W

trary fcheme abfurd and inconsistent with itself, and of the worst confequence to mankind. The objections against a particular providence, examined. Concerning occafional interpofitions. They are not properly miraculous, nor deviations from the general laws of providence, but applications of those laws to particular cafes. To acknowledge fuch interpofitions is not to fuppofe the world governed by miracles, nor to introduce an univerfal theocracy, like the Jewish. Angels may be employed in particular cafes as minifters of divine providence.

LETTER VIII. Favourable declarations of Lord Bolingbroke concerning the immortality of the foul, and a future ftate. He reprefents it as having been believed from the earliest antiquity, and acknowledges the great usefulnefs of that doctrine. Yet it appears from many paffages, that he himself was not for admitting it. He treats it as an Egyptian invention, taken up without reafon, and as a vulgar error, which was rejected when men began to examine. He will not allow that the foul is a fpiritual fubftance diftin&t from the body, and pretends that all the phenomena lead us to conclude that the foul dies with the body. Reflections upon this. The immateriality of the foul argued from its effential properties, which are entirely different from the properties of matter, and incompatible with them. The author's objections answered. Concerning the moral argument for a future ftate of retributions drawn from the unequal diftributions of this prefent ftate. Lord Bolingbroke's charge against this way of arguing as blafphemous and injurious to divine providence, confidered. His great inconfiftency in fetting up as an advocate for the goodness and juftice of providence. That maxim whatever is is

best,

1

beft, examined. If rightly understood it is not inconfiftent with the belief of a future ftate.

LETTER IX.

Obfervations on Lord Bolingbroke's acccount of the law of nature. He afferts it to be so plain and obvious to the meanest understanding, that men cannot be mistaken in it. The contrary fhewn from his own acknowledgment. He makes felf-love the only original fpring from which our moral duties and affections flow: yet fuppofes univerfal benevolence to be the fundamental law of our nature. He declares that we are obliged by the law of nature to place our bope and trust in God, and addrefs ourselves to him. This fhewn to be inconfiftent with the principles he bad advanced. He afferts polygamy to be founded in the law of nature. No fuch thing, according to bim, as natural shame or modefty. The account be gives of the fanlions of the law of nature, confidered. He allows no fantlions of that law with refped to individuals. The ill confequences of bis Jebeme to the interefts of morality and virtue, reprefented.

LETTER X.

An examination of what Lord Bolingbroke bath offered concerning revelation in general. He afferts that mankind bad no need of an extraordinary revelation. The contrary fully fhewn. A divine revelation very needful to inftruct men in the most important principles of religion, especially thofe relating to the unity, the perfections, and providence of God; the worship that is to be rendered to him; moral duty taken in its just extent; the chief good and happinefs of man; the terms of our acceptance with God, and the means of reconciliation when we have offended

bim; and the rewards and punishments of a future
ftate. It is reafonable to believe that there was a re-

velation communicated from the beginning. A notion

and belief of this has very generally obtained. The

wifeft men of antiquity fenfible, that bare reafon alone

not fufficient to inforce doctrine and laws with a

due authority upon mankind. The most celebrated

philofophers acknowledged the need they food in of a

divine revelation. The author's exceptions against

this, confidered. Under pretence of extolling the ef-

fects which a true divine revelation must have pro-

duced, he endeavours to prove, that no fuch revela-

tion was ever really given. His fcheme, contrary to

bis own intention, tends to fhew the usefulness and

neceffity of divine revelation.

LETTER XI.

Lord Bolingbroke's ftrange reprefentation of the Jewish

revelation. His attempts against the truth of the

Mofaic history. The antiquity, impartiality, and

excellent tendency of that history fhewn. The pretence

that Mofes was not a contemporary author, and that

bis hiftory is not confirmed by collateral testimony, and

that there is no proof that he writ the Pentateuch,

examined. The Mofaic history and laws not forged

in the time of the judges, nor in that of the kings,

nor after the Babylonifh captivity. The charge of

inconfiftencies in the Mofaic accounts, confidered. The

grand objection against the Mofaic history drawn

from the incredible nature of the falls there related,

examined at large. The reafon and propriety of

erelling the Mofaic polity. No abfurdity in fup-

pofing God to have felected the Jews as a peculiar

people. The great and amazing difference between

them and the heathen nations, as to the acknowledg

ment and worship of the one true God, and of him

only.

I

only. The good effects of the Jewish conftitution

and the valuable ends that were answered by it. It

is no juft objellion against the truth of the Scripture

accounts, that they come to us through the hands of

the Jews.

LETTER XII.

The excellent nature and tendency of the Scriptures of

the old Teftament. Lord Bolingbroke treats it as

blafphemy to fay that they were divinely inspired. A

Summary of bis objections against their divine original

and authority. His charge against the Scriptures, as

giving mean and unworthy ideas of God, confidered

at large. The reprefentations he himself gives of

God and of bis providence fhewn to be unworthy,

and of the worst confequence. Concerning God's be-

ing reprefented in Scripture as entering into covenant

with man. The pretence of his being defcribed as a

tutelary God to Abraham, and to the people of If-

rael, and of his being degraded to the meanest offices

and employments, diftinally examined. The pallages

in which bodily parts seem to be afcribed to God, not

defigned to be taken in a literal fenfe. The Scrip-

ture itself fufficiently guards against a wrong inter-

pretation of thofe paffages. In what fenfe human

paffions and affections are attributed to the fupreme

Being. A remarkable paffage of Mr. Collins to this

purpose.

LETTER XIII.

Farther objections against the Mofaic writings, and the

Scriptures of the old testament, confidered. The laws

of Mofes not contradiclory to the law of nature.

This particularly fhewn with regard to the command

for exterminating the Canaanites, and the law for

punishing thofe among the Ifraelites that should revolt

to

to idolatry, with death. The law of Mofes not ac-

countable for the fury of the zealots. The inftances

of Phineas and Mattathias confidered. Infociability

not the first principle of the law of Mofes, nor did

that law take the Jews out of all moral obligations

to the rest of mankind. There is nothing false or ab-

furd in the Mofaic account of the creation of the

world, and the fall of man. Concerning the fanclions

of the law of Moles. The not making express men-

tion of future rewards and punishments in that law,

no argument against its divine original. Some other

objections against the Scriptures obviated.

LETTER XIV.

The favourable reprefentation made by Lord Boling-

broke of the excellent nature and defign of the ori-

ginal Chriftian revelation. He gives up feveral of

the deiftical objections against it, and even feems to

acknowledge its divine original: yet endeavours to

expofe its doctrines, and invalidate its proofs and evi-

dences. The law of nature and Christianity not to

be opposed to one another. The Gospel not a repub-

lication of the doctrine of Plato. The pretended op-

pofition between the Gospel of Chrift and that of St.

Paul, confidered. This apoftle vindicated against the

cenfures and reproaches caft upon him. The miracles

of Chriftianity, if really wrought, owned by Lord

Bolingbroke, to be fufficient proofs of its divine au-

thority. The Gofpels, by his own acknowledgment,

give a just account of the difcourfes and actions of

Jefus yet he has attempted to deftroy their credit.

His pretence that it would be necessary to have the

originals in our bands, or attefted copies of those

originals, examined. The feveral ways he takes to

account for the propagation of Christianity fewn to

be infufficient. What be offers concerning the little

7

effect