perhaps the most profound reasoners, and Lord Kaimes the most perspicuous writer, on the subject.

On the other side are Clarke, King, Law, Reid, Butler; Deluc, Jackson, Price, Bryant, Wollaston, Beattie, Palmer, Horsley, Gregory, Butterworth, Dawson, &c.

This doctrine of Necessity is nearly connected with that of Predestination, which of late years has assumed a form very different from that which it formerly possessed; for, instead of being considered as a point to be determined almost entirely by the sacred writings, in the hands of a number of able writers, it has in a great measure resolved itself into a question of natural religion,under the head of Philosophical Liberty or Necessity of the Will: or, whether all human actions are, or are not, necessarily determined by motives arising from the cha racter which God has impressed on our minds, and the train of circumstances amidst which his providence has placed us? The Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination is, that " God, for his own glory, hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass." The scheme of Philosophical Necessity, as stated by an intimate friend and warm admirer of Dr. Priestley, the most cele brated Necessitarian of the age, is, "That every thing is predetermined by the Divine Being; that whatever has been, must have been; and that whatever will be, must be ;-that all events are pre-ordained by infinite Wisdom and unlimited Goodness;-that the will, in all its determinations, is governed by the state of mind;-that the state of mind is, in every instance, determined by the Deity; and that there is a continued chain of causes and effects, of motives and actions, inseparably connected, and originating from the condition in which we are brought into existence by the Author of our being+."

On the other hand, Dr. Doddridge very justly remarks, that "those who believe the being and perfections of God, and a state of retribution, in which he will reward and punish mankind according to the diversity of their actions, will find it difficult to reconcile the justice of punishment with the necessity of crimes punished. And they that believe all that the Scrip

way than this can be devised of settling some of the most knotty and per plexing controversies?

See Dr. Copleston's "Enquiry into the Doctrines of Necessity and Predestination; in four Discourses, preached before the University of Oxford; with the Notes," &c. 1821.

"Essay on Philos. Necessity," by Alexander Crombie, A. M. See Dr. Priestley's two "Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit," and " on Philosophical Necessity" in the former of which, the mechanism of the mind is asserted, and in the latter the doctrine of necessity. The works on both sides may be seen in Dr. Doddridge's Lectures, vol. i. edit. 1799.

ture says, on the one hand, of the eternity of future punishments, and, on the other, of God's compassion to sinners, and his solemn assurance that he desires not their death, will find the difficulty greatly increased."

It is doubtless an article of the Christian faith, that God will reward or punish every man hereafter according to his actions in this life. But we cannot maintain his justice in this *particular, if men's actions be necessary either in their own nature or by the Divine decrees. Activity, and self-determining powers, are the foundation of all morality; and to prove that such powers belong to man, it is urged that we ourselves are conscious of possessing them. We blame and condemn ourselves when we do amiss; but an inward sense of shame, guilt, and remorse of conscience, are feelings which are inconsistent with the scheme of necessity*. It is also agreed, that some actions deserve praise, and afford an inward satisfaction; but for this, there would be no foundation, if we were invincibly determined in every volition; and all the ideas must entirely vanish which at present are suggested by the words ought and should, when applied to moral conduct; so that approbation and blame are consequent upon free actions only. And in short, under this system, the ideas of guilt, crime, desert, and accountableness have no place,

This is candidly admitted by Mr. Belsham, who says, "the doctrine of Philosophical Necessity supersedes remorse.”—Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind, pp. 307, 406.

DEISM AND DEISTS.

"Errant veluti in mari magno, nec quo feruntur intelligunt ; quia nec viam cernunt, nec ducem sequuntur." LACTANTIUS.

NAMES.

THE term Deist is descriptive of those who, denying the existence and necessity of any revelation, profess to believe that the existence of a God is the chief article of their belief. The same religionists are now often called Infidels, on account of their incredulity, or want of belief in the Christian dispensation of religion. The only difference, if indeed there be any, between a Deist and a Theist, is, that the latter has not had revelation proposed to him, and therefore follows the simple light of nature and tradition.

The Free-thinkers (improperly so called) of the last century set out with the principles of Deism, but did not stop there; for they afterwards made rapid approaches towards Scepticism and Atheism: and this, it is to be feared, is too commonly the case with Deists in general, as no system of principles, after having dismissed those of Christianity, will come recommended by sufficient authority to establish belief

RISE, PROGRESS, AND HISTORY.

If antiquity in matters of religion be a sure sign of orthodoxy, Deism must claim our particular attention; for, according to Dr. Hodges, "it was very near coeval with Revelation. Upon the declaration of God's will to Adam, and the terms of his acceptance, the founder of Deism appeared to contradict and oppose the Divine precepts. Hath God,' says he, said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said, &c. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die' (Gen iii. 1-4);-instructing hereby his children of all ages in that kind of sophistry which hath been used to evade and pervert the plainest doctrines and precepts which have been written for the government of human actions*."

*Prel. Discourse to his "Elihu," p. 8. See also Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, p. 517,—Athanasius traced Arianism to the same source.

However strange this account of the origin of Deism may appear, yet the Doctor is countenanced in it by the learned Dr. Hicks, who seems to deduce it from the same source, in calling the Deists πρωτότοκοι τε Σατανε,

In most ages of the church, Deism has attended the triumphs of Christianity, either as a captive, a rebel, or an enemy. Some pagans, in the evangelic age, preferred a rational Theism to an absurd idolatry, and became proselytes at Jerusalem, without adopting the Jewish ritual. Many of the exiled Jews, on the destruction of their capital, seem to have retained no other peculiarity than the exclusive tenet of the Divine Unity. Both pagans and Jews of this class united in forming a sect, but little known in ecclesiastical history, the Hypsistarians, or Coelicolæ, of the third century. These were a sect of Deists, formed by such of the Jews and Gentiles as, deserting the religion of their ancestors, substituted Naturalism in its place. Three laws of Honorius, in the Theodosian code, were directly formed against them; in one of which, he ranks them with the heathens, as Cromwell did our English Deists *.

Although deistical principles have thus been of so long standing in the world, yet it was not till about the Reformation that their abettors were known by the name of Deists.

It has been affirmed by some, that we of this nation are entitled to the distinction of having led the way to the rejection of Revelation. We have this honour given to us (for an honour they esteem it) by foreign writers; and, what is worst of all, we are applauded for it by such men as D'Alembert and Voltaire. To be stigmatized with their praise, and for such a reason, is a disgrace indeed; and (" pudet hæc opprobria," &c.) it would be still a greater, if we could not justly disclaim and throw back from ourselves the humiliating and ignominions applause which they would inflict upon us. But this, I apprehend, we may effectually do; for there appears to be sufficient ground for asserting, that the earliest infidels of modern times were to be found, not in this island, but on the continent of Europe. If we may credit the account given of Peter Aretin (who lived and wrote in the fourteenth century) by Moreri, and particularly the epitaph upon him, which he recites, there is reason to believe that he was an infidel of the worst species. And Viret, a divine of great eminence among the first reformers, and a friend of Calvin, who wrote about the year 1563, speaks of a number of persons, both in

* See Apthorp's "Letters on Christianity,” p. 10, &c. and Dr. Jortin's Remarks on Eccles. History," vol iij. p. 387-8.

France and Italy, who seem to have formed themselves into a sect, and had assumed the name of Deists, perhaps with a view to cover their opposition to the Christian Revelation, under a more specious name than that of Atheists.

But it was not till the beginning of the following century, that any men of that description, or any publications hostile to Revelation, appeared in this kingdom. From that time, indeed, down to the present, there has been a regular succession of anti-Christian writers, of various descriptions, and various talents, whose uniform object has been to subvert the foundation of revealed religion *.

"Irreligion, and even Atheism, appeared in Italy at the revival of letters, partly from an excessive fondness for the ancient philology, and principally from the disgust which elegant and polished minds always feel at the follies of popular superstition, then at their height in the unreformed dominion of Popery.

"In England, the modern Deism is the offspring of that luxury and impiety, which succeeded the Great Rebellion. The first assaults on revealed religion were rude and tumultuary, like those of peasants and barbarians. Libertinism began the attack, which was supported by the aid of learning. Much erudition was employed on both sides, in the conduct of this interesting controversy with an Herbert, a Blount, a Toland, a Woolston, a Collins.

"While the philosopher of Malmesbury (Hobbes) attempted to reason Britons out of their faith and freedom, Shaftsbury employed the finer weapons of wit and ridicule. All in their turns have been disarmed of the power of doing mischief. It was reserved for the times we live in, to assault Christianity with the shining and specious arms of eloquence.

"To the plebeian style of Chubb and Morgan, to the thorny erudition of Woolston and Collins, to the wit and ribaldry of Shaftsbury and Mandeville, have succeeded the purity and elegance of Voltaire, the cold correctness of Hume, and the impassioned delicacy of Rousseau. In this great question, Bolingbroke, like another Messala*, has displayed the richness and harmony of the English language. Chesterfield, leaving the debate about principles to the metaphysic of his noble predecessor, has availed himself of equal eloquence, to subvert our morals. His popular letters are a complete example of human corruption, veiling itself under the decent

See Bishop Porteus's "Lectures on St. Matthew," vol. ii. p. 69, &c. * Messala nitidus et candidus, et quodammodo præ se ferens in dicendo nobilitatem suam, viribus minor.”—Quintilian, lib. 10.