Matthew Tindal, Freethinker: An Eighteenth-century Assault on Religion (Continuum Studies in British Philosophy)

MATTHEW TINDAL, FREETHINKER

Continuum Studies in British Philosophy: Series Editor: James Fieser, University of Tennessee at Martin Duncan Richter, Wittgenstein at his Word Wilfrid E. Rumble, Doing Austin Justice Maria J. Frapolli (ed.), P.P. Ramsey: Critical Reassessments William R. Eaton, Boyle on Fire David Berman, Berkeley and Irish Philosophy Colin Tyler, Radical Philosophy Stephen Lalor, Matthew Tindal, Freethinker Michael K. Potter, Bertrand Russell's Ethics Angela M. Coventry, Hume's Theory of Causation Colin Heydt, Rethinking Mill's Ethics Stephen J. Finn, Thomas Hobbes and The Politics of Natural Philosophy John R. Fitzpatrick, John Stuart Mill's Political Philosophy J. Mark Lazenby, The Early Wittgenstein on Religion Dennis Desroches, Francis Bacon and the Limits of Scientific Knowledge Megan Laverty, Iris Murdoch's Ethics William C. Davis, Thomas Reid's Ethics John H. Sceski, Popper, Objectivity and the Growth of Knowledge Talia Mae Bettcher, Berkeley's Philosophy of Spirit Eric Brandon, The Coherence of Hobbes's Leviathan Patricia Sheridan, Locke's Moral Theory J. Jeremy Wisnewski, Wittgenstein and Ethical Inquiry Rosalind Carey, Russell and Wittgenstein on the Nature of Judgement Michael Taylor, The Philosophy of Herbert Spencer James E. Crimmins, Jeremy Bentham's Final Tears James G. Buickerood, John Locke on Imagination and the Passions

MATTHEW TINDAL, FREETHINKER AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ASSAULT ON RELIGION

STEPHEN LALOR

CONTINUUM LONDON

•

NEW YORK

Continuum The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SEl 7NX 15 East 26th Street, New York, NY 10010 © Stephen Lalor 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 0-8264-7539-6

Typeset by Aarontype Limited, Easton, Bristol Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

CONTENTS

Introduction

1

1.

Life and Character

9

2.

Privateers and Pirates

37

3.

Freedom of the Press

44

4.

The Authority of the Church

54

5.

Politics

91

6.

The Deists' Bible

111

7.

Verdicts of Time

141

Appendix I

A Note on Hermeneutics

148

Appendix II

The Lost Works

156

Appendix HI

Proposals for Printing Two Volumes . . . Intitl'd Christianity as Old as the Creation

161

Bibliography

165

Index

179

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

Matthew Tindal lived from 1657 to 1733. He lived and worked at a time which was roughly as distant from the English Civil War and the religious disputes which fed it as we are from the Second World War and its ideological enthusiasms. Although he came from a clerical family, his own response to the claims of the different sectarian groups in England was to deny them all. He was probably not the most philosophically original of even the English freethinkers of his time, but he is the great representative figure who did more to make freethinking, and its associated deism, accessible to a generation more inclined than its predecessors to scepticism. He was hugely controversial for his writings on religion and on church-state relations but he also made a major contribution to international law on piracy and to the campaign for the freedom of the press, a freedom he later exploited as a political pamphleteer on behalf of the more extreme Whigs. He wrote against the clergy and against the authority of divine revelation. From the idea of an absolutely perfect and benevolent deity, and the unchangeability of human nature, he argued that no one, including the clergy, has any right whatsoever to exercise either a civil or a spiritual authority over another person. He also argued against the authority oi Scripture on the grounds that the moral principles taught by religion are sufficiently available to everyone through the pure light of reason, or else they are in fact wrong (and therefore are not moral principles at all). Although more of Tindal's life was spent in the seventeenth century, becoming prominent in the 1690s, he is a largely eighteenthcentury figure. He was not the only freethinker of his time. John

2

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Toland, Anthony Collins, Thomas Chubb, were central figures during his life. After his death other freethinkers continued to publish: Thomas Morgan on the history of religions; Peter Annet doubting the truth of the Resurrection, and denying the truth of miracles; and Bolingbroke in his posthumous works. Towering over all, of course, is David Hume. But Tindal's central place cannot be denied. When he died, in 1733, he was widely accepted in England, at his own estimation, as the 'top' freethinker. He was a pivotal figure in the opposition to press censorship in the 1690s. His impact on society generally can be gauged from the opposition he aroused; eighteen books attacking his Rights of the Christian Church (1706) appeared between 1707 and 1710 alone. Against his Christianity as old as the Creation (1730) as many as 115 replies appeared, of which at least 60 were substantial. Evidence for his continuing influence, however, can be seen in the rebuttals and hostile references to him which continued after his death. In 1743 Caleb Rotheram (1694-1752) submitted for the degree of DD at Edinburgh University, his dissertation 'De religionis Christianae evidentia', which addressed the challenge to the credibility of the biblical record posed by Tindal. In 1748, Tindal, together with Shaftsbury and Hobbes, crops up in Tobias Smollett's The Adventures of Roderick Random, as an example of someone with some influence on the young who was remarkable for his 'deviation from the old way of thinking'. In 1752, Henry Fielding wrote with scorn of poseurs like that man, . . . who by dipping in a Tindal or Bollingbroke, feels himself animated by a strong Impulse to subvert the Religion of his country . . . 2 The influence of Tindal continued to be felt. Bishop William Warr> burton was reading him as late as 1768. To the early eighteenth-century clergy it seemed more important to defeat a Collins, a Tindal, or a Toland, than to convert

Introduction

3

uneducated artisans and labourers. Following the rise of Methodism, that situation changed. Edmund Burke's famous question of 1790: 'Who, born within the last forty years, has read one word of Collins, and Toland, and Tindal, and Chubb, and Morgan, and that whole race who called themselves Freethinkers? Who now reads Bolingbroke? Who ever read him through?' is a powerful statement of finality. But it is not the whole story. In Burke's time people were still going to church, and praying, but Adam Smith (1723-90) had framed a scheme of economic relationships which owed nothing to the teachings of religion, and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), whose manuscripts show much common ground with the deists, including Tindal, had framed a scheme of morality which made no reference to religion or to the deity. When Burke dismissed the deists in 1790 he was wrong; the controversy was over because their work was done. Even as Tindal was becoming unfashionable at home (as his ideas became the common view of a large portion of the upper classes), he continued to be taken seriously outside Britain. In 1734 a Leipzig University inaugural lecture was devoted expressly to refuting his 'errors'. Although none of his works were ever fully translated into French, Tindal exerted considerable influence in France through people such as Themiseul de Saint-Hyacinthe, who read him in the original. In his book on Voltaire, Norman Torrey has shown that, although Voltaire tried to conceal his sources, the influence of Tindal is marked and that Voltaire adopted Tindal's views on religion and religious organizations very closely but without directly using Tindal's own words. Torrey concludes that Tindal influenced Voltaire profoundly, both by his constructive appeal to natural religion and the light of reason, and by his destructive criticism of the Christian revelation. During the early years of the eighteenth century Jonathan Edwards (1703—58) became aware of the advance of Tindal's influence in England and expected to see it cross to America.

4

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

He was right. On the 2 April 1753, Samuel Johnson, the future President of King's College, now Columbia, reported that: . . . As late enthusiasm is much abated, free thinking as it is called which is worse, takes place of it, and now Chubb, Tindal and the Independent Whig grow much in vogue, who do more mischief than the others, so that we have now these fatal principles chiefly to oppose and guard against. One American who appears to have felt Tindal's influence was James Otis, sometimes known as the father of the American Revolution. In 1764, Otis published The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, mirroring the title of Tindal's earlier book The Rights of the Christian Church asserted. At the time, talk of'the law of nature' and 'God's law' was so commonplace that it is not always clear that the notions derived from the deists, much less from Tindal, yet it would seem that Otis probably was influenced by Tindal, as their language was so similar and they shared a background as Admiralty lawyers. In his pamphlet, for example, he claimed that there was 'an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of GOD, the author of nature, whose laws never vary'. In words he could have borrowed from Tindal he argues that: I say supreme absolute power is originally and ultimately in the people; and they never did in fact freely, nor can they rightfully make an absolute, unlimited renunciation of this divine right, (paragraph 1) Otis is, here, arguing for the rights, not of the authorities, but of the inhabitants of the British colonies. It parallels Tindal's argument for the rights, not of the authorities, but of the members of the Christian Church.

Introduction

5

Tindal's most important American influence is possibly on Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson framed a particularly pregnant phrase when he wrote in the American Declaration of Independence, that every man has 'unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. The right to life and liberty he is widely recognized as having borrowed from John Locke. A source for the unalienable right of every man to pursue his own happiness is not so obvious. Many philosophers have made happiness the goal of human action but have framed systems of morality or politics intended to promote the happiness of society. The right of the individual pursuit of happiness was not so widely recognized. Even George Mason's 1776 draft of the 'Virginia Declaration of Rights', says that men have the inherent natural right to the means of obtaining happiness, rather than having the right to pursue their own happiness. So does Jefferson's phrase have an antecedent source? One precursor is certainly Tindal. Throughout his writings, Tindal argues that acting to maximize one's own personal happiness is not only a right, but a duty. In An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations, and the Rights ofSoveraigns (London, 1694), he argued that we are duty bound to pursue our personal happiness (p. 30). In the more widely known The Rights of the Christian Church asserted he argues that God has implanted 'in Man the only innate and inseparable Principle of seeking his own happiness' (p. 10). In Christianity as old as the Creation, a book to be found in Jefferson's library, Tindal wrote that God '... has made our acting for our present, to be the only means of obtaining our future Happiness' (p. 15). Or again, 'The Principle from which all human Actions flow is the Desire of Happiness' (p. 22). That Tindal may be a source for Jefferson's most famous phrase is an intriguing possibility. Tindal spelt his own name 'TindalP on all the documents we know he signed, and those who knew him usually did the same. During his life, others spelt his name variously as Tindal, Tindall, Tyndale, Tyndall and Tyndal. After his death the

6

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

'TindaP spelling gradually became the norm. The different spellings can make electronic searches for references to him rather cumbersome but it is rarely, if ever, a problem with contemporary documents where the context makes the reference specific. I have made no changes to the spelling or punctuation of the texts, which are quoted exactly as they appear, including Tindal's name. Typographical conventions, such as the long 's' and catchwords, are modernized. Dates are not modernized except that the year is taken to begin on the 1 January. A number of likenesses of Tindal are known. The most ambitious is a portrait mezzotint engraving from an original by Bartholomew Dandridge, of which there are copies in the British Library and the National Portrait Gallery, London. The British Library also has a caricature, 'Faction Display'd', dating from 1709, which includes the younger Tindal. The caricaturist seem to have taken some care to have captured some degree of likeness for each of his victims. After his death, a portrait medal was struck in Tindal's honour, with his face in profile. According to the Weekly Miscellany, 27 June 1734, the medal was commissioned by Budgell. A drawing of the medal can be found in Budgell's The Bee Revived: or, the Universal Weekly Pamphlet, No. LIV, Vol. 5, of the 2 March 1734, where it is described, on page 75, as having been struck 'in Honour to the Memory of the late great Doctor Tindall'. The Grub-street Journal of the 25 October 1733, has an etching, 'The Art of Trimming emblematically displayed', in which Tindal is also said to be depicted. This work could not have been begun, much less completed, without the support and affection of my friends. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to scholars and librarians in Ireland, England, and the USA. The Trustees of Lambeth Palace Library, London, have very kindly given permission to reproduce the Proposalsfor Printing Christianity as old, which include the chapter headings for the lost Volume II. I wish to thank in particular Professor David Berman of Trinity College, Dublin, for his assistance,

Introduction

1

encouragement and criticism. I wish to thank Maire Ennis and Lizzie Doyle for translating German, and Sally Sanderlin for her translation of Latin. I wish to thank Louisa Edwards for her valiant efforts to correct my egregious spelling, for her very helpful comments on an earlier draft, and for making me the happiest of men. Needless to say, the errors remaining are all my own.

Notes 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

Tobias Smollett, The Adventures of Roderick Random, Paul-Gabriel Bouce (ed.), (Oxford: University Press, 1999), Chapter 22, p. 117. Bertrand A. Goldgar (ed.), The Covent-Garden Journal; and a Plan for the Universal Register Office (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 256. Tuesday, 9 June 1752. William Warburton, Letters from a late eminent Prelate to one of his friends (Kidderminister: for T. Cadwell & W. Da vies, Strand, London), letter no. ccviii, dated 31 August 1768. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution (1790), p. 131. James E. Crimmins, Secular Utilitarianism: Social Science and the Critique of Religion in the Thought of Jeremy Bentham (Oxford: University Press, 1990), p. 245. Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Maternity 1650-1750 (Oxford: University Press, 2002), p. 655. A selection of extracts of Christianity as old as the Creation was published in 1779 by J.-A. Naigeon. Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightenment, p. 585. Normal L. Torrey, Voltaire and the English Deists (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930), Chapter V passim. Gerald R. McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods: Christian Theology. Enlightenment Religion, and Non-Christian Faiths (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Herbert and Carol Schneider (eds), Samuel Johnson, President of Kings College > now Columbia], His Career and Writings (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929), 4 vols. Vol. Ill, 'The Churchman', Ecclesiastical Correspondence, to Dr Bearcraft, Secretary of the Society [for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts], 2 April 1753.

8

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

12. James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, in Bernard Bailyn (ed.), Pamphlets of the American Revolution 1750-1776 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 426. 13. Freeman O'Donoghue, Catalogue of Portraits in the British Museum (London, 1908). 14. Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, division I, Vol. 2 (London, 1873), item no. 1508. 15. Agustus Franks and Herbert Grueber (eds) Medallic Illustrations of the History of Great Britain and Ireland (London: British Museum, 1885). 16. Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, item no. 1932.

1 Life and Character

Although the Tindal family has been traced back to the Emperor Henry VII of Germany, it appears that the parentage of Matthew Tindal's father John is wholly unknown. 2 John Tindal was a minister of religion who had been presented to a living worth £300 a year by Cambridge University during the Civil War.3 Matthew, the first of John Tindal's two children, was born in Bere-Ferris, Devonshire, probably in 1657. Some sources give the year as early as 1653, and Curll Memoirs of the life and writings of Matthew Tindal, LLD says 1656, but the young Tindal signed a deed on 31 December 1673 which gives his age as 16 years or thereabout, and he was baptized on 12 May 1657.' After a schooling in the country,6 he matriculated on 21 March 1673,7 and entered Lincoln College, Oxford, where he became a commoner, and a pupil of George Hickes, who was later to be famous as a nonjuror and an antagonist of Matthew's in print. In the same year, his father died, leaving Matthew a number of books, mostly about religion, and some property in another parish; with the remainder of the estate being 'equally parted' between himself and his 10 younger brother John. Matthew 'migrated' to Exeter College and graduated Bachelor of Arts there on 17 October 1676. In 1679 he took his degree of Bachelor of Laws at All Souls College, having been chosen into a Law Fellowship there in 1678, and on 17 July 1685 he was created a Doctor of Laws, DCL.14 (Under the founder's rules he was qualified for entry into All Souls by being the son of a gentleman! °) On 7 November 1685 he was admitted to the Court of Arches16 and on 13 November 1685 he was admitted as an advocate at Doctors' Commons.17

10

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

About this time, aged 28 years or so, he was converted to Roman Catholicism by one of King James's emissaries, a Fr Baptist, 19 and publicly admitted his conversion during the greater part of James's reign.20 He is said to have entered King James's21 service and it is possible that he served under Leopold Finch who led a company of scholars from All Souls against Monmouth during the rebellion. Finch became Warden of All Souls in 1686 against the competition of Tindal, among others, for the job.23 While a Roman Catholic, he went to London, where he 'fell into the acquaintance of some Persons, whose conversation led him to dislike Popery'. He was to claim subsequently that he renounced Catholicism, and received the Sacrament in his College Chapel on 15 April 1688. This latter claim is supported by Anthony Wood (The Life and Times of Anthony Wood., p. 264) who wrote on 16 April 1688: c\c\

cy A

Dr. Tyndall, fellow of All S. Coll. declared himself a papist about Easter anno 1687, and was esteemed a zealous brother, and was on the point of being a Carthusian, but reading Dr. Isaac Barrow his book and by conversation with some of his hous, he denied the popish religion and took the sacrament in the Coll. Chapel among the fellows on Easter day [April 15] 1688, notwithstanding he held a candle in deane Massyes Chapel on Candlemas day [2 February] before. After the Protestant King William and Mary had replaced the Catholic King James in late 1688, Tindal began to make a name for himself as a lawyer. In 1691 he acted in a case between the 0*7 Duchess of Albermarl and the Earl of Bath. Another case in which Tindal advised was that of Count Paleoti, an Italian living in England, who killed one of his Italian servants and denied the power of any English court of law to bring him to trial.28 The killing, which took place in 1693, was referred by the King to a body which consisted of'... eminent persons of both Church and State',

Life and Character

11

including common lawyers and civilians, to consider the question of jurisdiction. Tindal was a member of that body and was said to have given a very good account of himself. Afterwards, he frequently sat as a judge on the Court of Delegates, which heard appeals from the archbishops' courts and from the court of admiralty.30 In November 1693, he published his first pamphlet, An Essay concerning Obedience to the Supreme Powers, and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions, a principled defence of the Glorious Revolution. The following year, in March 1694, he published An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations and the Rights of Sovereigns, in which he gave an account of his most important case, which concerned a number of English and Irish 'privateers'who had been captured in 1692 while acting under the commission of the departed King James. During this period Tindal took part in a quite different controversy, about the Athanasian Creed and the nature of the Holy Trinity. Edward Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, had attempted to reconcile the doctrine of the Trinity with Natural Reason. In reply, Tindal published A Letter to the Reverend the Clergy of Both Universities (hereafter A Letter to the Reverend) in 1694, and defended his position in 1695 with a work entitled The Reflections on the XXVIII Propositions, both of which are rationalist and Unitarian. He did not always keep his twin preoccupations of politics and religion in separate pigeon holes. In 1697 they fused together into a work for which he sought, and was later to claim, the approval of John Locke, An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind, in matters of Religion, which is a plea for toleration in religious matters, and for government by consent in civil matters, arguing that each necessarily requires the other. Tindal believed that the free exchange of ideas is a necessary support for the existence and growth of toleration, and so, when the House of Commons attempted to reintroduce the licensing of printing which had lapsed with the Printing Act of 1662, he published, in 1698, a pamphlet called A Letter to a Member of Parliament, QO

12

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

shewing that a Restraint on the Press is inconsistent with the Protestant Religion, and dangerous to the Liberties of the Nation. After that, apart from reissuing some of his previously published works and a condensed version of the pamphlet on the freedom of the press, Tindal remained silent until 1706. In that year he published the book which made him 'remarkable'; The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the Romish and all other Priests who claim an independent Power over it (hereafter The Rights]. It appeared in four octavo editions, the first in 1706 and the fourth in 1709. As The Rights argued that the right to worship God according to conscience was not consistent with the claim by the clergy to exercise a spiritual authority, it provoked the wrath of both religious and civil authorities. As it was published anonymously, a number of attempts were made to prove that Tindal had written it, in order to secure his conviction in court. One protracted effort to have the book suppressed was made by Samuel Milliard, Prebendary of Lincoln, whose own account of his QQ efforts are vivid, but it also contains evidence that there was some popular support for the book. Without the support of a prosecutor, Milliard, while on the Grand Jury at Westminster, tried to get it to declare that the book was criminal, but he was, he said '... defeated in that Enterprize by the Majority of the Jurors, who express'd their approbation of the Book'. Milliard actually reports Justice Herbert (commonly called The Rough Diamond) as having said: I think 'tis an excellent Book, and therefore ... let us discountenance that Busie Parson [Milliard] all we can; Why don't those Lazy Priests Answer the Book? But Pox on 'em they can't. The following day Justice Herbert was found dead in bed! Although Milliard got the assent of the Middlesex Grand Jury to the presentment of the book on 12 December 1707, it could do no more because the book had been published outside its jurisdiction. Q f-

Life and Character

13

He therefore attempted to have the bookseller Richard Sare 0*2 indicted for selling the book, intending, with the approval of the Bishop of London and others, to force Sare to name the author and printer of The Rights, but Sare refused on the grounds that to testify would 'betray his trade'. The prosecution failed when Sare's council showed in court that the word 'Christ' appeared in the indictment with the V omitted. Milliard resolved to mend the indictment by a bill of information the next Term, but the Act of Indemnity soon after put it out of his power.37 The seriousness of Milliard's attempts to bring Tindal to trial can be gauged from the fact that he 'fee'd' Mr Hancock, Sir Edward Northey, and Sir Peter King, the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General in his case against Sare. The Court of Arches also took an interest in the book and received a letter from Bernard Gardiner, Warden of All Souls, to the Dean of Arches, in which he says he has evidence of Tindal's authorship, but the Court does not appear to have taken any further action in the matter. In an obvious reference to The Rights the Bishop of Salisbury refers to 'Tindal's book' in June 1706. Thomas Hearne, the antiquary, writes that he was ' . . . told by Mr. Clements that Dr. Tyndall of All-Souls is Author [of The Rights] ...' as early as 11 April 41 1706, when, says Hearne, the book had just come out. That Tindal wrote The Rights is also asserted by his old tutor George Hickes in the Preliminary Discourse to William Carroll's Spinoza 4.O Reviv'd published in 1709. Further support for this view is to be found in A Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church which refers to a 'Dr. W (sic) Tindal' the supposed author of The Rights and also supposed author of A Discoursefor the Liberty of the Press and An Essay Concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of ManAQ kind, In Matters of Religion. In an oath on 28 October 1710, John Silke, Rector of Bradford, swore that he had transcribed the book from papers in Tindal's handwriting and from Tindal's personal dictation, 44 in the years oo

OQ

14

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

1699—1702, when it had the provisional title A vindication of the King's Supremacy in matters Ecclesactical. 45 Thomas Hearne's entry for that day is not flattering. It says: He [Silke] is a man of no Character for Learning or anything else that I can learn but pretends to detect Dr Tyndale, & to shew that he is the Author of ye Rights wch I fear he will not be able to effect. Tindal's authorship seems to have been something of an open secret. The real problem of the authorship of The Rights is not who wrote it, but to what extent Tindal was the author. One anonymous writer quotes Silke as calling it, . . . a Farrago, or Collection, out of such loose Pamphlets, as one abandoned and malicious Scribbler or other had wrote against this Church .. .46 The same writer also makes the claim that through an 'abandoned Club of Deists or Atheists', ... a great many of these [materials for The Rights] were supplied by others in Oxford, and London and even in Holland; which is the Reason why one of his Adversaries calls him 47 Legion Sir. 48

George Hickes describes Tindal as 'the Compiler' of The Rights., and the Biographia Britannica entry on Lord Somers says that it was he who wrote its Preface. This seems unlikely. In two places the writer of the Preface refers to points which he proposes to demonstrate in the body of the text. Thus, the Preface says, 'as I shall shew in the following Treatise' (p. Ivii). And again (p. Ixxxiv): . . . tho in the following Discourse I use the word Clergy in general, I wou'd not be understood to mean those who maintain the

Life and Character

15

Principles of our Establish'd Church: But the Popish, Eastern, Presbyterian, and Jacobite Clergy . . . It is inherently implausible that anyone writing a preface for another writer would use that form, and in the case of this book, which was going to appear anonymously in any event, there was no reason to go to the bother of implying that the preface had been written by the same author if it had not been. More importantly, there is evidence that Tindal received the aid of Anthony Collins in his work. Firstly, Charles Leslie, answering The Rights with his Second part of the Wolf Stript of its Shephard's Cloathing, addressed it ' . . . with my service to Dr. Tindal and Mr. Collins'. Secondly, Thomas Hearne refers to the question a number of times. In 1708 he mentions50 'Mr. Collins who is of Deistical Republican Principles, and 'tis s a very great hand in ye Rights of ye Church'. A year previously he had also mentioned 'Mr Collins who had a hand in the Rights of the Church'.51 Not only had Hearne's opinion not changed in that year, it was never to do so, and he was to repeat it a quarter of a century later, four days after Tindal's death. [Tindal] was a man of most vile Principles, and of no religion, as may appear from many books he wrote and published, in which he had the assistance of the late Mr Collins, yet without his name to them, among which are the Rights of the Christian Church and Christianity as old as creation.5 Finally, there is the testimony of an unpublished letter by Collins to Henry Dodwell, dated 17 October 1706,5 in which he says Dodwell attributed ' . . . a share in a late Impious book' (almost certainly The Rights] to Collins. In his letter Collins refused to admit or deny 'having a share' in the book, and this refusal, together with the other evidence of collaboration, has been used to argue that in fact he did contribute to the authorship of The Rights. Tindal certainly drew upon many sources of inspiration

16

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

and support in writing The Rights, and it is probable that Collins was one of these. It does, however, seem to be a point worth making that all the references are to Collins 'having a share' or 'having a hand' in The Rights, they do not explicitly refer to authorship and might as easily refer to help with publishing as to writing the book. In any event, the whole of The Rights is sufficiently integrated with Tindal's work and thought, and so clearly echoes concerns expressed in Tindal's earlier publications, that it may be read as a statement of his own opinions. In 1709 Tindal published his A Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church which, together with The Rights, was, on 25 March 1710, by order of the House of Commons, burned by the common hangman in the same flames which consumed the Answer to the Articles of his Impeachment of the even more celebrated Dr Sacheverel. At the same time, the Commons directed the Attorney-General to pursue the prosecution of the author, printer and publisher of The Rights,^ thereby vindicating the prudence of publishing the book 56 without the author's name and without an imprint, as nothing came of it. It is worth noting that during the years up to 1711, while under continuous attack, Tindal was able to publish three separate replies to his critics, and to bring out four editions of The Rights. In that time he also published some other works on religion, but they tended to be rather less serious than the earlier work. Given the numbers and influence of his enemies, Tindal must have had a lot of real, if covert, support from powerful friends. In any event, the controversialists soon had other targets as, from the time of the Sacheverel controversy,'... the noise about the Rights was intirely drowned in the much greater cry of High Church'.57 From 1711 until the early 1720s Tindal was a partisan for the anti-Walpole faction of the Whigs. He published at least thirteen pieces on opposition to Jacobitism, the resignation of Walpole, the need for a standing army, and other contemporary affairs.

Life and Character

17

In 1728 the Bishop of London, Dr Gibson, wrote a pastoral letter to his flock, as he said, 'occasioned by some writings in favour of infidelity', in which he attacked freethinking. The next year, Tindal replied to Gibson in An Address to the Inhabitants of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster; In Relation to a Pastoral Letter said to be written by the Bishop of London, and when Gibson replied to this Address, Tindal answered the reply in A Second 58 Address etc. the same year. But all the while Tindal had been keeping the telling blow in reserve for, in 1730, at over 70 years of age, he published, anonymously, his most notable book Christianity as old as the Creation: or, the Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature. Volume I (hereafter Christianity as old}. This work set out to show that if Christianity is true, it must be, and be no more than, coextensive with all the truths which Reason, separately, can discover for itself. As it questions the basis of institutional religion by denying any special authority to divine revelation, it is not surprising that the religious establishment denounced him in force. It has been estimated that Christianity as old, was the subject of 115 published replies. It was certainly attacked in over 60 major works and in a host of lesser works. Tindal took the opportunity to include replies to some criticisms in the second volume of Christianity as old, which he was preparing for publication, but unfortunately he died while publication was under way and the promised second volume was never published. Towards the end of his life, a man with a very unsavoury reputation, Eustace Budgell, wormed his way into Tindal's confidence. As he began to sink under his infirmities, Tindal was persuaded by Budgell to move from rooms in Gray's Inn to lodgings in Cold-Bath Fields. He also entrusted to Budgell the publication of the second volume of Christianity as old. l In his new lodgings, attended by Alexander Small, a surgeon, and Pierce Dodd, a physician, formerly a Fellow of All Souls, Tindal died at 10a.m.62 on 16 August 1733.63

18

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Even in death Tindal was surrounded by controversy. Budgell claimed that Tindal had bequeathed everything to himself and one Lucy Price. When challenged, it emerged that the pair had forged the document. As Pope wrote in the Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot: Let Budgell charge low Grub Street on his quill, and write what e're he pleas'd, except his will... As early as September 8, Dodd knew that the second volume of Christianity as old was not going to be published, Budgell having assured Dodd that he did not '... come up to ye Doctrs way of thinking'. It is not known what happened to the papers. It is often claimed that they fell into the hands of the Bishop of London who destroyed them,66 but there is no solid evidence to support the charge that Gibson destroyed them, let alone burned them. f\"7 It may be that Tindal's goods reverted to his nephew Nicholas Tindal, the heir presumptive, when the forgery of the will was exposed.68 The loss of Tindal's papers means we must rely on his extensive published works, and the vituperation of his enemies, to form an estimation of his character. The three main accusations hurled at him by his enemies were: (a) that he became a Roman Catholic out of self-interest; (b) that he was a fornicator; and (c) that he was an atheist. According to Anthony Wood, the antiquary, '... (K. Jam being then on the Throne) he came a Rom. Catholic but after the King's leaving the Nation, he returned to his former Religion'. His enemies had little hesitation in attributing a motive to him. Thomas Hearne says that Tindal'... in King James's time turn'd Papist, purely in hopes to ingratiate himself w1 ye Roman Catholics and get Preferment'. The most colourful statement of the accusation is the premature epitaph in verse by Thomas Warton the Elder:70

Life and Character

19

Here lies Matthew Tindall Whom interest, vt fertur, Not Zeal dit [sic] enkindle To turn a Deserter, He left vs in the Lurch, And the Pope did acknowledge For the Head of the Church To be Head of the College. But now the poor Owl To Limbo is gone; Pray, pray for his Sowl, Who ne'er pray'd for his own. Some of his enemies went so far as to suggest that he never ceased to be a Roman Catholic, his sole aim being to spread confusion, in order to entice people back to the certainties of Catholicism.71 72 Others suggested that 'he had little or no Religion', and that his deism was nothing more than a cover for atheism.73 Tindal was also widely accused of being a fornicator. According to Thomas Hearne, as early as 23 February 1706, 'He [Tindal] has been a most notorious ill Liver (Registered as 'tis said or deserving to be soe at All Soul's under ye Title of Egregious Fornicator)'. In the anonymous biography The Religious, Rational, and Moral Conduct of Matthew Tindal (hereafter Moral Conduct], published in 1735, he is accused of having amours and natural children,75 and of attempting ' . . . to debauch a young gentlewoman on the road betwixt Oxford and London'. He is said to have persuaded the mother of one of his bastards to swear that one of his opponents was the father of the child, but that the opponent in 77 turn succeeded in passing the child off on to someone else. The latter story is also mentioned in the Biographia Britannica and in the short Egmont biography.78 The general impression was quite widespread which Abel Evans put into the mouth of Satan:79

20

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

He Studies hard, and takes extreme Delight, In Whores, or Heresies to spend the Night... The reports of Tindal's philandering are so common that they may have some substance. More interesting is the fact that he did not consider such behaviour to be necessarily immoral. In 1730, in Christianity as old, he wrote: And in a Word, whoever so regulates his natural Appetites, as will conduce most to the Exercise of his Reason, the Health of his Body, and the Pleasure of his Senses, taken and consider'd together, (since herein his Happiness consists) may be certain 81 he can never offend his Maker . . . It was one of his complaints against the clergy's 'spiritual Usurpation' t h a t ' . . . they hook'd in the Cognizance of all carnal QO Causes, Incontinence in single as well as married Persons'. He even has an oblique defence of homosexuality when he says that celibacy ... must be such a Crime as is exceeded only by refusing to preserve one's own Being . . . since . . . both equally wou'd, with a few years difference only, put an End to the Race of Mankind; the only Reasons for the moral Turpitude of unnatural Lusts.OQ Although he may have intended that 'unnatural Lusts' are intolerable because of the threat they pose to the continuing of the human race, the obvious conclusion was drawn by the anonymous author of The Principles of Deism:84 Provided due care be taken to continue the race of Mankind, there is no Moral Turpitude in any unnatural Lusts whatever'. Without more evidence it is not possible to reach a conclusion about the accuracy of the accusations. A side issue to possible sexual delinquency is the matter of Tindal's having received a public reproof on that account. In both 85 Biographia Britannica and in Moral Conduct it is reported that he

Life and Character

21

was '... publickly reprimanded by the Society of All Souls as an Egregious Fornicator'. The historian, Montague Borrows, says that Tindal'... was certainly once subjected to a public "Admonition" from the College for immoral conduct'.86 Despite the confidence with which the assertions are made, there is reason to be suspicious of them. To begin with there are no primary sources to support the claims. Furthermore, Hearne's claim is made by him only once and never referred to again, which is all the more striking in view of his references to two attempts to rebuke Tindal on other grounds. The first occasion was shortly before the 3 April 1709 when Tindal was summoned to appear before the Warden and Fellows of All Souls for having left Oxford without leave.87 The other occasion was on the 3 October 1713 when the heads of the colleges proposed that The Rights be burnt. On both occasions Hearne reports that no action was taken against Tindal. It seems improbable that Hearne would report two failed attempts to reprimand Tindal and not report an actual reprimand. In addition neither proposed reprimand was for immoral conduct, which must be to cast some doubt on the gross immoralities he is reputed to have committed. It was said of Tindal that he was an atheist. It was also said that his behaviour, or his notions, were consistent with atheism, or else that his arguments could be used to justify atheism. Whether or not Tindal was an atheist matters because it seriously affects the way his works are to be read. If he was, as has been said, l a 'Christian Deist', then his works may be read as an attempt to distinguish between superstition and religion and to rid the latter of the former, to exalt the eternal validity of the core Christian values, and to promote an exalted view of the Deity. On the other hand, if he was in fact a speculative atheist, his enterprise was aimed at destroying all religious authority, organized or not, and in particular Christianity. In one of his earliest works, Tindal attacks atheism on the grounds that it destroys conscience and society and he justifies OQ

22

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

punishing atheists on those grounds. In The Rights he argued that Society cannot subsist without acknowledging some invisible power that concerns itself with human affairs. Throughout his life he was a member of some Christian church, and, after his spell as a Catholic, received the sacrament in his Anglican college chapel at least occasionally. But that is not the whole story. For instance, he is reported to have said, after going to qualify himself by the Sacramental Test with some friends, 'that they had been to pay their Club'. It was also said of him that after he ceased to be a Catholic, '... he turned downright Atheist; tho' he was desirous, that the Generality of Mankind should imagine he had stopt short at Deism .. ,'94 The best evidence that Tindal was an atheist comes from the Earl of Egmont. Egmont gives two accounts of Tindal's attempt to prove there is no God. In his biography of Tindal, Egmont95 wrote that he did not always express himself candidly on the subject, that sometimes he 'confest a God in the sense of true believer, but laughed at Revelation', sometimes he would 'own' a God 'but his God was the Univers, or the extended material substance differently modify'd', but 'in such company where he thought he might be free, endeavoured to render the notion of God ridiculous'. This account resembles strongly that published in the anonymous Moral Conduct,96 and it weakens any evidence from his published work that he might be a theist, as he is not likely to have thought he might be free among the general public. It also distinguishes between the belief that the Deity might be 'extended material substance' and the view that the very notion of deity is ridiculous. The second account occurs in Egmont's Diary which reports that a Dr. Rollings told Egmont that he had dined with Tindal specifically to hear his proof that there could not possibly be a God. QO

So after dinner the discourse began, and Dr. Tyndal talked some time of the nature of space, urging that space was infinite and eternal, and these were attributes commonly given to God;

Life and Character

23

either therefore space is the Christian's God, or there are two Gods infinite and eternal, which at the bottom is as good to say there is no God at all. To this Dr. Rollings replied that space was nothing of itself, and desired he would define what space was. Tyndall upon this stopped a considerable time and was thoughtful. At length he coloured and owned he could not define space. Why then, replied Rollings, do you found an argument upon a thing you cannot define, and have no idea or knowledge of; is this talking like a reasonable man? All Tyndal had to reply was that metaphysics was an abstruse science and that he did not think a definition necessary, wherefore he had never employed himself to form one, but since it was judged necessary, he doubted not but he should be able to find one, and when he had he would wait on him again and bring it in writing, together with his arguments on the subject, it being difficult to express one's meaning in metaphysical enquiries so clearly by speech as upon paper. Rollings answered he should be welcome when he would, but from that time never saw him more. One would like to know more of Tindal's view of the nature of space, as he had, as early as 1694, asserted t h a t ' . . . it is absurd to suppose more than one infinite Space' (A Letter to the Reverend, p. 9), and that he thought the Trinitarians wise to suppose '.. . their three infinite Substances to be as close together as can be, lest otherwise there should not be room enough for them in but one infinite Space' (A Letter to the Reverend, para. 68). The man to whom Tindal had directed these remarks, Edward Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, replied in A Second Defence of the Propositions by which the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so Explained, according to the Ancient Fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural Reason. ... Together with a Third Defence of those Propositions in answer to the Newly published Reflexions contained in a Pamphlet, Entituled, A Letter to the Reverend Clergy of both Universities in 1695.

24

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

But then I ask what is Space? Or (to speak a little learnedly) What is the Ratio formalis of Space? And you have a ready Answerfor me, viz. 'Tis Vacuity or Emptiness. Then demand I, What kind of thing is Emptiness? And you have an Answer at hand to this too, viz. 'Tis an Imaginary thing. And when I have asked, What is a mere Imaginary thing? lam much mistaken, if a Man of your Head-Piece will in the least hesitate at Replying, A mere Imaginary thing, is a real No-thing. And then Sir, This isyour Definition of an Infinite Substance, It is a thing that is of Equal Extent with an infinite Nothing. Tindal certainly noticed Fowler's attack for, later in 1695, he published The Reflections on the XXVIII Propositions touching the Doctrine of the Trinity, In a Letter to the Clergy, &c. maintain'd against the Third Defence of the said Propositions. By the same Hand. In this tract Tindal refers to Fowler's '... long Dialogue of his own framing . . . where he makes a Man of my Headpiece (as he phrases it) not hesitate at replying that space is a real nothing, and a great many silly things besides' (p. 25). He questions Fowler's use of 'Infinity' and 'Eternity' asking, if they are mere empty sounds, why does he use them, and if they are not mere empty sounds, ' . . . is it not possible to join other Idea's to them, which are manifestly inconsistent with them?' and, since it is the case, not all Fowler's 'Gommon-place-Harangue' will make them consistent. The central point of Fowler's question, the nature of space, Tindal leaves unexamined or at least unanswered as he did when Hollings later asked him the same question. We are left finally with an enigma: was it prudence which led him to decline to answer Hollings, or was he sincere in saying that he did not think a definition necessary? The least ambiguous evidence for Tindal's atheism is the statement that Egmont made while Tindal was still alive:98 Dr. Tyndal, L.D. now living 1732. Dr. Dod told me likewise that Dr. Tyndal, L.D. who is in the same College in Oxford with himself, owned himself to be a speculative Atheist.

Life and Character

25

In all probability this is the same Dr. Dodd who attended Tindal's last illness and has given us a first hand account of his death. 99 Dodd's account deals mostly with Tindal's morale, his disbelief in an afterlife, and his desire not to '... Squeak, as they call it, whenever he came to dye'. Despite Jonathan Israel's belief that Tindal's death left everything uncertain,100 Dodd could not be clearer. The account does not touch directly upon the question of atheism. One incident recounted by Dodd is, however, suggestive. Another morning, as I was taking leave of him he shook me by the hand & said, Well, God bless you; I was a little surpris'd & therefore ask'd him whether he meant as he said; No says he, I mean nothing, only that I wish you well. An incident which took place very shortly before his death points at a very profound scepticism if not actual atheism. Although Moral Conduct (p. 29) says that Tindal's last words were, Tf there be a God, I desire him to have mercy on me!', Dodd's is a first-hand account of a remarkable deathbed statement of dissociation from a faith. There happn'd to be a Picture of our Saviour upon the Cross in ye Room where he lay, & what is remarkable it was just in his view, so that if he did but open his Eyes he cou'd hardly avoid looking upon it. He look'd upon this Picture wl some intentness during the time that he was upon ye above blessed Topicks, & concluded wl an Expostulation scarce fit to be repeated; How is it possible, say [sic] he, that I shou'd ever believe that fellow to be ye Son of God. That remark is Tindal's last recorded utterance. A very different accusation, difficult to take seriously, is that Tindal's writings were really intended to further Catholicism. In a caricature of 1709 Tindal is said to have 'one aime' with

26

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Popery.101 In an anonymous pamphlet102 of 1733, the claim is made that the Jesuits pay people to pretend to be Protestants and to publish wicked works to set Protestants against one another so that the Jesuits might present Catholicism as stable in the truth. 103 This argument reaches its most mature form in Philip Skelton's dialogue of 1749, Ophiomaches, or Deism Revealed, in which he argues that Tindal's works are atheistical, 104 and that his life was 105 atheistical, 5 in order to promote Catholicism. From what we know of Tindal, however, this is simply incredible. Tindal's contemporaries were most surprised by the discovery after his death that he had a pension from the government of £200 a year. The standard reference books give four different rea106 I f\C sons why this pension was granted, but the truth may be that it 107 was a sort of mistake. In his diary, the Earl of Egmont records being told by Sir Robert Walpole, That in truth it never was a real pension, but rather a yearly present, which Lord Sunderland first gave him, and when Lord Sunderland died it was difficult and hard to discontinue it, though there was no grant of it. In his MS biography of Tindal, Egmont claims that the reason for first granting the money was as a reward for writing The Rights: 108 This pleasing some men in power, together with some Whig pamphlets he publish'd, obtained him a yearly pension of 200 £, wc was first granted him by the late Earl of Sunderland & was continued to him by every succeeding Minister till his death. A curious footnote to Egmont's evidence is the support it gives to the claim by the 'unspeakable' Curll that Tindal received a gift of £500 from Queen Anne as a token of her approval of The Rights. Dr. Tindal, says the Queen, I have read your Book throughout with strict Attention; and, it is my Opinion that you have

Life and Character

27

banished Popery beyond a Possibility of its ever returning into these Kingdoms. My Lord Sunderland will see my Acknowl9 edgement for your invaluable Present discharged. 109 Perhaps what began as payment by instalments became a permanent pension. Apostasy, fornication, and atheism are the most serious, but not the only charges, levelled at Tindal. He was called a glutton, 'A modern Epicurean Philosopher, very remarkable for his good eating and bad principles',110 and said to have '... a sort of canine Appetite'. 111 His scholarship was attacked. Egmont described him as a '... Man of tolerable second rate parts tho but of little learning',1112 echoing Silke's claim that The Rights was no more than a 1113 1o compilation of the writings of others. The strangest accusation against Tindal is that his principles were ultimately responsible for the suicide of a young barrister-at-law a little before autumn 114114 1712. The barrister referred to was probably William Blencowe, the cryptographer, who shot himself on 25 August 1712, and who was said by Hearne to be '... very great with Collins and Tyndale, & other vile republican Rascals'. 115 In fact Tindal had frequently argued that suicide is never justified. 116 These slurs upon Tindal's character are not just interesting in themselves, they are useful also in evaluating the reaction to his works. As Swift put it in 1708: For instance, if any man should write a book against the lawfulness of punishing felony with death; and upon enquiry, the author should be found in Newgate under condemnation for robbing a house; his arguments would not very unjustly lose much of their force, from the circumstances he lay under. 117 Thus, if Tindal were a vicious person, his attacks on religion, widely believed to be the best safeguard of virtue, could be dismissed by bringing his viciousness to light. This was the context

28

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

in which Swift found it to be the 'universal opinion' that The Rights was the118 ... production of a man soured with age and misfortunes, together with a consciousness of past miscarriages; of one who, in hopes of preferment, was reconciled to the Popish religion; of one wholly prostitute in life and principles, and only an enemy of religion because it condemns them. This is an example of the great lengths to which Tindal's opponents went to blacken his name. Swift is here inventing a man 'soured with age', at 42, and soured with misfortune although a Fellow of All Souls and in receipt of a state pension. The accusation that he changed his religion from base motives, Tindal answered, and the claim that he attacked religion purely because it condemned his vices is supported at best, only by circumstantial evidence. One is left wondering to what extent Tindal's detractors were projecting their own shameful inclinations onto a despised antagonist. Thomas Hearne said that Tindal was 'much in favour', 119 although he does not say who by. Hearne's own opinion was hostile: Memorandum that tho' Dr Tyndal of All-Souls be a noted Debauchee & a man of very pernicious Principles, yet he is so sly and cunning & has y* Command over his Passions, y* he always appears calm and sedate in company, & is very abstemious in his Drink, by wc means he has no small advantage over those he discourses with, & is the more able to instill his ill Notions.120 Regrettably there is very little evidence of any kind from Tindal's friends. We know, for instance, that he was a friend of his fellow freethinker Anthony Collins, 121 but have no first-hand

Life and Character

29

account of what Collins thought of Tindal. According to Egmont, 122 Collins disapproved of Tindal. I OO

The immoralities of this Man [Tindal], and his hipocracy in disguising his sentiments for many years, made his Companion the famous Mr Collins who died some time before him, bemoan that society he was link'd with gave him so great scandal, for said he I perceive myself the only Man who believing nothing yet act morally honest, whilst all my friends are by their scandalous lives a reproach to unbelief... Tindal was in correspondence with John Locke, who knew him well enough to present him with three of his books on publica1 O^i tion. Tindal certainly felt close enough to Locke to beg Locke's 'favour, and countenance' for a Mr Lloyd who intended setting up a school,124 in 1701. He also sought Locke's approval for an essay 125 on toleration in 1696. Locke said of Tindal's Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind in Matters of Religion (1697) that it 'maintains the cause of impartial and universal liberty of conscience with such uncommon strength, as will hardly be met with in any other books' (Publisher's preface to Tindal's Four Discourses). When he died, Locke had in his library all the works which Tindal had published up to then, evidence, according to Harrison and Laslett in their edition of Locke's library catalogue, that Tindal had Locke's approval.126 William Whiston records that Tindal was one of the preferred dinner guests of Sir John Hubern when residing with Lady 127 Caverly in Soho Square. The Irish writer and politician, Robert Molesworth, too, must have found Tindal a reasonably pleasing companion, for he invited Tindal for a visit of two 128 months to his house, and on another occasion wrote to his wife: 'Last night I got a companion to relieve me in my deep melancholy. It is Dr. Tindall, author of The Rights of the Christian 129 Church'. And surely there is something attractive in the image

30

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

of Tindal in the account of his death by the horrified Dr Dodd ('some of the particulars being so very shocking'), which shows us the still-vigourous infidel on his deathbed, still capable of blasphemy 'scarce fit to be repeated', still arguing against Scripture, and 'as proud of dying hard as ever he was to be reputed a Top Free Thinker'.130

Notes 1. 2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 1.

8.

9.

10.

John Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, ed. Colin Clair (Sussex: Centaur Press, 1967), p. 303. Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Genealogical memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley, Their Ancestorsand Descendants (London: Robsonand Son, 1878). 'The Parentage of John Tindal of Beer Ferris, the founder of this family, is wholly unknown, but it is impossible that he belonged to the Tyndalls of Maplestead' (p. 289). 'Matthew Tindal', in Biographia Britannica: or, the Lives of the Most eminent Persons Who have flourished in Great Britain and Ireland, From the earliest Ages, down to the present Times Vol. 6, part 1 (London, 1766), p. 3690. 'The Will of John Tindal, Priest', 19 May 1673 Principal Registry, Exeter, Devon (7208/7209/7210/7211). Leslie Stephen, 'Matthew Tindal', Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter DNB], Vol. 19 (1909), p. 883. Biographia Britannica, op. cit. Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses. An Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the most Antient and Famous University of Oxford, from the Fifteenth Year of King Henry the Seventh, A.D. 1500, to the Authors Death in November 1695 (London, 1721), p. 1011. Biographia Britannica, op. cit.', also A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical; in which A New and Accurate Translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle, with the Corrections and Observation printed in the late Edition at Paris, is included; and interspersed with several thousand Lives never before published (London, 1739), pp. 592-7. Biographia Britannica, op. cit.; also Thomas Hearne, Remarks and Collections, Vol. 1, C.E. Doble (ed.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press for the Oxford History Society, 1885), p. 260 (entry for 9 June 1706). 'The Will of John Tindal, Priest', Principal Registry, Exeter, Devon.

Life and Character 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

31

28. 29.

Biographia Britannica, op. cit.; also Wood, op. cit., p. 210. Biographia Britannica, op. cit.; also Wood, op. cit., p. 211. Biographia Britannica, Ibid. Biographia Britannica, Ibid.; also Wood, op. cit., p. 227. Biographia Britannica, Ibid. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 31. Stephen, op. cit.; also Charles Coote 'Matthew Tindal', in Sketches of the lives and characters of Eminent English Civilians, with an Historical Introduction Relative to the College of Advocates (London, 1804). (Admission to the Court of Arches was a condition of entry as advocate to Doctors' Commons; see William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol. 4 (London, 1924), p. 236.) Biographia Britannica, Ibid.; also Hearne, op. cit., p. 193 (entry for 23 February 1706). Edmund Curll, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Matthew Tindal, LLD., with a History oj the Controversies wherein he was engaged (London, 1733), p. 9. Biographia Britannica, op. cit. Curll, op. cit. C. W.C.Oman,'All Souls College'in The Colleges of Oxford: their History and Traditions, ed. Andrew Clark (London: Methuen & Co., 1891), p. 227. Lambeth Palace Library, London, MS 688, item 50, Leopold Finch to Archbishop Tenison (1698?). Biographia Britannica, op. cit. Ibid. Biographia Britannica, op. cit.; also Matthew Tindal, A Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, Occasion'd by two late Indictments against a Bookseller and his Servant, for selling one of the said Books (hereafter A Second Defence] (London, 1708). See closing paragraphs. Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 (Oxford: University Press, 1862), Vol. 2, p. 225. Biographia Britannica, op. cit. Ibid.

30.

Ibid.

31. 32.

Wood, op. cit., p. 1011. Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Locke c 20.207 r (Tindal to Locke, 10 January 1696). Samuel Milliard, A Narrative of the Prosecution of Mr. Sare and his Servant,for selling The Rights of the Christian Church. In Answer to what relates to that Prosecution (London, 1709), passim.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27.

33.

32 34. 35. 36.

37. 38. 39.

40. 41. 42.

43. 44.

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker Ibid., p. 19. Tindal, A Second Defence, p. 20. Henry Robert Plomer, A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers who were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland,from 1668 to 1725, ed. Arundell Esdaile (Oxford: University Press, for the Bibliographical Society, 1922), p. 262. Ibid., p. 27. Milliard, op. cit., p. 26. All Souls college Library, Oxford, MSS C.T. Martin, p. 336, no. 134, Appeals and Visitors Injunctions (Warden Gardiner to Dean of Arches, 9May 1711). Lambeth Palace Library, London, MS 930, item 12 (Sarum to Archbishop of Canterbury, dated 15 June 1706). Hearne, op cit., Vol. 1., p. 223, entry on 11 April 1706. William Carroll, Spinoza Reviv'd: or, A Treatise, Proving the Book, entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church, &c. (in the most Notorious Parts of it) To be the same with Spinoza's Rights of the Christian Clergy etc. And that both of them are grounded upon downright Atheism (London, 1709), ('Preliminary Discourse' by Hickes), p. 1. Tindal, A Second Defence, pp. 79, 81. British Library, London, MSS Add. 22083 (Oath by John Silke concerning The Rights, 28 October 1710).

45.

British Library, London, MSS Add. 22083 (oath by John Silke).

46.

The Religious, Rational, and Moral Conduct of Matthew Tindal, L.L.D. Late Fellow of All Souls College in Oxford (London, 1735), p. 31. Ibid. Carroll, op. cit. James O'Higgins, Anthony Collins: The Man and his Work (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970), p. 12. Hearne, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 94, entry on 15 February 1708. Hearne, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 5, entry on 13 April 1707. Hearne, op. cit., Vol. 11, p. 244, entry on 20 August 1733. St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, MS 12 (Anthony Collins to Henry Dodwell, dated 17 October 1706). David Berman, 'Anthony Collins: Aspects of his thought and writings', Hermathena, CXIX, 1975. Journals of the House of Commons, Vol. 16 (25 March 1710), pp. 384-385. Biographia Britannica, p. 3961. Also Journals of the House of Commons, Vol. 16 (25 March 1710), p. 385. Biographia Britannica, p. 3960.

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

Life and Character 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

67.

68.

69. 70.

71. 72. 73.

74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

33

Ibid., p. 3963. Alexander Hugh Hore, The Church in England from William HI to Victoria, Vol. 1, (London, 1886), p. 395. Biographia Britannica, p. 3964. British Library, London, MSS Eg. 2618 (letter by Pierce Dodd, 8 September 1733). Hearne, op. at., Vol. 11, p. 271 (entry for 28 October 1733). Biographia Britannica, p. 3964. University Library, Cambridge, MS Cholmondeley-Haughton, Correspondence 2046 (Curll to Walpolc 22 September 1 733). British Library, London, MSS Eg. 2618 (see above note 44). Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. 1 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962), Chapter 3, section 43, p. 114. David Berman and Stephen Lalor 'The Suppression of Christianity as Old as the Creation Vol. IP, Notes and Queries, 31 (299) (1), March 1984, pp. 3-6. Biographia Britannica, p. 3964. Also S.N.M., 'Stray Notes on Edmund Curll, his Life and Publications,' Notes and Queries, 2nd Series, Vol. 5, No. 128 (19 June 1858), pp. 489-93, 409-11. Wood, op. cit.,p. 1011. Christian Kortholt, De Matthaeo Tindalio disserit, et Urbano Godfredo Sibero summus in theologia honores recens collates gratulatur Christianus Kortholtus (Leipzig, 1734), p. 9. (There are other versions but the version cited is the most complete and intelligible.) British Library, London, Political Satires, no. 1508, 'Faction Display'd'. Hearne, op.cit., Vol. 1, p. 193 (entry for 23 February, 1706). The Religious, Rational, and Moral Conduct of Matthew Tindal, L.L.D. Late Fellouj of All Souls College in Oxford. In a letter to a Friend by a member of the same College (hereafter Moral Conduct] (London, 1 735), p. 20. Hearne, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 193 (entry for 23 February 1706). Moral Conduct, p. 27. Moral Conduct, p. 59. Moral Conduct, p. 61. British Library, London, Mss Add. 47119, p. 337 (Egmont biography of Tindal). Abel Evans, The Apparition, a poem - or, a Dialogue betwixt the Devil and a Doctor concerning the Rights of the Christian Church (London and Westminster, 1710), lines 65-8.

34 80.

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Matthew Tindal, Four Discourses on thefollowing Subjects, viz.: I. Of Obedience to the Supreme Powers, and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions: II. Of the Laws of Nations, and the Rights of Sovereigns: III. Of the Powers of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind, in the Matter of Religion: IV. Of the Liberty of the Press (London, 1709), p. 214 (hereafter Four Discourses]. 81. Matthew Tindal, Christianity as old as the Creation: or, the Gospel, a Republication of the Religion of Nature (London, 1730), p. 17 (hereafter Christianity as old}. 82. Ibid., p. 119. 83. Matthew Tindal, The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the Romish and all other Priests who claim an independent Power over it, with a Preface concerning the Government of the Church of England, as by Law Established: Part I (London, 1706), p. 264. 84. The Principles of Deism, truly represented and set in a clear Light, in two Dialogues between a Sceptick and a Deist (London, 1708), p. 76. 85. Moral Conduct, p. 58. 86. Montague Burrows, Worthies of All Souls (London: Macmillan and Co., 1874), p. 348. 87. Hearne, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 179, entry for 3 April 1709. 88. Hearne, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 243, entry for 3 October 1713. 89. Carroll, op. cit., p. 94. 90. George Hickes, Two Treatises, one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, formerly written, and now published, to obviate the erroneous Opinions, fallacious Reasonings, and bold and false Assertions, in a late Book, intitled, The Rights of the Christian Church, with a large Prefatory Discourse wherein is contained an Answer to the said Book (hereafter Two Treatises) (London, 1707), pp. cviii-cxii. 91 Tindal, Christianity as old, p. 371. 92 Tindal, Four Discourses, p. 133. 93 Curll, op. cit., p. 54 (quoting George Hickes). 94 Moral Conduct, p. 20. 95 British Library, London, MSS Add. 47119, p. 337. 96 Moral Conduct, p. 25. 97 Historical Manuscripts Commission Report (hereafter cited as HMC Report), Vol. 63 (London: HM Stationary Office, 1923), Diary of the Earl of Egmont Vol. 2, p. 206 (30 November 1735). 99 HMC Seventh Report (London, 1879), p. 244 (a) (Egmont MSS). 99 British Library, London, MSS Eg. 2618.

Life and Character

35

100. Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightenment (Oxford: University Press, 2002), p. 297. 101. British Library, London, Political Satires no. 1508, 'Faction Display'd'. 102. A Seasonal Preservative against the wiles of Popery; or modern Deism real Jesuitism: Wherein Deism is try'd, unmask'd, and condemned, in a letter to a Gentleman at Oxford. Occasion'dby a late Jesu-t-l Treatise, entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation (London 1733). 103. Ibid., p. 48 (sec also Swift's 'An Argument against abolishing Christianity', in The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, Vol. 3 (London, 1898), p. 128. 104. Philip Skelton, Ophiomaches: or, Deism Revealed (London, 1749), pp. 344-7. 105. Ibid., p. 404 (Skelton might have added that Tindal never recanted as such). 106. (a) 'Tindal', Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada, Vol. LXI (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1928), p. 1336; (b) 'Tindal', Biographia Britannica, p. 3960; (c) DM'B, Vol. XIX, p. 883; (d) 'Tindal', Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vols 7 arid 8, (London: CollierMacmillan, 1967), p. 139. 107. HMC Report, Vol. CXX, 1920, Diary of Earl of Egmont, Vol. 1, p. 409 (entry for 2 November 1733). 108. British Library, London, MSS Add. 47119. 109. Curll, op. at., p. 20. 1 10. Blasphemy as old as the Creation; or, the Newgate Divine. A Satire. Address'd to the. modern Advocates oflrreligion, Profaneness, and Infidelity. By a Gentleman and a Christian (London, 1 730). 111 Moral Conduct, p. 10. 112 British Library, London, MSS Add. 47119. 11 Moral Conduct, p. 31. 114 Moral Conduct, p. 29. 115 Hearne, op.cit., Vol. 3, p. 439, entry on 30 August 1712. 116 Tindal, Four Discourses, p. 134. 117 Jonathan Swift, 'Remarks upon a book intitled The Rights of the Christian Church, &c.' in The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, Vol. 3, ed. Temple Scott (London: George Bell and Sons, 1898), p. 81. 118 Ibid.,p. 102. 119 Hearne, op. cit,, Vol. 11, p. 248, entry on 1 September 1733.

36

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

120. Hearne, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 237, entry on 30 April 1706. 121. British Library, London, MSS Add. 47119. 122. Ibid. 123. Jean S. Yolton, John Locke: A Descriptive Bibliography (Bristol, Thoemmes Press, 1998). 124. Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Locke c. 20.210r. 125. Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Locke c. 20.2071" (Tindal to Locke, lOJanuary 1696). See also, Bodleian, MS Locke c. 17.f. 23; Locke, Corr. V. 41; Robert Pawling to Locke at Gates 31 March 1694. 126. John Harrison and Peter Laslet, The Library of John Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 23. 127. J. P. Ferguson, Dr. Samuel Clarke: An Eighteenth-Century Heretic (Kineton: the Roundwood Press, 1976), p. 207. 128. HMC Reports on Various Collections, Vol. VIII (London 1913), pp. 258-9 (Molesworth to his wife, 8 May 1712). 129. Ibid., Molesworth to his wife (16 July 1712). 130. British Library, London, MSS Eg. 2618.

2

Privateers and Pirates

Tindal had been admitted as one of the Advocates of the Canterbury Court of Arches, the court of appeal for the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the recommendation, dated the 7 November 1685, of Dr William Oldys, Fisher Littleton and others, and had been admitted as an advocate at Doctors' Commons. On the 30 May 1689, he was appointed Deputy Judge-Advocate of the Fleet.' This was Tindal's springboard when, in the early 1690s, he played an important part in a landmark case of international law, which revolved around the distinction between pirates and privateers. In 1694, inspired by what he believed to be false accounts of the proceedings being spread by Jacobites, he published An Essay Concerning the Laws of Nations and the Rights ofSoveraigns With an Account of what was said at the Council-Board by the Civilians upon the Question, Whether their Majesties Subjects taken at Sea acting by the late King's Commission, might not be looked on as Pirates? With Reflections upon the Arguments of Sir T. P. and Dr. 01. (hereafter Laws of Nations). The complexity of the situation arose from that fact that, in late 1688, King James II had been replaced by King William and Mary in legally obscure circumstances, and James had never formally abdicated. A letter of marque was a commission from a country's sovereign to a private ship permitting it to harass the private shipping of that country's enemies. In July, 1692, some English and Irish seamen, acting as privateers against English ships under letter of marque from James II, now in exile, were captured by the English navy. In the following November, the Lords of the Admiralty

38

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

ordered Oldys to prosecute the prisoners as pirates.2 On 20 May 1693, Oldys, and some other Admiralty lawyers, demurred on the grounds that the prisoners were privateers. Sir Thomas Pinfold advised that: 'They are not in law pyrates, nor ought to be prosecuted as such, as I conceive'. Robert Walton, because they acted against one enemy only, and with 'the solemnities of war', also advised that they could not be prosecuted as pirates.3 Tindal gave it as his opinion that asJames had 'j ustly lost his kingdom', he had forfeited the rights which accompanied it, including that of granting commissions, so the prisoners might be prosecuted as pirates. In his opinion on the prisoners, Tindal wrote: None can grant commissions for private men of war but they that have summum imperium, or a power of making peace and war for some state or nation. That the late king James, by having justly lost his kingdom, ... those taken serving under his commission are to be dealt with as if they had no commission, and being subjects of their Majesties, are incapable to receive any commission to fight against their fellow subjects, though granted by a just authority, and, in my opinion, may be by the law of nations prosecuted as pirates. Fisher Littleton agreed with Tindal. In about September, 1693, the Lords of the Cabinet Council summoned Oldys to appear before them, together with Sir Thomas Pinfold, Dr Newton, Dr Waller, Dr Littleton and Tindal. Lord Falkland and Secretary Trenchard, for the Cabinet, demanded of Dr Oldys that he justify his opinion. Oldys explained that while pirates are common criminals, the prisoners had produced a commission from King James at his court at St Germains requiring their prizes to be brought to judgement in a court of Admiralty at Brest, which matched the form of commissions to privateers given by King William and Mary. This, he said, was not consistent with piracy and it did not place the prisoners outside the law of nations. As to the objection that King James had lost his sovereignty, Oldys agreed

Privateers and Pirates

39

but claimed that this did not deprive him of his rights, including his right to go to war, and even if he had lost that right through abdication, someone, not knowing he had abdicated and acting on a de facto commission should be excused the charge of piracy. Trenchard and Falkland 'in very great heat' asked Oldys what he thought of the abdication, for they considered that his opinions amounted to high treason. Oldys said that he accepted that the abdication was binding at least in England, but that the prisoners were in a foreign country and knew nothing of the abdication, and that that excused them. Challenged by one of the Lords to name an authority which accepted that any monarch, Queen Christina for example, kept her privileges after her abdication, Oldys replied that James, after abandoning his kingdom, had been allowed his rights as a king in Ireland and his commissions recognized, and that those who followed him might still suppose his commissions would still be recognized. The Lords then asked Oldys and Pinfold i f ' . . . it were not Treason to accept a Commission from the late King to act in a hostile manner against their own nation? which they both owned it was'; and if it were treason, why not piracy? Oldys then gave the precedent of King Antonio of Portugal who, having lost his kingdom, gave Commissions to privateers, which were recognized by Spanish officers who protested against those privateers subsequently being hanged as pirates by the Spanish courts (Laws of Nations, p. 27). Sir Thomas Pinfold then, being asked, said that he agreed with Oldys that the prisoners were not pirates because pirates were hostile to all mankind, which was not the case here. Newton and Waller asked for more time and then refused to give their opinion. Littleton, on the other hand, said that James was now a private person, incapable of making war and that his supporters, therefore, were not enemies but rogues and the prisoners not privateers but pirates. Tindal said that he agreed with Littleton. Oldys was then removed from office and replaced by Littleton, and the prosecution proceeded.

40

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

On 26 February 1694, at a Court at Marshalsea in Southwark, nine were tried, two were condemned for treason, Captain John Golden and Thomas Jones, and two were condemned for piracy, Patrick Quidley and Darby Collins.6 They were hanged on the 5 March. The Laws of Nations is a very self-consciously erudite treatise and is laced with many references to learned authors like Grotius, Cicero, St Augustine and Albericus Gentilis. In it, Tindal sets out to derive his position from first principles. The laws of nations, he says, are the rules and customs which have grown up among countries because they have proved beneficial and profitable over the years, but are based on nothing more solid than mutual convenience. The benefits which they have been found to confer are so great that the laws have been esteemed as sacred, but it is for their benefits that they are valued. So that the Law of Nations and Nature, is in effect the same. The Law of Nature (I mean that part of it which concerns the Duty of Man to Man) is nothing else but that mutual Aid and Assistance, which by reason of their common Necessities one Man owes to another, without the observance of which Mankind could not well subsist. (Laws of Nations, p. 3) This 'Law of Nature' is Tindal's most fundamental political principle. It is his inference of an 'ought' from an 'is'. Tindal's case is that people have common necessities, these common necessities can only be supplied by our mutual aid and assistance to one another, therefore people have a duty to aid one another. And what is true of individual persons is true also of nations. There is no supreme power to enforce the laws of nations, there is no legislature to say what those laws are, and every nation is free to act as it sees fit (Laws of Nations, p. 3). The only sanction which can be levelled against a nation that acts contrary to common custom is to have other nations act against it in the same fashion. Thus,

Privateers and Pirates

41

although the most inviolable of all the laws of nations is the safety of ambassadors, a sovereign nation may refuse to protect ambassadors provided that it is satisfied that other nations would be justified in treating its ambassadors in the same way (Laws of Nations, p. 4). There is nothing but the advantage of observing the laws of nations to support them, and so there is no dejure basis for relations between nations, only de facto cost benefit calculations. Such calculations can be made only about powers actually in control of nations. It cannot be a material consideration for one nation to look at the rights and wrongs of who holds office in another nation, it is sufficient that it knows who has the sovereign power in the nation with which it wishes to deal (Laws of Nations, p. 8). Those holding sovereign power in nations deal with one another as such, and the agreements they enter into are not personal to the office holders. It would be unreasonable to require the holders of supreme power in one nation to continue to confer recognition on a deposed sovereign who no longer has the power to return the recognition (Laws of Nations, p. 11). As to a prince, no longer in possession of his realm, issuing letters of marque, Tindal concludes that he has fallen from a public to a private condition and has no more right to issue letters of marque than any other private person, and no one has any right to act on such a private letter (Laws of Nations, p. 12). Furthermore, an ousted prince could not, without the authority of the local sovereign power, set up a court of law to make judgements about a captured ship and its cargo (Laws of Nations, p. 14). Without any court to answer to, those acting on such letters or marque would be acting as both judge and jury in their own cause and, people being as they are, who can doubt that they 'will judg all that comes to their Net to be Fish' (Laws of Nations, p. 15). Whatever little legitimacy the attempt to recover his kingdom might grant to a deposed king, sending out privateers, even if valid, could not be counted as trying to recover his kingdom and could therefore not count towards granting privileges to the

42

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

king or to his agents (Laws of Nations, p. 23). Tindal finally turns to another argument; one which does not refer to piracy. The prisoners, he says, can reasonably be charged with treason because it cannot be possible to receive, from any king whatever, a commission to attack and seize the ships and goods of their fellow subjects. An unexpected corollary of Tindal's argument is that if pirates and criminals generate their own supreme power, and their own sovereign territory, then the privileges which attach to those conditions will apply to them: And I believe ... there can be found no instance given, where any though at first they were robbers, Pirates, Rebels &c., yet when they had Dominions, and possessed summum imperium, were not treated as Enemies. (Laws of Nations, p. 17) A prince, who has lost his territory, dwindles into a criminal if he takes part in the seizure of goods or ships, and those who act with him are to be counted as criminals rather than enemies (Laws of Nations, p. 19). On the other hand, criminals can turn themselves into enemies by acquiring territory and forming a civil society. This argument of Tindal's has a resonance for our own day when private organizations, such as Al Qaeda, act as a state without a territory. It does not seem too far-fetched to think that Tindal might have argued against recognizing the members of such an organization as legitimate enemies to be opposed militarily but would have wanted them to be treated as common criminals or outlaws. The decision of the court in this case was a landmark decision in the history of Britain, as the recognition of Jacobite letters of marque could have had a serious effect on the stability of the Revolution settlement. Britain was a much smaller country than most of its enemies, especially France, and it depended hugely upon its navy. Anything which attacked that navy attacked Britain in a fundamental way. With a large, and largely disaffected,

Privateers and Pirates

43

Irish population, and with many British families wishing to keep some contact with the Court of King James II, letters of marque could have provided James with a cheap and effective weapon to use against his enemies. It was always going to be unlikely that the British authorities would allow that to happen, and Tindal's legal opinion added a bolt to their arsenal.

Notes 1.

London, Public Record Office, Orders and Instructions PRO., Adm. 2/3, p. 238 ('Warrant appointing Dr Matthew Tindall to be Deputy Judge Advocate of their Mtys Fleet', 30 May 1689). 2. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawl D 373 (62), also PRO State Papers, Domestic, William & Mary 6, No. 12 p. 369. 3. London, Public Record Office, Orders and Instructions PRO., Admiralty, Secretary, In Letters 3665, f. 9. 4. London, Public Record Office, Orders and Instructions PRO., Adm. MSS 29547, f33 ('Concerning the English that acted under King James's Commission', 1693). 5. Bodleian, MS Rawl A 479, and PRO State Papers, Domestic, William & Mary 6, No. 12, p. 369. 6. Bodleian, MS Rawl D 373 (62) ('Concerning the English that acted under King James's Commission', 1693). A different source says that fourteen were tried for high treason, nine sentenced to be drawn, hanged and quartered for piracy, viz.: Captain Golding, Thomas Jones, Gold, etc. ('Calendar of State Papers', 1694-95, PRO State Papers, Domestic, William & Mary 6, No. 10), it also contains an account of Oldys's objections; Ibid., No. 11 (both from 31 December 1694, p. 369).

3

Freedom of the Press

If Tindal had done nothing else, he would have deserved a place in history for his opposition to censorship in the mid 1690s, as has been amply shown by Ernest Sirluck. Printing had been controlled by law for many years. The licensing system had in effect restricted printing to Cambridge, Oxford and York and to just over twenty printers in London. The main provision was the Licensing Act, 1685, passed to last until 1692, which required publications to be officially licensed before being printed. On the accession of William and Mary, James Fraser, a Scot and a staunch Whig, was appointed Surveyor of the Press. He was dismissed for allowing the publication of a book which undermined the claim that King Charles I had written EikonBasilike. He was replaced in 1692 by Edmund Bohun, a zealous Tory, but one who believed that William and Mary held the throne by right of conquest, a view abhorrent to Bohun's Tory friends. Before his dismissal, Fraser was obliged, on the instructions of the Bishop of London, to suppress one of the highly unorthodox tracts of the deist, Charles Blount. Blount replied with the unlicensed publication of his A Just Vindication of Learning andof the Liberty of the Press, by Philopatris (1693), which borrowed heavily from Milton's Areopagitica. He followed this up with another pamphlet, Reasons for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing. This latter had an appendix, 'A Just and True Character of Edmund Bohun', in which he quoted Bohun's extreme Tory views. The Whigs having been offended, Blount now offered for license the anonymous King William and Queen Mary Conquerors. The very opposite of Blount's own

Freedom of the Press

45

views, the new work was written to reflect Bohun's views but with a plainness which would antagonize the Tories. Bohun licensed the book in all innocence, but when it appeared it caused such outrage that he was sacked from the job and even imprisoned temporarily by the House of Commons, which ordered the book to be burned by the common hangman. Bohun had held the post for just five months. The more permanent result of Bohun's actions was that the process itself was made to look ridiculous and the Act was 2 renewed for just two years. When licensing of the press was being reconsidered in 1695, the House of Commons failed to agree with the House of Lords that the Printing Act should be renewed. No one, at first, intended that this state of affairs should be permanent, and two years later saw the beginning of a number of attempts to restore licensing. The Commons sent to the Lords a list of eighteen reasons, written by John Locke, as to why the Act should not be renewed. Most of the reasons referred to restrictions on commerce and had nothing to do with the principle of licensing. Those that did object to licensing, did so on two grounds in particular; that it had not succeeded in preventing the printing of objectionable publications and that it had led to bribery because of the low pay of the licenser (Siebert 1965, p. 262). Tindal got involved when Francis Atterbury published a Letter to a Convocation-Man in 1697. Atterbury sought the convening of Convocation, the representative assembly of the clergy in the Church of England, and the granting to it of the right to license the press as a defence of Christian doctrine. Tindal replied in an extended 'Postscript' to his Essay Concerning the Power of the Magistrate and the Rights of Mankind, in Matters of Religion (hereafter Power of the Magistrate}. The early part of the postscript is a plea for toleration in religious matters and the need, as he saw it, of keeping any capacity for compulsion out of the hands of the church. And so, when Atterbury complained that:

46

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

... tho the Commons have a standing committee for religion, nothing (as I remember) has since the Revolution been done by them in behalf of it. (Letter to a Convocation-Man, p. 15) Tindal replied that Parliament had protected the church by protecting toleration, which is the best thing it could have done for religion, and that it had done so by refusing to pass a bill for restraining the liberty of the press. In short; when the Clergy had corrupted the Christian, as much as the Heathen Priests had Natural Religion, it pleased God, out of his great Goodness, that the Noble Art of Printing should be discovered, whereby Men could with ease communicate their Thoughts to the World; and some free-spirited Men (who durst judg with their own Understandings) doing this, and Copies of their Works being dispersed, it caused many to perceive how miserably they had been imposed on by Spiritual Guides . . . (Power of the Magistrate, p. 184) He even attributes the Reformation to printing, claiming that where printing was possible the 'People threw off the Popish Yoke' (p. 185). Tindal goes on to say that the clergy, after the Reformation, remained just as zealous to hinder the liberty of the press as they had been before, . . . yet loth to forgo their beloved Empire over the Consciences of Men, they quickly endeavoured to make the People pay the same Obedience to their Determinations as they formerly did to the Romish Clergy . . . but the Power the clergy claimed to themselves being inconsistent with the Principles of the Reformation, and in England with the Oath of Supremacy, and that Power the laws have invested the King with, there is nothing so contradictory as their pretended Power, and that which they are forced to own does belong to the Magistrate . .. (Power of the Magistrate, p. 186)

Freedom of the Press

47

Ernest Sirluck believes that Tindal here intended that the clergy cannot have the power of licensing because it belongs rightfully to the magistrate/ This is not really the case. It is clear from the Power of the Magistrate as a whole that Tindal is making two significantly different points. Firstly, that had the clergy a claim to such a power before the Reformation, it would have passed to the magistrate after the Reformation with all the other powers the clergy no longer have, but if the clergy had claimed such a power before the Reformation they were as unjustified in that as in so many of their other claims in those days, and therefore the power could not transfer to the magistrate. Secondly, if such a power could possibly be proper then it would be proper to be exercised by the magistrate, but it is not proper at all. It is Sirluck's inference that since the clergy's powers have fallen into the hands of the magistrate, that must include the right to license the press, but Tindal nowhere in the Power of the Magistrate or in its 'Postscript', says that licensing of the press rightfully belongs to the magistrate. The 'Postscript' gives the strong impression of having been written in haste. For instance, on opposite pages, 186 and 187, Tindal makes the virtually identical promise that his next discourse would cover the matter in detail. It is likely that he was referring to The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, which he published in 1706. Before that, however, there was still the immediate threat of the return of licensing of the press. In response to that threat, in 1698, Tindal published A Letter to a Member of Parliament, shewing that a Restraint on the Press is inconsistent with the Protestant Religion, and dangerous to the Liberties of the Nation (hereafter A Letter}. This pamphlet is treated at great length by Sirluck. As he has shown, A Letter owes a great deal of its inspiration to Areopagitica; it is not, however, necessary to agree with his view that Milton converted Tindal from a belief in the magistrate's right to censor to a belief in the right to freedom of the press. This is particularly true if, as Sirluck suggests,

48

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Tindal had not read Areopagitica until after writing An Essay Concerning the Power of the Magistrate, in which he declares that 'reason' is the only guide mankind is obliged to follow and that the magistrate has no rights over it. It seems more likely that Tindal was already opposed to the licensing of the press and was casting about for arguments in support of his opposition. Areopagitica and Blount's A Just Vindication were too useful to be ignored. It is certainly from Milton that he takes the argument that able men would not want to be, and men lacking in ability should not be allowed to be, licensers; that standards would fall because able writers would not publish books if they had to submit them to licensing mediocrities; and in the end licensing would make the imprimatur mean no more than that the book is foolish enough to be published. There is also much that Tindal does not take from Milton. He does not dwell on Milton's arguments either from classical Greece and Rome or the early Church. Nor does he take from Milton the discussion on the bad effects of licensing on the world of Learning as such. Unlike Milton's broad brush, Tindal's arguments are generally specific, and concentrate on the impact on individuals of restraining the press. According to Tindal, we all have an obligation to examine the propositions we are asked to believe, particularly in religious matters. Following Milton, he says, 'Christ and his Apostles oblig'd Men to try all things ...' and that we must 'early and late seek after Wisdom as after a hidden Treasure'. Anything which prevents that is wrong in itself; and we are compelled not to take truths on trust when Scripture obliges us to 'try all things'. Restraining the press, then, according to Tindal, deprives people of the best means of examining different opinions and they end up seeing only one side of a case; if we must judge for ourselves, we must have a right to see all sides of an argument. 4 The more people are liable to make mistakes, the less they can rely on only one side of the case and the more they need the liberty of the press

Freedom of the Press

49

to be able to examine all sides. In a nice adhominem argument, since he is addressing 'a Member of Parliament' Tindal asks, rhetorically, if it is not the case that because Members of Parliament are liable to make a mistake there should be a licenser to judge in advance what should be said there? Indeed, he argues, parliamentarians themselves need a free press to inform them about matters they may not previously have considered. Adopting a technique he was to use throughout his career, Tindal draws support from an orthodox commentator who had earlier given a hostage to fortune. Nicholas Clagett, Archdeacon of Sudbury, in 1685, had written A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion in which he argued that it is the sign of a good cause, such as the Church of England, that it desires its friends and enemies to examine what is said both against it and for it. Adopting this position allowed Tindal to imply that he was on the side of orthodoxy and that those people, who believe only in natural religion, gain aid and comfort from seeing Protestants imposing restraints upon inquisitiveness. The Protestant religion is founded on everyone's right to judge for himself, a right approved of also by believers in natural religion, says Tindal, but when they see Protestants imposing a restraint on the press they feel they have every reason to conclude that a free examination in matters of religion would not lead to the Protestant religion. Again leaning on Milton, he says: The Clergy, say they, are so learned, and withal so numerous, that amongst 'em they cou'd not fail to expose and confound anything that's writ against 'em, had they Truth on their side, which they know is, next to the Almighty, strong, and therefore needs no licensing Tricks, or Stratagems, to make it victorious: these are the mean Shifts which Error is forc'd to use against its Power.5 Sincere Protestants welcome a free press - opposing it, says Tindal, only confirms believers in natural religion in their opinion.

50

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

One part of Tindal's argument is founded on the contemporary hostility to Catholicism. To be able to point out that a practice was 'Popish' was, in England at that time, a forceful argument against the practice. For example, Tindal pointed out that if the Catholics are wrong to stop people reading the Bible because they might misunderstand it, it cannot be right for a licenser to insist upon a particular interpretation. And not only the Bible; if the liberty of the press is wrong it must be because examining a particular case is wrong. The truth, according to Tindal, is that printing made the Reformation possible. Earlier reformers found it difficult to broadcast their views. The unavailability of alternative opinions leads people to submit blindly to the religion in which they were born, and without alternatives everyone, more or less, would have continued as Catholics. The problem for the Reformers is that, after the Reformation, the restraint on the press by Protestants who had earlier benefited from its freedom, lead to sectarianism and division, each sect requiring people to swear / submit all to Mother Church and similar oaths. The reason why whole countries could remain in 'Ignorance, Superstition and Bigotry', according to Tindal, is that the search for truth is enfeebled if it cannot be a shared activity open to all. While it is necessary for each individual to seek the truth, it is not sufficient that it be carried on by people individually; it is importantly a group exercise, and one facilitated by a free press. ... 'tis Mens mutual Duty to inform each other in those Propositions they apprehend to be true, and the Arguments by which they endeavour to prove 'em; which cannot be done so well as by Printing, ten thousand Books, after the Letters are once set, being sooner Printed than one Transcrib'd.6 The involvement of the whole community in a common search for truth comes about through communication, and 'Men have the same right to communicate their Thoughts, as to think themselves;

Freedom of the Press

51

and where the one is deny'd the other is seldom us'd, or to little purpose .. .'7 If we are to be hindered from communicating our thoughts freely it will become impossible for us to lend each other that mutual support so necessary in the search for truth, without which we will remain in ignorance and superstition. Although Tindal writes against 'the restraint' of the press, he does not argue that everyone should be allowed to publish just what they liked without consequences to themselves. In the 'Postscript' of the Power of the Magistrate, he argues that the bonds of society are to be protected by the magistrate who may suppress anything, including publications, which could threaten those bonds. The most material Objection against the Liberty of the Press is, That without licensers, Atheism, Profaneness, and Immorality, as well as Sedition and Treason, may be publish'd. The commonwealth has the same reason to punish Men for those as for these, because they are all alike pernicious to human societys.8 He opposes all licensing but not all suppression of publishing after the fact. Licensing, he believes, will not stop such works being printed, for many were produced when licensing the press was in force. Better, he believed, would be to insist that the author's name and the publisher's name be printed on the books (a practice he himself rarely followed), and allow antisocial works to be taken care of by the courts of law. Tindal is certainly not arguing that the power to license printing should be available to the civil authority. He was much too suspicious of authority to do so. He feared that the state would use licensing to keep people from discovering the defects of either the government or the management of it. Nor is it good enough to justify licensing that the present administration is a good one, because his successor may be a bad king. Licensing, Tindal holds, is not just a future danger. Present supporters should realize that restraining the press is likely to suppress at least some of their own cherished views, there being so many to choose from.

52

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

At the end of A Letter Tindal returns to his theme in the 'Postscript' to the Power of the Magistrate. The question he asks is how the clergy, who at first lived in poverty and on the charity of others, came to own such enormous wealth. He concludes that they effected this by persuading people to follow them blindly and to take their word for whatever they claimed. Tindal's implication is that the clergy are generally committed only to opinions that are in their self-interest and that they are able to enforce a blind obedience to those opinions in the laity. The opinions do not matter so much as the obedience. ... Priests are wondrous hot in every Country for the Opinions to which their Preferments are annex'd; in one place fierce Calvinists, in another violent Lutherans, in a third bigotted Papists: which could not so universally happen, did they in the least examine those Opinions they are engag'd to profess.10 Tindal was profoundly concerned that people should not be led by the clergy but should employ their reason, with sincerity, in the examination of religious truth; for if they happened upon a truth without an impartial examination, which itself makes error innocent, they must hold it guiltily. Freedom of the press reveals the wide array of opinions available on any issue and undermines the claims to any particular set of doctrines. That licensing was never again introduced was, to some extent, a credit to Tindal's efforts. Other factors also had their impact. F. S. Siebert concluded that the ultimate reason for the ending of licensing of the press was that the factions in parliament did not trust each other, or individual licensers, with the power, and for the successive governments, 'The work was too arduous for a leader and too dangerous for an underling' (Siebert 1965, p. 263). Tindal, however, casually mentions a factor which may well have weighed as much as learned argument or political difficulty. In alluding to the wider impact of licensing, he says that a free

Freedom of the Press

53

press makes for diversion when outside London and away from the sources of news. That the gentry of England had acquired a taste for reading newspapers may have tipped the balance in favour of the great cause of intellectual freedom. Although the Printing Act had lapsed when Tindal was writing, he writes as if against the status quo. It is as though someone was writing against slavery some years after its abolition in practice — as though the argument had still not been won. He does point to the fact that nothing had been published in defence of Catholicism, but he makes little of the benefits which have arisen, or of the absence of writings the proposers fear, either in the period when licensing had lapsed between 1679 and 1685, or the period in which he was writing. Of all his arguments, the one with the strongest resonance for him was that of all people to be licensers the Clergy should be last, because they claim an independent power over the people already. He would return to that issue in his next major work, The Rights of the Christian Church asserted.

Notes 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Ernest Sirluck, 'Areopagitica and a Forgotten Licensing Controversy', Review of English Studies, 11, Spring, 1960, 260-74. Jonathan Israel's statement in his Radical Enlightenment (p. 117), that Tindal only made isolated remarks on the subject, is surprising. Fredrick Seaton Siebert, Freedom of the Press in England, 1476-1776 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965), p. 244. Sirluck, op. cit. Matthew Tindal, Four Discourses, p. 295. Ibid., p. 309-10. Ibid., p. 294. Ibid., p. 299. Ibid., p. 311-12. Ibid., p. 315. Ibid.,p.3\7. Ibid., p. 293.

4 The Authority of the Church

In 1694 Tindal published an attempt to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity, entitled A Letter to the Reverend the Clergy of both Universities, Concerning the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed. With Reflections on all the late Hypotheses, particularly Dr. Ws, Dr. S—th's; The Trinity placed in its due Light; The 28 Propositions; The calm Discourse of a Trinity in the Godhead, and the Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notions. With a short Discourse concerning Mysteries (hereafter Letter to the Reverend). He starts with the principle that, as no one can be expected to believe something without knowing what it is they are to believe, '... it is evident, that a Man that has no idea at all, nor no true one of the three Persons, is no more capable of believing aright concerning them, than a blind Man is of Colours' (Letter to the Reverend, p. 4). If we use the term 'person', of God, in the same way as we use it of people and angels, says Tindal, and if each person is God then you have three, and not three, persons at the same time (p. 5). Such an idea can never be a part of a revelation because an idea cannot be said to be revealed to mankind if it is impossible to understand. To pay divine worship to anything other than God, Tindal says, is idolatry, but 'to worship they know not what, or can frame no Idea of, is the worst of all Idolatries', especially as there are so many unknowns and only a single truth (p. 4). Next, Tindal points out that various Trinitarians have written differently on the nature of'substance'. The Nominal Trinitarians hold that there are three persons and one substance, and the Real Trinitarians hold that there are as many substances as persons. Some argue that while there are different substances in finite

The Authority of the Church

55

beings, things can be different for infinite beings, such as God; but if the three persons are the same substance, then the same substance is simultaneously begotten, unbegotten and proceeding (p. 11). Not all Trinitarians understand the doctrine in terms of substance, attribute or property. Some are of the opinion that the Trinity consists of three modes. To which Tindal replies that that doesn't help because a being with three modes is not three persons (p. 14). The belief of the 'Real Trinitarians', that each person of the Trinity is the same God, also seems to Tindal to be an obvious contradiction, but if the different persons are the same God, he says, then the Unitarians and Trinitarians differ only about words (p. 17). Another of the Trinitarians' approaches affirms that the Son and Spirit are emanations from the Father and are, therefore, from all eternity. Tindal says that it is a 'gross Notion' that 'two infinite Substances should emane from one infinite Substance', because if infinities are not equal, one must be less than another and therefore have a bound or end and therefore not be infinite1 (p. 19). Furthermore, if the Son and Spirit emanated from the Father, they must, like all other beings, owe their continued existence to the Father and would consequently not be almighty, or else the Father must not have that power and not be almighty in turn (p. 20). Some Trinitarians argued that the Father, Son and Spirit are three single Essences joined together to constitute the entire individual essence of God (p. 23). According to Tindal, this is to say that each is less than God and therefore finite, but if each has finite qualities, together they can never become infinite (p. 26). So that the Real Trinitarians are polytheists, and not much different from heathens in that, and that Nominal Trinitarians are really Unitarians (p. 30). That the doctrine of the Trinity could be a mystery is also denied by Tindal. Children, he says, borrowing from Locke, are like 'white paper' and absorb many ideas, rational and irrational;

56

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

adults, however, must examine those beliefs. In that examination, Tindal says, it must be more reasonable to believe a contradiction than a mystery, ... because in a Contradiction we have Idea's and those too so clear and distinct, that we know it is impossible to predicate them at the same time of any one Subject whether Divine or Hximan. But in a Mystery we have no Idea's at a l l . . . (p. 32) Although Tindal is usually, and rightly, seen as a follower of Locke, there are also Cartesian pillars supporting his structure. As we are not capable of believing where we have no Idea's, or none but contradictory, so where we have clear and distinct Idea's we cannot be mistaken, without destroying the Principles and Foundation of all Knowledg and all Evidence, even of the Existence of a God and of all Religion, as well Natural as Revealed: For what other Motive have I to believe there is a God, but because my Reason gives me clear and distinct Idea's of the Truth of it. (p. 33) In a formulation which echoes through his last major work, Christianity as Old as the Creation, he concludes that: Mystery can never be a part of Religion, because it cannot tend to the Honour of God, since it is what we know of God, not what we do not know, that makes us honour him ... (Letter to the Reverend, p. 35) How can it make sense to say that there are differences of opinion on a doctrine, the Trinity, which is agreed to be absolutely necessary even by those who regard it as fundamentally a mystery? How can someone believe, or expect others to believe, a doctrine no one can be expected to understand? How can it be right to

The Authority of the Church

57

punish Unitarians for not believing, without being able to tell them what to believe? To Tindal, the problems of the doctrine of the Trinity should be 'obvious to all but Children and Metaphysicians' (Letter to the Reverend, p. 22). Tindal began to bring his political theories and his religious criticism together in An Essay Concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind, In Matters of Religion. With some Reasons in particular for the Dissenters not being obliged to take the Sacramental Test but in their own Churches; and for a general Naturalization. Together with a postscript in answer to the Letter to a Convocation-man, (hereafter Power of the Magistrate] in 1697. We have already looked at the 'Postscript' in Chapter 3, on the freedom of the press. The body of the essay is his earliest examination of the relationship between church and state. The declared aim of the essay is to show that the civil authority has no rights in purely religious matters because religion neither should, nor could, form part of those powers which the people *7 have delegated to the magistrate. He begins by arguing that the power of the people is limited in its range over others, being no more than is required for self-defence. People have no right to hurt themselves, and therefore have no right to hurt others, except for their own preservation. The people's right to use force is limited to defence of their lives and properties, and since it is evident '... that Man cou'd not give the Magistrate a Power they themselves had not', it follows that the magistrate can act only in defence of the people's lives and properties. There is even less justification for preventing or suppressing belief or behaviour which is harmless.5 The right of the magistrate to punish someone for acting against the welfare of society, can only apply to society's material wealth, and not to anyone whose actions or opinions are purely religious and thus have no bearing upon the political world. There is a profound difference between the political and religious spheres. The magistrate has an authority to protect people's lives and properties, but in religion there is no external authority. In religion, reason is our only guide, o

58

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

because it is upon our use of reason that we are to be judged by God.7 Neglect of that principle is, according to Tindal, the source of most religious ills and is inconsistent with religion itself. For the magistrate to be concerned with religious matters is invading the 'prerogative of God himself, in taking upon him to judge those Matters God has reserv'd for his own Tribunal'.8 If we are weak and follow the rulings of magistrates instead of the dictates of our reason, we are laying ourselves open to God's displeasure. Since God has ordained that we should live with one another in charity, kindness and love; if magistrates persecute those considered in error, they will both set an example of ill usage and be a direct cause of such ill usage, which together will destroy all human happiness. Lest the magistrate's interference in religion be defended, not on temporal, but on spiritual grounds, Tindal considers two common objections to toleration; one he calls the 'Pretence' of charity in using force to save souls, the other is the possibility that an erroneous opinion could be a soul's destruction. Of the first, he says that since falsehood is almost infinite, the odds are prodigious that the magistrate would be persecuting his subjects to establish error. Of the second, he says that opinions as such are not destructive of men's souls because God only requires us to make an impartial search for truth. 9 Having dealt with persecution, Tindal goes on to examine its source or sources. From what we have seen already, it is obvious that he does not find it in religion per se, or at least what he conceives true religion to be. Nor does he find it endemic in all peoples, because he is quite prepared to believe that many heathen societies may have lived without persecution. The feature he finds common to all persecutions is the ruthlessness of the clergy's self-interest. Just as heathen priests used the threat of human sacrifice to subjugate their laity, so Christian priests '. .. promoted the sacrificing of Peoples Lives and Propertys much upon the same account'. As an example of the consequences of persecution, he asserts that the

The Authority of the Church

59

Japanese freely allowed the growth of Christianity until its persecuting spirit disclosed itself. The rest of the Power of the Magistrate is devoted to an outline of arguments against compulsion, which he was to present at length later on. In the case of the Old Testament, it is true that the Jews persecuted idolators, but only if members of their own community, not in lands they conquered. Besides, Israel was a perfect theocracy, and therefore those Israelites who turned to idolatry were turning their backs upon the lawful monarch (and Tindal is careful to point out that God was their monarch through the only real and valid right, the consent of the people), and were therefore rebels and traitors. The Israelites thus occupy the unique position in which it might be justified to compel in matters of religion. Of the New Testament, Tindal says that there are many other passages with no possibility of misinterpretation, '... so clear is Scripture writ', which support tolerance and freedom. What, then, of the many very respected Christians in the past who persecuted, or aided and abetted the persecution of others? Tindal grants that compulsion was used from the earliest times against blasphemers, swearers and the erroneous in faith and discipline, but he says that it was justified because it was the sort of blasphemy that undermines the force of oaths, which are the bonds of human society, and can of right be punished for entirely secular reasons. The sort of blasphemy which consists in worshipping false Gods should not be punished because that would only make people false to their consciences, '... and they who are so, will never be true to thePublick'. 11 The distinction between formal and material blasphemy is not just a distinction between behaviour and speculation. It is important that people behave in a manner consistent with the magistrate's notion of what is the public good. Tindal says that people should have some fundamental correct ideas. For instance atheists who deny the being of a God cannot expect others to accept their oaths upon a non-existent deity, and without oaths society will

60

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

crumble. By implication Tindal also appears to be saying that forcing people to swear to something they don't believe in also tends to undermine oaths, and is therefore to be condemned. The final argument in favour of persecution is that force may be used to prod people into thought on religious matters. Tindal answers this by saying that force could only make people more willing to accept without question what others tell them.12 With the principle of persecution overthrown, Tindal felt free to examine the question from a more practical point of view. In his Letters on Toleration, John Locke had argued that we join churches voluntarily, and that the goal of a church is the public worship of God. These points are echoed by Tindal.13 He was aware that his readership was almost entirely Protestant, and that it would interpret his reference to 'a Church' as meaning to a Protestant church, and may have intended them to make that interpretation, for his final four chapters are devoted to showing that compulsion is inconsistent with Protestantism, that schisms and heresies do not necessarily multiply as a result of toleration, and that the absence of toleration leads to the people being overrun by priestcraft. Tindal begins by declaring that freedom of conscience is central to Protestantism: ... the Essence of which [Protestantism] consists of everyone's having an impartial Right to judg for himself, and which is the necessary Consequence of it, acting according to that Judgment ... 1 4 In support of freedom of conscience Tindal quotes a Protestant divine Nicholas Clagett, Archdeacon of Sudbury, that freedom of examination into religion is justified because 'Truth' will necessarily triumph.15 This is a favourite passage of Tindal's which he quoted also in his pamphlet on the Liberty of the Press. More telling than a quotation from a Protestant is, however, an invidious comparison with the Roman Catholics.

The Authority of the Church

61

Which is worse, to give Men leave, by reading Scripture, to judg for themselves, and then to use Force to make 'em act contrary to their Judgments, or to make 'em follow their Guides with a blind implicit Faith? The one tends to make Men ignorant and 1 f\ superstitious, the other downright Hypocrites and Villains. He could be hard on Catholics, but that was cold comfort for Protestants. Sincere inquiry into matters of conscience is Tindal's criterion of moral and religious worth. It is not the opinion in itself which counts, but the manner in which it was reached. Error, as a result of the weakness of understanding, is not culpable. If God does not blame people for their honest mistakes there is no reason why anyone should be punished for honest error, particularly by punishments designed more to force a conformity than encourage honest appraisal. According to Tindal, the main motive for compulsion in matters of opinion is the self-interest of the clergy. His evidence is that: . . . the Opinions of the Clergy (as much as they pretend not to take things on trust) are everywhere such as the Terms of Preferment, appointed by the Laws of each country, require of'em. 18 This is, in Tindal's opinion, one of the great reasons why compulsion persists. The clergy preach the necessity of particular dogmas which people should be compelled to believe. They press the legislators to support laws requiring compulsory support of religion, that is, support for the clergy. The laws of each country, then, compel particular opinions in religion. So priests believe in compulsion in religion for their own advancement. Tindal's purpose was to break this vicious circle by showing that there is no good reason for the magistrate to pass any, necessarily arbitrary, laws

62

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

requiring any opinion whatever in religion, or to be concerned about different forms of worship. Opinion on the various forms of worship differs because the clergy who officiate at the different forms insist upon the absolute necessity of the form which they practice.19 The Catholic clergy, says Tindal, are in favour of their own absolute interpretations because of the power it gives them, and the Protestant clergy have been little, if any, better. Nay, have not the Protestant Clergy been every jot as much, if not more zealous and industrious than the Popish, to enslave the People, and promote Arbitrary Power, and have preach'd up absolute Passive Obedience even as much as Faith in Christ; as knowing that the only way to secure Tyranny in the Church, was first to get it establish'd in the State.20 No passage could more aptly bring the essay to a close or act as an overture to his first major work, The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the Romish and all other Priests who claim an independent Power over it (hereafter The Rights], which he published in 1706. Perhaps a reputation for tediousness has caused The Rights to be neglected. Certainly most references to Tindal, since his death, if they mention The Rights, do so in passing only. Even Leslie Stephen, who gives the work a page in his History of English thought in the Eighteenth Century, does little more than expand upon his description of it as '... a vigourous assault upon his [Tindal's] former High Church allies'. Much more than that, it is, in fact, an attempt to show that institutional religion is logically incoherent, and that claims to the contrary stem from the self-interested attempt by the clergy to deceive the people into accepting clerical dictation in matters of conscience. Much of Tindal's early work came together in The Rights, which may be seen as complementary to Toland's Christianity not Mysterious. As Toland had used the theology of Locke to attack the belief O 1

The Authority of the Church

63

in Christian mysteries, so Tindal uses Locke's political theory to attack the idea that one person can have authority over another in religion. The style of the The Rights, like some of his earlier work, is reminiscent of a prosecuting barrister arguing a case, going through every possible argument to cover every possible point, just in case the judge exposes some gap in his summing up. The book goes into great detail on very specific points, although it has previously argued, and claimed to have demolished, the general argument. And although Tindal aims most of his barbs at Catholics, he does so in a way that indirectly, though obviously, targets the Church of England. It avoided trouble with the law but the intended conclusions were fairly obvious to most intelligent readers. The plan of the book is fairly straightforward. The preface, probably written shortly before publication, outlines the conclusions. It also contains definitions of some key concepts which appear throughout the work. Tindal uses 'church' to signify 'the Christian People' and never to refer to the clergy exclusively. 23 Tindal also points out that he denies certain clerical powers to be based, as the clergy claim, on divine right; he admits, however, that such powers may have been delegated to them by the civil magistrate (The Rights, p. Ixxxiv). The preface is followed by an introduction which sets out the extent to which the magistrate or civil power can have authority in religious matters. The first chapter proposes the thesis of the work, that there cannot be two independent powers in the same society, and considers it in relation to the powers of the clergy. Chapters II and III deal in detail with the claim by the clergy to have authority over conscience and over behaviour respectively. The later chapters expand on points which had been raised earlier. The preface is a long catalogue of instances of High-Church writers claiming that the Church has a power independent of the civil authorities. It denies that claim on two grounds. First, that it is false in fact. That the Church has actually submitted to the state shows that the Church is subject to the state. The state has

64

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

demonstrated its authority over the Church in many ways since Henry VIII declared himself the Head of the Church. The Church of England actually submitted to Henry at that time and since then its clergy have, by and large, accepted that position. Occasionally, clergymen have refused to submit to some action or other of the state, but in those circumstances the state simply removed them from their offices, bishops from their dioceses etc., and appointed members of the Church who were prepared to toe the line. Secondly, the preface argues that the claim to an independent power is an attempt to undermine the Reformation and it demonstrates a sympathy for, if not actual belief in, Catholicism. The central point of The Rights, stated in the title of Chapter I, is 'That there cannot be two Independent Powers in the same Society'. Tindal returns to this theme repeatedly to attack the clergy's claim to a religious authority. He begins, in the Introduction, however, not with an attack on the clergy but with the delineation of the power of the magistrate. Firstly he argues that the source of the magistrate's power must be the consent of the people being governed (p. 2). The powers of the magistrate, Tindal says, all derive directly from the people, who in turn can delegate only those powers which they have themselves. All are born free, and no one can have any power over another which others do not have over them. If inherited power from the magistrate were logical, then Adam's successor would be king of the world and there would be no valid authority anywhere until the universal sovereign was located. People cannot lose their equality except by forming 'Bodys Politick' and agreeing to be bound by the will of the majority, whether directly or through representatives. Such a social contract, according to Tindal, is not an historical event. Laws derive their authority from the present system of administration and the administration derives its authority from the continuing consent of each generation 'sufficiently express'd by its being willing to be protected by it in their Persons, Liberty and Property' (p. 7).

The Authority of the Church

65

And therefore the State of Nature is much wider than is generally imagin'd, since not only whole Nations with respect to one another are still in it, and every one in the same Society, when the Danger is too sudden to have recourse to the Magistrate, but all Men are born in it, and always continue to be so in all such things as they may practice without injuring one another (p. 11). Tindal's state of nature is not a state of war, as Hobbes would have it, of everyone against everyone, but is a condition governed by natural law and justice. In this state of nature, however, evil and misery would flourish because there would be no impartial power with the authority to suppress evil and promote happiness. Everyone, even in a state of nature, by the innate principle of 'loving himself best' and preferring his own good over another's, is 'oblig'd to preserve his own Life and Limbs, and subsist as happily as his Nature will permit' (p. 3). They have, therefore, a duty to leave the state of nature, for those aims cannot be achieved without justice, and justice demands that there be an impartial umpire or umpires to judge cases and to establish who is villain and who is victim (p. 10). The magistrate's powers, therefore, are confined to those which each person had in the state of nature and had the capacity to relinquish, that is the right of preservation of life, liberty, and goods (p. 11). Against a view then common, Tindal argues that political power cannot be derived from parental power because sovereign princes owe the same duties to their parents, if living, as does everyone else (p. 6). The duties due to parents are 'Respect, Honour, Gratitude, and, if need be, Assistance and Support' (p. 5), but these are personal and cannot be passed by the parents to others, such as the magistrate. In addition, parents have limited power over their children as they are obliged to care for their children's life and property, and parental power lasts only until the child reaches the use of reason, which is what distinguishes

66

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

the relationship between parent and child from the relationship between magistrate and subject (p. 4). The powers granted the magistrate are those required for the preservation of life, liberty and goods (p. 11), says Tindal, and no more. "Tis a grand mistake to suppose the Magistrate's Power extends to indifferent things', that is, to things which cannot affect the temporal happiness of others, such as their manner of worshipping God (p. 15). In the state of nature you cannot give anyone else the power to judge for you how best to worship God, and hence the magistrate cannot have been given that power. Thus •the magistrate's power extends to all matters affecting civil society, but no farther. Furthermore, 'the End of Government being the true Measure of its Extent' (p. 15), and consisting of the promotion of human happiness, the magistrate must have the right of punishing for injury done as a deterrent, but that is the only right to punish a magistrate can have (p. 10). This has important consequences for religion for it denies the magistrate the right to prohibit opinions which are not contrary to the good of society (p. 22). Additionally, Tindal argues that we are all obliged to worship God according to conscience (p. 14), and therefore no one can have the right to stop us so acting (p. 14). Tindal shows that 'ought' presupposes 'can' by noting that God '... commands not Impossibilitys' (p. 16),24 for it is impossible that God should require someone to worship him in a certain way, and require the magistrate's prohibition of the worship to be obeyed. Since God does not require impossibilities, but does require impartial examination of truth, anything in the way of bribes, preferments, punishments, etc., which impinge on that examination, is wrong (p. 16). Tindal says that the magistrate has some power over religious assemblies (p. 19), but this power is no greater than over other assemblies. He goes on, however, to claim that the magistrate can actively require the clergy to promote the common good, and can deprive the clergy of their offices and even of their

The Authority of the Church

67

wealth if they act contrary to it (p. 21). The apparent conflict here can, I think, be resolved by considering the distinction Tindal has drawn between the clergy and the church. The church, denned as the people united for the sake of conscience, is inviolable. The clergy, as creatures of the state established by law, are subject to the rule of the magistrate. But the attachment of preferments and suchlike to matters of opinion which are indifferent, has undermined the search for truth and has inflamed bigotry and hatred (p. 23). There is an apparent exception. Tindal writes that, because they subvert the foundations of society, the magistrate has; . . . a Right to punish not only the Deniers of a Divine Being, but all who make the Notion useless, by disowning his providential Care of mankind, or ineffectual by not honouring or adoring him, or who are guilty of formal Blasphemy, Profaneness, Perjury, and common Swearing (p. 12). Where Tindal differs from proponents of persecution is in arguing that opinions do not justify prosecution simply by being erroneous, and that the prosecution of opinions must be, and may be, justified by their social consequences, even though the opinions may be sincerely held (p. 19). The 'Introduction' to The Rights spells out the natural rights of mankind, and that, although the magistrate has 'all the power in religion that anyone is capable of, for Tindal, that does not make him a Hobbesean absolute sovereign (p. 27). Furthermore, if the magistrate has all possible power in religion, and if two independent powers in the same society is impossible, then the claim to power by the clergy must necessarily fall (pp. 30—32). The rest of The Rights is the entirely negative argument against the theory t h a t ' . . . sacred and civil powers were like two parallel lines which could never meet or interfere .. .',25 or in other words, the magistrate and the clergy were independent powers within a

68

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

single society. Tindal's simple answer to this is 'That there can not be two Independent Powers in the same Society' (p. 33), and in Chapter I he explains why this must be so. Tindal argues that an independent power must be a supreme power because if it is not supreme it must be dependent or subsidiary. An independent power must have the power to enact legislation or it would not be supreme (p. 33). There cannot be two such independent powers, however, because, on the one hand, they might impose conflicting rules within the same fields of operation and, on the other hand, even in different fields of operation, say civil and religious, they might command someone to be in different places at the same time. Besides, someone must decide difficult cases of which is which. If there could be two independent powers in a society there could, equally, be an indefinite number of powers in society, with an irresolvable conflict between them (p. 36). This is impossible, because God, 'who is the God of Order and not of Confusion' (p. 35), would never create inextricable difficulties for us, and so there cannot be two independent powers. There can, therefore, be only one independent, that is to say supreme, political power in a society. According to Tindal, the clergy's claim to a power totally and absolutely independent of the civil power is confuted by fact and principle, even in those areas which appear to be particularly ecclesiastical, for instance the power of making and depriving clergymen, and the power of excommunication. The clergy falsely claim the power of making priests or ministers on the grounds that they can, whereas the laity cannot,'... give the Holy Ghost'. Tindal replies that this 'giving' can only refer to the powers of miracles or prophecy granted to the Apostles, which the clergy do not have (pp. 74—5). Some of Tindal's opponents argued that the magistrate could not deprive a clergyman of his office, though he might order him killed. This, says Tindal, would make the clergyman subject to the magistrate in great matters, but independent in small matters, which would be absurd (p. 54). The clergy say such

The Authority of the Church

69

things as '... the Magistrate, tho he has no Ecclesiastical Power, has all Civil Power in Ecclesiasticals', which, according to Tindal, makes as much sense as if they had spoken of his maritime power in ecclesiasticals (p. 59). It is a 'subterdivinum . . . to demonstrate the Impossibility of a Penetration (if I may so call it) of Bodys Politick' (p. 60), that they put it forward as a plausible interim measure towards their goal of gaining the supreme power for themselves. They are graciously pleas'd in the meantime to banter the Magistrate with the same conditions which Trincalo allow'd his competitor Stephana, when he told him, You shall indeed be Viceroy, provided I be Viceroy over you. (p. 60) The power to imprison or execute a clergyman is the supreme interference with the powers of the clergy, but as the civil authority can execute, imprison or banish a clergyman, or indeed anyone, and prevent his fulfilling his religious duties, the magistrate's power must be the superior of the two (pp. 37-8). Tindal maintains that the clergy's claim to an internal power is 'only amusing people with Words', because their punishments are as external as those of any civil officer (p. 65). The clergy may say that their punishment is more in the next life than in this, but, Tindal argues, God rewards or punishes upon what is just or unjust, not upon the declarations of third parties (p. 68). The claim, that the clergy can oblige conscience, is an attack on the power of the magistrate if it means submission to the clergy, and if they claim a power over the mind of people, it is a usurpation of the prerogative of God (p. 66). Tindal was very concerned by the clergy's claim to the right of excommunication; a power so great that were it theirs by right, the clergy would be the rulers, with kings being only ministers to do their bidding, as happened in the case of the Jews and Essenes, ancient Germans, the Druids, and the Pope (p. 43). Tindal's chief objection to excommunication is that it usurps the rights and

70

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

powers of the magistrate (p. 39). On initially leaving the State of Nature, the right everyone had freely to move about and mix with others was placed in the magistrate's power, and therefore the clergy have no claim to interfere with it (p. 83). The claim is absurd if it applies to someone who has already left the church, and is uncharitable to exclude someone who might be led to virtue by attendance at church services. Excommunication, says Tindal, has all the evil consequences of hatred, destroying kindness and friendship over indifferent matters (p. 112), and it contravenes the principle that we should treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves (p. 113). Excommunication, thus, subverts the social order and is made the more ridiculous by the clergy making it a legal duty for everyone to receive the sacrament, while claiming the right to exclude those deemed unworthy from receiving it. Surely it is sinners who need sermons and exhortations to goodness (p. 89),'... the sick and not the Whole need the Physician, the clergy shou'd, like our Saviour who frequently convers'd with Sinners, apply their Ministry chiefly to such' (p. 93). As usual, Tindal attributes the introduction of excommunication to the clergy's desire 'To advance their Interest and Power' (p. 94). It was, he said, derived from the right of heathen priests, and particularly the Druids, to appoint who was to be the victim of human sacrifice (pp. 98-9). Yet, even under heathen darkness there were no feuds in religion, though sects of Christians hate and persecute one another, 'Which shows, that the best Religion has had the misfortune to have the worst Priests' (p. 118). If, as Tindal thinks, 'all priestcraft is a cheat', why have people throughout the world taken priests seriously for so long? Why have the clergy taken one another seriously, why would one clergyman listen to the sermons of another? Why would members of the clergy be willing to face oppression, torture and even death, for their beliefs? Tindal evades the question. He denies that being prepared to suffer oppression is evidence of sincerity since people who have

The Authority of the Church

11

made themselves appear to be in possession of remarkable gifts will often be prepared to die rather than admit themselves to have been cheats and impostors. . . . even Atheists, such as Vaninus and Effendi, dy'd Martyrs for their Opinions; or, more properly speaking, rather than be thought capable of so much Weakness, as for the sake of their Lives to disown what they made the World believe they thought a Truth? (p. 184) Tindal may well be arguing against all organized religion, he probably is, but that does not get to the root of the question why people, with no need to feign their sincerity, seem in need of any organized religion at all, as its presence all over the world seems to testify. At this point Tindal's main points have been made. The only moral justification for authority is the consent of those over whom it is to be exercised. Tacitly or explicitly, the people have consented to be ruled by the magistrate, who therefore has all power, including all power in religion, that anyone can have. Since the people could not relinquish their freedom of conscience, the magistrate can have no power in that sphere. Still less can the clergy, who have been granted no such powers, have authority over the conscience of the people. The rest of The Rights develops, or extrapolates from points already made. For instance, in Chapter IV, continuing what he had begun at the start of Chapter I, Tindal attacks the theory that the power of making ministers of religion is bestowed directly by God, and in particular the corollary that the form of church government is immutable. Different circumstances, for example the early Christian communities and the English national church, clearly require different polities. This explains all the changes which have taken place in Christianity since Jesus frequented the synagogues. And wherever people gather sincerely to express their religious faith, they can be sure of the approbation of God.

72

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Tindal's is an extreme Erastianism, but one which did not recognize that the civil authorities had any right to influence people's purely religious behaviour, and none at all to influence their religious beliefs. It formed the basis for his support of the Whigs, as he believed that the High Church party was intent on restoring the Catholic Stuarts and an oppressive religious establishment. The Williamite settlement, supporting different religious dispensations in Scotland and England, best represented Tindal's view that the church is the creature of the people, not the clergy. Chapter V argues that the attempt by the clergy to establish an independent power actually diminishes the appeal of Christianity and, so, alienates many from the Gospel, actually leading people into deism. Chapter VI claims that the clergy's assertion of an independent power is destructive of the interests of religion because it is the cause of all the corruptions which undermine Christianity. The purpose of religion is human happiness, therefore it should be in the hands of each person; the best judge of their own happiness. Chapter VII argues that the people alone have the right to appoint and dismiss their ecclesiastical officers. Chapter VIII is something of an harangue, in which Tindal actually comes close to saying that all the evils of the world arise from the attempt by the clergy to exercise power, and the more power they exercise the more people are oppressed, whether by Catholic, Anglican or Presbyterian clergymen. He sees no merit in religious tests for civil employment (p. 287). In Chapter IX he argues that to base church government on the Apostolic succession of bishops, as the High Church does, is to subvert all Protestant churches; for if the Protestants are schismatics their bishops cannot have spiritual power or government, and if the Roman Catholics are schismatics their bishops cannot be the medium of Apostolic Succession (p. 316). Chapter X argues that unless each church is independent, with a right to make its own clergy, there must of necessity be a universal bishop or Pope (p. 378).

The Authority of the Church

13

The other chapters go on to claim that: (a) the clergy's claim to an independent power, by arousing the suspicions of the civil authorities, inhibits the spread of, and causes a decline, in Christianity; (b) the clergy's claim to an independent power, if allowed, would enable them to pursue their short term, at the expense of their long term, interests; (c) if the clergy did have an independent power, the consent of the corrupt unreformed clergy would have been required to justify the Reformation; and (d) the power of the clergy is an actual threat to the state because such things as religious tests in civil matters tend to increase disaffection, and it is a potential threat because any power allowed to the clergy might be used to subvert the state in the interest of the clergy. The Rights provoked a storm of opposition in which it was attacked in at least eighteen books. Le Glerc, in his Extract and Judgment of The Rights of the Christian Church (translated from his Bibliotheque Choisie and published in 1708), is a lone voice of approval from abroad. Samuel Hill, Archdeacon of Wells, called the book 'pernicious' and the author '... a Man hardened unto utter Folly'. Swift remarks, in 1708, that Tindal is '... one wholly prostitute in life and principles'. The poet Abel Evans addressed Tindal as 'Egregious Youth: Thou last best Hopes of Hell!'. The personal hostility tended to inhibit serious consideration of Tindal's arguments, and most of the attacks on The Rights repeat unsupported statements of orthodoxy. The opposition to Tindal was sometimes acute, however, and he came under considerable criticism in four areas. These are: (a) (b) (c) (d)

The State of Nature — especially as the basis for the argument that all government must be by consent. That there cannot be two independent powers in the same society. That an independent power of the clergy is not justified. That conscience is our only guide to action.

74

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

One work that gives an overall coherent attack on The Rights is William Carroll's Spinoza Reviv'd, of 1709, which designed to show that, in the tradition of Epicurus, Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke, the doctrines of The Rights are based on downright atheism. George Hickes, Tindal's old tutor, and by this time a nonjuror bishop, alluded to this in his preliminary chapter of Spinoza Revived in which he declared the State of Nature to be a false notion, contrary to Scripture, as it appears nowhere in Genesis — the sole true account of the beginning of mankind and society.30 Carroll returned to the notion of the state of nature and attempted to undermine the concept by suggesting that those who support the notion do not properly understand what they are talking about. 31 Carroll says of Tindal that 'our Author knows 'tis according to his Hypothesis Absolutely False' that there could ever be a state of nature, for three reasons/ First, because it would be a state of war by everyone against everyone, secondly, because everyone had an equal right to everything, and thirdly, because no one could have any obligations to anyone else. Tindal, as we have seen, believed that the state is regulated by conscience and the law of God, that is, the law of nature. Carroll dismissed this, claiming Tindal's distinction between the state of nature and the state of war to be a cheat,33 and argued that Tindal's acceptance of the power everyone had over everyone's life and limbs, would of necessity create a state of war.34 Tindal used the concept of people living in a state of nature, to derive the nature and source of political authority from the manner in which people left that state and placed themselves under the authority of the magistrate. Carroll argued that, simply because it was a state of war, it would be impossible for anyone to quit the state of nature. A similar point was made by William Oldisworth ('the most confounded vain coxcomb in the world', according to Swift ). Electing someone as magistrate would require a pre-existing order and so there can be no election

The Authority of the Church

75

'... and so, Gentlemen, as you were: for we are no whit the forwarder'. According to Tindal, however, the state of nature is governed by law, and people in a state of nature can place themselves under obligation and enter into agreement with others. Some of Tindal's opponents bypassed the whole question of the state of nature, and argued that subjection to authority had simply nothing to do with consent. The point was made most unambiguously by William Wotton, Prebend of Salisbury Cathedral, that God has an absolute right to make laws and we an absolute duty to obey them.37 Tindal, however, held that even God himself only became king of the Jews after they had expressly accepted him in the so-called 'Horeb contract' in Exodus Chapter 19 (p. 151). This was answered by an anonymous writer who quoted Exodus Chapter 3:38 'Twas enough that the great God of Heaven and Earth had sent him. And upon that Authority, (Ver. 18, They shall hearken to thy Voice) submit to his Government. Thus did God settle a Government over the Jews by Moses without any express consent of theirs. Others similarly argued that God had placed an authority over the Christian world without seeking the consent of anyone. For instance, John Turner, Vicar of Greenwich, said that the Apostles had a divine commission to speak God's Will, which gave their utterances and judgements a divine, and not a purely natural, authority. Theophilus Lobb, a non-conformist minister, argued that the divine authority of the Apostles was passed down to the later clergy. 40 The theory, that there is a social contract between the governed and those by whom they consent to be governed, was attacked by William Carroll on the grounds that the people would have a right to rebel against what would be, on Carroll's terms, a lawful

76

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

government, if it failed to meet their expectations. Carroll was not trying to refute Tindal so much as expose him to the condemnation of all right-thinking people. Swift, more concerned with what governments actually do than with what they should do, replies to Tindal's pragmatic arguments with the simple assertion that'... the supreme power can certainly do ten thousand things more than it ought'.42 It is interesting that Tindal never answered the attacks upon his use of the theory of the state of nature, and of the social contract. He was certainly aware of the attacks because he replied to other points raised by his opponents in the same works. I can only speculate that he felt that as both concepts were central to Locke's theories, and as such had been the subject of other controversies, there was little to be gained by going over old ground. In any event he appears to have been much more concerned with maintaining his own contribution to the controversy the theory that there cannot be two independent powers in the same society. Some of his opponents thought that there was little or no difficulty involved in demolishing the theory. For instance George Hickes considered the possibility of there being two independent powers in a society to be no different from the existence of independent city corporations within a state, or that'... Men may be Freemen of the Cities of London, and York'.43 Tindal had argued that with two independent powers, a civil and ecclesiastical for instance, the laws of one power could conflict with the laws of the other and place people under conflicting obligations. Hickes attempted to answer this by arguing that the powers concerned were on different, nonintersecting, planes, one spiritual and one temporal. Similarly, Samuel Hill denied that the two powers must have a potential point of conflict, because the civil and religious powers act in different spheres.45 For example, the church is supreme within its sphere, as the family is supreme within its sphere.46 Had Hill gone on to say '... as individual persons are within their sphere', he might have been able to conclude, as did a later writer, that

The Authority of the Church

11

'... according to this Doctrine, we have as many Independent Powers as there are Men, Women and Children in the Kingdom'.47 Such a view, however, would have played into Tindal's hands. Charles Leslie, a nonjuror Jacobite, contended that there may be two powers within a society because the church can only censure, whereas the state has the power to punish, and therefore the question of who shall judge and delineate jurisdictions should not arise.48 In reply, Tindal pointed to the example, in 1581 in Edinburgh, when the King ordered a feast and the Kirk ordered a fast for the same time and place. Leslie's response to this point is basically capitulation as he says that the bishops could not, without treason, make an order in opposition to the King, assuming the bishops to be aware of the King's order. If the bishop's orders were issued in ignorance of the King's, the bishop would have to excuse attendance upon the King. 50 William Wotton, perhaps in an attempt to reduce the tension between magistrate and clergy, suggests the ameliorating fact that '... Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction can ordinarily be exercised under Christian Princes, in no Cases but such as strengthen the Princes Power'. He also suggests that, although the church is the superior authority, 'The Power of the Church in a Christian State, is not independent upon the Civil Magistrate, tho' it is derived from a higher Original'.5511 In his A Defence of The Rights of the Christian Church, published in 1707, Tindal makes quite a full reply. If the Priest's Power be not Independent, it can't be a Legislative or Supreme Power, because That alone is Independent; and any other must be deriv'd from that Legislature on which it is dependent, and can be no other than what is call'd Jurisdiction, and consists only of putting the Will of the Legislature in execution, and consequently can be dependent on no other Legislature than that whose Commands it executes: so that there can't be a greater Contradiction, than to say that the Priest's Power is

78

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

not Independent of the Magistrate and yet that 'tis deriv'd from a higher Original.52 Like Tindal's other opponents, Wotton tried to draw a precise division between clerical and civil authority based on the differences between persons and their functions.53 In his slightly ironic reply to Wotton, Tindal points out that claiming the clergy have divine authority, but leaving the magistrate to decide the jurisdictions of the various clergymen, is contradictory. 54 It is not surprising that Tindal responded so sharply to any questioning of the 'No Two Independent Powers' theory. It was, after all, one of the pillars of his analysis of society, and was his personal contribution to evolving political theory. His opponents were not especially intent upon attacking that theory, perhaps because it was a doctrine without widespread support, or perhaps because its implications were comparatively obscure. In any event they concentrated their efforts on justifying, to varying extents, the position occupied by the clergy in society, a position of which Tindal profoundly disapproved, and the foundations of which he used the No-Two-Independent-Powers theory to undermine. As Tindal wished to reduce the power of the clergy, so the bulk of the opposition to him was concerned to increase, or at least preserve, it. In opposition to Tindal's view, and in support of the rights of the clergy to divine powers, there emerged a very wide spectrum of opinion as to the actual extent of the clergy's power. Some were surprisingly lukewarm on the subject. For instance, according to Swift:55 ... the supreme power can hinder the clergy or church from making any new canons, or executing the old; from consecrating bishops, or refuse those that they do consecrate; or in short, from performing any ecclesiastical office, as they may from eating, drinking and sleeping; yet they cannot themselves

The Authority of the Church

79

perform these offices, which are assigned to the clergy by our Saviour and his apostles . .. Those who supported a greater power for the clergy than Swift allowed, were faced with the risk of sounding like Catholics. Most were content to try to establish that the clergy did have certain powers, powers which in no way they owed to the magistrate. For example, Tindal argued against the clerical monopoly of preaching. A number of his opponents tried to show that the clergy had that power and other powers, exclusively. William Wotton declared that Tindal must be wrong, as Jesus had made specific preaching appointments. Others relied upon direct quotation from the New Testament, for instance 1 Cor. 12.28-9:58 'And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, Secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers . . . Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Are all Teachers?'. Yet others asked, did not God give a charter to the clergy greater than any man-made charter? As John Turner put it, the church's divine charter gives the church its power, and also causes it to be a church, therefore to remove its power would be to repudiate its charter and dissolve the church, which cannot be, 59 therefore the church's power is inalienable.0 Theophilus Lobb claimed that the power of the clergy is perpetual simply because the need for the ministry is perpetual. Similarly, Samuel Hill argued that the power of the clergy is perpetual on the grounds that only God could remove it.61 Hill accepted that there might be periods of exception to Episcopal government, during which the bishops might, for whatever reasons, declare their submission to the civil authorities, but it could not follow from such an exception that all Episcopal government is usurpation, which was Tindal's charge against it. Rather, Hill felt, if there were any usurpation, it was usurpation by the civil authorities of the power of the clergy by the enactment of, or at least retention of, legislation such as the Act of Submission, which the clergy wished to be repealed. Ignoring the other arguments, Tindal pounced upon

80

Matthew Tindal., Freethinker

this admission of Hill's and, with some disingenuousness, twisted it against him. It is the clergy who now wish to undermine the Church 'as by law established' and it is the author of The Rights, after all the accusations of infidelity, who is writing in its defence. 63 Tindal uses the same argument in his 1709 A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Moss, in Behalf of the Rights of the Christian Church, which is mostly directed at catching Moss in the logical dilemma of supporting the legally established Church of England, while denouncing the laws which govern it. Tindal was most severely criticized for his conviction that reason and sincerity, and not faith and obedience, must be our guide in all things. The severest criticism was made by Samuel Hill on three grounds. Firstly, everyone cannot justify his beliefs on the grounds of sincerity because that would require God to assent to error, since many of the beliefs would be false and contradictory. 34 Secondly, if God demanded an impartial examination of every belief, everyone would have to examine every religion, which is impossible.65 Finally, since the most 'refin'd Philosophers' have doubts about many things, for example good and evil, how much more must the untutored multitude be eternally bewildered. Hill does ask if religion must be examined at all before being adopted, and says of course examine one's religion, and having found Christianity to be true, one must embrace it. On the question of those who fail to discover the truth of Christianity 'thro' meer Ignorance' and who, as a result, suffer at the hands of the magistrate, Hill says they should suffer in 'Patience, Meekf-\7 ness, Humility, Resignation, and Charity'. The other side of Tindal's insistence on the sincerity of beliefs, was his attempt to make conscience also the touchstone of behaviour. That provoked the wrath of William Carroll to declare that:68 . . . Hobbes and Spinoza would have the People to be a Pack of Lying, Hypocritical Conscientiousless Knaves: and that our

The Authority of the Church

81

Author [Tindal] would have 'em to be a Rabble of Stubborn and Ranck Rebels. How best to deal with religious dissent? The solution of the Vicar of Greenwich, John Turner, was that such people should emigrate. As Tindal points out, Turner in fact believes that the civil authority had the right to determine the religious opinions and principles within its dominions. Tindal denounced this as an attempt to defend the power of the clergy. It is suggestive that Tindal attacks Turner, rather than accepting him as a supporter, since they seem to support the powers which belong to the clergy as the law of the land. 73 In other places, Tindal also expressed the desire to be seen to be the defender of the church as by law established. The solution to this conflict turns on toleration and conscience. Tindal was for them; Turner, on the contrary, believed it to be a 'great fundamental Error' of Tindal's 'That every Man without exception to either Jew, Turk or Pagan has a Natural Right of Worshipping God according to his Conscience'. 74 Many of Tindal's opponents accepted what he believed to be a false choice, between the supremacy of the church in matters of conscience on the one hand, and the supremacy of the state in matters of conscience on the other. Tindal denied both, arguing that the clergy have less right to a power over conscience than the magistrate, but also that the magistrate has no rights whatsoever over matters purely of conscience. The relationship between church and magistrate was, for Tindal, a simple matter, with the clergy subject to the power which the magistrate exercised with the consent of the people. Simple as it appears, Samuel Hill made the point that if, as Tindal says, the magistrate cannot be justified in interfering with voluntary clubs, then on Tindal's own principle that the church is merely a voluntary club, the magistrate cannot interfere with the church. That would leave the church in possession of an •JQ

82

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

independent authority, but only in so far as it was accepted by its members. William Carroll also points out that Tindal, on the one hand, declares that the magistrate has no power over matters of conscience, and on the other hand, that in so far as the magistrate determines anything - including whether or not something is a matter of conscience - it becomes part of the civil constitution and therefore subject to the magistrate's authority. 76 Carroll writes that even according to Tindal, the magistrate has the right to oppose atheism and promote truth since that is a civil concern.77 Tindal does not answer Carroll's point anywhere, particularly in relation to atheism. On the subject of toleration, except for atheists, Tindal remains eloquent. Throughout The Rights Tindal argued against oppressing people because of their principles, and in favour of regarding conscience as the rule which must govern behaviour. Equally, he argued that the magistrate, having received the consent of the people so to do, must rule the state and promote the good of the people. The problem is that these two principles are not necessarily non-contradictory. The position of atheists made the problem particularly acute because of the widespread belief that, as LeClercputit: 7 8 Religion is so necessary for the Support of human Society, that it is impossible it should subsist, as pagans no less than Christians confess, if an invisible Power, that over-rules human Affairs, be not admitted. Tindal's response to the question had been to repudiate atheism, and to deny that atheists should be tolerated (p. 12). There is, however, another passage in The Rights which shows Tindal being less than totally hostile to atheism, in which he compares it favourably with the persecuting spirit of religion, for atheism affords no motive from another world to use one another badly (p. 114). He felt the weight of this argument so strongly that he returned to

The Authority of the Church

83

it in later years, both in his 1729 An Address to the Inhabitants of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster (p. 63), and in Christianity as old (p. 98). From the publication of The Rights in 1706, until 1709, Tindal was almost exclusively concerned with the book. During those years, not only were four editions of The Rights published, but he also published A Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, against William Wotton's visitation sermon; A Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church Occasioned by two late Indictments against a Bookseller and his Servant, for selling one of the said Books', A Letter from a Country Attorney to a Country Parson, concerning The Rights of the Church; which, together with Mons. Le Clerc's Extract and Judgment of the said Book, translated from his Bibliotheque Choisie, were collected together and published in a single volume in 1709, perhaps in lieu of the promised, but never produced, Volume II of The Rights. In 1709 Tindal began a series of attacks on the High Church clergy as such. The first of these pamphlets, New High-Church turn'd old Presbyterian, Utrum Horum never a Barrel the better Herring, is an argument against the claim of the High Church to have a power above the state, and revolves around the irony that the High Church now have adopted a position, that of the old Presbyterians, which previously they repudiated. Tindal makes three specific charges. The first is that the High Church have adopted the Presbyterian claim that the clergy have a religious power above that of the state. For doing this they were persecuted by the High Church, and had their notions ridiculed by Archbishop Laud. This inversion of principle is greatest and most clearly seen in Tindal's old tutor, the ultra High Church nonjuror George Hickes. In a sermon on 30 January 1682 Hickes accused the Presbyterians o f ' . . . holding among other popish and damnable Positions these following, "1st That the King may be excommunicated by the Ministers, etc." '. Whereas now he is asserting that80 ' . . . the Person of the Magistrate [ought] to be subject to the Church spiritually'. Tindal's second charge is that in the past

84

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

the High Church denounced the Presbyterians as being Commonwealthsmen; now they support Bills against the King's power. Tindal's third charge is that the High Church have adopted the Presbyterian doctrine of an essential equality for their ministers. This last charge is fairly weak, being based purely on the demand for independence by the lower House of Convocation. The three 1710 pamphlets are much of a piece. The Merciful Judgements of High-Church Triumphant On Offending Clergymen, And Others, In the Reign of Charles I (hereafter The Merciful Judgements] is a catalogue of religious persecution by the High Church under Charles I. It lists the clergy and laymen who were tortured by having their ears cut off, their noses slit, who were pilloried or fined, or who were otherwise penalized for relatively small deviations from orthodoxy, having been condemned in Star Chamber. The unprincipled nature of such persecution is highlighted by the King's granting to the Scots rights in religion which he refused to the English. The Jacobitism, Perjury, and Popery of High-Church Priests, which is almost identical in tone to the previous work (they share a number of paragraphs), claims that the High Church clergy want to convert people to Catholicism, and adds to what has been said elsewhere only a description of the clergy as '... a Pack of Ridiculous, Senseless, Selfish, Pragmatical, Proud, Insolent, Perjur'd Wretches'.81 A slightly different and lighter note is struck by A New Catechism, with Dr. Hickes's Thirty Nine Articles. The Hickes's Thirty Nine Articles, are the expected anti-clerical tirades; the Catechism on the other hand uses the works of various High Church men and nonjurors, in an attempt to show them as self contradictory or absurd. In 1711 there appeared an attack on Tindal entitled A Representation Of the Present State of Religion, With regard to the late excessive Growth of Infidelity, Heresy and Profaneness: As it passed the Lower House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury (hereafter A Representation), which declared that there were four main causes of the growth of infidelity: firstly, '... that Combinations of Men have been

The Authority of the Church

85

formed, for promoting the Cause of Infidelity'; secondly, that they have written mock catechisms; thirdly, that they had bought the support of foreign journals in an attempt to undermine the privileges of church officers, and fourthly, '... by displaying the Cheats and Impositions of the Pagan, and Popish Priests, they have endeavour'd to draw Infamy on the Priesthood in general'. A Representation goes on to place the blame for the increase in infidelity on such other causes as the liberty of the press, the licentiousness of the stage, and emissaries of Rome whose known way of making converts i s ' . . . to bring Men round to Infallibility by way of Infidelity'. Tindal recognized himself in these accusations and replied in the same year with The Nation Vindicated, from the Aspersions Cast on it in a Late Pamphlet, intitled A Representation of the Present State of Religion. He begins by pretending that A Representation cannot be the work of Convocation because '... they [Convocation] sure cou'd not be guilty of so inconsistent a thing, as to frame a Representation against Printing without Authority, and yet publish their own without any'. More seriously, he denies that there has been a decline in moral standards. In support of this contention he refers to The Merciful Judgements which showed the intensity of the immoral persecutions of the past, and he goes on to argue that people's moral lives have improved since the days of James I and others whose lives were a public scandal, such as the Bishop of Waterford who, in 1640, was hanged for sodomy. Tindal denies the implication in A Representation that dissent from the Church of England leads to lower morals. He points out that there is not ' . . . one Atheist, Deist, Sceptic, Unitarian, Quaker, or scarce one Dissenting Protestant punished', whereas '... the Beggarly, idle, and loose people of both Sexes are generally speaking all High Church, and zealous Sacheverellians'. In The Nation Vindicated, Part II, in 1712, Tindal defends himself against a number of the specific charges of A Representation. He asserts that A New Catechism was designed to defend true

86

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

religion against irreligious men. He defends Le Clerc's abstract of The Rights and quotes Le Clerc's denial that he had been paid for it. Tindal also publishes a certificate by John Darby that the author of The Rights had no knowledge of the translation of the abstract into English, and no acquaintance with either the translator or the writer of the preface to the abstract. Finally, he quotes the contention of the Irish Convocation that the wickedness of Catholic priests has led to an increase in infidelity which, Tindal argues, could not be the case were not the priests of other denominations similarly corrupt. These last five pamphlets exhaust the arguments of The Rights. In the controversy which arose after the publication of The Rights, a question briefly arose and apparently sank without receiving much attention. Sincerity, and acting according to conscience, was the whole that God could require of mankind, at least 82 according to Tindal. But, John Turner asked: 82 ... if they are all safe in their false Religions then what necessity of Christianity? Or how can the Wisdom of God in sending his Blessed Son into the World by his Death to purchase our Redemption be vindicated, if Mankind was equally safe without it? Another side of the same question is the problem of those who lived before Jesus, William Carroll asked:83 no

... what sort of Mankind or People those [who predated Jesus] are, who are thus Christians, by a Natural, Inalienable, Inherent Right, even before the coming of Christ, and without so much as knowing his Name ... Tindal did not address the question directly but approached the problem obliquely in a passage in The Nation Vindicated, Part II, where he says:

The Authority of the Church

87

Our Divines do ... affirm that the Moral Law is not arbitrary, but immutable and eternal, and consequently the same before as well as after the coming of Christ, and at all times discoverable by all Mankind: otherwise it could not be a Law to all Mankind, (p. 13) He could hardly have stated more succinctly the idea underlying the whole of his most important work, Christianity as old as the Creation, but after The Nation Vindicated there is a 17-year silence on the subject of religion, except for a paper, little more than a broadsheet, on the question of the requirement that Fellows of Colleges in Universities be ordained clergymen.

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Of course not having a boundary does not constitute infinity, as the surface of a sphere is unbounded but finite, but that argument did not arise. Matthew Tindal, Four Discourses, p. 129. Ibid., p. 134. Ibid., p. 132. Ibid.,p. 140. Ibid., p.142. Ibid.,p.\43. Ibid., p. 145. Ibid., p. 153. Ibid., pp. 182-3. Ibid., pp. 190-91. Ibid., p. 198. Ibid., p. 199. Ibid., p. 220. Nicholas Clagett, A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion (1685). Tindal, Four Discourses, p. 223. Ibid., p. 234. Ibid., p. 238. Ibid., p. 242.

88 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28.

29.

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

40.

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker Ibid., p. 249. Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1962), Vol. 1, Chapter 3, section 43. The preface mentions a letter by Queen Anne, dated 25 February 1706. Tindal, The Rights, p. Ixxxvii. Tindal, Four Discourses, p. 276. Charles Leslie, The Case of the Regale, cited in Harold Laski, Political Thought in England: from Locke to Bentham (London: Williams and Norgate, Home University Library, 1920), p. 105. There are other works, such as published sermons, which mention, but do not address The Rights at length. Samuel Hill, A Thorough Examination of thefalse Principles (hereafter Thorough Examination) (London, 1708), p. 203. Jonathan Swift, 'Remarks upon a book intitled The Rights of the Christian Church &c.', in The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, Vol. 3, ed. Temple Scott (London: George Bell and Sons, 1898), p. 82. Abel Evans, The Apparition, a poem - or, a dialogue betwixt the Devil and a Doctor concerning the Rights of the Christian Church (London and Westminster, 1710), p. 8. George Hickes, 'Preliminary discourse', in William Carroll, Spinoza Reviv'd (London, 1709), p. 8. Carroll, op. cit., p. 16. Ibid., p. 26. Ibid., p. 28. Ibid., p. 58. Jonathan Swift, 'Journal to Stella', in The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift (London, 1898), Vol. 2, p. 440 (March 1712). William Oldisworth, A Dialogue between Timothy and Philatheus (London, 1709), Vol. I, p. 39. William Wotton, The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted (London, 1898), p. 5. The Villainous Principles o/The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, confuted by Scripture (hereafter Villainous Principles] (London, 1707), p. 11. John Turner, A Vindication of the Rights and Privileges of the Christian Church, in Answer to a late Book intitledThe Rights of the Christian Church asserted (London, 1707), p. 10. Theophilus Lobb, A Sermon preach'd at the Ordination of the Reverend Mr. John Green (London, 1708), p. 10. (This is denied in Tindal, The Rights, p. 10.)

The Authority of the Church

89

41. Carroll, op. at., p. 44. 42. Swift, 'Remarks', p. 90. 43. George Hickes, Two Treatises (London, 1707), p. cxvi. 44. Ibid., p. cxviii. 45. Hill, op. cit., p. 125. 46. Ibid., p. 144. 47. The Religious, Rational, and Moral Conduct of Matthew Tindal, L.L.D. (London, 1735), p. 41. 48. Charles Leslie, A View of the Times, Their Principles and Practices: in the First Volume of the Rehearsals (London, 1708), No. 167, Section 8 (Sunday 21 December 1706). 49. Ibid., Section 3. 50. Ibid., Section 3 51. Wotton, op. cit. p. 29. 52. Matthew Tindal, A Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, against A Late Visitation Sermon, Intitled, The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted: Preach'd at Newport Pagnel in the County of Bucks, by W. Wotton, B. D. (London, 1707), p. 18. 53. Wotton, op. cit., p. 30. 54. Tindal, A Defence, p. 20. 55. Swift, 'Remarks', p. 92. 56. Tindal, The Rights, p. 132. 57. Wotton, op. cit., p. 14. 58. Villainous Principles, p. 90. 59. Turner, op. cit., p. 90. 60. Theophilus Lobb, A Brief Discourse of the Christian Religion (London, 1724), p. 9. 61. Hill, op. cit.,-p. 159. 62. Hill, op. cit., p. 4. 63. Matthew Tindal, A Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, pp. 9-10. 64. Hill, Ibid., pp. 61-7. 65. Ibid.,p.7\. 66. Ibid.,p.74. 67. Ibid., p. 127. 68. Carroll, op. cit., p. 42. 69. Turner, op. cit., p. 116. 70. Tindal, A Defence, p. 52. 71. Turner, op. cit., p. 252; Tindal, A Defence, p. 52.

90

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

72. Tindal, A Defence, p. 51. 73. Tindal, A Second Defence, p. 23. 74. Tindal, ^4 Defence, p. 51 (quoting Turner, 7foW., p. 2, referring to Tindal, The Rights, pp. 15 and 23). 75. Hill, op. cit., p. 89. 76. Carroll, o/>. cit., p. 49. 77. /te/.,p. 51. 78. Jean Le Clerc, Mr. Le Clerc's Extract & Judgment of The Rights of The Christian Church Asserted, &c. Translatedfrom his Bibliotheque Choisie, Tome X (London, 1708), p. 10. 79. Matthew Tindal, New High-Church turn'd Old Presbyterian. Utrum Horum never a Barrel the better Herring (London, 1709), p. 5. 80. Ibid., p. 6. 81. Matthew Tindal, The Jacobitism, Perjury and Popery of High-Church Priests (London, 1710), p. 15. 82. Turner, op. cit., p. xviii. 83. Carroll, op. cit., p. 89.

5

Politics

Tindal's first pamphlet was one of only two publications to which he attached his name. It was entitled An Essay concerning Obedience to the Supreme Powers, and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions, With some fdjdfjjfdsjasd;jkcmkjndsa;jdas;kjad;ljdql:KDS;LKOQWEKHF;LKSAHNDSA;JSD; (hereafter Essay concerning Obedience}. It was republished in 1709 in his collection of Four Discourses . The main purpose of the Essay concerning Obedience is to analyse the origin and nature of government. Tindal was not particularly interested in the historical origin of government or its organizational structure except in so far as they illuminate how government comes about, and what it is for there to be government at all. He begins with a definition of government a s ' . . . The Careof other Peoples Safety.'1 1 This restriction on the sort of power which may be called 'government' is based on a distinction between different sorts of power which he supports by an appeal to the state of nature. . . . a Man may be in the Power of another, and yet not be govern'd by him: It is necessary that this Power be made use of for Protection . . . for where People are not protected they are still in the state of Nature, and without Government.2 To be classified as government, it is not enough that its power be exercised for the protection of the people, it must also be exercised with the consent of the people; for God, as the author of the Law of Nature, is the author of all government, but people are without knowledge of God's positive preferences and must therefore choose and consent to be governed.

92

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Tindal does not believe that all power can be exercised only with the consent of the governed. It can, for instance, be exercised, without their consent, over those who place themselves in a state of war with society. A state of war is different from a state of nature. In the state of nature everyone has the power to punish whoever threatens their lives and necessities. This power has, in civil society, been transferred to the state, which now alone, except in extreme circumstances, has the right to punish with loss of life.3 Criminals have placed themselves outside of civil society by entering a state of war with it, and their consent is no longer an issue. Thus one can lose what one cannot justifiably dispose of— one may not commit suicide but may incur execution.4 The government can, in this way, seem to have more power than it was given, but this is an illusion based on the magistrates' exercise of those delegated powers which everyone, in the state of nature, had over those who placed themselves outside the law of nature, and in a state of general war with the rest of mankind. Tindal then applies his analysis to Britain where the legislative Power is divided between Monarch, Lords and Commons. He argues that the people do have a share in the government and that their consent is both necessary and forthcoming: ... where the People have a share in the Legislature, they have the same Right to their Privileges, viz. the Laws of the Land, as the King has to his Prerogatives', because the Consent of both is equally necessary for altering the Laws, as it was to the making of them.5 Thus royal prerogatives do not turn the monarch into an absolute tyrant. Prerogatives must be exercised within the confines of law, they are not special privileges to break the law. For no Person can have at the same time a Will to rule according to Law, and a Will to rule contrary to Law; and he that wills the latter cannot will the former.

Politics

93

The question then arises as to how disputes (as distinct from the collapse of civil society) can be settled in the event of serious differences between the different branches of the legislature. There can be no question of a superior judge here on Earth to whom the parties can appeal; which places them to some extent in a state of nature in relation to one another. Tindal's answer is to appeal to the people. The question is not two-sided in his opinion. There are not two powers of equal or equivalent status contending for a disputed area of jurisdiction. Rather it is a question of whether one body has delegated a greater or lesser part of its powers to its various subsidiary bodies. As to whether the people's own powers are being infringed by the executive, the appeal must be directly to the people. Where People have not parted with their Rights, it must be presum'd they have retain'd a Power to judge whether those Rights are invaded, or else the design of preserving those Rights would 7 be to no purpose. The people have a right to oppose every attempt by the executive to infringe upon their rights because any failure to protect these civil rights could lead to tyranny. The upholders of the doctrine of passive obedience, mostly Jacobites, held that only legal rulers had a claim to allegiance. Tindal, however, argued that the protection afforded by government is sufficient basis for political loyalty. Government exists for the good it can do, not because its ingredients are mixed according to some ancient recipe. For none can have a Right inconsistent with the Publick Good, which is the only fundamental Law of all Societys; contrary to which, no Law (and consequently no legal Right, which is built upon Law) can be valid . . . *

94

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

The appeal to 'the publick good' as the criterion of legal validity raises the question of whether there would ever be sufficient agreement as to what constitutes the public good to provide a foundation for any system of law at all? Furthermore, would not so subjective a criterion render all interpretation of law arbitrary? There was a limit, however, to the consent of the governed. The allegiance people owe their sovereign is not something to be changed at whim. The people must submit to those in possession until they are dispossessed. So princes must at all times be obeyed for as long as they remain on the throne, no matter how 'illegally' acquired, and even if the 'legal' prince still lives. The claim by princes to a coercive power is justified because '... without coercive Power, laws become a dead Letter', and without laws civil society would be impossible. The apparent contradiction, between the right of sitting princes to demand allegiance and the right of the governed to give or withhold their consent, hinges on an important distinction implicit in what Tindal says earlier. On the one hand there is a prudential obligation to accept the sovereignty of whoever is in a position to provide protection to the community as such, and to the individuals who comprise the community. This decision is made by the people looking purely to their own self-interest. Whoever can provide the necessary protection, and who refrains from interfering with those rights the people have not parted with, has the best and only right to government. In this situation the people are entirely free to judge for themselves what their own 'Good and Interest' is. They are under no obligation to accept interference with their rights, even their individual rights, by the sovereign power, the acceptance of which would be prejudicial to their best interests, and be a greater justification for rebellion. On the other hand, distinct from any prudential obligation, there is a moral obligation to obey the laws of a properly constituted state because the state has been brought into existence to protect civil society, the institution of which is essential for the good and

Politics

95

interest of the people, and which therefore has the support of the supreme law. Any contravention of the laws of the state, in weakening civil society, attacks the people and cannot be tolerated: '... every particular Person's Interest must yield to the general Good of the Society'. This distinction between moral and prudential obligation provides the basis for a distinction of kind between the nature of the Glorious Revolution, and other rebellions generally. The Glorious Revolution was a reaction of the people, as such, to an attempt by their sovereign to infringe upon their rights and to attack their interests, and was totally justified. Rebellion is not justified when it consists of individuals attempting to place their personal interests above those of the people, thereby abusing the privileges and protection which civil society provides. The Essay concerning Obedience contains one final difficulty worth noticing. All along, Tindal argues that the good of man is the final criterion. ' He goes so far as to argue that even matters of religion, provided they be otherwise indifferent, are to 'yield to the Good of particular Men', because '... God, who is infinitely happy in himself, cou'd have no other Motive in creating Man, than to make him happy in this Life, as well as that which is to come .. . ' . The problem is the existence of undeserved suffering. Tindal agrees that it is unfortunate that an innocent person should be hanged, but considers it better that there should be a law which makes mistakes than that there should be no law at all. He agrees that persons starving might steal from someone with abundance, but equally defends the law which would punish them, sometimes undeservedly, for doing so.15 He might say it is for the greater good, but it is a hard lesson. The principles set out in the Essay concerning Obedience formed the foundation for Tindal's excursion into party politics in the period between 1711 and 1722. During this time he wrote pamphlets in the Whig interest against Tories and Jacobites, terms which he used almost interchangeably. He supported the more extreme Whig faction of James, first Earl Stanhope and Charles Spencer,

96

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

third Earl of Sunderland, against the more moderate Robert Walpole and and his brother-in-law, Charles, second Viscount Townshend, at whom a number of his pamphlets are aimed. The pamphlets cover such varied topics as the negotiation by the Tories of the Treaty of Utrecht; the case for septennial Parliaments; and the split in the Whig party at the resignation of Walpole and Townshend. Between 1721 and 1723 he also criticized John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon ('Cato' of the London Journal] over the Peerage Bill, the reasons for a standing army, the advantages of the Hanover succession, and the tendency of 'the multitude' to prefer tyranny to liberty. Some of the pamphlets are quite well written. Justice done to the late Ministry, 1715, is a witty, backhanded defence of the previous Tory ministry against the accusation that they were trying to place the Old Pretender upon the throne, by showing instead that they were attempting to make England a province of France. While Queen Anne was still alive, the Tories, most of whom had Jacobite sympathies, considered that they had a chance of securing the succession for the Pretender, Chevalier de St George, the son of James II. At the age of only 49, Queen Anne died on Sunday 1 August 1714. The Whigs supported the Elector of Hanover, Prince George, who was proclaimed to be the rightful heir by the heralds-at-arms on Thursday 5 August. The Chevalier, immediately upon hearing of Queen Anne's death, sought, but was refused, the support of the King of France for his succession. At Plombieres, on 29 August, the Chevalier declared himself King James III of Great Britain and Ireland. In his declaration he objected to all the actions which undermined his claim; asserted that he continued to hope that God would show his people that they should return him to his rightful place; feared for their wellbeing in the light of the wars, and their cost; stated that the new man was a foreigner, used to absolutism and ignorant of England's mores, who was supported by aliens already in England, and that as there were many claimants to the English throne it could only

Politics

97

lead to further strife until the throne was returned to the 'rightful line'. James used the confusion about the succession to promote his declaration throughout Britain among disaffected Tories. Disorder was experienced in many parts of the country including Tindal's own Oxford. In 1715 James slipped into Scotland but left shortly afterwards. The rebellion finally broke out at Brewmar in September, but the Jacobite forces were defeated at Preston, in November, and the rebellion collapsed at the beginning of 1716. That is the background to Tindal's Remarks on the Pretender's Declaration dated at Plombieres, August 29th 1714. In the Remarks, published in 1715, Tindal set out to refute James's claims point by point. He began by denying that James had any hereditary right that could not be set aside by the legislature (p. 4). The legality of the Glorious Revolution was accepted by all, he says, including both sides in the trial of Sacheverell, and by the Treaty of Utrecht, it was accepted by the states of Europe (p. 5). Contradicting the Pretender's claims that Queen Anne favoured him, Tindal says that she often warned of the danger of Catholicism and Catholic princes. He quotes her but gives no source (p. 7). James claimed that the English were setting a dangerous example for the rest of Europe (p. 8). Tindal responded that James's position, if accepted at face value, would threaten the many European royal houses which had not acquired their crowns strictly according to rule (p. 10). But, applying his general principle, Tindal argued that '... in Truth, where neither Nature nor Heaven bestow a Title, there can be no other Just Title, but the Consent of the Parties concern'd' (p. 11). James said that usurpations do not last, but Tindal pointed out that many kings have sat upon usurped thrones and their actions were held subsequently to be valid (p. 13). James prophesied perpetual civil war, but Tindal replied that since it did not come when the French supported James, before they accepted the Revolution settlement, it must be less likely now France has recognized King George (p. 14). Besides, says Tindal, were James as fearful of civil

98

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

war as he claimed to be, he would forgo his claim (p. 20). As to religious rights, the English, says Tindal, have as good a right to exclude Catholics from state offices as the French have to exclude Women (p. 15). And since Catholics exclude Protestants, why may not Protestants exclude Catholics (p. 16). Even High Church supporters, who are secretly Catholics, ought not to be promoted because it will lead them to believe the government is afraid of them (p. 18). James claimed precedence over Prince George as having been born in England. Tindal replied that this gave him no certainty of understanding English Laws, rights and customs etc. (p. 26). His father, King James II, though born and bred in England had an aversion for the people and their religion (p. 29). He concludes that James, or at least his supporters, if not stopped, would cause another 'Irish Massacre" (p. 30). The failure of the rebellion in Scotland must have come as a great relief to Tindal after publishing these views. About 1716 Tindal took a break from politics and published his Reasonsfor the Repeal of that part of the Statutes of Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge which require the taking of Orders under a Penalty. Tindal had never taken holy orders and had acquired dispensation, somehow, not to do so while remaining a Fellow at All Souls. In this he was unusual but not unique. Dispensations were possible. In 1709 William Blencowe, Tindal's friend, applied to keep his Fellowship at All Souls without having to taking holy orders. The warden, Bernard Gardiner, then attempted to make Blencowe and Tindal take orders or resign. This must have placed Tindal under considerable pressure. To conform occasionally might be one thing; to take holy orders quite another. In his pamphlet Tindal argues that the requirement arose in the distant past, when it was believed that a large number of priests were necessary f o r ' . . . the saying of Masses, Obits and for the Performance of a prodigious number of Offices'. Going back to his old anti-clericalism he claims that the founders of colleges,

Politics

99

being mostly clergymen, acted for the good of their order rather than the good of the state in requiring compulsory ordination. This, he says, was not so bad for society or for the state because, in those days, the clergy were not restrained from serving in other civil offices. Now, however, because of such restrictions, many clergy are poor, or write or preach for a subscription, or cause factions and schisms. He points out that the Act of Parliament governing ordination says it must be the result of a call by the Holy Ghost whereas the College Statutes, in his view blasphemously, compel the taking of orders. The requirement has other bad effects. As they stand, they give some governors of colleges an arbitrary power and they lead the students to artifice rather than virtue. Whatever the impact of Tindal's pamphlet, the Queen intervened on Blencowe's behalf and this led to the abolition of the warden's veto on dispensations. Also in 1716, Tindal published A Letter to a Country Gentleman, shewing The Inconveniences, which attend the last Part of the Actfor Triennial Parliaments. The Triennial Act of 1694 provided for elections at least every three years unless the King dissolved parliament earlier. In 1716 the Whig administration was facing an election the following year, which they felt was an inconvenience. To remedy the situation, they simply introduced, and secured the passage of, the Septennial Act which postponed the reckoning by allowing parliaments to last for seven years. Tindal, as a true Whig, supported the Act. His pamphlet reads like a lobby group's paid-for advertisement in a national newspaper. It is presented as an objective account of an argument — but nobody was likely to be taken in. That Tindal provides a sort of historical background, from Tacitus to Charles II, adds nothing to his case. Without anything like evidence he claims that the the Tories' motives in supporting the Triennial Act in William's time were in some way to favour the Pretender (p. 7). Tindal's arguments in favour of the Act included reduced cost; the expenditure

100

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

on bribes of beer and money making people fond of idleness and drunkenness, and the costs beggaring the borough (p. 8). His political objection is that new parliaments are always full of the rage of the victor against the loser because of the expense they were put to (p. 11). Tindal baldly asserts that the longer the Parliament, the more it acts in the interest of the Nation and Liberty. In further support of his position, in 1716 he also published A Letter to a friend upon the occasion of the House of Commons passing a Bill intituled An Act for enlarging the time of continuence of Parliaments, appointed by an Act of the () of King William and Queen Mary, Intituled An Act for the frequent meeting and calling of Parliaments. The Treaty of Utrecht cast a long shadow over the politics of the twenty years after its ratification in 1713. The War of the Spanish Succession had been long, and littered with victories for England and its allies, but it was costly in lives and money and did not produce an obvious triumph. The country grew tired of the war and the Queen grew disappointed with her Whig ministers. Among the Tory tactics was the publication of the Examiner, with papers by, among others, Swift and Prior, who argued that the Whig administration had wasted tax-payers' money, had behaved tyrannously, had appointed greedy generals, and was leading the country into ruin. Once they achieved power in 1710 the Tories set out to end the war. The peace negotiations began in Utrecht on the 1 January 1711 and the treaty with France was finally agreed by the Tories in 1713 before they were replaced by the Whigs later in the year. The Whigs returned to power believing the country to have been betrayed into a disgraceful peace. Tindal strongly disapproved of the Treaty and he attacked the Tories in his ironically entitled Justice done to the late Ministry, which he published in 1715 during the first ministry of George I. In it He 'defended' the Tories against the accusation that they acted in the interest ofjames by arguing that they acted rather in the interest of France (p. 4). The French, he claimed, were on the point of

Politics

101

surrender when the Tories got into office. He says the Tories did not work to make the Pretender King, but to make England a province of France (p. 15). The Ministry's designs would have reduced England to a most miserable condition (p. 16). God cursed the Israelites for the treachery of David and Saul, the Ministry have done even worse (p. 17). Richard II was deposed for less (p. 18). And so, Tindal says, there are no good reasons against a proposed parliamentary commission of investigation into the negotiation of the peace by the Tories (p. 23). After giving many examples, Tindal actually goes on to argue in favour of Parliament attainting people, even for actions which contravene no existing law; a procedure for which he quotes some examples (pp. 27—9). In April 1715 the Privy Council established a Committee of Secrecy on the Treaty of Utrecht, chaired by Robert Walpole who was secretary of war from 1714 to 1717. Its purpose was to find evidence of treason by the Tories. The Whigs contended that the clandestine meetings which lead to the treaty were treasonous; although it was pointed out that no treaty was ever negotiated without private communications. The report of the Committee was published in June and led to a number of impeachments including that of Bolingbroke and Ormond, who both fled to James's Court in France. In defence of the establishment of the committee, Tindal published An Address to the Good People of Great Britain, Occasion'd by the Report from the Committee of Secrecy 1715. It is very similar in tone to Justice done to the late Ministry and even shares some passages with it. It consists of a series of fairly specific accusations against the Tory administration without ever quite explaining what he thought the Tories had to gain by their actions. It is all put down to duplicity, treachery and bad judgement. Thus, the Tories, he says, betrayed the Dutch and sacrificed trade for the sake of the peace (p. 7); the Tory Ministry dissolved the alliance with the Dutch, before any peace was made with France, on the grounds of Dutch intransigence, although the Dutch could not have agreed to terms as

102

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

they were not told what they were (p. 12); the Ministry got Sicily for the Duke of Savoy, showing more concern for foreign interests than their own (p. 14); the Ministry betrayed the Catalans because they supported Liberty, and because it allowed the French to assist the Pretender (p. 33). Tindal concludes that the Tories' actions were in opposition to the declarations by the Queen (to p. 44), and were, therefore, treasonable (p. 47). The tract is little more than a partisan tirade. As time passed, the Whigs split into two factions, each led by two powerful figures. One faction was led by Stanhope and Sunderland, the other by Walpole and Townshend. Stanhope wanted to undo the Treaty of Utrecht and was willing to risk war to do so. Opposed to this policy, Townshend and Walpole believed that stability and the Whig supremacy should be the priorities and were prepared to let the treaty stand. In 1717, Walpole and Townshend resigned in opposition to Stanhope's extravagant war policy. The ambitious Walpole and Townshend probably also believed that preferment would not come their way while Stanhope and Sunderland remained in office. When Walpole resigned from the Ministry, Tindal, in 1717, wrote The Defection Consider'd, and The Designs of those, who divided the Friends of the Government., set in a True Light (hereafter Defection Considered]. He blamed Walpole for splitting the Whig Party and risking the return to power of the Tories. He insisted, however, on comparing the contemporary situation with such dissimilar circumstances as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the siege of Byzantium by the Turks, and he blusters on at great length. A quick glance through the pamphlet will give the flavour of the thing. Tindal claims to be disappointed by some he esteemed, but speaks out only for love of country (p. 3). Never, he says, was a parliament better disposed than the present one, until certain men's 'Unaccountable Divisions', who now oppose the arguments they previously used to justify the Septennial Act (pp. 4—5). This division only promotes the interests of Catholics

Politics

103

and Jacobites (p. 5). Divisions, among the besieged, caused the fall of Jerusalem. Divisions between Greeks and Latins caused the fall of Constantinople (p. 6). One man (obviously Walpole, whose 'Luciferan Pride' led him to act 'the Part of the Angel of Darkness ...') who wants to rule is now joining those he called Traitors (p. 9). The common people, he says, have been so wrought on as to join the Catholics in the destruction of laws, liberty and religion. (p. 12). The High Church attacked the Pope's supremacy only because they hoped for it themselves (p. 13). The Tories plotted in the interests of the French, against the Royal Family, and in favour of invasion by Charles XII of Sweden. And so on. Daniel Defoe replied to Tindal with The Defection Detected, in Answer to The Defection Considered, in 1718, in which he tore Tindal's pamphlet to shreds, particularly ridiculing its over elaborate style and prolixity. In reply, Tindal repeated his previous arguments, but The Defection Farther Consider'd, wherein the Resigners, as some wou'd have them stil'd, Are really Deserters, of 1718, is written with a much lighter touch. This tract argues that the former merits of Walpole and the other 'Resigners' are not to the point because their present villainy proves their former motives were base. Although much more straightforward and to the point, it does not really address the substance of Defoe's arguments. In that year Tindal also published An Epistle to R— W—, Esq.; Occasioned by a Pamphlet, entitul'd, The Defection Consider'd,, &c. By the Author of a Late Poem, CaWd, The Woful Treaty: Or Unhappy Peace, in which he strongly defended his Defection Consider'd and repeated his attack on Walpole's treachery. Relations between Walpole and Tindal were indeed very bitter. According to Tindal, he had given Walpole a manuscript which he had written to set out the arguments which Walpole's enemies might use against him. The manuscript contained derogatory remarks about a lord, possibly Townshend, based on information which Walpole had given him. When Tindal wrote Defection Consider'd, Walpole used the manuscript to argue that Tindal had

104

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

misled the public about his opinions. Tindal defended himself in a pamphlet entitled An Account of a Manuscript, entitul'd Destruction the Certain Consequence of Division: Or, The Necessity of a Strict Union between all, who love the Present Government and Protestant Religion. Written at the Desire ofR— W— [Robert Walpole]', Esq.; and left with him at his Request., but since expos'd, contrary to his Promise, with Aspersions on the Author of the Defection, &c., in 1718. In this pamphlet, Tindal accuses Walpole of covetousness, ambition and revenge. For three years from his resignation, Walpole opposed almost all government legislation. He was especially successful in preventing the passage of the Peerage Bill in 1719. The Whig administration had wished to prevent the, possibly, Tory-supporting Prince of Wales from appointing unlimited new members to the House of Lords when he succeeded to the throne. The year of the Bill, Tindal published a pamphlet in favour of the measure: The Constitution Explained, In Relation to the Independency of the House of Lords. With Reasons for Strengthening that Branch of the Legislature most liable to Abuse. And an Answer to all the Objections made to the now reviv}d Peerage Bill. Humbly Inscribed to the Honourable House of Commons. Tindal argued that one of the perfections of the British Constitution was that the legislature was tri-partite - King, Lords and Commons — each part with a veto on legislation, and the members of each branch subject to the laws made by the whole (p. 5); a principle very similar to the later one adopted by the United States of America. Tindal believed that the great advantage of this system was that it was unlikely that all three branches would agree to passing a bad, or repealing a good, law. Those against the Bill, he thought, wanted the King to be able to pack the Lords and thus dominate it, which would undermine the Lord's equal share of the supreme authority (p. 6). Tindal believed that allowing the monarch unlimited appointment to the House of Lords would eventually render it redundant, or at least reduce it to little more than a debating chamber with the power to cause embarrassment

Politics

105

but not much more. But rather than the power passing to the Commons, Tindal thought it would pass to the monarch. Tindal's respect for the hereditary rights of the members of the House of Lords was based on his view that, as they were landowners, with no obligations to the Court, they could be free from corruption and the improper influence of the monarch and thus be free to take a long-term view of the interests of the country as a whole. In Tindal's view, the purpose of the House of Lords was to prevent the excesses of a Commons, on the one hand, and to blunt the rapacious ambition of kings on the other. Despite Tindal's efforts, the Peerage Bill was lost; his pamphlet was no match for Walpole. In 1720, Tindal published nothing. One wonders what he made of the return of Walpole and Townshend to the administration. Sunderland and Stanhope had brought them in because it was difficult, if not impossible, to pass bills in the House of Commons without them. Townshend was appointed President of the Council and Walpole was given the relatively junior, but lucrative, post of Paymaster General of the Forces, on the 11 June 1720. The divisions in the Whigs had not really been healed — one symptom of the split was the continuing controversies generated by the partisans of each side - but Walpole's position was strengthened when Earl Stanhope died on 15 February 1721. Among Walpole's supporters were the pamphleteers John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, who published a number of periodicals in support of moderate Whiggery. One was the London Journal to which they jointly contributed 'Cato's Letters'. The 'Letters' were unsigned, although their individual authorship is now known. In the London Journal of the 2 December 1721, Gordon published 'Cato's Letter' No. 55, entitled 'The Lawfulness of killing Julius Caesar considered, and defended, against Dr. Prideaux'. The historian Dr Prideaux, Dean of Norwich, in one of his works, had denounced Caesar's murder. Not that Prideaux was a great admirer of Caesar, of whom he said he had 'slain eleven hundred and ninety-two thousand men' and was 'the greatest pest and

106

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

plague' of mankind. To Gordon, Caesar deserved his death as a usurper and tyrant who had violently and wickedly destroyed the lawful government, had caused the deaths of over a million people and had undermined society, thereby putting everyone into a state of nature and free to defend themselves against Caesar's violence. In the next 'Letter', No. 56 of 9 December, Gordon defended Brutus, whose submission to Caesar, he argued, was no more than an innocent person's submission to the violence of a criminal, and submission extorted under duress cannot create obligations. Tindal took up the cudgels against Gordon in The Judgment of Dr. Prideaux in condemning the Murder of Julius Caesar, by the conspirators, as a most villainous Act, maintained, and the Sophistry of the London Journal of December 2n and 9t exposed, with some Political Remarks on the Roman Government (1721). Tindal had a number of peripheral arguments. For example, he argued that Brutus' maxim '... no Faith, no, not the most sacred Oath, was to be kept with a Tyrant...' offended against the sacred obligation to keep oaths (p. 9). But his main argument harked back to his political writings of the early 1690s. As he had argued earlier, government derives its legitimacy, not from some inheritance from Adam, nor from any other inheritance, but from the people, who implicitly 'own' a government by accepting protection under it. A government, therefore, can forfeit its legitimacy, but only by failing to protect the people in their lives and properties. Under that criterion, Caesar was a legitimate ruler (pp. 12-13). Caesar had come to power through a civil war. In other words, the government had ceased to exist and, Tindal argued, one can have no allegiance to a non-existent government. But people can transfer their allegiance to a conqueror who has deposed a legal government because they cannot be hindered from taking the best care they can of their own safety and security by submitting to that power which can best protect them (pp. 18-19). In the case of a civil war, those who believed that the government had not forfeited their allegiance were obliged to defend it as far as the law

Politics

107

required. On the failure of that government, for exactly the same reason as they had defended the old government, they were now obliged to defend the new government (p. 32). In 1722, Tindal returned to the fray in A Defence Of our present Happy Establishment; and the Administration vindicated; From the Falsehood and Malice of the several late Treasonable libels, viz. Cato's Letters in the London Journal, and The Historical Account of the Advantages of the Hanover Succession, &c. It repeated much he had said before and defended the government from attack for its maladministration. Tindal claimed this as an attempt to weaken the government in favour of Catholicism and James. An event which must have been of great importance to Tindal was the death of Walpole's extreme Whig opponent, the Earl of Sunderland, who died on 19 April 1722. Two weeks later it was revealed that one of the great Tory leaders, Francis Atterbury, the Bishop of Rochester, was involved in a Jacobite plot. Atterbury was forced into exile shortly afterwards. Walpole and his supporters had seen off their opponents from the extremes of the political spectrum and, although they could not have known it, were to be secure in power for the next twenty years. Tindal published his final political pamphlet in 1723. An Enquiry into the Causes of the Present Disaffection: As also into The Necessity of some Standing Forces; the Power of Judges and Juries, in relation to Libels; and the Justice of the Additional Tax of One Hundred Thousand Pounds on the Papists and Popish Recusants. With Remarks on the Discourse of Standing Armies, and other Papers ofCato the Journalist. It is very much like his previous writings in opposition to Trenchard and Gordon. Tindal's fear of the Jacobites was still pronounced. He believed that the Catholic Stuarts had been a succession of tyrants and he had no reason to think that the Pretender was any different. Although he had argued that the people have a right to act for their own happiness, he became cautious about that view when he saw the support which Jacobitism received from rioters at various times. In many places he remarks upon the tendency for mobs to support

108

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

the cause of tyrants. To become a tyrant, one needs only to put oneself at the head of the populace against the nobles and, once in power, the multitude will be as slavish as before it was insolent; as he quotes Machiavelli as saying, 'That 'tis the Nature of the Multitude to be either slavish submissive, or intolerably insolent' (p. 6). We know Tindal was aware of the conflict between consent and tyranny, because he asked himself'... if the People are able to judge rightly in matters of Truth as well as Liberty, how come they everywhere to be Enemies to both?' (p. 9 ), but it is a question for which he does not have an answer. While he calls 'Cato' inconsistent, Tindal's view here is hardly consistent with his own view that people have the right to act for their own happiness. He was struck by Robert Molesworth's Account of Denmark (1693), which described how the Danes voted away their liberties, and he mentions it in a number of works. Plainly, he was also influenced by the rebellions in favour of the Catholic Pretender whom he feared and hated. Why people might 'break their oaths of loyalty' and 'rebel for the sake of Tyranny, Persecution, and all other absurdities of High-Church', he put down to the 'inexhaustible Fund of Stupidity in Human Nature'. On why the Jacobite cause was able to muster support, Tindal blamed the universities, particularly Oxford. Whatever the merits of his case, it does address his belief, expressed earlier, that each person knows best for their themselves. In the matter of libels, John Trenchard, in 'Cato's Letter' No. 101, for Saturday the 3 November 1722, 'Second Discourse upon Libels', had written: ... when words used in their true and proper sense, and understood in their literal and natural meaning, import nothing that is criminal; then to strain their genuine signification to make them intend sedition (which possibly the author might intend too) is such a stretch of discretionary power, as must subvert all the principles of free government, and overturn every species of liberty. I own, that with such a power, some men may escape

Politics

109

censure who deserve censure, but with it no man can be safe; and it is certain, that few men or states will be aggrieved by this indulgence, but such as deserve much worse usage. Tindal, somewhat surprisingly, took the view that libels ought to be very strictly punished: I entirely agree with this Writer, that the Liberty of the Press is a most valuable Liberty; and therefore I think it highly Criminal in those, who do all they can to hazard it, by making that Liberty, which, they own, was design'd for the Support of all our Liberties, an Engine to destroy them all. (p. 27) It is difficult to know quite what is going on here. Trenchard was arguing that a judge and jury must judge libels only on the literal meaning of what has been written. It seems clear that Tindal believed that this principle left too much scope for innuendo. Tindal may have taken a very strong objection to pamphlets written against Sunderland over the South Sea Bubble. He seems to overlook his own attacks on Walpole. According to the Biographia Britannica, in 1727, Tindal published a work entitled Corah and Moses: being the substance of a Discourse on those words, I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them, but it has not been possible to locate a copy. The words are from the Old Testament, the book of Numbers ch. 16 v. 15. In the desert, Corah had led a movement of opposition to Moses. Moses suggested that Corah and his followers offer incense to the Lord, but he remained very angry: And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD, Respect not thou their offering: I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them. Shortly afterwards, those who, by their offering, had identified themselves as members of the opposition to Moses were destroyed

110

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

by the Lord. Purportedly Tindal's tract is a panegyric on Walpole and effected a final reconciliation between the two men. It is hard to see how this could be so.

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Matthew Tindal, Four Discourses, p. 2. Ibid.,p.2. Ibid., p. 7. Ibid., pp. 6-7. Ibid., p. 10. Ibid.,p.l\. Ibid., p. 12. 7JzW.,p. 18. Ibid., pp. 21-2. Ibid.,p.35. 7^W., pp. 37-8. Ibid., p. 22. Ibid., p. 28. Ibid., p. 25. Ibid., p. 26. Caroline Robbins, TAe Eighteenth-Century Commonwealth Man: Studies in the Transmission, Development and Circumstance of English Liberal Thought from the Restoration of Charles II until the War with the Thirteen Colonies (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 88, suggests that Tindal had been ordained, but I have not been able to find any evidence to support it.

6

The Deists' Bible

At the end of the 1720s, Tindal returned to religion. The occasion was the publication, in 1728, of The Bishop of London's Pastoral Letter to the People of his Diocese; Particularly, to those two great Cities of London and Westminster. Occasioned by some late Writings in favour of Infidelity. In this pamphlet Edmond Gibson complained that some writings had attempted to undermine religion and he laid down ten 'Rules' for combating infidelity. As a target, Gibson's pamphlet suited Tindal admirably and in 1729 he published a point by point reply, An Address to the inhabitants of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster. With some wit, Tindal argues that the existing high standards of morality were due to freethinking, and to say that freethinking also promotes infidelity is to compliment infidelity (p. 2): 'The Ordinary of Newgate will tell us', he says, 'whether any of the condem'd Criminals ever reason'd themselves into Infidelity' (p. 47). Gibson laid it down as a rule that if a book is written in a ludicrous manner it can be taken for granted that it proceeds from a depraved mind, and is written with an irreligious design (p. 8). In reply, Tindal points out that Bishop Stillingfleet and Archbishop Tillotson ridiculed 'Popish Transubstantiation'; that the Rev. Robert South and Dean Sherlock ridiculed each other; and that The Rights of the Christian Church asserted was ridiculed by William Oldisworth and Abel Evans. Not to mention the Tale of a Tub which ridiculed all religious positions! Tindal, following Shaftesbury, held that ridicule against the truth will turn against itself. Another rule of Gibson's was that failing to understand some part of revelation should not weaken one's faith in it (p. 13).

112

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Tindal asks, as he had over thirty years earlier, how could an infinitely wise God require of us what we do not see to be reasonable, or how can we reject false religions which we see to be incomprehensible? In 1730 Gibson returned to the attack on infidelity in The Bishop of London's Second Pastoral Letter. To the People of his Diocese, Particularly to those of the two great Cities of London and Westminster. Occasion'd by some late Writings, in which it is asserted, ' That Reason is a sufficient Guide in Matters of Religion, without the Help of Revelation'. He attacks Tindal's view of revelation, arguing that once reason, on the evidence, finds that a revelation has come from God, and that it does not contradict our rational notions of good and evil, it ought to be believed, and we are then no longer at liberty to question the wisdom and expedience of it. But if he thought that he had finished with Tindal, he was wrong. What had gone before was only the hors d'oeuvre. The main course was about to be served. On the reverse of the posthumous medal struck to honour Tindal, is a setting sun with a human face, inscribed 'occasu maior' (greater at its setting). It is a fair description. Published in 1730, when Tindal was over 70 years of age, Christianity as old as the Creation: or, the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature (hereafter Christianity as old] is erudite and exhaustive. Written in the form of a dialogue, for much of its length it reads more like a catechism, the speakers even have no names, being designated simply 'A' and 'B'. What made Christianity as old remarkable was its complete repudiation of the authority of divine revelation; any purported divine revelation. The implication is that there is no need for Christianity at all. He does not say so explicitly. He says, indeed, that natural religion does not set aside all revelation and t h a t ' . . . if Revelation be a reasonable Revelation, the greater Stress we lay upon Reason, the more we establish Revelation' (p. 213). According to Tindal, reason,'... which is all we rational Creatures have to trust o

The Deists'Bible

113

to, being That alone which distinguishes us from Brutes, incapable of Religion' (p. 213), must be our 'dernier' resort. What Tindal seems to be suggesting is that natural and revealed religion are identical, in that all things which are necessary for salvation are identical in both, that is to say, all necessary propositions are identical. Perhaps revelation may contain things which are not contained in reason but which are indifferent as to whether we believe them or act upon them. In some cases, for instance referring to the doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation, Tindal argues that it is impossible to ask someone to believe what cannot be understood, and therefore it cannot be part of revelation (p. 222). Doctrines which use words in strange and contradictory ways are meaningless. If the Scriptures were designed to be understood, then they must be comprehensible to everyone. Allegories cannot prove the strange and incredible doctrines that they have been used to establish. In fact, Tindal believes, allegorical interpretations destroy the certainty of any interpretation of even the plainest biblical text (p. 228). So all that is left is that there might be a revelation of truths which do not matter, although what the point of such a revelation might be is hard to imagine. Tindal's method is to return to the basic concept of the deity and argue that a special, or specific, revelation would be in contradiction with some aspect of that concept. Stephen Williams3 is surely right that Tindal's principle argument is 'one sustained deduction from the idea of God' (p. 51), from which the content of religious truth can be derived definitively. The problem for Tindal's contemporaries is that, by the time he was finished, the content of religious truth comprised only what could be inferred from experience. If God is omnipotent then, Tindal argues, nothing we can do can affect him. Thus he argues in Christianity as old, Chapter 5,4 'That God requires nothing for his own sake; no, not the Worship we are to render him, nor the Faith we are to have in him'

114

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

(p. 44). God may not be concerned with mankind directly, but indirectly God may be said to be concerned in two ways. In the first place, since we have been placed in certain circumstances and endowed with certain qualities, it may be said that God requires us to behave in a way appropriate to those circumstances (p. 19). In the second place, somewhat as Descartes argued that God guarantees the truth of our clear and distinct ideas, Tindal argues that God ensures that what we discover to be our duty through the sincere and free use of our reason shall be sufficient, for we would thus be basing our decisions upon the nature of things, and God commands only what the nature of things shows to be fit (p. 30). What, then, does God command? Tindal gives us a two-part answer. We must seek our own personal good, for why, otherwise, would God not have made us as we are (p. 16). We must also give to others that mutual assistance without which people could not live in society, and which it is part of our nature to do (p. 18).5 In answer to the question in what does our good consist, Tindal says it is that which we 'necessarily desire', that is, happiness. The Principle from which all human Actions flow is the Desire of Happiness; and God, who does nothing in vain would in vain have implanted this Principle, This only innate Principle in Mankind, if he had not given them Reason to discern what Actions make for, and against their Happiness, (p. 22) Thus Tindal has argued that we are obliged to act appropriately to our circumstances, that what we do must be for our own good, and that our good consists in our happiness, and so he concludes that '... a Man's Happiness and Duty must consist in the same Things' (p. 23). In Christianity as old (p. 13) Tindal's definition of natural religion is not very different from the one he had given over thirty years earlier in his 1697 Essay Concerning the Power of the Magistrate (p. 3):

The Deists'Bible

115

By Natural Religion, I understand the Belief of the Existence of a God, and the Sense and Practice of those Duties, which result from the Knowledge, we, by our Reason, have of him, and his Perfections: and of ourselves, and our own Imperfections; and the Relation we stand in to him, and to our Fellow Creatures; so that the Religion of Nature takes in every Thing that is founded on the Reason and Nature of Things. Natural religion, having been given to mankind by God as rule or law for their conduct, must be perfect since '... no Religion can come from a Being of infinite Wisdom and Perfection, but what is absolutely perfect' (p. 3). Furthermore, since '... God, at all Times, was willing all Men should come to the knowledge of his Truth', natural religion must have been available to mankind from the beginning, that is, the creation of the world. Since that religion is immutable, revelation can neither add to it nor take from it (p. 4). Natural religion is itself a touchstone by which the truth of other religions must be judged (p. 60). It is from this vantage point that Tindal considers externally revealed religion; specifically, Christianity. While from the very first pages of Christianity as old Tindal distinguishes between natural religion and an externally revealed religion on the basis of the manner of their communication, he claims that what they both teach is identical: 'Natural and Reveal'd Religion having the same End, their Precepts must be the same' (Chapter 7). The precepts which he has particularly in mind (going back to his Letter to the Reverend of 1694), are 'the Honour of God, and the Good of Man, being the two Grand, or General Commandments', which he believes are, in effect, the same (p. 71). Tindal quotes many writers, Archbishop Tillotson, Dr Scott, Bishop Sherlock, Archbishop Sharp, Plutarch, and Lord Shaftsbury, to support the view of the identity between the the 'two great laws'. As to the 'positive' things the clergy say in favour of revealed religion, Tindal says it is a distinction without a difference.

116

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

When Tindal compares natural with revealed religion, he finds the precepts of revealed religion to be less accessible, and more corruptible, because the clergy can distort revelation, and can guard it from examination by penal laws (p. 233). If people believe that a set of'revealed' precepts take precedence over morality, they may follow the rules and not the dictates of their conscience. Most people have limited capacities for absorbing principles and if overloaded with rules they will be less able to meet the demands of morality. Furthermore, having been given an array of morally neutral, arbitrary commands, people will tend to observe those, in hopes to atone for their immoralities (p. 142). Chapter 11 is a virtual catalogue of instances, concentrating particularly on the part played by the clergy in promoting the view that'... God will damn Men for Things not Moral' (p. 155), and the 'pious Frauds', in support of whom, that view was promoted. Christians may well believe that they have '... two supreme, independent rules, Reason and Revelation; and both require an absolute Obedience', but, according to Tindal, Revelation supposes that everything must be taken on trust and Reason supposes that nothing be admitted further than it appears reasonable (p. 186). To suppose them consistent with one another is to suppose it consistent to take, and not to take, things on trust. Some may sometimes try to argue that Scripture is the rule by which reason must judge of the truth of things. Against this weakened version of revelation, Tindal argues that if Scripture be a rule, it must have all the criteria by which such a rule might be recognized. But only reason can tell us what those criteria are, and if they are to be found in Scripture. Additionally, one of those criteria must be that a rule so recognized should be consistent with the nature of things. It follows that reason, and the nature of things, must be the rule by which Scripture is to be judged (p. 190). Adhering to arbitrary rules as a matter of faith carries no merit for Tindal. He argues that contingent propositions are never certain, but all are to some extent probable. This is especially true of

The Deists'Bible

117

propositions which depend for their truth on human testimony, for their probability must lessen in proportion to the distance of time from the event (p. 180). Indeed, Craig's Principia Mathematica f\ • Theologiae Christianae 'has gone so far as to fix the precise Time, when all Probability of the Truth of the History of Christ, will be entirely spent, and exhausted' (p. 185). As far as Tindal is concerned, faith is to be esteemed only in so far as it produces good works (p. 51). The duty of a truly religious person is to be a good citizen, '... because the happier Men are, the more Reason they have to honour that God, who made them so' (p. 71). And so he quotes at length the epistles and the early Fathers to show that Charity trumps Faith every time (p. 53 on). Tindal goes on to catalogue the superstitions and the wrongs committed from religion, the consequences of the failure to adhere to 'the two great laws'. Deviating from a life governed by the reason of things, according to Tindal, leads to superstition, which cannot arise among people who believe God to be a purely spiritual being (p. 85). He denies, as a deficient idea of God, the mediation of the saints. He argues that performing penitential exercises, as Simon Stylites did, derives from the mistaken belief that God could delight in pain and think the 'less Mercy they shew to their Bodies, the more Mercy God will shew to their Souls' (p. 89). Similarly with circumcision, and various practices mentioned in the Bible such as Jeptha's vow and others. He ridicules the pagans for sacrificing beasts, while implying that it was probably done at the behest of the priests who shared the beasts with the gods (p. 92). He denounces suttee and human sacrifice, occasioned by the belief that people being more valuable than animals must be even more acceptable to the gods (p. 93), and he bitterly compares it to the execution of heretics in Christian countries (p. 97). As he had often argued before, Tindal takes this opportunity to assert that as people know best what tends to their own happiness, the means must be left to human reason, which God has given to t

118

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

mankind for that very purpose (p. 91). No 'spiritual government' can be taken from humanity by any group; natural religion is pure religion and no independent power can be granted to the clergy (p. 108). Tindal seems to think that all the problems of religion arise from the clergy, since the religion of nature requires only that everyone make a personal judgement. To suppose we must do other than follow our reason is 'to suppose God Acts arbitrarily, and commands for commanding-sake' (p. 116). Confession, anointing with oil, laying on of hands, praying in particular places, prohibitions against such things as marrying godfathers and godmothers, excommunication etc., were all, he says, created by the clergy in order to gather in revenues for making exceptions and allowing what they never had the authority to prohibit in the first place. In this he is back again with The Rights, arguing that the belief in such rites was established by designing clergy for their own profane purposes. He gives a long list of such practices, which seem to me to be designed on the one hand to look outlandish, or Roman Catholic, or pagan, or Islamic and so be very offputting to an eighteenth-century English public, but on the other hand many of them are similar to, or have resonances with the practice of the Church of England, all intended by Tindal to make English religious practice seem outlandish without actually saying so. Reason, says Tindal, must be the test, since there are so many 'traditionary' religions and only reason to judge between them. They all make the same claims of'uninterrupted Traditions, incontested Miracles, Confession of Adversaries, Number of Proselytes, Agreement among themselves'. And even if someone by accident or argument found themselves in the true traditionary religion, there are so many different ways of interpreting it, that they would still have to have recourse to reason to guide their actions and beliefs (p. 237). The clergy, who claim the authority to interpret revelation's laws, are in fact claiming the authority to make those laws (p. 240). True religion is plain and simple to everyone and does

The Deists'Bible

119

not accept the claims of others to have authority over it. The Apostles and prophets are subject to the same passions, even to dissembling, as other men, says Tindal (p. 245). Yet, even if the prophets and Apostles had been infallible, who can be sure that what they said and wrote has been transmitted accurately down to us over the centuries by people themselves not infallible? Only reason can judge. It is plain that reason must be applied even to sacred Scripture because in so many places it uses language which cannot be literally true, as for instance, when it says that God is jealous, or in wrath, or spoke to Moses 'face to face' etc. (p. 253). It also contains prophecies such as those concerning the end of the world, which apparently even the Apostles misunderstood, so how can others be expected to understand them properly? (p. 259). Over many pages he sets out difficulties in the Scriptures to demonstrate that they require reason to be our guide in understanding them. Faced with a great number of texts with very difficult meanings, Tindal says that: . . . the best Way not to be mistaken, is to admit all for divine Scripture, that tends to the Honour of God, and the Good of Man; and nothing which does not. (p. 327) For example, the precepts against defending oneself against an enemy, or of giving all one's property to the poor, must be interpreted through reason, which we must know antecedently to the scriptures (p. 344). Tindal's solution to problematic precepts is the utilitarian one that: In a Word, 'tis the Tendency of Actions which makes them either good or bad; and they that tend to promote human Happiness are always good; and those that have a contrary Tendency, are always bad. (p. 345)

120

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Thus, many of the precepts in the Bible are to be carried out or ignored, depending upon their tendency toward promoting human happiness. An important example, for himself, is the rule that one should speak as one thinks. Tindal holds that even in this one must judge of its tendency to promote human happiness (p. 347). As usual, he gives a vast number of examples from the Bible where people used deception or broke their word, or, like the exodus from Egypt, when they brought the stolen property of the Egyptians with them. Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) was the chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich, and rector of the parish of Drayton. He published A Discourse concerning the Unchangeable Obligation of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation in 1707. Clarke's position was very close to the deists and he argued that there is an 'eternal law of righteousness' which depends only upon the 'necessary relations of things'. Tindal took Clarke so seriously that he devoted the whole of Chapter 13 to discussing his work. Tindal shared many of Clarke's views, and quotes at length to show how much both men are in agreement, but they differed on a number of issues. Clarke said that while there may once have been a consistent scheme of deism before revelation, afterwards there cannot be such a scheme. Clarke especially argues that in the original, uncorrupted state of mankind, natural religion was sufficient for salvation, but that following the Fall, a revelation was necessary for redemption. Tindal disputes that on the grounds that: This is supposing, God had left all mankind for 4000 Years together, and even the greatest Part to this Day, destitute of sufficient Means to do their Duty, and to preserve themselves from sinking into a corrupted and degenerate State; and that it was impossible for them when thus sunk, to recover themselves; and yet that God (their Duty being the same after, as before the Fall,) expected Impossibilities from them viz- either to

The Deists'Bible

121

preserve themselves from thus falling; or if fallen, to recover themselves, (p. 375) Tindal is not prepared to accept any defect in the 'Light of Nature' since he believes it was designed by God to be the sufficient guide to happiness and salvation. Anyone, claiming that the light of nature is not sufficient, must explain how there could be a God who would provide such an insufficient guide and then demand that people follow it. Tindal argues that if Christianity differs from deism then, on to Clarke's own principles, the differences must be faults. Clarke also argued that indifferent things, which may possibly be true, may be known through revelation. To this Tindal replies that a revelation of indifferent things would imply that God acts arbitrarily, and out of wilfulness (p. 370). There are moral teachings in the Bible which we can judge to be true if they conform to reason, but we must reject, as part of revelation, teachings which have no moral implications because God does not act arbitrarily. Thus, when Tindal speaks of'Christian Deists' (p. 371) it is a purely rhetorical device. He does not say he is one himself, nor is it claimed by either of his speakers. Nowhere does he argue that these Christian deists have anything to say about Jesus or his followers which would distinguish their teachings from anyone else's, except to say that if what they preached was moral then it was true, and if it had no moral implications then it was either false or irrelevant and had crept into the texts either by accident or by the design of grasping men. Another point of disagreement between Tindal and Clarke concerned God's capacity to discriminate between people. Thus, Clarke (p. 217) says that: As God was not oblig'd to make all his Creatures equal, or to make Men Angels, or to endow all Men with the same Capacities and Faculties; so he was not bound to make all Men

122

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

capable of the same Degree, or the same Kind of Happiness, or to afford all Men the very same Means and Opportunities of obtaining it. (p. 408) Tindal could not disagree more. God is not partial or prejudiced and the only thing which distinguishes people is their sincerity in the search for truth. Sincerity is everything to Tindal, and he is happy to quote everyone who has written in favour of sincerity (p. 415), including Catholics, nonjurors, and even page 54 of the Bishop of London's Pastoral Letter. And so when Clarke argues that Christians receive greater happiness from God, Tindal does not agree, as the sincere, in his view, are equally deserving of happiness (p. 418). All sorts of issues arise for Clarke. For instance (p. 394), although the light of nature might show that God ought to be worshipped, Clarke suggests that revelation may be necessary to show how he ought to be worshipped. But, Tindal points out, that would have placed even the wisest philosophers in the position of being obliged to worship God while being kept in unavoidable ignorance as to how to do so; and God could not will the end without willing the means. Tindal makes the point that in one place Clarke, talking about Cicero and others, might have done better had he shown . . . the Absurdity of arguing from what even the best of Men say, when it is not safe to talk otherwise, (p. 397) Tindal mentions the Chinese, and how well they behave despite being without revelation: Monsieur Leibnitz, a great Statesman as well as Philosopher, in comparing the Christians at present, with the Infidels of China, does not scruple to give the preference to the latter, in relation to all moral Virtues . . . (p. 404)

The Deists'Bible

123

Whereas, Christians, he says, have behaved with the greatest wickedness and cruelty. The great problem for Tindal is why his book was needed at all. Natural religion, according to Tindal, is so clear that 'he who runs may read'. It boils down to the principle that if we act to the best of our understanding, for our own happiness and the common good, we will '... have done all that God requires; who, having made men fallible, will not impute to them want of Infallibility' (p. 279). Tindal believes that even people of the least abilities can see this; so why was it necessary for him to write his books? His answer is that the people get imposed upon by 'artful Men'. And, indeed, the Laicks have so seldom thought of asserting their natural Rights in religious Matters, that they have generally sacrific'd to the Malice of Priests, all, who have endeavour'd to maintain these Rights; and if the people threw off one set of Ecclesiastical Tyrants, 'twas only to be the Slaves to another, (p. 313) Tindal's explanation that this is due to a grasping priesthood seems to me to be inadequate. He would have known that too many of the clergy have suffered for their cause for it to be simply the infrastructure of greed. He admits that there are good clergymen who are a credit to the church and do not espouse notions against the common good. But he does not explain how so many clearly good clergymen are themselves misled. There are other problems. A question raised by Tindal's equation of duty with enlightened self-interest, or happiness in the long run, is what is the status of those who act in contravention of God's will? Quite clearly, breaking a divine law does God no injury, Tindal argues, and so God can act as a disinterested judge. Our greatest Felicity consists in having such an impartial and disinterested Judge as well as Legislator, that whether he punishes, or rewards, he acts alike for our Good . . . (p. 40)

124

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

The only difficulty which Tindal sees in this position is the conflict which can arise between the requirements of infinite justice on the one hand and infinite mercy on the other. One part of the solution, he suggests, is that the penalties which God attaches to the breach of divine laws are for the good, not only of mankind, but also of the person who suffers the punishment. Punishment for punishment's sake would be 'meer Cruelty and Malice' (p. 42). The other part of the solution is the distinction between God's essential nature and accidental acts. The Justice by which God is righteous in all his Actions, and the Mercy by which he is good or beneficent are infinite, and eternally inherent in the divine Nature; but These oblige not God either to punish, or pardon any further than his infinite Wisdom sees fit; and such Punishing and Pardoning are transient Acts, the Effects of his Will, not properties belonging to his Nature, (p. 41) This would seem to suggest that there is an element of wilfulness in God's 'transient Acts', although elsewhere Tindal claims that God does not act arbitrarily or out of wilfulness (p. 370). It is difficult to see why Tindal wished to distinguish between the consequences which God has naturally attached to our actions and the punishment to be inflicted as a result of 'transient Acts', the exercise of the divine will. He did indeed suggest that innocent suffering in this life would be rewarded in the next but he could, perhaps, have argued that such a reward could arise through the operation of divine law rather than a transient act, but Tindal does not resolve the question. Perhaps he would have dropped the punishing and pardoning. A curious silence relates to the title of the book Christianity as old as the Creation. Although Tindal discusses problems associated with the doctrine of the Fall, and the story of Adam and Eve, he makes no reference to the pre-Adamites. The theory that there had been

The Deists'Bible

125

people before Adam and Eve had been published by Isaac La Peyere in 1655 and we might have expected Tindal to mention them. After all, the book is not called Christianity as old as Adam and Eve. Christianity as old was published when Tindal was in his 70s and, although he saw four editions through the press, he had the time and energy to publish a final pamphlet against the Bishop of London's Second Pastoral Letter. This was A Second Address to the Inhabitants of the two Great Cities of London and Westminster; Occasion'd by A Second Pastoral Letter. With Remarks on Scripture Vindicated, and some other Late Writings (hereafter Second Address], published in 1730. It includes some pages against Daniel Waterland's Scripture Vindicated, but it is primarily directed against Gibson. It makes many of the same points as Christianity as old and plays upon apparent contradictions as, for instance, where Gibson says (p. 46), that honest heathens '... cannot fail to be mercifully dealt with by infinite Justice and Goodness', and, on page 63, that 'However the due Use and Application of our Reason may answer the Purposes of this Life, it is in no Means sufficient to guide us in our way to the next'. Tindal was also pleased to point out, twice, that Gibson actually declared (p. 4) that 'revelation itself is to stand and fall by the Test of Reason'. Tindal takes exception to Gibson's view that the Christian Revelation has in any way contributed to humanity's moral reformation. According to Gibson the ancient philosophers' influence in reforming mankind was inconsiderable. Gibson says that before the Christian revelation to mankind '. .. Uncleanness of almost every kind was freely and openly practis'd among them', and that this is still true of countries which have not yet heard the Gospels goes to show that natural reason is insufficient. On the other hand, he adds, there is much less wickedness in Christian countries than heathen, and what wickedness there is, is balanced by the true piety and purity of multitudes of people. Tindal will have none of this. He denies that people in Christian countries

126

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

behave better than heathens and he gives examples of religious wars and bloody persecutions; of the massacre of Indians by the Spanish; of Reformed Churches burning heretics, and both Episcopalians and Presbyterians being in favour of persecution '... 'till the Necessity of Affairs at the Revolution, forc'd a Toleration'. Through ten pages, on various authorities, he denounces various Christian villainies through a millennium and a half, together with the suffering it all caused, and lest it be claimed that cruelty was a perversion of Christianity he quotes two sayings of Jesus: 'I am come not to send Peace, but a Sword' (Matthew 10. 34, 35), and 'I am come to send Fire on Earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled? Suppose ye that I am come to give Peace on Earth? I tell you Nay, but rather Division' (Luke 12. 49-53). As for the sort of information revelation gives us, according to Gibson (Second Pastoral Letter, p. 15) it includes, for example, how corruption came into the world through our first parents, and how God's forgiveness for sin can be acquired. For want of such information '... Mankind must remain in a perplexed and desponding State'. Tindal replies that salvation comes to sinners through repentance and amendment, which presupposes a knowledge of what was to be repented and amended, and that must have been equally true before the coming of Christ as afterwards (Second Address, p. 6). When Gibson suggests that it is perverse to refuse God's favours (pp. 45-6), that is reject revelation, '... for the very Reason which ought to increase our Thankfulness for them; namely, that he vouchsafes them to us and not to others', Tindal dismisses it as nothing more than a sign of Gibson's ill nature. When Tindal was preparing the, now lost, second volume of Christianity as old he wrote an introduction, a fragment of which, from signature B to xxxii, still exists. In it he answers some of the criticisms to which the first volume had been subjected. Written after publication of the first part of Christianity as old, the introduction contains Tindal's response to three of his opponents, to James Foster on behalf of the dissenters, to John Jackson, Rector of

The Deists'Bible

127

Rossington, on behalf of low churchmen, and to John Gonybeare on behalf of high churchmen. Foster's position was not very different from Tindal's. In fact, Tindal depicts Foster as thoroughly confused, saying on the one hand that Scripture is fundamentally the only rule, and on the other hand that it is to be tried by the test of reason. According to Foster, ' . . . the original revelation itself will, I am persuaded, stand the test of reason, and bear even a severe and critical, provided it be likewise an honest, and impartial, examination'. In response to this Tindal asks: must not that, by which all Revelation is to be tried whether it comes from God, appear more evidently to come from him? Prior to writing his reply to Tindal, John Jackson had earlier written A Pleafor Humane Reason, Shewing the Sufficiency of it in Matters of Religion, in a Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London (1730) in opposition to Bishop Gibson's Second Pastoral Letter, Jackson believed that reason is sufficient and that it tends to display God's goodness in the revelation of the Gospel. Whereas Gibson had claimed that a second revelation was necessary because of the corruption of humanity, Jackson pointed out that the revelation in the garden of Eden was not sufficient to prevent them from succumbing to their very first temptation. Criticising Christianity as old, Jackson says that God was no more obliged to tell everyone the most perfect way of worshipping him, than he was obliged to give everyone equal natural abilities, but 'God at all Times, and in all Circumstances, afforded Men sufficient Light to know so much of his Will as by Obedience to it to make themselves accepted with him .. .'.9 Tindal's reply to Jackson revolves almost entirely around the inconsistencies between his two books. He says that in the former Jackson contends that revelation is not essential, and in the latter he contends that it is. Although Butler in his The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed may have done more to support orthodoxy against Tindal and the deists, and Hume may have done more to support scepticism

128

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

against the deists, probably the most comprehensive reply to Tindal came in John Conybeare's A Defence of Reveal'd Religion Against The Exceptions of a late Writer, in his Book, Intituled, Christianity as Old as the Creation (hereafter A Defence], in 1732. Its semi-official status is indicated by its dedication to Gibson, Bishop of London, with complements on his Pastoral Letters. It is also extremely moderate in tone compared to the bulk of Tindal's other opponents, while being as hostile as any of them. As a sample of the answers to Tindal it is worth looking at in some detail. Conybeare begins by deploring the need to defend the religion of the Church after 1700 years of secure title. He had no doubt that Tindal's aim was to prove that there neither had been, nor could have been any Revelation, and that reason is sufficient without it (A Defence, p. 3). For '... Religion of Nature takes in every thing that is founded in the reason and Nature of Things' (Christianity as old, p. 13) to be the case, Conybeare argues that it must follow that: Human Reason is commensurate to all Truth; and that we by our Reason are capable of discovering everything which is founded in 10 the Nature and Reasons of Things. (A Defence, p. 9) Conybeare considers that to be absurd. Beasts, madmen and children have different capacities and are obliged only in so far as their capacities carry them. But there are many things which rational adults can discover which the others cannot, and even rational adults will have different capacities. We know so little about the natural world, says Conybeare, that 'it follows, that The Law or Religion of Nature cannot include everything which is founded in the Nature and Reason of Things' (p. 26). Conybeare then sets out to prove that the religion of reason is, in fact, insufficient. For example, without revelation we would be in ignorance of the Trinity, and thus of the relations we stand in to the different persons of God, and the duties which follow from that

The Deists'Bible

129

knowledge. Again, he argues that the 'relations in which we stand to God' is not a strictly defined set of relationships, for instance, he may be our creator and preserver, but he may also be our redeemer and sanctifier, and if we have external evidence for the latter, 'we may claim a Right of assigning some other Relations of God to Us, than those founded in Creation and Preservation' (p. 23). Tindal, says Conybeare, forgets how little we know of the affairs of the great politicians and affairs of state (not to mention supernatural creatures): 'how shall we be certain, from our own weak reason, what is in every respect fit and proper to be done by us?' (p. 25). In an important argument, Conybeare says that even if we did know the facts of nature, one cannot derive obligations from that knowledge as Tindal claimed. In an interestingly preHumean formulation, Conybeare argues against the attempt to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. ... I cannot see how Obligation, strictly so call'd, arises from the mere Fitness of things, whether we understand by it the Suitableness of certain Actions to the several Relations in which we stand, as being truly expressive of them; or else, their being conducive as Means to those good Ends they are naturally capable of producing, (p. 41) In any event, Conybeare argues that the law or religion of nature is neither perfect (p. 100), nor immutable. As conditions change, and the fitness and nature of things also changes, so do the requirements of the religion of nature (p. 106). When we are in a state of corruption, the proper rules of conduct are unknown to us and we are yet in another relation to God and one another, and if we repent our sins and go to heaven we will be in yet a further relation to God. And so additional precepts are necessary to us for our different circumstances. Conybeare does admit that all people have sufficient reason to know their duties but he holds that there may be numerous fit

130

Matthew Tindal., Freethinker

and proper things to be done which may exceed the capacities of many (p. 162). Conybeare (surely taking the hint from Bishop Gibson's Second Pastoral Letter] quotes Locke to Molineaux as saying: '... I thought I saw that Morality might be demonstratively made out, yet whether I am able to make it out, is another Question. Every one could not have demonstrated what Mr. Newton's Book hath shown to be demonstrable.' (Lock's [sic] Familiar Letters, p. 10.) What then! Was this so difficult a Task to Mr. Lock, which yet the meanest and most illiterate mechanick is so entirely equal to? (p. 169) He might also have asked, if natural religion is so clear, why Tindal himself needed to write such a big book. Tindal claimed (Christianity as old, p. 184), that God cannot reveal any truth except by showing that it agrees with the selfevident notions against which we must test every proposition. Conybeare replies that we can know all sorts of things by probability, by accepting the words of others which do not require us to argue back to first principles all the time. Why should God be different? Why should God not have at least as plausible a way of communicating to us as mere mortals? It was fundamental to Christianity as old, that revelation will be unjust between people if some are granted it and others are not granted it. Conybeare denied the principle itself: . . . Justice is not concern'd in the Distribution of Favours, but the rendering what is due. If therefore a Revelation, in the present Case, be not strictly and properly a Debt, Then the Vouchsafing, or the With-holding it, as not being the Concern of Justice, must be referr'd to some other of The Divine Attributes. (A Defence, p. 239)

The Deists'Bible

131

So Tindal's fundamental argument that Christianity must be as old as the creation, because it would be unjust for it not to be, is denied on the grounds that justice is not a matter of outcomes but of process. Not surprisingly, Conybeare concluded that there is indeed sufficient evidence for the reality of revelation, especially the Christian revelation (A Defence, p. 328). As Conybeare's A Defence of Reveal'd Religion was first published in 1732, Tindal's 'Preface' must have been his last writing before his death the following year, but it shows no sign of decreasing clarity. Tindal responded to Conybeare's lament at having 'to begin anew, and to set forth the original Title' and to defend Christianity still after almost seventeen hundred years', by asking rhetorically if 'We have acquired a Title to our Religion, as to our Lands, by Prescription' (fragment, p. xxx). When Conybeare argued in favour of authority in religious matters, Tindal retorted that such a principle would have undermined Christianity in its early days, would undermine the Reformation, and would play into the hands of the Catholics. For Tindal, religion would always be a matter for individual conscience, to be continually renewed by our observation of the law of nature. Foster, Jackson and Conybeare were only three of Tindal's many opponents. There are generally two approaches among the many substantial replies to Christianity as old', some writers such as Daniel Waterland, Archdeacon of Middlesex, employing both. On the one hand he deplores Tindal's attempt to take it upon himself'. .. to prescribe and dictate to an all knowing God'. On the other hand he sidesteps the confrontation. This is to be seen most clearly in his annotations on his personal copy of Christianity as old where, on page 3, faced with the argument that a sincere examination into truth is all that God can require, he merely takes up Tindal's corollary that such a search, being the essence of natural religion given by God from the beginning, must be perfect. Waterland's approach implies that no work of God need be perfect.

132

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

. . . it might as well be said, no creature can be made, but what is absolutely perfect. God bestows his Favour gradually, and sheds light on mankind in such proportions and degrees as he sees proper. It might as well be argued that he should have made no men at all but Angels only. Waterland is quite typical. For instance, Simon Browne in A Defence of the Religion of Nature, and the Christian Revelation, referring to the same passage in Christianity as old., says Tindal's position is absurd for, after all, would Tindal infer that God is imperfect because he, Tindal, was born imperfect? The main target of the attack on Tindal was his doctrine that the use of reason sincerely to enquire into the relation we stand in to God and to each other, and the duties consequent thereon, that is, the natural law, is all that God can require. In particular the adequacy of reason and of natural law were questioned; the sufficiency of sincerity was found wanting. Thomas Broughton, Reader at the Temple-Church, argued that '... it will never follow, that, because a Pagan and a Christian are equally sincere, therefore their Religions are equally good'. Many writers argued against the adequacy of reason, based on the necessity of some particular truth being believed, even when they do not say which particular truth it may be. Thus both Thomas Burnet and Susannah Newcome15 argue that reason is inadequate because it is relative and does not teach everything to everyone equally at all times, with the implication that if it is relative it cannot be sufficient in the face of eternity. Others such as Catharine Cockburn,16 and Duncan Forbes, tried to show that reason could never have discovered the vital doctrine of forgiveness for sin. That God could reveal to us things which we could never 18 discover through our reason was also argued by John Leland, and very forcibly by William Law who pointed out that we do not have the capacity to judge of the fitness of what emerges from the necessity of the divine nature. The simplest proof of 1 Q

The Deists'Bible

133

the insufficiency of reason was given by the Rector of Tichmarsh, Henry Lee, according to whom, if the nature of things be a sufficient guide, it follows that God did 'a needless vain thing' in making an external revelation of his will, but as God cannot do a needless vain thing it follows that reason is not sufficient to discover religious truth. Natural law, the other pillar of Tindal's argument, came under a number of different attacks. According to Thomas Burnet, it cannot be depended upon to produce the consequences Tindal 91 claims for it, for, as explained also by Susannah Newcome, natural law is wholly concerned with principle, whereas happiness also requires a knowledge of facts. The doctrine that the natural law is universal is denied by Archibald Campbell STP, OO and Simon Browne, on the grounds that there is no reason why it should be universal any more than that happiness should be universal, however much Tindal says God desires it. The point is made very tellingly by the Presbyterian, Anthony Atkey, who says of Tindal's belief that God at all times intended mankind all the happiness their nature is capable of, that it is 'notoriously contradicted by universal Experience'. Seeing danger in reducing all rules to a general rule, John Leland says of Tindal's declaration of an immutable, moral rule of natural law, that it means no more than acting as circumstances dictate, which in turn leaves people '... without any fix'd rules of Morality at all, and to discard all moral Laws and Precepts as useless'. A tendency of natural religion, to subvert morality when overemphasised, was also discerned by Benjamin Atkinson on the grounds that natural religion, '... being calculated for an innocent and perfect Creature, is not suitable to him in his lapsed and imperfect State'.c\r- The source of the antipathy to belief in natural religion alone seems to stem from the danger that if people view God as all good they will cease to go in fear - the only restraint upon their baser passions. William Crawfurd, Minister of the Gospel at Wiltoun, summed it up: 27 c\ o

o c

134

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

... were he [God] considered as Goodness alone, without Wisdom to conduct his Measures, or Holiness and Justice to ride the Marches between Good and Evil, then the Fear of God would be totally extinguished, Subjection to him lost, and no other Respect would be paid to him, than what was long since paid to Alma Terra. That removing the fear of God would lead to the collapse of all morality seemed too obvious to need drawing out. In addition to the many attempts to refute Tindal, by displaying the weaknesses of his arguments, there were many attempts to argue for the propositions he denied, or was believed to have denied. Many wrote in support of revelation. For John Jackson28 9Q and Henry Lee, a further revelation was justified by the corruption of God's original revelation to Adam through the depravity of mankind. John Leland agreed that the law of nature, at first, was perfect for the circumstances people then were in but, he went on, that to believe that it is perfect for all times and places implies that God placed himself under an obligation never to add to that law, especially when new circumstances, for example Adam's sin, and the increasingly degenerate state of human nature, required (j/~\ further interference. The emotional power of an appeal to an anthropomorphic deity, who would rescue mankind from its corruption, is brought out very clearly by a manuscript explication and refutation of Christianity as old, in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. The anonymous writer employs the analogy of physical well-being: Let us suppose a man to be in a perfect state of Health, and that by His own folly in advertencie, or by some unavoidable accident He becomes disordered or sickly, is there no remedie no medicine to be made use of because that would be inconsistent 31 with a perfectly Healthful constitution?

The Deists'Bible

135

Unfortunately, none of this meets Tindal's point that a revelation less than universal must necessarily be unjust. A possible compromise is suggested by the Presbyterian divine Samuel Wright, and by John Leland, who decided that since people have the power to decide indifferent things, God must have that power also, and therefore people may be governed by positive precepts in indifferent matters. The core of the defence of revelation existed within a wide spectrum of opinion. On the one hand is the certainty of Thomas Broughton 34 that if revelation had been unnecessary, no revelation would have been made. On the other hand is the attempt by Christopher Robinson to establish criteria by which revelation might be recognized, concluding with the tautology t h a t ' . . . one certain Mark of the Truth and Genuineness of it [revelation] is, if it teacheth the Will of God'. And occupying yet another, and seemingly impossible, position is the Rev. George Johnston, who believed that Christianity is all the more firmly based for being equated with natural religion, even as defined by Tindal. oo

oo

I am of the Opinion, that, granting all this to be true, it makes nothing against the Christian Revelation; while there are so many good Doctrines and Precepts in it, which lie level, even, to the meanest Capacities; and which none can find fault with, nor Differences between Things, and running into downright Scepticism. oo

The only question is, how far did Tindal's scepticism go? Tindal readily accepts that he 'is better at pulling down, than building up' (Christianity as old, p. 421), and that error must be removed 'so every Thing is advanc'd which tends to promote the Honour of God, and the Happiness of Human Societies'. He does, however, finally set out his stall of religious opinions. In the final four pages of Tindal's Second Address there is a distillation of his religious beliefs.

136

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

I shall lay down six short Propositions, by which Reason demonstrates, not only the Being and Unity of God, but the most substantial Points of Religion, on which the rest depend, (p. 41) That Tindal should produce six such propositions is strongly reminiscent of Lord Herbert of Cherbury's Five Notions, but the statements themselves are similar only in acknowledging the existence of God. Tindal's first proposition is a proof of the existence of God (p. 42). Reason will tell Men, that did they but consider their own beautiful System; and how Admirably well all things are dispos'd for the Happiness of living Creatures; the Vegetable World for the Use of the Animal; the Animals in due subordination to one another; and all conspiring to the Good of the Whole; they cou'd not but see, that the framing Things after this Manner, plainly point out, even to the most Ignorant, a Being of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness, as well as Power. In proposition II, with overtones of his 'disproof of God, he goes on to argue that reason will show that there can be only one infinite being: ... because ever so many Omnipresent Beings taking up no more space than One, cou'd not be distinguished from that One; it being inconsistent with our Ideas of Identity and Diversity, to suppose several Beings of the same sort taking up the same space. Proposition III establishes the relationship between God and Mankind. Reason likewise tells Men, that the Deity being infinitely happy in himself, cou'd not create Mankind to add any Happiness to

The Deists'Bible

137

himself; but to communicate to them all that Happiness their Nature is capable of; and that they fully answer the End of their Creation, who contribute all they can to their own, and others Happiness. There is a curious vagueness in proposition IV. The proposition states that it is repugnant to justice that this life should be a probation for Heaven and Hell, without God making that information available to us through the use of our reason. But it goes on to say that we may be certain that those who suffer unjustly in this life ' . . . will be amply rewarded hereafter'. It seems that Tindal was quite clear in his opposition to the notion of Hell torments, but that he wished to preserve the notion of Heaven's delights. Proposition V states that God's laws are clear and unambiguous (p. 43): Since those Duties, which Men owe to God, and one another, necessarily flowing from the immutable Relations Men stand in to their Creator and Fellow-Creatures, must be as discernible as the Relations themselves . . . Proposition VI states that any additional rules are redundant, for to suppose that God makes particular rules, and does not leave all such things to 'humane Discretion', supposes him to interpose unnecessarily and can only serve to allow priests to impose what they will on a credulous world. The six propositions set the limits to Tindal's constructive deism. The importance of the first proposition is its acknowledgement of 'a Being of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness, as well as Power'. At his age, and in his circumstances, it seems unlikely that he would have made that acknowledgement unless he meant it. At this stage of his career he was hardly afraid of being accused of atheism. It is, still, barely, possible that Tindal was an atheist but the evidence for atheism is not that strong.

138

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

There are a number of loose ends which Tindal, probably in haste to refute traditional Christianity, fails to tie up. For instance, he never provides an explicit defence of natural religion, nor explains how a Being, perfect from eternity, could so act as to create the world. In general, however, the questions Tindal leaves unconsidered are as much problems for Christianity, and are as potentially subversive of Christianity, as anything he actually wrote. Having asserted the existence of God, it appears that Tindal's purpose was to place as much distance as possible between the divine and the mundane.

Notes 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

Matthew Tindal, An Address to the Inhabitants of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster; In Relation to a Pastoral Letter said to be written by the Bishop of London to the People of his Diocese, Occasioned by some late Writings in Favour of Infidelity (London, 1729), p. 63. Matthew Tindal, An Essay concerning Obedience to the Supreme Powers, and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions. With some Considerations touching the Present juncture of Affairs (London, 1694). (See Tindal, Four Discourses, p. 77.) Stephen N. Williams, 'Matthew Tindal on Perfection, Positivity, and the Life Divine', Enlightenment and Dissent, 5, 1986, 51-69. Matthew Tindal, Christianity as old as the Creation (London, 1730), p. 44 (title of Chapter 5). Compare Matthew Tindal, An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations, and the Rights of Sovereigns. With an Account of what was said at the Council-Board by the Civilians upon the Question, Whether their Majesties Subjects taken at Sea, acting by the late King's Commission, might not be looked on as Pirates? With Reflections upon the Arguments of Sir T.P. and Dr. 01. (London, 1694). John Craig, Principia Mathematica Theologiae Christianae (London, 1699). James Foster, The Usefulness, Truth and Excellency of the Christian Revelation (London, 1731), p. 353. Tindal, Christianity as old, part II, p. x. John Jackson, Remarks on a Book intitled Christianity as Old as the Creation (London, 1731), p. 8.

The Deists'Bible

139

10. Quoted from the 1732 Dublin edition. 11. John Gonybeare, A Defence of Reveal'd Religion (London and Dublin, 1732), p. 2. 12. Daniel Waterland, Scripture Vindicated; In Answer to a Book intituled Christianity as old as the Creation, 3 Vols (London, 1730-32), II, p. 15. 13. Thomas Broughton, Christianity Distinct from the Religion of Nature, In Answer to a late Book, Entitled, Christianity as Old as the Creation, &c. (London, 1732), Part I, p. 13. 14. Thomas Burnet, The Argument Setforth in a late Book, Entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation, Reviewed and Confuted. In several Conferences (London 1730-32), first Conference, pp. 50~51. 15. Susannah Newcome, An Enquiry into the Evidence of the Christian Religion, by a Lady (London, 1732), p. 58. 16. Catharine Cockburn, The Works of Mrs. Catharine Cockburn, Theological, Moral, Dramatic, and Poetical, two Vols (London, 1751), Vol. II, p. 133. 17. Duncan Forbes, Some Thoughts concerning Religion, Natural and Revealed, and The Manner of Understanding Revelation: Tending to shew that Christianity is, Indeed very near, As old as the Creation (London, 1735), pp. 46-7. 18. John Leland, An Answer to a late Book, Intituled, Christianity as Old as the Creation, two Vols (Dublin, 1733), Vol. I, pp. 28-9. 19. William Law, The Case of Reason (London, 1731), p. 9. 20. Burnet, op. cit., p. 50. 21. Newcome, op. cit., pp. 56—7. 22. Archibald Campbell, A Discourse Proving that the Apostles were no Enthusiasts (London, 1730), p. viii. 23. Simon Browne, A Defence of the Religion of Mature and the Christian Revelation (London, 1732), p. 299. 24. Anthony Atkey, The Main Argument of a late Book Intitled, Christianity as old as the Creation, Fairly Stated and Examined, or, a Short View of that whole Controversy (London, 1733), p. 37. 25. Leland, op. cit., pp. 10-14. 26. Benjamin Atkinson, Christianity not older than the First Gospel-Promise (London, 1730), p. 4. 27. William Crawfurd, A Short Manual Against the Infidelity of this Age (Edinburgh, 1734), p. 89. 28. Jackson, op. cit., pp. 4-6. 29. Henry Lee, The general Use and Perspicuity of the Gospel asserted (London, 1730), p. 19. 30. Leland, op. cit., p. 34.

140 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

36.

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker Trinity College, Dublin, T.C.D. MS 7085. This Document was discovered, and brought to my attention, by Dr David Berman. Samuel Wright, An Answer to some Objections against positive Institutions in Religion (London, 1734), p. 11. Leland, op. cit., pp. 54-5. Broughton, op. cit., Part I, p. 10. Christopher Robinson, An Essay Upon the Usefulness of Revelation, Notwithstanding the greatest Excellence of Human Reason. In Eight Discourses (London, 1733), p. 5. George Johnston, Christianity older than the Creation: or, the Gospel the Same with Natural Religion (London, 1731), p. 41.

7 Verdicts of Time

The first serious and objective analysis of the deist controversy was Mark Pattison's essay of 1860, 'Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688-1750'. Pattison recognized Tindal as 'the great champion of Deism' (p. 270) but did not discuss him in any great detail. Leslie Stephen's two volume History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, published in 1876, is a different matter and gives the dispute, and Tindal's part in it, serious attention. Stephen judged the deists to be rather mediocre, although each had a point or two in his favour. He judged Tindal had made a certain display of learning, and succeeded in planting some effective arguments, but he is dismissive of Christianity as old for its repetitiveness and lack of organization, although he recognizes it as the culminating point of the whole deist controversy. In a nice turn of phrase, Stephen says that Tindal 'was to Clarke what Toland had been to Locke' (Vol. 1, p. 114). Stephen finally accepted that Tindal was a forerunner of nineteenth-century developments of rationalism, although the discussion, in the same terms of the issues raised, scarcely survived its author (Vol. 1, p. 136). He also concluded that deism declined because it was unable to answer all theological questions or to provide emotional warmth. Tindal received some attention in the twentieth century. There is a short entry on Tindal in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and he is usually mentioned in biographical dictionaries. He has had his defects listed by G.R. Craig, particularly those of Christianity as old:'... its lack of historical insight, its blindness to the power of evil, its tone of supercilious superiority, its consistent silence about Jesus Christ'. Tindal's supposed lack of o

142

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

historical insight has been made much of also by Leslie Stephen,4 according to whom theologians and scientists would (in 1902) point to the history of humanity as a history of development, from which it is suggested that religion is not immutable and that a revelation may therefore be possible. This misses Tindal's point that if one person, much less an entire nation, was left without a divine revelation which was of benefit to others, and might be of benefit to them, it would be most unfair. As God could never be unfair, everyone must have equal access to the means of salvation. That Tindal might be accused of blindness to evil would amaze anyone who read his accounts of the influence of organized religion upon the world, and supercilious superiority has not been detected by the present writer. It is not difficult to imagine that his relative silence on the subject of Jesus was the result of caution rather than lack of consideration. The one consistent feature of the response to Tindal has been the bad press he received, ironically so for someone who championed press freedom. An exception is John M. Robertson whose 1906 A Short History ofFreethought: Ancient and Modern is an extended and sympathetic examination of his subject. Of Christianity as old, Robertson says that . . . the excitement seems to have reached high-water mark, that work eliciting from first to last over a hundred and fifty replies, at home and abroad. Its directness and simplicity of appeal to what passed for theistic common-sense were indeed fitted to give it the widest audience yet won by any deist, (p. 137) Robertson concludes that 'the argument of Tindal against revelationism was extremely telling, and it had more literary impressiveness than any writing on the orthodox side before Butler'. Robertson defends the deists against many of the criticisms levelled against them, particularly by Leslie Stephen who, he says, bent over backwards to be fair to the orthodox. Like a

Verdicts of Time

143

boxing promoter, Robertson sets the different parties off against one another, face to face: And if we pair off Hume against Berkeley, Hobbes against Locke, Middleton (as historical critic) against Bentley, Shaftesbury against Addison, Mandeville against Swift, Bolingbroke against Butler, Collins against Clarke, Herbert against Lyttelton, Tindal against Waterland, and Gibbon against - shall we say? - Warburton, it hardly appears that the overplus of merit goes so overwhelmingly as Sir Leslie Stephen alleges, even if we leave Newton, with brain unhinged, standing against Halley. (p. 50) Robertson also refers sympathetically to Tindal in his The Dynamics of Religion of 1897, reprinted in 1926.5 Other than Robertson, there has been a strong tendency in the twentieth century to see in deism, and Tindal, support for the Christian cause. Etienne Gilson, in God and Philosophy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), connected Tindal, through Voltaire, to Robespierre and the French Revolution but asserts that T know of no greater tribute ever paid to the God of Christianity than his survival in this idea, maintained against Christianity itself and on the strength of pure natural reason' (p. 106). In the earlier part of the twentieth century there were few enough references to Tindal. The only work to which any attention was paid was Christianity as old. Towards the end of the century more interest appeared and the seventeenth-century editions still in existence no longer met the demand. Four editions had appeared in Tindal's lifetime published, possibly, by T. Woodward, Jeremy Bentham's grand-uncle, according to Bentham's DNB entry. An edition was published in the USA in 1798. No edition appeared in the nineteenth century but the twentieth century has seen a number of facsimile editions of Christianity as old. The edition of 1967 edited by Gunter Gawlick, was probably the

144

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

first. Later editions include one by Garland of New York. The Thoemmes Press made a significant contribution, in 1995, by publishing a facsimile of the first octavo edition, Christianity as old as the Creation., with an introduction by John Valdimir Price, providing access to the changes Tindal made to the first, quarto, edition. Kellinger, which has published an edition of The Rights, is bringing out a facsimile of the 1731 edition of Christianity as old. (This edition appears to have been pirated, as the earlier 1730 octavo edition has additions which this later edition omits. The additions continued to appear in the later octavo editions of 1732 and 1733 which describe themselves as second and third editions in octavo, respectively. It seems unlikely that Tindal had any part in the 1731 edition.) Tindal also appears in Placher's 1988 Readings in the History of Christian Theology.6 There has also been an increasing amount of commentary. In 1976 John Redwood, in his Reason, Ridicule and Religion, based on the engagement between Waterland and Tindal, argued that both the deists and the anti-deists sought to establish the argument of belief that would lead most to, rather than from, the faith. This is an extraordinary twist to Tindal's position, which opposes faith in its entirety. Even in the quotation which Redwood uses to support his case (p. 146), Tindal is appealing to evidence rather than faith when he asks: What reason can the bulk of mankind have to prefer one religion before a number of others, on the account of such things, as, upon Priestly authority, are believed to belong to every one of them; such as Visions, Dreams, trances, extacies, Inspirations, conference with spirits, traditionary reports concerning miracles &c.? (Christianity as old, p. 236) Stephen Williams7 suggests that Tindal's difficulties with Christianity are presented as epistemological but are really moral, and that this may be a pattern among Enlightenment thinkers such as

Verdicts of Time

145

Kant and Fichte. He also contrasts Tindal with Pascal, whose sense of the demands of a personal God overwhelmed his sense of the obligations which are his as a reasonable being. Tindal is numbered among sincere believers who were reformers of Christianity, by Stephen Evans in his The Historical Christ (p. 35), but Charles Frankel8 recognizes that Christianity as old discarded divine revelation entirely and 'made the essence of religion lie in a moral attitude based on the recognition of the unerring rationality of nature'. More radically, in an important article 'Deism, Immortality, and the Art of Theological Lying',9 David Berman has argued that the deists, including Tindal, were 'theological liars'. One example he cites (p. 68) is Tindal's declaration that, although there is no evidence for the proposition in nature, only an infidel would refuse to believe in the immortality of the soul, a proposition that depends wholly on the promises of God. According to Berman, Tindal here appears to be supporting fideistic Christianity but is really undermining it by underlining the absence of evidence for the view. Berman proposes three possible interpretations for such a strategy. First, that Tindal is being straightforward, which seems unlikely; secondly, that Tindal is being ironic without trying to deceive anyone, which Berman also dismisses. Berman concludes that Tindal is deliberately lying, trying to deceive people into believing that he favours the orthodox view, all the while trying to undermine that view by insinuation. There are four purposes which might be served by this sort of deception. Tindal may be lying to defend himself against persecution; to defend the ignorant against being shocked; to communicate in a privileged way only to those 'in the know', fellow practitioners, although his real message may be understood also by 'knowing' opponents; and insinuation, that is to say 'gently and covertly suggesting the second component (the radical message) to some of those ignorant of it'. The strongest of these purposes must have been the first. Freethinking was a dangerous

146

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

business, part of an intellectual guerilla war against a well paid and organized institution. Theological lying causes the crucial problem for interpreting the deists: how far can we believe their more orthodox expressions? It is surely fair to say that the more heterodox the statement, the more it is likely to be true, for there would be no motive to put oneself in physical danger for a lie. Berman concludes: In short, when we find strong antireligious principles and arguments, and 'pious' proreligious affirmations joined with weak arguments, we must suspect that the Art [of theological lying] is being practised, (p. 65) If that is true, to what extent, then, was Tindal really a deist? If he was lying about one Christian or religious doctrine, could he not also have been arguing about other doctrines. Could he not have really been an atheist? That's certainly possible but we cannot be certain. Thus, the difficulty in assessing Tindal's thought is to judge how far he meant what he said. In Germany his pro-Christian expressions appear to have been taken fairly literally. In England he was understood to have concealed his full intentions. Although of the opinion that Tindal was a Christian deist, Leslie Stephen10 declared that 'There could be no doubt, however, that his aim was to show that any positive revelation was superfluous', and the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics rationalizes Tindal's repudiation of revelation, and his belief in the perfection of natural religion, on the slightly sinister grounds that '... a racial [sic] development of the faculty of conscience was an idea which was altogether beyond the reach of the eighteenth-century Deist'. The problem lies in Tindal's ambiguity. Sometimes, for instance, he writes as if natural religion and revealed religion are identical, implying approval of revelation. But at other places he uses 'revealed religion' to refer to the doctrines (and their clerical

Verdicts of Time

147

supporters) of which he disapproves. It is in the former sense that he can claim that Christianity can be as old as the creation. As Tindal wrote at a time when deists were persecuted, he wrote to avoid, as far as was consistent with his beliefs, any confrontation with the law of the land.

Notes 1.

Mark Pattison, 'Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688— 1750', inj. Parker (ed.), Essays and Reviews (1860), pp. 254-329. 2. Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, two Vols (London: Harbinger, 1876); third edn (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962). 3. Gerald R. Cragg, Reason and Authority in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: University Press, 1964), p. 69. 4. Stephen, op. cit., section 50, pp. 119—20. 5. John M. Robertson, A Short History ofFreethought: Ancient and Modern two Vols (London: Watts & Co, 1906); and The Dynamics of Religion: An Essay in English Culture History (London: Watts & Co., 1897), second edn (1926). 6. William C. Placher (ed.), Readings in the History of Christian Theology, two Vols (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), p. 89. 7. Stephen N. Williams, 'Matthew Tindal on Perfection, Positivity, and the Life Divine', Enlightenment and Dissent, 5, 1986, p. 51. 8. Charles Frankel, 'The Philosophy of the Enlightenment', in Vergilius Ferm (ed.), A History of Philosophical Systems (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1968), p. 276. 9. David Berman, 'Deisim, Immortality, and the Art of Theological Lying', in J.A. Leo Lemay (ed.), Deism, Masonry, and the Enlightenment: Essays Honoring Alfred Owen Aldridge (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1987), pp. 61-78. 10. Leslie Stephen, 'Matthew Tindal', Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. 19(1909). 11. 'Deism', Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 536.

Appendix I Note on Hermeneutics

Leslie Stephen confidently asserts that Tindal was a Christian deist. Jonathan Israel goes so far as to say that Tindal styled himself a Christian. But Tindal did not say that he is a Christian deist, nor did he frame any scheme of Christian deism. In fact, he does not directly call himself a deist at all, although he does call himself a freethinker (Christianity as old, p. 178). Samuel Clarke had spoken of 'True Deists' whose scheme of deism had ceased after the appearance of revelation. Tindal thought that Clarke ought to have called them 'True Christian Deists', in so far as both Christianity and deism consist 'in being govern'd by the original Obligation of the moral Fitness of Things, in Conformity to the Nature, and in Imitation of the perfect Will of God', but that, in so far as Christianity is governed by any other rule, the advantage lies with deism (Christianity as old,, p. 368). That is as far as Tindal went in calling himself a Christian. That Tindal wrote to undermine the authority of revelation and organized religion, should be clear to any reader of this monograph. His contemporaries were in no doubt. George Berkeley in 1733,2 referring to Tindal, says that: He who considers that the present avowed enemies of Christianity began their attacks against it under the specious pretext of defending the Christian church and its rights, when he observes the same men pleading for natural religion will be tempted to suspect their views and judge of their sincerity in one case from what they have shown in the other (para. 2).

Appendix I

149

James Foster, in his 1731 Usefulness, Truth, and Excellency of the Christian Revelation, Defended against the Objections contain'd in a late Book, intitled, Christianity as old as the Creation, argued that: For the title which our author, in particular, has given to his performance, since 'tis most evidently his intention to subvert the Christian religion, can't but be universally understood to mean this, and this only, Christianity as old as the creation, or good for nothing; or, which amounts to the same, Christianity, the moral doctrines of it excepted, superstition and enthusiasm, (pp. v—vi) John Conybeare in his A Defence of Reveal'd Religion, believed that Tindal directed his aim at the foundation of the whole of the Christian religion: His grand Design, is, To prove, that there neither hath been, nor possibly can be any Revelation at all And the main Principle on which he builds, is This; That the Light of common Reason is abundantly sufficient without it. (p. 3) Conybeare believed that Tindal was not straightforward about his purposes and that he held to the proposition, that revealed and natural religion were the same, only because he did not care to speak out at once, but rather endeavoured to draw unsuspecting readers on gradually (p. 139); which is also Berkeley's view of the freethinker in Alciphron, especially dialogue I. He certainly has a point that if Tindal were setting out to frame a scheme of natural religion, he does an inadequate job. We know from others that contemporaries thought Tindal to be opposed, not only to revealed religion, but even to deism; that he was in reality an atheist - although the evidence for that is uncertain. And from external evidence too, it would appear that Tindal did not believe Jesus to be the Son of God.

150

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Writing against religion in Tindal's time was a dangerous business. Prosecution by the legal authorities was a real threat. A freethinking pamphlet landed Peter Annet in prison, and Thomas Woolston died in prison, for contravening the Blasphemy Act of 1697. If, as is almost certain, Tindal engaged in 'theological lying', his use of saving phrases, such as praise for Scripture, could mean anything or nothing. Tindal did not care which. As he was arguing that the propositions of sacred Scripture are either false or redundant, it was a matter of indifference to him '... to admit all for divine Scripture, that tends to the honour of God and the Good of Man; and nothing which does not'. On being translated into German, however, the constructive appeal of Christianity as old to natural religion had immense resonance and appeared to rationalist readers to be a reasonable principle of Scriptural interpretation. The claim that English deism strongly influenced German criticism of the Bible, and through it the modern literary and historical criticism of the Scriptures, is not new but it is worth looking in particular at Tindal's contribution. According to Gunter Gawlick there was considerable opposition to Tindal's thought in Germany until 1741, when Johann Lorenz Schmidt published Beweis, dass das Christenthum so alt als die Weltsey, nebst Hern Jacob Fosters Widerlegung desselben (Frankfurt and Leipzig), a German translation of Christianity as Old as the Creation, in conjunction with Foster's reply, after which there was a greater acceptance of his views. Schmidt had already written works which argued that the Bible should be submitted to the examination of reason and he readily adopted Christianity as old. His translation created a favourable view of deism in Germany in certain quarters. Witnesses attest that virtually the whole officer corps of Frederick the Great was infected with deism, and that Collins and Tindal were favourite reading in the army. Lobstein, the Giessen professor of theology, sent Friedrich Christian Laukhard a copy of the translation about 1777 in order, extraordinarily, to 'secure him against the new scepticism'. Laukhard was very struck: 'God, o

Appendix I

151

with what pleasure and absorption did I read this remarkable book!' He went on to say: 'I was convinced at the same time that . . . Jesus and the Apostles did not teach such things [mysteries]; but rather natural religion . . . that was the result of my reading Tindal's writing.'6 Through Lessing's publication of Reimarus' 'Wolfebiitteler Fragments', 1774-8, Tindal had an indirect philosophical influence on Lessing and Kant. H. S. Reimarus, Defence of the Rational Adorers of God (posthumously published by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, 1774-8) held that the mind can reach perfect religion without revelation. Through Lessing, deism influenced Moses Mendelssohn and Kant. 7 Suddenly, Tindal's defensive turns of phrase become an integral part of theories of Scriptural interpretation for advanced thinkers in Germany. Thus, while Tindal's reputation, if not his influence, declined in the English speaking world, on the Continent, especially in Germany, his reputation flourished and his work continued to be studied. One can, for instance, hear a very strong echo of Tindal in Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (hereafter Essence] 1841). Tindal holds that human reason must be the means by which mankind can know the will of God (Christianity as old, p. 6). Feuerbach holds that God can reveal to man only what is commensurate to man (Essence, p. 207). Tindal also holds that there is a religion of nature and reason written in the hearts of mankind by which we must judge the truth of any revelation, which cannot vary from the former by the minutest circumstance (Christianity as old, p. 60). Feurbach holds that 'between divine revelation and the so-called human reason or nature, there is no other than an illusory distinction' (Essence, p. 207). To give a final example Tindal writes: And as there can be no Demonstration of the Revelation itself, so neither can there be any of its Conveyance to Posterity; much

152

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

less that this, or that, has been convey'd entire to distant Times and Places; especially if a Revelation be of any Bulk; and which may have gone thorow the Hands of Men, who not only in the dark Ages of the Church, but even in the Beginning, if we judge by the Number of corrupted Passages, and even forg'd Books, were capable of any pious Fraud. (Christianity as old, p. 185) Feuerbach writes: A revelation in a given time and place must be fixed in writing, that its blessings may be transmitted uninjured. Hence the belief in revelation is, at least for those of a subsequent age, belief in a written revelation; but the necessary consequence of a faith in which an historical book, necessarily subject to all the conditions of a temporal, finite production, is regarded as an eternal absolute, universally authoritative word, is — superstition and sophistry. (Essence, p. 209) Through Reimarus, Tindal's influence can also be seen in the theological work of David Friedrich Strauss and Albert Schweitzer. It is indicative of Tindal's importance in Germany that the first edition of Christianity as old to be published since the eighteenth century was the Stuttgart edition of 1967, edited by Gunter Gawlick. This facsimile edition was preceded by an important foreword by Gawlick that is the most comprehensive treatment of Tindal since Leslie Stephen. J.M. Robertson8 refers to G.V. Lechler for the '... epoch-making effect of the translation of Tindal's chief work into German in 1741'. Amand Saintes reports Laukhard as saying: I learned from Voltaire only how to scoff; for other works, particularly those of the English Tindal, had already brought me into a proper state of mind to form a just judgement of the doctrines of the church.

Appendix I

153

According to Gawlick Tindal's views were taken up by Reimarus, fragments of whose reflections were published by Lessing. Through those reflections Tindal had a great if indirect influence on Lessing and on Kant. Gawlick does more than introduce Tindal; he interprets him as writing in support of revelation, not to pull it down. According to Gawlick, Tindal set out to defend religion: Christianity as old as the Creation is usually understood to be an attack on revealed religion but in this author's view, the work is only an attempt to serve revealed religion. For is it not a service to revealed religion to reconcile the contradiction inherent in the way of thinking of even its most enlightened representatives? Tindal's solution may be bought at a price which to many Christians seems too high - that is another matter, (p. 13) Tindal, he says, argues that revelation can hurry up reason by pointing out things which have not yet been comprehended but which are comprehensible (an interpretation he attributes to Lessing ). On this basis Gawlick conceives Tindal as attempting merely to place revelation upon a rational footing. Surely, however, from Tindal's perspective, Occam's Razor hangs like the sword of Damocles over revelation. The source of Gawlick's interpretation lies, perhaps, in the use to which Tindal was put in Germany, where he appears to have been seen not as an enemy to be defeated but as a critic whose judgements are to be weighed and considered. Certainly Gawlick's two main criticisms place Tindal within the sphere of Christian theology. His first criticism is that Tindal does not regard Christianity as God's offer of Grace, but as a Law. This criticism he weakens, both by suggesting that these do not materially differ, and also by the suggestion that Tindal here is agreeing with Kant that an unlimited offer of Grace to a sinner is like offering unlimited credit to a spendthrift. 12

154

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Gawlick's stronger criticism is that Tindal's concept of the church is inadequate because he does not see, with Kant, the 1 *^ necessity of founding an 'ethically common being'. To the present writer it seems clear that Tindal was not attempting to develop an adequate concept of the church, but was attempting to undermine its authority. Tindal is also considered at length in Henning Graf Reventlow's The Authority of the Bible., which remarks on the great influence which Tindal, and English deism had on the German Enlightenment. Contrary to the view of the present writer, Reventlow shares the view of his German predecessors that Tindal's purpose was to defend revelation. ... to demonstrate in a large scale system the parallel in content between the religion of nature and the Christian revelation . . . his work has in fact demonstrated precisely the opposite. . . . So while we can concede that subjectively, Tindal's intention is to salvage revealed religion, in fact he has only demonstrated the difficulties of discovering its permanent content, (p. 383) Reventlow goes so far as to say of Tindal's rule of interpretation, 'to admit all for divine Scripture, that tends to the honour of God and the Good of Man; and nothing which does not', that: The formulation of this hermeneutical key is an important landmark in the history of biblical exegesis, in that here the development which led to an increasing ethicization of Christianity came to a provisional conclusion, (p. 381) Probably the most common purpose of hermeneutics, the 'science of interpretative principles', has been that of discovering the truths and values of the Old and New Testaments by means of various techniques and principles. Very often, due to the exigencies of certain historical conditions, polemical or apologetical

Appendix I

155

situations anticipate the value to be discovered and thus dictate the type of exegesis or hermeneutic to be used. It would seem that the polemical or apologetical situation which hermeneutics faced in its infancy, and which dictated the type of exegesis to be used, was Tindal's desire to avoid being sent to jail. The irony of this situation appears to have been lost on the serious scholars of the German Enlightenment.

Notes 1.

Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Moder-

nity, 1650-1750 (Oxford: University Press, 2002), p. 472. 2.

George Berkeley, The Theory of Vision or Visual Language shewing the immedi-

ate Presence and Providence of a Deity Vindicated and Explained (London: Dent, (1733) 1975). 3. John M. Robertson, The Dynamics of Religion: An Essay in English Culture History, second edn (London: Watts & Co., (1897) 1926), p. 168; and James A. Herrick, The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 1680—1750 (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997). 4. Gunter Gawlick, 'Introduction', in Matthew Tindal, Christianity as old, facsimile edn (Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1967), pp. 5-49. 5. EncyclopaediaBritannica, Vol. 26, entry by Frank Edward Manuel (1911), p. 608a. 6. Friedrich Christian Laukhard, Life and Fortunes, written by himself, Part 1 (Halle 1792), p. 203 f. 7. Encyclopaedia Britannica, op. cit. 8. Robertson, Dynamics, p. 168, referring to Gotthard Victor Lechler, Geschichte des englishen Deismus (Stuttgart, 1841), p. 448. 9. Amand Saintes, A Critical History of Rationalism in Germany from its origin to the present time (London, 1849), p. 75; referring to Laukhard, Lifeandfortunes, Part I, pp. 203, 268. 10. Gawlick, op. at., p. 30. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid.

Appendix II The Lost Works

Tindal's personal papers, and two of his known unpublished works, have never come to light; the second volume of Christianity as old and a treatise '... in opposition to the Eternity of Hell Torments'.1 We do, however, have some indication of their contents. In Christianity as old (p. 42), Tindal had promised that 'at a proper Time' he would consider '... what may be said from Scripture as well as Reason, for the Doctrine of the absolute Eternity of Torments'. This is probably Tindal's unpublished treatise '... in opposition to the Eternity of Hell Torments', which Pierce Dodd believed fell into the hands of Eustace Budgell. There is another possibility. In his Memoirs of Tindal, Curll mentions that he had written a 'Discourse concerning Hell Torments', '... said to be in the possession of Robert Wilson'. This is borne out by two advertisements which appeared in Fogs Weekly Journal for meetings to be held in Mr Henley's Oratory. The first appeared on the 1 September 1733, and offered:3 At six in the evening ... A farther impartial Enquiry, into the Religious Principles of Dr Tindal, both in his printed and posthumous Works, his Discourse of Hell-torments ... 4 The second appeared a week later: The Lecture will be occasioned by an Epistolary Correspondence between Mr. Wilson, late of Peckham of Surrey and Mr. William Whiston, whose original Letters are left in my Custody, on the Topic of Eternity, or Non-Eternity of Hell Torments ...

Appendix I I

157

It seems probable, therefore, that Tindal's Discourse survived, at least for some time, and that the contents of it were fairly widely known. We do know a little about Tindal's views in the matter of punishment, which he treats of in Christianity as old Vol. I, Chapter 4, and this becomes important in the light of a pamphlet entitled God's Universal Goodness displayed; in a discourse delivered to a Society of Free Enquirers, by a Member of that Church which is as old as the Creation, which was published in 1751 (attributed to Tindal by Dr Williams's Library, London). It was certainly written by someone strongly influenced by Tindal, not only because of the title but because the opinions expressed are both consistent with his expressed opinions, and are treated much as Tindal might have treated them. The writer asserts that God's only purpose in creating mankind was its happiness (p. 30) and that whatever God does, or permits to be done, must promote that end. It follows from this, that punishment exists only for our good and the reclamation of souls, . . . so that we have not only pleasure on the side of virtue to allure us; but pain and disappointment lie in the road of vice to affright us back . . . (p. 31) From this the writer goes on to argue that as the intention of punishment is to reclaim sinners, it is '... absolutely incongruous to, and inconsistent with eternal punishment'; that eternal punishment is inconsistent with the goodness of God, who foreknows our end and who would not bring us into being for eternal punishment; and that it must be a greater source of evil than of good. If we consider farther, we shall find that there would be more evil, in punishing one single being to eternity, than could possibly be introduced by any number of evil agents, in a state of limited duration, (p. 37)

158

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Having argued quite clearly against the eternity of punishments, the writer exposes a rather Tindal-like vagueness about the nature of an afterlife (see above, Chapter V, p. 113), and attempts to avoid the question by denouncing sin. Let the sinner know this and tremble; that it is as impossible for God to make a being happy who continues in sin, as it is for him to lye, or act contrary to the rectitude of his nature, (p. 39) In the case of the second volume of Christianity as old., there exist the first 32 pages of the introduction, which mostly deal with criticisms of Vol. I, but there is more. It has been asked how four copies of the first edition of Christianity as old, Vol. I, came to be included in the sale catalogue of the library of Anthony Collins, who died the year before it was published. A plausible answer can possibly be inferred from two further pieces of information. Firstly, the work was not entered in Collins's manuscript catalogue either under the heading 'Tindal' or among the chronological entries at the rear of the catalogue, which Collins used towards the end of his life. That strongly suggests that it did not enter the library while Collins lived. Secondly, in the library of Lambeth Palace, there is an undated eight-page pamphlet entitled Proposals For Printing Two Volumes in Quarto, intitl'd Christianity as old as the Creation: or, the Gospel A Republication of the Religion of Nature, with the following entry on page viii: They who are willing that this Consistent System of Religion (the only One of this Nature yet extant) should at this Juncture see the Light, as otherwise it never may, are desir'd to pay Haifa Guinea upon the Receipt of two seal'd Tickets, and Half a Guinea more at the Delivery of each Volume.

Appendix II

159

The entries of'Christianity as old in the Collins' sale catalogue carry the following note: N.B. The Person that buys this, is to have a Receipt which entitles him to the second Part, upon paying only half a Guinea to the Author. While there is no direct evidence, it must be very probable that Collins paid for four subscriptions to encourage the publication of the book, which, when published, were handed over to his estate. There is no evidence for Leslie Stephen's claim that the Bishop of London, Edmond Gibson, acquired all Tindal's papers and destroyed them, but we do not have the works and must rely upon the Proposals to throw light upon Tindal's plans for Christianity as old Vol. II.

According to the Proposals, the main body of the text of Christianity as old Vol. II was to be mostly about particular religions. The chapter headings for both volumes listed in the Proposal, reprinted at the end of this appendix, differ from those actually published in Vol. I. but not so much as to imply that any fundamental change was planned for either volume. There were 15 chapters proposed for Vol. I, of which 13 were actually printed, though in a slightly different order, with a fourteenth chapter made from the proposed first chapter of Vol. II. The chapters not included in Vol. I concerned: a) a conference between Chinese mandarins and Christian missionaries; and b) the confession by Gentiles, Jews, Christians, Mohammedans, and the early fathers that natural religion is sufficient, and that revelation is merely its republication. Volume II was to deal with three main topics: that revelation confers no civil authority; that miracles are no guarantee of authority or truth; and that the Gospels are essentially moral documents republishing the religion of Nature. The final chapter harks back to Tindal's

160

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

earliest works, arguing that any claim to any divine right, by anyone other than God, is usurpation. It is indeed a pity that some of Tindal's works have not come down to us, and while it is probably true that Tindal's main blow had been struck with the publication of the first volume of Christianity as old, its full force would probably have been felt much more heavily had his follow-through been

Notes 1. 2.

British Library, London, MSS Eg. 2618. Edmund Curll, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Matthew Tindall, LLD., with a History of the Controversies wherein he was engaged (London, 1733). 3. Advertisement, Fogs Weekly Journal, 1 September 1733. 4. Advertisement, Fogs Weekly Journal, 8 September 1733. 5. The Bodleian Library, Oxford, and the British Library, London, have a copy each. 6. David Berman, 'Anthony Collins: Aspects of his thought and writings', Hermathena,CXIX(\975}. 7. King's College, Cambridge, Keynes MS 217. Collins entered books into his catalogue in 1729, the year he died. See also A complete Catalogue of the Library of Anthony Collins, Vol. II (London, 1731), f. 372. 8. Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought, Vol. I, Chapter 3, section 43, p. 114. See also David Berman and Stephen Lalor, 'The Suppression of Christianity as old as the Creation Vol. IF, Notes and Queries, March 1984, New Series, 31, No. 1, 3-6.

Appendix III Proposals for Printing Two Volumes in Quarto, Intitl'd Christianity as Old as the Creation: Or, the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature

The CONTENTS of the First Volume. Chap. 1. That there's but one True Religion, which has existed from the Beginning; and that God at all Times has given Mankind sufficient Means of knowing whatever he requires of them; and what those Means are. Chap. 2. The Religion of all rational Beings consists in observing those Things, which their Reason, by considering the Nature of God and Man, and the Relation they stand in to him and one another, demonstrates to be their Duty; and that those Things are plain; and likewise what they are. Chap. 3. That the Perfection and Happiness of all rational Beings, Supreme as well as Subordinate, consists in living up to the Rules of Reason, and the dictates of their Nature. Chap. 4. That not only the Matter of God's Laws, but the Sanctions annex'd to them, are for the Good of Mankind; even of those who suffer for the Breach of them. Chap. 5. That God requires nothing for his own sake; no,notthe Worship we are to render him, nor the Faith we are to have in him. Chap. 6. That the Religion of Nature is a Religion absolutely perfect; and that External Revelation can neither add to, nor takefrom its Perfection; And that Religion, whether internally or externally reveal'd, must be the same. Chap. 7. That Natural and Reveal'd Religion having the same Ends, their Precepts must be the Same. Chap. 8. That Original and Traditional Religion can no more differ as to Means than Ends. Chap. 9. That Things which are not in their own Nature obligatory, can't be required by an infinitely good and wise Being.

162

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

Chap. 10. The supposing Things merely positive to be the Ingredients of Religion, is inconsistent with the Good of Mankind as well as the Honour of God. Chap. 11. That They, who, to magnify Revelation, weaken the Force of the Religion of Reason, strike at all Religion; And that there can't be two Religions, or two independent Rulesfor the Government of human Actions. Chap. 12. That the Bulk of Mankind, by their natural Faculties, must be able to distinguish between Religion and Superstition; otherwise they can never extricate themselves from That Superstition they chance to be educated in. Chap. 13. Containing a Conference between certain Missionaries, and some of the Chinese Mandarins. Chap. 14. That the not adhering to the Motions Reason dictates concerning the Nature and Attributes of God, has been the Occasion of all Superstition; and of those innumerable Mischiefs that Mankind have done, either to themselves, or one another. Chap. 15. The Universality of the Religion of Nature, and its Sufficiency to make Men acceptable to God, own'd by Gentiles, Jews, Christians and Mahometans; And that the Primitive Fathers believ'd there was an exact Agreement between Natural and Reveal'd Religion; and the latter a Republication of the former.

The CONTENTS of the Second Volume. Chap. 1. Objections against the Perfection of the Law of Nature answer''d; with some Observations in Favour of that Law, drawn from Dr. S. Clarke's excellent Discourse of The Unchangeable Obligation of Natural Religion, &c. Chap. 2. More objections against the Plainness, Simplicity and Sufficiency of Natural Religion, answer'd. Chap. 3. The Jewish Constitution no Proof that Natural and Reveal'd Religion differ; The Theocracy not being a religious, but political Institution. Chap. 4. That there is no Difference between Natural and Reveal'd Religion, as to any rights, Powers, or Privileges any Set of Men can justly claim;

Appendix III

163

And that most of those Things claim'd by divine Right are absurd, impious and pernicious. Chap. 5. That the Scripture, even in Things of the greatest Moment, is written after such a Manner, as tho' its chief Design was not to have Men govern'd by the Letter, which killeth; but by their Spiritually discerning its Doctrines from their Nature and Tendency; And that there are some things seemingly commanded or approved, which seem inconsistent with the immutable Law of Nature, and have at all Times afforded a Pretencefor committing the most immoral Actions; and therefore the Difficulties that attend them are mentioned, in Order to a clear Solution, Chap. 6. The Uncertainty of Traditionprov'dfrom the Scripture Account of Things; and that there's an inexhaustible Fund of Credulity in Mankind, especially in Relation to miraculous stories. Chap. 7. That the Power of doing Miracles, does not make the Workers of Miracles infallible and impeccable, but like other Mortals, they are Subject to be deceiv'd, and to deceive; as appears by Several Scripture Instances. Chap. 8. Miracles prov'd from Scripture not to be designed to make Men give up to Authority, that Reason God has endow'd them with, to distinguish between Religion and Superstition, but to cause them to consider the Reasonableness of the Doctrine propos'd, That being the only Way to discover whether Miracles are done by good or evil Beings. Chap. 9. That the Primitive Christians could make no other Use of Miracles, since they unanimously own'd that both the Heathens and Hereticks did Miracles; And that it does not appear, the Pagans own'd any Christian Miracles. Chap. 10. That there's no Ground to believe the Primitive Christians cast out Devils; and what gave a Handle to that Pretence; as well as That of knowing Who begot, and of Whom evil Demons were begotten; What their Food; and How they perform'd their Miracles, and stole the Secrets of Heaven to foretell Events. Chap. 11. What Stress soever may be laid on Miracles by those Who saw them,yet the same Stress can't be laid on the Report of Miracles said to be done infar distant Ages and Countries, especially if the Report was handed down to us by Men, whose Principles oblig'd them to destroy every Thing which might

164

Matthew Tindal, Freethinker

invalidate their Testimony; and whose Writings, generally speaking, abound with Legendary Tales. Chap. 12. That the Gospel (wanting no such Assistance) deals with Men as with moral Agents, under an indispensable Obligation of being govern'd by the Reason of Things; and, as such, it requires of them a reasonable Service, and to admit nothing but upon Trial; And that the Reasonableness of a Doctrine is the only Test of its being the Will of God. Chap. 13. That the Gospel is the Republication of the Religion of Nature, prov'd by a Number of Texts, especially, from the Description of the GospelCovenant, given in the Old Testament, and confirm'd in the New; and from the Apostles, agreeable to this Description, placing the whole of Religion in things of a moral Nature, and every where recommending the Gospel as a Law of Liberty, freeing usfrom all arbitrary Impositions. Chap. 14. That tho' several Things were requir'd of the first Converts, who were all Jews, in Compliance with their National Customs, or otherwise adapted to their Circumstances,yet to suppose these binding to Christians in After-times, when neither the Words of Scripture, nor the Reason of Things extend it so far, is wholly inconsistent with the Nature of the Gospel, and the Sentiments of all Christians, except in an Instance or two favouring the Interest of the Ecclesiasticks. Chap. 15. That the Gospel does not deprive People of any of their Rights; and that all Power of what Nature soever, affirmed on Pretence of a divine Right, is an Usurpation on the Unalienable Rights of the People.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscripts Cambridge University: Cambridge University Library, MSS Cholmondeley Haughton Correspondence 2046 (Churll to Walpole, 22 September 1733). Dublin University: Trinity College, TCD MS 7085 (refutation of Tindal's Christianity as old].

Exeter: Principal Registry, 7208/7209/7210/7211 (The Will of John Tindal, Priest, 19 May 1673). London: British Library, MSS Add. 22083 (Oath by John Silke concerning The Rights, 28 October 1710); MSS Eg. 2618 (Pierce Dodd Letter, 8 September 1733); MSS Add. 47119 (Egmont biography of Tindal); Political Satire No. 1508, 'Faction Display'd'. London: Lambeth Palace Library, MS 688, item 50 (Leopold Finch to Archbishop Tenison); MS 930, item 12 (Bishop of Sarum to Archbishop of Canterbury, 15 June 1706). London: Public Record Office, Orders and Instructions, PRO Adm. 2/3, p. 238 (Warrant appointing D1 Matthew Tindall to be Deputy Judge Advocate of their Mtys Fleet, 30 May 1689); PRO State Papers, Domestic, William & Mary 6, No. 12 p. 369; Orders and Instructions, PRO Adm., MSS 29547, f33 (Concerning the English that acted under King James's Commission 1693).

166

Bibliography

Oxford University: Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 31 (Tindal certified fit to be an advocate at the Court of Arches); MS Rawl A 479; MS Rawl C 767 (MSS of The Rights}; MS Rawl D 373 (62) (Concerning the English that acted under King James's Commission 1693); MS Locke C 20, 21 O r (Tindal to Locke, 1701); MS Locke C 20, 207r (Tindal to Locke, 10 January 1696); MS Locke C 17, f23; Locke, Corr. V 41 (Robert Pawling to Locke at Dates, 31 March 1694). Oxford University: St. Edmund Hall, MS 12 (Anthony Collins to Henry Dodwell, 17 October 1706). Oxford University: All Souls College Library, MSS C. T. Martin, p. 336, No. 134, Appeals and Visitors Injunctions (Gardiner to Dean of Arches, 9 May 1 711).

Printed works by Matthew Tindal An Essay concerning Obedience to the Supreme Powers, and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions, With some Considerations touching the Present Juncture of Affairs (London, 1694). An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations, and the Rights of Sovereigns. With an Account of what was said at the Council-Board by the Civilians upon the Question, Whether their Majesties Subjects taken at Sea acting by the late King's Commission, might not be looked on as Pirates? With Reflections upon the Arguments of Sir T.P. and Dr. 01. (London, 1694). A Letter to the Reverend the Clergy of both Universities, Concerning the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed. With Reflections on all that late Hypotheses, particularly Dr. W's, Dr.S—th's; The Trinity placedin its due Light; The 28 Propositions; ThecalmDiscourse of a Trinity in the Godhead, and the Defence of Dr. Sherlock's Notions. With a short Discourse concerning MYSTERIES (London, 1694). The Reflections on the XXVIII Propositions touching the Doctrine of the Trinity, In a Letter to the Clergy, &c. maintain'd against the Third Defence of the said Propositions. By the same Hand (London, 1695). An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind, in Matters of Religion. With some Reasons in particular for the Dissenters not being

Bibliography

167

obliged to lake the Sacramental Test but in their own Churches; and for a general Naturalization. Together with a Postscript in answer to the Letter to a Convocationman (London, 1697). A Letter to a Member of Parliament, shewing that a Restraint on the Press is inconsistent with the Protestant Religion, and dangerous to the Liberties of the Nation (London, 1698). Reasons against restraining the Press (London, 1704). The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the Romish and all other Priests who claim an independent Power over it, with a Preface concerning the Government of the Church of England, as by Law Established: Part I (London, 1706). A Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, against A Late Visitation Sermon, Intilled, The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted; Preach'd at Newport Pagnel in the County of Bucks, by W. Wotton. R.D. and made Publick at the Command and Desire of the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Clergy of the Deanery s of Buckingham and Newport (London, 1707). A Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church, Occasion'dbytwo late Indictments against a Bookseller and his Servant, for selling one of the said Books. In a Letter from which are added. Two Tracts of Hugo Grotius ... As Also Some Tracts of Mr. John Hales of Eaton ... (London, 1 708). A Letter to afriend occasion 'd by the Presentment of the Grand Jury for the County of Middlesex, of the Author, Printer & Publisher, of a book entituled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted (London, 1708). Four Discourses on the following Subjects, viz.: I. Of Obedience to the Supreme Powers, and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions; II. Of the Laws of Nations, and the Rights of Sovereigns; III. Of the Powers of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind, in the Matter of Religion; IV. Of the Liberty of the Press (London, 1709). A Letter from a Country Attorny to a Country Parson, concerning The Rights of the Christian Church (London. 1709). A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Moss, in Behalf of The. Rights of the Christian Church, Together with A Poetick Rhapsody (London, 1 709). New High-Church turn'd old Presbyterian. Utrum Horum Never a Barrel the better Herring (London, 1709). Thejacobitism, Perjury, and Popery of High-Church Priests (London, 1710). The Merciful Judgments of High-Church Triumphant on Offending Clergymen, And Others, In the Reign of Charles I. Together with the Lord Falkland's Speech in Parliament 1640, relating to that subject (London, 1710). A New Catechism, with Dr. Hickes's Thirty Nine Articles. With a Preface relating to the true Interest of Great Britain, both in Church and State (London, 1710).

168

Bibliography

The Nation Vindicated, from the Aspersions Cast on it in a Late Pamphlet, intitled, A Representation of the Present State of Religion, with regard to the late excessive growth of Infidelity, Heresy and Profaneness, Part 1 (London, 1711). Part 11. With some Remarks on the Representation of the Irish Convocation (1712). An Address to the Good People of Great-Britain, occasioned by the Report from the Committee of Secresy (London, 1715). Justice done to the late Ministry: or, the charge of their Designing to make the Pretender King of Great Britain., prov'd by their Conduct to be Groundless; and the Reasonsfor a Parliamentary Inquiry consider'd. With some Thoughts about A ttainders (London, 1715). Remarks on the Pretender's Declaration Dated at Plombieres, August 29l 1714 (London, 1715). Reasons for the Repeal of that part of the Statutes of Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge which require the taking of Orders under a Penalty (London, c. 1716). A Letter to a Country Gentleman, shewing the Inconveniences which attend the last Part of the Actfor Triennial Parliaments (London, 1716). A Letter to a friend upon the occasion of the House of Commons passing a Bill intituled An Act for enlarging the time of continuence of Parliaments, appointed by an Act of the 6th of King William and Queen Mary, Intituled An Act for the frequent meeting and calling of Parliaments (London, 1716). The Defection Consider'd, and The Designs of those, who divided the Friends of the Government, set in a True Light (London, 1717). An Epistle to R— W—, Esq.: Occasion'd by a Pamphlet enlitul'd The Defection Gonsider'd (London, 1718). The Defection Farther Consider'd, wherein the Resigners, as some would have them stil'd, Are really Deserters (London, 1718). An Account of a Manuscript, entitul'd Destruction the Certain Consequence of Division: Or, The Necessity of a Strict Union between all, who love the Present Government and Protestant Religion. Written at the Desire ofR—W— [Robert Walpole], Esq.; and left with him at his Request, but since expos'd, contrary to his Promise, with Aspersions on the Author of the Defection, &c (London, Printed and Sold by J. Roberts in Warwick Lane, 1718). The Constitution Explain'd, In Relation to the Independency of the House of Lords. With Reasons for Strengthening that Branch of the Legislature most liable to Abuse. And an Answer to all the Objections made to the now reviv'd Peerage Bill. Humbly Inscrib'd to the Honourable House of Commons (London, 1719). The Judgment of Dr. Prideaux in condemning the Murder of Julius Caesar, by the conspirators, as a most villainous Act, maintained, and the Sophistry of the London Journal

Bibliography

169

of December Td and 9th exposed, with some Political Remarks on the Roman Government (London, 1721). A Defence Of our present Happy Establishment; and the Administration vindicated; From the Falsehood and Malice of the several late Treasonable libels, viz. Cato's Letters in the London Journal, and The Historical Account of the Advantages of the Hanover Succession, &c (London, 1722). An Enquiry into the Causes of the Present Disaffection: As also into The Necessity of some Standing Forces; the Power of Judges and Juries, in relation to Libels; and the Justice of the Additional Tax of One Hundred Thousand Pounds on the Papists and Popish Recusants. With Remarks on the Discourse of Standing Armies, and other Papers of Cato the Journalist (London, 1723). An Address to the Inhabitants of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster; in Relation to a Pastoral Letter said to be written by the Bishop of London to the People of

his Diocese, occasion'd by some late writings in favour of Infidelity (London, 1729). Proposals For Printing Two Volumes in Quarto, intitl'd Christianity as old as the Creation: or, the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature, n.p.; n.d. Christianity as old as the Creation; or, the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature (London, 1730). A Second Address to the Inhabitants of the Two Great Cities of London and Westminster; Occasioned by a second Pastoral Letter. With remarks on Scripture Vindicated and some

other Late Writings (London, 1730). 'Introduction to the second part of Christianity as old as the Creation', from Sig. B to pp. XXXII Imperfect, unpublished (London (?), 1732 (?)).

Works by other authors Atkey, Anthony, The Main Argument of a late Book, Intitled, Christianity as old as the Creation, Fairly Stated and Examined or, a Short View of that whole Controversy (London, 1733). Atterbury, Francis, A Letter to a Convocation-Man concerning the Rights, Powers, and Privileges of that Body (London, 1697). Atterbury, Francis, A Representation of the present State of Religion, With regard to the late excessive Growth of Infidelity, Heresy and Profaneness: As it passed the Lower House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. Corrected from the Errors of a former Edition. To which is added, The Representation, as drawn up by the UpperHouse (London, 1711). Atkinson, Benj amin, Christianity not older than the First Gospel-Promise. In Answer to a Book, entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation (London, 1730).

170

Bibliography

Berkeley, George, The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop ofClqyne, ed. by A. A. Luce and T.E. Jessop, six Vols (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1948-53). Berkeley, George, The Theory of Vision or Visual Language shewing the immediate Presence and Providence of a Deity Vindicated and Explained (London: Dent (1733), 1975). Berman, David, 'Anthony Collins: Aspects of his thought and writings' Hermathena, GXIX, Dublin 1975, 49-70. Berman, David and Lalor, Stephen, 'The Suppression of Christianity as old as the Creation Vol. II', Notes and Queries, March 1984, New Series, 31, No. 1, 3-6. Berman, David, 'Deism, Immortality, and the Art of Theological Lying', in J. A. Leo Lemay (ed.), Deism, Masonry, and the Enlightenment: Essays Honoring Alfred Owen Aldridge (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1987), 61-78. Blasphemy as old as the Creation; or the Newgate Divine. A Satire. Addressed to the modern Advocates of Irreligion, Profaneness, and Infidelity, 'By a Gentleman and a Christian' (London, 1730). Broughton, Thomas, A. M., Christianity Distinct from the Religion of Nature, In Answer to a late Book, Entitled, Christianity as Old as the Creation, &c (London, 1732). Biographia Britannica: or, the Lives of the Most eminent Persons Who haveflourished in Great Britain and Ire land,from the earliest Ages, down to the present Times; Collected And digested in the Manner of Mr. Boyle's Historical and Critical Dictionary (London, 1763). Birch, Thomas (trans.), A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical: in which, A New and Accurate Translation of that of the Celebrated Mr. Boyle, with Corrections and Observations printed in the late Edition at Paris, is included; and interspersed with several thousand Lives never before published (London, 1739). Browne, Simon, A Defence of the Religion of Nature, and the Christian Revelation; against the Defective Account of the one, and the Exceptions against the other, in a Book, entitled Christianity as old as the Creation (London, 1732). Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France and on the proceedings in certain societies in London relative to that event (London, 1790). Burnet, Gilbert, An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (London, 1699). Burnet, Thomas, DD, The Argument Setforth in a late Book, Entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation, Reviewed and Confuted. In several Conferences (London, 1730-32). Burrows, Montague, Worthies of All Souls: Four Centuries of English History: Illustrated from the College Archives (London: Macmillan & Co., 1874).

Bibliography

171

Butler, Joseph, The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature (London: G. Routledge & Sons, 1900). Cairns, John, Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century as contrasted with its earlier and later history. Being the Cunningham Lecturefor 1880 (Edinburgh, 1881). Calendar of State Papers Campbell, Archibald, A Discourse Proving that the Apostles were no Enthusiasts. Wherein The Nature and Influence of Religious Enthusiasm are impartially Explained. With a Preface Containing some Reflections on a late Book, entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation; and on what Mr. Woolston alleges with respect to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (London, 1730). Carroll, William, Spinoza Reviv'd: or, A Treatise, Proving the Book, entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church, &c. (in the most Notorious Parts of it) To be the same with Spinoza's Rights of the Christian Clergy &c. And that both of them are grounded upon downright Atheism (London, 1709). Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, Division I, Vol. 2 (London, 1873). Clagett, Nicholas, A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion (London 1685). Clarke, Samuel, A Discourse concerning the Unchangeable Obligation of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelation (1707). Cockburn, Catharine, The Works of Mrs. Catharine Cockburn, Theological, Moral, Dramatic, and Poetical, two Vols (London, 1751). Collins, Anthony, The Scheme of Literal Prophecy considered; in a View of the Controversy, occasioned by a late Book, Intitled. A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London, 1726). A complete Catalogue of the Library of Anthony Collins (London, 1731). Conybeare, John, A Defence of Reveal'd Religion Against The Exceptions of a late Writer, in his Book, Intituled, Christianity as Old as the Creation (London and Dublin, 1732). Coote, Charles, Sketches of the lives and character of Eminent English civilians, with an historical Introduction Relative to the College of Advocates (London, 1804). Cragg, Gerald R., Reason and Authority in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: University Press, 1964). Craig, John, Principia Mathematica Theologiae Christianae (London, 1699). Crawfurd, William, A Short Manual Against the Infidelity of this Age. in a Discourse, which, by establishing a few Principles, saps the foundation of Mr. Tindal's Book, entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation; and also of the letter in his Defence. Together with a preface containing a Chronological narrative of the Apostles Grounds of the Christian Religion in Opposition to Mr. Colin's Grounds (Edinburgh, 1734).

172

Bibliography

Crimmins, James E., Secular Utilitarianism: Social Science and the Critique of Religion in the Thought of Jeremy Bentham (Oxford: University Press, 1990). Curll, Edmund, Memoirs of the life and writings of Matthew Tindall, LLD, with a History of the Controversies wherein he was engaged (London, 1733). Defoe, Daniel, The Defection Detected; or, Faults laid on the right Side. In Answer to a certain anonymous pamphlet calledThe Defection Consider'd (London, 1718). Enciclopedia UniversalIlustrada (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe S.A., 1908-30). Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911 edition). Evans, Abel, The Apparition, a poem - or, A Dialogue betwixt the Devil and a Doctor concerning the Rights of the Christian Church (London and Westminster, 1710). Evans, C. Stephen, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incrar national Narrative as History (Oxford: University Press, 1996). Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Christianity, first published 1841 (New York: Harper and Row, 1957). Fielding, Henry, The Covent-Garden Journal; and a Plan for the Universal Register Office, Bertrand A. Goldgar (ed.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). Ferguson, J. P., Dr. Samuel Clarke: An Eighteenth Century Heretic (Kineton: the Roundwood Press, 1976). Fogs Weekly Journal (London, 1733). Forbes, Duncan, Some Thoughts concerning Religion, Natural and Revealed, and The Manner of Understanding Revelation: Tending to shew that Christianity is, Indeed very near, As Old as the Creation (London, 1735). Foster, James, The Usefulness, Truth and Excellency of the Christian Revelation, Defended against the Objections, contained in a late Book, intitled, Christianity as old as the Creation (London, 1731). Fowler, Edward, A Second Defence of the Propositions by which the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so Explained, according to the Ancient Fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to Natural Reason. In Answer to A Socinian Manuscript, in a Letter to a Friend. Together with a Third Defence of those Propositions in answer to the newly published Reflexions contained in a Pamphlet, Entituled, A Letter to the Reverend Clergy of both Universities. Both by the Author of those Propositions (London, 1695). Frankel, Charles, 'The Philosophy of the Enlightenment', in Vergilius Ferm (ed.), A History of Philosophical Systems (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1968). Franks, Agustus and Grueber, Herbert (eds), Medallic Illustrations of the History of Great Britain and Ireland (London: British Museum, 1885). Gawlick, Gunter, 'Introduction', in Christianity as old as the Creation, facsimile edition (Stuttgart: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, 1967).

Bibliography

173

Gibson, Edmond, The Bishop of London's Pastoral Letter to the People of his Diocese; Particularly, to those two great Cities of London and Westminster. Occasioned by some late Writings in favour of Infidelity (Dublin 1728). Gibson, Edmond, The Bishop of London's Second Pastoral Letter. To the People of his Diocese, Particularly to those of the two great Cities of London and Westminster. Occasion'd by some late Writings, in which it is asserted,' That Reason is a sufficient Guide in Matters of Religion, without the Help of Revelation' (London and Dublin, 1730). Gilson, Etienne, God and Philosophy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941). God's Universal Goodness displayed; in a discourse delivered to a Society of Free Enquirers, by a Member of that Church which is as old as the Creation, Anon. (London, 1751). Harrison, John and Laslett, Peter, The Library of John Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). Hasting, James (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911). Hawkins, Edward (compiler), Medallic Illustrations of the History of Great Britain and Ireland, to the death of George II, edited by [Sir] Augustus W[ollaston] Franks and Herbert Afppold] Grueber (London: British Museum, 1885). Hearne, Thomas, Remarks and Collections, C. E. Doble (ed.), 11 Vols (Oxford: University Press for the Oxford Historical Society, 1885-1921). Herrick, James, A., The, Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 1680—1750 (Communication. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997). Hickes, Dr George, Two Treatises, one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, formerly written, and now published, to obviate the erroneous Opinions, fallacious Reasonings, and bold and false Assertions, in a late Book, inlitled, The Rights of the Christian Church, with a large Prefatory Discourse wherein is contained an Answer to the Said Book (London 1 707). Hill, Samuel, A Thorough Examination ofthe false Principles andfallacious Arguments advanced against the Christian Church, Priesthood, and Religion in a late pernicious Book, ironically mtilled, The Rights of the Christian Church asserted &c. In a Dialogue between Demas and Hierarcha. Humbly offered to the Consideration of the Nobility and Gentry of England (London, 1 707). Hilliard, Samuel, A Narrative of the Prosecution of Mr. Sare and his Servant, for sellmg The Rights of the Christian Church. In Answer to what relates to that Prosecution. In the second part of the defence of the said book (London, 1 709). Historical Manuscripts Commission, Reports on Various Collections (London, 1913). Holdsworth, William, A History of English Law, Vol. 4 (London, 1924).

174

Bibliography

Hore, Alexander Hugh, The Church in England from William HI to Victoria (London, 1886). Israel, Jonathan, I., Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750 (Oxford: University Press, 2002). Jackson, John, Remarks on a Book intitled Christianity as Old as the Creation. Wherein the Principle Objections of that Book against Reveal'd Religion are considered (London, 1731). Johnston, George, Christianity older than the Creation: or the Gospel the Same with Natural Religion (London, 1731). Journals of the House of Commons. Joyce, Gilbert Cunningham, 'Deism', in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 55. (ed.) James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911). Kortholt, Christian, De Matthaeo Tindalio dissent, et Urbano Godofredo Sibero summus in theologia honores recens collatos gratulatur Christianus Kortholtus (Leipzig, 1734). Laski, Harold J., Political thought in England: from Locke to Bentham (London: Williams and Norgate, 1920). Laukhard, Friedrich Christian, Life and Fortunes, written by himself (Halle 1792). Law, William, The Case of Reason, or Natural Religion Fairly and Fully Stated. In Answer to a Book, entitul'd, Christianity as old as the Creation, Part I (London, 1731). Le Clerc, Jean, Mr. Le Clerc's Extract and Judgement of The rights of the Christian Church asserted. Translated from his Bibliotheque Choisie, Tome X. To which is prefix'd A letter to a Noble Peer, occasion'd by a late Presentment of the Grand Jury of Middlesex (London, 1708). Lee, Henry, The general Use and Perspicuity of the Gospel asserted. In a Discourse, in Part delivered at the primary Visitation of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Peterborough, Held in June, 1730, at Oundle. Wherein some Objections to the Truth and Credibility of external Revelation, contain'd in a Book, entituled, Christianity as Old as the Creation, &c. are occasionally Consider'd (London, 1730). Leland, John, An Answer to a late Book, Intituled, Christianity as Old as the Creation, two Vols (Dublin, 1733). Leland, John, A View of the Principal Deistical Writers that have Appeared in England in the last and present Century; with Observations upon them, and some Account of the Answers that have been published against them. In several Letters to a Friend (London 1754). Leslie, Charles, A View of the Times, Their Principles and Practices: in the First Volume of the Rehearsals, by Philalethes (London, 1708).

Bibliography

175

Leslie, Charles, The Wolf Stript of his Shepheard's Cloathing; The second Part in answer to a late celebrated Book intituled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted (London, 1707). Lobb, Theophilus, A Brief Defence of the Christian Religion: or the Testimony of God, to the Truth of the Christian Religion. Recommended to the serious thoughts of Christians of all Denominations, for their Establishment in the Faith: and to the impartial consideration of those who arefallen off from Christianity into Deism, for their conviction and Recovery (London, 1724). Lobb, Theophilus, A sermon preach'd at the Ordination of the Reverend Mr, John Green, at Winburn, in Dorsetshire, July the 20th, 1708, And since enlarged, with some brief reflections on what the Author of a book intituled The Rights of the Christian Church, has objected against the Ministry (London, 1 708). Locke,John, The Works of John Locke (London, 1727). Luttrell, Narcissus, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairsfrom September 1678 to April 1714 (Oxford: University Press, 1862). McDermott, Gerald R., Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods: Christian Theology, Enlightenment Religion, and Non-Christian Faiths (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Molesworth. Robert, An Account of Denmark, As it was in the Year 1692 (London, 1694). Mossner, Ernest Campbell, 'Deism', in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (ed.) Paul Edwards (London: Collier-Macmillan Publishers, 1967). Ncwcome, Mrs Susannah, An Enquiry into the Evidence of the Christian Religion, by a Lady (London, 1732). Nichols, John, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, (ed.) Colin Glair (Sussex: Centaur Press, 1967). Moles and Queries (London: George Bell, 1850). O'Donoghue, Freeman, Catalogue of portraits in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1908). O'Higgins, James, Anthony Collins: The Man and his Work (The Hague: MartinusNijhoff, 1970). Oldisworth, William, A Dialogue between Timothy andPhilatheus, in which the Principles and Projects of a late Whimsical Book entitled, Rights of the Christian Church, arefairly Stated and Answered in their Kind (London, 1707). Oman, C.W.C., 'All Souls College', in The Colleges of Oxford: their History and Traditions, Andrew Clark (cd.) (London, Methuen & Co., 1891). Otis, James, 'The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved', in Bernard Bailyn (ed.) Parnphletsof the American Revolution, 1750-1776 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965).

176

Bibliography

Pattison, Mark, 'Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688-1750', mj. Parker (ed.), Essays and Reviews (1860), pp. 254-329. Placher William C. (ed.), Readings in the History of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988). Plomer, Henry Robert, A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers who were at work in England, Scotland, and Ireland, from 1668 to 1725, Arundell Esdaile (ed.) (Oxford: University Press, for the Bibliographical Society, 1922). The Principles of Deism truly represented and set in a clear Light, in two dialogues between aSceptickandaDeist, Anon. (London, 1708). The Religious, Rational, and Moral Conduct of Matthew Tindal, L.L.D. Late Fellow of All Souls College in Oxford. In a letter to a Friend by a member of the same College, Anon. (London, 1735). Redwood, John, Reason, Ridicule and Religion: The Age of Enlightenment in England 1660-1750 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976). Reimarus, H. S., Defence of the Rational Adorers of God (1774—78). Reventlow, Henning Graf, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (London: S.C.M. Press, 1984). Robbins, Caroline, The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman: Studies in the transmission, development and circumstance of English Liberal thoughtfrom the Restoration of Charles H until the war with the thirteen colonies (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1959). Robinson, Christopher, An Essay Upon the Usefulness of Revelation, Notwithstanding the greatest Excellence of Human Reason. In Eight Discourses (London, 1733). Robertson, John Mackinnon, A Short History ofFreethought: Ancient and Modern (London: W T atts & Co. for the Rationalist Press Association Ltd, 1906). Robertson, John Mackinnon, The Dynamics of Religion; An Essay in English Culture History (London, 1926). Sachevercll, Henry, Collections ojPassages Ref ~err'd to by Dr. Henry Sacheverell in his Answer to the Articles of his Impeachment (London, 1710). Saintes, Amand, A Critical History of Rationalism in Germany from its origin to the present time (London, 1849). Schneider, Herbert and Carol (eds), Samuel Johnson, President of Kings College (now Columbia], His Career and Writings (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929). A Seasonal Preservative against the wiles of Popery: or modern Deism real Jesuitism: wherein Deism is try'd, unmask'd and condemn'd. In a letter to a Gentleman at Oxford. Occasion'd by a late Jesu-t—I treatise, entit led Christianity as old as the Creation (London, 1733).

Bibliography

111

Siebert, Fredrick Seaton, Freedom of the Press in England, 1476-1776 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press 1965). Sirluck, Ernest, 'Areopagitica and a Forgotten Licensing Controversy', Review of English Studies, 11, Spring, 1960, 260-274. Skelton, Philip, Ophiomaches: or Deism Revealed. The Attack on Christianity candidly reviewed in its real Merits, as they stand in the celebrated Writings of Lord Herbert, LordShaftesbury,Hobbes, Toland, Tindal,Collins,Mandeville, Do dwell, Woolston, Morgan, Chubb, and others (London, 1749). Smollett, Tobias, The Adventures of Roderick Random, Paul-Gabriel Bouce (ed.) (Oxford: University Press, 1999). Smith, Preserved, A History of Modern Culture, 1543-1776. (London: G. Routledge & Sons, 1930). Stephen, Leslie, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, two Vols, third edn (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962). Stephen, Leslie, 'Matthew Tindal', in Dictionary of National Biography (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1909). Stephen, William, An Account of the growth of Deism in England (London, 1696). Swift, Jonathan, Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, Temple Scott (ed.) (London: George Bell and Sons, 1898). Toland, John, Christianity not Mysterious: or, a Treatise Shewing that there is nothing in the Gospel Contrary to Reason, Nor Above it: And that no Christian Doctrine can properly be called A Mystery (London, 1696). Toland, John, Letters to Serena: Containing, I. The Origin and Force of Prejudice. II. The History of the Soul's Immortality among the Heathens. HI. The Origin of Idolatry, and Reasons of Heathenism (London, 1704). Torrey, Norman L., Voltaire and the English Deists (New Haven: Vale University Press, 1930). Trenchard, John and Gordon, Thomas, Cato's Letters, or Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and other Important Subjects (London, 1737). Turner, John, A Vindication of the Rights and Privileges of the Christian Church, in answer to a late Book intitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted (London, 1707). The Villainous Principles of the Rights of The Christian Church asserted etc., confuted by Scripture, Anon. (London, 1707). A Vindication of the Bishop of London's Pastoral Letter. In Answer to a late Pamphlet, Entitled, An Address to the Inhabitants of the Two great Cities of London and Westminster, &c. Addressed to the Author by an Inhabitant of one of those Great Cities (London, 1729).

178

Bibliography

Wake, William, Appeal to all true Members of the Church of England in behalf of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy as by Law established, by our Convocations approv'd, and by our Eminent Bishops and Clergymen stated and defended against all Popish and Fanatical Opposers (London, 1698). Warburton, William, Letters from a late eminent Prelate to one of his friends (Kidderminster and London). Waterland, Daniel, Scripture Vindicated; In Answer to a Book intituled, Christianity as old as the Creation (London, 1730-32). Waters, Robert Edmond Chester, Genealogical memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley, Their Ancestors and Descendants (London: Robson and Son, 1878). Williams, Stephen N., 'Matthew Tindal on Perfection, Positivity, and the Life Divine', Enlightenment and Dissent, No. 5, 1986, 51-69. W'ood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses: An Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops who have had their Education in the most Antient and Famous University of Oxford, from the Fifteenthyear of King Henry the Seventh, A.D. 1500, to the Authors Death in November 1695. To which are added, the Fasti or Annals of the said University (London, 1721). Wood, Anthony, The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, antiquary, of Oxford, 1632— 1695, described by Himself, (ed.) Andrew Clark, three Vols (Oxford: Clarcdon Press for Oxon. Hist. Soc., 1894). Wotton, William, The Rights of the Clergy in the Christian Church asserted, in a Sermon preached at Newport Pagnel in the County of Bucks, September 2,1706. with a vindication of that Sermon From the Exceptions made to it in a Pamphlet Entituled, a Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church (London, 1707). Wright, Samuel, An Answer to some Objections against positive Institutions in Religion (London, 1734). Yolton, Jean S., John Locke: A Descriptive Bibliography (Bristol, Thoemmes Press, 1998).

INDEX

An Account of a Manuscript 104 Adam 64, 106, 124, 134 Addison, Joseph 143 An Address to the Good People of Great Britain 101 An Address to the Inhabitants of the Two Great Cities 17,83 All Souls College, Oxford University 9, 10, 13, 21,^98 purported rebuke to Tindal 21 Al Quaeda 42 America, influence in 3-5,104,143 Anne, Queen 26, 96-7, 99, 100 Annet, Peter 2, 150 Atkey, Anthony 133 Atkinson, Benjamin 133 Atterbury, Francis (Bishop of Rochester) 45, 107 Letter to a Convocation-Man 45, 46 authority 4 only from the consent of the governed 4, 64, 71, 75, 91-5 civil, no rights in religion 57-97, 159 church, no rights in religion 54- 87 Bentham, Jeremy 3, 143 7 he Bee Revived: or, the Universal Weekly Pamphlet 6 Bcntlcy, Richard (Master of Trinity College, Cambridge University) 143 Berkeley, George (Bishop of Cloyne) 143, 148-9 Alciphron 149 Bcrman, David 'Deism, Immortality, and the Art of Theological Lying' 145-6 Biographia Bntannica 14, 19 20, 109

Blencowe, William (cryptographer and suicide) 27,98-9 Blount, Charles A Just Vindication of Learning and of the Liberty of the Press 44, 48 Reasonsfor the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing 44 King William and Queen Mary Conquerors 44 Bohun, Fklmund (censor) 44 Bolingbroke, Henry St John (first Viscount) 2,3,101,143 Borrows, Montague 21 Broughton, Thomas (Reader at the Temple Church) 132,135 Browne, Simon (dissenting minister) 132-3 Budgell, Eustace (forger and journalist) 6,17-18,156 Burke, Edmund 3 Burnet, Thomas (Rector of West Kington, Wilts.) 132-3 Butler, Joseph (Bishop of Bristol) 142-3 The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed 127 Caesar, Julius 105-6 Campbell, Archibald (Professor of Church History at St Andrews University) 133 Carroll, William 13, 74-6, 80, 82, 86 Spinoza Reviv'd 13,74Caverly, Lady 29 Charles I, King 44 Christianity as old as the Creation 2, 17,20, 56,87, 112-38, 141-5, 146-52, 158 Christianity as old as the Creation, Mss. refutation of (anon.) 134

180

Index

Christianity as old as the Creation (continued) editions 143-4 first published by T. Woodward 143 second part 17, 18, 156, 158, 162-4 fragment of introduction 131 proposals for printing 161-4 translation into German 150 Chubb, Thomas 2-4 church-state relations 54-87 Clagett, Nicholas (Archdeacon of Sudbury) 60 A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Trj/al of Opinions in Religion 49 Clarke, Samuel 141, 143, 148 A Discourse concerning the Unchangeable Obligation 120-2 Cockburn, Catherine, (nee Trotter) 132 Collins, Anthony 2-3, 15-16, 27-9, 143, 158, 159 Collins, Darby (sailor) 40 The Constitution Explain'd 104 Conybeare, John (Bishop of Bristol) 127-31, 149 A Defence of Reveal'd Religion 128, 130-1, 149 denies the inference of'ought' from 'is' 129 Corah and Moses 109 Court of Arches 9,13,38 Court of Delegates 11 Craig, Gerald R. 141 Craig, John Principia Mathematica Theologiae Christianae 117 Crawfurd, William (Minister of the Gospel at Wiltoun) 133 Curll, Edmund (publisher) 26 Memoirs of the life and writings of Matthew Tindail 9, 156 Dandridge, Bartholomew 6 Darby, John (printer) 86 The Defection Consider'd 102-3 The Defection Farther Consider'd 103 A Defence Of our present Happy Establishment 107

A Defence of The Rights of the Christian Church 16,77,83 Defoe, Daniel The Defection Detected 103 Descartes 56, 114 Doctors' Commons 9 Dodd, Dr Pierce (physician) 17-18, 25, 30, 156 Dodwell, Henry (the elder) 15 Druids 69, 70 Edwards, Jonathan (President of New Jersey College, now Princeton University) 3 Egmont, John Percival (first Earl) 19, 22, 24, 26-7, 29 Eikon Basilike 44 Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 146 An Enquiry into the Causes of the Present Disaffection 107 Epicurus 74 An Epistle to R- W-, Esq.; 103 An Essay concerning Obedience to the Supreme Powers 11,92-5 An Essay concerning the Laws of Nations and the Rights of Sovereigns 11, 37-42 An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate 11, 29, 45-8, 51-2, 57, 59, 114 The Essenes 69 Evans, Abel 19,73,111 Evans, Stephen The Historical Christ 145 excommunication 68-70,118 Exeter College, Oxford University 9 Falkland, Anthony Carey (fifth Viscount; First Lord of the Admiralty 1693-4) 38-9 Feuerbach, Ludwig The Essence of Christianity 151-2 Fichte, Johann Gottleib 145 Fielding, Henry 2 Finch, Leopold (Warden of All Souls) 10 Fogs Weekly Journal 156

Index Forbes, Duncan (Lord Advocate of Scotland) 132 Foster, James (Baptist pastor) 126-7, 131, 150 Usefulness, Truth, and Excellency of the Christian Revelation 149 Fowler, Edward (Bishop of Gloucester) 11,23 France, influence in 3 Franke, Charles 145 Fraser, James (censor) 44 Gardiner, Bernard (Warden of All Souls) 13,98 Gawlick, Gunter 143, 150, 152-4 'Introduction to Christianity as old as the Creation" 153-4 George I, King 96-8, 100 Germany, influence in 146,150—5 Gibbon, Edward 143 Gibson, Bishop Edmond (Bishop of London) 111-12,128,159 The Bishop of London's Pastoral Letter 111,122 The Bishop of I Condon's Second Pastoral Letter 112,125-7,130 purported destruction of Tindal's papers 18, 159 Gilson, Etienne God and Philosophy 143 God, existence of 21-5, 27,51,56,59, 67, 71,82, 136 8 God's Universal Goodness display'd (anon.) 157 Golden, John (sea captain) 40 Gordon. Thomas (essayist) 96, 105-7 government defined as the protection of the people 91,106 The Grubb -street Journal 6 Halley, Edmond (astronomer) 143 happiness basis of morality 20, 119-20, 123 purpose of government to promote 65-6 purpose of religion to promote 72

181

right to the pursuit of 5, 65, 107-8, 114, 117-18 Hearne, Thomas (antiquary) 13-15, 18-19,21,27-8 Heaven 124,129,137 Hell 73,137,156-8 Henry VIII, King 64 Henley, John ('Orator') 156 Herbert, Justice 12 Herbert, Edward (Lord Herbert of Cherbury) 136, 143 Hickes, George (non-juror bishop) 9, 13-14,74,76,83 Hill, Samuel (Archdeacon of Wells) 73, 76,79,80-1 Hilliard, Samuel (Prebendary of Lincoln) 12, 13 Hobbes 2,65,67,74,80,143 Hubern, Sir John 29 Hume 2 , 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 , 1 4 3 independent powers, no two in the same society 53, 63-4, 67-9, 72-3, 76-8, 116, 118, 162 The Independent Whig 4 Israel a theocracy 59 Israel, Jonathan 25, 148 Jackson, John (Rector of Rossington) 126-7, 131, 134 A Pleafor Humane Reason 12 7 The Jacobitism, Perjury, and Popery of High-Church Priests 84 James II, King 96 James III, King (The Pretender) 96-8 Japan 59 Jefferson, Thomas American Declaration of Independence 5 Jews 59,69,75,81,162,164 Johnson, Samuel (President of King's College, now Columbia University) 3-4 Johnston, Rev. George 135 Jones, Thomas (sailor) 40 The Judgment of Dr. Prideaux 106 Justice done to the late Ministry 96, 100—1

182 Kant 145, 151, 153-4 King, Sir Peter (Attorney General)

Index 13

La Peyere, Isaac (pre-Adamite) 125 Laud, William (Archbishop of Canterbury) 83 Laukhard, Friedrich Christian 150, 152 Law, William 132 Lechler, Gotthard Victor 152 LeClercJean 82-3,86 Extract and Judgment of the Rights of the Christian Church 73 Lee, Henry (Rector of Tichmarsh) 133, 134 Leibniz 122 Lelandjohn (nonconforming divine) 132-5 Leslie, Charles (non-juror divine) 15, 77 Second part of the WolfStript of its Shepherd's Cloathing 15 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim 151,153 letter of marque 37-43 A Letter to a Country Gentleman 99 A Letter to afriend upon the occasion of. . . the time of continuance of Parliament 100 A Letter to a Member of Parliament [ against] a Restraint on the Press 11,47,52 A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Moss 80 A Letter to the Reverend the Clergy of Both Universities 11, 54, 56-7, 115 Lincoln College, Oxford University 9 Littleton, Dr Fisher (Advocate) 37-8 Lobb, Theophilus 75, 79 Locke 5, 11, 29, 44-5, 55, 56, 62-3, 74, 130, 141, 143 Letters on Toleration 60 The London Journal 96, 105 Lyttleton, George (first Baron) 143 Machiavelli 108 Mandeville, Bernard (de) 143 Mason, George 5 Mendelssohn, Moses 151 The Merciful Judgements of High-Church Triumphant 84-5

Middleton, Conyers (Cambridge University Librarian) 143 Milton 44,47-9 Areopagitica 44,47-8 Molesworth, Robert (Irish politician) 29,108 Morgan, Thomas (sometime dissenting minister) 2, 3 Moses 109,119 Moss, Robert (Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen) 80 mysteries in religion 54, 56, 63, 151 The Nation Vindicated 85 The Nation Vindicated (part 2) 85-7 natural religion defined 115 corrupted by priestcraft 46 A New Catechism, with Dr. Hickes's Thirty Nine Articles 84-5 Newcome, Mrs Susannah 132~3 Neva High-Church turn'd old Presbyterian 83 Newton, Dr Sir Henry (Advocate) 38 Newton, Isaac 143 Northey, Sir Edward (Solicitor General) 13 obligations inferred from necessities 40, 65, 120, 129 Oldisworth William 74, 111 Oldys, Dr William (Advocate) 37-8 Ormond, James Butler (second Duke of) 101 Otis,James The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved 4 Pascal 145 patriarchial power 65—6 Pattison, Mark 141 'Tendencies of Religious Thought in England 1688-1750' 141 Pinfold, Sir Thomas (Advocate) 38 piracy 37-43 Placher, William C. Readings in the History of Christian Theology 144

Index Pope, Alexander Epistle to Dr Arbouthnot 18 The Pope 69 press freedom 2, 44-53, 85, 109 Price, John Valdimir 143 Price, Lucy (forger and widow of Judge Price) 18 Prideaux, Humphrey (scholar and divine) 105 Prince of Wales (future George II) 104 Prior, Matthew (poet) 100 Proposals for Printing .. . Christianity as old as the Creation 6,159,161-164 Quidley, Patrick (sailor)

40

reason our only guide in religion 1,17, 48,52,57-8,80, 111-47, 161-4 Reasons for the Repeal o f . . . the Statutes 98 Redwood, John Reason, Ridicule and Religion 144 The Reflections on the XXVIIIPropositions 11 Reimarus, Herman Samuel 151-3 Defence of the Rational Adorers of God 151

Remarks on the Pretender's Declaration 9 7 A Representation of the Present State of Religion 84-5 Reventlow, Henning Graf The Authority of the Bible 154 The Rights of the Christian Church asserted 2, 4, 12, 47, 53, 62-75, 80, 82, 86, 111, 118 authorship 13, 14-6 burnt by the common hangman 16 suppression attempted 13-4 Robbins, Caroline l l O n . 16 Robertson, John M. 142-3,152 A Short History of Freethought 142 The Dynamics of Religion 143 Robespierre 143 Robinson, Christopher (Rector of Welby) 135 Rotheram, Caleb (Presbyterian minister) 2

183

Sacheverell, Henry (preacher at St Saviour's Southwark) 16,97 Saint-Hyacinthe, Themiseul de (pseud. of Hyachithe Cordonnier) 3 Saintes, Amand 152 Sare, Richard (bookseller) 13 Schmidt, Johann Lorenz 150 Schweitzer, Albert 152 A Second Address to the Inhabitants of the Two Great Cities 17,125-6 A Second Defence of The Rights of the Christian Church asserted 13,83,135 Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper (third Earl) 2 , 1 1 1 , 1 4 3 Sherlock, William (Dean of St Paul's) 111 Siebert, Fredrick Seaton 52 Silkejohn (Rector of Bradford) 13-14, 27 Simon Stylites 11 7 sincerity necessary 52,80-1,86, 122, 132 Sirluck, Ernest 44, 47 Skelton, Philip (Vicar of Pettigo) Ophiomaches, or Deism Revealed 26 Small, Alexander (surgeon) 17 Smith, Adam 3 Smollett, Tobias The Adventures of Roderick Random 2 Somers, John (first Baron) 14 South, Robert (Canon of Christ Church, Oxford) 111 sovereignty requires territory 38, 41-2 space, nature of 22-4, 136 Spinoza 74, 80 Stanhope, James (first Earl) 96,102, 105 state of nature, a continuing situation 40,65,70,73-5, 106,91-3 Stephen, Leslie 141-5, 148, 152, 159 History of English thought in the Eighteenth Century 62, 141 Stillingfleet, Edward (Bishop of Worcester) 111 Strauss, David Friedrich 152 Sunderland, Charles Spencer (third Earl) 26-7,96, 102, 105, 107, 109

184

Index

Swift, Jonathan (Dean of St Patrick's, Dublin) 27-8, 73-6, 78-9, 100, 143 A Tale of a Tub 111 Tillotson, John (Archbishop of Canterbury) 111,115 Tindal, John (father) 9 Tindal, John (brother) 9 Tindal, Matthew birth 9 Catholicism, temporary conversion to 10, 18-19,22 purported promotion of 25-6 Caesar, denounces his assassination 105-7 Christian, not a 25, 30, 121 'Christian Deist' purported 21, 148-9 death 17,25,30 Deputy Judge-Advocate of the Fleet, (30th May-8th November 1689) 37 dissembled opinions 145-50 education 9 freethinker 30 gluttony, accused of 27 libels to be punished 109 mob, fears the 107-8 name, spelling 5-6 opposed to compulsory ordination of Fellows 98-9 parliaments, supports extending duration 99-100 peers, supports limiting the number of 104-5 pension, civil 26-7 portraits 6 sex, permissive towards 19-21,27 sobriety 28 suspecting of authority 51, Whig partisan 16,95-110 will forged 18 Tindal, Nicholas (nephew, continuerof Rapin) 18

Toland,John (Janusjunius) 2-3, 141 Christianity not Mysterious 62 toleration, religious 11, 45-53, 58, 60, 67,81-2,126 Torry, Norman 3 Townshend, Charles (second Viscount) 96, 102-3, 105 'Treatise in opposition to the Eternity of Hell-Torments' 156 Trenchard, John (essayist) 38-9, 96, 105, 107-9 Trinity, doctrine of 11, 54-7. 113, 128 Turner, John (Vicar of Greenwich) 75, 79,81,86 Voltaire

3

Waller, Dr 38 Walpole, Sir Robert 26, 96, 101 -3, 105, 107, 109-10 Walton, Robert 38 Warburton, William (Bishop of Gloucester) 2, 143 Warton. Thomas (the elder) 18 Waterford, Bishop of (John Atherton) 85 Waterland, Daniel (Archdeacon of Middlesex) 131-2, 143-4 Scripture Vindicated 125 Weekly Miscellany 6 Whiston, William (Lucasian Professor, Cambridge University) 29,156 William and Mary, King 44 Williams, Stephen 113, 144 Wilson, Robert 156 Wood, Anthony 10,18 The Life and Times of Anthony Wood 10 Woodward, T. (printer of Christianity as old) 143 Woolston, Thomas 150 Wotton, William (Prebend of Salisbury Cathedral) 75, 77-9, 83 Wright, Samuel (Presbyterian divine) 135