nal comes firft under examination; and with regard to this, he thinks it has been diminished by time, and tells us, with a fneer, that divines would do better, if they trufted more to grace and faith to fupply this diminution, and lefs to their own fkill, in the establishment of the external proofs of a traditional revelation.

As to internal evidence he obferves, that divines found it high, and build much upon it, but that their proceeding is alike abfurd and licentious, and that the internal evidences of a divine revelation neither are, nor can be, fuch pofitive proofs as they are pretended to be. After this he proceeds to confider an objection that has been urged against all religions that affume themselves founded on divine Revelation. The objection is this; that all fuch religions are incompatible with civil Sovereignty, because they introduce a private confcience that may be, and often is, contrary to the public confcience of the ftate; and not only fet up private judgment in oppofition to that of the legislature, but inforce the dictates of it by a greater authority, even by that of God himself. His LordThip endeavours to defend the Chriftian religion, against which this objection is particularly directed, and tells us that no religion ever appeared in the world, whofe natural tendency was fo much directed to promote the peace and happiness of man

kind.

• If it has had a contrary effect, fays he, it has had it apparently, not really; theology is in fault, not religion. Theology is a fcience that may be compared juftly to the box of Pandora. Many good things lie uppermoft in it. But many evil, lie under them, and fcatter plagues and defolation through the world. If we cannot fhut the box, it is of use, however, to know that the box is open; and to be convinced the more of this truth, let us make a general analyse of Chrifianity, and then obferve, as generally, the rife, progress, and effects of theology.'

He obferves, in the first place, that Chriftianity is founded on the univerfal law of nature. He does not fay that ChriStianity is a republication of the law of nature, but affirms that the gofpel teaches the great and fundamental principle of this law, univerfal benevolence; recommends the precepts of it, and commands the obfervation of them in particular inftances occafionally, always fuppofes them, always enforces them, and makes the law of right reafon a law in every poffible definition of the word. Future rewards and punishments he thinks are not original nor direct fanctions of the law of nature, but tells us they became fuch when the Chiflian revelation

was

was made. They are, fays he, original fanctions of Chritianity, and Christianity which includes, was defigned to inforce, the law of nature. We may, therefore, be allowed to wander, and to feek the reafon, why the law of anture, thus enforced, has ferved fo little to correct the man⚫ners of men, and to promote the peace and happiness of the world? Why Chriftianity has ferved, on the contrary, to ⚫ determine men to violate the very law it confirms, and has opened a new fource of mifchief whereever it has prevailed. I faid above, that theology is in fault, not religion. We 'fhall fee this verified in every part of the anlayfe we make • of Christianity.'

After fhewing briefly how Divines have corrupted that plain fyftem of natural religion which the gofpel prefents us with, his Lordship goes on to obferve, that there are two other parts befides this of natural religion, into which Chriftianity may be analyfed, and which have been corrupted alike by theology, viz. duties fuperadded to thofe of natural religion, and articles of belief that reafon neither could difcover, nor can comprehend. As impracticable as fome, fays he, and as incredible as ⚫ others may feem, the duties required to be practifed, and the propofitions required to be believed are concisely and plainly enough expreffed in the gofpel, in the original gofpel properly fo called, which Chrift taught, and which his four evangelifts recorded. But they have been rendered, fince they were first published, and they began to be fo as foon as they were published, extremely voluminous and intricate. The duties, external duties at least, have been multiplied by ecclefiaftical policy, that profited of the natural fuper• ftition of mankind. The articles of belief have been multiplied, and complicated by cabaliftical notions taken from the Jews, and by metaphyfical refinements taken from heathen theology. Children fuffer often for the fins of their fathers. But in this cafe, the rule is inverted. The gofpel gave birth to Chriftian theology, and the gospel fuffers for the fins of her licentious offspring; of that ecclefiaftical order, I mean, who affecting to be called religious, have proved themselves to be the moft irreligious fociety that was ever formed, and the moft hurtful too, as he who compares, thro' the whole series of their own hiftory, the little good, with the infinite mifchief they have done, muft confefs.'

、

na

As to the precepts of morality contained in the gospels, his Lordship obferves, that fome of them are not fo much pofitive duties, as inftances of greater purity and Chriftian perfection, and rather recommended than commanded. One of

the inftances he produces is the love of our enemies and perfecutors; a precept so fublime, that he doubts whether it was ever exactly obferved any more under the law of grace, than under the law of nature, tho' fome appearances of it may be found, he thinks, under both, and at least as many under one as under the other. Befides these we are told that there are fome duties which feem directed to the Jews only, and fome which feem directed more immediately to the difciples of Chrift. Of the firft fort is that injunction which reftrains divorces to the cafe of adultery, and thofe directions which tend to render the worship of God more intellectual, and the practice of good works lefs oftentations. Of the second fort are certain duties enjoined in the fermon on the mount, and in other parts of the gospel, which feem fit enough, his Lordship thinks, for a religious fect, or order of men like the Effenians, but are by no means practicable in the general fociety of mankind. To refift no injury, to take no care for to-morrow, to neglect providing for the common neceffaries of life, and to fell all to follow Chrift, might, 'tis faid, be properly exacted from those who were his companions, and his difciples in a stricter sense, like the fcholars of Pythagoras, admitted within the curtain; but reafon and experience both fhew that, confidered as general duties, they are impracticable, inconfiftent with natural inftinct, as well as laws and quite destructive of fociety. He now proceeds as follows.

If this now be, as it is moft certainly, a true, tho' gene⚫ral and short representation of the moral duties contained in the gospel, and added to thofe of natural religion, both which confift in piety towards God, and benevolence towards man, will any difciple of the philofopher of Malmesbury prefume to maintain, that the objection raised against religion has the least force on account of them, or that they ⚫ render it inconfiftent with civil fovereignty? He who should maintain it, would fall below notice, and not deserve an anfwer. But if the objection be levelled against the number⚫lefs duties fuperadded to thofe of the gofpel, inftead of being ⚫ levelled against the few that have been fuperadded by the gofpel to thofe of natural religion, it will be unanswerable. Thofe of the former fort have been fo increased, especially in matters of rites, of ceremonies, and of external devotion, by the authority of the church, and in the course of ages, that they overload and ftifle, as it were, true religion; nay that they fubftitute in lieu of it a carnal religion, fuch as that of the Jews, and thofe of paganism were. That the religion inftituted by Mofes was fuch in outward appear

6

ance

ance, in frontispices quidem, fays Spencer, our Divines admit. But they affert that inwardly, in penetrali, it was divine and myftic. The Heathen faid the fame of theirs; and in truth, if theirs were not very divine, they were very my⚫ftical. Chriftianity has completed the round, and has been • brought back, in many countries at leaft, from the fimplicity of the gofpel to the pageantry and fuperftition of Heathen and Jewish obfervances.'

His Lordship goes on to fpeak of articles of faith, which make a third and laft part of his analyfe of Chriftianity. It is this part, he obferves, that has furnished matter of strife, contention, and all uncharitablenefs, even in, as well as from, the apoftolical age; it is this that has added a motive the more, and one that is ftronger than any other, to animofity and hatred, to wars and maffacres, and to that cruel principle which was never known till Chriftians introduced it into the world, to perfecution for opinions, for opinions often of the most abstract speculation, and of the leaft importance to civil or religious interefts; it is this, whofe effects have been fo fatal to the peace and happiness of mankind, that nothing which the enemies of religion can say on the fubject will be exaggerated beyond the truth.

But

ftill, continues he, the charge they bring will be unjustly brought. These effects have not been caused by the gospel, but by the fyftem raised upon it. Not by the revelations of God, but by the inventions of men, we diftinguished before between the original and the traditional proofs, and we must diftinguifh here between the original and traditional matter of these revelations. The gofpel of Chrift is one thing, the gofpel of St. Paul, and of all those who have grafted after him on the fame stock, is another.

I will not fay that one article of belief alone is necessary to make men Chriftians, the belief that Jefus was the • Meffiah promised to the Jews, and foretold by their prophets. This may be the primary, but it is not the fole object of our faith. There are other things doubtless con⚫tained in the revelation he made of himself, dependent on, and relative to this article, without the belief of which, I fuppofe our Chriftianity would be very defective. But this I fay; the articles of belief, which Chrift himself exacted by what he faid, and by what he did, have been lengthened immeasurably; and we may add both unneceffarily and ⚫ prefumptuously by others fince his time. The fyftem of religion, which Chrift published, and his Evangelifts recorded, is a compleat fyftem to all the purposes of true

religion,

religion, natural, and revealed. It contains all the duties of the former, it enforces them by afferting the divine miffion of the publisher, who proved his affertion at the fame time by his miracles, and it enforces the whole law of faith by promifing rewards, and threatning punishments, which he declares he will diftribute when he comes to judge the world. Befides which, if we do not acknowledge the • fyftem of belief and practice, which Jefus, the finisher as well as author of our faith, left behind him to be in the extent in which he revealed and left it, complete and perfect, we must be reduced to the groffeft abfurdity, and to little less than blafphemy.

These reasons, which cut up the root of artificial theology, deferve, for that reafon, to be more fully explained. If we do not acknowledge them, we affume that the fon of God, who was fent by the father to make a new cove⚫nant with mankind, and to establish a spiritual kingdom on the ruins of Paganism, and the reformation at least of Judaifm, executed his commiffion imperfectly; we aflume, that he died to redeem mankind from fin, and from death • the wages of fin, but that he left them at the fame time without fufficient information concerning that faith in him, and that obedience to his law, which could alone make this redemption effectual to all the gracious purposes of it, fince we might rife to Immortality indeed by the merits of his paffion, but this refurrection might be to Damnation too, unless an entire faith in him, co-operating with our im perfect obedience, juftified and faved us. In short we aflume, that they who were converted to Chriflianity by Chrift himself, and who died before the fuppofed imper•fection of his revelation had been fupplied by the apostles; by Paul particularly, lived and died without a fufficient knowledge of the terms of falvation, than which nothing can be faid more abominable. Natural religion may be collected, flowly, perhaps, tho' fufficiently by natural reason, from the works of God, wherein he manifefts his will to mankind. But a religion, revealed by God himself immediately, must have been complete and perfect from the first promulgation in the mind of every convert to it, according to all our ideas of order: and if we confider it as a covenant of grace, the covenant must have been made at once, according to all thefe ideas, and all thofe of juftice. No new articles of belief, no new duties, could be made necessary to falvation afterwards, without changing the covenant: and at that rate how many new covenants might there not be? • How