IV. Alc. — Now it is as evident as demonftration can make it, that no divine faith can pombly be built upon tradition. Suppofe an honeft credulous countryman catechifed and le&ured every Sunday by his parifh-prieft: it is plain he believes in the parfon, and not in God. He knows nothing of revelations, and doctrines, and miracles, but what the prieft tells him. This he believes, and this faith is purely human. If you fay he has the liturgy and the bible for the foundation of his faith, the difficulty ftill recurs. For, as to the liturgy, he pins his faith upon the civil magiflrate, as well as the ecclefiaftic, neither of which can pretend divine infpiration. Then for the bible, he takes both that and his prayer book on [Dial. VI] MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. 257 truft from the printer, who, he believes, made true editions from true copies. You fee then faith, but what faith? Faith in the prieft, in the magiftrate, in the printer, editor, tranfcriber, none of which can, with any pretence, be called divine. I had the hint from Cratylus: it is a fhaft out of his quiver, and, believe me, a keen one.
Euph. — Let me take and make trial of this fame fhaft in my hands. Suppofe then your countryman hears the magiftrate declare the law from the bench, or fuppofe he reads it in a ftatute book. What think you, is the printer, or the juftice, the true and proper objecT: of his faith and fubmiflion? Or do you acknowledge a higher authority whereon to found thofe royal ac~ts, and in which they do really terminate? Again, fuppofe you read a paflage in Tacitus that you believe true \ would you fay you aflented to it on the authority of the printer, or tranfcriber, rather than the hiftorian?
Alc — Perhaps I would, and perhaps I would not. I do not think myfelf obliged to anfwer thefe points. What is this but transfering the queftion from one fubjecl: to another? That which we confidered was neither law nor profane hiftory, but religious tradition, and divine faith. I fee plainly what you aim at, but mall never take for an anfwer to one difficulty, the ftarting of another.
Cri. — O Alciphron, there is no taking hold of you, who expect that others mould (as you were pleafed to exprefs it) hold fair and ftand firm, while you plucked out their prejudices: How (hall he argue with you, but from your conceffions, and how can he know what you grant, except you will be pleafed to tell him?
Euph. — But, to fave you the trouble, for once I will fuppofe an anfwer. My queftion admits but of two anfwers: take your choice. From the one it will follow, Ii that by a parity of reafon, we can eafily conceive, how a man may have divine faith, though he never felt infpiration, or faw a miracle: inafmuch as it is equally poflible for the mind, through whatever conduit, oral or fcriptural, divine revelation be derived, to carry its thought and fubmiflion up to the fource, and terminate its faith, not in human, but divine authority: not in the inftrument or veffel of conveyance, but in the great origin itfelf, as its proper and true object. From the other anfwer it will follow, that you introduce a general fcepticifm into human knowledge, and break down the hinges on which civil government, and all the affairs of the world, turn and depend. In a word, that you would deftroy human faith, to get rid of divine. And how this agrees with your profeffing that you want to be convinced, I leave you to confider.
V. Alc. — I mould in earneft be glad to be convinced one way or other, and come to fome conclufion. But I have fo many objections in (lore, you are not to count much upon getting over one. Depend on it, you (hall find me behave like a gentleman and lover of truth. I will propofe my objections briefly and plainly, and accept of reafonable anfwers as faft as you can give them. Come, Euphranor, make the mofl of your tradition: you can never make that a conftant and univerfal one, which is acknowledged to have been unknown, or at beft difputed in the church for feveral ages: And this is the cafe of the canon of the New Teftament. For*though we have now a canon, as they call it, fettled j yet every one muft fee and own, that tradition cannot grow ftronger by age; and that what was uncertain in the primitive times, Cannot be undoubted in the fubfequent. What fay you to this, Euphranor f Euph. — I mould be glad to conceive your meaning clearly before I return an anfwer. It feems to me this objection of yours fuppofeth, that where a tradition hath been conftant and undifputed, fuch tradition may be admitted as a proof; but that where the tradition is defective, the proof muft be fo too. Is this your meaning?
Alc. — It is.
Alc. — It is.
Euph. — Confequently the gofpels and epiftles of Saint Paul, which were univerfally received in the beginning, and never fince doubted of by the church, muft, notwithilanding this objection, be in reafon admitted as genuine. And if thefe books contain, as they really do, all thofe points that come into controverfy between you and me, what need I difpute with you about the authority of fome other books of the New Teftament, which came later to be generally known and received in the church? If a man affents to the undifputed books, he is no longer an infidel \ though he mould not hold the Revelations, or the epiftle of Saint James or Jude, or the latter of Saint Peter, or the two laft of Saint John, to be canonical.-— The additional authority of thefe portions of Holy Scripture may have its weight, in particular controverfies between chriftians, but can add nothing to arguments againft an infidel, as fuch. Wherefore, though I believe a fubfequent age might clear up what was obfcure or dubious in a foregoing, and that good reafons may be affigned for receiving thefe books, yet thofe reafons feem now befide our purpofe. When you are a chriftian, it will be then time enough to argue this point. And you will be the nearer, being fo, if the way be fhortened by omitting it for the prefent.
Alc— Not fo near neither, as you perhaps imagine: For, notwithstanding all the fair and plaufible things you may fay about tradition, when I confider the fpirit of forgery which reigned in the primitive times, and refiecl: on the feveral gofpels, a£ts, and epiftles, attributed to the apoftles, which yet are acknowledged to be fpurious, I confefs I cannot help fufpecting the whole.
2<5o MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. [Dial. VI.]
Euph. — Tell me, AIciphrony do you fufpedt all P/ato's writings for Spurious, becaufe the dialogue upon death, for inftance, is allowed to be fo? Or will you admit none of Tul/y's writings to be genuine, becaufe Sigonius impofed a book of his own writing for TuIIy's treatife de Confolatione, and the impofture pafled for Some time on the world?
Alc. — Suppofe I admit for the works of Tully and. Plato thofe that commonly pafled for fuch. What then?
Euph. — Why then I would fain know, whether it be equal and impartial in a free-thinker, to meafure the credibility of profane and facred books by a different rule-Let us know upon what foot we chriftians are to argue with Minute Philosophers: Whether we may be allowed the benefit of common maxims in logic and criticifm? If we may, be pleafed to aflign a reafon why fuppofititious writings, which in the ftile, and manner, and matter, bear vifible marks of impofture, and have accordingly been rejected by the church, can be made an argument againft thofe which have been univerfally received, and handed down by an unanimous conftant tradition. I know nothing truly valuable that hath not been counterfeited: Therefore this argument is univerfal: But that which concludes againft all things is to be admitted againft none. There have been in all ages, and in all great Societies of men, many capricious, vain, or wicked impoftors, who, for different ends, have abufed the world by fpurious writings, and created work for critics both in profane and facred reaming. And it would feem as filly to rejecl: the true writings of profane authors for the fake of the fpurious, as it would feem unreasonable to fuppofe, that among the heretics and Several feels of chriftians, there fhould be none capable of the like impofture.
Alc — I fee no means for judging: It is all dark and doubtful, mere guefs-rwerk, at fo great a diftance of time.
Cri. — But if I know, that a number of fit perfons met together in council, did examine and diftinguifh authentic writings from fpurious, relating to a point of the higheft concern, in an age near the date of thofe writings; though I at the diftance of many more centuries had no other proof; yet their deciihon may be of weight to determine my judgment. Since it is probable they might have had feveral proofs and reafons for what they did, and not at all improbable, that thofe reafons might be loft in fo long a tract of time. * VI. Alc. — But, be the tradition ever fo well attefted, and the books ever fo genuine, yet I cannot fuppofe them wrote by perfons divinely infpired, fo long as I fee in them certain characters inconfiftent with fuch a fuppofition. Surely the pureft language, the molt perfect ftile, the exacted method, and, in a word, all the excellencies of good writing, might be expected in a piece compofed or dictated by the Spirit of God: But books, wherein we find the reverfe of all this, it were impious, not to reject, but to attribute to the divinity.
Euph. — Say, Alciphron, are the lakes, the rivers, or the ocean bounded by ftraight lines? Are the hills and mountains exact: cones or pyramids? Or the ftars caft into regular figures?
Alc — They are not.
Euph. — But in the works of infects, we may obferve figures as exact as if they were drawn by the rule and compafs.
Alc. — We may.
Euph. — Should it not fcem, therefore, that a regular exactnefs, or fcrupulous attention to what men call the rules of art, is not obferved in the great productions of the author of nature?
Alc. — It fnould.
* Vide Can. Ix. Council. Laodicen.
Euph.— —And when a great prince declareth his will in laws and edicts to his fubje&s, is he careful about 3s pure ftile, or elegant compofition? Does he not leave his fecretaries and clerks to exprefs his fenfe in their own words? Is not the phrafe, on fuch occafions, thought proper, if it conveys as much as was intended? And would not the divine ftrain of certain modern critics be judged affe&ed and improper for fuch ufes?
Alc— It muft be owned, laws, and edicts, and grants, for folcecifm and tautology, are very offennve to the harmonious ears of an ingenious man.
Euph. — Why then mould we expect in the oracles of God an exa&nefs, that would be mifbecoming and beneath the dignity of an earthly monarch, and which bears no proportion, or refemblance, to the magnificent works of the creation?
Alc.; — But granting that a nice regard to particles and critical rules is a thing too little and mean to be expected in divine revelations; and that there is more force, and fpirit, and true greatnefs, in a negligent unequal ftile, than in the well turned periods of a polite writer: Yet what is all this to the bald and flat compofitions of thofe you call the divine penmen? I can never be perfuaded, the Supreme Being would pick out the pooreft and meaneft of fcriblers for his fecretaries.
Euph. — O Alciphron^ if I durft follow my own judgment, I mould be apt to think there are noble beauties in the ftile of the Holy Scripture: In the narrative parts, a ftrain fo fimple and unaffected: In the devotional and prophetic, fo animated and fublime: And in the doctrinal parts, fuch an air of dignity and authority, as feems to fpeak their original divine. But I fhall not enter into a difpute about tafte; much lefs fet up my judgment, on fo nice a point, againft that of the wits, and men of genius, with which your feci: abounds. And I have no temptation to it, inafmuch as it feems to me, the oracles of God are not the lefs fo for being delivered in a plain drefs, rather than in the enticing words of maris wifdom, Alc— This may perhaps be an apology for fome fimplicity and negligence in writing.
VII. But what apology can be made for nonfenfe, crude nonfenfe? Of which I could eafily affign many inftances, having once in my life read the fcripture thorough with that very view. Look here, faid he, opening a bible, in the forty-ninth Pfalm, the author begins very magnificently, calling upon all the inhabitants of the earth to give ear, and alluring them his mouth fhall fpeak of wifdom, and the meditation of his heart fhall be of under-Handing.
S$uid dignum tanto feret hie promijfor hiatu P He hath no fooner done with his preface, but he puts this fenfelefs queftion. * Wherefore mould I fear in the ' days of evil; when the wickednefs of my heels mail * compafs me about?' The iniquity of my heels! What nonfenfe after fuch a folemn introduction!
Euph. — For my own part, I have naturally weak eyes, and know there are many things that I cannot fee, which are neverthelefs diftinc~tly feen by others. I do not therefore conclude a thing to be abfolutely invifible, becaufe it is fo to me. And fince it is poflible it may be with my underftanding, as it is with my eyes, I dare not pronounce a thing to be nonfenfe, becaufe I do not underftand it, Of this paffage many interpretations are given. The word rendered heels, may fignify fraud or fupplantation: By fome it is tranflated, paft wickednefs, the heel being the hinder part of the foot •, by others, iniquity in the end of my days, the heel being one extremity of the body \ by fome, the iniquity of my enemies that may fupplant me; by others, my own faults or iniquities, which I have pafled over as light matters, and trampled under my feet. Some render it, the iniquity of my ways: Others, my tranfgreflions, which are like flips, and Hidings of the heel.
And after all, might not the expreflion, fo harfh and odd to Englijh ears, have been very natural and obvious in the Hebrew tongue, which, as every other language, had its idioms? the force and propriety whereof may as eafily be conceived loft in a long tracl: of time, as the fignification of divers Hebrew words, which are not now intelligible, though nobody doubts but they had once a meaning, as well as the other words of that language. — -Granting, therefore, that certain paflages in the Holy Scripture may not be under flood, it will not thence follow, that its penmen wrote nonfenfe: For I conceive nonfenfe to be one thing, and unintelligible another.
Cri.— -An Englijh gentleman of my acquaintance, one day entertaining fome foreigners at his houfe, fent a fervant to know the occafion of a fudden tumult in the yard, who brought him word the horfes were failed together by the ears: His guefts inquiring what the matter was, he trariflated it literally, Les Chevaux font tombez enfemblepar les oreilles. Which made them ft are: what expreffed a very plain fenfe in the original Englijh^ being incomprehenfible when rendered, word for word, into French. And I remember to have heard a man excufe the bulls of his countrymen, by fuppofing them fo many literal tranflations.
Euph. — But not to grow tedious, I refer to the critics and commentators, where you will find the ufe of this remark, which clearing up feveral obfcure paflages you took for nonfenfe, may poflibly incline you to fufpecl: your own judgment of the reft. In this very pfalm you [Dial. VI.] MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. tfs have pitched on, the goodfenfe and moral contained in what follows, mould, methinks, make a candid reader judge favorably of the original fenfe of the author, in that part which he could not underftand. Say, Alciphron, in reading the claflics, do you forthwith conclude every paflage to be nonfenfe that you cannot make fenfe of?
Alc. — By no means: Difficulties mull be fuppofed to rife from different idioms, old cuftoms, hints and illusions, clear in one time or place, and obfcure in archer.
Euph. — And why will you not judge of fcripture by the fame rule? Thofe fources of obfcurity you mention, are all common, both to facred and profane writings: And there is no doubt, but an exa£ter knowledge, in language, and circumftances, would, in both, caufe difficulties to vanifh, like (hades before the light of the fun. Jeremiah, to defcribe a furious invader, faith: Behold, he Jhall come up as a Lion from the fivelling of Jordan againjh the habitation of the Jlrong. One would be apt to think this paflage odd and improper, and that it had been more reafonable to have faid, a Lion from the mountain or the defert. But travellers, as an ingenious man obferves, who have feen the river Jordan, bounded by low lands with many reeds or thickets, affording fhelter to wild beads, (which being fuddenly diflodged by a rapid overflowing of the river, rufh into the upland country) perceive the force and propriety of the comparison •, and that the difficulty proceeds, not from nonfenfe in the writer, but from ignorance in the reader.
Alc. — Here and there a difficult paflage may be cleared: But there are many which no art or wit of man can account for. What fay you to thofe difcoveries, made by fome of our learned writers, of falfe citations from the Old Teftament found in the gofpel?
Euph. — That fome few paflages are cited by the writers of the New Teftament out of the Old, and by the fathers K k 266 MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. [Dial. VI.} out of the New, which are not in fo many words to be found in them, is no new difcovery of Minute Philofophers, but was known and obferved long before by chriftian writers •, who have made no fcruple to grant, that fome things might have been inferted by carelefs or miftaken tranfcribers into the text, from the margin, others left out, and others altered; whence fo many various readings. But thefe are things of fmall moment, and that.,, M other ancient authors have been fubjecl: to; and upon which no point of doctrine depends, which may not be proved without them. Nay further, if it be any advantage to your caufe, it hath been obferved, that the eighteenth Pfahn, as recited in the twenty-fecond chapter of the fecond book of Samuel, varies in above forty places, if you regard every little literal difference: And that a critic may now and then difcover fmall variations, is what nobody can deny. But to make the moll of thefe conceffions, what can you infer from them, more than that the defign of the Holy Scripture was not to make us exactly knowing in circumltantials? And that the fpirit did not dictate every particle and fyllable, or preferve them from every minute alteration by miracle? which to believe, would look like rabbinical fuperftition.
Alc. — But what marks of divinity can poffibly be in writings which do not reach the exactnefs even of human art?
Euph. — I never thought nor expected that the Holy Scripture mould fhew itfelf divine, by a circumftantial accuracy of narration, by exactnefs of method, by {triclly obferving the rules of rhetoric, grammar* and criticifm, in harmonious periods, in elegant and choice expreflions, or in technical definitions and partitions. Thefe things would look too like a human compofition. Methinks there is in that fimple, unaffected, artlefs, unequal, bold, figurative flile of the Holy Scripture, a character fingu- TDial. VI.] MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. 267 larly great and majeftic, and that looks more like divine infpiration, than any other compofition that I know. But, as I faid before, I fhall not difpute a point of criticifm with the gentlemen of your feet, who, it feems, are the modern ftandard for wit and tafte.
Alc. — Well I (hall not inGft on frrcall flips, or the inaccuracy of citing or tranfcribing: And I freely own, that repetitions, want of method, or want of exactnefs in circumftances, are not the things that chiefly ftick with me; no more than the plain patriarchal manners, or the peculiar ufages and cuftoms of the Jews and firft chriftians, fo different from ours; and that to reject the fcripture on fuch accounts would be to act like thofe French wits, who cenfure Horner^ becaufe they do not find in him the ftile, notions, and manners of their own age and country. Was there nothing elfe to divide us, I fhould make no great difficulty of owning, that a popular uncorrect ftile might anfwer the general ends of revelation, as well perhaps, as a more critical and exact one. But the obfcurity ftill flicks with me. Methinks if the Supreme Being had fpoke to man, he would have fpoke clearly to him, and that the word of God fhould not need a comment.
VIII. Euph. — You feem, Alciphron> to think obfcurity a defeat; but if it fhould prove to be no defect, there would then be no force in this objection.
Alc. — I grant there would not.
Euph. — Pray tell me, are not fpcech and ftile inftrumental to convey thoughts and notions, to beget knowledge, opinion, and affent?
Alc. — This is true.
Euph. — And is not the perfection of an inftrument to be meafured by the ufe to which it is fubfervient?
Alc. — It is.
Euph. — What, therefore, is a defect in one inftrument, may be none in another. For inftance, edged tools arc in general defigned to cut; but the ufes of an axe and a razor being different, it is no defect in an axe, that it hath not the keen edge of a razor: Nor in the razor, that it hath not the weight or ftrength of an axe.
Alc. — I acknowledge this to be true.
Euph. — And may we not fay in general, that every inftrument is perfect which anfwers the purpofe or intention of him who ufeth it?
Alc. — We may.
Euph--— Hence it feems to follow, that no man's fpeech is defective in point of clearnefs, though it fhould not be intelligible to all men, if it be fufficiently fo to thofe, who he intended, mould underftand it: Or though it fhould not in all parts be equally clear, or convey a perfect knowledge, where he intended only an imperfeet hint.
Alc. — It feems fo.
Euph. — Ought we not, therefore, to know the intention of the fpeaker, to be able to know whether his ftile be obfcure through defecl or «|fen?
Alc — We ought.
Euph! — But is it pofiible for man to know all the ends and purpofes of God's revelations?
Alc — It is not.
Euph. — How then can you tell, but the obfcurity of fome parts of fcripture may well confift with the purpofe which you know not, and confequently be no argument againft its coming from God? The books of Holy Scripture were written in ancient languages, at diftant times, on fundry occafions, and very different fubjeclis. Is it not therefore reafonable to imagine, that fome parts or pafiages might have been clearly enough underftood by thofe, for whofe proper ufe they were principally defigned, and yet feem obfcure to us, who fpeak another language, and live in other times? Is it at all abfurd or unfuitable to the notion we have of God or man, to fuppofe that God may reveal, and yet reveal with a referve, upon certain remote and fublime fubjects, content to give us hints and glimpfes, rather than views? May we not alfo fuppofe from the reafon of things, and the analogy of nature, that fome points, which might otherwife have been more clearly explained, were left obfcure merely to encourage our diligence and modefty? Two virtues, which, if it might not feem difrefpectful to fuch great men, I would recommend to the Minute Philofophers. Lyficks replied, this indeed is excellent: You expect that men of fenfe and fpirit mould in great humility put out their eyes, and blindly fwallow all the abfurdities and nonfenfe that mall be offered to them for divine revelation.
Euph. — On the contrary, I would have them open their eyes, look fharply, and try the fpirit, whether it is of God: and not fupinely and ignorantly condemn in the grofs, all religions together, piety with fu perdition, truth for the fake of error, matter of fact for the fake of fiction: a conduct, which, at firft fight, would feem abfurd in hiftory, phytic, or any other branch of human inquiry! But to compare the chriftian fyftem, or Holy Scriptures, with other pretences to divine revelation, to confider impartially the doctrines, precepts, and events therein contained; weigh them in the balance with any other religious, natural, moral, or hiftorical accounts; and diligently to examine all thofe proofs, internal and external, that for fo many ages have been able to influence and perfuade fo many wife, learned, and inquifitive men: Perhaps they might find in it certain peculiar characters, which fufHciently diftinguifh it from all other religions and pretended revelations, whereon to ground a reafonable faith. In. which cafe I leave them to confider, whether it would be right to reject with peremptory fcorn, 27<5 MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. [Dial. VI.]
a revelation fo diftinguifhed and attefted, upon account of obfcurity in fome parts of it? and whether it would feem beneath men of their fenfe and fpirit to acknowledge, that, for ought they know, a light inadequate to things, may yet be adequate to the purpofe of Providence? and whether it might be unbecoming their fagacity, and critical fkill, to own, that literal tranflations from books in an ancient oriental tongue, wherein there are fo many peculiarities, as to the manner of writing, the figures of fpeech, and the idioms fo remote from all our modern languages, and in which we have no other coeval writings extant, might well be obfcure in many places, efpecially fuch as treat of fubje&s fublime and difficult in their own nature, or allude to things, cuftoms, or events, very diftant from our knowledge? And laftly, whether it might not become their character, as impartial and unprejudiced men, to confider the bible in the fame light they would profane authors? Men are apt to make great allowance for tranfpofitions, omiflions, and literal errors of tranfcribers, in other ancient books, and very great for the difference of (tile and manners, efpecially in eaftern writings, fuch as the remains of Zoroajler and Confucius, and why not in the prophets? In reading Horace or Perfiusy to make out the fenfe, they will be at the pains to difcover a hidden drama, and why not in Solomon or St. Paul? I hear there are certain ingenious men, who defpife king David's poetry, and yet profefs to admire Homer and Pindar, If there be no prejudice or affectation in this, let them but make a literal verfion from thofe authors into Englijh profe, and they will then be better able to judge of the pfalms.
Alc — You may difcourfe and expatiate; but notwithstanding all you have faid, or mall fay, it is a clear point, that a revelation which doth not reveal, can be no better than a contradiction in terms.
[Dial. VI.] MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. %1x Euph.-— Tell me, Alciphrony do you not acknowledge the light of the fun to be the mod glorious production of Providence in tl^ natural world?
Alc. — Suppoie I do.
Euph. — This light, neverthelefs, which you cannot deny to be of God's making, fhines only on the furface of things, fhines not at all in the night, fhines imperfectly in the twilight, is often interrupted, refracted, and obfcured, reprefents diftant things, and fmall things dubioufly, imperfectly, or not at all. Is this true or no?
Alc. — It is.
Eupk. — Should it not follow, therefore, that to expect in this world a conftant uniform light from God, without any mixture of fhade or myftery, would be departing from the rule and analogy of the creation? and that confequently it is no argument the light of revelation is not divine, becaufe it may not be fo clear and full as you expect; or becaufe it may not equally fhine at all times, or in all places.
Alc — As I profefs myfelf candid and indifferent throughout this debate, I muft needs own you fay fome plaufible things, as a man of argument will never fail to do in vindication of his prejudices.
IX. But, to deal plainly, I muft tell you once for all, that you may queftion and anfwer, illuftrate and enlarge forever, without being able to convince'me that the chriftian religion is of divine revelation. I have faid feveral things, and have many more to fay, which, believe me, have weight not only with myfelf, but with many great men, my very good friends, and will have weight, whatever Euphranor can fay to the contrary.
Euph, — O Alciphron! I envy you thehappinefs of fuch acquaintance. But, as my lot fallen in this remote corner deprives me of that advantage, I am obliged to make a7* MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. [Dial. VLJ the mod of this opportunity, which you and Lyftcles have put into my hands. I confider you as two able chirurgeons, and you were pleafed to confider me as a patient, whofe cure you have generoufly undertaken. Now a patient mult have full liberty to explain his cafe, and tell all his fymptoms, the concealing of which might prevent a perfect cure. You will be pleafed, therefore, to underftand me, not as objecting to, or arguing againft, either your {kill or medicines, but only as fetting forth my own cafe, and the effects they have upon me. Say, Alciphron, did you not give me to underftand, that you would extirpate my prejudices?
Alc. — It is true: a good phyfician eradicates every fibre of the difeafe. Come, you mall have a patient hearing.
Euph. — Pray, was it not the opinion of Plato, that God infpired particular men, as organs or trumpets, to proclaim and found forth his oracles to the world? * And was not the fame opinion alfo embraced by others the greateft writers of antiquity?
Cri. — Socrates feems to have thought that all true poets, fpoke by infpiration •, and Tul/y, that there was no extraordinary genius without it. This hath made fome of our affected free-thinkers attempt to pafs themfelves upon the world for enthufiafts.
Alc — What would you infer from all this?
Euph. — I would infer, that infpiration fhould feem nothing impofTible or abfurd, but rather agreeable to the light of reafon, and the notions of mankind. And this, I fuppofe you will acknowledge, having made it an objection againft a particular revelation, that there are fo many pretences to it throughout the world.
Alc. — O Euphranory he who looks into the bottom of things, and refolves them into their firft principles, is * Plato in lone.
not eafily amufed v/ith words. The word infpiration founds indeed big, but let us, if you pleafe, take an original view of the thing fignified by it. To infpire, is a word borrowed from the Latin, and, ftri£Uy taken, means no more than to breathe or blow in: nothing, therefore, can be infpired, but what can be blown or breathed, and nothing can be fo, but wind or vapour, which indeed may fill or puff up men, with fanatical and hypochondriacal ravings. This fort of hifpiration I readily admit.
Euph. — What you fay is fubtle, and I know not what efFecl: it might have upon me, if your profound difcourfe did not hinder its own operation.
Alc. — How fo?
Euph. — Tell me, Alciphron, do you difcourfe, or do you not? To me it feems that you difcourfe admirably.
Alc. — Be that as it will, it is certain I difcourfe.
Euph. — But when I endeavor to look into the bottom of things, behold! a fcruple rifeth in my mind how this can be; for to difcourfe is a word of Latin derivation, which originally fignifies to run about; and a man cannot run about, but he muft change place, and move his legs; fo long therefore as you fit on this bench, you cannot be faid to difcourfe. Solve me this difficulty, and then perhaps I may be able to folve yours.
Alc — You are to know, that difcourfe is a word borrowed from fenfible things, to exprefs an invifible action of the mind, reafoning or inferring one thing from another: And, in -this tranflated fenfe, we may be faid to difcourfe, though we fit (till.
Euph. — And may we not as well conceive, that the term infpiration might be borrowed from fenfible things, to denote an action of God, in an extraordinary manner, influencing, exciting, and enlightening the mind of a prophet or an apoftle? who, in this fecondary, figurative, and tranflated fenfe, may truly be faid to be infpired,