any law connatural to man, save 
 upon one of these three accounts ; either because we are born' 
 with actual knowledge of it ; or, because it lies so open and is so 
 suited to our rational faculties, that any man, who has the use of 
 reason, can scarce miss thinking of it, at least, refuse his assent to 
 it, when it is proposed to him ; or, finally, because it is nearly 
 connected with notions and principles that are self-evident, and is 
 easily deducible from them. Now this discovery of mercy to sini 
 ners merely upon repentance is connatural in none of these senses. 
 I know no truth that is connatural in the first sense. The ingenious 
 Mr. Locke has said enough against this.* In the second sense, it 
 is not connatural. Who will tell me, that this is a self-evident 
 proposition, while so great a part of the more knowing and judi- 
 cious part of mankind, not only refuse their assent to it, but reject 
 it as a plain untruth ? Yea, I doubt if any that understands the 
 case, and knows nothing of the satisfaction of Clirist, will give his 
 assent to it. In this last sense it is not connatural ; for if it were 
 so, it were easy demonstrable by these self-evident principles, to 
 which it is nearly allied : which, when Mr. Humfrey shall have 
 demonstrated from these principles, or any other for him, we shall 
 then consider it ; but this I am apprehensive will never be done. 
 In a word, all these truths, which with any tolerable propriety of 
 speech can be called connatural, if they are not self-evident, are 
 yet such as admit of an easy demonstration. And it is foolish to 
 call any truth connatural, unless it is such, as either needs no proof, 
 or is easily demonstrable. This is sufficient to overthrow this 
 notion. 
 
 Before we consider the arguments which Mr. Humfrey advan^ 
 ces for his opinions, I shall offer to the reader a more full view of 
 it in his own words. He then asserts, " that there is a connatu- 
 " ral law of grace written in the heart of man, that is, that this 
 " law of lapsed nature, this law of grace, or remedying law, is 
 " written in the heart of man in regard of his fallen nature, no less 
 ** than the law of pure nature itself was. The law of nature, 
 " (says he) as I take it, is the dictates of right reason, declaring 
 *' to us our duty to God, to ourselves and to our neighbors : and 
 " the light of the same reason will dictate to us, when we have 
 " failed in that duty, to repent and turn to God, with trusting to 
 
 * Essny on Human Understand. Book 1. 
 
190 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " his mercy and pardon if we do so, and not else. We do find 
 " it legible in our hearts, that God is good and wisely gracious to 
 " consider our lost estate, and pity our infirmities and necessary 
 *' frailty."* After he has told us of a threefold promulgation of 
 this law of grace under the Patriarchs, by Moses and Christ, which 
 he calls three editions of the same law ; he subjoins, " Now I say, 
 " that though the Heathen be not under (or have not) this law of 
 *' grace, in the third and last setting out, or in the state under the 
 " gospel ; yet they are under it (or have it) in the state of the 
 *' ancients, or as they had it in the first promulgation ; and upon 
 " supposition that any of them do, according to the light they 
 " have, live up in sincerity to this law, I dare not be the man 
 " that shall deny, that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 *' [procuring this law or covenant for them, as for us and all the 
 *' world] they shall be saved even as we." And a little befoie he 
 says, " These characters thus engraven in the heart of man, is 
 *' the same law of grace in its practical contents, which is more 
 *' largely paraphrased upon in the scriptures." 
 
 Surely the apostle Paul had a very different notion of the state 
 of the Heathen world from this gentleman, when he tells us em- 
 phatically, that they are strangers from the covenants of promise, 
 that they are without God, that is, without the saving knowledge of 
 God ; for another sense the word will scarcely bear : that they are 
 without Christ, without hope, afar off, &c. But it is not my de- 
 sign to offer scripture arguments against this anti-scriptural divinity. 
 I leave this to others, and proceed to his proofs : nor shall I in the 
 consideration of them take notice of every thing that might be 
 justly quarrelled ; but only hint at the main faults. 
 
 1 . He reasons to this effect : If there is no connatural law of 
 grace written in the heart of man, then none of those who lived 
 before Moses could be saved, in as much as there was then no 
 other law by which they could be saved.f This argument he 
 borrows from Suarez, and concludes it triumphantly thus, " which 
 " is a truth so evident, as makes the proof of that law by that 
 reason alone to be good." 
 
 But for all this commendation, I think this argument has a dou- 
 ble fault. 1. It proves not the point, viz. that there is a law of 
 grace written in the heaits of all men by nature ; but only that 
 there was such a law written in their hearts that were saved. This 
 argument is built upon a supposition that is plainly false, viz. that 
 there was no other way that they could be saved but by the law 
 of grace written in their hearts. This, I say, is false ; for they 
 were saved by the gospel discovery of Christ in the promise re- 
 
 Peace, nisquis. Chap. 4, pag'e 5&, ' 
 iViiCC. Disrjuis. page 56. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 191 
 
 vealed to them by God, and wherein the generality of the Lord's 
 people were more fully instructed by the patriarchs, who were 
 preachers of righteousness. And this revelation and preaching 
 was to them instead of the written word. Thus we see this 
 mighty argument proves just nothing. 
 
 2. He reasons from Abraham's pleading with God on behalf of 
 the righteous men in Sodom. Here he thinks it evident, that 
 there were righteous men. He proves, that there were none 
 righteous then, according to the tenor of the covenant of works, 
 and therefore concludes, that tliese righteous persons did belong 
 to, and were dealt with according to the covenant of grace.* But 
 now what does all this prove ? Does it prove that these men were 
 under the covenant of grace, and that they were dealt with accord- 
 ing to the tenor of it ? Well, I grant it. But what will he infer 
 from this, that therefore all the world were under the covenant of 
 grace, or shall be dealt with according to its tenor ? I would have 
 thought that one who has read Suarez, might know that this con- 
 clusion will not follow. If there had been any righteous men in 
 Sodom, it is true they were under the covenant of grace ; and I 
 add, if there be any such in the world, they are under it ; there- 
 fore all the world are so? Who sees not that this will not follow? 
 Again, supposing that there were righteous men in Sodom, how 
 will Mr. Humfrey prove, that they had no other rule of their life, 
 or ground of their hope, but his connatural law of grace ? Why 
 might they not have revelation ? Was not Abraham, to whom God 
 revealed himself, and made so many gracious promises, well known 
 to some in Sodom ? Might not the fame of such a person so near 
 easily reach them ? Was not he the deliverer of Sodom some 
 eighteen years before, and did not Lot his friend, who was well 
 acquainted with the revelations made to Abraham, live in Sodom ? 
 
 3. Mr. Humfrey tells us, that the law of grace was in Adam 
 and Noah's time published to all the world, and that it never was 
 repealed, and therefore all the world are still under it, and so in a 
 capacity of salvation.f 
 
 But 1. This, were it granted, will not prove Mr. Humfrey 's conna- 
 tural law of grace. The gospel is revealed to all the inhabitants of 
 England ; therefore the law of grace is written in their hearts : he 
 must know very little of many people in England, who will admit 
 the consequence. 2. Nor will it prove, that all the world are un- 
 der the gospel revelation, even in its first edition, to use Mr. Hum- 
 frey's words. Suppose God once revealed to the world, when it 
 was comprised in the family of Noah, the covenant of grace, and 
 80 all this little world had the external revelation : will IMr. Hum- 
 
 • Peace. Disquis. paga 60. 
 j Ibid, pag-e6?. 
 
192 AN iNaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 frey hence infer, that all the descendants of Noah, after so long a 
 tract of time, in so many different nations, have still the same reve- 
 lation ? If he do, the consequence is nought. It is as sure as any 
 thuig can be, that very quickly most of the descendants of Noah 
 lost in so far that revelation, or at least, corrupted it with their 
 vain additioiis to that degree, that it could be of real advantage to no 
 man. 3. Nor will what Mr. Humfrey talks of his repeal help out 
 his argument. To deprive a people of the advantage of an exter- 
 nal revelation, there is no need of a formal repeal by a published 
 statute ; it is enough that men by their wickedness lose all remem- 
 brance of it, and suffer it to fall into desuetude, and God sees not 
 meet to renew the revelation to them or their posterity. 
 
 4. Mr. Humfrey will prove his point by a syllogism, and it runs 
 thus, The doers of the law are justified, Rom. ii. ver. 13. but tjie 
 Gentiles are doers of the law; ergo, some of the Gentiles are justi- 
 fied before God. 
 
 The conclusion of this argument is the direct antithesis of that 
 position, which the apostle makes it his business in that whole con- 
 text to prove, as is evident from the account already given of that 
 context. This is pretty bold. But let us see how he proves his 
 minor. This he pretends to do from Rom. i. 14. where it is said, 
 that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law, and 
 so are doers of the law, and consequently shall be justified. 
 
 Well, is this the way this gentleman interprets scripture upon 
 other occasions ? I hope not. He has no regard to the scope or 
 design of the apostle's discourse. All that the apostle says here, 
 is, that the Gentiles are in so far doers of the law, that their doing 
 is proof that they have some knowledge of it. The persons who 
 here are said to be doers of the law, are the very same persons of 
 whom the apostle says, ver. 12. that they shall perish without the 
 law. But we have fully cleared this context before, and thither I 
 refer the reader. 
 
 But Mr. Humfrey reforms his argument, and makes it run thus, 
 He who sincerely keeps the law, shall be justified according to 
 that of our Lord, keep the commandments if thou wilt enter into 
 eternal life ; and that of the apostle, God. will render eternal life 
 to every one that patiently continues in well-doing; but argues he, 
 some Gentiles keep the law sincerely: and therefore it is according 
 to the gospel, which requires not the rigor, but accepts of sincere 
 obedience. 
 
 As to our author's major, if the meaning of it be, that wc shall 
 be justified before God for, or upon our sincere obedience, accord- 
 ing to the gospel, I crave leave to differ from him ; nor will the 
 scriptures adduced by him prove it in this sense. The first is a 
 reference of a young man to the covenant of works, who was not 
 seeking salvatioji, but eternal life by doing, iu order to discover to 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 193 
 
 him his own inability and his need of Christ. But as to this 
 commentators may be consulted. The other text I have cleared 
 above. 
 
 His minor I flatly deny : well, but our author will prove it by a 
 new syllogism, which runs thus. He who yields sucli obedience as 
 the Jews, who are circumcised in heart, do, yields that sincere 
 obedience, upon which the gospel accepts and justifies men ; but 
 the Gentiles, or some of them yield such obedience. 
 
 I have already entered my dissent against the last clause of the 
 major, viz. That the gospel justifies men on sincere obedience ; 
 but it is not my design to debate the point of justification with our 
 author at this time, and so I let this proposition pass : yet I again 
 deny the minor, which our author essays to prove thus, That some 
 of the Gentiles do obey in that sense, in which the Jews, who are 
 circumcised inwardly or in heart, do obey : this he pretends to 
 demonstrate from the apostle's words, Rom. ii. 26, 27. Therefore 
 if the undrcumcision keep the righteousnsss of the law, Sec. and 
 shall not iincircumcision, which is bij nature, if it fulfil the law. 
 
 But where will our author find the proof of his minor in these 
 words ? There is nothing like it, unless he take the antecedent of a 
 hypothetic proposition, for a plain assertion. But this antecedent 
 needs not be allowed possible, and yet the apostle's words and his 
 assertion would hold good, and all that he aims at be reached. Eve- 
 ry one knows, that in such propositions, it is only the connexion 
 that is asserted. As for the meaning of the text, I have bhewed 
 before that it is not for our author's purpose. 
 
 5. But our author has another argument, which he thinks is 
 clearer than all the rest, and professes himself perfectly stricken 
 with the evidence of it, as with a beam of light never to be with- 
 stood, or any more to be doubted. Well this mighty argument 
 runs thus, " If this was the chief advantage the Jew had over the 
 '• Gentile, that one had the oracles of God, and the other had 
 " not, then was there not this diiference between them, that one 
 " is only in a state. of nature, and the other in a state of grace ; 
 " or that one was in a capacity, and the other under an impossi- 
 *' bility of salvation. For this were an advantage of a far greater 
 " nature. But this was the advantage, Rom. ili. 2. Chiefly be' 
 " cause to them were commilled the oracles of God;^^'^^ ergo : 
 
 I must confess, that I am not stricken with so much evidence 
 upon the proposal of this argument, as it seems our author was. — 
 To me this argument appears a plain sophism. That the Jev»'3 had 
 the oracles of God, was a greater advantage, tlian our author seems 
 to think it. And while the apostle calls it the chief advantage of 
 the Jews above the Gentiles, tliat they had the oradcs of God, 
 
 * Peace. Disq<iis. page 63, 64. 
 
194 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 how will our autJior infer from this, that they were upon an equal 
 footing as to the means absolutely necessary for salvation ; or which 
 is the same, as to a capacity of salvation ; for certainly he that 
 wants the jneans absolutely necessary to salvation is not capable of 
 salvation, in that sense, which belongs to our purpose ? For my 
 part I would draw the quite contrary conclusion from it ; thus, the 
 Jews had this privilege above the Gentiles, that they had the ora- 
 cles of God entrusted with them, Avherein the only way of salva- 
 tion is revealed, being 7vitnessed to hy the law and the prophets, 
 Rom. iii. 21 . and therefore had access to salvation : whereas on the 
 other hand, tlie Gentiles wanting di%'ine revelation, which alone 
 can discover that righteousness, whereby a sinner can be justified, 
 did want the means absolutely necessary to salvation, and so were 
 not in a capacity of salvation. Now where is our author's boasted 
 of demonstration ? The occasion of his mistake is this, he once 
 inadvertently supposed, that these two advantages, divine revela- 
 tion, and access of salvation, were quite different, and that the one 
 was not Included in the other. But of this enough. 
 
 Mr. Hurafrey, I know, may say, they had the law of grace in 
 their hearts. But that is the question. Our author asserts this ; 
 but he does so without proof. We have all this while been seek- 
 ing proof of this : hitherto we have met with none. We have met 
 with some f;crlptures interpreted or Avrested into a sense plainly 
 inconsistent Vvith their scope and intention, without any regard had 
 to the context and drift of the discourse, which is no safe way of 
 managing sci'iptures. 
 
 Next, he insists upon the stoiy of the Ninevites' repentance. — . 
 They were Avithont the church ; it ivas a law of grace which led 
 them to repent. But had not the Ninevites divine revelation 1 Did 
 Xhej not repent at the preaching of Jonah ? How will our author 
 prove that Jonah never, dropped a word, that there was a possibili- 
 ty of stopping the progress of the controversy by their turning 
 from their evil courses 7 Did not Jonah apprehend, that the event 
 would be a farther forbearance ? But it may be some may say, Jonah 
 had no mind they should be spared, and therefore would not drop 
 any encouragement : but we know that it was not of choice that 
 lie went there ; and as he Avent there in obedience to God, so no 
 doubt, he who had been so sharply disciplined for disobedience, would 
 !<peak what tJie Lord commanded him. Again, had they assur- 
 fuice of pardon or eternal salvation upon their repentance ? Was it 
 gospel repentance ? Or did it reach farther than a forbearance of 
 temporal Judgments ? 
 
 Well, but the instance of Cornelius seems more pat to his pur- 
 pose. He was a Gentile, was accepted of God ; and Peter tells 
 uf., that in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness, 
 ">• accepted. But who will assure me that Cornelius was a stranger 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. m5 
 
 to the scriptures ? Did he not know them ? Did he not believe 
 them ? How could that be ? It is plain he was a proselyte and em- 
 braced the Jewish religion, as to its substance,-and that he did be- 
 lieve, since he pleased God and was accepted. Now we know, that 
 without faith it is impossible to please God. What wanted he 
 then ? Why, he wanted to be informed that the Messiah promised 
 was come, and that Christ Jesus was he. As to what the apostle 
 says of God's acceptance of persons of all nations^ any one that 
 will give himself the trouble of considering his scope, and the cir- 
 cumstances of the place, will see, that it is nothing else but a com- 
 ment upon the design of the vision he got to instruct him, that now 
 God was to admit persons of all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews, 
 to a participation of the covenant blessings. 
 
 DIGRESSION. 
 
 A short Digression concerning God^s Government of the Heathen 
 World, occasioned bi/ the foregoing Objections, wherein an at- 
 tempt is made to account for the Occurrences that have the most 
 favorable Aspect to them, without supposing any Intention or 
 Design of their Salvation, which is, adjected as an Appendix to 
 the Answers given to Mr. Humfrey's Objections, wherein it is 
 made evident, that there is no need to suppose the Heathens un- 
 der a Law or Government of Grace. 
 
 If I should here stop, the persons with whom I have to do, 
 might possibly allege, that the main strength of their cause re- 
 mains untouched, and the most straitening diflGculty that presses 
 ours is not noticed. The short of the matter is, they inquire. What 
 government are the Heathen world under ? They conceive it must 
 be allowed a government of grace, since they are not dealt by ac- 
 cording to the demerit of their sins. Possibly we might propose 
 some questions that would be no less hard to satisfy, by those who 
 talk of an xuiiversal law of grace : but this would not remove the 
 difficulty, though it might embarrass the opposers of our senti- 
 ments. I shall therefore open my mind in this matter, and offer 
 what occurs on this head. If I mistake, it will plead somewhat 
 for me, that the subject, so far as I know, is not usually spoken of 
 by others, and I have not of choice meddled with it, but was led 
 to it by my subject, that requires some consideration of it. If 
 we state right thoughts in this matter, it will give light to many 
 things, that otherwise are dark. What I have to say, I shall pro- 
 pose in the subsequent gradation. 
 
 1. Man was originally made under a law that is holy, good, 
 righteous, equal and just ; this law required of all subjected to it 
 exact, punctual and perfect obedience ; and for its preservation it 
 
19S AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 was armed with a penal sanction, answerable to the high and tender 
 regard, which the infinitely holy, wise and great God had for the 
 honor of that law, that was the declaration of his will, bore the 
 impress of his authority and representation of all his moral excel- 
 lencies. And besides all this, he also proposed a reward, suitable 
 to his wisdom and goodness, for which his faithfulness became 
 pledged. It is not needful to launch out in proof of the several 
 branches of this assertion. That man was made under a law, is 
 questioned by none, but Atheists ; and they have their mouths 
 suflSciently stopped of old and late by many persons of worth and 
 learning. That this law is holy, just and good, cannot without 
 noti'ble injury to the Deity be denied. That it exacted perfect 
 obedience, is so evident, that no person, who thinks what he says, 
 can deny it. A law not requiring perfect obedience, to its own 
 precepts, is a law not requiring Avhat it requires, which is plain 
 nonsense. A posterior law may not requii-e perfect obedience to a 
 prior : but every law requires perfect obedience to itself. That 
 this law was armed with a penal sanction is evident from the wis- 
 dom of the law-oiver, who could not enact such laws, which he 
 knew men would transgress, without providing for the honor of his 
 own authority. Besides, if there is no penal sanction, it is not to 
 be expected that laws could ever reach their end, especially as 
 things have always stood with man. But were all those proofs given 
 up, the effects of vindictive justice in the world, Avlth the fears 
 that sinners are under, lest all these are only the beginning of sor- 
 rows, sufficiently confirm this truth, and moreover assure us, that 
 it is such a penalty as suits every way the offence in its nature and 
 aggravations. But I know none of those things will be questioned 
 by those, whom we have mainly under view at present. 
 
 2. All the children of men, in all ages and in all places of the 
 world, have been and are guilty of violations of this law. We 
 have heard the Deists owning this before ; and Christians will not 
 deny it. Deists would have thought it their interest to deny it : but 
 since, it is unquestionable that the generality offend, in instances 
 past reckoning. If they had affirmed, that any one did, in no in- 
 stance offend, they might have been required to make good their 
 assertion : but this they could not do. They durst not condescend. 
 And therefore it must be owned that the best, not in one instance, 
 but in many, violate this law. 
 
 3. Upon account of these violations of his holy and righteous 
 law, all mankind, every individual, and evwy generation of men, 
 that have lived in the world, are obnoxious to justice. By those 
 sins they have forfeited any claim they might have laid to the re- 
 v/ard of perfect obedience, and .ire liable to the penalty in the sanc- 
 tion of the law. And God might, at any time, have righteously 
 inflicted it, cither upon any individna,! or any whole race of men. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 197 
 
 1 determine not now what that punishment was. Tliey who talk 
 that our offences are small, and extenuated thera, seem scarcely 
 impressed with suitable notions of God, and I doubt will not be 
 sustained judges competent of the qualities of offences and injuries 
 done to his honor. But whatever the punishment is, eternal, or 
 not, which I dispute not now, because we agree about it with those, 
 whom we now have under consideration, it is certain none can 
 prove that it is all confined to time, or that any temporal punish- 
 ment is sufficient for the least offence that is committed against 
 God. And it is also clear, that, upon one's sinning, the penalty 
 might be presently inflicted, without any injustice, provided the 
 penal sanction were suitable and just in its constitution, as of ne- 
 cessity it must be, where God made the law and constituted the 
 punishment. 
 
 4. Although God righteously might have cut off any generation 
 of men, and swept the earth clean ; yet has he seen meet to spare 
 sinners, even multitudes of them, for a long time. A piece of 
 conduct truly astonishing ! Especially it would appeal- so, if we 
 understood how much God hates sin. The only reason why the 
 Heathen world hath not admired it more, and been more extensive 
 in their inquiries into the reasons of it, is because they had but very 
 short and imperfect notions of God's holiness, and the evil of sin. 
 They took notice of God's forbearance of some notorious offeu- 
 ilers. Some of them stumbled at it, and some of them en- 
 deavored to account for it. But the wonder of God's sparing a 
 world full of sinners, was little noticed, and though they had ob- 
 served it, they would have quickly found themselves as much at 
 a loss here, as any where else. The scriptures have not gratified 
 the curiosity of men with such a full account, as our minds would 
 have desired, that are too forward to question him particularly 
 about his M'ays, who gives an account of none of his matters : yet 
 some reasons of this conduct are dropped that may satisfy the 
 humble. 1. God made a covenant with Adam, wherein his pos 
 terity, as well as himself were concerned and included. They were 
 to be gainers or losers as he acquitted himself well or ill. This 
 transaction, I know, is denied by some Christians. I shall not 
 dispute the matter with them : others have done it. I now take 
 it for granted. And if they will not suppose it, it is but the loss 
 of this reason. And let them if they can put a better in its room. 
 Upon supposition, that there was such a transaction, and that it 
 was just, as we must allow all to be, whereof God is the author, it 
 was not only equal, but in point of wisdom, apparently necessarj', 
 or at least, highly suitable, that all concerned in this transaction 
 should be brought into being, to reap the fruits of it. But this 
 was impossible if the world had not been spared. 2. God, in 
 sparing the world, had a design of mercy upon some. And ma 
 
198 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 ny of them were to proceed from some of the worst of sinners. 
 He designed to save some in all ages, and in most places. Their 
 progenitors must therefore, of necessity, be kept alive. He bears 
 with the provoicing carriage of evil men ; because out of their 
 loins he intends to extract others, whom he will form for the glori/ 
 of his grace. 3. God is patient toward sinners, to manifest the 
 equity of his future justice upon them. When men are spared 
 and continue in sin, the pleas of infirmity and mistake are cut off, 
 and they are convicted of malice. They are silenced, and on- 
 lookers satisfied, that severity is justly exercised on them. Qiuin- 
 to, Dei magis judicium tardum est, tanto niagis justum.'^ As 
 patience, while it is exercised, is the silence of his justice ; so 
 when it is abused, it silences men's complaints against his justice. 
 Other reasons of this conduct we might glean from the scriptures : 
 but my design allows me not to insist. Nor indeed do they de- 
 scend so low as to satisfy curious wits. Lo, these are parts of his 
 ways and aims, hut how little a portion is heard, that is, even by 
 revelation known of him ? says Job, chap. xxvi. 14. 
 
 5. The world, or sinners in it, are spared, not by a proper re- 
 prieve, that is, a delay of punishment, after the offenders are ta- 
 ken up, questioned, tried, convicted, and solemnly condemned ; 
 the way, manner and time of their punishment fixed, by a judicial 
 appHcation of the general threatening of the law in this particular 
 case, by the judge competent, and the sentence plainly intimated ; 
 a delay of the execution after this, if it is of the judge's proper 
 motion, if the offender is not imprisoned, if he is employed, and if 
 favors are conferred upon him, and obedience required of him, 
 gives hopes of impunity and escape ; and if the persons commit 
 not new offences, without, at least, an appearance of insincerity, 
 they are very seldom condemned upon the first sentence : but 
 sinners are spared by a forbearance, or wise and just connivance, 
 if the word would not offend. The Governor of the world knows 
 and sees the carriage of sinners, is aware of their sins, and keeps 
 silence for a time ; but yet keeps an eye upon them, calls them 
 not into question, puts off the trial, takes them not up, as it were, 
 and winks at them. Now all this may be justly done for a time ; 
 the sinners may be employed, and acts of bounty, for holy and 
 wise ends, may be conferred on them, and exercised towards them, 
 and that without the least injustice, without any design of par- 
 doning ; as the sequel of this discourse will more fully clear. 
 
 6. This forbearance of God is wise, just and holy : for 1 . He 
 is the only competent judge, as to the time of pimishing offenders. 
 It cannot be made appear, that he may not thus delay, even where 
 he has no thought of pardoning. 2. It implies no approbation of 
 
 The slower that the jtidgment of God is, it is the more just.' 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 199 
 
 the faults formerly committed or those they may commit, during 
 this interval of time, since he has sufficiently testified against them 
 by the laws he has made, idiich forbid them by the penalty an- 
 nexed to those laws, and by examples of his severity upon others, 
 which have not been wanting in any generation. These may suffi- 
 ciently acquit him, however for a time he keeps silent, and conceals, 
 as it were, his knowledge of the offences of some, or his resent- 
 ments against them, on account of them. 3. He accomplishes 
 purposes worthy of him ; which are sufficient to justify him iu 
 this conduct, while he keeps silence, and carries to them as if there 
 were no offence, or lie knew none, and they go on in their rebel- 
 lion, or secret practices against his law and government. Impu- 
 dent offenders have no place left, either for denial or excuse of their 
 crimes, or complaints against the severity of his resentments. 
 Spectators are made to see that it is not infirmity or mistake, but 
 fixed alienation or enmity that is so sharply punished. He serves 
 himself of them, and makes them, though they mean not so, carry 
 on the designs of his glory, either in helping or trj^ing, or bringing 
 into being persons, whom he has designs of mercy upon. And 
 sure iie may justly do this, since not only he has the best title to 
 their obedience ; but he has all the reason and right in the world 
 to use that life, while he spares it, for what purposes he pleases, 
 Afhich they have forfeited to justice. Who can blame him, if 
 sometimes he spares secret plotters, and lets them go on till their 
 plots are sufficiently ripened for their conviction, and others' satis- 
 faction. Nor is there any ground to quarrel, if he deal even with 
 the worst, as equal judges do with the mother, guilty of some 
 manifest crime ; they not only spare and delay the execution, till 
 the ^hild whom they design mercy to, is brought forth ; but do not 
 take notice of her, or intimate even a purpose of punishment, till 
 afterwards, lest the child should suffer by the mother's despair and 
 grief. 4. This is yet more remarkably just in God, who can on 
 the one hand secure the criminal, so that justice shall not suffer by 
 the delay, and on the other, that the criminal shall not run out in- 
 to those impieties, that would cross the ends, endanger the safety, 
 or wrong the reputation of his government, with those who are ca- 
 pable of making an equal estimate of things. 
 
 7. It was every way suitable and necessary that the persons thus 
 spared, should be continued under a moral government. They 
 were not to be ruled by mere force : 1 . Because they are, while un- 
 der such a forbearance, capable of some sort of a moral govern- 
 ment. When a prince deals with persons, whom he knows to be 
 on treasonable plots against this government, and conceals his re- 
 sentment, he still manages them as subjects, and continues them 
 under a government ; nor is he faulty in doing so. 2. They are 
 not, while under such a forbearance, capable of any other govern- 
 
200 AN INCIUIRY INTO THE 
 
 ment ; for if once the Ruler of the world begin to deal in d way 
 of force and justice with them, then this forbearance is at an end. 
 3. It were a manifest reproach to the Governor of the world, if 
 they were supposed under no government at all. Besides, on this 
 supposition, the ends of his forbearance could not be reached. 
 And moreover, the moral dependence of creatures on their Crea- 
 tor, which can only be maintained either in this way, or by putting 
 them under the penal sanction of the law, would be dissolved, 
 which cannot be admitted. 
 
 8. Sinners under this dispensation are still under the law of cre^ 
 ation : it is true this law can no longer be the means of conveying 
 a title to the great and principal reward ; but that is their own 
 fault, and not the governor's, nor the laws'. But notwithstanding of 
 this, they are still under it, and it continues the instrument of God's 
 government over them. For 1. The ground of obedience still 
 continues, although some of the motives, yea, the principal en- 
 couragement, I mean, eternal rewards, are forfeited. The obliga- 
 tion to obedience can never otherwise be dissolved, than by the in- 
 flicting of a capital punishment, which puts out of all possibility of 
 yielding any obedience. Some, I know make the power and right 
 of obliging, to consist merely in a power of rewarding and punish- 
 ing : but this is easily convicted of falsehood : and although the 
 learned Mr. Gastrcl has advanced this, in his sermons at Boyle's 
 ijecture, yet we have no reason to receive it, as Beconsal in his 
 treatise of the Law of Nature, and othei-s have sufficiently cleared. 
 2. This law is sufficient to answer the designs of this forbearance^ 
 and God's rule over them who live under it and by it. It has not 
 lost its directive power ; but it is able sufficiently to instruct, at 
 least in these duties, either as to God, ourselves or others, that are 
 of absolute necessily to keep some order and decorum in the world, 
 carr}" on regularity, the propagation of mankind, and the like. It 
 is manifestly sufficient to be a test to try men's willingness to obey, 
 and convince men of wilfulness in their rebellion ; and to be a stand- 
 ing monument of God's holiness ; yea, it continues to have that 
 force upon the consciences of the generality, as to be a check to 
 keep them from running into enormities subversive of all order 
 and society, and destructive to the other ends of God's patience. 
 '2. Experience fully clears, that men still pay regard to this law» 
 and this is the only law that men destitute of a revelation own. 
 
 9. While God saw meet to continue this forbearance, it was not 
 necessary nor suitable, that he slionld plainly, particularly and so- 
 lemnly intimate all the length he designed to carry his resentments 
 asainst offijuders. 1 . There v>'as no necessity of this towards the 
 clearing of God's holiness ; this being sufficiently done by the pro- 
 nujlgatlou of the law, its penalty, and many particular examples. 
 i2. This would bavo undone the dispensation whereof we have 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 201 
 
 been speaking. 3. This is utterly inconsistent with all the design^ 
 of it. Men had been driven into despair, and so all moral go- 
 vernment had been dissolved. 
 
 10. Yea, it was consistent with his holiness, and suitable to his 
 wisdom, to permit men to fall into sin, very great sins, and for a 
 time to go on in them. God can neither do any thing that is un- 
 worthy, nor omit any thing that is worthy of him, of a moral kind. 
 And it is certain in fact, that such sins and enormities he has per- 
 mitted : and therefore, however strange it appears to us, that a 
 holy God, who could have restrained, should permit those things ; 
 yet since he, who can do no evil, has done it, we must conclude 
 this altogether consistent with his holiness. And it is manifestly 
 so with his wisdom, since no injury is done to his holiness. For 1 . 
 By this means sinners give full proof, what a height their enmity 
 against God is come to. 2. They are the fitter to exercise his 
 own people. And 3. They are riper for the strokes he designs 
 to inflict on them. 
 
 Notwithstanding of all this, it was meet and necessary that some 
 offenders should be remarkably punished, and some bounds set to 
 offences ; and more especially those offences which cross the de- 
 signs of God's forbearance, and tend to dissolve the government 
 and order, which it was necessary God should maintain in the 
 world. And hence it has come to pass, that not the greatest sins, 
 such as these certainly are, which immediately strike against God, 
 but these which strike against order and government, have been 
 most remarkably punished in all ages, as might be made appear by 
 innumerable instances of the remarkable punishment of murders, 
 treasons, and undutiftilness to parents. This is congi-uous to jus- 
 tice, not only on the abovementioned account, but on this, that 
 the notices concerning these last sort of evils are much more clear 
 in most instances, than those which respects the former. 
 
 12. It is every way suitable to the wisdom, sincerity and holi- 
 ness of God ; yea, and of absolute necessity to the design of this his 
 forbearance, that he exercise bounty in lesser things ; such as the 
 good things of this life are : and that he vouchsafe those mental 
 endowments to some of the spared sinners, which are necessary 
 toward the maintenance of that government, which God was to 
 keep up among them ; such are civil wisdom, invention, courage, 
 &c. These he may give without the least intimation of any de- 
 sign of special mercy. For what relation have these things to 
 special mercy, which are heaped in abundance on the worst of men. 
 However, that it was fit these things should be bestowed upon 
 some in this case, is evident ; because, 1 . Eternal rewards are now 
 forfeited, and there would have been nothing to induce to obedi- 
 ence if this had not been done. 2. Hereby he gives a witness to his 
 own goodness, which aggravates ofl!*enceg committed against him. 
 
 26 
 
202 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 3. Hereby he draws on men to obedience, or rather to do those 
 pieces of service, which are in their own nature, such as he allows 
 and requires, although they design not his service, but their own 
 pleasure and piofit. 4. Hereby he clears scores with sinners, 
 while he suffers not what is even but pretended service, to pass 
 without a reward, which is suflficient to shew what a kind rewarder 
 he would have been, if they had indeed obeyed. 5. Hereby he 
 cuts off all excuse for their continuance in disobedience. 6. This 
 conduct gives them an innocent occasion of discovering latent 
 wickedness, which otherwise they would have had no access to 
 shew, and keeps from that utter despair which would have marred 
 the design of God's forbearance. 
 
 13. These vouchsafements of divine bounty lead to a sort of 
 J epeutance ; not that to which the promise of pardon is joined in 
 the gospel. For 1 . They give eminent discoveries of the good- 
 ness of that God whom we have offended, and consequently of the 
 folly of offending him, which naturally leads to sorrow or regret. 
 
 2. They strengthen, as all benefits do, the original obligation to 
 obedience. 3. They let us see, that obedience is not altogether 
 fruitless, since they may expect less severe resentments if they 
 return ; yea, may expect some share in this bounty, and are not 
 under an impossibility of mercy, for any thing they can know. 
 
 14. After all, I do yet see no reason to think, that they who 
 are merely under such a dispensation as this, which I take to be 
 the case of the Heathen world, are under a law of grace ; which 
 assures, that upon a return to former obedience, sins shall be en- 
 tirely pardoned, and they have access to eternal rewards. I grant it 
 highly probable, that if God had not intended grace to some, such 
 a dispensation had never been granted. I admit, that this dispensa- 
 tion is subservient to a design of grace upon some. I further al- 
 low, that there is no absolute impossibility of the salvation of per- 
 sons, however deeply guilty, who are not yet under the penalty : 
 but if they are saved, it must be by some means or way revealed 
 by God, and superadded to all the former, which I can never see 
 to amount to any law of grace, since it is manifest, 1 . That all 
 this may be exercised toward them whom God in the end designs 
 everlastingly to punish. He exercises nmch long-suffering to the 
 vessels of nrath fitted to destruction. 2. There is nothing in the 
 whole dispensation, that in the least intimates any purpose of God 
 to pass by former offences, either absolutely or upon condition. 
 
 3. In fact it has never been found, that ever this dispensation has 
 led any one to that sincere repentance, which must be allowed ne- 
 cessary, in order to pardon. And, I dare not say, that God ever 
 did appoint means for such an end, which after so long a trial should 
 never answer it. 4. All whom God has pardoned, or of whom we 
 may say, that he has brought them to repentance, have been 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 203 
 
 brought by other means. So that upon the whole, I see no gi'ound 
 for asserting an universal law of grace. 
 
 As what has been above said, takes off the principal pretence 
 for such an universal law of grace, which some seem so fond of; so 
 if any such is asserted, it must be owned to be a law of a very 
 universal tenor, as being that wherein all mankincH^e concerned. 
 It must be allowed a law designed to take off the fwce of the ori- 
 ginal law, concreated with our nature, that necessarily results from 
 the nature of God and man, and their natural relation, at least as 
 to one instance, I mean the penal sanction, in case of sin. It must 
 be allowed to be a law not merely directive as to duty, but design- 
 ed to tender undeserved favors to sinful man. Now he that can 
 think a few, (or call them many) dubious actions, that is, actions 
 capable of another, yea, contrary construction, a sufficient promul- 
 gation of such a law, as is of so universal extent, as derogates, at 
 least in one instance, of so great moment, from a law so firmly and 
 solemnly established, without any known provision for its honor, 
 injured by so many sins; and finally that tenders such great favors 
 to the transgressors of it, may believe what he pleases. I must 
 own, this one consideration is with me enough to sink that notion. 
 
 But to conclude this whole matter, upon which we have dwelt 
 so long. Upon the nicest survey of occurrences in the Heathen 
 world, I can see nothing that savours of any acquaintance with 
 that forgiveness that is with God ; unless it is that generally en- 
 tertained notion of the placability of their deities. This notion, 
 I make no doubt, had its rise from revelation^ and was continued 
 by tradition. And several things did concur to the preservation 
 of this, while other notices that had the same rise were lost ; the 
 apparent necessity of it to man in his present sinful condition ; the 
 suitableness of it to lay a foundation for that worship, to which 
 the remaining natural notices of a Deity urged them, and which 
 was of indispensible necessity toward the support of human go- 
 vernment ; the darkness and blindness of men as to the exceeding 
 sinfulness of sin ; the holiness of God's nature, and the strong in- 
 clination all men have to be favourable, even to their faults, did 
 contribute not a little toward its support. Finally, this placability 
 did not so much respect the one true God, of whom they had very 
 little knowledge, as their own fictitious deities, which they put in 
 the room of the true God. And it is obvious, that when men 
 took upon them to set up gods, they would be sure to frame such 
 as might agree with their own apprehensions, and pass by their 
 faults with as little difficulty as they committed them. Whatever 
 there is as to this, we have no reason to think that this is a natural 
 notice, it being neither self-evident, nor certainly deducible from 
 principles that are such. 
 
204 AN INaUlR¥ INTO THE 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 Proving the Insufficient/ of Natmal Religion to eradicale our 
 Inclinations to Sin, or to subdue its Power. 
 
 I THINK we have said enough to demonstrate the insufficiency of 
 natural religion, to satisfy us as to the way how we may obtain 
 the removal of guilt or the pardon of sin. Let us now see whe- 
 ther it is able to remove the corruption of nature, and subdue or 
 eradicate our inclinations to sin. 
 
 Before we enter directly on this, it will not be impertinent, if it 
 is not plainly necessary, that we say somewhat concerning the na- 
 ture of this corruption. We shall therefore offer the few follow- 
 ing hints concerning it. 
 
 It is most certain, that man has corrupt inclinations. I think 
 this will scarce be denied ; since it is beyond contradiction evi- 
 dent, that the bulk of mankind in all ages, have run headlong into 
 those courses which reason condemns as contrary to the law, under 
 which we are made. The law condemns, reason justifies the law, 
 and proclaims those courses unworthy of us ; conscience checks 
 and sometimes torments, and yet sinners run on. Can all this be 
 without corrupt inclinations swaying, yea, as it were, forcibly 
 driving that way ? Not surely. 
 
 2. It is certain, that not only there are such inclinations in man, 
 but that they are exceedingly strong and forcible. Our own reason 
 condemns those actions, and cries shame on the sinner's conscience, 
 presages the resentments of the righteous God, the evil effects of 
 them are visible, and they are felt to be destructive to our health, 
 luinous to our reputation and estates, inconsistent with our inward 
 peace ; yea, in a few instances, human law provides tenible pun- 
 ishments : and yet, in spite of all these strong barriers, we are 
 carried down with the stream : nor can the most rational consider- 
 ations, from interest, honor or prudence, stop our career. Cer- 
 tainly the force of inclination, that carries over all these, must be 
 ■great. 
 
 3. It seems plainly natural and congenial to us. I shall not 
 nicely inquire in what sense it is so. I am far from thinking, that 
 our natures as at first made, were created with it. I have said 
 enough before to prove this impossible : but I mean, that as our 
 natures now are, however they came to be so, it is an inseparable 
 appendage of them, cleaves to them, and proceeds not merely 
 from custom, and is not acquired, though it is often improved by 
 custom. Now this seems evident from many things, 1. The uni- 
 versality of it. All men, in all age?, in all places, and in all cir- 
 cumstances, have such vicious inclinations. I do not say that eye- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 205 
 
 ry individual is proud, ambitious, covetous, revengeful, passionate 
 and lustful. No, but every one has some one or other of these, 
 or the like breaking out : which says the spring is within, and is 
 strong ; though the constitution of our bodies, the climates we live 
 under, our education and circumstances of life, have dammed in 
 some of them, and cut out channels for others of them. Now it 
 is plainly unaccountable how all men should be thus corrupt, if not 
 naturally so. No parallel instance, in any sort, can be given, 
 where any thing not natural and congenial, at least as to its prin- 
 ciple and inclination, has obtained such an universal sway. 2. It 
 waits not till we are grown and framed by education, custom, en- 
 gagement and inventions ; but makes strong, discernible, and sen- 
 sible eruptions in infancy and childhood. As soon as we are ca- 
 pable, and very oft, while one would think us scarcely so, by rea- 
 son of age, we are proud, revengeful, covetous. Sec which says 
 this is congenial. 3. It is often seen, that these corruptions break 
 out in our younger years, which neither education, example, circum- 
 stances, nor any thing else but a corrupted nature, can give any en- 
 couragement to. 4. Yea more, how strong are these inclination?, 
 and that very early, which are discouraged, opposed, borne down, 
 and have all outward occasions cut off from them. One is pas- 
 sionate among calm people, though he is punished for it and sees il 
 not. Another is ambitious and proud among sober people, in mean 
 circumstances, where there is no example to excite ambition, no 
 theatre to act it upon, and the beginnings are curbed by precept, 
 instruction, reproof, chastisements and example. 5. Those things 
 are evidently interwoven with, and strengthened by the very con- 
 stitutions of our bodies, and climates under which we live. Hence 
 there are domestic and national vices, which cleave to some fami- 
 lies and nations. 6. The best, the most sober, and freest from dis- 
 cernible eruptions of corruption, still own they find their incli- 
 nations strong, and driving them into indiscernible acts corres- 
 pondent to them. 7. They who deny the force and being of 
 these inclinations, and who pretend that the will of man is able to 
 master all these, yet cannot but own, that there are such inclina- 
 tions ; and as for the pretended ability of the will to conquer 
 them, they give the least proof of it who pretend most to it : for 
 if the will is thus able, and if, as they pretend, they have sufficient 
 moral arguments which persuade to it, why is it not done ? ^Vhat 
 stops it ? 8. IJshall only further offer the testimonies of some few 
 among the Heathens. Tim(zus the Locrian, who lived before Plato, 
 tells us in his discourses, " That vitiosity comes from our parents 
 " and first principles, rather than from negligence and disorder of 
 public manners ; because we never part from those actions which 
 lead us to imitate the primitive sins of our parents."* Plato tells us, 
 
 • Gak's Court of the Gentiles, Part 4. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Par. 2. 
 
206 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 that, " In times past the divine nature flourished in men ; but at 
 " length it mixed with mortal, and ivipmvivoi v'*®-, human corrup- 
 ** tions prevailed to the ruin of mankind : and from this source there 
 *' followed an inundation of evils on men. Hence he calls corruption 
 " »»e-®- Twy x«7« ^vFif, the natural disease, or disease of nature, be- 
 " cause the nature of mankind is greatly degenerated and deprav- 
 " ed, and all manner of disorders infest human nature : and men 
 " being impotent, are torn in pieces by their own lusts, as by so 
 " many wild horses. Hence Democritus is said to aflSrni the dis- 
 " eases of the soul to be so great, that if it were opened, it would 
 " appear to be a sepulchre of all manner of evils." Aristotle tells 
 us, " That there is in us somewhat naturally repugnant to right 
 " reason, 7rs^vK<^ «i»7</3«toi» m Aoys."* Seneca, Epist. 50, gives 
 us a very remarkable account of his thoughts in this matter. The 
 whole were worthy to be transcribed, but it is too long. I shall 
 translate a part of it. " Why do we deceive ourselves ? Our 
 " evil is not from without ; it is fixed in our very bowels. Alibif 
 " All sins are in all men, but all do not appear in each man : he 
 " that hath one sin — hath all. We say, that all men are intem- 
 " perate, avaricious, luxurious, malignant ; not that these sins ap- 
 " pear in all ; but because they may be, yea, are in all, although 
 " latent. A man may be guilty, though he do no hurt. Sins are 
 " perfect before they break forth into effect." It is worthy of 
 our observation, what Mr. Gale tells us, after he has quoted these 
 words, viz. that Jansenius breaks forth into a rapture upon hearing 
 these philosophers philosophize more truly about the corruption of 
 man's nature, than Pelagians and others of late. 
 
 But the Oracles of Reason tell us, that it is denied " that the 
 " lapse of nature is universal, because some through the course of 
 *' their lives, have proved more inclinable or prone to virtue than 
 " to vice." I have spoken to this before, but I add, 1. This is 
 not enough, that they are more prone to virtue than to vice : for 
 the question is. Whether they have inclinations to vice ? and not, 
 Whether they contrary are stronger ? 2. This cannot be pretend- 
 ed to be the case with many. Now, since the question is about a 
 religion sufficient for all mankind, if any of them have such a dis- 
 temper, and natural religion provide no cure, it is insufficient. 3. 
 It is not. Whether there are men that have been prone to some 
 virtues, and averse from some vices, possibly scandalous sins ? 
 But, W hether there have been men inclined to no sin, prone to 
 allvirtue ? If they assert such a one, shew us the man. We can- 
 not believe any such, since all we know are otherwise, till we see 
 liim produced. 4. It is not the business whether men have done 
 virtuous acts ordinaril}^, that is, the material acts of virtue : for 
 
 * Arist. Ethick, Lib. 1. Cap. 13. t " Elsewhere." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 207 
 
 corruption may run freely out in this channel. A man may be 
 ambitious, proud, and live among persons, with whom vice is de- 
 cried, open vice I mean, and therefore affect a great exactness as 
 to morality. This is good : but this is all but a sacrifice to ambi- 
 tion. One lust is the principal idol, all the rest are sacrificed to it. 
 Corruption turns not troublesome, and is pleased, if it get vent 
 any way. A strong spring, if it can get a vent under ground, 
 may press for a vent above ; yet it will easily be restrained there. 
 
 Now this being the case plainly with man, it is impossible for 
 him to reach happiness, while this corruption remains ; nor can he 
 be sure of acceptance with God. While things are thus, nature 
 is imperfect, man is out of order, reason, the nobler part, is kept 
 under, and passions, the brutal part, bear the sway. This is more 
 unseemly, than to see servanls on horses, wkile princes walk on 
 foot. There is continual occasion for remorse, checks, challenges 
 of conscience, and fears of the resentment of a holy God. There 
 can be no firm confidence of access to God, or near fellowship 
 with him, while we entertain his enemies in our bosom ; nay, have 
 them interwoven, as it were, with our natures. 
 
 The Deists I know make a horrible outcry against Christians, 
 for asserting this corruption of nature. Herbert in his book de 
 Veritate, has many bitter invectives against the asserters of it ; 
 and yet, overcome with the evidence of truth, he is obliged fre- 
 quently to acknowledge it plainly : yea, not only does he acknow- 
 ledge it, but he pleads this directly, in excuse of the most abomi- 
 nable wickedness. After he has told us, that the temperament or 
 constitution of our bodies have a powerful influence to sway us to 
 some sins, he subjoins : Quo pado hand ita levi tiegotio damnan- 
 " dos existimo, qui ex tiia<rvyx.f%Tioi, aliqita pntvaricantur. Quern 
 " admodum igitur flagitii hand piste argueris lethargutn, desi- 
 " dem, ant hi/dropicum, bibacem ; ita fortasse neque veneris, aut 
 " Martis (Bstro percitum modo in peccant ium humorum redun-. 
 " dantiam, potius quam pravum aliquem habitum, delictum com- 
 " modo rejici possit. Neque tamen me hie conscelerati cujusvis 
 " patronum sisto ; sed in id solummodo contendo, ut mitiori sen- 
 " tentia de iis statuamus, qui corporea, brutali, Sr tantnm nan ne- 
 " cessaria propensione in peccata prolabuntur.''^^ Well, here is a 
 
 • " Therefore I think that those are «ot so easily to be condemned who 
 " sin from any peculiarity of bodily constitution. As, therefore, one could 
 " not justly blame a lethargic person for being lazy, or a dropsical person for 
 " being desirous of drink ; so, perhaps, we ought not to blame any one that 
 " is prompted to sin by the sting of lust or anger, provided that his sin may 
 " be conveniently eharged to the redundancy of peccant humours, rather 
 " than to any perverse habit. And here I do not set myself up as the advo- 
 II cate of every wicked man, but only contend for this, that we should judge 
 " more mildly of those who fall into sins, from » corporeal, brutal, and al- 
 " most necessary inclination." 
 
208 AN INaumV INTO THE 
 
 handsome excuse for vice. We must be as far from condemning 
 liim, who, prompted by passion, slays and murders, or hurried on 
 hj hist, commits rapes and adulteries ; as of censuring him who is 
 sick of a lethargy, for his laziness and indisposition to act ; or one 
 that is hydropic, for his immoderate thirst. This divinity will 
 highly please profane men. The salvo he subjoins is very frivo- 
 lous, and deserves rather contempt than an answer. But to leave 
 this, it is plain there are such inclinations, and that if they are 
 not rooted out we are undone. What though men might have 
 hopes, if they but erred once, that they might easily obtain re- 
 mission ; yet sure it must confound them, when they still sin on, 
 and that out of inclination. Unless therefore natural religion is 
 able to cure this disease, and eradicate those inclinations, it serves 
 to no valuable purpose, at least it is insufficient as to the great 
 ends of religion, our own happiness or acceptance with God. And 
 that really it cannot do so, will be clear by the following consider- 
 ations. 
 
 1. If this corruption is congenial with our nature, as the above- 
 mentioned arguments go near to demonstrate, and the Christian 
 religion fully proves, it is evident, that there must be some change 
 wrought upon our natures. Now this is more than natural religion 
 can pretend to, which knows nothing of regeneration, and the 
 sanctifying work of the spirit of grace. ^ know Plato and some 
 others have talked of inspiration^ and some aids of God : but this 
 was all but chat, amusement, and a few tinkling words, which 
 might please the ears ; but what evidence could they give, that any 
 such thing was attained, or attainable ! 
 
 2. Though this were given up ; yet of whatever nature this 
 corruption and impotency is, call it natural or moral, it is certain, 
 that it is strong ; natural religion cannot give sufficient security that 
 it is practicable to eradicate it. We know that some streams of 
 this corruption may be dammed in, some of the top branches lop- 
 ped off, and some of the fruits of it may be plucked. This, in 
 so far as it is done, is good for mankind, and useful in society. 
 Some of the philosophers have gone a great way in it, and there- 
 by have shamed most who are called Christians. But what is all 
 this to the eradicating of corruption, purifying the minds of men, 
 and universal conformity in heart to the rule of duty ? The at- 
 tainments of philospliers need not here be talked of: their virtues 
 were but shows, and the shadows of them. Search to the bot- 
 tom, and you will find, that what they called self-denial, was only 
 a piece of delicate interest in order to reach self-ends : it wa? but 
 a parting of one thing pleasant to ourselves, to g;iin a greater, which 
 is selfishness in the extreme. As for that self-denial, which Chris- 
 tianity teaches, it was not heard of, or knoAvn in the least. Liber- 
 ality was but a mere parade of pride, which values no irifis. provided 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 209 
 
 it have the glory of being liberal ; modestly was the art of conceal- 
 ing our vanity ; civility, but an affected preference of other men 
 before ourselves, to conceal how much we value ourselves, above all 
 the world ; bashfulness, but an affected silence in those things, which 
 lusts make men think of with pleasure ; benevolence or the desire 
 of obliging other men, but a secret desire of serving ourselves, by 
 getting them to befriend us at other times ; gratitude, but an impa- 
 tience to acquit ourselves of an obligation, with a shamefacedness 
 for having been too long beholden to others, for some favor receiv- 
 ed. So that all these pretended virtues, in general, have only been 
 so many guards made use of by self-love, to prevent our darling and 
 secret vices from appearing outwardly. All these are no evidences, 
 what may be done towards the removal of corrupt inclinations. 
 Nor indeed can nature's light satisfy us that it is practicable. Can 
 it shew us the man that has done it ? This were somewhat to 
 the purpose, could he be named. But this cannot be. Will it 
 tell us that we have a power to do it ? But this is somewhat 
 that we see and find by experience, the strongest and most con- 
 vincing of all arguments, not to be true. We find we may re- 
 strain or forbear some outward actions, but we have no experience 
 of a power to lay aside or divest ourselves of inclinations so deep- 
 ly rooted. Besides, they, who talk of this power, whereof others 
 have no experience, are liable to be questioned upon several things 
 which they cannot fairly or satisfy ingly answer. Why do not 
 they more than others who find it not, but complain of the want of 
 this power, shew that those inclinations are eradicated which they 
 own should be laid aside, which they assert they have a power to 
 lay aside, and which they say they have been long trying to over- 
 come ? The world will be forward to judge, at least, the thinking 
 part of mankind will be so, that they are rather misled by some 
 fond speculations to judge they have a power that they really 
 want, than that this practical proof should fail, which seems scarce 
 capable of an answer. 
 
 Now will men be effectually engaged in a work so difficult, 
 which they are never like to bring to an issue ? Will they not 
 rather choose to yield to the conqueror than engage in a war that 
 must last while they last, and that without prospect of conquest 
 and being masters in the end ? Yea, have they not done so ? 
 Who will be induced to such an undertaking without encourage- 
 ment ? 
 
 3. If this is practicable, yet it must be owned extremely diffi- 
 cult, and what men will not easily be engaged in. Inclinations are 
 deeply rooted, strengthened by custom, and in most heightened 
 by temptations, whereof the world is full. Now if natural religion 
 is supposed able to persuade to such an undertaking, it must be 
 
 27 
 
210 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 well furnished with strong motives and inducements. Whence 
 shall those be fetched ? From the rewards of virtue, and the 
 punishment of vice on the other side of time ? We heard how short 
 the accounts of nature's light of these are. The impressions of 
 these w ere always more deeply rooted in the vulgar, than in the phi- 
 losophers -y yet they had no such effect. It is plain, outward en- 
 couragements do not attend the practice of virtue. There re- 
 mains only then the beauty of virtue itself. Of this the philoso- 
 phers have talked wonderful things. But the mischief of it is, it 
 was but talk. When they missed other things, they could, even 
 with their dying breath, as Brutus, one of the adepti,* is said to 
 have done, call virtue but an empty name. They lived otherwise 
 than they talked, the best of them not excepted. It is excellent- 
 ly said by the ingenious Claudian, 
 
 Ipsa quidem virtus pretium sibi solaque late 
 Fortuns secura nitet, nee fascibus iiUis 
 Erigitur, plaiisuve petit clarescere vulgi. 
 Nil opis externi cupiens, nil indignae laudis, 
 Divitiis animosa suis, immotaque cunctis 
 Casibus, ex alta raortalia despicit arce.* 
 
 This is indeed very prettily said ; but this is all. Men may- 
 please themselves with refined speculations of the excellency of 
 virtue : but it is not this alone that can sway corrupt man. It is 
 not the question what virtue really is 7 But what men think of it, 
 and can be made to see in it ? And it is certain, all the philoso- 
 phers could never persuade the world of iit ; and no wonder, for 
 they could not persuade -themselves. Mankind have had other 
 thoughts, and it must be other views than nature can give, that 
 will beat them out of this. Another poet plainly opens the case : 
 
 Turpe quidem dictu (sed si modo vera fatemur) 
 
 Vulgus amicitias utilitate probat : 
 
 Cui-a quid expediat prior est, quam quid sit honestum, 
 
 Etcum tbrtuna statque caditque fides. 
 
 Nee facile iiivenies miiltis in millibus unum, 
 
 Virtutem pretium qui putat esse suum. 
 
 Ipse decor recti, facti si praemia desint, 
 
 Non movet, & gratis poenitet esse probum.t 
 
 * " Perfect." 
 
 ■\ De Consulatu Mallii TheodoriaM Initio. — " Virtue indeed is its own re- 
 ward, and it alone shines far and wide, regardless of fortune ; nor is it ele- 
 vated bv^ any power, or desires to become famous by tlve applause of the 
 croud, having no desire of outward help, nor any need of praise. Bold iu 
 its own riches, and immoveable by all accidents, it looks down on mortal 
 things fi-om a high eminence." 
 
 * Ovid, de Ponto, Lib. 2. Eleg. 3. — " It is indeed scandalous tO' relate, but 
 if we will only confess the truth, the multitude approves of friendship only 
 for interest ; the case of what is profitable is prior to the case of what is 
 honorable, and their fidelity stands or falls with fortune ; nor will you easi 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 211 
 
 Here is the true state of the case. But to come closely up to 
 the point ; this beauty of virtue is not discernible till we have 
 made some progress in it. While corrupt inclinations are in their 
 vigor in the heart, such a beauty is not easily seen. 2. It is a 
 beauty too fine to be perceived by vulgar eyes, or indeed by any, 
 without deeper and nicer consideration, than most of men can go 
 to the chaise of. 3. Alone it is not sufficient to support and car- 
 ry on in so hazardous an undertaking. This advantage is not to 
 be felt till the virtue be obtained. It is a question whether it will 
 he obtained. So that it is plain, natural religion wants motives to 
 engage effectually to this. 
 
 4. It is still further considerable to this purpose, that these vi- 
 cious inclinations are strong, if not strongest, in those who have 
 neither capacity to dive into those few refined considerations, 
 which enforce the practice of virtue, and the subduing of corrup- 
 tion, nor indeed to understand them when proposed, nor have they 
 time or leisure to attend to the discourses of the philosophers 
 where they are taught, or money to purchase them. And natural 
 religion provides no teachers, at least if we take it according to 
 the accounts that we get from the Deists, who bear such a terrible 
 grudge to a standing ministry, and have so oft in their mouths 
 that reflection of Dryden, " Priests of all religions are the same." 
 Now what a sad case are poor men in, who are solicited by out- 
 ward temptations and pushed on by strong inclinations, and have 
 %o small assistance given them by natural religion. 
 
 5. As motives are wanting, so the work is not easily carried on, 
 the way of management is difficult, and the directions given us by 
 the philosophers or others, are exceedingly unsatisfactory. Some 
 of them are impossible, such as the entire laying aside our affec- 
 tions ; others of them ridiculous, such as that direction above- 
 mentioned out of Plato,^for the purification of our souls by music 
 and mathematics, &c. Others, and indeed most of them, only tell 
 lis what we are to do, bid us do the thing, but tell us not how to 
 set about it ; some of them only tell us how to conceal inward cor- 
 ruption, or divert it. And, perhaps, I should not say amiss, if I 
 should say, that what the best moral philosophers either aimed at 
 or attained, was only to dam in corruption on one side, to let it 
 run out at another ; or to make that run in a secret channel, which 
 run open before. It were long to examine their several directions. 
 The learned Herbert gives us a summary of them, which I shall 
 here present the reader with. 1. We should suppress all our vi- 
 tious affections. This is but to advise the thing, without telling 
 us how it is to be done. 2. That we expiate our sins by deep re- 
 
 " ly find one among many thousands, who thinks that virtue is its own reward 
 " The beauty of virtue by itself does not move them, if rewards are wajitintf . 
 " and they grudge to be honest for nothuig." 
 
212 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 pentance, and bi/ the instituted sacrijices or rites. This is only a 
 remedy for guilt, and an ill one too, as has been cleared above. 
 3. That we avoid the society of evil men. But then we must go 
 out of the world, or at least out of the heathen world. 4. That 
 we use the company of good men. But where shall we find them 
 amongst those, who have no more but natural religion ? 5. l^hat 
 we inquire carefully what is to be done, and what is not to be 
 done ; but the question is, when we know it. How shall we get 
 the one avoided and the other followed, considering we have a 
 strong aversion to good, and inclination to evil ? 6. That our 
 sins, which arise from human frailty, should be corrected or laid 
 aside. But still the question occurs, How is this to be done ? 
 7. That we should use supplications and prayers to the gods, as 
 the priests prescribe. But for what, and upon what grounds ? 
 And what will this help the matter ? 
 
 6. To conclude this argument, the universal experience of man- 
 kind bears testimony to the weakness of natural religion. Nothing 
 in this matter was ever done, or done to purpose, save where reve- 
 lation prevailed. Should we narrowly scan the lives, not of the 
 vulgar, but of the Heathen philosophers, as Plato, Aristotle, Sene- 
 ca, Plutarch, Cato and Brutus, we might easily pull off the mask, 
 and discover how little it was that they attained in this matter, or 
 rather nothing at all. Yea, even a Socrates himself would not be 
 able to stand before an impartial inquirer. I believe he could not 
 give a good account of his amours, and those practical instructions, 
 which he is said to have given his scholar Alcibiades. He repress- 
 ed well the vanity and pride of other philosophers : but perhaps, 
 nay I need not say perhaps, with greater pride ; yea even his 
 death, the most applauded part of liis whole conduct, might be un- 
 masked, and deprived of the unjust eulogies, which some have 
 made on it, who, it may be, never read the accounts we have of 
 it, or seriously considered his carriage on that occasion. It is true, 
 he was unjustly put to death, and behaved very resolutely, but 
 whether he fell not a sacrifice to his own pride, as much as to the 
 malice of his enemies, may be questioned. This I say not to de- 
 tract from those great men, whom I admire, considering their state ; 
 but to shew, that they went not so high as some would- have us 
 believe. 
 
 In fine, till revealed religion appeared, nothing was seen in the 
 world, of true piety or religion, of mortification of sin, or holiness 
 of life. The natural notices could never make one pious, or in- 
 deed moral. Whereas Christianity, upon its first appearance, in a 
 moment, as it were, made millions so. And they who have re- 
 jected it, and set up for Heathenism again, under the new, but 
 injurious name of Deism, are no friends to holiness of life, piety 
 towards God, sobriety in their own way, nor righteousness among 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 213 
 
 men. What mighty saints do Blount, Hobbes, Spinoza, Urief, 
 Accosta and others make ? 
 
 I designed to have proceeded further, to demonstrate the insuf- 
 ficiency of natural religion to answer the ends of religion^ by the 
 consideration of its insufficiency to support under the troubles of 
 life, or amongst the terrors of death ; but upon second thoughts I 
 judged, after what has been said, it was not needful. Besides, if 
 any look but at it, they may easily see it utterly insufficient to 
 this purpose, as it is indeed to the other great ends of religion. 
 
 If the well-founded prospect of future rewards, and a clear 
 knowledge of the nature and excellency of things eternal and not 
 seen, the present intimations of divine love, in cross dispensations, 
 the supports of divine powerful grace under them, the usefulness 
 of those calamities, by virtue of divine ordination and concurrent 
 influence of the divine Spirit, verified in the experience of the 
 sufferers, are laid aside, as natural religion does, which knows no- 
 thing of these, all that men can say to comfort under affliction, or 
 arm against the horrors of death, is but an unprofitable amusement, 
 or at least, like rattles and oiher toys we give to children, that do 
 not in the least ease them of the pain they are under ; but do for 
 a little, divert the mind, while they are looked at ; but as soon as 
 the first impression is over, which those new toys make on the 
 mind, the sense of pain recurs again, with that redoubled force, 
 which it always has, when it immediately succeeds either ease or 
 want of sense. And if it is really violent, these things will not 
 avail, no not to divert trouble for a little. It is but a sorry com- 
 fort to tell me, that others are troubled as well as I, or worse ; that 
 death, which I fear, will end it ; that I must bear it ; that I have 
 other enjoyments, which yet present pain will not allow me to 
 relish. Yet such are the best consolations that natural religion 
 affords. 
 
 CHAP. xn. 
 
 Wherein the Proof of the Insufjidency of Natural Religion is 
 concluded from a general View of the Experietice of the World. 
 
 AS a conclusion to, and illustration of what has hitherto been 
 discoursed, for demonstrating the insufficienci/ o( natural religion, 
 I shall here offer a six-fold view of the experience of the world in 
 general, without descending to particular instances, which have in 
 part been touched at, and offered before, and are every where to 
 be met with. 
 
214 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 1. Let us view man as a creature made for this end, to glorify 
 God and enjoy him, abstracting from the consideration of his cor- 
 ruption, which the Deists sometimes deny, and sometimes with 
 difficulty, do but in part admit. And let us consider him as left 
 to pursue this noble end, in the use of his rational faculties, under 
 the conduct of the mere light of nature : If we consider him thus, 
 and inquire into the experience of the world, how far he has reach- 
 ed this end, we shall find such an account, as will much confirm 
 the truth we have hitherto asseited, and weaken the credit of the 
 Deists' imaginary sufficiency of nature's light to conduct man to 
 the end for which he was made. 
 
 If we look to the generality of mankind, we shall find them in a 
 posture much like that wherein the prophet saw the princes in the 
 vision, with their backs to the chief end, never once thinking for 
 what they were made, pursuing other things ; every one as lust 
 led him, following his own humor, walking in a direct and open 
 contradiction to that law, which was originally designed for the 
 guide of our life, and the directory to bliss, that happiness, which 
 all Mould have, though they know not where to find it. 
 
 If we look at the philosophers, we may see them sitting vp late, 
 rising early, eating the bread of carefulness, wearying themselves 
 in the search of happiness, running into hundreds of different no- 
 tions about it, and yet not one of them hitting, or at least under- 
 standing the true one ; and as little agreed about the way to it. — 
 We may hear them talk of virtue, but never levelling it at its 
 proper end, the glory of God. We may hear them urging its 
 practice, but not upon the proper grounds. Rarely any regard to 
 the authority of God, the only formal ground of obedience. In- 
 stead of plain rules useful to mankind, they obtrude cryptic and 
 dark sentences, rather designed to make others admire them, than 
 to be useful to any. They every where tack their own fancies 
 to the divine law, a weight sufficient to sink it as to its truth, in 
 the apprehensions of men, or at least, as to its usefulness. They 
 offer a rule defective in most things of moment, corrupt in many, 
 ruining in not a few instances, destitute of any other authority 
 than their own say, or ipse dixit, unintelligible to the generality, 
 and naked as to inducements to obey it. 
 
 2. Let us consider man i>s made for this end, but barred from 
 its attainment, by the interposition of those great hinderances and 
 rubs which now are certainly in its way ; I mean darkness, guilt 
 «nd corruption. These are stones in the way. How has nature's 
 light acquitted itself as to the rolling them away ? Truly they have 
 I'ten like F^ysiphus's stone, as fast as they have rolled them up, as 
 fast they have recoiled and fallen back on them. 
 
 As to that darkness that hfss overspread the minds of men, if 
 we look at the generality, we find them like blind men, content to 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 215 
 
 jog on in the dart, mired every where, stumbling frequently, and 
 falling sometimes dangerously ; yet satisfied with their. case, not 
 looking after light : not so much because they want it not, as be- 
 cause they have no notion of it, or its usefulness ; like blind men 
 that never saw the sun, and therefore suffer the loss of it with less 
 regret, than they who once saAv, but now have lost their eyes. — 
 They follow as they are led ; are ready to take hold of any hand, 
 though of one as blind as themselves, and are never sensible of the 
 mistake, till sunk where they cannot get out again. The philoso- 
 phers indeed seem a little more sensible of their case, and fancying 
 truth to be hid in Democritus's well, dive for it, but lose their 
 breath before they come at it, and fall into dangerous eddies or 
 whirlpools, where they lose themselves instead of finding truth ; 
 or trying to fetch it up, but with a line too short, they fetch up 
 some weeds that are nourished by their nearness to the waters, and 
 please themselves with those. After all their painful endeavors 
 we find them groping in the dark, as to all useful and necessary 
 knowledge of God, or the way of worshipping him ; — of ourselves, 
 our happiness, our sins, the way of obtaining pardon, our duty or 
 our corruption. 
 
 As to guilt, if we look at the case of mankind, and their endea 
 vors for the removal of it, we find the most part drowned in end- 
 less despair or fatal security j like men at their wit's end, trying 
 all ways that fear, superstition, or racked imagination can supply, 
 and still unsatisfied with their own inventions, they are ready to 
 try all ways that self-designing men, or even the Devil can suggest 
 to them, sparing no cost, no travel, no pain. They stand not to 
 give the fruit of their bod// for the sin of their soul. The philo- 
 sophers either think, through their pride, they have no sin, be- 
 cause they are not quite so bad as the vulgar ; or, if they still re- 
 tain some sense of sin, they are driven into the utmost perplexity, 
 being convinced of the wickedness of the measures taken by the 
 vulgar, or at least of their uselessness and impertinency, and yet 
 unable to find out better ; they try to divert their thoughts from a 
 sore they know no plaister for. 
 
 As to corruption, we find all confessing it, crying out of the dis- 
 ease ; and indeed it is rather because it cannot be hid, — the sore 
 runs, than because it is painful to many. The generality despair 
 of stemming the tide, and finding it easiest to swim with the stream, 
 are willingly carried headlong. The body of philosophers are in- 
 deed like weak watermen on a strong stream, they look one way 
 but are carried another. Though they pretend they aim at the 
 ruining of vice, yet really they do it no hurt, save that they speak 
 against it. A few of the best of them being ashamed to be found 
 amongst the rest, swimming, or rather carried down the stream 
 
216 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 on the surface, that is, in open vice, have dived to the bottom ; but 
 reaWy made as much way under water as the others above, 
 
 3. Let us view mankind under the goodness and forbearance of 
 God, these helps which some think sufficient. These words are 
 used, or rather abused, as a blind in a matter of very great import- 
 ance ; and men Avho use them will scarce tell, if they can, even in 
 the subject of the present discourse, in what sense they use them. 
 But let it be as it will, some pretend the works of providence, par- 
 ticularly God's goodness and forbearance sufficient. "Well, let us 
 see the experience of the world in this. 
 
 If we view mankind under this consideration, we may see them 
 so tar from being led to repentance, that most part never once took 
 notice of this conduct of God. Others, and they not a few, have 
 abused it to the worst purposes. Because judgmtnt against an 
 evil work, has not been speedih/ executed, therefore their hearts 
 were wholly set in them to do evil. The more inquisitive have 
 raised a charge against God as encouraging wickedness. And as 
 for the favors they enjoyed themselves, they looked on them, not 
 as calls to repentance, but as rewards for their pretended virtues, 
 and scanty ones too, below the worth of them. Not a few of 
 them have gone near to arraign God of injustice, for lesser afflic- 
 tions they were visited with ; while others have been entangled 
 and tossed to and fro by cross appearances. So that none have by 
 this goodness of God been led to repentance. 
 
 4. Let us view man living in the place where revelation obtains, 
 or where the Christian religion is professed and taught, but re- 
 nouncing and rejecting it, and in profession owning only natural re- 
 ligion : Such are the Deists among usv If we consider their words, 
 they talk indeed that natural religion is sufficient ; and to make it 
 indeed appear so, some of them have adorned it with jewels bor- 
 roAved from the temple of God, ascribing to nature's light discove- 
 ries in religion, which originally were owing to rcA^elation, and were 
 never dreamed of where it did not obtain: though being once dis- 
 covered, they have gained the consent of sober reason. But now 
 M'e are not considering the speech, but the power of these men ; 
 not what they say of the sufficiency of natural religion, but what 
 real experience they have of it, and what evidence they give of 
 this in their practice. 
 
 If we thus consider them, we find, that although when they 
 have a mind to impose their notion of tiie sufficiency of natural 
 religion upon others, they pretend, that it is clear, as to a great 
 many points or principle;?, that are confessedly of the greatest 
 moment in religion ; yet when they begin to speak more plainly 
 and freely their own inward sentiments, they shew that they are 
 not fixed, no not about the very principles themselve?, even these 
 of them which are of the greatest consequence. 3Iv. Gildon, 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 2U 
 
 publisher of the Oracles of Reason, is not far from asserting two 
 anti-gods, the one good the other evil ; and so falls in with the 
 Persians.* Blount favours the opinion of Ocellus Lucanus, about 
 the world's eternity, and consequently denies, or at least hesitates 
 about creation.^ The immaterialily of the soul seems to be flatly 
 rejected by them all. Nor do they seem very firm as to its im- 
 niortality. In short, after they have been at so much pains to 
 trim up natural religion, and make it look sufficient-like, they yet 
 express a hesitation about its siifficiency to eternal /(/^-J We 
 have heard Herbert to this purpose already. Blount, in a letter 
 lo Dr. Sydenham, prefixed to the Deist^s Reasons, says plainly, 
 that it is not safe to trust Deism alone, without Cliristianity joined 
 lo it. And the Deist's hope is summed up in this, in the 4th 
 chap, of the SummarT/ of the Deist's Reasons, That " there is 
 more probability of his salvation, than of the credulous and ill-living 
 Papist ;"|1 and that is just none at all. 
 
 Nor does their practice give one jot of a better proof of the 
 sufficiency of that religion which they profess : yea, it affords con- 
 vincing evidence of its weakness, uselessness, and utter insufficien- 
 cy. Their lives shew that they are not in earnest about any thing 
 in religion. They are Latitudinarians in practice. Thejr words, 
 (heir actions, have no savour of a regard to a Deity ; but they go 
 on in all manner of impieties in practice, and perhaps in the end, 
 put a period to a wretched life by their own hands, as Blount, 
 Uriel, Acosta and others have done, and the survivors justify the 
 deed, upon trifling and childish reasonings ; as not knowing but 
 they may one day be put to use the same shift. I am not in the 
 least deterred from asserting this, by the coramendatior.s that the 
 publisher of the Oracles of Reason gives to Mr. Blount, as a per- 
 son remarkable for virtue."^* If a profane, jocular, and unbecom- 
 ing treatment of the gravest and most important truths that belong, 
 e^'en by his own acknowledgment, to natural religion ; yea, and are 
 1 he principal props of it ; and if gross and palpable disingenuity be 
 instances of that virtue that he ascribes to him, and evidences of 
 those just and adequate notions of the Deity, in which he says 
 Mr. Blount was bred up, I could givf; instances enough from the 
 book itself of such virtues : But I love not to rake in the ashes of 
 the dead. Again, others of the Deists, having wearied themselves 
 in chaceof a phantom to no purpose, and having neither the grace 
 nor ingenuity to return to the religion they abandoned, either laud 
 in downright Atheism in principle and practice, or they throw 
 themselves into the arms of the pretended infallible guide ; and 
 
 » Oracles of Reason, nacre 19'k 212, 228. 
 t Ibid, 154, 187. 
 
 i Ibid, iir, i2r. 
 
 I' Oracles of Kcuson, at the beginning-, account c? Bb'rnt.'g ITfe— »• tv-,,j 
 
 2« 
 
218 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 thereby give evidence how well founded the Jesuitical maxim b, 
 Make a man once an Atheist, he will soon turn Papist. 
 
 5. Let us view men living under the gospel, embracing it in 
 profession, but unacquainted with that Spirit that gives life and 
 power to its doctrines, precepts, promises, threats and ordinances. 
 They, besides that they are possessed of all the advantages of 
 nature's light, have moreover the superadded advantages of reve- 
 lation, and its institutions. They have ministers and parents in- 
 structing them, and discipline to restrain them, they are trained 
 up in the faith of future rewards, and instructed in the nature and 
 excellency of them, for their encouragement ; they have punish- 
 ments proposed to them to deter them from sin, which they profess 
 to believe ; yet if we consider the practice of the generality of 
 such persons, it gives a sufficient evidence, that all this is not 
 enough. Who but a man blind or foolish can then dote so far as to 
 pretend nature's light alone sufficient, when it is not so, even 
 when helped by so many accessory improvements ? 
 
 If we consider the experience of them who have received the 
 gospel in truth, and felt its power, we find they have indeed reach- 
 ed the ends of religion in part, and have a fair prospect as to fur- 
 ther success. Well, what is their sense of the sufficiency of na- 
 ture's light ? Why, if you observe them in their public devotions, 
 you shall hear heavy out-cries of their own darkness, weakness 
 and wickedness ; you may hear serious prayers for divine light, and 
 life to quicken them, strengthen and incline them to follow duty, 
 and support them in it, against the power of temptations, which 
 they own themselves unable to master, without the poweiful aids 
 of divine grace. If you follow them into their retirements, where 
 the matter is managed betwixt God and them alone, where they 
 are under none of these temptations, to maintain the credit of any 
 received notions, and therefore must be presumed to speak out 
 the practical sense of the state of their case, without any disguise ; 
 there you shall find nothing but deep confessions of guilt, darkness 
 and inability, with earnest cries, prayers and tears, for supplies of 
 grace : and what they attain in matters of religion, you shall find 
 them freely owning, that it was not the?/ but the gra^e of God in 
 them that brought them to this. And the more that any is con- 
 cerned about religion, or know and has attained in it, still you will 
 find him the more sensible of this state of things. 
 
 This is but a hint of what might have been said : but I have 
 rather chosen to offer a general scheme of the argument from ex- 
 perience, which every one, from his own private reading and ob- 
 servation, may illustrate with observations and particular instances, 
 than to insist upon it at large, which would have required a vo- 
 lume. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 219 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Wherein me make a transition to the DeisVs Pleas for their opin- 
 ion^ and take particular Notice of the Articles to which they re- 
 duce their Catholic Religion, give some Account of Baron 
 Herbert, the first Inventor of this Catholic Religion, his Books, 
 and particularly/ of that which is inscribed De Religione Gen- 
 tilium, as to the Matter and Scope of it, and the Importance of 
 what is therein attempted to the DeisVs Cause. 
 
 WE hare now proposed and confirmed our own opinion ; our 
 next business is to inquire more particularly into that of the 
 Deists, and consider what they offer for it. 
 
 The first set of Deists, so far as I can learn, did satisfy them- 
 selves with the rejection of all supernatural revelation, and a gene- 
 ral pretence, that natural religion was suQicient, without telling 
 the world of what articles it did consist, what belonged thereto, 
 or how far it went. The learned lord Herbert was the first who 
 did cultivate this notion, and dressed Deism, and brought it to 
 something of a form. This honor he assumes to himself, glories 
 in it, and we see no ground to dispute this with him. I have met 
 with nothing in any of the modern Deists that makes towards this 
 subject, which is not advanced by him, and probably borrowed 
 from his writings. It will not therefore be impertinent to give the 
 reader some account of him. 
 
 This Edward Herbert was a descendant from a younger brother 
 of the family of Pembroke. He was brother to the famous George 
 Herbert, the divine poet. His education was at Oxford, where he 
 was for some time a fellow Commoner in University College there. 
 After he left the University, he improved himself by travels into 
 foreign nations, and obtained the reputation of a scholar, a states- 
 man and a soldier. He was made Knight of the Bath at the coro- 
 nation of king James I. in England, who afterwards sent him as 
 ambassador to Lewis XIII. on behalf of the French Protestants : 
 and upon his return he was created Baron of Castle-Island, in 
 Ireland ; and by king Charles I. anno. 1 630, he was created a 
 Baron of England, by the title of Lord Herbert of Cherbunj, and 
 died in 1648.* 
 
 This learned person having once unhappily apostatised from the 
 religion wherein he was bred, into Deism, though, as other Deists 
 likewise do, he did still seem to own the Church of England ; yet 
 be set himself for the maintenance of Deism in his writings. And 
 
 * See Geograph. Diction, articlea Herbert vxA Deism. See also the Life of 
 Mr. Gcovg'e Herbert. 
 
220 AN INaWlRY INTO THE 
 
 to this purpose he published some time after the year 1640, (tor I 
 have not the first edition of it) his book de Veritate, and shortly 
 after another, de Causis Errorum. These two books are for the 
 most part philosophical, and written with some singularity of notion. 
 What is tnith in them is rather delivered in a new way than new ; 
 and by the use of vulgar words in new and uncommon acceptations, 
 and his obscure way of management of his notions, is scarcely in- 
 telligible to any but metaphysical readers, nor to such, without 
 greater application, than perhaps the matter is worth. I should 
 not think myself concerned in either of these two books, their 
 subject being philosophical, were it not that it is his avowed design 
 in them, to lay a foundation for his peculiar notions in religion. 
 
 There are two things at which Herbert, in these and his other 
 writings, plainly aims at — to overthrow revelation and to establish 
 natiiral religion in its room. It is not my design or province at 
 present, to defend revelation against the efforts of this or any other 
 author, though I think it were a business of no great difficulty to 
 remove what Herbert has said against it ; .yet since I have men- 
 tioned his attempt upon it, I cannot pass it without some short, but 
 just remarks upon his unfair, if not disingenuous way of treating 
 revelation. 
 
 1. On many occasions, with what candor and ingenuity himself 
 knew, he professeth a great respect to revelation, and particularly 
 to the scripture's, and pretends he designs nothing in prejudice of 
 the established religion : but any one that peruses the books will 
 soon see, that this is only like Joab''s kiss, a blind to make his 
 reader secure, and fear no danger from the sword that he has under 
 his garment : For notwithstanding of this, he every where insinu- 
 ates prejudices against all revelation, as uncertain, unnecessary/, 
 and of little or no use to any, save those to whom it was originally, 
 or rather immediately given. 
 
 2. Upon all occasions, and sometimes Avithout any occasion given 
 him from his subject, he makes sallies upon truths of the greatest 
 importance in the Christian religion ; such as the doctrines of the 
 corruption of our nature, satisfaction of Christ, and the decrees 
 of God, &c. And having represented them disingenuously, or 
 else ignorantly, (which 1 less suspect in a man of his learning) not 
 in that way they are proposed in scripture, or taught by those who 
 maintain them, but under the disguise of gross misrepresentations, 
 mistaken notions, and strained consequences : and having thus put 
 them in beast's skins, as the primitive persecutors did the Chris- 
 tians, he sets his dogs upon them to worry them ; and this v/ithout 
 any regard had unto the foundation they have in the scriptures, or 
 the evidence of the proofs that may be advanced for tiie scriptures 
 in general, or these doctrines in particular, and without all consi- 
 der^ition of the inconsistency of ihh vray of treating truths plainly 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 221 
 
 taught, and inculcated as of the greatest importance in the scrip- 
 tures, with that respect, which upon other occasions he pretends 
 to that divine book. 
 
 3. Ife states wrong notions of the grounds whereupon revela- 
 tion is received, and overthrows those imaginary ones he has set 
 up, as the reasons of our belief of the scriptures, and then tri- 
 umphs in success. How easy is it to set up a man of straw and 
 beat him down with the finger ! 
 
 4. The Deists generally, and Herbert in particular, do grant, 
 that the Christian revelation has manifestly the advantage of all 
 other pretenders to revelation, as in respect of the intrinsic excel 
 lency of the matter, so likewise in respect of the reasons that 
 may be pleaded for its truth. "^ And so certain and evident is 
 this, that one of their number owns, that Christianity has " the 
 " fairest pretensions of any religion in the world," and exhorts to 
 '' make a diligent enquiry into it ; arguing, " that if the pre- 
 " tcnces of Christianity be well grounded, it cannot be a frivolous 
 " and indiflferent matter;" and he grants further, that " the truth 
 *' of the matters of fact which confirm it, is hardly possible to be 
 " denied. "f Now notwithstanding of this manifest and acknow- 
 ledged difference betwixt the scriptures and other pretenders lo 
 revelation, when Herbert speaks of revelation, he jumbles all pre- 
 tenders together without distinction, and urges the faults of the 
 most ridiculous and obviously spurious pretenders, against revela- 
 tion, in general, as if every particular one, and especially Chris- 
 tianity, were chargeable with these fiiults : Is this candid and fair 
 dealing, to insinuate into the unwary reader that these palpable evi- 
 dences of imposture are to be found in all revelations alike, while, 
 even they themselves being judges, the scriptures are not 
 concerned in them ? Yet this is the way that Christianity h 
 treated by this learned author ; and his steps have been closely 
 traced in this piece of scandalous disingenuity, (for I can give it 
 no milder name,) by Blount and the other writers of the party, 
 as I could make appear by many instances, if need required. 
 
 5. Our author makes high pretences to accuracy in searching 
 after truth, and treats all other authors with the greatest scorn and 
 contempt imaginable, as short in that point : yet he seldom states 
 a question fairly, but huddles all up in the dark, especially, when 
 he speaks about revelation, and heaps together difficulties about all 
 the concernments of revealed religion, without any regard to the 
 distinct heads to which they belong. This is a ready way to 
 shake the faith of his reader about all truths, but establish him in 
 none. 
 
 Other reflections I forbear, though he has given fair occasion for 
 many : but this is not my subject. This part of his discourse lias 
 
 ♦ Rcligio Laici pape 9, 10. Letter to the Deists, page 139. 
 
222 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 been animadverled on by a learned author, though the book is not 
 come to my hand.* 
 
 The other branch of our author's design, viz. His attempt to 
 establish the svfficienct/ of natural religion, is that wherein I am 
 directly concerned. This he only proposes in his book de Veritate 
 at the close, with a short explication of his famed five Articles, of 
 which more anon. And in a small treatise entitled Religio Laid, 
 subjoined to his book dc Causis Errorum, he further explains 
 them. The design of this last mentioned treatise is to shew, that 
 the vulgar can never come to certainty about the truth of any 
 partictdar revelation, or the preferableness of its pretences unto 
 othere, and that therefore of necessity they must sit down satis- 
 fied with the religion he offers them, consisting of five articles, 
 agreed to, if we believe him, by all religions. 
 
 The religion, consisting of five articles, which we shall exhibit 
 immediately, he attempts to prove svfficient by some arguments 
 in that last mentioned treatise. But the principal proof, on which 
 our author lays the whole stress of his cause, is at lai-ge exhibited 
 in another tieatise of our author, de Religione Gentilinm, publish- 
 ed at Amsterdam, anno 1663, by J. Vossiiis, son to the great 
 Ger. Joan. Vossiiis. His pleadings in these and his other writ- 
 ings Ave shall call to an account by and bye. 
 
 Herbert, in his treatise de Religione Gentilium, pretends. What- 
 ever mistakes the Gentile world was under in matters of religion ; 
 yet there was as much agreed to by all nations, as was necessary 
 to their eternal happiness. Particularly, he tells us, that they 
 were agreed about five Articles, of natural religion, which he 
 thinks are sufficient, viz. 1. That there is one supreme God. 2. 
 That he is to be ivorshipped, 3. That virtue is the principal 
 part of his worship. 4. That we must repent of our sins. 5. 
 That there are reivards and punishments both in this life and that 
 ivhiih is to coyne.'l 
 
 Charles Blount, who set himself at the head of the Deists some 
 few years ago, in a small treatise entitled Religio Laid, printed 
 168^^, which in effect is only a translation of Herbert's book of 
 the same name, inverting a little the order, but without the addi- 
 tion of any oiie thought of moment ; in this treatise, I say, he 
 reckons up the articles of natural religion much after the same 
 manner. 1. T/uit there is one only supreme God. 2. Thai he 
 chiejb/ is to be worshipped. 3. That virtue, goodness and piety, 
 arxompanied with faith in, and love to God, are the best ways of 
 wrivshipping him. 4. Thai we should repent of our sins from 
 the bottom of our hearts, and turn to the right way. 5. That 
 there is a reward and punishment after this Ufe.f 
 
 * Baxter's More Reasons for the Christian Religion, and no Reason against 
 it, in the Appendix, 
 f De Relij^. Gcntil. page 186, 210, &;c. f Ibid. 49, 50. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 223 
 
 Another, in a letter directed to Mr. Blount, subscribed A. W. 
 has given us an account of them somewhat difTerent from both the 
 former, in seven articles. 1. That there is one infinite^ and eter- 
 nal Gody creator of all things. 2. That he governs the world by 
 providence. 3. That it is our duty to worship and obey him as our 
 Creator and Governor. 4. That our wor§htp consists in prayer 
 ta him, and praise of him. 5. That our obedience consists in the 
 rules of right I'eason, the practice whereof is moral virtue. 6. 
 That we are to expect rewards and punishments hereafter accord- 
 ing to our actions in this life ; which includes the soul's immor- 
 tality, and is proved by our admitting providence. 7. That, ivhen 
 we err from the rides of our duty, we ought to repent and trust in 
 God's mercy for pardon.'^ To the same purpose, without any 
 alteration of moment from what we have above quoted, Herbert 
 reckons up and repeats the same articles in his other treatises. 
 
 These other authors do but copy afler Herbert. To him the 
 honor of this invention belongs, and he valncs himself not a little 
 upon it. Let us hear himself. " Atque ila (sed non sine muUi- 
 " plici accwataque religionum turn dissectione, turn inspect lone) 
 " quinque illos articulos scepius jam adduclos deprehcndi. Qui- 
 " bus etiam inventis me feliciorem Archimede quovis exislima- 
 " i;t."* He acquaints us, that he consulted divines and wiiters 
 of all parties, but in vain, for to find the universal religion hft 
 sought after ; it is not tlierefore likely, if any had nroulded thl? 
 universal religion, or put it into a form meet for the Deist's pur- 
 pose before him, that it could have escaped his observation and 
 diligence. 
 
 Now we have had a sufficient view of the articles, to which the 
 Deists reduce their religion. Let us next inquire after the proof 
 of this religion ; the burden whereof must lean upon Herbert. 
 The Deists since his time have added nothing that has a shew of 
 proof that I can yet see. Well, after he has in his other treatises, 
 as has been said, proposed and explained his rehgion he at length 
 comes to the proof of it in his treatise de Religione Gcntilium. 
 Here the main strength of his cause lies, and with this we shall 
 mainly deal ; yet so as not to overlook any thing that has a shew 
 of proof elsewhere in his writings. 
 
 In this treatise de Religione Gentilium, he makes it his work to. 
 illustrate and prove, " That the abovementioned five articles were 
 universally believed by people of all religions." This is the pro- 
 position at which that whole book aims, in the managemeat of 
 
 t Oracles of Reason, page 19". 
 ^^ * De Helig. Gent, page 218.—" And thus, thougli not without a nrjanifold 
 '* and accurate dissection and inspection of religion, I have found those five 
 " articles, that have already been often quoted, on finding which I thought 
 * myself more happy than any Archimedes." 
 
224 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 this subject our author gives great proof of diligence, vast reading, 
 and much philological learning. He gives large accounts of the 
 idolatry of the Heathens and their pleas for it, or rather of the 
 pleas, which our author thought might be made for it ; which has 
 given occasion to several conjectures, as to our author's design in 
 that book, and his other, writings. 
 
 I find a learned author who has bestowed a few short animadver- 
 sions on this book, inclined to think it not unlikely, that Herbert's 
 principal design was, if not to justify, yet to excuse the idolatry of 
 the church of Rome.* And if one considers how many pleas 
 Herbert makes for the Gentiles' idolatry, and that they aie gener- 
 ally such as may serve for the Romanists' purpose ; and if it is 
 further considered, that Herbert elsewhere seems, upon many oc- 
 casions, to found the whole certainty of revelation upon the au- 
 thority of the church, and that alone, and the vast power he gives 
 to the church as to the appointment of rtffs, yea, and all the ordi- 
 7iances of worship ; if it is further considered how concerned some 
 persons were for an accommodation with the church of Rome at 
 that time, when our author wrote, and how far Herbert was con- 
 cerned in that party, who were striving for this reconciliation ; if I 
 say, all these things are laid together, this conjecture will not appear 
 destitute of probability. I might add to this, that Herbert makes 
 use of pleas not much unlike those which aie used by the church 
 of Rome to ishake Protestants out of their faith, that they may at 
 length fall in with the hifallible guide. In fine, I dare be bold to 
 undertake the maintenance of this against any opposer, that Her- 
 bert's method followed out, will inevitably make the vjilgar Atheists ; 
 whether he designed by this to make them Papists, I know not, 
 nor shall I judge. How far this conjecture will hold, 1 leave to 
 others to judg:e. I shall only add this one thing more, that the 
 seeming opposition of Herbert's design unto Popish principles, and 
 his thrusts at the Romish clergy, will not be sufficient to clear him 
 of all suspicion in this matter, with those who have seriously pe- 
 rused the books written by Papists in disguise, on design to shake 
 the faith of the vulgar sort of Protestants, in some of which, there 
 is as great appearance at first view of a designed oA^erthrow of Po- 
 pery, and as hard things said against the Romish clergy. Good 
 watermen can look one way and row another. What there was of 
 this, will one day be manifest. 
 
 The Deists maintain, that *' their religion, consisting of the 
 abovenamed five articles 13 sufficient." It is the avowed design of 
 Herbert in his book, to assert this and prove it ; and yet he spends 
 it wholly in proving this proposition, " That these five articles 
 did universally obtain." Now it scejns of importance to inquire. 
 
 Abr.1l). Hejdanus <lc O-ig-In^ Erroris, Lib, TI. Cap. XI. pcigc 370. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 225 
 
 why Herbert should be at so much pains to prove this. How 
 does universal reception of these articles establish his religion, and 
 of what consequence is it to the Deists' cause ? 
 
 For clearing this, it must be observed, that it is a common reli- 
 gion that Herbert is inquiring after, which may be equally useful 
 to all mankind ; and nothing can agree to this, which is not com- 
 monly received. And Herbert has before laid down this for a 
 principle, that the only way to distinguish common notices from 
 these which are not so, is universal reception. This according to 
 him is the only sure criterion. " Religio est notiiia communis — 
 " Videndum igiturest, qucBnam in reUgione ex consensu univer- 
 " sali sunt agnita : Universa conferantur, qu(B aiitem ab omni- 
 " bus ianquam vera in reUgione agnoscuntur, communes^ notiticz 
 *' habendce sunt. Sed dices esse laboris improbi : at alia ad veri- 
 " fates notitiarum communium non superest via ; quas tamen ita 
 '' magnifacimuSy ut in illis solis sapientioi divince universalis ar- 
 " cana deprehendi possint."* 
 
 But to set this matter in a full light, I shall make it appear. That 
 a failure in this attempt, to prove that these were universally agreed 
 to, is inevitably ruinous to the Deists' cause and plea for a common 
 religion ; though the proof of this point will be very far from in- 
 ferring that there is a common religion, as shall be cleared after- 
 wards. And this will give further light into the reasons of Her- 
 bert's undertaking. 
 
 To this purpose then it is to be observed. That the Deists be- 
 ing agreed about the rejection of the Christian religion, and that re- 
 velation whereon it is founded, they are for ever barred from the 
 acceptance of any other revelation as the measure of religion, that 
 the world knows : For they own no revelation ever, had so fair a 
 plea, and such probable grounds to support its pretensions, as the 
 Christian revelation has. However therefore, the generality of the 
 Deists were satisfied to lay aside the Christian religion, which will 
 not allow them that liberty in following the courses that they are 
 resolved upon, without putting any thing into its place ; yet the 
 more sober sort saw, that to reject this religion and put none in its 
 place, would, by the world, be counted plain Atheism, which de' 
 servedly is odious in the world. Therefore they saw there was a 
 necessity of substituting one in its place. 
 
 * De Veritate, pag. 55. " Religion i& a common notice, we ought to 
 
 " see therefore what things in religion are acknowledged by universal con- 
 " sent. Let all be gathered together, and those things In religion which 
 " are acknowledged by all to be true are to be reckoned common notice». 
 " But you will say that this is a task of immense labor. But no other way 
 " remains'for arriving at those truths that may be reckoned common notice*. 
 " Which, however, we value so highly, that in these alone the jiecrets of 
 '* divine universal wisdom can be found." 
 ^ 29 
 
226 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 Now since revelation was rejected, nothing remained, but ta pre- 
 tend, that reason was able to supply the defect and afford a suflS- 
 cient religion, a religion that is able to answer all the purposes for 
 which others pretend revealed religion necessary. 
 
 When once they were come this length, it was easy to see that 
 it might be inquired. Whether this rational religion lay within the 
 reach of every man's reason, or was only to be found out by per- 
 sons of learning ? 
 
 If it is pretended, that only persons of learning, application 
 and imcomraon abilities, could attain the discovery of this religion^ 
 the difficulties whereon the pretenders are cast, are obvious. 
 
 What shall then become of their argument against revealed reli- 
 gion, " that it is not universal, that it is not received by all man- 
 kind, that therefore it is not attended with sufficient evidence." — 
 Upon this supposition there is a fair ground for retorting the argu- 
 ment, with no less, if not more force, against natural religion. 
 
 Again, what shall become of that plea, which they make for na- 
 tural religion, " that God must provide all his creatures in the 
 means necessary for attaining that happiness they are capable of?" 
 May they not, on this supposition, be urged, that, according to if» 
 the generality are not provided with such means ? 
 
 Nor will it avail to pretend, that those who are capable of this^ 
 discovery, are obliged to teach others the laws of nature. For, 
 it may be inquired. Must the people take all on trust from them, 
 or see with their own eyes ? If they must take all on trust, then is 
 there not here a fair occasion for charging priest-craft upon them, 
 who blame it so much in others ? Will not this oblige our wits, men 
 of reason and learning, to turn creed and syslem-makers ? Further,, 
 what will they say of their own neglect, and the neglect of the 
 learned world in this matter ? How will they reconcile this to the 
 notion of God's goodness, of which they talk so much, to suspend 
 the happiness of the greater part of mankind on their care and dili- 
 gence, who quite neglect them, but keep up their knowledge, and 
 thereby expose the poor vulgar to inevitable ruin ? Moreover, if 
 they set up for teachers, they must shew their credentials. Final- 
 ly, there is no place, upon this supposition, left for tlie strongest 
 pleas for a sufficient religion, that is common to mankind, which 
 are taken from the nature of God and man, and their mutual rela- 
 tion ; because all these arguments conclude equally for all mankind, 
 and so are not adapted to assert some peculiar prerogative in one 
 above another. Nor are any able to justify a claim to any further 
 ability this way, than he can satisfy the world of, by the effects of 
 it. When a man pretends to no other abilities, than such as are 
 due to human nature, that he is a man is sufficient to justify his 
 claim- 5^ but if he pretends to some eminency in natural or acquired 
 endowments above others, he must give such proofs of it, as the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 227 
 
 nature of the thing requires ; that is, he must make it appear, that 
 he has that ability, by acting proportionable to the nature and de- 
 gree of the power that he claims ; and further than this is done, no 
 wise inan will believe him. It will not help them out here, to say, 
 that they only of better capacities, and who have more leisure, are 
 able to discover this natural religion ; but the vulgar are capable 
 -of judging and seeing with their own eyes when it is proposed : 
 For, besides that all the former difficulties, or most of them recur 
 here, still it may be inquired. Is this made appear ? The difficult- 
 ies on this side are unsurmountable. 
 
 Wherefore of necessity, they must maintain, " that every man 
 is able to find out and discover what is sufficient for himself in mat- 
 ters of religion." But now when this is asserted, if the experi- 
 ence of the world lie against them, and it be found, as is connnonly 
 supposed, that many nations, nay, the far greater part of mankind^ 
 had no such religion, this will much prejudge their opinion, about 
 every man's having this ability of finding out a religion, or as much 
 in religion as was necessary to his own happiness. 
 
 How will they persuade the world of such an ability, if experi- 
 ence is not made appear to favor them ? It is commonly thought, 
 and we have made it appear, that the wisest men, when they essay- 
 ed what power they had of this sort, foully blundered, and fell 
 short of satisfying either themselves or others ; and that the world 
 generally acknowledged the want of any experience of this ability, 
 and therefore looked after revelations with that greediness, that laid 
 them open to be imposed on, by eveiy vain pretender to superna- 
 tural revelation. 
 
 Now if things are allowed to be thus, how shall they prove man 
 possessed of this power, if they are cut off from the advantage of 
 the usual fountain of conviction, in matters of this nature ? What 
 is the way we come to know, that all men have a power of under- 
 standing, or that such a power is due to his nature ? Is it not hence, 
 that wherever we meet with men, we find them exerting the acts 
 of understanding ? And the like may be said of his other powers. 
 Now if it is once admitted, that there are single persons, nay, 
 whole nations, yea more, many nations that have no experience of 
 this pretended ability, in reference to matters of religion, how will 
 they ever be able to persuade the world that all men have it ? 
 More especially, if it be admitted, that the learned themselves 
 were here defective, as to that which persons of the meanest abili- 
 ties and least leisure are supposed able for : this will look very ill, 
 if a man who toils all his days at the plough and harrow, could 
 make this discovery, how could a man of learning and application 
 find it hard. 
 
 In a word, if things are thus stated, as is generally supposed, 
 and has been already proven, and shall be further cleared anon, 
 
228 AN INQUIRY if^ITO THE 
 
 then there is little left them to pretend for this natural and univer- 
 Bal ability of mankind in matters of religion, if not perhaps, to tell 
 tis a story of God's being obliged, in point of goodness, to endow 
 all mankind with a capacity, whereof there is no evidence ui expe- 
 rience ; yea, which the experience of the world plainly declares 
 them to want. But this will not easily take with men of sobriety 
 and sense : For it is not more evident, that there is a God, than, 
 that this God must do whatever is proper and suitable for him to 
 do : And on the contrary, that it was not neccssari/ or proper for 
 him to do any thing that really he has not done. If then, any shall 
 pretend it becoming or necessary for God to do any thing, which 
 experience shews he has not done, he will be so far from obtaining 
 credit with the world, that on the contrary he will justly fall under 
 the suspicion of Atheism, and an evil design against God. For to 
 say, that God in point of goodness, was obliged to do this, which 
 experience shews he has not done is plainly to say, God acted not 
 as became him. There was therefore a plain necessity of under- 
 taking to prove experience on their side, if Deism was to be sup- 
 ported. 
 
 If the common apprehensions of men, who enjoy the light of 
 Christianity, with respect to the state of the Heathen world, are 
 well grounded, all the pretences of Deists as to the suflficiency of 
 natural religion are forever ruined, and quite subverted. 
 
 It was but necessary therefore, that the learned Herbert, who 
 undertook to maintain the cause, should attempt to shew, that ex- 
 perience was on their side, and that in fact a religion in itself suffi" 
 cient did universally obtain. And he had the more reason to be 
 concerned in this matter, because he avows it as his opinion, that 
 without a supposition of such an universal religion as the Deists do 
 plead for, Providence cannot be maintained. " Et quidem, says 
 " he, qmim media, ad vidum vestitumque hie accommodata suppe- 
 " ditarit cimctis natura sive provideutia rerum communis, suspi- 
 *' cari non potui, eundem Deum, sive ex natura, sive ex gratia in 
 *' suppeditandis ad beatiorem hoc nostro statum mediis ulli homi- 
 *' num deesse posse, vet velle, adeo ut licet mediis illis parum rede 
 " vel feliciter usi sint Gentiles, hand ita tamen per Deum opti- 
 " 7mim maximum steterit, quo minus salvifierent.'"^ And as it 
 is clear that this author thinks, that Providence is not to be main- 
 tained without an universal religion ; so it is sufficiently evident, 
 
 * De Relig. Gentil. Cap. 1. pag. 4.——*' And indeed as the common na- 
 " ture or providence of things here, has furnished all men with full means of 
 " food and cloathing-, I could not suspact that the same God, either from 
 " his nature or from grace, could or would be wanting to any of mankind in 
 " supplying him with the means of attaining a more happy state than the 
 " present, so that although the Heathens used those means unskilfully or un- 
 '' h:ippily, yet the best and greatest God was not to be blamed for their not 
 ^^ being saved." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 229 
 
 that this universal religion is not to be maintained, if experience 
 lies against it. 
 
 Here then was a plain necessity for undertaking this argument, 
 and proving, or at least pretending to prove, that all mankind had 
 a sufficient religion, or were able to know all that was necessary. — 
 For we see the whole frame of Deism falls to the ground, if this is 
 overthrown. This theref:>re was an undertaking worthy of our 
 noble author's great parts, long experience, great charity to man- 
 kind, and the great concern he professes to find in himself for the 
 vindication of Providenccv 
 
 And sure if such a man, after so much pains, has failed in the 
 proof of this point, any that ma}'^ succeed him, may justly despair 
 of success. He read all the Heathen authors to find this univer- 
 sal reUgion, and he was as willing and desirous to find it as any 
 man. And he has given in this learned book evidence enough of 
 his reading. 
 
 But since no religion was to be admitted, save that whereon all 
 men were agreed, it was wisely done by our author, that he reduc- 
 ed this universal creed to a few articles. For one who knew so 
 much of the state of the world, could not but see, that they were 
 not very many wherein they Avere agreed. 
 
 Well, he undertakes and goes through with the work, and con- 
 cludes with that memorable triumph above mentioned ; " Atque 
 " ita (sed non sine vnultiplici, accurataque religionum turn dissec- 
 " tione, turn inspedioiiej qiiinqiie illos articulos, scepius jam ad- 
 *' diidos deprehendi. Qnibus etiam inventis me feliciorem quovis 
 " Archimede existimavi." 
 
 But one might possibly ask. How it could cost our author so 
 much labor and pains to find out this religion, and to sever the ar- 
 ticles belonging to it from others,^ with which they were intermix- 
 ed, when every illiterate man must be supposed able to do this ? 
 
 However, if our author is not belied by common fame, he re- 
 pented, that he had spent his time so ill in contributing so far to 
 the advancement of irreligion ; though others contradict this and 
 tell us, that dying he left this advice to his children, — " They 
 *• talk of trusting in Christ for salvation ; but I would have you be 
 " virtuous, and trust to your virtue, to make- you happy." 
 
 Whatever there is as to this, I shall now proceed to examine 
 our authoi's arguments. 
 
230 AN LNQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 Wherein it is inquired. Whether Herbert has proved that his five 
 Articles did universally obtain ? 
 
 WE have heard our author's five articles above ; he pretends to 
 make it appear, that they were every where received ; we shall 
 now inquire, Whether the arguments adduced by him do evince 
 this ? and then in the next place, we shall see whether it is indeed 
 true. And for method's sake, we shall speak of every article 
 apart, and dissect and inspect his book, to find all that he offer*, 
 which has the least appearance of proof. 
 
 ARTICLE 1. 
 
 There is One Supreme God. 
 
 That which our author pretends to prove as to this article, is, 
 that it was generally owned by all nations, that there is one Su" 
 preme Being, and that this /Supreme Being, whom they owned^ 
 was the same whom we adore. We are not now to dispute, whe- 
 ther this aiticle may be known by the light of nature ; nor whe- 
 ther some particular persons went not a great way in the acknow- 
 ledgment of it. This we have before granted : But the question 
 is, Whether all nations agreed in this, that there is one Supreme 
 God, and he the very same whom we adore ? Let us hear our au- 
 thor, " Quamvis enim de aliquibus alijs Dei, sive attributis, sive 
 *' muneribus disceptatio inter veteres esset, uti suo loco monstra- 
 *' bimus ; summnm tamen aliquem extare, and semper extitisse 
 " Deiim, neque apud sapientes, neqiie apud insipientes dubium 
 '' (puto) fuitJ'"^ And afterwards, when he thinks the first part 
 of his article sufficiently cleared, he proceeds to the second part 
 of it, " Reliquum est, ut Deum summum Gentilium, eundum ac 
 nostrum esse probemus.^f Thus we see what our author pretends. 
 Whether he has proved this, we are now to inquire. He has not 
 digested his arguments, nor cast them into any such mould, as 
 might make it obvious wherein the force of them lies, and there- 
 fore we must be at pains to scrape together, whatever is uTiy where 
 
 * De Relig'. Gent. pag. 158. — " For although there may have been dis- 
 " putes among- the ancients about certain other attributes or offices of God, 
 *' as we shall shew in its own place, yet it was never doubted, I think ei- 
 " ther among the wise or the unwise, that some supreme God existed, and 
 " had always existed." 
 
 t Ibid, 166. " It remains to prove that the Supreme God of the Hea- 
 
 " thfus was the same as ours." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 231 
 
 through his book dropped, that may contribute in the least toward 
 the strengthening of his cause ; and we shall not omit any thing 
 willingly, that has the least appearance of force. 
 
 The first observation our author insists on to this purpose is, 
 « That the Gentiles did not intend the same by the name of Gorf, 
 that we now do. We by that name design the Supreme, Eternal, 
 Independent Being ; whereas they intend no more than any virtue 
 or power superior to man, on which man did any way depend." Id 
 omne Deutn vocitarurd quod vim aliquam eximiam in inferiora^ 
 sed in homines pnccipue ederef-X This he frequently inculcates, 
 and tells us in the first page of his book, that the observation of 
 this, was that which inclined him to think, or presume the Gentiles 
 not chargeable with that gross Polytheism, with which most do, 
 and he himself had, upon a slight view of their religion, well nigh 
 once concluded them chargeable. 
 
 If the Gentiles meant the same by the word God, which we do, 
 no doubt they stand chargeable with the most gross, unaccountable, 
 absurd and ridiculous Polytheism imaginable : For scarcely is there 
 any thing animate or inanimate, but by some way or other became 
 deified. Quicquid humus, pelagus, caelum, mirabile gignunf, id 
 dixere deos, colles, fretUy Jiumina, Jlammas.'^ 
 
 But our author is not willing to admit that tliey were so absurd ; 
 and to induce us to favorable sentiments, he hay blessed us with 
 this observation. That when they called those creatures animate 
 and inanimale Gods, they meant no such thing as we do by that 
 name. Well, if we should grant that the wiser sort, at least, or per- 
 haps even the vulgar too, did sometimes so underiiland the word, as 
 he alleges, will that serve his purpose, and satisfy him ? Nay, by no 
 means, unless we grant him, that they always so understood the 
 word, save when they spoke of the One true God. But this is 
 too much to be granted, unless he prove it ; especially if w^e are 
 able to evince, that not a few, both wise and umvise, believed that 
 there were more than One Eternal, Independent Being : and pos- 
 sibly this may be made appear aftenrard. A learned authoi-, in 
 reproach of the Grecian and Roman learning, says, " That set- 
 " ting aside what they learned out of Egypt, they could never by 
 " themselves determine whether there were mam/ Gods or but 
 onf."t 
 
 The next thing our author insists on to this purpose, is, " That 
 different names do not always point out different gods, but differ- 
 ent virtues of the same God." " Tot Dei appellationes, quot 
 
 i De Rellg'. Gent. pag. 13. — " They called all that God, which produced any 
 ** considerable effect on inferior things, but especially upon men." 
 
 * Aurel. contr. Sym. Lib. I. — " Whatever wonderfvil thing the earth, the 
 sea, or sky produced, that they called gods — hills, seas, rivers, fire." 
 t Wolscly'-s Scripture Belief, page 110. 
 
232 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " munera,adeoq ; si triginta milia Deum nominal quod ab CEno- 
 " moo ^ Hesiodo in &toyoyix perhibetur supponat quispia?n, ^ 
 " tot ejus mimera dari, fatendnm est,''* says Seneca, quoted by 
 our author.J And consequentially to this, the same Seneca tells 
 us, " Sapientes nequaquam Jovem eum intellexisse, qui in Capi- 
 *' tolio aut alijs templis fulraine armatus cerneretur, sed potiua 
 " Mentem Animunque existimasse omnium custodem, universiq ; 
 " administratorem, qui banc rerum universalitatem condiderit, ac 
 " eandem nutu suo gubernet, ac propterea divina quaeq ; nomina 
 " ei convenire. Itaq ; optimo jure fatum appellari posse, ut a 
 " quo ordo seriesve causarum inter se aptarum dependeat. Ita is 
 " Providentiam dicit, quum ipse provideat ut omnia perpetuo ac 
 " perenni quodam cursu, ad finera ad quem distinata sunt, currunt : 
 " Naturam quoque nuncupari, ex eo enim cuncta nascuntur, per 
 " eum quicquid vitae est particeps, vivet : Mundi quin etiam no- 
 " men illi congruere. Quicquid sub aspectum cadit, ipse est, qui 
 " seipso nititur, & omnia ambitu suo complectitur, universaque 
 " numine suo complet."* To the same purpose speaks Servius 
 of all the Stoicks, quoted likewise by our author.f The plain 
 English of all is, he would persuade us that by these testimonies 
 he has proved, that the Gentiles, when they attributed the name 
 GOD to so many things, intended no more, but to set out so ma- 
 ny different virtues, which all resided in the same GOD. 
 
 As to this, Ave may grant, that our author has indeed proved, 
 That different names do not always point out different gods ; for 
 he has told us that each of their gods had many different names. 
 But this will do him no service, if we grant not, that different 
 names never point out different gods. But how shall we do this, 
 when our author has shewed us, that many nations worshipped 
 the sun, moon, and stars ; and thought them gods, yea, distinct 
 ones too, different, in their natures as well as natncs. Each of 
 
 + Seneca Lib. 5. Cap. 17. Herbert de Relig. Gent. pag. 13. — " We must 
 " confess that there are as many names of God, as there are' offices, so that if 
 " any one suppose that there are thirty thousand different names of god's, as 
 " is related by Oenomaus and Hesiod in his Theogony, we must acknowledge 
 *' that there are likewise as many offices of the Deity." 
 
 * He:-b. De Rel. Gent. pag. 47- " Wise men did not mean by Jupi- 
 
 " ter, that statue that is seen in the Capitol and other temples, armed with 
 " thunderbolts ; but rather thought that that INIind and Soul was Jupiter, 
 " which was the Guardian and Governor of the Universe, who formed this 
 " whole v.'orld, and governs it by his nod, and that all divine names agree 
 " to him. He may therefore be very justly called Fate, as on him the order 
 " and series of connected causes depends. Thus too he may be called Provi- 
 " dence, as he provides that all things should tend to tlie end for which they 
 " were destined, in a constant and perpetual course. He may likewise be 
 " called Nature, for all things arise from him, and he gives life to all that 
 " lives. Nay, even the name of World may agree to him, for whatever is 
 " visible is llimself, who depends on himself, surrounds all things v/ith his 
 " circumference, and fills all things with his divine presence." 
 
 t De llelig. Gentil. pag. ST. 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 233 
 
 them indeed had different names, nay each of them had many 
 names, titles or eulogies heaped on them by their fond worship- 
 pers, who no doubt fancied, that their gods were smitten with that 
 same vanity, wherewith they themselves were tainted ; which yet 
 as learned Rivet observes, had a dangerous effect upon the vulgar 
 in process of time : for they were not so quick in their observa- 
 tions as our author. " Coacervatis enim elog-iis, tituUsque conges- 
 " tis, capi mvmen putabant, maximoque inde (iffici honore ; ita ut 
 " tandeni qme diversn iantum iiomina superstitionis fueranty 
 " grassanfe errore, dlversa mi7nina haberentKr.^^'^ 
 
 Further, we know full well that some of the more wise and 
 learned men, especially after the light of the gospel began to shine 
 through the world, began to be ashamed of their religion, and es- 
 pecially the number of their gods, and to use the same shifts to 
 palliate the foolish and wild Polytheism, which the gospel so fully 
 exposed : and particularly Seneca, who was contemporary with 
 Paul, (and by some, upon what ground I now enquire not, is said 
 to have conversed with him) and others of the Stoicks steered this 
 course, to vindicate their religion againstt he assaults of the Chris- 
 tians. But it is as true, this w us a foolish attempt, and its success 
 I cannot better express, than in the words of the learned and ex- 
 cellent Dr. Owen : " Postquam autem severius paulo inter nonnul- 
 " los philosophari cceptum est, atque limatiores de natura divina 
 " opiniones inter plurimos obtinuerant, sapientes pudere coeperunt 
 " eorum deorum, quos protulerant ferrea secula, ignorantia and tene- 
 " bris tota devoluta. Omnia ideo, quae de diis fictitis, Jove scil : 
 *' totoque sacro Helenismi choragio, vulgo celebrata erant, res na- 
 " turales adumbrasse apud antiques Mw^aAoyss contenderunt. 
 " Theologium banc MvSiKijv vocant, quam nihil aliud fuisse aiunt, 
 '* quam naturae doctrinam."f And in some passages after, he shew^ 
 the vanity of this attempt. " Postquam enim evangelii lumen us- 
 *' que adeo radiis suis terrarum orbem perculisset, rubeescenda 
 '' veterls superstitionis insania apud ipsum vulgus in contemptuni 
 *' venerit, acutiores sophistae, qoud dixi, quo stultitiam istani co- 
 
 * Ad. Hos. 2. 8. Referente Owen Theolog. pag. 189.—" For they thought 
 " ihat the Deity was charmed with encomiums and titles heaped one above 
 " another, and received great honor from thence, so that at length those 
 " different names, devised by superstition, by the progress of error, came to 
 " be reckoned different deities. 
 
 t Ubi supra pag. 196. — " But after philosophy began te be more seriously 
 " cultivated, and more correct opinions concerning the divine nature had 
 " taken place among the generality, tlie wise men began to be ashamed of 
 " those gods, which had been invented in the iron ages, that were entirely in- 
 " volved ill ignorance and darkness, and therefore they maintained that all 
 " things that had been commonly reported of the fictitious gods, vi2. Jupiter 
 " and all the hierarchy of Greece, signilled only certain natural things in the 
 " sense of the ancient Mythologists. And they called this ^Mythological Di- 
 " vinity, which they said was nothing else than the knowledge of nature , 
 *' veiled bv allegory." 
 
 80 
 
234 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " lore novo fucutam, amabilem rcdderent, figmenlo huic (N. B.) 
 " ciii adversalur omnis historise fides, pertinacissime adhaeserunt. 
 " Iiiio, lit obi(er dicam innovala est primis ecclesise temporibus 
 " apud ipsos Gentiles, tota philosophandi ratio."* Any one that 
 Tvould desire to see the folly of this observation exposed, on which 
 our author lays so much stress, may peruse that chapter, whence 
 these words are quoted.f Nor is this more than what Velleius 
 speaks of Zeno a Stoick and others, "Cum Hesiodi Qcoyoviav 
 *' interpretatur, tollit omnino, (N. B.) usitatas perceptasque, cog- 
 " nitiones deorum."J &c. 
 
 But were this true, which those quotations pretend, it will not 
 yet come up to our author's purpose ; for these quotations tell ua 
 not that all the world Avere of this mind, but only the wise men ; 
 and I fear that this too needs a restriction. Now this comes not 
 near to the point. When our author has occasion to notice some 
 absurd practices or opinions that are against him, he rejects them 
 with this : " Qnod a paucis soluinmodo siiperstitiose factum, non 
 " sails in religionem asserilnr. Nos autem hand alia qiuim 
 " qmc omnes, vel plerique saltern cohiere, sub religionis tifulo po~ 
 " jn'mMS-ll Now let this be, as it is, the state of the question, and 
 what some of the wiser did, is nothing at all to the purpose ; and 
 this indeed is the point. In fine, we doubt not before we have 
 done, from our author's own book, to demonstrate, that what he 
 aims at in this observation, and consequently all the story of the 
 wj/stick theology of the Heathens, is utterly inconsistent with all 
 faith of history, which makes us as sure of this, as they can of 
 any thing, that many nations, nay most nations, nay most wise men 
 held a plurality of gods, even in the sense that our author would de- 
 ny. The next observation hem akes, is a-kin to the former. He, fol- 
 lowing Vossin??, OS he tells us, divides all the Gentiles' worship into 
 proper, symbolical and niixt.§ Proper is, when the true God, or 
 the sun, or the moon is worshipped as the true God, and the wor- 
 
 * Ubt supva pag-. 198.^ — " For after tlie liglit of the gospel had so far en- 
 " lightened the world with its rays, that the shameful madness of the an-. 
 " cient siiperstilioii had fallen into contempt, even among the vulgar, the 
 " more acute sophists, as I said before in order to render that foolery amia^ 
 " ble, by giving- it a new colour, adhered most obstinately to this fiction, 
 " thougii oijposite to all the faith of history, nay, we may observe in passing, 
 " that in the first ages of the church, the manner of philosophising among 
 " the Heathens underwent a total change." 
 
 j Owen ubi supra. Lib. 3. Cap. 6. 
 
 I Cicero de Xat, Door. Lib. 1. — " When he interprets the Theogony of He- 
 " siod he entirely overturns altogether the usual and received traditions con-. 
 "•' cei'ning the gods." 
 
 II De Relig. Gentil. pag. 12. — " What was done superstltiously by a few, 
 '■ only, cannot be said to be a part of the general religion, but we place un^ 
 " der the title of religion no other things than those which all, or at least 
 *' the most part practised." 
 
 § Ibid, pag. 183. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 2a> 
 
 jjhip is designed ultimately to terminate in their honor : Symbolic 
 is, when the true God is worshipped in the sun, as an image, repre- 
 jsentation or symbol of him ; then the worship is not designed only, 
 jior mainly to terminate on the sun, but on the true God. As for 
 the mixt, we are not concerned to speak of it. He would every 
 where have us to believe, that all their worship was symbolical, 
 and as such he frequently seems to justify and avouch it as rea- 
 sonable, which the Papists will readily thank him fqr ; and he ex- 
 pressly asserts this, that all " their worship, save w hat was direct- 
 ly addressed to the true God," which I believe was very little, 
 " was symbolic." Atque cultum proprhim milium fiiisse olim 
 pczrterquam summi Dei, videtur.'^ It is well that he expresses 
 this position modestly, as being conscious how great ground others 
 will see to judge otherwise. And the reason that follows, drawn 
 from the alledged evidences of the thing, we shall have under con- 
 sideration anon. But toward the close of this book, he calls them 
 ignoranies, or scioli, that believe not as he believes in this matter. 
 But it should be expected, that when he advances such a bold 
 position, and is so hard on them that dissent from him, he would 
 give good proof of it ; but if any expect that, he will find himself 
 deceived. I find indeed a passage quoted with a high commenda- 
 tion to this purpose. " Atque hie de cultu dei symholico preclar^ 
 *' urn locum ex Maximo Tyrio, Dissert, 38. quem adducit Vos- 
 " sius, supprimere non possum. Barbari omnes pariter Deum 
 " esse intelligunt ; const ituere interim sibi alia atque alia signa : 
 " Ignem Persce imaginem qiice, unum duret diem, vorax quid Sr 
 " insatiabile, sic Maximi verba vertit Fossms."f But what is 
 all this to the purpose ? Doth this quotation from a Platonic phi- 
 losopher, who lived an hundred and fifty years after Christ, when 
 the gospel had overspread the whole world, and chased the Pagan 
 darkness away, and made them ashamed of their old opinions, and 
 improven reason, prove any thing ? To spend time on this, after 
 what has been said above, were to trifle with a witness. The Deists 
 have not, nor can they ever prove the truth of this bold assertion ; 
 the falsehood of which we may detect before we have done. But 
 hitherto our author has only used his shield ; v,'e must next see 
 whether his sjvord be not of better metal. All that has been 
 Iritherto said, is only a defensative for the Heathen's opinions and 
 
 * De Relip. Gent. pag. 226. — " And there seems to have been no proper 
 " worship of old, except that of the Supreme God." 
 
 t De Rel. Gent. pag. 70. — " And here I cannot suppress a famous place in 
 ** Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 38, which is quoted by Vossius. All the barbarians 
 *' believe equally that there is a God, but set up different signs or representa- 
 " tions of him. For example, the Persians chuse fire, an image that lasts 
 " but one day, something voracious and insatiable. Thus does Vossius reii- 
 " der the words of Masimus.? 
 
236 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 practice : We must now see by what arguments he proves that 
 his first article did universally obtain. 
 
 His first argument leans upon a few quotations from some Hea- 
 thens, who assert, that there is one Supreme Being, such as Hiero- 
 cles, Zoroaster, and others, some of old and some of late. 
 
 But all this is nothing to the purpose : For were there twenty 
 times more who said so, this will not prove the point he is obliged 
 to make good. He has undertaken to shew that it was not doubt- 
 ed among wise or unAvise, that there was one supreme God, and he 
 the same whom we adore. Now what is this to the purpose, to 
 bring the opinions of a few learned men, without telling what were 
 the opinions of the nations or times where they lived, or of the 
 world at large ? It is not the question, What Seneca, Zoroaster, 
 Plato, and twenty more, thought, nay what whole nations besides 
 thought ? but, What the whole world thought in this matter ? 
 This the argument touches not. 
 
 His next aigument is drawn from tlie confession of several di- 
 vines. With this he begins his fifteenth chapter, and frequently 
 speaks of it. But this says no more for him, than other, and per- 
 haps more considerable testimonies, do against him. Beside?, 
 since he has not condescended on the persons who fall in with him 
 here, nor their words, we must leave him ; as we are not concern- 
 ed with them, nor obliged to follow them further, than they do the 
 truth. 
 
 But that Avhich he lays the most stress on, is the supposed evi- 
 dence of the thing.* This he frequently insists on, as to all his 
 articles : and its force amounts to this — -It is so clear that there is 
 one only Supreme Being, and that the sun nor no other is he, that 
 it could not escape the most dull and unthinking. 
 
 But here our author puts me in mind of the companions of 
 Christopher Columbus, who first discovered America, about the 
 year 1592; they were one day at table with him, and began to 
 depieciate and undervalue the discovery he had made, telling him 
 how easily others might have done it. Well, says he, I hold you 
 a wager, I do what none of you shall do, and presently calling for 
 an egg, says he, none of you can make that egg stand straight on 
 the table ; which when they had essayed to no purpose, he takes 
 it, and crushes the end of it a little, and then it stood easily ; 
 which, when they all said it was easy to do : Well, says he, it is 
 very true, ye can do it aftei- I have done it. It is easy to sec 
 things after they are discovered to our hand, whicl: we would other- 
 wise never have thought of. All the world w«s not so discernirrg 
 as our author was, and his followers pretended to be, and he has 
 given us sufficient proof of that in liis book, and I truly wonder 
 
 De Rcli^. Gent. pag. 38?, 166. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 237 
 
 ■with what face any man could make use of this argument after he 
 had read, much more after he had writ such a book, wherein it is 
 made clear as the day, that many nations believed no other God 
 but the sun, moon and stars, as we shall shew afterwards. And I 
 must take the freedom to say, that our noble and learned author, 
 with the rest of the Deists, and all the philosophers, who lived 
 since the gospel obtained in the world, owe more to the Christian 
 religion, than they have the ingenuity to own. What they think 
 so clear, when revelation has not only taught them the truths, but 
 the grounds of them, was dark not only to the vulgar, but to the 
 wise of old. I cannot better conclude this, than by transcribing 
 a passage of the ingenious Mr. Locke's Essay on Human Under- 
 standing — " Had you or I, (says he, speaking about innate ideas) 
 " been born at the bay of Seldania, possibly our thoughts and no- 
 " tions had not exceeded these brutish ones of the Hottentots that 
 " inhabit there ; and had the Virginian king, Apochancana been 
 " educated in England, he had, perhaps, been as knowing a di- 
 " vine, and as good a mathematician as any in it. The difference 
 " between him and a more improved Englishman, Ij^lng barely in 
 " this, that the exercise of his faculties was bounded within the 
 " ways, and modes and notions of his own countrj-^, and was never 
 " directed to any other or farther inquiries : And if he had not 
 " any idea of a God as we have, it was only because he pursued 
 " not those thoughts, that would certainly have led him to it." — 
 Thus far Mr. Locke. If some men had Iseen born where the gos- 
 pel light has not come, they would have learned to talk more so- 
 berly of the sufficiency of the light of nature. 
 
 The only thing that remains for him to prove as to this first ar- 
 ticle is, That this One Supreme God, whom he thinks the Gentiles 
 all centered in, was the sa7ne God with him whom we worship. For 
 this he refers us to three scriptures — Rom. i. 19. Acts x. through- 
 out, and Acts xvii. 28, &c. 
 
 Our author has not drawn any argument from those passages, but 
 barely refers to them. He was particularly unlucky in quoting the. 
 last of them : For it obliged him to take notice of an argimient 
 arising obviously from the passage, against the purpose he adduced 
 it for the proof of ; and indeed that passage aflbrds several argu- 
 ments against our author's opinion in this matter, which are not 
 easy to be" solved, if they who follow him, were to be determined 
 by scripture arguments. But our noble author has scarce fairly 
 laid the objection, which he started to himself from the altar to 
 the unknonn God. But to speak home to the purpose — There are 
 only two things that can be drawn from these or the like passages. 
 1 . That some of the Gentiles knew the true God. 2. That all of 
 them had some notions of truth concerning God, or which were 
 only rightlj' applicable to the true God. The actincs of congcience 
 
238 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 within, and the works of God without them, enforced on them the 
 impression of some power, superior to themselves, on which they 
 depended ; and this was indeed a notion of truth concerning God ; 
 for this was only justly applicable to the true God : But yet they, 
 through their darkness and wickedness, when they came to inquire 
 more particularly after the true God, applied these notions to crea- 
 tures, and took them for this true God. 
 
 Now this is indeed all, besides bare and repeated assertions, that 
 I can find in our author, to prove that his first article obtained uni- 
 versally : And how far it is from proving this, is evident from what 
 has been said. 
 
 A R T I C L E 11. 
 
 This One Supreme God is to be worshipped. 
 
 The second article our author has not attempted a sufficient, 
 nay, nor any separate proof of : Wherefore we go on to the next. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 That Virtue and Piety are the principal parts of the worship of 
 this one true God. 
 
 This he also pretends to have universally obtained, and that 
 the Gentiles expected not Heaven for their worship, or their sa- 
 cred performances, but for their moral worship, that is, their vir- 
 tues. To prove this, is the design of our author's 15th chapter, 
 at least till page 195. 
 
 The first thing he insists on to this purpose is, the high respect 
 wliich the Heathens put on those things, while they ranked, mens, 
 ratio, pietas, fides, padicitia, spes and felicitas,* amongst the 
 number of their gods, and erected temples to them. This he 
 proves at large. But what all this makes to his purpose, I am not 
 yet satisfied. 
 
 This indeed proves that they had a respect to all those things. 
 Very true, so they had, and that because of their usefulness in 
 imman society. Yea, this proves that they had an undue respect 
 lo them, so as to perform acts of worship to them. But that they 
 designed to worship God by those virtues, which they would not 
 allow they had from him, as we shall hear afterwards, is not so ea- 
 sily proven. Besides, this was only at Rome that these altars 
 were erected, and so is far from concluding as to the rest of the 
 world, where virtue, hope, &c. had no such temples. « 
 
 * Mind, Reason, Piety, Faitli, Hope arid Happiness. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 239 
 
 The next thing our author mentions for proof of the universal 
 reception of this article, is the custom of the Heathens in deifying 
 their heroes on account of their virtues and piety. But our author 
 knew too much of the Gentiles' religion to believe that this proves 
 any more, than the fulsome flattery of the blinded world that dei- 
 fied even devils, and, as our author elsewhere well observes, men 
 that were no better than devils ; or if there was any more in this 
 custom, wlien at first invented, it was only some ill applied piece 
 of gratitude to persons, who had been their benefactors, or the 
 benefactors of mankind. And all this respect, that was put on 
 them was not because their virtues reflected any glory on God, 
 but because they had been useful to men. Besides, religion was 
 old in the world before this novel Grecian invention took place. — 
 As the Roman poet and satyrist observed, 
 
 n ee turba deorum 
 Talis, ut est hodie, contentaque sidera paucis 
 Numinibus, miserum urgebant Atlanta minore 
 Pondere.* 
 
 Nor did this universally obtain. So that the argument con- 
 cludes just nothing. It neither proves that all the world were 
 agreed that virtue and piety are the principal parts of the worship 
 of God, nor that on account of these, men get eternal happiness. 
 What their immortality was, of which they talked, we may see un- 
 der the fifth article. 
 
 Some few quotations from Cicero, Seneca, Plato, and one or two 
 more compose our author's last argument. Seneca speaking some- 
 wliere of Scipio Africanus says, " Animam quidem ejus in cce- 
 lum, ex quo erat, redisse persuadeo, non quod magnos exercitus 
 duxit (hos enim Cambyses furiosus, & furore feliciter usus habuit) 
 sed ob egregiam moderationem, pietatemque. Cicero Lib. de 
 Oflic. Deos placatos facit pietas & sanctitas." And elsewhere 
 he says, " Nee est uUa erga deos pietas, nisi honesta de numine 
 eorum ac mente opinio : Quum expeti nihil ab lis quod sit injus- 
 tum, ac in honestum arbitrere."f Some others he adduces from 
 Plato and others, wherein they say, that happiness and likeness to 
 God are obtained by virtue. 
 
 * " Nor was there such a multitude of gods, as there is now, and the 
 '• stars being content with a few deities, pressed the poor Atlas with less 
 •' weight." 
 
 f De Ilelig. Gentil. pag. 187 '* I am persuaded that his soul returned to 
 
 that heaven from whence it came, not because he had great armies (for Cam- 
 bysis who was a madman, and fortunate in his madness, had these too) but on 
 
 account of his remarkable moderation and piety Piety and holiness 
 
 appease the gods Nor is there any piety towards the gods, except an 
 
 honorable opinion of their deity and mind, wlven one thinks that nothing un- 
 just and dishonorable should be asked of them." 
 
2:^0 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 But to what purpose are al! these brought ? 1 . There are vrords 
 here of gods, and their worship and piety as respecting them ; but 
 not one word of the one true God, of whom alone we speak. 2. It 
 is certain that this piety and sanctity according to those authors, 
 comprehended the worship of their gods, as our author expressly 
 confesses, " Atqiie ad pietatem consummatam plurima insuper 
 (that is, besides virtue of which he speaks before) postulari aie- 
 hant,sed ea prcesertim qiKBgrati in superos animi indicia essent, 
 jnda sacrijicia, ritus ^ ceremonias 8r hujusmodi alia ; quorum far- 
 rago ingensfuit : Cccterum sine prcedictis divis sive deabus,animam 
 regentibus, aditum in coelum non dari.^'f This last part is only 
 our author's say, and is not reconcileable with what he tells us of 
 their deifying some, who were so far from being gods, that they 
 were, says he, Ne viri quidem probi.^ 3. As for what Cicero 
 says, " That for virtue and piety we are advanced to heaven ;" 
 I do not know well how to reconcile it with what he says elsewhere 
 in his book de Amicitia, " Vult plane virtus honoreni: nee virki- 
 iis est vlla alia merces,''^ otherwise than by thinking that by heaven, 
 (his coclum,) he meant, that which many of them meant by their 
 immortality y that is, an immortal fame, a good reputation after they 
 are gone, amongst the survivors. As for Seneca, Christianity had 
 taught him a little more, and his testimony is not much to be re- 
 garded. 4. Were there twenty more of them, they never come 
 near to a proof of the point : it is the sentiments of the world 
 that we are inquiring after, and not what were the thoughts of some 
 of the more improved philosophers. The question is not, Whe- 
 ther men by the light of nature saw an excellency in virtue, snd 
 that it was to be followed ? but. Whether they looked on it as a 
 part, a principal part of the worship, not of their deities, but of 
 the one true God : and that for which heaven, not (hat imaginary 
 heaven which men had at their disposal ; but an eternifj/ of happi- 
 ness in communion with God, is to be obtained ? Now our authoi- 
 advances nothing to prove this point. 
 
 A R T r C L E IV. 
 
 We miist repent when we do amist!. 
 
 As to this article our author confesses several things, which it 
 will be meet to notice in the entry. 1 . He owns that the ancients. 
 
 f De Itellg. Gentjl. pa.g. 185. — " And they said, that many other tlihigs 
 besides were requisite in order to constitute perfect piety, but especially such 
 things as were indications of a mind grateful to the gods, viz. sacrifices, 
 rites, and ceremonies, and other things of this sort, of which there was a 
 great number, but that there was no access to heaven without the aforesaid 
 gods and goddesses, wlio directed the soul." 
 
 ^ Ibid, pag. 195.-«" Nov even good men." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF TPIE MODERN DEISTS. 241 
 
 the wiser sort of tliem, thought not repentance a sufficient atoiie- 
 ment for the grosser sort of sins ;* and quotes Cicero, saying, Ex- 
 piatio scclcriim in homines nulla cst.f Where God was ofleiided 
 they sought sanctuary in repentance, and thought it sufficient, but 
 not where men were wronged. " Ccvtcrum licet in remedium pec- 
 " cati,ubi Dei Summi rnajedas lccderetur,painiientiam sive dolorein. 
 " efficacem esse crederent : Non ita tamen itbi homines injnria vet 
 conlnmelii nffiicarenfur, de ponnilentia ilia staiuebant Gcntiles.l 
 2. He confesses that Ihey thought not, " Repentance alone a suf- 
 ficient atonement." He tells us, that they had Expiationes lus- 
 irationesriue, sine qnib}is neqite crimine nequepccna solntosscmetip- 
 SOS arbitrabantnrW Again, 3. He confesses that the word repen- 
 tance or penitence, was rarely used among the ancients, in that 
 sense we use it. *^ Neqiiemihi dubiuni quineoruni (scil. peccato- 
 " rmn)pa:nitueiitGeniiles,qu(& tot mala; arcessivcrunt; licet rarins 
 " quidem pmdtenticr vcrbum inter atitores, eo quo jam usurpatnr 
 " sensu reperiatiir.*^ Since then he makes all these concessions, 
 there remains no more save this, that he pretends all the " world 
 •' were agreed upon repentance, as that which was of use tp expiate, 
 " at least, some lesser faults committed against God, and that we 
 " should, when we sin, be grieved for it." 
 
 To prove this, he quotes some pas-sages from Ovid, Seneca and 
 some others. The only considerable testimony is from Periander, 
 who was one of the seveu wise men of Greece : One of Avhose 
 sentences, he says it was A'f*.xpTav M.£Tctf<,£Xov, oiia u/^ccpntFcti, Te 
 mali pnniteat, nbi peccaveris. Seneca says. Quern poenitet peccasse 
 pene est innocens. And Ovid, 
 
 Saepe levant poenas, ereptaque lumlna reddunt 
 Quem bone peccati poenitiiisse vides.§ 
 
 But all these are alleged to no purpose. They do not prove that 
 repentance was looked on as an expiation by the Gentiles. Ovid 
 and Seneca lived too late in the world, and had too great access to 
 learn from others, to be much regarded in this matter ; but they 
 only speak their own mind, and we have here no argument of the 
 
 • De Rel. Gen.pag. 197. 
 
 f Cicero de Leg. Lib. 1- — " Tliere is no expiation of crimes against men." 
 
 t De Rcl. Gent. pag. 198. — " But aUhoiig-h they thought that penitence or 
 " sorrow was an effectual mean of taking awaj' sin, whereby the majesty of tlie 
 " Supreme God was injured, yet they had not the same opinion of penitence, 
 " in regard to those sins whereby men were injured and insulted." 
 
 II Ibid. pag. 195.— " Expiations and lustrations, without wiiich they did 
 '* not think themselves absolved either from crime or from punishment." 
 *• De Rel. Gent. pag. 198.— " Nor is it a doubt with me that the Gentilea 
 " repented of those crimes whicli brought so many evils upon them, although 
 " the word repentance, in that sense in which it is now used seldom occurs in 
 " their authors." 
 
 § " You see that he who duly repents of his offence often alleviates his pun- 
 " ishmcnt, and rpst,)res his lost light." 
 
242 AN liSQUlRY INTO THE 
 
 agreement of the world as to any thing about repentance. The 
 opinions of the wise are no just measure of the knowledge or ap- 
 prehensions of the vulgar. 
 
 But that whereon our author seems to lay more stress, is their sar 
 orifices, wliich he pretends are an evidence of their grief for sin, or 
 repentance. Qnorsimi enim nisi interno dolore perciti, tot ritus sa- 
 ri aqnc ad dcos placandos excogitasscnt .''J 
 
 But, 1 . If the Gentiles had been as much agreed about repen- 
 tance as our author pretends, they would indeed have spared all 
 this pains and cost. 2. They were indeed grieved, but this grief 
 they did not willingly entertain, nor allow themselves in as their 
 dut7/ ; but looked upon it as their torment, and sought sanctuary 
 in means proper for appeasing their gods, as they thought. 3. This 
 grief, which sacrifices prove them to have had, is no more but that 
 uneasy sense of sin in the conscience, which is a part of its pun- 
 ishment, and no duty performed for their deliverance ; and this 
 forced them upon all ways that they could imagine to get rid of it ; 
 so that sacrifices were what they betook themselves to, to save 
 themselves, or procure a deliverance from our author's penitence. 
 4. Further, our author, when it is for his purpose, can put another 
 construction on their sacrifices ; while we have heard above, he 
 makes them only absurd enough testimonies of gratitude to the 
 gods, and to have no respect to sin at all. It is indeed true, that 
 sometimes they were in this way used ; so Pythagoras is said to 
 have used them when he offered Hecatombs to the gods, for a pro- 
 position which he found out ; but for ordinary, they were designed 
 as expiatory. 5. Do their sacrifices, which they offered to so ma- 
 ny gods, prove that they were troubled for offending the one true 
 God ? I believe not. Aye, but this is what our author should have 
 proved. 6. Does our author tell us that they were so little agreed 
 about this purgative, that no less a person than Plato discarded re- 
 pentance, and put philosophy in its room, as that whereby only we 
 could be purged ? And this leads me to a 7th thing, that shews of 
 liow little signification this pretended proof is. That it is known 
 that the more discerning philosophers made most light of those sa- 
 crifices, yea of sin, and consequently of our author's Catholic rem- 
 edy, repentance. As to the sufficiency of repentance for the place 
 he assigns it, we have spoken to it above. Our author, I think, 
 has badly proven that it universally obtained. And indeed had 
 there been as much weight laid on it as is pretended, we could not 
 have missed a more large account of it in the writings of the Gen- 
 tiles. Further, 8. Our author pretends, that repentance is of no 
 avail, as to the grosser evils, but only washes away lesser sins, and 
 
 ^ " For to what purpose, unless they had been prompted by inward sorrow; 
 "would they have contrived so many rites and sacrifices for appeasing the 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 24S 
 
 we fear our author would find some difficulty to prove that gene- 
 rally the Gentiles were so concerned for lesser sins, as he pre- 
 tends. 9. Had they been so well agreed, as he pretends, about 
 repentance, and had this been the design of their sacrifices, I do 
 not well understand why our author should make such opposilion 
 betwixt sacrifices and repentance, as elsewhere he does ; when he 
 is speaking of several faults of the Heathen priests, he subjoins — 
 " Sed el hoc pejus, quod quum ex vera virtufe, vel kinc nbi excide- 
 " rint ex pcenitentia vera, pacem internam comparare debiiissent, 
 " ad ritus <^* sacra, quce ipsi CSciL SacerdotesJ peragerent resper- 
 " ducta est, ^c."*^ Here it would seem plain, that the people came 
 at length, if not of their own accord, yet by the persuasion of the 
 priests, to overlook repentance, and reject it, substituting other 
 things in its room ; and when once this obtained in one generation, 
 it is like it might spread and obtain in after ages, being transmitted 
 from father to son, and the priests carrying on the cheat ; and so 
 at least the world in all ages hath not made any accomit of repen- 
 tance as the only expiation. Again, it would seem from our author, 
 that sacrifices did not import, and were not evidences of repentance, 
 but on the contrary, means invented to make people neglect it.f I 
 do not well understand how they, who, if we may believe our au- 
 thor, were all so fully agreed about repentance, and were so prone 
 and inclined to it, that their minds run into it without any persua- 
 sion, should need so much the priests' persuasion, and be easily 
 drawn off from what they accounted so available. Let us hear our 
 author. Speaking of man's recovery from sin, says he, " Atque 
 " instatrrationem hanc fieri debere ex pmiitenlia, docuere turn philo- 
 " sophi, turn sacerdotes, ita ul hanc agendam animamque purifican- 
 " diim, sed nan sine eorum ministerio, scepius inculcarent. Bene 
 " quidem, si pocnitentiam satis populo persuasissent, quod neuti- 
 " quam iamem ah ill is factum fiiit ; licet adeoprona in earn sit an- 
 " iina Humana, ut etiam nidlo suadente, inforo inlerno ex gratia 
 " divina,conscienti(B que dictamine decernaturJ'^X Our author tells 
 us, that the people's sacrifices were an argument of their repen- 
 tance,as we heard above, and that the priests persuaded them to it, 
 and that they were all agreed, that repentance was the only atone- 
 
 * Del. Rel. Gent. pag^. 10.—" But this too is worse, that when they ought to 
 "have sought inward peace by true virtue, or when they had fallen from it, 
 " by true penitence, the matter was reduced to rites and sacrifices performed 
 " by the priests." 
 
 t Ibid. pag. 197. 
 
 i " And both the philosophers and the priests taught that this recovery 
 " must be brought about by repentance, so that they often inculcated that 
 " this ought to be done and the soul purified, but not without their ministry, 
 " It would have been well indeed if they had sufficiently persuaded the people 
 " to penitence, which however was not done by them, although the human 
 " mind is so prone to it, that even without any adviser, it is determined in the 
 •' in^\i^rd court by Ihc divine grace and the dictates of conscience.*' 
 
244 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 jnent, and that the mind of man needs no admonisher to persuade 
 it to repentance ; and yet he tells us likewise in the passages ad- 
 duced, That repentance was quite laid by, sacrifices and rites put 
 in its place, the people so ignorant of the worth of it as to let it go, 
 and so backward as not to look after it, unless the priests had pres- 
 sed it more, (and yet we are told they inculcated it oft) and in fine, 
 the priests so negligent that they quite neglected their duty. How 
 to knit all this together I know not. I do think it were easier to 
 make these words overthrow our author's argument, than to recon- 
 cile them with themselves, with truth, reason, or experience ; but I 
 spare reflections that offer themselves. Before our author, or the 
 Deists, make any thing of this argument, they must prove, " That 
 sacrifices universally obtained — That sacrifices were every where 
 offered to the One True GOD — That those sacrifices were sym- 
 bolical of repentance," as another Deist has it, and several other 
 things taken notice of above. 
 
 ARTICLE v. 
 
 That there are rewards and punishments after this Life. 
 
 We are now come to our author's last article. He is not very 
 constant in expressing himself about this article, and hoM' far it was 
 agreed to. Sometimes he pretends, that these rewards were eter- 
 nal happiness, and that this was agreed ; sometimes only it was 
 agreed that there Avere rewards and punishments after this life ;. 
 and sometimes»he words it yet more modestly, that they expected 
 rewards and punishments, either in this life, or after it. So page 
 203, when he enters expressly to treat of this article, Et qiiidem 
 ■prmninm bonis <^- supplicium. malis, (N. B.) vel in hac vita, vel 
 post hanc vitam dari, statuebant Gentiles.^^'^ 
 
 And indeed when he comes to tell us how far it is determinable in 
 this matter by the light of nature, he makes this article of very 
 little signification. " Non imperite quidem, bonos, bona, malos ma- 
 " la, vel in feternum manere affirmabant veteres. At quis locum 
 *' prjemii, vel poenas ostenderit? — Quis supplicii genus conjectave- 
 " rit ?" (And the same is perfectly the case as to rewards, though 
 our author waves that, for what cause it is not hard to conjecture.) 
 *' Quis tandem durationis terminum posuerit ?"f 
 
 * •' And indeed the Heathens were of opinion, that there would be a reward 
 •' to the good, and a punishment to the wicked, either in this life or after 
 " this life." 
 
 t De Ilelig Gent. pag-. 210.—" The ancients indeed not unskilfully affirm- 
 "ed that good things awaited the good, and evil the wicked, even for ever* 
 " IJut wlio could show the place of reward or punishment ? Who could guess 
 ^' the kind of punishment ? * * * Who at last can fix the term of their 
 -duration 2 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 245 
 
 All that he pretends to have been received, was barely this, 
 " That there are rewards and punishments after this life." Let us 
 hear himself, " Et quidem praeter solennem illam notitiam commu- 
 '■'■ iiem, nempe, deum bonuni justumq ; esse, adeoq ; praemium vel 
 *' poenam turn in hac vita, turn post hanc vitam, pro actionibus, imo 
 *« & cogitationibus suis unicuique remetiri, nihil quod verisimile ma- 
 " gis esset ab illis statui possee decernimus."* But he tells us, 
 that by the additions they made to this, and proceeding to deter- 
 mine further than they knew, even this came to be called in ques- 
 tion, (which, by the way, ruins our author's cause as to this arti- 
 cle) but let himself speak, " Dum haec philosophi, ilia sacerdotes, 
 " alia demum poetae adjicerent, tota inclinata in c^sumq ; pronanu- 
 " tavit veritatis fabrica. Si semet satis coercuissent Gentilium co- 
 " riphaei, neminem, puto, dissentientem habuissent.f 
 
 He asserts very little, we see, to have universally obtained as to 
 this article, and he seems to do more than insinuate, that even, as to 
 this Utile, at least, in process of time there were some, and even 
 not a few dissenters : For I knoAV not what meaning else to put up- 
 on the " whole fabric of truth nodding," and " inclining to fall :" 
 And this is to quit the cause. We shall howcA'er notice his argu- 
 ments, but the more shortly, because of what has been already ob- 
 served. 
 
 First then, he pretends, that the persuasion of this is innate,'^ 
 that the reasons of it are so obvious, and the arguments leading to 
 it are so evident, that they could not but agree as to this.|| 
 
 But 1 have already shown, that every thing that is evident, or 
 was so to our author and his companions and followers, was not so 
 to the ancient sages. I guess that he learned most of these argu- 
 ments he insists on from some others than the Heathen philoso- 
 phers, or if they managed them so well, he would have done right 
 to have pointed us to the places where they have done so. But 
 when he has done this it will not prove an tinioersal consent : For 
 we are concerned in some other besides philosophers. As for what 
 he pretends of this persuasion's being innate, I think he has said 
 much to disprove it himself ; or if it be, I think the presages of 
 future misery in the mind of man, have been much more strong 
 than of happiness. And in a word, he only says it was innate, but 
 
 • '' And indeed besides that solemn common notice, that thei'c is a God 
 " who is good and just, and consequently will reward and pimish every one, 
 " both in this life and after this life, according- to his actions, and even — to 
 " his thoughts, we think that nothing' more probable could be determined by 
 " them." 
 
 \ " While the philosophers added some things, the priests others, and the 
 " poets others further, the whole fabric of truth was ruined and fell to tlie 
 " ground. If the leaders of the Heathens could have restrained Uicmselves, 
 " I think that tl>\ would have had nobody differing from them." 
 i DcBeg. Gent, page 211. || Ibid, page 4. 
 
-246 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 does not prove it. Yea, if this did not universally obtain, accord- 
 ing to our author's own doctrine, it was not innate. 
 
 Next he insists on the custom of deifying heroes, and placing 
 them among the number of the immortal gods. This he hints at 
 frequently. But this did not universally obtain as to time or place, 
 and so hit not the point in the least. All were not so dignified, nay, 
 not all that were good ; nor does it prove, that even all that people, 
 among whom this custom prevailed, were of that opinion ; but on- 
 ly the persons principally concerned. And indeed it were easy to 
 shew that they were not all of this opinion, which may jK)ssibly be 
 made appear in the next chapter. 
 
 His next argument is deduced from a few testimonies of poets 
 and philosophers asserting a future state, which he has scattered 
 tip and down, here and there. But what is this to all the world ? 
 I)othe poets' fancies of Eb/sian fields, Styx and the like, give us 
 the true measure of the sentiments of the world ? 
 
 Thus I have viewed our author's proofs of his five articles, and 
 their reception in the world. I have not knowingly omitted any 
 thing of moment, advanced by him for his opinion. I shall con- 
 clude this chapter with a few general reflections on our author's 
 conduct in this affair. 
 
 I do not a little suspect a writer of controversy, when he huddles 
 up, and endeavors to conceal the state of the question, and shifts it 
 upon occasion. It is always a sign either that his judgment is naught, 
 or that his designs are not fair and good. I do not believe that our 
 noble author's abilities required any such mean shifts, if the bad- 
 ness of the cause he unhappily undertook, had not obliged him : 
 But that this is the course he steers, is evident. Now he seems to 
 undertake to shew us, what the most universal apprehensions of 
 men were in matters of religion ; and anon, he pretends to tell us 
 what the more discerning persons, among the Heathens thought ; 
 and thus shifts the scene, as it is for his purpose. 
 
 It is further remarkable, that our author has crammed in a great 
 deal of philosophical learning, which makes nothing at all to the 
 main purpose of the book. He has writ a book of 230 pages to 
 prove that these five articles obtained ; whereas all the arguments 
 he adduces, scarce take up ten of them. The rest is a collection 
 of historical and philological learning about the Heathen gods and 
 worship. He only drops here and there (he shadow of an argu- 
 ment ; and then when we are some pages by it, he tells us he has 
 demonstrated this already, and we are referred back to some of 
 the preceding argumemts ; and that is, we are bid search for a nee^ 
 die amongst a heap of hay. This looks exceeding suspicious 
 like.'* 
 
 * Head the conclusion of our author's 8. Cap. pag. 54. and compare it 
 ■with the Cap. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 247 
 
 Again, I do not like frequent and repeated assertions in a dis- 
 putant without arguments. Fewer assertions and more urgumeuls, 
 if the cause had permitted, would have done better. It is said 
 that some by telling a lie often over, come at length to believe it 
 to be true. I am apt to think that the oft asserting over and over 
 again what he undertakes to prove, might go further toward his 
 own conviction, than all the arguments that he has advanced. 
 
 Our author undertakes to give us an account what the Heathens* 
 thoughts as to those articles were, and what led them to these ap- 
 prehensions ; but after all, you shall find nothing but an account 
 of some of their practices, with our author's glosses put on them, 
 and the reason that, not they, but he thinks may be alleged in 
 justification of their practices and opinions. If he had dealt fair- 
 ly he would have told us in their own words, what their senti- 
 ments were, and likewise what were their inducements that led 
 them into those opinions ; but to obtrude, as every where he doth, 
 his conjectures and strained interpretations, as their meaning, is 
 perfectly intolerable. 
 
 It is indeed true, that our author affords us several quotations 
 from the Heathens ; but doth he, by this means, give us a fair 
 representation of the point in controversy, and their sentiments 
 about it ? No. If his reader is so simple as to take this for grant- 
 ed, he deceives himself. I know it is the custom of some others, 
 as well as our author, though perhaps on better designs, to quote 
 some passages from Heathen authors, in order to shew their agree- 
 ment with Christianity, and to what a length the mere light of na- 
 ture brought them ; but hereby they do deceive the reader : So 
 Cicero's testimony to the immortality of the soul, is alleged by 
 our author, pag. 192, " Qucmadmodum igiiiir hand alius Deiis^ 
 " hand alia virtus, ab Gcntilibus, quam ab nostris, olim celehra- 
 " tur, ila ccrte communis utriusque spes immortal itatis fuit. Di- 
 " sertim Cicero 2 de. Leg. ait, animi hominum sunt immortales : 
 " Sed fortium bonorum divini et alibi in Lib. de Senectufe ail .- 
 ^' Non est lugenda mors, quum immortalilas ronser/ui/j/r."* Now 
 if any one should think that this testimony of Cicero gives a full 
 account of his apprehensions about immortality, they would be 
 very far deceived : For in his first book of Tuscukui Questions, 
 where he discusses this point ex professo, he discovers indeed an 
 inch nation to believe it, and a desire that it may be true ; yet 
 such a hesitation about it, that he knows not how to persuade him- 
 self of it, as we shall show perhaps in the next chapter. In like 
 
 " ''^s therefora there was no othcf God, nor any other virtue formerly 
 II celebrated among the Gentiles llian by our writers, so surely both of them 
 II had a common hope of immortality ; for Cicero savs expressly, 2d de Legi- 
 
 bus, that the souls of men are immortal, and those of the brave and good 
 ^^ are divme : and elsewhere in his book on Old Age he saySj that death which 
 
 imnicdiately follows, b not to be mourned for." 
 
24S AN INaUlRY INTO THE 
 
 manner Plato is cited by him, and many others 16 the same pur- 
 pose : B^it what a sad uncertainty both Socrates and Plato were 
 in about this point, I shall fully demonstrate in the next chapter. 
 I shall here set down only one notable instance of the unfairness of 
 this wa}' of procedure. Our author quotes Solon's testimony for 
 future felicity, pag. 1 94. Let us hear our author's own words : 
 " Pidchram distinctlonem inter felicem sive fortunatem ^ beatum 
 " affert ex Solo7ie Herodotus Lib. 1. Ubi Craso respondent, ait 
 " jiemhiem digmim esse qui vocetur beatus antequam rtXtvTijo-et 
 « T«v Biav tv hoc est, vitam suam bene clauserit ; adeoque tvrvx» 
 " sive fortunatum hac in vita, nequaqnam ^'oxfiievsivebeaium 
 " ante obitem ejus hominum appellari posse- Huic concinit Ovi- 
 " diu's, 
 
 Diciq ; beatus 
 Ante obitum nemo, supremaque funera, debet. 
 
 " Proprie quippe loquendo, nemo beatus ante mortem : Ita ut 
 " beati inter Gentiles vocarentur, qui in EIt/sHs campis sempiter- 
 " no czva fruerentur.^^^ 
 
 Now here we have a proof to the full of our author's conduct in 
 Ills quotations, and the improvement of them. Was not Solon 
 clear that there was a state of happiness after this life ? Who can 
 doubt it, after our author has thus proved it ? But what if Solon 
 for all this, confined happiness to this life, defining the happy man, 
 " One who is competently furnished with outward things, acts 
 honestly, and lives temperately;"! which definition no less a per- 
 son than Aristotle approves. And in all Solon's speech to Cresus, 
 there is not one word, if it were not disingenuously or ignorantly 
 quoted, that gives us the least ground to believe that Solon once so 
 much as dreamed of fiappiness after this life. Stanley in his life 
 of Solon recites from Herodotus this whole speech, and the story 
 to which it relates. J Croesus, king of Lydia, in Asia the less, sends 
 for Solon upon the fame of his wisdom. Solon comes. The vain 
 , king dazzled with the lustre of his own greatness, asked the wise 
 Solon, Whether ever he saw any man happier than himself, who 
 was possessed of so great riches and power ? Solon named sever- 
 al, particularly Tellus the Athenian citizen, Cleobis and Bito, two 
 
 * " Herodotus from Solon quotes a fine distinction betwixt a lucky or 
 " fortunate and happy man, in his first book, when Solon answering Croesus, 
 " says that nobody deserves to be called happy, till he has ended his life well, 
 " and consequently that although a man may be called lucky or fortunate in 
 " this life, but that he ought not to be called happy before his death. And 
 " Ovid agrees with him, " Nor ought any to be called happy before his death., 
 " and the last ceremon}' of his fmieral." For properly speaking none is hap- 
 " py before his death. So that those were called happy among the Gentile< 
 " who enjoyed an eternal life in the PMysian fields." 
 
 \ Stanley's Life of Solon, page 26. 
 
 % Ibid, page 28, 29. 
 
PRIN'CIPLES OF T'HE MODERN DEISTS. 249 
 
 brothers ; the story of whom he relates to Croesus, and gives the 
 reasons why he looked on them as happy, without ever a hint oi* 
 their enjoyinp; any happiness after this life. At which Cronsus was 
 angry thinking himself undervalued ; whereupon Solon thus ad- 
 dresses him — " Do you inquire, Croesus, concerning human affairs 
 " of me who, know that divine providence is severe, and full of 
 " alteration ? In process of time, we see many things we would 
 " not ; we suffer many things we would not. Let us propose 
 " seventy years as the term of man's life, which years consist of 
 " 25,200 days, besides the additional month ; if we make one 
 " year longer than another by that month, to make the time ac- 
 " cord, the additional months belonging to those years will be 
 " thirty-five, and' the days 1050,— whereof one is not in all things 
 " like another. So that every man, O CroRsus, is miserable ! You 
 " appear to me very rich, and are king over many ; but the qiies- 
 " tion you demand I cannot resolve, until I hear you have ended 
 " your days happily ; he that hath much wealth is not happier 
 " than he who gets his living from day to day, unless fortune con- 
 " tinuing all those good things to him, grant that he die well. — 
 " There are many men very rich, yet unfortunate ; many of mo*- 
 " derate estates, fortunate ; of whom he who abounds in wealth, 
 " and is not happy, exceeds the fortunate only in two things, the 
 " other him in many ; the rich is more able to satisfy his desires, 
 *' and to overcome great Injuries ; yet the fortunate excels him. — 
 '* He cannot indeed inflict hurt on others, and satisfy his own de- 
 " sires ; his good fortune debars him of those : But he is free from 
 " evils, healthful, happy in his children, and beautiful ; if to this« 
 '" a man dies well, that is, he whom you seek, who deserves to be 
 " called happy ; before death he cannot be stiled happy, but for- 
 " tunate ; yet for one man to obtain all this is impossible, as one 
 " comitry cannot furnish itself with all things : Some it hat!;, 
 " others it wants ; that which hath most is the best, so In men not 
 " one is perfect ; what one hath the other wants. He who hatli 
 " constantly most, and at last quietly departs this life, in my opin- 
 " ion, O king, deserves to bear that name. In every thing we 
 " must have regard to the end, whither it tends ; for many to 
 " whom God dispenseth all good fortunes, he at last utterly sub- 
 " verts." Thus we see the whole passage, in which it is evident 
 that Solon meant only, that to make a man happy, it is requisite he 
 continue in the enjoyment of a competency till death, and that 
 then he die well, that is, quietly and in good respect or credit with 
 men. That this is the meaning of dying well according to Solon, 
 is not only evident from the strain of the discourse, but from the 
 stories of Tellus, ('leobis and Blto, whom he instances as happy 
 men, because of their creditable deaths. The first he tells us died 
 in defence of his countrv, after he had put bis enemies to flight, 
 
 ^2 
 
•250 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " he died nobly, and the Athenians buried him in the place where 
 he fell, with much honor." The two brothers, Cleobis and Bito, 
 drew their mother's chariot forty-five stadia, and with the stress 
 died next morning in the temple, and so died honorably. And any 
 that will give himself the trouble to read Ovid's story of Acteon, 
 in his third book of his Metamorphosis will see it clear as the day, 
 that he meant just the same. He represents how happy one might 
 have thought Cadmus, considering how many things he had that 
 were desirable in his lot, a kingdom, relations, and children, had 
 not Acteon his grand-child's fate interrupted the series of his joys, 
 and made him miserable. Whereupon the poet concludes, " Til! 
 death a man cannot be called happy ;" that is, till a man has with- 
 out interruption, enjoyed a tract of prosperity, and dies creditably- 
 without any mixture of ill fortune. 
 
 Jam stabant Thebae : Poteras jam Cadme, videri 
 Exiliofelix: Soceri tibi Marsque Venusque 
 Contigerant : Hue adde genus de conjuge tanta, 
 Tot natos, natasque, & pignora cara nepotes. 
 Hos quoque jamjuvenes : sed scilicet ultima semper 
 Expectanda dies homini est, dicique beatus 
 Ante obitum nemo, supremaque funera debet. 
 Prima nepos inter res tot tibi, Cadme, secundas 
 Causa fuit luctus, &c.* 
 
 And thus he proceeds to tell the story of Acteon's being trans- 
 formed into a hart. Thus we see with what candor our author 
 quotes the Heathens. Here he has first broke off some words from 
 their context, whereby the unwary reader is tempted to believe, 
 that the speaker meant quite another thing than really he did ; and 
 then obtrudes this false sense of one or two men's words, who 
 ^vere wise men, and in their thoughts far above the vulgar, as the 
 harmonious meaning of the Gentile world. 
 
 Nor do I think it strange that our author should serve us so, see- 
 ing he was prepossessed in favor of the Heathen's religion before 
 he began to read tlieir books. For he tells us in the entry of his 
 !>ook, the very first sentence of it, and more fully in the rest of the 
 first chapter, That he was at once very concerned for the divine 
 providence, and withal fully convinced that it could not be main- 
 tained without there were a religion common io all men ; or, as 
 his words formerly quoted by us express it, " unless every man 
 Avas provided with the means that were needful for attaining future 
 
 * Ovid. Metamorph. Lib. 3. — " And now Thebes was built ; now, O Cadmus, 
 vou might seem to be happy in your banishment. Mars and Venus were your 
 father and mother in law ; add to this, a race from so illustrious a consort, so 
 many sons and daughters, and grand-children, dear pledges, and these too al- 
 ready youths ; but truly a man must always look for his last day, and noliody 
 can be called happy before his death, and last funeral rites. Amidst so much 
 prosperity, o Cadmus, a grandson was the first cause of mourning to you." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 251 
 
 happiness ;" so he went to the books of the Heathens under a 
 persuasion that there was a common religion there, could he be so 
 lucky as to light on it, and therefore no doubt he drew and strain- 
 ed things to his purpose, both rites and words. Thus he begins 
 his discourse about expiation : " Quosdam Gentilium ritus, qui in 
 sensum saniorem trahi possunt, jam tractaturus,"* &c. And in- 
 deed he draws them to a sounder sense than ever they put on 
 them. But, after all, forced prayers are not good for the souly says 
 the Scots proverb. And from one thus prepossessed, we can ex- 
 pect no fair account of the Gentiles' sentiments. 
 
 Which, by the way, gives me occasion to remark, that if any 
 one desires to understand the mind of the Heathen philosophers 
 and sages, they should read them themselves, or Heathens' accounts 
 of their lives and actions, rather than those done by Christians ; 
 because very often when Christians write their lives, they have 
 some design, and they strain every thing in the philosophers to a 
 compliance either with their designs or apprehensions. The Hea- 
 then writers being under no influence from the scripture light, do 
 plainly narrate things as they are, (not being so sensible of what 
 things may reflect really upon the persons concerning whom they 
 write ; the light of nature not representing clearly that wickedness 
 which is in many of their actions and opinions) and scruple not to 
 tell them out plainly : whereas Christians, being aware how odious 
 such and such practices or principles are, dare scarce tell such 
 things of those famous men, as they were really guilty of; because 
 they know how deep a stain it will leave on them, by those who 
 are taught the evil of them by the scriptures. 
 
 I shall add this reflection more : If any one would conclude from 
 our author's confidence in some places of his book, where he talks 
 of many reasons that he has advanced, and that he has demonstrat- 
 ed this and that ; if, I say, from this they would infer, that he was 
 fully persuaded in his own mind, about these five articles y that they 
 universally obtaincdy and are sufficient, he would very far mistake 
 our author, who, throughout his book, sufficiently betrays his un- 
 certainty about them, and that he wanted not a fear lest it should 
 
 not be true, as some things afterwards to be pleaded will show 
 
 But lest this should seem to be said altogether without ground, I 
 shall single out one instance of our author's wavering in this mat- 
 ter, reserving others to another occasion. It is page 1 9, where, 
 after our author has discoursed of the jnore famous names of the 
 true God, and showed that the Gentiles applied them all, save one, 
 to the sun, he concludes thus, " Haec saltern fuere solenniora 
 Sunimi Dei nomina inter Hebraeos extantia, quae etiam ad solera, 
 
 De Rel. Gent. pag. 195. — " Being now about to treat of some rites of the 
 ileathens, wliich may be drawn into a sound setse." 
 
252 AN INaUlRY INTO THE 
 
 Sabazio excepto, a Gentllibus reducta fuisse, ex supra-allatis con- 
 jecturam facere licet. Adeo iit quamvis superius sole niimen sub 
 hisce praesertim vocabulis coluerunt Hebrsei, solem neque aliud 
 rumeR intellexerunt Gentiles, nisi fortasse in sole, tanquam prae- 
 claro Dei Summi specimine, & sensibili ejus, ut Plato vocat, simula- 
 cro, Deuiii summum ab illis cultum fuisse censeas : Quod non facile 
 abnuerim, prffiseitim cum syrabolica fuerit omnis fere religio vete- 
 rum."^ But perhaps though our author was not well confirmed in 
 his opinion, Avhen he began his book, yet he came to some more 
 fixedness before he got to the end of it. Well, let us hear him, in 
 his censure of the Gentiles' religion in the last chapter of his book;' 
 where speaking of the worshipping the heavens, the sun, &c. he 
 gives his judgment thus : " I)e hoc quidem dogmate, idem ac de 
 priore censeo : Nempe, nisi symbolicus fuerit, erroneum mihi 
 prorsus videtur esse cultum ilium. Caeterum quod symbolici fuerunt 
 dim hujnsmodi cultus, multae, quas supra adduximus, suadere vi- 
 dentur rationes : Sed sno judicio heic quoque utatur lector."f — 
 "What more uncertainty could any betraj^, than our author doth in 
 these words ? And indeed here we have enough to overthrow his 
 whole book : for if this first article fall all will fall with it, as we may 
 see afterwards. 
 
 But it is now time that we draw to a conclusion of this chapter, 
 having sufficiently enervated our author's arguments, so far as we 
 could discern them. If any of them seem to be omitted, I piesurae 
 they will be found to be of no great consideration, and of an easy 
 despatch to any that is acquainted with this contioversy. Our 
 author's way of writing made it somewhat difficult to find his argu- 
 ments. And indeed upon serious reflection, I can scarce under- 
 stand at what our author aimed in this way of writing. He could 
 never rationally expect that this would clear the subject he had 
 imdertaken. I had almost concluded that his design behoved to 
 be an ostentation of his krowledge of the Heathens' religion, in or 
 der to make his authority have the more weight, and to scare peop'c 
 
 * De Rel. Gent. pag-. 19. — " Those at least were the more solemn names 
 of the Supreme God, that we find among- the Hebrews ; all whicli except Sa- 
 bazino, we may conjecture from what has been quoted above, was applied by 
 the Gentiles to the sun. So that although the Hebrews worshipped a deity 
 superior to the sun, especially under those names, yet the Gentiles under- 
 stood by them the sun and no other deity, unless perhaps in the sun, as an 
 illustrious representation and sensible image, of the Supreme God, as Plato 
 calls him, under which figure we may suppose that the Supreme God was 
 worshipped by tliem. Which I would not easily contradict, especially as al- 
 most all tlie religion of the ancients was s3-mbolical." 
 
 f Ibid, pag. 223. — " Concerning this doctrine indeed, I am of the same 
 opinion as concerning tlie former, to wit, that unless that worship was sym- 
 bolical, it seems to me to have been quite erroneous. But the many reasons 
 which we have adduced above, seem to persuade us to believe that worship 
 of this kind of old was symbolical. But let the reader use his Qwn judgmeiu 
 in this case likewise." 
 
 I 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 253 
 
 from entertaining a different opinion conceniing the religion of the 
 Heathen world, from that which one who had so industriously 
 searched into their writings, owned. But if this was it, our au- 
 thor has missed it. And I think instead of doing the Deists' 
 cause any service this way, he has rather hurt it : for every one 
 that shall peruse this work with attention, and find how great our 
 author's learning, diligence and industry have been, and yet how 
 little he has been able to do, they will infer the weakness of the 
 cause he lias undertaken, and conclude, that the cause could bear 
 no better defence, and that therefore, a weak and indefensible cause 
 fcas baffled our author's great abilities and application. For 
 
 si Pergrama dextra 
 
 Defend! posscnt, efiam hac defensa fuissent.* 
 
 C. Blount and they who have come after our author, as has been 
 said before, do but copy after him, and take his notions upon trust, 
 but others will be somewhat more M'ise, and will look whom they 
 trust in a matter of this importance. 
 
 CHAP. XV. 
 
 Wherein it is made appear that Herberfs Five Articles did not 
 univcrsaUi/ obtain. 
 
 WE have in the preceeding chapter sufficiently showed how 
 weak our noble author's proofs are of his universal religion. It 
 now remains that we prove that what he pretends is indeed false. — 
 Our work here is far more easy, than what our author undertook. 
 He asserts that providence cannot be maintained, unless all man- 
 kind are provided in the means needful for attaining future happi- 
 ness, and he is likewise clear, that less cannot be allowed sufficient 
 for this end than the five articles mentioned, wherefore he pretends 
 that all the world agreed in owning these. Now to have made 
 this last appear, it was needful it should be proven by induction of 
 all particular nations, that they thus agreed, and that as to all times 
 — but this would have been somewhat too laborious. We main- 
 tain ihat all did not agree in the acknowledgment of those five arti- 
 cles : And this is evinced, if we can show only one nation dissent- 
 ing from any one of them. But we shall not be so nice upon the 
 point, as only to mention one nation, or disprove one article. Let 
 us take a separate view of each article, and see what the judgment 
 of some nations were concerning them. 
 
 * " If Troy could have been defended- by any right hand, it \yould 
 
 have been defended by this one" 
 
254 . AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 All the World did not agree in owning the One True Supreme 
 
 GOD. 
 
 I MIGHT for proof of this, only desire any person to read our 
 author's book, and there he would find this sufficiently clear. But 
 I shall shortly confirm it to the conviction of any, who has not a 
 mind to shut his eyes, by the few following observations as to the 
 sentiments of the world in this case. 
 
 1 . It is most evident to any one, who will give himself the trou- 
 ble to read ever so little of the writings of the Gentiles, that ma- 
 ny nations, I had almost said most nations, did hold a plurality of 
 eterncl and independent beings, on whom they depended, and which 
 they called gods in the properest sense of the word. Herodotus 
 quoted by our author tells us, " That all the Africans worshiped 
 ** the sun and moon only" — " Soli & lunse solummodo sacrificant, 
 *' & quidem Afri universi."* And Plato quoted hkewise by our 
 author, a few pages after, in his dialogue, which he calls Cratylus, 
 tells us, " Qui Graeciam primi incoluere, ii videntur mihi illos so- 
 lum deos existimasse, quos nunc etiam barbari multi, pro diis ha- 
 bent, solem, lunam, terram, astra, ccelum."f Of this also the an- 
 cient inscriptions mentioned by our author,^ and more particular- 
 ly by Hornbeck in his treatise de Conversione Gentilium, is a proof. 
 — " Soli invicto & lunae aeternje deo soli invicto Mythrae & omnipo- 
 " tenti, deo Mythr£e."|| Mythras was a name given to the sun by 
 the Persians, as our author proves. And if we may believe Maimo- 
 nides, the Sabeans owned no God save the stars. " Notum est 
 *' Abrahamum patrem nostrum educatura esse in fide Sabaeorum, 
 *' qui statuerunt nullum esse Deum, prseter stellas.** Nor were 
 the Egyptians of another mind. Diodorus's testimony is worth 
 our notice to this purpose, — " Igitur primi illi homines olim in 
 " ^gypto geniti, hinc mundi ornatum conspicientes, admirantes- 
 " que universorum naturam, duos esse deos, & eos aeternos arbitra- 
 " tri smit, solem & lunam : Et ilium quidem Osiridem, banc Isidim 
 " certa nominis ratione appellarunt."tt 
 
 * De Rel. Gent, page 36. 
 
 t Ibid. pag. 39. — " Those who first inhabited Greece, appear to me to have 
 *' thought that these alone were gods, which many barbarians still hold to be 
 ** gods, to wit, the sun, the moon, the earth, the stars, the heaven." 
 f + Ibid. pag. 26. || Hornbeck, pag. 19. 
 
 •* More Nevochim, referente. Hornbec ubi supra, pag. 17. — " It is well 
 " known that our father Abraham was educated in the ^ith of the Sabeans, 
 " who thought that there was no God except the stars." 
 
 -j-f Owen Theolog. Lib. 3. Cap. 5. Herbert pag. 39. — " Therefore those first 
 " men that were produced in Egypt, observing from thence the beauty of the 
 " world, and admiring the nature of the universe, concluded that there were 
 " two gods, the sun and the moon, and they called the one Osiris, and the 
 " other Isis, giving certain i-easons for those names." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 255 
 
 Thus we see what the apprehensions of several nations were, 
 and how harmonious they are in dissenting from our author's asser- 
 tion. It had been easy to have alledged many more testimonies 
 even from our author against himself: But we aim at brevity. 
 
 2. It is not improbable, that some nations, though they might al- 
 low some priority of one of their gods to the rest, yet did not think 
 that there was any such great inequality, at least amongst their 
 more notable deities, as could infer the supremacy of one to the 
 rest, and their dependence on, and subordination to him. We find 
 every where equal honors paid, and equal or very little different 
 titles of respect given to the sun or moon. So that it is very likely, 
 though they might give the sun the preference in point of order, 
 yet they did not apprehend any such great inequality, as seems 
 needful betwixt one supreme being and his dependents. Ths peo- 
 ple of Mexico in America, though they Avorship many gods, yet 
 look on their two principal ones, whom they call Vitzilopuchlli and 
 Tescatlipuca, as two brothers. " Mexicani primo colere solitifii- 
 " erunt immanetn deonim iurbam, bis mille referunt, inter qno$ 
 " duo prcBcipui Vitzilopuchtli <?■ Tescallipuca duo fralres^ quorum 
 " alter rerum providentice, alter bellisprceerat."^ And tlie inhab- 
 itants of Darien, St. Martha and other places thereabouts, own only 
 the sun, and the moon as his wife. Further, it is owned by our 
 author several times, that many nations hold two first beings, one 
 good and another cy?7, whom they call VerJupiler, and by the Per- 
 sian Magi he was called Arimanus. Though our author liiinks a 
 softer construction is to be put on their meaning, than to charge 
 them with making their Ve-Jupiter equal with the good God :f 
 But we know our author must not be allowed to interpret, unless he 
 can give good grounds for his opinion about the meaning of the 
 Gentiles, which in this case he doth not once attempt, and we know 
 that some looked on this wicked principle as the supreme, as we 
 shall show anon ; and I think it will be hard to clear some of them, 
 yea even no less a person than Plutarch, from making them equal 
 and both infinite ; if we may believe a late author, who tells us, 
 " That as for Plutarch, one of the soberest of the philosophers, he 
 " was the horridest Polytheist of them all ; for he asserts two Su- 
 " preme Anti-gods ; one infinitely good, and the other infinitely 
 " evil."J Moreover, some of the Deists do not think this opinion 
 destitute of probability, as we have noted before.|| But whatever 
 there is as to this, yet, 
 
 • Uornbeck, pag. 70. — The Mexicans at first used to worship an immense 
 " number of jfods, to wit, two thousand, tlie chief amon^ which were Vitzi- 
 " lopuchtli and Tezcatlipuca, two brothers, the one of whom had tlie care of 
 " the world, and the other presided over wars." 
 
 t De Relig. Gent. pap. 163. \ Nichol's Confer. Part 2. pag. 57. 
 
 !| Oracles of Reason, pag', 194, 
 
256 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 3. It is certain that many of them, notwithstanding the huge 
 number of gods they maintained, were utterly ignorant of the true 
 God. This is so evident, that I cannot but wonder at our author's 
 impudence in denying it, especially, after the testimonies we have 
 already quoted from him. We have heard already that the Egyp- 
 tians and Grecians of old owned no other gods besides the sun, 
 moon and stars. And we have heard the same of the Sabeans, 
 of several Americans and inhabitants of Africa ; and Caesar tells us 
 the same of the Germans — " Deorum numero eos solum ducimt, 
 " qiios cernunty & quorum opibus aperte juvantur, solem ^ viil- 
 " canum <§• lunam ; reliquos ne fama quidem acceperunt.^*^ 
 Yea, our author is forced to make a fair confession, and contradict 
 himself in the entry of his fourth chapter, where speaking of the 
 Gentiles and their worshipping of the sun, he delivers himself 
 thus : " Incongruum demum existimaverunt^ ut qui cultum ab om- 
 " nibus flagitaret, a cultoribus suis sese absconderet Deus. So- 
 " lem igitur Deum fere omnes Gentiles statuebnnt, non summum 
 " quidem, sed summo proximum, ejusque praclarissimam ico- 
 " ne/M, licet alii, mundum, totum, tanquam Deo plenum, summi 
 " numinis hnaginem speciosam apprime pr(R se ferre contettde- 
 " rent.^'j Here you see our author positive, that they put not 
 the sun in the room of the One true God : None of them did it ; 
 but we shall hear him in the very next sentence tell us, that they 
 did discard the true God, and very absurdly put another in his 
 place. " Certe uti olim dictum (says our author) qui solem vice 
 " summi Dei coluerunt, perinde fecere, ac illi qui ad aulam po- 
 *' tentissimi principis accedentes, quern primum amictu splendido 
 "■ indutum cernerunf, regium illi cultum deferendum existimaver- 
 " im^"J And our author knows full well that at Athens there 
 was an altar erected to the unknown God ; and Paul expressly 
 tells them, that this unknown God, was the true God. Whom 
 therefore ye ignorantly worship, him de4:lare I unto you. Whai 
 says our author to this ? He directly contradicts the apostle, and 
 then makes him a compliment, that is well nigh to nonsense. " Cce- 
 
 * De Bello Gallico, T/ib. 6. — " They reckon in the number of the gods only 
 t'** those whom they scp, and by whose power they are evidently assisted, 
 *' that is the sun, the fire, and the moon. They liave not so much as heard 
 " of the other srods." 
 
 I De Relig'. Gent. pag. 20.—" In fine, they reckoned it incongruous to sup- 
 *' pose, that God, who required worship from all men, should hide himseir 
 " from his worshippers. Therefore almost all the Heathens thought that the 
 *' sun was a g'oil ; not indeed the supreme one, but next to the supreme, and ' 
 " his most illustrious iinag-e ; althoug-li others maintained that the whole 
 ■' world, as being full of God, bore a distinct impression of his image." 
 
 t "Surely, as was said long ago, those who worshipped the sun instead of 
 " the Supreme Deity, acted in the same manner as those who going to the 
 " court of a most powerful prince, should think that the first person they j 
 " .saw splendidly dressed was the king, and to be reverenced as such." 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 25f 
 
 <• terum (says he) duriuscule Deu3 ignotus Atheniensium ad De- 
 « lira Judffiorum refertur : Ut ita priora S. S. loca Deum Genti- 
 '' Hum euiukun ac cominunem omnium Deum evincant. Nam De- 
 " us ille ignotus Atheniensium alius certe fuit, (this is a plain con- 
 " tradiclion to the apostle's assertion) atque ideo puto ara donatus, 
 " ne aliquis forsan incultus apud illos esset Deus : Ut belle tamen 
 " hinc instruendi Gentiles occasionem captarit apostolus. Neque 
 " dubium mihi est, quia e libix) naturae edocti Deum Summum turn 
 « agnoverint, tarn coluerl?it Gentiles."* Thus we see qiuim 
 belle, how pleasant'y our author proceeds. He tells us that it is 
 hard to think, though the apostle expressly says so, that this iin- 
 known God was the God of the Jews. But if we will not stand 
 to our author's word, then he tells us what some scriptures he had 
 formerly cited prove ; viz. Acts x. passim Acts xvii. 28, 29- 
 Rom. i. 19. But we have above shewed, that these are not so for 
 our author's purpose. Well, what then remains ? Nothing, but 
 only this, " I have no doubt," says he, " but they kneAV the true 
 ** God." But our author's certainty will not satisfy another; and 
 we just now shewed, that our author was not so fully sure as he 
 pretends to be in this place. But yet our apostle, he tells us, 
 took very handsomely occasion hence to instruct the Gentiles ; that 
 is, if we believe our autiior, he took occasion from a false supposi 
 tion to instruct them. But it is a kindness that he used any com- 
 pliment, though a ridiculous one. But leaving this, I go on. 
 
 4. They among the nations, who owned One Supreme God, 
 did frequently, if not for most part, put some others in the room 
 of the True God. Some made the World God. This is what 
 Balbus the Stoick sets up for with all his might in Cicero's second 
 book de Nat. Deor. throughout. " Atqui certe nihil omnium re- 
 *< rum melius est, Mundo, nihil prsestabilius, nihil pulchrius : Nee 
 " solum nihil est, nee excogitari quidem quicquam melius potest : Et 
 " si ratione & sapientia nihil est melius, necesse est hsec Inesse eo, 
 " quod optimum esse concedimus :"f And therefore a little after 
 he concludes the World God. Cicero himself was of the same 
 
 * " It was rather somewhat hard to refer the unkno^vn God of the Atheni- 
 " ans to the God of the Jews, as the former places of holy scripture prove 
 " that the God of the Gentiles was the same with tiiat of the Jews, and the 
 ** common God of all men. Fur this unknown God of the Athenians was 
 " certainly another one, and I suppose was honored with an altar for this rea- 
 " son, that no god perhaps mip^ht be without worship among them. Yet howr 
 •' prettily does the apostle take an opportunity from hence of instructing the 
 " Gentiles. Nor is it doubtful with me, that the Gentiles, taught by the book 
 " of nature, both acknowledged and worshipped the Supreme God." 
 
 t " And certainly none of all things is better than the World, nothing is 
 " more excellent, nothing is more beautiful ; and not only nothing exists, 
 " but nothing can be imagined that is better than the World. And if nothing 
 " is better than Reason and Wisdom, these qualities mast necessarily be con- 
 " ceived to belong to that which we acknowledge to be the b«st of a,U 
 " things." 
 
 33 
 
25^fr AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 niind : For when Velleius the Epicurean had been heard and re- 
 futetl by Cotta the Academic ; and Epicurus's wild opinions about 
 the gods, had been fully exposed, which is the subject of the first 
 book ; Balbus the Stoick proposes and defends the Stoicks' opin- 
 ion about the nature, being, and number of the gods,, and their 
 providence, and defends it after the best manner he can, (where, 
 by the way, there is not one word of the true God, but a full dis- 
 covery of the grossest ignorance of him, and the greatest wicked- 
 ness and folly in asserting a plurality of gods, and parting all the 
 excellencies of tlie true God among them.) This makes up the 
 second book. In the third book, Cotta the Academic, disputes 
 against, and exposes the Stoicks' opinion, as defended by Balbus ; 
 and in the last sentence of the book, Cicero gives his sTrtKp'ia-n or 
 censure of the whole in these words, " Hac cum essent dicta, ita 
 '? dicessimus, ut Velleo Cottse disputatio verior, mihi Balbi ad 
 " verltatis similitudinem videretur esse propensior."* Velleius 
 llie Epicurean favours Cotta, w ho disproved the whole opinions 
 about the gods, and put no better in their place. And Cicero 
 was pleased with Balbus, who maintained the Stoicks^ sentimenis. 
 What they were we have just now noted. And whether Plato, 
 Aristotle, yea and Socrates w^ere not of the same opinion, is not 
 so very clear. Certain it is, that they paid a Uttle too great re- 
 spect to the world, if they were not. Let us hear our author. 
 Plato in Timao et Legibus dicit ^^ mimdum deitm esse Sr calum <S" 
 ostra., <^'C.f But whatever were their sentiments, it is not of so 
 great consequence to the question under consideration, to spend 
 time in inquiring, since it is evident that many were of this opinion. 
 Others thought that the heaven was God, and this is owned by 
 Ennius the poet, quoted by our author, in that noted verse so fre- 
 quently mentioned by Cicero, Aspice hoc Sublime Candens, qtiem 
 omnes invofant Jovem.i. And there also he tells us of an old in- 
 scription found at Rome, Optimus Blaxiinus Callus ^ternus. 
 "l^hus we see the heavens dignified with those very epithets, a\ Inch 
 OTU" author pretends to have been peculiar to the Supreme God. 
 And he tells us, that some are of opinion, that Pythagoras in- 
 clined this way : and our author leaves it in doubt. If Aristotle 
 and Plato were not of this mind, that the heavens were the Su- 
 preme God, as we see some others were ; yet they did own hea- 
 ven for God, and to be worshipped as such. " Sed rwn solum- 
 " modi ccElum divino honore colmidum decreverant sacerdoies, sed 
 " et i})si philosophi ceJebriores, adeo ut non St^garita tantum, sed 
 
 * " when those things had been said, we parted, but so that the discourse 
 •' of Cotta seemed to Velleius to be nearer the truth, but that of Balbus seera- 
 V ed to me to approach more nearly to the likeness of truth." 
 . -J- l)c Relig. Gent. pag. 39. 
 
 •t Ibidj. pag. 54. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 259' 
 
 '' Ennins ejus prccreptor ila slatuerinty-'^ But the most preva- 
 " lent opinion was, Ihnl the sun was the one true and Supreme God. 
 That many, and perhaps most nations thought so, the testimonies 
 above alleged fully prove, and we have heard our author confes- 
 sing it as to some. I shall only add a few remarks more to this 
 purpose. There is a quotation of Macrobius, which I find in our 
 author, that is worth noticing, " Assyri (inquit Macr.) quem Deum 
 *' Surnmum Maximumq; venerantur, Adad nomen dederunt, ejus 
 " nominis interpraetatio significat unns. Hunc ergo ut potentissi- 
 " mum adorant Deum, sed subjungunt deam nomine Atergatin ; 
 *' omnenique potestatem hisce duobus attribuunt, solem terramque 
 " intelligentes."f And our author further acquaints us as to the 
 Persians, " Quod Persae duo principia statuebant, Oromazen scil. 
 " tanqiiam boni fontem : Et Arimanium, mali. — Inter quos medi- 
 " tim it quasi arbitrum posuere solem. "J I Lave in the close of 
 our former chapter, quoted a notable passage from our author to 
 the same purpose, wherein he tells us, that all the names of the ti*ue 
 God, were ascribed to the sun. Of the same opinion were the 
 Phaenicians, Britains of old, and their famed Druids, and perhaps 
 most nations. Yea, so deeply did this fix its rools in the minds of 
 most, that the greatestof the Heathen philosophers can scarcely be 
 free<l from an inclination this way.§ Plato tells us, how devout 
 Socrates was in the v.'orship of the sun, and that several times he 
 fell into an extasy, while thus employed. || Nor are the famous In- 
 dian philosophers one whit more wise. " Not only the Brachmans,' 
 " but all the Indians, yea and the famed Appolloniiis (wliom the 
 " Heathens compared to our blessed Lord, most blasphemously 
 " and groundlessly) worshipped the sun."** And we have Ap- 
 poUonius's prayer to the sun, recorded by Philostratus in his life. 
 Lib. 1. O Summe sol, eo terrarnm m'dle, quS me prof edurum esse 
 cognoscis, Sc concede, precor, ut viros' bonos, agnoscam; impro- 
 bos vero neq; agnoscam, neq; agnoscar ah i7/o.<?.|f Yea after the 
 
 * Dc Relig'. Gent. pag-. 19. — " But not only were tlie priests of opinion that • 
 " the heaven ouglit to be worshipped with divine honors, but also tlie most 
 ■" famous philosophers, so that not only the Stug'yrite but his master before 
 " him, was of that opinion." 
 
 f Ibid. pag. 2-1. — " The Assyrians, say.s Macrobius, gave the name Adad, 
 " which, signifies one, to that Being whom they held to be the supreme and 
 *' greatest God. Therefore they adore him as the most powerful God, but , 
 " they add to him a goddess named Aiergates, and ascribe all power to these 
 " two, meaning the sun and the earth." 
 
 + Ibid pag. 28.—" That the Persians hold two first principles, to wit, Aro- 
 " mazes as the fountain of good, and Arimanius of evil, betwixt whom they 
 " placed the sim in the middle, and as it were an arbiter." 
 
 § This is fully proven by Dr. Owen, Hornbeck and others, in their books 
 formerly referred to. .|| See Owen's Theolog. Lib. 3. Cap. 4. pag. 182. 
 
 ** Hornbeck pag. 31. 
 
 tt " O supreme sun, .send me to that part of the world, to which you know 
 " 1 am going, and grant, I pray, that I may know good men, but that I may 
 " neither know bad men, nor be known bv them." 
 
260 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 light of the glorious gospel had cleared the philosopher's eyes, and 
 made them ashamed of much of their religion, yet even the Pla- 
 tonick philosophers could not quit the thoughts of the sun's being 
 God."* 
 
 But not only did some look on the sun as the Supreme God ; 
 but (if we may believe Hornbcck, who was at great pains to under- 
 stand the religions of the world, and particularly of America) se- 
 veral nations in America, particularly the inhabitants of New- 
 France, and they who inhabit about the river Sagadahoc, worship 
 principally the devil or a malignant spirit. f 
 
 Thus we have fully demonstrated what we undertook, and 
 hereby quite spoiled the whole story of an universal religion : And 
 our author has been so unhappy, as to lay to our hands many of 
 the arguments, whereby we have disproved his own position. This 
 step being once gained, we shall be more brief in the consideration 
 of the remaining articles : For they all fall with this. If there is 
 a mistake as to this, there can remain nothing sincere in religion. 
 If the true God is not known, he cannot be worshipped, and re^ 
 wards and punishments cannot be expected from him ; nor can we 
 be sensible of, or sorry for any offence done against him. So 
 that we might stop here, as having ruined wholly that cause our 
 author undertook to defend : But we shall consider the rest also. 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 It was not universally agreed that the One True God is to be wor- 
 shipped. 
 
 How could they ae;ree as to the worshipping of him whom they 
 did not krow to be ? K" it would not frighten the persons concerned, 
 I might here pertinently ask them the question the apostle puts, 
 Rom. X. 14. How shall they call on him, in whom they have not 
 believed.'' And how shall they believe in him, of whom they have 
 not heard ? 
 
 And further, even they who owned one supreme God, many of 
 them entertained such notions of him, as njadc him unworthy of 
 any worship. He tel's us that many of them locked him up in 
 heaven, denying his providence ; and one would almost tliink onr 
 author had been of their opinion, while lie tells us, " Rede dictum 
 fst oliiri, quod Sternum Bealumque est nee negotii quicqvam ha- 
 bere, ne exhiberi alteri.":^ But whatever our author's thoughts 
 
 * Owen iibi supra. Lib. 3. Cap. 5. pag. 194. 
 7 Hornbeck de Conver. Gentil. Lib. 1. Cap. 9. pag-. 70, 71. 
 t Ue llL-lig-. Gent. pag. 174. — " It was Avell said of old, that a beinf^ that 
 is eternal and happj', neither has any trouble in itself, nor gives any tsoubl^- 
 
 to. another," 
 
PRINCIPLES OB' THE MODERN DEISTS. 261 
 
 were, it is well known, that this opinion prevailed very far, and 
 obtained amongst many, if not most nations, who owned one su- 
 preme God besides the sun. And they were further of opinion, 
 that God had committed the whole management of the world to 
 deputies. Our author informs us, that the ancient Heathens divid- 
 ed their gods into super-celestial, celestial, and sub-celestial ;f and 
 lie tells us, that the chief god, and his companions the super-celes- 
 tial gods, have not any such concernment in, or regard to the things 
 that are transacted in this world, as to make them take any notice 
 of them ; and that the Supreme God has withdrawn himself and 
 the super-celestial gods from the view of mortals, as being of too 
 sublime a nature to be known by them ; and that he has deputed 
 the sun, moon, and stars to inspect the world, as the only gods 
 who can be enjoyed by men. " Deum summum vero seipsum su- 
 percoelestesq ; Deos a conspectu mortalium removisse, quod sub- 
 limes adeo essent naturae, ut nulla cos acies, satis pertingeret, ejus 
 loco non in conspectum solum, sed in fruitioiiem quandam produx- 
 isse deos illos coelestes, qui a nobis sol, luna, coelum, &c. vocantur."J 
 And the Indian Brachrains seem indeed to be of the same mind, as 
 we know the whole followers of Epicurus were.|| Yea the inhabit- 
 ants of Calicut, a kingdom in the East-Indies, are so absurd as to 
 imagine that the devil is God's deputy, to whom the government 
 of the world is committed. And hence they worship the devil 
 principally, (as likewise do the kingdoms of Decum and Narsinga) 
 and " their king has in his oratory the image of the devil with a 
 crown on his head, so very frightful, that the most resolute tremble 
 at the sight of it : the wall is all painted with lesser devils ; and in 
 each corner stands one of brass, so well done, that it seems all in 
 flames."** Now if such notions are entertained of God, it is no 
 wonder though he be by many thought not worth the worshipping. 
 The consequences of those apprehensions I cannot better express, 
 than Cicero has done in the very begiiming of his first book de Nat. 
 Deorum. " Sunt enim philosophi, & fuerunt, qui omnino nullam 
 habere censerent humanarum rerum procurationem deos : Quorum 
 si vera sentensia est, quje potest esse pietas ? Q,uk sanctitas ? Quie 
 religio? si dii neque possunt nos juvare, nee volunt, nee ciirant 
 oranlno, nee quid agamus animadvertant ; nee est quod ab his ad 
 hominum vitani permanare possit : Quod est, quod ullos diis im- 
 
 t De Relig Gent. pag. 170. 
 
 + Ibid, pag. 171.—" But that the supreme God had withdrawn himself and 
 the other super -celestial gods from the sight of mortals, because tliey were of 
 so sublime a nature that no human eye could sufficiently reach them ; but 
 that l)e had set up in his place, not only for our knowledge, but fruition, those 
 celestial gods, which are called by us the sun, the moon, the heaven, fcc" 
 
 II Hornbeck, page 40. 
 
 ** See Calicut, in Great. Geograph. .Diction. 
 
262 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 mortallbus cullus, honores, preces adbibeamus ?*'* And miich^ 
 more to the same purpose. Though he speaks of a plurality of 
 gods, yet what he says holds true as to the case in hand : for if we 
 entertain, or if the Gentiles did entertain, as we see some of them 
 did, such notions of their supreme God, as lie here speaks of, the 
 same consequences must follow ; and it is not credible that any, ' 
 who thought so, could judge the Supreme God worthy of worship. 
 And indeed we find them no way concerned about it. 
 
 In fine not a few of the wiser, who entertained the most just 
 thoughts of God of any, yet being in the dark as to the way of 
 worshipping God, have declared against imy worship, at least in 
 practice, till it should by himself be condescended on. Thus it is 
 as to the wiser sort amoi;g the Chinese — " De Deo eoque colendo 
 noji sunt soliciti. Ummi quidera agnoscunt Summum Numen, a 
 quo omnia conservari & regi credunt ; Sed, quia quomodo coli 
 velft, ignOrare se profitentur ; satius autumant cultum ejus omit- 
 tere, quam in eo designando errare."f And perhaps the best phi- 
 losophers in other nations were not of a different mind. Thus we 
 see how far they were from being agreed about this article. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 The Gentile World mere not agreed in judging that Vivtiie and 
 Piety are the principal parts of the ivorship of God. 
 
 How it should come into our author's head to think that they 
 were agreed, is a little strange^ considering how little is tobefoimd 
 among their writers that looks this way. But I suppose the case 
 was this, he had concluded that they were agreed about the being 
 of One True God, and to make his religion complete he behoved to 
 have them some way agreed about hi» worship ioo. But he found 
 them endlessly divided about their solemn worship, and none of it 
 directed to the one true God, but all expressly aimed at other 
 Ihings : wherefore there was no other thing left that could be to his 
 purpose ; and therefore he finding that there was somewhat that 
 all the world agreed in, paying some respect to, at least, in words, 
 
 * " For there are and have been philosopliers, who think that tlie gods take 
 no care at all of human afFaii's, and if their opinion be true, what piety can , 
 there be ? or wlip*^ sanctity ? whatrelig'ion ? if the gods neither can, nor wijl 
 help us, nor observe what we do ; nor is there any tliinsjthat can come from 
 them into human life. What reason is there then, why we should offer any 
 worship, honors or prayers to the immortal gods ?" 
 
 t liovubeck ubi supra, ]5ag.'47." — " TJiey Jiave no anxiet}- about God or his 
 worship. They acknowledge indeed one Supreme Deity, by whom they tliink 
 that all things are preserved and governed ; but as they profess that they do 
 not know in wliat manner he cluises to be worshipped, tlicy tliink it better to 
 let aloiie his worship aUogethcr, than to err in determining it." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 263 
 
 upder the name of virtue ; lie would needs appropriate this to the 
 True God for his worship, though he has no warrant from the Gen- 
 tiles to do so. And truly after all, if this was the worship of the 
 True God, or designed as such, whatever agreement there might be 
 in opinion about the Worship of the one True God, I think there 
 was none in practice, if not in a total neglect of it : For how few 
 were there, who can have the least pretence to challenge that name 
 amongst all those, whose names have been transmitted to us ! How 
 truewas the poet Juvenal's observation, 
 
 • 
 Rari quippe boni, numero vlx sunt totidem quot 
 Thebarum portae, divitis vel ostia Nili.* 
 
 But to leave thisj and come to the point in hand somewhat more 
 closefy, 
 
 1 . It is evident that the world was very far from being agreed, 
 that there is 0»e God : Far more were they divided about the ac- 
 kiK>wledgment of the True God, and whom they should own as 
 such. It was therefore utterly impossible that they should conde- 
 scend on this, as a principal part of the worship of God, whom 
 they did not know to have any being. 
 
 2. So far were they from looking on virtue as Uie principal part 
 of the worship of the gods, whom they owned, that the worship of 
 many of their gods, was thought to consist m things that were 
 cross to the plainest dictates of nature's light. Our author ac- 
 quaints us frequently with the obscenities, the cruelties, and other 
 extravagancies of their worship. The obscenities are too fulsome 
 to be repeated. The furious extravagancies, religious, or rrther 
 superstitious fury and madness used in the worship of Bacchus, 
 are known to every one. And for their cruelty, who knows not 
 that human sacrifices were almost universally used? Some offered 
 captives, some offered strangers, some sacrificed their dearest rela- 
 tions and children, and that in the most cruel manner.f 
 
 3. We need go no further than our author's book, to learn, that 
 most nations were so far from looking on virtue as any part of the 
 worship due to any of those gods they owned, that they placed it 
 wlwlly in such other things, as our author, amongst others, has 
 given us a large account of. * 
 
 4. They, who were most zealous for virtue, were very far from 
 looking on it as a part of the worship of God, or directing it to his 
 glory. I believe our author, were he alive, for all his reading 
 would find it diflScult to find one fair testimony to this purpose. 
 
 * " For good men arc rare, and "scarcely as numerous as the gates of Tli€- 
 bes, or the mouths of tlie fertile Nilt." 
 
 t Sco this fully proven in the learned and excellent Dr. Owen's treatise de 
 ■Tuntitiavimlicutrict', frompag-. 66 to 100, by authentic testimonies, with such 
 remarks as may be worth the reading-. 
 
264 AN INaUiRY INTO THE 
 
 They looked not on themselves as debtors to God for their vh-lue. 
 Hence Cotta, after he has acknowledged that we are indebted to 
 God for our riches and eternal enjoyments, adds ; " Virtutem au- 
 tem nemo iinquam acceptam Deo retulit, nimirum recte : Propter 
 virtutem enira laudamur, & in virtute recte gloriamur ; quod non 
 contingeret, si id donum a Deo haberemus." Hence a little after, 
 he adds, " Nam quis quod bonus vir esset, gratias diis egit un- 
 quam !"* And much more to the same purpose. They thought 
 that their virtue made them equal to their gods. " Hoc est quod 
 philosophia mihi promittit, «t me parem Deo faciat."f Yea not 
 only so, but they pretended their virtues placed them above their 
 gods. " Est aliquid, quo sapiens antecedat deum, ille naturaae 
 beneficio, non suo, sapiens est." J And again, " Deus non vincit 
 sapientem felicitate, etiamsi vincit setate : Non enim est virtus ma- 
 jor, quae longior."||. Hence they will not have us so much as to 
 pray to God, either as to virtue or felicity. It is a mean thing to 
 weary the gods. " Quid votis opus est ? facto felicem."'^* And 
 much more to the same purpose. 
 
 A R T I c L E iv.^ 
 
 It did not universally obtain, that repentance is a sufficient expia- 
 tion ; or, that me must repent for offences done against the true 
 God. 
 
 Our author has acknowledged, that there is rarely mention of 
 this amongst the ancients ; and we have already, by quotations 
 from him, cleared that the ancient Heathens did not think it a 
 BufBcient expiation, and indeed that it was of no great considera- 
 tion among them, is sufficiently evident from their not taking any 
 notice of it, even when the fairest occasions present themselves. 
 And finally, there can be nothing more certain, than that their re- 
 pentance could not aim at the offence done to the true God, of 
 whom many of them were utterly ignorant. But what has been 
 said is sufficient to shov/ that it did not universally obtain in any 
 sense, that can turn to any account to the Deists. 
 
 M 
 
 * Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. mihi. 187. Lib. 3. — '* For nobody ever confessed 
 that he owed his virtue to God, for we are justly praised on account of our' 
 virtue, and we justly boast of it, which would not be the case if we had our 
 
 virtue as a gift from God Nor did any body ever give thanks to the gods 
 
 because he was a good man." 
 
 t Seneca, Epist. 48. — " This is what philosophy promises me, to make me 
 equal to Gcd." 
 
 + Idem, Epist. 53. — " There is something in which a wise man excels God, 
 that the former is wise by his own benefit, but the latter by that of nature." 
 
 II Epist. 73. — " God does not exceed a wise man in happiness, though lie 
 exceeds him in age, for virtue is not the greater in proportion as it is older." 
 
 ** Epist. 51.—" What need has he of prayers who is actually happy." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 265 
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 // was not universally agreed, that there are Rewards and Pxinish- 
 menls after this life. 
 
 1. HoTivtevER many there were that maintained the immortaHty 
 of the souls of men, it is certain, that there were very many dis- 
 sentients, who were of a different mind, and that of all sorts of 
 people. 
 
 The fumed sects among the Indians, which they call Schaerwae- 
 sha^ Pasenda and Tschedca, if we may believe Hornbeck in his 
 account of them, all deny a future state.* 
 
 ^«or are the wise Chinese, at least many of them, of a different 
 mind. They are divided into three sects. Thefirst sect of their 
 philosophers are the followers of the famed Confucius ; their mo- 
 rals are as refined as perhaps these of the most polite parts of the 
 world, if not more. But as to the soul, they seem to make it a 
 part of God, which at death returns to that first Principle, whence 
 it was broke off*. Let us hear Possevinus's account of them. As 
 to this matter he says, they maintain, " Hominis cor esse unam & 
 *' eandem rem cum illo primo rerum principio; cumque homo mori- 
 " tur, cor perire prorsus & absmni, superesse tamen ex eo primuni 
 *' priucipium, quod vitam ante conferebat." And further, they 
 maintain, " Posse hominem in hac vita summam principii cogno- 
 *' scendiperfectionem adipiscij&nieditando pervenire ad maximam 
 *' vitse tranquillitatem, & hoc esse summura bonuni, quod donee 
 *' obtineat, continuo motu agatnr, 8: de inferno uno in aliuni conji- 
 " ciatur, usque duni contemplancio & meditando ad fastigium per- 
 " venerit tranquillitatis, (|U£b in principio illo primo est."f These 
 are the appiehensions of their best moralists. 
 
 But there aie two other sects, that plainly declare against a fu- 
 ture state, and the immortality of the soul, and have no pros- 
 pect beyond tirne.J 
 
 Of this same opinion were not only single persons, but many 
 sects of the ancient philosophers, whom Cicero mentions, and con- 
 ludes his account of them thus — " His sententiis omnibus nihil post 
 *' mortem pertiuere ad quemquam potest : Pariter enim cum vita 
 
 * Hornbeck, pag. 34, ubl supra. 
 
 f Hornbeck, pag. 47, 48. — " That the heart of man is one and the same 
 " thing' with that first Principle of things, and that when a man dies, his he.irt 
 " quite perishes and is consumed, vet that t]ie first Principle of it remains, 
 " which formerly gave him life. » » * That a man may in this life 
 " attain to the higlu-st perfection of the principle of knowledge, and arrive 
 '* by mcdiUition to the greatest tranquillity of life, and that until he obtain 
 
 this, he is agitated by a perpetual motion, and thrown fi-om one hell into 
 " anotlier, till by contemplation and meditation he arrive at the summit el" 
 ** tranquillity wjuca is in that first Prbiciple " 
 
 t Ibid. pag. 48, 49. 
 
 34 
 
266 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " seusus amlttitiir."* And a little after, speaking of the opposition 
 made to Plato's opinion about the immortality of the soul, he says, 
 " Sed plurimi contra (Platonis scil. sententiam) nituntur, animosq ; 
 " quasi capite damnatos morte niulctant." And some passages af- 
 ter, speaking of the same opinion, he says, " Catervse veniunt con- 
 " tradicentium, non solum Epicureorum, quos equidetn non despi- 
 " cio, sed nescio quomodo doctissiraus quisque contemnit. Acer- 
 " rime autem deliciae mese, dico Archias, contra banc iramortalita- 
 " tern disi^eruit : Is enim tres llbros scripsit, qui Lesbiaci vocan- 
 " tur, quod Metylenis sermo habetur : In quibus vult efficere ani- 
 " imos esse mortales : Stoici autem usuram nobis tanquam corni- 
 " cibus : Diu mansuros aiunt animos, semper negant."f 
 
 Nor were they otherwise minded, many of them in Greece. 
 When Socrates vents his opinion of the immortality of the soul 
 that day before he died, Cebes, one of his disciples, who is the 
 conferrer, or one of them at least that maintains the discourse with 
 him, addresses him in these words : " Socrates, I subscribe to the 
 " truth of all you have said. There is only one thing that men 
 " look upon as incredible, viz. what you advanced of the soul : for 
 " almost every body fancies, that when the soul parts from the bo- 
 ♦' dy it is no more, it dies along with it ; in the very minute of 
 " parting it vanishes like a vapour or smoke, which flies off and 
 " disperses, and has no existence."^ 
 100. 
 
 Yea, I^liny, Strabo, and many others, declare against the immor- 
 tality of the soul ; nay, Pliny on set purpose disputes against 
 it.ll 
 
 And the poets go the same way. It were easy to multiply proofs 
 of this from them. Seneca speaks the mind of many of them, though 
 perhaps not his own. Trajcs, Troa, A. I. 
 
 Post mortem nihil est, ipsaque mors niliil, 
 Velocis spatll meta novissima. 
 Qujeris quo jaceas post obitum loco ? 
 
 Quo non mala jacent. Et 
 Tempus nos avidum devorat & chaos. 
 
 * Cicero, Tusc. Quest, l.pag. 329.—" From all these opinions, nothing after 
 " death can be interesting to any one, for sensation is lost together with 
 " life." 
 
 t " Crowds of opposers come against me, not only of the Epicureans, whom 
 " indeed I do not despise, but I know not how every most learned man despi- 
 " ses them. For my darling, I mean Archais, has disputed very eagerly against 
 " this immortality. He wrote three books, which are called Lesbian, because 
 " the discourse is held at Mytelene, in which he endeavored to prove that the 
 " souls of men are mortal. But the Stoicks only give them a long life like the 
 " crows— they say that souls will live a long time, but they deny that they 
 " will live for ever." 
 
 + Plato's Phed67i done into English from M, Dacier's Trans, vol. 2. page 100- 
 
 II Oweni Theolog. Lib. 1. C. pag. ir4. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 267 
 
 Mors individua est, noxia corpori, 
 Nee parcens anims.* 
 
 Persius and all the poets made use of this as an encouragement 
 to give way to themselves, in whatever lust prompted them to. 
 
 Indulge genio, carpamus dulciaj nostrum est 
 Quod vivis, cinis, & manes, & fabula fies.§ 
 
 If it be said that this is an irony, and that he was not in earnest, 
 it iB easy to multiply quotations to this purpose from Horace, Ca- 
 tullus, and most of the poets, which are not capable of any such 
 construction. But I forbear. 
 
 And although Cicero was for the immortality of the soul ; yet 
 in his first book of Tusciilan Questions, he plainly derides the 
 whole business of rewards and punishments after this life ; as any 
 one who will attentively peruse it may see. I forbear to transcribe 
 the passage ; because I behoved to transcribe much to shew the 
 tendency of the discourse. He plainly tells us, that he could be 
 eloquent, if he had a mind to speak against those things ; Diser- 
 tus esse possum, si contra ista dicer em.\\ The case is plainly this : 
 That person to whom he discourses looks on death as an evil. Ci- 
 cero tells him that perhaps it is because he fears those punishments 
 after this life, which the vulgar believed ; and after he has tartly 
 ridiculed them, he concludes, That had he a mind, he could en- 
 large against those things, and plainly expose the whole tradition. 
 
 But because some talk so much of Plato, Socrates, Cicero, and 
 we get so many quotations from them about the immortality of the 
 soul and a future state ; I shall here represent their own opinion 
 somewhat more fully. 
 
 As for Socrates, he has not writ any thing that is come to our 
 hands ; all the accounts we have of him are from Plato, Xenophon 
 and others, but especially Plato his scholar, who was with him at 
 his death : From him then we shall learn at once, what both his 
 master's opinion and his own were in this matter. 
 
 When Socrates is making his apology before his judges, he tells 
 them, " That to fear death, is nothing else, but to believe one's 
 " self to be wise, when they are not ; and to fancy that they know 
 •' what they do not know. In effect, nobody knows death ; no bo- 
 " dy can tell, but it may be the greatest benefit of mankind ; and 
 
 * " There is nothing after death, and death itself is nothing, being only the 
 " last stage of our swift course. Do you ask in what place you are to lie af- 
 " ter death ? In that place evils do not lie, and greedy time and chance devours 
 " us. "Death is a divider, which hurts the body and does not spare the soul." 
 
 § " Indulge your inclination, let us enjoy pleasures ; this span of life that 
 •' we enjoy is ours, you will soon become ashes, a shade and a fable." 
 
 !! Tuscul. Quest. Lib. 1. a little from the beginning, pag. mihi 312. 
 
268 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " yet men are afraid of it, as if they knew certainly that it was the 
 " greatest of evils."* And a little after, speaking of death, 
 " What ! should I be afraid of the punishment adjudged by Meli- 
 " tus, a punishment I cannot possitively say whether it is good or 
 *< evil ?"f And thus he concludes his apology. " But now, it is 
 *' true we should all retire to our respective offices, you to live, and 
 *' I to die. But whether you or I are going upon the better expe- 
 ^' dition, it is known to none, but God alone." J 
 
 Again, in that famed discourse on this subject, before his death, 
 after he has produced all the arguments he can for the immortalily 
 of the soul, he tells us pretty plainly, how things stood with him. 
 ♦< Convincing the audience of Avhat 1 advance, is not only my aim ; 
 *' indeed I shall be infinitely glad that it come to pass ; but my 
 " chief scope is to persuade myself of the truth of these things ; 
 *' for I argue thus, my dear Phedon, and you will find that this 
 ^' way of arguing is highly useful, (very true to folk that are not 
 *' certain and can do no better, and only to these.) If my pro- 
 " positions prove true, it is well done to believe them, and if after 
 *' my death they be found false, I will reap that advantage in this 
 *' life, that I have been less afflicted by the evils Avhich commonly 
 ^' accompany it. But I shall not remain long under this ignorance. "j[ 
 And when he is near his close, and just about to take the poison, 
 or a little before, having represented his thoughts about rewards 
 and punishments after this life, which are little better than those of 
 the poets, he concludes his account in these words ; " No man of 
 *' sense can pretend to assure you, that all these things are just as 
 " you have heard. But all thinking men will be positive, that the 
 *' state of the soul, and the place of its abode, is absolutely such 
 *' as I represent it to be, or at least very near it," — provided the 
 soul be immortal. 
 
 More might be alledged to the same purpose ; but this is suffi- 
 cient to let us see how wavering Plato and his master Socrates 
 were. They talk confidently sometimes ; but presently they sink 
 again. Let us next see what Cicero's mind Avas. lie treats this 
 subject on set purpose, in his first book of Tusculan Questions, 
 which is wholly spent on this subject. He undertakes to shew 
 and prove against the person whom he instructs, that death is not 
 ttn evil, whether we are dissohed quite or not : and having, as he 
 fancies, proven that death is not an evil, he proceeds, and gives us 
 this account of his undertaking : — " I shall teach you, (speaking of 
 " death) if I can, si posst//?, that it is not only not an evil , but a 
 g-oof/."** But a little after he tells us clearly what we may expect 
 
 * Dacier's Plato, Vol. ?. page 23. Soci-ates' Apolog-}' 
 r Ibitl. pace 40. i Ibid, pag'c 47. 
 
 (I Pluto's PhcdoTi.pa^c 135, 136.' 
 '* Pag-e 3?J. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 269 
 
 from him, when his hearer exhorts him to go on ; says he, Qeram 
 tibi morem, <f^ ea qu(Z vis, tit potero, explicaho : Nee tameu quasi 
 Pythius Apollo, certa ut sint, Sr Jixa, qu(B dixero : Sed ut homun- 
 alius unus e nmltis probabilia conjedura sequens, ultra enim quo 
 progrcdiarf quam ut verisimilia videam, non habeo : Certa diceM 
 ii qui d?' percipi ea posse dicunt, Sr se sapientes esse projitcntur.'* 
 And speaking about this opinion, his auditor tells him, how plea- 
 sant this is to him. It will be a little pleasant to hear them speak. 
 A. Me vera delectat : Idque primum ita esse C soil, animos esse 
 immortales :) Deinde eiiamsi non sit, mihi tamen perfiiaderi vel- 
 im. M. Quid tibi ergo opera nostra opus est ? Num eloquentia 
 Platonem superare possumus ? Evolve diligenter ejus eum lib- 
 rum, qui est de animo : Amplius quod desideres nihil erit. A. Fe- 
 ci, mshercule, ^ quidem scepius : Sed, nescio quomodo, durn legOy 
 assentior : Cum. posui librum, & mecum ipse de immortalitate 
 animorum ccepi cogitare, assentio omnis ilia elabitur.f After he 
 has instructed his hearer, his hearer professes his resolution to stand 
 by this opinion ; but gets a caution from his instructor, that lets us 
 see how things stand. A. Nemo me de immortalitate depellet. 
 M. answers, Laudo id quidem, elsi nihil nimis oportet conjidere ; 
 Movemur enim scepe aliquo acute concluso : Labamus mutamus- 
 que sententiam clarioribus ctiam in rebus : In his enim est aliquii 
 obscuritas.X And if ye would know what his reason was for in- 
 sisting so long on the proof of this, he tells us near the close, 
 That it was to banish the contrary suspicion, which was trouble- 
 some. Much more might be adduced, but what has been said 
 sufficiently demonstrates how fluctuating and uncertain the best of 
 them were, in reference to this important point. 
 
 If any shall say, that though these great men upon some occa- 
 sions, express themselves with some hesitation, and did insinuate 
 
 • Pag'. 326. — " A. I will obey you, and explain these things that you wish, 
 *' as I shall be able. Yet what I am to say will not be certain and fixed like 
 " the oracles of the Pythian Apollo, but 1 will proceed as one poor man of the 
 " many, following probabilities by conjecture, for I have no where that I can 
 " go further than I see probability. Those will say certain things who say 
 *' that certainty can be obtained, and who profess to be wise men." 
 
 f Pag. 329. — " A. But it pleases me, and this first, that so is the case, (to 
 " wit, that the souls of men are immortal) and then althongh it should not 
 " be so, yet I wish to be persuaded of it. M. What need have you then of 
 " our service ? Can we excel Plato in eloquence ? Turn over diligently that 
 *' book of his, which treats of the soul, you will desire nothing more on the 
 " subject, i. Indeed I have done so, and oftener than once, but I know not 
 *' how it is, I assent as long as 1 am reading, but when I have laid do^vn the 
 " book and begin to think with myself of the immortality of sovils, all that 
 " assent vanishes." 
 
 + " None shall drive me from my belief of immortality. Jif. I commend 
 *' that indeed, although Ave ought not to be too confident of any thing, for we are 
 " often determined by something that is acutely concluded ; yet afterwards 
 " we give way and change o\ir opinions even in things that are clearer, fey 
 " there is some obscurity in those things " 
 
270 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 some suspicion that the oppos-ite pait of the question might be 
 true, yet upon other occasions they are positive, and that this is 
 as good an evidence of their being firmly persuaded, as the other 
 expressions are of their hesitation. 'I answer, the consequence is 
 naught. A seeming positiveness upon some occasions, may be the 
 result of a joint influence of a strong desire, that the thing should 
 be true, and some philosophical quirk urged for its support : For 
 as Cicero well observes in the words last quoted, Movenlur soepe 
 aliquo acute conclnso ; and this especially holds true, where there 
 is a strong inclination to believe the thing, as being of obvious ad- 
 vantage to us. Now this may be, where there is no certainty or 
 firm persuasion. I readily own that these great men favored the 
 immortality of the soul : But I positively deny, that they receiv- 
 ed it with that firmness of assent, that is not only due, but una- 
 voidable, to truths Avhich carry their own evidence along with 
 them. And I moreover aver, that the Deists, in quoting some of 
 these assertions from them, wherein they seem positive, suppres- 
 sing other expressions, wherein they discover a hesitation, do but 
 abuse the reader's credulity ; and give neither a full nor fair ac- 
 count of the judgment of these men. 
 
 CHAP. XVI. 
 
 Wlierein some general considerations are laid down for proving 
 that mam/ of the best things which are to he met with in the Hea- 
 thens, were not the discoveries of Nature's Light, but came 
 from Tradition. 
 
 NOTWITHSTANDING the gross ignorance which over- 
 spread the Heathen world, was very great ; yet it cannot be de- 
 nied that there are very many surprising hints of truth to be found, 
 in many of their writings, in reference even to matters of religion. 
 
 The Deists take up whatever they meet with of this sort, and 
 confidently give it out. That, all this they discovered by the mere 
 light of nature. 
 
 There are who, on the other hand, will scarce allow them to 
 3}ave made any of those discoveries by the light of nature ; but 
 ascribe whatever hints of truth are to be met with, to tradition. — 
 This is said to be the opinion of Eusebius and Scaliger, by Dr. 
 Owen.* And it is of late maintained by Mr. Nicolls, the inge- 
 inous author of the Conference with a Theist.f For which Mr, 
 
 * Theol. Lib. 1. C. 8. Paragr. 4. 
 -;• CO"ft"- Parte, page 32^ 23, &c. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 171 
 
 Becconsal, the author of a late treatise concerning the Law of Na- 
 ture, is much displeased with him, and takes him to task.J 
 
 I design not to make myself a party in this debate, I think tluil: 
 there is somewhat of truth on both sides : But if either think to 
 carry the matter to the utmost, I think also there will be mistakes 
 on both hands. It is too much to say that they discovered no- 
 thing in reference to religion by the mere light of nature : Andon 
 the other hand it savours of gross ignorance to say that all we 
 meet with in the writings of the ancient sages, was discovered by 
 the light of nature. Nothing is more evident, than that many 
 things have been handed from nation to nation, and from age to age 
 by tradition. This no modest man will or can deny ; it has been 
 so clearly made out by many. 
 
 What I assert, and shall attempt to prove, is, " That many of 
 'the most notable things that we meet with in the Heathen writers, 
 in matters of religion, are not to be looked on as discoveries made 
 by the light of nature ; but as truths, whereof they were informed 
 by tradition. And moreover, that when we find them asserting 
 some of those truths, which to us who enjoy the scriptures, and 
 by the scriptures have our reason improven, appear to have a 
 foundation in reason, we are not therefore to conclude, that reason 
 led them to those truths ; but rather, that in many cases they had 
 even these from tradition. 
 
 In proving this point I shall not proceed by single instances, but 
 shall lay down these general considerations, which at once clear the 
 truth of our asertion, and discover whence these traditions might 
 come, and how easily they might be conveyed to tliem. Particu- 
 lar instances may be had in great abundance from those who have, 
 of set purpose largely insisted on this subject. Amongst others, 
 Huetius, in his Demonstratio EvangeUca, has largely discoursed 
 of particular instances of this nature. 1 think the following obser- 
 vations taken together and duly considered, will put our assertion 
 beyond question w ith the sober and judicious. 
 
 1. It is most certain, that the Jews, however in other regards 
 inconsiderable, which makes it still the more observable, had more 
 full, clear, and certain knowledge of the true God, religion, and mat- 
 ters of worship, than all the world besides. If the Deists please 
 to controvert this proposition we shall debate it with them when 
 they please. And I dare be bold to say, that I shall prove, that 
 there is more true and rational divinity in one of the books of 
 Moses, than they shall be able to find in all the Heathen writers, 
 when thej^ put all that has been said by all of them together. 
 
 2. Their neighbors, and more especially the Egyptians, had 
 many fair occasions of obtaining acquaintance with their opinions 
 
 ± Beccon. of the Law of Nature, C. 4- page 54, 55, &c. 
 
 m 
 
272 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 and practices in matters of religion. Several persons at distant 
 times, went out from the church and settled in distant nations. — 
 Ishmael went out from Abraham's family, and Esau from that of 
 Isaac. Now it cannot be supposed, how wicked soever these per- 
 sons were, but they would carry out with them some true notions^ 
 opinions and practices, in matters of religion. Nor can it rea- 
 sonably be denied, that they founded their new government on 
 some of these notices, though variously blended and niixt with 
 corrupt additions and alterations, both in matters of opinion and 
 practice. And it is evident, that these hints, or remainders of 
 truth, in matters of opinion and practice, as they were mixt with 
 these corruptions, would obtain a general and great respect, as be- 
 ing found useful for maintaining order in societies, as being deliver- 
 ed to them by the first founders of their nations, as being com- 
 mended by their practice, and perhaps established by laws and 
 constitutions. Whence it is not possibly to be supposed that these 
 notices or practices would in an age, or a few ages, wear out. 
 
 Again, it is particularly observable in this case, that the church 
 was, for a long tract of time, in a wandering and unsettled state ; 
 which obliged them to more of intimacy with the nations that lay 
 near them, than afterwards was necessary, when they settled in a 
 land by themselves apart, and were by divine constitutions, barred 
 from that familiarity. 
 
 Moreover, as to the Egyptians, they had much occasion of be- 
 ing particularly acquainted with the Jews'opinions and practices in 
 the matters of God. The Israelites dwelt among them (besides 
 what occasioned converse they had before) about 217 years toge- 
 ther. The correspondence was again lenewed in Solomon's time, 
 by his matching with the king of Egypt's daughter. Jeremiah, 
 and a great company with him, staid a considerable time in Egypt, 
 and prophesied there to the Jews, who had at that time no separ- 
 ate dwellings, and prophesied concerning Egypt ; which, together 
 iTith the reputation he had got at Jerusalem, by his predictions that 
 were remarkably verified, the notice taken of him by the king of 
 Babylon, and the contests he had with those of his own nation, 
 could not but make him much regarded. 
 
 It is further considerable, that there were many things, which 
 may reasonably be supposed to excite an uncommon curiosity in 
 the Egyptians, to understand the religion of the Jews. It is known 
 what a place Joseph long had in Egypt, and how he managed it. 
 Afterwards the people, while under bondage, were scattered through 
 out the land, and the piety of some of them appearing in their suf- 
 ferings, could not })ut be taken notice of, as their scattering through 
 the land, gave occasion to the Egyptians to inquire, as to the prin- 
 ciples that influenced it. The miraculous appearances of God on 
 behalf o^ that people in Egypt and its neighborhood, in the wilder- 
 
t^RINCIPLES OF THE iMODERN DEIST.S. t7$ 
 
 ness, would have excited tlie cmiositj of a people, nmch less in- 
 quisitive than they were. The reputation of Solomon, his alli- 
 ance with the crown of Egypt, and his traffick witli them, as tliey 
 gave a new occasion, so could not but spur them on to inquire fur- 
 ther into matters of this sort. If to all this you add the general 
 character which writers of all sorts o;Ive to the Egyptians, That they 
 were a people more than ordinaril)- fond about matters of religion, 
 insomuch that our author Herbert observes, that they are said to 
 be- the first that taught religion ;* and if further it is considered, 
 that the Gentiles, finding the unsatisf.ictoriness of their own opin- 
 ions and practices, were very much inclined to change, and ado})t 
 the customs, practices and way of every nation in matters of reli- 
 gion, to try if they could find any thing more satisfying than their 
 own ; — if, I say, all these are laid together, it cannot be doubted 
 that the neighboring nations, and particularly the Egyptians, learn- 
 ed many things from the Jews in matters of religion. 
 
 3. It is observable, that all these things fell out a considerable 
 time before any ef those great men appeared or flom ished in the 
 world, whose writings are come to u:s, and contain those truths, 
 ooncerning the rise whereof we now discourse. 
 
 The seven sages, Thales, »Solon, Pittacus, Bias, Chilo, Periaii- 
 der, and Cleobulus, who raised the reputation of Greece, did not 
 flourish till about the time of the Babylonish captivity, and long 
 after the dispersion of the Ten Tribes; some do reckon it 12.'i 
 years.f Socrates and Plato flourished not for near 1.50 years after 
 these again. Now these are among the first wlio made any cons;- 
 derable figure for learning of this sort in the Heathen world, m hose 
 writings are come to us. 
 
 4. All these great men did, for their own Improvement, travel 
 into foreign nations, and m:ide it their business to learn their opin- 
 ions and practices. Particularly we are told of the most consi- 
 derable of them by Diogenes Laertius and others. That they were 
 very nmch concerned to knoAv the opinions of the Egyptian priests 
 in matters of religion, and most of what they knew in these matters 
 \tas taught them by those. This will be denied by none, that is 
 acquainted with the lives of those persons. 
 
 5. It is further observable, that in many instances there is siich 
 a plain resemblance in their opinions to the scripture accounts of 
 the origin of the world, the deluge, the peopling of the earth, and 
 rnost other things, as could not be casual ; but shews plainly that 
 they were derived thence. This m particular instances by many, 
 particularly Huetius and others, to whom he refers, is so fully de- 
 monstrated, that it cannot, without manifest impudence, be denied. 
 
 • T)e UcWp;. Gent. pap. 8. 
 r Le Clerk Compul. ilist. pag. 35, 40. 
 
 35 
 
'274 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 6. What comes yet somewhat nearer to our purpose, it is very 
 observable even as to those truths, which have some foundation in 
 reason, such as these, about the immortality of the souls of men, 
 and their state after death, and the like, that those gieat men of 
 old proposed them commonly, without offering any proof of them, 
 or any reasons for them. Now it is not credible that, if they had 
 been led to those notices by reason, they would have offered those 
 important truths, without offering reasons of theniv This observa- 
 tion Me find made, as to its substance, though not on such views, by 
 no less a person than Cicero, who knew as well how matters then 
 stood, to speak modestly, as any now can know. Speaking of the 
 immortality of the soul, and the ancient philosophers' sentiments 
 about it, he says, " Sed redeo ad antiquos. Rationem illi senten- 
 iice Sim non fere reddehant nisi siquid erat mmieris aut description- 
 ibus explicandnm — Plalonem feriint primum de animorum aterni- 
 tate non solum sensisse idem, quod Pythagoras, sed rationem etiam 
 altulisseJ'^ 
 
 7. Nor is it less considerable to prove, that the notions, which 
 prevailed about the immortality of the soul, and a future state^ 
 (and the like may be said of many others) were not learned from 
 reason, but from tradition; and that the impression and persuasion 
 of these truths were more generally entertained, and more strongly 
 riveted among the vulgar than among the philosophers. Whole 
 shoals of them, or Catervce, as Cicero above quoted speaks, denied 
 and derided all these things, Avhich the vulgar firmly believed. — 
 This observation I find made by the learned Dr. Owen, " Cum 
 mundi exitu judicium, post hanc viiam exercendum, famam ca- 
 IhoJicom obiimdl. Eam etiam pej'siiasionem comitata est immar- 
 ialitntis animar'nm prcesvinptio, quce qvamvis rationi etiam inni' 
 iatur,famen cum mnxime semper apud vnlgus, potius quam 'o-epas 
 obtinuif, non nisi traditioni adscribenda est"} 
 
 8. When tliese great men of old do give reasons of their opin- 
 ions, they are such, as any one may see, never led them to these 
 opinions : but having, by tradition received them, they were asham- 
 ed to hold them, without being capable to give any reason for what 
 they held, and therefoie, they set their wits on the rack to find 
 out what to say for them. And it was but seldom they hit on the 
 
 * " But I return to the ancients. They commonly did not g-ive a reason 
 for their opinion, unless when any thing was to be explained by numbers or 
 figaires. — IMiey say that Plato was the first who not only was of the same opin- 
 ion with Pythagoras concei-ning the immortality of the soul, but who like- 
 Mise adduced a reason for it." 
 
 f *' That with the end of the world there was to be a judgment after this 
 life, hadas^eneral fame, and a presum])tion of the immortality of souls ac- 
 csmpanied this persuasion, which although it is supported by reason, yet as it 
 has always prevailed most among the vulgar, rather than amop.g philosophers, 
 can onl\- be ascribed to tradition." 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 275 
 
 true ones. For the most part their reasonings are plainly childish, tri- 
 fling and sophistical. It were easy to demonstrate this. As to 
 (he arguments of Socrates and Plato for the immortality of the 
 soul, they are plain sophisms : and upon what design they were ur- 
 ged, we have heard before, viz. to confirm themselves in an opin- 
 ion, the belief whereof was accompanied with some ailvantage. — 
 A learned person says justly, " That Plato endeavoi-s to prove the 
 immortality of the soul by such reasons, as, if they conclude any 
 thing, would conclude it to be a God."* And the same may be 
 said of Cicero and others. 
 
 9. It is moreover remarkable, to this pui^pose, that not only are 
 there many things to be met with in the writings and practices of 
 the ancient writers amongst the Heathens, whereof no colourable 
 reason can be given, nor any account made, otherwise than by as- 
 cribing them to ancient and corrupted traditions ; but further, that 
 they knew not how to manage or improve those hints, which were 
 this way handed to them. Most of them quite spoil these things in 
 the telling. A few of the more wise, conscious of their own ig- 
 norance, yet wanting humility and ingenuity enough to acknowledge 
 it, wrap themselves in clouds, and express themselves darkly, to 
 conceal their own ignorance from the vulgar ; and one that under- 
 stands, would not know whether to laugh or be angry, to see their 
 fond admirers, in later ages, sweating to fetch sublime meanings 
 from words which the writers themselves really understood not. 
 
 10. In the last place, we find the ancients themselves, on some 
 occasions, owning, that they owed the first discoveries of these 
 things to tradition. Dacier in her life of Plato, tells us, " That 
 he first instructs them in religion, about which he establishes no- 
 thing, without having consulted God ; that is, nothing but what is 
 conformable to true tradition and ancient orades.^^f To evince 
 the truth of this, Plato's own words are subjoined, " God, (saith 
 Plato) as we are taught by ancient tradition, having in himself the 
 beginning, the middle and end of all things, always goes on in his 
 way, according to his nature, without ever stepping aside ; he is 
 followed hy justice^ which never fails to punish the transgressions 
 committed against his law."J And a little after, speaking about 
 the punishments of the wicked, he proceeds thus, " They are 
 not limited to the miseries of this life, nor to death itself, from 
 which even good men are not exempt ; for these are penalties too 
 light and short, but they are horrible torments." But yet more 
 remarkable to this purpose are his words in his epistles, " Anti- 
 qiiis vera sacrisq ; sermonibtis fides semper habenda, qui declarant 
 uninium nobis esse immortaleniy ct jiidices habere, quorum decre- 
 
 * Dr. Howe's living' temple. Part 1. page 122. 
 t Life of Plato, page 86. 
 . Plato de Ligibusj Lib. 4. 
 
ii16 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 iiSipro merito prcvmia d snpplicia maxima attribuunlur, tU prl" 
 mum quis e corporc dccesserit."^ 
 
 hay these things tor^ethei., and as they are hi themselves, evi^ 
 dent enoiigli : so I think they amount to a full demonstration of 
 the assertion, we hare abo^e laid down, for the proof whereof we 
 adduced them ; and they do abundantly shew, how inconsiderately 
 every thing met with in ancient writers is put upon the score of" 
 nature's light. 
 
 CHAP. XVH. 
 
 Wherein rve consider ivhai Herbert's opinion was as to the sufficienci/ 
 of his Articles, and ire offer some reflections, shewing how fool- 
 ishyubsiird and ridiculous the Deist's pretences to their sufficiencT/ 
 are. 
 
 WE have now demonstrated that these five articles did not 
 universall}' obtain in the world, and that consequently the Heathen 
 ■world had not the means necessary to salvation. 
 
 But should we grant what has been above proved to be false, viz. 
 That these articles did universally obtain ; yet all is not done, nor 
 is the difficulty so got over ; for we are not agreed, that these, 
 though acknowledged, are alom sufficient. 
 
 We know our author would have us to believe, that they are 
 sufficient. He tells us to this purpose, that when he had found 
 them out, be saw that there was nothing wanting to make a com- 
 plete religion. Quam. hasce igiiur eximiqs vcritaies seorsim pa- 
 rassem, disquisivi porro, quid kisce adjccerinf, vel quidem adjicere 
 possint sacerdotes, unde certior Jidei circa salutem (Riernam da^ 
 retur norma^ aut vita integritas sanctitasq ; magis promoveretur, 
 aid communis ubique stabilirelur concordia. Videham satis alia 
 atque alia hie addiposse^ quin et addita fuisse ; sed quit vcritates 
 hasce obstruerenf, enervarenfque potius, quam vim robvrque illis 
 CQnciliarent.-f And indeed our author is; so bold a«: to challenge 
 all the world to shew what can be added to these five articles. Ui 
 
 * Plato, Epist. 7- — " But. credit o'jght al-vays lobe given to anrient and 
 "sacred speeches, M'liich declare that our souls are immortal, and that these 
 are judges by whose sentences great rewards and punishments are to be dis- 
 tributed according to merit, as soon as we shall have icf c the bod_\ ."' 
 
 Y "When therefore 1 had got these excellent truth- by themselves, I next 
 *' inquired what priests had added, or could add to th.-r.o", whereby they niiglit 
 *' be a surer guide of our Jaith concerning eternal salvation, or integrity and 
 *' sanctity of life more promoted, or common concord establislicd every 
 ■" where. I saw vv'ell enough tliat dinerent things might be added, nay had 
 
 been added to them, but such as rather obstructed and c'-terva ted these 
 ':' truths, than gave tbcra a-iy fo-pe o.r strengtli." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 277 
 
 tidcrent interca antvitites, prctsulcsq ; per totiim orhem diffusi^ 
 quid hisce quinq ; ArticuUs, addere potucrint : Unde vera ilia 
 virtus, qua homines Deo similes, consortioque ejus dignos efficit ; 
 vet pietas, puritds sanrtitasq : vit(B magis promoveri possint.^ 
 And growing still bolder by this imaginary success, he proccedr, 
 to inveigh, though more covertly, against the satisfaction of Christ, 
 as de^ructive to piefi/. Of which he gives a most disingenuous 
 account, as commonly he does of all the articles of revealed re- 
 ligion, which he has occasion to mention. 
 
 But however confident our author is, of the sufficiency of his 
 five articles in^this place ; yet elsewhere he shews he had not 
 over much certainty in his own mind, about this matter : For 
 some pages after, he says, Et quidem quinque hosce Articulos 
 bonosr, catholicosque esse wiusquisq; ProcAil dubio fatebetur ; ad 
 salutem tamen Kternam romparandam non sufficcre perhibebtmt 
 nonnuUi ; caterum qui ita locutus fuerit, ne ille quidem audax ; 
 nedum scBvum temerariumq; nffatem (mea senteniia) proiulerit ; 
 quum nulli satis explorala sint Judicia Divina ; quam eiiam oh 
 causam, neque ea sujfficere protenus dixerim : attamen magis pro- 
 babilis mihi videtur eornm opinio, qui ceque pie ac leniter de Del 
 Jiidiciis statiiU7it, dum homo, quod in se est, prastat ; neque eniut 
 in cujusve potestate est, ut fides sive traditiones quantumvis laxcB 
 (prcRsertim nbi aliqua ex parte contravertuntiir) ad se satis per- 
 tingant, neque tandem recta communiq ; ratione quinq ; Articulis 
 nostris addi potest dogma, unde magis pii, sincerique evadunt /<o- 
 mijies ; aut pax^ concordiaq ; publico, magis promovealurr'-- 
 Ilere our author is more modest. 
 
 Thus we have seen what his opinion is ; it now remains thai 
 we offer some reflections on it. Many offer themselves : I shall 
 only touch at a few. 
 
 } * ** — That the priests and bishopr, scattered over tlie whole v/ovld, might 
 " see in the mean time, what they could add to these five articls ; or by wJiat 
 " means that true virtue, which venders men like to God, and worthy of liis 
 " fellowship, or by which piety, purity and sanctity of life, can be more pio- 
 " moted." 
 
 f " And indeed every one will doubtless confess, that these five articles 
 " are g'ood and catholic ; yet some will thinic they are not sufficient for at- 
 " taining' eternal life. But whoever would say so, would be guilty of uller- 
 " ing not only a bold, not to say a cruel and arbitr;u'y sentence, in my opinion, 
 " as the Divine judgments are not sufficiently known to any one, for which 
 " reason likewise, neither would I positively affirm that they were suffi- 
 " cient. Yet the opinion of those seems to be the more probable, who judge 
 " equitably, piously and mildly of the Divine judgements, while a man does 
 " what depends on him ; for it is not in tlie power of every one, that creeds 
 *' or Traditions, however lax, (especially when they are any where contro- 
 •' verted) should extend to him ; nor in fine, can any doctrine ,be added to 
 " our five articles by right and common reason, whereby men may become 
 more pious and sincere, or peace and public concord may be more nrom' 
 " ted." 
 
278 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 1, Though the Deists are as desirous as any, to confine religion 
 to a narrow compass, and perhaps it is as much their interest, as it 
 is of any sort of men, that it should consist of few articles ; yet, 
 for shame, they cannot make it contain less, than those five ar- 
 ticles. They own, and must own all those necessary to salvation, 
 both in belief and practice. It is not possible, they themselves 
 being judges, to reach the ends of religion, if any of them aie cut 
 off. Since then we have above proved that these did not univer- 
 sally obtain, it is plain, that all mankind had not sufficient know- 
 ledge of religion. Thus it is in fact. 
 
 But now where shall the blame of this be laid ? 0»i themselves ? 
 On the priests ? Or on God ? This last cannot be said. 
 
 Well then must these villains of priests, with whom Cur author 
 and all the succeeding Deists are so angry, bear the blame of 'it, in 
 that they did not better teach and instruct the people, in the 
 j^rounds of sincere religion ? But though our author, and all the 
 Deists, would fain lodge the blame here ; yet I am scarce satisfied 
 of the justice of the charge ; (though I am willing to own, that 
 they were not for the most part arch-villains) for how shall it be 
 made appear that they themselves knew the grounds of sincere re- 
 ligion ? I know our author blames them for not imparting the 
 knowledge of sincere religion to the people ; and that he may be 
 sure to shut the door upon them that they may not escape, he 
 adds by way of parenthesis, licet illis satis cognitam.* But how 
 proves he this, that they knew that chaste and sincere religion 
 v/ell enough ? Might they not be supposed ignorant of it, as well 
 as most of the philosophers, the greatest moralists not excepted ? 
 Again, I do not well see what right they had to teach, or how 
 they were obliged. Did the law of nature authorise them to be 
 public teachers ? I believe the Deists think not. Was not every 
 man able to shift for himself, and find the way to blessedness ? If 
 he was, what need was there to trust these villainous priests ? 
 Who was obliged to hsten to them ? If every man was not able, 
 without the help of some instructor, then if that instructor failed 
 in his duty, as it is certain they did almost perpetually, (nay our 
 author will not allow, nor see I indeed any need of that almost J 
 what becomes of the poor vulgar, who, without instruction cannot 
 reach competent knowledge ? He is not able to reach it, his in- 
 structors fail of their duty ; and for any thing I see, the poor man 
 wants, and must always want a sufficient religion, and that with- 
 out any fault of his. 
 
 Well, then, unavoidably, either every man is able to do and 
 know for himself, in matters of religion ; or a great many, even 
 most of the poor vulgar, are lost for good and all ; and there is no 
 
 ■ * Pag-. 180 sub f.nein " Although it wag sufRcier.tly known to them." 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 27^ 
 
 help for it, and that without their fault. If the last be said, our au- 
 thor has lost his point quite ; and if this be a fault, he will by it 
 at the door of Providence, that has not sufficiently provided all 
 men, in the means necessary for their future happiness : If the first 
 be said, then the blame must lie at every man's own door. But me- 
 thinks our author is not willing of this ; for he would always ex- 
 cuse the vulgar, and suppose them so rude and ignorant, that they 
 had not either will, courage, nor ability to step otherwise than they 
 were led. But after all, the fault must be lodged at their doors, or 
 the Deist's whole cause is lost. I confess, any one that was under 
 such impressions of their stupid ignorance, as our author seems to 
 have been, will even think it hard enough to say that every one of 
 Ihem had this ability, to find out a sufficient religion ; and I believe, 
 not without ground ; though I still -^hink, that they might have 
 known, and done more than they did ; but this will do the Deist's 
 cause no service. 
 
 2. But further, the Deists must own that natural religion, accor- 
 ding to this mould of it at least, did never obtain in purity, without 
 any additions, in any place of the world. Our author confesses, 
 that on this foundation, there was every where a strange super- 
 structure raised. After he has spoken of those articles, he subjoins, 
 " Hfec igitur sincerioris Gentilium rellgionis partes fue»e ; reliquje 
 " vel commentltijB fabellae vel archetype nugce, vel scltamenta quEe- 
 *' dem prohiberi possunt : inter quae (dainno mortalium) nonnulla 
 " insana, nonnulla etiam impia visebantur."* Now, this being the 
 case, I would gladly know, if our author's five articles are looked 
 upoij as of such virtue, that they could hallow all these additions 
 made to them, or at least, so far furnish an antidote for their poison, 
 that person5i,who embraced this complex frame of religion, consisting 
 of these five articles, and such additions as in every nation were 
 made to them, might yet reach happiness, or not. 
 
 It is pretended that these five articles of natural religion, though 
 contaminated with these additions, (as our author speaks, when he 
 enters upon his discourse, about those orthodox points of religion, 
 " Ritibus, cseremonlaeq ; contaminabantur, conspurcabanturq,")f 
 are sufficient to lead to happiness, then this Is plainly to say, that 
 the religion of every country was good and sufficient, and that eve- 
 ry one might be saved by that religion he was bred in. J If the 
 defence of this is undertaken, It will be found a pretty hard pro- 
 vince, and one will not easily be able to defend, That the complex 
 
 * 212. — " These then were the parts of the more pure religion of the Ilea- 
 " thens, the others were devised fables, or ancient trifles, or Talse ornaments, 
 " among' which, to the loss of man, some mad and even impious lhing|'s w^re 
 " likewise to be seen." 
 
 t Paf?. 184. Cap. 4. at the close. 
 
 > Herbert de Veritate, pag. 272. 
 
286 AN INaLIRY INTO THE 
 
 reH<i;ion of every countiy was sufficient, or that the virtue of those 
 articles was such, as to preserve from the hurt of the additions. 
 What if, in the complex frame of most feligions of the world, some 
 of our author's fundamental articles are juslled out of their own 
 place ? Perhaps, while each religion sets up for so many inferior 
 gods, they rob the one supreme God of much of his glory, to a- 
 dorn these imaginary gods with. It may be, more stress is laid on 
 rites than on virtue, which our author makes the principal part of 
 worship. Perhaps more stress is laid on their rites for expiation^ 
 than on repentance. What if the additions made are such, as are 
 utterly inconsistent with a due regard to these articles, or a just im- 
 provement of them ? What if there are other things yoked in with 
 Ihem in most religions, that are as derogatory to the honor of God, 
 as these can be supposed conducive for its advancement? How can 
 such a horrid medley of things, sound and unsound, orthodox foun- 
 dations and impious superstructures, be acceptable to God, or use- 
 ful to man ? One half, to wit, our author's five cutholic articles, is 
 designed to lead men to bliss, pretend the Deists : And the other, 
 to wit, the rites and ceremonies, are designed to the M'orst of pur- 
 poses, by those villains of priests, who aim at cheating the world. 
 Now, how shall such cross designs agree or consist ? Or, how can 
 means adapted to so very different, nay, quite opposite ends, be 
 united and hang together ? Or, if they are united, how can that re- 
 ligion, which consists of such jarring and incoherent materials, turn 
 lo any account ? But this opinion is so ridiculous, that I need not 
 insist in disproving of it. No man of sobriety can ever pretend 
 that these articles can be of any use, if each of them is not k^ptin 
 its own place, and if care is not taken to guard against all additions, 
 which are inconsistent with a due respect to those articles. Some 
 little addititions, perhaps one might suppose would do no great 
 hurt ; but if there are any, that entrench on the foundations, and 
 put them out of their place, the whole fabiic falls, and all is ruined. 
 Now I think it were no hard work to prove, that the additions were 
 such, in every nation, as rendered the whole utterly useless, and in- 
 sufficient to any of the most considerable ends of religion, either 
 with respect to God or man. 
 
 But if it is pretended, that while those five articles are asserted 
 sufficient, it is only meant, that if persons would abandon all thoso 
 extravagant, destructive and filthy additions, which every wliere 
 are made to them, and only regard them, then in following these 
 they might attain to life and eternal happiness : If, I say, this is 
 alledged, then I would ask, how shall we distinguish betwixt those 
 articles and others that are interwoven with them, in each country? 
 &y what marks shall the necessaries be known from the nonneces- 
 raries? The fundamentals from the accessaries ? Is every man able, 
 with our anthnr. to dissert and inspect the several religions of the 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEIStS. 281 
 
 rountries where they live, and separate the necessaries from theses 
 that are not so ? Our author found this a pretty hard task : What 
 shall poor mean people then think of it ? Our author has shown 
 what fair pleas might be made for many of the most pernicious 
 parts of the religions of the nations. Would a poor countryman 
 be able to rid his feet of such fetters ? It is utterly impossible that 
 the one half of mankind could distinguish betwixt what was to be 
 rejected, and what was to be retained. In a word, it is evident, 
 that all the world over, things pernicious and destructive were so 
 twisted in with thmgs of another sort, and such fair pleas made for 
 them, that it was utterly impossible for the poor ignorant vulgar to 
 divide the one from the- other. Since then these five articles sig- 
 nify nothing, unless they were severed from these other things, 
 which were every where interwoven with them, and most part of man- 
 kind were utterly unable to do this, which I doubt no man ever did 
 before our author, it seems evident, that of whatever use they may 
 be to our author, who was so sharp sighted as to spy them out and 
 distinguish them from the other things with which they were mixt ; 
 yet they can be of no use to the far greater part of mankind, and 
 consequently the far greater part of the human race, still must be 
 owned destitute of the means that may be justly termed sufficient 
 to lead them to future happiness. These five articles, as in fact 
 they have always been interwoven with other things, were not suf- 
 ficient to save any ; and whatever their force might be, if they 
 had been severed from other things, yet they not being so, before 
 our author did it, and most part of men being utterly incapable 
 of making this distinction, they must be looked on as insufficient 
 to many, at least of mankind, who therefore certainly were desti- 
 tute of means needful for future happiness, and so left to perish. I 
 know our author pretends that some were able to distinguish, and 
 did make a difference betwixt these articles and the additions : Vc- 
 mm qu'mq ; arllculos supra didos (utiqne in corde describimturj 
 sine uUa hasitationc accipiebant olim Gentiles procul dubio ; d& 
 reliquis puto, amhigebant,tum ii prasertim, quiinter illos saltetJt 
 sapientinres cestiniabantur.'^ How ill-grounded our author's con- 
 fidence as to the universal acceptance of his five articles is, we have 
 seen above. What he subjoins about the Gentiles distinguishing 
 the additions that were made to ihem, from them, comes not up to 
 the point : For the question is not, Whether some could thus dis- 
 tinguish the one from the other ? But, Whether all did, or could? 
 And when he pretends that some of the more discerning did so, 
 what proof does lie advance ? Nothing but his bold jnito. This reflec- 
 
 * Page 211. — " But doubtless the Heathens formerly received, without any 
 " hesitation, those live :ti-ticles above mentioned (as beinf^ written in their 
 " hearts) of the rest I think that they doubttdj aud especially thos^e aiponjf 
 ** them who wtre reckoned wiser than othcr^." 
 
 30 
 
282 AN INCIUIRY INTO THE 
 
 tlon might be further urged, but I shall pass it, and proceed to ano- 
 ther. 
 
 3. How shall one be satisfied that these five articles are all that 
 were necessary ; or that they are sufficient ? Are the Deists all 
 agreed about this ? No, we have heard one above making seven ne- 
 cessary. Nay, our author is not too confident, as we have heard 
 above, when he says, Quam nulli satis explorata sint judicia divi- 
 iia ; quam etiam ob causam, neque eos sitfficere protenus dixerim.^ 
 We see our author is not very sure about the sufficiency of those 
 articles. But he seems pretty positive that there is no other arti- 
 cle discoverable by the common reason of mankind, that can be of 
 any great use, or that is necessary to answer the great ends of re- 
 ligion, the public peace and bettering of mankind. But we see the 
 Deists are not all agreed here ; some think more needful. But I 
 have two or three words to say to all this — May no article be al- 
 lowed necessary that is controverted ? So our author insinuates. 
 A.nd Blount in his Religio Laici, is positive oftener than once.f 
 Then I would know of the Deists, Have never these articles, any 
 or all of them, been controverted ? Have not we already proven, 
 that {he first article has been controverted, about the being of one 
 supreme God ? Is not our author's third article, viz. " That virtue 
 (as it is discoverable by the light of nature) is the principal part of 
 the worship of God," disputed by Christians ? Do not the follow- 
 ers of Spinoza deny repentance to be a duty, and that in compli- 
 ance with their master, who pretends to demontrate in his Ethicks, 
 " That he who repents is twice miserable ?" J Has not the ^/?A 
 been controverted by many of old ? Let any who denies this read 
 Cicero, Lib. 1 . Tusc. Quest, or Plato's Phedon, and they will learn, 
 that it has been controverted by more of the wise men than em- 
 braced it. And do not very many of our modern Deists call it in 
 question ? Again, have there not been some other articles as uni- 
 A^ersally agreed upon, as little controverted, and perhaps even less 
 than some of these ? To give but one instance. Has not the article 
 about the worship of God, that he was to be worshipped with some 
 solemn external worship, whom we owned as God, been as much 
 agreed to as any of the rest ? Doth it not arise from the common 
 reason of mankind ? But I shall wave this. 
 
 4. There is another thing that I would know of the Deists, con- 
 cerning their five articles. Do they think them, as they are pro- 
 
 * Vid. pag. 47. — " As the divine judgments are not sufficiently known to any 
 " one, for which reason likewise, neither would I positively affirm that they 
 " were sufficient." 
 
 f Compare pag. 3 and 4. 
 
 i Spin. Ethicks, pag. 4. Prop. 54. Pcentenitia virtus non est, sive ex rationc 
 non oritur, quern facti pcenitet, bis miser, sen impotens est. — " Penitence is not a 
 " virtue, nor arises from reason, for he who repents of what he has done, is 
 " twice miserable, or weak." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 283 
 
 posed, sufficient ? Or must they not be well explained ? If as they 
 are proposed, I would gladly see the man that can have the face to 
 maintain, what is not only untrue, but ridiculous. Will, for instance, 
 the owning virtue to be the principal part of the worship of God, 
 signify any thing to the world, while they know not, and are not 
 agreed what is virtue and what is vice ? Is not this to mock the 
 world, to propose general articles, and tell the world is agreed about 
 them, while yet one half is not agreed what is the signification of 
 these general words ? Is not this a plain cheat ? It is true, Blount, 
 who has copied all from our author, as the present Deists do from 
 him, tells us that these articles must be well explained. " Neither 
 " can I, (says he) imagine so much as one article more in common 
 *' reason, that could make man better, or more pious, when the 
 " foresaid were rightly explicated and observed."* But now are 
 not these articles sufficient unless rightly explicated ? No, he dares 
 not say it. Well, was the world agreed about this right explication 
 of them ? Who ever did rightly explain them ? Point us to the per- 
 son who did it, either for himself or others ? Was every body able 
 to do it for himself? If not, then I fear the world wanted still a 
 sufficient religion, after all the pains taken to provide them in one* 
 And further, what is the meaning of author's wording the third ar- 
 ticle, " That virtue' is the principal part of the worship of God ?" 
 This may be true, though it be not the onli/ part. Well, though 
 it is the principal part, may there not be another part necessary ? 
 Though perhaps the head of a man is the principal part, yet there 
 are some other parts necessary. Was not the world as much agreed 
 that there should be another part, as that this mas a part of the 
 worship of God ? I believe it is easy to prove the world was more 
 agreed as to the Jiist than the last. Why then must this be over- 
 looked ? I believe I could guess pretty nearly — he was afraid to do 
 it, because he saw that he would presently be confounded with the 
 differences about the way of worship, and that he would never be 
 able to maintain that reason was sufficient to direct us to the solemn 
 worship of God ; and that, if he should assert it, he would have 
 '' not only Christians to dispute the point with him, bi|t Heathens. 
 But lest it should be thought that what is alleged of the Heathens* 
 looking on reason as incompetent for this, is groundless, I shall only 
 copy you a little of Sociates' and Alcibiades' discourse about wor- 
 ship, out of Plato, or rather remind the reader of what we quoted 
 from him before. Socrates meets Alcibiades going to the temple 
 to pray, and dissuades him from it, because he knew not how to do 
 it, till one should come and teach him. Socrates says, " It is alto- 
 *' gether necessary you should wait for some person to teach you 
 " how you ought to behave yourself, both towards the gods and 
 
 * Religio LaicL pag. 73. 
 
284 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 *' men," Alclblades replies, " And when will that time come, ^50 
 *' crates ? And who is he that will instruct me ? With what plea- 
 ** sure should I look on him !" Whereupon Socrates bids him hope 
 *' that God will do it, and will take the mist off his soul, and cure 
 *' him of that darkness, that hinders him from distinguishing betwixt 
 " good and evil." Whereupon Alcibiades says, " I think I must 
 *' defer my sacrifices to that time." To which Socrates returns, 
 *' You have reason : It it is more safe to do so, than run a great 
 " risk."* And the same Plato elsewhere tells us, " That this in- 
 *' structer must be a person somewhat more than human." Nor 
 was Jambilichus, a famous Platonick philosopher, who lived in the 
 fourth century, otherwise minded, whose words, as I find them 
 translated by Mr. Ferguson, run thus : " It is not easy to know 
 *' what God will be pleased pleased with, unless we be either im- 
 *< mediately instructed by God ourselves, or taught by some per- 
 ** son whom God hath conversed with, or arrived at the know- 
 " ledge of it by some divine means or other."f 
 
 5. There is another thing that I would gladly be informed of, and 
 that is, whether every sort of knowledge of them be sufficient ? Or, 
 is a clear, certain and firm persuasion needful ? If the first. How 
 can a dark, uncertain and wavering knowledge have that influence 
 upon practice, and that vigor to excite to a compliance with them, 
 which is absolutely needful in order to attain the benefit of them ? 
 If the latter, How will our author prove, that It was any where to be 
 met with, as to them all, in the Heathen world ? Or, how will he 
 make it appear, that It is attainable by mere reason ? Methinks our 
 author's words above noted, as to the fifth article, seem not to im- 
 port any great certainty, This might be urged to that degree that 
 it would be very hard, nay, I fear not to say so, impossible, for the 
 Deists to rid their feet of it. 
 
 6. 1 would further know, Will these five articles be sufficient to 
 this end, to lead to eternal happiness, whether men direct to it or 
 not ? Is not the intention of some consideration In moral actions ? 
 And what if I should deny that the religion of Heathens was di- 
 rected to this end, the obtaining of future happiness ? If I should, 
 I know some xery great men are of my mind. I shall name two, 
 the one a Christian, the other a Heathen. The first the famous 
 Samuel PufFendorfl'*, counsellor of state to the late king of Sweden. 
 His words are worthy to be here transcribed, though somewhat 
 long. " Now to look back to the first beginnings of things, we find, 
 " that before the nativity of our Saviour, the inhabitants of the whole 
 " universe, except the Jews, lived in gross Ignorance as to spiritu- 
 
 * M. Daciei-s Plalo Eng'lishecl, Vol. 1. page 249, 250. Second Alcibiad. Or, 
 Of Pi'ayc)-. 
 
 I I,ib. 4. ue Lep:e Civ. by Dr. Leslie ag-ainst Iho Jews, pag'. 386. Ferg'. E>i- 
 quir. into moral virtue, ?ce. pag. 177. Jambili.de Vita. Pythag.Cap. 28. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 285 
 
 « al affairs. For what was commonly taught concerning the gods, 
 " was for the most part involved in fables, and most extravagant 
 " absurdities. It is true, some of the learned among them have 
 *' pretended to give some rational account concerning the nature 
 " of the gods and the soul ; but all this in so imperfect and dubi- 
 " ous a manner, that they themselves remained very uncertain in 
 *' the whole matter. They agreed almost all of them in this point, 
 " that mankind ought to apply themselves to the practice of virtue, 
 *' but they did not propose any other fruits, but the honor and bene- 
 " fits, which thence did accrue to civil society. For what the po- 
 *' ets did give out concerning the rewards of virtue and the punish* 
 *' ments of vice after death, was by these, who pretended to be 
 " the wisest among them, looked upon as fables, invented to terri- 
 *' fy and keep in awe the common people- The rest of the people 
 *' lived at random, and what the Heathens called religion, did not 
 *' contain any doctrine or certain articles concerning the knowledge 
 " of divine matters. But the greatest part of their religious 
 ** worship consisted in sacrifices and ceremonies, which tended 
 " more to sports and voluptuousness, than to the contemplation of 
 *' divine things. Wherefore the Heathen religion did neither edi- 
 " fy in this life, nor afford any hopes or comfort at the time of 
 " death."* Thus far he. Now methinks here is a quite differ- 
 ent account of the Heathen world from that wiiich our author gives 
 us, and that given by no churchman, but a statesman ; and one as 
 learned as our author too, and that both in history and the law of 
 nature, as his works evince ; and in my opinion it is the juster of 
 the two accounts. The second is Varro, quoted by our author, 
 who divides the religion of the Heathens into three sorts, Primum 
 genus appellat ; Mythicon secundum ; Civile terthmi Physicum.f 
 The first is that of the poets, which is altogether Ja6it?ot<5. The 
 other which he calls natural, is tliat of the philosophers, which is 
 wholly employed about the nature of the gods. And Varro ex- 
 pressly says, it was not meet for, nor of any use to the vulgar. 
 The third sort was what he calls civil, which was wholly calculated 
 for human society, and its support ; and to this all the public wor- 
 ship belonged, if we may believe Varro in the passage we now 
 speak of. When he has opened the nature of each of them, he 
 concludes with an account of the design of them. " Prima theo- 
 " logia maxime accommodata est ad iheatrum : secunda scil, na~ 
 turalis ad mundum : Tertia ad iirbem."^ No word here of eter- 
 nal life, as the design of any of them. The passage itself fully ex- 
 cludes it, and had it not been too long, had been worthy to be tran- 
 scribed. 
 
 • Introduct. Hist, of Europe, pa^. 357. Ch. 12. Par. 2. 
 t See it also in Augiist. de Civlt. Dei, Lib. 6. Cap. 5. 
 
 + " The first thcolog-y is fittest for the theatre, the second, to v/it, the nati;- 
 " ral, for tlie world, and the third for the city." 
 
286 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 7. To draw to a conclusion, Was it enough to the Heatliens 
 that these things were sufficient, although they did not know them 
 to be so ? Or was it needful that they should know them to be so ? 
 If the last be said, how could they be sure about that, even the vul- 
 gar sort of them, which our author, after all his application to this 
 controversy, could not win to be sure of ? If the first be said, I 
 would ask any Deist, Was not the end of natural religion fixed, 
 and were they not certain ? Or might they not, at least, be fixed 
 and certain about it ? If it was not, how could they use or chuse 
 means, or direct them to an end which was not fixed, and they were 
 not certain about ? If it was, then with what courage could they 
 tise means with respect to an end and means, in the use of which 
 they had so many difficulties to grapple with ; yet they could not 
 be sure that they were sufficient by the least use of them to gain* 
 the end ? Was it enough of encouragement, that they might use 
 them at all adventures, not knowing whether they were, in them- 
 selves, sufficient to reach the mark or not ? Methinks our author 
 is very defective as to motives to excite to virtue. 
 
 CHAP. XVIII, 
 
 Containing an answer to some of the Deists^ principal arguments 
 for the sufficiency/ of Natural Religion. 
 
 WE have now considered what the Deists plead from univers- 
 al consent ; and have sufficiently cleared that it is not by them 
 proven, that the world was agreed as to these articles ; that in- 
 deed the world did not agree about them ; that even they who 
 owned them, were led to this acknowledgement, at least of 
 some of them, rather by tradition than nature's light ; and that 
 though they had acknowledged them, they are not sufficient. It 
 now remains that we consider those arguments, wherein they con- 
 ceive the great strength of their cause to lie. 
 
 The first argument, which indeed is the strongest the Deists 
 can pretend unto, is thus proposed by their admired Herbert : 
 *' Et quidem quum media ad victum, vestitumque heic commoda 
 *' suppeditant cunctis natura sive Providentia rerum communiSf 
 ' suspicari non potui, eundum Deum, sive ex natura, sive ex gra- 
 *' tia, in suppeditandis ad bentiorem hoc nostro statum, mediis, 
 " ulli hominum deesse posse vel velle, adeo %it licet mediis illis 
 " parum recte, vel feliciter usi si7it Gentiles, hand ita tamen per 
 " Deum optimum maximum steterit, quo minus salvi fierent."^ 
 
 For the translation, see note at bottom of page 228 of this book. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEIBTS. 2»7 
 
 To the same purpose speaks Blount in his Religio Laiciy and A. 
 W. in his letter to him in the Oracles of Reason, of whom after- 
 wards. The force of all that is here pleaded will best appear, if 
 it is put into a clear argument, and I shall be sure not to wrong it 
 in the proposal. The argument runs thus : 
 
 The goodness of God nutkcs it necessary that all men be pro^ 
 vided in the means necessary for future bliss. 
 
 But all men are provided with no other means of attaining fu- 
 ture bliss save nature's light. 
 
 Therefore no other m^ans are necessary for all men save the 
 light of nature. 
 
 The minor or second proposition needs not to be proven, since 
 it is owned by those who maintain revelation, that it is not given 
 to all men, and therefore that many have indeed no other light to 
 guide them, save that of nature, in matters of religion, or in any of 
 their other concerns. 
 
 The first proposition, « That the goodness of God makes it ne- 
 cessary that all men be provided in the means of attaining future 
 blessedness," is that which they are concerned to prove. And 
 the strength of what they urge for proof of it amounts in short 
 to this : 
 
 The goodness and wisdom of God seem to render it necessary 
 that all creatures, but more especially the rational, be provided in 
 all means necessary to obtain those ends they were made capable 
 of, and obliged to jntrs^ie. 
 
 But men are made capable of, and obliged to pursue eternal 
 Jiappiness and felicity. 
 
 Therefore the goodness and wisdom of God make it necessary 
 that all men should be provided in the means necessary to obtaiti 
 future and eternal bliss. 
 
 Here we have the strength of their cause, and we shall there- 
 fore consider this argument the more seriously, because some seem 
 to be taken with it, and look upon it as having much force. Be- 
 fore I offer any direct answer, I shall make some general reflec- 
 tions on it. The first process is only designed to make way for 
 this last, which indeed is the argument, and contains the force of 
 what is pleaded by the Deists. 
 
 Now concerning this argument, we offer the few following reflec- 
 tions, which will not a little weaken its credit, and make it look 
 suspicious like. 
 
 1. That proposition whereon its whole weight leans, viz. « That 
 the goodness of God obliges him to provide his creatures in the 
 means necessary for attaining their ends," is one of that sort, 
 about which we may, in particular cases and applications of it, be 
 as easily mistaken, and are as lit tie in fvln:-^- to he positive in our 
 
 » " In safety" 
 
288 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 determination, as any where else. For, although we are surer of 
 nothing than that God is good, and must act congruously to his 
 goodness, in general ; yet when we come to make particular in- 
 ferences, and determine what, in point of goodness he is obliged 
 to do, we are upon very slippery ground, especially if we have 
 not, as in this case it is, the means to guide us. For, besides 
 that goodness is free in its effects, divine and not affixed to such 
 stated rules knowable by us, as justice is, goodness, in its actings, 
 is under the conduct and management of all-comprehending wis- 
 dom, which in every case wherein God is to act, considers that a 
 being not only infinitely good is to act, but also one who is infinite- 
 ly wise, holy, just and righteous ; and therefore all-comprehend- 
 ing wisdom takes under consideration, or rather has in its view the 
 concernment of all those properties of the divine nature ; and 
 withall, all the circumstances belonging to each particular case, and 
 takes care that the case, in all its circumstances, be so managed, 
 that not one of the divine perfections shine to the eclipsing of 
 another ; but that all of them appear with a suitable lustre. Now, 
 it is certain that we, who are of so narrow understandings, and so 
 many other ways incapacitated to judge of the ways of God, can- 
 not reach either the different interests of the divine properties, 
 and judge, in a particular circumstantiated case, what befits a 
 God, who is at once good, holy, Avise and righteous ; nor can we 
 reach all that infinite variety of circumstances, which lying open to 
 the all-comprehending view of infinite and consummate wisdom, 
 may make it appear quite otherwise to him than to us. Hence, in 
 fact, we see that an almost infinite number of things fall out in the 
 government of the world, which we know not how to reconcile to 
 divine goodness : and as many are left undone, which we would be 
 apt to think infinite goodness would make necessary to be done. 
 This consideration, if well weighed, would make men very sparing 
 in determining any thing necessary to be done, in respect of di- 
 vine goodness, which either it is evident he has not done, or of 
 which we are not sure that he has done, which perhaps we shall 
 make appear, if it is not from what has been already said, to be the 
 case. 
 
 2. I observe, as to what is advanced, " That man is made ca- 
 pable of, and obliged in duty to pursue eternal felicity," that al- 
 though from revelation we know this to be true as to man in his 
 original constitution, and by the remaining desires of it we may 
 guess that possibly it was so ; yet, if we set aside divine revela- 
 tion, and consider man in his present state, concerning which the 
 question betwixt us and the Deists proceeds, we cannot by the 
 help of nature's light only, with any certainty conclude, " that 
 man is capable of and obliged to pursue eternal felicity." AYe 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 28t? 
 
 see the man diss<olved by death. Nature's light knows nothing of 
 a resurrection. Without a resurrection there is nothing can be said 
 for man's eternal felicity. Though we grant his sou! to hiive no 
 principle of corruption in itself, and so to be in this sense immortal ; 
 yet this cannot secure us against the tV-ars of annihilation. And 
 the gusts and desires of felicity, from which v/e may be induced 
 to suspect some such state designed for man, being apparently 
 frustrated, by the dissolution of man, to which they have a re- 
 spect, cannot but make men, who have no more save nature's light, 
 hesitate mightily about this assertion ; since it is plain, that the 
 desires we find in ourseles of felicity, do respect the whole man ; 
 and the aversion we have to dissolution respects our natures in 
 their present entire frame and constitution. Besides, it is of mo- 
 ment, that if man, now entire, is at a loss how to judge of the 
 ends for which he was made, much more must he be supposed in 
 a strait how to judge and determine for what ends any particular part 
 belonging to his constituion was designed, after the dissolution of 
 the whole in a separate state, that is, in all its concernments, so 
 much hid from and unknown to us. Further, although undoubted- 
 ly as long as we are, it is our duty to make it our chief aim to 
 please God, and seek for felicity only in him ; yet since, not only 
 our beings, but that felicity which may be supposed attainable by 
 us, are emanations from sovereign, free and undeserved bounty, 
 without some intimation from him, in way of promise, we can draw 
 no sure conclusion as to its continuance, were we innocent, much 
 less can we being guilty. 
 
 3. This argument concludes nothing in favour of the Deists ; 
 whatever it may say for the Heathens. For were it granted, that 
 God is obliged to provide for all men the means necessary to future 
 felicity ; and that he has not given all men other means ; yet it 
 cannot be hence inferred, that he has given no other means to 
 some. In this case, if all this were granted, which yet we have 
 not done, it would follow, that they, who have no other means, 
 must look on these as sufficient, and that they really are so : But 
 still God is left at liberty to prescribe other duties to any particu- 
 lar persons, or nations, by revelation ; and if this revelation come, 
 they are obliged, to whom it comes, to attend, receive and obey it. 
 Now, if the scripivres be a divine revelatinny attended with suffi- 
 cient evidence, which the Deists must either allow, or overthrow 
 what it pleads for itself; they are everlastingly undone, unless they 
 receive it, and comply with it. 
 
 4. I observe, that the conclusion of this argument, which it 
 aims at the establishment of, viz. That God in point of (roodness, 
 must provide all men in the means necesfsan/ to future f elicit jj, and 
 consequently has done it, is exceedingly prejudiced, by its lying 
 cross to the plain sense and experience of the world ia all ages, a*? 
 
 .'57 
 
290 AN INCIUIRY INTO THE 
 
 has been plainly made appear. Now in this case, where the prin^ 
 ciples or premises are dark, and such whereabout we may easily 
 be mistaken, wliich is the case here, as appears by the two first 
 reflections ; and the conclusion carries a manifest contradiction to 
 what we must certainly know^ and have experience of; in this 
 case we have reason to conclude, that there lies certainly a fallacy 
 or mistake in one or other of the principles ; though we cannot 
 discover presently where it precisely is. And therefore, although 
 men could not easily except against the premises or principles, 
 whence it is deduced; yet they would think themselves sufficient- 
 ly warranted, if not plainly to reject, yet to be shy in admitting 
 the conclusion : forasmuch as the admitting the conclusion will 
 oblige them to deny what their own sense and experience, as well 
 as that of the world, assures them about : Whereas, it is much 
 more reasonable to think and determine that there lies some fallacy 
 in the principles, though it may be they are not in case to detect 
 it. No man, by the arguments against motion, can be brought to 
 cjuestion its being, much less its possibility ; yet there are thou- 
 sands, even no mean scholars, who cannot answer the arguments 
 that conclude against it. But in very deed, this argument is not 
 so strong, as to need so much nicety. 
 
 Having thus far weakened it by these general reflections, I shall 
 next lay down and clear some propositions that will lay a founda- 
 tion for a close unswer to it. 
 
 1 . All men at present, are iuA^olved in guilt, have corrupt incli- 
 nations, and are under an inability to yield perfect obedience to the 
 law, they are subjected to. That all in more or less, are guilty of 
 sin, cannot be well denied, and we have heard the Oracles of 
 Reason owning, <' That all do err sometimes, even the best, in 
 their actions." That men are conupt, or have corrupt inclina- 
 tions, has been above sufficiently evinced. That all are under 
 some sort of inability to yield perfect obedience, is attested by the 
 experience of all, and besides, is an inevitable consequent of the 
 f^jrmer : for it is not possible to suppose one possessed of corrupt in- 
 clinations, and yet able to yield perfect obedience. Nor need we 
 stand to prove what the Deists own. For A. W. in his Letter to 
 Charles Blount, speaking of the law of nature says, " I do not say 
 that we are able perfectly to obey it." I dispute not now of what 
 sort this inability is, whether only moral, such as arises from the 
 will's inclination to evil ; or natural, which imports such aninabili- 
 ly as supposes the nature of the faculties vitiated, though the fa- 
 culties are not wanting. The condemnings of our own hearts, and 
 the nature of the moral government we are under, sufficiently as- 
 sures us, it is such as does not excuse from fault ; and further we 
 me not concerned : though, after all, I do not understand how the 
 l^'lll can be fixed in an inclination to evil, or aversion from good. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTsi. 291 
 
 unless the nature of the will be supposed affected with some indis- 
 position, though the faculty is not removed. But of this only by 
 the bye. It is enough to our present purpose, that man is guilty, 
 corrupt, and thence unable. He that will deny this, must sup- 
 pose us blind and senseless. 
 
 2. If reason can ascertain us of any thing, it does of this, that 
 things were not originally thus with man, or that man, when he was 
 first made, was not thus guilty, corrupt or impotent. Nor will any 
 dare to say, that at first he was guilty. And to assert him either 
 corrupt or impotent, overthrows all the just notions we have of the 
 Deity. How can it be supposed, that infinite wisdom could enact 
 laws, which were not only not likely to take effect, but really could 
 not possibly be obeyed by men subjected to them ! How can we 
 suppose infinite goodness to establish laws under a penalty, and deny 
 the powers which were indispensably requisite to obey them, and 
 without which it was not possible to evite the penalty ! How can 
 we suppose infinite righteousness and holiness to consent to a con- 
 stitution of this kind ! How is it conceivable, that a God, wise, 
 just and good, should originally have implanted in our natures in- 
 clinations contrary to those laws, that were the transcript of, and 
 bore the impress of all these perfections ! Or, how can We once 
 dream that he implanted inclinations, which it was criminal to satis- 
 fy or comply with ! For my part, I see not what can be reasonably 
 said in answer to this. 
 
 3. It is further evident, that man could not have fallen into this 
 state he now is in, or from that wherein he was made, but by his 
 own default. If this be denied, I inquire, where shall the blame 
 be laid ? Will they lay it at God's door ? Besides, that this is 
 blasphemy, it is further evident, that all the former absurdities will 
 recur : For it is to no purpose to give powers, and take them away 
 again without any default in the person who loses them, the obliga- 
 tion to obedience or suffering upon disobedience still continuing. — 
 Nor can it be laid upon any other, because if man is without his 
 own fault, robbed of the powers necessary to obey, the obligation 
 to obedience cannot be righteously continued. Nor was it consist- 
 ent with the divine wisdom, to have obliged men to obedience, 
 under a penalty, while there was a possibility of man's losing the 
 power to obey, without a fault on his own part. It remains then, 
 that man has by his own fault, forfeited what he lias in this part lost. 
 And to this our own conscience, and the consciences of all sinners, 
 who are sensible of sin, consent, that God is free and we guilty. 
 
 4. Hereon it inevitably follows, that man, is at present in a cor 
 rupt, sinful, and impotent state, into which by his own default, he 
 has fallen. Nor see I how it is possible to avoid this, Avhich only 
 sums up the three preceding assertions. The first whereof is un- 
 deniable with sober and ingenuous persons, being attested by the 
 
292 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 plainest and clearest experience, and the other two stand firm upon 
 the clearest deductions that oui- reason can make, if any Deist 
 shall say, How can this be that we are fallen into such a state ? I 
 answer, 1 . The question is not, How can it be ? but, Is it so ? I 
 think 1 have said enough to shew that it is so. 2. Hereby we may 
 see natural religion has its mysteries too, as well as revealed. And 
 I think 1 have told more than one of them. 3. If this will not 
 satisfy, then get as much faith and humility as will teach you to 
 subject yourself to supernatural instruction, and you may come to 
 understand how it came to be so. If you will not, you must re- 
 main in the dark, and there is no help for it. 
 
 Now I have laid a plain foundation for an answer to this argu- 
 ment, whereon the Deists value themselves so much. It was not 
 because 1 thought so long an answer needful for the argument, but 
 to make the matter a little more plain, that we have discussed it 
 at this length. 
 
 Tlie argument then runs thus, The wisdom and goodncf^s of 
 God make it iiecessarr/ that all his creatures should be provided in 
 the means necessary for attaining the end of their beings and this 
 holds especialli/ as to the rational : But man was made capable of 
 eternal felicity ; or this is the end of his being. 
 
 I need say nothing more to what has been advanced, than has 
 been said above. I answer to the first proposition, — Be it allow- 
 ed that God's wisdom and goodness required that the rational crea 
 tare should be provided in the means necessary for the attainment 
 of the end of his being, in his first make and original state : Yet 
 neither God's goodners, nor his wisdom, obliges him to restore 
 man, if by his own fault, he has fallen from that state, wherein at 
 first he was made. Now this is the case with man in his present 
 fetate, as we have told above. 
 
 If it is said, that this is but our assertion, That man is in a lapsed 
 state : I answer, 1. I think it is more than an assertion, and must 
 do so till I see what I have offered for proof of the foregoing pro- 
 positions fairly answered. Nay, till I see the whole argument? 
 thiithave heretofore been offered against the sufficiency of natural^ 
 religion, answered. For, 1 think they all prove that man is al 
 present in a lapsed state. But 2. I add, that the Deists must] 
 mind, we aic upon the defensive, and it is their province to prove,! 
 that man in his present condition is not so situated, as we say. It* 
 vv'as ex ahundanii for clearing of truth, that I condescended to prove, 
 this. It was enough to me to have denied that man is now in his 
 orjo-inal ptuiP, and pui the proof upon them ; in regard they affirm, 
 iaid {be vvhoh stress and force of their arguments leans upon that 
 bunrosiiion which we deny. 
 
 The sccord argument, on which the Deists lay much stress, is 
 iJrav.nfrom the supposed ill consequences attending our opinion.— 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 293 
 
 They pretend, that it is horribly cruel to imagine, that all the 
 Heathen world should be lost. This they inculcate upon all occasions, 
 i-ather to expose their adversaries, I am afraid, than to confirm the 
 truth. The sum of this argument we see proposed by Herbert in 
 his words above quoted. Where he tells us, that all will own his 
 articles to be good ; Ad salutem iamen (Eternam comparandam, 
 non sufficere prohibebunt nonmdli. Cakrum, qui ita locutus 
 fiierit, im ille quidem aiidax ; nedum scevuni temerariumq ; effa- 
 iiim mea scntentia protukrit.* The short of the matter is this, 
 " If natural rehgion is not suflScient, we must give all the Heathen 
 world for lost ; but this is a cruel and harsh assertion, injurious to 
 God, and cruel to such a vast number of men." And here they 
 raise a horrible outcry. With this they begin, and with this they 
 end. 
 
 This argument, although it has no force, as we shall evince, yet 
 makes such a noise at a distance, that a great many ingenious spi- 
 rits seem to be mightily affected with it : I conceive therefore that 
 it will not be improper to lay open the causes of this, and the ra- 
 ther because they discover where the fallacy of the argument lies, 
 and whence it is that men are so easily prepossessed in this matter. 
 To this purpose then it is to be observed, 
 
 1 . That there are some things which in themselves are not desira- 
 ble ; to which therefore no uncorrupted rational nature, much less 
 that of God, could incline merely upon their own account : which 
 yet, in some circumstantiate cases, may be every way congruous 
 to justice and righteousness ; yea, and worthy of the wise and 
 good God. The torment of any rational creature is not in, or 
 for itself desirable : God has no pleasure in it. The nature of 
 man, if not deeply corrupted, yea, and divested of humanity, re- 
 coils at it ; yet there is none, who will not allow that in many cir- 
 cumstantiate cases, it is not only worthy of, but plainly necessary in 
 point of wisdom and justice, for the most merciful of men, to in- 
 flict upon their felloAV creatures such punishments, as their own 
 natures do shrink at the apprehensions of. Nor can it be denied, 
 that the holy God, notAvithstanding of, and without prejudice to 
 his infinite goodness, may, nay in some cases must, likewise thus 
 punish his own creatures. Now, if such things are represented as 
 they are, in their own natures, without a due consideration of cir- 
 cumstances and ends inducing to them, it is easy to make them ap- 
 pear not only hard, but odious. 
 
 2. However just, righteous and congruous such actions are ; yet 
 he who undertakes to expose them as cruel, barbarous and hard, 
 especially, if he has to do M'ith persons, weak, ignorant, partial in 
 
 * l)e Ilcl. Gentil. pacf. 217. — " Yet some will think they are not sufficient 
 
 lor attainiiiir eternal life. But whoever wo\ilcl say so> would he guilty ofut- 
 
 ■lintj not only .1 bold, not to say a cruel and ai-bitnity sentence in my opinion." 
 
294 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 favor of the sufferer, and averse from the author of the torment, 
 has a far more easy task, even though he is of weaker abilities, and 
 employed in defence of the worst cause, than he who undertakes 
 to defend such actions. The reason of this is obvious ; all that 
 makes to his purpose, who designs to expose the action as cruel, 
 lies open in its nature and horror to the thoughts of the most in- 
 considerate ; and if to this he only sets off the representation with 
 a little art, so as to touch the affections, which in this case is easily 
 done, he has carried his point ; the judgment is not only deceived, 
 but the jiffections are so deeply engaged in the quarrel, as to pre- 
 clude the light of the most nervous and valid defence imaginable. 
 Whereas on the other hand, all things are quite otherwise. The 
 circumstances inducing to such actions, are usually deep, and not 
 so easily discernible, and therefore not to be found out, without 
 much consideration ; and when they are found out, they are not 
 easily collected, laid together, and ranged in that order, which is 
 necessary to set ihe atrocity of the crime in a due light, especially 
 where the persons who are to judge are weak and biassed. Be- 
 sides, the evil of those crimes, being for most part more spiritual, 
 makes not so strong an impression on the affections. And this^ 
 consideration holds more especially true, where the question is 
 concerning the judgments of God, which proceed upon that com- 
 prehensive view, which infinite wisdom has of all circumstances, 
 that accent the evil, aggravate tlie fault, and enhance the guilt of 
 sins committed against him ; many of which circumstances no mor- 
 tal penetration can reach. And further, this more particularly 
 holds true, where it is not God himself, but man that pleads on be- 
 half of the actings of God. It is very observable to this purpose, 
 that historians of all nations almost condescend upon instances, 
 wherein the sight of severe, but just punishment of atrocious offen- 
 ders has not only excited the compassion of the populace to the 
 sufferers, but enraged them against the judges. Even they Mho 
 would have been ready to reclaim against the partiality and negli- 
 gence of the judge, if the crimes had been passed without just 
 punishment, when they see the punishment inflicted, through a 
 fond sort of compassion to the sufferers, complain of the cruelty 
 of the judge, laying aside all thoughts of the atrocity of the crime. 
 3. Where they, who make it their business to traduce such ac- 
 tions, as hard and cruel, and they also, whom they labor to per- 
 suade of this, are connected by alliance, or common interest with 
 the sufferers, are themselves in the same condemnation, or, upon 
 the same and such like accounts, obnoxious to that justice, which 
 adjud<}:cs those sufferers to these torments, which they study to 
 representas cruel and barbarous, it is no wonder to see that the repre- 
 sentation makes such deep impressions, and rivets such a persuasion, 
 that the punishments are cruel and hard, as may not only bias a litllc 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 295 
 
 against any defence that can be made for the judge, but may even 
 make them refuse to admit of any apology, or condescend so far 
 as to give any that can be made a fair hearing. But all unbiassed 
 persons must allow^, that such can never be admitted judges com- 
 petent, as to what is just or unjust, hard or otherwise ; the case 
 being, in effect, their own, and they by this means being made 
 both judge and party. 
 
 4. However great, terrible and heavy any punishment that God 
 is supposed to inflict, may in its own nature appear, or how great 
 soever the number of the sufferers may be, yet we can never, from 
 the severity of the punishment, or the number of the sufferers, 
 disprove its justice, unless we can make it appear, that no circum- 
 stances, which can possibly fall under the reach of infinite wisdom, 
 can render such severity towards so many persons, worthy of him. 
 Now, however easy this undertaking may appear to persons less 
 considerate, it will have a far other aspect to such as impartially 
 ponder, that all men are manifestly partial in favor of those of 
 their own race, and in a case which is, or may be their own, and 
 have no suitable apprehensions of the concernments of the divine 
 glory in it, or no due regard for them : Besides, such is their shal- 
 lowness, that they can neither have under view many important 
 circumstances, that are fully exposed to all comprehending wisdom, 
 nor can they fidly understand the weight, even of these circum- 
 stances, that they either do, or may, in some measure know. 
 
 5. Every man who is wise and just, when either he hears of, or 
 sees any punishment that appears very severe and terrible, must 
 suspend his judgment as to the hardship of it, till the author of it 
 is fully heard as to the inducements, and neither ought he to deny 
 what his eyes see, his ears hear, or he is otherwise informed of, up- 
 on sufficient evidences. He is neither to question the matter of 
 fact, nor condemn the judge of cruelty, because of the seeming se- 
 verity of the punishment. This is a piece of common justice, 
 which every judge, even amongst men, may reasonably claim from 
 his fellow creatures, although his actions and the reasons of them, 
 cannot be supposed to lie so far out of their ken, as those of the 
 divine judgments : Much more is it reasonable for men to pay this 
 deference to God, considering how unable the most elevated capaci- 
 ties are to penetrate iiito all the reaso)is, which an infinitely wise 
 God may have under view ; and there is the more reason for this, 
 since man also is naturally so very apt to be partial in his own fa- 
 vor, and to fail of giving a due regard in his thoughts unto the con- 
 cernments of divine glory. 
 
 These observations, as they are in themselves unquestionably 
 true, so they do fully lay open the causes of that general accep- 
 tance, which this plea of the Deists has obtained with less attentive 
 minds ; and how little weight is to be laid upon them.. In a word» 
 
296 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 if they are well considered, they are sufScient to enervate the force 
 of this whole plea. 
 
 But lest the Deists should think their argument slighted, or that 
 consciousness of our own weakness, makes us chuse long weapons 
 to fight with, I shall closely consider the argument. Perhaps what 
 makes a noise, at a distance, will be less frightful if we take a near- 
 er view of it. We deny that the Heathen world had means suffi- 
 cient for obtaining eternal happiness. The Deists say, this is cru- 
 el and rash. Let us now see whence this may be proven. 
 
 1 . Doth our cruelty lie in this. That we have laid down an as- 
 sertion, upon which it follows, that in fact, all the Heathen world 
 are lost ? But now, do not the Deists own, that in very deed, all 
 impenitent sinners must perish ? No doubt they do, who talk so 
 much of the necessity of repentance. Well, are not all who want 
 revelation, guilty of gross sins ? Is not idolatry a gross sin ? are 
 they not all plunged in the guilt of it ? Socrates, the most consi- 
 derable person for his virtue, that lived before Christ, cannot be 
 excused. He denied his disowning the gods of Athens. Rejoin- 
 ed in their worship. If this was against his conscience, the more, 
 was his fault. And, even with his dying breath, he ordered a cock 
 to be sacrificed to ^sculapius. Epictetus, the best perhaps among 
 the philosophers who lived after Christ, in his Enchiridion, enjoins 
 to worship after the mode of the country where we live ; and no 
 doubt practised as he taught. Gentlemen, condescend, if ye can, 
 upon one, who was not guilty of gross sins. Did they repent ? 
 What evidence bring you of it ? That the multitude lived and 
 died impenitent, none dare question. That there was 07ie peni- 
 tent none can prove. That the best of them were guilty of gross 
 sins cannot be denied, and there is no evidence of their penitence. 
 Yea-, there is no reason to think that they looked upon repentance 
 as a virtue ; but much to the contrary. Well, gentlemen, do not 
 your own principles conclude, that the bulk of the Heathen world 
 are, in fact, inevitably lost ? And that there is but little ground of 
 hope, and great reason to fear, that it fared not much better with 
 the few virtuosi. 
 
 2. But doth the cruelty lie in the number of persons supposed 
 to be lost ? No. This cannot be said. For if the cause be suffi- 
 cient, the number of the condemned makes not the condemnation 
 the more cruel. Besides, let them go as narrowly to work as they 
 can, they are few, very few, for whom they can plead exemption : 
 and their pleas for that handful will be very lame. So that for any 
 thing I see, the Deists, in this respect, are not like to be much 
 more merciful than we. 
 
 3. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this, That we suppose them 
 condemned without a cause, or without one that is sufficient. But 
 this we do not. we suppose none to be condemned, who are not sin- 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 297 
 
 iiers against God, and trangressors of a law stamped with his au- 
 thority, which they had access to know. And were not the best 
 of them guilty of gross sins ?. What evidence have we of their re- 
 pentance? Is it not just, even according to the Deists' pruiciples, 
 to condL:mn impenitent sinners ? Thus we suppose none condemn- 
 ed, but tor tlieir sins. 
 
 4. But perhaps the cruelly lies in this, That we suppose them 
 all equally miserable ; Socrates to be in no better case than JNero. 
 But this follows not upon our assertion. None are supposed mise- 
 rable beyond the just demerit of their sins. 
 
 5. Well, perhaps the cruelty lies in this, That we suppose their 
 torments after this life to be intense in degree, or ©f a longer con- 
 tinuance than their sins deserve. This we are sure of, that their 
 sins being offences against God, deserve a deeper punishment, than 
 some men can well think of ; and that God is just, and will propor- 
 tion punishments exactly to offences, and have a just regard, as well 
 to the real alleviations as agravations of every sin. And if God has, 
 in his word, determined that every sin committed against him, de- 
 serves eternal punishment, no doubt his judgment is according io 
 truth. We are not judges in the case. 
 
 6. Well, but the rashness and cruelty perhaps lies here. That 
 by our assertion we are obliged to pass a positive and peremptory 
 judgment about the eternal state of all the Heathen world, that 
 they are gone to hell, and laid under everlasting punishments, leav- 
 ing no room for the mercy of God. But to this we say, revelation 
 lias taught us, even where there is the justest ground of fear, to 
 speak modestly of the eternal condition of others, and to leave the 
 judgment concerning this to the righteous God, to whom alone it 
 belongs, and who will do no iniquitij. That ail the Heathen world 
 deserve punishment, cannot, without impudence, be denied. That 
 God will pass any of them without inflicting the punishment the)"^ 
 deserve, neither revelation nor reason give us any ground to think. 
 That none of them shall be punished beyond their deservings, 
 scripture and reason demonstrate. But in these things our assertion 
 of the insufficiency of natural religion is not concerned. It obli- 
 ges us to pass no judgment further than this, " That the Heathens, 
 *' and all who want revelation, had no means sufficient to bring them 
 " to eternal happiness, and ihat consequently they had no reasoQ 
 " to expect it ; and we have no reason to conclude them posses- 
 " sed of it.'' And in this case we leave them to be disposed of, 
 as to their state, after this life, by the wisdom and justice of 
 God. 
 
 7. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this. That they are supposed 
 to want the means necessary to attain eternal liappiness, while yet 
 they are capable of, and exposed to eternal misery for their sins. 
 But, I. How wil) the Deists' prove. That God, without a promise. 
 
598 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 is obliged to give man eternal happiness for his obedience ? 2. Since 
 none of them are to be punished beyond the just demerit of their 
 sins, may not God righteously inflict that punishment, whatever it 
 is, that their sins, in strict justice, deserve, though he had never 
 proposed a reward, which reason can never prove our best actions 
 worthy of, even though we had continued innocent ? But, 3. That 
 man, in his present case, has lost the knowledge of eternal feUcity, 
 and the means of attaining it, and is unable to attain it, is owing 
 not to any defect of bounty and goodness of God, much less of 
 justice ; but only unto the sin of man, as has been demonstrated 
 in our answer to the foregoing argument, by reasons drawn from 
 nature's light. Notwithstanding of which, it must still be owned^ 
 that nature's light .cannot acquaint us how man fell into his present 
 lamentable condition, as we have above made appear. 
 
 o. But is it not safer and more modest, may some say, to sup- 
 pose, that God of his great mercy did, by revelation, communicate 
 to some of the best of the Heathens, who improved nature's light 
 to the greatest advantage, what was further necessary to their sal- 
 vation, or, at least to bring them into a state of happiness, of some- 
 what inferior degree to that which is prepared for Christians. I 
 know many Christian writers of old and of late have multiplied hy- 
 pothesis of this kind : Some have supposed apparitions of angels, 
 saints, nay damned souls and devils ; of which stories I am told that 
 Collins discourses at large, in the second book of his treatise De. 
 Animabus Paganorum.^ Some tell us, " That to such of them 
 as lived virtuously, God always, at some time or other, sent some 
 man or angel savingly to illuminate them."t So the Areopagites. 
 Some tell us of Christ's preaching to them in purgatory ; so Cle- 
 mens Alexandrinus ; some will have them instructed by the Sibylls, 
 as the same author says elsewhere ; some talk of their commerce 
 with the Jews, in which way no doubt some of them came to sa- 
 ving acquaintance with God ; othei-s say, that upon their worthy 
 improvement of their naturals, God might and did reveal Christ to 
 them and spirituals, because hahenti dahitur-X So Arminius. And 
 of this Herbert frequently intimates his approbation, but with an 
 evident contradiction to, and subversion of, his whole story about 
 the sufficiency of natural religion. Besides, the bottom of this is 
 a rotten Pelagian supposition of a merit in their good works : and 
 that habenii dabitur, spoken of in another case, after all the pains 
 some are to stretch it, will not reach this case ; and after all we 
 are left in the dark, as to the way wherein they will have super- 
 naturals communicated to them. The late ingenious author of the 
 Conference rcilh a Theist, supposes a place provided for the sobei' 
 
 De ccelesti Hierar. Ch. 9. f Strom. Lib. 6. 
 
 " To him that hath shall be given." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. i29y 
 
 Pagans in another world, wherein thej shall enjoy a considerable 
 happiness,* and wrests what our Lord says to his disciples, John 
 xiv. 3. of the mam/ mansions that are in his Father's house, to 
 favor his notion. But now as to all these suppositions and others 
 of the same alloy, however their authors may please themselves 
 in them, I think they are to be rejected. Nor is this from any de- 
 fect of charity to the Heathens, but because they are supported 
 by no foundation, either in scripture or reason. However, some of 
 them are possible, yet generally speaking, none of them have the 
 countenance so much as of a probable argument. The scripture 
 proof, adduced by that last mentioned ingenious author, has no 
 weight in it. There is no countenance given to it from the con- 
 text, nor any other place of scripture, and I cannot approve of his 
 boldness in stretching our Lord's words beyond what his scope re- 
 quires. But these things have been considered at length by others, 
 whom the reader may consult.f All these suppositions are at best 
 but ingenious fancies, wherewith their authors may please them- 
 selves, but can nev^r satisfy others. Nor can they be of any ad- 
 vantage to the Heathens. I think I have made it sufficiently ap- 
 pear in the foregoing discourse, that they wanted means sufficient 
 to lead them to salvafion^ and so had no ground to support a rea- 
 sonable hope of it. It is granted, even by those whose peculiar 
 hypothesis in divinity lead them to be most favorable to the Hea- 
 tliens, that the^/ had no federal certainty of salvation ; and for any 
 uncovenanted mercy, of which some talk, I know nothing about it. 
 Scripture is silent. Reason can determine nothing in it ; and there- 
 fore disputes about it are to be waved. It is unwarrantable curi- 
 osity for men to pry into the secrets of God ; things that are re- 
 vealed do belong to us. Where revelation stops we are to stop. 
 Even Herbert himself dare carry the matter no further than a may 
 be ; and what may be, may not be. 
 
 CHAP. XIX. 
 
 Wherein Herberts Reasons for publishing his Books in Defence 
 of Deism are examined and found neak. 
 
 THE learned Herbert, toward the close of his book De Reli- 
 gione Laid, to justify the publication of his thoughts, as to a 
 catholic religion, common to all mankind, mentions seven supposed 
 advantages of this opinion, or so many pleas for Deism. What 
 weight there is in them, we shall now consider. 
 
 He introduces himself with a protestation that he published 
 not his book with any ill design against Christianity, which he 
 
 * Nicol. Confer. Part 2, pat^. 80. 
 
 t Sec Anth. Tuckney, Appendix to his Sermon on Acts iv. 12- 
 
iiOO AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 lionops with the title of optima religlo : But on the contrary says, 
 That he aimed at establishing it, and intended to strengthen true 
 faith, " Deniqve me animo adeo non optmuB religioni infensOf 
 ." aiit a.vent fide al'mio fradabmi htinc edidissetestor ; ututram- 
 " que statumhiare in animo habiierim,''^ Src. 
 
 I shall not dive into his designs ; for which he has long ago ac- 
 counted unto the only competent Judge. But of the design, or 
 rather tendency of his books, we may safely judge. And as to 
 this I say, that if it is granted, that the scriptures are the only 
 standard of the Christian religion, which cannot modestly be de- 
 nied ; I shall upon this supposition undertake to maintain against 
 any who will defend him, That his books aim at the utter subver- 
 sion of the Christian religion, that his principles overthrow entire- 
 ly the authority of the scriptures, and are not only inconsistent with, 
 but destructive to the essentials of Christianity. And I further 
 add, that this is every where so obvious in his writings, that it will 
 require a strange stretch of charity, to believe our author could 
 be ignorant of it. 
 
 Our author having told us what was not his design, proceeds 
 next to condescend upon the reasons inducing him to assert this 
 common religion. And 
 
 1. He tells us that he maintains this common religion, " Quod 
 *' jrovidcntlam divinam" &c. Because it " vindicates the uni- 
 " versa! Providence of God, God's principal attribute, whose dig- 
 *' nity can never be sufficiently supported. Neither do any par- 
 *' ticular religion, or faith (to give you our author's own words, 
 " Fides quaniumvis laxaj maintain this, so as to represent God's 
 •t' care of all mankind, in providing for them such common prin- 
 ** ciples as those contained in our catholic truths." 
 
 Here our author teaches two things, and I think them both 
 false. (1.) He tells us, "That his catholic religion vindicates the 
 ^' universal providence of God, or serves to maintain its honor." 
 This I think false. The foundation of it we have proved to be 
 not only precarious, but false. For we have cleared, that his five 
 articles did not luiiversally obtain ; and further, that if they had, 
 they were not sufficient to happiness. Yea, our author himself, 
 after he has told urs, that the universal providence of God cannot 
 he maintained, unless we suppose him to have provided all his 
 creatures, in the nseans necessary for obtaining their happiness, 
 ii^xt informs us that he has provided man in no other means, save 
 ihesc five articics.f And he further tells us in his words above 
 fjuoled, that he dare not positively say they arc sufficient, nor can 
 
 * Tferbert Ke]ii:;-. Liiici, pajj. 28. — "In fine, I profess that I have published 
 •' this treat jbc With ;i iniiul so fai' from beinf^ hostile to the best religion, or 
 " averse tf.tnie faith., that I inteiiucd to have established both." 
 
 ■t J> Hd. Laici^ p:ig-. 1, 4. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 301 
 
 vre be sure of it, since it depends upon God's secret judgments, 
 which we cannot certainly know.* And we have heard Blount 
 above own, That Deism is not safe, unless it be pieced out by 
 some help from Christianity .f Well, is this the way our author 
 asserts the honor of divine universal Providence, first to tell us, 
 that its honor cannot be maintained without supposing a sufficient 
 religion universally to have obtained, and then to tell us that he 
 is not sure that ever there was such a religion ? Is not this the 
 plain way to bring the universal Providence of God in question ? 
 Again, 2dly, Our author teaches, " That no particular religion 
 " can support the honor of universal Providence." This I take 
 to be also false. The Christian religion asserts and proves, that 
 God, who has created all things, preserves them, and governs them 
 in a way suitable to their nature and circumstances, and in so far 
 clears the equity of God's proceedings with the Heathen world, 
 in particular, as may satisfy sober men. It acquaints us, that God 
 did, at first, provide man in a covenant security for eternal happi- . 
 ness, and in means sufficient for obtaining of it ; that man, by his 
 own fault, incapacitated himself for the use of these means, and 
 forfeited the advantage of the covenant-security ; that God, in 
 justice hath left the Heathen world under the disadvantage of that 
 forfeiture ; that during the time he sees meet to spare them, he 
 governs them, in such a way as is suitable to their lapsed state, of 
 which we have spoken before. We confess we are not able to ex- 
 plain all the hard chapters in the book of Providence, and solve 
 every difficulty relating thereto ; but this affords no ground for 
 the denial either of God's general or special providence. As the 
 difficulties about God's omniscience, omnipresence, eternity, &c. 
 will not justify a denial of these attributes, or the existence of a 
 Deity vested with them ; so neither will the difficulties about Pro- 
 vidence justify a refusal of it ; and if this vindication of Provi- 
 dence fail of giving satisfaction, I am sure Herbert's will never 
 satisfy. 
 
 What our author adds about his fides quantumvis laxa, which 
 he supposes some to stand up for, and maintain as a sufficient re- 
 ligion, I do not well understand. But yet since this expression is 
 very often used in the writings of this author, in reproach of par- 
 ticular religions, especially the Christian, which lays the greatest 
 stress upon faith, it cannot be passed without some remark. That 
 wh'ch our author seems to intend by this fides quantumvis laxa, 
 or " faith how lax soever it may be," is a faith that consists in a 
 general assent to the truth of the doctrines, without any corres- 
 pondent influence upon practice. And he would have us to believe 
 that the Christian religion, or, at least, Christians, do reckon this 
 
 • 
 
 * De Rel. Gentil. pag. 2lr. 
 I Oracles of Ucasoii, pag. 87. 
 
302 AN INCIUIRY INTO THE 
 
 sufficient to salvation. This is a base and disengenuous calumny. 
 And our author could not but know it to be such, if he was ac- 
 quainted either with the scriptures, or the writings and lives of 
 that set of Christians against whom this calumny is particularly 
 levelled, who unanimously teach, that the faith that is available, is 
 that which works by love, and is to be found only in them who 
 are created in Christ Jesus to good works. If Herbert was a 
 stranger to the one or the other, he was the unmeetest person in 
 the world to set up for a judge and censurer of them. 
 
 2. The next advantage that Herbert condescends on, of his 
 catholic religion, is, Quod probam facidtatem homini insitarum 
 conformationem, usumque doceat. Nulla enim datur Veritas ca- 
 tholica, guce. nan in foro interna describitur, vel non illuc saltern 
 necessario reducitur.'^ That is, " This alone teaches man the 
 " due use and application of his faculties." But this is only our 
 author's assertion. Christianity is no less consistent with the due 
 «se of our faculties and their application to their proper objects, 
 than our author's religion. It destroys none of them, lays none of 
 them aside, and does violence to none of them ; but restores, im- 
 ^ proves and elevates them to their most noble and proper use. 
 
 Our author adds, for a confirmation of his assertion, that there 
 is no catholic verity, but what either is inscribed in the mind, or 
 what may be reduced to some innate truth. Whether there li 
 any verity inscribed in the mind in our author's sense, I ques- 
 tion. Mr. Locke has proven, that there is none such, and in par- 
 ticular has evinced that our author's five articles are not innate 
 truths, no not according to the description he himself gives of snch 
 notices. He examines the characters of innate truths given by 
 our author, and undertakes to shew them not applicable to his five 
 articles.f 
 
 S. Our author tells us, he embraced this catholic religion, quod 
 incontroversa a controversis distinguat,X Sec It is needless to 
 repeat all our author's words here. What he says is in short this, 
 That " particular religion (and here he must be understood to 
 " speak particularly of Christianity) contains austere and fright- 
 « ful doctrines that prejudice some men of squeamish stomachs 
 « ai all religion,'" (and is it to be wondered at, that men who 
 have no heart to any religion, are easily disgusted ?) But our au- 
 thor has provided them with one that will not offend the most nice 
 and delicate palate, as consisting of principles universalhj agreed 
 to ; which he supposes such persons will readily close with, and 
 £o retain some religion, whereas otherwise they would have none. 
 
 * Herbert Rel. Laici, pag'. 28. 
 
 t Locke's Essay on Human. Under. Book 1. Ch. § 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 
 if " ne^use it distinguishes uncontrovertcd points from those %vhich are 
 *' controverted." 
 
PRINCIPLES OP THE MODERN DEISTS. 30ti 
 
 Here our author evidently designs a thrust at the Christian reli- 
 gion, and insinuates that it is stuffed with austere and horrid doc- 
 trines. I know full well what are the doctrines he particularly 
 aims at : the doctrines concerning the corruption of mail's nature, 
 the decrees of God, the satisfaction of Christ, are particularly in- 
 tended. But if these doctrines are considered as delivered in the 
 scriptures, or taught by Christians according to the scriptures, 
 what is there offensive in them ? What horrid or frightful ? 
 
 I do indeed grant, that some Christians, through their weakness, 
 without any 1)1 design, have so represented, or rather misrepresent- 
 ed some of these points, particularly concerning the decrees of 
 God, as to give offence to sober persons of all persuasions. But 
 as to this, they, and they only, are to bear the blame. As for the 
 doctrines. What have they done ? Must the fault of the profes- 
 sors be cast on the religion they profess ? This no reasonable man 
 will allow to be just. 
 
 I do likewise acknowledge, that whereas there are different senti- 
 ments among Christians concerning some of these points ; and 
 some of the contending parties have so unfairly stated, and foully 
 misrepresented the opinions of their opposers, in the disguise of 
 . imaglnarj^ consequences, or of consequences, at least, denied and ab- 
 horred by the maintainers of the opinions they oppose, so as to give 
 - some umbrage to this, startle weak men, and prejudice them against 
 religion. This they do to expose their adversaries, and frighten 
 ' others from the reception of their sentiments. For such I can 
 make no excuse. The practice itself is scandalously disingenuous, 
 and can admit of no reasonable vindication, and so fair an occasion 
 being given, I cannot pass It without a remark. A notable instance 
 of this sort I meet with in a book just now come to hand. The 
 Ingenious author of the short Method with the Deists, in a letter di- 
 rected to Charles Gildon, newly recovered from Deism, cautions 
 him against the Dissenters ; and to enforce his caution, presents 
 him with such an account of their opinions, as is indeed suited to 
 frighten the reader. He tells him that they maintain, " That God 
 •' sees no sin in the elect, let them live never so wickedly. They 
 "^^ damn the far greater part of the world, by Irreversible decrees 
 " of reprobation, and say, that their good works are hateful to 
 " God ; and that it is not possibly in their power to be saved, let 
 '•'■ them believe as they will, and live never so religiously : They 
 *' take away free wilUn man, and make him a perfect machine. — 
 " They make God the author of sin, to create men on purpose to 
 " damn them ; they make his promises and threatening^ to be of 
 " no effect, nay, to be a sort of burlesqueing, and insulting those 
 '* whom he has made miserable, which is an hideous blasphemy."*^ 
 
 ■ T-ttlcT subJQinol to the Deist's Manuel, page 22, 33. 
 
304 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 But to what purpose is all this said ? 1 . Did not the writer know, 
 That this is not a representation at all of the opinions maintained 
 by the Dissenters, but of the consequences tacked to them by 
 their adversaries ? Does he not know, that they detest and abhor 
 these positions as much as he does, that they refuse these to be 
 consequences of them ? Is it then candid to offer, that as their 
 opinions, which they abhor, and which they will not allow to follow 
 upon their opinion ? Again, 2. Doth not this gentleman know that 
 the principles to which he has tacked these consequences, are the 
 very doctrines taught in the articles of the Church of England^ 
 unanimously maintained by all the great men of that church, till 
 Bishop Laud's day ; which were preached by them in the pulpit, 
 taught in the schools, and upon all occasions avouched as the doc- 
 trine of the Church of England ; and, as such, to this very day 
 are owned by no inconsiderable number of that church ? With 
 what justice then, or ingenuity, can he call this the doctrine of the 
 Dissenters ? H. From whom does he expect credit to this disin- 
 genuous account of the Dissenter's opinion ? Such as know them, 
 will believe nothing upon the reading of this passage; but that 
 the writer either understood not the opinions he undertook to re- 
 present, or that against his light, he misrepresented them, and so is 
 never to be credited again, without good proof, in any thing he 
 says of them. 4. Was it the author's design, to gain a proselyte 
 to the opposite opinions ? This I believe it was. But this is the 
 most unlucky way of management in the world ; for if his disciple 
 is a man of sense, he will be shy of believing that such monstrous 
 opinions can be received by a body of men, among whom, there 
 must be owned by their worst enemies, to be not a few learned and 
 sober. And if he find himself abused, upon search, may he not 
 be tempted, not only to reject this account, but all that he receiv- 
 ed upon the same authority ? When persons of sense, who have 
 been abused, are undeceived, they are wont ever after to incline to 
 favorable thoughts of the persons and principles they were pre- 
 judiced against ; and to suspect that cause of weakness, which can- 
 not be supported, but by such mean and unmanly shifts, as this of 
 representing the opposite opinion. 5. If the adverse party shall 
 take the same course, what a fine work shall we have ? And to speak 
 modestly, they want not a colourable pretence for a retortion. — 
 But who shall be the gainers ? Neither of the contending parties 
 surely : For men will never be beaten frorn^ their opinions by ca- 
 lumnies that they know to be unjust. None will gain, save they, 
 who are lying at the catch, for pretences to countenance them in 
 the rejection of the Christian religion. It is none of my business 
 to debate this controversy with this author. 
 
 If he has any thing new to advance upon these heads, let him ad- 
 vance it, he will find antRSionists in the Church of England, able 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 305 
 
 perhaps to cope with him, though the Dissenters should fail. This 
 gentleman had managed his opposition with more modesty and in- 
 genuity, if he had attentively perused the learned Bishop of Sa- 
 rum's discourse on the 1 7th article of the Church of England. — ■ 
 But I hope this author, upon second thoughts, when his passion is 
 over, will be ashamed of what he has written. 
 
 But now to return to Herbert and the Deists. If we abstract 
 from these two abuses, and consider the doctrines of Christianity 
 as represented in the scriptures, or according to them, there is no 
 ground to charge them with any thing frightful, or of ill conse- 
 quence to religion. Yea, I dare be so bold as to say. That if prac- 
 tical religion, consisting in godliness, righteousness and sobriety, is 
 any where to be found in the world, it is to be found amongst those, 
 as likely as any where else, and in as eminent a degree, who have 
 been trained up in the belief, and under the influence of those very 
 doctrines, which some, and particularly Herbert, would persuade 
 us to be so horrid, as to frighten men at once out of their wits and 
 religion. If it be said, that this is not owing to the influence of 
 these principles. 1 answer, This, at least, proves those princi- 
 ples not inconsistent with practical religion, in as much as they, 
 who believe them, are eminent in it ; and, if we enquire of them, 
 what has influenced their walk, they are ready to attest, that the 
 belief of these very truths has had the principal influence upon 
 that effect ; and to oflTer a rational account of the tendency of these 
 doctrines to promote practical religion. 
 
 Now we have wiped oflf the insinuated reproach, designed by 
 our author, against the Christian religion. Let us next consider 
 what there is in this plea. He tells us, his religion consists of 
 incontroverted articles, and so will frigthen no body. But, 1. this 
 is not true in fact, as we have demonstrated above. His articles 
 have been controverted. The sufficiency of them has been be- 
 lieved by very few. Again, 2. Will our author say, That nothing 
 is necessary, to religion, which is controverted ? Will the Deists 
 undertake this point ? If so, their religion is lost, as is evident 
 from what has been demonstrated above. 8. This no more proves 
 our author's five articles to be a sufficient religion, than it proves 
 one of them alone to be such. He who owns no more in religion, 
 but this only, there is a God, may as well plead, that religion re- 
 tains only what is incontrovertible. But the Deists will say, there 
 are other points necessary. Well does not this give me an answer 
 to their argument, when I say, there are other points necessary 
 besides their five articles. 4. Whereas he would persuade us, that 
 no man will scruple his religion : Is not this enough to make any 
 reasonable man shy of admitting it, that its author and inventor 
 dare not say positively, that it is sufficient to answer the purpose, 
 for which it is designed, and that others undertake to demonstrate, 
 
 39 
 
300 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 that if it is Inislcil to, it will prove a soul-ruining cheat ? luaworJ, 
 it is not worth the Avhile to calculate a religion for those, who wilJ 
 atlmit nothing in religion, but wliat is incontroverted : for, in short, 
 they are for no rcU2;ion. And 1 think we have in particular evin- 
 ced, that our author's five articles will be too hard in digestion for 
 such delicate stomachs. 
 
 4. Our author tells us, that he embraced this catholic religion. 
 Quod concordicE commimis substrudionem aged, ^r.^ That is, 
 in short, let all the world agree to the sufficiency of our author's 
 five article?, and leave all other things to be rejected or received as 
 trifles, not necessary to be disputed about, and then there is an end 
 of all the contests, then there is a foundation laid for everlasting 
 peace, and the golden age will be retrieved, Jam redit et virgo 
 redevnf, Sahiruia regna.-f 
 
 This trifle deserves rather pity than an answer. What! will all 
 the world agree that this religion is sufficient, while its inventor durst 
 r.ot say so ? 
 
 5. He embraced it, "Quod atithoritalem majtstaleniq; induhiam 
 " religioniy et hierarch'm hide poUtlcEqiie conciliat" Src. That is, 
 " because it conciliates respect to religion, to the ecclesiastical hie- 
 " rarchy, and civil government." Religion will be respected, when 
 it requires nothing but what is necessary. Church and state will 
 be respected when it punishes nothing but transgressions against 
 incontroverted articles. 
 
 But is not this to trifle with a witness? The weakness of this 
 plea is so obvious, that I may well spare my pains in exposing it. 
 AVill it maintain the dignity of religion to confine it to a number 
 of articles, which for any thing we know, or the Deists know, may 
 cheat us of our reward in the end, since they cannot positively 
 assiu-e us of its sufficiency, and we are positively sure it is not 
 sufficient ? Will it maintain the honor of church officers, to ad- 
 mit a religion, which subverts the very foundation of all respect to 
 them, vis. The divine institution of their order? As for the ad- 
 vantage of it to the civil government, the Deists may oflTer it to 
 the consideration of the next parliament, and they will consider 
 whether it is proper to conciliate respect to the civil government. 
 
 6. Our author embraced his religion, Quod adeo non moliat re- 
 ligioneiu, ut ejus severitatis siinndum addat. That is, " It is so 
 " far from flivouring liberty in sin, that it urges harder to virtue, 
 " (severe virtue) than revealed religion." There is no hope of 
 pardon here upon the satisfaction of another. Men must work for 
 their life, and when they fail, they must satisfy by their repent- 
 ance. 
 
 " Because it lays a foundation for common concord." 
 " 'jSow Astra returns, tlie reign of Saturn returns." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. ;i07 
 
 Well, but do they, who teach the necessity of satisfaction ex- 
 clude repentance ? And if they make both satisfaction and repent- 
 ance absolutely necessary, though each in its own order and place, 
 to forgiveness, methinks they will yet have the advantage in point 
 of severity. Again, but what if repentance will not satisfy ? If 
 this is so, and our author seclude all other satisfaction, will not his 
 religion lead men rather to despair than to virtue. 
 
 7. Our author's last inducement was, Qiiod sacrariim lUerarum 
 fhi'i ultimo intentioniq qitadret, &.c. That is, " because this cath- 
 '' olic religion ansivers the ultimate design of the scriptures. All 
 " the doctrines taught there level at the establishment of these five 
 "catholic verities, as we have often hinted; there is neither sa- 
 " crament, rite or ceremony, there enjoined, but what aims (or 
 *■' seems to aim) at the establishment of tliese five articles.'* 
 
 8. But is not this a notable jest. Our author would persuade 
 us, That his religion answers the great end of the scrip- 
 tures, better than religion, which the scriptures themselves 
 teach. If our author says not this, he says nothing. If the end 
 of the scriptures is not good, it is not for the honor of our au- 
 thor's religion that it agrees with it: If it is good, and the religion 
 taught in the scriptures themselves, answer their own design best, 
 why then, I Avould chuse that religion, and leave our author to en- 
 joy his own : If he says, his, answers it better, then I would desire- 
 to know where the compliment lies, that he designed to tlie scrip- 
 tures. But I desire to know further of the Deists, Whether do 
 the scriptures teach any tiling besides these articles, to be neces- 
 sary ? Where do the scriptures tell that these are sufficient ? Are 
 divine institutions, sacraments, &c. necessary toward the compas- 
 sing of the ends of religion ? If they are not, how does it commend 
 our author's rehgion, that it quadrates with the design of these in- 
 stitutions ? If they are necessary and useful, this catholic religion 
 is at a loss that wants them. I am sensible our author has caution- 
 ed against this, when he tells us, That they either do or seem to 
 aim at this. I see that old birds are not caught with chaff. Now i 
 have found it. This catholic religion, Avill really serve the pur- 
 pose, that revealed truths and institutions do only seem to aim at. 
 But after all, this is but sai/ and not irroof. And I will undertake 
 to shew against all the Deists under heaven, that the confinement 
 of religion to these fiv^e articcles, as taught by the light of nature, 
 is not only not agreeable to the principal design of the scriptures, 
 but inconsistent with it. 
 
 Thus I have considered the inducements which led Herbert to 
 embrace this catholic religion, and found them wanting. And 
 1 must say, if this noble author had not been straitened by a bad 
 cause, that is not capable of a rational defence, liis learning, which 
 is very considerable, could not but have afforded liim better 
 pleas. Charles Blount, in the do^e of his Religio LaicI, tells rs 
 
308 AN INQITIRY INTO THE 
 
 It was for the same reasons he embraced Deism, and copies after 
 Herbert, with some little variations. What he has, that our author 
 has taken notice of in this place, will occur in the next chapter, 
 %vhere they are again repeated under another form. Men that 
 have bid little to say have need to husband it well, and make all the 
 improvement of it that they can. 
 
 CHAP. XX. 
 
 Wherein the Queries offered by Herbert and Blount, for proving 
 the sufficiency of their five Articles are examined. 
 
 THE learned Herbert in an appendix to his Religio Laid, 
 moves some objections against himself, but fearing after he has said 
 all he can, some may remain unsatisfied still, he betakes himself to 
 another course, and essays to dispute his opposers into a compli- 
 ance with his sentiments by Queries. Of this sort he proposes 
 several. Charles Blount concludes his Religio Laid in the same 
 method, with this diflference, that he has added other seven que- 
 ries, making in all fourteen, and prefixed this title, Queries proving 
 the validity of the Jive Articles. 
 
 The arguments couched in these queries, in so far as they tend 
 to prove the suflSciency of this catholic religion, are not new, but 
 materially the same, which we have formerly considered. The 
 method is indeed different, more subtle, and better suited to their 
 great design. Direct proofs are less deceiving, and their weak- 
 ness is more easy discoverable by vulgar capacities. Queries con- 
 ceal the weakness of arguments, entangle, perplex and amuse less 
 attentive minds ; and by them, the subtle asserters of a bad cause 
 ease themselves of the trouble of proving their ill grounded as- 
 sertions, (which yet, by all rules of disputing, belongs to them on- 
 ly) and turn it over upon the defender. This is enough as to the 
 method, to let us see how suitable it was to their purpose. 
 
 The Queries proposed by Blount are the same with Herbert's, 
 and he adds others which Herbert wants. Wherefore we shall 
 consider them as proposed by Mr. Blount. But whereas some of 
 them are to more advantage urged by Herbert, we shall offer these 
 in Herbert's words, that we may overlook nothing, which has the 
 least appearance of force in this cause. 
 
 Query L " Whether there can be any other true God, or whe- 
 " ther any other can justly be called optimus maximus, the 
 " greatest and best God, and common father of mankind, save He 
 " who exercises universal providence, and looks so far to the good 
 '' of all men, as to provide them in common and sufficient or cftec' 
 
PHINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 809 
 
 " tual means for obtaining the state of eternal happiness after this 
 " life, whereof he has implanted a desire in their minds ? If the 
 " laity or vulgar worship any other God, who does not exercise 
 " this universal providence, are they not guilty of false worship, 
 *' or idolatry ? And if any one deny this common providence, is 
 " he not guilty of treason against the divine Majesty, and of a 
 " contempt of his goodness, yea, and of Atheism itself ?" Thus 
 Herbert.* Blount proposes the same query, but more shortly, 
 thus, " Whether there be any true God, but he that useth uni- 
 " versal providence concerning the means of coming to him."f 
 
 The design of this query is to prove the necessity of a catho- 
 lic religion, or a sufficient religion common to all mankind, and to 
 fix the black note of atheism upon all who deny it. The argu- 
 ment whereby this is evinced is the very same, which we have 
 examined above, as the Deists' first and great argument. What is 
 added concerning universal Providence, we did consider in our 
 answer to Herbert's first inducement to Deism. And so we might 
 entirely pass this query as answered already, were it not for the 
 seeming advantage given to it by this new dress, wherein it ap- 
 pears. 
 
 This query has a direct tendency to drive men into Atheism, 
 and tempt them to lay aside all worship through fear of falling into 
 idolatry. It is in itself self-evident, that if God has given all 
 mankind, or to every man, means sufficient and effectual to lead 
 them to eternal happiness, they must know of it, or, at least, there 
 must be easy access for them to know it. With what propriety 
 of speech can it be said. That the means leading to eternal hap- 
 piness, are given to every man to be by him used for that end, if 
 they know them not, or, at least, if the knowledge of them be not 
 easily accessible to all, who will apply themselves to an inquiry 
 after them ? Nor is it less evident, That the suitableness, effica- 
 cy and sufficiency of these means, for reaching this end, must be 
 sufficiently intimated to them. If it is not so, how can men ra- 
 tionally be obliged to use means which they do not know to be- 
 proper for compassing the end ? With what courage or confidence 
 can any rational man, with great application, over many difficul- 
 ties, use, and all his life continue in the use of means, concerning 
 which he has no assurance, that they will put him in possession of 
 the end ? After all this pains he may miss the end he had in 
 view. How can any reasonable soul please itself in such a coui*se ? 
 Can it be reasonably thought worthy of the wisdom and goodness 
 of Go^J, to give man the means of attaining eternal happiness, and 
 means sufficient, and yet leave men in the dark as to the know- 
 ledge of this. That they are designed for, and sufficient to reach 
 
 • Herbert's Relig-. Laici, Appendix, pag. 1, 2. 
 t Blount Rel. Laici, pag. 90. 
 
310 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 the end for which they were given ? What can rationally induct; 
 men in this case, to give God the praise of his goodness, in afford- 
 ing them these means, or to use them for that end, for which they 
 were given, if this is hid from them ? It is then evident, That, if 
 God has afforded all men sufficient means of reaching eternal hap- 
 piness, they must know this, or, at least, have easy access to know 
 these means, what they are, and that they are designed to, proper 
 for, and will prove effectual to this end. And consequently, if 
 men find not such means, after search, they have evidently reason 
 to conclude, that God has left them without them, at least, that 
 they want them in their present circumstances ; since after all 
 their inquiries they cannot find them, nor can they discover that 
 any means, they know of, will be effectual to reach this end. 
 
 This is evidently the condition of man at present, left to the 
 mere light of nature. We have proved just now. That if God 
 had given these sufficient means, every man must, at least, upon 
 application, have had access to know them, and to know that they 
 are sufficient. 
 
 But, upon application, they find no such matter, and therefore 
 have reason to suspect, that God has not given them these means, 
 if not positively to conclude that they are without them. Her- 
 bert himself glories that he was the first who found out what these 
 means were. They had escaped the knowledge and industry of 
 the most learned and diligent before his time. And if so, certainly 
 the vulgar behoved to be at a loss about them. When he has 1 
 found them, he dares not be positive about their sufficiency : " Qnmn 
 " etiam oh causam, neqiie ea snfficere (ad salutem, viz. CEternam)\ 
 '^ profemis dixerim" says he.* . Yea, he more than insinuates, 
 that we cannot come to be positively assured of their sufficiency, 
 and so must remain in the dark, since the determination of this de- 
 pends upon the sentiments of God, which are known to none, as 
 lie says. Now when a man so learned, so diligent, and so evident- 
 ly prepossessed with a strong inclination to favor any means that ' 
 had a shew of sufficiency, found so much difficulty to hit upon ' 
 any such, and did so evidently hesitate about the sufficiency of 
 these he had found ; must not the laity, for whoni, upon all occa- i 
 sions, he pretends so much concern, liesitate more ? Yea, have ! 
 they not reason evidently to conclude, that there are no such' 
 means provided for them ? 
 
 But Herbert here teaches them, that none is to be acknowledg- 
 ed as the true God, nor worshipped as such, who has not provided 
 every man, in effectual and sufficient means for attaining eternal 
 happiness. Well may the layman say, "I neither know, nor can ' 
 "■ I ever be satisfied, that I have such means; yea, I have the 
 
 Iloi-bcrt lie Rcl. Gent. pag. 217. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 3U 
 
 ■ greatest reason to think that I want them ; if the good Goil had 
 u;iven them, he wouhl not have mocked rae, by concealing them, 
 and so prechiding me from the use of them ; he would have 
 •' poljited me to them, and intimated their sufficiency, so as to 
 " make it knowable to me, upon application, without which he 
 " could never expect that I should use them : I have tlierefore 
 " reason to conclude myself destitute of them, and so I will Avor- 
 " ship no God, since there is none that has provided me in the 
 " means necessary to eternal happiness : For if I should, 1 would 
 " be guilty of worshipping one, who is an idol, and not the true 
 " God." Here we see where this gentleman's. principles must in- 
 evitably lead the poor man, either to direct Atheism, or to wor- 
 sliip one, whom he has reason vehemently to suspect to be merely 
 an idol, and not the true God. 
 
 Having thus discovered the dangerous tendency of this query, 
 I shall now give a direct answer to it. And to it I say, That the 
 God, who makes man, implants in his child's mind a desire of eter- 
 nal felicity, intimates to him that he is made for this end, obliges 
 him in duty to pursue this end, under a penalty in case he fail of 
 it, and yet denies or leaves his child without the means that are 
 absolutely necessary for compassing it, antecedently to any fault 
 upon the child's part, will scarcely obtain the titles of optimiis 
 maximus, great and good, or of a common Father. 
 
 But the God who made man perfect, in his original state, and 
 put him in the full possession of all the means that were necessary 
 to obtain that end, whatever it was, for which he was made, and 
 which he was in duty obliged to pursue, loses not his interest in, 
 and unquestionable right to the title of optunus maximiis, great 
 and good ; nor does he cease to be a common Father, and to act 
 the part of such an one, if, when his children contrary to their 
 duty, have rebelled against him, by their own fault dropped the 
 knowledge of the end, for which they were made, lost the knov, - 
 ledge of the means, whereby it is to be obtained, put themselve^v 
 out of a capacity of using the means, or reaching the end ; if, I 
 say, in this case, he leaves them to smart under the effects of their 
 own sin, and treats them no more as children, but as rebels, who 
 can blame him ? Does he not act every way as it becomes one, 
 who by the best of titles is not merely a father, but the sovereign 
 ruler and governor of all his creatures, to whom of right it belongs 
 to render a just recompcnce of reward to every transgressor ? 
 
 Now, this is the case, as we have already proven. If the Deists 
 will make their argument conclusive, they must prove that this is 
 not .the case with man. And when we see this done, we shall then 
 know what to say. Till then we are not nnich concerned with their 
 finery. If they say. How can this be ? Can men by the light of' 
 nature know how this came to pass ? I answrr, th;it it is not the 
 
312 AN maUIRY INTO THE 
 
 question, How it came to be so ? But whether, in fact, it be so ? 
 That it really is thus, is before proven. The Heathens have con- 
 fessed it. And though we should never come to be satisfied, how 
 it came about, yet that it really is so, is enough to acquit God. 
 
 Nor is God's universal Providence hereby everted, he still 
 governs all mankind suitably to their condition. He rules those, 
 ■whom of his sovereign and undeserved grace, he has seen meet to 
 deal with, in order to return to his family, in a way of infinite 
 mercy and grace. He governs the rest of the world, whom in his 
 sovereign and adorable justice and wisdom, he hath left to lie un- 
 der the dismal consequences of their own sin, in a way becoming 
 their state. He provides them in all things, that do necessarily 
 belong to the ends, for which they are spared. Further, he leaves 
 himself not without a 7vitness as to his goodness, in that he does 
 good, gives them rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling 
 their hearts 'with food and gladness. Which is suiBcient to shew 
 his superabundant goodness, that reaches even to the unthankful 
 and evil, and gives them ground to conclude. That their want of 
 what is further necessary, flows not from any defect of goodness 
 on his part ; but from their own sins, of many of which their own 
 consciences do admonish them. If God vouchsafes the means of 
 recovery to any, they have reason to be thankful to sovereign 
 grace. If God gives not, what he may justly refuse, who can in 
 justice complain of him ? They must leave their complaint upon 
 themselves, and acquit God. And while man is continued in be- 
 ing, it will remain his indespensible duty to worship this God, who 
 made him, spares him, notwithstanding of his sins, for a time, 
 punishes him less than his iniquities deserve, and confers many 
 other undeserved favours on him. Nor is he guilty of worship- 
 ping an idol in doing so. 
 
 Thus we have answered this query : And I might now propose 
 to the Deists a counter query, " Whether they who make that 
 necessary to the support of the universal providence of God, his 
 goodness, and consequently his being, of which no man can be 
 sure that it really is, which all men have reason to believe is not, 
 and which most men, who have made it their business to consider 
 the case seriously, do firmly believe not to be in being, may not 
 reasonably be suspected to design the overthrow of these attri- 
 butes of God, and consequently of his very being ?" Thus Vani- 
 nus endeavored to establish Atheism : he ascribes such attributes 
 to God, and endeavored to fix such notions of his perfections, as 
 could not be admitted, without the overthrow of other perfections, 
 unquestionably belonging to him, or owned in any consistency 
 with reason and experience. For he well knew, that if once hej 
 could bring men to believe God to be such an one, if he was, theyl 
 would be brought under a necessity of denying, that there waaj 
 any God. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 313 
 
 Query 11. " Whether these means appear universally other- 
 " wise, than in the foresaid five catholic articles ?* 
 
 These gentlemen think tliey have, by their first query, suffi- 
 ciently proved, that there must be a catholic religion : Now they 
 will prove theirs to be it. But I have undermined the foundation, 
 and so the superstructure falls. I have evinced, that there is no 
 such sufficient catholic religion, by reason and experience. I have 
 proved that the pretence of its being necessary to support the no- 
 tion of God's providence and goodness, can never possibly per- 
 suade any considerate man, to believe against his reason and ex- 
 perience, against the sight of his eyes, and what he feels within 
 himself, that he really is in possession of a sufficient religion, with- 
 out revelation ; and consequently that the urging of this pretence 
 can serve for nothing, if not to make men question the goodness 
 and providence of God, and so his very being, to the overthrow of 
 all worship and religion. I have moreover made it appear, that 
 these five articles are not catholic, and though they were so, yet 
 are not sufficient. 
 
 Query HI. " Whether any thing can be added to these five 
 ^* articles or principles, that may tend to make a man more honest, 
 " virtuous, or a better man ?" So Blount.f To this query Her- 
 bert adjects a clause, viz. " Provided these articles be well ex- 
 " plained in their full latitude. J And is not tliis the principal end 
 of religion ? 
 
 By the foregoing queries the Deists think they have proved 
 the necessity of a catholic religion ; and that their five articles is 
 the catholic religion. By this query they pretend to prove their 
 religion sufficient. 
 
 To this purpose they tell us. That their five articles are suffi- 
 cient to make a man virtuous, honest and good ; that this is the 
 principal end of religion ; and that nothing can be added to them, 
 which can be any way helpful to this end. If by making a man 
 virtuous, honest and good, they mean no more, than the Heathens 
 meant by these words, who took them to intend no more, but an 
 abstinence from the more gross outward acts of vice, contrary to 
 the light of nature, with some regard in their dealings among men, 
 to the common and known rules of righteousness, and usefulness : 
 If, I say, tliis is their meaning, which I conceive it must be, then 
 I deny that this is the principal end of religion. No man that un- 
 deistands what religion means, will say it. The Heathens were 
 influenced to this by other motives, than any thing of regard to 
 the authority of the One true God. Their Ethicks, which en- 
 joined this goodness, virtue and honesty, pressed it by considera- 
 
 * Blount Rel. Laici. pag. 90. Hcib. Rel. Laici. Appendix, 
 t Ibid. pa^. 91, i( Herb. Jbid. 
 
 40 
 
ai4 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 tions of a quite different nature. Of God, his legislature, his laws, 
 as such, they took httle or no notice, as observed from Mr. 
 Locke before ; and therefore, whatever usefulness among men 
 there was to be found in their virtues, they had nothing of religion, 
 properly so called, in them. 
 
 But if by making a man honest, virtuous and good, they mean 
 the making of him inwardly holy, and engaging him in the whole 
 of his deportment, in bothoutward and inward acts, to carry as 
 becomes him, toward God, his neighbor and himself, with a due 
 eye to the glory of God as his end, and a just regard to the au- 
 thority of God, as the formal reason of this performMice of duty 
 in outward and inward acts : If, I say, they take their words in 
 this sense, I do own this to be one of the principal ends of reli- 
 gion. But then I deny that ever any man, by their five articles, 
 as taught by the light of nature, or by any other of the like kind, 
 known only by the mere light of nature, was in this sense, since the 
 entrance of sin, made virtuous and good. Nay, the moral Hea- 
 thens were not led to that shadow of virtue and goodness, which 
 they had in the sense beforementioned, from any regard to these 
 five articles, as they are articles of religion ; that is, as they are 
 principles directive as to the duty, which man owes to the One on- 
 ly True and Supreme Being. 
 
 And taking virtue, goodness, and honesty in this last sense, 
 which is that alone wherein we are concerned, I have above proven 
 the light of nature, and particularly these five articles, as known 
 by it, utterly insufficient to make any man virtuous, honest and 
 good. And have demonstrated not one, but immy things besides 
 what is contained in these five articles, however explained to the 
 utmost advantage that can be done by mere unassisted reason, to 
 be absolutely/ necessary to the ends of religion. 
 
 Nor w ill what Herbert has adjected mend the matter, viz. That 
 his articles must be well explained in their full latitude. These 
 words, if they have any sense, it is this, " It is not enough to be- 
 lieve and receive our articles, as in general proposed, this will make 
 no man good. He must not only, for instance, agree to it, that 
 there is one Supreme God, and that he is to be worshipped by a 
 virtuous life, but he must be acquainted with all the attributes of 
 this God, necessary to be known, in order to the direction of his 
 practice, and he must understand and be fixed as to the nature, 
 measure and all other necessary concerns of these virtues that be- 
 long to this duty." This is undeniably the meaning of this ex- 
 pression, and this inevitably overthrows all that our author has been 
 building. Were these five articles, in this latitude, universally 
 agreed to ? Our author knew to the contrary. If any man should 
 assert it, it were enough to make him be hissed off the stage, as 
 either brutishly ignorant of the world, or impudently disingenuous. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 315 
 
 Well then, our catholic religion is lost. Again, since the explica- 
 tions belong as much to our author's religion as the articles them- 
 selves, (for without them he confesses the articles not sufficient) 
 how shall the poor layman ever be satisfied about them ? Have 
 there not been as many, and as intricate disputes about them, as 
 about the articles of revealed religion ? Where is now the boasted 
 agreement ? Where is the uncontroverted religion ? What attri- 
 bute of God has not been questioned, disputed and denied ? Have 
 not his creation of all things, his Providence, &c. which of all 
 others have the most remarkable influence upon practice, by many 
 been denied ? Have not horrid notions of them been advanced by 
 some ? What will now become of men of squeamish stomachs, 
 that can admit of no religion, but one that is smooth, and has no 
 rugged controversies in it ? Why, poor gentlemen, they must part 
 with our author's religion, and so be, as they were before, men of 
 no religion. Upon the whole, we see that this query, designed 
 to prove the Deists' religion sufficient, has proved it a chimera. 
 
 QuerT/ IV. " Whether any things that are added to these five 
 " principles from the doctrine of faith, be not uncertain in their ori- 
 « ginal ?" So Blount.* Herbert to this adds, « That though God 
 *' be true, yet the laity can never be certain about revelation : 
 " For, (says he) how do ye know that God spake these words to 
 " the prophets ? How do you know that they faithfully repeated or 
 " wrote what God spoke to them, and no more ? How do ye know 
 " that transcribers have performed their part faithfully ? How do ye 
 " know that that particular revelation made to a particular priest, pro- 
 " phet or lawgiver, concerns not only all other priests and lawgivers, 
 " but also the laity? Especially, how shall ye know this, if the matter 
 " of revelation require you to recede from reason ?"f And here we 
 have a proof of the fourth reflection, of his unfair treatment of the 
 Christian revelation, which we made above. Chap. 13. For either 
 he insinuates, that the scriptures teach things contrary to reason ; 
 and if so, where was our author's ingenuity when he called it 
 optima religio, and upon other occasions pretended so much res- 
 pect to it ? Does not this justify our charge of disingenuity against 
 him, in the first reflection we have made, in the place now referred 
 to ? If he owns, that this is not the fault of the Christian religion, 
 but of other pretended revelations ; then he justifies our fourth re- 
 fl,eclion, wherein we charge him with jumbling revelations, true and 
 false together, those that have, at least, seemingly fair pretences, and 
 these that have none; and deceitfully charges upon all in cumulo, the 
 faults peculiar to the worst. If this is not enough to persuade you 
 to the truth of his protestation abovementioned, vis. that he design- 
 ed no hurt to the Christian religioUj he has an observation, with 
 
 * Blount Rel. Laici, pag. 91. 
 
 t Herb. Rel. Laici, Appendix, pag. 3. ^ 
 
316 AN INaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 which he concludes this query, that will beat the persuasion of it 
 
 into your brains, or else of somewhat beside ; and it is this, in his 
 
 own words, " I think it worthy of the layman's observatioi, that 
 
 " there is this difference betwixt the pretended revelations offered 
 
 *' to us, by the lawgivers, and those offered to us by priests, inter- 
 
 " preters of the oracles God, of (under which notion he takes in all 
 
 " prophets) whether they gave their revelations or responses for 
 
 •' hire, or merely to set off their own conceits (sive venules sive 
 
 " nugivcndi ;) that the revelations, which the lawgivers pretended 
 
 " they had from heaven, and promulgated as such did usually make 
 
 " the people more just and sociable, or agree better together ; 
 
 " whereas the pretended revelations of the priest and prophets, of 
 
 *' whatever sort, (or in his own words, Oraculorum interpretibus 
 
 " sive venaUbus sive nngivendisj did usually make the people 
 
 " more unjust or impious, and did divide them among themselves"^.'* 
 
 Here is a rare observation, worth gold to the layman. He may, 
 
 with more safet}", receive and use the laws which Lycurgus, Solon, 
 
 and the other Heathen lawgivers pretended they had from heaven ; 
 
 and I would add Moses and his writings, but that I fear our author 
 
 has cost him, because he set up for an interpreter of God's mind, 
 
 and, upon some extraordinary occasions, acted the part of a priest : 
 
 Our author, T say, w ouid persuade hiui, that he may, with more ad- 
 
 va:itage, read these writings, than those of the prophets and apostles, 
 
 or any other of the sacred writers, who were not lawgivers. It is 
 
 true, both are to be looked upon but as pretended revelations, and 
 
 so in effect cheats : but the lawgivers beguiled the people to their 
 
 advantage ; whereas these rogues of priests, and others who joined 
 
 with them, offered cheats that were hurtful to justice among men, 
 
 and the peace of society. 
 
 If any say, I am wresting our author's words and that certainly 
 his comparison respects oiilyt he Heathen lawgivers, and the Hea- 
 then priests ; I answer If this is the meaning, it is altogether im- 
 pertinent to the design of the query, which avowedly alms at 
 t "is, " That laymen, living among us, (for I do not believe our au- 
 thor designed to send his book to the Pagans) can never be sa- 
 tisfied as to the truth of any particular revelation," and all his su- 
 bordinate queries do directly thrust at the scriptures ; and then he 
 closes with this observation, as of the greatest moment to the de- 
 sign of the query. And therefore I cannot own, that I have done 
 a:'y injury to our author, in the interpretation I have given of it ; 
 but I have spoke his meaning more plainly, than he thought con- 
 venient to do. The next query is to the same purpose, and there- 
 fore we sh;>ll purpose it, and answer both. 
 
 Qveiy V. " Supposing the originals true, whether yet they be 
 " not uixertaln in their explications ; so that unless a man read 
 
 Herb. IJel. Laici, Appendix, pag-. 3v 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 317 
 
 « all authors, speak with all learned men, and know all languages, 
 « it be not impossible to come to a clear solution of all doubts ?'* 
 Thus Blount.* Herbert, in his fifth query, speaks to the same 
 purpose, he makes a huge outcry about the schisms and sects that 
 are among us, and tells us plainly, that if we will adherie stiffly to 
 revelation, we must of necessity get an infallible judge, to whose 
 decisions we must submit in all things. He endeavours to prove 
 that the scriptures will not decide the controversy ; and imperti- 
 nently enough labours to disprove what none ever asserted ; that 
 miracles wrought by the writers will not decide the dilTerences 
 about the meaning of their writings. For it is evident this query 
 only respects the meaning of the revelation, as the former did its 
 original. However, I know who will thank our author for assert- 
 ing the necessity of a living infallible judge. If any think I have 
 wronged our author as to this, let them inspect his book, and they 
 will find I have done him justice. But for the satisfaction of those 
 who have it not, I shall subjoin his own express words : he informs 
 the layman, that he can never be satisfied about the meaning of 
 this revelation, about which there are so many controversies, un- 
 less either he can " Linguas cundas ediscere, scriptores cundos 
 " celebriores perlegere, dodiores etiam, qui non scripserunt, con- 
 " sulere ; aut aliquis saltern controversiarmn illarum ex consensu 
 " communi summus constitucrelnr judex."-f And then he goes 
 on to prove, that there is no other possible way of deciding these 
 differences, and coming to the meaning of revelation, but in these 
 two ways pointed at in the words now quoted. The first is ridi- 
 culous, and therefore we must be Deists or Papists. 
 
 The design of these queries is obvious. They were afraid that 
 their arguments might prove weak, which they had advanced for 
 the sufficiency of their catholic religion; and now, in effect, they 
 tell the laity, that if they have a mind to have a religion at all, they 
 must close with this which the Deists present tliem. And though 
 we cannot satisfy you, may the Deists say, in all points, about our 
 catholic religion, yet you must rest satisfied with it : for you can 
 never be sure about revelation, either as to its original or meaning. 
 Men brought to such a strait, since they cannot have such a reli- 
 gion as they would wish, must take such as they can get. 
 
 These queries directly attack revelation ; and so belong not to 
 our subject. The learned defenders of revealed religion have con- 
 sidered those trifles, and repelled the force of them, I shall only 
 consider them, in so fiir as they belong to our subject, and offer 
 the few following animadversions upon them. 
 
 • Blount Rcl.Laici, ubi supra, pag-. 91. 
 
 + " Learn all lang-uages, read over all the most celebrated writers, consul. 
 " the most learned men, who have not written, or at least some supreme iudgt; 
 " of all controversies must he appointed by common consent."' 
 
318 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 1. I say, if the layman must, for the sake of those difficulties, 
 quit revealed religion, he must part with the Deists' catholic reli- 
 gion upon the same account. Herbert has told us, and it were in- 
 deed ridiculous to say the contrary, that this catholic religion is 
 comprehensive not only of their five articles, but their explications. 
 Now, are there not as many, and no less intricate debates about 
 this religion, as about that which is revealed ? Is not its sufficiency 
 disputed ? Must not the layman read all books, converse with all 
 learned men, &c. before he can rest satisfied in it ? Are there not 
 intricate and perplexed disputes about the authority, extent, use, 
 matter and manner of the promulgation of the law of nature ? 
 Where shall the layman find the notices that belong to this religion ? 
 Shall he turn inward, and find them inscribed upon his own mind ? 
 So our author advises. But learned men say, and pretend to prove 
 the contrary. And if most men look into their own minds, they 
 will either say with the latter that they are not there ; or com- 
 plain that they are become so dim that they cannot read them un- 
 less some charitable Deist will affijrd them his spectacles. But 
 when they have got them, what shall they do next for the explica- 
 tions ? Are the explications written there too ? The Deists dare 
 not say it. But these likewise are necessary, say the Deists, as 
 we have heard from Blount and Herbert before. Shall the laity 
 consult the Doctors about their meaning ? But do not Doctors 
 differ ? Do not the Magi, and not a few learned Greeks, as Zeno 
 and Crysippus, &c. teach Sodomy to be lawful ? Was it not the 
 judgment of others, that a wise man ought " To steal, and com- 
 mit adultnj and sacrilege upon occasions, for none of these things 
 are hy nature evil." So Theodorus, as Hesychius illustriously 
 reports in his life.* Does not Aristippus and Carneades, with 
 many others, overthrow the whole law of nature, telling us, that 
 nothing is naturally just or unjust, good or evil, but by virtue of 
 some arbitrary law? Has not the same opinion been revived, 
 broached and inculcated by Hobbes and others among ourselves*? 
 Has not Plato long since observed in his Phedon, " That if any 
 «' one name either silver or iron, presently all men agree what it is 
 « that is intended ; but if they speak of that which is just or good, 
 «' presently we are at variance with others, and among ourselves." 
 In a word, he that will cast at revelation, for its controversies, is a 
 fool to go over to natural religion, in expectation to be free of con- 
 troversy. Thus we are at least upon a level with the Deists. 
 
 2. If the layman, in defiance of the Deists' queries, may reach a 
 satisfying assurance of the divine authority of the scriptures, where 
 is then the necessity for his quitting revelation ? It will quite evan- 
 ish. This, I say, he may have, without troubhng his head about 
 
 See Dr. Owen on the Sabbath, Exercjt. 3. § IZ. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 319 
 
 impertinent queries of this sort, if he duly attend to that one, plain 
 and ritional direction given by our Lord, John vii. 17. If any 
 man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
 God, or whether I speak of myself. 
 
 The scriptures containing a full account of all the concerns of the 
 Christian religion, are exhibited to him, and put in his hand by the 
 church as a revelation from God, wherein all his concerns for eter- 
 nity are wrapped up. I do not plead, that the testimony of the 
 church is a sufficient ground for bottoming his faith. But this I 
 say, that the testimony of the church is a sufficient ground for any 
 man to judge and conclude firmly, that its pretensions are not con- 
 temptible, and that it deserves the most serious consideration ima- 
 ginable. But when I speak of the church, to whose testimony this 
 regard is to be paid, we set aside, as of no consideration, a multitude 
 of persons, whether of the clergy or laity, who do, in their practice 
 visibly contradict the confessed rules of their religion. Such per- 
 sons are scarce to be reckoned of any religion, and their testimony is 
 of no consideration, either for or against religion. Nor do we re- 
 strict the notion of the church to the representatives of it, much 
 less to the Church of Rome, that mono^jolize this name. But I 
 take it for that body of men, of whatever station or quality, who 
 have received, and do act answerably to the Christian religion they 
 profess, in some good measure at least. Now I say, the testimony 
 of this church, or body of men, deserves great regard in this mat- 
 ter. If we consider them, there are among them persons of un- 
 tainted reputation, enemies themselves being judges. Not a few of 
 them are of unquestionable judgment, deep discerning, solid learn- 
 ing, and strict inquirers after truth. They are not a few but many. 
 Nor are they confined to one nation or age, but such they have 
 been in all ages, in all nations, where Christianity has obtained free 
 access. Many of them are persons, whom envy itself cannot al- 
 lege biassed, by external gain of one sort or of another. They are 
 persons of different, nay cross civil interests, and of different out- 
 ward conditions. Such are the persons who give this testimony. 
 Again, if we consider their testimony, they bear witness to the 
 Christian religion in all its concerns, its truth, sufficiency, useful- 
 ness to all the ends of religion, with respect to time or eternity, 
 and its efficacy for beginning, carrying on, maintaining, reviving and 
 consummating such as sincerely receive it, in godliness towards 
 God, righteousness towards men, sobriety with respect to ourselves; 
 and that both as to inward principles and outward acts. Further, 
 if we consider in what way they give in their testimony, the weight 
 of it will appear. They bear witness to all this, not only by their 
 words, but by their deeds, living in a conformity to it, parting with 
 all that is dearest to them for it, cheerfully undergoing the greatest 
 hardships, patiently bearing the most cruel torments, to the loss of 
 
320 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 life itself; and this they do neither upon mere constraint, nor on 
 the other hand, from a rash and inadvertent neglect of a due regard 
 to the unquestionable advantages of peace, health, life, and the 
 other good things they part with; but they venture upon doing and 
 suffering freely and of choice, upon a sober, rational consideration 
 of the advantage of cleaving to their religion, and of its being such, 
 as will do more than compensate any loss they can sustain for it. 
 Again, they bear witness to the concerns of this religion, as to a 
 thing that they have not received upon bare hearsay, but upon 
 narrow scrutiny, as that whereof they have the experience. They 
 do not only give this testimony, when it is new to them ; but after 
 long trial, when they are most sedate and composed, and when they 
 can expect nothing of advantage by it, and when they must lay their 
 account with contempt, opposition and loss. They give this testi- 
 mony in whateA^er place they are, where it is honored, or where it 
 is opposed. They give it with the greatest concern, and recom- 
 mend this religion to those whom they would least deceive, even 
 with their dying breath, when they dare not dissemble, and that 
 after a long trial, in the course of their lives, in the greatest variety 
 of outward conditions, sufficient to have discovered the weakness 
 of their religion, if it had any. They have made choice of this re- 
 ligion, and adhered to it, under the greatest outward disadvantages, 
 who were not prepossessed in its favor by education, but prejudiced 
 against it ; and they have embraced it, Avhere they had a free choice 
 to accept or reject it, and advantages to tempt them to a refusal. 
 They do not require an implicit belief as Mahometans do, but pro- 
 voke to experience and trial. Now I dare boldly say, that this tes- 
 timony is a better, more plain, obvious, and every way more justi- 
 fiable ground of rational assent to the divine authority, truth, effica- 
 cy, and sufficiency of the Christian religion, than can be given for 
 the like assent, to any other particular religion whatsoever. Nay^ 
 there is more in this one testimony, as it is, or at least may be qua- 
 lified with other circumstances, discernible even by the most ordi- 
 nary layman, here for brevity's sake omitted, (the urging this in its 
 full strength, not being my present design) than can be offered for 
 all the other religions in the world, natural, or pretending to revela- 
 tion, were all that can be said for them altogether put in one argument. 
 Any reasonable man cannot but think his eternal concerns safer in 
 following this society, than any other whatsoever : There is not 
 such another company elsewhere to be met with, as might be de- 
 monstrated to the conviction of the stiffest opposer. But this I 
 plead not at present. I say not, that he should build his persua- 
 sion of Christianity upon this testimony. All that I make of it is 
 this. That he has reason to consider the scriptures, as thus attest- 
 ed, as a book that has, at least, very plausible pretences to divini- 
 ty, a book that deserves serious perusal, a book that cannot possi- 
 
PRtNCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 321 
 
 biy have any obvious and unquestionable arguments of imposture, 
 and consequently, that it deserves to be read through, and fully 
 heard before it is cast ; and that though there occur in it some 
 things that he cannot presently understand, or whose use and value 
 he cannot take up, he ought not therefore to be prejudged against 
 the divine authority of the book upon the account of them, till, at 
 least, it is heard to an end. For, who knows not, that things which 
 appear incredible, unreasonable, yea ridiculous, before their causes, 
 order and design are understood, may, upon acquaintance with 
 these, appear convincingly credible, useful, and every way reasona- 
 ble ? This is all I claim of the layman at present, and he deserves 
 not the name of a reasonable man who will deny it upon such a 
 ground. And if the Deists had considered this, we had not been 
 troubled with the many childish and trifling prejudices, wherewith 
 their Oracles of Reason and other books are stuffed. Nor could 
 they have been diverted from the serious consideration of the 
 scriptures, by such pitiful exceptions. 
 
 Well, the scriptures being put into the layman's hand, thus at- 
 tested, he sets himself to the perusal of them, and such a perusal 
 as the case requires ; looking to God for direction, he tries the 
 means appointed by them, for satisfaction as to their divinity. 
 While he is seeking light from God, in such a matter, he dare not 
 expect it, if he continue in the neglect of known duty, or the com- 
 mission of known sin, and therefore he studies to avoid them. He 
 is resolved to follow truth, as it is discovered, and to subscribe to 
 the scripture pretensions, if they give sufficient evidence of them- 
 selves. Nothing is here resolved, but what is reasonable beyond 
 exception. In pursuance of this just resolution, he reads them, 
 and upon his perusal, what passages he cannot understand, or reach 
 the reason of, he passes at present and goes on, till he see further 
 what may be the intention of them. And he finds in plain and 
 convincing expressions, his own case, and the case of all men by 
 nature, clearly discovered, and urged upon him by this book ; the 
 words pierce his soul, dive into his conscience, and make manifest 
 the secrets of his hearty (know^n to none but God) manifest his sins, 
 in their nature and tendency, and all their concernments. His 
 conscience tells him, all this is true to a tittle, though he did not 
 know it before, and none other save the heart-searching God, could 
 know what was transacted within his heart, though overlooked by 
 himself. The discovery not only carries with it an evidence of 
 truth, which his conscience subscribes to ; but the words wherein 
 it is expressed, bear themselves in upon his soul with a light, au- 
 thority and majesty formerly unknown, evidencing their meaning 
 and truth, and filling the soul with unusual and awful impressions of 
 the majesty and authority of the speaker. Thus being convinced 
 and judged, and the secrets of his heart made manifest, he isi 
 
 41 
 
322 AN INaUlRY INTO THE 
 
 forced to fall down and acknowledge, that God is in the word of 
 a truth. And lie is ready to say, Come see a book that told me 
 all that ever I did in my life, is not this the book of God ? Thus 
 he stands trembling under the sense of the wrath of God, due to 
 him for his ?Ins. He reads on, and finds in the same book a dis- 
 covery of relief, frequently proposed in plain passages. He is 
 urged to an acceptance of it. The discovery carries along with 
 it a full evidence of the suitableness, excellence/, and advantage of 
 the remedy : Avid by a gust of its goodness, or inward sense, he 
 is drawn to ?tn approbation. Upon this approbation the promised 
 effects follow. His fears are dissipated, his hopes revived, his soul 
 is made acquainted with formerly unknown and God-becoming ex- 
 pressions of the nature and excellencies of God, and going still ou 
 every day, repeated experience occur of the justness of the disco- 
 veries tlie word makes of himself, the authority of its commands, 
 faitbfnlness of its promises, the awfulness of its threatenings, none 
 of wliich fall to the ground. He, in a vrord, has repeated expe- 
 rience of the unparalleled efficacy of the whole, for the cure of 
 his darkness, his corruption, &c. which despised other applications ; 
 and towards his advancement to a sincere and conscientious regard 
 lo all his duties, outward and inward, towaid God and man. 
 
 Let us noYiT but suppose this to be the case with the man upon his 
 perusal of the scriptures, though with respect to innumerable souls, 
 it is more than a bare supposition : upon this supposition, I say, 1 . 
 The man has the highest security he can desire, that this book is, 
 as to its substance, the very word of God, as certainly as if it were 
 spoken to him immediately by a voice from heaven. This cannot 
 well be denied by any that understands this supposition. 2. I say, 
 the man thus convinced may laugh at all Herbert's queries as im- 
 pertinent. He finds God speaking by the word, and owning it for 
 his. He needs not therefore trouble himself who wrote it, or whe- 
 ther they were honest men v.ho transcribed it, or whether they 
 performed their part, whether it was designed for him ; and the 
 like may be said of all his other queries. He will find no occa- 
 sion for that distinction betwixt traditional or original revelation, 
 mentioned by Herbert, and insisted upon by Mr. Locke,=* on 
 what design 1 leave others to judge. In this case, as to the sub- 
 stance, it is all one to him, as if it had not come thi'ough another 
 hand ; nor lias he reason to suspect, that God would permit to 
 creep into, or stand in a book, which for the substance, he still 
 owns and evinces to be from liim, any thing of a coarser alloy, at 
 least any such corruption as might make it unworthy of him to own 
 it, oi- unsafe to use it to the design it was given for : Yea, he has 
 the strongest security that the perfections and providence of God 
 
 * liOclit's Essay ou Hum. Understand. Book 4. Cap. 18. § 6. 7. 8. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS!. 323 
 
 of God can afford, to rest fully assured of the contrary. He has 
 no reason to stumble at passages that he cannot understand, 
 or such as by others are reckoned ridiculous, but rather to say 
 with Socrates, in another case, " What I understand I admire, and 
 " am fully convinced to be every way worthy of its author ; and 
 " therefore I conclude what I understand not, to be equally excel- 
 " lent, and that it would appear so if I understood all its con- 
 «' cerns." Finally, This supposition takes ofl' all pretence of he- 
 sitation about the meaning of the scriptures, as to what the man is 
 particularly concerned in. The story of the necessity of an in- 
 fallible judge, is built upon this supposition, That the scriptures 
 are so obscure in matters necessarily relating to the faith and prac- 
 tice of the vulgar, that they cannot be understood by them satis- 
 fyingly, in the use of appointed means. This supposition is pal- 
 pably false, coiitrary to scripture, reason aiid experience, as is 
 evinced by our writers against the Papists, who fully consider 
 their pleas, and paiticularly those which Herbert and the Deists 
 have borrowed from them, who may be consulted by the reader. 
 3. Thus far I have made appear, that the layman has the just- 
 est reason in the world to look upon it as his dutj , or the will of 
 God, that he should give the scriptures such a perusal. 2. That 
 in doing his will there is a way, at least, supposable, wherein he 
 may reach full satisfaction in his own mind, in defiance of the 
 Deists' queries about the divinity of the scriptures, and reach the 
 highest rational security, even that of faith, bottomed upon divine 
 testimony, and inward sense or experience ; which Herbert him- 
 self, upon all occasions, truly asserts to be the highest certainty. 
 I shall now advance one step further, and assert, that this is more 
 than a mere supposition, that it is matter of fact, that they, who 
 do receive the scriptures in a due manner, especially among the 
 laity or illiterate, do find and rest upon this ground in their persua- 
 sion. Upon this ground it was alone, that multitudes did at first 
 receive it, and for it reject the religions they were bred in; and 
 not as the Deists imagine, upon a blind veneration to teachers, 
 priests or preachers, whom by education, they were taught to ab- 
 hor ; And upon this ground they still do adhere to it, and receive 
 it as written in the scriptures. The words of Mr. Baxter, as I 
 find them quoted by Mr. Wilson (for I have not seen Baxter's book 
 in answer to Herbert de VerUale) are remarkable to this purpose, 
 " I think, says he. That in the very hearing or reading, God's Spi- 
 " rit often so concurreth as that the will itself should be touched 
 " witli an internal gust or savour of the goodness contained in the 
 " doctrine, and at the same time the understanding with an inter- 
 " nal irradiation, which breeds such a sudden apprehension of the 
 *' verity of it, as nature gives men of natiu'al principles. And I 
 
324 AN iNaUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " am persuaded, that this increased by more experience and love, 
 " and inward gusts, doth hold most Christians faster to Christ, 
 " than naked reasonings could do. And were it not for this, un- 
 * * learned ignorant persons were still in danger of apostasy, by 
 * ' every subtle caviller that assaults them. And I believe that all 
 * ' true Christians have this kind of internal knowledge, from the 
 ** suitableness of the truth and goodness of the gospel to their new- 
 *' quickened, illuminated, sanctified souls."* The apostle tells us, 
 God who commajided the light to shine out of darkiuss^ hath shined 
 into our hearts, to give the light of the knorvledge of the glory of 
 God in the face of Jesus Christ. — If the Deist say, How proves the 
 layman this to me ? I answer. That is not the question. For the 
 design of the Deists in these queries, is to prove, that the layman 
 cannot be assured about the original and meaning of revelation in 
 his own mind, and so must close with their catholic religion. Now 
 in direct contradiction to this, I say, here is a ground to stand up- 
 on. And if he has this ground, even a sober Deist must allow 
 he has no reason to be moved from it, but must fully know that the 
 doctrines are of God. And so I have overthrown the design of the 
 queiy. As for the Deists' question, How he proves it to others ? 
 it is impertinent. It is not reasonable to expect, that every com- 
 mon man can stop the mouths of gain-sayers. It is enough for him 
 if he can give a reason, which is good, and must be owned such in 
 itself. If the Deist questions matters of fact, that he finds matters 
 so and so ; I answer, A blind man may question whether I see this 
 paper now before me ; and yet I have good reason to believe it is 
 there, though I should fail of convincing him. 
 
 If the Deist says, I have perused the scriptures, and found no 
 such effect ; I answer, in matters of experience one affirmative 
 proves more than twenty negatives ; unless the application is in 
 all respects equal, and the effect depend upon a necessary cause : 
 For where a voluntary agent is the cause of the effect, there it 
 does not necessarily follow upon the like application. But to wave 
 this general, which would require more room to explain, than I can 
 allow it in this place, I say further, to the complainer, Have you 
 given the scripture such a perusal, as I have proved in a way of 
 duty you are obliged to do ? Have you used the means, in so far, 
 at least, as is possible for you ? Have you sought, have you waited 
 for God's guidance and preservation from mistake, and from unjust 
 prejudices against him, his works, his word, (if this be such) and 
 his ways ? Do you carefully study to avoid what may reasonably 
 be thought, even by a considerate Heathen, to obstruct the grant 
 of the assistance desired from God ? Do you carefully avoid known 
 sin ? Do you endeavor the performance of what you know to be 
 duty ? Are you resolved to follow in practice where light leads ? If 
 
 * Baxter's Animad. on Herbet deVerit. pacjc 135. quoted by M. J. WilsoJi, 
 Scriptnics iuteriweter asLcrted, Appendix page 20. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 325 
 
 you dare not frankly answer, you have no reason to complain. For 
 my own part, I am persuaded, that in fact, none who have done his 
 will even thus far, have reason to table a complaint against the 
 word. Others who take a quite contrary course, are unreasonable 
 in the complaint. Disputes about what might be the case, upon 
 supposition of a person's doing all, that in his present circumstan- 
 ces he is able to do, and yet miss of satisfaction as to the divine 
 authority of the woid, until the subject of this question be found, 
 I think not myself concerned in, at least in a controversy with the 
 Deists. It is unreasonable to question the scripture's authority, or 
 the evidence of it, upon suppositions that never were in being, and 
 I am persuaded, never shall have a being. 
 
 But these things I leave. This dispute lies wholly out of our 
 road. But I have been obliged to this digression, in pursuit of the 
 Deist's impertinent queries. I say impertinent, because, were all 
 granted that is aimed at in these queries, it will not avail one rush, 
 towards the proof of the point the Deists are on, viz. the validiti/ 
 of their religion : For were revealed religion uncertain, is it a good 
 consequence, that therefore the Deists' religion is certain ? What 
 I have said in defence of revealed religion, I would have to be look- 
 ed upon only as a digression, and not as a full declaration of my 
 opinion ; much less would I have this understood as the substance 
 of what can be pleaded on behalf of that blessed book that has 
 brought life and immortality to light. This is not the hundredth 
 part of what even I could say, were this my subject. And others 
 have said, and can plead much more than I am able. However, 
 this I owed to the truth of God. Such as would see all these pre- 
 tences against revelation, repelled, are desired to consult those, wiio 
 designedly treat of this subject. 
 
 There are other things in these queries now animadverted upon, 
 that deserve rather contempt than an answer. In particular, it is 
 supposed, as one of the principal foundations of those two queries, 
 now under consideration, That a man cannot reach certainty in his 
 own mind upon solid grounds, and rationally acquiesce in it as such, 
 unless " he knows all that can be said against it, read all books, con» 
 " verse with all learned men, &c." than which there is not a more 
 extravagant expression in Bevis and Garagantua. Admit it, and 
 I shall demonstrate against any that will undertake it, that nothing 
 is certain. I cannot but admire that so learned a person as Her- 
 bert could use such an extravagant supposition. But what will not 
 a bad cause drive a man upon ? This confirms what is ordinarily 
 observed, that there is no opinion, however unreasonable, but has 
 some learned man for its patron, if not inventor. 
 
 We shall now go on to the rest of the queries, which will be of 
 more easy dispatch. That I have dwelt so long upon these two, 
 is out of regard to revelation and its honor, and not from any weight 
 in the queries. As for them, this alone had bceu a sufficient an- 
 
S26 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 swer, which I propose in a way of a counter quer} , and conclmic 
 with it — " If a layman that is illiterate cannot be satisfied as to the 
 " truth of revealed religion, how doth this prove the Deists' five 
 " articles to be a sufficient and good religion." 
 
 Qneri/ 11. " Supposing all true in their originals, and in their 
 " explications, whether yet they be so good for the instructing of 
 " mankind, that bring pardon of sin upon such easy terms, as to 
 " believe the business is done to our hand ?" And, 
 
 Q}!erJ/ VIL " Whether this doctrine doth not derogate from vir- 
 " tue and goodness, while our best actions are represented as im- 
 *' perfect and sinful, and that ii is impossible to keep the ten com- 
 " mandments, so as God will accept of our actions, doing the best 
 *' we can ?" Thus Blount gives us Herbert's sixth query in two.* 
 There is no material difference in Herbert, save only that he harps 
 upon the old string, and spends himself in bitter invectives against 
 the scripture doctrine about the decrees of God, of which we have 
 said enough before. And therefore I think it needless to burthen 
 this paper with his words. 
 
 . The two former queries struck at scripture revelation itself; these 
 two strike at the matter contained in the scriptures. And here 
 there is a double charge laid against the doctrine revealed in the 
 scriptures, as black as hell can invent, and as false as it is black. 
 The sixth query charges it with favoring sin, by bringing pardon 
 upon too easy terms ; and the seventh charges it with derogating 
 from virtue. 
 
 For an answer to both, I might oppose experience. Sin is no 
 where by any so opposed, virtue no where so sincerely cultivated, 
 as among those who sincerely receive the doctrine of satisfaction, 
 and believe the utmost as to the inability of man in his present fal- 
 len case, without supernatural assistance, and gracious acceptance, 
 to please God, Dare the Deists compare with them in this respect? 
 If they should, I know what would be the issue, if the judge had 
 conscience or honesty. A Socrates, Seneca or Plato, deserves not 
 to be named in the same dr,y with the meanest serious Christian, 
 that believes these doctrines, either with respect to i^iety toward 
 God, or dnti/ tov/ard man. 
 
 But as to the first charge, I ssy the ground of it is false ; the 
 ffuery is disingenuous and deceitful. The ground of it is a suppo- 
 sition, that r*^velation excludes the necessity of repentance. This 
 is manifestly false : Both Herbert and Blount knew it to be false ; 
 and could not but do so, if ever they read the Bible. And the que- 
 ry comparing revelation upon this known misrepresentation, with 
 natural religion, is shamefully disingenuous. Let. the query be, 
 Whether it is more favorable to sin, to say, it is not to be pardon- 
 ed without a satisfaction to justice by Christ, and repentance upon 
 
 * Blount Rel. Laici, pag-. 91. 9:?. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 8^7 
 
 our part, as revelation teaches ; or, that upon our repentance mere- 
 ly, God is obliged to pardon it, as the Deists say ? Now, 1 leave it 
 to the Deists to answer this. 
 
 As to the second charge, revelation derogates nothing from vir- 
 tue. It teaches indeed that our best actions are imperfect, and he 
 knows not what perfection means, or what is required thereto, that 
 will deny it. It teaches that lh(y who are in the flesh cannot please 
 €rod. It talks at another rate than Herbert, of the condition of 
 sinful man, as to acceptance with God. He gives him a directkiu, 
 " Cum bonnm pro i>irUi prceslas, mercedem a bonitate ilia supre- 
 " ma pete, exis^e, habe; quo pado revera sapies.'^^ That is, "Man- 
 " fully perform your duty as you can, and (whatever sin remain) 
 " ask, demand, and have your reward. This is the way to be truly 
 " wise." This petulent advice the scripture does not justify, and 
 sober reason reprobates. Where sin intervenes, whatever the sin- 
 ner does, in way of obedience, I conceive it will be as good wisdom 
 as our author teaches him, to be very sober with his demands. But 
 to return : Revelation, by teaching man's inability, doth not hin- 
 der him from virtue ; but takes him off from his own strength, 
 ^vjiich would fail him in the performance, and leads him where he 
 may get strength,and where innumerable persons have got strength 
 to perform duty acceptably ; and it points to the only ground, 
 whereon sinful and imperfect obedience can be accepted with, or 
 expect a reward from God. 
 
 Quer// VIII. " Whether speaking good words, thinking good 
 " thoughts, and doing good actions, be not the just exercise of a 
 " man's life ? Or that without embracing the foresaid five princi- 
 " pies or fundamentals, it be impossible to keep peace among men, 
 " that God may be well served ?" Thus Blount.f This is Her- 
 bert's seventh and last ((uery, and he only adds one clause to it, 
 wanting here ; " Whether the layman may not spend his time bet- 
 " ter in those exercises mentioned, than if he employed it in de- 
 " ciding controversies he does not understand."J • 
 
 The supposed necessity of the layman perplexing himself with 
 controversies, at which Herbert here aims, in case he see meet to 
 embrace revelation, we have above weighed and cast. But as to 
 the query itself, it is utterly impertinent. For this is the question 
 they should have proposed, " Whether their religion is sufEcient 
 " to bring a man to these just exercises, and to maintain peace in 
 *' society?" And not as they propose it, " Whether these exer- 
 " cises be in themselves good?" which nobody denies: let this be 
 the question, and we answer negatively. For this we have given 
 sufficient reasons above. 
 
 Herbert de Vcritate, pa.^. 108. f Herb. Rel. I..iici, Appendix. 
 
 Blount I?cl. Laici page 9'2. 
 
328 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 Qveiy IX. " Whether the foresaid five principles do not best 
 " agree with the precepts given in the ten commandments, and 
 " with the two precepts of Jesus Christ, vis. To love God above 
 " all, and our neighbour as ourselves ? as well as with the words 
 " of St. Peter, That in every nation he that feareth God, and work- 
 eth risihtfiousness is accepted of God."* 
 
 This query is the same with Herbert's seventh and last persua- 
 sive to Deism, which we have answered above. It is falsely sup- 
 posed that revelation teaches, that the knowledge of the ten com- 
 mands, or Christ's summary of them, is snflBcient to salvation. 
 Yea, revelation teaches expressly, that no man can practice them 
 without grace from Christ, and that there is no other way of salva- 
 tion but by faith in him. Again, it is falsely supposed, that the 
 agreement of these articles with (that is to say, their not contradict- 
 ing) these commands, proves them a sufficient religion. This ar- 
 gument, if it proves any thing, proves too much ; for it will prove 
 any one of them alone to be suflScient. If the Deists mean that 
 their five articles, not only are not inconsistent with, but sufficient 
 to bring men the length required by the ten commands, our 
 Jjord's summary of them, or to fear God and work righteousness, 
 as Cornelius did : I answer negatively to the question, they can 
 bring no man to this. Cornelius, of whom Peter speaks, had em- 
 braced the Old Testament revelation. What Peter speaks of men 
 of all 7iations being accepted with God, relates to the discovery God 
 had made to him of his design to admit men of all nations promiscu- 
 ously to acceptance with him through the gospel revelation : And 
 consequently, that the opinion hitherto received by Peter and 
 other Jews, of the continued confinement of revealed religion and 
 its privileges to Israel, was a mistake. So that this place helps 
 Tiot the Deists, if it is not cut off from its scope and cohesion, or in- 
 terpreted without respect to it. This way of interpretation of 
 scripture is not safe. I know not where Mr. Blount learned it ; 
 but I can tell him where there is a precedent of it — Matt. iv. And 
 if the Deists have a mind to follow that precedent, they shall not 
 be followed by me. 
 
 Query X. " Whether the doctrine of faith can by human reason 
 " be supposed or granted to be infallible, unless we are infallibly as- 
 " sured, that those who teach this doctrine do know the secret coun- 
 « selsofGod."t 
 
 To this I answer. That I am sufficiently secured as to the infal- 
 lible certainty of the doctrine, if I have received the scriptures upon 
 the ground above-mentioned, without supposing any who now teach 
 it, to have any further acquaintance with the secret counsels of 
 of God, than the word gives them. 
 
 * Blount, ib. page 92, 93. -^ Blount, Rel. Laici, pag. 93. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 329 
 
 Qnejy XL " Whether all things in the scriptures, (besides the 
 " moral part, which agrees with our five principles) such as pro- 
 " phecy, miracles and revelations, depending on the history, may 
 « not be so far examined, as to be made appear by what authority 
 " they are or may be received ?"* 
 
 I answer, Revelation, in all its parts, is capable to stand the test 
 of the strictest trial, provided it be just, and be managed as becomes 
 it. But I must tell the Deists one thing in their ear. That if the 
 scriptures once evince themselves to be from God, by sufficient 
 evidence, they are obliged, upon their peril, to receive all that it 
 teaches them, though they cannot prove it by reason ; nay, nor 
 explain it. But what if any revealed doctrine be contrary to rea- 
 son ? Upon the foregoing supposition, this query cannot be excus- 
 ed of blasphemy, but is highly impertinent and unreasonable. 
 
 Q,uery XII. " Whether in human reason any one may, or ought 
 " to be convinced by one single testimony, so far as to believe things 
 " contrary to, or besides reason ?"f 
 
 One single testimony is writ in a different character in the que- 
 ry, perhaps to give us to understand, that by it is meant the testi- 
 mony of the revealer, God. And it cannot reasonably be under- 
 stood of any other : For upon no other single testimony save that 
 of God, is an assent to revelation demanded, or pleaded for, by 
 those he opposes. 
 
 This being premised, I say this query consists, and is made up 
 of three as impious suppositions as can enter the thoughts of any of 
 the sons of men ; besides that they are mutually destructive of one 
 another. 1 . It supposes that the one single testimony of God is 
 not a sufficient warrant for believing whatever he shall reveal. 2. 
 It supposes that a revelation come from God may contain things 
 really contradictory to our reason. 3. It supposes that the single 
 testimony of God is not a sufficient ground. to believe things that 
 are besides our reason, though they be not contrary to it, that is, 
 truths, which we cannot prove by reason, or about which there are 
 some difficulties that we cannot solve. Take these three impious 
 suppositions out of the query, and it has no difficulty in it. If once 
 we suppose a revelation to be from God, we must lay aside the se- 
 cond supposition as impossible, viz. That it can contain any thing 
 really contrary to reason. Set aside this, which makes the query 
 J'elo de se, destroy itself, and let the question be proposed, Whether 
 we may believe upon the sijigle testimony of God whatever does 
 not really contradict our reason, though it contains some difficulties, 
 which we cannot solve ? And then I say, it is impious to deny it. 
 
 Query XIII. And lastly, " Whether, if it were granted they had 
 " revelations, I am obliged to accept of another's revelation for the 
 
 i Blount's Rel. Laici, pag-. 93. f Ibid. pag. 94 
 
 42 
 
330 AN INQUIRY INTO THE 
 
 " ground of my feiith ? Especially if it doth any way oppose these 
 " five articles, that are grounded upon the law of nature, which is 
 " God's universal magna charla, enacted by the All-wise and Su- 
 " preme Being, from the beginning of the world, and therefore not 
 " to be destroyed or altered by every whistling proclamation of an 
 " enthusiast."* 
 
 This query is of the same alloy with the former. To it we an- 
 swer shortly, The Christian revelation, (in others we are not con- 
 cerned) exhibits matters of universal concernment, upon evidence 
 ©f their divinity, capable to satisfy those who now live, as well as 
 those to whom they were originally made ; and so are impertinently 
 called another^s revelation. And we are obliged to receive it as the 
 ground of our faith, and rule of our practice as much as they. The 
 supposition that is added, that it contains doctrines or precepts con- 
 trary to the law of nature, is impious and false. What he adds 
 further about the " whistling proclamations of enthusiasts," if it is 
 not applied to the sacred writers, we are not concerned in it. If it 
 is applied to them, First, It is false, that they taught any thing con- 
 trary to the law of nature. Secondly/, It is impious to call them, in 
 way of contempt, enthusiasts ; or, at least, it is intolerably bold for 
 ' any man to call them such, before he has proven it ; which he ne- 
 ver did, nor will all the Deists on earth ever be able to do. Third- 
 ///, It was rude and un.aannerly to treat them with so much con- 
 tempt, especially without argument proving the charge, whom the 
 whole authority of the land, all the persons vested with it, and the 
 body of the people, respect as men infallibly directed of God. 
 Fourthli/, It was disingenuous to treat them thus, after such pre- 
 tensions as our author had made of respect to them, in this and his 
 other books. 
 
 Finally, Mr. Blount, instead of a fourteenth query, concludes 
 with the testimony of Justin Martyr, as probative of his point. 
 His words run thus, " Finally, submitting my discourse to my im- 
 " partial and judicious reader, I shall conclude with the saying of 
 " Justin Martyr, Apol. cont. IViphon, page 83. " That all those 
 " vi^ho lived according to the rule of reason, were Christians, not- 
 " withstanding that they mJglit hax^e been accounted as Atheists ; 
 " such as among the Greeks were Socrates, Hieraclitus, and the 
 " like ; and among the Barbarians, Abraham and Azarias : For 
 " all those who lived, or do now live, according to the rule of reason, 
 " are Christians, and in an assured quiet condition."! 
 
 As to the testimony of Justin Martyr, it is not probative with 
 us ; tI:ough we honor the fathers, yet we do not think ourselves 
 obliged to submit to all their dictates. This is said, but not pro- 
 ven by him, eiihsr by scripture or reason. And I fear not to say, 
 
 * Elounl's Rel. Laici, pag. 91. f Blount's Rel.Laici, page 94, 95. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 331 
 
 It is more than he or any other can prove. Abraham is imperti- 
 nently classed amongst those who wanted revelation ; Socrates and 
 Hieraclitus, in so far as they lived according to reason, are assured- 
 ly praise-worthy, and upon this account are not to be reckoned 
 Atheists. That they were Christians, I flatly deny. Nor can it 
 be proven from scripture or reason, that their condition is assiired- 
 ly quiet. And further than this I am not concerned to pass any 
 judgment about their state at present : What it m that day will 
 manijest. 
 
 END OP THE INftUiar. 
 
AN 
 
 ESSAY, 
 
 CONCERNING THE 
 
 NATURE OF FAITH; 
 
 OR, 
 
 THE GROUND UPON WHICH 
 FAITH MSEJVTS TO THE SCRIPTURES: 
 
 THE OPINION OF THE RATIONALISTS ABOUT IT, IS PROPOSED, AND 
 
 EXAMINED, ESPECIALLy AS IT IS STATED BY THE 
 
 LEARNED MR. LOCKE, IN HIS BOOK ON 
 
 HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 ALBANY : 
 PUBLISHED BY H. C. SOUTHWICK, 
 
 No, 73, STATE-STREET. 
 
 1812. 
 
AN ESSAY, 4rc. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Containing some general Remarks concerning Knowledge, 
 Faithy and particularly divine Faith, and that both as to 
 thefacvliy and actings thereof, 
 
 ALL knowledge is commonly, and that not unfitly, 
 referred to the understanding or intellectual poAver of 
 the mind of man, which is conversant about truth. Our 
 assent to, or persuasion of any truth is founded, eitlier 
 1 . LTpon the immediate perception of the agreement or 
 disagreement of our ideas, and so is called intuitive know- 
 ledge. Or 2. It results from a comparison of our ideas 
 with some immediate ones, which helps us to discern 
 their agreement or disagreement; and this goes under 
 the name of rational knowledge. Or 3. It leans upon the 
 information of our senses, and this is sensible knowledge. 
 Or 4. It depends upon the testimony of credible wit- 
 nesses. And this is faith. 
 
 Faith again, if it is founded upon the testimony of an- 
 gels, may be termed angelical; if on the testimony of 
 men, human ; and if it is founded on the testimony of 
 God, it is called divine faith: It is of this last we design 
 to discourse, as what particularly belongs to our present 
 purpose. 
 
 When we speak of divine faith, we either mean the 
 faculty or power whereby we assent unto divine testi- 
 mony ; or the assent given by that power. Both are 
 
336 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 signified by that name, and faith is promiscuously used 
 for the one or the other. 
 
 Faith, as it denotes the faculty, power or ability of 
 our minds to perceive the evidence of, and assent to di- 
 vine testimony, is again either natural or supernatural, 
 Tliat naturally we have a faculty capable of assenting 
 in some sort to divine testimony, is denied by none, so 
 far as I know. But that ability whereby v\e are at least 
 habitually fitted, disposed and enabled to assent in a due 
 manner to, and receive with a just legard, tije testimony 
 of God, no man by nature has. This is a supernatural 
 gift. 
 
 Several questions I know are moved concerning this 
 ability. It belongs not to my subject, neitiier doth my 
 inclination lead me to dip much in tt'cm at present. I 
 shall only suggest the fcAV remarks ensuing. 
 
 1. It seems unquestionably clear, that man originally 
 had a power, ability or faculty capable of perceiving, 
 discerning and assenting to divine revelations upon their 
 proper evidence : For it is plain, that God did reveal 
 himself to man in innocency, and that he made man ca- 
 pable of converse with himself. But if such a faculty, 
 as this we speak of, had been wanting, he had neither 
 been capable of those revelations, nor fitted for converse 
 with God. 
 
 2. It may most convincingly be made out, that all our 
 faculties have suffered a dreadful shock, and are mightily 
 impaired by the entrance of sin, and the corruption of our 
 nature thereon ensuing; and particularly our under- 
 standings are so far disabled, especially in things per- 
 taining unto God, that we cannot in a due manner, per- 
 ceive, discern or entertain divine revelations upon their 
 proper evidence, unto the glory of God, and our own 
 advantage, vmless our natures are supernatural ly renew- 
 ed. But this, notwithst?.nding, the faculty of assenting 
 to divine testimony is not quite lost, though it is impair- 
 ed and lendered until for performing its proper work in 
 a due manner. I know none who asserts, t^at any of 
 
THE REASON OP TRUE FAITH. 337 
 
 our faculties were entirely lost by tiie fall.* In renova- 
 tion our faculties are renewed, but tliere is no word of 
 implanting new ones. It is certain, unrenewed men, such 
 as Balaam and others, have had revelations made to them, 
 and did assent to those revelations. Nor is it less clear, 
 that the devils believe and tremhle. 
 
 3. Whether men, in a state of natiu-e, whose minds 
 are not renewed, may not so far discern and be affected 
 by the characters and evidences of God impressed upon 
 divine revelations, particularly the scriptiu'es, where 
 those evidences shine brightly, as thereby to be obliged, 
 and actually drawn to give some sort of assent into the 
 testimony of God, I shall not positively determine: 
 Though the affirmative seems probable to me. The 
 impress of a Deity is no less evident on the scriptures 
 than his other works. He has magnified this word above 
 all his name. Besides, I do not see, how the very facul- 
 ty itself can be thought to remain, if it is not capable of 
 discerning any thing of God, where he gives the most 
 full and convincing evidence of himself, as unquestion- 
 ably he doth in the scriptures. Nor do I doubt but mul- 
 titudes of sober persons, trained up within the chinch, 
 and thereby drawn to a more attentive and less prejudi- 
 cial perusal of tlie scripture revelation, do, upon sundry 
 occasions, find their minds affected with the evidence of 
 God in them, and thereby are drawn to assent to them 
 as his word, though not in a due manner, and that even 
 where they remain strangers unto a work of renovation. 
 And I am sure, if it is so, it will leave the rejectors of 
 the scriptures remarkably without excuse. 
 
 4. Whether some transient act of the Spirit of God is 
 always necessary upon the mind, to draw forth even 
 such an assent, as that last mentioned, I shall not deter- 
 mine ; that in some cases it is so, is not to be doubted. 
 The faith of temporary believers undoubtedly requhes 
 such an action as its cause, and where any thing of this 
 evidence affects the minds of persons, at present deep- 
 
 • " We cannot conceive how reason should be prejudiced by the advance* 
 " ment of the rational faculties of our soxils with respect unto their exercise 
 " toward their proper objects ; vvhicli is all we assign unto the work of th^ 
 *' Holy Spirit in ihis matter." Dr. Oisen on the Spirit, Preface, page 9, 
 
 43 
 
3'38 AN ESSAY, &c. 
 
 ly prejudiced, as they were, who were sent to apprehend 
 Christ, and went away under a conviction, thai never man 
 spake as he did ; there such a transient work of the Spi- 
 rit of God seems necessary to clear their minds of pre- 
 judices, and make them discern the evidences of a Dei- 
 ty : But whether it is so in other cases, I shall not con- 
 clude positively. 
 
 5. But were it granted. That faith, that is, the faculty 
 or power of believing, which is nothing else save the 
 mind of man considered as a subject capable of assent- 
 ing to testimony, still remains ; and that though woful- 
 ly impaired, weakened and disabled, it yet continues in 
 so far able for its proper office or work, that either by the 
 assistance of some transient operation of God's Spirit, 
 breaking in some measure the power of its prejudices, 
 and fixing it to the consideration of its proper object, or 
 even without this, upon a more sedate, sober, less preju- 
 diced observation, it may, though less perfectly, perceive 
 the impress and evidences of God appearing in the re- 
 velations he makes of himself, and that thereon it may 
 be actually so afl'ected, as to give some sort of assent, 
 and reach some conviction, that it is God who speaks r 
 \Vere, I say, all this granted, it will amount to no great 
 jiiatter ; since it is certain, that every sort of faith or 
 assent to divine testimony, is not sufficient to answer our 
 dut}% obtain acceptance with God, and turn to our sal- 
 vation. Nor is it so much of our concernment to in- 
 quue after that sort of faith which fails of answering 
 these ends ; and therefore I shall dip no further into any 
 questions about any faith of this sort, or our ability for it. 
 
 6. It is more our interest to understand what that faith 
 is, which God requires us to give to his word, which he 
 will accept of, and which therefore will turn to our sal- 
 vation ; and whence we have the power and ability for 
 this faith. Of these things therefore we shall discourse 
 at more length in the next chapter designed to ttiat end. 
 
CHAP. n. 
 
 Wherein the Nature of that Faith, which in Duty we ar& 
 obliged to give to the Word of God, our ohUgatioa to, 
 and our ability for answering our Duty, are inquired 
 into. 
 
 WE have above insinuated, and of itself it is plain, 
 that every sort of faith or assent to divine testimony an- 
 swers not our duty, nor will amount to that regard which 
 we owe to the authority and truth of God, when he 
 speaks, or writes his mind to us. We must therefore, in 
 the first place, inquire into the nature of that faith which 
 will do so. Nor is there any other way wherein this may 
 better be cleared, than by attending to the plain scrip- 
 ture accounts of it. 
 
 Nows if we look into the scriptures, we find, 1. The 
 apostle Paul, 1 Thess. ii. 13. when he is commending 
 the Thessalonians, and blessing God on their behalf, gives 
 a clear description of that faith which is due unto the 
 word of God. For this cause also, says he, thank we God 
 without ceasing, because ivhen ye received the word of God 
 which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of 
 men ; but (as it is truth) the word of God which effectual- 
 ly 7Vorketh also in you that believe. If we advert to this 
 description, we cannot but see these things in it. First, 
 That some special sort of assent is here intended. The 
 Thessalonians did not think it enough to give such cre- 
 dit, or yield such an assent as is due to the word of men, 
 even the best of men. Secondly, In particular it is plain, 
 that such an assent is intended as some way answers the 
 unquestionable firmness of the testimony of the God of 
 trutli, which is the ground whereon it leans. Thirdly, 
 It is obvious, that somewhat more is intended than a 
 mere assent, of whatsoever sort it is : The words plainly 
 import such an assent, or receiving of the word of God, 
 as is attended with that reverence, (submission of soul, re- 
 
340 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 sii^natlon of will and subjection of conscience, that is 
 due to God. 
 
 This the use of the word elsewhere in scripture strong- 
 ly pleads for, and the manner wherein the apostle ex- 
 presses }}imself here is sufricient to convince any man 
 tl at no less is intended. 1. Less than this would scarce 
 have been a ground for the apostle's thanksi^iving to 
 God, and for his doing this without ceasing. And indeed 
 we find that this expression elsewhere used imports not 
 only people's assent to, but their consent and approba- 
 tion of the word of God; yea, and their embracing in 
 piactice the gospel. Acts viii. 14. and xi. 1. 2. We are 
 told FXeb. xi. 1. that is the evidence of things not seen, — 
 f^iypc"^, which Ave render evidence^ signifies properly a 
 convincing demonstrationy standing firm against, and re* 
 pelling tlie force of contrary objections. Faith then is 
 such an assent as this. It is a firm conviction leaning upon 
 the strongest bottom, able to stand against, and withstand 
 the strongest objections. 3. The apostle more particu- 
 larly'^ describes tiie groimd whereon it rests, or what tliat 
 demonstrative evidence is, whereon this conviction is 
 founded, and that both negatively and positively, 1 Cor. 
 ii. 5. It stands not in the wisdom of men, but in the power 
 of God. That is, it neither leans upon the eloquence, 
 nor reasonings of men, but upon the pow erfid evidence 
 of the Spirit's demonstration, as it is in the verse before. 
 
 Having given this sliort and plain account of faith from 
 the scriptiue, we must in the next place prove, that in 
 duty we are bound to receive the word of God w ith a 
 faith of this soil. Nor w ill this be found a matter of any 
 difficulty : For, 
 
 1. The scriptures hold themselves forth to us as the 
 Oracles of God, which holy men of God spake as they 
 were moved by the spirit of God, and w rote by divine in- 
 spiration, and the Holy Ghost is said to speak to us by 
 them. Now the very light of nature teaches us, that 
 when God utters oracles, speaks and av rites his mind to 
 us, we are in duty bound readily to assent, give entire 
 credit to, and rely with the firmest confidence on the 
 veracity of the speaker ; and furtlier, we are obliged to 
 attend to wliat is spoken w^ith the deepest v(Tieiati(>n, 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 341 
 
 reverence and subjection of soul, and yield an unre- 
 served practical compliance with every intimation of his . 
 mind. 
 
 2. The scriptures were written for this very end. That 
 jve might so believe them as to have life by them, John xx. 
 30. 31. And again, Rom. xvi. 25, 26. The scriptures of 
 the projyhets according to the commandment of the everlast- 
 ing Gody are said to be made known to all nations for the 
 obedience of faith. Ceilainly then we are in duty obliged 
 to yield tiiis obedience of faith, 
 
 3. The most dreadfid judgments, yea eternal ruin, 
 and that of the most intolerable sort, are threatened 
 against those, who do not thus receive the words of God 
 from his servants, whether by word or writ, is no mat- 
 ter. Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words^ 
 when ye depart out of that house or city, shake oj^ the dust 
 of your feet. Verily I say unto you. It shall be more tolera- 
 ble for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that ci- 
 ty , Matt. X. 14. 15. Accordingly w^e find the apostles 
 preach the word at Antioch in Pisidia, Acts xiii. demand 
 acceptance of it both of .lews and Gentiles, and upon 
 their refusal, they testily against them in this way of the 
 Lord's appointment, ver. 51. And all this severity they 
 used witliout offering mu'acles, or any other proof for 
 their doctrine, so far as we can learn, besides the au- 
 thoiitative proposal of it in tlie name of God. 
 
 4. We find the apostle, in the words above quoted, 
 commending the 7'hessalonians for receiving the word in 
 this manner, which is proof enough, that it was then- du- 
 ty to do so. 
 
 This much being clear, it remains yet to be inquired. 
 Whence we have power or ability for yielding such an 
 assent, whether it is natural or supernatural ? Now if 
 we consult the scripture upon this head, we find, 
 
 1. That this ability to believe and receive the things 
 of God to our salvation and his glory, is expressly de- 
 nied to unrenewed man, or man in his natural estate, 2 
 Tiies. iii. 2. u4ll men have not faith: 1 Cor. ii. 14. The 
 natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; 
 for they are foolishness unto him : Neither can he know 
 them, because they are spiritually discerned^ Jolm viii. 47 — 
 
342 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 Ye therefore hear not God's words, because ye are not of 
 God. -^ 
 
 2. This is expressly denied to be of our selves, and 
 asserted to be a supernatual gift of God, Eph. ii. 8. By 
 •grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of your- 
 selves, it is the gift of God. 
 
 3. The production of it is expressly ascribed unto 
 God. He it is that fulfils in his people the work of faith 
 with power, 2 Thes. i. 1 1. He it is that gives tliem, that 
 is, that enables them, on the behalf of Christ to believe and 
 siiffer for his name, Phil. i. 29. It is one of tJie fruits of 
 the Spirit, Gal. v. 22. And of it Christ is the aidhor, Heb. 
 xii. 2. The further proof and vindication of this truth I 
 refer to polemical writers. 
 
 But hei^ possibly some may inquire. How it can be 
 our duty thus to believe the scriptures, since we are not 
 of ourselves able to do so ? In answer to this, I shall on- 
 ty say, 1. The very light of nature shews, that it is our 
 duty to yield perfect obedience, yet certain it is we are 
 unable to answer to our duty. 2. The scriptures plainly 
 require us to serve God acceptably ivith reverence and god- 
 ly fear, and with the same breath tells us, we must have 
 grace to enable us to do it, Heb. xii. 28. 3. We have 
 destroyed ourselves, and by our ow n fault impaired the 
 powers God originally gave us, and brought ourselves 
 under innumerable prejudices and other evils, wfiereby 
 the entrance of light is obstructed : but this cannot rea- 
 sonably prejudge God's right to demand credit to his 
 word, on which he lias impressed sufficient objective evi- 
 dence of himself, which any one that has not thus faulti- 
 ly lost his eyes, may upon attention discern. 4. It is 
 therefore our duty to justify God, blame ourselves, and 
 wait in the way he has prescribed, for that girice which 
 is necessary to enable us; and if thus we do his will, or at 
 least aim at it, we have no reason to despau', but may 
 expect in due time to be enabled to understand and 
 linow, whether these truths are of God, or they who 
 spoke them did it of themselves, John vii. 17. Though 
 yet we cannot claim this as what is our due. 
 
 From what has hitherto been discoiu'sed, it is evident, 
 iliat this liiif h, whereby we assent to the scripture, is su- 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 343 
 
 pernatural, or may be so called upon a two-fold account: 
 1. Because the power or ability for it, is supernaturally 
 given ; and 2. The evidence whereon it rests is superna- 
 tural. 
 
 In this chapter, we have directly concerned omselvest 
 only in the proof of the first of these, viz. That our abili- 
 ty thus to believe is supernaturally given ; and this has been 
 tfie constant doctrine of the chinch of God, which we 
 might confirm by testimonies of all soils, did our design- 
 ed brevity allow.* 
 
 But our modern Rationalists do resolutely oppose 
 this. The author of a late Atheistical pamphlet, that 
 truly subverts all religion, may be allowed to speak for 
 all the rest ; for he says no more than what they do as- 
 sent to : He tells us, " That when once the mystery of 
 " Christ .Tesus was revealed, even human reason Avas 
 " able to behold and confess it ; not that grace had al- 
 " tered the eye sight of reason, but that it had drawn the 
 " object nearer to it."t To the same purpose speak 
 the Socinians ; Schlichtingius tells us, " Man endued 
 " with understanding is no otherwise blind in divine 
 " mysteries, than as lie who hath eyes, but sits in the 
 " dark : remove the darkness, and bring Imn a light and 
 " he will see. The eyes of a man are his imderstand- 
 " ing, the light is Christ's doctrine." To the same pur- 
 pose doth the paradoxical Bclgic Exercitator, that sets 
 up for philosophy as the interpreter of the scriptures, 
 express himself frequently. Nor is his pretended an- 
 swerer Volzogius differently minded; though he is not 
 so constant to his opinion as the other. J 
 
 But these gentlemen may talk as tliey please, we are 
 not obliged to believe them in this matter. The scrip- 
 tures plainly teaching us, that our minds are blind, our 
 understandings impaired and obstructed in discerning 
 the evidence of truth, by prejudices arising from tlie en- 
 
 * See iVfy. Wilson's Scripture's jjenuine Interpreter asserted. Appen. page 
 4, 5, &c. 
 
 f Treatise on niiman Reason, page 58, published 1674, and to the credit of 
 the church of England, with an Imprimatur, quote^l by Mr. Wilson, ubi 8Upr»ij 
 fjagc 13. 
 
 WiTsQn's ibrd, page 7; H'. 
 
344 AN ESSAY, &c. 
 
 mity of the will, and depravity of the affections. Nor 
 were it difficult to demonstrate from sciiptuie, that no 
 man can believe, or understand the word of God ariglit, 
 tDl, 1. The spirit of God repair this defect of the faculty, 
 or gives us an understandings 1 John v. 20. 2. Bi eak 
 the power of that enmity that rises up against the truths 
 of God as foolishness. 3. Cure the disorder of our af- 
 fections, that blinds our minds. And 4. Fix our minds, 
 otherwise vain and unstable, to attend to what God 
 speaks, and the evidence he gives of himself. But tliis 
 is not what we principally design, and therefore we shall 
 insist no longer upon this head : Our present question is 
 not about our ability or power to believe, but the ground 
 whereon w^e do believe. What has been spoken of the 
 former hitherto, is only to prepare the w ay for the con- 
 sideration of the latter, to which we now proceed. 
 
CHAP. III. 
 
 The Ground, or the formal Reason, whereon Faith assents 
 to the Scriptures is inquired after ; the Rationalist's 
 Opinion about it, and particularli/ as stated hy Mr, 
 Locke in his Book on Human Under standing , is pro- 
 posed and considered. 
 
 THOUGH we have spoken somewhat concerning 
 our ability to believe the word of God, and the super- 
 natural rise thereof, in the preceding chapter ; wherein 
 we have offered our thoughts of that which goes 
 under the name of subjective light ; yet this is not the 
 question mainly intended in these papers. That which 
 we aim more particularly to inquire after, is the ground 
 whereon the mind thus subjectively enlightened, or by 
 the spirit of God disposed, fitted and enabled to discern 
 and assent to divine revelations, builds its assent, and 
 wlierein it rests satisfied, or acquiesces. 
 
 The question then before us is this. What is th?iigrou7id 
 whereon, or reason which moves and determines us to 
 receive the scriptures as the word of God 1 What is the 
 formal reason whereon our faith rests ? Or what is the 
 proper answer to that question. Wherefore do ye believe 
 the scriptures to be the word of God, and receive truths 
 therein proposed as the word of God, and not of man ? 
 
 It is in general owned by all, who believe the scrip- 
 tures to be a divine revelation, that the authority, truth 
 and veracity of God, who is truth itself, and can neither 
 deceive, nor be deceived, is the ground whereon we re- 
 ceive and assent to propositions of truth therein reveal- 
 ed. 
 
 But this general answer satisfies not the question : 
 For, though it is of natural and unquestionable evi- 
 dence, that God's testimony is true, cannot but be so, 
 and as such must be received ; yet certain it is, that di- 
 vine testimony abstractly considered, cannot be the 
 44 
 
346 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 ground of our assent unto any truth in particular : But 
 that whereon we must rest, and whereon our faith must 
 lean, is, " The testimony of God to it, evidencing itself, 
 " or as it gives evidence of itself imto the mind." The 
 knot of the question then lies heie, " What is that evi- 
 " dence of God's speaking or giving testimony to truths 
 " supernaturally revealed, whereby the mind is satisfied 
 " that God is the revealer ? Or when God speaks, or in- 
 " timates any truth to us, how, or in Avhat way doth he 
 " evidence to us, that he is the revealer, what ground is 
 " it whereon we are satisfied as to this precise point ?" 
 
 Now whereas there are persons of three sorts, wiio 
 may be called to assent to divine revelations, the ques- 
 tion proposed may be considered Avith respect to each 
 of them. 
 
 1. The question may be moved concerning those per- 
 sons to whom the scripture revelations were originally 
 made ; and as to them it may be inquired. When God 
 did reveal his mind imto the prophets, what was that evi- 
 dencCj what were those Tf xa*^/"** or certain signs, whereby 
 they were infallibly assured, that the propositions they 
 found impressed upon their minds, w ere from God ? 
 
 2. As to the persons to whom they did immediately 
 reveal these truths, it may be questioned, W^hat evi- 
 dences they had to move them to assent, and give faith 
 to those truths which were proposed to them as divine 
 revelations ? On what ground did they rest satisfied, that 
 really they were so ? 
 
 3. Whereas we, who now live, neither had these reve- 
 lations made to us originally, nor heard them from the 
 persons to whom they were so given ; but being com- 
 prised and put together in the Bible, they are offered to 
 us as a divine revelation, and we are in duty, upon pain of 
 God's displeasure in case of refusal, called and requued 
 to believe, and assent to whatever is therein revealed, as 
 the word of God and not of man ; hereon it may be moved, 
 What is that evidence which this book gives of itself, 
 that it is of God, whereon our minds may rest assured 
 that really it is so ? 
 
 As to this question, in so far as it concerns the first 
 soil of persons mentioned, we shall not dip much into 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 347 
 
 it ; all I shall say is this, ifi the words of the judicious 
 and learned Dr. Owen, " In the inspirations of the Ho- 
 " ly Spirit, and his actings on the minds of holy men of 
 *' old, he gave them infallible assurance that it was him- 
 " self alone by whom they were acted, Jer. xiii, 28. If 
 " any shall ask by what rexfcyiptct. or infallible tokens they 
 " might know assuredly the inspirations of the Holy 
 " Spirit, and be satisfied with such a persuasion as was 
 " not liable to mistake, tliat tiiey were not unposed 
 " upon ? I must say plainly. That I cannot tell ; for 
 " these things whereojf we have no experience."* 
 
 There is one thing dropt as to this matter by the in- 
 genious Mr. Locke, that deseives some animadversion. 
 Though he delivers nothing positively about those evi- 
 dences which the prophets had, yet negatively he tells 
 us, that the prophets' assurance did not at lest solely 
 arise from the revelations themselves, or the operation 
 of the Spirit impressing them upon their minds, which 
 he calls the internal light of assurance : But that beside 
 this, to satisfy them fully that those impressions were 
 from God, external signs were requisite ;t and this he en- 
 deavors to prove from their desuing coiifirmatory signs, 
 as Abraliam and others did ; and from God's giving such 
 signs undesired. To this purpose his appearing to Moses 
 in the bush, is by our author taken notice of. As to the 
 opinion itself, I look on it as highly injurious to the ho- 
 nor of divine revelation, and I take the ground whereon 
 it is founded to be weak and inconclusive : For, 1 . neither 
 Mr. Locke, nor any for him, shall ever be able to prove, 
 that these divinely inspued persons always required orgot 
 such coiifirmatory signs extrinsical to the revelation or in- 
 spiration itself; yea, it is manifest, that for most part 
 they neither sought them nor got them. 2. When they 
 did seek or get them, Mr. Locke cannot prove, that ei- 
 ther God or they found them necessary for the present 
 assiuahce of the person's own minds ; as if that internal 
 light of assurance, to use Mr. Locke's words, had not of 
 
 * Dr. Owen on the Spirit, Book 2. Chap. 1. §. 10. pa^. 104. 
 t Humw Uuderstandine, Book 4. Chap. 12. f. 15. page 593. Edition 5th^ 
 1706. 
 
348 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 itself, while it abode, been sufficient to satisfy the mind 
 fully, that it was God who was dealing with it, or reveal- 
 ing himself to it. It is plain, that other reasons of their 
 dt siring such signs may be assigned. When the matters 
 revealed were things at a distance, which requued some 
 extraordinary out-goings of God's power to eflectuate 
 them, in that case tliey desired, and God condescended 
 to gi ant to them some extraordinary signs, not to assure 
 them that God was speaking unto them, but to strength- 
 en their convictions of the sufficiency of God's power, for 
 enabling to do what he required of them, if it was difficult, 
 or accomplishing what he promised to them in defiance of 
 the greatest opposition. Sometimes divine revelations were 
 promises of things at a distance, that were not to be ac- 
 tually accomplisl:ed till after a long tract of time, and 
 over many inconvenient obstructions; in this case they 
 were obliged to believe these promises, and wait in the 
 faith of them, even when that light, that first assured 
 them, was gone, and such evidences or signs might be of 
 use to them to adhere unto the assent fonnerly given 
 upon that supernatural evidence, that at first accompa- 
 nied the revelation. Such siffns then mioht be of use to 
 strengthen the remembrance of tliat first evidence, which 
 they had when the revelations were first imparted to 
 them. These and other reasons of a like nature might 
 sufficiently account for then- desuing these signs, and 
 God's giving them : But as has been said, we intend not 
 a determination or full decision of this question. 
 
 We shall only consider the question with respect un- 
 to the two last soil of persons. And as to those who 
 heard, or had divine revelations immediately from in- 
 spired persons, our rational divines seem positive, that 
 the evidence whereon they assented to what they deli- 
 vered as the mind of God, consisted in, or did result from 
 the mu'acles they wrought, and other external signs, or 
 proofs, which they gave of theii' mission froin God. 
 Monsieur L'Clerk, in his Emendations and Additions to 
 Hammond on the New Testament, gives us this gloss on 
 1 Cor. ii, 5. " Paul, says he, would have the Corinthians 
 " believe liim, not as a philosopher proposing probabili- 
 ** ties to them, but as the messenger of God, who had 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 349 
 
 " received commandment from him, to deliver to thera 
 ** tliose tiutlis which he preached, and, that he thus re- 
 ** ceived them, he did shew by the miracles he thus 
 " vvrf Ui;iit." And a little after he adds, " He whose faith 
 " leans upon miracles wrought by God's power, his 
 " fajth is grounded upon the divine power, the cause of 
 " t[.ese divine miiacles." As to this opinion itself, I 
 shall express myself more particularly just now : But 
 as to Monsieur L'Clerc's inference from this text, he 
 had no manner of ground for it. Let us but look into the 
 veise before, and there we find the apostle telling the 
 Corinthians, tiiat in his preaching he avoided tlie en- 
 iicing words of mail's wisdom, and delivered his message 
 in the demonstration of the Spirit, and of power. Upon 
 the back of this 5th verse, he tells them, his design in 
 doing so was, that their faith might not stand in the wis- 
 dom of men, but in the power of God, that is, on the pow- 
 erful demonstration of the Spirit of God, mentioned in 
 the foregoing verse. How Monsieur L'Clerc came to 
 dream of miracles, and fetch them in here, while the 
 scope and every circumstance of the text stood in the 
 way of this exposition, I cannot divine; for nothing is 
 more foreign and remote from the sense of this place. 
 Il tlie author had followed tlie old approved interpreter 
 of scripture, I mean the scripture itself, and had looked 
 into tiie foregoing verse and context, he had given us 
 a more genuine account : But philosophy now set up 
 for an interpretei', I had almost said a perverter, did 
 certainly lead him into this violent and ridiculous gloss. 
 But to come to the matter itself. 
 
 Miracles can be no other the groimd of any assent, 
 than as they afford ground for, or may be made use of 
 as the medium of an argument, whereby tlie divine mis- 
 sion of the worker is concluded and proven. This then 
 must be the opinion of these gentlemen. That they who 
 heard the apostles or prophets, could not be satisfied in 
 their mmds, that what they said was divinely revealed, 
 until they were convinced of it by proofs drawn from 
 miracles or signs, wrought by the preacher ; and that 
 this is not merely my conjecture, is evident from the ac- 
 counts we have of theii' opinions and hypothesis, where- 
 
350 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 of this is reckoned as a principal one, that the mind of 
 man being rational, cannot be moved but by a rational 
 impression, that is, by the force of effectual reasons.* 
 And to the same purpose we shall find Mr. Locke ex- 
 pressing himself by and by. 
 
 Upon this hypothesis, it is evident, 1. That if a Hea- 
 then came into a Christian assembly, and heard Paul 
 preaching, or even Jesus Christ himself, if he had never 
 seen them work any sign or miracle, he would not be 
 obliged to believe their doctrine. 2. If the apostles 
 preached to those among Avhom they wrought no mira- 
 cles, gave no such outward signs, such persons could 
 not be obliged to believe them, the evidence whereon 
 such a belief is founded being denied. 3. They who 
 heard them, and saw the miracles, could not be obliged 
 to assent unto their doctrine, until by reasoning they 
 would have time to satisfy themselves, how far natural 
 causes might go towards the production of such effects, 
 and how far these things, admitting them to be superna- 
 tural, could go toward the proof of this — that what they 
 delivered was from God. 4. If there was any among 
 tliem so dull, as not to be capable to judge of these nice 
 points, I do not see how, upon these principles, they 
 could be obliged to believe. These and the like are not 
 strained consequences ; for it is undeniable, that our ob- 
 ligation to believe arises from the proposal of due ob- 
 jective evidence ; if this is wanting no man can be obliged 
 to believe. 
 
 As to us who neither conversed with the inspued per- 
 sons, to whom such revelations were originally given, 
 nor saw the miracles they ^vrought, we are told by those 
 Rationalists, That we have historical proof, that there 
 were such persons, that they wrote these revelations 
 which we now have, and that they WTOUght such mira- 
 cles in confirmation of their mission and doctrine ; and 
 upon the evidence of these proofs we must rest, they 
 will allow us no other bottom for our faith. Hence Mon- 
 sieur Le' Clerc tells us, " That whatever faith is this 
 " day in the world among Christians, depends upon the 
 " testimony of men." 
 
 * Spanhem. Elench. Controversiarum, pag-. 320. Edition 1694. 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 351 
 
 Among many who have embraced this opinion, Mr. 
 Locke in his Essay on Human Understandings has de- 
 clared liimself to this purpose, and upon several accounts 
 he deserves to be taken special notice of : I shall there- 
 fore represent faithfully and shortly his opinion, and the 
 grounds whereon it is founded, and make such animad- 
 versions upon them, as may be necessary for clearing 
 our way. His opinion you may take in the ensuing pro- 
 positions. 
 
 1. When he is speaking of the different grounds of 
 assent, and degrees thereof, he says, " Besides those we 
 " have hitherto mentioned, there is one sort of proposi- 
 " tions that challenge the highest degrees of our assent 
 " upon bare testimony, whether the thing proposed 
 " agree or disagree with common experience and the 
 " ordinary course of things, or not. The reason wliere- 
 " of is, because the testimony is of such an one, as can- 
 " not deceive or be deceived, and that is of God him- 
 " self. This carries with it assurance beyond doubt, evi- 
 " dence beyond exception. This is called by a peculiar 
 " name, revelation, and our assent to it, faith : Which as 
 " absolutely determines our minds, and as perfectly ex- 
 " eludes all wavering as our knowledge itself."^ 
 
 2. But notwithstanding, he tells us in the very same 
 paragraph, " That our assurance of truths upon this tes- 
 timony," or to give his own words, " Our assent can 
 " be rationally no higher than the evidence of its being 
 " a revelation, and that this is the meaning of the ex- 
 " pressions it is delivered in." That is, as he himself 
 explains it, "If the reasons proving it to be a revelation 
 " are but probable, our assiu'ance amounts but unto a 
 " probable conjecture." 
 
 He distinguishes betwixt traditional and original re- 
 velation. By the last of these, says he, " I mean that first 
 " impression which is made immediately by God on the 
 " mind of any man, to which we cannot set any bounds ; 
 " and by the other, those impressions delivered over to 
 " others in words, and the ordinary ways of conveying 
 " our conceptions one to another."! And afterwards 
 
 * Human Understand. Book 4. Cap. IS. §. 14. pag. 564, SQ3. 
 y Ibid. §. 3. patj. 582. 
 
352 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 speaking of immediate or original revelation^ be tells us, 
 " That no evidence of our faculties by whicli we re- 
 " ceive such revelations, can exceed, if equal, tiie cer- 
 " tainty of our intuitive knowledge."* And in the pre- 
 ceding paragraph, speaking of traditional revelatioUf he 
 tells us, " That whatsoever truth we come to the clear 
 " discovery of, from the knowledge and contemplation of 
 " our own ideas, will always be more certain to us, than 
 " those, which are conveyed by traditional revelation."t 
 
 4. He tells us, " That true light in the mind can be 
 " no other but the evidence of tlie truth of any propo- 
 " sition," and hereon he proceeds to tell us, "That there 
 " can be no other evidence or light in the mind, about 
 " propositions that are not self-evident, save what arises 
 " from the clearness and validity of those proofs upon 
 " which it is received : And he adds, " That to talk of 
 *' any other liglit is to put ourselves in the dark, or in 
 ** the power of the prince of darkness."J 
 
 5. In the next paragraph he tells us plainly, That 
 there is no way of knowing any revelation to be from 
 God, but by " rational proofs : or some marks in which 
 reason cannot be mistaken.") 
 
 6. In this next paragraph he tells what before we have 
 taken notice of, Tiiat the internal light of assurance 
 which the prophets had, was not sufficient to testify, that 
 the truths impressed on their minds were from God, 
 without other signs.H 
 
 Thus far of Mr. Locke's opinion, which in sum 
 amounts to this, " That even the original revelations, 
 had not in them intrinsic evidence, sufficient to assure 
 them on whom such uupressions were made, that they 
 were from God ; that other signs were necessary to sa- 
 tisfy them ; and that others who received such revela- 
 tions at second hand, not from God immediately, but 
 from inspired persons, have no other evidence to ground 
 their assent on, besides that which results from argu- 
 ments drawn from those signs, whereby they did con- 
 firm their mission ; and that we have no evidence who 
 
 * Human Understand. Book 4. Cap. IS. §• 5. paj?. 583. 
 
 t Ibid. Book 4. Cap. 18. §. 4. pag". 582. 4 Ibid. Book 4. Cap. 19. §. 13. 
 
 § Ibid. §. 14. II Ibid. §. 15. 
 
rut REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 353. 
 
 saw not these signs, besides that of the historical proofs, 
 whereby it is made out, tltat the persons who v/rote ttie 
 traditional revelations we have, wrought such signs in 
 confirmation of their mission from God." 
 
 It is worth our wliile to dwell a little here, and more 
 narrowly consider Mr. Locke's thoughts, and the grounds 
 of his opinion .; I sliall tlierefore otfer a few observa- 
 tions on this doctrine. 
 
 I. Mr. Locke in his first proposition, speaks very ho- 
 norably of divine faith. As to the assent or act of faiths 
 he says, " That it is an assent of the higiiest degree ; as- 
 •* surance without doubt." As to the ground of it, he 
 says, " That it is such as challenges an assent of the 
 " highest degree ;" that it is " evidence beyond e^fcep- 
 " tion." Tiiese are goodly words. He has spoken well 
 in all that he has said I Avisli that his meaning and leart 
 may be found as good as his words. All is not gold that 
 glitters. Let us then look a little more narrowly into his 
 meaning. 
 
 To find it out, we shall suppose that God, as no doubt 
 he did, does reveal immediately to Paul this proposition, 
 Jesus is the Son of God. Here is a revelation : By Paul 
 it is assented to. Well here is faith. Now in his be- 
 lieving this proposHion, he ma;y be said to assent to three 
 things — That what God says is true — Ttiat Jesus is the 
 Son of God — and, Tliat God says this to Paul.- 
 
 Now, I ask Mr. Locke, or any of om' rationalists that 
 are of liis mind. To which of tliese ttiree is it that Paul 
 assents, with an assent " of the highest degree," and of 
 which he has " evidence beyond exception?" 
 
 1. Could Mr. Locke only mean, that we have the 
 highest assurance of this general verity, That God^s tes- 
 timony is infallibly true ? No, sure. For the assent to 
 tliis truth is not an act of faith, but of intuitive know-^ 
 ledge. The truth itself is not a truth here divinely re- 
 vealed, but of natural evidence. This is not so much in 
 this instance expressly assented, as supposed known. 
 
 2. Doth Mr. Locke mean, tiiat we assent to this pro- 
 position, That Jesus is the son of God ! Had Paul " as- 
 surance be^ ond doubt" and " evidence beyond excep- 
 
 45 
 
354 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 lion," of this ? But surely Mr. Locke knew that Pauf^ 
 on this supposition, does not at all assent to the propo- 
 sition, Jesus is the Son of God ahsolidely, but as it is re- 
 vealed. Well then, all the evidence that Paul has to 
 ground his assent upon, is the evidence of this, TlmtGod 
 says so to him. If then the evidence of God's saying so 
 to him is not such as " challenges an assent of the high- 
 est degree," Paul cannot have the " highest degree of 
 assurance" of that proposition, the faith whereof leans 
 entirely upon his assurance of this, That God has reveal- 
 ed it. For as Mr. Locke says very truly in that same 
 paragraph, " Our assurance of any particular truth, that 
 " is, the matter revealed, can never rise higher in degree 
 " than our assurance of this, that it is revealed." If then 
 Paul has not " evidence beyond exception," that God re- 
 veals the proposition we speak of to him, he can never 
 have such assurance of the truth of the proposition ma- 
 terially considered. Wherefore, 
 
 3. Did Mr. Locke think in this case, that Paul would 
 have evidence beyond exception, challenging the high- 
 est degree of assent, and thereon assurance beyond doubt, 
 or of the highest degree, of this, that God did in very 
 deed say to Paul, That Jesus is the So7i of God; or of 
 this truth. That Jesus is the Son of God as revealed. It 
 is the assent to this proposition that in proper speaking 
 is faith. The assent to the general proposition above- 
 mentioned, is not an act of faith at all. Nor is tlie as- 
 sent to the proposition revealed, materially consideied, 
 an act of faith. Faith in this case, is only the assent to 
 that proposition as revealed^ or to the revelation of it. If, 
 then, Paul has not the highest evidence for, and thereon 
 (he highest assurance of this. That God says this to him, 
 iiis faith can never be said to be the highest degree of 
 assurance or assent. Thisthen Mr. Locke must mean, or 
 he means nothing. But yet I suppose he scarce thought 
 60 : For, L He tells us afterwards, that we can have no 
 evidence for receiving any truth revealed, that can ex- 
 ceed, if equal, the evidence we have for our intuitive 
 knowledge. If we have not then evidence, equal at least 
 to that which we have for our intuitive knowledge, for 
 vur belief of God's being the revealer, or that he speaks 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 355 
 
 to us, we cannot liave the highest degree of assurance. 
 2. He afterwards tells us, that we have no evidence for 
 this, that this or that truth is revealed to us by God, but 
 that which results from reason or arguments, drawn from 
 marks, whereby we prove that God is the speaker ; but 
 Mr. Locke owns, that the evidence of all our reasonings, 
 is still short of that which we have for our intuitive 
 knowledge. Now methinks this quite overthrows Mr. 
 Locke's goodly concession. With what consistency 
 with truth or himself, Mr. Locke wrote at this rate, is 
 left to others to judge. 
 
 n. Whatever there is in this concession yielded in fa- 
 vor of faith, Mr. Locke afterwards takes care that we 
 who now live shall not be the better for it : For after- 
 wards he tells us plainly, " That whatsoever truth we 
 " come to the clear discovery of, from the knoAvledge 
 " and contemplation of our ideas, will alwaysbe more cer- 
 " tain to us, than those which are conveyed by tradi- 
 " tional revelation." We have no revelation at this day, 
 but that which Mr. Locke calls traditional. And here 
 it is plain, that Mr. Locke thinks that our certainty of 
 any truth we have from this, is inferior in degree to any 
 sort of natural knowledge, whether intuitive, rational or 
 sensible. 
 
 in. It is manifest, that the foundation of all is, what 
 Mr. Locke teaches in the fourth position above mention- 
 ed ; wherein he tells us, " That to talk of any other light 
 " in the mind, beside that of self-evidence, reason, and 
 " sense, is to put ourselves in the dark." I have added 
 this last, " the light of sense," because Mr. Locke, 
 though he mentions it not here, yet elsewhere he admits 
 it. That we may understand Mr. Locke's assertion ex- 
 actly, it must be observed, that writers, when they treat 
 of tliis subject, usually take notice of a tw^o-fold light. 
 There is subjective lights by which is meant either our 
 ability to perceive, discern, know and judge of objects, 
 or our actual knowledge, assent, &c. Agam there is ob- 
 jective light, by which they mean that evidence whence 
 our knowledge results, whereon it is founded, and w hich 
 detennines the mind to assent or dissent. Now it is of 
 this last that Mr. l*ocke is treating in his chapter of Eiu 
 
356 AN ESSAY CONCERNING. 
 
 thusiasm, from whence this proposition is taken. And 
 his opinion is this. That there is a tlireefold objective 
 light, which is a real and just ground for the mind to as- 
 sent on. There h,Jirst, self-evidence^ which is the ground 
 of our intuitive knowledge, resulting from the obvious 
 agreement or disagreement of our ideas, appearing up- 
 on first view or infuition, wlien they are compared. 6e- 
 condly, There is rational light, or the evidence resulting 
 from arguments, wherein the agreement or disagree- 
 ment of our ideas is cleared by assuming intermediate 
 ideas, by the help of which our mind is cleared, as to 
 what judgment it is to pass. Thirdli/y There is the light 
 pf sense, or the evidence resulting from impressions 
 made on our minds by the intervention and means of our 
 organs of sense. 
 
 But besides these, he admits of no other objective 
 light or evidence, that may be a just ground of assent ; 
 and adds, " Tisat to talk of any other, is to put our- 
 " selves in the dark ; yea, in the power of the prince of 
 " of darkness, and tarn to enthus a ts." 
 
 This grape must be pressed, tiiat we may taste its 
 juice, hoAv it relishes. In the consideration of this doc- 
 trine delivered by Mr. Locke, we shall not at present 
 inquire whether it really does not preclude all place for 
 faith, properly so called. This in the issue will be fur- 
 ther cleared. 
 
 But whatever there is as to this, if Mr. Locke's doc- 
 trine hold, certain it is, that either faith, if there is such a 
 thing, must be founded on one of those three grounds of 
 assent, or sorts of objective light, or it is altogether irra- 
 tional. For an assent not founded on, and to which we 
 are not determined by real objective evidence, is brut- 
 ish, irrational, and really enthusiastic, as being no reason 
 or ground: And besides these three soils of grounds, 
 Mr. Locke admits of none. Faith, therefore, must be 
 founded either on one or the other of them, or it must 
 want all reason for it. 
 
 Further, it is to be observed. That Mr. Locke's taking 
 eelf-evidence for tljat which is immediately perceptible 
 vvithoiit the intervention of any intermediate ideas, by 
 the natural power of our intelleclural faculties, not as- 
 
THE REASON OF TRITE FAITH. 357 
 
 sisted, renewed, elevated and influenced by any super- 
 natural influence ; and taking sensible evidence for that 
 wljicli is conveyed by the intervention of bodily organs, 
 from corporeal substances, cannot be thought to make 
 either of these the ground of faith to the testimony of 
 God. And therefore it must have no reason save that 
 rational evidence, which makes the middle sort of objec- 
 tive light. But I need not spend time in proving this, 
 since it is no more than what is taught us in the fifth 
 proposition abovementioned. 
 
 This opinion tims far explained is indeed the sum, and 
 contains the force of what is pleaded, or, for ought I 
 know, can be pleaded for the judgment of our Rational- 
 ists. We shall therefore weigh the matter more serious- 
 ly, and proceed by some plain steps in the ensuing pro- 
 positions. 
 
 1. "If good and solid reasons can be produced for 
 " proof of anotlier sort of objective light or evidence, 
 " besides those three mentioned by Mr. Locke, it must 
 ** be admitted, though we should not be able to give a 
 " satisfying account of its nature, and other concern- 
 " ments." 
 
 (1.) This I believe was never denied in the general as 
 to other things, by any person of judgment, adverting to, 
 and understanding what is said, and w hy it then should 
 be refused in this case, I can see no ground. 
 
 (2.) If any has ever in general denied this in words, I 
 am sure every man in fact admits it. Who is he that re^ 
 ceives not many truths, that admits not the being of ma- 
 ny things, upon good proof, from theii' causes, efliects, in- 
 separable adjuncts, <&c. of the nature of which he can 
 give no satisfymg account? We all own the mutual in- 
 fluence of our souls and bodies upon one another, upon 
 the proofs we have from the efiects : But whoever has 
 understood the manner, how the soul operates on the bo- 
 dy, or the body upon it ? Instances of this sort are in- 
 numerable. 
 
 (3.) Sufficient proofs must always deteriTiine our as- 
 sent ; and if there are such in this case, it is unreasonable 
 to refuse it. 
 
358 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 (4.) If we have sufficient reasons to convince us, that 
 there is a fourth sort of objective light distinct from those 
 three admitted by Mr. Locke, and only deny it because 
 we understand not, or cannot give a clear account of its 
 nature, I cannot tell, but on this same ground we shall re- 
 ject, and be obliged to refuse these three sorts admitted 
 by him, for the very same reason. Mr. Locke perhaps 
 has done as much as any man to explain them : but were 
 he alive, I believe he would be as ready to own as any, 
 that he has been far from satisfying himself, or offering 
 what may fully clear others as to the nature of these 
 things. Wherein evidence consists ? What is it ? AVhat is 
 self-evidence, or that evidence which is the ground of 
 our sensible or rational knowledge ? How they operate 
 and influence the assent ? All his accounts are only de- 
 scriptions taken from causes, effects are the like. But 
 what objective light or evidence is, wherein it really con- 
 sists, (and the like may be said of the rest) is as much a 
 mystery as it was before, when he tells us, that self-evi- 
 dence (ex. gr.) is that which is immediately perceived 
 without the intervention of intermediate ideas. Here I 
 learn, that it is not rational evidence, that requires such 
 intermediate ideas. But this is all I can learn, unless it 
 be, that it is perceptible by the mind, that is, it is evi- 
 dence. But what evidence is, I am yet to learn. I think 
 this proposition is plain. 
 
 2. " A fourth sort of objective evidence, different from 
 " those three assigned by Mr. Locke, is not impossible." 
 
 (1.) If any say it is, it lies upon him to prove it. That 
 Mr. Locke, or millions more, observed no such light in 
 their minds, found themselves determined to assent by no 
 other objective evidence or light, will not prove it im- 
 possible ; yea, will not prove that actually there is no 
 such light ; nay, will not prove, that there is no such light 
 in their own minds. For Mr. Locke, though he observ- 
 ed as accurately the manner of his mind, its actings, as 
 most men, yet might not observe it so, but tliat he possi- 
 bly overlooked somewhat that passed there. And if real- 
 ly Mr. Locke did not assent upon other evidence to some 
 things, though he observed it not, I doubt not but by 
 this time he is sensible it was his loss that it was so. It 
 
THE REASON OF €RUE FAITH. 359 
 
 cannot be pretended, that it is impossible for want of a 
 sufficient cause, while that God is in being, who is author 
 of the three sorts of lights, that are admitted, and who 
 is the Father of lights. Nor can it be pretended, that the 
 members of this division stand contradictorily opposed 
 to one another, as it is in this, Every being is dependent 
 or independent. 
 
 (2.) If any will say yet. It is impossible there should 
 be a fourth or a fifth sort of light or objective evidence, I 
 shall desire him only to stay a while, and consider the 
 light of sense. It is nothing else save "that evidence 
 " that results from impressions made on our minds by 
 " means of our organs of sense." Well, hereon I shall 
 ask two questions. 
 
 Firsty Is it not possible for him who made those con- 
 veyances or organs of sens«| to frame more such, quite 
 different from tliose we already have, and by means of 
 them impai-t to us other perceptions, and determine as to 
 assent on the evidence of the impressions conveyed to 
 our minds by these other senses ? If it is possible, as I see 
 not how rationally it can be questioned, here is at least 
 a fourth sort of objective light detennining our minds to 
 assent, admitted 3,s possible. 
 
 Secondly^ Here I would inquire. Whether may not 
 He, who, by these bodily organs we already have, im- 
 presses ideas upon our minds, and determines our assent 
 to their agreement or disagreement, immediately without 
 the intervention of such organs^ makes impressions on our 
 minds, whereby our assent or judgment may rationally 
 be swayed ? To deny tliis will look very odd and irra- 
 tional to sober men, that have due thoughts of God. If 
 it is admitted, we have here at least the possibility of an- 
 other ground of assent, or objective light, acknowledged, 
 different from those condescended on by Mr. Locke. 
 
 (3.) We that have the benefit of sight, have in our 
 minds a sort of objective evidence or light, diffierent from 
 those wliich are born blind have. And why should it 
 be then thought impossible that others may have in theii' 
 minds an evidence that we have no experience of, and 
 that it may ])e equally real, convincing, or more so tlian 
 any Ihat we have. 
 
360 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 (4.) Mr. Locke grants, That there are extraordinary 
 ways whereby tlie knowledge of truth may be imparted 
 to men ; that God sometimes illuminates by his Spirit 
 the minds of men, with the knowledge of truths; that 
 there is no bounds to be set to such divine impressions. 
 Now if all this is so, why may there not be evidence of a 
 different sort, resulting from such extraordinary impres- 
 sions, illuminations, &c. allowed to be also possible ? 
 
 (5.) Either God can reveal his mind so to man, as to 
 give him the highest evidence or objective light tliat he 
 speaks to him, who gets that revelation, or he cannot. If 
 he can, then there is possible an objective evidt nee, and 
 that of the highest sort, diiferent from those three men- 
 tioned by Mr. Locke : for that it must be different is 
 evident, because Mr. Locke in this case will allow no 
 place for self-evidence, or tliat evidence we have in our 
 intuitive knowledge, v^bich he determines to be the 
 highest degi'ee of these three sorts he has admitted and 
 owned. Speaking of immediate revelation, he savs, 
 " No evidence of our faculties, by which we receive 
 " such revelations, can exceed, if equal, the certainty of 
 ** our intuitive knowledge, as we heard above." Since 
 then this evidence of the highest degree, is different from 
 that which we have in our intuitive knowledge, (if it is 
 at all) it must be of a different sort from any of those 
 three : For by concession, it is not self-evidence ; and 
 rational or sensible it is not, because these sorts of evi- 
 dence are of a degree inferior to intuitive evidence ; — If 
 then it is evidence of the highest degree, since Mr. 
 Locke will not admit it to be self-evidence, it must be 
 none of the three : and so we have a fourth sort admitted 
 possible. But if God cannot reveal his mind, so as to 
 give the greatest objective evidence that he speaks, or is 
 the revealer, then I say, it is plain, and follows unavoida- 
 bly, that God's testunony can never have from man ti,e 
 highest degree of assent, which Mr. Locke above express- 
 ly acknowledged to be its due. It is in vain to say flat 
 God's testimony is infallible : for our assent to any truth 
 upon God's testimony, as Mr. Locke truly says, can ne- 
 ver rise higher, than tfje assurance we have of this, that 
 really we have God's testimonyj and take its meaning. 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 361 
 
 If then God cannot give us the highest evidence or ob- 
 jective light as to this, no truth he offers can have from 
 us the highest degree of assent. To me this looks like 
 blasphemy, to imagine, that God has made a rational 
 creature, to whom he cannot so impart his mind as to 
 give it such evidence as is absolutely necessary to lay a 
 ground for entertaining his testimony with that respect, 
 which is its unquestionable due. That his testimony is 
 in itself infallible, will never make our assent of the 
 highest degree, unless tlie evidence of his giving testi- 
 mony is of the highest degree. 
 
 3. " We assert, That de facto there really is a sort of 
 " objective evidence or light, different from that con- 
 " descended on by Mr. Locke." 
 
 (l.) The prophets to whom immediate revelations 
 were made, had objective evidence, or light sufficient to 
 ground the liighest assurance, that the truths impressed 
 on their minds were from God. It is impious to deny 
 it. But this Mr. Locke will not allow to be such evi- 
 dence as we have in our intuitive knowledge ; and all 
 must confess, that it did not result from their outAvard 
 senses ; and that it was not grounded on reasonings from 
 evidences, marks or signs, extrinsical to the revelations 
 themselves, seems undeniable, or even from reasoning, 
 and making inferences from w hat was intrinsical in the 
 revelation. For, L We find not, that this persuasion 
 came to them by such argumentation or reasoning. We 
 can see no ground from any accounts we have in scrip- 
 ture to think, that they took this way to assure their ow^n 
 minds. Yea, 2. The scripture accounts of the way of 
 their being convinced, seem all to impod, that as God 
 impressed the truths on their minds, so that immediate- 
 ly by that very impression, he fixed an indelible and firm 
 conviction of his being the revealer. Again, 3. We see, 
 that the evidence was so convincing as to bear down in 
 them the force of the strongest reasonings and the clear- 
 est arguments that stood against it, as we see evidently 
 in the case of Abraham ; he is commanded to offer his 
 son Isaac ; if this command had not been impressed on 
 his mind Avith an evidence, that God was the revealer, 
 beyond what any reasoning upon signs and marks, and 
 
 46 
 
302 AN E88AY CONCERNING 
 
 I knoAv not what, could pretend to, the strong plain ar- 
 gmnents tuat lay against it, strengthened by a combina- 
 tion of the strongest natural afiections, must have car- 
 ried it. 4. If Abraham was convinced by such reason- 
 ings, that God revealed this, that this command was from 
 God, is it not strange that he makes no mention of them, 
 when it Avas so obvious, that it was liable to be question- 
 ed whetlier God could give such a command ? But the 
 truth of it is, it is obvious to any one that thinks, that 
 notiiing coidd prevail in this case, but the uncontrolable 
 and uresistible evidence resulting from the very impres- 
 sion, whereby the command was revealed. But we 
 wave any further consideration of this, which noAv w^e 
 have no experience of. 
 
 (2.) Mr. Locke will admit, that the primitive Chris- 
 tians, who embraced the gospel, did it upon sufficient 
 objective evidence. He is not a Christian who denies 
 it. But he will not admit intuitive evidence in this case. 
 And I shall, I hope, afterwards make it appear, that it 
 was not on the evidence of such reasonings, as Mr. Locke 
 talks of, that they embraced it. 
 
 (3.) The scriptures demand our assent, and offer 
 no ervidence but this of God's authority. And argu- 
 ments are not insisted on to prove, that it is God that 
 speaks; God calls us not to assent without objective 
 evidence, and yet waves the use of such arguments as 
 Mr. Locke would have to be the foundation of our faith. 
 Tliere must be therefore some objective light of a dif- 
 ferent sort supposed, that must be the ground of our as- 
 sent. And that there really is so, the scriptures teach, 
 aS we shall see afterwards, Avhen this proposition must 
 be proven, and explained more fully. 
 
 (4.) Abstracting from w hat has been said, we have as 
 good groimd as can be desired, and as the nature of the 
 thing admits, for believing there is really a light distinct 
 from that mentioned by Mr. Locke. As to the per- 
 sons who have it, this light evidences itself in the same 
 way as the other sorts of intellectual light do. They 
 are conscious of it, and find it has the same effect, deter- 
 mining the mind to assent, assuring it, and giving it rest 
 in the full conviction of truth. As to others who w^ant 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 3G3 
 
 it, they have such evidence as a blind man has, that there 
 is such a thing as visible evidence. They have the con- 
 curring sufliage of persons sober, judicious and rational, 
 who have given evidence of the greatest cautiousness in 
 guarding against delusion, enthusiasm, and groundless 
 imaginations. Besides, the effects peculiarly flowing 
 from such a faith as leans on this foundation, gives evi- 
 dence to it. But I cannot stay to prove this further at 
 present. 
 
 4. " Though perhaps an account every way satisfying 
 ^' cannot be given of the nature of this light, nor can 
 " we so clearly see what it is, and wiierein it consists, as 
 " to make those who are unacquainted Avith it, under- 
 " stand it, or have as exact a notion of it as they have, 
 " whose experience satisfies them as to its reality : Yet 
 " such an account may be given of it, as may secure it. 
 " against the imputation of unreasonableness, and un- 
 " intelligibility." To this purpose, I shall only observe 
 the few things ensuing. 
 
 (1.) Tliat light or objective evidence, w'hereon we are 
 obliged to believe, and all that are subjectively enlight- 
 ened to believe the scriptures, and ground their assent, 
 is such, that a more intelligible account by far may be 
 given of it to those, who have no experience of it, than 
 can be given of the objective evidence of visible objects 
 to persons who have no experience of sight. To clear 
 this, 
 
 (2.) It is to be observed, that in the writings of men, 
 especially of some, who have any peculiarity of genius, 
 and excel in any kind, we find such characters, marks 
 and peculiar evidences of them, not only in the matter, 
 but in ttie manner of expression, and way of delivering 
 their thoughts: there is such a spirit, and somewhat so 
 peculiar to themselves to be observed, tliat such as have 
 any notion of their writings, cannot thereon avoid a con- 
 viction, that this or that book, though it bears not the 
 author's name, or those otlier marks, whereon we depend 
 as to our opinion of the authors of books, of whom wo, 
 have no particular acquaintance, is yet written by such 
 an author, the vestiges of w hose peculiar spirit and ge- 
 nius run through, and are discernible in the strain of the 
 
364 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 l)ook. There are few men, who are acquainted with 
 books, and read them with attention and judgment, who 
 have not the experience of this. And hence we are fre- 
 quently referred to this, as what may satisfy us, that 
 books tliat bear such authors' names are genuine and 
 truly theirs.'-;^ And it is found more convincing than the 
 attestation of no incredible witnesses in many cases. 
 Yet it must be confessed, that persons of the best judg- 
 ment, and most capable to express their thoughts^ will 
 find it difficult, if not impossible to express intelligibly 
 w herein this objective evidence consists : But that real- 
 ly it is there, that there is such a thing, is impossible for 
 them to question. 
 
 (3.) If poor men, who differ infinitely less from one 
 another, than the most exalted created being can be sup- 
 posed to do from God, do impart to the product of their 
 own thoughts, and leave on their writings such peculiar 
 and discernible characters of their oivn genius, and spirit, 
 as, at first view, upon the least serious attention, con- 
 vinces the reader, that they are the authors and enables 
 him to distinguish theii* writings from others, is it not 
 reasonable to suppose, that a book written by God, must 
 cany on it a peculiar and distinguishing impress of its 
 author ; and that by so much the more certainly dis- 
 cernible, by any that has right notions of him, as the 
 difference betwixt him and the most exalted human ge- 
 nius is infinitely greater, than that betwixt the most con- 
 temptible pamphlet writer and the most elevated scho- 
 lar? Nay, is it not impossible rationally to imagine the 
 contrary ? Can we think that he, who in all his works, 
 even in the meanest insect, has left such objective evi- 
 dence, and such impressions of himself, whereby he is 
 certainly known to be the author, has not left impres- 
 sions, more remarkable and distinguishing, on his wordy 
 which he has magnified above all his name, that is, all the 
 means whereby he designs to make himself known, and 
 which he designed to be the principal means of imparting 
 
 * " Though 5'ou had not named the autlior, &c. I couM 1 a^ e linoMn and 
 " avouched Jiim. Thee is a face of a style, by which m e scholars know one 
 ^' anoU'c", no lesi^ than our persons by a vi-ible countenance." Eiskoj* HalVf^ 
 Pre' ace to Dr. Tjvist's doubting Cons, resolved, pag. 2. 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 365 
 
 the knowledge of himself to men, and that for the high- 
 est purposes — thek salvation and his own glory. 
 
 (4.) This impress, those characters, prints and vestiges 
 of the infinite perfections of the Deity, that imavoida- 
 bly must be allowed to be stamped on, and shine, not 
 merely, or only, or principally, in the matter, but 
 in that as spoken or written, and in the writings or 
 words, in tlieir stile, the spirit runnhig through them, 
 the scope, tendency, &c. This eeeTrpeTraa or God-be- 
 coming hnpress of majesty, sovereignty, omniscience, 
 independence, holiness, justice, goodness, wisdom and 
 power, is not only a sufficient and real, but in very deed, 
 the greatest objective light and evidence imaginable. 
 And where one has an understanding given to know him 
 that is truey and is made thereby to entertain any suita- 
 ble notions of the Deity, upon intuition of this objec- 
 tive evidence, without waiting to reason on the matter, 
 his assent will be carried, and unavoidably determined 
 to rest on it as the highest ground of assurance. And 
 this assent founded on this impress of the Deity, in his 
 own word, is indeed an assent of the highest degree. 
 And thus far faith resembles our intuitive knowledge, 
 with this difference, not as to the manner of the mind's 
 acting but as to the ability whence it acts ; that in our 
 intuitive knowledge, as Mr. Locke, and those of his 
 opinion, restricts it, the evidence or objective light is 
 such as not only is immediately without reasoning dis- 
 cerned, but such as lies open to, and is discernible by 
 our vmderstandings, without any subjective light, any 
 work of the Spirit of God, either repairing our disabled 
 faculties, or elevating and guiding them to the due ob- 
 servation, or fixing their attention, or freeing their minds 
 of the power and present influence of aversion of will, 
 disorder of affections, and prejudices that obstruct the 
 discerning power. Whereas this is really necessary in 
 this case ; and thougli the objective evidence is great, 
 and still tlie same, yet according to the greater or lesser 
 degree of this assistance, our assent must be stronger or 
 weaker, more fixed or wavering. 
 
 (5.) When this objective evidence is actually obser- 
 vant to, and under the view of the mind thus enabledr 
 
366 AN ESSAV CONCERNING 
 
 disposed and assisted, there doth arise from it, and there 
 is made by it, an impression on the whole soul corres- 
 ponding thereto. The beaming of God's sovereign au- 
 thority awes conscience. The piercing evidence of his 
 omniscience increases that regard, the view of his good- 
 ness, mercy, love and grace, operates on the will, and 
 leaves a relisli on the affections, and this truly resem- 
 bles sensible evidence, though it is of spiritual things, 
 and of a spiritual nature ; nor is it, as it is evidence, in- 
 ferior to, but upon many accounts preferable to that 
 which results from the impression made by sensible ob- 
 jects. And this, as was observed of the former, is also 
 greater or less, according, and in proportion , unto the 
 view we have of that objective light abovementioned. 
 This self-evidencing power is a resultancy from, and in 
 degree keeps pace with that self-evidencing light. 
 
 (6.) The effects wrought on the soul are such, many 
 of them, as not only are most discernible in the time, 
 but likewise do remain on the soul, some of them ever 
 after, many of them for a long tract of time, and in their 
 nature are such as evidently tend to the perfecting of 
 our faculties, are suitable to them, and for theu- improve- 
 ment, even according to what unprejudiced and sober 
 reason determines, as to that wherein the defects of our 
 faculties, and their perfection consists. And the reali- 
 ty of those effects, w^hereof the mind is inwardly con- 
 scious, appears to the conviction of beholders, in their 
 influence upon the person's deportment before the world. 
 And, 
 
 (7.) Hence it is, that though our conviction neither 
 needs, nor is founded on reasonings ; yet from those 
 effects ground is given, and matter offered for a rational 
 and argumentative confirmation of our assent, and the 
 grounds thereof, and- the validity of it for our own con- 
 firmation, when that evidence which first gave ground 
 for our faith, and wherein it rests, is not actually under 
 view, a'- also for tlic conviction of others. 
 
 (8.) This evidence is such as indeed challenges, and is 
 a sufiicient bottom for an assent of the highest degree. 
 And indeed the saints of God, and that even of the mean- 
 est condition, and who have been under the most mani- 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 367 
 
 fest disadvantages, both as to capacity and education, 
 with the like occasions of improvement, upon this bot- 
 tom have reached faith, comprising assurance without 
 doubt, even that full assurance of faithy yea the riches of 
 the full assurance of understanding, as lias been evident 
 by the effects in death and life, of which Ave have nota- 
 ble instances not a few in Heb. xi, throughout, both in 
 adversity and prosperity, life and death. 
 
 5. " I observe, That this light or objective evidence 
 " whereon faith is bottomed, has no affinity with, but is 
 " at the farthest remove from enthusiastic impulses, or 
 " hnaginations." 
 
 (1.) This is not a persuasion without reason. Here is 
 the strongest reason, and the assent hereon given leans 
 upon the most pregnant evidence. 
 
 (2.) It carries no contradiction to our faculties, but 
 influences them, each in a way suitable to its nature and 
 condition. 
 
 (3.) Yea more, none of our faculties in their due use 
 do contradict, or at least disprove it. Whereas enthu- 
 siastic impressions are irrational. 
 
 (4.) This is not a persuasion, nor a ground for it with- 
 out, or contrary to the word, but it is the evidence of 
 the word itself, that by it we are directed to attend to, 
 and improve. 
 
 (5.) Yea it is what our other faculties in their due 
 use will give a consequential confirmation to, as we have 
 heard. Wherefore, 
 
 (6.) Mr. Locke shall be allowed to run down enthu- 
 siasm as much as he pleaseth, and " persuasions where- 
 " of no reason can be given, but that we are strongly 
 " persuaded," or not to give credit to those that can say 
 no more for themselves, " but we see or feel," &c. But 
 these things as delivered by Locke, need some cautions. 
 As, 1. A persuasion whereof no reason can be given, is> 
 certainly not faith, but fancy : but a persuasion, where- 
 of he that hath it, through weakness, cannot give an ac- 
 count, may be solid. 2. A persuasion may be solid, of 
 which he that hath it, cannot give another evidence of 
 the same kind as he hath himself It is enough that 
 proof of anotlier sort, and sufficient in its kind, is ofTer- 
 
368 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 ed. 3. If one says, he sees and be feels, this may be sa- 
 tisfying to him, thougli he cannot give any distinct ac- 
 count of the evidence he hath. And tiiat he cannot thus 
 accomit for the nature of things that are within him, con- 
 cludes not against the reality and truth of what he has 
 the experience : but his experience is not ground of con- 
 viction to others, unless other proofs are offered. A man 
 of a shallow capacity, destitute of education, might be 
 convicted of enthusiasm by a subtle blind man, to Avhom 
 he cannot for his seeing give an evidence of the same 
 kind, nor open the nature of visible evidence, nor give 
 any other proof that he is not mistaken, but that he 
 sees ; and yet notwithstanding of this he is not mistaken, 
 assents not without reason, and has no ground to call in 
 question what he sees, but may and will securely laugh 
 at all the blind man's quirks, and tell him, he is blind. 
 The case is parallel. We must not by this Atheistical 
 scare-crow be frightened out of our faith and experi- 
 ence. 
 
 6. " That many read the scriptures, without discern- 
 " ing any thing of this liglit, is no argument against it.'* 
 For, 
 
 (1 .) Many want that supernatural ability, that un- 
 derstanding whereby God is known, whereby Christ's 
 sheep know his voice from that of a stranger, and so not be- 
 ing of Gody they cannot hear his words. 
 
 (2.) Many want, and are utterly destitute of any tol- 
 erable notions of God: It is impossible such should dis- 
 cern what is suitable to him. 
 
 (3.) Many have perverse notions of God rivetted on 
 their minds, and that both among the learned and un- 
 learned ; and finding the scripture not suited to, but 
 contrary to those false pre-conceived impressions, they 
 look on it as foolishness. 
 
 (4.) Many Avant that humble frame of sphit, which 
 has tlie promise of divine teaching ; the meek he guides 
 in the way. It is they who are fools in thek own eyes, 
 who get wisdom. 
 
 (5.) Many are proud and conceited deeply, and no 
 wonder then that they know notliing. 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 369 
 
 (6.) Many have the vanity of their minds uncured, 
 and so hunt after vain things, and fix not in observation 
 of what is solid, and thereby their foolish hearts are har- 
 dened, and theii* minds darkened and diverted. 
 
 (7.) Not a few are under the power of prevailing lusts, 
 disordered affections, and out of favor to them they are 
 80 far from desiring an increase of knowledge, that on 
 the contrary, they like not to retain God in their knowledge. 
 What they already know, is uneasy to them, because con- 
 trary to their lusts, and therefore they would be rid 
 of it. 
 
 (8.) Many there are that despise the Spu'it of God, 
 reject his operations, seek not after hiin, contemn him : 
 And no wonder such as refuse the guide, lose the way. 
 
 (9.) Many, for those and other sins, are judicially left 
 of God to the god of this world, who blinds the minds of 
 them that believe not. 
 
 (10.) Many never attempt to do his will, and so no 
 wonder they come not to a discerning whether the word 
 spoken and written, is of God. And if all these things 
 are considered, we shall be so far from questioning the 
 truth, because many see not the evidence, that this very 
 blindness will be an argument to prove the truth of it^ 
 and a strong evidence of the need of it, and of superna- 
 tural power to believe it. 
 
 Finally, Persons sober and attentive want not some 
 darker views of this evidence, which may and should 
 draw them on to wait for more. And I take the honorable 
 confessions, in favor of the scriptures, made by adversa- 
 ries, to have proceeded from some fainter views of this 
 sort. 
 
 Thus I have considered tlie force of what I find plead-* 
 ed by Mr. Locke ; stated the question ; cleared in some 
 measure our opinion as it stands opposed to that of the 
 Rationalists ; assigned an intelligible notion of the rea-' 
 son of faith ; and shewed it to be such as the meanest are 
 capable of, and such as is proposed to all Avho are oblig- 
 ed to believe the scriptures; whereas these historical 
 proofs are above the reach of thousands, and were never 
 heard of by innumerable multitudes, who, on pain of 
 
 M 
 
370 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 damnation, are obliged to receive the scriptures as the 
 word of God. 
 
 lY. Having in our third observation overthrown the 
 ground of Mr. Locke's opinion, we are now to clear, 
 tliat what Mr. Locke builds on, must of course fall ; 
 particularly what he tells us. Lib. 4. Cap. 18. Par. 6. page 
 584. " That they who make revelation alone the sole 
 " object of faith, cannot say, that it is a matter of faith, 
 " and not of reason, to believe, that such or such a pro- 
 " position, to be found in such or such a book, is of divine 
 " inspiration ; unless it can be revealed. That that pro- 
 " position, or that all in that book was communicated by 
 " divine inspiration." And he goes on telling us, " That 
 " without such a particular revelation, assuring us of this, 
 " that this proposition is by divine inspiration, it can ne- 
 " ver be matter of faith, but matter of reason, to assent 
 " to it." 
 
 What Mr. Locke designs by this discourse, I know 
 not ; unless he meant to put us under a necessity to 
 prove every proposition of the scripture to be of divine 
 inspiration, before we believe what it exhibits. And if 
 this is what he intends, he overthrows the Christian reli- 
 gion entirely, at least as to its use and advantage to the 
 generality. But waving what further might be observ- 
 ed, I shall only animadvert a little upon that one asser- 
 tion, " That our belief, that this or that proposition is 
 " from God, is not an act of faith but of reason." As to 
 which I say, 
 
 1. If Mr. Locke designed no more but this. That the 
 mentioned assent to the scripture propositions, is an act 
 of, and subjected in our rational, or intellectual faculty, 
 it might well be admitted. Or, 
 
 2. If Mr. Locke meant, that this assent is agreeable to 
 the nature of our minds, that is, that it is not really con- 
 trary to the true principles of reason, nor such as pro- 
 ceeds without such grounds as the nature of our under- 
 standings requue for founding an assent, we should ad- 
 mit, that in this sense it is an act of reason, that is, a ra- 
 tional act, as not only being elicit by our understandings, 
 but depending on such a reason or ground, as the nature 
 
THE REASON OP TRUE FAITH. 371 
 
 of the intellectual power requires, and which must be 
 always consistent with our certain knowledge. But, 
 
 3. Neither of these being intended, we cannot go along 
 with Mr. Locke in what he means by this expression. 
 That our belief of scripture propositions, is an act of 
 reason, that is, an assent not built upon divine testimony, 
 but on such other arguings and reasonings, as we can 
 find out for proving that God revealed it. Because we 
 say, and shall afterwards prove, that the scriptures do 
 evidence themselves to be from God, in that way above- 
 expressed, and afterwards to be explained and confirm- 
 ed, which we hope shall be done in such sort, as may ef- 
 fectually repel the force of what Mr. Locke has pleaded 
 in opposition to the scriptures, and shew that there is no 
 reason for ranking all the truths therein delivered 
 amongst those conjectural things that lean only on proba- 
 bilities and reasonings from them, which Mr. Locke evi- 
 dently does, while he sinks traditional revelation as to 
 the point of certainty below our intuitive, rational and 
 tiensible knowledge ; and banishes all faith, properly so 
 called, out of the world, leaving no room for it, and sub- 
 stituting in its place an act of reason, proceeding upon 
 probabilities, that is, on historical proofs, which he 
 reckons only among probabilities ; nor do I blame him 
 for this last, though perhaps some things he has offiered on 
 this head, might be excepted against ; but this is not my 
 business. 
 
 The question in short amounts to this, " Whereas the 
 " scriptures, wherever they come, oblige all to whom 
 " they are offered, to receive them not as the word of 
 " maw, but, as indeed they are, the rvord of God ; upon 
 " what ground or formal reason is it, that we assent 
 " thus unto them, and receive them as the word of God, 
 " to his glory and our salvation, in compliance with our 
 « dutyr 
 
 In answer to this important query, I shall offer what, up- 
 on a review of former experience, upon consideration of 
 the scriptures, and upon what others, especially that Judici- 
 ous and profound divine Dr. Owen, in his two treatises on 
 this subject, have written on this head, appears satisfy- 
 ing to me : And this I shall do in the few following Pro- 
 
372 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 positimiSy which I sliall, with as much brevity and perspi- 
 cuity as I can, lay down, and shortly confirm with some 
 few arguments. 
 
 Prop. I. " That faith whereby we assent unto, and 
 " receive the word of God, to his glory and our salva- 
 ^' lion, is faith divine and supernatural." 
 
 1 . There are at this day, who teach, That whatever 
 faitli is at present to be found amongst men, is built up- 
 on, and resolved into the testimony of men.* And 
 therefore it will be necessary to insist a little in confirm- 
 ing and explaining of this important truth. 
 
 2. To clear this we observe, that the understanding, 
 or that faculty, power or ability of the soul of man, 
 whereby we perceive, and assent unto truths upon their 
 proper evidence, may be distinguished or branched m- 
 to diverse subordinate powers, in respect of the difler- 
 ent truths to which it assents, 1, We have an ability 
 of assenting unto the self-evident maxims of reason, such 
 as that, The same thing, at the same time, cannot be 
 and not be, upon their own self-evidence, without any 
 other argument, than a bare proposal of them in terms 
 we understand. 2. We have an ability to assent unto 
 other truths, upon conviction of their truth by ar- 
 guments, drawn from the forementioned self-evident 
 truths, or any other acknowledged or owned by us. 3. 
 "We have an ability to assent unto truths, upon the evi- 
 dence of the testimony of credible witnesses, or pei'sons 
 w^orthy to be believed, and of deserving credit. This 
 ability, and the assent given by it to such truths, upon 
 such testimony, are both called by the same common 
 name, faith. 
 
 3. Faith then is that power or ability of the mind of 
 man, whereby he is capable of receiving, and actually 
 assents to truths upon the evidence of the testimony of 
 persons worthy of credit, who know what they testify, 
 and will not deceive us. Now whereas the person giv- 
 ing this testimony, is either God, men or nngels, good or 
 
 L'Clerc in his Logic?. 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 373 
 
 hady faith may be considered as either divine^ human or 
 angelical. This last, as of no consideration to our purpose, 
 we shall lay aside. Tliat faith, or ability, whereby we 
 assent to the testimony of men worthy of credit, is call- 
 ed human faithy And that whereby we assent to truths 
 upon the evidence of the testimony of God, who cannot 
 lie, is called divine faith. 
 
 4. Divine faith is that power, or ability whereby we 
 assent unto, and receive truths proposed to us upon evi- 
 dence of the w ord or testimony of God, to our own sal- 
 vation, in compliance ^^ ith our duty, to the glory of God. 
 
 5. In this account of divine faith, we add, in compli- 
 ance with our duti/y to the glory of God, and our own sal- 
 vatiouy because devils and men may yield some assent 
 unto truths, upon the evidence of God's testimony, which 
 neither answers their duty, nor turns to the glory of God 
 in their salvation, of which we do not now design to 
 speak, and therefore by this clause have cut it off, and 
 laid it aside, as not belonging to that faith whereof we 
 now speak, and whereby we conceive all, to whom the 
 scriptures come, are obliged to receive them. 
 
 6. This faith now described may be called divine, and 
 supernatural, and really it is so on two accounts, 1. Be- 
 cause tliis ability is wrought in them, in whom it is found, 
 by the divine and supernatural power of God. 2. Be- 
 cause it builds not its persuasion of, yields not its assent 
 unto the truths it receives upon any human authority or 
 testimony; but upon the testimony of God, who can nei- 
 ther be ignorant of any truth, nor be deceived, or deceive 
 us. 
 
 7. It now remains, that we confirm this proposition 
 that we have thus shortly explained. And this we shall 
 do by its several parts. Firsts then we assert, "That 
 " this faith is wrought in those, who have it, by the 
 " power of God." Now for clearing tliis, we shall only 
 hint at the heads of a few arguments, leaving the further 
 proof to polemic treatises. 1. This ability to believe 
 and receive the things of God to our salvation and his 
 glory, is in scripture expressly denied to natural or un- 
 renewed men. 2 Thes. iii, 2. All men have not faith. 1 
 Cor. ii, 14. — The natural man receiveth not the things of 
 
374 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 he Spirit of God: For they are foolishness unto him: Neither 
 can he know theniy because they are spiritually discerned, 
 John viii, 47. — Ye therefore hear not God's words, because 
 ye are not of God. 2. This is expressly denied to be of 
 ourselves, and asserted a supernatural ^i/'/ of God. Ephes. 
 ii, 8. — By grace ye are saved through faith, and that not 
 of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 3. The production of 
 it is ascribed unto God. He it is that fulfils in his peo- 
 ple the work of faith with power, 2 Thes. i, 1 1. He it is 
 that gives them, that is, that enables them, on the behalf 
 of Christ, to believe and suffer for his name, Pliil. i, 29. It 
 is one oi the fruits produced by the spirit. Gal. v, 22. and 
 of it Christ is the author. Heb. xii, 2. 
 
 Secondly, We are next shortly to prove, " that this 
 " faith builds its persuasion on the testhuony of God, 
 " evidencing itself such unto the mind," and not on hu- 
 man testimony. 1. It is in scripture expressly said not 
 to stand in the wisdom of men, 1 Cor. ii, 5, that is, it leans 
 not on the word, autliority, eloquence or reasonings of 
 men. 2. It is expressly in that same verse, said to stand 
 in the power of God, that is, as the foregoing words com- 
 pared v^ ith verse 13, explain it, in the words jvhich the Ho- 
 ly Ghost leacheth, and which he demonstrates or evidences 
 hy his power, accompanying them, to be the word of 
 God. 3. It is described in such a way as fully clears 
 this ; it is held forth as a receiving of the word, not as the 
 word of man, but as it is indeed the word of God, which ef- 
 fectually worketh in you that believe, 1 Thes. ii, 13. Ma- 
 ny other proofs might be added, but this is sufficient to 
 answer our purpose. 
 
 Thirdly, We shall next shortly prove, " that we are 
 " obliged in duty thus to believe the scriptures, or to 
 " receive them as the word of God, and not of men." 
 1. The scriptures are indeed, and hold themselves forth 
 every where as the word of God. They are the oracles 
 ©f God, which holy men of God spake by the motion of 
 the Spirit of God, and wrote by divine inspiration, and the 
 Holy Ghost speaks to us by them.^ Now when God ut- 
 ters oracles, speaks, writes and utters his mind to us, we 
 
 * Heb. V, 12.— 2 Pet. i, 20, 21.— 2 Tim. iii, 16.— Mark xii, 36.— Acts 5, 16— 
 Acts xxviii, 25.— Heb. iii, 7. 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 375 
 
 are in duty obliged and bound to assent to what he says, 
 and yield what obedience he requires. This the very 
 light of nature teacheth. 2. The scriptures were written 
 for this very end, that we might believe, and that believ- 
 ing we might have life, John xx, 30, 31. The scriptures of 
 the prophets (which contain the revelation of the mystery 
 of God's will, otherwise not known) according to the com- 
 mandment of the everlasting God, are made known unto all 
 nations for the obedience of faith, Rom. xvi, 25, 26. 
 Again the scriptures are tenned a more sure word of pro- 
 phecy than the voice from heaven, and men are said to 
 do well, to take heed to them, 2 Pet. i, toward the close. 
 That is, it is thek duty to take heed to them, or believe 
 them. 3. The most dreadful judgments are threatened 
 against those who receive not the word of God from the 
 prophets or apostles, whether by word or writ, is all one. 
 fVhosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, 
 when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust 
 of your feet. Verily I say unto you. It shall be more tolera- 
 ble for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of 
 judgment, than for that city. Matt, x, 14, 15. Accordingly 
 we find the apostles preach the word at Antioch in Pisi- 
 dia. Acts xiii ; demand acceptance of it both of Jews and 
 Gentiles ; and upon their refusal they testify against them 
 in the way of the Lord's appointment, ver. 51. Though 
 so far as we can learn, they there wrought no miracles 
 to confinm their mission. 4. We have above heard the 
 apostle commending the Thessalonians for receiving the 
 word as the word of God, and not of man. 1. Thess. ii, 13, 
 which sufficiently shews that it was their duty. 
 
 Whereas some may here say, " How can it be our du- 
 ty to believe the word of God, since it has been above 
 proved, that we are not able of ourselves thus to do it." 
 I answer briefly, 1. The very light of nature requires 
 perfect obedience of us ; and yet we are not able to 
 yield this to it. 2. The scriptures plainly require, that we 
 serve God acceptably, with reverence and Godly fear, Heb. 
 xii, 28, and yet we must have grace whereby to do it. 
 3. We have destroyed ourselves, Hos. xiii, 9, and that 
 through this, our faith or natural ability of believing 
 truths upon testimony, is so impaired and weakened, and 
 
376 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 by prejudices so obstructed otherwise, that we are noi 
 able to discern the evidence of God's authority, in his 
 word, nor assent thereon to his testimony in a due man- 
 ner, yet this cannot reasonably prejudge God's riglit to 
 demand credit to his word, whereon he has impiessed 
 such prints of his authority, as are sufficiently obvious 
 to any one's faith, that is not thus faultily depraved. 
 4. We have therefore no reason to question God, who 
 gave us eyes, which we have put out, but to blame our- 
 selves, and aim to do his will, that is, Avait on him in all 
 the ways of his OAvn appointment ; and we have no rea- 
 son to despair, but that in this way we may have gracious- 
 ly given us of God's sovereign grace, an understandmg to 
 know whether these truths are of God, or they who 
 spoke them did it of themselves, (1 John v, 20. John vii, 
 1 7.) though we cannot claim this as what is our due. 
 
 Thus we have in some measure cleared what that 
 faith is, whereby the scriptures must be believed to the 
 glory of God and our own salvation, and confirmed 
 shortly our account of it from the scriptures of truth. 
 We now proceed to 
 
 Prop. II. " The reason, for which we are obliged in 
 •* duty to believe or receive the scriptures as the word 
 " of God, is not. That God has by his Spirit wrought 
 " faith in us, or given us this ability thus to receive 
 " them." 
 
 This proposition we have offered, because some do 
 blame Protestants for saying so ; whereas none of them 
 really do it. Nor can any man reasonably say it. For 
 clearing this observe, 
 
 1. It is indeed true, that we cannot believe them, un- 
 less God give us this gracious ability or faith to believe 
 them, and by his Holy Spuit remove our natural dark- 
 ness, and clear our minds of those prejudices against 
 his word, wheiewith they are naturally filled. 
 
 2. Yet this is not the reason wherefore we do assent 
 unto, or receive the scriptures ; for it were impertinent, 
 if any should ask. Upon what accoiuit do ye believe 
 the scriptures to be the word of God? to aoswer, I be- 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 377 
 
 Vieve it because God has wrought the faith of it in me. 
 Tliis is not to tell wherefore we do believe, but to*tell 
 how we came to be furnished with power or . ability to 
 believe. 
 
 Prop. IH. " We are not to believe the scriptures up- 
 ** on the authority of any man or church : or, I'he rea- 
 " son wherefore we are in duty bound thus to assent to^ 
 " or receive the scriptures as the word of God, is not, 
 " that any man, or church, says so.'* 
 
 This is fully demonstrated by our writers against the 
 Papists. For confirmation of it, it is sufficient for our 
 purpose at present to observe, 
 
 1 . That to believe, that the scriptures are the word 
 of God, because such a man, or church says so, answers 
 not our duty. Our duty is to believe God speaking to 
 us, upon the account of his own veracity ; and not be- 
 cause men say that this is his w^ord. This is not to be- 
 lieve God and his prophets for the sake of their own 
 testimony, but for the authority of men, (2 Chron. xx. 
 20.) 
 
 2. The faith that leans upon this testimony, is built 
 not on the truth of Gody but on the testimony of me% 
 who may be deceived and may deceive : All men are liars. 
 
 3. Vie have no where in the word this proposed as the 
 ground whereon, in duty, we are obliged to believe the 
 scriptures. 
 
 4. The church,, and what she says, is to be tried by the 
 word, and her testimony is so far only to be received as 
 the Avord consents ; and tlierefore we cannot make this 
 the ground of our faith, without a scandalous circle, 
 Avhich the church of Rome can never clear herself of. 
 
 5. But I need insist no further on this head. That 
 church Avhich only clamis this regard to her testimony, 
 is long since become so well known, and so fully con- 
 victed of manifold falsehoods, that her testimony rather 
 prejudges than helps to confirm whatever it is engaged 
 for.. 
 
 Prop. TV. " The rational arguments whereby the 
 " truth of the Ciiiistian religion is evinced and demon- 
 
 48 
 
37a AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 " strated against Atheists, though they are many ways 
 " useful, yet are not the ground or reason whereon, 
 " in a way of duty, all who have the scriptures piopos- 
 " ed to them, are obliged to believe and receive them 
 " as the word of God." 
 
 These moral and rational considerations are, and may 
 be many ways useful to stop the mouths of enemies, to 
 beget in them, who yet are unacquainted with the true 
 intrinsic worth of the Avord, some value for it, and en- 
 gage them to consider it ; to relieve them that do be- 
 lieve against objections, and strengthen their faith. This 
 is allowed to them ; and is sufficient in this loose and 
 Atheistical age, to engage persons of all sorts who value 
 the scriptures, to study them. But yet it is not upon 
 them that the faith requued of us, as to the divine au- 
 thority of the scriptures, is to be founded. For, 
 
 1. These are indeed a proper foundation for a rational 
 assent, such as is given upon moral proof or demonstra- 
 tion. And they are able to beget a strong moral per- 
 suasion of this truth. But this assent which they beget, 
 cannot, in any propriety of speech, be called faith, ei- 
 ther divine or human* For faith is an assent upon 
 testimony. 
 
 2. The faith that is requued of us, is required to be 
 founded not on the wisdom of meUy that is, the reason- 
 ings or arguings of men. Now this leans only and en- 
 tuely on these. 
 
 3. This faith is, in the way of duty, required of ma- 
 ny. Many are in duty obliged to receive the scriptures 
 as the word of God, to whom these arguments were 
 never offered. The apostles never made use of them, 
 and yet required their hearers to receive and believe 
 their word. 
 
 4. This faith many are obliged to, who are not capa- 
 ble of understanding or reaching the force of thesa ar- 
 guments. 
 
 Prop. V. " The faith of the scripture's divine au- 
 " thority is not founded in this. That they by whom 
 ff; they were written, did, by miracles, prove they were 
 « sent of God." 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 379 
 
 I need not spend much time in clearing Ibis. It will 
 sufficiently confirm it to observe, 
 
 1. That many are, and Avere in duty obliged to yield 
 this assent to, and believe the scriptures, who saw not 
 these miracles. ^ 
 
 2. We are no other way sure of these being wrought, 
 than by the testimony of the word. 
 
 3. This way is not countenanced by the word: for it 
 no where teaches us to expect miracles as the ground of 
 our assent, but upon the contrary declares, that the word 
 of Moses and the prophets is sufficient to lay a founda- 
 tion for faith, without any new miracle, (Luke x. 31.) 
 
 Prop. VI. " The reason whereon, in duty we are 
 " bound to receive the scriptures as the word of God, 
 " is not any private voice, whisper or suggestion from 
 " the Spirit of God, separate and distinct from the writ- 
 " ten word, saying in our ear, or suggesting to our mind, 
 " that the scriptures are the Avord of God." 
 
 There is no need to insist long in proof of this. 
 For, 
 
 1. Many are bound to believe the word of God, to 
 whom never any such testimony was given ; but no man 
 is bound to receive the scriptures, to whom the ground 
 whereon he is bound to believe them, is not proposed. 
 
 2. There is no where in the word, any ground given 
 for any such testimony. Nor doth the experience of 
 any of the Lord's people witness, that they are ac- 
 quainted with any such suggestion. And besides, the 
 question miglit again be moved concerning this sug- 
 gestion, Wherefore do ye believe this to be the testimo- 
 ny of God ? 
 
 Prop. VII. " That whereon all, to whom the word of 
 " God comes, are bound to receive it with the faith 
 " above described, is not any particular word of the 
 " scripture bearing testimony*^ to all the rest. As for 
 " instance, it is not merely or primarily upon this ac- 
 ^' count, that I am bound to receive all the written word 
 " as the word of God, because the scripture says, 
 
380 ' AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 ** 2 Tim. iii. 16. That all scrhyturc is s^iven hy inspiration 
 *'ofGodr I o J J 
 
 This IS very plain upon many accounts, some of wbich 
 I shall shortly offer. 
 
 1. AVehad been obliged to believe the scriptures with 
 faith supernatural, though these testimonies had been 
 left out. Yea, they who had tliem not, were obliged to 
 believe the word of God. 
 
 2. These have no more evidence of their being from 
 God, than other places of scriptures ; and therefore we 
 are not to believe the scriptures merely on their testi- 
 mony ; but have the same reason to receive with faith 
 as the word of God, every pait of the scripture as well 
 as these testimonies. 
 
 Prop. VIII. " The reason why we are bound, with 
 " faith supernatural and divine, to receive the word of 
 " God, is not, that the things therein therein revealed, 
 " or the matters of the scriptures, are suitable unto the 
 " apprehensions which men naturally have of God, 
 " themselves and other things, and congruous to the in- 
 " terests, necessities, desires and capacities of men." 
 
 I shall not spend time in overthrowing this, which 
 some seem so fond of ; only for confirming the proposi- 
 tion observe, 
 
 1. This suitableness of the matter unto the apprehen- 
 sions, or natural notions of men concerning God, them- 
 selves and other things, &c. as discerned by men unre- 
 newed, and made out by their reasonings, is not a ground 
 for faith, or an assent to testimony, but for a persuasion 
 of another sort. 
 
 2. There are many things revealed in the scripture, 
 which are to any mere natural man no Avay capable of 
 this character. No man receives, or can reasonably re- 
 ceive on this account, the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
 the like. It is true, these are not contrary to our rea- 
 son ; but it is likewise ti ue, they have no such evident 
 congruity to the notions our reason suggests of God, ae 
 should engage us to receive the discovery as from God ; 
 yea, on tlie contrary, there is a seeming inconsistency 
 that has startled many. 
 
THE REASON OP TRUE FAITH. 381 
 
 Prop. IX. " When therefore it is inquired, Where- 
 " fore do ye ])elieve, and by faith rest in the scriptures 
 " as the word of God, and not of man ? We do not an- 
 " svver, It is because God has given us an ability so to 
 "• do ; because tl:e church says, it is the word of God ; 
 " because tiiere are many strong moral arguments prov- 
 " ing it so ; because they who wrote it, Avrought mira- 
 " cles ; because God has by some voice whispered in our 
 " ear, or secretly suggested it to us, that thib is the word 
 " of God; or because there are particular scriptiues 
 " whicl) bear witness to all the rest tliat they are of God ; 
 " nor finally, because the matter therein revealed, seem 
 " worthy of God to our reason. 
 
 Tliis is the sum of what has been hitherto cleared ; 
 and the reasons offered against all these, whether we 
 take them separately or conjunctly. They prove, that 
 not one of them, nor all taken together, are the formal 
 reason whereon we are obliged to believe the word 
 of God, or receive it with faith supernatural and di- 
 vine. 
 
 Prop. X. " The formal reason or ground whereon I 
 " assent to, or receive the whole scriptures, and every 
 " particular trutli in them, and am obliged in duty so to 
 " do, is, the authority and truth of God speaking in 
 " them, and speaking every truth they contain, evidenc- 
 " ing itself to my faith, when duly exercised about 
 " them, and attending to tliem, by their own divine and 
 " distinguishing liglit and power. Or when it is inquu'ed, 
 " Wherefore do ye believe, receive, assent to and rest 
 " in the scriptures as indeed the Avord of God, and not 
 " of man? I answer, I do believe them, because they 
 " carry in them, to my faith, an evidence of God, or do 
 " evidence themselves by their own light and power to 
 " my faith, duly exercised about them, that they are 
 " the word of God, and not of man." 
 
 Now for explaining tliis, which is the assertion that 
 contains the truth principally intended, I shall olfer the 
 few following remarks : 
 
 1. However great the evidence of God in the word 
 is, yet it cannot, nor U it requisite that it should, deter- 
 
382 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 mine any to receive and assent to it, whose faith and 
 ability of believing is not duly disposed. Though the sun 
 shine never so clearly, yet he that has no eyes, or whose 
 eyes are vitiated, and under any total darkening indispo- 
 sition, sees it not. No wonder then, that they, who 
 have not naturally, and to whom God has not yet, by 
 supernatural grace, given eyes to see, ears to hear, or 
 hearts to perceive, discern not the evidence of God*s 
 authority and truth in the word. 
 
 2. Although there really may be in any an ablility, 
 or faith capable of discerning this evidence ; yet if that 
 faith is not exercised, and duly applied to the consider- 
 ation of the word, whereon this evidence is impressed, he 
 cannot assent unto, or believe it in a due manner, to the 
 glory of God, his own salvation and according to his 
 duty. There is evidence sufficient in many moral meta- 
 physical and mathematical truths ; and yet abimdance 
 of persons, who are sufficiently capable of it, do not as- 
 sent unto these truths, nor discern this evidence ; not be- 
 cause it is wanting, but because they do not apply their 
 minds to the observation of it in a due way. God has 
 not imparted such an evidence to his word, as the light 
 of the sun has, which forces an acknowledgment of 
 itself upon any, whose eyes are not wilfully shut j but 
 designing to put us to duty, he has imparted such evi- 
 dence, as they, who have eyes to see, if according to 
 duty they apply their minds, may discern, and be satis- 
 fied by. 
 
 3. This light and power evidencing the divine authori- 
 ty of the scriptures, is really impressed upon every 
 truth, or every word which God speaks to us, especial- 
 ly as it stands in its own place, related to, and connected 
 with the other parts of the scripture, whereto it belongs. 
 But of this more hereafter. 
 
 4. When to question, wherefore, or on what grounds 
 do I assent to the scriptures as indeed the word of ^od 
 and not of man? It is answered, I do it, because it evi- 
 dences itself to be God's word by its own light or power, 
 there is no place for that captious quest ion. How know ye 
 this lio;lit and poAver to be divine, or fjom God ? For, it 
 is of the natme of all light, external and sensible, or 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 383 
 
 internal and mental, (concerning which two it is hard to 
 determine which of them is properly, and which only 
 metaphorically, light) that it not only clears to the mind 
 other things discernible by it, but satisfies the mind 
 about itself, proportionably to the degiee of its clear-* 
 ness. The light of the sun discovers sensible objects, 
 and satisfies us so fully about itself, that we need liave 
 recourse to no new arguments to convince that we have 
 this light, and that it is real. In like manner the evi- 
 dence of any mathematical truth, not only quiets us 
 about the truth, but makes the mind rest assured about 
 itself. And so the divine light and power of the word, 
 not only satisfies our minds, as to those truttis tliey are 
 designed of God to discover, but, in proportion to the 
 degree of light in them, or conveyed by them, satisfy 
 the mind about tliis light or power, that it is truth and is 
 no lie. Nor is there need for any other argument to con- 
 vince a mind affected with this, of it. It is true, if a 
 blind man should say so to me, Hov»^ know ye that, the 
 sun shines, and ye see it ? I would answer, I know it by 
 tlie evidence of its own light aftecting mine eyes : And 
 if he should further say. But how^ prove ye to me, tiiat 
 ye are not deluded, and that really it is so? Then I would 
 be obliged to produce otlier arguments whereof lie is 
 capable : But then it must be allowed tliat the evidence 
 of these arguments is not s6 great as the evidence I my- 
 self have of it by its own light ; though they may be 
 more convincing to him. And further, this is not to 
 convince myself, but to satisfy him, and free my mind 
 from the disturbance of his objections. In like mannei-, 
 if one, that denies the scriptures, shall say. Wherefore 
 do ye believe or rest in the scriptures, as the word of 
 God? I answer, I do it, because they evidence themselves 
 to my mind, by their owii light, or power, to be of God. 
 If he shall say, I cannot discern this. I answer. It is be- 
 cause your mind is darkened, ye want eyes, or have 
 them shut. If he shall further mge, Ttiat my light is 
 not real, I will prove it by arguments, which may stop 
 his mouth, and be more convincing to lum than my as- 
 sertion, which is all that hitherto he has ; but yet these 
 argiuTients are not that whereon my mmd rests satisfied 
 
384 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 as to the truth ; though they may be of great use, not 
 only to convince him, but to relieve my mind against 
 such subtle sophisms, as he might make use of, which 
 though they could not persuade nje out of the sight of 
 my eyes, or the evidence shining into my mind, yet 
 troubled me how to answer them, and at times, when, 
 through my inadvertency, or indisposition of my eyes, 
 or through clouds overspreading and interposing betwixt 
 this light and me, these objections might shake me a 
 little. 
 
 5. Considering we are but renewed in part, and our 
 faith is imperfect, and liable to many defects, the minis- 
 try of the church is of manifold necessity and use, to 
 awaken us to attend to this liglit, to cure the indisposi- 
 tions of our minds, to hold up this light to us, to point 
 out and explain the truths it discovers, whereby our 
 minds are made more sensible of the evidence of this 
 light. And upon many other accounts of a like nature, 
 are the ordinances necessary, and through the" efficacy 
 of the divine ordination and appointment, useful for es- 
 tablishing our minds, naturally sluggish, dark, weak and 
 unstable, and Avhich are exposed to manifold temptations, 
 in the faith of the scriptures. 
 
 6. In order to our holding fast our faith, and being 
 stable in it, besides this outward ministry, and the in- 
 ward work of the Holy Ghost, giving us an understand- 
 ing to discern this evidence, and besides the foremen- 
 tioned use of the moral arguments abovementioned ; 
 besides all these, to our believing and persevering in a 
 due manner, in the faith of the scriptures, we stand in 
 need of the daily influences of the Spirit of God, to 
 strengthen our faith or ability of discerning spiritual 
 things, to clear our minds of prejudices, and incidental 
 indispositions, to seal the truths on our minds, and give 
 us refreshing tastes of them, and confirm us luany ways 
 against opposition. 
 
 7. This light, whereby the written word evidences it- 
 self unto the minds of those who have spiritual ears to 
 hear, and apply them, is nothing else save the impress of 
 the majesty, truth, omniscience, wisdom, holiness, justice, 
 grace, mercy, and authority of God, stamped upon the 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH, m 
 
 scriptures, by the Holy Ghost, and beaming or shining 
 into the minds of such persons upon tijeir hearing or pe- 
 rusal, and affecting them with a sense of these perfec- 
 tions, both in what is spoken, and in the majestic and 
 God-becoming way of speaking : They speak as never 
 man spake ; the matter spoken, and the manner of speak- 
 ing, has a greatness discernible by a spb'itual understand- 
 ing, that fully satisfies it, that God is the speaker. And 
 all the impressions of God's wisdom, faitlifulness, omni- 
 science and majesty, that are stamped upon the matter 
 contained in the scriptures, being conveyed only by tlie 
 word, do join the impressions that are upon the word, 
 and strengthen the evidence they give of their divine 
 original, since these impressions do not otherwise ap- 
 pear to our minds, or affect them, than by the word. 
 The word, by a God-becoming manifestation of the 
 truth, that scorns all these little and mean arts of in- 
 smuation, by fail* and enticing Avords, and artificially 
 dressed up argumentations, with other the like confes- 
 sions of human weakness, that are in all human writings, 
 commends itself to the conscience, dives into the souls 
 of men, into all the secret recesses of their hearts, guides, 
 teaches, directs, determines and judges in them, and up- 
 on them, in the name, majesty and authority of God. 
 And when it enters thus into the soul, it fills it with tiie 
 light of the glory of the beamings of those perfections 
 upon it, whereby it is made to cry out, The voice of 
 God and not of man. 
 
 8. This power, whereby the w^ord evidences itself to 
 be the word of God and not of man, is nothing else 
 save that authority and awful efficacy, which he puts 
 forth in and by it over the minds and consciences of 
 men, working divinely, and leaving effects of his glori- 
 ous and omnipotent power in them and on them. It en- 
 teis into the conscience, a territory exempt from the 
 auttiority of creatures, and subject only to the dominion 
 of God, it challenges, convinces, tlireatens, awakens, 
 sets it a roaring, and the creation cannot quiet it again. It 
 commands a calm, and the sea, that was troubled be- 
 fore, is smooth, and devils and men are not able to dis- 
 turb its repose. It enters into the mind, opens its eves, 
 49 
 
386 AN ESSAY CONCERNING. 
 
 fills it with a glorious, clear, pure and purifying light, 
 and sets before it wonders before unknown, undiscerned 
 in counsel and knowledge, concerning God, ourselves, 
 our sin, our duty, our danger, and our relief, the works, 
 the ways, the counsels and purposes of God. It speaks 
 to the will, converts it, and powerfully disengages it from 
 what it was most engaged to, what it embraced, and was 
 even glued to before, so that no art or force of elo- 
 quence, argument, fear or hope, could make it quit its 
 hold .; it makes it hastily quit its embraces, and turn its 
 bent another way, the quite opposite, and with open 
 arms embrace what nothing could make it look to be- 
 fore, takes away its aversion, makes it willingly not on- 
 ly go, but run after what it bore the greatest aversion to 
 before, and obstinately refuse to close with any other 
 thing. It enters the affections, makes them rise from 
 the ground, gives them such a divine touch, that, 
 though they may through their fickle nature, be carried 
 at a time by force another way, yet they never rest, but 
 point heavenward. It comes to the soul, sunk under the 
 pressure of unrelievable distresses, sticking in the miry 
 clay, refusing comfort, and in appearance capable of 
 none, it plucks it out of the clay, raises it out of the 
 homf3le pit, sets ii^ feet upon a rock, fills it with joy, yea 
 makes it exceeding joyful, while even all outward 
 pressures and tribulation continue, yea are increased. It 
 enters into the soul, lays hold on the reigning lusts, to 
 which all formerly had submitted, and that with delight ; 
 it tries and condemns those powerful criminals, makes 
 the soul throw off the yoke, and join in the execution 
 of its sentence against, and on them. Now w here the 
 case is thus stated, how can the soul, that feels this power- 
 ful word, that comes from the Lord most High, do other- 
 wise- than /a/Z dorvriy and own. That God is in it of a 
 Iruth. 
 
 9. Whereas some may hereon object, " That many, 
 " who have for a long time heard and perused this 
 ^* word, have not perceived this light, nor felt this pow- 
 " er, and, on this supposition, seem exempted from 
 ^'^ any obligation to believe the word." I answer. 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 387 
 
 (1.) Many who have spent not a few years in prying 
 into the works of God in the world, have not discerned 
 to this day the beaming evidence, and clear declarations 
 of his glory in them ; yet none will hereon say, that they 
 are excusable, or tl>at want of an evidence is chargea- 
 ble on the works of God. And why should not the case 
 be allowed the same as to the word ? May they not have 
 this evidence, though men do not discern it ? And may 
 not men, even on account of this evidence be obliged to 
 believe them ? 
 
 (2.) No wonder many discern not this light, and are not 
 affected with it, since all men have put out their own 
 eyes, or impaired by their own fault, that faith or pow- 
 er of discerning the voice of God, speaking either by his 
 word or works, which our natures originally had. In 
 many this evil is increased, and this power fmlher weak- 
 ened by their shutting their eyes, and entertaining of 
 prejudices manifestly unjust, againrt God's word and 
 works. Others turn away their eyes, and will not look 
 to, or attend to the word in that way wherein God or- 
 dains them to attend to it, that they may discern its light, 
 and feel its power. And God has hereon judicially 
 given many up to the power of Satan, to be further 
 blinded. And no wonder they, whose eyes the God of 
 this world has blinded, should not discern the glory of 
 the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God shining in- 
 to their minds. 
 
 (3.) No wonder they should not discern this ; for God 
 to this day has not given them eyes to see, ears to hear, or 
 hearts to perceive. It is an act of sovereign grace, which God 
 owes to none, to open their eyes, which they have wil- 
 fully blinded : and where he sees not meet to do this, it 
 is not strange, that they are not affected with the clearest 
 evidence. 
 
 (4.) Light, however clear, cannot of itself supply the 
 defect of the discerning power. The sun, though it 
 shines, cannot make the blind to see. The word has this 
 light in it, though the blind see it not ; yea I may ad- 
 venture to say, "that the w^ord of God contained in the 
 iicriptures, Avhich he has magnified above all his name, 
 has in it more, and no less discernible evidences of the 
 
388 AN ESSAY CONCERNliNG fF?^ 
 
 divine perfections, and consequently of its divine origi- 
 nal and authority, tban the works of creation, some of 
 which are sufficient to carry in some conviction of God 
 in it, even on the minds of those who are not savingly 
 enlightened, if they attend but to it in the due exercise 
 of their rational abilities, that is, in such a manner as they 
 do, or may attend to it, without saving illumination, lay- 
 ing aside wilful prejudice ; which though it will not be 
 sufficient to draw such an assent, as will engage and ena- 
 ble them to receive the scriptures, in a due manner, to 
 the glory of God, and theii* own salvation, and comply 
 with them, yet I conceive it will be sufficient to justify 
 against them the word's claim to a divine original, and 
 cut them off from any use of, or excuse from a plea of 
 the want of sufficient evidence of the divine original of 
 the word. I doubt not, but many of these, who upon 
 conviction said, that Christ spake as never man spake, were 
 strangers to saving illumination, and yet saw somewhat 
 of a stamp and impress of divinity in what he said, and 
 the manner of saying it, that drew this confession from 
 them, that rendered them inexcusable, in not listening 
 to him, and complying with his word. Yea I doubt not, 
 that the case will be found the same as to many, with re- 
 spect to the written word, and would be so to all, if they 
 seriously, and without wilful prejudices, attended to it. 
 
 10. I fmlher observe. That to engage to this assent, it 
 is not requisite, that every one feel all these, or the like 
 particular effects at all times, but that the word have tljis 
 power and put it forth, as occasion needs, and circum* 
 stances requires it. 
 
 Having thus explained, we are now to prove our as- 
 sertion " That the ground whereon we are in duty bound 
 " to believe and receive the word of God as his word, 
 " and not the word of man, and whereon all who have- tQ 
 " received, and believed it in a due manner, to the glory 
 " of God and their own salvation, do receive it thus, is 
 " the authority and veracity of God speaking in and by 
 " the word, and evidencing themselves by that light and 
 " power, which is conveyed into the soul in and by the 
 ^* &cript\ires, or the written word itself," ". 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 389 
 
 Many arguments offer themselves for proof of this h«- 
 portant assertion, which hitherto we have explained ; 
 so!ne of the most considerable of them I shall shortly 
 propose, without insisting largely on the prosecution de- 
 signing only to liint the arguments that satisfied me, that 
 I was not mistaken as to the grounds whereon, by the 
 forementioned experience, I was brought to receive the 
 scriptures as the word of God. . 
 
 Arg. 1. God ordinarily in the scriptures offers his 
 mind, requiring us to believe, obey and submit to it up- 
 on this and no other ground, viz. the evidence of his own 
 testimony. The only reason commonly insisted on to 
 warrant our faith, oblige us to believe and receive, is. 
 Thus saith the Lord. 
 
 Arg. 2. When false prophets set up their pretended 
 revelations in competition with his word, he remits them 
 to the evidence his words gave by their own light and 
 power, as that which was sufficient to distinguish and 
 enable them to reject the false pretensions, and cleave to 
 his word, Jer. xxiii, 26, 29. How long shall this be in the 
 heart of the prophets that prophecy lies ? That are prophets 
 of the deceit of their own hearts ; which think to cause my 
 people to forget my name by their dreams, which they tell 
 every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten 
 my name for Baal. The prophet that hath a dream, let 
 him tell a dream, and he that hath my word, let him speak 
 my word faithfully : What is the chaff to the wheat, 
 saith the Lord ? Is not my word like afire, saith the Lord, 
 and like a hammer that breaketh the mountains in jdeces ? 
 In the latter days of that church, when the people Avere 
 m<jst eminently perplexed with false prophets, both as 
 to their number and subtilty, yet God lays their eternal 
 and temporal safety or ruin, on their discerning aright 
 between his word, and that which was only pretended 
 so to be. And that they might not complain of tiiis hn- 
 position, he tenders them security of its easiness of per- 
 formance : speaking of his own word comparatively as 
 to every thing that is not so, he says. It is as 7vheat to 
 chaff, which may infaUibly, by being what it is, be dis- 
 cerned from it ; and then absolutely that it hath such 
 properties, as that it will discover itself, even light, heat 
 
390 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 and power. A person divinely inspired was to be at- 
 tended to for no other reason, but tlie evidence of the 
 word of God, distinguishing itself from the pretended 
 revelations, and satisfying the mind about it, by its light 
 and power. 
 
 Arg. 3. When further evidence, as that of miracles, is 
 demanded, as necessary to induce them that are unbe- 
 lievers to receive and believe the word, it is refused, as 
 what was not in the judgment of God needful, and 
 would not be effectual ; and unbelievers are remitted to 
 the self-evidence of the word, as that which would satis- 
 fy them, if any thing would. This our Lord teaches 
 clearly in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Luke 
 xvi, 27, to the end. The rich man being disappointed 
 as to any relief to himself, in the preceding verses, is 
 desirous of preventing the ruin of his brethren, and for 
 this end is concerned to have them induced to believe. 
 To which purpose he proposes, ver. 27, the sending of 
 Lazarus from the dead to certify them of the reality of 
 eternal things : / pray thee therefore Father, says he to 
 Abraham, that wouldest send him to my father^ s house : 
 for I have Jive brethren j that he may testify unto themy lest 
 they also come to this place of torment. Abraham saith un- 
 to him. They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear 
 them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham ; but if one went 
 unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said un- 
 to him, if they hear not 3Iosesand the prophets, neither will 
 they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Here 
 the case is plain. The rich man desires a miracle to sa- 
 tisfy his brethren. This is refused, and they are remit- 
 ted to Moses and the prophets, as what was sufficient. 
 He insists, and thinks a miracle would be more satisfy- 
 ing. This is still refused, and it is plainly taught. That, 
 w^iere the evidence of the word of God will not induce 
 or persuade to believe, the most uncommon miracles 
 would not do it. 
 
 Arg. 4. When the question is considered particular- 
 ly, 1 Cor. xiv. What gifts were most to the use of the 
 fiiurch, the mii-aculous gifts of tongues, &;c. or the ordi- 
 nary gift of prophecy, or preaching of the word? this last 
 'is preferred, as what v/as not only more useful for the 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 3^1 
 
 edification of believers, but for inducing unbelievers to 
 receive the word, and submit to it; and the way wherein 
 it does this, is mentioned, which is no other than by its 
 evidencing itself upon its naked proposal, in preacliing, 
 by its own light and power. Let the whole passage be 
 considered from verse 22, but especially verse 24, 25. 
 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believctk not^ 
 or unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 
 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so 
 falling down on his face, he will ivorship God, and report, 
 that God is in you of a truth. 
 
 Arg. 5. The constant practice of the apostles fully 
 . proves our assertion. The way they took to persuade 
 the unbelieving world to receive the gospel, Avas not by 
 proposing the arguments commonly insisted upon now, 
 for proving the trutli of their doctrine, nor working, nor 
 insisting upon miracles wrought by tliem, for confirma- 
 tion of the truth, but by a bare proposal of the truth, and 
 . a sincere manifestation of it to consciences, in the name 
 of God, they proceeded, and demanded acceptance ot it, 
 as the word of God, and not of man; and by this means 
 they converted the world. And when tbey did refuse 
 it, thus proposed, they shook off the dust of their feet for 
 a testimony against them, and so laid tliem open to tiiat 
 awful threatening of our Lord, of punishments more in- 
 tolerable than tiiose of Sodom and Gommorrah. 
 
 Arg. 5. The experience of those who do believe 
 aright, confirms it fully. However they may be re- 
 lieved against the objections, and capacitated to deal 
 with adversaries by other arguments and means, yet 
 that whereon believers of all soils, learned and unlearn- 
 ed, lean, is the word of God evidencing itself unto their 
 faitli, by its own light and power. The unlearned are for 
 the most part capable of no other evidence, and yet upon 
 this alone, in all ages, in life and death, in doing and suf- 
 fering, they have evidenced another and great sort of sta- 
 bility and firmness in cleaving to it, and suffering cheer- 
 fully for it, on this account only, than the most learned, 
 who w ere best furnished with arguments of another na- 
 ture, but wanted this : and indeed if this is not allowed 
 to be the ground of faith, there can be no divine faith 
 leaning upon a divine and infallible bottom ; and the 
 
392 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 vulgar, who are incapable of any other evidence, must 
 rove in uncertainty, and pin their faith upon the sleeves of 
 their teachers: but blessed be God, here is a ground suffi- 
 cient to rest on, that will not fail. He speaks, and his 
 sheep, notwithstanding that simplicity, which makes 
 them contemptible in the eyes of the world, know his 
 voice, hear him, and follow it, and will notliearthe voice of 
 a stranger. 
 
 Prop. XI. " Whereas it may be pretended, that on 
 " supposition of what has been now asserted, the people 
 " of God, at times when they discern nut this light, feel 
 " not this power, have no ground for their faith, with re- 
 " spect unto these passages or portions of scripture, which 
 " do not thus evidence themselves to be from God, at 
 " the time of then- perusal, or of their hearing of tliem, 
 " by affecting the believer's mind, with a sense of this 
 " divine light and power. In opposition to this objec- 
 " tion, and for removing the ground of it, I offer tt e fol- 
 " lowing truth, which afterwards I shall clear, TLat 
 ." there is no part of the scriptures, in so far as God 
 " speaks in them, but doth thus sufficiently evidence 
 " his authority in its season, unto persons capable of 
 " discerning it, and duly applying themselves in the way 
 " of the Lord's appointment, in so far as they are at 
 " present concerned to receive, believe and obey it, in 
 " compliance with their present duty, and reach the 
 " meaning of the proposition in and by the use of the 
 *^* means of God's appointment." 
 
 This objection has sometimes had a very formidable 
 aspect to me, and therefore I shall distinctly propose, 
 so far as the brevity designed will permit, the grounds 
 whereon I was satisfied about the truth proposed in op- 
 position to it, in the following explicatory and confirm- 
 ing observations, referring for further clearing, as to the 
 way wherein the Lord quieted me, and relieved me of 
 objections, to the foregoing chapter. 
 
 ] . We are to observe, that faith, or that power in 
 man, whereby he assents to the truth upon testimony, is 
 corrupted, as well as his other powers, by his fall. And 
 though in believers it is renewed, they receiving an un- 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 393 
 
 derstanding, whereby they know hiin that is true, and 
 Jcnorv his voice from that of a stranger y yet even in them 
 it is imperfect, and habitually weak, they being re- 
 newed but in part, and so knowing but in part, as it 
 is witii respect to his other powers, so it is as to 
 this. And besides this habitual weakness, which en* 
 gages tl>em to cry to the Lord daily for carrying on 
 the work of faith with power, and an increase of faith to 
 believe and live to God in a due manner; besides, I say, 
 this habitual weakness, it is liable to various extraordi- 
 nary incidental disorders, arising from inward and out- 
 ward occasions, while the believer is here in this valley 
 of tears, subject unto the miseries occasioned by the re- 
 maining power of indwelling corruptions, which are in 
 themselves restless, and raise many fogs, damps and 
 mists to overcloud the soul: and by the violence of out- 
 ward temptations, which Satan and the world throng in 
 ujx)n them, through the w^ise permission of God, for the 
 exercise of their faith in this state of trial, the darknes is 
 exceedingly increased, faith weakened, or at least straiten- 
 ed as to its exercise. And by this means this spiritual dis- 
 cerning is sometimes more and sometimes less obstructed 
 and darkened. Now if at such seasons, while the believer 
 finds himself thus out of order, he cannot discern this 
 evidence of the divine authority of the word, no not 
 where it shines clearest, in so far as to quiet him, he has 
 no reason to reject the word, or question it for want of 
 evidence, but may be, and ordinarily believers are exer- 
 cised in complaints of their own darkness, as the cause 
 of their not discerning God in his word: Vitium est in 
 organOy there is no fault in the word, but in the discern- 
 ing pow er. The argument, if it be urged with respect 
 to such a case as this, would prove that there is no light 
 in the sun. 
 
 2. Tlie Lord's people, through the powder of corrup- 
 tion, and force of temptation, are often negligent and in- 
 advertent, and do not apply their minds nor incline their 
 hearts unto the word, with the attention necessary to dis- 
 cern the evidence of God in the word ; and as a punish- 
 ment of this, God withdraws, and leaves their minds un- 
 de.r the darkness theyare hereby cast into, and^lhen when 
 
 50 
 
594 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 God passes by before, or on the right or left hand, and 
 worketli round about them, they cannot perceive him. 
 If we turn our back to the light, or shut our eyes, or will 
 not be at pains to remove motes, or humors that obstruct 
 our sight, no wonder we do not discern the light. When 
 we have idols in our hearts and eyes, no wonder we see 
 not God. If we lay not aside the filthiness of our hearts, 
 we cannot receive the engrafted wordy that is able to save 
 our soids, in a due manner. 
 
 3. Although the whole scriptures come from God, and 
 are his word, yet every proposition contained in them, as 
 it is a proposition in itself, expressive of such a particular 
 purpose or thouglt, is not his word : for God somethnes 
 tells us men's word's, and the devil's words. Now though 
 God speaks them in so far as to teach us that they are 
 such person's words, yet the propositions in themselves 
 are not to be received with faith ; but we are only to as- 
 sent to this upon the authority of God, that they said so 
 and so ; not always that these are true ; for oftcntunes 
 in themselves they are false and pernicious. Now, evi- 
 dence as to any more than the trutli of God in the histo- 
 rical narration of them, is not to be expected, nor are the 
 scriptures to be impeached for want of it. 
 
 4. Although every divine truth which God speaks, 
 has equal authority, and sufficient evidence, yet every 
 scripture truth has not a beaming evidence, equally 
 great, clear and affecting. The scripture is like the 
 heaven, another piece of divine workmanship. It is full 
 of stars, every one of these has light sufficient to answer 
 its own particular use for which ' it was designed, and 
 to satisfy the discerning and attentive beholder, that it 
 is light ; but yet every one gives not a light equally 
 clear, great, glorious, affecting and powerful : There is 
 one glory of the sun, another of the moon, another of the 
 stars : and one star excelleth another in glory ; and some- 
 times the greatest light, if it is at the greatest distance, 
 like the fixed stars, affect us less, and shine less clear to 
 us, than weaker lights, which, like the moon, are nearer. 
 In the scripture there are propositions which tell us 
 things, which though tliey are in their own place and 
 proper circumstances, useful to them, for w hom they 
 are particularly designed, and to their proper scppe ; yet 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 39?J 
 
 they are comparatively of less importance to iis, as ac- 
 quainting us with things of less considerable nature and 
 use to us, and which lie not so far out of our reach, be- 
 ing in some measure known, or knowable without di- 
 vine revelation, though it was necessary, that in order 
 to their particular use to us in our walk with God, they 
 should be better secured, and offered us upon the faith of 
 the divine testimony. Again, there are other proposi- 
 tions, which hold forth to us truths in then* own nature 
 of more importance, that lie further out of our reach, 
 being neither known, nor indeed knowable by us, with- 
 out divine revelation ; and which in our present cases 
 and circumstances are more nearly suited to our case, 
 and wherein tlierefore our present concernment doth 
 more directly appear to be interested, and which there- 
 fore impress us with, and leave in us effects more last- 
 ing and discernible. Now it must be allowed, that the 
 truths of this last sort have an evidence more bright, 
 great, affecting and sensible, than those of the former 
 sort. 
 
 5. Hereon sundry subordinate observations offer them- 
 selves, which are of the greatest importance for clear- 
 ing the diliiculty under consideration. 1. Truths in 
 scripture, or propositions acquainting us with things, 
 otherwise in some respect within our reach, and only 
 vouched by God in order to the stability of our faith in 
 them, (in so far as we are in practice obliged to lay 
 weight on them) and to give us, not so much satisfaction 
 as to their truth absolutely, as some additional security 
 about them ; these cannot be supposed so discernibly to 
 affect our minds, as truths of another nature, inasmuch 
 as this additional evidence is more difficult to distinguish 
 from the evidence we have otherwise for them. Besides 
 that, God seeing that we are not so hard to be induced 
 to a belief of them, or so liable to temptations that may 
 shake our faith, sees it not meet to, stamp such bright, 
 lively and affecting impressions of himself on them ; 
 for it is unworthy of him to do any thing in vain. 2. On 
 the other hand, these propositions which disclose the se- 
 cret puiposes, or knowledge of God, and things hid in 
 it, that lie within the reach of no mortal, or perhaps nd 
 
396 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 created understanding, Avithout revelation, must make ^ 
 more vivid and lively impression on the mind, as illumi- 
 nating it with the knowledge of things, whereto it was, 
 and by its own reach forever must remain a stranger. 
 3. In like manner truths, wherein our eternal salvation, 
 or present relief from incumbent trouble, is duectly 
 concerned, do more forcibly afiect, and have a more 
 powerful influence, than those which lie more remote 
 from our present use, of how gi'eat advantage so^ 
 ever in their proper place they may be. The moon, 
 which points out my w ay in the night, guides me, and 
 saves me from losing myself or my Avay, at that time affects 
 me more than the light of the sun, which I have for- 
 merly seen, but do not now behold ; though the moon 
 comparatively has no light, and borrows that which it 
 hath from the sun. In like manner, truths in themselves 
 of less importance, and which derive all their glory from 
 those that are more important, yet, when they suit my 
 present case, affects me more, and their evidence appears 
 greater. Every thing is beautiful in its season. That 
 there is such a city as Jerusalem, or that there w as such 
 an one, the scripture tells us. Of this we are otherwise 
 informed, and are not likely to be tempted as to its truth ; 
 this however is told us in the word, and therefore we are 
 to receive it on the testimony of the word ; but the faith 
 of it is not so difficult, on accounts mentioned ; it is not 
 told but with respect to some particular scope, and we 
 have otily an additional security about it. Hereon our 
 minds are not so illuminated, influenced, and aff'ected 
 with the discovery, as when God tells us, he was in 
 Christ reconciling the world to hiinself. The discoveiy 
 of this fills us with a sense of the glory of God, hitherto 
 unknown, and that lay far out of the reach of vulgar 
 eyes, or any mortal to discover, without divine revela- 
 tion. And therefore the discovery aftfects the more. 
 Again, I am perplexed about through-bearing in some 
 particular strait ; a promise of grace to help in it, though 
 it is of less importance than the forementioned discove- 
 ry of reconciliation, and has no efficacy, light or glory, 
 save what it derives from the former, yet coming in the 
 sea?<on wherein I am ^vholly exercised about it, and the 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 397 
 
 case whereto it relates, it affects me more. 4. Where 
 the same truth is at the same time discovered by ditl'er- 
 ent lights, it is not easy for persons, if not very discern- 
 ing and attentive, to understand the distinct and parti- 
 cular influence of the several liglits ; such as that of na-^ 
 tural light, human testimony, and revelation ; and yet 
 each of them have their own particular use, which up- 
 on its extinction would appear by the defect we would 
 feel. 
 
 6. With respect to truths of high impoiiance, other- 
 wise unknown, which affect our minds witli the enrich- 
 ing light of things, by us formerly not known or know- 
 able, and which by ttieir suitableness to present circum- 
 stances, or exercise, do more strongly afiect with a sense 
 of the divine authority, and illuminate the mind, there 
 is no difficulty, save in the case§ afterwards to be taken 
 notice of, or the like, 
 
 7. As to these truths and scripture propositions which 
 relate to things not so remote Irom our apprehensions, 
 or are not so suitable to our circumstances, at present, 
 or discover tilings of less importance to us, it is owned, 
 that even real Cliristians wlio have faith, or a spiritual 
 discerning, for ordinary, are not, upon liearing or read- 
 ing them, struck or afiected with so sensible, clear and 
 afiecting evidence of God, as they are in other scrip- 
 tures of a diflerent nature and relation, which arises 
 from the nature of the truths in themselves, the manner 
 and design of God in the delivery, our present ciicuni^ 
 stances, the weakness and imperfection of our faith, the^ 
 incidental indispositions we are under, and other causes 
 which may be easily collected from what has been for- 
 merly hinted in the preceding observations. 
 
 8. All this, notwithstanding the least considerable of 
 these truths, has sufficient evidence of the divine au- 
 tliority, that is, such an evidence as answers the design 
 of God in them, and is able to determine the believer's 
 assent, and oblige him to obey or submit, and is every 
 way suitable to the weight that is to be laid on tliem, 
 with respect to the scope they are mentioned for, and 
 importance of the matter ; which though at all times it 
 js not equally discernible, for the reasons abovemen?- 
 
398 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 tioned, or others of a like nature ; yet in its proper 
 season it is observed by judicious, observing, and re- 
 flecting Christians. As for instance, when any of these 
 truths, of the least apparent importance, are questioned 
 by Satan or men, then the authority of God is felt to 
 have that influence and awe upon the consciences of be- 
 lievers, as will not allow them to part with the hast hoof 
 or shred of divine truth, and Avill make them, maugre 
 all opposition, cleave to it, though it should cost them 
 theii' life. Likewise when the Spirit of God is to apply 
 these truths to the particular scope at which he aimed 
 in asserting them in the book of God, then not only 
 have they such evidence as influences assent and adhe- 
 rence, but emboldens the soul to lay that stress on them, 
 which the case doth require. ^ 
 
 9. Whereas neither our present imperfect state and 
 capacities, the nature of the things, nor other circum- 
 stances, allow of an evidence equally clear and great as 
 in other truths, the wisdom and goodness of God, in 
 consideration of this, to prevent the shaking, or at least 
 failing of our faith, have as to these provided many 
 ways for our security: As, 1. Though in the particular 
 passages, such evidences shine not in themselves apart, 
 yet there often appears abeaming light, when they are 
 presented in reference to the scope intended by God. 
 2, Other passages are joined with them, placed near 
 tliem, anfl related to them, which have a further evi- 
 dence of God, and though we cannot discern them when 
 they are looked at abstractly, yet when we look to them 
 in relation to these, on wiiich they hang, and to which 
 they are connected, we are satisfied. And I conceive 
 there may be an eye to this, in dropping doctrinal pas- 
 sages, and inserting them in scripture history. 3. This 
 objection principally respects the Old Testament ; as to 
 the divine authority of which we are particularly se- 
 cured by plain and evident testimonies in the New Tes- 
 tament. 4. Sometimes with such truths there are direct 
 assertions of the Lord's speaking of them joined; of which 
 there are many instances in the books of Moses, where- 
 in it is expressly declared, that what was then enjoined, 
 was by the particular command of God. 5. Believers 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 399^ 
 
 for ordinary, being, in the reading of the word of God, 
 made sensible ofhis authority, win not be easily brought 
 to admit of any suspicion, that a book Avherein God 
 shews himself so evidently concerned, and owns, as 
 to the bulk, to be from him, is or can by him be al- 
 lowed to be in other places filled up with propositions, 
 or matters of a coarser alloy : And therefore tliey 
 will rather question themselves, and then- own igno- 
 rance, than impeach the divinity of the scriptures on 
 this account. , , 
 
 10. Though no faulty obscurity is chargeable on the 
 scriptures, (as much of them as in present circumstances 
 is of absolute necessity to believers, in order to their 
 acceptable walking with God, being clearly revealed) 
 yet there are many truths not understood by all, nor 
 perhaps by any, therein inserted, to leave room for the 
 diligence, trial of the faith of Christians, their progress 
 in knowledge, and other wise ends. Now, till in the use 
 of appointed means, the Spirit of God open to us the 
 meaning of these scriptures, we cannot perceive the light 
 and power that is in them : but whenever he opens these 
 scriptures, that same light that discovers the meaning, 
 will not fail to affect, and make our hearts hum within 
 
 ^s, with the sense of divine light, authority and power. 
 Of this the experience of the people of God, as th«y 
 grow in knowledge, furnishes them daily with new in- 
 stances, and therefore they do not stumble at the want 
 of the present sense of this light, but are cjiiickened to 
 diligence, excited to frequent cries for opening of their 
 eyes^ that they may understand the wonders, that by 
 the knowledge of other parts of the word they are in- 
 duced to believe couched in these parts, which yet they 
 know not. 
 
 11. As has been more than insinuated, there are, in 
 scripture, truths designed for, and suited to different 
 persons, in different circumstances ; the book of God 
 being designed for the use of the whole church, and all 
 in it, in all stations, relations, cases, temptations and dif- 
 ferent circumstances, in which any are, have been in, or 
 may be in. Now when God speaks to one, what he 
 says cannot be so affecting to aaother, no wise in the 
 
400 AN ESSAY COiNCERNING 
 
 same or lilvC case ; though yet he may know somewhat 
 of the Lord's voice in it. And the same is to be said 
 as to the same person, with respect to different cases. 
 
 12. It must be still minded, that though every part of 
 scripture has in its proper place and degree, a sufficient 
 evidence of the divine authority, yet the actual discern- 
 ing of it depends very much upon the present state of 
 the discernnig power or faith of the Christian, which 
 discerns it or not, or discerns it more or less clearly, as 
 it is stronger or weaker, more free from accidental in- 
 dispositions, outward temptations, or more affected by 
 them. And the same is to be said, as to its being more 
 or less intently and orderly applied to the observation of 
 the evidence of God in the word. 
 
 ] 3. Yet whereas they, who are once renewed, do con- 
 tinue still children of the lights and have a spiritual ca- 
 pacity of discerning the Lord's voice from that of a 
 stranger^ they do for ordinary, in the scriptures, find the 
 authority of God evidencing itself suitably to the par- 
 ticular exigence of their particular cases, where the 
 truths that occur are not such wherein their present faith 
 or practice is immediately affected ; or where the truths 
 are such as to which, in their own abstract nature, no 
 more is required save a bare assent, they being only in- 
 serted with respect to some other particular scope, where 
 the truths are not presently assaulted, where they are 
 not immediately called to hazard much upon them, or 
 in other the like cases, they are indeed less affected ; 
 but one way or other, from one thing or another, as 
 much of God shines in them as is sufficient to engage to 
 a present adherence, and some becoming reverence as to 
 the oracles of God, which may in their season manifest 
 their usefulness to us, and do at present manifest it to 
 others. And where truths are of a different nature and 
 importance, and suit present necessities, and require 
 more distinct actings of faith or obedience, and we are 
 called to lay more stress on them ; in that case the evi- 
 dence of God shines more brigiitly. And scarce ever 
 will a discerning and attentive Christian, who is not 
 grievously indisposed by some casual disorder, read the 
 scriptures, or any considerable part of them, but some 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 401 
 
 where or other, in the scope or particular words, and 
 propositions, or their contexture, some light will shine 
 in upon the soul, enforcing a conviction. That God is in 
 it of a truth. 
 
 14* When the faith of the Lord's people is assaulted 
 as to the triitli of the word; when in difficult cases and 
 duties they are called to lay much stress upon the word, 
 «nd hazard as it were their all ; when tiiey are distress- 
 ied with particular and violent temptations, and need 
 comfort; when under spiritual decays, and God designs^ 
 to restore them ; when newly brought in, and need to 
 be confinned ; when they are humble and diligent, and 
 the Lord designs to reward them graciously, and en* 
 courage them to go on ; when difficulted to find duty, 
 and waiting on the Lord for light, in cases of more than 
 usual importance; when the Lord has a mind to carry 
 on any to peculiar degrees of holiness and grace, and 
 employ them in special Services ; and, in a word, where* 
 ever any extraordinary exigence requires, then the Lord 
 opens his people's ears, removes what intercepts the dis- 
 coveries of his mind, fixes their ear to hear, and speaks 
 the word distinctly, powerfully and sweetly to the soul;, 
 and gives them in and by it, such a taste of his goodness, 
 wisdom, and power, and experience of his authority in 
 the word, and his gracious design and hand in its appli- 
 cation at present, as fills the soul with the riches and/«JZ 
 assurance offaith, peace, joy, and stedfastness in believ- 
 ing. 
 
 Prop. XTL " Whereas there are different readings of 
 '* particular places in ancient copies, and places wrong 
 " translated in our versions, it may be pretended, that 
 " wc are, or may be imposed upon, and assent to truths, 
 " or rather propositions, not of a divine original, casual- 
 " ly crept into our copies of the original, or translation. 
 " In answer hereto, the foregoing ground of faith lays 
 " a sufficient bottom for the satisfaction of Christians, in 
 " so far as their case and particular temptations re- 
 * quire." 
 
 To clear this a little, I shall offer the ensuing re* 
 marks : ^l 
 
402 AN ESSAY COINCERNING 
 
 1 . Where the authority of God evidences itself in the 
 way above explained, and confirmed to the mind, be- 
 lievers have a stable and sure foundation for their faith, 
 whether they use translations or the originals ; though it 
 must be allowed, where persons are capable of it, the 
 originals are most satisfying. And this is plainly the 
 case, as all real Christians from certain experience know, 
 as to all the truths of the greatest importance, and where- 
 on our faith or obedience are more immediately or di- 
 rectly concerned : so that as to these there is no roc.n 
 left for thist)bjection. 
 
 2. The wisdom of God has so carefully provided for 
 the security and stability of our faith, as to particular 
 truths of any considerable importance, against pretences 
 of this, or alike nature, that our faith rests not upon 
 the evidence of one single testimony, but such truths 
 upon a variety of occasions are often repeated, and our 
 faith leans upon them, not only as thus frequently re- 
 peated, but cleared and confirnied by then- connexion to 
 other truths which infer them, and to the whole analogy 
 of faith, or current of the sciiptm-es, with respect to that 
 wiiich is the principal design of God. So that we are in 
 no hazard of being deprived of any one truth, of any 
 considerable influence, in faith or practice, by pretend- 
 ed corruptions, or wrong translations. The famous Dr. 
 Owen, who had considered the whole various readings, 
 and well knew the failures of particular translations, ob- 
 serves, I'hat were all the various readings, added to the 
 Avorst and most faulty translation, the church of God 
 would not sustain by it the loss of one important truth. 
 
 3. Where any person is particularly concerned to be ' 
 satisfied which is the right reading of any pailicular pas- 
 sage, and how it ought to be translated, they may, by 
 tiiC help of the ministers of the gospel, such of them as 
 are particularly fitted with skill in such matters, and by 
 the endeavors of learned men, who have particularly 
 considered every one of these passages, in a humble de- 
 pendence on God for the blessing of these means, (which 
 the wise God has multiplied, since difficulties of this sort 
 began to create any trouble to the faith of his people) 
 by these means I say, joined with an eye to the Lord, 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 403 
 
 they may come to be particularly satisfied. If any man 
 will do his will, he shall know the doctrine, whether it is of 
 God. 
 
 4. Where there is not access to these means, which 
 will not readily happen to persons called to such exer- 
 cise, (which rarely befalls the ordinary sort of Chris- 
 tians) yet the Lord can easily relieve the persons thus 
 exercised, by evidencing his authority to the conscience 
 in a satisfying light, or by enabling him to wait for light 
 until the solution comes, or by removing the temptation, 
 when it becomes too strong, or by leading him to rest in 
 the particular truth, as secured by other passages not 
 questioned, or by some such like pay. 
 
 5. The difficulty as to translations is really of less im- 
 portance ; and as to the other about pretended corrup- 
 tions, ordinary Christians, whose consciences are daily 
 atfected with the evidence of God's authority in the 
 word, and his owning it as his w^ord, speaking by it to 
 them, and conveying divine infliiences of light, life and 
 comfort, will not fear or entertain any suspicion so un- 
 worthy of God, as that he coidd allow the word he thus 
 owns, under a pretence of his authority, to impose on 
 them assertions of human extract, and of any ill conse- 
 quence to their faith or obedience. 
 
 6. I shall only subjoin this one observation, That ene- 
 mies gain more by proposing these pretended corrup- 
 tions in cumido,* and in such a bulky way, as to affright 
 Christians who are capable of such objections, than by 
 insisting upon any particular one, and attempts to prove 
 them of equal authority with the reading retained in tha. 
 approved originals. Their unsuccessfulness in endea* 
 vors of this last sort discovers, that there is really nothing 
 of weight in that so much noised objection about vari* 
 ous readings : for if there were any such readings os 
 could really make any considerable alteration, and were 
 supported with any authority able to cope with the re- 
 ceived readings, why do they not produce these I Others 
 are of no consideration ; these only are to be regarded : 
 and of this sort there are but very few that the most im- 
 pudent dare pretend ; and these few have been dis- 
 
 ' " In mass," 
 
404 AN ESSAY CONCERNING 
 
 proved and disallowed by persons of equal capacity and 
 learning. But to leave this, v\hich is above the ordina- 
 ry sort of Christians, the Lord's people, to whom he lias 
 evidenced his own authority, in the way above mention- 
 ed, will be moved with none of these things. They will 
 not forego the word, but retain it as their life, and pay 
 respect to it as the word of God ; and they have good 
 reason to do so, 
 
 I shall now obseiTe hence, 
 
 1. How justly divine faith may be said to be infalli- 
 ble, as standing on an infallible ground, the faithfidness 
 and truth of God in the word. Througii darkness we 
 may sometimes not discern, through negligence not ob- 
 serve, or through the force of temptations interposing 
 betwixt us and it, we may lose sight of the evidence of 
 this authority ; and so our faith may shake or fail. But 
 while it fixes on this, it cannot faiJ, though we may quit, 
 or by violence be beat off; the ground is firm, and can- 
 not fail, the scriptures cannot be broken. 
 
 2. Hence it is. That the meanest and weakest believ-^ 
 ers, who know nothing of the props others have to sup^ 
 port them, do cleave as firmly to the word, run with all 
 courage, and much cheerfulness, all hazards for it, to the 
 loss of whatever is dear to tliem, life not excepted, as 
 the most judicious divine, and oftentimes they are much 
 more firm. This is upon no other grounds accountable. 
 This reason of faith is as much exposed to them as to 
 the most learned. 
 
 3. All objections arising against this ground of faith, 
 will be easily solved, if we consider, 1. That tlie scrip- 
 tures are a relief provided by sovereign grace, for those 
 of the race of fallen man, to whom God designs mercy, 
 and so God was not obliged to adjust it in all respects 
 to the natural capacities of men in their present state, 
 but it was meet that the word should be so writ, that 
 room should be left for the discoveries of the sovereign- 
 ty of grace, and the other means God designed to make 
 use of in subserviency to the word. It was not meet nor 
 necessary that all should be so proposed, as to lie open 
 to men without the assistance of the Spirit, and without 
 the ministry of the Avord. 2. Tiie word was not design- 
 ed alone to conduct us^ but God has given the Spirit wUh 
 
THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 405 
 
 the word, who teaches us in and by it, as he sees meet, 
 3. The word is designed to be a rule to all ages, and 
 therefore it was not meet or necessary, that what con- 
 cerns persons in one age should be equally exposed in 
 its meaning unto other persons, who lived in different 
 times. It is sufficient, that in every age, what concerns 
 that time lies so open, that in the use of the means of 
 God's appointment, men may reach that wherein they 
 arc concerned. 4. The word was designed for persons of 
 different stations, capacities and cases, who ought to rest 
 satisfied in the obvious discoveries of what concerns 
 them, in theii' own particular circumstances, and is re- 
 quired to be believed and obeyed, more particularly in 
 a way of duty, of them, though they cannot see so clear- 
 ly what belongs to others in different circumstances. 
 5. God has not systematically and separately discoursed 
 all particular cases under distinct heads ; but to leave 
 room for the conduct of the Spirit, for exciting the dili- 
 gence of Christians to study the whole scriptures, and 
 for other reasons obvious to infinite wisdom, he has di- 
 gested them in a method, more congruous to these wise 
 ends. 6. The Lord designing the exercise of tiie faith of 
 his own, and to humble them, and to drive them to a de- 
 pendence on himself, and to punish the wicked, and give 
 them who will stinnble at the ways of God somewhat to 
 break theii' neck on, he has digested tliem so, as that 
 there may be occasions, though always v/ithout fault on 
 God's part, for all those ends : Wisdom will be justified 
 of her children, and to some he speaks in parables, that 
 seeing they may not see. 
 
 ^i*wff^i$*^^^^3f^ 
 
INDEX, 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Authors and Books quoted in the preceding Worh 
 
 AlKENHEAD's Speech. 
 
 Alcoran. 
 
 Amyrauld de Religionibus. 
 
 Aristotle's Ethicks. 
 
 August, de Civitate Dei. 
 
 Bayle's great Hist, and Crit. 
 
 Diction. 
 Baxter's Animad. on Herbert. 
 
 De Veritate. 
 
 Reasons for Christian 
 
 Religion. 
 
 More Reasons for 
 
 Christian Religion. 
 Becconsalon the Law of Nature. 
 Blount's Oracles of Reason. 
 
 Religio Laici. 
 
 Boyle's Excellency of Theolo- 
 gy beyond Nat. Philosophy. 
 
 Burnet on the Thirty-Nine Ar- 
 ticles. 
 
 Caesar de Bello Gallico. 
 Cicero's Tusculan Questions. 
 
 De Natura Deorum. 
 
 De Ligibus. 
 
 De Amicitia. 
 
 Clarkson's practical Divinity of 
 
 the Papists. 
 Claudian. 
 Clemcntis Alexandrinae Stro- 
 
 mata. 
 Clerc's (Le) Parrhasiana. 
 
 Comput. Histor. 
 
 Collin's Discourses de Aniraa- 
 
 bus Paganorum. 
 
 Dacier's Plato. 
 Deist's Manuel. 
 Discourses on Moral Virtue, 
 and its Difference from Grace." 
 Dryden's Hind and Panthef. 
 
 Epictetus. 
 
 Ferguson's Enquiry Into Mora} 
 Virtue. 
 
 Gale's Court of the Gentiles. 
 Growth of Deism. 
 
 Heid. (Abrah.) de Origin IJr- 
 roris. 
 
 Herbert de Veritate. 
 
 ■ De Relig. Gent. 
 
 Religio Laici. 
 
 Hornbeck de Conversione Geri- 
 tiHum. 
 
 Hieroclis Carmina Aurea. 
 
 Hobb's Leviathan. 
 
 Howe's Living Temple. 
 
 Humphrey's Peaceable Dis- 
 quisitions. 
 
 Jamblichus de Vita Pythag. 
 Jesuit's Morals. 
 
 Laertius (Diog.) de Vitis Phi- 
 
 losophorum. 
 Letter to the Deists. 
 Limborch's Conference with 
 
 Orelius the Jew. 
 Locke 00 Human Understand. 
 
40B 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Locke's Reasonableness of 
 Christianity. 
 
 Maximus Tyrius* 
 
 Nicol's Conference with a 
 
 Theist 
 Nye (Stephen) on Natural and 
 
 Revealed Religion. 
 
 Ovid, de Ponto. 
 — — — Metamorph. 
 Owen on the Sabbatli. 
 
 ' Theologum. 
 
 — — on the Hebrews. 
 
 De Justitia Vindicat. 
 
 Outramus de Sacrificiis. 
 
 Parker's (Sam.) Defence of 
 Ecclesiastical Polity. 
 
 Prudentius (Aurelius.) 
 
 PuffendorfF's Introduction to 
 the History of Europe. 
 
 Reflections oti the growth of 
 
 Deism. 
 Remonstrant. Apologia. 
 Rivet on Hosea. 
 Rushworth's Hist. Collections; 
 
 Seneca's Epist. 
 — — — De Ira. 
 
 De Providentia* 
 
 Simplicius in Epictetuna. 
 Spinoza's Ethicks. 
 Stanley's Lives. 
 Stillingfleet's Origines Sacra; 
 
 Tuckney's (Anth.) sermons* 
 Turretine. 
 
 Wilson's Scripturelnterpretef;- 
 Wolseley's (Sir Charles) Scrip* 
 
 ture Belief. 
 Videllii Arcana Arminianismi'. 
 
 a=id bis Rejoinder. 
 Videliua Raphsodus. 
 
SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 
 
 Ai 
 
 A. 
 
 .LLEN, Moses 
 Adams, Peter 
 Adams, William 
 Allen, David 
 Annan, Theodorus 
 Adriance, Rem 
 Adriance, Isaac R. 
 Adriance, Abm. R. 
 Adriance, Jacob T. 
 Adriance, Theodorus 
 Adams, Hiram 
 Angevine, Caleb 
 Angevine, Stephen 
 Adriance, Parret 
 Angevine, Eli 
 Adriance, Chas. P. 
 Adri'ince, Abm. 
 Andriis, Luther 
 Anderson, Alexr. 
 Alexander, Rev. Caleb 
 Adams, Jane 
 Ackerman, John 
 
 B. 
 
 Bernard, J. 
 Boardman, William 
 Bradt, Albert 
 Boyd, Peter 
 Bentley, Randall 
 Bradford, Rev. John M. 
 Bronk, Robt. 
 Beekman, Hannah 
 Beatty, William 
 Burrows, Jabez 
 
 Bennet, G. B. 
 Boyd, James 
 Blatchford, D. D. Samuel 
 Bloodgood, Lynott 
 Brown, S. R. 
 Blanchard, William 
 Bogardus, Cornelius 
 Bogardus, Cornelius jun. 
 Bogardus, William R. 
 Browneli, T. C. 
 Bullock, Matthew 
 Brice, Robert 
 Baker, John 
 Brown John 
 Buel, Jesse 
 
 BrinckerhofF Derick A. 
 Brush, A. M. 
 Brinckerhoff, George 
 Berry, Nathl. 
 Bogart, David R. 
 Brill, John 
 Burr, Oliver 
 Beers, Andrew 
 Brintnal, Wm. 
 Bristoll, Moses 
 Barker, Joseph 
 Burr, Nathan 
 Bockee, Abm. 
 Bilker, Thomas 
 Baker, Samuel . 
 Booth, George 
 Booth, Richd. 
 Brooke, John 
 Brown, David 
 Bell, William 
 Bloom, Mary 
 Barnes, Daniel H. 
 Bonner, Hendrick 
 
410 
 
 SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 
 
 Briggs, Mrs. Nancy 
 Bailey, Esq. Theodorus 
 Buchanan, James 
 Bruen, Mathias 
 Barker, Joshua 
 Br-il, Jacob 
 Bacon, Esq. John 
 Bissell, Josiah 
 Beckworth, George 
 Borlv, Rev. Christian 
 Brown, Lewis E. 
 
 Clinton, Hon. De Witt 
 Cuyler, John C. 
 Carmichael, Daniel 
 Cameron, James 
 Clark, John ' 
 Carson, Thomas 
 Chester, John 
 Cramer, Barnerd 
 Conkling, jun. Daniel 
 Coughtre, William 
 Clifton Park Library 
 Cooley, Jonathan 
 Crane, Rev. Daniel 
 Cook, Joseph P. 
 Cuyler, Rev. Corns. C. 
 Carman, Baltus and Thomas 
 Carpenter, David 
 Cary, Edward 
 Clark, Rev. John 
 Carpenter, Caleb J. 
 Cox, jun. John 
 Cuyler, Mrs. G. W. 
 Cantine, jun. Peter 
 Campbell, John 
 Couenhoveu, Christian 
 Clark, Levi 
 Clark, David 
 Church, Giles 
 
 D. 
 
 Doige, Thomas 
 Daniels, James 
 Dunbar, jun. Robert 
 De Witt, Simeon 
 Dox, Peter P. 
 Donnelly, Thos. 
 Dole, Geo. 
 Dunn, Christopher 
 Doig, Peter 
 De Puy, Jacobus 
 Dickson, William 
 De Witt, Abraham 
 Doughty, Jacob 
 D wight, Prest. Yale College, 
 [Rev. Timothy 
 Deforest, Lockwood 
 Dunham, James 
 Darrow, John P. 
 Dubois, Koert 
 
 De Reemer, Samuel 2 copies. 
 D'ljamater, Anlhy. 
 Deimburg, John 
 Dubois, Matthew 
 Dreyer Rev. John Henry 
 
 E. 
 
 Erwin, John 
 Ely, John 
 Epps, Jolm 
 Everest, He ran M. 
 Erwin, John 
 Earll, Sylvester 
 Everett, John 
 Ely, Samuel M. 
 Elmendorph, Cornelius J 
 Ely, Aaron 
 
SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES 
 
 411 
 
 F. 
 
 Fryer, Wm. 
 Forman, Abraham 
 Fox, Isaac B. 
 Frisbie, John 
 Fuller, Aaron 
 Fuller, Gershom 
 Eraser, Andrew 
 Fitch, Josiah H. 
 Flagler, Maria A. 
 Foster, John 
 FuUerton, Andw. 
 Fairley, Hu^h 
 Filch, Rev. Ebenezer 
 Fosdick, Lodowick 
 Furman, Rich'd. 
 Frederick, John H. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gibbons, James 
 
 Groesbeck & Brothers, C. W. 
 
 Grant, Alexander 
 
 Guiteau,jun. Francis 
 
 Gates, Gerrit 
 
 Goodman, Simon 
 
 Guest, jun. Henry 
 
 Gansevoort, C. 
 
 Garnsey, David 
 
 GrifSn, Catherine 
 
 Griffin, William 
 
 Geldersleeve, Solomon 
 
 Green Nathl. C 
 
 Gary, John 
 
 Graham, Adam 
 
 Germond, William 
 
 Gay, John B. 
 
 Gelston, David 
 
 Garkin, Wm. 
 
 Gardner, James 
 
 H. 
 
 Hansen, Issac 
 Hutton, Isaac 
 Harbeck, Anna 
 Humphrey, John 
 Hinckley, Gershom 
 Hand, Aaron 
 Hand, Nathan 
 Hinckley, J. 
 Heacox, Warren 
 Halsey, jun. Luther 
 HoUiday, Rev. Thomas 
 Holmes, Sheubel 
 Humphries, Joseph 
 Holkins, Abel D. 
 Hasbrouck, Stephen 
 H uniting, Ed. 
 Hoag, Philip 
 Halsey, D. Abm. 
 Homan, Joel 
 Hull, Henry 
 Hulst, Henry 
 Hayt, John 
 Hillhouse, William 
 Holchkiss, Hezekiah 
 Hotchkiss, Eli 
 Harrison, Frederick 
 Harris, Joseph 
 Hebard, Daniel 
 Hoffman, Robert 
 Holmes, William 
 Horgan, Laurence 
 Hervey, Ralph 
 Holmes, Joseph 
 Husted, Thaddeus 
 Hart, William 
 Hard, Peter N. 
 Hoffinan, Zachariah 
 Hofford, David 
 Henry, John S. 
 Haight, Mary C. 
 Hamilton, Rev. T. 
 Holbrook, Amos, 
 Henry Sam'l. M. D. 
 Hunn, John, 
 
412 
 
 SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 
 
 I. 
 
 James, Wm. 
 Johnston, Rev. John 
 Jackson, Jos. J. 
 Jocelin, Simeon 
 Ives, Eli 
 Jackson, Daniel 
 Jenkinson, William 
 
 K. 
 
 Kent, Chief Justice James 
 Kane, James, 
 
 Kitteridge, Doct. Joseph D. 
 Kirby, John 
 Kimilyea, Simmons 
 Keys, Rev. Jno. 
 
 L. 
 
 Lansing, Sanders 
 Lansing, H. 
 Lansing, A. G. 
 Linklean, J. 
 Lansing, Cornelius 
 Ladd, James 
 Lucas, Isaac 
 Lawrence, Thomas 
 Latham, Thomas W. 
 Lawrence, Richard 
 Lawrence, George 
 Livingston, Miss Cornelia 
 Livingston, Robert R. 
 Livingston, Edward P. 
 Lochead, Robert 
 Logan, George 
 
 Laight, Edward W. 
 Lyon, David S. 
 Lescalier Baron. 
 
 M. 
 
 McClelland, Robert, 
 Mclntyre, Comptroller, Archi- 
 [bald. 
 Marvin, W. J. and A. 
 McConnell, Jas. 
 McJimsey, Rev. John 
 McDonald, D. 
 McMillan, John 
 Mcintosh, William 
 McMurry, David 
 Maullin, James 
 Mounsey, Thos. 
 Monteath, Rev. Alexander 
 McAuley, Thomas 
 McCartee, Sarah 2 copies, 
 McCulloch, Charles 
 Murphy, John 
 McKoy, Robert 
 McMillan, Alexander 
 Merkle, Frederick 
 Moak, Joseph 
 McCowen, Alexander 
 Miller, Christian 
 Morrell, John W. 
 Miller, David 
 Marvin, Rev. Saml. 
 Mix, John 
 3Iunson, Elisha 
 Marriam, James 
 Minturn, Nathl. G. 
 Mead, Joseph 
 Martin, Jeremiah 
 Mason, Joseph 
 Mott, Jacob E. 
 McAIpin, James 
 Muckey, Daniel 
 
SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 
 
 41S 
 
 Mott, Ebenezer 
 McKeen, i^evi 
 McMurray, Rev. William 
 Martin, John 
 Massuoneau, Claudius G. 
 Moore, George 
 Monilaw, George 
 McVey, Thomas 
 Mulligan, Wm. C. 
 M'Masters, Patrick 
 M'lntosh, Allan 
 
 N. 
 
 Newman, Charles 
 
 Neill, Rev. WiUiam 
 
 Nott, Prest. U. Col. Eliphalet 
 
 Niles, Samuel 
 
 Nelson, Joseph 
 
 Nitchie, Esq. John 
 
 Nielson, W. 
 
 Nicholson, J. W. 
 
 0. 
 
 Oothout, Abraham 
 Oliphant, John 
 Ostrom, John D. 
 Osgood, S. 
 
 P. 
 
 Pearson, George 
 Parker, Philip S. 
 Perry, John 
 Patterson, John 
 Post, Jacob 
 
 Patterson, Matthew- 
 Price, Edmund 
 Peck, Nathan 
 Park, Mary 
 Plummer, William 
 Philips & Howard 
 Pardee, Stephen 
 Patchin, John W. 
 Post, jun. Henry 
 Petrey, George 
 Pardee, Rev. Amos 
 Perrine, Rev. M. Lak 
 Preston, John 
 Peters, Henry 
 
 a. 
 
 Quackenbush, Nicholas 
 
 R. 
 
 Randel, Rebecca 
 Riley, James V. S. 
 Ramsey, John 
 Ross, Wm. 
 Roosa, Cornelius 
 Rapalje, Richard 
 Reed, Rev. John 
 Reynolds, James 
 Radcliff, William 
 Radcliff, jun. William 
 Raynor, Olivia 
 
 s. 
 
 Sharpe, George 
 Steele, jun. Elijah 
 Stafford, Spencer 
 Stafford, John 
 Smith & Walker 
 Smith, Stoddard 
 Smith, Nathl. 
 Say re, Simeon 
 
414 
 
 SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 
 
 Spafford, Horatio Gates 
 
 Starkweather, Avery 
 
 Staples, Abram 
 
 Stillwell, William 
 
 Schermerhorn, Cors. 
 
 Skinner, Jared 
 
 Sillimon, Ebenezer H. 
 
 Sanders, John [mew 
 
 Schermerhorn, Jun. Bartholo- 
 
 Stliuyler, John S. 
 
 Skinner, William 
 
 Swartwart, Jacobus 
 
 Smith, James 
 
 Stockholm, Phebe 
 
 Shear, Elizabeth 
 
 Storm, Thomas G. 
 
 Storm, John 
 
 Storm, Thomas J. 
 
 Storm, Ida 
 
 Sherman, Ebenezer 
 
 Stoughtenbiirgh, Andrew 
 
 SlUiman, Benj. 
 
 Starr, I. H. 
 
 Sprulll, George E. 
 
 Social Library Co. 
 
 Storm & Wilson 
 
 Spencer, Sally A. 
 
 Swartwout, John B. 
 
 Sice, Samuel 
 
 Smith, John D. 
 
 Smith, Obed. 
 
 Smith, William 
 
 Shultzs, Jacob 
 
 Shop, Henry 
 
 Schenck, Peter H. 
 
 Scott, James 
 
 St. Leger, William 
 
 Stoutenburgli, John 
 
 Smith, Wm. 
 
 Sanders, Ignatius S. 
 
 Sturgcs, George 
 
 Tompkins, Gov. N. York, His 
 [Excellency Daniel D. 
 
 Thomas, Treas'r. N. Y. David 
 
 Teller, Isaac 
 
 Trotter, Gen. Matthew 
 
 Thompson, Thomas 
 
 Tayler, Hon. John 
 
 Taylor, Robert 
 
 Titsworth, John 
 
 Tappen Elizabeth 
 
 Travis, Letty 
 
 Travis, Isaac 
 
 Tappen, Christ. 
 
 Towns, John 
 
 Towner, William 
 
 Torry, William 
 
 V. 
 
 Van Rensselaer, Gen. Stephen 
 Van Rensselaer, Wm. P. 
 Van Rensselaer, K. K. 
 Van Kleeck, L. L. 
 Van Loon, Peter 
 Vedder, Alexander 
 Y'isscher, S. 
 Ver Velin, Isaac 
 Veeder, Simon 
 Van Vranken, Maus 
 Vrooman, John S. 
 Veeder, Gerrit S. 
 Van Rensselaer, Mayor of Al- 
 [bany, Hon. Philip S. 
 Van Wie, Frederick 
 Van Volkenburgh, James 
 Van Wyck, Sarah 
 Y'an Wyck, Rich'd. T. 
 Van Rensselaer, Jer. 
 Vincent, Leonard 
 Van Cott, Joseph 
 Vanderbilt, Philip 
 Van Kleeck, Matthew 
 Van Gaasbeck, Thomas 
 Van IVcss, David 
 Veeder, John V. 
 
SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 
 
 415 
 
 UiKlerhilK 
 
 David B. 
 
 W. 
 
 Westerlo, Rensselaer 
 Walsh, Dudley 
 Wiilet, Edward 
 Washburn & Knower 
 W^ynkoop, James I. 
 Woodworth, John 
 Williams, Erastus 
 Winne, Daniel I. 
 Wetmore, Israhiah 
 Wendell, John T. 
 Walker, Abraham 
 Walley, Sebe 
 Wands, James 2d 
 Walley, Jacob 
 Warren, William 
 Wands, Junr. John 
 Webb, Joseph 
 Williams, Samuel 
 Walsh, Hugh 
 Whittlesby, Matthew B. 
 Weed, John W. 
 Wheeler, Russell C. 
 Wildman, Joseph 
 
 Willey, Sally and Mary, Van 
 [Wyck 
 Wris^ht, Elijah 
 Wodell, Joseph 
 Weller, Catherine 
 Walton, Henry 
 Wheeler, Gam'l. 
 Whitbeck, Miss Ann Maria 
 Wheeler, Esq. Gideon 
 Whiting, Esq. John 
 Wins, William 
 
 Yates, John V. N. 
 Young, John 
 Young, James 
 Yates, Junr. Henry 
 Yates, Ann C. 
 Yoemans, 3Toses 
 

 ^ 
 
 ^/ivi*' 
 
 ■^i .^ 
 
 mam 
 
 
 '.^ 
 
 '■\