th in this trenchant fashion, no one could have done it
more honestly than Leland has done. But the great questions which the
Deists raised cannot be dealt with thus summarily. Perhaps no book
professedly written 'against these people' could possibly do justice to
the whole case. Hence those who virtually adopt Leland as their chief
authority will at best have but a one-sided view of the matter. Leland
was a Dissenter; and it may be remarked in passing, that while the
National Church bore the chief part in the struggle, as it was right she
should, yet many Dissenters honourably distinguished themselves in the
cause of our common Christianity. The honoured names of Chandler,[165]
Lardner, Doddridge, Foster, Hallet, and Leland himself, to which many
others might be added, may be mentioned in proof of this assertion.

The attitude towards Deism of the authors hitherto named is
unmistakable. But there are yet two great names which cannot well be
passed over, and which both the friends and foes of Deism have claimed
for their side. These are the names of Alexander Pope and John Locke.
The former was, as is well known, by profession a Roman Catholic;[166]
but in his most elaborate, if not his most successful poem, he has been
supposed to express the sentiments of one, if not two, of the most
sceptical of the Deistical writers. How far did the author of the 'Essay
on Man' agree with the religious sentiments of his 'guide, philosopher
and friend,' Viscount Bolingbroke? Pope's biographer answers this
question very decisively. 'Pope,' says Ruffhead, 'permitted Bolingbroke
to be considered by the public as his philosopher and guide. They agreed
on the principle that "whatever is, is right," as opposed to impious
complaints against Providence; but Pope meant, because we only see a
part of the moral system, not the whole, therefore these irregularities
serving great purposes, such as the fuller manifestation of God's
goodness and justice, are right. Lord Bolingbroke's Essays are
vindications of providence against the confederacy between Divines and
Atheists who use a common principle, viz. that of the irregularities of
God's moral government here, for different ends: the one to establish a
future state, the others to discredit the being of a God.'
'Bolingbroke,' he adds, 'always tried to conceal his principles from
Pope, and Pope would not credit anything against him.' Warburton's
testimony is to the same effect. 'So little,' he writ