its context, seems, for a moment, to give the advantage to the believer: the celebrated 19th chapter of Mark, v. 16: "He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." But little will this serve the deceitful hope of the Christian, for it is immediately added: “And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly things, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Can the Christian show these signs, or any of them? Will he dare to take up a serpent, or drink prussic acid? If he hesitate, he is not a believer, and his profession of belief is a falsehood. Let belief confer what privilege it may, he hath no part nor lot in the matter: the threat which he denounces against infidels hangs over himself, and he hath no sign of salvation to show. Believing the gospel, then (or rather, I should say, professing to believe it, for I need not tell you that there's a great deal more professing to believe, than believing), instead of making a man the more likely to be saved, doubles his danger of damnation, inasmuch as Christ hath said, that "the last state of that man shall be worse than the first." Luke xi. 26. And his holy apostle Peter addeth, "It would have been better for them not to have known the way (2 Peter ii. 21) of righteousness." The sin of believing makes all other sins that a man can commit so much the more heinous and offensive in the sight of God, inasmuch as they are sins against light and knowledge: and "the servant who knew his Lord's will, and did it not, he shall be beaten with many stripes." Luke xii. 47. While unbelief is not only innocent in itself, but so highly pleasing to Almighty God, that it is represented as the cause of his forgiveness of things which otherwise would not be forgiven. Thus St. Paul, who had been a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious, assures us that it was for this cause he obtained mercy, "because he did it ignorantly in unbelief." 1 Tim. i. 13. Had he been a believer, he would as surely have been damned as his name was Paul. And 'tis the gist of his whole argument, and the express words of the 11th of the Epistle to the Romans, that "God included them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." Unbelief being the essential qualification and recommendation to God's mercy: not without good reason was it that the pious father of the boy that had the Devil in him, when he had need of Christ's mercy, and knew that unbelief would be the best title to it, cried out and said with tears, "Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief!" Mark ix. 24. While the apostles themselves, who were most immediately near and dear to Christ, no more believed the gospel than I do: and for all they have said and preached about it, they never believed it themselves, as Christ told 'em that they hadn't so much faith as a grain of mustard seed. And the evangelist John bears them record, to their immortal honour, that "though Christ had done so many miracles among them, yet believed they not." John xii. 37. And the same divine authority assures us that "neither did his brethren believe in him." John vii. 5. Which then is "the safe side," Sirs, on the showing of the record itself? On the unbelieving side, the Infidel stands in the glorious company of the apostles, in the immediate family of Christ, and hath no fear; while the believer doth as well and no better than the Devils in Hell, who believe and tremble.'

'I.'

JOHN WATTS, PRINTER, 147, FLEET STREET.

WITH THE

FREETHINKERS.

EDITED BY 'ICONOCLAST,' ANTHONY COLLINS, & JOHN WATTS.

No. 24.]

DR.
Ꭰ Ꭱ .

Tuesday, September 15, 1857.

[Price 1d.

THOMAS BURNET.

It was only a very narrow accident which prevented Dr. Burnet, an ultrafreethinker in the Church of England, from becoming Archbishop of Canterbury at the death of Tillotson. A combination of clergymen were prepared to immolate themselves providing Burnet could be overthrown. They succeeded. Thomas Burnet kept the Charter House, in London, and his conscience-happier, perhaps, in this than if he had enjoyed the ecclesiastical preferment which King William seemed so anxious to give him. Amongst the clergy, Dr. Burnet was, with the single exception of Dean Swift, the greatest freethinker of whom we can boast, who held an influential position in the Church. This position is sometimes claimed for Bishop Berkeley, a man of vast talents, a sincere Christian, although an innovator in philosophy.

THOMAS BURNET was born in the year 1635. At the age of forty-five, he publishedthe work, in Latin, with which his name is generally associated, 'The Sacred Theory of the Earth: containing an account of the Original of the Earth, and of all the general changes which it has already undergone, or is to undergo, till the consummation of all Things.' This book gives us an idea, formed by its author, of the origin of the world, and is remarkable as one of the first grand prophecies of geology; although of little value to us, it produced an impression upon the age by depicting the various strata of the mountainous regions, and comparing them in different countries, eliminating ideas of the nature of the vast changes we see in the universe, tracing the rise of most of the phenomena from the two elements, fire and water. Burnet thought that at one time the whole of matter was in a fluid state, revolving round a central sun, until the heavier particles sunk into the middle, and formed the stony strata which supports the earth, over which the lighter liquids coalesced until the heat of the sun effectually separated water from land. This is the foundation of a scheme which is elaborated in a poetic style, abounding in eloquent descriptions; in fact, it is a philosophic prose poem of almost unrivalled beauty. In it there is some resemblance to the measured sentences of Shaftesbury, although unequal to that fine writer in soundness of judgment or practical usefulness. In 1691 an English translation was published.

By far the most interesting work to us of Burnet's (also written in Latin) is Archeologia Philosophica: or, an account of the Opinion of the Ancients on various Philosophical Problems.' This work created great opposition by its free remarks on the Mosaic dispensation, although the writer in this, as in the case of his two posthumous works, strongly protested against their being translated in the English language, as he was justly afraid of [Published Fortnightly.)

their influence on the minds of the laity, and from his high official station, with the influence his vast learning and his connection with Tillotson and the Court gave him, he was, no doubt, apprehensive that the really religious champions of the Church of England would denounce him when exposed to the temptation of High Church preferment. Fragments of those works were translated by the clergy to prove to the unlearned what a dangerous character Thomas Burnet was. Charles Blount, writing to Gildon, says, 'I have, according to my promise, sent you herewith the seventh and eighth chapters, as also the appendix, of the great and learned Dr. Burnet's book, published this winter in Latin, and by him dedicated to our most gracious Sovereign, King William......As for the piece itself, I think it is one of the most ingenious I have ever read, and full of the most acute as well as learned observations. Nor can I find anything worthy an objection against him, as some of the censorious part of the world pretend; who would have you believe it a mere burlesque upon Moses, and destructive to the notion of original sin, wherefore by consequence (say they) there could be no necessity of a Redemption, which, however, I think no necessary consequence; but, for my part, either the great veneration I have for the doctor's extraordinary endowments, or else my own ignorance, has so far bribed me to his interests that I can, by no means, allow of any of those unjust reflections the wholesale merchants of credulity, as well as their unthinking retailers, make against him. It is true, in the seventh chapter he seems to prove that many parts of the Mosaic history of the creation appear inconsistent with reason, and in the eighth chapter the same appears no less inconsistent with philosophy; wherefore he concludes (as many fathers of the Church have done before him) that the whole rather seems to have been but a pious allegory.' Dr. Burnet took the meaning of much of the Bible to be but a pious allegory,' and, as such, he strove to popularise it with the clergy. We do not believe that he intended to enlighten any but the clergy. He foresaw the flood of fierce democracy,' and, like other able men with vested rights in the ignorance of the people, he strove to temporise, to put off still further the day of Christianity's downfall. We place him in this biographical niche not because he dashed into the fray, like bold Hobbes or chivalrous Woolston, and took part in the battle of priestcraft because he thought it was right, but rather because he was a Freethinker in disguise, longing for episcopal honours; yet, by one false step (the publishing of 'Archeologia'), lost an archbishopric, and gave the authority of a great name to struggling opinion. His accession to our ranks was a brilliant accident. He died, at the age of eighty years, in 1715. After his demise, two works were translated (and published), both expressive of his liberal views. The first, 'On Christian Faith and Duties,' throwing overboard the whole of the speculative tenets of the Bible, and giving practical effect to the morals taught in the New Testament, without striving to refute, or even apparently to disbelieve, their authority, but advising the clergy to treat them as a dead letter. The other posthumous treatise was, 'On the State of the Dead and the Reviving,' which shadows forth a scheme of Deism, insomuch as Burnet here flatly contradicts the usual ideas of hell torments' or 'hell fire,' while asserting the necessity of those who have not been as good in this life as they ought to be undergoing a probationary purification before they attained supreme happiness, yet, eventually, every human being would inhabit a heavenly elysium, where perennial pleasure would reign, and sorrow be unknown.

6

Those sentiments indicate a high degree of liberal culture, although they do not sufficiently embody our ideal of one of the great Freethinkers of

the past. We should have preferred Burnet if he had systematically opposed the Church as Toland or Tindall, or if he had boldly entered the breach like William Whiston, whose singular talents and faithful honesty separated him alike from the Church, Dissent, and Deism, and left him shipwrecked on the world an able yet a visionary reformer. With more ability than Chubb, he resembled him in his weak policy; he choose to cut his sneers in slices, and served them up for a scholarly party rather than hazard the indignation of the ignorant amongst the clergy. We are, however, certain that although Thomas Burnet was deficient in many points where he might have done effective service, yet we honour him for the boldness with which he faced the scholars with his Latin works. He threw an apple of discord amongst their ranks which has served, in a constantly increasing manner, to divide and distract their attention. The result has been a constant internecine war in the Church, by which Freethought has largely profited.

6

We will conclude our sketch of Dr. Burnet by quoting some extracts from the seventh chapter of the Archeologia Philosophica,' as translated by Charles Blount in the Oracles of Reason,' concerning Moses' description of Paradise and the original of things:

'We have (says Burnet) hitherto made our inquiries into the originals of things, as well as after a true knowledge of Paradise amongst the ancients; yet still with reference to sacred writ, where it gave us any manner of light on the subject, but think it altogether unnecessary to define the place or situation of Paradise, since in respect to the theory of the earth, it is much the same thing where you place it, providing it be not on our modern earth. Now, if you inquire among the ancient fathers where the situation of it was, either they will have it to be none at all, or else obscure and remote from our understanding; some of them, indeed, term it an intelligible Paradise, but confined to no one particular place; whilst others, at the same time, make it a sensible one, and here it is they first divided about it, etc....... Now, the history of Paradise, according to Moses, is this:-When God had, in six days, finished the creation of the world, the seventh day he rested from all manner of work. And here Moses relates particularly each day's operations; but for the story of mankind, as well male as female, of which he makes a particular treatise by himself. Wherefore, omitting the rest at present, let us consider the Mosaic doctrine upon those three subjects, viz., Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden, together with those things which are interwoven within them. As to the first man, Adam, Moses says he was formed not out of stones or dragon's teeth, as other Cosmists have feigned concerning their men, but out of the dust or clay of the earth, and when his body was formed, "God blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man was made a living soul."

'But after another manner, and of another matter, was the woman builtviz., with one of Adam's small bones, for as Adam lay asleep, God took away one of his ribs, and out of that made Eve. So much for the forming of the first man and woman by the literal text. Moses has likewise given us a large account of their first habitation. He says that God made them in a certain famous garden in the East, and gave it to them as a farm to cultivate and to inhabit, which garden was a most delightful place, watered with four several fountains or rivers, planted with trees of every kind...... Amongst the trees, in the midst of the garden, stood two more remarkable than the rest; one was called the tree of life, the other the tree of death, or of the knowledge of good and evil......God, upon pain of death, prohibits Adam and Eve from tasting the fruit of this tree; but it happened that Eve sitting solitary under this tree, without her husband, there came to her a

serpent or adder, which (though I know not by what means or power) civilly accosted the woman (if we may judge of the thing by the event) in these words, or to this purpose:-*

6

Serpent.-All hail, most fair one, what are you doing so solitary and serious under this shade?

'Eve.-I am contemplating the beauty of this tree.

Serp.-'Tis truly an agreeable sight, but much pleasanter are the fruits thereof. Have you tasted them, my lady?

'Eve. I have not, because God has forbidden us to eat of this tree. 'Serp.-What do I hear! Who is that God that envies his creatures the innocent delights of nature? Nothing is sweeter, nothing more wholesome than this fruit; why, then, should he forbid it, unless in jest?

'Eve.-But he has forbid it us on pain of death.

'Serp.-Undoubtedly you mistake his meaning. This tree has nothing that would prove fatal to you, but rather something divine, and above the common order of nature.

'Eve.-I can give you no answer; but will first go to my husband, and then do as he thinks fit.

Serp.-Why should you trouble your husband over such a trifle? Use your own judgment.

'Eve.-Let me see-had I best use it, or not? What can be more beautiful than this apple? How sweetly it smells! But it may be it tastes ill.

Serp.-Believe me, it is a bit worthy to be eaten by the angels themselves; do but try, and if it tastes ill, throw it away.

'Eve. Well, I'll try. It has, indeed, a most agreeable flavour. Give me another that I may carry it to my husband.

Serp. Very well thought on; here's another for you: go to your husband with it. Farewell, happy young woman. In the meantime I'll go my ways; let her take care of the rest.

66

Accordingly, Eve gave the apple to the too uxorious Adam, when immediately after their eating of it, they became both (I don't know how) ashamed of their nakedness, and sowing fig trees together, making themselves a sort of aprons, etc. After these transactions, God, in the evening, descended into the garden, upon which our first parents fled to hide themselves in the thickest of the trees, but in vain, for God called out, “ Adam, where art thou?" When he, trembling, appeared before God Almighty, and said, Lord, when I heard thee in this garden, I was ashamed because of my nakedness, and hid myself amongst the most shady parts of the thicket. Who told thee, says God, that thou wast naked? Have you eaten of the forbidden fruit? That woman thou gavest me brought it; 'twas she that made me eat of it. You have, says God, finely ordered your business, you and your wife. Here, you woman, what is this that you have done? Alas, for me, says Adam, thy serpent gave me the apple, and I did eat of it.

"This apple shall cost you dear, replies God, and not only you, but your posterity, and the whole race of mankind. Moreover, for this crime, I will curse and spoil the heavens, the earth, and the whole fabric of nature. But thou, in the first place, vile beast, shall bear the punishment of thy craftiness and malice. Hereafter shall thou go creeping on thy belly, and instead of eating apples, shall lick the dust of the earth. As for you, Mrs. Curious, who so much love delicacies, in sorrow shall you bring forth your children.

We extract this portion not for its merits of buffoonery, but to show the real state of mind which could actuate a dignitary of the Church of England in writing it, as the eighth chapter is by far the most philosophical, but we wish to show Burnet's real sentiments.