relating to things myfterious; that is, to things of fuch a nature as to be undifcoverable, or perhaps in fome respects, incomprehenfible to us; or which relate to things that are fo? Can there be a greater mystery to the human understanding, than a Being, who is felf-exiftent, and pofitively Eternal? Self-Existence and Pofitive Eternity, are fubjects which we cannot think upon without being immediately loft; nor can we form any adequate conception of a Being poffeffed either of the One, or the Other. Above all, how can this Author contend, that mystery has no place in the religion of nature; who afferts, not only that God himself is pofitively eternal; but even that his works, taken collectively, are as truly eternal as he himself? How flagrantly inconfiftent muft he be, who can affert this; and yet at the fame time contend, that myftery has no place in the Religion of Nature?

The truth is, that there are mysteries in the religion of Nature, or Reafon, as well as in the religion of CHRIST; that is, Reafon as well as the New Teftament affures us of fome truths, which we must believe, though they relate to things of fuch a nature as are in fome refpects utterly incomprehenfible to us. Reafon, when well improved, is capable of convincing us, that there must be a God, who is abfolutely eternal; the firft caufe; himself abfolutely uncaufed; a pure fpirit; poffeffed of all imaginable perfections; though each of these particulars, and his acts of creation, are truly and properly mysteries to us; that is, fo many particulars of which we can only form very imperfect conceptions. Reafon forces us to believe, that we ourfelves confift of a spiritual foul, as well as a material body; and that Each operates upon, and mutually affects the Other; tho' how this fpiritual foul, feparately conF 2 fidered

fidered, fubfifts; and how spirit and matter can poffibly act upon each other; are mysteries, of which we cannot form even the leaft idea.

1

The real difference therefore between the Religion of Nature and that of CHRIST, in this point is, not that the Laft contains myfteries, whereas the First does not; as the Author affirms; but that, whereas they Both contain mysteries, or fome intelligible truths relating to things whose whole natures we cannot completely comprehend; the religion of CHRIST adds to thofe neceffarily included in the religion of Nature, fome others peculiar to itself, which human reafon alone, however cultivated and improved, never could have discovered. And what can be more natural, than that an immediate revelation, delivered to mankind by an extraordinary meffenger from heaven, fhould contain fome difcoveries; which of neceffity must be intelligible; relating to things in their whole extent far beyond our comprehenfion, and to the knowledge of which our own reafon only never could have conducted us? And as the incomprehenfibleness of some particulars, in thofe things concerning which reafon alone obliges us to believe fome intelligible truths; is no objection to thofe intelligible truths, or to the religion of Nature which forces us to believe them; fo the incomprehenfibleness of the complete nature of thofe things, concerning which the religion of CHRIST reveals to us fome intelligible truths, cannot afford any objection to those revealed truths, or the religion of CHRIST which reveals them. On the contrary, if CHRIST has laid before us unexceptionable proof, that his authority was divine; reafon itself, (which is the only foundation of all our duties;) forces us to believe, that whatever intelligible declarations he has revealed, which our own reafon alone never could

5

COLL

IM.

Sect. 4.

A Defence of Revelation.

69

could have discovered; and which relate perhaps to things of fuch a nature as in other particulars we are unable to comprehend; are nevertheless unquestionable truths.

After what has been faid upon this point, nothing further can be wanting to prove the fallehood of the Author's affertion, or his ftrange inconfiftency in afferting it; that " Belief makes no

part of Natural Religion; and that Natural Reli"gion is the purer for not containing mysteries."

As to Disbelief's making a part of any religion whatever, natural or revealed, I must confefs it is far above my comprehenfion to know what is meant by it; but certainly the New Testament reveals no points to be difbelieved.

CODR.

BIBL

But the Author argues, Because the religion of nature or reason, is perfect; as it must be, he fays, fince it comes from God; therefore if the religion of CHRIST differs from it in any particu lar, That must be fo far imperfect.

The will of God, however made known or difcovered, is and muft be, the only proper, or perfect rule for the direction of his rational creatures. To those therefore, to whom God has vouchfafed no other means of discovering his will, than their own reafon, what their reafon is capable of difcovering must be their proper, or perfect rule. But if there are any whom God has moreover favoured with an additional extraordinary revelation of his will, properly fo called; to them what reafon alone is capable of discovering is no longer a perfect rule; the immediate revelation fuperfedes it; and in conjunction with reafon becomes their proper, and only perfect guide. And though fuch a revelation cannot be in any particular inconfiftent with, or contradictory to reafon; because God cannot be inconfiftent with himself; it may however differ from reason fo far, as to en

F 3

join

join fome Modes or Forms of Worship; which, till fo enjoined, there could be no reafon for obferving, and which confequently could not make a part of natural religion; and by revealing fome intelligible Truths, relating to things whofe whole nature we cannot adequately comprehend; and which reafon alone never could have difcovered but which, when we find them to be thus revealed, it immediately becomes our duty, a duty of natural religion, to believe. In a word therefore, Reason is our proper, nay our only rule, if we have no Revelation; but Revelation, in conjunction with Reason, neceffarily becomes our perfect rule, if we have.--And let the Author lay before us fome fatisfactory reafon, why God might not, even at the very firft, communicate fome knowledge to man by immediate revelation, which he either could not, or would not have difcovered by his reafon only; or even at first lay man under fome pofitive command by revelation, which his reafon could never have pointed out. If God actually did fo, natural religion could not be man's perfect law, even in the beginning. And not only has our Author himself exprefly afferted, that God might do fo; where he fays, that God either originally impreffed the knowέσ ledge of a future ftate upon the human heart, or fome other way communicated it to the firft pa66 rents of the human race *." but he even agrees that God actually did fo; and that "man દ at his firft formation was not left to work " out a scheme of religion for himself, but re"ceived all neceffary inftructions from God +." -Yet this is the writer, whofe main and fundamental principle it is, "That a fupernatural revelation is a contradiction in terms.

* P. 378.

† P. 402.

The

、

-The Author adds, "If the religion of nature, and the religion of CHRIST, were both intended to answer the fame benevolent purpose, namely the making mankind happy; the duties of both must be the fame :-unlefs God be changeable;

-or human nature ceafe to be what it is;-unlefs God could know at one time, what he did not know at another;-or that the relations between God and his creatures, or between one creature and another, were variable, and different at different times *"

The fact is, that the religion of CHRIST does really enjoin every duty enjoined by the religion of nature; as this very Author himself has repeatedly afferted. All that they differ in, with refpect to duties, is, that the religion of CHRIST enjoins the celebration of fome manifeftly useful, Pofitive Rites; and requires the belief of fome intelligible Truths, which CHRIST has revealed, but which reafon alone never could have discovered; relating to things whofe whole nature and extent we cannot completely comprehend.

And though God himself is unchangeable, and human nature, in effentials, always the fame ;though God has known from the beginning whatever state mankind will at any time bring themselves into, and all the difpenfations of his own providence which fhall at any time take place, though the effential relations between God and his creatures, and between one creature and another, can never change; yet the relation of a guilty creature to God, and its fellow creatures, is very different from that of an innocent one; and great change of circumstances, not effential, may call for a fuitable change of difpenfations. When, for inftance, fuch an alteration had taken place, as we