his former volume. It is in his computation of the Levitical revenues, in which he had made an overcharge in one fingle article of no less than one million two hundred thousand pounds a year. Yet fo fond is he of what he had advanced concerning the Levites having, by the Mofaical conflitution, the whole wealth and power of the nation in their hands, that he fill endeavours to support it by fome very extraordinary calculations; the falfity and absurdity of which was foon after clearly and fully expofed by Mr. Lowman, in an appendix to his Differtation on the Civil Government of the Hebrews, London, 1741. But the most remarkable thing in the third volume of the Moral Philofopher, and that part of it which may be moft properly called new, is a long introduction, of above an hundred pages, in which he pretends to give an account of the ancient patriarchal religion, and an historical relation of the defcent of the Hebrew thepherds into Egypt; the rife and foundation of the Mofaic theocracy; the inconfiftencies and felf-contradictions of the Hebrew hiftorians, &c. In this part of his work he hath, if poffible, exceeded himfelf in mifreprefentation and abufe: but I fhall take no farther notice of it. than to obferve, that there were folid and ingenious remarks made upon it, by a gentleman that ftiles himself " Theophanes Cantabrigienfis," in a pamphlet intitled, The ancient Hiftory of the Hebrews vindicated, Cambridge, 8vo, 1741. And afterwards by Dr. Samuel Chandler, in his Vindication of the Hiftory of the Old Teftament, in answer to the Mifrepresentations and Calumnies of Thomas Morgan, M. D. and Moral Philofopher: the first part of which was published, London, 1741, and a fecond part came out in 1743, and after Dr. Morgan's death. It is here plainly proved, that this writer hath been guilty of manifest falsehoods, and of the moft grofs perversions of the fcripture-history, even in those very inftances in which he affureth his reader, he hath kept close to the accounts given by the Hebrew hiftorians. The author of the Refurrection of Jefus confidered, who wrote foon after, thought fit to make a very contemptuous reprefentation of Dr. Chandler's performance. He is pleafed to reprefent him, as having levelled all his artillery of wit, learning, and fpleen against the Moral Philofopher, Dr. Morgan, inftead of anfwering; and as having fired off twenty fheets to fhoot one of his, and miffed the mark*, *Refurrection of Jefus confidered, p. 71, 72. edit. 3d. This This no doubt must pass for a full confutation of Dr. Chandler's work. But all that can be gathered from it is, that, with these gentlemen, the proving of any of them guilty of the most grofs falfifications of fcripture, which had been fully proved upon Dr. Morgan, is to pass for a thing of no confequence; as if falfehood and mifreprefentation were to be looked upon as very allowable, when put in practice for so good an end as the exposing Christianity and the holy fcripture. It is proper here to observe, that the ingenious Mr. Hallet, who, as was mentioned before, had early appeared against the first volume of the Moral Philofopher, published alfo A Rebuke to the Moral Philofopher for the Errors and Immoralities contained in his third Volume, 8vo, 1740. I fhall conclude this account of the Moral Philofopher with obferving, that foon after his third volume appeared, Dr. Chapman published a second volume of his Eufebius, or the true Chriftian's farther Defence against the Principles and Reafonings of the Moral Philofopher, London, 8vo, 1741. In this he confiders at large all that this writer had offered concerning what he calls the Jewish gospel, which he confidently affirms was preached by all the apoftles but St. Paul, and of which he pretends the temporal kingdom of Chrift in the Jewish sense was the principal article. He fhews, with the cleareft evidence, that this was not preached by any of the apostles, and that there was a perfect harmony between them and St. Paul, as to what concerned the authority and obligation of the Jewish law under the gospel. He also judiciously explains and vindicates the fcripture-doctrine of redemption, and the fatisfaction of Christ, against that author's objections and grofs mifreprefentations. The following this extraordinary writer through his several books, and the anfwers that were made to him, has engaged me in a detail which I am afraid has not proved very agreeable to you, any more than it has been so to myself. But it may be of fome ufe to fhew, that, notwithflanding his boasted pretences, there' have been few writers who have been more effectually confuted and expofed, than he that was pleased to honour himself with the title of the Moral Philofopher. LET. LETTER XI. Obfervations upon the pernicious Tendency of the Pamphlet intitled Christianity not founded on Argument-The Defign of it is to fhew, that the Chriftian Faith has nothing to fupport it but a fenfelefs Enthufiafm-The Author's great Difingenuity and Mifreprefentations of Scripture detected-He ftrikes at natural Religion, as well as revealed, deftroys all Certainty of Reafon, and declares against Education, and the inftructing Children in any Principles at all—The principal Arguments he hath offered in Support of his Scheme confidered—Chriftianity no Enemy to Examination and Inquiry-Men's being commanded to believe, no Prefumption that Faith is not a reafonable Affent-The Faith required in the Gospel is properly a Virtue, and the Unbelief there condemned is really a ViceHis Pretence, that the People are not capable of difcerning the Force of the Proofs brought for Chriftianity, and therefore cannot be obliged to believe it, examined-Account of the Anfwers published against him. SIR, THE HE controversy with the Moral Philofopher was scarce at an end, when a new and very remarkable pamphlet appeared, intitled, Christianity not founded on Argument, London, 1742. The author of this carried on his design against the Christian religion, in a way fomewhat different from what others had done before him. Under fpecious appearances of zeal for religion, and under the cover of devout expreffions, he hath endeavoured to fhew, that the Chriftian faith hath no foundation in reafon, nor hath any thing to fupport it but a wild and fenfelefs enthusiasm, destitute of all proof and evidence. And if this could be made out, it would no doubt answer the intention he too plainly appears to have had in view, the exposing the Christian religion to the derifion and contempt of mankind. With great gravity and feeming seriousness he fets himself to fhew, that a rational faith, i. e. as he explains it, "an affent to revealed truth founded "upon the conviction of the understanding, is a falfe and un"warrantable M 4 "warrantable notion*." That "that perfon beft enjoys faith "who never afked himfelf one fingle queftion about it, and never "dealt at all in the evidence of reafon t." That God never intended that we fhould make use of our reason, or intellectual faculty at all in believing, or that our faith fhould be founded upon any evidence which might convince the judgment, or make it reasonable for us to believe. This he undertakes formally to prove, first by several arguments drawn from the nature of reafon and religion; and afterwards he endeavoureth to prove the fame thing from the account given us in fcripture. 66 Having thus, as he pretends, removed the falfe grounds of faith and religion, and fhewn that it hath nothing to do with reafon or argument, he next proceeds to declare what is the true principle of faith; and this he refolves wholly into a confiant particular revelation, imparted feparately and fupernaturally to every individual: That "the Holy Ghoft irradiates the fouls of believers at once with an irrefiftible light from heaven, that "flashes conviction in a moment; fo that this faith is completed in an inftant, and the moft perfect and finifhed creed produced "at once, without any tedious progrefs in deductions of our owns." He reprefents this great dictator and infallible guide, as having promifed "to abide with us to the end of the world, that we might not be left liable one moment to a poflibility of error and impoflture; and as speaking the fame thing to all, "and bringing them to think all alike **. Nothing can be more abfurd in itself, nothing more contrary to plain undeniable fact, than this immediate infallible infpiration of every particular perfon, which caufes men to think all alike, and does not leave them liable one moment to a poffibility of error and impofture; and yet this he makes to be the fole foundation of the Christian faith. He reprefents it to be of fuch a nature as to render all outward inftruction, and even the fcriptures themselves, entirely needlefs; and that those who are thus inftructed by the fpirit, need not "concern themselves about the credit of ancient miracles, or "the genuineness of diftant records:" as if the Chriftian faith had nothing to do with the facts recorded in the gospels. This Ibid. p. 29. he he calls the revealed and fcriptural account of the matter*; and pretends, that "this account depends not upon the strength of any fingle quotation whatever, but on the joint tendency and "tenor of the whole t." This pamphlet was received by the enemies of Christianity with great applaufe; and yet, upon a clofe examination, there are fuch apparent marks of great difingenuity in it, as should tend, with fair and candid minds, to give very difadvantageous impreffions both of the author, and of a cause that needs fuch bafe arts to fupport it. 66 The whole turn of the pamphlet is in a religious ftrain: he formally pretends to offer up his moft ardent prayers in behalf of his friend at the throne of grace," that God would be pleafed "himfelf to illuminate and irradiate his mind with a perfect and "thorough conviction of the truth of his holy gofpei; that the "fame Holy Spirit that first dictated the divine law would powerfully fet on his feal, and atteft its authority in his heart.” Such a ftrain of ridicule as this, for whofoever impartially confiders this treatise can regard it in no other view, is one of the moft folemn mockeries that were ever offered to the Supreme Being. In many other pallages, under pretence of exalting the influence of the Holy Spirit, the fcriptures are depreciated, as of no use: They are called, by way of contempt, manuscript authorities, and paper revelations; as if the being committed to writing could deftroy the authority of a divine law; when the man would be thought out of his fenfes that fhould, under the fame pretence, attempt to invalidate the authority of human laws. It is obfervable, that the moft highflown enthufiafts have always fpoken with difregard of the holy fcripture, and reprefented it as a dead letter; which by the way is no great fign of its being of an enthufiaflic nature and tendency: and this writer hath endeavoured to take advantage of their madnefs for expofing the authority of the facred writings. Thus the deifts can upon occafion run into the wilds of enthufiafm, and join with the men they moft heartily defpife, in order to answer their defign of expofing Christianity. Such hath been the fate of holy writ, to be *Christianity not founded on Argument, p. 68. Ibid. p. 105. Ibid. P. 112. under |