opinions commonly received; and are consequently more or less men of sense, according as they depart more or less from the opinions commonly received: neither can you name an enemy to freethinking, however he be dignified or distinguished, whether archbishop, bishop, priest, or deacon, who has not been either "a crackbrained enthusiast, a diabolical villain, "or a most profound ignorant brute."

Thus, sir, I have endeavoured to execute your commands, and you may print this Letter if you please but I would have you conceal your name. For my opinion of virtue is, that we ought not to venture doing ourselves harm, by endeavouring to do good.

I am,

Yours, &c.

CON

CONCLUSION.

.

I HAVE here given the publick a brief, but faithful abstract of this most excellent Essay; wherein I have all along religiously adhered to our author's notions, and generally to his words, without any other addition than that of explaining a few necessary consequences, for the sake of ignorant readers; for, to those who have the least degree of learning, I own, they will be wholly useless. I hope I have not, in any single instance, misrepresented the thoughts of this admirable writer. If I have happened to mistake through inadvertency, I entreat he will condescend to inform me, and point out the place; upon which, I will immediately beg pardon both of him and the world. The design of his piece is to recommend freethinking; and one chief motive is the example of many excellent men who were of that sect. produces as the principal points of their freethinking; that they denied the being of a God, the torments of Hell, the immortality of the soul, the Trinity, incarnation, the history of the creation by Moses, with many other such "fabulous and blasphemous stories,” as he judiciously calls them: and he asserts, that whoever denies the most of these, is the completest freethinker, and consequently the wisest and most vir

tuous man.

He

The author, sensible of the prejudices of the age, does not directly affirm himself an atheist; he goes no farther than to pronounce that atheism is the most

perfect

perfect degree of freethinking; and leaves the reader to form the conclusion. However, he seems to allow, that a man may be a tolerable freethinker, though he does believe a God; provided he utterly rejects "providence, revelation, the Old and New "Testament, future rewards and punishments, the "immortality of the soul," and other the like impossible absurdities. Which mark of superabundant caution; sacrificing truth to the superstition of priests, may perhaps be forgiven, but ought not to be imitated by any who would arrive (even in this author's judgment) at the true perfection of freethinking.

A

LETTER

ΤΟ Α

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

IN

IRELAND,

UPON CHOOSING A NEW SPEAKER THERE.

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.

SIR,

at what

You may easily believe I am not at all surprised you tell me, since it is but a confirmation of my own conjecture that I sent you last week, and made you my reproaches upon at a venture. It looks exceedingly strange, yet I believe it to be a great truth, that in order to carry a point in your house, the two following circumstances are of great advantage: first, to have an ill cause; and, secondly, to be a minority. For both these circumstances, are extremely apt to invite men, to make them assiduous in their attendance, watchful of opportunities, zealous for gaining over proselytes, and often successful;

which is not to be wondered at, when favour and interest are on the side of their opinion. Whereas, on the contrary, a majority with a good cause are negligent and supine. They think it sufficient to declare themselves upon opinion in favour of their party; but, sailing against the tide of favour and preferment, they are easily scattered and driven back. In short, they want a common principle to cement, and motive to spirit them: for, the bare acting upon a principle from the dictates of a good conscience, or prospect of serving the publick, will not go very far under the present dispositions of mankind. This was amply verified last session of parliament, upon occasion of the money bill, the merits of which I shall not pretend to examine. It is enough, that upon the first news of its transmission hither, in the form in which it afterward appeared, the members, upon discourse with their friends, seemed unanimous against it; I mean those of both parties, except a few, who were looked upon as persons ready to go any lengths prescribed them by the court. Yet, with only a weak canvassing among a very few hands, the bill passed, after a full debate, by a very great majority. Yet, I believe, you will hardly attempt persuading me, or any body else, that one man in ten, of those who changed their language, were moved by reasons any way affecting the merits of the cause, but merely through hope, fear, indolence, or good manners. Nay, I have been assured from good hands, that there was still a number sufficient to make a majority against the bill, if they had not apprehended the other side to be secure; and therefore thought it imprudence, by declaring themselves, to disoblige the government to no purpose.

Reflecting