lery, is supposed to be sufficient, not only against that set of enthusiasts who were called the French prophets, but against Christianity itself. But he seems not to have considered, that the great author and first publishers of the Christian religion were scoffed and derided, as well as exposed to grievous sufferings and torments, and that they had trial of cruel mockings, as well as of bonds and imprisonments. It appears from what remains of the works of Celsus, as well as from what Cæcilius saith in Minucius Felix, that no sarcasm or ridicule was spared among the heathens, by which they thought they could expose Christianity; though when they found this ineffectual to suppress it, they from time to time had recourse to more violent and sanguinary methods: and indeed those that have been most prone to scoff at religion and truth have often been most prone to persecute it too. A scornful and contemptuous spirit, which is an usual attendant on ridicule, is apt to proceed to farther extremes; nor am I sure, that they, who on all occasions throw out the bitterest sarcasms against religion and its ministers, would not, if it were in their power, give more substantial proofs of their aversion. His Lordship indeed honoureth that raillery and ridicule which he recommends, with the name of good humour; and by shuffling one of these for the other, and playing upon the words, maketh himself merry with his reader. But good humour taken in the best sense, for what he calls the sweetest, kindest disposition, is a different thing from that sneering faculty, which disposes men to cast contempt upon persons and things, and which is often managed in a manner little consistent with a true benevolence.

The proper use of ridicule is to expose such follies and absurdities as scarce deserve or admit a very serious consideration; but to recommend raillery and ridicule as fit to be employed on all occasions, and upon the most weighty and important subjects, and as the properest means for discerning truth, appears to be an inverting the just order of things. It is, even when innocently used, for the most part a trifling employment; and a man of great genius cannot addict himself much to it, without descending beneath his character. Indeed there needs no more to give one a disgust at this pretended test of truth, than to consider the use his Lordship has made of it. When he is in any degree serious, he shows how capable he is to inform and please his reader; but when he gives a loose to gaiety and ridicule, he often writes in a manner unworthy of himself. And I am apt to think, that if nothing of his had been published, but the two first treatises of his first volume, and the third volume, in which he chiefly indulges himself in those liberties, he would have generally passed in the world for a sprightly and ingenious, but very trifling writer. He often throws out his sneers and flirts against every thing that comes in his way; and with a mixture of low and solemn phrase, and grave ridicule, he sometimes manages it so, that it is not very easy to discern his true sentiments, and what it is that he really aims at. This is not very consistent with the rule he himself has laid down more than once; viz. That "it is

a mean, impotent, and dull sort of wit, which leaves sensible persons in a doubt, and at a loss to understand what one's real mind is." And, again, he censures "such a feigned gravity, as immoral and illiberal, foreign to the character of a good writer, a gentleman, and a man of sense.' ""* There seems to be no other way of screening him from his own censure, but by supposing that he imagined his true intention with regard to Christianity and the holy Scriptures might be perceived, by any sensible person, through his concealed ridicule. And it must be acknowledged that, for the most part, it is so; though, in some particular places, it is hard to know whether he be in jest or earnest. By this covered way of ridicule he sometimes steals upon the reader before he is aware, and, under the guise of a friend, gives a more dangerous blow, than if he had acted the part of an open and avowed enemy.

Upon the whole it may be justly said, that in this noble and ingenious author we have a remarkable instance of the wrong application of that talent of ridicule, of which he was so great a master. And if it has succeeded ill in his hands, how much more may it be expected to do so in those who, for want of his genius, are not able to rise above low buffoonery, nor capable of distinguishing gross and scurrilous raillery and scandal from wit and delicate ridicule! His Lordship hath since had many awkward imitators, and probably will have more, who will be apt to apply his test of ridicule, not only, as he himself hath given them an example, against revealed religion, but against all religion, even that which is called natural, and against that virtue, of which, in his serious moods, he hath professed himself so great an admirer.

I shall conclude my account of this celebrated author with observing, that the Characteristics have been attacked, or at least some particular passages in them have been occasionally animadverted upon by several learned writers, by Bishop Berkley, Dr. Wotton, Dr. Warburton, and others. That part of his Lordship's scheme which represents a regard to future rewards, as derogating from the dignity and excellence of virtue, hath been particularly considered by Mr. Balguy, in a short but judicious tract, written, like his other tracts, in a very polite and masterly manner. It is intitled, A Letter to a Deist, concerning the Beauty and Excellency of Moral Virtue, and the Support and Improvement which it receives from the Christian Revelation, 8vo. 1729. But I know of none that has undertaken to answer the whole, but Mr. (now) Dr. John Brown, in a treatise intitled, Essays on the Characteristics, published in 1750. This work is divided into three essays; the first is on ridicule, considered as a test of truth; the second is on the obligations of men to virtue, and the necessity of religious principles; the third is on the revealed religion and Christianity. Under these several heads, he hath considered whatever appeared to be most obnoxious in the writings of our noble author.

Characteristics, vol. i. p. 63, vol. iii. p. 225.

The length of this letter may seem to need an apology. But you, I know, will agree with me, that as it was proper, in pursuance of the design in which I am engaged, to take notice of this admired writer, so it was necessary to make such observations as might help to obviate the prejudices so many are apt to entertain in his favour, to the disadvantage even of Christianity itself.

LETTER VI.

The Account given of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Writings in the foregoing Letter, vindicated against the Exceptions that had been made against it.-The being influenced by the Hope of the Reward promised in the Gospel hath nothing in it disingenuous and slavish.—It is not inconsistent with loving Virtue for its own sake, but tends rather to heighten our Esteem for its Worth and Amiableness.-The Earl of Shaftesbury seems, in his Inquiry concerning Virtue, to erect such a Scheme of Virtue as is independent of Religion, and may subsist without it.-The Apology he makes for doing so.-The close Connection there is between Religion and Virtue shown from his own Principles and Acknowledgments.-Virtue not wholly confined to good Actions towards Mankind, but takes in proper Affections towards the Deity as an essential Part of it.-He acknowledges that Man is born to Religion. -A remarkable Passage of Lord Bolingbroke's to the same Purpose.

SIR,

WHEN I first published the View of the Deistical Writers, the foregoing letter contained the whole of what I then intended with regard to the observations on the Earl of Shaftesbury. But not long after the publication of it, some persons, who profess to be real friends to Christianity, and I doubt not are so, let me know that they wished I had not put his Lordship into the list of deistical writers; and they thought the charge against him had in some instances been carried too far. This put me upon revising what I had written relating to that matter with great care; and if I had found just cause to think, that in this instance I had been mistaken in the judgment I had formed, I should have thought myself obliged publicly to acknowledge it. For when I formed the design of taking a view of the deistical writers, I fixed it as a rule to myself, to make a fair representation, as far as I was able, of the sentiments of those writers, and not to push the charge against them farther than there appeared to me to be just ground for. And it would have given me a real pleasure to have reason to rank so fine a writer as the Earl of Shaftesbury among the friends of the Christian cause. But upon the most impartial inquiry I was able to make, I have not seen reason to retract any thing I had offered with regard to that noble Lord. I thought it necessary, therefore, in the Supplement to the View of the Deistical Writers, to publish a letter on that subject, which I shall here subjoin to the preceding one,

that the reader may have all before him which relates to that noble writer in one view.

It can scarce, I think, be denied by any impartial person who hath read the Characteristics without prejudice, which are the only works he avowed, and which had his last hand, that there are several passages in them, which seem plainly intended to expose Christianity and the holy Scriptures. And there is great reason to apprehend, that not a few have heen unwarily led to entertain unhappy prejudices against revealed religion, and the authority of the Scriptures, through too great an admiration of his Lordship's writings. Some instances of this kind have come under my own particular observation; and therefore it appeareth to me, upon the most mature consideration, that I could not, in consistency with the design I had in view, omit the making some observations upon that admired author, as far as the cause of Christianity is concerned.

That part of my observations on Lord Shaftesbury's works which I find hath been particularly excepted against, is the account given of his sentiments with regard to future rewards and punishments. It hath been urged, that his design in what he has written on this subject was, not to insinuate that we ought not to be influenced by a regard to future rewards and punishments, the usefulness of which he plainly acknowledgeth; but only to show, that it is wrong to be actuated merely by a view to the reward, or by a fear of the punishment, without any real inward love to virtue, or any real hatred and abhorrence of vice. To this purpose his Lordship observes, that "to be bribed only, or terrified into an honest practice, bespeaks little of real honesty or worth; and that if virtue be not really estimable in itself, he can see nothing estimable in following it for the sake of a bargain."* He asks, "how shall we deny that to serve God by compulsion, or for interest merely, is servile and mercenary? And he puts the case of a person's being incited by the hope of reward to do the good he hates, and restrained by the fear of punishment from doing the ill to which he is not otherwise in the least degree averse;" and observes, that "there is in this case no virtue whatsoever." If his Lordship had said no more than this, he would have said no more than every real friend to Christianity will allow; though in this case there would still be great reason to complain of his Lordship's having made a very unfair representation of the sense of those divines who think it necessary to urge the motives drawn from future rewards and punishments. It is true, that if the belief of future retributions should have no other effect than the putting some restraint upon men's outward evil actions, and regulating their external behaviour, even this would be of great advantage to the community; but this is far from being the only or principal thing intended. Those certainly must know little of the nature and tendency of the Christian religion, who should endeavour to persuade themselves or others, that though a

* Characteristics, vol. 1. p. 97. + Ibid. vol. ii. p. 272.

Ibid. p. 55.

man had a real love of vice in his heart, and only abstained from some outward vicious practices for fear of punishment, and though he had an inward aversion to true goodness and virtue, and only performed some outward acts that had a fair appearance; this alone would denominate him a good man, and intitle him to the future reward; for this were to suppose, that though he were really a vicious and bad man, without that purity and sincerity of heart on which the Scriptures lay so great a stress, yet the practising some external acts of obedience, destitute of all true goodness and of virtuous affections, would intitle him to the favour of God, and to that eternal happiness which is promised in the gospel. If any persons should teach this, I would readily join with his Lordship in condemning them. But he hath not contented himself with striking at the supposed wrong sentiments of divines, whom he loves on all occasions to expose. There are several passages in his Lordship's writings which appear to be directly intended to represent the insisting, so much as is done in the gospel, upon the eternal rewards and punishments of a future state, as having a bad influence on the moral temper, and particularly as tending to strengthen an inordinate selfishness, and to diminish the affections towards public good, and to make men neglect what they owe to their friends, and to their country. He plainly intimates the disadvantages accruing to virtue from the having infinite rewards in view, and that in that case the common and natural motives to goodness are apt to be neglected, and lose much by disuse. He represents the being influenced by a regard to future rewards and punishments as at the best disingenuous, servile, and of the slavish kind; and to this he opposes a liberal service, and the principle of love, and the loving God and virtue for God and virtue's sake;+ and accordingly he determines, that those duties, to which men are carried without any view to such rewards, are for that reason more noble and excellent, and argue a higher degree of virtue. If the case really were as his Lordship is pleased to represent it, it must certainly give a very disadvantageous idea of Christianity; as if the insisting upon those most important motives, drawn from a future eternal world, which our Saviour came to set in the strongest light, tended to introduce and cherish a wrong temper of mind, narrow and selfish, disingenuous and servile, to weaken our benevolent affections both public and private, and to take us off from the duties and offices of the civil and social life. At that rate it could not be said that the gospel is a friend to society and to mankind; and instead of promoting the practice of true virtue, it would rather derogate from it, and degrade it from its proper dignity and excellence. It was therefore necessary to show, as I endeavoured to do in my observations on Lord Shaftesbury's writings, that this is far from being a just representation of the nature and tendency of the Christian doctrine of future

Several passages to this purpose were produced out of the Characteristics in the preceding Letter, which I need not here repeat.

+ See Characteristics, vol. ii. p. 271, 272, 273.