Morgan, Thomas (1), a Scotch Presbyterian di- vine of the Unitarian cast, who flourished near and after the opening of this century as pastor of a congregation in London, is noted, in conjunction with some others of his persuasion, as the editor of a mutilated edition of Dr. Watts's psalms and hymns, which, from being Cal- vinistic, they perverted to Socinianism. He was also the coadjutor of Dr. Aikin in compiling the work enti- tled General Biography (1799-1814, 10 vols. 4to), and was besides editor of the New A nnual Register after the demise cf Dr. Kippis. See Diet. Liv. A uth. Gr. Britain and Ireland (Lond. 1816, 8vo), s. v.
Morgan, Thomas (2), a distinguished English deist, noted for his attempt to make moral excellence the only test of everj' system of religion, and for his rejection of a historic revelation of positive duties as inadmissible, flourished about the middle of last cen- tury. Of his life we know but very little, and the fol- lowing meagre facts are taken from Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Mr. William Winston (1749, p. 318). " Morgan ministered for some time to an orthodox Pres- byterian congregation, but in 1726 was deposed for Ari- anism by the presbytery. He then seems to have prac- ticed medicine among the Quakers at Bristol, but finally devoted himself entirely to literary labors, and died at London Jan. 14, 1743" (see Baumgarten, Hall. Bill, v, 331 sq. ; vi, 181). Morgan published a number of works against the Holy Scriptures, the best known of which is The Mo7-al Philosopher, in a Dialogue between Phila- lethes, a Christian Deist, and Theopkanes, a Christian Jeiv (Lond. 1737). This work was supplemented by a second volume, Bevig a further Vindication of Moral Truth and Reason, in 1739, and by a third. Superstition and Tyranny inconsistent with Theocracy, in 1740. This work elicited many answers, for a list of which see Lowndes, Bj-it. Libr. p. 1203 ; see also the references at the end of this article. ^Morgan acknowledges himself a firm believer in God as the almighty creator and ruler of the universe. He lays especial stress on God's con- tinued presence, power, and agency. " God governs the natural and moral worlds by his constant, uninterrupted presence, power, and incessant action upon both, and not by any such essential, inherent powers or properties in the things themselves as might set aside the con- tinued presence, power, and agency of God as unneces- sarj', or as having nothing to do in the government of either the natural or moral world" {Moral Philosopher, i, 186). Like his predecessors, Hobbes (q. v.), Blount (q. v.), and Toland (q. v.), Morgan refuses, however, to acknowledge any revelation of the divine will. He as- serts the supremacy of reason, or, as bishop Van Mildert expresses it (Boyle Lectures'), " IMorgan allows the pos- sibility and even the utility of revelation, but artfully destroys the effect of the admission by confounding rev- elation with man's natural reason."
In his examination of Judaism, ^Morgan rejects its claims wholly on grounds similar to those explained by Chubb, as incompatible with the moral character of God. According to his view, there exists an irrecon- cilable opposition between the Jehovah of the Jews and the God of the Christians, or, in other words, between the two religious systems — the Law and the Gospel, The O. T. and the N. T. he considered essentially an- tagonistic. The love and charity which are manifested in the Gospel of Christ he is unable to find in the O. T. He calls Moses " a more fabulous, romantic writer than Homer or Ovid" {Moral Philosophe?; i, 251 ; iii, 94 sq.). The moral law of the O. T., he argues, was but national, and has reference to this life only ; " none of its (the law's) rewards or punishments relating to any future state, or extending themselves beyond this life" {Moral Philosopher, i, 27). The old dispensation was, according to his view, the reign of a " national tutelar God," but not of the almighty Jehovah who chose the Jews for his own people." Their God was an "idol, after the manner of the Egyptians." The Israelites, from the days of Moses, believed their national tutelar God to be Jehovah, or the supreme God, but no other nation upon earth ever believed it {Moral Philosopher, i, 315), In short, he looked upon the O. T. as a religious system not only differing from, but entirely opposed to Christi- anity. Lechler {Gesch. d. Englischen Deismus, p. 383) calls Morgan the modern Marcion ; and in reality the system of Morgan bears a close resemblance to that of Marcion. In examining the New Testament, he, like his deisti- cal predecessors, attacked the evidence of miracles and prophecy, and asserted the necessity of moral right and wrong as the ground of the interpretation of Scripture. Morgan wrote against religion, wishing to set up mo-
MORGAN
608
MORGIANS
rality in its stead. Leland judges him thus (^Deistical Writers,^). 107): "By a prevarication and a disingenii- oiisness which is not easily paralleled except among some of those that have appeared on the same side, un- der all his fair ])rctences and disguises he hath covered as determined a malice against the honor and authority of the Christian revelation as any of tliose that have written before him." INIorgan's writings all created quite a sensation, and called forth numerous refutations. Among his opponents were llallet, Leland, Chapman, Chandler, and bishop Warburton. The last named was provoked by Morgan to write his celebrated treatise, On the Divine Legalism of Moses (1737-38). See Walch, Bill. Theol. i, 773 sq., 807-810; Mosheim, Kcd. Hist.; Leland, Deislical Writers ; Von Jlildert, Boi/le Led. ; Schlosser, Hist, of the ISlh Cent. (Davison's transl.) i, 47 ; Lecliler. Gesch. d. Eiir/lischen Deismus, p. 380 s(j. ; Farrar, Crit. Hist, of Free Thought, p. 140 sq.