and divisions. Hence they reflect upon the whole Reformation, as a natural source of confusion; that they belong to Jerusalem, and we to Babel: that when we leave their Church, the city upon the hill, we never know where to stop, till we get to the bottom; that is, till we have run either into the madness of enthusiasm, or the profaneness of infidelity. How shall we stop this wide mouth of scandal, while appearances are so much against us? However this reproach doth not reach us of the Church of England; who, in doctrine and profession are where we were two hundred years ago. Let those who have left us try if they can answer the Papists upon this head; it is their business to account for the confusion which they only have introduced*.

If the Clergy of this Church have any desire to preserve it, they must consider for what end the Church is appointed. A Christian Church is a candlestick, to hold forth the Light of the Gospel. When it ceases to answer that end, it is of no use as a Church; and the world may do as well without it. Great things have been attributed of late times to moral preaching; but there is no such thing as telling people what they are to do, without telling them what they are to believe; because the Christian morality is built upon the Christian faith, and is totally different from the morality of Heathens. Deism, so called, is a Religion' without Christianity; it has neither the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, into whose name Christians

*It is too much the fashion of the times to divide the Christian Religion only into two classes, one including the Papists, and the other comprehending the motley herd who are disunited from the Church of Rome, and who are all distinguished by the general name of Protestants-Whereas the Sectariaus are many of them as wide. ly removed from us of the Church of England, as we are from the Papists,

are baptized. It has no Sacraments, no Redemption, no Atonement, no Church Communion, and conse-. quently no Charity; for Charity is the love and unity of Christians as such. Natural Religion is but another name for Deism; it is the same in all respects; and I may challenge all the philosophers in Europe to shew the difference. Therefore to recommend moral duties on the ground of natural religion, is to preach Deism from a pulpit; and we should ask ourselves, whether God, who upholds his Church, to declare salvation by Jesus Christ alone, will preserve a Church, when it has left the Gospel, and holds forth the light of Deism in the candlestick which was made, and is supported in the world, only to hold forth the light of Christianity? What else is it that hath made way for the enthusiastic rant of the Tabernacle? When the wise forsake the Gospel, then is the time for the unwise to take it up; but with such a mixture of error and indiscretion, as gives the world a pretence for never returning to it any more; and then the case is despe

rate.

،

·

Deism, properly so called', (said a certain writer) is the religion essential to man, the true original religion of reason and nature. It is in Deism, properly so called, that our more discerning and rational divines have constantly placed the alone excellency and true glory of the Christian institution-The Gospel, (says Dr. Sherlock) was a republication of the Law of Nature, and its precepts declarative of that original ♦ religion, which was as old as the creation.—If natu• rals religion (says Mr. Chandler) be not a part of the religion of Christ, 'tis scarce worth while to enquire at all, what his religion is: from whence it seems very natural to infer, that the other parts of the religion of Christ are scarce worth any thing at ab

1 of our notice.' [Deism fairly stated by a moral Philosopher: p. 5, 6, 7.] See the whole book, which proceeds on this principle: that natural religion being admitted, it must be a perfect scheme, a compleat structure; and that Christianity, as a superstructure, is unnecessary; and it is lamentable to see what advantage this author takes of the unguarded concessions of some celebrated Christian preachers and controversialists of the Church of England, who did not foresee, or did not consider, the consequences of their doctrines.

Dr. Taylor, some time since a dissenting teacher at Norwich, a man of considerable learning, was the author of certain Theological Lectures, which I have reason to think have met with a more favourable reception than they deserved among some of the Clergy of our own Church, and have been even recommended as elementary tracts to young Students in Divinity. In the first chapter of these Lectures, I find a rule of interpretation repugnant to the rule given us by the Scripture itself, which directs us to compare spiritual things with spiritual, that is, to compare the Scripture with the Scripture, that we may keep to the true sense of it. But here it is laid down as a fundamental rule, that we should always interpret the Scripture, in a sense consistent with the laws of natural religion; for that the law of nature, as it is founded in the unchangeable nature of things, must be the basis aud ground-work of every constitution of religion which God hath erected. This rule of Dr. Taylor prejudges the Scripture before we come to it, and inculcates into inexperienced Students of Divinity the very principle that hath ruined us, and given us up as a prey to the Deists; it allows them the advantage they have contended for against the peculiar doctrines of Revelation, as scarce worth any thing at all of our notice, in com◄

parison of natural religion. For here, I say, before we descend to the Scripture, we are possessed of a system, founded in the unchangeable nature of things; from which, whatsoever the Bible may seem to reveal, we are never to depart. Let us then suppose, that our Christian baptism teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: what have we to do? Natural Religion hath already determined, from the unchangeable nature of things, that God is but one person*. Therefore we must interpret the form of Baptism to such a sense, as will still leave this doctrine of nature in possession; either by teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are, in reality, but one person; or that Jesus Christ is no person in the Godhead, but a mere man, like ourselves; or, that Christianity is not true, &c. So in like manner, by another anticipation, natural religion makes every man his own Priest and his own Temple: therefore it cannot possibly admit the true and proper Priesthood of Jesus Christ; but must reject the whole doctrine of atonement, and the corruption of man's nature; for this is incompatible with the idea of a natural religion; inasmuch as corrupt nature must produce a corrupt religion. If we say that nature is not corrupt, we overturn the foundations of the Gospel; which teaches us, that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them.-Man, it seems, is so far from knowing the spiritual things revealed to him in the Scripture, that, as he now is by nature, he is not in a condition to receive them (they will be foolishness to him) till he is enabled so to

This (says Dr. Clarke) is the first principle of Natural Rel gion." See Mr. Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity; p. 15, of the sixth Edition; where this is considered more at large.

do by a new faculty of discernment, which is supernatural and spiritual. It is therefore easy to foresee what must be the consequence, when Dr. Taylor's rule is admitted; and the younger Clergy of this Church take him for their guide. They will take the doctrines of nature, and work them up with the doctrines of the Scripture; that is, they will throw natural Religion into the Scripture, as Aaron threw the gold of Egypt into the fire and, what will come out? Not the Christian Religion, but the philosophical calf of Socinus.

Mr. Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity may be read with safety, by those who are already well learned in the Scripture: but what a perilous situation must that poor young man be in, who, perhaps, when he can but just construe the Greek Testament, or before, is turned over to be handled and tutored by this renowned veteran; who, with a shew of reasonableness, and some occasional sneers at orthodoxy, and affecting the piety and power of inspiration itself, has partly overlooked, and partly explained away, the first and greatest principles of Christianity, and reduced it to a single proposition, consistent with Heresy, Schism, Arianism, Socinianism, and Quakerism,