144. 
his Objections, in Point of Reafon, are 
an!wered, 2 vols. 8vo.”’ 
The learning and ability difplayed in 
this work did credit to the author, and 
gave it a juftreputation: but one paflage 
in it, unfortunately, tended to weaken its 
effect, by drawing on it ridicule. ‘The 
author, to fhew the beneficence of Jefus 
in the cure of the man, who confidered 
him(elf as poffefled of a legion of devils, 
and to remove the objection drawn from 
the permiffion given them to enter into the 
herd of fwine, as injurious to thofe to 
whom the fwine belonged, afferted, that 
“* the permiffion of Jelus to the. evil {pi- 
rits was ampiy compenfated by cafting a 
whole legion of devils out cf one perfon, 
that is, by fuffering about three of them to 
enter intoeach hog, inftead of about 6000 of 
them keeping poffefiion of one man.” The 
Bifhops Chandler and Gibfon, to whofe 
in{pection the manufcript was fubmitted 
before it went to the prefs, would fain 
have perfuaded the author to leave out 
this pafflage; but, though they begged 
and intreated him, it was to no purpofe ; 
nor could all the world have prevailed” 
with him*. The confequence was, that 
this part was Iudicroufly called “* the 
fplitting of the devil, and the name of 
«© Doctor Split-devil’’ was given to the 
author. 
Our Prelate laid himfelf open alfo to fe- 
rious cenfure by the {pirit of the dedica- 
tion, which was addreffed to Queen Caro- 
line, at the time of the appearance of this 
work, Regent, during the abfence of 
George IJ.in Germany: for, referring to 
Mr. Woolfton’s Difcourfes on the Mira- 
cles, he fuggefted to her Majelty, that ‘*a 
more proper occafion could not poffibly 
happen in any nation, where Chriftianity 
is eftablifhed by human laws, to invigo- 
rate the zeal of the magiftrate, in putting 
the laws in execution againft fo flagrant a 
fort of profanenefs, that tramples with 
fuch indignity on the-grounds of the 
Chriftian faith ; and to convince the world 
that the minifter of that God, who is: 
fo highly affronted, bears not the fword in 
vain.’ In how different a ftrain did the 
candid and liberal Lardner reply to Mr. 
Woolton. ‘I with (fays he} ) Mr. Wool- 
fion no harm; 1 only wifh him a fincere 
# Bithop Newton’s Pofthumous Works, v. 
1. Life of the Author, p- 29. 
+ See the whole Preface to his excellent 
«¢ Vindication of three Miracles of our Sa- 
yiour 5’ and ** Two Letters to the Bishop of 
Chichefier, in the Memoirs of his Life and 
Works, lat 8vo. Edition, v. i. and xi.” 
The Rev. Fohn Hort. 
[March 1, 
conviction and profeffion of the truth 
brought about by folid reafons, and argu- 
ments without pains or penalties.”” 
The Bifhop, indeed, appears to have 
been fo alarmed by the writings of the 
partifans of infidelity, as to apprehend a 
danger from them to the ftability of the 
Hanover Succeffion, as he thought that in- 
fufing doubts into weak minds, by creating 
indifference and coldnefs ia others, and by 
making profelytes among the vicious, 
fuch publications had a natural tendency 
to introduce confufion, and thereby betray 
the nation into Popery, a profeffion as in- 
confiftent with his Majefty’s title to the 
crown, as with the eftablifhed religion. 
This, with numerous examples of the 
fame kind, furnithed by the hiftory of the 
Chriftian charch,fhews the evil of blending: 
together religious and political interefts, 
and of overlooking the nature of truth, 
which muft owe its fupport, not to force, 
but to argument. The Bifhop clofed his 
Preface in a ftrain more becoming the mi- 
nifter of Chrift, and the rational advocate 
for revelation, when he faid, “ I will 
only affure him (i.e. Mr. Woolfton) that 
I can eafily bear all the reproaches that 
are, or fhall be, thrown upon me for the 
name of Chrift,and that I count it thetrue& 
honour now, and, doubt not, but that ir 
will be the greateft happinefs hereafter, to 
fuffer obloquy, and to be loaded with ca- 
kimny, for the fake of his Gofpel, in the 
defence of which as F bave taken up my 
pen, fo, I truft, I fhall be always ready to 
lay down my life.”’ : 
The Rev. Joun Hort, D.D. proba- 
bly defcended from parents, who were dif- 
fenters from the church of England, for 
he was educated in a diffenting academy, 
between the years 1690 and 1695, under 
the direction of the Rev. Thomas Rowe, 
and was a fellow ftudent with the cele- 
brated Dr. Ifaac Watts, who faid of him, 
that “ he was the firft genius in that femi. 
nary.’ After his academical ftudies were. 
finifhed, he refided fome time as Chaplain 
with John Hampden, Efg, Member of Par- 
liament. for Bucks; and afterwards. fet- 
tled as adiffenting minifter, at Marfhfield, 
in Gloucelterfhire. The time of his con- 
formity to the church of England is not 
alcertained, though it is evident, that he 
was a minifter of it fo early as 1708, for 
in that year he publifhed a Sermon preach- 
ed at the Archdeacon’s vifitation, at 
Aylefbury. In the preceding year, he had 
printed a Thankfgiving Sermon on our 
Succefles, from Ps. 149. 6-8. There is 
a tradition in the family, that he had fo- 
greatly recommended him{elf to the court 
by 
