’I.  Whatsoever Religion and Society have no future state for their support, must be supported by an extraordinary Providence.

’The Jewish Religion and Society had no future state for their support.

’Therefore, the Jewish Religion and Society was supported by an extraordinary Providence.

’II.  It was universally believed by the ancients on their common principles of legislation and wisdom, that whatsoever Religion and Society have no future state for their support, must be supported by an extraordinary Providence.

’Moses, skilled in all that legislation and wisdom, instituted the Jewish Religion and Society without a future state for its support.

’Therefore,—­Moses, who taught, believed likewise that this Religion and Society was supported by an extraordinary Providence.’

The work is a colossal monument of the author’s learning and industry:  the range of subjects which it embraces is enormous; and those who cannot agree with his conclusions either on the main argument, or on the many collateral points raised, must still admire the vast research and varied knowledge which the writer displays.  It is, however, a book more talked about than read at the present day.  Indeed, human life is too short to enable the general reader to do more than skim cursorily over a work of such proportions.  Warburton’s theory was novel and startling; and perhaps few even of the Deistical writers themselves evoked more criticism and opposition from the orthodox than this doughty champion of orthodoxy.  But Warburton was in his element when engaged in controversy.  He was quite ready to meet combatants from whatever side they might come; and, wielding his bludgeon with a vigorous hand, he dealt his blows now on the orthodox, now on the heterodox, with unsparing and impartial force.  Judged, however, from a literary point of view, ’The Divine Legation’ is too elaborate and too discursive a work to be effective for the purpose for which it was written;[164] and most readers will be inclined to agree with Bentley’s verdict, that the writer was ‘a man of monstrous appetite but bad digestion.’

Of a very different character is the next work to be noticed, as one of enduring interest on the Deistical controversy.  Bishop Berkeley’s ‘Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher,’ is one of the few exceptions to the general dreariness and unreadableness of controversial writings in the dialogistic form.  The elegance and easiness of his style, and the freshness and beauty of his descriptions of natural scenery by which the tedium of the controversy is relieved, render this not only a readable, but a fascinating book, even to the modern reader who has no present interest in the controversial question.  It is, however, by no means free from the graver errors incident to this form of writing.  Like Tindal, he makes his adversaries state their case far too weakly.  But, worse than this, he puts into their mouths arguments