In many points, however, Lord Bolingbroke goes far beyond his predecessors.  His ‘First Philosophy’ marks a distinct advance or decadence, according to the point of view from which we regard it, in the history of Freethinking.  Everything in the Bible is ruthlessly swept aside, except what is contained in the Gospels.  S. Paul, who had been an object of admiration to the earlier Deists, is the object of Bolingbroke’s special abhorrence.  And not only is the credibility of the Gospel writers impugned, Christ’s own teaching and character are also carped at.  Christ’s conduct was ’reserved and cautious; His language mystical and parabolical.  He gives no complete system of morality.  His Sermon on the Mount gives some precepts which are impracticable, inconsistent with natural instinct and quite destructive of society.  His miracles may be explained away.’

It may be said, indeed, that most of these tenets are contained in the germ in the writings of earlier Deists.  But there are yet others of which this cannot be said.

Bolingbroke did not confine his attacks to revealed religion.  Philosophy fares as badly as religion in his estimate.  ’It is the frantic mother of a frantic offspring.’  Plato is almost as detestable in his eyes as S. Paul.  He has the most contemptuous opinion of his fellow-creatures, and declares that they are incapable of understanding the attributes of the Deity.  He throws doubt upon the very existence of a world to come.  He holds that ’we have not sufficient grounds to establish the doctrine of a particular providence, and to reconcile it to that of a general providence;’ that ’prayer, or the abuse of prayer, carries with it ridicule;’ that ’we have much better determined ideas of the divine wisdom than of the divine goodness,’ and that ’to attempt to imitate God is in highest degree absurd.’

There is no need to discuss here the system of optimism which Lord Bolingbroke held in common with Lord Shaftesbury and Pope; for that system is consistent both with a belief and with a disbelief of Christianity, and we are at present concerned with Lord Bolingbroke’s views only in so far as they are connected with religion.  From the extracts given above, it will be seen how far in this system Deism had drifted away from its old moorings.

After Bolingbroke no Deistical writing, properly so called, was published in England.  The great controversy had died a natural death; but there are a few apologetic works which have survived the dispute that called them forth, and may be fairly regarded as [Greek:  ktemata es aei] of English theology.  To attempt even to enumerate the works of all the anti-Deistical writers would fill many pages.  Those who are curious in such matters must be referred to the popular work of Leland, where they will find an account of the principal writers on both sides.  All that can be attempted here is to notice one or two of those which are of permanent interest.