« ForrigeFortsæt »
Virtue and excellency of Man, and That, for which he will be rewarded by God, does not lie in being free from Mistakes, or in agreeing in Opinion with any Man, but in the Love of Truth as such. And therefore, instead of a hearty Dehre ; that he may agree with you or me, or any one else, or may be free from Mistakes, my hearty Defre is, that he and all Men would be Lovers of Truth for Truth's Sake, and lay aside Education, and Interest, and all Prejudices in the taking up and maintaining Opinions ; which if they do, they cannot hurt themselves by any mistaken Opinions they can fall into. Mistaken Opinions can hurt none but those, who do not impartially search after Truth. .
Having done with Mr. GREEN, I shall conclude to you. . Though the World may excuse you from entering the Lists against Mr. GREEN, and may think it fufficient for a Friend to. perform that Part for you ; yet it is expected, that something should be faid by you to your other Adversaries, and particularly * to the right reverend the Lord Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. And I am not without Hopes, that you will answer the publick Expectation, and take the Occasion offer'd you of setting in a juft Light the Question of a Meliab;
* The Author of the Discourse of the Grounds and Reason, fometime after the first Publication of this Letter, wrote an Answer to the Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry under the Title of the Scheme of Literal Prophely consider'd, &c. . .
which, which, though it be the most important Quesțion in Christianity, and That, upon which whole Christianity is built, has not, that I know of, had that Justice done to it, whereof it is capable, and which you are particularly qualify'd to do to it, by Virtue of your Reading, Observations, Freedom of Mind, Independency of Fortune, and absolute Contempt of any other Interest but That of Truth.
of the Grounding a View
« He says, (c)
INCE the finishing this Letter. I have received Dr. LoBB's Brief Defence, &c. which I shall make some
Animadversions on, as having a View to your Discourse of the Grounds, &c.
He says, (r) " there is a modern, sophistical “ Objection against Miracles being a Proof of “ the Truth of the Christian Religion, which, “ though it has been well answer'd by fome, “ (viz, Mr. Bullock and Mr. Green) he “ begs Leave to Thew the Vanity and Weak“ ness of. The Objection, he says, is This.
" That Miracles can never render a Foun« dation valid, which is in itself invalid ; can “ never make a false Inference true ; can “ never make a Prophesy fulfill’d, which is · “ not fulfill'd ; can never make those Things “ to be spoken concerning Christ, which “ were not spoken concerning Christ; and “ consequently, that the Miracles faid to have « been work'd by Christ, could not possibly " have been work'd by him ; but must of New “ ceflity, together with the whole System, “ both of the Old and New Testament," have “ been wholly the Effect of Imagination and -« Enthupalm, if not of Imposture.”
1. But where is this Citatiton to be met with, that he calls an Obječtion, which has been well answer'd by Mr. Bullock and Mr. Green. It is not to be found in their Answers, nor) in your Book, which has only the (r) firft Words of the Citation; all the latter Part, which I have put in italick Character, being falsly and maliciously added by Dr. LOBB, as if your Words. There is, in deed, a learned ) Author, who, after quoting your Words, as above recited, adds the Words I have printed in italick; but That he does, as his own Inference from yours, and not as your Words. But how will That justify Dr. LOBB's making the Citation, as he gives it us, your Obje&tion? Is the Representation of your Sense by an Adversary to be taken for å Citation from you, and for an Objection of yours? Is This a fair Method of proceeding for a Man, either with your Book in his Hand or at least every where to be seen, to go to an Adversary's Book for an Objection of yours; and what is still worse, to an Adverfary, who does not pretend to give those Words above recited in italick Character, which Dr. LOBB attributes to you, as your Words, but only as his own Inference; and whom therefore the Doctor transcribes, and misrepresents, in order to put a false Objection
(1) Disc. p. 28.
Clark's Dijc. of the Connection, &c. p. 6.
and Citation upon you, and to give a malicious Representation of you? Besides, the learned Author himself was manifeftlý miftaken in his Inference. For how does it follow from these Propositions of yours, “ thať “ Miracles can never render a Foundation “valid, which is in itself invalid ; can never “ make a false Inference true; can never make « a Prophesy fulfill'd, which is not fulfillid; « can never make those Things to be spoken " concerning Christ, which were not spoken “ concerning Christ;" how does it follow, I say, “ That the Miracles said to have been “ work'd by Christ could not pofsibly have “ been really work'd by him ; but must of “ Neceflity, together with the whole System « of the Old and New Testament, have been « wholy the Effect of Imagination and En“ thusiasm, if not of Imposture?” And this Inference, both the learned Author, and Dr. Lobs themselves must judge to be a false Inference, unless they think the whole System both of the Old and New Testament to have been wholly the Effeet of Enthusiasm, if not of Imposture; for they both own the Premises to be true, and contend exprefly with you, (t) “ That Miracles can never render a Founcc dation valid, which is in itself invalid, &c.
This seems a most dishoneft Method of Proceeding in Dr. LOBB; and I make that Charge here upon him for this Matter; who is pleased
(t) Clark, p. 28. Lobb. p. xi, xii.