w 
 
 >* 
 
 iin 
 
 JU « 
 
 1 =-^, 
 
 
 -^h 
 
 W^ 
 
 
 
 C-lA 
 
 V > 11 1 
 
 J// 
 
 >o 
 
 n 
 
 ^^ 
 
 -w ) ^ vr= )
 
 VAy3/\iNn]\\v 
 
 ^^'•AHVHan-iv^ 
 
 ^N>vl-LIBRARYa. ,s^\tLlBRARYQ. 
 
 ■y\ ^ 
 
 ^\[IJNIVt..„/,, .^^lUS-ANGEL^ 
 
 
 ^^0JITV3J0- 
 
 '^.yojiw^-jo- 
 
 ^I^INV-SOI^ 
 
 ,OFCAI1FO% 
 
 1^ ^ 
 
 ^^^AyvyaiT^w- ^^Ayvyan-^ 
 
 
 v/^MiMwnuW 
 
 \WEUN1VER% 
 
 -^ o 
 
 .j^lOSANGEifj>, 
 
 ■^r^iil'jN'VSOl^ %a3 A ! N ll •] \\V 
 
 .^l-LIBRARYO^ 
 
 %)-l!W3J0- 
 
 \Wt-UNl VhK% v^LUVANbtUj.^ ^^'Or-yvLl lU/?;^ ^^vjr 
 
 ■'^i.iiiwuani^^' ' >^lMVMfln-lV\^ 
 
 V/CM^AIMniVW 
 
 ^l-LIBRARYQ/ , ^^HIBRARYQ., 
 
 .^EUNIVERS/: 
 
 '^(!/ojnv3jeV 
 
 ^mnv3J0- 
 
 •r?l]DNV 
 
 
 ^ c^ 
 
 US-ANGEL£
 
 DEISM 
 
 NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE 
 
 RELIGION 
 
 o V 
 
 REASON AND NATURE. 
 
 By C A P E L B E R R O W, A. M. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED FOR J. DODSLEY, IN PALL-MALL 
 
 M,DCC.LXXX.
 
 TO HIS 
 
 ROYAL HIGHNESS 
 
 G E O R G E, 
 
 PRINCE of WALES, 
 
 A IRST in defcent as your Royal Highnefs is from 
 our moft gracious Sovereign, and his all amiable 
 and illuflrious Gonfort, eminent for, among other 
 their truly patriotic virtues, that exemplary life of 
 piety, pradlical as well as devotional, which gives 
 fuch an added luftre to the diadem encircling the 
 brow of each ; perfefted too as you are, by means 
 of a well-diredled mode of education, in the theory 
 6i a Britiffi conftitution, and pra6tifed, from prin- 
 ciple^ in the mdral precepts of that religion to which 
 ft is fo nearly ^ aUied—'Kiot to mention thofe your 
 
 alliduoUs 
 
 869781
 
 11 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 alUduous refearchcs i;\ the region cf fciencey with 
 fucli acknowledged fuccefs too, as the mathemati- 
 cian, the clajftc, the cQ7i7mjJcur in the Belles Let- 
 treSy the virtu, acquifitions which ferve to give to 
 the world fo confefTedJy, in the augtijl prince, the 
 fcnfible and accomplifhcd gentleman, I will not 
 doubt of your attachment at the fame time, with 
 a zeal congenial with that which glows {o unre- 
 mittingly in the breads of your royal parents, to 
 the caufe of Chriftianity, genuine, uncorrupted 
 Chriilianity, the peculiar glory of Proteflant com- 
 munities in general, the chief corner-flone in Great 
 Britain's mofl happily conflruded eflabliftiment in 
 church and flate in particular. 
 
 In order therefore to counteract the unwearied 
 ENDEAVOURS of MODERN DEISTS to argue awav 
 the necejftty, and in confequence the credibility of a 
 revealed religion, to invalidate the authenticity, and, 
 of courfe, the authority of that repofitory of the 
 Go/pel difpenfation the /acred pages, and to repel, 
 by the force of reafon, attempts inimical, as thofe are, 
 
 to
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 Ill 
 
 to the civil interefls of every Chrijlian flate, and 
 daily encreafing to an alarming degree in ours—1 
 venture to requeft jour patronage and prote6lion of 
 a performance, the fum and fubflance of a familiar 
 
 epijlle to a friend^ penned formerly with that all-'mte' 
 refling objeft in view, and now, with the utmofl 
 deference, laid at your Royal Highnefs's feet by 
 
 Your mofl devoted fervant, 
 
 CAPEL BERROW.
 
 Xi^ U)
 
 DEI S M 
 
 NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE 
 
 RELIGION 
 
 O F 
 
 REASON AND NATURE. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 W HEN I had laft the pleafure of a converfation with you at 
 your houfe, you was pleafed, from your wonted zeal for the caufe 
 of deifm, to put into my hands a treatife, intitled, Delfm fairly 
 JIated, and fully v'mdicated, which, agreeably to your requefl:, I 
 have pernfed with great attention, making thofe remarks, as I went 
 along, which I now fend for your perufal. And this I do the more 
 readily, as they afford anfwers to a fuppofed non-necffftty, and, in 
 
 B confequence.
 
 2 Deism not confijlcjit ivith tha 
 
 confcqnence, the incredibility of a reveakJ religion. To the au- 
 thenticity therefore, and, of courfe, the authority of that repo- 
 fitory of thcGofpcl difpenfation, the Oicred pages,\ will, in order to 
 avoid trefpaifing upon your time and patience, take upon mc to 
 Ihew how incompatible the De'ijh principles are with the boaft- 
 cd dcfign of deifm, as ftated by its formidable patron and defen- 
 der, compared with that f row//t'^ plan of redemption a future unl- 
 'verfalrejiitutlon : but to the purpofe and to proofs. 
 
 From the beginning of the performance there occurs nothing 
 worthy our notice, till the author comes to his di'Jhiitiori of deifm, 
 which is as follows : 
 
 " Deifm, fays he, properly fpeaking fo called, whatever 111 ufage 
 it may have met with, is no other than the religion eflfential to 
 raan, the true origi]*al Religion of Reajon and Nature: fuch as 
 was believed and pradlifed by Socrates and thofe of old, who were 
 as great ornaments, and did as much honour to human nature, as 
 any Chriftian ever did.'* 
 
 In the true idea of the religion 'of reafon and 'nature^ I under- 
 ftand to be implied an attention to all extraordinary intimations of 
 our duty, as well as to fuch as arifc from the ifual exertloas of 
 our rcafonlng faculties. So that it may and muft comprehend not 
 only the obfcrvance of fuch rules as Socrates and other philofophers 
 taught and prac^ifcd, but a regard likewife to precepts delivered by 
 a divine inftruclor, furnifhcd with the requifite credentials as Hea- 
 vens ambajjjdor. Wherefore if to deifm our author unites not a 
 tViftin£l belief of revelation^ he Hiould confider himfelf as poflibly 
 falling (hort of the religion of reafon and nature ; which teaches, 
 or 1 know not what is meant by the religion of reafon and nature, 
 that every precept or point of knowledge, delivered mediately ov 
 
 immediately
 
 Religion of Reason tf;;/ Nature. 3 
 
 immediately to us by God, demands from us a diftinguifhed 
 reverence — as a feparate fuperaded obligation on our confciences. 
 It is, of courfe, incumbent therefore upon our deift, before he 
 prefumes to affimilate the caufe of deifm to the religion of re af on 
 and nature^ to prove that in the former is included all that the lat- 
 ter recommends. Now, this I conceive to be a criterion of the pro- 
 priety of the above comparifon which deifts are fcarce apprlfed of. 
 — And yet till they make both agree apparently in rejcBling revela* 
 iion, they cannot pretend to fay that deifm, and the religion of rea- 
 fin aud nature, are abfolutely one and the fame uniform fimikr rule 
 of moral agency. That we may therefore put the point here in 
 difpute upon a proper foot of inquiry, and fee how far deifm, in Its 
 antichrifian fcheme of moral independency, can be juftified on the 
 principles of natural reafin and religion ; I will fuppofe you urg- 
 ing, as a rational foundation for our Delft's infidel perfuafions, the 
 three following, perhaps, only material arguments to be produced 
 in their behalf. 
 
 Firft, It Is not probable that any light, information or Inftruflion 
 touching the Deity, or our duty to him (which, our Deift fays, is, 
 properly fpeaking, a revelation, p. 1 7.) fhould have been communi- 
 cated to men by an immediate, particular, fpecial interpofttion of 
 the Deity for that purpofe ; nor 
 
 Secondly, Does it appear, that Jefus Chrlft was really the in- 
 ftrument employed by the Deity to convey any fuch revelation to 
 tlie world, fuppofing it not improbable that God may have been in- 
 clined at times to afford us one ; nor, 
 
 Laftly, Does the authority of thofe fcripturc?, which are faid to 
 be a moft faithful repofitory of that fame revelation, come to us 
 fo clear and unqueftionable in that point as might be expe£led ; 
 
 B 2 nor
 
 i| Deism not. confijlent ivith the 
 
 ror arc the writings ihcmfLlves fo well calculated, as they ought to 
 If, to anfacr thoie purpofcs for which they are prcfumed to he iu- 
 Iciidcc!. 
 
 If thcfe moft formldahlc obftrudions to a general reception of 
 Chriftianity, thcfe Ihiriding ftumhling blocks in the way of deifts 
 fhould haplv at length be removed, though but even to your con- 
 viction, I /hall reft myfelf contented with expecting, wliat will 
 amply recompcnce my trouble {'ii there be any in this addrefs) th(? 
 pleafure of having happily prevailed over the two hally prejudices 
 of a valued friend, and refiored one at lead, from among the infa- 
 tuated and unthinking mary, to a rational and manly faith. I 
 Ihall not however multiply rcafonin.gs on each particular branch 
 of the enquiry, but latisfy myfelf chiefiy in tlie wi-c of one 
 argument alone, when that one alone feems to me conclu- 
 live. *' Firft then, it is not probable, fays the Dcili, that any 
 ** light, information or inftru6\ion touching the Deity, or our duty 
 ** to him, G?r. ihould have been communicated to men by an im- 
 •* mediate, particular, and fpecial intcrpofition of the Deity for that 
 " purpofc.*' — And wherefore ? Why my reafon, fay you, in fup- 
 port of the afiertion, informs me, that the connatural notices in my 
 breaft are fo fufficiently declarative of the Deity, and of my duty 
 to him, to myfelf and to all mankind, as to render any further in- 
 ftruft':ons in my way to future happincfs ufelefs, which therefore 
 could not have been intended mc by my Creator. 
 
 lour reafon ! alas, another man's reafon, as he terms it, informs 
 him that there is no God. And if the religion of reafon and nature 
 confifts only in confulting what every man calls his own reafon, 
 athcifm might as eafily be refolved into the religion of nature by 
 thcfe who at any time efpoufcd that particular perfuafion, as you 
 be juftified in rejefting revelation, becaufe your reafon informs 
 you that it is abfolutely unnecefl'ary. 
 
 But
 
 Religion ^/Reason ^WNature. 5 
 
 But hold, fay you again, by my reafon I do net mean the fuggef- 
 tlrns of whim, prejudice, and partiality — nor a pervefe and reorobatc 
 mind ; but (what points out to me the Deity, and my duty to him 
 and to all mankind, and is therefore the religion of reafon and na^ 
 ture) an unbiaflcd attention to the nature and fitnefs of things, a 
 law in which is comprehended the whole extent of my duty con- 
 fidered in every relation and circumllance of life ; a law oblipatorv 
 
 o ^ 
 
 upon every individual, and claimant of my attention therefore in 
 preference to, and even independent of all othtr fupernatural guides 
 to my conducl. 
 
 Aye, that, my friend, is indeed a true portrait of the religion of 
 
 reafon and nature-, and what pity it is that the world does not fur- 
 
 nifh out a few more del/Is on that plan r— There would then be n 
 
 proportionally lets occafion for revelation. — But what fliall we fay 
 
 when nature, vvhilft (he affords us fo ample a fyftem of moral and 
 
 religious duties, abounds at the fame time with fuch a group of 
 
 fpecious allurements to recede from it ? What if men, if even 
 
 dei/ls, from the neceffity of. their conftitution (as degenerated free 
 
 agents I mean) are more liable to exceed, than to keep within, the 
 
 bounds of their duty ? Did not fenfuality and voluptuoufnefs, did 
 
 not envy, pride and ambition, too frequently ufr.rp the province 
 
 of right reafon, the religion of nature would not ftand fo m.uch in 
 
 need perhaps, as it now does, of the propofed affiflances of revela- 
 
 tion ; but 'tis to remove thofe obftru^lions to a proper exercife of 
 the one, that the other comes in aid. 
 
 If therefore you would have me acquiefce in your opinion, 
 that a revealed religion is fuperfluous and therefore not probable, you 
 muft firft prove it to be fo by a difinterefted enquiry into the real 
 truth of the cafe-— by a ftridt, conffient attention to your own gol- 
 den rule, the religion of reafon and nature. The meer fuggeftions of 
 
 your
 
 6 Deism tjot confijlejit with the 
 
 your own fancy are of no moment at all in the affair, nor the prepo- 
 icffions you may have imbibed from another man's hafty and au- 
 thoritative declaration. Thefe, added to the bias of your own 
 wiflics mav eafilv enough induce you to believe that revelation is 
 therefore indcfcnfible. But alas ! how cafy a matter is it for a man 
 to believe that to be falfe, which he has cither an inclination to fup- 
 pofe, or too much reafon to wifh, not to be true! If the religion ofrea- 
 fon and nature therefore my friend is the dircftory oi your faith 
 and praiHicc in life, try whether from thence you can deduce argu- 
 ments fufficient to juliify a rcje«ftion of the Chriftian difpenfation ; 
 fee whether from the light of the one you can difcover any thing 
 reallv unnatural in the purpofes from which originates the other. 
 Whether, in the firrt place, it is in fa«5t not agreeable to rcufon to 
 fuppofe that nature (fallible as flie appears to be) iliould receive 
 from time to time fuch admonitions and inftruftions from the Deity, 
 as mav be a probable means to forward her in the difcharge of her 
 various duty ? And then, fecondly, whether revelation, having fo 
 apparently probability in its fiuour, can ;Y^/b;7/7^/y be treated with 
 derifion, infolence and contempt ? If the principles on which your 
 dcifm is fupportcd will countenance fuch a procedure as this, they 
 are but a fandy foundation for your confidence, carrying with them 
 a manifcft repugnancy to the very eflence of tiatural religion, and 
 diflcnting from it in a point infinitely momentous. 
 
 True, fay you, but what then? 1 am not (as I fa id before) one 
 of thofe random contemners of revelation here fuppofed ; I have 
 reafons for my infidelity, well examined, \vell confidered ; and 
 (a point which muft ncceflarily be fettled, e'er I can propofe yield- 
 ing up to you even any of my doubts and fcruplcs) have the 
 circumftance of iviprobiibility to oppofe io \,\\t pre fumptive eviden- 
 ces of Chriftianity ; the former greatly preponderating, as I appre- 
 hend, to the difadvantage of the latter. 
 
 For
 
 Religion ^Reason z^-;;^ Nature. 7 
 
 For in the firft place is not the law of nature, when attended to 
 as it ought, (and with whom lies the fault if it is not) a full, fuf- 
 ficient guide to our conduct ? Are we not prompted bj the di61ates 
 of right reafon, to aft in a manner anfwerable to the end of our 
 creation, and the dignity of human nature? How prepofterous isit 
 then, as fliys a late eminent writer,* " for a man to hunt after a guide 
 to his conduft, when the author of his being has planted one in his 
 own breaft ?.'* 
 
 But under the fuppofed influence of fuch an all-fufficient guide ta 
 his judgment, how comes it that that writer fhouldwith fo little judg- 
 ment oppofe his own private opinion to the fentiments of men un- 
 queftionably his equals at leaft, if not his fuper'wrs, in every ad- 
 vantage that learning, application, and even natural abilities, could 
 give them ? How happened it that he was not inftru(5led from 
 within^ to treat with more fuitable refpe6l a religion embraced and 
 reverenced by thofe, who were not more remarkable for their pie- 
 ty than for their parts and penetration ? And if the fcriptures do 
 really abound with fuch inconfiftencies and abfurditie?, which he, 
 from but a bare fuperficial knowledge of them, is pleafed to lay to 
 their charge, how comes it that they fhould have efcaped the cenfure 
 of a Locke, an Addljoriy a Newton ? There is no reafon to be gi- 
 ven why they fhould be more partial to any fancied failings of holy 
 writ, than Mr. Chubb ; but many, why the judgment they have 
 given in its favour, fhould be taken in preference to the calumnies 
 and afperlions with which he has thought fit to load It. Unlefs,. 
 as Dr. Rogers obferves, learning, iludy, and all thofe advantages 
 which are ufually thought to render one man's judgment preferable 
 to another's, are to be efteemed, in the enquiry after truth, of nou 
 moment, of no conllderation whatfoever. 
 
 * Vid. Chubb's FarewcU, 
 
 He
 
 g Deism not confijlcrit ijoith the 
 
 He ouglit to have confidered, that if fome have, with more ftuh- 
 born prcdimption, perh:ips, than relf-perfuafion, pronounced Chrifti- 
 anity to be falfe, none have yet been able to make it appear fo to 
 the convi(5tion of fincere, impartial, and learned enquirers : and 
 that it would have been worth the employment of his great intelle£lual 
 abilities^ to account for the conduft of the Supreme Being, in 
 fuflcring a deceit of that kind (if it be one) to pafs upon mankind 
 through fo many ages paft, for feemingly no other end and purpofe, 
 than to be the parent of the raoft cruel miferics to its iirft cham- 
 pions and defenders, a fountain from whence flowed an ocean 
 
 of innocent blood. For I think it ought to be particularly remark- 
 ed, that if at anv time falfe religions have been obtruded on man- 
 kind bv the irrefiftible authority of the fword, none but ours has 
 been cft-ibliOied on the more trying principle, a readlnefs to per'ijh 
 with the fzvord---noT\t but ours has gained profelytes to its caufe, un- 
 der fuch Pirong/)ro/)/7f//V intimations of what unparallelled cruelties 
 lliey were to encounter, who engaged in its defence. And if you 
 can conceive it poflible, that men, ading under the moft pure and 
 fervent piety towards God, fhould be given up by him to fuch a 
 C(;mplicated feverity of fate, in confequence of opinions really falfe 
 and (^roiindkfsj you muft acknowledge, that they were of all men, 
 as uraccoiintably as undffcr'-ccdly, the moft mifcrable. 
 
 But to return. -.-That there is interwoven in our nature a direflory 
 to our condua, which, would we attend to it, would fecure us 
 from ever erring in our pradice ; a rule for our judgment, to which 
 if we would but appeal, we ftiould be as feldom erroneous in our 
 principle?, I can readily enough admit. By the term confcience, 
 we ufir.lly diftingut(h the one ; right reafon, we call the other. 
 Two different names, in faft, for one and the fame thing-4t is 
 tlie fitncfs of things which comprehends both. But is this fame 
 law of nature fufficient, /;/ >c7, to keep men within the bounds 
 
 of
 
 Religion (j/Reason^WNature. 9. 
 
 their complicated duty ? Do men invariably adl up to the rules 
 which right reafon prefcribes ?— That this is not the cafe, the feve- 
 ral daily violations of the laws of fociety, too abundantly evince. 
 And if in anfwer to that, it be faid, that neither is revelation, with 
 all its coercive authority, or moft perfualive allurements, fufficient 
 for thcfe ends — what will follow ? Why, that men are men, 
 fubje6l to the controul of paflions to which they even court an obe- 
 dience, and will gratify, when it is their inclination fo to do, in 
 oppoiition to the perfuafions of either reafon or revelation. 
 
 The only queftion meriting, my dear Sir, your attention, k 
 which of the two is moft likely to anfwer ftozv, as a direSlory 
 for man's conduct. Reafon^ fubjeft as it is to the many inherent 
 frailties and imperfedions of human nature ; or revelation^ which 
 comes in aid to it, and Is propofed to us for the very purpofe of 
 removing thofe imperfedions ? From the appearance which the for- 
 mer now makes, we are apt to entertain a fallacious Idea of its native 
 endowments ; not conlidering the advantages it has borrowed, and the 
 education, if I may fo fpeak, which it has in various inftances re- 
 ceived from that revelation which has furniflied it from time to time 
 with infights Into the wondrous views of Divine Providence, 
 Impoffible to have been attainedya/^/y by human penetration. And 
 if you would but carry your thoughts back to thofe paft times of 
 wretchednefs and dcfpair, when a gathered cloud of darknefs, ig- 
 norance and error, overfliadowed the whole earth ; you would 
 furely ceafe to doubt the occafion of God's fending to us that day 
 fpring from on high to viiit us. You would, on the contrary, be 
 induced to acknowledge, with a becoming gratitude, the many 
 effential ad\'antages fo happily derived to us from the feafonable 
 event. 
 
 Foif
 
 10 
 
 Deism not confijlent with the 
 
 For a?, bv his fatal tranfgreirion, our Tirft parent had bereaved 
 himfclf, in a [;reat mcafure, of that inward purity of nature, where- 
 in he was created, and had contraaed, in length of time, ^ general 
 proncnefsto fin and wickednefs ; it is not to be fuppofed, but that 
 he muft tranfmit to his defccndants fome (hare at leaft of that 
 deadly and diffiifivc puifon. And accordingly we find in faa, that 
 the prefcnt generation of men (his offspring) are all born Into the 
 world, with a predominant bias towards evil, are become com- 
 plcxionally avtrfe to every thing that is good, and difpofed to a 
 life of impictv, unrightcoufnefs, and fenfuality. And from the 
 feveral hiftories of the heathen world we learn, that m.en, through 
 a kind of gloomy and fuUen defpair of divine mercy, arifing from 
 a too confcious Icnfe of their own imworthlnefs, and varioufly 
 contrailed guilt, fell at length into a fettled indifference towards that 
 God, on whofe deferved wrath and indignation they could not refleft 
 but under the moft terrifying fears, and foreboding apprehenfions ; 
 till at length, fucceeding ages loft fight of both him and his laws ; 
 were fo far from perceiving, or even wilhing his regard for them^ 
 that they did not even choofe to retain him in their knowledge, but 
 transferred the worfliip due to the only true God to an impious 
 adoration of the meaneft of his creatures, even to birds and four 
 footed bcafts, and creeping things. 
 
 And if the wifer and more undenftanding part of mankind, were 
 not fo univerfally loft in ignorance and error, fo wholly abandoned 
 to a proftituted worfhip and fervice ; yet were M^jy riotwithftanding 
 in a confeffcdly wretched and difconfolate ftate. They were feniible 
 of their loft innoLcncy, and ot courfe forfeited intcreft with their 
 maker, of which their confcicnces too plainly reminded them; and, 
 what muft confiderably awaken their fears and apprehenfions, could 
 not frame to themfclves, any probable fchemc for re-inftating them- 
 fclves in his favour. They could eafily enough, by the light of 
 
 nature
 
 Religion of Reason ^//^ Nature: h 
 
 ■nature alone, difcover the danger they were hi of being punifhed 
 for their bc-wl conduct ; but could not, from any conclufions of 
 reafon, afiure themfelves, that, become, as was unhappily their cafe, 
 obnoxious to God's juftlce, that he would remit the punifliment due 
 to their crimes, upon eithej: the merit of their repentance, or any 
 f'utcidar oblations in their power to offer up to him, " thouo-h 
 they gave their firft born for their tranfgreffion, the fruit of their 
 body for the fin of their foul," 
 
 No, this was the great work referved for our Saviour to 
 accomplifli. — It was he, and he alone, who was to eafe them of 
 their fears with refped to that moft momentous concern, and be the 
 happy inftrument of reconciling them to their offended God.— He 
 it was whom God himfelf fent into the world to fave firmer s— 
 to preach to them a rem'ijfion of fins, in an unlimited degree, (un- 
 limited, I mean, as to the nature of their crimes) upon the fimited, 
 but rational terms of the Gofpel— In a word, there was wanting, 
 fays a very fenfible and ufeful writer,* " there was wanting a re- 
 velation to difcover, in what manner, and with what kind of exter- 
 nal fervice, God might acceptably be worfhipped ;— there was 
 wanting a revelation to difcover, what expiation he would be plea- 
 fed to accept for fin, when his honour and authority were affront- 
 ed ; — there was wanted a revelation to give man affurance of the 
 great motives of religion — the rewards and punifhments of a fu- 
 ture ftate ; in fine, there was wanting a particular revelation to 
 make the whole do6lrineof religion clear and obvious to all capa- 
 cities ; to add weight and authority to the plainefl: precepts ; and to 
 furnifh men with extraordinary afliifi:ances, to enable them to over- 
 come the corruptions of their nature : — and without the affiftance 
 
 * Fiili Stafkhufc'sBody of divinity, /. 19. 
 
 C 2 of
 
 12 
 
 Deism ?iot confijlent with the 
 
 fuel) a rivelalion, their wifcft men were alwnys of this opinion, 
 that the world can never be reformed." 
 
 Vi)U HKiv even gi\ e over, fays Socrates, all hopes of amending 
 men's manners for the future, unlefs God be pleafcd to fend you 
 fome other per/on to itiJlruSl you: for whatever is fet right, as fays 
 Plato, in theprefent ill ftate of the world, can only be done by 
 the intcrpofition of God.* 
 
 This, in fliort, is the multiplied bufinefs of revelation; this the 
 ♦^reat work begun by the Abrahamic, continued by the Mofaic, and 
 completed by the Chrijllan difpenfation. 
 
 Now if fuch a fuppofed circumftance in tl:e divine o^conomy, 
 feems to you cither impoffible or incredible ; if you think it 
 an abfurdity in nature, to fuppofe that God (hovAdifevcI a perfon in- 
 to the world purpofely to make difcoveries, merely and folely for 
 the confolation and future happinefs of his creatures ; that the per- 
 fon thus fcnt, (hould be enabled to work miracles in teji'imony of 
 his miffion, and at laft iuflfcr death to accomplijh the benign purpofe : 
 if you fay all this kitid of reafoning is amounting In fact to an ab- 
 furdity, and is therefore, with refped to the fubjed matter of it, really 
 incredible, you muft difpute the merit of even any perfon's claim to 
 an authority, the declared end or deiign of which is, in nature, fo 
 extraordinary, and, as you think, fo unwarranted. 
 
 But if rcalon will not, cannot, authorife a diffidence fo derogatory 
 to thofe moft unqucftionable attributes of the Divine Nature, his 
 love, his tenderncfs, and companion towards his creatures, in the 
 one calc here fuppofed, I know not how you can juftify an infinua- 
 t*on fo unfavourable to the dignity and divine authority- afliimed 
 by Jefus Chrift, intimated and implied in the other. 
 
 • Fide PlatOy in Apol. Socrat. 
 
 That
 
 Religion (?/Reason ^;^^Nature. 13 
 
 That there was aftually born into the world fuch a perfon as 
 jefus Chrift, we have at leaft the fame rational evidence for believing, 
 as that there ever exifted an ^/^.v^Wi/^r, ov Julius de/ar. That 
 that l^ime Jefus did alfo work frequent miracles, not even his enemies 
 could deny ; though they were pleafed, fometimes to afcribe them to 
 the agency of Beehebuh the prince of devils. That he was there- 
 fore, fully authorized to demand our attention to thofe feveral 
 doarines exhibited to us in his Gofpel, as truths delivered by the 
 will and approbation of God (a point now feconMy to be confi- 
 dered) wenrefufficiently encouraged to believe from the folldwing 
 plain and obvious conclufion of right reafon : the only argument 
 on this point to which I (hall rcquefl your attention at prc;fent. 
 
 It is a truth, 1 think inconteftlble, that our Saviour could not 
 work miracles, in fupport of dodrines fo unqueftionably good and 
 ufefiil, as are thofe which charaderize the precepts of the Gofpel, but 
 by the concurrent agency of a good fpirit neceprily reftding In, 
 or immediately derived to him, from the fountain of goodnefs 
 himfelf. In either cafe, it is quite confiftent with the didates of 
 right reafon, to attend to the miracles, on account of the dodrines ; 
 and to pay a regard to the doarines, in deference to the miracles. 
 
 lam not infenfible with what raillery this maxim is treated by 
 many, who term it arguing in a circle ; yet am I not, therefore, 
 the lefs fatisfied of its force, propriety, and ufefulnefs. For if, at 
 any time, men's attention to a train of trutlis, not fo naturally ob- 
 vious and intelligible, perhaps, as neceffary and important, could 
 be beft and moft effeaually engaged by an awful difiilay of fome 
 unufual, fome miraculous teftimonies of thofe truths : it is far 
 from being incredible, that fuch expedients (hould occafionally have 
 been employed to fo noble, generous, and ufeful an end. But will 
 it as naturally follow, that God Oiould at any time direa, or even 
 
 permit
 
 i^ Deism ^ot conftjlcnt ^m'tth the 
 
 permit the life of fuch cxtmorJinary mcnns of working upon 
 men's fcnfcs anJ pafTion?, barely to miik-aa them into error ? Thai- 
 invariable principle of univcrfil love and benevolence, which gave 
 birth to, and is, at it were, the very foul of creation itfelf, will 
 ever retrain its Divine Author from revcrfing, or fufiering others 
 to rcvcrfc the fhitural to the deftruaion of the morjl government 
 of the world. Nor can any of thofe ftated laws of nature, by 
 which is regulated, with fach confummate wifdom, each diftind 
 fvftcni in the grand unherfal zi'/iole, ever be interrupted, but by 
 virtue of a puvcr adequate to, or in part and on purpofe com- 
 municated from that which at firft eftablifhed them. So that mira- 
 cles muft ever come with a greater or lefs degree of credibility, in 
 proportion to the appeal made to them, in proof of a greater or leis 
 lifihfrfjl utility. 
 
 Nor will the confident report of other miracles, which feera to 
 be urged only in fupport of dovflrines in themfelves falfe or frivo- 
 lous, difcredit in the leaft the tcftimony of thofe wrought by our 
 Saviour, in evidence of what is true and important — with men, I 
 mean, who are willing to diftingulfh truth from falfchood — what 
 Is, from what is not — with men, in fliort, who can proportion, 
 properly, their affent to the feveral different degrees of credibility 
 with which attelled fa^s come attended. For two or more re- 
 corded miracles may come fupported by the fame external circum- 
 ftances of credibility, and yet they may not be therefore all equally, 
 all internally alike credible. A fit occafion for tvtxy fuppofed mira- 
 culous interpofition of Divine Power, fhould be firil proved, e*er 
 we give a willing aiTent to even the moft plaufible evidence brought 
 in favour of it ; 
 
 'Nee Deus interfit n'tfi digfius vindice nodus 
 
 Inciderit, Hor. 
 
 This
 
 Religion (j/' Reason ^WNature. 15 
 
 This confideration, added to the known completion of prophecies, 
 which adds a degree of probability to the recorded miracles of our 
 Saviour and his apoftles, with which none others come attended, is 
 wbat gives that partial but honeft bias to our faith in them, prefera- 
 bly and In contradiction to all others of a more modern date. 
 
 Point me out fomc do£lrine fairly deducible from thofe mira- 
 cles afcribed to Abbe Paris ; a doctrine evidently claimant of fo ex- 
 traordinary a token of the divine fanclion ; a doOrine of real con- 
 fequence to the prefent and future happinefs of mankind ; and 
 which they could not hav^e arrived to the knowledge of, but by 
 fome a£lual immediate intelligence from the Deity ; and I fhould be 
 cautious hew I difputed the veracity of the reports given of them. 
 But when, on the other hand, thereverfe ismore evidently the real cafe, 
 it concerns me not to make them at all a fubjetl of my enquiry. 
 If they would influence men to views and praftices difcounte- 
 nanced and condemned by la»vs natural or res^eaied, I, in that 
 cafe, may reafonable conclude, that there is fome latent impene- 
 trable juggle in the affair; and in fad, that they are no miracles at 
 all ; but fuch lying wonders, only, as have been {rtc^tntXy foretold, 
 and might poilibly be efFefled by the cunning craftinefs of men in- 
 terefted in cafting a mift before the eyes of thofe who loved dark- 
 nefs rather than light ; and whofe fubtilty might be fufficient to 
 deceive even the ele£l. 
 
 Not to dwell, therefore, unncceflarily long on a point of enquiry, 
 in itfelf of fo little moment, on only imaginary dlfadvantages to the 
 important caufe of Chriftianity ; without dwelling upon thofe fe- 
 veral previous difpenfations of God's providence, introdu^flory to 
 the miffion of Jefus in the fuUnefs of time ; the wonderful prepa- 
 ration with which it was introduced, viz* a long train of pre- 
 liminary incidents ; dired promifes to the ancient patriarchs ; a va- 
 riety
 
 1 6 Deism not confijlent with the 
 
 riety of prophetic intimations, both before and under the legal occo- 
 nomv ; and laftjy, an exprefs declaration, that He (by name) 
 fliould come fo and fo qiialificd and circiimftanccd in life as did 
 our Saviour, I fay, waving thefe corroborating evidences of a di- 
 vine fanc^ion, which might be urged in further evidence of the 
 facred character he riffumcd ; it may be fjjfficient, I prefume, to 
 conclude, from his power of working miracles, in fupport of doc- 
 trines fo evidently good and ufeful as were thofe recorded in his 
 (jcfpcl, that Jcfus Chrift was that anointed of Heaven whom we 
 are called upon to hear and of courfe, to believe and obey /// all things 
 "jjhatfoever he faith unto lis. 
 
 Well, allowing, for argument {like, the piohahUtty of God's 
 having adually revealed himfelf (by means of the Gofpel of Jefus 
 Chrift) for the information, comfort, and future happinefs of man- 
 kind, vet, {hew me, fay you, in the M/>^ place, the genuinenefs of 
 thofe writings, which are faid to be fuch a faithful repofitory of that 
 fame revelation, and their expediency to anfwer thofe very purpo- 
 fes for which they are prcfnmed to be intended. 
 
 How, in the fir{l place, does it appear, that the Scriptures are 
 really the writings of thofe very pjrfons, under whofe names they 
 arc publillicd , or, that the feveral circum{lances therein related, 
 were evidenced by real matters of fact ? 
 
 Why, all this I believe, upon thofe grounds of credibility, which 
 challenge my belief of the authenticity and genuinenefs of any other 
 book or h;{lory you fliall name me. — But are writings, fay you, 
 in which are faid to be concerned the falvation of mankind, to 
 be put upon the fame footing with books which contain in them little 
 more, perhaps, than mere matters of amufement r Is it of the fam£ 
 
 confequencc,
 
 Religion <?/* Reason ^W Nature. 17 
 
 confeqiience, whether thofe hiftorles, in which are recorded the ex- 
 ploits of a C^fiir and an Alexander, are true and genuine relations, 
 as the hiftory of our Saviour and his apoftles ? — No, that be far from 
 me to Infinuate. But then, unlefs you can think it reafon?ibIe to 
 difregard all faith in hlftory, as a point of credulity in itfelf abuird 
 and unwarrantable, and will infift upon it, that nothing in f:i6l is to 
 be believed, but what we ourfelves fee done before our eyes ; I would 
 afk you, how things tranfacled at a confiderable diftance of time 
 paft, whether of facred flory or prophane, can be tranfmitted to 
 pofterity, but through the fame kind of channel ? What other 
 methods need be ufed, to engage our confidence in the one, than 
 are necefl'ary to eftablifh the credit and authority of the other? 
 Or by w^hat arguments you would endeavour to convince me, 
 that Livy and Herodotus were in reality the authors of thofe hlfto- 
 ries which go, with fuch unqueftioned pretenfions, under their 
 names, and that the accounts given by each, have, as hiftorical nar- 
 rations, a proper evidence to fupport them, which will not lie 
 with equal weight, in either of thofe particulars, in favour of the 
 hiiiories of both the Old and New Teftament ? 
 
 Well — fuppofmg that to be a confideration, as much in proof, 
 as you would wifli, in thefirft place of the authenticity of the Scrip- 
 tures in general, yet wherein, fay you, confifts their importance 
 in point of information and inJlruBion ? For hov/ fhall I know 
 where, among fuch a variety of readings in the fame book, to fix 
 upon that which is the true one ? — Why, the fame rules of criticifni 
 which you would make ufe of, to difcover the true reading of any- 
 one author among the claflics at large, muft be employed in your 
 perufal and examination of thefe. In either cafe, your reafon (as 
 far as you have quahfied it for paffing judgment upon a matter of 
 fuch ejfential import by thofe ufual afTiftances, which enable 
 a man to become a critic in any other learned compofition what- 
 
 D foever)
 
 1 8 Deism 7ict conjijlent with the 
 
 foever) ninft be your guide. If at any time, in thecourfe of your 
 enquiries, doubts and difficulties arifc, which you yourfelf cannot 
 mafter, you muft, in order to their being fet in a true and proper 
 light, have recourlc to, and depend on, in proportion to their fupe- 
 rior (kill and acquirements, the judgment of others. And un- 
 lefs you would conclude, becaufe various have been the rea- 
 dings of Homer, of Vtrgily and of Horace, and contradiclory ac- 
 counts given by eftabllfhed hiftoriaiis, that therefore neither of them 
 are to be regarded as genuine and eftablifhed writers, or as authors 
 •dcfervir-.g our perufal, I will defire you to put it home to your 
 breaft, and ingenuoufly tell me, whether you think there is, 
 in reality, any foundation for impeaching the facred writings of 
 non-authenticity and integrity, of infufficiency as a rule of 
 faith, or of unwarranted pretenfions, as a repofitory of revealed 
 truths — becaufe M^V have accidentally given occafion to a variety 
 of diflbnant readings and interpretations ? 
 
 But who, fay you, in the difficult cafes fuppofed above, are the 
 judges by which I am at lail to be determined, when among thofe 
 very pcrfons, who claim an authority to preach and expound fcrip- 
 ture do6^rines, fo few, even among thefe, agree in giving the fame 
 unvaried meaning to the fame paflages and expreffions in thofe ad- 
 mired pages ? 
 
 A queftion is here fuppofed, which may be beft anfwered by the 
 following important piece of advice : it is this — 
 
 After having thoroughly examined the grounds and evidences 
 of Chrl/Iiantty, make the due dlftindion between that and the 
 pretended truths charged upon it. Make yourfelf mafter of every 
 argument which points out the divine authority of our Saviour; 
 and when that is done, attend clofely to the feveral doctrines he 
 
 4 advances
 
 Religion ^j/'Reason ^^WNature. 19 
 
 adv^ances as an appointed revealer of the will of Heaven. What He 
 fays you will, of courfe, in deference to that authority with which he 
 fpeahy receive and believe. What others fay for him, or afTcrt 
 of him, by virtue of their commlirion and infpired powers, that 
 claims, In proportion^ the fame regard. So that thofe dodrincs 
 which our Saviour delivered concerning the Father, himftlf, and 
 all mankind, or the apoftles, in his name, are by all means to be 
 embraced without referve Thus far flialt thou go, and no far- 
 ther — I mean, for faith neceiTarily iindefiled For practice you 
 
 may go farther ; from the Scriptures you may repair to thofe ve- 
 nerable lights, they^M^rj, for edification, for difcipline, for patterns 
 of fan£lity and moral purity — There you have before you an un- 
 bounded field of inftru^tion. 
 
 But if, through an excefs of pious zeal, they would, at any time, 
 carry you into matters of faith (or pra6lice) not warranted either by 
 reafon or revelation, there, if you are wife, you will take your leave 
 of them : for though we are not to confider them in that ridiculous 
 light, in which a late eminent writer* has penciled them out to the 
 world, yet neither are we to view them through the medium of in- 
 fallihility. They claim from U5 much for their tranfmitted records 
 of primitive dory ; much for their exemplary piety and devotion ; 
 much for their unfhaken conftancy and Chriftian fortitude. Let 
 us, however, not be afraid to acknowledge, that they cafually fhared 
 weaknefles and imperfedtions in common with the reft of mankind. 
 And when thefe are made the fubjecl of ridiculous banter by fome, 
 let us not be under fuch an alarm, as if, with theirs, thofe fathers I 
 mean, the reputation of Chriftianity is proportionally endangered. 
 The rcafonings of thofe pious fages are at beft but the rcafonings 
 of men. All dofitines therefore deduced by tkem from Scripture, 
 which are not apparently profitable for edification as well as infiruSlion^ 
 may reafonably be confidered as coming with fo quefiionabk a claim 
 
 * The late Dr. Middleton. 
 
 D 2 to
 
 20 Deism 7iot con fijlent with the 
 
 to our attention, that neither, if we believe them, arc we belter^ 
 ncitlier, it we believe them not, are wc the w'orfe. 
 
 But will you, becaufe difputes may have run high on fome 
 topics of enquiry, weakly or wickedly termed C/ir^/j;/, conclude, 
 thatthereforeourgenuine tififophyVicatedcoditoi religionis in thegrofs, 
 to be difregarded ? Tour boafted religion of nature, in which there 
 is fcarce any one principle which has not been made the fubjedl of dlf- 
 pute, may. by a parity of reafon, be rejected alfo. *' Has not the 
 exifience of a God, the liberty of man, the nature of good and evil ; 
 what is happinefs ; what it is that thinks within us ; whether the 
 foul be material or immaterial, mortal or immortal ; the nature of 
 iuftice and moral honefty ; in fhort, every point of morality or natu- 
 ral religion, been controverted ? Is the inference from thence, that 
 there is or can be no fuch thing as natural religion ? Is there no 
 fuch thing as truth, becaufe the queftion has been, what is truth ? 
 Is there no fuch thing as right reafon, becaufe men have maintained 
 infinite abfurditles and contradi^lions about every thing in even 
 matters of moral obligation ?"* 
 
 But would not Providence, fay the Deifts, have prevented the 
 Scriptures from becoming fuch a fource of various fentiments and 
 opinions, if he had intended them for that general and important 
 benefit we imagine ? Would he not have left us fuch an unerring 
 criterion, for afcertaining a right interpretation of the facred pages 
 throughout, as that all who have the fame opportunities and qua- 
 lifications for confulting them, muft neceffarily unite in giving 
 to the fame paflbges and expreflions the fame meaning ? 
 
 If this is reafonably to be expeded from revelation, as a guide, I 
 would alk, why it happens, that under the fuppofed InfaUlbk 
 
 * Vid. Dr. Brnfon, on the Reafonablenefs of Chriftianity. 
 
 diredion
 
 Religion ^"Reason ^W Nature. 21 
 
 dire^iionof right re iifofiy any two In life arc capable of differing 
 in point of judgment in even matters of racer moral obliga- 
 tion ? A fuppofed infallibility in the writers of revealed truths, doe» 
 not neceffhrily preclude the natural fallibility of their feveral readers. 
 The unerring ^/r^^r/.r, in fhorr, for difcerning either the authority 
 of the gofpel difpenfatlon, or the dodrines feverally deducible from 
 it, is abfolutely anri lolely right reafon. But whilft different men of 
 different views, prejudices, and prepolieffions, fubftitute in its Head 
 opinion^ it is no wonder, if many others are betrayed into a com- 
 plaint, that no fixed rule at all is given us for that purpofe. 
 
 I hope, by this time, that my friend accedes to the force of 
 reafon^ and Is convinced, that a Deift, in order to his thinking and 
 a£ling agreeably to the reWgion of reafon and nature^ is under an in- 
 difpenfable obligation to be a friend to, and efpoufe with fincerltv, 
 the religion of Jefus Chrift ; and for this reafon, becaufe that 
 coming to us as a promulgation of divine truths and inftruclions, 
 lays evidently as great a claim to our notice and efteem, as any 
 moral obligation whatfoever. Nor is it my friend, an argument 
 of any weight, which fome urge againft the probability of a fuppofed 
 reve.aled religion, that the moral duties it means to enforce, are 
 none elfe than what natural reafon recommends : this fhould ferve 
 rather to ftrengthen than weaken its authority ; fince to thofe in- 
 ftin£live impulfes of nature which Chrifilanity recommends to our 
 regard, it fuperadds as well proper motives as proper means, to en- 
 gage us in the practice of them. To name no more at prefent with 
 regard to the latter, than the duties of examination, mortification, and 
 fef-denial, which are indifputably fuch points of difclpline^ 
 as all, who impartially confider them, will acknowledge to be efta* 
 bliftied upon views truly rational, and univerfally ferviceable* 
 
 So
 
 2z Deism 7:ot conjijlent with the 
 
 So far confidered then it mu ft appear very evident, 1 tliink, to 
 the impartial, that a reje6\ion of revelation is not authoriftd by 
 the religion of reafon and nature ; or the caiife of Deifm in the leaft 
 advantaged by a fuppofirion, " That Socrates, and thofe of old, 
 were as great ornament?, and did as much honour to human nature, 
 as any Chrifl'ian ever did." 
 
 Had it been faid. that Socrates , &c. did as much honour, and 
 were as great ornaments to human nature, fo circumftanced as it 
 was in their days, ^'^Chri/iians do and are now, to the improved 
 relicrion, and other fuperior advantages Mf); pride themfelves in the 
 podeflion of, there had been perhaps too much truth in the remark. 
 But if they mean to infer from that conceffion, which moll af- 
 furedlv they do, that nothing more is required of us, in point 
 of moral and religious obligations, than, beiides copying thofe 
 worthies of old in their praftice, to attend with a becoming con- 
 fcientioiis deference to their precepts, they undoubtedly miflead their 
 followers into a moft palpable and fatal error. They, in that 
 cafe, either weaWy or wickedly deceive them. They muft either 
 not know what are the grand extenfive purpofes of revelation, and 
 then their random afperfions on it are an argument of a moft un- 
 pardonable wantonnefs of impiety, a prejudging irreverence of beha- 
 viour towards its divine author ; or they muft knowingly and wil- 
 fully mifrcprefent them-— and then I would alk how fuch a con- 
 dud quadrates with the didates of the religion of reafon and na^ 
 ture. 
 
 They cannot be under any the leaft degree of doubt, but that the 
 defignof Chriftianity is to make fuch difcoveries as fhould, and if 
 duly attended to, would lead to adions more fuitably good and 
 rational, than were before in general pradice ; to inforce the obli- 
 gation
 
 Religion of Reason ^^WNature. Z3 
 
 gallon of moral duties, by ftronger and more perfuafive motives 
 than the religion of nature depraved — than even the religion and 
 improved fcntiments of iSocr^^f J could, with any proper authority^ 
 eftablifti ; and to complete men for attainments for which they were 
 created. 
 
 The religion of old (totally devoid of thofe flrong enforcements 
 to the piric^ice of the law of nature, with which ChrilHanity 
 abounds) furnidied out fuch intimations concerning the nature of 
 things as were either very doubtful, dark, and obfcure, or oik 
 confpicuoufly weak, whimiical, and abfurd — VVitnefs their many 
 extravagant conceptions of the firft caufe all things and the nature 
 and origin of man ; their confufed ideas of the formation and go- 
 vernment of the world, and their fiill more inconfiftent views and 
 pradt.ces in the courfe of their religious forms and ceremonies, which 
 were diftinguifhed by either a folemn feries of idolatrous impiety, or, 
 if I my folpeak, by a courfe of j^/oz^j inhumanity, by their either 
 worjhipplrg Jloch zn^Jiones^ or offering up their fons and daughters 
 unto devils. 
 
 The intended redemption of mankind, from the guilt and mifery 
 they were too confcious of having contracted ; the dodrine of a re- 
 furre(^ion from the dead, of a judgment to come, and of rewards 
 and punifliments in an after-itate, are verities, which if men ever 
 arrived to any tolerable degree of knowledge concerning them, 
 vanifhed from the world a long time before the coming of 
 our Saviour — Nor does it appear, that life and immortality were 
 ever clearly brought to light, but by the Gofpel : No, not by 
 the all-penetrating Socrates, or ev^en the divine Plato himfelf. 
 The nature and terms^ however, of the redemption, the per/on by 
 whom it was to be efleded, and by whom the world is at lafl 
 
 to
 
 2^ Deism not confijlent with the 
 
 to be juc^gec!, were circumftances of information, In their nntiire, 
 not capable of being derived to men, but through the channel of 
 'revtlat'ion. 
 
 But if Socrates was confirmed In the belief of feme of thefe 
 truths, yet could he make them equally apparent to ethers ? Could 
 he puhlirh them to the world with that degree of confidence and 
 authority, as did our Saviour ; who, by a feries of miracles, pro- 
 phecies, and an unfpotted conduct in life, gave fufficient evidence to 
 the impartial, of a derived commiifion from Heaven, to declare, 
 confirm, and eftablifli them ? 
 
 And if, after all, you could prove to me, that moral obligations, 
 to which Socrates is prefumcd fo remarkably to have attended, 
 and which we will fuppofe him fo illuftrioufly to have difcharged, 
 work fo univerfail/^ftrong and powerfully on men's confclences, as 
 that they naturally perform what they fee or know to be their 
 duty, I would grant you, that then nothing more would feem 
 needful, as a law to their conduct, than the awakening voice of na- 
 ture and right reafon. But fince daily experience evinces, that men 
 want more to be excited to the pradice of their duty, than to be 
 informed wherein it confifts, it is evident, that revelation, if only on 
 account of its many peculiar motives to virtue, is therefore highly- 
 eligible, and worthy of all acceptation. For what can we conceive 
 more neceflary and important, more conducive to the fafety and well- 
 being of fociety, than to folicit men's attention to, among others, 
 the important duties of integrity, piety, temperance, chaflity, 
 and charity on the principles of Chrijlian obedience ; Of what 
 general advantage, I fay, muft It be, to have thefe duties enfor- 
 ced on the confclences of men, by the added hopes and terrors of 
 a day to come, when God will bring every work into judgment, with 
 every fecret thing, whether it be good, or whether it he evil. 
 
 But
 
 Religion of Reason a?td Nature, 25 
 
 «nd terrors of a day to come, when God will bring every work into 
 judgment, with every fecret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be 
 evil. 
 
 But to proceed. — Our Delfl-, In page the fixth, gives us a no- 
 tablefpccimen of his dexterity in forging, on occafion, the ftamp 
 of authority on the Deift's principles, in order to make them pafs 
 with a more fpecious fplendid currency through the world ; and the 
 inftance I am going to give of it, ferves, at the fame time to fhew, 
 with what eagernefs andailiduity the Deifts will catch at every the 
 fmalleft twig they can meet with in their way, to fave a finking 
 canfe ; the great name he has been pleafed, in the following cafe, 
 to make free with, being ever before univerfally diftinguiflied by 
 principles as diffimilar to his own, as light is to darknefs, or ortho- 
 doxy to infidelity. 
 
 Dr. Sherlock, if you will believe our Dei ft, is one of thofe ra- 
 tional divines who aflerts, "that Deifm is the only excellency and 
 true glory of Chriftianity." (p. 6.) — If he had confulted the bifliop 
 with any other view than by laying hold of fome detached, dis- 
 jointed paflages in his fermon,* to make it fpeak, if poflible, with 
 fome feeming approbation of his fcheme of thinking, he would, I 
 am perfuaded, have found, in inftances without number, that his 
 Lordflilp and he think as differently of revelation, as a believer and 
 ■an unbeliever can think. 
 
 *' The religion of the Gofpel, fays the Bifliop, is the true ori- 
 'ginal religion of reafon and nature. -f" And again, " the Gofpel 
 has reference to the law of reafon and nature :" — and what of all 
 
 ^ Sermon for propagating the Gofpel in foreign parts, 
 f Vid. Dr. Leland, p. 42. 
 
 E that ?
 
 26 Deism not confiftcnt ivith the 
 
 that ? Is the Blfliop a Deljl on the evidence of thefe declarations ? 
 If he is not, to what purpofe is he quoted? And if he is, mark the 
 confequence to our author. 
 
 Dr. Sherlock fays, and our De'i/l hinifclf approves the aflertion, 
 *' that the religion of the Gofpel is the true original religion of 
 reafon and nature." Aye! what this from a Delft? Alas! our 
 Delft, like a confufed culprit at the Old Builcy, cites at oncea fan- 
 cied friend to his character, without confidering that the man was 
 too honeft not to fay what he thought ; and that the evidence lie 
 muft give, would but aggravate and add weight to the profeciuion. 
 
 Here the bifhop is called in, to vouch for our author's rationa- 
 lity as a Deift. *Well, and how does he prove It? Why, by avert- 
 ing, that that revelation which the Deift derides, is nothing fhort 
 of the religion of reafon and nature, which he pretends to ap- 
 prove Our author for your man o( found judgment and ner- 
 vous reafomng ! 
 
 Our Deift having here then, a little unluckily for himfelf, cited a 
 paffage from Dr. Sherlock^ which proves too plainly, that his op- 
 pofition to Chriftianity is equally repugnant to the principles of «^7- 
 tural reafon and religion, is forced at laft to add, by w^ay of fup- 
 plement to his Lordfhip's own words, confclous how inexpreffive 
 they were before to his advantage, or rather, how expreffive to his 
 confufion, fomething, though full as little to his purpofe, from the 
 product of his own brain. 
 
 After teUing us that Dr. Sherlock fays, " it is true, that there 
 are fome inftltutions in the Gofpel, which, in their own nature, are 
 no conjiituent parts of religion,'' 1 will venture to add, fays he, " that 
 the fame may be faid, for ought that appears to the contrary, of 
 
 fome
 
 Religion ^?/ Reason ^;;<^NATUREi 27 
 
 {omQ JoBrines o^ the Gofpel, which doftrlnes, together with the in- 
 ftitutions referred to, may be faid to conftitute pure Chriftianity, by 
 •way of contradiftinftion to pure ?7^^?/r^/ religion.*' (p. 6.) So that 
 according to the very modeft reafoning of our Deifl:, what confti- 
 tutes pure Chriftianity inthcgrofs, is an abfolute and entire oppo- 
 sition in all its parts, in its precepts, ceremonies, and do(Srines, to the 
 very being of natural religion ; and that thofe inftitutions, and ce- 
 remonies, and do6lrines, and thofe only which are no conftituent 
 parts of natural religion, do collectively make up the fum total of 
 Chrijlianity. Was this in reality the cafe, was Chriftianity in fl^cl 
 fo unreafonable, I will add, fo irrel'igioiis an inftitution, I would 
 myfelf join our author in condemning and rejeding it; or, with 
 Mr. Chandler agree, that It would then be fcarce worth while to 
 enquire what the religion of Chrift is. (p. 7.) 
 
 But what if after all it appears, that thofe very inftitutions, ce- 
 remonies, and <io6irmes, which conftitute pure Chriftianity, are the 
 inftitutions, the ceremonies, and the doctrines, which abfolutely 
 conftitute the Religion of Reafon and Nature — proportionally 
 I mean, and as parts to the whole? For you muft obferve, that 
 I regard every fubfervient injlriiment of religion, as a material part of 
 religion itfelf. That a public worfliip of God therefore is not lefs 
 a part of the religion of reafon and nature, than any pofitive precept 
 of the Gofpel, our Deift cannot aim to difprove, without oppofing, 
 at the fame time, the general fenfe and pradice of all ages paft ; 
 there being no people, of any religion whatfoever, but what al- 
 wavs exprefted in a public manner their veneration of the deities 
 they owned, by fuch external tokens of reverence, as were moft in 
 ufe among them.* 
 
 * Scott's Works, vol.11, p, 130. fol. edit. 
 
 E z " LaSianfius,
 
 2 8 Deism «(5/ conjijlent with the 
 
 " La^antiuSj as an argument of the abfurdity of polythelfmr 
 fiippofes it an iinlverfal conccffion among men, that they fliould 
 pay to eiPxh God, whom they acknowledged, divine worfhip : and 
 this not only in honour of his divinity, but in confideration of his 
 faternky, as that one common parent, from whom they received 
 life, health, and food.t" And of fuch confequence to the happi- 
 nefs of a ftate, £iys 'Tully, is piety towards the Gods, " that take 
 away that, and vou undermine the very foundations on which in- 
 tegrity, friendfhip, and that moft excellent of all virtues, juftice it- 
 felf, is fupported.+" And if we would endeavour, fays IFool- 
 Uflon, to behave ourfelves towards God according to truth, we 
 (liall find ourfelves bound to worftiip him in the beft manner we 
 can. By worfhipplng him, I mean, fays he, owning him to be 
 what he is, and ourfelves to be what we are, by fome moft fo- 
 lemn and proper ad ; that is, by addreffing ourfelves to him as his 
 dependents, and as the fupreme caufe and governor of the world, 
 with acknowledgments of what we enjoy, petitions for what we 
 really want, or he knows to be convenient for us * 
 
 And yet how can a plan of public worfhip, with any proprie- 
 ty, any decency, be executed but by fome fuch vifible obfervances, 
 fome fuch outward religious actions and declarations, which the 
 wifdom of Chriftian focieties (hall adjudge to be moft expreffive of 
 that internal faith, love, and obedience, to which they are called by 
 
 f Omnem Dcum qui ab hominc coUtur neceffe eft inter folennes ritus et preca- 
 tiones patrem nuncupari, non tantum honoris gratia verum etiam rationis quod et 
 antiquior eft homine, et quod vitam falutem viftum preaeftat ut pater. LaBant^ 
 de vera fap. et relig. lib. IV. p. 177. 
 
 ^ Pietate adverfus Decs fublata fides etiantj et focietas humani generis, et exceU 
 Icntiflima virtus juftitia tollitur. Ck. de nat. deor. 
 
 * fVatUaJlonh Religion of Nature. 
 
 their
 
 Religion of Reason ^WNature. 29 
 
 their religion ; and what are moft likely to kindle in each other's 
 breads a lively and lafting fenfe of piety, devotion, and every vir- 
 tue ? Inftead therefore of difregarding thefe neceflliry appendages 
 to public worfhip, as no copjlltiient parts of religion; as mere 
 niceties and trifles, of no manner of confideration in the fight of 
 God (as do avowedly too many of the feveral Jeperat'ijis from 
 our communion) men fbould confider, whether they have or have 
 not an apparent view to the known purpofes of religion ; whether 
 outward actions, which are fo many prefumptive evidences of in- 
 ward difpofitions to piety and virtue in individuals, are not like- 
 ly to promote the fame worthy affcdions in the community at 
 large ? And whether, in proportion to the importance of the end, 
 we are not to regard the means conducive to that end ? 
 
 As for thofe two facramental duties of our profeflion, viz. Ba6- 
 tifm and the Lord's Supper — Are they not, let me alk, inftitutions, 
 folem.n, rational, and morally inftruclive ? Do they not ferve to 
 raife our devotions, to inflame our gratitude, to infufe generous 
 fentiments ? A queftion which thofe beft can anfwer, for thofe on- 
 ly know, who have perfonally ratified the one, and been ferioujly 
 participant of the other. Be pleafed, however, if it be not a fub- 
 jecl too grave to engage your attention, to take an opinion of 
 both, from the learned Dr. Jenkins, 
 
 ** One of the purpofes, fays he, for which facraments were in- 
 " ftituted, was to be the outward and vifible lign of our entrance 
 " into covenant with him. For if covenants between man and 
 <* man be m.ade with all the formality of witneffes of hands, and 
 " feals and delivery, in folemn and exprefs words ; if men know 
 " themfelves too well to truft one another, without this folem- 
 " nity, it may well be expefted, that wlien God is pleafed to per- 
 *' mit them to enter into covenant with himfelf, he fhould not re- 
 *' ceive them under lefs obligations of caution and (ecurity for their 
 
 " integrity
 
 qo Deism nof conftjlent with the 
 
 " Integrity, than men are wont to nfe among one another ; fincc 
 " every breach of covenant with him is infinitely more affronting 
 " and finfiil, than any breach of covenant with man can be. And 
 " as their outward figns ferve to raife our attentions and fix onr 
 *' minds, and fo put us in remembrance, that heaven and earth, an- 
 " gels and men, are witneffes againft U5, if we prove treacherous 
 '« and unfaithful in this covenant; lo they are as tokens and 
 *' pledges to us of God's love and favour, and give us fenfible 
 " and vifible aflurances of that grace which is invifible and fpi- 
 " ritual. 'Tis not a little in the nature and temper of man, to 
 " be better pleafed and contented with fomething prefent in hand, 
 " though of fmall value, and infignificant in itfelf, as a token and 
 " pledge of what is made over to him, than with the greateft pro- 
 " mifes and proteftations, without any thing as an earneft to con- 
 " firm them. Now, what is inward and invifible, is abfent as to 
 «' fenfe, and what is future ftands in need of fomething prefent 
 " to reprefent it to us ; and therefore God, who was pleafed to 
 " bind himfelf, as it were, by an oath, that he might be want- 
 " ing in nothing which might help our infirmities, and afiift our 
 <' faith, has been pleafed, for our comfort and truft In him, to 
 " appoint vifible figns and pledges of that which is invifible, and 
 " to give fach affurance to our very fenfes, as they are capable 
 " of, that all the promifes of his fpiritual bleffings, (hall be as 
 *« certainly fulfilled to us, as the outward figns and pledges are 
 " duly received by us ; that the foul, even in this cafe, where it is 
 " more immediately concerned, might not be wholly independent 
 << on the body ; but fince both muft be h ppy or mifernble toge- 
 «* ther in the. next world, both might be afiiftant in the way and- 
 " means of falvation in this.'* 
 
 And to (hew the moral influence which the ufe of thefe facra- 
 ments has naturally on our minds, the fame author obferves, of 
 
 " baptifm,
 
 Re l igion^/Reason^/^^^ Nature. 31 
 
 baptifm, that " It is a very ilgnificnnt and apt reprefentation of the 
 
 " cleanfing and puryfying the foul from fin; and that in this, 
 
 " men of all nations and all religions feem to have been agreed. 
 
 *' For nothing was more frequent among the heathens, than their 
 
 " wafhings and purifylngs, and though they attributed a great 
 
 " deal too much to them, yet the fupenftitious opinions which 
 
 " they had of thefe outward cleanfings, could never have fo uni- 
 
 " verfally prevailed,, if there had not been fome foundation for 
 
 " the ufe of them,* in tlj^e-nature of things ; and that is, the great 
 
 " fitnefs which, is in ^hofe; outward wafhings, to excite us to pu- 
 
 »* rity of mind, and to reprelent the g-eat duty which lies upon us, 
 
 " to keep our confciences undefiled, which only can render us ac- 
 
 ** ceptable to God.' 
 
 And of the Lord's Supper he obferves, that " the elements of 
 " bread and wine have a peculiar fuitablenefs, to brin^ to our 
 *' remembrance the body and blood of Chrift, offered upon the 
 " crofs for us, to make us partakers of them, to become the 
 " commemorative and reprefentatVe figns of the eucharift, and to 
 " be pledges of all the benefits which we receive thereby.* It is, 
 " as Dr. Scott obferves, a folemn commemoration of Chrift's 
 " death, and is an expreffion of kindnefs, fufficient to captivate 
 " the moft ungrateful fouls, and extort ob^l^ice from them ; It 
 " is a foederal right, whereby God and we, by feafting as it were 
 *' together, do, according to the antient cuftom of Jews and Hea- 
 *' thens, mutually engage ourfelves one to. another, whereby God, 
 " by giving us the myftical bread and wine, and we by rccelvino- 
 " them, do mutually engage ourfelves to one another, upon thofe 
 " facred pledges of Chrift's body and blood, that we will faithfully 
 *' perform each their part of that everlafting covenant, which was 
 
 ^ Vide Jenkinsh Reafonabkiiefs of the Cliriflian Religion^ Stackhoufe's Body of 
 Divinity. 
 
 '' purchafed
 
 2Z Deism ft of confijlcnt with the 
 
 «< piirchafed by Chrift ; and what can be a greater reftralnt to ns, 
 " when we are folicited to any fin, than the fenfe of being iin- 
 " der fuch a dreadful ;'0W and obligation ? With what face dare 
 " we liften to any temptation to evil, when we remember how 
 «' lately we folemnly enj^aged ourfelves to the contrary, and took 
 '« the facrament upon it ?"t 
 
 If at any time thefe eftabliflied mementos to our conduct fail 
 having the intended influence on our morals ; it is, becaufe the de- 
 fign of each is not fo fulKciently attended to as to operate with the 
 proper impreffions of gratitude on our hearts. The remembrance 
 of that God, to whom we have devoted ourfelves in baptifm, paf- 
 feth away perhaps from off our mind, as the remembrance of a 
 gueft that tarrieth but a day ; and the cup of blejfing is too fre- 
 quently taken from our lips, as if we only drank to one ; that cup 
 which, Inftead of being a proper teft of our averfion to thofe fins 
 which occafioned Chrift's death, is— alas ! how oft made only an 
 occafional introdu£lion to an opportunity of profecuting them in 
 higher life. 
 
 But religion, fays a diftinguiflied advocate for Deifm,*is a mat- 
 ter purely perfonal, and the knowledge of it to be obtained by per- 
 fonal confiderations, independent of any guides, teachers, or cere- 
 monies. An obfervation which, however confidently urged, will, 
 1 am pcrfuaded, then only hold good, when there ceafe to be fuch 
 men in the world as he who firfl: advanced it — If human nature 
 was really in fvch a ftate of pcrfe(^ion, as that every man left to 
 himfelf, would reafonjufily, judge truly, and ever ad with proprie- 
 ty, there would be little occafion not only for revelation; but for 
 
 t Vide 5co«'s Chriftlan Life, vol. I, p. 115. 
 
 * Author of the Scheme of Literal Prophecy. 
 
 any
 
 Religion (?/Reason ^;^^Nature, 33 
 
 any eftablijhed\^\ys, governments, or civil authority whatever in 
 the world. But men, taken in the grofs, are, and ever will be, 
 weak, ignorant, paffionate, and conceited ; and muft therefore be 
 regulated hy juridical authority of fome kind or other.* 
 
 With what coniiftent goodnefs therefore has the Deity Inter- 
 pofed an authoritative declaration of his will, in a matter of fuch 
 mighty importance (which Jtone can claim a right to difpute) and 
 given a law to our condu£l in the great points of piety and mora- 
 lity, which cut off all reafonabU occafions for doubts or difficulties 
 in either ! 
 
 - The great ufe and intent of all the enjoined pofitive duties and 
 ceremonies of our religion, are obvious enough to all thofe who 
 examine them with fairnefs and impartiality ; nor do any of its 
 do£lrinal points, when not mifinterpreted and mifapplied, convey any 
 fenfe and meaning, which right reafon will not allow to be rational 
 objeds of our faith, and, in proportion, conjlituent parts of religion. 
 They not only afford us fuch noble dlfcoveries concerning the na- 
 ture of the Deity, the origin of the univerfe, the great, the impor- 
 tant plan of redemption, as were not fufficiently developed by the 
 painful refearches of philofophers of the moft penetrating genius, 
 but propofe to us, at the fame time, a fyftem of morality which 
 furpafles all that comes recommended either by a Lycrgus, a Niima^ 
 a Plato, an j^rijiotle, &c. And would men examine the reafon- 
 ablenefs of the doctrines and moral precepts of the Gofpel, with 
 coolnefs and impartiality, by the unerring teft of fober re.ifon and 
 refle<Sllon, and not by the treacherous diredion of their depraved 
 wills and affections, tliey would at once acknowledge, that to love 
 God with all our heart, with all our foul, and with all our Jlrergtli, 
 
 ^ Rogas's Preface to his Vir.uication of the Chriilinn Religion. 
 
 F is
 
 j^ Deism notconjijiejittvithth 
 
 isbuta juft debt of gratitude to our Maker, for thofe numberkfi 
 blelFings, we are every moment receiving from bis all bountiful 
 hand ; and as the God and Author of nature is holy, that it fhould be 
 our ftudy to be holy in all manner of converfatton\ that again, if v^^e 
 would pnfs through the waves of a troublefome world, with a 
 chearful and ferene mind, we muft be patient, under the affliding 
 hand of Heaven (whofe will we know to be an irrefiftable lavv^) 
 and refin-n up our wiflies to his fovereign pleafure, in confidence of 
 that tendernefs which we know he bears to every individual of his 
 creation. 
 
 As to thofe precepts of Chrlftianity, which feem to bear the 
 hardeft upon human nature, viz. repentance and rejl'ttution, inortif ca- 
 tion and felf-denial, humility, contentment and refgnation, forgiving^ 
 yea, and loving your enemies ; what are thefe, when rightly confi- 
 dered, but injunftions highly reafonable in themfelves, and fubfer- 
 vient to our real happinefs ? What can be more reafonable than 
 forrow, or a repentant anguifli of mind, for offences more immedi- 
 ately committed againft God, or reftitution and retaliation for in- 
 juries we have at any time offered towards men ? What more rea- 
 ibnable and advantageous, than that we fliould mortify and fubdue 
 thofe fatal and rebellious luff?, which dare oppofe the dictates of 
 right reafon, which would intice us into a violation of the laws of 
 virtue and integrity, and fubje^l us to the vengeance of an angry 
 God ? And humility, is not that a prudent, laudable, and advan- 
 tageous fpecies of conduct ? That reputation or refpe£^, which is 
 the fupreme ambition of all, how furcly is it the portion of the 
 affable, meek, and humble only ! And then for \\\o{t pacific virtues, 
 of rendering good for evil, forgiving injuries, and even loving our 
 enemies, how notorious is it, in their behalf, that they ever appear to 
 the advantage of thofe who are eminent in the practice of them ! 
 How mollifying and attrat5\ive ! how preventive of thofe many 
 
 refflefs
 
 Religion of Reason and Nature. 35 
 
 reftlefs tumults, which are ever hnrrafTing the minds of the revenge- 
 ful and malicious ! What then vvill follow ? Why, that all thofe 
 inftitutlons, ceremonies, and do^lrines, which conilitute pure 
 Chriftianity, demand our utmoft reverence and efteem ; that we 
 do not aft up to the religion of reafon and nature^ when we dare to 
 treat them with contempt^ negleSl or indifference ; and that if you 
 would be a rationalift, not in fpeculation only, but in practice ; 
 you muft add to the virtues of mere morality^ the faith and princi- 
 ples of Chriftianity : unlefs it appears that thofe writings from 
 whence we draw our belief as Chriftlans, are a cheat and im- 
 pofition on mankind. If they come in fa6l with that authority 
 we afcribe to them, the very didates of natural religion challenge 
 our regard to them ; and that they do not, it is at your peril to 
 aflert, but upon fure and iinqiiejiionahle grounds. 
 
 Nor is the caufe of Chriftianity fo immaterial a point of enqui- 
 ry, as you feem too fondly to imagine, and which has been fo fre- 
 quently the fubjeiSl of debate between us. What ! fliall the Maker 
 of Heaven and earth h^faid to addrefs his creatures in the language 
 of men, and they either treat him, through whom he fpeaks to them, 
 with open fcorn ; or carelefsly unconcern themfelves, whetker he 
 fpeaks to them or not ? Shall an embaffador from temporal maje- 
 fty and power claim fo much, and one from Heaven fo little reve- 
 rence and refpeft ? If you doubt, do you think it neceftary to in- 
 quire into the credentials of the one, and will you not be at the fame 
 pains to examine the pretenfions of the other? How does this 
 conlift with the dlftates of even common fenfc or common grati- 
 tude ? Toil may perliaps thank your God, with the proud Pharifee 
 in the Gofpel, that you are not as other men are, extortioners, iiri' 
 juji, adulterers, ^c, you may pofiibly tranfcribe into outward prac- 
 tice that law within your brcaft, to which we fuppofe revelation 
 comes in aid ! you may want none of its imagined motives to in- 
 
 F 2, fluencc
 
 c 
 
 36 Deism 7:ot confijlent 'uoHh the 
 
 fliicnce your conduct— ^'C'^ may perhaps be able, unafTiftcd by arry 
 external guides, to learn, and live within, the ineafures of your du- 
 ty to God, yourneiohbour, and yourfelf ; to do juftice, love mer- 
 w, and to walk, as you think, humbly with your God ; may cou- 
 temphue thoroughly the nature and fitnefs of things, the native 
 obligations and inducements to piety and virtue, and the inherent 
 odioufnefs and dcflruf^ive qualities of vice and irreligion ; you may 
 perhnps be inflriifted from within yourfelf, in the knowledge of 
 even the whole duty of man — Happy you, who hiow thefe things 
 fo well ! happier ftill if you do them ! 
 
 But are there none in life who, with the hiowledge^ have not yet 
 the prudence here fuppofed ? Or rather, are there not millions in the 
 world that have 7iekher? And fliall all your i^gards center in your 
 own important felf ? Have you no tender workings of humanity 
 towards the wants and neceffities of your fellow-creatures ? Have 
 vou equally no regard fcir them who know not, and for them who 
 ^/7/ not iT^o their duty ? Have ro//, u ho enjoy the glorious light of 
 the fun, no fen fe of the wretched ftate and condition of thofe who 
 ftill fit in darknefs? What if j(?.v, through a whimfical contempt 
 of day, (houW choofe rather to puruie the bufincfs of your ordinary 
 calling in the night; muft day-light be therefore of lefs benefit and 
 importance to the more rational part of the world? \i you are 
 whole and need not a phyfician, muft they that arefick not be pre- 
 fcribed to ? I will grant vou, for argument fake, to be pofiefled 
 c^f right rational fcntiments of the Deity, and to be verfed m 
 every fpccies of worfhip and fcrvicc that it is neceflary you (hould 
 pay him. 
 
 Rut are you fure you are indebted to revelation for no part of 
 this knowledge r If that be the cafe, how comes it to pafs, that 
 there are fo many inconfifiencits in thofe corners of the world, 
 
 where
 
 Religion ^j/Reason <7;7^Nature. 37 
 
 where the rays of revelation have not been permitted yet to reach, 
 in both thofc particulars ? How comes it, that thofe grofs abfur- 
 ditles in the heathen worfliip of old, are in part continued among 
 the pagan Indians (in the extenfive empire of the Great Mogul) to 
 this Day ? — The darknefs, alas ! which thofe unhappily labour un- 
 der, how fiirely is it owing to a perverfe, uncontrouled, inhuman 
 exertion of power in thofe rulers over them, who unwarrantably in- 
 tercept from them the important light. 
 
 But whilft kings of the earth ftand up, and rulers take counfel 
 together, againft the religion of the Lord's anointed ; fome by di- 
 verting that flream of divine benevolence, which means to flow 
 alike to all, from its genuine and natural courfe ; others, by pol- 
 luting it with impious and unwholfome vanities ; let me wifli you 
 to take care, thcit you do not ftand charged with the lamentable 
 guilt of either, dire£lly or indire£lly, impeding its progrefs within 
 your fphere of aftion. — Let me wifli that you would be as induf- 
 trious in inquiring into its real excellencies, as you are to expofe its 
 imagined imperfedliions — Let not popular prejudice gain an afcen- 
 dancy over reafon. On reafon Chriftianity is founded — Let reafon 
 therefore be the judge (the only judge) to determine the merit of 
 its pretenfions. 
 
 What regard the Heathens would have paid to a divine revela- 
 tion, had they been favoured with one, may be gathered from their 
 efteem of the Sybilllne Oracles. For when thofe books were burnt 
 with the temple, during the wars of Marius and Sylla, the lofs was 
 deemed the greateft that could happen to the Roman republic, and 
 people were fent into all the provinces of the empire, and to the 
 neighbouring villages, Greets, and alleys, to gather up what could 
 be found of thofe books, and a colledion was made, to apply to as 
 before upon extraordinary occafions. And before thofe books were 
 
 known,
 
 3 8 D E I s M 7?<7/ confijient with the 
 
 known, Niima Pompillus, to give a fan6lion to his laws, fpread a 
 report of his frequently converfing with the nymph Egeria, which 
 wonderfully difpofed the people to receive all his new regulations, 
 as fo many divine infpirations. Hence it appears, that the Hea- 
 thens faw the neceflfity, believed the poffibiiity, and earneftly defuod 
 the happinefs of a fupernatural inftru6lor and director. 
 
 But, alas ! to what fatisfa(flory purpofe, fay you, (hall a man en- 
 gage in an enquiry of this kind, fo produvSlivT as it is, of never- 
 ending difputes ? Why fhould I not content myfelf, with endea- 
 vouring to difcharge all the more immediate duties of morality, which 
 is in faft afting up to, or anfwering, as far as is incumbent on each 
 individual, all the ends and purpofes of revelation ? — A queftion, 
 which I will anfwer by another, alike pertinent — It is this — Can 
 ^ny point of knowledge be of equal importance, with that which, 
 in any degree, refpecls a man's falvation ? And, if it is not impof- 
 fible (but on the contrary highly probable) that God may have 
 made, from time to time, fome exprefs, fome more explicit declara- 
 tions of his ^';7/, can any thing be more unjuft, ungenerous, and un- 
 wife, not to enquire what that will is ? Is your happinefs dependent 
 on his pleafure, and will you not ufe your endeavours to learn what 
 his whole pleafure is ? Is it of no confequence to be informed how to 
 arrive to a right knowledge of the only true God and Saviour of 
 mankind ; that he w^ill have mercy and not facrifice : — that he 
 delighteth not in the bloody of bulls and of gcat?, or of men r 
 (and yet had your education been among thofe with whom religi- 
 ous barbarities of the latter fort prevailed, are you fure you fhould not 
 have confcientioujly complied with them ? ) that the facrifice of carnal 
 lufts and appetites, are the oblations he requires r Is it of no moment 
 to be direfted to the means proper for obtaining pardon and forgive- 
 nefs for paft offences ? Are there any meafures prefcribed by natural 
 religion for that purpofe? No. Whither then but to revealed, would 
 
 you
 
 Religion ^Reason /3:W Nature. 39 
 
 you go for methods proper to appeafe your offended God ? or does 
 the religion of reafon and nature direfl you to imagine you may be 
 at liberty to offend, and he not authorlfed to take vengeance on the 
 offence, or remit the punlfhment due to it, on what terms he him- 
 felf (hall propofe r But thofe terms, how fliall they be known but 
 by revelation ? 
 
 True it is, he brought you into being by no voluntary con- 
 current 3(51 or confent of your own ; but, if from that arbitrary 
 exertion of creative power in the Deity, which gave birth to the 
 frail creature you are, you lay claim to an exemption from future 
 mlfery, notwithftanding any tranfgreffions in life, you may have 
 fallen into ; I would aflc you to whom you are indebted, for the 
 vieam afforded you for obtaining happinefsf And with whom lies 
 the blame, if future mifery is your portion ? He that made you ca- 
 pable of finning, enabled you at the fame time, to fee not only into 
 the natural and deftruclive tendency of fin, but alfo into the advan- 
 tages refulting from a life of virtue. 
 
 When two ways He before me on my journey, I am doubtful 
 perhaps in my choice, whether of the two to take. One, conver- 
 fant in the country, fays to me. Go you here, and you are fure to 
 meet with bogs or quickfands in your way ; go you there, and you 
 will find a country fafe, fruitful, and delightfome. Whether of 
 the two directions is It moft likely I (hall purfue ? The latter 
 moff affuredly — but that there are, I am told, fome favourite recre- 
 ations in the way, peculiar to that other road, which I would 
 willingly indulge myfelf in, though at the hazard of my life. 
 Well, I go, and am lofl:. To what, let me afk, but mv own way- 
 ward mifconducl, can I with any propriety afcribe my mifcar- 
 rlage ? You will urge to me, perhaps, that however man's freedom 
 of adion may be illufl:rated by the cafe here fuppofed, yet it does by 
 
 no
 
 40 Deism not coj^fijlent ninth the 
 
 no means remove the difficulties more immediately under confide- 
 ration. For as futurity is prefent to the Deity, all thofe lapfes 
 which may affe6l my falvatiort^ muft neceflTarily have been fore- 
 known to him, ere my mother conceived me ; how then does it 
 confift with the fuppofed goodnefs of that Being, to bring me into 
 a ftate, wlilch he knew ivould terminate in my entire ruin ? 
 
 For a full dlfcuffion of this point of enquiry, I muft refer the 
 reader to my Treatife on Predeflination^ &c. while I pafs on to fome 
 other remarks on our Delft, whom I left deducing from Mr. Chand- 
 
 ler\ declaration " that if natural religion is not a part of the 
 
 " religion of Chrift, 'tis fcarce worth while at all to enquire what 
 " his religion is," (p. 6.) the following conclufion, vh, ' that then 
 
 * the other parts of the religion of Chrift, are fcarce worth any 
 
 * thing at all of our notice. So excellent and glorious a part of 
 ' the Chriftlan wJ}itution^ fays he, is true delfm : and that, not- 
 ' withftanding all the abfurdity of Dr. IVaterland's aflertion, what 
 ' he has cited from thofe judicious divines. Dr. Sherlock and Mr. 
 
 * Chandler, proves, that delfm is all in the Chriftlan injlitution, that 
 
 * can poffibly approve itfelf to the true genuine reafon of man.* 
 Our author's dexterity, in thus creating patrons to the caufe of in- 
 fidelity, from among real and diftlngulftied advocates for Chriftla- 
 nity, is extraordinary enough ; nor is his method of reafoning up- 
 on the point, lefs remarkable. 
 
 ' After having faid, that every thing enjoined In the Gofpel to 
 
 * be believed as a rational doftrlne, or *profefled as a natural duty 
 
 * relating to God, our neighbour, and ourfelves, is an eftabliflied 
 
 * part of delfm ; the fingle queftion, fays he, between Chriftians 
 
 * and Delfts, Is, whether the belief of natural doarlnes, and the 
 ' praaicc of natural duties, are all that is ftrldly neceflary, with 
 « regard to the divine approbation ; and, confequently, human hap- 
 
 * pinefs,
 
 Religion ^yREAsoN^WNATURE. 41 
 
 ' pinefs, both pre fen t and eternal.* (p. 7.) And is this at laft the 
 cafe ? Is the battle between miidels and Chriftians to end, after 
 all, in 'a friendly (hake of hands ? If the fingle queftion between 
 Chriftians and deifts, is wlfether the belief of natural doctrines, and 
 the pradice of natural duties, ^c. are ftridly neceflary to falvatloji, 
 I here take upon me, in the name of the whole body o^ ratio?ial di- 
 vines, to join iffbe with the plaintiff, and to declare, that the belief 
 of natural do6lrines, and the pradlice of natural duties, are always 
 looked upon by thern^, as necejfary, with regard to the divine appro- 
 bation. 
 
 And when he fays, that this is a queftion or doubt which uni- 
 verfally obtains among Chriftians, he advances what, from a num- 
 ber of our moft orthodox divines, I could prove to be not true. 
 Nay, thofe duties (viz. the belief of natural, ^c.) are, in faft, the 
 very bafts on which Chriftianity ftands ; and the only difference be- 
 tween Chriftians and deifts is, that the former do practife, or recom- 
 mend to the practice of mankind, thofe above-mentioned duties, and 
 that the latter, in reality, do not. For, as I before obferved, thofe 
 do6trines are natural doflrines, and thofe duties natural duties, as 
 well what appear to be mediately or immediately recommended by 
 God, as what arife from the dictates of natural reafon. So that 
 deifts, by rejecting thofe dodrines and precepts which evidently 
 make a part of, are contained in, or may reafonably be deduced 
 'from the Gofpel inftitution, do manifeftly oppofe (and it concerns 
 them much, to give the argument its due weight) the religion they 
 pretend to efpoufe ; viz, the belief of natural doBrines, and the prac- 
 •ytice of natural duties-^'m other words, the belief and prafiice of 
 sjheir boafted ultimatum of deifm, the religion of reafon and nature, 
 
 -, And when J acqulefce in the concliifion drawn from thofe fix re- 
 .fined propofttians, as well as the propoftions themfelves, the fum 
 
 G and
 
 42 Deism 7iot conjrftoit with the 
 
 nnd fiibftance of which is, * that thofe duties only are neccfiary to 
 
 • he believed, and praclifed by us, the reafon of which we perceive 
 ' to be founded in nature^ and the difcharge of thofe in ttie beft 
 
 • manner we can, is intimately conne£^ed with our happinefs, and 
 ' the approbation of him, whofe favour is better than life ; and 
 
 • that then, if any thing elfe is enjoined as a duty in any, even in 
 
 • the Chriftian inftitution, it cannot be neceflary to be obferved, in 
 
 • order to eternal falvation,* (p. 8, 9.) what will follow from this 
 very fair and honeft conceffion, but that the Chrijlian only is the. 
 man (where Chriftianity I mean has been taught, and is eftablifhed) 
 of true genuine religion, and that the deift is not ; for as the fum 
 of all religion is the belief of natural do£lrines, and the practice of 
 natural duties, and if thofe become /^/c//, which are either tnediately- 
 or immediately propofed to us by God (p. 9.) how can the deift pre- 
 tend to be religious^ and rejetfl'at the fame time fchat plan of falva- 
 tion, which is formed from thofe very principles ? 
 
 Havii^ kept pace with our Deift, fo far as his refined definition 
 of delfm goes, and fhewn, that before he proves that to be agreeable 
 to the religion of reafon and nature, he muft make it appear that the 
 idea of a revealed religion is an abfurdity, and Chriftianity an im- 
 pofitlon, let us proceed to the examination of thofe difficulties 
 with regard to Chriftianity, which he fays, lie out of the reach of 
 our reafon, to determine of their truth or falfhood, and thofe infti- 
 tutions which are confefledly no confituent farts of religion (p. 1 2.) 
 And here, after a formal harangue upon the bufinefs of the under- 
 ftanding, and the end of our creation, and that great caution and 
 circumfpe£lion which he profcfles to have obferved in his inquiry 
 after truth, or rather In his endeavours to rivet himfelf in error, l>e 
 tells us (p. 13,) ** that though It Is fald by fome, that Chriftianity 
 ** is grounded on natural religion, and is an improvement of it ; yet, 
 ** after all that has been faid to exemplify it, or that has been of- 
 
 " fered
 
 Religion of Reason a7id Nature. 43 
 
 ^' fered in proof of it, I cannot poffibly conceive, fays he, how an 
 '* entire and perfect ftrudure (which is the cafe of natural religion) 
 " can be only 2i found at'ton for a perfed ftru6^ur« ; or how a perfect 
 ** religion can be improved; or what is eflcntial to man, can be 
 " but of fmall importance to him, in comparifon of what is fu- 
 " peradded, and to which his underftanding is inadequate.'* 
 
 Though our Deift cannot conceive how a perfeB fl:ru(£lure can 
 be ^. foundation for a perfedl ftrudure, will it therefore follow, that 
 Jin imperfeH llrudlure cannot become ^foundation for a pefeB one ? 
 The religion of reafon and nature, I fuppofe now to call o\ir atten- 
 tion not only to natural duties^ ftriftly, or abflraSledly called fuch, 
 but to fuch likewife as are really revealed ; that the latter therefore 
 may be added to the former, I hope you will allow poffible ; and 
 if fo, that natural religion was not the perfeB ftrudture without 
 fuch addition as with it. PerfeBlon is a term purely relative, and 
 may therefore oft times become a comparative ImperfeBlon, That 
 which dire£ls a man to an obedience now required of him, is his 
 prefent perfeB rule of aftion ; but would it be alike entire and per- 
 feB, (hould a more extenfive obedience be demanded of him ? 
 Would it not necelTarily call for fome fuperadded notices and in- 
 ftruftions, proportioned to the fuperadded duties? And may not 
 what was once ejfentlally obligatory opon him as meer man^ be of 
 fmall importance to him, when compared with that fuperadded {y- 
 ftem of duties, prekribed to him as a Chriflan f Yes moft af- 
 furedly. For what fays the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews ? 
 The law, fays he, made nothing perfeB, but the coming in of a better 
 covenant did ; by which we draw nigh to God, Heb. vii. ip. 
 
 But, obferve with what folemn abfurdity our Deift again amufes 
 his readers, and impofes on their eafy credulity, 
 
 G 2 Having
 
 A A Deism ^jot cortfiftent with the 
 
 Having ventured to tell us \\lth an air, which we are to inter- 
 pret into a zve II grounded confidence, that what he aflerts is nioft in- 
 f.iUibly true, and that h's prefent fentiments may very properly hi- 
 *' termed deifm, as that imports the religion of things, and not of 
 
 *' unmeaning or many meaning words of the heart, but not of 
 
 " the book; it is not nominal, but real deifm, fays he, I now in- 
 " tend ; and by which I would fain be undcrftood to mean that 
 *' religion which confifts of only fuch doftrines and precepts, as 
 " appear to have t\\Q\v foundation In reafon and nature," (p. 1 3.) and 
 then having attempted to (hew, '^that Chr'iji'ianity is not that kind of 
 religion, he vouchfafes to tell us, that he is coming to the pointy 
 well knowing that he was then evidently the fartheft from it, when 
 he feemed endeavouring to be neareft to it. And what after all is 
 the point f Why, I think, fays he, " that the grand foundation of 
 ** the difterence betwixt deifts, and the religious of all other per- 
 " fualions, is, whether any doclrine or precept, that has not its 
 " foundation apparently in reafon and nature, can be of the efTence 
 *' of religion, and with propriety be faid to be a religious do£lrine 
 '* or precept.'* (p. 14.) 
 
 Among the religious of all denominations, the Chriftian furely 
 may be allowed to make one. I would then gladly know of our 
 author what fe6t or feds of Chrijlians aflert that doftrines and pre- 
 cepts, which have not their foundation apparently in reafon and na- 
 ture, are religious dodtrines or precepts — teaching, at the fame time, 
 dodrines, that apparently have not their foundation in reafon and 
 nature ? If he goes to the determination of fome councils and Jynods, 
 he may certainly find not a few. And yet, even then, he may be 
 altogether as diftant from the point in debate, as were their infallible 
 deciiions, too frequently, from the truth. Search the Scriptures, and 
 let me fee him prove from thence, a fanclion to abfurdities, of that, 
 or of any other kind, and I will not wonder at the derifive treat- 
 
 niewr,
 
 Religion (j/' Reason ^;^<3^Nature. 45 
 
 ment they meet with from him. Till he can do that, he is fighting 
 with a fliadow, and evidently reprobates rather from prejudice 
 than prlncple the merits of the Gofpel of Chrift. But to pro- 
 ceed 
 
 " The whole body of Chrifilans, fays our author, may be rank- 
 " ed under the two following claffes, \Jl. Thofe who maintain 
 " that dodlrines and praflices which have no foundation in reafon 
 " or nature, may be of the eflence of religion ; and idly. Thofe 
 " who maintain that doftrlnes and pra6lices, which do not appa- 
 *' parently appear (pray obferve his exprejjiotis, for they are incom- 
 " parably expreffive) to be founded in nature and reafon, may yet, 
 " notwithllanding, be of the eflcnce of religion. 
 
 That we may not, for want of method, confound our author's 
 dlftind arraingment of Chriftlan writers, and the feparate claffes In 
 which he has placed them, we \\\\\ bring each of them under a fe- 
 parate diftind examination ; for v>'hich purpofe it will be necefiary, 
 in the firfi: place, to take a view of the names of thofe who make 
 up thejirfi clafs of Chriftlan writers. — And here, left you ihould 
 too haftily expeSl to fee that compofed of all, or of even any of/uch 
 Chrlftan writers, as had obtained the greateft reputation, both for 
 found judgment and nervous reafoning (p. 2.) I muft charge you, 
 as you value the credit and reputation of our author, to be fatis- 
 fied with the Angle, though fingular teftimony, of the all-fufficient 
 ZvngUus. — One goi?^ evidence to a reafonable man, is as fatisfadory 
 as a thoufand— And he (the great ZyngUus) is pleafed, it JTeems, to 
 affirm, " that God may, // he pleafes, out of the vaft fovereignty 
 " of his will, command all that wickednefs, which he has forbld- 
 " den, and make it our duty ; and alfo forbid all that holinefs, 
 " which he has commanded, and make it fin to us (p. 1 5)." 
 
 The
 
 46 Deism not conjijlent with the 
 
 The extraordinary nature of fuch a kind of dndlrine as this, it is 
 juft ^s nece^ary for me to controvert, as it was for onr author to 
 introduce 't — and that is not all ; unlefs he could prove, that in 
 it, is comprehended the united fenfe of the whole body of Chrif- 
 tian writers. And, if that in facl is tlie cafe, how comes he to have 
 been fo fparing of quotations from them ? I (hould rather have 
 expected that he would triumphantly have ufhered in a few EngU/fj 
 divines, oi found judgment and nervous reafon, to have kept his 
 ZyngUus company. But, that not being the cafe, all he has 
 built on )A\sJirJl clafs of Chriftian writers, rifes to a fuperb build- 
 ing indeed — a cajile, however, in the air only.— Let us fee then, if 
 he is more fuccefsful in hhfecond, 
 
 " Tiiofe Chriftians of the fecond clafs, he fays, fo far agree with 
 '* the deifts, as to own, that God, who is infinite in knowledge, 
 " and can never know things to be otherwife than they are in 
 ** themfelves, cannot poffibly confider, nor conflitute any dodrine 
 ** or precept, to be of the eflence of religion, which is not fo in it- 
 " felf, as not being founded in truth and reafon (p. 1 5.)." 
 
 An obfervation which (it being juft expreffive of common fenfe) 
 our author is pleafed to make the dlflingui/Inng charafteriftic of the 
 fecond clafs of Chriftian writers ; and, what is more, to compli« 
 ment it with the deifls folemn fan61:ion, and yet, no fooner are 
 they thus happily and amicably joined together, than (moft unfor- 
 tunately) an officious but, fets them at once afunder. 
 
 " They agree, fays our author, with the deifts, in owning, that 
 ** God, who is infinite in knowledge, and can never know things 
 ** to be otherwife than they are in themfelves, cannot poflibly con- 
 ** fider, nor conftitute any doctrine or precept to be of the eftence 
 *' of religion, which is not fo in itfclf. But then they agree, as 
 
 " the
 
 Religion ^/ Reason ^W Nature.' 47 
 
 " the religion of nature thus nbfolutely coniiderecl, and in its full 
 " extent, is only known to God, if he fliould be pleafed to make a 
 ^"^ flip e mat ural revelation of fuch parts of that law to us, which our 
 *' unajjifled reafon could never have difcovered, fuch a revelation 
 " ought to be gratefully received, and readily acknowledged. And 
 *' this, he tells us, we alledge to be the cafe of all fpeculatlve, me- 
 *' taphyfical, and fublime do6lrines contained in the Scriptures, 
 *' which coUedlively compofe the Chriftian faith (p. 16.)" 
 
 And where, let me afk, lies the abfurdity in this cafe ? Our De- 
 ift grants, that God annot fojjibly confider or conftitute any doc- 
 trine or precept to be of the effence of religion, which is not fo of 
 itfelf : what fhould hinder us then from acknowledging thofe things 
 to be of the very eflence of religion, which we fuppofe him aftual- 
 ly to have confidered, confltuted, and appointed — though they be 
 even fuch things as our unaffified reafon could not have difcovered 
 to have been fo ? His firft conceflfen fuppofes every thing ap-^ 
 fainted by God to be truly confiftent with religion, and confequent- 
 ly, that it is inconfiftent with the religion of reafon and nature^ to 
 oppofe what he adually has appointed (p. 16.}. 
 
 Ah ! but fays he, they (i, e, the rational Chriftians) go farther 
 ftill than all this : for they fay, " though no dodrlne that has not 
 ** its foundation in reafon and nature^ can be truly a religious doc- 
 *' trine, yet dodrines that have fuch a foundation (though that 
 " does not appear) may, if God plcafes, be communicated to us, 
 " either by hlmfelf immediately, or mediately by his agents, wlth- 
 •' out any reflexion on, or repugnancy to, any one of his attri- 
 «' butes(p. 16.)." 
 
 The unfairnefs of this reprefentation of Chriftianity, is, I pre- 
 fume, obvious enough to every one, who thinks not, or writes 
 
 not,
 
 j,g Deism not conjijlent with the 
 
 not, with the partiality of a deift. For all that men of any im- 
 portance in the great bnfinefs of explaining fcripture truths, — in 
 other words, all that the rational divines have advanced on this 
 point, is, that it is no argument of we.rk credulity, or of an irra- 
 tional foundation for our faith, if, in the general plan of revelation, 
 there are fome circumftances not revealed, which lie beyond the 
 reach of our enquiries and that things in this refpe(ft may be, in- 
 comprehenfble, and yet not incompatible with reafon, or the pur- 
 port of revelation. The errors and abfurdities which the patrons 
 of either popery or enthufiafm may have unwarrantably ingrafted 
 on Chrlftianity, and which have in reality no foundation in the 
 religion of reafon and nature, affed not the real intrinfic merit of the 
 latter, audit muft be ignorance, or downright knavery in a writer, 
 to lay them to the charge of the Chriftian church. 
 
 Our Deifi then having fo very jufly znd ju^icioujly ftated the cafe In 
 difference, between us and deifts ; obferve the conclufion he jj juftly 
 and judicioufly draws from it. *' The difference, fays he, betwixt 
 ** rational Chriftrans and deifts, will, without any farther trouble, 
 " be adjufted, when this propofition, which Chriftians lay down 
 "for a certain truth," viz. " that the colle^flions of writings, com- 
 " monly called the Srciptures, are of divine infpiration, and a reve- 
 
 ** lation'from God to mankind, be plainly and clearly made ap- 
 
 " pear to be fo ; and therefore the material queftion depends upon 
 »' the proof tliat is to be made by Chriftians, that the Scriptures are 
 ** a divine revelation, and the very word of God. For if that point 
 " be proved, fays he, the controverfy is at an end, there being no 
 
 "true deiftthat will hefitate a moment to allow, that what God 
 
 ..■ ] . . 
 
 ** faith, is truth (p. i6, 17, 18.)." Which is declaring, in as'ex- 
 prefs terms as can be imagined, that if Chriftians can but once 
 prove to Deifts, that the Scriptures are of divine original and autho- 
 rity, we deifts will abfolutely acquiefce in all thofe dodfines which 
 
 5 are
 
 Religion of Reason^;/^Nature. 49 
 
 are deduced from them, even though they appear not to have their 
 foundation in the religion of reajon and nature. 
 
 Here then you fee the ultimate refolution of a deiflr. If you 
 will not fufler him to enjoy in peace the principles of a deift, 
 he will, rather than become ^' true Chrifiian, be content to be 
 a Papift or enthufiaft; for who but fuch as thofe pretend to 
 ground the obligation of believing things not founded inr^^wand 
 the nature of things, on any pretended authority from holy writ ? 
 — But paffing by the compliment here paid by our author to Pope- 
 ry, enthufiafm, and fuperftition, let us attend him in his enquiry 
 iato the averted authority of Scripture, which he promifes to carry 
 on with the utmoft impartiality, 
 
 " Alas ; alas ! fays he, here we have a furprifing inftance of 
 ** the want of unanimity among Chriftians, where it feems to be 
 " fo peculiarly requifitc, that without it, they muft not only 
 «' expedl to fail of convincing deifts of the truth of their caufe, 
 •' but alfo render it a doubtful point, whether they are rationally 
 " convinced of the truth of it themfelves. For if we begin with 
 ♦' the Roman Catholicks, who have vaftly the advantage in point 
 " of numbers, and plainly alk them^ how know you the Scripture 
 *' to be the word of God ? — I'hey anfwer, by the teftimony of the 
 ** church (p. 18.)." 
 
 Now 1 would venture to appeal to any man of common fenfe 
 and underftanding, whether the Popi(h method of proving the 
 ^Jenfi of Scripture, from the mpVtcit teftimony of their churchy is'^of 
 any weight in our author's arguments for difproving the Scriptures 
 to be the word of God. Nay, he acknowledges, that the weak» 
 nefs and abfurdity of this method of proof has been fo fully fhewn 
 by fome eminent Protejlants^ as to render it perfe(5Hy needlefs for 
 deifts to make any repetition of what is fo generally known and 
 
 H approved
 
 go- Deism ^^/ conjtjient with the 
 
 approved (p. 1 9.). What a trlfler then, even from his ow^n confef- 
 lion, is our worthy friend the Deift ; — But now for the principal 
 anfwers vouchfafed to us by P rot eft ants. — " Why the one part, 
 *' fays he, maintain, that they are kno'v^n to be the word of God by 
 •* theinfslves, to thofe only whofe eyes the fpirit of God is pleafed 
 ** in a diftinguifhing manner to open, to perceive the certain cha- 
 *' raders of divine truths in them (p. ib.). Another fort maintain, 
 " that they are known, and will manifcftly appear to be the word 
 " of God by them/elves, upon an honeft inveftigation of mere na- 
 *' tural reafon, to any man who (hall impartially exercife it about 
 " them (p. ?'/'.)" meaning what follows from Mr. Female. 
 
 Mr. Pemble in his Treatife of Grace and Faith fays *' We 
 know the Scriptures are the word of God by tJiemfelves, the Spirit of 
 God opening our eyes to fee thofe natural and lively charafters of 
 divine truth, which are imprinted on thofe facred volumes. But 
 how (afks he a little after) does the Holy Ghoft reveal unio us the- 
 /n^M of Scripture ? (He anfwers) by removing. thole impediments, 
 that hinder, and beftowing thofe graces, illuminations, and fanSii- 
 f cation, that make us capable of the knowledge,* Bravo, 
 
 my dear Deift ! and thofe whofe eyes the Spirit of Qod does; 
 
 not open are — Who ? Why thofe moft certainly " in whom, 
 ** as the Apoftle fpeaks, the God of this world hath blinded the 
 ** minds of them which believe not, left the light of the glori»- 
 " ous Gofpel of Chriil, who is the image of God, ftiould 
 ** (bine unto them." 
 
 Well — The Roman CatJiolicks in their turn, continues our Deift,, 
 reply, that Scripture is delivered to moft Proteftants as by tranjla^ 
 lions, from men, who by their contrary tranflations, have proved 
 themfcKes fallible ; therefore granting that the originals be true,, 
 
 ♦ See our author, p. 19, 20, See alfo Dupin's Biblioth. Autor, 
 
 4 the
 
 Religion <?/ Reason ^;?<:/ Nature. 51 
 
 the tranjlntions may be far otherwife, at leaft, only one can be the 
 true one, and which niuft that be ? 
 
 Why, that for which you have the beft and moft reafonabk 
 evidence — Becaufe " alterations in language, are, as our Deill 
 *' avers, unavoidable (p. 21. . ;" muft there therefore of courfe be 
 no fuch thing as true language ? — But fays he, in reply, "As 
 •' they might poffibiy be corrupted by tranfcribers, and we can- 
 " not be certain that they were not, the Scriptures, in thofe lat- 
 *' ter ages, cannot be proved to be the word of God, bv themfelves. 
 ** For {hall v/e know them to be fo by their own teftimony con- 
 " cerning themfelves, or by the reafonablenefs and apparent truth of 
 *' each and all the do^lrines and precepts contained in them ? 
 
 " (p- 21./* 
 
 If by the teftimony of Scripture concerning themfelves, our au- 
 thor had meant nothing more than a teftimony arifing from the rea- 
 fonablenefs of their doftrines and precepts, I would afk him, whe- 
 ther the reafonablenefs of a doftrine is not one of the ftrongeft 
 arguments, though not the only one, to be expefted in fupport 
 of its credibility ? ** Well, but fays he, the aflurance of the in- 
 " fallibility and infpiration of the feveral authors of thofe books 
 ** called the Bible, is the very point in queftion, and requires to be 
 •' proved." Here again he fubjoins this very fhrewd remark (as 
 if it had been a point of univerfal difpute among Chriftians) 
 that its own teftimony, concerning itfelf, can be no proper evidence 
 (p. 22.). 
 
 He is in too great a hurry to afk us, whether we have or have 
 not any other proof of the infpiration cf the authors of thofe books 
 called the Bible, than what arifes from their own teftimony concern- 
 ing themfelves, well knowing that we have many ; for one of 
 
 H 2 which
 
 £2 Deism not cojjjijtent with the 
 
 which I muft refer you to a note below,* left I (hould lofe fight of 
 our Delft in his hnfty tranfition to the fecond kind of proof of the 
 divine authority of the holy Scriptures, viz. the reafonablenefs 
 and apparent truth of each of its doftrines and precepts refpe£llve- 
 \\\ *' This, fays he, is not fo much as pretended by thofe Pro- 
 " teftants, whofe anfwer we are now particularly confidering.'* 
 Well, and how can we help it if it is not? Are the fuppofed ab- 
 furdities of one clafs of men to be placed to the account of the 
 wliole body of Chriftian writers? — As well may we affert, that 
 there is no fach thing in the world as right reafon, bccaufe our au- 
 thor, whilft he pretends to efpoufe it, fliews fo little of it ia hia. 
 writings. But to proceed — 
 
 *' ^hey (I. e. Mr. Pemble) efteem mere morality, and the bare ex« 
 '* ercife of our natural powers in matters of religion, altogether in- 
 ♦^ effe£lual with regard to falvation : things beyond morality, and 
 *' out of the verge of human reafon, they are fo well afllired are 
 " not to be acquired by reafon, that they afcribe the acquifition of 
 ** them wholly to the operation of the Holy Ghoft (p. tb.).'" Da 
 they fo ? and what then ? Do they (viz, that body of Proteftants 
 reprefented by Mr. Pemble) declare, that mere morality,. or the bare 
 
 * Not to i'nfifl upon other arguments, which might be alledged with great ftrength 
 and cogency of reafon; that complete fyftem of morals, which gives fo great a luftre 
 t© their writings is, I think, a fufficient proof that the Evangelifts, and the reft of 
 the facred penmen of the New Teflament, were divinely inipired ; 'tis true indeed,, 
 there is fcare any one precept therein contained, but what may be met with in the 
 writings of the heathen philofophers, but then they are fo detached from one another, 
 and fo dcftitute of a proper fanftion to enforce them, and are fo defaced by a monftrous 
 heap of abfurdities, which are delivered along with them, that they fall far fhort of 
 that perfeftion which ought to be expefted, to make them come home to men's pur- 
 pofes, and render them of general ufc. Whereas, in the Scriptures, all the doc- 
 trines are fummed up in a plain and cafy manner, and in a fmall compals, free from 
 any embarrafs, and at the fame time that they exhibit to us a full rule of duty to 
 God, our neig^hbour, and ourfelves, have all the aiithority that either reafon or reve- 
 lation can give to recommend them, and are enforced by fuch proper fanftions, a* 
 mull aeceflarily have a great weight upon every fober and vrell difpofed mind. 
 
 exercife
 
 Religion <?/* Reason ^^<3^ Nature. 53 
 
 excrcife of our natural powers In matters of religion, i$ altog- 
 ether ineffeaual, with regard to falvation? Yes and the 
 
 aflertion is juft implying nothing more or lefs than this 
 
 viz, that mere morality, /. e. that kind of morality, falfely called 
 fuch, which would exclude revelation from the religion of rea/on 
 and nature^ — the morality in fad of deifis, — is and ever will be in- 
 effeftual to falvation. A truth to which every ra:ionaI divine you 
 can name me, will, I am perfuaded, moft cordially fubfcribe ; and 
 not only this, but agree with Mr. Chandler^ that '' the religion of 
 " Chrift muft be underjlood, before it can, or ought to be believed 
 " and that it muft be proved to be a confiftent and rational reli- 
 " gion, before a man can be under any obligation to receive it.'* 
 
 When therefore our author took upon him to ailert, from the 
 one example of Mr. Pemble^ that this is not fo much as pretended 
 by any eftablifhed body of divines (p. 23.), and that none but fuch 
 as Mr. Chandler were fo rational as. to maintain that opinion, he does 
 not do juftice to the church of England clergy. If they declare 
 that a n\^.nrxiu^ht jupernatur ally illuminated, In order to perceive 
 the charad^ers of divine truth In the holy Scriptures, what more do 
 they mean, than that a man muft cherlfii in his breaft fomething 
 fuperior to the too natural difpofttlons and bias of an infidel ; fome- 
 thlng more than the fuggeftions of pride, prejudice, and partiality 
 (which too ufually ufurp the fovereignty of right reafon) to judge 
 rightly of the truth of revelation. 
 
 Nor is ChilHngworth, as- our author would Infinuate, the only 
 great man among the feveral patrons of Chriftlanlty, who cares to 
 own that *' natural reafon is the only true judge in ihofe contro- 
 *» verfies, where the Scripture itfelf is the fubjed of them 
 
 Mr.
 
 §4 Deism ft of conf^Jlent with the 
 
 Mr. Loch fays, that without the evidence and life of reafon, men 
 cannot be able to diftinguifh divine revelation from diabolical im- 
 poftures.* 
 
 Mr. HiileSy fpealcing of the Ja'ity of the fecond century, obferves, 
 '' That one great caufe of error was, that the people, through (loth 
 and blind obedience, examined not the things that were taught, but 
 likebeafts of burthen, patiently couched down, and indifferently un- 
 derwent whatever their fuperiors laid upon them.t'* 
 
 Mr. Bullock [A\'Sf " If I cannot depend upon the plaineft didates 
 of reafon, how can I be nfilired that any doftrine is a revelation 
 from God ? If I receive it without confulting my reafon, then for 
 aught I know, it may be an impofture, and I am every way as liable 
 to embrace an error as the truth."]; 
 
 Bifliop Taylor has well obferved, " 'tis re;ifon that Is the judge, 
 fathers, councils, tradition and Scripture the evidence. §" 
 
 Mr. C///7//;z^ie;or//^ Archblfhops TiUotfon and Sharp, Bifhops Bur- 
 net and JVilhins, Dr. Scott, and indeed all our ablcft divines agree, 
 that we ought to make ufe of our reafon, in an enqu ry into 
 either the authenticity of a pretended revelation, or the doc- 
 trines which it teaches. You fee then, that by the united teftlmony 
 of men of the greateft reputation (or found learning, &c. that rea- 
 fon was never meant to be excluded from our enquirie-- into 
 either the fubject matter or authority of revelation. Nor does it 
 
 * Vid. Z,or/(f on Human UncIcr{landing,\ol. II. chap. i8, 
 f Vid. HaWs Traft of Schifm. 
 I Vid. Bullock's Sermons, p. 19. 
 § Lib. I. chap. 2, 
 
 appear
 
 Religion ^Reason ^W Nature. 55 
 
 appear, that even what we call fupernatural matters, or, what 
 feems to us to come from Scripture as fuch, are incapable of be- 
 ing inveftigated by that criterion, « iov fupernntural mat- 
 
 " ters are what our author charges us with believing, upon Scrlp- 
 *' ture authority (p. 24.)." I admit the charge, and let the Deift 
 make from it what advantages he can. — '* Why,'* fays he, " mat- 
 " tQxs fupernatural are incapable of an examination by natural rea- 
 *' fon, and therefore are incapable of being apparently reafonable, 
 " or being approved of as fuch," by our reafoning faculties 
 (p. ib.). 
 
 If mere confident affertlons were equivalent to real argument, 
 I know not who would merit more, as a writer, than our au- 
 thor Supernatural matters, fays he, are incapable of an exami- 
 nation by natural reafon. But wherefore? Why muft it necef- 
 farily be beyond the reach of natural reafon, to make a difcovery 
 of truth? yv'vAzh. vjtxt onct fupernatural \ i.e. beyond the concep- 
 tion or invention of the original ftrength of reafon ? — Truths which 
 Jim lie out of the reach of human conception, of which fort there 
 are undoubtedly not a few, are, and will h^ fupernatural till revealed. 
 But will it therefore follow, \}c^-dXwhen dlfcovered they become not 
 objefts of our natural reafon and examination ? What I was not 
 able to difcover of myfelf (and all men were once upon the fame 
 footing, with refped to fome particular truths with which they were 
 afterwards made acquainted) was furely ^fupernatural difcoverv to 
 me^ when made by another perfon ; and cannot my reafon, do vou 
 think, enable me to determine rightly concerning the truth, falfhood, 
 or probability, of that with which I was thus fuper naturally made 
 acquainted ? 
 
 And our Deift, will he dare to fay, that even ChilUngworth, and 
 our other rational divines, are gravelled, when they come to the 
 
 difcuffioa
 
 56 Deism 7tot conftjlent mth the 
 
 difcuflion of this, what he calls, unmanageable point ; and at a lofs 
 to prove that the Scriptures are known to be the word and revela- 
 tion of God, upon an honejl invcftigation of mere natural reafon ? 
 (p. 25.) And (hall he, with a fneer, talk of a thing * being what 
 
 * it is, tind inore than it is at the fame time ? And of a man's hav- 
 
 * ing the underftanding of a man, and yet difcerning what is out of 
 
 * the reach of human intelleftual faculties to perceive (p. 2.)?' Why 
 muft the evidence of fupernatural truths confidered as above (and 
 what other kind o( fnpernaturals are there, but mere contradi5fiofis 
 and inconjijiencles, which our church abfoluteh^ difclaims ?) why 
 muft the evidence o( fupernatural truths^ really and in flid fuch, be 
 neceflarily out of the reach of human invejiigation P 
 
 But not to dwell any longer on the evidence arlfing from the 
 internal charaders of the divine pages, let us hear what our Deift 
 would object to thofe external ones, prophecies and miracles, 
 Thefe, he thinks, " even when we have reckoned up all the pro- 
 '* phecies given by Sybils, Jews, or Chrijlians, or miracles at any 
 " time wrought, fall vaftly fhort of affording the proof or fatif- 
 " faSiion to be expeSted. For they never, he fays, can prove, that 
 " the colle6lion of trafts, commonly called the Bible, were written 
 '* by the pcrfons refpe6tively whofe names they bear; that the 
 " Deity immediately dictated to, and imprefled upon the mind of 
 " each writer, the fubjefl matter contained therein, effectually re- 
 " ftraining each one from mixing his own conceptions with what 
 ** had been thus dictated to him ; and that thefe books have been 
 *' faithfully trafmitted from their original copies, down to us, 
 " without any corruption, alterai.ion, addition, or diminution ; and 
 •* then if prophecies and miracles fall fhort of proving thefe points, 
 " which moft certainly they do, then conlequently they fall equally 
 " fhort of proving the Scriptures to be a divine revelation, and the 
 '* very word of God (p. 26^}." 
 
 Obferve
 
 Religion of Reason and Nature. 57 
 
 Obferve now with what fyllogift'ic fagacity our Delft attempts to 
 reafon away the authority of holy writ. Becaufe the ^wAwt original 
 of thtfcriptures cannot be proved by a medium, by which it was 
 never intended it (hould be proved, therefore it is not capable of be- 
 ing proved at all. He fuppofes that miracles and prophecies given 
 forth by Chriftians, Jews and Sybils, are tirged to prove, in the 
 firfl: place, that the Scriptures were written by the very perfons 
 whofe names they bear ; and fecondly, that thofe perfons were in- 
 fpired, and infallible In every word they wrote. Now if that be 
 the cafe, he can furely produce fome prophecies gIvenyo/'///by Jews, 
 Sybils, and Chriftians, and miracles fomewhere wrought, to which 
 Chriftians refer, as what were exprefsly given or done for that very 
 end. Till he does that, his charge Is groundlefs, infignlficant, and 
 impertinent. 
 
 But if he means to fay, that prophecies adually accompliffjed, and 
 miracles really known to be worked by thofe very perfons under 
 whofe names the Scriptures are faid to be wrote, have, added to the 
 intrinfic merit of thedo6lrines they enforce, a rational claim to our 
 attention, he fuppofes the v^ry faft. And if evidences fo confirm.a- 
 tive of their authenticity ftamp not convlftion in his breaft, we may 
 reafonably conclude that he would not be convinced, though one 
 rofe from the dead to atteft it. And though miracles and pro- 
 phecies diO fall fhort of proving that thefe books have htcn faithfullv 
 tranfmitted from their refpeftlve original copies down to us, without 
 any corruption, alteration, addition, or diminution, what is that to 
 his purpofe, unlefs he can prove that they ever were appealed to 
 for that end ? Parts, learning, and integrity, are the ufually fup- 
 pofed requifites for the difcovTry and removal of any difficulties of 
 this kind, to which the Scriptures In common with other writings 
 may reaionably beprefumed to befubjeft. And had our Deifi: pof- 
 feflcd an equal fhare of the latter, with his perhaps juft pretenfions 
 
 I to
 
 58 D E I s M ;;<?/ co7^fiflent with the 
 
 to the former of thofc qualifications, be would not have funk thus 
 low In tl)e efteem of impartial men, as a reafoaer on revelation. — 
 But to proceed : — 
 
 Our Deift fcems very fagac'oufly to imagine, that we muft firff 
 prove that every tittle of the writings of the Old and New Teftament 
 was penned by immediate infpiration, and that the penmen deliver 
 to us 7iothing but what was adlually dictated to them by the Deity, 
 ere we can pretend to recommend thofe books to the world, as an 
 eftablifhed repofitory of revelation. But this, let me tell him, was 
 neither intended nor neceflfary. 
 
 The ir^falllble tcftimony which the feveral writers received, and 
 did afterwards give to the truth of the particular fafts they re- 
 late, is fufficient to give them credit as authors, with all impar- 
 tial enquirers ; even allowing them, at the fame time, the ge- 
 neral fallibility of nature as men. In order to do juftice to reve- 
 lation, we fliould be careful to dlftinguifh rightly the 7}ian from 
 the mini/ier of revealed truths, the hiftorian from the prophet ; nor 
 expe£l infpiration where infpiration is out of the qiieftlon. Some 
 things are propofed to us in Scripture, as nectflary objects of our 
 faith ; fome more efpecially for proper guides to our mor.il prac- 
 tice. Of the firft fort, are thofe particulars which the prophets and 
 apoflles received, by either an articulate found from Heaven, or by 
 vifions and other fupernatural appearances, or by prophetic fugo-ef- 
 tioNs of the divine fplrit; the truth of which they did — What, my 
 dear reader ?-~Why either feal with their blood, or confirm by 
 extraordinary miracles. Nor will it be at all difficult to difilnguifh 
 truths advanced upon the authority of infpiration, from thofe which 
 are recommended to our notice as matters merely hiftorlcal. 
 
 The
 
 Religion ^j/Reason ^WNature. 59 
 
 The facred writers, by a more ferlous and fincere enquiry 
 into the real truth of things, added to the many extraordinary 
 lights they from time to time received, furnifh out to us a more 
 noble treafure of ufeful dodrlnes and maxims, than are to be drawn 
 from the moft elaborate refearches of other men, the obfervance of 
 \vhich they enforce by the difcovery of many important truths fu- 
 pernatiiral — truths not attainable hy natural rea/on, which, and 
 which nlone^ were the objects of their infpiration. Out of the 
 four Evangelifts, two of them were eye and ear witnefles of what 
 they relate, viz. St. Matthew and St. John. Did they need infpi- 
 ration, do you think, to make them write as honeft men ? If fo, 
 a man is a fool to believe one word of Kngli/Jj, Greek, or Roman 
 hiftory ! The two others wrote confefledly by the diredlions and 
 inftru£tion of St. Peter and St. Paul\ and were equally capable of 
 writing with hiftorical honefty and integrity, as the former. So 
 that it is not fo neceflary for the credibility of Scripture ftory, as 
 our author would infinuate, that the fubjed-matter of it in ge- 
 neral fliould be imprefled on the minds of each writer; and every 
 thing therein penned, be the refult of a6lual immediate infpi- 
 ration. 
 
 According to our prefent tranjlation indeed, it is faid, all Scrip- 
 ture is given by infpiration, and is profitable for doSirine, &c. 
 2 Tim. chap. ill. v. 1 6. The pointing of the original as it flands 
 in, among others, Beza's Tranflation, proves however that ©iOTrvzv^og 
 here is put in appoftion only — Ilaa-a ypo<.(pri, QeoTrvevg-og, y^ u(p£Xif4.(^, 
 that Kca, inftead of et, is to be rendered etiam, with s^t underftood, 
 the tranjlation (hould run thus — All fcripture, given by infpiration, 
 is even profitable for dodrine, ^r. * 
 
 * For the incorreftnefs and uncxaftnefs of Scripture ftyle, and different readers, 
 vide Dr. Brocklclbv, p. 20. to 26. 
 
 I z The
 
 6o Deism not coiifijlcnt icith the 
 
 The Apoitle's meaning from which words is, th:it nil Scripture 
 eiven by infpiration, /. c. every prophetic pur I of Scripture, every 
 prophecy given, or declaration made by thole feveral infpired teach- 
 ers and prophets, is a memento to our rritional and moral con- 
 du6l ; and, when confidered with due attention, becomes profitable 
 for dodrine, for reproof, for corredion, Cfc. 
 
 But to return : " Our Dei ft cannot conceive how plain and oh^ 
 " vioiis truths can be revealed, in a miraculous and Jupcrnatural 
 " manner ('ih,)^ And where, I would afk, is it required of him 
 that he fhould ? What more is propofed to our belief, than that 
 fome plain and obvious truths (truths which are the immediate ob- 
 ject of even natural reafon and religion) are in the facred writings 
 enforced by fome other fupernatural do*5lrines, /'. e. dodrines fo 
 fupernaturally made known to us, that reafon alone could not 
 naturallv have attained to the knowledge of them — Such as God's 
 creating, with a view of hereafter judging the world by Jefus Chrtjl^ 
 his fending that very divine perfon among us, who one day is to 
 be our judge, to be firft our teacher and inftrudor, that by his life 
 and converfatlon he might approve himfelf a complete pattern of 
 virtue and hoUnefs here, and by his death and refurredion, give 
 ajfurance that he came to open to us a way to perfed blifs here- 
 after. 
 
 Are thefe, I would alk, intelligible dodrines, or are they not ? 
 And may they, or may they not be admitted into our creed, 
 without offering any violence to our underftanding ? Let me, for 
 the prefent, fuppofe our Deift to anfwer in the affirmative, and to 
 admit that they are worthy and valuable truths, deferving our 
 iitmoft veneration. But what then ? " It cannot appear to me, 
 *' fays he, that they were therefore mlraciiloujly and fupernaturally 
 " revealed ; becaufe, in the fiji place, they have not been proved 
 
 " to
 
 Religion ly^REAsoN ^WNature. 6i 
 
 " to be fo ; and, fecondly, becaufe they are to be difcovered to be 
 " what they are by the human underftanding, hi the ordinary and 
 *' natural ufe of its faculties (p. ib.)'^ 
 
 Here I muft lay before you another Inftance of our Dei{t*s great 
 talent for fophiHry and falfe reafoning, and his dexterity in fub- 
 flltuting fplendid nonfenfe in the room of real argument. In the 
 firft place, nothing is to be admitted in proof of- revelation, but 
 what meets with our Delffi folemn fanciion. Secondly, Things 
 cannot be difcovered to be what they are, by our underftanding, 
 and the ordinary and natural ufe of our faculties, if they were at 
 fiiji made known to the world in a miraculous and fupernatural 
 manner , His reafoning thus on this point, 1 impute to his con- 
 founding the nature of revealed truths, with the manner of their 
 being conveyed. He imagines that every truth muft be in fad, 
 fupernatural, u e. not capable of being known to be what it is, by 
 the natural ufe of our reafoning faculties, even when difcovered, 
 provided it was made known in a manner fupernatural. He that 
 fees not into the fallacy of this dedu61ion, muft be but little quali- 
 fied to judge of the force of any argument at all. 
 
 But again. — *' As to all the myfterious and unintelligible parts 
 « of Scripture, they are the fame, fays our Delft, as if they were 
 «« not written, as to any good purpofe that can be ferved by them ; 
 " and to fuppofe that they give forth unintelligible inftruaions 
 « and propofitions to his creatures, is to prove God, in faft, a 
 " mere trifler.'* If by myfterious, unintelligible propofitions, our 
 Deift means fuch things only vvhofe manner and form of exiftence 
 are unintelligible, do but only confider, how many myfteries there 
 are of that kind in the fyftem of natural religion ; and then judge, 
 whether any but fuch arrant triflers as hinifelf will pretend to oppofe 
 them to the prejudice of revelation. Whether or no any other un- 
 j intelligible
 
 62 Deism not conft/lent with ths 
 
 intelligible propofitions have the pretended {"an^^ion of revelation, 
 I may perhaps enquire, as I go along with our Delft's anfwer to a 
 reply to the mitJior of Chr'iJTiamh not founded on argument ; which 
 feems principally to have been the occalion of this very extraordi- 
 nary treatife. The reafon for it is very obvious, ^hat being a 
 book, on the credit of which the very life and foul of infidelity 
 feemed principally to depend, it was neceflary that an anlwer fo 
 apparently conclufive, fhould not pafs upon the world, without 
 meeting fomewhere with an attempt^ at leaft, towards a reply. But 
 how difproportioned our Deift's abilities are to his endeavours^ to 
 x)verturn the found reafoning of Dr. hepfon, we fhall eafily fee 
 by the few following obfcrvations, which 1 offer not in the leaft In 
 defence or vindication of the latter [jor he ftands in no need of any) 
 but to expofe the grofs fophiftry of the former. The Do£lor 
 fpcaks truth, honefty, and integrity in every page, and flafhes un- 
 willing convH^ion even in the face of our Deift, as appears from 
 the various fubterfuges to which he is forced to have fiich frequent 
 recourfe. 
 
 It having been afterted, that the rational divines prove all things 
 and hold faft that which is good, and that what is good in all cafes 
 may readily be diftinguilhcd from what is evil*, *' the inference 
 " which our fugacious author draws therefrom, is, that as in mere 
 " matters of morality, only reafon can readily diftinguifh what is 
 *' morally good from what is morally evil, — fuch matters Oiily 
 " can, he fays, according to this way of arguing, be caf.s of im- 
 " portance, that is, with regard to the favour of God and eternal 
 ** falvation (p. 31.)" Here (uir Drift thinks he has drawn fuch a 
 concliifion from his antngonift's mode (<f reafoning, as muft nccef- 
 farllv brin" him under dlincuilies i-nfurmountable ; and difable hlni 
 from provino matters oi faith to be matters of importance. 
 
 * Vld. Benlbn's Realbnablefs of Chriftian Religion, p. 
 
 But
 
 Religion of Reason ^WNATUREi 6j 
 
 But I would afk, whether it is not the united opinipn of the 
 whole body of rational divines, that morality is one principal end 
 of Chriftianity ? And if fo, muft not the means conducive to that 
 end, fuch as are its articles of faith and pofitive precepts, be pro^ 
 portionably important too ? (vide fupra p. 47.) And can you, I 
 would afk, feparate with any manner of propriety a belief of truths 
 revealed by the immediate direB'ion of God, (and not natural ob- 
 jeds, perhaps, of our notice) from the catalogue of moral duties ? 
 But " how, fays the Deift, does it appear, that the grand articles 
 " of Chriftianity, when they are now no more to be judged of by 
 *' human powers, than they were before to be found out by them,. 
 " are matters of importance? And how can things with propriety 
 " be faid to be revealed to the human race, of which man has no fa- 
 " culty of forming, an adequate idea or judgment ? (p, 34.)" 
 
 What gave occafion to this query, was,.an infinuation that with- 
 cut the Scripture, reafon, or men's natural faculties, would never 
 have found out many things that are revealed in the Bible * It 
 may be true,^ that many things revealed to us in the Gofpel, could' 
 not have been found out by the unaffifted powers of human reafon ; 
 but as I obferved before ^p. 90.) no conclufion can be drawn from- 
 that conception, that now they are difcovered, they become not pb- 
 ieds of our examination. Till that affertion can be difproved, the 
 wretched cavil merits only our contempt. But then, fays he, "to 
 '* talk of a revelation of things to man, in aid of reafon, which 
 «* though eafily underftood, yet reafon cannot difcover any proper- 
 ** ufe that can be made of them, is alike abfurd and contradictory. 
 ** But fo abfurd and contradiftory a declaration is this, fays he, 
 «* that God will judge the world by Jefus Chrift. This, fays he,. 
 *' does not appear to have any foundation in reafon or nature ;; 
 
 * Vid. Ben. p. 90, 91. . 
 
 ** nor
 
 64 Deism not co?ifiJlent with the 
 
 " nor is there any principle or premifes from whence they may be 
 ** drawn. God will judge the world in righteoufnefs, and it is a 
 " matter of indifference to the creature by whom. And as reafon 
 *' cannot make any improvement of this dod^rine, how can it be 
 " faid, with either propriety or truth, that it was given in aid of it 
 
 Becaufe a deift can make no improvement of this doctrine, is it 
 therefore evident that nobody elfe can ? or that what he himfelf 
 may advance on that head, does actually proceed from the fuggcf- 
 tions of reafon, and not rather from fome principle which beft fuits 
 him, for the prefent, to fubftitute in its room ? Is it not fome con- 
 firmed prejudice, fome inveterate obftinacy lying in the way between 
 reafon and convidion, which hinders him from reaping that advan- 
 tage from the declaration of God's judging the world, by Jcfus 
 Chrift that he otherwife might ? 
 
 " Admitting it to be a truth, that God will judge the world by 
 " Jefus Chrift, of what more confcquence to the world in general-, 
 " fays he, is the know^ledge of this truth, than that there being a 
 *' burning mountain in the kingdom of Naples, is an advantage to 
 ** the people of England? Then this is a jiift objedion, fays he, 
 *' againft the divinity of this do^lrine, becaufe it is greatly impro- 
 " bable, that God fhould fpecially interpofe to acquaint the world 
 " with this, or any other truth, the knowledge of which mankind 
 " would do altogether as well without (p. ib.).'* 
 
 There cannot be required plainer proofs of the defperate flate of 
 our Ceift's caufe, than are the mean artifices to which he thinks it 
 neceflary to have recourfe for its fiipport. Like a fox, well nigh 
 run down by his purfuers, and unable any longer to truft to a fair 
 and open chace, he begins to pradife at laft all the little fhifts and 
 doubles he can make, to protracl, though but for a moment, the fate 
 
 he
 
 Religion of Reason ^^^/Nature. 65 
 
 lie fees unhappily approaching. Had this circumftance of God's 
 judging the world by 'jejui Chrijl been omitted, and nothing more 
 had been obferved concerning the di/lrlbution of rewards and funij}}- 
 tnents in another ftate, than that fuch a ftatc would one time or 
 another commence — how natural would it have been for men to 
 have enquired how it came to pafs, that revelation, the principal 
 bufinefs and boafted merit of ^vhich is its making difcoveries not at- 
 tainable folely by reafon, fliould yet leave us fo much in the dark, 
 as is here fuppofed, in a matter of fuch great moment? 
 
 The time wlien, tbe manner how, and the perfon by whom this 
 grand affair is at laft to be conduced, are circumftances of informa- 
 tion, wliich every right reafoner would naturally have expeded 
 from revelation ; nor do I believe, that even the delfts would have 
 been the laft to have complained of fuch deficiency. — And If fuch 
 be their hardened infenfibillty and ingratitude, as that inftead of its 
 telng a motive to their praife and thankfgiving, they make this fo 
 material a difcovery an additional argument to fupport them in their 
 prefumptuous infidelity— I judge them not — there is one that judg- 
 eth—even that fame Jefus whom they defpife. 
 
 As for thofc twelve propofitlons, which our Delft has Introduced 
 with fuch an air of folemnity and importance, it may be but juf- 
 lice to him and to the reader, to tranfcribe them, that the latter 
 may make what advantage from them he can (p. ^'j, 38, 39, 40.*.) 
 
 I own 
 
 « I. That the firft caufc of all things Is a being, not onljr of the moft bouncUer$ 
 power, but alfo of the mod unlimited and perfea reafon or undcrftanding. 
 
 2. That in nature, there is the right and the wrong, of every cafe that can poffibly 
 cxift, or refult from the infinitely various pofitions and modifications of cither fimplc 
 or complex ideas, propofitions, or things, at leaft, of all thofe cafes that right and 
 wrong can poffibly be relatiyc to. 
 
 K 3- If
 
 66 Deism koI co7ifijlent with t be 
 
 I own, that I think eleven but of the twelve migln ha\X'been fparcd, 
 nnd that the lajl is the only one which affords matter for a fcrious; 
 
 attention. But this I leave to your confideration, whilft I haften 
 
 ' ' ' ■ ' ■ ' , - . • 
 
 to inveftigate that, which our. author feemed to intend as'a'cprol- 
 
 3. It may fuirly be prcfumccl, tliat infinite reafon rs'albne capable o^ cliftinguiniing 
 OTierrinf^lv, betwixt right and wrong, in all andevery of that intiftke variety of 
 cafes that ever has, does, or can poljibly exift-, /i -j*;:,;! ei -. 
 
 4. How far each individual of the human fpecies cr.n, or may in reafon andequi- 
 tv be expe£led, to go in conformity to the immvitabie laws of rc6litude in judgment: 
 and in praftice, .isprob^blv only ktiowjB- to God ; and a* \vc cannot know, fo we 
 Ought not to prefume to determine concerning it. ^ ,. . 
 
 5. How deficient foevei we are in the knowledge of hature,"of each other's in- 
 telleflual abitrties and moral conduft,'lnuch rnor« of the abftraft nature arnd-per- 
 tcftions of God; yet we are, inj^onej-jl, as certmnf as vve ajTc x)f ,thj?. exiftence of 
 fuch a beln"-, that he is poiTeired of every poiTib'e perfe(fiion, and will not in 
 the leaft deviate m his conduft from perfect reftitude. ' 
 
 6. Therefore If God will require a perfcdiion of God (if Lmayexprefs it.tlius) 
 from his iraperfe£l creatures, but in proportion to the perfeftion of their reafon ; 
 for to produce a re£litude of manners more perfeft or conformable to truth than they 
 have reafon o'r underflanding to direft them to, is impoUible. - .' ■ ' 
 
 7. To o-overn our condu<fl by ouc reafon is our duty, ^nd is all God requires of 
 us ; and to ncgleft to regulate our conduct by our reafon, in that proportion vvhicii 
 God has been pleafed to difpenfe it to us, is criminal, or blame-worthy. 
 
 8. As there is no individual of our fpecies, but what has been more or lefs 
 guilty of deviating from the U(4e prefcribcd- him by his reafon,- either the whole 
 fpecijs are unpardonably guilty before God, or elfe repentance and reformation are 
 the means of reconciliation with him, and of reftoring us to his favour. 
 
 • 0. That repentance and reformation arc the nalural means of reconciling us to 
 God when we are confcious of our having offended him, is manifefl, from their 
 being invariably recommended to us by our reafon on all fuch occafrons, as tii'e 
 means proper for efTefting it ; for were the cafe otherwife, they could not be dic- 
 t.ited bv reafon, as a means to that end ; becaufe had they not a natural tendency to 
 anfwer the end, they would be unfit for our ufe, on account of their fignificancy ; 
 rind to make ufe of infignificant means, is a prepofterous and unwarrantable con- 
 duct ; and to fuppofe what is prepoilerous and unwarrantable can be the di£latc of 
 reafon, is abfurd and adireft contradi(f\ion. 
 
 10. Therefore to repent of what, upon a cool review of our condu»5V, appears 
 to be criminal, and to reform it, is a detail of our reafon, is what God the author 
 of our being requires of us,, in order for us to do on our parts what he knows to 
 be jiecelTary to our happinefs.. 
 
 11. If
 
 Religion ^y" Reason ^^W Nature. 67 
 
 lary to all the reft, which is this: " All other means, fays he, (be- 
 *' fides reafon) for procuring happinefs> that either have, are, or 
 *' may be deemed iieceflary, and made ufe of as fwch, by Jews, Pa- 
 •^ gans, Chriftians, Mahometans, or others, are unnatural and 
 ** foreign to tlic piirpofe, and confcquentiy are fuperfiuous and 
 *' downright fuperftition.'* 
 
 If our author will give me leave to except two out of the four 
 inftitutions, above mentioned, I will, from my foul, join iflTue with 
 him at once — But can he fee no difference in point of importance, 
 between the Chriftian and Jewifli difpenfatlon, and the Heathen 
 and Mahometan rituals of religion ? A fet of words jumbled to- 
 gether into fuch a confufed inconfiftent mixture of ideas, can be 
 paralelled only by the cekhrated Bos, Fur, Sus, atque ^acerdos, m 
 the mouth of every fchool-boy. But that the Deift might not be 
 thought to give the preference, among this medley of difpenfa- 
 tlons, to that which we call the ChnjTian, he tells you at once, that 
 •the " fuppofed fatisfa£lion for fin, by Chrift's death, is a doilrine 
 *' entirely repugnant to reafon, and as fuch, to be rejefted with 
 "fcorn (p. 41.).''* 
 
 Whether it is, or is not an abfurd dodrine, it Is not my bufinefs 
 to enquire, till it can be made clear to me, that the Scriptures ad ■ 
 vaiKe that, or any other doftrine, in the abfurd fenfe, he or feme 
 others, may happen to fuppofe they do. I only defire it to be con- 
 fidered, that fo far are articles of religion, fuppofed by our church 
 
 11. If God requires and direfts us by reafon and confclence, to perform what he 
 knows, is neceiTary to our happlnefs, he will certainly do on his part what he 
 Jtnows is neceffary to the end, viz, forgive us our fin^, and rc-inftate us in his fa- 
 vour. And if fo, then, 
 
 12. All other means that either have, are, or may be deemed neceffary, and 
 made ufe of as fuch, by Jews, Pagans, Chrifdans, IVIahomctans, or others, are 
 -unnatural and foreig^n to the purpofe ; and confequently are fuperfiuous and down- 
 right fuperftition. 
 
 K 2 to
 
 68 Deism «(?/ conjijient with the 
 
 to be obligatory upon our falthy and no farther, than as tbey con- 
 fill with the diflates of rl^ht reafon ; and that therefore let this or 
 that particular doctrine be enjoined by a Luther, a Calvin, or a 
 Pembky as eflential to- falvatlon ; let the tenets of a JVhitejield or a 
 IFeJky captivate the giddy miui^ of the vulgar, and draw thera 
 into abfurdities (Juppojhig, I fay, that to be the cafe) Chrlilianlty 
 »ever meant to eftabllfh, muft all or either of thofe fuppofed irre^ 
 conctlables be made reconcilable with right reafon, or revelation be 
 no more ? And muft Chriftianity itfelf be a cheat, becaufe perhaps 
 there are thofe, among its feveral interpreters and expofitors, who. 
 would cheat men out of their reafon, in order to palm upon them 
 their own enthufiaftic antichrijlian extravaganza's, for found, ge- 
 nuine revelation-tenets? The Magna Charta of a Cliriftian is the 
 Bible, with this peculiar circimiftance attending it, that no poiver 
 on earth can claim a right to add to or diminifh from it.. Hfre 
 then let God and the Scriptures be true, and every man, every 
 wrong-headed commentator a liar ; nor think we that becaufe 
 perhaps fome dodrlnes, unwarrantably drawn from fcripture, are in 
 x&^Wty fuper rational and fuper natural,, that therefore geTmitiCy Jinfo' 
 phiflicated Chriftianity is neither rational or natural. 
 
 ** But how, fays the Deift, can revelation be fald, or at leaft 
 "proved, to be an aid to human reafon^ when fo many various 
 ** and even contradictory interpretations are put on feveral great 
 ** and important paiTages in it ?. And how does it appear that thofe 
 ** who fo much value themfelves upon their being poflefted of this 
 *' glorious additional talent, have been fo much aided in the right 
 " ufe of their natural reafon, and kfiening the perverfton and abuie 
 **^ of it, as might well be expefted from the pompous reprefentation 
 •' and high charafter that has been given of it?, (p. 42, 43. )»**^ 
 
 When we talk oi revelation as an aid to human reafon, wccaaonly 
 mean that the one has made (as I have before obferved) difcoveries 
 which the other was inadequate to, in its depraved ftate of nature ; and 
 
 I that
 
 Religion 5/* Reason ^7^^Nature. 69 
 
 that a coUeftion of writings (containing fuch a revelation) may have 
 been preferved to us for that purpofe, 1 fee no manner of reafon to dif- 
 pute ; but that thofe writings fhould not in fome degree (hare the fate 
 of others, and like them be capable of being mifinterpreted or mif- 
 applied by the ignorance, pride, and prejudice, inherent in the 
 frame of fome, or by the difhoneft and dilingenuous perverlion of 
 parts in others, I can fee no manner of reaibn to admit : or again 
 that there is a greater obfcurity in the facred thaa is obfervable 
 upon the whole, in what we call profane writers; but whilft 
 there are thofe not only of different parts, capacities, fkill in 
 languages, but of different feSfs and parties alfo who, inflead of 
 Jearchlng the Scriptures for a difcovery of what is really contained 
 In them,- hunt only for a fupport of preconceived prejudices 
 iigainfl them, who can wonder " if fuoh are not aided in the right 
 " tfe of their natural reafon and the lejfening the perverfon of it,* 
 as our author thinks might be expe(fted.? 
 
 But then how comes it to pafs, fays the Deiff^ if Revelation 
 *' was intended in fa(5l to reftrain men from, vice in general, and of 
 ** confequence thofe prejudices and partialities above-mentioned^ 
 ** how comes it that fuch prejudices and prepoffeflTons fhould yet 
 *' abound ? And why if it was intended to aid men in the right 
 ** ufe of their natural, reafon, and leflening the perverfion and 
 ** abufe of it, has it proved fo manifeftly infufficient for thofe 
 «^ ends? (p. 47.)-'' 
 
 If a guide to men's anions muft neceffarily govern them too, 
 there might perhaps be fome weight in the objeftion ; though that 
 would lie equally ftrong againft re/fon, the Deift*s unerring guide — 
 And in fa6fc fo long as we admit the free agency of mankind, no 
 argument can be drawn to the prejudice of revelation from the per- 
 verfe ufes it is put to. " But yet it is faidy whoever takes a view 
 
 *« o£
 
 70 Deism ^20^ conftjlent v:ith the 
 
 ** of the Chriftian world, and beholds the abominable wlckedncfs 
 <* that has rode triumphant in it» as well in paft as prefent times, 
 " and obferves how the Chriftian religion, and what is called the 
 " Chriftian revelation, has been made a cover and a pretext to the 
 " moft bafe and vile deftgns, will fee the juftnefs of this reflexion, 
 " that if revelation came in aid of reafon there very much needs 
 *' another revelation to be given in aid of both. And though Chri- 
 " ftians are apt to boaft of the great benefit that has accrued to man- 
 *' kind by ihe promulgation of the Chriftian revelation ; yet it is 
 ** much to be queftioned whether the poor Ajnertcans have not too 
 '' much reafon to confider the coming of Chriftians, and the Chri- 
 *' ftian religion among them, to have been the ^r^aieft evil and curfe 
 " that ever befel them, and that not only on account of the mil- 
 '* lions of people among them who have fallen a facrifice to Chri- 
 *' ftian piety and zeal, but on account of that perfidioufnefs and 
 " bafenefs, and that much greater degeneracy of action and affcdlion 
 *^ that has taken place and prevailed among them fince the intro- 
 '' duaion of Chriftianity (p. 4S1.)." 
 
 As for the bad methods taken to eftabli/h Chriftianity in Americn^ 
 or clfewhere, it is very fufficient, 1 imagine, to obferve upon that 
 fubjeft, that Chrijlianity is no more anfwerable for M(?/», than right 
 reafon was for the pradice among heathens of offering up their 
 fons and their daughters unto devils; and confequently that the 
 delft's refledlions on this head are as foreign to his purpofe, as 
 were thofe praftices to which he alludes. There are, what even 
 ^r. Chubb allows, many bad things praftifed by Chrj/iians, which 
 are not the natural .produce of, and fliould therefore not be placed 
 to the account of, xht general J)lan oi the Chriftian caufe. — But to 
 proceed now to fome notable remarks of our Dejfi^ on this truly 
 noble declaration, that '* reafon is the infeparable as well as peculiar 
 glory of every intelligent being.'* 
 
 ** Reafon,
 
 Religion of Reason and Nature. 71 
 
 *' Reafon, fays he, is the idol the Doftor choofes to bow down 
 " to.'* I much vvifli the Delft had not offered incenfe to a much 
 worfe. Let us however hear what he has to fay upon that point. " If 
 *' reafon, fays he, is the infeparable as well as peculiar glory of every 
 *' intelligent being, then it muft be a fufficlent guide to every intel- 
 *' llgent being in all momentous affairs;" and then, after fome of 
 the moft refined nothingnefs I ever read (p. 52.) he draws the fol- 
 lowing concluiions as deducible from the Do(ftor's account, ift, 
 *' That reafon is the glory, idly. The infeparable glory ; and 
 " 3dly, The peculiar glory of every intellrgent being." And how 
 glorloufly he reafons on thofe feparate degrees- of glory conferred on 
 human reafon, our author's own words in his 53d and 54th pages, 
 which I chufe to fubmit to the reader's obfervation in a note below*, 
 whilft I pa{s on to another remark on his antagonift fhew fiiffi- 
 eiently. 
 
 ** Reafon 
 
 * Firft, If reafon be the glory of an intelligent being, it is fo becaufe it is that 
 by which alone he is capable of juftly arranging his ideas, and perceiving their 
 agreement or difag'reement, and thereby of diftinguifliing betvvixt truth and fal- 
 fhood, good and evil, in all thofe things in which his duty and happinefs arc con- 
 cerned ; and confequcntly whatever knowledge is ufeful in thefe refpedVs, it is only 
 to be obtained by the due ufe of his reafon or underftanding. Secondly^ If reafon 
 be a glory infeparable from an intelligent beings it could never, at any time, 
 by any means, much lefs by the tranfgrcfllon of any one individual of the 
 fpecies, have been fcparated from the whole human race, without linking 
 the property of intelligence to the fpecies (which is not pretended) becaufe 
 while any one continues an intelligent being, he muft continue to be pof- 
 feffed of every property effential to intelligence ; and reafon being fo fpecifi- 
 cally effential to it (in that higher fenfe in which Dr. Benfon ufes the term intel- 
 ligence) that a being void of reafon cannot with any propriety be denominated 
 intelligent: and therefore a being void of reafon, that is, void of a capacity of 
 ratiocination, which will enable him to perceive the connexion or repugnance of 
 his own ideas, when under a proper arrangement, and to draw juft and natural 
 conclufions from their proper premifes ; fuch a being cannot be accountable 
 for the ufe or abufe of a faculty which he has not, nor will God expeft the perform- 
 ance of duties proper to intelligent beings at fuch a one's hands, thirdly^ If rea- 
 fon be the peculiar glory of every intelligent being, then it muft be the peculiar glory 
 of the firft principle of life and intelligence. And hence it evidently follows, that 
 
 if
 
 »j2 Deism «^/ conf^Jlent with the 
 
 ** Reafon was not defigned, fays the Doftor, like our deaths, 
 " to be put on and off at pleafure, but it was intended for conftant 
 ** and perpetual ufe ; and which we ought to make ufe of, not only 
 " in the affairs of this life, but much more in religious affairs, which 
 " arc of the highefl importance. But alas ! alas 1 fays our author, 
 ** it is a certain, though melancholy truth, though reafon was not 
 ♦* defigned, like our cloaths, to be put on and off at pleafure ; yet 
 ** that fome of our fanguinc divines, lile labourers in fummer, 
 " throw off their cloaths the better to perform the tafk afligned 
 *' them ; they cafl off their reafon the better to reproach and vilify 
 «• their innocent neighbours for not blindly fubmittbg to their 
 ** duties (p. ^S')^ 
 
 Had the deifts in return "but luclcily put on tlieir reafon in ex- 
 amining the grounds of revelation, they neither would have 
 minded nor merited thofe re\'ilings. And if this great champion in 
 the caufe of deifm, whllft he fo ftudloufly avoided fplltting on the 
 rock of enthufiafm and fuperftition, had not ftruck on the fands of 
 blafphemy and profanencfs, but fteered judicioully between the two 
 extremes, he would have made a much fafer and more reputable 
 paifage through life. If others have deduced from ChrifHanity 
 do£lrines Chrif^Ianity never meant to eflabliih, their wcaknefs or 
 wickednefs be to themfelves. But will that leflen his guilt in not 
 attending with proper deference to the declarations it really mates ? 
 If God has thought fit to propofe to our faith a fyflem of truths 
 truly rational and interei^ing, becoming the Creator to eftabli/h, 
 and his creatures to embrace and reverence (and be it an unqiieftion- 
 able truth that he has not, or the delfts iinquejl'ionably throw afide 
 
 if reafon be the peculiar glory of the Creator, then it muft be the peculiar glory 
 of the creature, in the refpeftive proportionate degree in-wliich he polfcfled it ; and 
 that nothing which he is or can be poirelTed of befides, can, abilraflstlly conllder- 
 ed, be equal, much lefs of fuperior glory to him. 
 
 their
 
 Religion <?/'Reason <3:/^^ Nature. 73 
 
 their reafoti in rejeaing revelation) muft thofe important truths be 
 overlooked, becaufe others perhaps have annexed to them abfurditles 
 and inconfiftencies of their own framing f Muft the original dif- 
 penfation be defpifed becaufe it has at times fulTered the abufes of 
 prieftcraft and enthufiafm ? And what if fome call it a promulga- 
 tion of the law of nature, and others a fuperadded revelation? 
 What if fometimes it is one and fometimes it is the other, which 
 deifts, with a fneer, obferve to be the cafe ? (p. 55.) What ! does this 
 I would afk, make revelation not revelation ? There is fometliing in 
 brutes that unaccountably determines and enables them to provide for 
 the welfare of themfelves and their offspring. — Some call it inftin^t, 
 fome reafon, fome a divine impulfe. Sometimes it is one, and fome- 
 times it is the other. — But what then? Shall we difpute a known fad ? 
 Deny that there is fomething equivalent to an intelligent principle 
 in brutes, becaufe we want a name by which to diftingulfh it from 
 the reafon of man .?-— The end, in fhort, propofed by an inftitution 
 (not the name by which it is called, no nor the bad iifes to which it 
 is put) will alone determine a rational man to approve or rejett it. 
 And as revelation was intended to promote the practice of true re- 
 ligion, it matters not by what particular name you dignify or di- 
 ftinguidi it. It is fufficient (in negative duty I mean) if you do 
 not difown, difhonour, or deride it. But to return — 
 
 It has been aflerted, " that the more the works of creation and 
 " Providence are fearched into and underftood, the more they con- 
 *' firm the truth of the Chriftian religion, and add fiich fupports 
 '* and evidences as could hardly be expelled or believed (p. 151.)'* 
 Our DeiiVs remark on this affertion is fo very difingenuous and 
 diflionell, that I fcarce can have patience to beftow any notice on 
 it ; and yet I know not how, totally, to pafs it over in filence. 
 
 L ^'If
 
 ijA 'DEismftof confiftent with the 
 
 " If, fays he, the coniideration of the works of the creation muft 
 <* enable us to draw Juch conclufions from them, as give a proper 
 " proof of the divinity of the do£lrine of the trinity^ the hypojlatk 
 »* union, and all fuch olh^r f ape rnatural doMnes and precepts, as 
 " conftitute the Chriftian religion, properly fo called, it can work 
 «' wonders indeed ; to which, fays he, I may add the do6lrine of 
 «< tranfiibjlantiation, the truth and divinity of which is as prove- 
 ♦' able from the works of creation as the others. And if reafon 
 «* is fufficientfur thefe things, then what is it not fufficient for ? 
 - (p. 58.>" 
 
 If the Deift had been fo juft to his antagonift as to have given 
 his words a fair introdudion, and not disjoined them from the 
 main argument he was upon, the inference he has drawn from 
 them would have been too glaringly inconclufive for the moft hafty 
 reader not to take notice of it ; fo that he very modeftly waves 
 doing the one, the better to difguife his cunning craftinefs in the 
 other. 
 
 " Dr. Benfon having previoufly obferved, that thofe profound 
 *' fearches into the caufe of things, and the formation of the world, 
 '» made by fuch great men as Dr. Clark, Dr. Derham, and Mr. 
 " Ray^ &c. had added ftrength to the more common arguments 
 •« brought in fupport of religion, adds — that the more the works 
 " of creation and Providence are fearched into and underftood, 
 •' the more they confirm the truth of the Chriftian religion; and 
 <* add fuch fupports and evidences as could hardly be expelled or 
 •* believed. If fo, fays our author, they muft neceflarily prove 
 " the doftrine of the trinity^ hypojlatk union, tranfubjlant'iatton, or 
 ** the like ; and if reafon is fufficient for thefe things, what is it 
 «« not fufficient for ?'* 
 
 Why,
 
 Religion (^/'Reason ^tWNature. 75 
 
 Why, it is not fufficlent to make a man honejl who is determined 
 to be a knave. Excufe the warmth of the reply, to which I am 
 ' provoked by our author's fcandaloiis fubterfiige. The Dodor's 
 defign, in the paffages quoted above, was, to fhew how learned men 
 had fully anfwered objedions and difficulties ftarted by unbelievers; 
 " by leading them into arguments of a more abftrad fpeculative 
 ** kind ; fuch as the creation of the world, the eternal fitnefs of 
 " things, moral differences of aftions, moral obligations, and the 
 " like, the former of which being more diftindly explained and 
 " expatiated on by the help of revelation, and the latter fhewn fo 
 " entirely to coincide with the end of Chrift's coming, ferved, as 
 " he very juftly apprehended, to furnifh out fuch additional fup- 
 *» ports for the truths of Chriftianity, as could hardly have been 
 " imagined by men not attentive to fuch refleaions." How our au- 
 thor therefore can be juftified in his laboured conclujjon from tbefe 
 paffages concerning the do£lrine of the trinity, the hypojlatic union, 
 or the like, I leave only to common fenfe and common honejly to 
 determine. 
 
 In page 59, our author quotes as follows, from his antagoniff. 
 " As the Gofpel, fays the Doctor, (p. 233.) was a matter of pure 
 " revelation, St. Vaul was in the right of it not to mix his hu- 
 " man learning with it ; but faithfully to preach the Gofpel in 
 " that purity and fimplicity in which he had received it from 
 ** Chrift. Our Deift's conclufion from thefe words is, that na- 
 " tural philofophy or human learning cannot be exercifed about 
 " it without corrupting and defiling it ; and that therefore the 
 " Dodor had gone beyond himfelf, and has carried the matter too 
 « far (p. ihid.)r 
 
 Whether his antagonift or our Deift is guilty of the miftake of 
 going beyond himfelf, and carrying the matter too far, I will appeal 
 
 La to
 
 «j6 Deism not conftjlent with the 
 
 to the judgment of the reader on what follows, which, though aft 
 altercation between the Deift and the Dodtor merely perfona), will 
 be thought, I imagine, upon a perufal, not altogether unimportant 
 as to the fubjeft matter of it. " If, fays our Deift, reafon is capa- 
 *' ble of drawing fuch conclufions from the works of creation 
 ** and Providence in favour of Chriftianity as aforefaid, then St. 
 " Paul^ not ufing it to anfwer that purpofe, muft render him not 
 " commendable, but on the contrary greatly blameable. For when 
 *' he went from place to place preaching the Gofpel at ^hejalonica^. 
 *' at Berea, and elfe where, nothing could have been more proper, 
 «« nor was better adapted to anfwer the purpofe of his miniftry, 
 " viz. the working conviftion and the converfion of his hearers, 
 *' than for him to have exemplified his human wifdom and fkill in 
 " natural philofophy, by drawing thofe conclufions and thereby 
 " producing thofe evidences from the works of creation and Pro- 
 *' vidence as proved the truth and divinity of what he exhibited 
 «' to his refpedive evidences (p. 60, 61)."" 
 
 If our author had not ftopt fhort in his quotation from his anta- 
 gonift, he could have found no reafon for this objeftion ; it being 
 moft folidly obviated by the Doftor's own words immediately fub- 
 joined. " As the Gofpel, fays the Doftor, was a matter of pure 
 *♦ revelation, St. P^ul was in the right of it not to mix his human 
 ** learning with it, &c. For, when he could work miracles, and' 
 " enable others to w'ork miracles, he had a much fhorter and more 
 '* effedlual method of makmg converts and eftablifhing them in the 
 " faith, than from any thing he had learned in the fchool of ^arfus, 
 ** cr at the feet oi Gamaliel in Jerufakm. In renouncing his human 
 " learning, he did not renounce common fenfe. But human learn- 
 *' ing could be of no fervice to an Apoftle to make him mafter of 
 *' the Gofpel, or to enable him to work miracles, though it may 
 " be of great fervice to us if it be made right ufe of (p. 234.)'*. 
 
 The
 
 Religion of Reason a77d Nature. yy 
 
 The Apoftles, fays Dr. Benfon again (p. 221.) " took quite 
 ** another method to prove the truth of Chriftiaiiity. They did 
 *' indeed make their appeals to mens underftanding, but in a diffe- 
 '* rent way from modern apologifts — being endued with readier and 
 " more decifive means of conviction, more fuitable to the apoftolic 
 " charafter, to the bulk of mankind, and to their own neceflary 
 ** courfe of difpatch. They grounded Chriftianity upon fads, 
 '' they wrought miracles before the faces of their hearers, in proof 
 " of a divine commiffion ; and then conferred upon the converts 
 *' miraculous powers ; thefe were immediate appeals to men's 
 " fenfes, and what the loweft of the people could judge of, and 
 *' reafon from." What is this but dealing with mankind fuitably 
 to their intelligent nature? (of which deifts affedl to urge the 
 neceffity^ p. 61.) What is this but making " an appeal to their 
 " underftanding, requiring their affent in a proper way, and bind- 
 *•* ing them with the cords of a man ? (p. //J J.'* 
 
 But again, Dr. Benfon fays (p. 27.) " Are not thefe moral vir- 
 " tues (which are the principal things in Chriftianity) the very 
 " things which all true philofophers have ever attempted to re- 
 ** commend ? Can any thing be more worthy of God, than giv- 
 " ing men fuch a revelation, when men bad confeffedly corrupted 
 " thenifelves, and that to fuch a degree, that not only reafon 
 *« or the light of nature was altogether unlikely to reftore true 
 «« piety, but even that light itfelf, as liiUy exprefsly acknow- 
 ♦' ledgcd, did no where appear." And then it being urged by 
 the author of Chriftianity, whom he was then anfwering, that 
 when Chriftianity appeared, it was an enquiring age, he anfwers 
 (p. 134.) " Suppofe we allow it, as we readily do ? What then ? 
 " What would he infer from that? The Gofpel fpread in that 
 t« enquiring age, when, as he aflerts, reafon was in the hlgheft 
 
 *' requeft
 
 « 8 Deism ^/ot confifleiit with the 
 
 ** reqiieft and reputation, and fpread with moft amazing fwifN 
 " iiefs." 
 
 Now comes the moft bare-faced mifreprcfentation of a man's ar- 
 gument, that a writer can become capable of exhibiting. " The 
 " Do(flor, fays our Deift, has averred, that the Gofpel is a mat- 
 ** ter of pure revelation, and alfo, that the principal things in 
 *♦ Chriftianity are the very things which all true philofophy has 
 *' ever attempted to recommend. Again he informs us, that the 
 *' world was in that profound <larknefs, when Chriftianity firft 
 '* made its appearance in It, that reafon or the light of nature did 
 " no where appear -y and yet he informiS us, it every where 
 *» fhone forth in that remarkably happy age, with fuch re- 
 ** fplendency and luftre, that reafon was in the higheft re- 
 *' queft and reputation.'* Good God, fays he, is fuch confufion 
 poflible ? 
 
 Such a heavy charge of confufion and contradiction, fo conji- 
 dentJy brought by our author agalnft Dr. Benfon^ was, I doubt not, 
 implicitly admitted by every Delftlcal reader as, among others, one 
 demonftrable proof of their patrons moft profound penetration. 
 
 And yet what more or lefs does it amount to, than a frefh 
 dlfplay of his ufual dexterity in the exercife of his profeffion, as 
 a dealer in fophiftry and mifquotations, which he artfully gilds 
 over with a few gewgaw expreflions, in order to dazzle the 
 eyes, whilft he is playing upon and mifleading the underjiand- 
 ing of his readers. — He cannot perceive how the Gofpel can 
 be. a pure revelation, and yet contain things which every phi- 
 lofopher has attempted to recommend ? — Had it been faid, that 
 the Gofpel contains thofe things only, which every philofopher at- 
 tempts
 
 Religion ^ Reason ^;;(g^ Nature.' 79 
 
 tempts to recommend, there might, perhaps, have been feme 
 foundation for our author's critical diflatisfadion and feeming afto- 
 nifhment. 
 
 But what if, befide thofe duties which Chriftians and philofo- 
 phers mite in recommending, there are contained, in the Go/pel, 
 motives to the praBice of them, which neither did or could aril'e 
 folely from the religion of reafon and nature. This and this only 
 the Dodlor fuppofes to be the cafe, and had the Deift viewed the 
 DoBor In that fair, intelligible and rational fenfe, he might, in fome 
 degree have faved his own reputation as a reafoner, whilft he is 
 thus fruitlefsly endeavouring to pull down the envied merit of Dr. 
 Benfon, 
 
 But hold, fay you, — your friend the Doftor Is not to get cleared 
 from the charge of abfurdity and confulion fo eafily as you Imagine. 
 For, fays our author, he Informs us, that the world was in that 
 profound ignorance, when Chriftianlty iirft made its appearance in 
 it, that reafon or the light of nature did no where appear ; and yet 
 he informs us, that It every where fhone, ^c. He! Who? What 
 the Dodor ? Why truly, no. — 
 
 But the Deift, finding that the I>o£lor could not become abfurd 
 ©f himfelf^ and without hh affiftance very charitably helps him out 
 with a few words of his own, fo artfully Aided in, that eftimating 
 aright^ the penetrating powers of his admirers^ and trufting am- 
 hide xter -like to a judicious management of a {ingle article only, 
 he aims — alas, how unfuccefsfully ! to difarm the Dodor in a 
 trice. 
 
 If you refer to the Doctor in p. 134, you will find he Is only 
 arguing from this conceffion, which for argument fake he had a 
 
 mind
 
 So DeisxM ;;6'2f co7iftJlent with the 
 
 mind to allow the author of Chrijlianlty not founded^ &c. Vi%* 
 That when Chrlftianlty firft appeared, it was an enquiring age. 
 And what, fays the Dodor, would he infer from that concef- 
 fion ? The Gofpel fpread in that enquiring age, when, as he af- 
 ferts, (who aflerts ? Does the Do6ior affcrt it ? Is he not evi- 
 dently talking of the afl'ertion of the author of Ghriftianity not 
 founded, &c. — Shamefal !) reafon was in the higheft requeft and 
 reputation, though he before had declared, it did no where appear. 
 Is fuch a groundlefs charge of confufion in an antagonift />^3/^ / 
 Is it poffibl^, in fiiort, that a man can boaft being aduated by 
 the religion of reafon and nature, and be fo fliamefully defici- 
 ent in moral honcjly in' his writings? Or is it poffible, that 
 you, my friend, fliould facrlfice your reafon to an implicit faith 
 in fo prefumptuous, io prevaricating a diSlator? But to pro- 
 ceed — 
 
 In anfwer to an obfervation, that reafon is of conftant and 
 perpetual ufe in all things concerning Chriftianity in particular, 
 our author alks, " Where is the man that durfl-, on the prin- 
 *' ciples of pure reafon, attempt to prove, fo as to convince the 
 *' underftanding of another man, that an unoriginated, uncom- 
 *' pounded, immaterial, and pure fpirit, fhould, lihe one of the de- 
 *' rived, compounded, material, human fpecies, have a fon ?" 
 
 And I in return alk, where is the Cliriftian, &c. that believes or 
 would wifh to promote fuch a doclrlne? — vi%. that fuch an unori- 
 ginated, ^c. being, has a fon like, or begotten after the manner 
 of one of the derived, compounded, material, human fpecies r I 
 would gladly know from what corner of the world, from what fy- 
 nod, or council, or efiablifhed creed, has our Deifl: picked up 
 tliat fecret ? Into what Creed-monger s cabinet council has he been 
 admitted? 
 
 Cut
 
 Religion of Reason ^;;^Nature. 8r 
 
 But I will not cnla -ge on this point till I have conffdered another 
 charge brought aoamft the Doaor as a trlfier. " When fome of 
 " thofe doarines that are peculiarly Chriftian were brought on the 
 ** carpet, an.^ 'c became the Dodor's prefent bufinefs in his anfwer 
 " to the author of Chriftianity not founded on argument, to (hew 
 " or prove Kern to be all reafonable, he inftead of that only afks, 
 " fays our author, are not all thefe things highly reafonable? and 
 " there he ftops (hort of his excufe — he forbore to enlarge, for fear 
 " he fhould feem tedious, which his not having done, proves that 
 « his book is all wafte paper (p. (^d,^''' — fo that in order to avoid 
 wafting pen, ink, and paper, you muft, it feems, trifle with your 
 readers all you can — muft amufe them at all events, though it be 
 even with words no ways necejfary to the purpofe. 
 
 The point upon which our author thinks the Do£lor ought to 
 have enlarged^ he thinks not at all to his purpofe ; but becaufe he 
 has not fo done, all he has wrote on that head is wafte paper. 
 This is a conclufion which our Deift had an eye to as of confe- 
 quence, I prefume, to himfelf ; well confidering that if talking not 
 at all to the purpofe would preferve a book from the fcurvy fate of 
 wafte paper, his own famous work would ftand as fair a chance for 
 immortality as any book whatfoever. But the argument agninft the 
 Do(3:or is — that when he afked whether all the doftrines of revela- 
 tion were not reafonable, he did not take upon him to prove ta 
 our Del/is that they were fo* 
 
 The internal evidences of the truth of Cbrifti.inity are thefe, 
 fays the Doftor (p. 21, 22.) viz, " that both the doSlrhies and pre^ 
 «' cepts of Chriftianity (if we take the fcriptural account of them) 
 " are highly wife and reafonable." Let our Deift, if he can, prove 
 the contrary. 
 
 M Not
 
 82 Deism not conjijlent with the 
 
 Not to wafte, however, yonrs or my own time any longer on our 
 ainhor*s iriconffent attempt to do away the necejfityy the mportancty 
 the glory of the Go/pel difpenfatlon — fophiftry not folld reafoning 
 being h'lsfort — I now take my leave of him, little or nothing more 
 occurring in the fubfeqnent pages of his Treatife, than a very la- 
 boured endeavour to prove, that if the " Koran isfalfe, the Go/pel 
 of Chr'ifi cannot be proved true, without fnbje^ting the Deity to an 
 impeachment of partiality towtirds his creatures inconfiftent with 
 our ideas of infinite restitute*.'* 
 
 I cannot however clofe this j^ddrefs to you, my dear Sir, without 
 reminding you, in the firfl: place, that the derifive infults with which 
 the Veijs treat the Chri/iian difpenfation, are fo many concurrent 
 completions of that exprefs Scripture prophecy, viz. that there 
 Jhoidd be mockers in the laji days :— denying the Lord Jefus that 
 bought them-^-TLnd fecondly, that they will, as we may reafonably 
 conclude, fhare the fate of thofe of whom the Pfalmift fpeaks— 
 He thatftteth in the Heavens Jhall laugh—the Lord Jhall have them 
 in derifion* 
 
 * See from p. 80, to p. 90. 
 
 I am, Dear Sir, 
 
 '--•. . ■ -* ■ 
 Yours, &c, 
 
 FINIS.
 
 rpv 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 » mm 
 
 t: 
 
 ^/;iy?p 
 
 APR 7 1^97 
 ^. SRLF 
 QUARTER 
 
 'S 
 
 LOAN 
 
 
 
 MvyaiiT
 
 JT Rftrrnw - 
 
 -80 Deism not con- 
 
 L^d sistfint with thft 
 
 religion of rea- 
 )n an d n a tnrp 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARV FACIIITV 
 
 D 000 274 319 3 
 
 1180 
 Bh5d 
 
 
 
 '1] 'iv-'U'i 1"; v.' 
 
 N:lOSANGELfj 
 
 
 5^ O c 
 
 -n c 
 
 -Or 
 
 
 5>^ 
 
 %«' 
 
 JftWNi V L)i ^/// \KL(J'^ '\>w: 1/ J 
 
 !fD-'- 
 
 = ^.0- 
 
 ^^ — I 
 
 --<-> 
 
 Jx» 1 
 
 
 HAlNil^WV 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 m 
 
 u 
 
 :^ 
 
 //9 ^MV^I'3I1.'A^X^•