[3] Among them were CUDWORTH, born 1617; “Intel. Syst. of the Universe:” BOYLE, 1626; “Things above Reason:” STILLINGFLEET, 1635; “Letters to a Deist:” Sir I. NEWTON, 1642; “Observations on Prophecy:” LESLIE, 1650; “Short Method with Deists:” LOWTH, 1661, Vindic. of the Divine Author of the Bible: KING, 1669; “Origin of Evil:” SAM. CLARK, 1675; “Evidences of Nat. and Rev. Religion:” WATERLAND, 1683; “Scripture Vindicated:” LARDNER, 1684; “Credibility of Gospel History:” LELAND, 1691; “View of Deistical Writers,” and “Advantage and Necessity of Rev.:” CHANDLER, 1693; “Definition of Christianity,” on “Prophecy,” &c.: WARBURTON, 1698; “Divine Leg. of Moses;” Bishop NEWTON, 1704; “On the Prophecies:” WATSON, 1737; “Apology for Christianity,” (against Gibbon,) and also “Apology for the Bible,” (against Paine.) [4] MCINTOSH: “Progress of Ethical Philosophy.” [5] BROUGHAM: “Disc. on Nat. Theology.” [6] Verisimile. [7] [These three ways of being “like,” are very distinct from each other. The first is equivalent to a logical induction. The second produces belief, because the same evidence made us believe in a similar case. The third is just an analogy, in the popular sense of the term.] [8] The story is told by Mr. Locke in the Chapter of Probability. [9] [This is good common sense, and men always act thus if prudent. But it is not enough thus to act in the matter of salvation. “He that _believeth_ not shall be damned:” Mark xvi. 16. “He that _believeth_ hath everlasting life:” John iii. 36. “With the heart man _believeth_ unto righteousness:” Rom. x. 10. Belief is part of the sinner’s _duty_ in submitting himself to God; and not merely a question of prudence.] [10] See Part II. chap. vi. [11] Philocal. p. 23, Ed. Cant. [12] [Some of these speculations, carried to the full measure of absurdity and impiety, may be found in Bayle’s great “Historical and Critical Dictionary.” See as instances, the articles ORIGEN, MANICHÆUS, PAULICIANS.] [13] Ch. i. [14] Ch. ii. [15] Ch. iii. [16] Ch. iv. [17] Ch. v. [18] Ch. vi. [19] Ch. vii. [20] Part II. Ch. i. [21] Ch. ii. [22] Ch. iii. [23] Ch. iv. [24] Ch. v. [25] Ch. vi. vii. [26] Ch. viii. [27] [This chapter Dr. Chalmers regards as the least satisfactory in the book: not because lacking in just analogies, but because infected with the obscure metaphysics of that age. His reasoning, however, only serves to show that B. has perhaps made too much of the argument from the indivisibility of consciousness; and by no means that he does not fairly use it.