"their way back, and none can find it forward into the road of "truth*." He declares that " natural theology, and natural re"ligion, have been corrupted to fuch a degree, that it is grown, "and was long fince, as neceffary to plead the cause of God "against the divine as against the atheift; to affert his existence "against the latter, to defend his attributes against the former, "and to justify his providence againft both t." That "truth and falfehood, knowledge and ignorance, revelations of the Creator, inventions of the creature, dictates of reason, fallies of enthu"siasm, have been blended fo long together in systems of theology, 66 that it may be thought dangerous to feparate them ‡." And he feems to think this was a task reserved for him. He propofes "to diftinguifh genuine and pure theifm from the prophane mix"tures of human imagination; and to go to the root of that er"ror which encourages our curiofity, fuftains our pride, forti, "fies our prejudices, and gives pretence to delufion; to discover "the true nature of human knowledge, how far it extends, how "far it is real, and where and how it begins to be fantastical §;" "that the gaudy vifions of error being difpelled, men may be ac"cuftomed to the fimplicity of truth." For this he expects to be "treated with fcorn and contempt by the whole theological "and metaphyfical tribe, and railed at as an infidel." But "lay"ing afide all the immenfe volumes of fathers and councils, "fchoolmen, cafuifts, and controverfial writers, he is determin"ed to feek for genuine Christianity with that fimplicity of spirit "with which it is taught in the gofpel by Christ himself**." The guides he propofes to follow are," the works and the word "of God++." And he declares, that " for himself he thought it "much better not to write at all, than to write under any restraint "from delivering the whole truth of things as it appeared to himtt." But though he thus profeffes an impartial love of truth, and to deliver his fentiments with freedom, yet he seems resolved, where he happens to differ from the received opinion, not to fhew a decent regard to the eftablished religion of his country. He praiseth *Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 327. Ibid. p. 331. †† Ibid. p. 347. Ibid. p. 327, 328. § Ibid. p 328. ** Ibid p. 339. Scævola and Varro, who, he fays, "both thought that things "evidently falfe might deferve an outward refpect, when they "are interwoven with a fyftem of government. This outward "refpe&t every good fubje&t will fhew them in fuch a cafe. He "will not propagate thofe errors, but he will be cautious how he propagates even truth in oppofition to them." He blames not only that arbitrary tyrannical spirit that puts on the mask of religious zeal, but that prefumptuous factious spirit that has appeared under the mask of liberty; and which, if it should prevail, would deftroy at once the general influence of religion, by Shaking the foundations of it which education had laid. But he thinks, "there is a middle way between these extremes, in which a rea"fonable man and a good citizen may direct his steps t." It is to be prefumed therefore, that he would have it thought that this is the way he himfelf hath taken. He mentions with approbation the maxims of the Soufys, a fect of philofophers in Perfia: one of which is: "If you find no reafon to doubt concerning the opi"nions of your fathers, keep to them, they will be fufficient for 66 you. If you find any reafon to doubt concerning them, feek "the truth quietly, but take care not to disturb the minds of "other men." He profeffeth to proceed by thefe rules, and blameth fome who are called Free-thinkers for imagining, that as every man has a right to think and judge for himself, he has therefore a right of fpeaking according to the full freedom of "his thoughts. The freedom belongs to him as a rational crea"ture: He lies under the refraint as a member of fociety." 66 But notwithstanding thefe fair profeffions, perhaps there fcarce ́ever was an author who had lefs regard to the rules of decency in writing than Lord Bolingbroke. The holy Scriptures are received with great veneration among Chriftians; and the religion there taught is the religion publicly profeffed and established in these nations; and therefore, according to his own rule, ought to be treated with a proper refpect. And yet on many occafions he throws out the most outrageous abufe against thofe facred writings, and the authors of them. He compares the hiftory of the Pentateuch to the romances Don Quixote was fo fond of; *Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 331. Ibid. p. 333, 334. † Ibid. p. 332. and and pronounces that they who receive them as authentic are not much less mad than he*. That "it is no less than blafphemy to "affert the Jewish Scriptures to have been divinely inspired;" and he reprefents thofe that attempt to justify them as having "ill hearts as well as heads, and as worfe than atheists, though 66 they may pass for faints t." He chargeth those with impiety, "who would impose on us, as the word of God, a book which contains fcarce any thing that is not repugnant to the wifdom, power, and other attributes of a Supreme All-perfect Being ‡.” And he roundly pronounceth, that "there are gross defects and "palpable falfehoods in almost every page of the Scriptures, and "the whole tenor of them is fuch, as no man, who acknowledges "a Supreme All-perfect Being, can believe to be his word §. This is a brief fpecimen of his invectives against the sacred writings of the Old Teftament, and which he repeateth on many occafions. He affecteth indeed to speak with feeming respect of Chriftianity, yet he has not only endeavoured to invalidate the evidences that are brought to fupport it, but he paffeth the fevereft cenfures upon doctrines which he himself reprefenteth as original and effential doctrines of the Chriftian religion. He makes the most injurious representation of the doctrine of our redemption by the blood of Chrift, and chargeth it as repugnant to all our ideas of order, of juftice, of goodnefs, and even of theifm. And after a moft virulent invective against the Jewish notion of God, as partial, cruel, arbitrary, and unjuft, he afferts, that the character imputed to him by the Chriftian doctrine of redemption, and future punishments, is as bad or worse **. Great is the contempt and reproach he hath poured forth upon St. Paul, who was the penman of a confiderable part of the New Teftament, and whofe name and writings have been always defervedly had in great veneration in the Chriftian church. He chargeth him with diffimulation and falfehood, and even with madness t†. He afferts that his gospel was different from that of Christ, and contradictory to it; that he writes confufedly, obscurely, and Bolingbroke's Works, vol iii. p. 280. ‡ Ibid. p. 308. Ibid. vol. iv. p. 318. vol. v. p. 291. 532. † Ibid. vol. iv. P. 172. 306. + Ibid. p. 299. 306. ** Ibid. p. 532, 533. unintelligibly; and where his gospel is intelligible, it is often unintelligibly; Some of thofe gentlemen who have fhewn little respect for the holy Scriptures, have yet fpoke with admiration of many of the fages of antiquity: but Lord Bolingbroke has on all occafions treated the greateft men of all ages with the utmost contempt and fcorn. It is allowable indeed for fincere and impartial inquirers after truth, to differ from perfons of high reputation for knowledge and learning, ancient and modern: and fometimes it is the more neceffary to point out their errors, left the authority of great names fhould lead men afide from truth. But whilft we think ourselves obliged to detect their mistakes, there is a decent regard to be paid them: it would be wrong to treat them in a reproachful and contemptuous manner. Yet this is what our author hath done. If all the paffages were laid together, in which he hath inveighed against the wifeft and most learned men of all ages, efpecially the philofophers, metaphyficians, and divines, they would fill no fmall volume. And indeed these kind of declamatory invectives recur so often in these Essays, as cannot but create great disgust to every reader of tafte. I fhall mention a few paffages out of a multitude that might be produced, and which may ferve as a fample of the reft. He faith of the philofophers, that "they feem to acquire knowledge only as a necef"fary ftep to error, and grow fo fond of the latter, that they "eftecm it no longer human, but raife it by an imaginary apo"theofis up to a divine science: That these searchers after truth, "thefe lovers of wifdom, are nothing better than venders of falfe "wares: And the moft irrational of all proceedings país for the "utmost efforts of human reafont." He reprefents metaphyfical divines and philofophers as having "wandered many thou"fand years in imaginary light and darknefst." He frequently chargeth them with madness, and fometimes with blafphemy; and that they" staggered about, and jostled one another in their "dreams §. Speaking of Plato and Ariftotle, he fays, "their "works have been preferved, perhaps more to the detriment than "to the advancement of learning." And though he fometimes *Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 330, 331. Ibid. vol. iv. p. 8. +Ibid. vol. iii. p. 490. § Ibid. vol. iii. p. 553, 554. vol. iv. p. 129. 150. commends 66 66 commends Socrates, he pronounces, that he "fubftituted fan"taftical ideas inftead of real knowledge, and corrupted fcience "to the very fource:" That "he loft himself in the clouds"when he declared, that the two offices of philofophy are, the contemplation of God, and the abftracting of the foul from corporeal fenfe:" And that he and Plato were mad enough to think themselves capable of such contemplation and such abstraction*. Befides many occafional paffages fcattered throughout thefe Effays, there are feveral large fections which contain almoft nothing else than invectives against Plato and his philosophy. He fays, that philofopher" treated every subject, whether cor"poreal or intellectual, like a bombaft poet, and a mad theolo"giant:" That "he who reads Plato's works like a man in his "fenfes, will be tempted to think on many occafions that the "author was not fo:" And that "no man ever dreamed fo wildly as this author wrote." He chargeth him with a " falfe fublime in style, and that no writer can fink lower than he "into a tedious focratical irony, into certain flimfy hypothetical "reafonings that prove nothing, and into allufions that are mere "vulgarifms, and that neither explain nor inforce any thing "that wants to be explained or inforced§." He represents all the commentators and tranflators of Plato as dull or mad; and calls Ficinus delirious, and Dacier fimple and a bigot, and a Platonic madman. The true reafon of the particular dislike he every-where expreffes against that philofopher seems to be what he calls his "rambling fpeculations about the divine and "fpiritual nature, about immaterial fubftances, about the immor"tality of the foul, and about the rewards and punishments of a "future ftate **." 66 66 As to the Stoics, he declares," that their theology and morality were alike abfurd:" That, in endeavouring to account how it came that there is evil in the world, and that the best men have often the greatest share of this evil," they talked mere nonsense, "figurative, fublime, metaphyfical, but nonfenfe fill ++." The ancient theifts in general he reprefents as having been feduced *Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iv. p. 113. Ibid. p. 344. 357. Ibid. p. 107. 140. 355. †† Ibid. vol. v. p. 247. 357. + Ibid. p. 129. Ibid. p. 140, 141. 353, 354. ** Ibid. p. 347, 348. many |