I used in the very case to which those words are applied. As to the idea itself, that was so far from hurting my argument, that it could not do without it.

He goes on:They [the philosophers] really conceived punishments and rewards of evil or good actions in men; and some imagined a punishment by the means of transmigration, others imagined a punishment inflicted in Hades, others BY IMMEDIATE ACTS OF PROVIDENCE; and all supposed rewards or punishments, notwithstanding they might treat as fables the stories of Cocytus and Acheron lle sticks to his point, we see; and will still have it, that they believed a hell, though they treated. the stories of Cocytus and Acheron as fables, which (to tell him my mind once for all) is just as if one should say, some among us believe the miseries of the King's Bench prison, and yet treat the stories of jailors, turnkeys, bailiffs, and attorneys, as mere fables. But what have immediate acts of Providence to do in this period? Did not I endeavour to prove, that all the Theistical philosophers believed a Providence in this life? These words therefore, as they are found in a paragraph that relates solely to my peculiar opinion, I can consider in no other light than as a false insinuation ad invidiam.

I have now attended this Writer quite through his tittle excursion. Let us see how he returns to himself; HOWEVER, what I contend for, is, that the HEATHEN held a moral [a future] state of rewards and punishments, according to good and evil done heret. It is worthy his contention; and I should be ready to be his second in it. But why then should he go out of his way, and contend for another thing, that will do neither himself nor his cause any credit? I mean him honour, when I say his cause: for I really believe it to be the cause of Christianity. Now, I conceive this not at all advanced by endeavouring to shew that the sacred writers had but small reason for their harsh censure of the Greek philosophy; as the contending for its orthodoxy in this point effectively does. But I will suppose the sacred writers have been misunderstood. And perhaps this may be no great reflection upon any party; if we consider, that the Jansenists, scarce inferior to any in their talents of rea* Connexions, &c. p. 402. † Ibid. Div. Leg. Book III. § 4.

soning and criticism, have strangely mistaken those censures, while they understood them to be directed against human science in general. I supposed therefore, that, to shew the sacred writers only censured the Greek philosophy, and that it deserved their censure, was not one of the least services one might render to our holy religion. But the occasion now seems to be more urgent. The pretensions of these philosophers have been of late highly advanced. The author of the book, intitled, Future Rewards and Punishments believed by the Ancients, hath, we see, forced the inspired teachers of mankind to give them the right hand of fellowship. I had exposed their profane and vain babblings in one capital instance, because it came directly into my particular design; as well for that I thought it useful to Revelation in general. I did not then indeed imagine the necessity so pressing. I may hereafter perhaps find occasion to examine these spurious rivals of the Apostolic function on every head of morality and religion, in the manner I have already done on one; and fully vindicate the majesty of Sacred Writ in the just sentence it hath passed upon them.

A

LETTER

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND

DR. RICHARD SMALLBROOK,

LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD AND COVENTRY

MY LORD,

THIS trouble is occasioned by a passage in your Lordship's late printed Charge* to your Clergy, in which you have been pleased to censure me by name with some frankness, and, I am sorry to say, with equal injustice.

The regard due to your Lordship's Order, especially while in discharge of your function, would have certainly restrained me from complaining of aught that was a mere declaration of your Lordship's dislike of my Writings. It is your Lordship's right and duty to warn your Clergy against all ill books: and your Lordship is, in that place and on that occasion, an authorized denouncer of what are so. Had your Lordship therefore only said, that The Divine Legation was a very bad book, I had not attempted, by any address of this nature, to disturb you in the quiet possession of your opinion. But when a reason added to that declaration turns your vague censure into a formal accusation, then, my Lord, it becomes equally my right and duty to defend my character, if I find it mistaken.

To put the public therefore (which your Lordship has forced me to appeal to) in possession of the fact, it will be necessary to go so far back as to tell them what it is your Lordship says you propose to make the subject of Printed in 1741, by J. & P. Knapton, Octavo..

*

your

your Charge. It is (in your own words) to lay before your Clergy some reasons, drawn from the Christian Revelation itself, which evince the pretensions of morality antecedently to divine Revelation, to be carried much too high, and vindicate the Christian Faith, as well as Morality, from those INVIDIOUS INSINUATIONS that have been CAST upon them by SEVERAL WRITERS, WHO will occasionally be ANIMADVERTED upon in the following Discourse. p. 2.

cr

LATE

Your Lordship having gone through your Reasons, comes, in page 24, to draw your inferences from them. The second of which, you tell us, is, "That though "Christian Morality is much superior to that of all other religions, yet it does not of itself (that is, abstractedly "from the facts recorded in the Gospel, with which it is "incorporated) evince the truth, though it does most clearly the excellency of the Christian Religion. It is "certain (says your Lordship) that the reasonableness "and sanctity of the moral precepts of the Gospel give great advantages to Christianity, as compared with any "other religion ancient or modern. And this of itself is "sufficient to give a well-disposed mind very favourable thoughts of the Christian Religion, and to induce it to "make farther enquiries into the truth of those facts "which establish its divine authority. And this is as far as the argument needs to be pushed; and in fact it is as far as one of the best modern Apologists for the truth of Christianity, the most learned Grotius, in concurrence with the principal Apologists amongst the "Ancients, and more especially the famous Origen, "thought fit to urge it. It is clear that they thought "themselves obliged only to shew, that the morality of "the Gospel does vastly excel that of all other religious and moral institutions, and is most worthy of God in "all respects. But neither they nor any other thoughtful persons, that have formerly engaged on this subject (as far as I can recollect) have thought it reasonable to lay so great a stress on the excellency of the morals of "the Gospel, considered distinctly from the facts of the Gospel, and in their own nature solely, as necessarily

46

66

10

66

to

*to infer from thence the certainty of the Christian Re"velation. And much less have they asserted, as has "been done by some LATE WRITERS, that the morality "of the Gospel, which they call the internal evidence of "it (though indeed it has not the nature of evidence properly, so called), is the strongest evidence of the "truth of Christianity, and is highly superior to all its * ́external evidence, that is, the evidence which arises "from the facts recorded in the Gospel, and attended with other attestations of ancient writers, which support "its divine authority." This is all from your Lordship; where at the word WRITERS we find a mark of reference to the following Note-See Mr. Arscot's Considerations on the Christian Religion, pp. 10. 51. 59, 60, &c. Part II. p. 63. Part III. and elsewhere. SEE TOO MR. WARBURTON'S DIVINE LEGATION OF Moses, = &c. pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5*.

So that here, my Lord, I find this proposition affirmed, That Mr. Warburton, in his Divine Legation of Moses, &c. pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, has asserted THAT THE MORALITY OF THE GOSPEL, WHICH HE CALLS THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF IT, IS THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE OF THE

TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, AND IS HIGHLY SUPERIOR

TO ALL ITS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

This, my Lord, is your accusation; a very capital one it is; and such as, if true, would prove me devoid of common sense, as well as in all other respects unworthy the character I bear of a Christian, a clergyman, or a defender of Revelation. I am therefore necessitated to call upon your Lordship, in this public manner, either to make it good, or to give me reparation. Your Lordship confines the proof of your accusation to the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth pages of the First Volume of The Divine Legation. But as I am not disposed to chicane in so serious a matter, I hereby promise, that if either in those pages, or in any other pages of that work, or in any thing I have ever written, preached, or said, your Lordship produces the proposition in question as held and maintained by me, either in express terms, or deducible Vol. I. pp. 193, &c.

by...