Chap. XXL A N T 1 E N T M E T A P H Y S I C S. -09 



What is here faid concerning this famous quefliou of Hherty and 

 neceffity, I thought necelTary for the underllanding more fully the 



. nature 



* tnres,) admits not of fo eafy and fatIsfa£lory an anfwer. Nor is It pofTible to explain 



* diflindlly, how the Deity can be the mediate caufe of all the adions of men, without 



* being the author of fin and moral turpitude.' Then, dcfiring to cover this (hocking 

 impiety with the veil of myflery, he adds, * Thefe are mylteries which mere natural 



* and unalTiiled reafon is very unfit to handle ; and, whatever fyftem it embraces, it 



* niufl find itfelf involved in inextricable difficulties, and even contradi6lions, at 



* every flep which it takes with regard to fuch fubjedls. To reconcile the indifference 



* and contingency of human adlions with prefcience, or to defend abfolute decrees, 



* and yet free the Deity from being the author of fin, has been found hitherto to ex- 



* ceed all the fkill of philofophy.' 



It was to have been wiffied that this author had kept to the philofophy that he had 

 the honour firfl to import into this country from the Continent, which teaches, 



Naturam rerum baud divina mente coortam, Lucretius. 



and that there is nothing in the univerfe befides matter and motion. Who maintains 

 this do^irine, however impious he may be thought, cannot be faid to blafphcme a 

 Being whofe exiftence he denies; But he who fuppofes that there is a God, and, at the 

 fame time, maintains, that he is wicked, malignant, and the author of themifery of his 

 creatures, is both impious and blafphemous in the higheft degree. 



The doclrine of the Manichaeans, that there were two governing principles in the 

 univerfe, one gcod^ the other evil ^ which, of late, has been attempted to be revived 

 by Mr Baylc, was thought the trod dangerous herefy that ever was in the Chrillian 

 ehurc^. But, before Mr David Hume, i believe there never was heretic or philolopher, 

 rntient or modern, nor, I believe, any mortal man, v/ho maintained that there was but 

 one governing principle in the univerfe, and that this principle was evil and malig- 

 nant in the higheft degree ; — in (liort, that the God of this univerfe was a devil. Sup- 

 pofe, what I think can hardly be conceived, that a man was firmly perfuadcd of a fy- 

 ffem fo abfurd, as well as impious, there is nothing but the moll extravagant vanity, 

 regardlcfs altogether of the good of fociety, or quiet of mens minds, that could induce 

 bim to publiffi it- 



As to the perplexities and abfurdities on both fides, which this author pretends to 

 find in the quefiion concerning liberty and neceffity, I ccnfider them only as fomc 

 kind of apology for the fide he has chofen to take in this queflion ; but, if they were 

 real, it is not to be wondered at, that an author, who has not learned to dillinguiffi 

 betwixt fenfe and intellect, appttite and AviJl, and v ho, confcqurntly, is ignorant of 



the 



