1 Prefacer afferts, men must have found out the doctrines and duties of natural religion, by their very nature itfelf? He contends, that Mofes (as he expreffes himfelf) could only design the Fifth Commandment to relate to bad Parents; "Because a command to honour good Parents, and to fix a reward "for fo doing, must be abfolutely unneceffary. Is it poffible for any thing to be more palpably abfurd? Nay he himself fays, within a few. lines, "That God requires it, and will reward it." He fays, that as far as he has obferved, "No "particular notice is taken of the duty of 4 prudence, in the New Teftament." But of what importance is this obfervation, were it true; if, as he confeffes in the very next fentence, it is included in the precepts of the New Testament; of which he there quotes one; - Abstain from all appearance of evil. But for a proof of the falsehood of his obfervation, let him confider our Saviour's direction. Behold, I fend you forth as Sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wife (this ought to be tranflated cautious or prudent) as ferpents, and harmlefs as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their fynagogues". It is faid, that " Though Honefty be an indifpenfable duty, of which the Laws of Nature, of CHRIST, and of almost every country, require the practice; yet it does "not well deferve the name of Virtue ". What curious diftinctions are we here arrived at, between Virtue, and the Practice of Moral Duty? Honefty is often put to as hard a tryal as any VirBut let us liften to our New Inftructor in the Nature of Virtue. Poor Honefly, we fee, is ex tue. • Pref. p. 14. S P. 202. * P. 134. : P. 77. cluded cluded from so high a rank. But he tells us, "he cannot help ranking Chearfulness among the virtues, as it contributes fo much to the happiness "of fociety." And is the happiness, of fociety more indebted to Chearfulness, than to Honefty? Excellent morality this indeed! But how does it agree with the morality of the Gospel, which his confcience fo exactly approves? One of his texts is, re are of your father the Devil. Is the Devil known by Natural Religion? Another of his Texts mentions the Day of Judgment: Does Natural Religion teach a Day' of Judgment? He quotes the text, As God for CHRIST's fake bath forgiven you: And-then come and offer thy gift b: -Our Redemption therefore must be a part of the genuine doctrine of CHRIST; and Sacrifices of Divine Authority among the Jews. He approves the text, I charge thee before God, the Lord JESUS CHRIST, and the elett Angels Are JESUS CHRIST and the Elect Angels discovered by Natural Religion? He approves the text, For ye have need of patience, that after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. And Bleffed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he is tried be fhall receive the Crown of life, which the Lord bath promifed to them that love him. - Are thefe the promises of Natural Religion, or of Supernatural Revelation; He makes ufe of the text, For be bath faid, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee: borrowed from Deut. xxxi. 6, 8. and Josh. i. 5. And, God commanded, honour thy father and thy mother, &c. Therefore the Jewish Law is a Supernatural Revelation. He quotes the text', If ye fulfil the Royal Law, according to the Scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well. Therefore the Scriptures are of authority as fuch. k - He makes ufe of the text' But be thou an example of the Believers, — in faith:- And he quotes, Even fo faith, if it have not works, is dead:And, He bath denied the faith':-And, Add to your faith, virtue", &c. Therefore Faith is required in the Gofpel. He makes use of the text And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent". - Is this a discovery of Natural Religion, or can Natural Religion account for it, now it is difcovered? Will Natural Religion enable the Author to tell us, why God fuffered these times of ignorance; or why he did not fooner command all men to repent? And what command is this, but a command delivered to us by a Supernatural Revelation? He quotes the paffage,-And the days will come, when ye shall defire to fee one of the days of the Son of Man, and fhall not fee it .-Does Natural Religion teach us any thing about the Son of Man, or who he is, or the Days of the Son of Man, or what Days they are? So likewife he here approves, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace; but now they are bid from thine eyes.-What is this but a Prophecy of JESUS concerning Jerufalem? So again he here quotes,— "For be (Ifaiah) faith, I bave heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of falvation have I fuccoured thee; behold now is the accepted time; behold now is the day of falvation." Therefore the Prophecies of JESUS, and Isaiah, are Divine; and JESUS the MESSIAH. He makes use of a text from the Book of Revelation P. But if the Book of Revelation (Supernatural Revelation properly fpeaking) is of authority, as a part of the New Teftament, then the doctrines of JESUS could not be doctrines of mere Morality. If JESUS had been only a mere uninfpired Preacher of Moral Virtue, no book, entitled the Book of Revelation, could ever have made any part of his Religion, or have been connected with it. The Author fays, "The King fets a fhining example of piety towards God "But does he not alfo fet an example, according to the principles of our Author, of the vileft fuperftition; by believing both in the Old, and, as he will have it, the unauthorised or interpolated New Teftament? And does not the Author think, that believing in the Old Testament is worfe than Atheism '? He produces Dr. Sykes to prove, that what is called the Religion of CHRIST over and above his Moral Doctrines and Precepts, is entirely ufelefs and rubbish.-Dr. Sykes's faying this, had he done it, would not prove it; but does not the Author know, that Dr. Sykes has not faid it? I wifh he had not given fuch room to call in queftion his regard to truth. The Author fays, He thinks that the uncertainty of Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato, was not about the Exiftence of the Soul after death; but the Mode of its Exiftence, and the Nature and Extent of the Rewards of good Men Now Dr. Leland has fhewn, in the Chapter here alluded to, that it is no eafy matter to find out exactly, what the opinions of these Philofophers were; and that fome part of Pythagoras's doctrine was not very confiftent with a state of punifhments and rewards. Socrates appears to have been at least as fully perfuaded of the future Existence of the Soul, as any other ancient Philofopher; and yet he himfelf, as our Author is forced to confefs, fpeaks doubtfully of it. And both He and Plato founded their Belief of it, as far as it went, not chiefly on arguments, but on traditional Revelations; fuch as our Author thinks nothing can be founded on. And the reasonings of the Philofophers in general were fo far from establishing this Tradition, that they served rather to fhew it was beyond their power to confirm it. The Author fays, "That Dr. Leland and he generally agree;" referring to the Doctor's Book upon the Neceffity of Revelation, and that " he "is proud of being engaged in the fame caufe "with him, that of vindicating Rational Chrif "tianity":" Yet he cannot but know in his confcience, that the profeffed defign of Dr. Leland's Book is, to prove that a Revelation, a Supernatural Revelation, was neceffary, because human reafon had not proved in fact a fufficient guide; whereas he himself writes profeffedly to prove, that fuch a Revelation is an utter impoffibility, even a contradiction in terms: - And further, That the Doctor believes both the Old and New Testament to be of Divine Authority; whereas his own Book is a profeffed attempt, fuch as it is, to prove juft the contrary. He would likewife have it imagined, that when the Doctor fays, the belief of a future ftate was pro The Neceffity of Revelation, P. III. Chap. IV. W P. 382, &c. P. 383, 384, &c. bably |