lieves to be a cheat upon mankind, whom he would undeceive
purely for their good; it might be apt to check unwary men, even of good
dispositions towards religion. But if it be found the production of a
man soured with age and misfortunes, together with the consciousness of
past miscarriages; of one, who, in hopes of preferment, was reconciled
to the Popish religion;[1] of one wholly prostitute in life and
principles, and only an enemy to religion, because it condemns them: In
this case, and this last I find is the universal opinion, he is like to
have few proselytes, beside those, who, from a sense of their vicious
lives, require to be perpetually supplied by such amusements as this;
which serve to flatter their wishes, and debase their understandings.

[Footnote 1: Dr. Matthew Tindal became a convert to the Romish religion
during the reign of James II. What share interest had in his conversion
may be easily imagined; but it is uncertain whether it was the
disappointment of his expectations, or conviction, that, in 1687,
induced him to reconcile himself to the Church of England, and become a
decided favourer of those doctrines which produced the Revolution. He
often sat as a judge in the Court of Delegates, but did not practise
much as an advocate in Doctor's Commons. His chief means of support was
a pension from government of L200. Tindal died in 1733, three years
after publication of his grand deistical work, "Christianity as Old as
the Creation." His effects, amounting to L2,000 and upwards, were
appropriated by the noted Eustace Budgell, to the prejudice of the heir
at law, under a will attended with circumstances of great suspicion. [T.
S.]]

I know there are some who would fain have it, that this discourse was
written by a club of freethinkers, among whom the supposed author only
came in for a share. But, sure, we cannot judge so meanly of any party,
without affronting the dignity of mankind. If this be so, and if here be
the product of all their quotas and contributions, we must needs allow,
that freethinking is a most confined and limited talent. It is true
indeed, the whole discourse seemeth to be a motley, inconsistent
composition, made up of various shreds of equal fineness, although of
different colours. It is a bundle of incoherent maxims and assertions,
that frequently destroy one another. But still there is the same
flatness of thought and style; the same weak advances towards wit and
raillery; the same