is manifeftly impoffible for man to point out, what the wisdom of God may fee fit to reveal; and befides, it is in the highest degree probable, that an extraordinary revelation muft, among others, contain fome imperfect discoveries of things, which we either have not abilities, or at least occafion, in our prefent ftate, completely to understand. And fince it is manifeft, that every meffenger from God must certainly inculcate the pureft morality; the Author's fuppofed improbability that the fame perfon fhould do both, is purely imaginary, and in the very highest degree fantastical. As to what the Author adds, that "CHRIST'S "general character will beft determine which part of the New Teftament was his, and which "not;"-When he afferted this, he fhould furely have told us, what this general character of CHRIST is, and where it is to be found. In the New Teftament itself, in which the hiftory of CHRIST is contained; we find him and his Apoftles expressly reprefented as revealers of fupernatural truths, no less than preachers of the pureft moral doctrines. No affertion therefore can poffibly be more ridiculous than this; that "the general character of JESUs" can fupply us with reafon to believe, that tho' the moral precepts afcribed to him in the New Testament were his, the fupernatural truths there equally afcribed to him, were not; fince the general character we have of him as pofitively afferts, that he was the revealer of the One, as well as the preacher of the Other. Nor is this all, that the New Teftament afferts 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 affume the divine divine character of an immediate and special meffenger from God; and deliver fupernatural declarations, fpecifically as fuch. Here therefore I fhall leave the Author to reconfider his fundamental principle, of the truth and evidence of which he expreffes fo high an opinion, and upon which, in reality, he almost wholly depends for the fupport of his caufe. From what has been feen of the nature of all fupernatural revelations, it must, I hope, appear, That the pofition; "That a fupernatural revelation is neceffa rily unintelligible, and therefore, a contradiction "in terms;" is a grofs falfehood:-That fupernatural revelations in general, and those of the New Teftament in particular, are in their own nature just as proper fubjects of belief, as any other declarations, not fupernatural; and may be therefore as genuine parts of the religion of CHRIST, as the pureft, and moft obvious moral precepts the New Testament contains:And confequently, that the great point in difpute; (Whether the fupernatural revelations contained in the New Teftament itself actually are pure and genuine parts of the revelation of CHRIST?) is a queftion concerning only A MERE MATTER OF FACT; which nothing but the external evidence of the genuinenefs and purity of the Books of the New Teftament can determine. And fince therefore it is no torious, and on all hands confeffed, that the fupernatural declarations, which the New Testament contains, have the fame evidence of their Authenticity, as its plaineft moral precepts; and That evidence is abundantly fufficient in itself to establish the authority of any writings whatever; the confequence is inevitable, that if we believe there were fuch perfons as JESUS and the Apostles, and that they taught the moral precepts there attributed to them; we are indifpenfably bound to believe like wife, that the fupernatural revelations of the New Teftament are equally genuine parts of that Reve lation, which JESUS and his Apostles delivered. SECT. IV. The Author's Argument drawn from the RELI GION OF NATURE confidered. HE Author, like moft other writers in the fame T caufe, has endeavoured to prefs into his fervice the Religion of Nature; in hopes, as it fhould feem, by the help of that, the more effectually to explode Revelation, properly fo called. He often afferts, that the religion of CHRIST 23 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 t And that" all the duties required in the religion of CHRIST were "moral, natural, rational, and of eternal obligaection " τε The religion of nature, taken in its most complete and comprehenfive fenfe; not to enter into its endlels variations and degrees with refpect to individuals; is a collection of thofe principles and duties which Reafon alone, in its most cultivated and perfect ftate, is able to discover and approve. And certain it is, that JESUS was indeed a republifher of the religion of nature, in this moft comprehenfive fenfe; fince there is no duty, either to God, our neighbour, or ourselves, that See p. 275, 276, 349; and the paffages quoted in Sect. I. ↑ P. 239 P. 240. Reafon Reason can approve, which is not either exprefsly 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 afferting the very point in debate, That every pasfage of the New Teftament, 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 defign to take his reader unawares, and prejudice him in its favour without proof; is of no weight in itfelf; fince the truth of it refts entirely upon the strength of thofe arguments the Author has endeavoured to allege in its fupport; the very chief and principal of which, relating to MYSTE RIES,, we have already seen to be utterly ground less and falfe. But the Author further afferts" That myfteἐσ ry has no place in this pure and undefiled reic ligion, the religion of Nature *""That be lief and difbelief, forms and modes of worἐσ fhip make no part of Natural Religion † :”--That this Natural Religion, is certainly the purer "for being unmixed with forms and ceremonies, ἐσ or with myfterious and unintelligible propofitions and doctrines :""That the Law of ἐσ Nature is univerfally understood, fo far as to conftitute a rule perfect in its direction for the ❝ conduct of human life §:"-" That the Reli"gion of Nature mult be a perfect religion; becaufe 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 ¶." Let us confider the fundamental principles of these several affertions. 66 Mystery," fays the Author, "has no place in the pure and undefiled "religion of nature:" that is, to make him confiftent with himself, the religion of nature, or cultivated reafon, does not require us to believe any truths that are myfterious, like fome in the New Teftament; or, in other words, any truths relating to things of fuch a nature, as to be in any particular undiscoverable, or incomprehenfible to us. 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 felf-exiftent, or exifts himself without an efficient caufe ;-That he has exifted from eternity, i. e. is pofitively eternal §;-Nay that he has acted from all eternity ;-That though he created every thing that exifts, 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 confequently of the mode of God's exiftence*, but that it does acquaint us with every thing elfe relating to him. But if thefe are points of natural religion, as the Author afferts, how can he affert at the fame 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 *P. 50, 344. † P. 45. P. 226. § P. 46. Ibid, 4 relating |