and fuperftition of the world, yet fome temains of it were in all places to be found and the general principles of religion were fo rivetted in human nature, that she could not but start at any thing that directly contradicted them: Thus, for instance, in the great branch of natural religion, which re⚫lates to the worship and fervice of God, tho' 'mankind had univerfally erred and defiled 'themselves with many pollutions and abo'minations, yet Atheism was as deteftable a 'crime in the Heathen world, as it is in < the Chriftian: and fome, we know, were thought worthy of death, for being the 'maintainers of fo unnatural an opinion. A fenfe of the moral duties between man and ⚫ man were better preferved; and there are ⚫ not many vices condemned in the gospel,

which were not infamous before in all • civilized parts of the world. This general law, as the Apostle tells us, was the groundwork of confcience, the teftimony of the < confcience plainly fhewing the work of the law to be written in the heart; and this is a farther evidence, that this law of nature was the foundation of that repentance, which was to usher in the gospel; for as the preacher of repentance neceffarily refers himself to the confciences of men, to point out to them the guilt of their actions; fo muft his doctrine neceffarily relate to that law, which is the principle or origin of confcience: Since then the doctrine of re

pentance,

pentance, with which the gospel set out in the world, had reference to the law of reafon and nature, against which men had every where offended; and fince repentance infers the neceffity of a future reformation, and a return to that duty and obedience, from which by tranfgreffion we are fallen 'the confequence is manifeftly this, that the gofpel was a republication of the law of nature, and it's precepts declarative of that original religion, which was as old as the

<

creation.'

;

That this must certainly be the cafe, will appear, by confidering the nature of the thing itself. The notions of good and evil are eternally and unalterably the same, which notions are the rules and measures of all moral actions, and are confequently neceffary ⚫ and constituent parts of religion: and there'fore if the religion of nature, in her primitive ftate, was pure and uncorrupt, (which will not, I prefume, be denied) though there was fufficient reafon for a republication of it, because of the great ignorance and fuperftition which had grown upon the world, yet there could be no reason for any alteration of it; for though the world was the worse for abafing the religion of nature, and might want to be reformed by a divine inftructer; yet the religion of nature was not the worfe for being abused, 'but ftill retained it's first purity and fimplicity. The duties of religion, confidered

<

as

1

as a rule of action, flow from the relation we bear to God, and to one another; and religion muft ever be the fame, as long as these relations continue unaltered: If our firft parent was the creature of God, fo are we; and whatsoever fervice and duty he owed, in virtue of this dependance, the 'fame is due from us; nor can this relation ' be ever made the ground of different duties in his cafe, and in ours; if therefore nature rightly inftructed him at firft how to serve his Maker, our obligations being the fame ' with his, our rule must be the fame alfo. The cafe is the fame with respect to the duties owing from man to man: and it would be as reasonable to suppose, that the 'three angles of a triangle should be equal to two right ones in one age, and unequal in another, as to fuppofe that the duties of religion should differ in one age, from what they were in another, the habitudes and relations from which they flow continuing always the fame.' Again, pages 21, 22.

It is true, the Gospel has taught us things, which by nature we could not know; but they are all defigned to confirm and streng' then our hope in God; it is true also, that there are fome inftitutions in the Gofpel, ' which in their own nature are no conftituent parts of religion, but they are fuch only as are neceffary to enable us to do our duty, by conveying to us new supplies of fpiritual ftrength. These are the additions.

which the Gofpel has made to natural religion, forgive it this injury. Our bleffed Saviour faw that the hopes of nature were loft, therefore he brought to light again life ' and immortality: he faw that we were corrupted, not able to refift evil, and therefore 'he fupplied the defect by the affistance of his holy fpirit; pardon his care, and do not think the worfe of him, or his religion, for the great provifion he has made in it for your fecurity.'

Thus far this great man. However, I must here remind my readers, that I have not quoted from the Bishop of Salisbury's Sermon by way of authority; nor indeed do I claim him as having been an advocate for my principles, any farther than his Lordship has plainly and publickly declared himself. Nevertheless, I think, I should not do juftice to truth, nor myfelf, did I not farther obferve, that the juft reasonings of this great man, in favour of the great and main points contended for, both in the precedent enquiry, and in my book entitled The true Gospel of Jefus Chrift afferted, are more, much more, than a ballance, in point of argument, (which only is to be regarded) to all that my numerous opponents have offered against them. This, I fay, is the case with refpect to the great and main points I have advanced in this and the forementioned book; and as to points of leffer moment, fuch as how it came to pass that when the Gospel was first preached, it was not univerfally re

ceived;

ceived; and how it comes to pass that where it has been received, it has not generally had it's proper effect upon the minds and lives of men; what I have offered upon these points, I have experience and fact for my vouchers. My Lord Bishop of Salisbury has exprefsly declared, that the Gofpel was a republication of the law of nature; and if fo, then, the Chriftian Religion cannot be an arbitrary inftitution, grounded on fovereign pleasure, but muft be (as I have faid) founded on the eternal reafon and truth of things. And what additions Christ has made to natural religion, his Lordship acknowledges, are not in their own nature conftituent parts of religion, but they are fuch only as are neceffary to enable us to do our duty; which, I think, is the fame as to fay that they are no parts of religion at all, but only means and helps to it, or, in other words, they are means and helps to make us truly religious, and the proper objects of God's favour. This indeed is what I have more largely and fully fhewn and proved; but then, what have I, in effect, faid more, or less than this?