The second sort of Deists are those who believe not only the being, but also the providence, of God, with respect to the natural world, but who, not allowing any difference between moral good and evil, deny that God takes any notice of the morally good or evil actions of men; these things depending, as they imagine, on the arbitrary constitution of human laws.
A third sort of Deists there are, who, having right apprehensions concerning the natural attributes of God and his all-governing providence, and some notion of his moral perfections also, yet, being prejudiced against the notion of the immortality of the soul, believe that men perish entirely at death, and that one generation shall perpetually succeed another, without any further restoration or renovation of things.
A fourth and last sort of Deist are such as believe the existence of a Supreme Being, together with his providence in the government of the world; also all the obligations of natural religion, but so far only as these things are discoverable by the light of nature alone, without believing any divine revelation.
These, the learned author observes, are the only true Deists; but, as their principles would naturally lead them to embrace the Christian revelation, he concludes there is now no consistent scheme of Deism in the world. Dr. Clarke then adds, “The heathen philosophers—those few of them who taught and lived up to the obligations of natural religion—had, indeed, a consistent scheme of Deism, as far as it went. But the case is not so now; the same scheme is not any longer consistent with its own principles; it does not now lead men to embrace revelation, as it then taught them to hope for it. Deists in our days, who reject revelation when [pg 217] offered to them, are not such men as Socrates and Cicero were; but, under pretence of Deism, it is plain they are generally ridiculers of all that is truly excellent in natural religion itself. Their trivial and vain cavils; their mocking and ridiculing without and before examination; their directing the whole stress of objections against particular customs, or particular and perhaps uncertain opinions or explications of opinions, without at all considering the main body of religion; their loose, vain, and frothy discourses; and, above all, their vicious and immoral lives,—show, plainly and undeniably, that they are not real Deists, but mere Atheists, and, consequently, not capable to judge of the truth of Christianity.”
Dr. Paley observes, “Of what a revelation discloses to mankind, one, and only one, question can be properly asked.—Was it of importance to mankind to know or to be better assured of? In this question, when we turn our thoughts to the great Christian doctrine of a resurrection from the dead and a future judgment, no doubt can be possibly entertained. He who gives me riches or honors does nothing; he who even gives me health, does little in comparison with that which lays before me just grounds for expecting a restoration to life, and a day of account and retribution, which thing Christianity hath done for millions.”
Atheists.
The Atheists are those who deny the existence of God; this is called speculative Atheism. Professing to believe in God, and yet acting contrary to this belief, is called practical Atheism. Absurd and irrational as Atheism is, it has had its votaries and martyrs. In the seventeenth century, Spinosa was its noted defender. Lucilio Venini, a native of Naples also publicly taught Atheism in France; and, being [pg 218] convicted of it at Toulouse, was condemned and executed in 1619. It has been questioned, however, whether any man ever seriously adopted such a principle.
Archbishop Tillotson says, “I appeal to any man of reason, whether any thing can be more unreasonable than obstinately to impute an effect to chance, which carries in the very face of it all the arguments and characters of a wise design and contrivance. Was ever any considerable work in which there were required a great variety of parts, and a regular and orderly disposition of those parts, done by chance? Will chance fit means to ends, and that in ten thousand instances, and not fail in any one? How often might a man, after he had jumbled a set of letters in a bag, fling them out upon the ground, before they would fall into an exact poem! yea, or so much as make a good discourse in prose! And may not a little book be as easily made by chance as the great volume of the world? How long might a man be in sprinkling colors upon canvass with a careless hand, before they would happen to make the exact picture of a man! And is a man easier made by chance than his picture? How long might twenty thousand blind men, who should be sent out from several remote parts of England, wander up and down before they would all meet upon Salisbury Plain, and fall into rank and file in the exact order of an army! And yet this is much more easy to be imagined than how the innumerable blind parts of matter should rendezvous themselves into a world. A man that sees Henry the Seventh's chapel at Westminster, might with as good reason maintain (yea, with much better, considering the vast difference betwixt that little structure and the huge fabric of the world) that it was never contrived or built, by any means, but that the stones did by chance grow into those curious figures into which they seem to have been cut and graven; and that, upon a time, (as tales usually begin,) the materials of that building—the stone, mortar, timber, iron, lead, and glass—happily met together, and very fortunately ranged themselves into that delicate order in which we see them now, so close compacted, that it [pg 219] must be a very great chance that parts them again. What would the world think of a man that should advance such an opinion as this, and write a book for it? If they would do him right, they ought to look upon him as mad; but yet with a little more reason than any man can have to say that the world was made by chance, or that the first men grew up out of the earth as plants do now. For can any thing be more ridiculous, and against all reason, than to ascribe the production of men to the first fruitfulness of the earth, without so much as one instance and experiment, in any age or history, to countenance so monstrous a supposition? The thing is, at first sight, so gross and palpable, that no discourse about it can make it more apparent. And yet these shameful beggars of principles give this precarious account of the original of things; assume to themselves to be the men of reason, the great wits of the world, the only cautious and wary persons, that hate to be imposed upon, that must have convincing evidence for every thing, and can admit of nothing without a clear demonstration of it.”
Lord Bacon remarks, that “A little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to Atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for, while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may rest in them, and go no farther; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederated and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”