or has he any notion of it distinct from the general laws of na❤ ture? If he has, and a more rational one than divines or philosophers have as yet been able to frame, why does he not ex+ plain it for the benefit of mankind? If he has not, let him speak out; and we shall know in what company to rank him. The idea of a Providence is not that of an indolent, unactive nature, that (like the gods of Epicurus) sits at ease, an idle spectator of his own creation; but an active and a vigilant one, that overlooks and directs, governs and controls. This is not a Jewish or a Christian doctrine, but the general belief of all ages and nations; not a prejudice of the superstitious vulgar, but the sober judgment of the reasoning philosopher. ́ There are, it is true, in antiquity some exceptions to this universality; but you find them only amongst a set of men that denied first principles; I mean the atheistic sects. A spirit of scepticism, under whatever plausible name it appears, is of all things the most dangerous to truth. How far Mr. Chubb has already been carried by it, or where it will end, I take not on me to determine. He has neither given an honest representation of the common notion of a Providence, nor thought proper to explain his own; and there I shall leave him till he does. God gave him parts and knowlege beyond what might have been expected from his life and education, if they are truly reported; and I am sorry to think he has made no better use of them. If the itch of writing be so prevalent in him, and his love of truth and of mankind be real and not pretended, why does he not employ his thoughts and pen in explaining and defending our common religion, the religion of nature, of which I doubt not but he is capable; and not waste his time and talents in abusing Scripture, which it is very evident he does not, and many parts of which he cannot understand? |