be neceffary to our Acceptance with God, he had faid what is true. But God may But God may bestow very different degrees of reward, both in this world, and in the next, on those whom he accepts. And Salvation is commonly used to fignify the reward he will bestow on thofe Chriftians, whom he ac cepts. Now though a believer in Natural Religion only may have acted as virtuously as a Chrif tian, or even more fo, in adopting and fettling his Belief; yet he may become fo much less improved

in real virtue by his Belief, than the Chriftian, who has fo much fuperiour motives to improve by, that

ed, or interpolated; or why would he diffuade people from believing in it, if it really was?

-But

He asks (P. 210) "If a man be wicked, can it be material. "what his opinions of modes and ceremonies are ?" — If he has honeftly endeavoured to judge as well he could about modes and ceremonies, he has in this particular certainly acted virtuously, however wicked he may have been in others. And though this inftance of virtue in him, cannot rectify his other evil actions, or purify his corrupt affections; as no other inftance of virtue can; yet will it certainly meet with its due regard from him who knoweth the heart. Again he afks (ibid.) "If a man be good and virtuous, can it fignify "what religion he profeffes, provided it be not contrary in its mode, to our social and civil ideas of decency ?”. a religion not contrary to our focial and civil ideas of decency, may be deftitute of fufficient provisions to purify our hearts; or even may contain precepts or doctrines derogatory from the honour of God, or tending to corrupt our minds with many evil difpofitions. And certainly a man may be highly blameable for embracing fuch a religion. In this cafe, and in all cafes,-As his goodness and virtue, in every inftance in which he is good and virtuous, will be regarded; fo his want of goodness and virtue, in thofe inftances in which he does want it, will likewise be confidered; and therefore in adopting his religion without care, if he is guilty of fo doing. The agreement, or difagreement of his opinions with the forms of his country, is a circumstance of no moment whatever with refpect to his virtue in adopting them: That must depend wholly upon the well-meant exertion of his abilities in the purfuit of truth; and his being impartially difpofed to embrace it, wherever it is to be found.

こ

God

God may not judge him fit for an equal degree of happiness with the Chriftian fo improved.

With refpect to mere Belief itself, the truth is, That in all points of religion, as well revealed as natural, it is not the actual discovery of, and adherence to Truth itfelf; or the Belief of what is ac tually true; which is neceffary to acceptance with God; but the fincere love of, and desire to find the truth, and the actual exertion of our best abilities to discover it. If we really follow this course in fettling the points of our religious Belief, the New Teftament itself will teach us, that as far as our Salvation can be secured by this fingle branch of our moral conduct, we shall certainly be faved; however deficient, imperfect, or even mistaken the points of our Belief may be. The duty of man, as a rational creature, in fettling the points of his religious Belief, can be no other than this: To feek honestly after Truth;-to embrace what plainly appears true;-to reject what appears plainly falfe;

in dubious points to proportion his affent to the evidence that appears; and to fufpend all opinion on fuch points as he is conscious of not being qualified to determine. It is not therefore the ac tual Belief of any particular truth whatever, which is immediately in itself, on its own account, neceffary to Acceptance; but it is the radical, fincere love of truth, honeftly exerted in adopting every particular of our religious Belief, which is, in the felf-fame fenfe and degree with every other virtuous difpofition and practice, neceffary to Acceptance with God.

But how will this prove what the Author contends for? Either that our conduct in adopting our Belief is fo involuntary, as not to be a moral action, or a proper object of command? Or, that we may reject every truth declared in the New Tefsament, in which no moral duty is contained,

merely

merely on that account; and confider them as making no part of the revelation of CHRIST; in direct oppofition to the most complete and fatisfactory evidence, that they are all genuine declarations either of JESUS himself, or those perfons whom he commiffioned and qualified to preach his religi on to mankind?

Is it not, on the contrary, an unanfwerable proof, fuppofing the New Teftament to be of divine autho rity, that whatever point we find declared in it as a part of our Christian Faith, in a paffage which there is no external reafon to fufpect of having been forged, or accidentally corrupted, we are bound to receive as a revealed, and therefore an unque ftionable truth? But then, let it be carefully remembered, that our obligation to believe, that whatever points, the New Teftament itself declares are undoubtedly true, in fome fenfe, does by no means imply an obligation to believe, that This or That interpretation of fuch points is juft.

The Author however would fain allege the authority of CHRIST himfelf, to prove that we are under no obligation to pay regard to any parts of the New Teftament but its moral precepts only *.

With this defign he quotes JESUS addreffing the Jews-Verily, verily I fay unto you, be that beareth my words, and believeth on him that fent me, bath everlasting life, and fhall not come into condemna tion and then he observes, "That this can"not mean bare bearing and believing, but con"fiders both as great incitements to the practice " of virtue."

But furely nothing can be more obvious, than that " hearing JESUS's words," muft neceffarily fignify believing all his affirmations, as well as obey

A

*

די

"

ing all his commands. And how therefore will the Author avoid the neceffity of believing whatever HE has declared, when in this very fentence, JESUS exprefly fays, that God had fent him; and in this very converfation tells the Jews, that be was the Son of God And that bis Father bad impowered him to do every thing which he himself didt-That be bad power to raise the dead both then, and at the end of the world, and should judge all mankind -And that therefore all men should bonour him as they bonoured the Father §;And appeals exprefly to the miracles he had worked, for a full proof that he was fent in an extraordinary manner from God, purpofely to acquaint them with every thing that he had declared to them ||

The Author might as well attempt to separate JESUS's moral commands from themselves, as the fupernatural truths he here reveals from his moral commands.

Greater objections however are till behind. The Author fays" In his (JESUS's) anfwer to "the young man, who defired to know what he "fhould do to inherit eternal life, CHRIST fays "nothing about believing or disbelieving: it was "the practice of the moral virtues that was to give him his title to everlasting felicity: nothing "hort of this would answer his purpose; nothing was to be held out in competition with it. His riches and great poffeffions were to be "facrificed at the fhrine of virtue, and to be "made useful to his fellow creatures, before he "could receive the reward of eternal life ¶"

66

To juftify this conclufion from JESUS's anfwer, we muft fuppofe that the young ruler applied to JESUS for a perfect rule of belief as well as practice; and confequently, that as JESUS returned

*John v. 17, 18. + Ibid. ver. 19, 20, Ibid. ver. 21, 22, 25-29. § Ibid. ver. 23. | bid. ver. 35. P. 363.

ΠΟ

no answer relating to any points of belief, he meant to fhew him, that his moral conduct in fettling his belief was of no importance towards obtaining eternal life.

But nothing can be more groundless than this imagination. The very question itself What good thing fhall I do?-though it will not abfolutely determine the matter, makes it very highly probable, that the Ruler had not the least thought about points of belief, when he asked it: and what the terms of the queftion render fo highly probable, the fequel fhews muft certainly have been the cafe. To the queftion JEsus replied, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments; plainly fhewing what he fuppofed the question to mean, The Ruler afked again,-Which? And Jesus again replied, Thou shalt do no murther; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear falfe witness; honour thy father and thy mother; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Still the ruler replied, All these things have I kept from my youth up; what lack I yet? And upon Jesus's faying, If thou wilt be perfect, give thy eftate to the poor, and come and follow me; without asking any thing further, he went away forrowful on account of bis great poffeffions. Whereas, had Belief been at all the object of his thoughts; when JESUS anfwered his enquiries not only once, but even the fecond, and the third time, with a view to the practical duties only, he would certainly have explained his meaning, and defired JESUS's opinion with regard to the Belief that was neceffary likewife.

As well, nay better might the Author contend, that Jesus, by omitting to mention the other Commandments, intended the Ruler fhould

*Matth. xix. 16,

tinder