Thank You for the SCHOLASTICIMS ad nausum taken form the "Catholic
Encyclopedia" (albeit the weaker less Authoritative online edition) in which
you used "other people words" (much like Cerano De Bergerac") and as such
you neither felt not know them as they are not yours.
I would say the basis of Deism is acceptance of g-d as a concept while
denying the supernatural and all which be implied by implication of what is
said to be supernatural, as I can find no distinction between g-d and nature
except terminology and labels.
AZ
THE TEMPLE OF REASON
http://groups.yahoo.co.jp/group/temple_of_reason
http://groups.msn.com/TempleofReasonDeists
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temple_of_reason
http://uk.geocities.com/andrew_zito
how would you
define deism?
The following article, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia, offers a
description that is more detailed than most, although I am not in
agreement
with its criticism of Deism. Still, it offers a starting point in
answering
your question.
_________________
Deism
(Lat. Deus, God).
The term used to denote certain doctrines apparent in a tendency of
thought
and criticism that manifested itself principally in England towards the
latter end of the seventeenth century. The doctrines and tendency of deism
were, however, by no means entirely confined to England, nor to the
seventy
years or so during which most of the deistical productions were given to
the
world; for a similar spirit of criticism aimed at the nature and content
of
traditional religious beliefs, and the substitution for them of a
rationalistic naturalism has frequently appeared in the course of
religious
thought. Thus there have been French and German deists as well as English;
while Pagan, Jewish, or Moslem deists might be found as well as Christian.
Because of the individualistic standpoint of independent criticism which
they adopt, it is difficult, if not impossible, to class together the
representative writers who contributed to the literature of English deism
as
forming any one definite school, or to group together the positive
teachings
contained in their writings as any one systematic expression of a
concordant
philosophy. The deists were what nowadays would be called freethinkers, a
name, indeed, by which they were not infrequently known; and they can only
be classed together wholly in the main attitude that they adopted, viz. in
agreeing to cast off the trammels of authoritative religious teaching in
favour of a free and purely rationalistic speculation. Many of them were
frankly materialistic in their doctrines; while the French thinkers who
subsequently built upon the foundations laid by the English deists were
almost exclusively so. Others rested content with a criticism of
ecclesiastical authority in teaching the inspiration of the Sacred
Scriptures, or the fact of an external revelation of supernatural truth
given by God to man. In this last point, while there is a considerable
divergence of method and procedure observable in the writings of the
various
deists, all, at least to a very large extent, seem to concur. Deism, in
its
every manifestation was opposed to the current and traditional teaching of
revealed religion.
In England the deistical movement seems to be an almost necessary outcome
of
the political and religious conditions of the time and country. The
Renaissance had fairly swept away the later scholasticism and with it,
very
largely, the constructive philosophy of the Middle Ages. The Protestant
Reformation, in its open revolt against the authority of the Catholic
Church, had inaugurated a slow revolution, in which all religious
pretensions were to be involved. The Bible as a substitute for the living
voice of the Church and the State religion as a substitute for Catholicism
might stand for a time; but the very mentality that brought them into
being
as substitutes could not logically rest content with them. The principle
of
private judgment in matters of religion had not run its full course in
accepting the Bible as the Word of God. A favourable opportunity would
spur
it forward once more; and from such grudging acceptance as it gave to the
Scriptures it would proceed to a new examination and a final rejection of
their claims. The new life of the empirical sciences, the enormous
enlargement of the physical horizon in such discoveries as those of
astronomy and geography, the philosophical doubt and rationalistic method
of
Descartes, the advocated empiricism of Bacon, the political changes of the
times--all these things were factors in the preparation and arrangement of
a
stage upon which a criticism leveled at revelational religion might come
forward and play its part with some chance of success. And though the
first
essays of deism were somewhat veiled and intentionally indirect in their
attack upon revelation, with the revolution and the civil and religious
liberty consequent upon it, with the spread of the critical and empirical
spirit as exemplified in the philosophy of Locke, the time was ripe for
the
full rehearsal of the case against Christianity as expounded by the
Establishment and the sects. The wedge of private judgment had been driven
into authority. It had already split Protestantism into a great number of
conflicting sects. It was now to attempt the wreck of revealed religion in
any shape or form.
The deistical tendency passed through several more or less clearly defined
phases. All the forces possible were mustered against its advance.
Parliaments took cognizance of it. Some of the productions of the deists
were publicly burnt. The bishops and clergy of the Establishment were
strenuous in resisting it. For every pamphlet or book that a deist wrote,
several "answers" were at once put before the public as antidotes. Bishops
addressed pastoral letters to their dioceses warning the faithful of the
danger. Woolston's "Moderator" provoked no less than five such pastorals
from the Bishop of London. All that was ecclesiastically official and
respectable was ranged in opposition to the movement, and the deists were
held up to general detestation in the strongest terms. When the critical
principles and freethought spirit filtered down to the middle classes and
the masses, when such men as Woolston and Chubb put pen to paper, a
perfect
storm of counter-criticism arose. As a matter of fact, not a few educated
and cultured men were really upon the side of a broad toleration in
matters
of religion. The "wit and ridicule" by which the Earl of Shaftesbury would
have all tested meant, as Brown rightly notes, no more than urbanity and
good nature. But Shaftesbury himself would by no means allow that he was a
deist, except in the sense in which the term is interchangeable with
theist;
and Herbert of Cherbury, by far the most cultured representative of the
movement, is noted as having been the most moderate and the least opposed
of
them all to the teachings of Christianity.
One phase through which deism may be said to have passed was that of a
critical examination of the first principles of religion. It asserted its
right to perfect tolerance on the part of all men. Freethought was the
right
of the individual; it was, indeed, but one step in advance of the received
principle of private judgment. Such representatives of deism as Toland and
Collins may be taken as typical of this stage. So far, while critical and
insisting on its rights to complete toleration, it need not be, though as
a
matter of fact it undoubtedly was, hostile to religion.
A second phase was that in which it criticized the moral or ethical part
of
religious teaching. The Earl of Shaftesbury, for example, has much to urge
against the doctrine of doctrine of future rewards and punishments as the
sanction of the moral law. Such an attitude is obviously incompatible with
the accepted teaching of the Churches. Upon this follows a critical
examination of the writings of the Old and New Testaments, with a
particular
regard to the verification of prophecy and to the miraculous incidents
therein recorded. Antony Collins performed the first part of this task,
while Woolston gave his attention principally to the latter, applying to
Scriptural records the principles put forward by Blount in his notes to
the
"Apollonius Tyanæus". Lastly, there was the stage in which natural
religion
as such was directly opposed to revealed religion. Tindal, in his
"Christianity as old as the Creation", reduces, or attempts to reduce,
revelation to reason, making the Christian statement of revelational
truths
either superfluous, in that it is contained in reason itself, or
positively
harmful, in that it goes beyond or contradicts reason.
It is thus clear that, in the main, deism is no more than an application
of
critical principles to religion. But in its positive aspect it is
something
more, for it offers as a substitute for revealed truth that body of truths
which can be built up by the unaided efforts of natural reason. The term
deism, however, has come in the course of time to have a more specific
meaning. It is taken to signify a peculiar metaphysical doctrine supposed
to
have been maintained by all the deists. They are thus grouped together
roughly as members of a quasi-philosophical school, the chief and
distinguishing tenet of which is the relationship asserted to obtain
between
the universe and God. God, in this somewhat inferential and constructive
thesis, is held to be the first cause of the world, and to be a personal
God.
So far the teaching is that of the theists, as contrasted with that of
atheists and pantheists. But, further, deism not only distinguishes the
world and God as effect and cause; it emphasizes the transcendence of the
Deity at the sacrifice of His indwelling and His providence. He is apart
from the creation which He brought into being, and unconcerned as to the
details of its working. Having made Nature, He allows it to run its own
course without interference on His part. In this point the doctrine of
deism
differs clearly from that of theism.
The verbal distinction between the two, which are originally convertible
terms--deism, of Latin origin, being a translation of the Greek
theism--seems to have been introduced into English literature by the
deists
themselves, in order to avoid the denomination of naturalists by which
they
were commonly known. As naturalism was the epithet generally given to the
teaching of the followers of the Spinozistic philosophy, as well as to the
so-called atheists, deism seemed to its professors at once to furnish a
disavowal of principles and doctrines which they repudiated, and to mark
off
their own position clearly from that of the theists. The word seems
however,
to have been first employed in France and Italy about the middle of the
sixteenth century, for it occurs in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to the
second volume of Viret's "Instruction Chrétienne" (1563), where the
reforming divine speaks of some persons who had called themselves by a new
name--deists. It was principally upon account of their methods of
investigation and their criticism of the traditional Protestant religious
teaching that they had also come to be called rationalists, opposing, as
has
been pointed out, the findings of unaided reason to the truths held on
faith
as having come from God through external revelation. Whether it was by
ignoring this altogether, or by attempting actively to refute it and prove
its worthlessness, rationalism was the obvious term of their procedure.
And
it was also, in very much the same manner, by their claiming the freedom
to
discuss on these lines the doctrines set forth in the Bible and taught by
the Churches, that they earned for themselves the no less commonly given
title of "freethinkers."
There are notable distinctions and divergences among the English deists as
to the whole content of truth given by reason. The most important of these
distinctions is undoubtedly that by which they are classed as "mortal" and
"immortal" deists; for, while many conceded the philosophical doctrine of
a
future life, the rejection of future rewards and punishments carried with
it
for some the denial of the immortality of the human soul. The five
articles
laid down by Lord Herbert of Cherbury, however, with their expansion into
six (and the addition of a seventh) by Charles Blount, may be taken--and
especially the former--as the format professions of deism. They contain
the
that there exists one supreme God,
who is chiefly to be worshipped;
that the principal part of such worship consists in piety and virtue;
that we must repent of our sins and that, if we do so, God will pardon us;
that there are rewards for good men and punishments for evil men both here
and hereafter.
Blount, while he enlarged slightly upon each of these doctrines, broke one
up into two and added a seventh in which he teaches that God governs the
world by His providence.
This can hardly be accepted as a doctrine common to the deists; while, as
has been said, future rewards and punishments were not allowed by them
all.
In general they rejected the miraculous element in Scripture and
ecclesiastical tradition. They would not admit that there was any one
"peculiar people", such as the Jews or the Christians, singled out for the
reception of a truth-message, or chosen to be the recipients of any
special
grace or supernatural gift of God. They denied the doctrine of the Trinity
and altogether refused to admit any mediatorial character in the person of
Jesus Christ. The atonement, the doctrine of the "imputed righteousness"
of
Christ--especially popular with orthodoxy at the time--shared the fate of
all Christological doctrines at their hands. And above all things and upon
every occasion--but with at least one notable exception--they raised their
voices against ecclesiastical authority. They never tired of inveighing
against priestcraft in every shape or form, find they went so far as to
assert that revealed religion was an imposture, an invention of the
priestly
caste to subdue, and so the more easily govern and exploit, the ignorant.
As deism took its rise, in the logical sequence of events, from the
principles asserted at the Protestant Reformation, so it ran its short and
violent course in a development of those principles and ended in a
philosophical skepticism. For a time it caused an extraordinary commotion
in
all circles of thought in England, provoked a very large and, in a sense,
interesting polemical literature, and penetrated from the highest to the
lowest strata of society. Then it fell flat, whether because the
controversy
had lost the keen interest of its acuter stage or because people in
general
were drifting with the current of criticism towards the new views, it
would
be difficult to say. With most of the arguments of the deists we are
nowadays quite familiar, thanks to the efforts of modern freethought and
rationalism to keep them before the public. Though caustic, often clever,
and sometimes extraordinarily blasphemous, we open the shabby little books
to find them for the most part out-of-date, commonplace, and dull. And
while
several of the "replies" they evoked may still be reckoned as standard
works
of apologetics, the majority of them belong, in more senses than one, to
the
writings of a bygone age.
When Viscount Bolingbroke's works were published posthumously in 1754, and
even when, six years previously, David Hume's "Essay on the Human
Understanding" was given to the public, little stir was caused.
Bolingbroke's attacks upon revealed religion, aimed from the standpoint of
a
sensationalistic theory of knowledge, were, as a recent writer puts it,
"insufferably wearisome"; nor could all his cynicism and satire, any more
than the skepticism of the Scottish philosopher, renew general interest in
a
controversy that was practically dead. The deistical controversy traceable
to the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke is preeminently an English one, and
it
is to the English deists that reference is usually made when there is
question of deism. But the same or a similar movement took place in France
also. Says Ueberweg,
In the eighteenth century, the prevailing character of French philosophy .
.
. was that of opposition to the received dogmas and the actual conditions
in
Church and State, and the efforts of its representatives were chiefly
directed to the establishment of a new theoretical and practical
philosophy
resting on naturalistic principles. (Gesch. d. Philosophie, Berlin, 1901,
III, 237)
Men like Voltaire, and even the materialistic Encyclopædists, exemplify a
tendency of philosophic thought which has very much in common with what in
England ended in deism. It had the same basis, the theory of knowledge
propounded by Locke and subsequently pushed to an extreme point by
Condillac, and the general advance of scientific thought. From Voltaire's
criticisms of ecclesiastical organization and theology, his unwearying
attacks upon Christianity, the Bible, the Church, and revelation, the
tendency turned towards pantheism and materialism. Rousseau would have a
religion of nature substituted for the traditional forms of revelation,
and
bring it, as he would bring philosophy and politics, to the point of view
of
individualism. Helvetius would have the moral system based upon the
principle of present self-interest. And thus, as in England the logical
development of deism ended in the skepticism of Hume, so in France it came
to rest in the materialism of La Mettrie and Holbach.
PROMINENT DEIST WRITERS
Reference has been made above to several of the more important
representatives of English deism. Ten or twelve writers are usually
enumerated as noteworthy contributors to the literature and thought of the
movement, of whom the following brief sketches may be given.
Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1581-1648)
Lord Herbert, a contemporary of the philosopher Hobbes, was the most
learned
of the deists and at the same time the least disposed to submit Christian
revelation to a destructive criticism. He was the founder of a
rationalistic
form of religion--the religion of nature--which consisted of no more than
the residuum of truth common to all forms of positive religion when their
distinctive characteristics were left aside. The profession of faith of
Herbert's rationalism is summed up in the five articles given above. His
principal contributions to deistical literature are the "Tractatus de
Veritate prout distinguitur a Revelatione, a Verisimili, a Possibili et a
Falso" (1624); "De Religione Gentilium Errorumque apud eos Causis" (1645,
1663); "De Religione Laici."
Charles Blount (1654-93)
Blount was noted as a critic of both the Old and New Testaments. His
methods
of attack upon the Christian position were characterized by an
indirectness
and a certain duplicity that has ever since come to be in some degree
associated with the whole deistical movement. The notes that he appended
to
his translation of Apollonius are calculated to weaken or destroy credence
in the miracles of Christ, for some of which he actually suggests
explanations upon natural grounds, thus arguing against the
trustworthiness
of the New Testament. In a similar manner, by employing the argument of
Hobbes against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and by attacking
the
miraculous events therein recorded, he had impeached the accuracy and
veracity of the Old Testament. He rejects utterly the doctrine of a
mediatorial Christ and contends that such a doctrine is subversive of true
religion; while the many falsehoods he perceives in the traditional and
positive forms of Christianity he puts down to the political invention
(for
purposes of power and of easy government) of priests and religious
teachers.
The seven articles into which Blount expanded the five articles of Lord
Herbert have been noticed above. His notes to the translation of
Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius Tyanæus" were published in 1680. He
also the "Anima Mundi" (1678-9); "Religio Laici", practically a
translation
of Lord Herbert's book of the same title (1683); and "The Oracles of
Reason"
(1893).
John Toland (1670-1722)
Toland, while originally a believer in Divine revelation and not opposed
to
the doctrines of Christianity, advanced to the rationalistic position with
strong pantheistic tendencies by taking away the supernatural element from
religion. His principal thesis consisted in the argument that "there is
nothing in the Gospels contrary to reason, nor above it; and that no
Christian doctrine can properly be called a mystery. "This statement he
made
on the assumption that whatever is contrary to reason is untrue, and
whatever is above reason is inconceivable. He contended, therefore, that
reason is the safe and only guide to truth, and that the Christian
religion
lays no claim to being mysterious. Toland also raised questions as to the
Canon of Scripture and the origins of the Church. He adopted the view that
in the Early Church there were two opposing factions, the liberal and the
Judaizing; and he compared some eighty spurious writings with the New
Testament Scriptures, in order to cast doubt upon the authenticity and
reliability of the canon. His "Amyntor" evoked a reply from the celebrated
Dr. Clarke, and a considerable number of books and tracts were published
in
refutation of his doctrine. The chief works for which he was responsible
are--"Christianity not Mysterious" (l696); "Letters to Serena" (1704);
"Pantheisticon" (1720); "Amyntor" (1699); "Nazarenus" (1718).
Antony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713)
The Earl of Shaftesbury, one of the most popular, elegant, and ornate of
these writers, is generally classed among the deists on account of his
"Characteristics". He himself would not admit that he was such, except in
the sense in which deist is contrasted with atheist; of him Bishop Butler
said that, had he lived in a later age, when Christianity was better
understood, he would have been a good Christian. Thus, in a preface that
Shaftesbury contributed to a volume of the sermons of Dr. Whichcot (1698),
he "finds fault with those in this profane age, that represent not only
the
institution of preaching, but even the Gospel itself, and our holy
religion,
to be a fraud". There are also passages in "Several Letters Written by a
Noble Lord to a Young Man in the University" (1716) in which he shows a
very
real regard for the doctrines and practice of the Christian religion. But
the "Characteristics of Men, Matters, Opinions, and Times" (1711-1723)
gives
clear evidence of Shaftesbury's deistical tendencies. It contains frequent
criticisms of Christian doctrines, the Scriptures, and revelation. He
contends that this last is not only useless but positively mischievous, on
account of its doctrine of rewards and punishments. The virtue of morality
he makes to consist in a conformity of our affections to our natural sense
of the sublime and beautiful, to our natural estimate of the worth of men
and things. The Gospel, he asserts with Blount, was only the fruit of a
scheme on the part of the clergy to secure their own aggrandizement and
enhance their power. With such professions it is difficult to reconcile
his
statement that he adheres to the doctrines and mysteries of religion; but
this becomes clear in the light of the fact that he shared the peculiar
politico-religious view of Hobbes. Whatever the absolute power of the
State
sanctions is good; the opposite is bad. To oppose one's private religious
convictions to the religion sanctioned by the State is of the nature of a
revolutionary act. To accept the established state religion is the duty of
the citizen. Shaftesbury's more important contributions to this literature
are the "Characteristics" and the "Several Letters", mentioned above.
Antony Collins (1676-1729)
Collins caused a considerable stir by the publication (1713) of his
"Discourse of Freethinking, occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect
call'd Freethinkers". He had previously conducted an argument against the
immateriality and immortality of the soul and against human liberty. In
this
he had been answered by Dr. Samuel Clarke. The "Discourse" advocated
unprejudiced and unfettered enquiry, asserted the right of human reason to
examine and interpret revelation, and attempted to show the uncertainty of
prophecy and of the New Testament record. In another work Collins puts
forth
an argument to prove the Christian religion false, though he does not
expressly draw the conclusion indicated. He asserts that Christianity is
dependent upon Judaism, and that its proof is the fulfillment of the
prophetic utterances contained in the Old Testament. He then proceeds to
point out that all such Prophetic utterance is allegorical in nature and
cannot be considered to furnish a real proof of the truth of its event. He
further points out that the idea of the Messiah among the Jews was of
recent
growth before the time of Christ, and that the Hebrews may have derived
many
of their theological ideas from their contact with other peoples, such as
the Egyptians and Chaldeans. In particular, when his writings on prophecy
were attacked he did his utmost to discredit the book of Daniel. The
"Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion" (1724)
called forth a great number of answers, principal among which were those
of
the Bishop of Richfield, Dr. Chandler ("Defence of Christianity from the
Prophecies of the Old Testament"), and Dr. Sherlock ("The Use and Intent
of
Prophecy"). It was in Collins' "Scheme of Literal Prophecy" that the
antiquity and authority of the Book of Daniel were discussed. The
"prophecies were made to be a record of past and contemporary events
rather
than a prevision of the future. But the "Scheme" was weak, and though it
was
answered by more than one critic it cannot be said to have added much
weight
to the discourse". Altogether Collins' attacks upon prophecy were
considered
to be of so serious a nature that they called forth no less than
thirty-five
replies. Of his works, the following may be noticed, as bearing especially
upon the subject of deism: "Essay Concerning the Use of Reason in
Theology"
(1707); "Discourse of Freethinking" (1713); "Discourse on the Grounds and
Reasons of the Christian Religion" (1724); "The Scheme of Literal Prophecy
Considered" (1727).
Thomas Woolston (1669-1733)
Woolston appeared as a moderator in the acrimonious controversy that was
being waged between Collins and his critics with his "Moderator between an
Infidel and an Apostate". As Collins had succeeded in allegorizing the
prophecies of the Old Testament until nothing remained of them, so
Woolston
tried to allegorize away the miracles of Christ. During the years 1728-9,
six discourses on the miracles of Our Lord came out in three parts, in
which
Woolston asserted, with an extraordinary violence of language and
blasphemy
that could only be attributed to a madman, that the miracles of Christ,
when
taken in a literal and historical sense, are false, absurd, and
fictitious.
They must therefore, he urges, be received in a mystical and allegorical
sense. In particular, he argued at great length against the miracles of
resurrection from the dead wrought by Christ, and against the resurrection
of Christ Himself. The Bishop of London issued five pastoral letters
against
him, and many ecclesiastics wrote in refutation of his work. The most
noteworthy reply to his doctrines was "The Tryal of the Witnesses" (1729)
by
Dr. Sherlock. In 1729-30, Woolston published "A Defense of his Discourse
against the Bishops of London and St. David's", an extremely weak
production.
Matthew Tindal (1657-1733)
Tindal gave to the controversy the work that soon became known as the
"Deists' Bible". His "Christianity as Old as the Creation" was published
in
his extreme old age in 1730. As its sub-title indicates, its aim was to
show
that the Gospel is no more than a republication of the Law of Nature. This
it undertakes to make plain by eviscerating the Christian religion of all
that is not a mere statement of natural religion. External revelation is
declared to be needless and useless, indeed impossible, and both the Old
and
New Testaments to be full of oppositions and contradictions. The work was
taken as a serious attack upon the traditional position of Christianity in
England, as is evinced by the hostile criticism it at once provoked. The
Bishop of London issued a pastoral; Waterland, Law, Conybeare, and others
replied to it, Conybeare's "Defence" creating a considerable stir at the
time. More than any other work, "Christianity as Old as the Creation" was
the occasion of the writing of Butler's well known "Analogy".
Thomas Morgan (d. 1743)
Morgan makes professions of Christianity, the usefulness of revelation,
etc., but criticizes and at the same time rejects as revelational the Old
Testament history, both as to its personages and its narratives of fact.
He
advances the theory that the Jews "accommodated" the truth, and even goes
so
far as to extend this "accommodation" to the Apostles and to Christ as
well.
His account of the origin of the Church is similar to that of Toland, in
that he holds the two elements, Judaizing and liberal, to have resulted in
a
fusion. His principal work is "The Moral Philosopher, a Dialogue between
Philalethes, a Christian Deist, and Theophanes, a Christian Jew" (1737,
1739, 1740). This was answered by Dr. Chapman, whose reply called forth a
defense on the part of Morgan in "The Moral Philosopher, or a farther
Vindication of Moral Truth and Reason".
Thomas Chubb (1679-1746)
Chubb -- a man of humble origin and of poor and elementary education, by
trade a glove-maker and tallow-chandler -- is the most plebeian
representative of deism. In 1731 he published "A Discourse Concerning
Reason" in which he disavows his intention of opposing revelation or
serving
the cause of infidelity. But "The True Gospel of Jesus Christ", in which
Lechler sees "an essential moment in the historical development of Deism",
announces Christianity as a life rather than as a collection of doctrinal
truths. The true gospel is that of natural religion, and as such Chubb
treats it in his work. In his posthumous works a skeptical advance is
made.
These were published in 1748, and after the "Remarks on the Scriptures"
contain the author's "Farewel to His Readers". This "Farewel" embraces a
number of tracts on various religious subjects. A marked tendency to
skepticism regarding a particular providence pervades them. The efficacy
of
prayer, as well as the future state, is called in question. Arguments are
urged against prophecy and miracle. There are fifty pages devoted to those
against the Resurrection alone. Finally, Christ is presented as a mere
man,
who founded a religious sect among the Jews. Chubb published also "The
Supremacy of the Father" (1715) and "Tracts" (1730). He is also
responsible
for the sentiments of "The Case of Deism Fairly Stated", an anonymous
tract
which he revised.
Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751)
Viscount Bolingbroke belongs to the deists chiefly by reason of his
posthumous works. They are ponderously cynical in style and generally dull
and uninteresting, Containing arguments against the truth and value of
Scriptural history, and asserting that Christianity is a system footed
upon
the unlettered by the cunning of the clergy to further their own ends.
Peter Annet (1693-1769)
Annet was the author, among other works, of "Judging for Ourselves, or
Freethinking the great Duty of Religion" (1739), "The Resurrection of
Jesus
Considered" (1744), "Supernatural Examined" (1747), and nine numbers of
the
"Free Inquirer" (1761). In the second of these works he denies the
resurrection of Christ and accuses the Holy Bible of fraud and imposture.
Henry Dodged (d. 1748)
Dodged, who wrote "Christianity not Founded on Argument", is also
generally
reckoned, with Annet, as among the representative deists. (See GOD;
PROVIDENCE; RATIONALISM; SCEPTICISM; THEISM.)
FRANCIS AVELING