Abbildungen der Seite


careful analysis of the several various modes of human communication. In a word, had no experiments been made in nature, 'we had still slept in the ignorance and error of school-philosophy: and had none been made in religion, we had still been groping about, and stuinbling in the darkness and superstition of school-divinity. For, what were they, but experiments in religion, made by a Wickliff, a Cranmer, à Calvin, an Erasmus, a Hooker, that rescued us from that darkness and superstition? Or is making experiments, like making gunpowder, a monopoly? that none are to be intrusted with it, in religion, but great names, and Fathers of the Church; and none, in nature, but Fellows of the Society. The worst mischief they ever do is, now and then, blowing up an indiscreet Divine, when he comes too near, and tramples upon them with security and contempt. To repay our Examiner, therefore, one secret for another; I will tell him what I have often thought, and what his own words confirm, “ That he who can talk in this manner, “ whatever face he may put on, must needs have his

doubts and fears about the truth of that religion which “he so peevishly defends.”—“ Abraham (says he) obeys “ God's call under a FULL PERSUASION that his Son was “ lost to him.” So! the doubt is now determined. Before, it was only “ That Isaac might, for aught Abraham knew, be for ever lost to him." But this it is for a writer to have a full persuasion both of himself and his reader,

“WE WHO SEE (says he) the RESEMBLANCE between “this case (the action coinmanded) and God's requiring “his only Son to be offered up as a sacrifice, for the “ sins of the whole world, RIGHTLY say, that the one was “intended to be the figure of the other.” These seers by resemblance into facts, are like the seers by secondsight into futurity: that is to say, equally under the power of the imagination; which, whatever light it may afford to them, yet leaves their readers still in the dark. As to this seeing by resemblance in particular, the reader may, if he pleascs, consult the XVIIIth Remark for all that is necessary to be said on that subject.

“ But whether Abraham (says he) knew any thing at "all of Christ's sacrifice, or whether he knew nothing, why do

"the Scripture is wholly silent: AND YOU ought TO

HAVE BEEN SILENT Too.” To this I reply, in the first place, that the reason why I was not silent, was, because Scripture itself was not silent; but, in the words of Jesus, declared, that Abraham did know of Christ's sacrifice. Secondly, I do not see why, even though Scripture had been silent, I ought to have been silent too. Scripture is silent concerning the substance of the Son. But so are not you; who, I make no doubt, declare at least, that he is of one substance with the Father. And


so? Because (you will say, and you will say true) that, although this proposition be not expressed in the Bible, in so many words; yet it is to be deduced from Scripture-doctrine, by the most known principles of philosophy and logic. Why then will you not allow me the benefit of the same answer, in the present case.-But in another mood he can be angry with me for being silent where Scripture is silent. And for not speaking out when that only gives a sign. “You say nothing (says he) “ of Abraham's virtue, his patience and self-denial, yet " Scripture POINIS AT them."

But “ It is fit (he says) for us to stop where the Scripture stops."-With how good a grace, and how pertinently too, this maxim may be, sometimes, applied ; I shall beg leave to observe; that, with regard to the fundamental points of the Christian faith, it is, indeed, fit we should stop where the NEW TESTAMENT stops; because that is able to make us wise unto salvation; and because there is now no reasonable expectation of any further revelation of God's will to us, that shall refer to this, and be explanatory of it. But with regard to an historical passage, told obscurely (for the wise ends of God's dispensations, which opened gradually upon mankind) in the OLD TESTAMENT, to which the New refers and is explanatory; there, I hope, we may go on, without presumption, to shew how, from such a passage, may

be demonstrated the real connexion and dependency between the two covenants. Yet, by the strangest perversity, there are men who will not stop in the first case; and, in the second, will not go forward. But whatever our Examiner’s notions be; it is plain, he took his expressions from somebody who applied the maxim to a maker of



new fundamentals. For such a one, only, it is seen to fit. “ In conclusion (says he) LET INFIDELITY DO


And so it may, for what our Examiner or his fellows seem inclined to oppose to its progress. They keep guard, as our Author says; they perform watch and ward as the law requires : and let such as like it go to blows for them. One of my most abusive adversaries, in a book he wrote against me, intitled, A Reply to Mr. IV.'s Appendix in his second Volume of The Divine Legation, has a long digression (for it has nothing to do in the dispute between hiin and me) of seventy pages, to prove that the miracles and morality of Paganism equal those of Judaism and Christianity: in which he has made a very elaborate collection of passages from classic writers, drawn up and

set in battle-array against parallel places of Scripture. Eight or ten clergymen of the Church of England have found leisure and inclination to write against The Divine Legation, nobody knows for what; and yet not one of them has taken the least notice of this open barefaced insult and defiance of Revelation. But what then? Mr. Tillard, no doubt, was considered by them as a fellow-labourer in a good cause. Or was it, for that he is an active member of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts? of which, indeed, in these passages he has given a proof. For finding it was for staying at home, he, like a good member as he is, does his best to send it packing !- But still, says our Examiner, “ let infidelity do its worst. And does he indeed think it could do worse than what himself has here attempted? I had wrote a dissertation; which, if it has any reality or foundation, in reason or Scripture, is of the highest service to religion: and, principally, on these two accounts, first, as rescuing a passage out of the hands of libertines, which was more obnoxious to the objections of infidelity than any in the whole Bible: and secondly, as discovering a real and substantial circumstance of connerion and dependency between the Old and New Testament; not subject to any of those objections which arise from typical or allegorical interpretations. Now, against such a discourse, so directed, was it natural to conceive, that a Divine of name should address himself, with much haughtiness and malice, to write an elaborate confutation? Would not a good man, who had a real regard for the interests of religion, and was persuaded of the weakness of my discourse, have left it to some unthinking, unbelieving Scribbler, to expose ? And here, let me call, seriously, upon this learned man, to lay his hand upon his heart, and to acquit himself of his intentions, before the public; who finding nothing in this dissertation (how erroneous soever it may be deemed) either of Heresy or Libertinism, will needs be at a loss to discover any good purpose, in an attempt so seemingly inconsistent with his character and profession. For the public sees he has taken the unbelievers' task out of their hands, and executed it with such a spirit, as cannot chuse but give them the highest satisfaction.

“ Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridæ."


London : Printed by Luke Hansard & Sow,

bear Lincola's-Inn Fields.

« ZurückWeiter »