in favour of it, and fo, from being infidels, in confequence of not understanding what chriftianity really is, and not fufficiently examining the evidence of it, which is generally the cafe, they may become rational chriftians.

very

A few converts of this kind would, in my estimation, compensate for a great deal of odium among profeffed chriftians. Their indignation would do neither themselves, nor me, much harm; whereas the conviction of the reasonableness and truth of christianity, in a few really thinking and intelligent unbelievers, might do the greatest good; and even contribute to put à ftop, fooner than otherwise would be done, to the infidelity of the philosophical part of the world.

To effect this, in any tolerable degree, would be an object indeed; and the man who fhould in any measure fucceed in it, could not be faid to have lived, to have written, or to have been calumniated in vain. I am fully satisfied that it will be to no purpose to expect the converfion of philofophical unbelievers to that system of opinions which now generally passes for christianity, and especially that which is established in the different countries of Europe under that name. Because conclufions contrary

to all natural appearances, will never be ad mitted by them to be true.

So very free and undifguifed an attack upon an opinion almoft univerfally deemed to be of the utmost importance to all religion, natural or revealed, may be expected to rouse the zeal of many friends to the prevailing fyftem, and produce defences of it. This is what I expect, and what I wish; and as I am prepared for it, I will take this opportunity of acquainting my readers with the rule I have laid down to myfelf on fimilar occafions, and to which I propose to adhere in this.

I by no means think it right to refolve, with Mr. Hume, to take no notice of any antagonist whatever. I might as well refufe to make any reply to a perfon who fhould addrefs himself to me in converfation, after I had thought proper to direct my difcourfe to him: for in printed publications we, in fact, address all the world. A pertinent, and especially a decent, reply, requires, I think, a respectful notice, though a very abfurd and impertinent one may justly, as in conversation, be treated with neglect. The Public, in whofe prefence every thing paffes, will judge for themselves, whether a man refufes to make a reply because

he

he is not able to make a good one, or because he has fome fufficient reafon for not doing it. It muft, however, be acknowledged, that even the general and public opinion may be fo unreasonable, that a writer may be juftified in paying no attention to it, and in appealing to the more mature judgment of pofterity.

It is, I prefume, fufficiently evident from the ftrain of my publications, that general applaufe has not been my object. I know that they are rather calculated to narrow the circle of my friends, though I hope they will leave me enow for any valuable purpose in life. I fhall not, therefore, feel myfelf disposed to take notice of every attack upon this treatise, and efpecially fuch as may be anonymous. But if the principles advanced in it be controverted by any person whofe name, as a metaphyfician, or divine, is generally refpected, I do affure him that I will take more or lefs notice of him; either acknowledging any miftakes I may be convinced I have fallen into, or endeavouring to convince him of his. Even a very able, or very plausible, anonymous antagonist shall not be neglected. For, as in the controverfy which I began with the Scotch writers, I really wish to have the fubject freely and fully canvassed.

There are subjects on which, after a reasonable attention to them, a man may be authorized to make up his mind, fo as to be justified in refusing even to lose his time in reading what may be addreffed to him on it; because he may have fufficient ground to prefume it cannot contain any thing materially new to him. This is what moft proteftants will avow with refpect to the popish doctrine of tranfubftantiation, and I avow it with respect to the doctrine of the trinity, and various other articles of Calvinistic theology. I have at this time by me feveral tracts, particularly Letters addreffed to me, on those subjects, and which have been much applauded, which I have not looked into, and which I profess I never intend to look into. But this is not the cafe with respect to the fubject of this treatise. I will carefully read, for fome time at least, whatever fhall be addreffed to me, or the Public, on the subject, provided the writers take care that their publications be tranfmitted, or properly announced, to me.

I do not, as many perfons would, except against all answers that may be written in a manner not perfectly confiftent with the laws of decorum, or those in which I may think my

felf treated with too much afperity, or ridicule. I would have every man write as he actually feels at the time. There are few controverfial writers, who, when the warmth of debate is over, may not fee fomething of this kind to blame themselves for; but those who are acquainted with human nature, will make allowance for fuch human imperfections, and attend to the merits of the cafe; and it may be depended upon, that the real weight of argument is the thing that will decide in the end, when every thing of a perfonal nature, in the course of the controversy, will be forgotten.

If I were difpofed, as I am not, to plead for mercy, I would alledge the extreme unpopularity of my fide of the question; and say that, a man who writes with the full tide of popular opinion in his favour, has no occafion for any indirect method of bearing down his antagonift. The man whofe opinions are unpopular ftands in the moft need of the arts of addrefs, and in him they would be most excufable. But, notwithstanding this, I fhall truft my very unpopular argument to its native ftrength, or weakness, without any artificial fupport whatever.