~_ 
~ 
260 
up as fabulous, and totally unworthy 
the divine goodnefs, fuch commands, pre- 
cepts, and injunctions, as fhould feem to 
his mind unworthy even of human autho- 
rity. In this view of the fubject he de- 
nied, that the command given to deftroy 
the Canaanites could be of divine origin.* 
In his volume of Critical Remarks,-pub- 
lifhed in the year 1800, he entered into a 
full vindication of his’ theory.f If the 
mention of obnoxious opinions created 
him an hoft of opponents, a juftification 
of them was not likely to abate their fu- 
ry, nor very much to diminifh their num. 
der. He forefaw that, as he wrote to 
pleafe no party, he muft have enemies in 
every party. The Trinitarian, Arian, 
and even modern Unitarian, quickly dif 
covered that the tranflator of the Bible 
was but a covered infidel. Some warned 
their refpective hearers from encouraging 
and reading fuch a work, as having the 
worft tendency ; others, though perfecuted 
themfelves for diffenting from and op- 
pugning the popular and eftablifhed dog- 
mas, yet felt indignant that Dr. Geddes 
fhould believe fo litrle—fhould concede fo 
much. ‘* Can fuch a man be a Chrifiian ?”* 
fays one, whofe own faith has a hundred 
times been matter of difcuffion by others. 
“If indeed,” fays another, he ‘¢ believe 
enough to fatisfy his own mind in calling 
himfelf a Chriftian, yet he cannot be a 
* ¢¢ After all that has been written, either 
by Jews or Chriftians, in defence of this fan- 
guinary meafure, I confefs that my reafon and 
my religion continually revolt at it: and I 
cannot bring myfelf to believe that fuch an 
order proceeded from the mouth of God; 
perbaps not even from the mouth of Mofes. 
J am rather willing to fufpect that it is the 
fabrication of fome pofterior Jew, to juttify 
the cruelties of his nation. And indeed it is 
the fhorteft way to juftify any meafure, and 
to obviate all troublefome objections. —Such 
a command could not be unjuft, fince God 
authorized and commanded it: who will pre- 
fume to fay that what God commands is un- 
ju? True; but then we muft be firft well | 
aflured that’ he has commanded: and the 
very appearance of injuftice in the aé& is to 
me a ftronger proof that he did not command 
it, than the authority of all the Jewifh hif- 
torians put together.’ See Preface to vol. ll. 
of Dr. Geddes’s tranflation, p. il. 
_f Una little Latin poem at the end of this 
volume, Dr. Geddes gives an anfwer to the 
queftion, whether he thought Mofes had 
been, infpired.. The initials at the head of 
thefe lines are generally fuppofed to refer to 
the Rev. Dr. Difney, whom Dr. Geddes ufed 
to confider, next to his patron, as his beft and 
moft intimate friend. 
Account of the late Dr. Geddes. 
[April 1, 
Catholic.** To thefe doubts and queries 
propofed to the Doctor in all fhapes, and 
upon a thoufand different occalions, he 
once thought it worth his while to reply. 
The queftions then propofed were, 
“Sir, are you a Roman Catholic? Sir, 
are you a Chriftian?’* To the latter of 
thefe queries I anfwer pofitively and per- 
emptorily: ‘*IamaCurisTian.” In 
order to give.a juft and cautious an{wer'to 
the former, I mutt :confult my old friend 
and countryman Duns Scotus. Now Duns 
Scotus inftru€@ts me (very properly) to 
make a diftinlion between ihe two terms ; 
and to fay: A CaTHoLic, lam abfalutéy 
a Roman Catholic gnly fecunmdum quid.” 
If the querift underftand Latin and Logic, 
he will be at'no lofs to comprehend my 
anfwer; but in cafe he fhould be a mere 
Englifh {cholar, and for the fake of other 
Englith readers (if there be any) who 
may entertain any doubts about my ca- 
tholicity, I will. make my diltinGtion as 
clear and explicit as he or they can with. 
li by the epithet Roman be only meant 
holding communion with the fee of Rome, 
and acknowledging the primacy of its bi- 
fhop, I am certainly fo fara Roman Ca~ 
tholic; but in any other fenfe or refpe& I 
am no more a Reman, than I am a’ French, 
German, or Spanifh Catholic. If to the 
appellation Cathelic, any diferiminating 
adjunctive were neceflary, I would call 
myfelf a Britifh Catholic; but I rather 
adhere to the fimple declaration of an an-~ 
cient martyr: CHRISTIAN is my name, 
and CaTHoLic my furname.”” See Dr. 
Geddes’s General Anfwer to the Queries, 
&e. &e.. 1790. ae 
In the Preface to the Critica] Remarks, 
he makes an explicit avowal of his faith. 
“©The Gofpel of Jefus is my religious 
code: his doctrines are my deareft delight : 
his yoke to me is ealy, and his burden 
light: but this yoke I would not put ong 
thele cdoétrines I could not admires that 
go{pel I would not make my law, if rea- 
fon, pure reafon, were not my prompter 
and preceptrefs. I willingly profefs my- 
{lf a fincere, though unworthy, difciple of 
Chrift: Chrzfian is my name, and Catholic 
my furname. ‘ Rather than renounce thefe 
glorious titles, I would fhed my blood : 
but I would not fhed a drop of it for what 
is neither Catholic nor Chriftian. Ca- 
thelic Chriftianity I revere wherever I find 
_it, and in whatfoever fect it dwells: but I 
cannot revere the loads of hay and_ftubble 
which have been blended with its precious 
gems; and which ftill, in every fect wile 
which k am acquainted, more or Jefs tar~ 
nifh or-hide their lultre.” ~ 
i — “Sach 
\ 
