The works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Joseph Butler, D.C.L., late Lord Bishop of Durham

Front matter

I I :b IR. lEl

PIUNCETOX. X. J.

The Stpnhi^" r «.iu~= t» ^

Part I. Of Natural Religion

CMAr". II. — Of the Government of God by Rewards and Punishments;

and particularly of the latter ..... qn

Chap. (II. — Of the Moral (ioveriiment of God .... 83

IV. — Of a State of Probation, a.s implying Trial, nifficiilties, and Danger ........ lOj

Ciiii-. V. — Of a State of Probation. a.s intonrled for moral Disciplin

a;id Improvement ........ li-2

Ch\p. VI. — Of the Opinion of Necessity, considered as influencing

Practice IS4

Chai-. VII. — Of the GoTernment of God, considered as a Scheme or

Constitution, imperfectly comprebended . . . 148

PART n,

OF REVEALED RELIGION.

Chai-. I. — Of the Importance of Christianity , . . 165

Cbap, II. — Of the supposed Presumption against a Revelation, considered as miraculous . I,*". 1 vi CONTr.MTS.

Pagi

(-UA!'. 11 1. — Of our incapacity of judging, what were to be expected in u Kcvolation ; anil the Credibility, from Anal3{:y, that it must contain Things appearing liable to Objections . • 187

v."aAP. IV. — Of Christianity, considered as a Scheme or Constitution,

imperfectly comprehended . . . . . . 201

Chap. V. — Of the particular System of Christianity ; the Appointment

of a Mediator, and the Redemption of the World by him . 5i08

Chap. VI. — Of the Want of Universality in Revelation: and of the

supposed Deficiency in the Proof of it . . . . 225

Chap. VII. — Of the particular Evidence for Christianity . . 243

Chap. VIII. — Of the Objections which maybe made against arguing

from the Analogy of Nature to Religion . . . . 275

Dissertation I. — Of Personal Identity Dissertation II. — Of the Nature of Vlrtoe

THE REVEREND

DR THOMAS BALGUY,

Dear Sir,

I TRUST you will excuse the liberty I have taken of prefixing your name to the following sheets; the latter part of which, I am confident, will not be thought undeserving of your approbation; and of the former part you will commend the intention at h'^ast, if not the execution. In vindicating the character of Bishop Butler from the aspersions thrown upon it sine;.' his death, I have but discharged a common duty of humanity, which survivors owe to those who have deserved well of mankind by their lives or writings, when they are past the power of appearing in their own defence. And if what I have added, by way of opening the general design of the Works of this great Prelate, be of use in exciting the younger class of Students in our Universities to read, and s>o to read as to understand, the Two Volumes prepared and f dblished by the Author himself; I flatter myself I shall have done no inconsiderable service to Morality and Religion. Your time and studies have been long successfully devoted to the support of the same great cause: and in what you have lately given to the world, both as an Author and an Editor, you have largely contributed to the defence of our common Christianity, and of what was esteemed by One, who was perfectly competent to judge, its best Establishment, the Church of England. In the present publication I consider myself

•••

vm

as a fellow labourer with you in the same design, and tracing the path you have trod before, but at great distance, and with unequal paces. When, by His Majesty's goodness, I was raised to that station of eminence in the Church, to which you had been first named, and which, on account of the infirmity of your health, you had desired to decline ; it was honour enough for me on such an occasion to have been thought of next to your and I know of no better rule by which to govern my conduct, so as not to discredit the Royal Hand which conferred on me so signal and unmerited a favour, than in cases of difficulty to put the question to myself, How you would probably have acted in the same situation. You see, Sir, I still look up to you, as I have been wont, both as my Superior and my Example. That I may long reap the benefit of your advice and friendship; and that such a measure of health and strength may be continued to you, as may enable you to pass the evening of your days with comfort, and enjoy the blessings of the life you love; is the cordial wish of,

Dear Sir,

Your very affectionate

and faithful Servant, S. GLOUCESTER

PREFACE BY THE EDITOR

" When I consider how light a matter very oftpn subjects the best established characters to tiie suspicions of posterity, posterity often as nialignniit to virtue as the age tliat saw it was envious of its glory ; and how reatly a remote age is to catch at a iow revivrd slander, wjjich the times that hrouglit it forth saw despised and forgotten almost in its birth; I Ciinnot but think it a mat'er that deserves attention."— Letter to the Editor of the Letters on the Spirit of Patriotism, &c., by Bishop Warbdrton. See his Works, vol. vii. p. 547.

The Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of Durham was printed and published in the year 1751, by the learned Prelate whose name it bears ; and, together with the Sermons and Analogy of the same writer, both too well known to need a more particular description, completes the collection of his Works. It has long been considered as a matter of curiosity, on account of its scarceness ; and it is equally curious on other accounts— its subject, and the calumny to which it gave occasion, of representing the Author as addicted to superstition, as inclined to popery, and as dying in the communion of the Church of Rome. The improved edition of the Biographia Britannica, published under the care of Dr Kippis, having unavoidably brought this calumny again into notice, it may not be unseasonable to offer a few reflections in this place, by way of obviating any impressions that may hence arise to the disadvantage of so great a character as that of the late Bishop Butler ; referring those who desire a more particular account of his life, to the third volume of the same entertaining work, printed in 1784. art. Butler (Joseph).*

I. The principal design of the Bishop in his Charge is, to exhort his Clergy to "do their part towards reviving a practical sense of religion amongst the people committed to their care ;" and, as one way of effecting this, to " instruct them in the Importance of External Keligion," or the usefulness of outward observances in promoting inward piety. Now, from the comDOund

* The account here alluded to is subjoined to this Prefaces nature of man, consisting of two parts, the body and the mind, together with the influence which these are found to have on one another, it follows, that the rehgious regards of such a creature ought to be so framed, as to be in some way properly accommodated to both. A religion which is purely spiritual, stripped of every thing that may affect the senses, and considered only as a divine philosophy of the mind, if it do not mount up into enthusiasm, as has frequently been the case, often sinks, after a few short fervours, into indifference: an abstracted invisible object, like that which natural religion offers, ceases to move or interest the heart ; and something further is wanting to bring it nearer, and render it more present to our view, than merely an intellectual contemplation. On the other hand, when, in order to remedy this inconvenience, recourse is had to instituted forms and ritual injunctions, there is always danger lest men be tempted to rest entirely on these, and persuade themselves that a painful attention to such observances will atone for the want of genuine piety and virtue. Yet surely there is a way of steering safely between these two extremes ; of so consulting both the parts of our constitution, that the body and the mind may concur in rendering our religious services acceptable to God, and at the same time useful to ourselves. And what way can this be, but precisely that which is recommend - ed in the Charge ; such a cultivation of outward as well as inward religion, that from both may result, what is the point chiefly to be laboured, and at all events to be secured, a correspondent temper and behaviour ; or, in other words, such an application of the forms of godliness, as may be subservient in promoting the power and spirit of it.^ No man, who believes the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and understands what he believes, but must know, that external religion is as much enjoined, and constitutes as real a part of revelation, as that which is internal. The many ceremonies in use among the Jews, in consequence of a divine command ; the baptism of water, as an emblem of moral purity; the eating and drinking of bread and wine, as symbols and representations of the body and blood of Christ, required

BY THE EDITOR. xi

of Christians, are proofs of this. On comparing these two parts of religion together, one, it is immediately seen, is of much greater importance than the other; and, whenever they happen to interfere, is always to be preferred : but does it follow from hence, that therefore that other is of little or no importance, and, in cases where there is no competition, may entirely be neglected .^^ Or rather is not the legitimate conclusion directly the reverse, that nothing is to be looked upon as of little importance, which is of any use at all in preserving upon our minds a sense of the Divine authority, which recalls to our remembrance the obligations we are under, and helps to keep us, as the Scripture expresses it, " in the fear of the Lord all the day long.^"* If, to adopt the instance mentioned in the Charge, the sight of a church should remind a man of some sentiment of piety ; if, from the view of a material building dedicated to the service of God, he should be led to regard himself, his own body, as a living "temple of the Holy Ghost,"f and therefore no more than the other to be profaned or desecrated by any thing that defileth or is impure ; could it be truly said of such a one, that he v. as superstitious, or mistook the means of r' ligion for the end? If, to use another, and what has been thought a more obnoxious instance, taken from the Bishop's practice, a cross, erected in a place of public worship, j should cause us to reflect on Him who died on a cross for our salvation, and on the necessity of our " own dying to sin," § and of "crucifying the flesh with its affection and lusts would any worse consequences follow from such sentiments so excited, than if the same sentiments had been excited by the view of a picture, of the crucifixion suppose, such as is commonly placed, and with this very design, in foreign churches, and indeed in many of our own ? Both the instances here adduced, it is very possible, may be

* Piov. xxiii. 17. t I Cor. vi. 19:

$ Dr Butler, when Bisliop t\\ Bristol, put up a cross, n plain piece of inarlile inlaid, in llie clitipel of Lis episcopal house. Tliis, which was iiitemled hy the hliimeless Prelate merely as a sinu or iiienior ai, that true Chrislians jire to l>ear iheir cioss, and not lo be asl.aini d of followinfr a crncifii d Master, was cousitlen d as afl'ordinpf a presunipliou I hat he was secretly incliiie<l In Popish tornis siiid cererionies, nud had no preiit dislike to i-opery itself. An<l, on iicoinnl of tlie otfeuce it occHNioued, both at llic time and siuci-, it w» re lo be wislit d, in ^.rudeiice, it hi;d r.ot l)e< n dune. § Ron), vi. 11. II (.ul. V. 24.

Xii PREFACE

far from being approved, even by those who are under the mosl sincere convictions of the importance of true religion : and it is easy to conceive how open to scorn and censure they nnist be from others, who think thev have a talent for ridicule, and have accustomed then.- selves to regard all pretensions to piety as hypocritic:: ! or superstitious. But " Wisdom is justified of her children."* Religion is what it is, "whether men will heai-. or whether they will forbear ;"t and whatever in tlu; smallest degree promotes its interests, and assists us in performing its commands, whether that assistance be derived from the medium of the body or the mind, ought to be esteemed of great weight, and deserving of oui most serious attention.

However, be the danger of superstition what it may, no one was more sensible of that danger, or more in earnest in maintaining, that external acts of themselves are nothing, and that moral holiness, as distinguished from bodily observances of every kind, is that which constitutes the essence of religion, than Bishop Butler. Not only the Charge itself, the whole intention of which is plainly nothing more than to enforce the necessity of practical religion, the reality as well as form, is a demonstration of this, but many passages besides to the game purpose, selected from his other writings. Take the two following as specimens. In his Analogy he observes thus: "Though mankind have, in all ages, been greatly prone to place their religion in peculiar positive rites, by way of equivalent for obedience to moral precepts; yet, without making any comparison at all between them, and consequently without determining which is to have the preference, the nature of the thing abundantly shows all notions of that kind to be utterly subversive of true religion: as they are, moreover, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture ; and likewise to the most express particular declarations of it, that nothing can render us accepted of God, without moral virtue."! And to the same purpose in his Sermon, preached before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, in February, 1738-9. "Indeed, amongst crea-

• Mavt. xi. 19, t Ezek. ii. 5 % Analogy, Part II. Cliap. i

BY THE EDITOR.

xiii tures naturally formed for religion, yet so much under the power of imagination as men are, superstition is an evil, which can never be out of sight. But even against this, true religion is a great security, and the only one. True religion takes up that place in the mind, which superstition would usurp, and so leaves little room for «t; and likewise lays us under the strongest obligations to oppose it. On the contrary, the danger of superstition cannot but be increased by the prevalence of irreligion ; and, by its general prevalence, the evil will be unavoidable. For the common people, wanting a religion, will of course take up with almost any superstition which is thrown in their way: and in process of time, amidst the infinite vicissitudes of the political world, the leaders of parties will certainly be able to serve themselves of that superstition, whatever it be, which is getting ground; and will not fail to carry it to the utmost length their occasions require. The general nature of the thing shows this; and history and fact confirm it. It is therefore wonderful, those people who seem to think there is but one evil in life, that of superstition, should not see that atheism and profaneness must be the introduction of it."*

He who can think and write in such a manner, can never be said to mistake the nature of real religion: and he, who, after such proofs to the contrary, can persist in asserting of so discreet and learned a person, tliat he was addicted to superstition, must himself be much a stranger both to truth and charity.

And here it may be worth our Avhile to observe, that the same excellent Prelate, who by one set of men was suspected of superstition, on account of his Charge, has by another been represented as leaning to the opposite extreme of enthusiasm, on account of his two discourses On the Love of God. But both opinions are equally without foundation. He was neither superstitious, nor an enthusiast: his mind was much too strong, and his habits of thinking and reasoning much too strict and severe, to sulfer him to descend to the weaknesses of either character. His piety was at once fervent and rational.

• spr. xvi.

Wlw-n imjw-e.sse(i with a jgenerous concern for the dechning csmse of reUgion, he laboured to revive its dying interests ; nothing he judgt d would be more effectual to that end, among creatures so much engaged with bodily things, and so apt to be afff cttd with whatever strongly solicits the senses, as men are, than a religion of such a frame as should in its exercise require the joint exertioiis of the body wd the mind. On the other hand, when penetrated with the dignity and iiiiportance of "the first and great commandment,"* love to God, he set himself to inquire, what those movements of the heart are, which are due to Him, the Author and Cause of all things ; he found, in the coolest way of consideration, that God is the natural object of the saine affections of gratitude, reverence, fear, desire of approbation, trust, and dependence, the same affections in kind, though doubtless in a very disproportionate degree, which any one would feel from contemplating a perfect character in a creature, in which goodness, with wisdom and power, are supposed to be the predominant qualities, with the further circumstance, that this creature was also his governor and friend. This subject is manifestly a real one ; there is nothing in it fanciful or unreasonable : this way of being affected towards God is piety, in the strictest sense : this is religion, considered as a habit of mind ; a religion, suited to the nature and condition of man.f

II. From superstition to Popery, the transition is easy: no wonder then, that, in the progress of detraction, the simple imputation of the former of these, with which the attack on the character of our Author was opened, should be followed by the more aggravated imputation of the latter. Nothing, I think, can fairly be gathered in support of such a suggestion from the Charge, in which Popery is barely mentioned, and occasionally

*Matt. xxii. ss.

"f- Many of thp spntimpnts, in these Two Disa)iirsps of Bishop Bnller, containing the sovereign good of man ; the impossibility of i>r()cnriiijr it in llie present life ; the i lisnlisfacioriness of earthly enjoyments ; together with the somewhat beyond and nbove them all, whicli once attained, there will rest nothing fnrther to be wished or lioped ; and which is then only to be expected, whi-n we shall have put off lliitf inorud body, and our union with God sliall be couiplett: ; occur iu Hooker's EccU' iiastical Polity. Book. I. ^ 11.

XV only, and in a sentence or two; yet even there, it should be remarked, the Bishop takes care to describe the peculiar observances required by it, "some as in themselves wrong and superstitious, and others of them as being made subservient to the purposes of superstition." With respect to his other writings, any one at all conversant with them needs not to be told, that the matters treated of both in his Sermons and his Analogy did none of them directly lead him to consider, and much less to combat, the opinions, whether relating to faith or worship, which ^re peculiar to the Church of Rome: it might therefore have happened, yet without any just conclusion arising from thence, of being himself inclined to favour those opinions, that he had never mentioned, so much as incidentally, the subject of Popery at all. But fortunately for the reputation of the Bishop, and to the eternal disgrace of his calumniators, even this poor resource is wanting to support their malevolence. In his Sermon at St Bride's before the Lord Mayor in 1740, after having said that "our laws and whole constitution go more upon supposition of an equality amongst mankind, than the constitution and laws of other countries;" he goes on to observe, that "this plainly requires, that more particular regard should be had to the education of the lower people here, than in places where they are born slaves of power, and to be made slaves of suferstitiun:* meaning evidently in this place, by the gen eral term superstition, the particular errors of the Romanists. Tliis is something: but we have a still plainer indication what his sentiments concerning Popery really were, from another of his additional Sermons, I mean that before the House of Lords on June the 1 1th, 1747, the anniversary of his late Majesty's accession. The passage alluded to is as follows; and my readers will not be displeased that I give it them at length. " The value of our leligious Establishment ought to be very much heightened in our esteem, by considering what it is a security from ; I mean that great corruption of Christianity, Popery, which is ever hard at work to bring us again under its voke. Whoever will consider the Po-

♦ Sorm. xvii.

xvi t)ish claims, to the disposal of the whole earth, as of ilivine right, to dispense with the most sacred engagetnents, the claims to supreme absolute authority in religion; in short, the general claims which the Canonists express by the words, plenitude of power — whoever, I say, will consider Popery as it is professed at Rome, may see, that it is manifest, open usurpation of all human and divine authority. But even in those Roman Catholic countries where these monstrous claims are not admitted, and the civil power does, in many respects, restrain the papal; yet persecution is professed, as it is absolutely enjoined by what is acknowledged to be their highest authority, a general council, so called, with the Pope at the head of it ; and is practised in all of them, I think, without exception, where it can be done safely. Thus they go on to substitute force instead of argument; and external profession made by force, instead of reasonable conviction. And thus corruptions of the grossest sort have been in vogue, for many generations, in many parts of Christendom ; and are so still, even where Popery obtains in its least absurd form : and their antiquity and wide extent are insisted upon as proofs of their truth ; & kind of proof, which at best can only be presumptive, but which loses all its little weight, in proportion as the long and large prevalence of such corruptions have been obtained by force."* In another part of the same Sermon, where he is again speaking of our ecclesiaetical constitution, he reminds his audience that it is to be valued, " not because it leaves us at liberty to have as little religion as we please, without being accountable to human judicatories ; but because it exhibits to our view, and enforces upon our consciences, genuine Christianity, free from the superstitions with which it is defiled in other countries ; which superstitions, he observes, " naturally tend to abate its force." The date of this Sermon should here be attended to. It was preached in June, 1747; that is, four years before the delivery and publication of the Charge, which was in the year 1751 ; and exactly five years before the Author died, which was in June, 1752. We

* Scrm. XX.

BY THE EDITOR.

have then, in the passages now laid before the reader, a clear and unequivocal proof, brought down to within a few years of Bishop Butler's death, that Popery was held by him in the utmost abhorrence, and that he regarded it in no other light, than as the great corruption of Christianity, anddLmanifest, open usurpation of all human and divine authority. The argument is decisive ; nor will any thing be of force to invalidate it, unless from some after-ad during the short remainder of the Bishop's life, besides that of delivering and printing his Charge (which, after what I have said here, and in the Notes added to this Preface and to the Charge I must have leave to consider as affording no evidence at all of his inclination to Papistical doctrines or ceremonies), the contrary shall incontrovertibly appear.

III. One such after-act, however, has been alleged, which would effectually demolish all that we have urged in behalf of our Prelate, were it true, as is pretended, that he died in the communion of the Church of Rome. Had a story of this sort been invented and propagated by Papists, the wonder might have been less :

But to the reproach of Protestantism, the fabrication of this calumny, for such we shall find it, originated from among ourselves. It is pretty remarkable, that a circumstance so extraordinary should never have been divulged till the year 1767, fifteen years after the Bishop's decease. At that time Dr Thomas Seeker was Archbishop of Canterbury ; who of all others was the most likely to know the truth or falsehood of the fact asserted, having been educated with our Author in his early youth, and having lived in a constant habit of intimacy witli him to the very time of his death. The good Archbishop was not silent on this occasion : with a virtuous indignation he stood forth to protect the posthumous character of his friend ; and in a public newspaper, under the signature of Misopseudes, called upon his accuser to support what he had advanced, by whatever proofs he could. No proof, however, nor any thing like a proof, appeared in reply ; and every man of sense and candour at that xviii time was perfectly convinced the assertion was entirety groundless.* As a further confirmation of the rectitude

• VVhen the first edition of this Preface was published, I had in vain endeavoured to procure a sight of the papers, in wliich Bishop Butler was accused of having died a Papist, and Archbishop Seeker's replies to them ; though I well remembered to have read both, when they first appeared in the public prints. But a learned Professor in tile Universily of Oxford has furnished me with the whole controversy in its original form ; a brief histoiy of which it may not be unacceptable to offer here to the curious reader.

The attack was opened in the year 1767, in an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, The Root of Protestant Errors examined ;" in whicli the author asserted, that, " by an anecdote lately given him, that same Prelate" (who at the bottom of the page is railed B — p of D — m) "is said to have died in the communion of a Churcli, that makes much use of saints, saints' days, and all the trumpery of saint worship." When this remarkable fact, now first divulged, came to be generally known, it occasioned, as might be expected, no little alarm ; and intelligence of it was no sooner conveyed 10 Archbishop Seeker, than in a short letter, signed Misopseudes, and printed in the ~>t James's Chronicle of May 9, he called upoji the writer to produce liis authority for publishing " so gross and scandalous a falsehood." To this challenge an immediate answer was returned by the author of the pamphlet, who, now assuming the iiame of P/ii/et»iitfieros , informed Misopseudes, through the channel of the same paper, 'hat " sucli anecdote had been given him; and that he was yet of opinion, that there was nothing improbable in it, when it is considered that tlie same Prelate put up the Popish insignia of the cross in his chapel, when at Bristol ; and in his last Eijiscopal Charge has squinted very much towards that superstition." Here we find the accusation not only repeated, but supported by reasons, such as they are, of which ii seemed necessary that some notice should be taken : nor did the Archbishop conceive it unbecoming his own dignity to stand up on this occasion, as the vindicator of innocence against the calumniator of the helpless dead.

Accordingly, in a seconil li tter in the siime newspaper of May 23, and subscribed Misopseudes as before ; after reciting from Bishop Butler's Sermon before the Lords the very passage here printed in the Preface, and observing, that " there are, in the same Sermon, declarations as strong as can be made against temporal punishments for heresy, schism, or even for idolatry ;" his Grace expresses himself thus : " Kow he (Bishop Butler) was universally esteemed throughout his life, a man of strict piety and honesty, as well as inicommon abilities. He gave all the proofs, public and private, which his station led him to 'X'wv, and they were decisive and daily, of his continuing to the last a sincere member (>'." the Church of England. Nor had ever any of his acquaintance, or most intimate iViends, nor have they to this day, the least doubt of it." As to putting up a cross in his chapel, the Archbishop frankly owns, that for himself he wishes he had not ; and thinks that in fo doing the Bishop did amiss. But then he asks, " Can tluit be opposed, as any proof of Popery, to all the evidence on the other side; or even to the -ingle evidence of the above-mentioned Sermon ? Most of our cliurches have crosses upon them : are they therefore Popish churches? The Lutherans have more than <;rosses in theirs : are the Lutherans tlierefore Papists ?" And as to the Charge, no Papist, his Grace remarks, would have spoken as Bishop Butler there does, of the observances peculiar to Roman Catholics, some of which he expressly censures as wrong and superstitious, and others, as made subservient to the pur| oses of superstition, and, on these accounts, abolished at the Reformation. After the publication of this letter Phileleutheros replied in a short defence of his own conduct, but without producing any thing new in confirmation of what he had advanced. And here the controversy, so far as the two principals were concerned, seems to have ended.