is manifestly impoffible for man to point out, what the wisdom of God may fee fit to reveal; and besides, it is in the highest degree probable, that an extraordinary revelation must, among others, contain some imperfect discoveries of things, which we either have not abilities, or at least occafion, in our present state, completely to understand. And fince it is manifest, that every messenger from God must certainly inculcate the pureft morality; the Author's supposed improbability that the same person should do both, is purely imaginary, and in the very highest degree fantastical.

As to what the Author adds, that "CHRIST'S general character will best determine which part of the New Testament was his, and which

not; "-When he afferted this, he should furely have told us, what this general character of CHRIST is, and where it is to be found. In the New Testament itself; in which the history of CHRIST is contained; we find him and his Apostles expressly represented as revealers of fupernatural truths, no less than preachers of the pureft moral doctrines. No assertion therefore can possibly be more ridiculous than this; that " the general character of JESUS" can fupply us with reason to believe, that thơ' the moral precepts ascribed to him in the New Testament were his, the supernatural truths there equally ascribed to him, were not; fince the general character we have of him as positively afferts, that he was the revealer of the One, as well as the preacher of the Other. Nor is this all, that the New Testament asserts it; but we have feen already, in the foregoing Section, that there are a great variety of facts recorded of him, of such a nature as not to admit of being forged or falfified; which prove to demonstration, that Jesus did in fact assume the divine divine character of an immediate and special meffenger from God; and deliver supernatural declarations, specifically as fuch.

Here therefore I shall leave the Author to reconsider his fundamental principle, of the truth and evidence of which he expresses so high an opinion, and upon which, in reality, he almost wholly depends for the fupport of his cause. From what has been seen of the nature of all fupernatural revelations, it must, I hope, appear, That the position; "That a fupernatural revelation is neceffa

66

rily unintelligible, and therefore, a contradiction " in terms;" is a gross falsehood:-That fupernatural revelations in general, and those of the New Testament in particular, are in their own nature just as proper subjects of belief, as any other declarations, not fupernatural; and may be therefore as genuine parts of the religion of CHRIST, as the pureft, and most obvious moral precepts the New Testament contains:-And confequently, that the great point in difpute; (Whether the supernatural revelations contained in the New Teftament itself actually are pure and genuine parts of the revelation of CHRIST?) is a question concerning only A MERE MATTER OF FACT; which nothing but the external evidence of the genuineness and purity of the Books of the New Testament can determine. And fince therefore it is no torious, and on all hands confessed, that the fupernatural declarations, which the New Testament contains, have the fame evidence of their Authenticity, as its plainest moral precepts; and That evidence is abundantly sufficient in itself to establish the authority of any writings whatever; the confequence is inevitable, that if we believe there were fuch persons as JESUS and the Apostles, and that they taught the moral precepts there attributed to them; we are indispensably bound to believe likewife, that the fupernatural revelations of the New Testament are equally genuine parts of that Reve lation, which JESUS and his Apostles delivered...

1

SECT. IV.

The Author's Argument drawn from the RELIGION OF NATURE confidered.

THE

Author, like moft other writers in the fame caufe, has endeavoured to press into his fervice the Religion of Nature; in hopes, as it should seem, by the help of that, the more effectually to explode Revelation, properly so called.

२८

وو

He often afferts, that "the religion of CHRIST " was the religion of nature;" and that " JESUS " was a republisher of the religion of nature ; meaning by this, that he taught, or publifhed nothing more *-That "all CHRIST'S doctrines " and precepts were republications of natural "religion+;" And that "all the duties "required in the religion of CHRIST Were moral, natural, rational, and of eternal obligation "

The religion of nature, taken in its most complete and comprehenfive sense; not to enter into its endless variations and degrees with refpect to individuals, is a collection of those principles and duties which Reason alone, in its most cultivated and perfect state, is able to discover and approve. And certain it is, that Jesus was indeed a republisher of the religion of nature, in this most comprehenfive sense, since there is no duty, either to God, our neighbour, or ourselves, that

* See p. 275, 276, 349; and the paflages quoted in Sect. I. P239 P.240.

Reafon

Reason can approve, which is not either expressly enjoined, or naturally implied in the Gospel.

But as the New Testament expressly attributes to CHRIST much more than the mere republication of this perfect Natural Religion; to affert that he did nothing more, is only in other words asserting the very point in debate, That every pafsage of the New Testament, except fuch as contain fome moral duty, is unauthorized by Jesus, if not actually forged. This affertion therefore, though perpetually repeated by our Author; as if with design to take his reader unawares, and prejudice him in its favour without proof; is of no weight in itself; since the truth of it rests entirely upon the strength of those arguments the Author has endeavoured to allege in its fupport; the very chief and principal of which, relating to MYSTERIES,, we have already seen to be utterly ground less and false.

But the Author further afferts "That myste ry has no place in this pure and undefiled re "ligion, the religion of Nature * :"" That be * lief and disbelief, forms and modes of wor "ship make no part of Natural Religion +:" That "this Natural Religion, is certainly the purer " for being unmixed with forms and ceremonies, " or with mysterious and unintelligible propofi

tions and doctrines † :"" That the Law of "Nature is universally understood, so far as to conftitute a rule perfect in its direction for the " conduct of human life §: "" That the Reli"gion of Nature must be a perfect religion; be

cause God is the Author of it || :"And therefore, "that if the Religion of CHRIST differs from it, fo far as it differs it must be imper

"fect."

* P. 244. † Ibid. P. 338.

339.

Let us confider the fundamental principles of

these several affertions. "Mystery," says the Author, "has no place in the pure and undefiled

66

religion of nature:" that is, to make him consistent with himself, the religion of nature, or cultivated reason, does not require us to believe any truths that are mysterious, like some in the New Testament; or, in other words, any truths relating to things of such a nature, as to be in any particular undiscoverable, or incomprehenfible to us.

E

What now does this religion of reason or nature comprehend? According to this Author it includes a thorough belief of the being and attributes of God, and all the duties that can be derived from them. That he is " an infinitely " wife, powerful, and good Being *;" -That he is the creator of all things, and wills the happiness of his creatures; - That he is the first caufe + -and self-existent, or exifts himself without an efficient cause ‡ ; - That he has existed from eternity, i. e. is pofitively eternal §;-Nay that he has acted from all eternity || ; -That though he created every thing that exists, yet he never did begin to create; but that his works are pofitively eternal as much as he himself. That reafon indeed cannot give us an idea of Spirit, or consequently of the mode of God's existence *, but that it does acquaint us with every thing else relating to him.

But if thefe are points of natural religion, as the Author afsserts, how can he affert at the same time, that mystery has no place in the Religion of Nature? Or that the religion of nature is certainly the purer for being unmixed with any truths