dities in religion, which are found among the modern heathen nations, greater than those which (we have already seen1) existed among the polished nations of antiquity before the publication of the Gospel: which are a joint proof that no age or country, whether rude or civilised, instructed or uninstructed, infected or uninfected with plenty or luxury, is or can be secured by mere natural reason against falling into the grossest errors and corruptions in religion; and, consequently, that all mankind stand in need of a divine revelation to make known to them the will of God, and the duties and obligations which they owe to their Creator.

VI. But, notwithstanding these facts, and regardless of the confessions of the most distinguished antient philosophers of their need of a revelation, it is contended by many in our own times, that there is no necessity for one; that the book of nature is the only book to be studied and that natural philosophy and right reason are sufficient to instruct and to preserve men in their duty. But, not to repeat the facts already stated concerning the actual condition of the pagan nations of the present age, as well as the acknowledgments of the Greek and Roman philosophers relative to the state of the more civilised nations among whom they lived, (which demonstrate the utter insufficiency of these boasted guides to lead men to the true knowledge, worship, and obedience of their great Creator), we may appeal even to our adversaries themselves, whether the testimony of Christ (without considering at present what truth and evidence it has), concerning the immortality of the soul and the rewards and punishments of a future state, has not had (notwithstanding all the corruptions of Christians), visibly and in effect, a greater and more powerful influence upon men than all the reasonings of all the philosophers that ever lived; whether the belief of a divine revelation be not the most proper means to awaken those, who would not be affected with all the abstract reasonings in the world; and whether, in Christian countries, the most ignorant people have not now more worthy notions of God, and a deeper sense of the difference between good and evil, a greater regard to moral obligations, and a more firm expectation of a future state, than any considerable number of heathens ever had.

It has been asserted by the modern opposers of revelation, that the great ignorance and undeniable corruptness of the heathen world. are to be ascribed, not to the insufficiency of the light of nature, but to their non-improvement of that light; and that deists (as they call themselves) are Now able to discover all the obligations of morality without the aid of revelation. But, supposing this were true, it would not prove that there was no need of a revelation, because it is certain, in fact, that the philosophers wanted some higher assistance than reason: and with regard to the pretences of modern deists, it is to be observed that almost all men, where the Scriptures have been unknown, have in every age been gross idolaters; the few exceptions

1 See pp. 5-7. supra.

that have existed, being in general a kind of atheistical philosophers. Deists, properly so called, are chiefly found in Christian countries, in the later ages, since Christianity has extensively prevailed over idolatry, and in the countries where gross pagan idolatry could no longer be practised with credit and security. In these circumstances, deists acquire, as it were at second-hand, their glimmering light from the book to which they oppose it; and it is a fact that almost all the things, which have been said wisely and truly by them, ARE MANI

FESTLY BORROWED FROM THAT REVELATION WHICH THEY REFUSE

TO EMBRACE, AND WITHOUT WHICH THEY NEVER COULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE DELIVERED SUCH TRUTHS. Now, indeed, that our whole duty is clearly revealed, we not only see its agreement with reason, but are also enabled to deduce its obligation from reason: but, if we had been destitute of all revealed religion, it would have been a work of extreme difficulty to have discovered our duty in all points. What ground indeed have the modern contemners of revelation to imagine, that, if they had lived without the light of the Gospel, they would have been wiser than Socrates, Plato, and Cicero? How are they certain that they would have made such a right use of their reason, as to have discovered truth? If their lot had been among the vulgar, are they sure that they would not have been idolaters? If they had joined themselves to the philosophers, what sect would they have followed? Or, if they had set up for themselves, how are they certain that they would have been skilful enough to have deduced the several branches of their duty, or to have applied them to the several cases of life, by argumentation and force of reason? It is one thing to perceive that the rules of life, which are laid

1 The name of Deists, as applied to those who are no friends to revealed religion, is said to have been first assumed, about the middle of the sixteenth century, by some gentlemen in France and Italy, who were willing to cover their opposition to the Christian revelation by a more honourable name than that of Atheists. The earliest author, who mentions them, is Viret, a divine of great eminence among the first reformers; who, in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to the first tome of his Instruction Chretienne,' (which was published in 1563), speaks of some persons at that time who called themselves by a new name, that of Deists. These, he tells us, professed to believe a God, but showed no regard to Jesus Christ, and considered the doctrines of the apostles and evangelists as fables and dreams. He adds that they laughed at all religion; notwithstanding they conformed themselves, externally, to the religion of those with whom they were obliged to live, or whom they were desirous of pleasing, or whom they feared. Some of them, he observes, professed to believe the immortality of the soul; others were of the Epicurean opinion in this point, as well as about the providence of God with respect to mankind, as if he did not concern himself in the government of human affairs. He adds, that many among them set up for learning and philosophy, and were considered as persons of an acute and subtile genius; and that, not content to perish alone in their error, they took pains to spread the poison, and to infect and corrupt others by their impious discourses, and their bad examples. Bayle's Dictionary, article Viret. cited in Dr. Leland's View of the Deistical Writers, vol. i. p. 2.

Modern infidelity, though it may assume the title of Deism, is in fact little better than disguised atheisin. A man seldom retains for any length of time his first deistical opinions; his errors gradually multiply, till be sinks to the last gradation of impiety. The testimony of an infidel writer substantiates this point. "Deism,' says he, is but the first step of reason out of superstition. No person remains a Deist, but through want of reflection, timidity, passion, or obstinacy."- Brittan's Modern Infidelity pourtrayed, p. 9.

before us, are agreeable to reason, and another thing to find out those rules by the mere light of reason. We see that many, who profess to govern themselves by the written rules of revealed religion, are nevertheless ignorant of their duty; and how can any man be sure that he should have made such a good use of his reason, as to have perfectly understood his duty without help? We see that many of those, --who profess firmly to believe in that great and everlasting happiness which Christ has promised to obedience, and that great and eternal misery which he has threatened against disobedience, -- are yet hurried away by their lusts and passions to transgress the conditions of that covenant to which these promises and threatenings are annexed; and how can any man be sure, that he should be able to overcome these temptations, if these motives were less known, or less powerfully enforced? But, suppose that he could by strength of reason demonstrate all these things to himself with the utmost possible clearness and distinctness, yet all men are not equally capable of being philosophers, though all men are obliged to be equally religious. At least, thus much is certain, that the rewards and punishments of another world cannot be so powerfully enforced, in order to influence the lives of men, by a demonstration of their reality from abstract reasoning, as by one who assures them, by sufficient credentials, that he has actually been in that other state. In fact, the contradictory and discordant speculations of the modern opposers of revelation, who boast that reason is their God, (even if they had not long since been fully answered) are so great and so glaring, and the precepts delivered by them for a rule of life, are so utterly subversive of every principle of morality, as to demonstrate the absolute necessity of a divine revelation now, (supposing one had never been given), in order to lead men to the worship and knowledge of the true God, and also to impart to them the knowledge of their duties to him, and towards one another. A brief statement of the recorded opinions of the principal opposers of revelation in modern times, will prove and justify this remark.

1. Concerning religion, the worship of God, and the expectations of mankind respecting a future state,

LORD HERBERT, of Cherbury (who wrote in the former part of the seventeenth century, and was the first, as he was the greatest and best of the modern deistical philosophers,) has laid down the following positions, viz. that Christianity is the best religion; — that his own universal religion of nature agrees wholly with Christianity, and contributes to its establishment; that all revealed religion (meaning Christianity) is absolutely uncertain, and of little or no use;

-

that there is one supreme God, who is chiefly to be worshipped; --that piety and virtue are the principal part of his worship; — that we must repent of our sins, and, if we do so, God will pardon them; --that there are rewards for good men, and punishments for wicked men in a future state; that these principles of his universal religion are clearly known to all men, and that they were principally unknown to the Gentiles (who comprised almost all men). Yet, notwithstand

ing his declaration in favour of Christianity, he accuses all pretences to revelation of folly and unreasonableness, and contemptuously rejects its capital doctrines.

MR. HOBBES, who was partly contemporary with Lord Herbert, affirms that the Scriptures are the voice of God, and yet that they have no authority but what they derive from the prince or the civil power; he acknowledges that inspiration is a supernatural gift, and the immediate hand of God, and yet the pretence to it is a sign of madness; that a subject may hold firmly the faith of Christ in his heart, and yet may lawfully deny him before the magistrate, and that in such a case it is not he that denies Christ before men, but his governor and the laws of his country;—that God exists, and yet that that which is not matter is nothing; that honour, worship, prayer, and praise are due to God, and yet that all religion is ridiculous.

-

MR. BLOUNT, who lived during the latter part of the seventeenth century, maintained that there is an infinite and eternal God, the creator of all things, and yet he insinuates that the world was eternal; -that the worship we owe to God consists in prayer to Him, and in praise of Him, and yet he objects to prayer as a duty; that we are to expect rewards and punishments hereafter, according to our actions in this life, which includes the immortality of the soul, and yet that the soul of man is probably material (and of course mortal.)

The EARL OF SHAFTESBURY lived during the close of the seventeenth and the early part of the eighteenth century. He affirms that nothing can be more fatal to virtue than the weak and uncertain belief of future rewards and punishments; and that this belief takes away all motives to virtue ; that the hope of rewards and the fear of punishments makes virtue mercenary; that it is disingenuous and servile to be influenced by rewards; and that the hope of rewards cannot consist with virtue; and yet that the hope of rewards is so far from being derogatory to virtue, that it is a proof we love virtue; -that however mercenary the hope of rewards and the fear of punishments may be accounted, it is in many instances a great advantage, security, and support of virtue; that all obligation to be virtuous arises from the advantages (that is the rewards) of virtue, and from the disadvantages (that is the punishments) of vice; that those are to be censured who represent the Gospel as a fraud; that he hopes the Select Sermons of Dr. Whichcot (to which Lord Shaftesbury had written an elegant preface) will induce the enemies of Christianity to like it better, and make Christians prize it the more; and that he hopes Christians will be secured against the temper of the irreconcileable enemies of the faith of the Gospel; and yet he represents salvation as a ridiculous thing; and insinuates that Christ was influenced and directed by deep designs of ambition, and cherished a savage zeal and persecuting spirit; and that the Scriptures were a mere artful invention, to secure a profitable monopoly (that is, of sinister advantages to the inventors); that man is born to religion, piety, and adoration, as well as to honour and friendship; that virtue is not complete without piety;-yet he

VOL. 1.

4

labours to make virtue wholly independent of piety;- that all the warrant for the authority of religious symbols (that is, the institutions of Christianity) is the authority of the magistrate; - that the magistrate is the sole judge of religious truth, and of revelation;that miracles are ridiculous; and that, if true, they would be no proof of the truth of revelation;-that ridicule is the test of truth; and yet, that ridicule itself must be brought to the test of reason; —that the Christian religion ought to be received when established by the magistrate; yet he grossly ridicules it where it was thus established; that religion and virtue appear to be so nearly connected, that they are presumed to be inseparable companions; and yet that atheists often conduct themselves so well, as to seem to force us to confess them virtuous;- that he, who denies a God, sets up an opinion against the very well-being of society; and yet that atheism has no direct natural tendency to take away a just sense of right and

wrong.

MR. COLLINS also wrote in the early part of the eighteenth century, and published a variety of objections against revelation. He affirms that man is a mere machine;-that the soul is material and mortal; that Christ and his apostles built on the predictions of fortune-tellers and divines; that the prophets were mere fortunetellers, and discoverers of lost goods; that Christianity stands wholly on a false foundation; yet he speaks respectfully of Christianity; and also of the Epicureans, whom he at the same time considers as atheists.

Contemporary with Collins was MR. WOOLSTON; who, in his Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour, under the pretence of vindicating the allegorical sense of Scripture, endeavours absolutely to destroy the truth of the facts recorded in the Gospels. This writer asserts, that he is the farthest of any man from being engaged in the cause of infidelity ;-that infidelity has no place in his heart; --that he writes for the honour of Jesus and in defence of Christianity; and that his design in writing is to advance the messiahship, and truth, of the holy Jesus; "to whom," he says, "be glory for ever, amen;" and yet, that the Gospels are full of incredibilities, impossibilities, and absurdities; that they resemble Gulliverian tales of persons and things, which out of romance never had a being; -that the miracles, recorded in the Gospels, taken literally, will not abide the test of reason and common sense, but must be rejected, and the authority of Jesus along with them; and at the same time, he casts the most scurrilous reflections on Christ.

With the two preceding writers DRS. TINDAL and MORGAN were contemporary. The former declares that Christianity, stripped of the additions, which mistake, policy, and circumstances, have made to it, is a most holy religion; and yet, that the Scriptures are obscure, and fit only to perplex men, and that the two great parts of them are contradictory; that all the doctrines of Christianity plainly speak themselves to be the will of an infinitely wise and holy God; and yet, that the precepts of Christianity are loose, undeter