memoir relating to the life and writings of Mr. Locke. A letter fhe received from me memoir re the life and written by put her upon this work. I told her, I was a piece once more reading over, with all my atten- called, A tion, that book of extenfive and univerfal ufe, lating to the effay concerning human understanding, writings of but must confefs to her, that what the great Mr. Locke: author fays of innate ideas, abstract ideas, a Mrs. Benfolid thinking existent, and power, did not fa-low. tisfy me. There must be fome innate ideas, I fayed; and how can matter think! The word free-will Mr. Locke reprefents as a nonfenfical term, and endeavours to prove the will of man not free, even while he is defending the liberty of the agent. Then, as to abstract ideas, is it not an odd defcription he gives us?" Ideas of mixed modes, wherein any inconfiftent ideas are put together, cannot so much as exift in the mind and yet the general idea of a triangle is an idea, wherein fome parts of feveral different and inconsistent ideas are put together. It is neither oblique nor rectangular, neither equilateral, equicrural, nor fcalenum; but all, and none of these at once; and, in effect, fomething imperfect that cannot exist." What can we make of this? Does not the truth feem clouded with words and diftinctions, that are often falfe? Your opinion on these fubjects will oblige me very greatly; that if error be not propagated under the fanction of a great name, I may ask the philofopher pardon. In answer to this Letter, Mrs. Benlow told me fhe would fend me the memoir aforementioned, and imagined it would answer all my objections. It did fo effectually. It is a feries of remarks upon every thing this great man writ; and, in refpect of the essay, contains an examination of every obstacle fupposed to be in that work. She reviews every thing objected to by Dr. Butler, late bishop of Durham (a), in his differtation at the end of (a) Dr. Butler died in 52. He fucceeded Dr. Chandler, who died in 50. Chandler the author of the defence of Chriftianity against the great Mr. Collins's Grounds, and a vindication of his defence, in two volumes more in 8vo, in answer to Mr. Collins's scheme. The bishop's firft volume, called the Defence, is weak: but the vindication is a fine performance. He is a conqueror to be fure. Read thefe volumes, and Mr. Collins's Grounds and Scheme, at the fame time, and you will be nobly entertained with the most useful and valuable learning. Take them together article by article, and fee how each particular is confidered by these two great men. As to Dr. Butler's analogy, it is in the main an admirable thing. Some fancys there are in it, which I fhall have occafion to fhew you, before my Letter is And what he says against Mr. Locke is no at an end. thing but Words. N. B. What Mr. Malon fays of Dr. Lardner, at the end of bifhop Chandler's 3d volume, in relation to Macrobius's account of the flaughter of the children in Bethlehem, is mere ftuff. Dr. Lardner in his 3d edition of the Credibility of Gospel Hiftory, has illuftrated what of his analogy; by Dr. Ifaac Watts, in his philofophical effays (a); by Jeremy Collier in his what he fayed of Macrobius in his first edition. See Credibility, vol. 2. p. 762. Macrobius lived towards. the end of the 4th Century. He was Chambellan to Theodofius, and a man of erudition. His Saturnalia is a useful, agreeable medly, in which he has collected many things of the ancients: but his Latin is execrable: that of the age he lived in. He was a Pagan and his mentioning the flaughter of the infants, is thought to be a confirmation of St. Matthew's account. But the dispute is, whether he transcribed the jest of Auguftus, and the occafion of it, from fome old author; or, the jest only, and collected the occafion from the common difcourfe of the chriftians of his time. The jeft or faying of Auguftus was, It is better to be Herod's hog than his fon. And moft certainly, Auguftus might have fayed this, without any regard to the flaughter of the infants, as Herod had put three of his fons to death at mens estate ; to wit, Alexander and Ariftobulus; and Antipater, who, by falfe informations, occafioned their Death. (Alexander and Ariftobulus were fons of the excellent Mariamne, who was of the Afmonean family, and grand-daughter of Hircan the pontiff. This amiable queen that tyrant did likewife put to death, before Chrift, 29 years.) But then, Macrobius's mentioning the fact, fhews that this cruel action of Herod was not contested in the latter end of the fourth century. It was then known to be a truth. (a) This is Watts the diffenting minifter, whom I mentioned before. This great man dyed November 25, 1748. in the 75th year of his age. The philofophical effays, above mentioned, are the weakest things he writ. What he fays of Space not being a thing really exifting ad extra, is very weak; as defpicable as any thing in the author of the notes, on the fame fide of the queftion, that is, against the necessary existence of Space in infinitum; F 4 his fine recommendatory preface to a book called infinitum; I mean by the Author of the notes, archdeacon Law's notes on bifhop King's effay on the origin of evil to which I add what the archdeacon produces from his eminent writer, as he calls Dr. Waterland. And as to Dr. Watts's objections against Mr. Lecke, there is neither reafon nor reflection in them. N. B. Mr. Jennings preached Dr. Watts's funeral Sermon, on thefe words, By it, he being dead yet Speaketh, Heb. xi. 4. and I recomend this fermon to you, because you will find in it a fine explication of the facrifice of Cain and Abel: the best I have feen. There is at the end of this fermon a funeral oration spoken over the grave of the doctor by Samuel Chandler. It is a beautiful little thing. This Samuel Chandler is the gentleman, who tranflated into English, for the service of Chrift's church, Limborch's hiftory of the inquifition; and * The piece on which Mr. Law writ his notes, came out first in Dublin, in 1702, 8vo, and is called, De origine mali. Bayle and Leibnitz writ against it, and Mr. Edmund Law has not been able to defend it. Befides this piece, Dr. King writ many books: but none of any great value, excepting his State of the protestants of Ireland under James II.-and, Three anfwers to Peter Manby, dean of Derry, who turned papist.-Old King died in Dublin May 8, 1729. aged 79 years and 7 days. He was a very good man in the main; but a fevere enemy to the diffenters. He and Narciffus Marsh, primate of Ireland (who dyed in 1714) not only gave all the encouragement they could to the profecution of that illuftrious fufferer, Mr. Thomas Emlyn. (who dyed July 30, 1741.); but at his tryal, fat on the bench by lord chief juftice Pine, and like true fiery ecclefiafticks, would not fuffer the rules of natural juftice to be obferved, and writ that glorious introduction concerning the rise and progress of perfecution; which is prefixed to the hiftory. This introduction, Jewks, you cannot read over too often. It is the fineft thing on the fubject that ever was written. It is of fuch vaft fervice to the religion of the Son of God, that it muft for ever merit the most grateful acknowledgements from all true chriftians: tho' it drew down upon him the wrath and indignation of fome right orthodox doctors. See Berriman's review of Chandler's introduction-his remarks, and defence of his remarks, on the introduction:-and Chandler's three letters; one to bishop Gibfon in answer to the review; and the other two to Dr. Berriman, in reply to his remarks, and defence. They were printed in the year 1733. This controverfy will afford you a fine entertainment, and let you fee what a poor thing an orthodoxy is in the hand of an able defender of truth. This introduction by Mr. Chandler, is a very different thing from a piece on the fame fubject that appeared in the year 1747, and is called, A fuccint history of ancient and modern perfecutions, by Daniel Lombard. D. D. an octavo. D. D. is orthodox up to the chin of him, and in fuccint history, does his best to serve the truly orthodox and catholic church, as the reverend Mr. Smith, aforementioned, calls the church of England. D. D. attempts to fhew the unreafonableness of diffenters feparating from his church; but cannot fhew it: and he ftrains every nerve to prove, that the Arians were butchering heretics; but has not been able to prove it. The truth is the very reverse of what D. D. took upon him to maintain. The orthodox catholics, under Gratian and Theodofius, A. D. 380, were the butchers, who maffacred the eastern chriftians, called in contempt Arians by the western tritheifts; as their fucceffors, the modern papifts, in contempt, now call all the proteftants Calvinifts. And all the perfecution the westerns fuffered from the eaflerns was that, Conftantius, under pain of banifhment, réftrained his western fubjects from unchriftianing his eaftern, after their figning the famous formu |