DEISTS

Those who deny the existence and nece ity of any revelation, and profe to acknowledge that the being of a God is the chief article of their belief. The term Deist is derived from the Latin word Deus , God . The same persons are frequently called infidels, on account of their incredulity, or want of belief in the Christian dispensation of religion.—Consult Boyle’s Lectures , Leland’s View of Deistical Writers , Leslie’s Short and Easy Method with the Deists , Watson’s Apology for the Bible . Dr. Clarke, ( Evidences of Nat. and Rev. Rel. Introd.,) taking the denomination in its most extensive signification, distinguishes deists into four sorts. The first are, such as pretend to believe the existence of an eternal, infinite, independent, intelligent Being; and who, to avoid the name of Epicurean Atheists, teach also, that this Supreme Being made the world; though, at the same time, they agree with the Epicureans in this, that they fancy, God does not at all concern himself in the government of the world, nor has any regard to, or care of, what is done therein. The second sort of deists are those, who believe, not only the being, but also the providence of God , with respect to the natural world; but who, not allowing any difference between moral good and evil, deny that God takes any notice of the morally good or evil actions of men; these things depending, as they imagine, on the arbitrary constitution of human laws. A third sort of deists there are, who, having right apprehensions concerning the natural attributes of God , and his all-governing providence, and some notion of his moral perfections also; yet, being prejudiced against the notion of the immortality of the human soul, believe, that men perish entirely at death, and that one generation shall perpetually succeed another, without any future restoration or renovation of things. A fourth, and the last sort of deists, are such, as believe the existence of a Supreme Being, together with his providence in the government of the world, as also all the obligations of natural religion; but so far only as these things are discoverable by the light of nature alone, without believing any Divine revelation. These, Dr. Clarke observes, are the only true deists: but, as the principles of these men would naturally lead them to embrace the Christian revelation, he concludes, there is now no consistent scheme of deism in the world. “The heathen philosophers, those few of them, who taught and lived up to the obligations of natural religion, had indeed a consistent scheme of deism so far as it went. But the case is not so now. The same scheme is not any longer consistent with its own principles, if it does not now lead men to believe and embrace revelation, as it then taught them to hope for it. Deists, in our days, who reject revelation when offered to them, are not such men as So crates and Cicero were; but, under pretence of deism, it is plain, they are generally ridiculers of all that is truly excellent in natural religion itself. Their trivial and vain cavils; their mocking and ridiculing, without and before examination; their directing the whole stre of their objections against particular customs, or particular and perhaps uncertain opinions, or explications of opinions, without at all considering the main body of religion; their loose, vain, and frothy discourses; and, above all, their vicious and immoral lives; show plainly and undeniably, that they are not really deists, but mere atheists; and consequently not capable to judge of the truth of Christianity.” “We are fallen into an age, (says another learned author, Jenkyns, Reasonablene of Christ. Relig. in the Preface,) in which there are a sort of men, who have shown so great a forwardne to be no longer Christians, that have catched at all the little cavils and pretences against religion—but they both think and live so ill, that it is an argument for the goodne of any cause that they are against it. It was urged as a confirmation of the Christian religion by Tertullian, that it was hated and persecuted by Nero, the worst of men: and I am confident, it would be but small reputation to it in any age, if such men should be fond of it. They speak evil of the things they understand not, and are wont to talk with as much confidence against any point of religion, as if they had all the learning in the world in their keeping, when commonly they know little or nothing of what has been said for that against which they dispute.” Prateolus ( Elench. Hæres. ) mentions a sect of deists (as they were called) which sprung up in Poland, in the year 1564. They were a branch of the Luther ans, and, coming into France in 1566, settled at Lyons. Their leader (he tells us) was one Greg or i us Pauli, a minister of Cracow. They boasted, that God had bestowed on them much greater gifts than on Luther and others, and that the destruction of Antichrist was reserved for them. They a erted, that there is one nature, or Deity, common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but not one and the same e ence; and that the Father alone is the one only true God . These deists (as Prateolus calls them) ought rather to be denominated Arians.