,*i' i.
*'>
m&
tl|e Htbrarii nf
Prinrrtan Sl^riilngiral S^^mtnarQ
-». ' a.
Jsii^^^i^
1
THE
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKS
Of chelate Reverend and Learned
CONYERS MIDDLETON, D.D.
Principal Librarian of the Univerfity of Cambridge*
In FIVE VOLUMES.
VOL. III.
THE SECOND EDITION.
LONDON,
Printed for R. Man by in the Old Bailey ^ near
Ltidgat^' hilly and H. S. Cox in Pater-nofierRow,
MDCCLV.
THE
CONTENTS
O F T H E
Third Volume.
I. A Letter to Br, IVaterland. page ^
^ II. A Defence of the Letter to Dr. J^Va-
terlandy i^c, p. 6<^
III. Some Remarks on a Reply to the Defence
of the Letter to Dr. Waterland. p. 167
IV. Remarks on fome Ohfervations, &c.
p. 251
V. Remarks^ Paragraph by Paragraph, upon
the Prcpofals lately publijhed by Richard Bentley^
^c. p. 281
VI. Some farther Remarks, Paragraph by Pa-
ragraph, upon Propofals, &c. p. 337
VII. A P able of fome of our Editor^ s apparent
Contradictions and falfe Affertiuns obfo ved in the
foregoing Remarks, p. 461
A LET.
A
LETTER
T O
Dr. JVATERLJND;
Containing fome Remarks on his
Vindication of Scripture :
In Anfwer to a Book, intituled,
Chrijli unity as old as the Creation^
Together with
The SKETCH or PLAN
O F
Another Anfwer to the faid Book.
Vol. III.
LETTER
T O
Dn TV A r E R L A N D.
SIR,
I HAVE lately read a Piece of yours^ called.
Scripture Vindicated^ in anfwer to a Book,
intituledy Chriftianity as old as the Creation^
I fat down to it, I confefs, with fome kind of
eagernefs •, expe6bing from the great reputation
of your name, as well as the great importance
of the fubjed, to find in it fomething folid and
convincing, anfwerable to the difficulty of the
tafk you had undertaken, of reconciling all the
exceptionable pajfages of Scripture to reafon and
morality,
But I had not entered far, before I perceived
the vanity of my expedation, and forefaw thq
difappointment I was like to fuffer in my hopes
of entertainment and fatisfa6lion from a work,
which partly from its own nature, but efpe-
cially from your method of handling it, feems
calculated rather to raife new fcruples^ than to
quiet old ones \ and to expofe the Scripture you
A 2 ^'^^
A Letter to Dr, Waterland, containing
are vindicating to frefh ridicule and contempt,
than to convince either the Author you have to
deal with, or any others of fceptical and unfettled
minds : the reafons of which opinion I fhall
without further preface or ceremony proceed tq
explain to you very freely.
Your Introduction begins by opening to us
the defign of the Author you are confuting ;
telling us, that his book is a declamatory libel
againft revealed Religion^ under colour of Jetting
up natural Religion in its place -, that he difco-
vers in it two principal ends ; the one, to vilify
the holy Scripture ; the other^ to magnify the law
cf Nature : In the firfl, you own he deals frank-
ly and from his h^art ; in the latter, you charge
him with hypocrify and diflimulation ; aflur-
ing us, that all he fays is but flam, and that in
reality he is no more a friend to natural Religion
than he is to revealed.
This you fupport by declaring that Natural
Religion is fo bound up in Revealed, that they
cannot fuhfjji feparately -, muft ftand or fall toge-
ther \ and confequently, if he had been a friend
to one, it is not conceivable how he could be an
adverfary to the other.
But this, Sir, I'm afraid, will make but little
imprefTion on your adverfary \ will pafs with
him for mcer begging the queftion ; meer words
without weight or confequence -, or what's ftill
worfe.
fomt Remarks on his Vindication of Scripture,
Worfe, will, when examined, be found to be
falfe : for had not Natural Religion a fubfift-
ence before Chriftianity was ever known to tlie
World ? and did not many by its fole influence
attain to fuch an exalted degree of virtue, as
few or none have ever fince arrived at ? and at
this very day in Mahometan and Idolatrous Na-
tions, where Chrijiianity has no influence, is it
not neceffary to imagine, that there are many,
who by the meer light of Reafon fee through
the cheat of the popular Religion, and by ita
help form to themfelves fome other more ra-
tional rule of life and manners ; and lallly, in
our own as well as other Chriflian countries,
however inconceivable it may be to you, yet all
who know any thing of the world, will eafily
conceive, and actually find it a very commoa
cafe, to meet with men who with little or no
regard for Revealed Religion, yet exprefs both
by words and adions a great reverence for
Natural •, of which number your Author, for
any thing I know, or you have faid to the
contrary, may pofllbly be one : for fince in
every part of his work he proiefi[es a very high
notion of the excellency of Reafcn, Truth and
Virtue •, profelTes to believe a God, a Rr evidence,
a future ft ate ; both reafon and charity oblige us
to look upon him as fincere, till we are forced
to think otherwife by fome particular know-
ledge or information of his real life and eha-
tadler.
A 3 But
A Letter to Dr. Waterland, containing
But no thanks, you tell us, are due, to per-
fons for commending Virtue^ which all the world
admires^ and envy itfelf mujl praife^ and which
even its enemies are forced to pay a reverence and
veneration to. Now is not this a little incon-
fiftent, to charge men with a defign to over-
throw what themfelves, and all the world be-
fides, mufl neceflarily admire and pay a vene-
ration to ? and though their reverence, as you
fay, is but an aukward one., and what they are
forced to againft their wills ; yet is it polTible
to entertain a thought of deftroying what the
nature and necejfity of things force them to reve-
rence ? What you mean by an aukward reve-
rence., I don't well underlland •, but am certain,
that if aukwardnefs be a mark of infmcerity,
then Orthodoxy mufl: needs be undone, fince I
know none who pay their reverence fo aukward-
ly as fome of its principal champions.
You next explain the purpofe of your own
work ; defigned, you fay, to refcue the word of
God from mifreprefentation and cenfiire^ from the
reproaches and hlafphemies of fooliflj men : and 'tis
matter of melancholy conjideration to You, that
there fjjould be found men fo abando7ted and profti-
gate^ as to fJmt their eyes againfl light ; affront
God to his face ; take a pride in throwing him
hack his favours. But how melancholy foever
this confideration may be, we ought not ftill,
it feems, to be fhocked or fcandalized at it, for
two rcafons. Firil, becaufe it was prophefied,
that
fo>ne Remarks on his Vindication of Scripture.
that there Jhotdd come /coffers in the laft days ;
yet all the inftances you give are of fuch as
came in the jirfi days. Secondly, becaufe // is
certainly known with what views., and upon what
motives they do it., being all an abandoned and
profligate fet of men \ taking a pride in affronting
God to his face \ whofe affe^ions are corrupt., whofe
deeds evil •, the fecret of whofe counfels is to ficel
mens hearts againfl a judgment to come., and lead
them blindfold into Hell ♦, whofe real and onely aim
is to reduce the laws of God to the lufis and paf-
ftons of men •, to fJoake off all religious reflraints^
that they may h -at liberty to follow thdr plea-
fur es.^ &c.
But this, good Dodlor, to fpeak freely, is not
reafoning but ratling ; or, to ufe your own
words [^], ftjews more of a difpofition to revile^
than to mgue and debate ; and till 'tis fupported
by fads aiid proofs fufficient to convince men
of fenfe, will always pafs with fuch for the crude
and fenfelefs cant of Bigots, the common-place
fluff of declamatory Preachers : for every man,
who has pradlifed the world, and ufed the con-
verfation of men of letters, mull needs have
met with many perfons of much feeming honor,
virtue, and fobriety of life, who ^2iVtXy profefs to
have fcruples., partly an entire difhelief of- all Re-
velation : and what way, think you, is the moft
likely to convince men of this charader,? Is it
poflible to work any good upon them by the
^ A method
A Letter to Dr. Waterland, containing
method you here take ^ by telling them that they
are profligate and abandoned^ contemners of Gody
and enemies to Man ? Is not fuch treatment iure
to have a contrary efFedl I and being confcious
to themfelves, that your charge upon them is
both falfe and malicious, inftead of confidering
your book, as a charitable attempt to recover a
foul from ruin, they will rejed it with fcorn,
as an infamous and fcandalous libel.
After this general charge on all who cavil at
Scripture, you defcend to fix it more particu-
larly on the Author you have to do with : this
you do, firfl, by citing two paffages from fome
private letters, as you call them •, fignifying that
the intention of the writer of them was to fave a
foul from the difmal apprehenfions of eternal dam-
nation \ or from the uneafinefs of min4 which he
is often under when pkafure and Chriftianity come
in competition. What Letters thefe are I know
not, but prefume, that you have reafon to know
the Author of them to be the Author like wife of
the hook you are confuting •, or elfe with what
fenfe or juftice can you impute to one man what
another has faid or written ? but you add im-
mediately, this is the noble and generous aim
which the Writer I am concerned with boafts of in
his Preface. This indeed is charging him home
with the fame fentiments ; if he not onely avows
them, but boafls of them: for who could colled
or imagine any thing lefs from your words ?
but I was much furprized, when confulting his
Preface
fome Remarks on his Vindication of Scripture.
Preface on the occafion, I could not find a fyl-
lable of the letters or paffages juft mentioned,
nor any fentiments at all like them, but the
mention onely of a noble and generous defign^ in
having, as he imagined, contrived rules tp
diftinguifh between Religion and Superftition.
Such a difingenuous way of forming an indict-
ment mud needs appear odious not onely to
the enemiesy but much more to the friends of a
Religion, which prohibits fo feverely all rajb
cenfure i prefcribes the utmofi candour and charitj
towards all men, and will not bear a railing ac-
cufation even againft the Devil himfelf.
From charging him with other peoples fenti-
ments, you come at laft to convidt him by his
own ; telling us, that he gives broad hints in one
place ^ that he looks upon incontinence in fingle per-
fons hs one of the rights allowed by the Law of
Nature^ If by incontinence he means, what you
feem to fuppofe, the cohabiting of fingle perfons
of each fex for the propagation of the fpecieSy
^without the intervention of a Rriefl^ or any other
formality hut mutual confent \ had his hints been
ftill broader'^ they are but agreeable to the prin-
ciples he maintains ; nor will he find much
difficulty in defending them by the Laws of
Reafon and Nature -, and I wonder how from
fuch hiyits you can ground any imputation of
immorality upon one, who is reafoning from
thofe principles, from which your felf mull he
forced to allow ilill a greater licence j not
onely
9
10 A Letter to Dr. Waterland, containing
onely a plurality of wives^ but a number of con-
cubines into the bargain \ unlefs you will give
up fome part at leaft of the Scripture you are
vindicating, and condemn the holy Patriarchs^
Abraham^ Ifaac and Ja^ob ^ and above all,
David, the man after God's own heart ; who had
at leafl feven wives, and ten concubines, , without
ever being admonifhed for it by any of the
Prophets, or cenfured by any of the facred
Writers, So that here he will probably turn
voiir own reafoning upon you *, that it is a
^weak thing of you, to charge the Law of Nature
as not ftrili enough, when your own Scripture ap-
pears to be loofer \^a\
Again •, you charge him with declaring flatly
und plainly againft our Lord's doctrine of loving
thofe that hate us : Yet in the place you refer
to, I find him arguing onely ^ that thofe words
are not to be taken in their flri^ and literal
fenfe, but like many other texts of the fame
nature, which he there enumerates, viz. he that
takes away thy coat, let him ha^ve thy cloak alfo :
cf him who takes thy goods, afk them not again :
whoever fh all fmite thee on the right cheek, turn to
him the other alfo, &c. muft be interpreted
agreeably to the reafon and nature of things, and
the common good of fociety •, and that to pradife
them in their obvious and grammatical fenfe
would occafion much mifchief to the public,
much injuftice to particular men : In all which,
[«] P. 90.
as
fojne Remarks on his Vindication of Scripture.
as he fays nothing more than what all Commen-
tators and all rational Chrijlians allow, I cannot
think it reafonable, trom this inftance, to
charge him with feeking to relax the Laws of
Chrijl^ to make them fuit the better with corrupt
Nature.
But had he furnifhed no dired proofs of the
malice you impute to him, yet your penetration,
it feems, is fuch, as can fee to the very bottom
of him *, for though he Jludioujly^ as you fay,
difguifes himfelf and takes great pains to put fair
gloffes on what he is doings yet fometimes he dif-
covers the very fecrets of his heart : and though
in the fame page you allow, that he himfelf befl
knows how far he is influenced by luft and malice ;
yet in the very next words you recolledl: your
felf, and fignify, that you know as well as him-
felf, and that V/'j eafy to perceive how much the
black pajfions have got the afcenda?it over him.
The cqpclufion of your IntroduBion is of a
piece with the reft : for after declaiming againfl
his wickednefs, you conclude by contemning
his learning and abilities. His attacks^ you
fay, are feeble^ his artillery contemptible : he has
no genius or tafte for literature ; no acquaintance
with the original languages ; nor fo much as zvith
common Criticks and Commentators : fever al of his
objections are pure Englilh obje^ions ; fuch as
cffe5i onely our tranflation : the reft are of the
loweft and moft trifling fort^ &:c. And in the
body
ir
xa ji Letter to Dr. Waterland, containing
body of your book you go ftill farther, and
treat him with the plain terms of Fool and
Idiot •, as having neither wit^ judgment^ learnings
er any thing hut dull malice [a].
If this be really the cafe, what is all this
huftk about ? Why all this apparatus to foil fo
feeble^ fo contemptible an adverfary ? Why mufl
you be called off from the great work of de-
fending Creeds and Pofitive Precepts^ to contend
with fuch a trifier? Why mufl two eminent
fcholars be picked out from Oxford and Cam-
bridge^ to divide the tafk between them, and
repel with united force the defpicable attacks of
a pure Englifh blunderer ? All this apparatus^ I
fay, muft needs perfuade us, that you have a
different notion of his ability^ from what you
think proper to declare : and, in fa6t, as all
who talk extravagantly or infincerely are apt to
betray themfelves, fo you in many places con-
fute your felf, and fliew that thefe pure Englifh
ohje^ions^ which owe their rife, as you would
infinuate, to the blunders of our Trayiflation^ de-
ierve to be confidered in another light ; fince at
fome times you exclaim againfl them as being
fiale^ er borrowed from Antiquity -, from the an-
cient enemies of Religion, Celfus and Julian ;
at other times, from our learned moderns,
Marfhaju and Burnet^
much as in one fmgle inflance prove them to
be grounded on the mijlaken fenfe of the original.
For
fome Remarks on his Vindication of Scripture. 13
For my own part, to obferve our Englijh
proverb^ and give even the Devil his due, I can-
not for my life difcover any fuch want of lite-
rature as you objedl to him •, but on the con-
trary, fee plainly that his work has been the
effedt of much Jtudy and reading -, his materials
colledled from a great variety of the befl Writers \
his pages decently crowded with citations \ and
his Index of Authors as numerous, as that of moft
books which have lately appeared : and to tell
you the truth, were it my tafl<: to anfwer him
in the method you have chofen, by undertaking
to vindicate every fingle text of Scripture from all
the exceptions that may be made to it, I fliould be
tempted to wifh that he had Itill lefs learnings
rather than more •, fince with the fmall fhare he
has, one rnay eafily forefee by the fpecimen you
give us, th^t he will in many cafes be at leail
^ full match for you.
Thus much, Sir, ^oxyour Introduction ; which.
If it appears to others in the fame light, as it
did to me, will afford them but little hopes of
pleafure or edification in what is to follow ;
but like foul weather at fetting out, give a dif-
couraging profpe<51: of the dirt they are ta
travel through in the reft of their journey.
Let's now proceed to examine the work it-
felfi wherein you undertake to vindicate the
moft exceptionable texts of Scripture from cavil and
cenfure :
14 A Letter to Dr. Waterlaistd, containing
cenfure : This, Sir, is a hardy undertaking, and
what few men of modefty or prudence would
renuire upon ; fince however it may he dif-
charged, 'tis likely, as I've faid above, from,
the nature of the fubjedl itfelf, to do hurt^ ra-
ther than fervice^ to the caufe of Religion ; as
'tis raking into old fores -, giving new life to old
cavils -, folving objedions which you call ftale
and trivial^ by anfwers 'SJ^ ftale and as trivial too ;
for had thefe ever been fatisfadtory, the others
could hardly have fubfiited to this day. To
confirm this, I fhall not follow you through all
the texts you vindicate^ but content my felf with
a few remarks on two or three of the greateft
importance ; in the explication of which you
feem to have taken the greateft pains. To be-
gin then with your vindication of the fcrip-
tural hiftory of man's falL
The Author you are confuting fays, it feems,
that Chriftians are now aftoamed of the literal in-
terpretation of this ftory \a'\ : which though you
feem difpofed to treat as a Calumny^ yet 'tis cer-
tain and undeniable, that all Coynmentators what-
foever are forced in fome meafure to defert the
letter^ in order to make the ftory rational and cre-
dible. You tell us, with many of them, that
the Deceiver was a real Serpent^ actuated by the
Devil [li] \ this you declare fufficient to obviate
all difficulties^ to folvc all objections : yet Mofes^
you own, fays not one word of the Devil ; nor
HP. 14. WP. 15.
had
fvme Rtmarh on his Vindication of Scripture, 15
had occafton to fay any thing of him \ nay, that
it was better he fhoud fay nothing of him^ becaufe
he had faid nothing of him [«] : but whether it
were better or worfe, it is certain however, that
the introducing a Devil is contrary to the letter \
which fpeaks onely of a proper and meer Ser-
pent, as the author of this deception ; and fug-
gefts the reafon both of the attempt and the
fuccefs of it, in the natural cunning of that
beafl. For the Serpent was more fuhtil than any
heafi of the field \ and by his fuhtilty, fays St.
^aul \h\ he deceived Eve ; who in making her
defence to God, does not plead that the t)evil^
which had been a much better excufe, but
that the Serpent deceived her. You tell us, on
another occafion, that God accommodates his
Phrafes to the language of men, in order to be
hetter underjiood by men [^] : Pray tell us then.
Good Sir, how he has accommodated his Phrafes
here ; whether that he may be better underjiood
of the Serpent, or of the Devil ?
Now becaufe the Serpent was more remarkably
fubtil, he was, you fay [i], the proper ejl inftru-
ment of the Tempter to deceive by -, the befi cover
to conceal his fraud. But here again moil people
will be of a different mind : for 'tis natural to
be jealous and on our guard againft the coun-
fels, to diflruil all offers of kindnefs of the
fubtle and malicious : fo that an Jfi or a Dove
[^z] P. 13. [^] 2 Cor. xi. 3. [c]?.^o.
I^JP, 15.
muft
I ^ A Letter /^Df.Water'land, containing
mud needs have been a fitter engine for Satan^
under the dirguife of folly or innocence, to have
infinuated his poifon by. And though you
tell us here, that the apprehenjion Eve had of his
fuhtilty might make her lefs furprifed to hear him
reafon and difcourfe -, yet in the very next page
you declare it natural to fuppofe^ that for want
cf longer experience fhe might not know whether
any brute creatures were capable either of reafon
^r fpeech. Can fuch fhuffling and inconfiftency,
think you, have any good effed towards refcu-
ing the word of God from reproach and cenfure ?
^'Tis the opinion^ you fay [<^], of fome very
worthy and learned perfons^ that the Serpent was
fo like a Seraph^ that Eve miflook it for a good
Angel, The opinion indeed is very extravagant,
that Serpents were originally in fhape and beauty
fo like to bleffcd Angels^ that it was eafy to mil-
take the one for the other. But as extravagant
as it is, 'twas embraced by Bifhop Patrick^ "Te-
nifon^ and many other learned men, to avoid
what they thought the more extravagant of the
two, the very opinion you maintain ; which
though you declare to have no kind of difficulty
cr imp'ohahility in it, yet Bifhop Patrick treats
as ridiculous and incredible [h] : and what rea-
fonable
[a] P. 16.
[h] She wa5 not fo fimple as to tKink that Beafts
could fpeak — nor doth it feem at all credible to me, tliat
(lie could have been otherwife deceived, but by fome crea-
ture
fonts Remarks on his Vindication of Scripture. 1 7
fonable hopes can you have of converting Jnfideh
and filencing Scepticks^ by the force of a folution
which our beft Coratnentators and orthodox Bifiops
^cjc6l 2.^fimple 'and foolijh /
But 'tis not the extravagance of this notion,
but the eafinefs of it, that offends you : it fpoih
the whole ftory, by making it, as you fay, too
eafy : this indeed is the true ipirit of a right or-
thodox Divine \ nothing eafy will go down with
him ; nothing but the marvellous and the -i^npro-
hable will pleafe him *, and the good old prin-
ciple credo quia impoffihiky is with him the onely
touchilone of a truQ/aving Faith.
But is the Devil then fuch a Hero, that he
fcorns an eajy conqueft -, nor cares to engage
but where there's difficulty in the conflid ? or is
it inconfiftent with the goodnefs of God to allow
him a triumph fo eafy ? 'Tis certain, that ork
fome occafions he transforms himfelf into an angel
of light \a\: and where could he ever have
more occafion to do it than in the cafe we are^
confidering ? For if under that ihape his vie- '
tory was too eafy before the falU how much
eafier mufl it needs be now, in this degenerate
ftate of man ? If the eafinefs of it fecmed then
to refled on the goodnefs of God for permitting
it, how much more mull it do fo now, in fuf-
ture which appeared fo glorioufly, that (he took it for an
heavenly Minifter. Comment, on Gen. iii. i.
r^] I Cor. xi. 14.
Vol. III. B feri'^g
A Letter to Dr. Waterland, containing
fering him with all that advantage to attack
man when he is do%s;n^ to trample on him when
he is fallen ?
But to proceed ; though the introducHon of a
Devil may ferve to clear Up the difficulty of the
Serpenfs fpeaking and reafoning^ yet it railcs up a
new one of a higher nature, which your Author
charges upon it, againft the juftice of God bim-
Jelf in. 7iot interpofing in fo unequal a confiiEi,
This objection, how merry foever you may
make with it, by laughing ^tyour Author's want
of Spectacles [^], is certainly of weight enough
to puzzle and dagger our reafon : and every
man has a right to require from thofe, who
pretend to be guides and teachers of Religion^
how fuch pafTages delivered and inculcated by
them, as the undoubted word of God^ can be re-
conciled to the known attributes and perfeSfiom^
of the Beity.
Should a Father difcard and difinherit a
Child^ for having deferted. fom.e poll alTigned
him •, feduced either, by the craft of fome old
Sophifier^ or driven cfF by the fuperior ftrength
of fome able bodied man, the Father all the
while looking on, nor interpofing at all in a
trial fo unreafonable ; wou'd not die facSl be
thought barbarous and unnatural? Now the
conflid: in fuch cafe could not be more unequal
than between our firll Parenls and Satan \ and
W P. ,8.
2- the
fome Remarks on his Vindication of Scripture. I9
the love of God to his Creatures muft nccefifarily
be allowed fuperior to tliat of natural Fathers
to their Children. Yet you, Sir, fee no ki^d of