[ocr errors]

upon this, that the Jews knew nothing of a future state; "but upon this, that the law of Moses had made no pro"vision for it. IF THIS PRINCIPLE IS ALL YOU WANT, 86 IT WILL STAND, and you will have nothing to answer "for, but the ill judgment of advancing and taking so "much pains to support another point with which your "conclusion has nothing to do." p. 134. Goodly and gracious! Here he shews how capable a reader he is of The Divine Legation. He confesses not to know whether this principle is all I want to establish my demonstration; and yet he will turn answerer. he will turn answerer. But what the connexion of a long chain of reasoning hindered him from seeing, I hope this short view will bring to light: and that the second syllogism will inform him, that wHAT HE GRANTS IS ALL I WANT. For if Moses would leave his people to get or keep a doctrine as they could, so necessary, and believed by him to be so necessary, under an ordinary providence, to religion and society, we must needs conclude, he was well assured, that his institution could do without it; or, in other words, that the defect would be supplied by the administration of an extraordinary providence. The dispute, therefore, scems now to be at an end between us. He owns, I have gained my point that I have got to the goal: all that he would now dispute with me is the road. I must take the track he marks out to me; and I have nothing to answer for but the ill judgment of advancing and taking so much pains to support another point with which my conclusion has nothing to do. Say you so, kind Sir! with what face then could you tell the world, just before, that I ought to make amends for the wrong I have done to religion in the second volume of The Divine Legation, in which, instead of placing Christianity on a surer bottom, I have only furnished out more handles to unbelievers? p. 132. What! Is proving the divinity of Moses's religion, a thing for which I ought to make amends and repent, as a wrong done to Christianity? Suppose I was willing to support the proof in a way you do not like; you confess that, in this, I have nothing to answer for but the ILL JUDGMENT of taking pains to support another point with which my conclusion has nothing to do. Am I therefore, for my ill judgment, to be ranked amongst the injurious

[ocr errors]


subverters of Revelation? What then will become of
But such as these seem to care little whether
religion be true or false, unless it can be supported on
their systems. They had been bred up in the belief that
the old Jews, as well as their law, were spiritual, and

-Turpe putant parere minoribus, & quæ
Imberbes didicere, senes perdenda fateri.

After this, it was in vain for the Apostle to tell them, in the person of a Jew, We know that the law is SPIRITUAL, but I am CARNAL. However, let him set his heart at rest (if at least the conscience of so unjust a calumny will suffer him). For though this principle, that the law of Moses made no provision for a future state, be all I want to support my demonstration; yet I mean, I can assure him, to secure it with this other, that the body of the Jews for some ages knew nothing of it. This I should do, were it for nothing else but that it is a TRUTH offensive to bigots and their systems; by which they have done their best to render both the word of God, and reason of man, of no effect. But I have weightier motives: I shall make it serve for the noblest purposes of religious truth and piety.

But why do I speak of these matters to him; who is so exceeding ignorant even of the very forms of argument, that having given us to understand that he saw I had finished the major proposition in the first volume, and the minor in the second, he goes on thus" As your conclusion is "to be the subject of a future book, I think I have no "right to meddle with it at present. I will prejudge you "in nothing, and shall therefore leave you at full liberty to CONNECT IT WITH YOUR PREMISSES, as you: "shall find yourself able." p. 4. Here he plainly ap pears not to understand what natural connexion there is. between the major, minor, and conclusion. I had learnt

[ocr errors]

that the CONCLUSION had been CONNECTED with the PREMISSES by Aristotle long ago; but it seems, so unhappy still am I, that the thing is yet to do. Thanks indeed to this merciful divine!I am left at full liberty to do it, as I shall find myself able, i

13. But

13. But one word inore, and I have done.


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

(says he) you intend to proceed, or will suffer yourself to be wholly diverted from your purpose by matters of "another kind less suitable to your clerical function, you "best know. But give me leave to say, Sir, you are a "debtor to the public; and I hope that in your next "volume vou will make some amends, for the wrong you have done to religion in this; in which, instead of placing Christianity upon a surer bottom, you have only furnished out more handles to unbelievers." p. 132. I scarce know whether I am not to take this for pure kindness, and a sort of friendly impatience for my third volume: which certainly, if it would hold, he has contrived a very speedy way to obtain: and that is by proving it a debt. And this at least I will do him the justice to say, that if I be a debtor to the public, it must be for the reason he so candidly suggests, or none at all. But, alas! he has, as a good friend in the like case might have, his doubts and his fears. He questions whether I will not suffer myself to be wholly diverted from my purpose by matters of another kind less suitable to my clerical function. Less suitable than what? why, according to him, than writing to the wrong and injury of religion, and giving more handles to unbelievers. What I am then diverted by, must be very unsuitable indeed. But will the good man be so kind to tell us what this diversion is? Thank you for that indeed. As things are now carried, and left in the dark, who knows but the reader, in excess of charity, may take it to be a whore, or a horse-race, or a good job of simony; a party pamphlet, or leveehunting, or Exchange Alley, or, in short, twenty things besides; each of them sufficient to discredit the mere unorthodox man! With this good luck, I make no doubt but he would wipe his mouth, and applaud his innocent address. Well, then, since the meanness and malignity of his heart will not suffer him to tell, I will. The diversion he hints at, and yet dare not name, is a critical defence and illustration of the writings of one of the greatest Geniuses of this, or indeed of any age, to convince the prejudiced and ignorant, that the incomparable Writer hath been always on the side of truth, virtue,


[ocr errors]

and religion. And now the secret is out. In the mean time, I dare suppose, that our Anonymous holds it as a thing very suitable to clerical profession, to calumniate his brother only for differing from him in opinion, though in the support of that very cause which himself pretends to espouse. I give handles to unbelievers, while I endeavoured to prove an extraordinary providence, administered in the Jewish republic, a fact, by the truth or falsehood of which, the religion of Moses must stand or fall. But this man, and his fellows, it seems, give none, who, in writing against me, are so far from saying one word in its behalf, that they seem rather to treat it as a vision of the Author of the D. L. This Writer particularly seems to have given no obscure intimations, up and down his pamphlet, that he believes nothing of the matter. But how has my saying,. that the doctrine was not national, but unknown to the body of the Jewish people between the times of Moses and the Captivity, given more handles to unbelievers? Was I the first broacher of the opinion? Look upon the three great testimonies above. Or would it have remained hid, had I not divulged it? Has this man never heard of the present overflow of infidelity? Or has he ever heard of one Deist that believed a future state to be a national doctrine amongst the Jews within the period aforesaid? Or, to be plain with him, is there indeed more than a few bigots like himself that now believe it? What was then to be done? Here was a very general opinion, grounded upon common sense, supposed to be discreditable to Revelation. I examined it. On examination it appeared to me a truth. Was I to disguise or hide it (according to the principle and practices of these men) because it gave scandal? Far be those arts from every minister of the Gospel! I well knew, if it were a truth, it would never hurt Revelation. I chose then to give glory to truth; and, in that, to the God of truth: and, by so doing, I became enabled to demonstrate to unbelievers that this, which, they esteemed a discredit to the religion of Moses, was a convincing mark of its divinity. And for this, and this only, I am said by this writer to have wronged religion, and given more handles to infidelity. But I forgive him, and pray VOL. XI.



that God, whose, holy religion I am defending, may forgive him too.

14. But the reader, by this time, must needs be curious to know what it was that could provoke our Ánonygous to write with so much acrimony against his brother, embarked with him in the same cause of religion, while there were so many Infidel-writers remained unanswered,

Cumque superba foret Babylon spolianda trophæis.

And for what? a vision, nobody will thank him for, unless it be half a dozen bigots: always excepting the ycnerable Jewish church, of which he has shewn himself so zealous a support. She surely owes him. her best acknowledgments for keeping her children close attached to her, and hardening them in their infidelity. For, were it not for this inveterate error, they had long since come over to the faith of Jesus, there being then nothing to obstruct their sight in the manifest imperfection of the Law: to prevent which, their Leaders, as the great Episcopius informs us, took so much pains (so well seconded here by our Anonymous) to ASSERT THE FAITH OF THE ANCIENT JEWISH CHURCH; and to prove, that their forefathers always had the doctrines of Ca future state, Quicquid nunc Judæi multum de futuro seculo de resurrectione mortuorum, de vita æterna loquantur, & ex Legis verbis ea extorquere potius quam osten dere conentur, NE LEGEM MOSIS IMPERFECTAM ESSE cogantur agnoscere*. For he cannot sure be so weak to think it possible, that, when he has agreed with them, that their church always had a future state, they will agree with him, that Moses did not teach it. All this considered, it would have been very difficult to divine his motive for writing against me, had not he himself fairly, and without disguise, informed us of it, in the very entrance on his work. Not to mince the matter, it was that little reputation, (yet more than he could bear) which, it seems, the Divine Legation had accidentally bestowed upon its, Author,-"That you have given (says our Anonymous) great proofs of your learning and ingenuity, I shall not dispute and you have had a fair tune See the quotation above, tolkinten vagi



« VorigeDoorgaan »