languages, and his words had miraculously conveyed the same ideas to
all persons; yet he could not speak more plainly than he has done by the
things themselves, and the relation which reason shows there is
between them. Nay, since it is impossible in any book, or books, that
a particular rule could be given for every case, we must even then have
had recourse to the light of nature to teach us our duty in most cases;
especially considering the numberless circumstances which attend us, and
which, perpetually varying, may make the same actions, according as men
are differently affected by them, either good or bad. And I may add,
that most of the particular rules laid down in the gospel for our
direction, are spoken after such figurative a manner, that except we
judge of their meaning, not merely by the letter, but by what the law
of nature antecedently declares to be our duty, they are apt to lead
us wrong. And if precepts relating to morality are delivered after an
obscure manner, when they might have been delivered otherwise; what
reason can you assign, for its being so, but that infinite wisdom meant
to refer us to that law for the explaining them? Sufficient instances
of this nature I shall give you hereafter, though I must own, I
cannot carry this point so far as a learned divine, who represents the
Scriptures more obscure (which one would think impossible) than even the
fathers. He tells us, 'that a certain author (viz., Flaccus Illyricus)
has furnished us with one-and-fifty reasons for the obscurity of the
Scriptures;' adding, 'I think I may truly say that the writing of the
prophets and apostles abound with tropes, and metaphors, types, and
allegories, parables, and dark speeches; and are as much, nay, much more
unintelligible in many places, than the writings of the ancients.' It
is well this author, who talks of people being stark Bible-mad, stopped
here; and did not with a celebrated wit * cry, 'The truly illuminated
books are the darkest of all.' The writer above mentioned supposes it
impossible, that God's will should be fully revealed by books; 'except,'
says he, 'it might be said perhaps without a figure, that even the world
itself could not contain the books which should be written.' But with
submission to this reverend person, I cannot help thinking, but that
(such is the divine goodness) God's will is so clearly and fully
manifested in the Book of Nature, that he who runs may read it."
* Dean Swift--"Tale of a Tub."
In the next extract we make, we find Tindal quoting two striking
passages from Lord Shaftesbury, followed by an acute vindication of the
integrity of the Law of Nature over the Scriptures:--
"Had the heathen distinguished themselves by creeds made out of spite
to one another, and mutually persecuted each other about the worship of
their gods, they would soon have made the number of their votaries as
few as the gods they worshipped; but we don't find (except in Egypt,
that mother-land of superstition) that they ever quarrelled about their
gods; though their gods sometimes quarrelled, and fought about their
votaries. By the universal liberty that was allowed by the ancients,
'Matters (as a noble author observes) were so balanced, that reason had
fair play; learning and science flourished; wonderful was the harmony
and temper which arose from these contrarieties. Thus superstition and
enthusiasm were mildly treated; and being let alone, they never raged
to that degree as to occasion bloodshed, wars, persecutions, and
devastations; but a new sort of policy has made us leap the bounds of
natural humanity, and out of a supernatural charity, has taught us the
way of plaguing one another most devoutly. It has raised an antipathy,
that no temporal interest could ever do, and entailed on us a mutual
hatred to all eternity. And savage zeal, with meek and pious semblance,
works dreadful massacre; and for heaven's sake (horrid pretence) makes
desolate the earth.' And further, Shaftesbury observes, 'The Jupiter
of Strangers, was, among the ancients, one of the solemn characters
of divinity, the peculiar attribute of the supreme deity; benign to
mankind, and recommending universal love, mutual kindness, and benignity
between the remotest and most unlike of the human race. Such was the
ancient heathen charity and pious duty towards the whole of mankind;
both those of different nations and different worship. But, good God!
how different a character do bigots give us of the Deity, making him an
unjust, cruel, and inconsistent Being; requiring all men to judge for
themselves, and act according to their consciences; and yet authorizing
some among them to judge for others, and to punish them for not acting
according to the consciences of those judges, though ever so much
against their own. These bigots thought they were authorized to punish
all those that differ with them in their religious worship, as God's
enemies; but had they considered that God alone could discern men's
hearts, and alone discover whether any, by conscientiously offering him
a wrong worship, could become his enemies; and that infinite wisdom best
knew how to proportion the punishment to the fault, as well as infinite
power how to inflict it; they would, surely, have left it to God to
judge for himself, in a cause which immediately related to himself; and
where they were not so much as parties concerned, and as likely to be
mistaken as those they would punish. Can one, without horror, think
of men's breaking through all the rules of doing as they would be done
unto, in order to set themselves up for standards of truth for God as
well as man? Do not these impious wretches suppose, that God is not able
to judge for himself; at least, not able to execute his own judgment?
And that, therefore, he has recourse, forsooth, to their superior
knowledge or power; and they are to revenge his injuries, root out his
enemies, and restore his lost honor, though with the destruction of the
better part of mankind? But, to do the propagators of these blasphemous
notions justice, they do not throw this load of scandal on the law of
Nature, or so much as pretend from thence to authorize their execrable
principles; but endeavor to support them by traditional religion;
especially by mis-interpreted texts from the Old Testament; and thereby
make, not only natural and revealed religion, but the Old and New
Testament (the latter of which requires doing good both to Jews and
Gentiles) contradict each other. But to return; if what the light of
Nature teaches us concerning the divine perfections, when duly attended
to, is not only sufficient to hinder us from falling into superstition
of any kind whatever; but, as I have already shown, demonstrates what
God, from his infinite wisdom and goodness, can, or cannot command; how
is it possible that the law of Nature and grace can differ? How can
it be conceived, that God's laws, whether internally, or externally
revealed, are not at all times the same, when the author of them is, and
has been immutably the same forever?'"
The following passage exhibits the judicious mixture of authority and
argument for which our author is remarkable. The quotation is a good
illustration of Tindal's best manner. He is replying to Dr. Samuel
Clark:--
"It cannot be imputed to any defect in the light of nature, that the
pagan world ran into idolatry, but to their being entirely governed by
priests, who pretended communication with their gods, and to have
thence their revelations, which they imposed on the credulous as divine
oracles: whereas the business of the Christian dispensation was to
destroy all those traditional revelations; and restore, free from all
idolatry, the true primitive, and natural religion, implanted in mankind
from the creation. The Dr. (Clark) however, seems afraid, lest he had
allowed too much to the light of nature, in relation to the discovery of
our duty both to God and man; and not left room for revelation to make
any addition; he therefore supposes, 'there are some duties, which
nature hints at only in general.'--But, if we cannot, without highly
reflecting on the wisdom and goodness of God, suppose that he has not,
at all times, given the whole rational creation a plain rule for their
conduct, in relation to those duties they owe to God, themselves, and
one another; must we not suppose reason, and religion (that rule of all
other rules) inseparable; so that no rational creature can be ignorant
of it, who attends to the dictates of his own mind; I mean, as far as
it is necessary for him to know it! An ignorant peasant may know what is
sufficient for him, without knowing as much as the learned rector of St.
James's. Though the Dr. says, 'the knowledge of the law of nature is,
in fact, by no means universal;' yet he asserts, that 'man is plainly in
his own nature an accountable creature;' which supposes that the light
of nature plainly, and undeniably, teaches him that law, for breach of
which he is naturally accountable; and did not the Dr. believe this
law to be universal, he could not infer a future judgment from the
conscience _all_ men have of their actions, or the judgment they pass on
them in their own minds whereby 'They that have not any law, are a law
unto themselves; their consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts
accusing, or excusing one another;' which is supposing but one law,
whether that law be written on paper, or in men's hearts only; and that
all men by the judgment they pass on their own actions, are conscious
of this law. And, the apostle Paul, though quoted by the Dr., is so far
from favoring his hypothesis of any invincible ignorance, even in the
wisest and best of the philosophers, that he, by saying, The Gentiles,
that have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,
makes the law of nature and grace to be the same: and supposes the
reason why they were to be punished, was their sinning against light and
knowledge. That which may be known of God was manifest in them, and when
they knew God, they glorified him not as God. And they were likewise
guilty of abominable corruptions, not ignorantly, but knowing the
judgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death.
"Had the Dr. but considered this self-evident proposition, that there
can be no transgression where there is no law; and that an unknown law
is the same as no law; and consequently, that all mankind, at all times,
must be capable of knowing all (whether more or less) that God requires,
it would have prevented his endeavoring to prove, that, till the gospel
dispensation, mankind were entirely, and unavoidably ignorant of their
duty in several important points; and thus charging the light of
nature with undeniable defects. I think it no compliment to external
revelation, though the Dr. designed it as the highest, to say, it
prevailed, when the light of nature was, as he supposes, in a manner
extinct; since then an irrational religion might as easily obtain, as
a rational one. The Dr., to prove that revelation has supplied the
insufficiency, and undeniable defects of the light of nature, refers us
to Phil., iv., 1, which he introduces after this pompous manner:--'Let
any man of an honest and sincere mind consider, whether that practical
doctrine has not, even in itself, the greatest marks of a divine
original, wherein whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things
are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if
there be any virtue, it there be anything praiseworthy; all these, and
these only, are earnestly recommended to man's practice.' I would ask
the Dr., how he can know what these are, which are thus alone earnestly
recommended to man's practice; or, why they have, in themselves, the
greatest marks of a divine original; but from the light of nature? Nay,
how can the Dr. know there are defects in the light of nature, but from
that light itself? which supposes this light is all we have to trust
to; and consequently, all the Dr. has been doing, on pretence of
promoting the honor of revelation, is introducing universal scepticism.
And I am concerned, and grieved, to see a man, who had so great a share
of the light of nature, employing it to expose that light, of which
before he had given the highest commendation; and which can have no
other effect, than to weaken even his own demonstration, drawn from that
light, for the being of a God. I shall mention but one text more,
which, had not the Dr. thought it highly to his purpose, for showing the
insufficiency of the light of nature, he would not have ushered it in
after this most solemn manner:--'When men have put themselves into this
temper and frame of mind, let them try if they can any longer reject the
evidence of the gospel. If any man will do his will, he shall know
of the doctrine; whether it be of God.' Is it not strange, to see so
judicious a divine write after such a manner, as if he thought the
best way to support the dignity of revelation, was to derogate from the
immutable and eternal law of nature? and while he is depressing it,
extol revelation for those very things it borrows from that law? in
which, though he asserts there are undeniable defects, yet he owns that
God governs all his own actions by it, and expects that all men should
so govern theirs.
"But, I find the Dr.'s own brother, the Dean of Sa-rum, is entirely of
my mind, as to those texts the Dr. quotes--viz., Rom. ii., 14, and
Phil, iv., 8. As to the first--viz., Rom. ii., 14, he says, 'The apostle
supposes, that the moral law is founded in the nature and reason of
things: that every man is endued with such powers and faculties of mind,
as render him capable of seeing, and taking notice of this law; and also
with such a sense and judgment of the reasonableness and fitness of
conforming his actions to it, that he cannot but in his own mind acquit
himself when he does so; and condemn himself when he does otherwise.'
And as to the second--viz., Phil, iv., 8, where the same apostle
recommends the practice of Virtue, upon the fore-mentioned principles
of comeliness and reputation.--'These principles,' says he, 'if duly
attended to, were sufficient to instruct men in the whole of their duty
towards themselves, and towards each other. And they would also have
taught them their duty towards God, their Creator and Governor, if they
had diligently pursued them. For according as the apostle expresses it,
Rom. i., 20, the invisible things of God from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead. The same fitness and decency that appears
in men's regular behavior towards each other, appears also in their
behavior towards God. And this, likewise, is founded in the nature and
reason of things; and is what the circumstances and condition they are
in do absolutely require. Thus we see therein moral virtue, or good
consists, and what the obligation to it is from its own native beauty
and excellency.'"
One more example of Tindal's style will show how skilfully and cogently
he forced, the great authorities of his day to bear Witness to the truth
of his leading proposition, the natural antiquity of all the reasonable
precepts of the Bible:--
"The most accurate Dr. Barrow gives this character of the Christian
religion, 'That its precepts are no other than such as physicians
prescribe for the health of our bodies; as politicians would allow to be
needful for the peace of the state; as Epicurean philosophers recommend
for the tranquillity of our minds, and pleasures of our lives; such
as reason dictates, and daily shows conducive to our welfare in all
respects; which consequently, were there no law enacting them, we should
in wisdom choose to observe, and voluntarily impose them on ourselves;
confessing them to be fit matters of law, and most advantageous and
requisite to the good, general and particular, of mankind.'
"That great and good man Dr. Tillotson says, 'That all the precepts
of Christianity are reasonable and wise, requiring such duties as are
suitable to the light of nature, and do approve themselves to the best
reason of mankind; such as have their foundation in the nature of God,
and are an imitation of the divine excellencies; such as tend to the
perfection of human nature, and to raise the minds of men to the highest
pitch of goodness and virtue. They command nothing that is unnecessary,
they omit nothing that may tend to the glory of God, or the welfare of
men, nor do they restrain us in anything, but what is contrary to the
regular inclinations of nature, or to our reason, and true interest;
they forbid us nothing but what is base and unworthy to serve our humors
and passions, to make ourselves fools and beasts. In a word, nothing but
what tends to our private harm, or prejudice, or to public disorder and
confusion.'
"The late Dean of Canterbury, in a sermon preached in defence of
Christianity, says, * 'What can be a more powerful incentive to
obedience, than for a rational creature clearly to discern the equity,
the necessity, the benefit, the decency and beauty of every action
he is called to do, and thence to be duly sensible how gracious a
master he serves; one that is so far from loading him with fruitless,
arbitrary, and tyrannical impositions, that each command abstracted
from his command who issues it, is able to recommend itself; and nothing
required but what every wise man would choose of his accord: and cannot,
without being his own enemy, wish to be exempted from?' And this
character of Christianity he makes to be essential to its being from
God, and therefore must make it the same with natural religion, which
has this character impressed on it.
"'There was none of the doctrines of our Saviour (says the late
Archbishop of York) ** calculated for the gratification of men's
idle curiosities, the busying and amusing them with airy and useless
speculations; much less were they intended for an exercise of our
credulity, or a trial how far we could bring our reason to submit to our
faith; but as on the one hand they were plain and simple, and such as
by their agreeable-ness to the rational faculties of mankind, did highly
recommend themselves to our belief; so on the other hand they had an
immediate relation to practice, and were the general principles and
foundation, on which all human and divine virtues were naturally to be
superstructed.'
* Boyle's Lect., p. 26,
** Sermon before the Queen on Christmas Day, 1724.
"Does not every one see, that if the religion of nature had been put
instead of Christianity, these descriptions would have exactly agreed
with it? The judicious Dr. Scot affirms, 'God never imposes laws on us
_pro imperio_, as arbitrary tests and trials of our obedience. The great
design of them (says he,) is to do us good, and direct our actions to
our own interest. This, if we firmly believe, will infinitely encourage
our obedience; for when I am sure God commands me nothing but what my
own health, ease, and happiness requires; and that every law of his is
both a necessary and sovereign prescription against the diseases of
my nature, and he could not prescribe less than he has, without being
defective in his care of my recovery and happiness; with what prudence
and modesty can I grudge to obey him?'
"Nay, the most considerate men, even among the Papists, do not scruple
to maintain there's nothing in religion but what is moral. The divines
of Port Royal for instance, say, 'All the precepts, and all the
mysteries that are expressed in so many different ways in the holy
volumes, do all centre in this one commandment of loving God with all
our heart, and in loving our neighbors as ourselves: for the Scripture
(it is St. Austin who says it) forbids but one only thing, which is
concupiscence, or the love of the creature; as it commands but one only
thing, which is charity, and the love of God. Upon this double precept
is founded the whole system of the Christian religion; and it is unto
this, say they, according to the expression of Jesus Christ, that all
the ancient law and the prophets have reference; and we may add also,
all the mysteries, and all the precepts of the new law; for love, says
St. Paul, is the fulfilling of the law.' And these divines likewise cite
a remarkable passage of St. Austin on this subject, viz., 'He that knows
how to love God, and to regulate his life by that love, knows all that
the Scripture propounds to be known.' And might add the authority of
a greater man, and a Papist too, * who says, 'Religion adds nothing
to natural probity, but the consolation of doing that for love and
obedience to our Heavenly Father, which reason itself requires us do in
favor of virtue.'"
* Archbishop of Cambray: Lettres sur la Religion,
p. 258, a Paris.
Tindal was a solid, rather than a brilliant writer: but he perfectly
knew what he was about; and the work from which we quote, was well
conceived and carefully executed. His ground was skilfully chosen, his
arguments were placed on an eminence where his friends could see them,
and where his enemies could not assail them. Dr. Leland, in his view of
Deistical writers, is quite in a rage with him, because he discredits
Book Revelation, to set up Nature's Revelation. His real offence
was, that he did prove that Nature was the only source of truth and
reason--the criterion by which even Divine Revelation must be judged.
He carried men back to the gospel of nature, by the side of which the
gospel of the Jewish fishermen did not show to advantage. Tindal did
put something in the place of that which he was supposed desirous
of removing. How unwilling Christians of that day were to admit of
improvement in religion, is shown by the number of attacks Tindal's work
sustained. The Bishop of London published a "Second Pastoral Letter"
against it; Dr. Thomas Burnet "confuted" it; Mr. Law "fully" answered
it; Dr. Stebbing "obviated the principal objections" in it. "The same
learned and judicious writer," observes Leland, a second time entered
the lists, in "answer to the fourteenth chapter of a book, entitled
'Christianity as Old as the Creation.'" Mr. Balgny issued a "Second
Letter to a Deist," occasioned by Tindal's work. Mr. Anthony O'Key gave
a short view of the whole controversy. Dr. Foreter, Dr. John Conybeare,
"particularly engaged public attention" as Dr. Tindal's antagonists.
Mr. Simon Brown produced a "solid and excellent" answer; and Dr. Leland,
with many blushes, tells us that he himself issued in Dublin, in 1773,
two volumes, taking a wider compass than the other answers.
"Christianity as Old as the Creation" is a work which Freethinkers may
yet consult with advantage, as a repertory of authorities no longer
accessible to the readers of this generation. What these authorities
allege will be found to have intrinsic value, to be indeed lasting
testimonies in favor of Rationalism. In passing in review the noble
truths, Tindal insists that it is impossible not to wonder at the
policy, or rather want of policy displayed by Christians. Tindal is an
author whom they might be proud of, if they were really in love with
reason. Tindal's opponents have shown how instinctively the children of
faith distrust the truths of Nature. After all the "refutations," and
"confutations" and answers made to the great Deist, Tin-dal's work
has maintained its ground, and the truths he so ably and spiritedly
vindicated, have spread wider since and taken deeper root.
J. W.
DAVID HUME
Lord Brougham has rendered service not only to "Letters," but also to
Freethought, by his admirable "Lives," incomparably the best we have,
of Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Gibbon, etc. From Lord Brougham we learn
(whose life in this sketch we follow) that David Hume, related to the
Earl of Hume's family, was born in Edinburgh, in April, 1711. Refusing
to be made a lawyer, he was sent, in 1734, to a mercantile house in
Bristol. The "desk" not suiting the embryo historian's genius, we find
him in 1737 at La Flèche, in Anjou, writing his still-born "Treatise on
Human Nature;" which in 1742, in separate Essays, attracted some notice.
Keeper and companion to the Marquis of Annandale in 1745, private
secretary to General St. Clair in 1747, he visited on embassy the courts
of Vienna and Turin. While at Turin he completed his "Inquiry Concerning
the Human Understanding," the "Treatise on Human Nature" in a new form.
Returned to Scotland, he published his "Political Discourses" in 1752,
and the same year his "Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals."
The "Essays, Moral and Metaphysical," are the form in which we now read
these speculations. In 1752, Hume became librarian to the Faculty of
Advocates. In 1754 he published the first volume of his "History of
England." In 1755, appeared his "Natural History of Religion." In
1763 he accompanied the British ambassador to Paris. In 1765 he became
_charge d'affaires_.
In 1766 he was appointed Under Secretary of State under Marshal Conway.
In 1775 he was seized with a mortal disease, which he bore without any
abatement of his cheerfulness; and on the 25th of August, "_le bon_
David," as he was styled in Paris, died, to use his own words,
having "no enemies--except all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the
Christians"--which was something to his honor, and a testimony of the
usefulness of his life.
David Hume was the first writer who gave historical distinction to Great
Britain. Lord John Russell remarked in a speech at Bristol, in October,
1854:--"We have no other 'History of England' than Hume's....
When a young man of eighteen asks for a 'History of England,' there is
no resource but to give him Hume." Hume was the author of the modern
doctrines of politics and political economy, which now rule the world of
science. He was "the sagacious unfolder of truth, the accurate and bold
discoverer of popular error." More than a sceptic, he was an Atheist.
Such is Lord Brougham's judgment of him.