But the Author argues, though from the words of Another," That if preaching natural religion

is preaching CHRIST; and if natural religion "be not CHRIST's religion it is not worth our "while to enquire what his religion is; and fur"ther, if the religion of CHRIST must be under"ftood, before it can be, or ought to be believ "ed; and must be proved to be a confiftent and "rational religion, before men can be under any obligation to receive it;-Then furely the fupernatural and fuperrational parts of the New Teftament cannot be parts of the religion of "CHRIST; as they cannot poffibly belong to, or "be parts of, the religion of nature and rea"font."

Here our Author is guilty of a fhameful mifrepresentation. The writer whom he quotes fays,

That if natural religion is not part of the religion of CHRIST, it is fcarce worth our while to enquire what his religion is. This is fo far from afferting, that natural religion is the whole of the religion of CHRIST, that it neceffarily implies the contrary; and proves clearly, that the meaning of this writer's other affertion is no more than this, that preaching natural religion is preaching a very confiderable part of the doctrine of CHRIST.

Preaching CHRIST completely is enforcing the belief of the being and attributes of God, and the performance of the duties of morality, as inculcated in the New Teftament; together with the celebration of the pofitive Rites there enjoined; and the belief of every fupernatural Truth there revealed, relating to God, and his difpenfations to man; and enforcing the performance of the One, and the belief of the Other, upon the di-'

vine authority of CHRIST, as a messenger sent immediately from God, in That particular Character which he himself affumed, to reveal the will of God to mankind.

But with regard to the principle for which the Author here contends, it is abfolutely falfe. The religion of CHRIST may be understood, and fhewn to be a confiftent and rational religion, though fome intelligible truths revealed in it relate to things whofe whole nature we are unable to comprehend. If this were not the cafe, the religion of Nature could no more be fhewn to be confiftent and rational, than the, religion of CHRIST; fince even the most important truths of all natural religion, thofe relating to the being and attributes of God; the very foundation of all natural religion; do evidently, no less than the fupernatural discoveries which the New Teftament contains, relate to things of such a nature as we are utterly unable fully to comprehend. And indeed, if the fupernatural truths which the New Teftament reveals, are, as they neceffarily muft be, intelligible, as far as they are revealed; what can be more strange than to imagine, that the reasonableness or confiftency of the religion of CHRIST can in any degree depend upon, or be affected by, the incomprehenfible nature of thofe particulars which it has not revealed?

The Author afferts," That the moral parts "of the New Teftament have their foundation in "the religion of Nature; and that this is the "only proper foundation of any true and ra"tional religion *."-And from hence he argues, "If natural religion is the neceffary foundation of revealed, then nothing can be a part of revealed religion, which does not

"lie within the reach of our natural and rational "faculties +."

Certain it is, that the propriety of our obedience to the moral precepts of the New Testament, is founded in our nature itself; and that to obey them is a duty of reason, or natural religion. But it is no lefs certain, that our belief of every declaration which we find revealed in, the New Teftament is likewife, as far as it extends, a duty founded, as every duty muft be, in our nature itself; and equally a duty of reason, or natural religion.

As rational creatures it must evidently be our duty to believe every declaration that we can perceive has God for its author; those which relate to things that in many particulars are above our comprehenfion, as well as those which do not. To believe therefore every declaration, which we perceive has the proper evidence of its coming from God, is nothing less than a plain and evident duty of Natural Religion; not only within the reach of, but neceffarily arifing from our natural and rational faculties.

But ftill the Author fays-" How the religion "of nature can be the foundation of the Doc"trines of Original Sin, Redemption, Juftification, "the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the like; I "fhould be glad to fee explained: for, till this "be done, the acknowledgment that natural "religion is the foundation of revealed, will re"main a tacit confeffion, that only the morality "of the New Teftament was the religion of "CHRIST +."

Clearness of thought and propriety of expreffion, I may here, once for all, be allowed to obferve, are not the talents of this writer. To

* P. 284. + P. 284.

have spoken with propriety he fhould have diftinguished between doctrines themfelves, and our obligation to believe them. Doctrines or truths themfelves are not founded in the religion of na ture, but in nature itself; that is, in the real existence and nature of things: it is our obligation only to believe fuch truths, that is founded in the law of reafon, or the religion of nature. But with regard to the explanation he is fo defirous to fee, nothing can be more easy than to give it.

Whatever intelligible declarations the New Teftament itself contains, (and the New Teftament itself contains none that are not intelligible ;) concerning Original Sin, Redemption, Juftification, the Incarnation, the Trinity, &c. if these declara tions have the proper external evidence of their being authentic revelations from God; our reafon itself, that is the Religion of Nature, lays us under an obligation to believe, that all these declarations are true; and thus the duty of believ ing whatever is declared in the New Testament itfelf concerning Original Sin, Redemption, Juftifica tion, the Incarnation, the Trinity, &c. is as evidently founded in the religion of Nature, as the duty of obeying whatever moral precepts the New Teftament enjoins.

But if by the term the Author here makes ufe of, THE DOCTRINES of Original Sin, &c. he means any human explanations of whatever is declared in the New Testament itself concerning thefe fubjects; And fo intends to afk, How our obligation to approve fuch particular human explanations of what the New Teftament itself declares upon thefe fubjects, can be founded in reafon, or the religion of nature?I anfwer firit, that the obligation on each individual to approve fuch doctrines, or human explanations, must neceffarily

ceffarily depend upon their appearing to each ref pectively to be true reprefentations of what the New Teftament itself declares, upon the points they concern.

But further I anfwer, that human explanations of what is actually declared in the New Testament itself, upon any of thefe fubjects, are in no degree whatever concerned with the point which the Author has undertaken to prove.

What he has peremptorily laid down, and profeffedly fet himself to demonftrate is, That the identical fupernatural declarations contained in the New Teftament itself, not any human explanations of them, cannot have come from God; and cannot be believed upon principles of reafon, and the law of nature; merely because they are fupernatural and mysterious; or, in other words, because they contain points which our reafon alone could not have difcovered; and are corinected with things of fuch a nature as we cannot completely comprehend. Whereas nothing can be more evident, than that Reason, or the religion of Nature, obliges us to believe them to be true, if we have fufficient external evidence that they were really revealed; how incomprehenfible foever the nature of the things to which they relate may be, in any other particulars which are not revealed.

Nor is it any real objection to the divine revelation of fuch truths, as they are in fact revealed in the Gofpel of CHRIST, That, as the Author expreffes himself, "A man may read, "ftudy, write, and argue all his life about Origi *nal Sin, Redemption, Faith, Juftification, Sancti*fication, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the like; without adding one tittle to the goodness * of his moral character, or being induced there. by to perform one benevolent action *.”

થ