按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
ut it would be very difficult to persuade me to believe that Alexander and Jenghiz…Khan were men of only a common genius。 Besides； I have remarked； that the declamations of angry men make but little impression on any except those who are angry： the greatest part of the readers are men of moderation； and seldom take up a book but when they are in cool blood； for rational and sensible men love reason。 Had the author loaded Bayle with a thousand injurious reproaches； it would not have followed from thence； that Bayle had reasoned well or ill； all that his readers would have been able to conclude from it would have been； that the author knew how to be abusive。〃
The third objection is； that he has not in his first chapter spoken of original sin。 To which he replies： 〃I ask every sensible man if this chapter is a treatise of divinity？ if the author had spoken of original sin； they might have imputed it to him as a crime that he had not spoken of redemption。〃
The next objection takes notice； that 〃The author has said that in England self…murder is the effect of a distemper； and that it cannot be punished without punishing the effects of madness； the consequence the critic draws from thence is； that a follower of natural religion can never forget that England is the cradle of his sect； and that he rubs a sponge over all the crimes he found there。〃 He replies； 〃The author does not know that England is the cradle of natural religion； but he knows that England was not his cradle。 He is not of the same religious sentiments as an Englishman； any more than an Englishman who speaks of the physical effects he found in France； is not of the same religion as the French。 He is not a follower of natural religion； but he wishes that his critic was a follower of natural logic。〃
These are the principle objections levelled against our author； on this head； from which our readers will sufficiently see on what trifling； what puerile arguments this charge of Deism is founded。 He concludes however this article； with a defense of the religion of nature； and such a defense as every rational Christian must undoubtedly approve。
〃Before I conclude this first part； I am tempted to make one objection against him who has made so many； but he has so stunned my ears with the words follower of natural religion； that I scarcely dare pronounce them。 I shall endeavour however to take courage。 Do not the critic's two pieces stand in greater need of an explication； than that which I defend？ Does he do well； while speaking of natural religion and revelation； to fall perpetually upon one side of the subject； and to lose all traces of the other？ Does he do well never to distinguish those who acknowledge only the religion of nature； from those who acknowledge both natural and revealed religion？ Does he do well to turn frantic whenever the author considers man in the state of natural religion； and whenever he explains any thing on the principles of natural religion？ Does he do well to confound natural religion with Atheism？ Have I not heard that we have all natural religion？ Have I not heard that Christianity is the perfection of natural religion？ Have I not heard that natural religion is employed to prove the truth of revelation against the Deists？ and that the same natural religion is employed to prove the existence of a God against the Atheists？ He has said that the Stoics were the followers of natural religion； and I say； that they were Atheists； since they believed that a blind fatality governed the universe； and it is by the religion of nature that we ought to attack that of the Stoics。 He says that the scheme of natural religion is connected with that of Spinoza； and I say； that they are contradictory to each other； and it is by natural religion that we ought to destroy Spinoza's scheme。 I say； that to confound natural religion with Atheism； is to confound the proof with the thing to be proved； and the objections against error with error itself； and that this is to take away the most powerful arms we have against this error。〃
The author now proceeds to the second part of his defence； in which he has the following remarks。 〃What has the critic done to give an ample scope to his declamations； and to open the widest door to invectives？ he has considered the author； as if he had intended to follow the example of M。 Abbadye； and had been writing a treatise on the Christian religion： he has attacked him； as if his two books on religion were two treatises on divinity； he has cavilled against him； as if while he had been talking of any religion whatsoever which was not Christian； he should have examined it according to the principles； and doctrines of Christianity； he has judged him as if in his two books relating to religion he ought to have preached to Mahometans and Idolators the doctrines of Christianity。 Whenever he has spoken of religion in general； whenever he has made use of the word religion； the critic says； 'that is the Christian religion'； whenever he has compared the religious rites of different nations and has said that they are more conformable to the political government of these countries； than some other rites； the critic again says； 'you approve them then and abandon the Christian faith'： when he has spoken of a people who have never embraced Christianity； or who have lived before Christ； again says the critic； 'you don't then acknowledge the morals of Christianity'； when he has canvassed any custom whatsoever； which he has found in a political writer； the critic asks him； 'Is this a doctrine of Christianity？' He might as well add； 'You say you are a civilian； and I will make you a divine in spite of yourself： you have given us elsewhere some very excellent things on the Christian religion； but this was only to conceal your real sentiments； for I know your heart； and penetrate into your thoughts。 It is true I do not understand your book； nor it is material that I should discover the good or bad design with which it has been written； but I know the bottom of all your thoughts： I don't know a word of what you have said； but I understand perfectly well； what you have not said。'〃
But to proceed。 The author has maintained the polygamy is necessarily and in its own nature bad； he has wrote a chapter expressly against it； and afterwards has examined in a philosophical manner； in what countries； in what climates； or in what circumstances it is least pernicious； he has compared climates with climates； and countries with countries； and has found； that there are countries； where its effects are less pernicious than in others； because； according to the accounts that have been given of them； the number of men and women not being every where equal； it is evident； that if there are places where there are more women than men； polygamy； bad as it is in itself； is there less pernicious than in others。 But as the title of this chapter ＇3＇ contains these words； That the law of polygamy is an affair of calculation； they have seized this title as an excellent subject for declamation。 Having repeated the chapter itself； against which no objection is made； he proceeds to justify the title and adds： 〃Polygamy is an affair of calculation when we would know； if it is mo