In the next fection our Author treats, very briefly, of cruelty proceeding from covetoufnefs or rapacioufnefs; but fupports his pofition chiefly by certain dreadful tales of the enormous cruelties committed upon the Indians by the Spaniards, in order to poffefs themselves of the immense treasures of the former.

The third fection, on cruelty proceeding from exceffive anger or revenge, opens with this deep obfervation, Exceffive anger and revenge are alfo very productive of cruelty. Some men 'make ufe of fecret means privately to destroy those who have offended them: others take the more open and fashionable method of duelling.' He then defcants a little upon the crueland the origin of this practice; juft mentions another, as not lefs barbarous, viz. that of murdering reputations; and concludes with a moft frightful enumeration of many barbarous murders committed by the Indians in North America, occafioned by their extreme propenfity to revenge.

ty

Cruelty proceeding from ambition comes next under confideration; and is illuftrated by inftances, as before, but chiefly by a crude narration of the wicked and barbarous actions of Lewis XIV. He concludes with this very obvious reflection, How happy it would be for mankind, were wars entirely to cease, and how unbecoming Chriftians, particularly, to engage in unneceffary wars, which not only deftroy their bodies, but precipitate fo many fouls, by fudden death, with all their fins on their heads (as our Author expreffes it) into everlasting perdition. N.B. He elsewhere denies the doctrine of eternal punishments, which we suppose the Author here implies, by everlasting perdition.

In the fecond Effay our Author treats on the prefervatives against cruelty; and the deteftable practice, as he terms it, of making war unneceffarily. Of this Eifay it is fufficient to observe, that it is every way as poor a performance as the former.

When war and cruelty in general had been treated of, fo large a branch of this latter enormity as religious cruelty in particular, (a branch, fays he, bringing forth fuch poisonous fruit, and upon which fuch numbers of unclean birds build their nefts) could not well escape notice. Accordingly, this is the fubject of his third Effay; in which he confiders, firft, the opinions which commonly have been, or now are, entertained by the greatest part of mankind, concerning the cruelty of the Deity or Deities worshipped by them. Under this head, after having supposed that mankind at first had no just notions of God, or if they had, that they foon loft them,, and funk into the moft grofs and ridiculous fuperftition; he finds fault with the abfurd notions which both Jews and Chriftians, as well as Pagans and Mahometans, have entertained of God, as a cruel and tyrannical Being. As to the Jews, he seems to think, that they were taught this false notion

P 2

notion of their Deity, of which, he fays, there are many inftances, and produces the following as a flagrant one. • In the

book of Chronicles, chap. xxi. it is written, that King David • ordered Ifrael to be numbered. This was probably from a • motive of pride: however, it does not seem to be a fin of the deepest dye, nor to be compared, for the heinousness of it, with many other crimes committed by this man after God's own heart: nevertheless, God, we are told, was so displeased with this thing, that he therefore fmote Ifrael with a peftilence, and destroyed leventy thousand men. Now it is certain, if this numbering the Ifraelites was a crime, David was guilty of it, and not the people.' We shall not here give ourselves the trouble of a formal answer to what our Author has objected, but as we plainly difcern fome of the caufes of his mistake of this paffage of Scripture, we would beg leave to offer him the following hints, which may poffibly tend to lead him into a juster conception of the matter."

Firft then, we would humbly advife him, in general, to a more careful, and a deeper ftudy of the Old Teftament-writings, than he feems to have yet gone through; for in this, and several other parts of his Effay, he betrays great ignorance of their main fcope, and of the Jewith conftitution. 2. Because he thinks King David's numbering the people a fin of a very trifling kind, we would advife him to attend to the fentiments of Joab, on this head, who was commissioned by the King to make this enumeration. And Joab anfwered, the Lord make his people an hundred times fo many more as they be but, my Lord the King, are they not all my Lord's fervants? Why then doth my Lord require this thing? Why will be be a caufe of trefpafs to Ifrael? Joab here protefts against this defign of the King, as fomething heinously wrong and criminal, fomething which he forefaw, from the nature of the thing, and the circumstances of their conftitution, would incur the difpleafure of their fupreme King, Jehovah. Again it is faid, the King's word was abominable to Joab; and we must allow this brave and wife Commander to have a better understanding of the matter, and a nearer infight into the nature of this crime, than our Critic can pretend to. 3. Whereas our Author would be witty in this place upon the memory of King David, calling him jeeringly this man after God's own heart; we would advife him to confider the frailty of human nature in general, and what kind of difpofitions do in the main conftitute the character of a good man; and he will find, that the higheft pitch of human goodnefs confifts not in a man's being abfolutely free from faults, but in poffeffing, in a great degree, the best virtual difpofitions, and particularly that penitence and contrition which fhould follow his being overcome by the ftrength of temptation. Such a temper

is doubtlefs a truly good one, and highly acceptable to the Divine Being and that this was Davia's temper, cannot be denied; his fins of murder and adultery themfelves (confidered with their circumftances, and his behaviour on after-reflection) notwithstanding. It is alfo obfervable, that our ungenerous and cruel Critic (for he reckons the murdering of reputations in the number of cruelties) has applied this Scripture encomium on King David, to his character in general, which may only mean to characterize him with relation to his adhering faithfully and firmly himself to the one true God, and to his unwearied endeavours to keep an unfteady and difcontented people from revolting to ftrange Gods.

What our Author obferves next of the ftrange notions of certain Chriftians, particularly concerning future punishment, is much more just but in the second section he falls more furioufly than ever upon King David, calling him unjuit, ungrateful, an adulterer, cruel, a tyrant, and a murderer; and to fupport his invective, he quotes fome paflages of Scripture, which he appears to have very ill understood, together with fome ftories from the Jewish Rabbies, and fuch like authorities.

From the opinions of mankind concerning the Deity or Deities worshipped by them, he proceeds to the barbarous methods of worship fo frequently practifed by men, in torturing and deftroying not only animals, but their own fpecies, and even themfelves: a mere heap of dreadful ftories, as before, fome true, fome falfe, of the horrid cruelties committed by the fuperftitious among mankind, by Jews and Chriftians, as well as Pagans and Infidels.

The fourth Effay is an enquiry into the caufes why Romish ecclefiaftics are more cruel, and have been guilty of more horrid barbarities, than other perfons of a civilized and learned education. This he attributes principally to their being instructed in logics, and the moft fubtle arts of wrangling; in metaphyfics; in fchool-divinity; in the works of the Fathers; and laftly, in the romantic lives and lying legends of their faints. • Add to this,' fays he, that the tutors of youth fet apart for the fer⚫vice of the church, being generally churchmen, fpare no pains to imprefs on the minds of their pupils, 1. An opinion that they are greatly fuperior to laymen, from whom the moft profound reverence is due to ecclefiaftics: and 2. that what they call herefy, and thofe they call heretics, are by all poffible means to be extirpated; and for this purpose every method, even the most compulfive, fanguinary, and cruel, is not only neceffary, and allowable, but highly acceptable and meritorious with God; and that they, the clergy, are the principal • inftruments he makes ufe of to accomplish this glorious work.' In

P 3

In a fupplement to this Effay, which is about nine times as long as the Effay itself, our Author, in proof of what is here alleged, gives fome specimens of the abfurdities to be met with in the works of the Fathers, and in Popish legends, &c. all which are the more tedious to be read, as they are collected from different Authors, in an injudicious manner, Rudis indigeftaque moles!

Effay V. contains further thoughts concerning perfecution on account of religion, and fome proposals for preventing it. As he had fhewn before, or endeavoured to fhew, that churchmen have conftantly been the principal promoters and inftruments of perfecution among Chriftians, and the motives, pretended and real, which led them to act fo barbarous a part; fo, in this Effay, he would prove, by what means they are become so extremely numerous, and have gained fo great an influence and afcendancy in the Chriftian world; and what has moft immediately and effectually enabled them to tyrannize and perfecute in fo outrageous a manner as they have done. As he has delivered nothing on this head, but what is either well known to every body, or what expreffes the fame bitterness of difpofition towards ecclefiaftics in general, which he condemns in them towards the laity, we thall pass it in filence, and proceed to give our Readers his propofals for preventing perfecution.

.

The causes of perfecution on account of religion being thus evident, the remedies are obvious. Happy would it be, if they could as readily be applied as difcovered!

Those remedies which feem moft effectual and naturally to • present themselves are, I. To bring back religion to its effentials; to difencumber it from thofe unneceflary appendages,. which defigning and vile men, to ferve their own wicked purpofes, have added to it. II. Which will be an unavoidable confequence of the former, to reduce the number of ecclefiaftics to fuch only as are abfolutely neceffary,' [if our Author be an ecclefiaftic, he has it in his power to strike one at least out of the number of thofe that are not abfolutely neceffary] all of whom to be comfortably and decently maintained, but none in pomp and luxury, which not only very ill become their profeffion and employment, but are attended with infinite mifchiefs. III. To punifh as criminals (for they certainly are fuch in an high degree) all perfons, who by preaching, writing, or otherwife, fhall endeavour to exafperate men one against another, on account of religious opinions, which do not tend to immorality, or to disturb the good order and peace of fociety.' [Let the Author confider, whether he himself might not be tried upon this article, as an exafperator of men against one another, on account

of

of religion.] IV. and laftly, which would be the crown of this moft defirable and truly glorious work of preventing per< fecution on account of religion-to truft clergymen with no · power but that of doing good."

It this be fo reafonable a wifh, let him confider how he himfelf, or any man, whether he be of the church or not, would like fuch a limited truft. By this rule of his, no clergyman. fhould be entrusted with the power of delivering freely and honeftly his own fentiments on religious fubjects, because they may be wrong, and do mifchief; but may a layman then be entrufted fafely with it? Docs our Author, if a layman, think he has a right to the liberty of the prefs, and to advance, in this firange performance, what notions he has thought proper, and would he have ecclefiaftics denied the like privilege, becaufe, like him, they may abufe it? This is to perfecute one body of men, that they may not perfecute others.

The next Effay, on everlafting punishments, opens thus: Being fully perfuaded, that the horrible opinions commonly taught and entertained concerning God, efpecially his punishing the works of his own hands with everlasting torments, are as falfe and pernicious, as fhocking and dreadful, I shall without any fcruple endeavour to fhew the falfity of them.' Accordingly he explodes the following arguments ufually urged in fupport of this doctrine: I. That becaufe fin is infinite in refpect of the object against whom it is committed, which is God, therefore it deferves an infinite punifhment. II. In < confirmation of this doctrine, it is faid, that very great men, divines efpecially, have believed and taught it. III. That the Scriptures plainly denounce thefe punishments. IV. That this doctrine is abfolutely neceffary to deter men from being wicked, and is part of the foundation of religion.'

Every judicious Reader will fee that the third of thefe heads contains the argument which it concerned our Author principally to refute. But he is fo far from proving, that this is not the Scripture doctrine, that the whole of what he fays amounts only to this, viz. That fome fuppofe the words for ever, and everlasting, may be taken in a limited fenfe, while others are very pofitive, that in thofe places where they relate to punishment, they ought to be underflood in an unlimited fenfe. But fuppofing that thefe punishments are plainly denounced in the Scripture, then his anfwer is, that there are certain paflages of Scripture not given forth by divine infpiration, of which fort thofe are to be regarded that relate to threatnings of everlasting punishments, and as proceeding merely from private opinion. This is the fum and fubftance of our Author's answer to this third

P 4