refolution to fupport a beloved caufe by all poffible means; and the cause, which infpires its votaries with fuch a refolution, is not likely to be the caufe of truth."

There appears to us fomething problematical in the adoption of this paragraph by way of preface; prefaces being ufually expected to throw fome light on the defign of the publication; whereas this leaves us only ftill more in the dark.-Does Dr. Maclaine mean to compliment Mr. Jenyns with being a Chrif tian writer, and thus apologize for confuting him? This is furely the most obvious meaning and what then? Why are poor infidels, among whom Mr. Jenyns was fo lately numbered, to be fo unneceffarily abufed? And why is that fingle tie of unbelief, which unties every thing and every body else, to league fo indiffolubly together those, who, having no belief, can be bound by no ties human and divine? Why fo unendearing a cause as that of infidelity should be called a beloved cause, we are equally at a loss to guess at, as we are at the motives of fo determined a refolution as, it is pretended, infidels are infpired with to fupport it. Serioufly we believe that the prof pect of real Infidels (and we unhappily know a great many) is fo gloomy and uncomfortable, that they would rejoice to become believers. We have no doubt that, from that motive alone, numbers have made ftrenuous, tho' ineffectual, attempts to fupprefs or banish their doubts and difbelief. On the other hand, why Chriftian writers fhould boast of their detecting and expofing each other without referve, we cannot readily conceive. We think it by no means a proof of their prudence, whatever it may be of their zeal. Certain it is, that the cause of Chriftianity fuffers by it in the eyes of those who entertain fcruples, which fuch poleinical difputes are, in no wife, calculated to remove. As to the truth itself, it does not depend on the difcretion of those who efpoufe its caufe, or on the verifimilitude of what they fet up for it. Truth is to be investigated by means much furer than by that of looking after its likelihood: fo that this curious quotation is, in our opinion, altogether inapplicable, futile, and frivolous. It appears, indeed, to be introduced as a prelude to the abuse thrown on Mr. Gibbon *, and those whom our author ftiles Infidels in general, in his first letter. After confeffing that he had read two thirds of Mr. Jenyns's book, before he knew whether he fhould place it on the fame fhelf with the treatife of Gilbert Weft, or certain writings of Samuel Chubb, Dr. Maclaine proceeds to give an account of the incident which put him in fo ill a humour with his author.

* Author of the History of the declension of the Roman Empire.

"An

"An accidental circumstance put me in a mood that contributed not a little to the injury I was likely to do you. I had been reading the account, given by Mr. Edward Gibbon, of the Progrefs of the Chrif tian Religion in which the graveft fubject, and one of the gravest kinds of writing, are both difhonoured by a perpetual and unneceffary fneer. This had ftruck me fo much, that, when I took up your Book, and faw the ftrange things you were advancing in defence of Chriftianity, I began to fufpect that you were fincering alfo. This idea acquir ed a certain degree of probability from the many accounts I have had of your fly wit, and your eafy and elegant pleafantry; it did not, however, fquare fo well with what I have alfo heard of you, Sir, even that you poffeffed the happy and agreeable art of being merry and wife.

"The perufal of your whole work difpelled all my doubts. I perceived at length, that you were in earnest; but I began to apprehend, left that numerous clafs of our common adverfaries, who are rather practical than perfuaded Infidels, should, on perceiving the fame thing, begin to be merry. The boneft people of this clafs are never fo rejoiced, as when they fee an ill-judged defence of Christianity. It makes them (I know not why, but the cafe is really fo) go to the gaming-table with lefs reluctance, and to the fcenes of lewdnefs with more tranquillity. They foolishly perfuade themselves, that a caufe, which is prepofteroutly defended, must be a bad one; and, putting between confcience and futurity this new re-inforcement of illufion, they return, with a new-flushed confidence, to enjoy as many moments of pleasure, as they can, before the bubble of existence breaks."

We are forry to find a inan, of Dr. Maclaine's character and abilities, fo much of a prieft and fo little of a Chriftian as to fall into the vulgar errour of hypocritical bigots, by joining profligacy as an infeparable attendant on infidelity. Nothing can be more juft than his own intimation, that the more nuinerous clafs of the common adverfaries to Chriftianity are rather practical than perfuaded infidels. It is certain there are few theoretical infidels, or unbelievers on principle, that are profligates. On the other hand, we could name fome of the moft diftinguished infidels in theory, who have been remarkable as practical moralifts. We will mention only two recent inftances in men, indeed of different talents, but of equal infidelity, and that on principle, the late David Hume, and Peter Annett. The irreproachable morals of the firft have been recently celebrated; thofe of the laft are well known by numbers to have been equally fo, infomuch that in his moral character he might be filed an Ifraelite in whom there was no guile. Are fuch the honest people at whom our pious doctor fneers, for repairing to the gaming-table with lefs reluctance, or to scenes of lewdne's with more tranquillity, on feeing an ill-judged defence of Chriftianity? Such an infinuation might aptly enough come from an ignorant enthufiaft fecluded from fociety; but argues either ftrange mifconception or wilful mifreprefentation in a

learned

learned divine, who has read fo much, and has had fuch an opportunity of knowing the world, as hath our author.-No. The frequenters of Gaming-tables and the Brothels are so far from being even perfuaded Infidels, that they are hardly practical ones. Like the Devils, they believe and tremble, even in the celebration of their midnight orgies, and fhudder occafionally with horrour in the midst of their debaucheries. Profligates are, for the most part, believers, and fo far at least are Chriftians, bad ones as they are, and not Infidels. Could that fatal inftrument of juftice the triple tree, confirm the Annals of the Ordinary of Newgate, it would declare how few among the numerous victims to juftice die profeffed infidels. Nay, no offence to a name-fake, I fee no reafon to doubt that Maclaine the highway-man was as true a believer as Dr. Maclaine, minifter of the English Church at the Hague.— We are not defending the morals of profeffed unbelievers; God knows they are bad enough, but they cannot be worse than thofe of profeffed believers. If our author, therefore, excepts againft Mr. Jenyns for fupporting the caufe of Chriftianity on fatle grounds; we do the fame by him, and fay that, in confuting the arguments of infidels, he ought not falfely to accufe them of want of morals.

As to the charge our author brings against Mr. Gibbon in particular, we regard it as an illiberal and unjuft invective against one of the beft writers this age and country can boaft. Were we to be as cenforious in our remarks on our author, we might infinuate that he would not have suspected the Hiftorian of fneering at the caufe of Chriftianity, had not he himself entertained fome diftrust that it deferved to be fneered at: for we will be bold to declare an opinion founded on our own knowledge and experience, that the fneers of infidelity are among no people fo frequent as among the profeffional teachers of Chriftianity. Mr. Gibbon is a layman, and therefore would be more excufeable if he had not treated the circumftances, attending its early progrefs, in fo grave a manner as might be expected from a divine. For our own part, we muft frankly declare, that altho' we could not help fufpecting that writer's fentiments in reading what he has written on the fubject, we were never ftruck with any idea of his intention to fneer at Chriftianity; but conceived that, acting the part of a faithful Hiftorian, he reprefented facts in general as he found them on record, even fuppreffing reflections that might fometime arife, to the prejudice of the Chriftian caufe, in due deference to the established religion of his country. This deference we conceive to be due from every candid hiftorian, as we think

3

think a fneer at public opinions, however falfe, while forming the faith of the church, and countenanced by the laws of the ftate, very unbecoming in any individual whatever. If Mr. Gibbon did really intend to fneer at Chriftianity, whether he believes or difbelieves in it, we fhould condemn him; tho' not for the reafon affigned by. Dr. Maclaine, in his curious note above quoted, viz. "because it was unneceffary, Mr. Gibbon living in a country where a man may write and fpeak as he thinks, without danger or moleftation."-We fhould be glad to know who told Dr. Maclaine that a man may write and speak as he thinks in England without danger or moleftation? He himself cannot do fo in Holland *, a country whofe liberty is equally boafted with that of our own. Has the Doctor never heard of poor Peter Annett already mentioned, who felt the fecular arm of religious perfecution, and that within the present reign, only for unneceffarily fneering at the plagues of Egypt?-This reiterated boaft of the clergy of the Church of England, that their infidel antagonists are at equal liberty to attack and defend themfelves in religious difputes, is fo impudent and fhameful a falfehood, that we wonder any one, who has the leaft grace or modefty left, fhould be found to repeat it. Not that we contend for fuch liberty. Far from it. We know how foon it would run into licentioufnefs, and what would be the danger of it. Our controverfial heroes may, yet, vapour as they will about their prowess, and boaft their victories over enemies, whofe hands are tied behind them, or are otherwise restrained from the effectual use of their arms; but if ever civil government fhould be fo remifs as to fuffer men to write and fpeak on fuch subjects as they think, without danger and moleftation, it would be no wonder if Chrif tianity, inftead of being faeered at, fhould be hosted out of the country in half a century. Under the prefent restraints it may be much longer before it emigrate, nor need profeffed Infidels give themselves any trouble about it: our rational di✩ vines will effectually do the bufinefs in time without their affif tance. The propitiation of a Saviour, they have already fent packing. The infpiration of the fpirit, and the influence of Grace, are reafoned down; and what will become of the reft of the divinity, time and philofophy it seems are to deter mine t-But to proceed with our author.

In matters of religion, indeed, the Dutch are lefs ftrict than in politics a very fevere examples, however, have been fometimes made of innovators in doctrine and difcipline, when their innovations have tended to the difturbance of the public peace.

+ Even our author divests Jefus Chrift of his fcripture appellation, the Son of God, giving him the affected and degrading titles of, Čeleftial Euvoy, the Divine Man, &c.

After

After paying Mr. Jenyns fome merited compliments on his gentleman-like file and manner of writing, he proceeds to cenfure his reafoning in general, as neither clofe nor accurate. In the fecond letter he examines into Mr. Jenyns's propofition respecting the credibility of miracles and prophecies, which, that writer fays, depends on the internal marks of divinity that are ftamped upon the Chriftian Religion. He exposes the fallacy of this propofition, as hath been done by other writers. -In letter the third he proceeds to fhew that thofe which Mr. Jenyns lays down as internal proofs in favour of the gospel are not only infufficient for that purpofe; but that, if they were to be found there, they would rather tend to its difcredit. What he advances on this head is profeffedly intended rather to rectify than to refute the propofition in queftion. In the difcuffion of it many juft exceptions are made to what is occafionally advanced by Mr. Jenyns, without any thing more fatisfactory being fubftituted in the roon of it. We look, in particular, on Dr. Maclaine's criterion of divine revelation, as being full as exceptionable as Mr. Jenyns's. It is," fays he, "ane of the effential characters of a true revelation of natural religion, that it be not in contradiction with the fundamental principles of human knowledge."-But whence does our learned Doctor derive this criterion? If he does not mean to impofe a change on us, by ufing the epithet true, inftead of the ufual one, divine; if by a true revelation, he means a revelation in which men are required, to place implicit belief, because it comes immediately from God; we deny that its criterion, or effential character, is that of its conformity to the pureft dictates of natural religion, or its confiftency with the fundamental principles of natural knowledge. The dictates of divine and human knowledge, are in many inftances clearly contradictory. They are repeatedly declared fo, and their inconfiftency politively pronounced in the molt exprefs terms in holy Scripture. And, why fhould they not? If the certainty of miracles be admitted and their evidence brought in proof of fupernatural revelation; if thofe miracles be defined, as our author defines them to be, facts contrary to the laws of nature; why may not the precepts of fuch revelation contain doctrines contradictory to the dictates of nature?-May the gofpel difpenfation counteract nature in deed and not contradict it in words?

This is diftinguishing (to ufe this writer's phrafeology) with a witness !-Dr. Maclaine mentions it as an abfurdity that nature and grace are in contraft and contradiction; but are they not constantly represented fo in the gospel? And whence but from the gofpel would this reverend divine deduce the ¡ VOL. V.

Y Y

standard