actions of that neighbourhood. Small focieties of religious perfons are, in the fame manner, confined by their knowledge, and they contend for principles to no purpose, unless it be to injure and fpoil their own tempers. The doctrines which diftinguish the feveral fects of Christianity are not matters of notice to the prefent abettors of infidelity; even the truth and authenticity of Chriftianity they confider as a matter out of the queftion. They have, therefore, collected all their force of philofophy, of reafon, wit, and humour, to be employed against the being of God. This is the prefent object and employment of what may be called infidelity.'

Mr. Williams is undoubtedly right in the representation which he hath given of the controverfies which divide the Chrif tian Church-Controverfies of the laft importance to their abettors, but totally difregarded by writers who move in another fphere of fpeculation. It is the error of little minds to fuppofe that all the world is interested in matters which principally command their attention; and they are furprifed when they find others ignorant of the rife and progrefs of difputes which they have attended to with unvaried care and folemnity. We cannot better illuftrate this remark than by relating an anecdote of a fingular kind concerning two heroes of different complexions, but of the fame local and contracted fentiments.

A nobleman, well known on the turf, accidentally fell in company with a gentleman whofe heart and head were chiefly occupied with fome fmall controverfies that had lately taken place among the two fects of Methodifm. The man of zeal very eagerly afked his Lordfhip, if he had feen Mr. Hill's Farrago? His Lordship, whose ideas ran on Newmarket, whither he was at that time bound, replied he had not-and begged the gentleman to inform him by whom Farrago was made."Made? - Why I told you my Lord-by Mr. Hill himself.”"The d-1 he was, faid my Lord;-pray, Sir, out of what mare?"-"Mare? my Lord-I don't understand you."—" Not understand me! faid the noble jockey. Why, is it not a horse you are talking about ?"-"A horfe! my Lord-why you are ftrangely out.-No, I am not talking about a horfe. Í am talking about a book."-" A book?"-" Yes, my Lord, and a moft excellent one indeed, against John Wefley and univerfal redemption, by Mr. Rowland Hill-the GREAT Mr. Hill, my Lord, whom every body knows to be the firft preacher of the age, and the fon of the first baronet in the kingdom."—" I ask his pardon, faid his Lordship, for not having heard either of him or his book. But I really thought you was talking about a horfe for Newmarket." It is indeed of little confequence to thofe perfons who now lead the opinions of a great part of Europe,' whether Mr. Rowland Hill's Farrago be a horfe or a

*

book:

book whether it is to ftart for the sweepstakes at Newmarket or the Tabernacle and it is a matter of perfect indifference to them whether it wins or lofes the odds. The contention is too trifling, and the fuccefs too infignificant, to excite either hope or fear for one moment. Mr. Williams juftly difdains an encounter with the minute difputants of a paltry fect. His views are higher; for his objects fall within a larger fcale. Men (fays he) of the firft abilities in Europe are zealously employed in propagating these [viz. atheistical] principles: and they do it with a force of eloquence which would do honour to a better caufe. This then is the only ground for religious contention -for here alone is to be found an enemy worthy to receive a blow from a man.'

On this liberal ground of controverfy Mr. Williams is ambitious to exhibit proofs of his manhood; and he informs us, that when men of fuch talents as he had defcribed plead the cause of Atheism and Infidelity, properly fo called, the firft fpirits of human nature fhould attend; for every thing important to the world is at ftake. Laws, fyftems of religion, conftitutions and forms of government, are trifles to thofe first principles by which the univerfe is held together; and when they are under confideration, the best talents of the world fhould be brought forward.I mention this not only to juftify my defign, but to filence thofe very infignificant, though very conceited perfons, to whom all fubjects are clear and eafy, and who are forward to give their opinions of things which they have not bestowed a fingle thought upon.'

In the profecution of his fubject (viz. the Knowledge of the Deity) the Author obferves, that we can only trace out the properties of a caufe by its effects and operations. As to the region of analogy and imagination, he would advife his hearers to go in it one ftep-and one ftep only. Let mankind (fays he) fuppofe thefe great qualities [vifible in the volume of God's works]-this defign-this good nefs-not to be fcattered through the universe, but to belong to one Being who actuates it, and they will know all that can poffibly be known of God.-Beware of trufting your imagination one moment longer. She hath foared her utmoft height, and every effort fhe makes will be towards the earth, and will generate error and abfurdity. You are to glance only by the utmoft exertion of your abili ties at that Being who is incomprehenfible; and you are to be fatisfied with few and general ideas on fo great a fubject. You will then be impregnably fortified against all the attempts of infidelity; and if its votaries reproach you with the abfurdity, ill character, and villany of the gods which have led enthufiafts and idolaters of all religions to deluge the world with blood, and plague and torment mankind, fhew them in all nature an

H 2

altar

altar to the unknown God; and invite them to hear the univerfal voice of nature acknowledging him."

Mr. Williams is no fyftematical writer; and whoever should confult his Lectures for a regular arrangement of arguments, propofitions, and corollaries, would find himself much difappointed. All that he advances in proof of a Deity, is comprized in a very narrow compass; and the contemplation of the fubject leads him into a train of reflection that would have fuited almoft any other topic but that which he profeffes to difcufs. But great, original, geniufes, are not to be circumfcribed within the narrow limits of logical mood and figure. Such daring spirits

From vulgar rules with brave diforder ftart,

And fnatch a grace beyond the reach of art!

In the fifth lecture, which is a continuation of the preceding fubject, the Knowledge of the Deity, Mr. Williams delivers his fentiments on Toleration, and beltows fome fevere lashes on those inconfiftent Proteftants who abet it by profeffion, but discourage it by their practice. The religious fyftem which, at the Reformation, was fubftituted for Popery, continues to be taught to children, and to be enjoined on the people, under the apprehenfion of future damnation; and what is more effectual, with fome fubftantial confiderations of profit and lofs in this world. The quantity and degree and fort of knowledge are allotted to them as duties are allotted to flaves, not fubject to controverfy or examination. This is rendered an infult of the moft mortifying kind, by the common language and profeffion in all Proteftant countries, that the rights of private judgment are facred that the Reformation can be defended only on the acknowledgment of thofe rights; that every man must be at liberty to form his own opinions, and to act upon these opinions in all things relative to religion. Where is the liberty of a man who in his earlieft infancy has his mind filled with principles which require the confideration of his matureft judgment; who is enjoined to believe them, or told that he must forego the love of his parents, the attachment of his family, the refpect of his acquaintance, with the many fatisfactions and conveniences attending thofe circumftances? His friends fhew him the various paths which lead to ufefulness, to honour, to riches, and to the indulgence and gratification of thofe affections which ftimulate a man to activity, and without which life is not worth having. He is told, and very truly, that all these paths are not to be entered until he hath configned his understanding, and fuffered himfelf to be inferted in the community like a wheel in the machine, the whole movement of which is governed by, one invariable principle. And is this indeed liberty? How then is flavery to be defined? Indeed Proteftant govern

ments

ments and fects ufe the language of liberty and toleration : they exclaim against the barbarous cruelties of the Church of Rome. They fay-"We would not for the world be guilty. of cutting your throats; but we will make it not worth your while to live, and then it is to be hoped you will fave us the difhonour, and cut them yourfelves."

I am apt (fays our Author) to speak harthly when I mention intolerance; because there is no principle I deteft so much.' -Mr. Williams feems indeed to fpeek feelingly, and with.ali his heart. His reflections on this fubject discover evident fymp toms of a mind that ftill fmarts from the recollection of ill treatment from bigotry and zeal. But can he not apply to himfelf his own benediction- Bleffed be thofe glorious fpirits who ftill ftruggle for the freedom of human reason, and all the great rights of human nature!' Thus fhrouded beneath the wing of his own bleffing, he may fmile at the impotent efforts of malice and envy, and fet even Prefbyterian art and treachery at defiance. The faints (fays Bp.Warburton) are vindictive.'But he said it in a jeft, when he oppofed their power to their inclinations:

"Unchain'd then let the harmless monfters rage." For the fame good Bifhop obferves, that the most they can do is to "mumble, with toothlefs fury, the game they have not the power to destroy."

Mr. Williams, in the fucceeding Lecture, treats of Creation. He enumerates the various opinions of the ancient philofophers on this extremely difficult fubject. Most of them he confiders as abfurd and improbable, in the highest degree. In fpeaking of the fyftem of Democritus [who defined the Deity to be the images and ideas of all fenfible objects"-which images and ideas he confidered as "the only things that have existence"] our Author obferves, that the opinions of this philofopher were revived by Dr. Berkley, and have been adopted by many who have perfuaded themfelves to fancy that there is no material world. This opinion of Democritus was adopted by Taulerus, a celebrated myftic divine of the fourteenth century. In his treatise on the Tree of Life (a fubject Mr. Williams hath paffed over, and alfo the Garden of Eden, in his Lecture on the Creation) this illuminated Doctor of the fchool of St. Dominic afferts, that there is no material world. We fee nothing that hath a real existence without us. The whole vifible univerfe is but a fhadow-a mere object of intellect, and as unfubftantial as an image in a minor.

Dr. Priestley, by divefting matter of its impenetrability, and allowing it nothing but powers unfupported by folid fubtances, hath, in the opinion of many, advanced fo very near

to the Berkleian hypothefis, that the difference between him and the Bishop of Cloyne is almost too minute to be distinguished.

Mr. Williams acknowledges that the fubject of Creation is very ambiguous, whether we confider the account traditionally given of it by Mofes and the ancient poets and philofophers, or whether we fpeculate on it ourselves, without regarding the hypothefes of others. We have no ideas (fays he) of Creation, or making a world, farther than that of difpofing, or Fendering ufeful, materials already made and endued with certain properties. What we call making, or inventing, or creating, means no more than difcovering what effect, what beauty, or what use arife from certain arrangements of materials and qualities. -Ingenious men have therefore meant by Creation, the difpofition of things from diforder to order, and from deformity to beauty. If we grant them a chaos confifting of all the principles, materials, and laws which will bring the world together and form it, they will give us a very tolerable idea of the procefs of Creation.In the difpofition of those things we find most eminently thofe qualities which we admire -Wifdom, power, and goodnefs. Thefe qualities uniformly co-operate with each other; we therefore refer them to one great principle, which we call God.'

In the feventh Lecture, the Merit of Believing,' is confidered. On this fubject the Author advances nothing new. He treats, with great contempt, what he calls the sophisin of believing what is above our comprehenfion, but not contrary to our reason. There is (fays Mr. W.) as much sense, and truth, and poffibility, in believing what is above our underftanding, as in feeing what is beyond our fight, hearing what is out of hearing,' &c. &c.

Is not Mr. Williams, in his eagerness to expose a sophism, led into one himfelf? If the writers, whom he thus ridicules for what he calls a jingle upon words, invented for the purpofe of impofing on the ignorant,' had laid it down as a theological pofition, that we might understand what is above our underftanding, and comprehend what is above our comprehenfion, his allufion to the eye, the ear, &c. might have been proper and confiftent enough: but he himself hath first created the abfurdity, and then expofed it as the fophifm of others. When divines fpeak of believing what is above our comprehenfion, they frequently mean an affent of the mind to the revelation of facts, which they are unable to account for on the common principles of human nature. The eye is bounded by certain objects: the understanding limited by a certain degree of knowledge and comprehenfion: but belief gives credit for more than we fee or know. What can we know of the eternity of God?

Surely