YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY DEFENCE o F Dr. Clarkes Evidences O F Natural and Revealed Religion. In A n s w E r to the fourteenth Chapter ofa/oOK, entitled, ¦/ Chriftianityas old as the Creationfac. By HENRT ST 'EBBING, D.D. LONDON: Printed for J. Pemberton, at the Golden Buck, over-againft St. Dunftaris Church in Fleetjireet. M dcc xxxi. f Price One Shilling and Six-pence.) . _. £mmgm£... . T H E PREFACE A D Dr. Clarke been ,„. his Abilities to defend what be has advanced upon the E- videncesof natural and re vealed Religion, werefo well known, that probably he would not have, been cdlled to the T'ryal. But cer tainly I fhould have taken no Share in his Defence, who was alone more than equal to itheJJndertaking. I ha,d indeed no Thoughts .upon the jtrjl Publication 0/* Christianity as A 2 old iv The Preface. old as the Creation, &c. to interpofe in ju- flif cation of Dr. Clarke's Principles, not doubting but fome of the many Advocates he had whilft living, and fome of whom have appeared with Zeal in his Defence Jince his Death on Points of lefs Moment, would have undertaken this Caufe. But finding this Part neglected, and nothing hitherto pub- lijhed, I was willing to contribute my Mite towards doing Juftice to the Memory of a great Man ; efpecially Jince in the prefent Cafe his Credit is fo clofely connected with the true Intereft both of natural and reveal ed Religion. Upon perufing the Book before mentioned, I found that the Author had drawn up-the whole Strength of it in his fourteenth Chap ter, intended by him as a direSi Anfwer to fo much of Dr\ Clarke'* Evidences of na tural and revealed Religion, as concerns the Ufe and Neceffity of the Gofpel Revelation. And thusfdr we are certainly obliged to him, that he has given us fuch an AbJlraB of his own Work, *w perhaps no body would have been at the Pains to make for him, andfa- ved thofe who are willing to come at Things in the fhortejl Way, the trouble of turning over a great many ufelefs Pages. He Jets out with telling us,- that in engaging with Dr. The Preface. v Dr. Clarke, he engages with * an Author who ufually exhaufts the Subject he writes • on, and, we may well imagine, has omitted nothing that makes for his Purpofe. But thefe and fome other good Words which he is fometimes willing to beftow upon the Doctor, are but an Artifice to infinuate thatChriftia- nity is uncapable of any juft Defence, and . io make himfelf appear the more confiderable whilft he is oppofmg him :' For certainly if Dr. Clarke is really guilty of the Inconfift- encies he is charged with, he could not be the Man the World has hitherto thought him to be. I envy not the Deifts any Advantage they can borrow from the Repute ofx\m Wri ter ; but it is juft that every Man fhould have his Due, and that the World fhould be made fenjible whether Chriftiahity or Infi delity hasfowtd the more able Advocate. It is very certain, that in the general De fence of the Gofpel, none have laboured with greater Succefs than Dr. Clarke ; and per haps it will not be eafy to find his Equal. He has indeed, as the Objector fays, exhausted the Subject; and therefore the Reader muft not expect any new Arguments, but the old ones only, explained and enforced. If any farther Advances could be made, he him- * Page 353. SELF vi The Preface* self would have hem the likelieft Perjbn to have made, them : If I have but kept the Ground which he gained, I think T fhall have done well. . As the Author has oppofed Dr. Clarke on ly in that Part of the Argument which con-> cerns the Ufe and Advantages of the Gofpel Revelation, it will hot be expected thai my Defence of him fhould reach any farther* It is not long fince 1 r publijhed^a fhort Treatife upon this Subject;, in which I confider'd the Hiftary of the Gofpel Covenant, and the Methods of Providence relative to it, from its firft Pr-omulgatidn immediately after the Fall, to its final Accomplijhment in Jefus Chrift ; and Jhewed this plain and vifible Effect of Revelation, that by it fhe Know ledge- of . the true God and hj-sWorfhip. was preferved among one, and that a very confi- ' derable, People, whilft it was loft every where elfe, not one Jingle Nation .excepted.. "The ¦Author of the* Second Addrefs to the In- habitants of London, &c. has treated the No tion of a Covenant founded ' -uptin the Curfe denounced againft the Serpent, Gen. iii. 15. with fame Ridicule ; .andfo far he certainly judged right, that it is a much eafier thing to laugh this Notion out -of mtnt-enance, than * Page 73. it The Preface, vii it is to refute it. I will 'only beg leave to remind this Gentleman, that ibis Covenant does not ftand upon fhe fingle Evidence of thisT'ext {as he either weakly infinuates, or wilfully ltiiifiAkes\but upon divers more. full and exprefs Declarations, of the fame Cove nant made to 'Noah and to thefucceeding Patriarch^:, as has. been Ja fully fhewn by the'Bifhop o/*Bangof in /foiDiicourie upon Prophecy, that tiU his Arguments are an fwer' d, I fhall look upon that Part of the Queftion to be. very fecure* But it is very material to be . obftr'ifed^ that Whether the Deifts will allow that, .we have- any Evi^ dences of a Covenant fubfifting antecedently to the coming -of Chrift, -or 'whether they will not, . Dr. 'Clarke';? Argument will be in every Refpect the fame. The general Point is, W(ii \ there any Oecafion for the Gofpel, or was there none f To determine this, the Doctor confiders the State of Man kind as it was when Chrift came; and if in confequence ofihis State, he has made it ap pear, that there was Oecafion for it, To what purpofe can it be to alledge, that there were no* Revelations before? "The State of the World, as it was when Chrift came, can re ceive no Alteration from what it was, or from what it was not, in the Ages before; nor will any Arguments founded upon that State, viii The Preface.' State, be either better or worfefor any Con federations in which the Condition of former Ages only is concerned, as' will be partiew- larly fhewn in the following Difcourfe. But if {which is the Truth of the Cafe) the Gof pel, as.promulged by Jefus Chrift, wds the Confirmation ' and Accomplifhment of the Promifes made to the Fathers, the fame Reafons. which juftify the W if dom of God in granting this Revelation, will alike juftify it with refpect to all the Revelations that went before it. And with this Obfervation I difmifs the Reader to the Confideration of the Doctor's Propofitions.- Dr. ClarkeV Dr. Clarke' j* Propofitions. Prop. I. RO M the eternal and neceffary Differences of Things , there naturally and necejfarily arife certain MoralObligations, which are of them/elves incumbent on aM rational Creatures, antecedent to all 'Pojttive Injll- tafion,. and to all Expectation of Reward or 'Pumjbment.- P r o p. II. The fame eternal Obligations, which ¦ arife necejfarily from the natural Diffe rences of Things, are moreover the exprefs Will, Command, and Law of God to all rational Creatures. B ROP. 2 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. Prop. III. The fame eternal Moral Obligations, which are of tkemfelves incumbent on all rational Creatures antecedent to any Re- fpeB of particular Reward or cPunifh- ment, muft yet certainly and necejfarily be attended with Rewards and cPunifh- ments. Prop. IV. Becaufe tkefe Rewards and'Punifhments are not diftributed in tke prefent Stater therefore there muft ofnecejjity be a future State. • Prop. V. to- Though^ tke NeceJJtty and Indijpenjablt nefs of all tke great and moral Obligations of Natural Religion, arid alfo tke Cer tainty of a future State of Rewards and . 303. 7 th Edition. ry A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. i 1 ry Points ; the Ignorance whereof in many others is to be refolved, not into the Want of zfufficient Guide, but into the Force of thofe Corruptions, which quench the Light held forth to us by this Guide, and which, if fteadily pur- fiied, would lead us to our Duties : Juft as when a Man's Legs are bound faft with Cords, the true Reafon why he cannot run, is not that he has not in himfelf the natural 'Power, but that by this external accidental Caufe that Power is hindred from exerting itfelf. The Inconfiflency therefore which the Objector charges upon Dr. Clarke is pure ly in his own Imagination, if indeed he can be fo weak as not to fee that he charges him unjuftly. The Doctor fays (and he fays truly) that f tke Reef on of all Men every wkere as naturally and ne cejfarily affents to tke Law of Nature, as all Animals confpire in tke cPulfe and Mo tion of the Heart, &c. But then it muft be fuppofed, that Men do apply their Reafon carefully to confider and judge of thefe things ; for the Affent neceffarily. follows the Ufe or Application of Judg ment, and not the 'Power or Faculty of judging. You might as truly and as properly fay of any Demonftration in f EviJ. p. 213. 7th Edition. C a Sir 12 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, c^f c. Sir Ifaac Newton, that tke Reafon of all Men every where as naturally and necejfa rily ajfents to it, as to fuch Propofitions as thefe, Snow is white, and the Sun is brigkt ; that is, all^ho by Exercife of their Reafon in fuch Matters have at tained to the Ability of underftanding Demonftrations, muft neceffarily affent to it. Npw as the afferting the u- niverfal Evidence of Mathematical- De monftrations, is . very confiftent with fuppofing that the Generality of Man- ' kind are not Mathematicians ; fo the af ferting the univerfal Evidence and Clear- nefs of the 'Principles of natural Religion, is as confiftent with fuppofing that the Generality of Mankind may be ignorant of thefe Principles, upon Supposition that the Generality of Mankind are fo corrupted and depraved, as not to apply themfelves to confider thefe things with that Serioufnefs, Attention and Impar tiality, which is neceffary to enable them to* frame a true Judgment con cerning them. To this Purpofe the Do ctor has explained himfelf very fully elfewhere; where fpeaking of the eter nal and neceffary Differences of Things, and the common Duties which arife from them, he fays, * Thefe Things are fo na- * Evid. p. 177. 7th Edition. toricufly A Defence of Dr. Clarke, £&?<;. 1 3 torioujlf plain and felf-ev\dent , that no thing but tke extrcmeft Stupidity of Mipd, Corruption of Manners, or cPerverJ'enefs of Spirit, cwn poffibly make any Man en tertain tke leaft Doubt of them.. For a Man endued with Reafon to deny the Truth of tkefe Things, is tke very fame thing, as if a Man tkat kas tke Ufe of his Sight, fhould, at tke fame time that he beholds tke Sun, deny tkat tkere is any fuck tking as Light in the World ; or, as if a Man tkat underflands Geometry, or Arithme- ,, tickfoould deny tke mofi obvious and known 'Proportions of Lines or Numbers. ¦ Can any thing .be more plain? The Pro portions of Lines and Numbers are ob vious. To whom ? Why, to thofe who underftand Geometry and Arithmetick. Again ; That there is Light in the Sun is alio plain. To whom ? Why, to thofe who have the Ufe of their Sight. In like manner, the common Duties of natural Religion cannot be miftaken; that is, ( as the Doctor exprefsly fays ) by thofe who have the Ufe of their Reafon, and are not hinder'd from difcerning them by Corruption of Manners, or Peiverfenefs of Spirit. Other Paffages. might eafily' be pro duced ; but it is necdlefs:* For thole muft be utter Strangers to Dr. Clarke and 14 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &e. and his Writings, who do not fee that all that he fays of the Clearnefs of Na tural Light, prefuppofes the careful Ufe and Application of that Light; and that the true Caufe of that grofs Igno rance which prevailed, and does ftill pre vail in many Parts of the World, with refped to the common Duties of Natu ral Religion, was not that Reafon, if attended to, was not a fufficient Guide, but that Men were led afide from at tending to it by Corruption. In Dr. Clarke's Account then, the Light of Na ture is clear and ftrong, but not irrefift- ible. And does not the Objector fay the fame thing himfelf? * No rational Creature can be ignorant of it ( Natural Religion )who attends to tke Di ctates of kis own Mind. They are his own Words, and imply, to my Under ftanding, that if Men will not attend to the Dictates of their own Minds, they may and will be ignorant. Now this is all that D.r. Clarke has faid: And why may not he be allowed to fay it, as well as the Objector ? To proceed : As in this Account the Doctor is perfectly uniform and con fiftent with himfelf, lb he agrees with the Scripture Representations ; and in * p- 379- particular A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &>c. 1 5 particular with St. 'Paul, who fpeaking of the Light which God had given to the Heathen World, declares it to be fuch as left them inexcufable: Tkewratk of God (fays he) is revealed againft all ungodlinefs and unrigkteoufnefs of men. — Becaufe that wkick may be known of God ^manifest in them, for God kath Jhewed }t unto tkem. For tke invifible things of kim from tke creation of tke world are clearly seen, beinz un- derfood by tke things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ; Jb that they are witkout excufe. Rom. ii. By be ing manifeft in tkem, and clearly feen, the Apoftle means the fame thing that Dr. Clarke does, to wit, that the main Prin ciples of Natural Religion were demon- ftrable by Reafon, to fuch as had the true Ufe of Reafon, and would apply themfelves ferioufly, and with an honeft Mind, to weigh and confider them. But then, as to the State of Religion as it fubfifted in faB, what does he fay? Why, that wken tkty knew ( or might have known ) God, they glorified kim not as God. tt — But became vain'in their ima ginations, and their foolifh heart was darkned. — — That they changed the glo ry of tke uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and 1 6 A Defence of Dr. CIarke? &c. and to four-Jooted beafts, and to creeping tkings That they gave themfelves up to uncleannefs, through tke lujls of tkeir own kearts That tkey were filled witk unrigkteoufnefs, fornication, wicked- nefs, covet eoufnefs, malicioufnefs, &c. And, that knowing the judgment of God, that tkey which commit fuck tkings are wortky of deatk, not only do tke fame, but kave pleafure in tkem tkat do tkem. Thefe are Facts which ftand not upon the fingle Authority of Scripture, but upon the Teftimony of all ancient Wri ters. Much of them we fee daily among ourfelves, notwithftanding the Advan tages of the Gofpel Light ; and if we look into Pagan Countries, we fhall fee much more. But I was the more wil ling to quote St. 'Paul, becaufe the Ob jector has taken fome Pains to fhew that Dr. Clarke has contradicted him in this Particular: But in vain! For where lies the Ihconfiftency ? Why, fays he, *Tke Apoftle Paul is Jo far from favour ing tke Doctor's Hypotkefis of an invin cible Ignorance, even in tke wifeft and beft tpkilo/bphers, tkat ke fuppofes the Reafon wky tkey were to be punifhedt. was tkeir finning againft Ligkt and. Know ledge. Where did the Gentleman learn * p. 380. that A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 1 7 that Dr. Clarke's Scheme goes upon the Suppofition that the Heathens were in vincibly ignorant ? That they were ig norant (many of them) he does indeed fuppofe ; and he fuppof es likewife that many of them were wicked and per- verfe. And fo does St. 'Paul ; for whilft he fays of fome, that they knew the judgment of God, &c. he fays of others, that they became vain in their imaginati ons, and tkeir foolifh heart was darken' d, and tkat profeffing tkemfelves wife, they became fools. That both Ignorance and Obftinacy had their Share in bringing on this general Corruption, there can be no Queftion; which of them had the greateft, it is fcarce poffible to fay ; lefs poffible yet to afcertain, whether thoie who were ignorant of the Law of Na ture wrere invincibly fo; and therefore thefe are Points, which neither St. Paul nor Dr. Clarke have made any Part of the Argument. Nor was it needful that they fhould; for whatever was the Caufe of this general Corruption, whether Ig norance or Perverfenefs, the fingle Que ftion is this, Was there Need of parti cular Teaching and Inftruction in order to reform Mankind, or was there not ? I do not now ask, Whether there was any Need of Revelation? for the Pro- D pofition 1 8 A Defence. of Dr. Clarke, Ufe. pofition we areconfidering does not reach fo far : But I ask, Whether Inftru&ion in general was not neceffary? I fay it was ; and deny it you cannot, whether you think it right to refolve the Caufe of this general Corruption into invinci ble Ignorance, or into any thing elfe. It is very probable, that when the World became very bad, and Errors grew up with the Understandings of Men, and became confirmed by long Education and Cuftom, they might at laft in ma* ny become invincible; that is, (for this is what we mean) invincible without fome better Help tkan tkeir own. In this Cafe then, the Want of Inftru&ion is confeffed. But what if you fuppofe, that in the worft State of the World that ever was, it was poffible for the Genera lity of Mankind to have refcued them felves from Euror and Corruption, fup pofing that they had been fo difpofed, and would haye taken pains to under hand and practife their Duties? Yet, fince it is plain in Fa£t, that they were not 1 b difpofed ; and it was a general Ob- fervation, that eygry Age, inftead qf growing better, grew worfe and worfe; there can be no Pretence to fay, that particular Teaching and Inftru&ing was not neceffary ; for ( as Cicero fays' in a Paffage A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. ig Paffag« q\idfce& by Dr. Claf'Ke . to this pufpofe)' * As iri Pkyfich, it matters no thing whether a Dife'afe be fuch, as tkat1 no Man:- does, or no Man can recover from ity fib iri tke prefent Cafe, there is n~o Differerice, whether Men cannot re form themfelves, or whether tkey will not. In a- word; If Inft?u$ioh be not neceffary to inform the Judgment, (as hi many Gafesit certainly is hot) it may be neceffary to influence the Will ; or, as Dr. Clarke fpeaks, f to remove tkat Le vity and Heedlefsnefs of Spirit, wkick makes Men frequently to be, in their 'Pra ctice, very little influenced by what in ab- fract Opinion tkey may feem mofi firmly to believe. Upon the whole th'eh, the Dodtor ve ry juftly .concludes, that || notwithstand ing the rMtifral Dentonftrablenefs both of the Obligations aridj Motives of Morality ; yet confiieririg the manifeft1 Corrupt ednefs cftkc pr'ejint Eftate which .kuriian Nature is in, the Generality df Men muft not by any nieans: be left wholly to the Workings of tkeir own Minds, io tke Ufe of their natural Faculties, arid the1 bate Convictions of their own Reafon ; but muft be parti cularly taught and inf rutted in tkeir Du- * Evid.p. 302. 7th Edit. t Ibid-, p. 279^280,281. , II Ibid. D 2 ty, 20 A Defence of Dr. Clarke,'^. //, and have the. Motives of it frequently and ftrbngly prejfed and inculcated upon tkem with great Weight and Authority. The Truth of which Maxim is fo fen- fibly felt and experienc'd every Day, that all the World acts upon it, and thinks it direct: Madnefs not to do fo in any Cafe where the Interefts of their Families are concerned. One way in deed there is, which will in a great mea- fure deftroy this Argument, and that is the taking away the Foundation upon which it refts. When Dr. Clarke fays, that confidering the prefent corrupted State of the World, particular Teaching and Inftruction is neceffary to recover Men out of Darknefs and Ignorance, and makes this the Ground-work upon which he builds the Neceffity of Reve lation; it is fuppofed and taken for granted, that it is a thing of great Im portance, that natural Religion be un- derftood and pra&ifed in its Purity. But it is clear to me, that the Objector is of another Opinion , becaufe he every where lets up Sincerity, as an Equiva lent to the keeping of the Moral Law ; and takes great Pains to perfiiade his Readers, that a State of Ignorance is juft as good as a State of Knowledge, provided Men act according to the Light they A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 2 1 they have. It is not yet forgot, I fup pofe, what Ufe was made of this way of reafoning fome Years fince to other Pur- pofes. This Gentleman has fo far im proved upon the Plan, as to throw out not only Faith, but Morality; and to advance the groffeft of the Pagan Errors and Superftitions, to an Equality with that pure and undefiled Religion which Reafon teaches. .No Wonder indeed, that all Ufe of Inftruction is fet afide upon this Foot, and that the Clergy are at every turn treated with Contempt, and reprefented as the Plagues and Bur den of the Earth ! The Paffages upon which I found this Charge fhall be pro duced at a proper Seafbn. But fince this is an Objection which Dr. Clarke never once thought of, ( and no wonder he did not, for it is a Thought that would hardly enter into the Heart of any reafonable Man ; ) fince likewife the Weight of it (whatever it be) affe&s not any fingle Part only, but the whole of the Doctor's Syftem, I think it pro per to fuperfede the Confideration of it for the prefent ; and, Jupfofing ( as he does) that it was neceffary that Man kind fhould, by fome Means or other, be fet right in their Notions about natural Religion, fhall go on with him to trie next Propofition. Prop. 2 2 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &ta Prop. VI, Though almcft in every Age there have. indeed been in the Heathen World fame Wife, and Brave, and Good Meri, wko- kave made it tkeir Bufinefs to fludy and prattije tke Duties of natural Religion; tkemfelves, and to teack and exko'rt others to do tke like ; wko feem therefore to have been raifed up by 'Provideme^ as Infiru- ments to reprove in Jbme meafure, and put fome Kind of Ckeck to tke extreme Superfiition and Wickednefs of tke Na tions wherein tkey lived; Yet none of tkefe ever have been able to reform the World witk any confiderably great; and univerfal Succefs : Becaufe tkey kave. been* but very few -that kave in earnefi feP themfelves about this excellent Work', and tkey tkat kave indeed fincerely done- it, have tkemfelves been entirely ignorant of fome Doctrines, and very doubtful and un certain of otkers, abjblutely neceffary for tke bringing about tkat great End: And tkofe tkings which tkey kave been certain of, and in good meafure underfiood, tkey have not been able to prove and explain clearly enough-: And tkofe which tkey have been able both to prove and explain by fufi ficiently clear Reajbning, tkey kave not yet k'ad Authority enough to enforce and incul cate A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &C. 23 cate upon Men's Minds witk fo flrong an Impreffion, as to influence and govern tke general 'Practice of the World. In this Propofition Dr. Clarke has fet forth the Reafons why the Inftructions of the Heathen Philofophers were not fufficient for the Reformation of the World. Thefe Reafons ( more diftinct- ly ) are as follows, viz. 1. Becaufe the Number of thofe who attempted the Reformation of Mankind was but fmall. 2. Thefe few were entirely ignorant of fome Doctrines, abfolutely neceffary for the bringing about this Reforma tion : And 3. Very doubtful concerning others. 4. What they did underftand, and were certain of, they could not fuffi- ciently prove and explain. 5. What they, could both prove and explain, they had not Authority enough to enforce. Of thefe Points the Objector has fin- gled out one from among the reft, upon which he has thought fit to beftow fome particular Remarks ; and that is theje- CQnd, where the Doctor has affirmed that the 24 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &*c the Heathen Philofophers were tkem felves entirely ignorant of fome Doctrines, tke Knowledge whereof was abfolutely ne ceffary towards tke Reformation of Man kind. The Particulars couch'd under this general Propofition (as explained afterwards by the Doctor himfelf) are two ; viz. . i . That thefe Philofophers * were entirely and unavoidably ignorant of tke Manner in which God might be ac ceptably worfhipped', and, a. That they were alfo \ moft abfolutely and unavoidably ignorant ofthe Method, by which fuch as kave erred from tke right Way, and have offended God, may yet again refiore tkem- ¦ felves to the. Favour of God, and to tke Hopes of Happinefs. Upon this State of the Cafe, before I proceed any farther, I beg leave to make thefe two general Ob- fervations ; viz. i. That the Doctor's Charge now lies not againft Man (as in the foregoing. Propofition) but directly againft the Light of Nature. Reafon confider'd as a Law, that is, confider'd as prefcribingt to us a Rule of Behaviour, he had before faid, is a plain and perfect Law : 'Plain, as it was difcoverable by all who were not hindred from difoerning it by their Lufts and Paffions ; and perfeB, as, had it been followed, * Evid. p. 290. f Ibid. p. 293. A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 25 followed, it would have been * a fuffi cient Guides and a 'Principle powerful e- nough to prejerve Men in tke confiant Pra ctice of tkeir Duty. But, a State of Sin and Corruption fuppofed, the Doctor now fays that there were fome Doctrines or Truths neceffary to recall Men to their DutyVor to reftore Obedience to the Law oFReafon, which the moft im proved Underftanding of Men could not difcover. For he fays of thefe Philofo phers, not only that they were ignorant, but that they were unavoidably ignorant of them. Let no Man think this a Re proach to Nature, or to the Author of Nature. The Reafon of Man, as given him by God, dif cover'd to him a perfect Rule, and furnifhed him with proper Motives to Obedience. But the State of Man being altered by Sin, what won der is it that Difficulties fhould arife, which the Original Law was not able fufficiently to clear and explain ? There is nothing in this more than what is day- ly feen in hundreds of Inftances. A King, for Inftance, fends his AmbafTador with full and fufficient Inftructions, to negotiate an Affair relating to the pub lick Good : If the AmbafTador purfues his Inftru&ions, all will be well ; but if * Evid. p. 303. E he 26 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. he departs from them in any material Point, he difooncerts the Whole, and of neceflity he muft either be recall'd, or receive new Inftructions. But, 2. The Do&or keeps ftill clofe to his firft Principle, to wit, That the End of the Gofpel Revelation was to repair the Breaches of that very Law which fubfifted antecedently to this State of Sin and Corruption ; that is, the pure and perfect Law of Nature. There were (fays he) fome Doctrines, or Truths, neceffary to be underftood by Man in his corrupted Eftate, of which the Heathen Philofophers-jzam? unavoidably ignorarit. Neceffary ? To what End ? To mend or perfed the Original Law ? No : But, (as ne exprefly fays) to reform the World, to influence tke Bekdviour of Men, and to bring them back to the Duties cf Natu ral Religion, againft which they had tranfgreffed. So that, in this Account, thefe Doctrines muft be confider'd, not as perfective of the Law of Nature, but as Helps to reftore Obedience to the Law of Nature ; as will in fad appear by at tending to thofe Particulars, which he fays the Light of Nature could not difcover, With refped to tke Method by which thofe wko kave 'offended God may again be recon- died to kim, the Cafe is clear ; for as the want A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &C. 27 want, of the Knowledge of this leaves Men deftitute of that Foundation for Truft in God, which is neceffary to fup port Religion in the World; fo when God tells us that he will accept us upon fuch or fuch Conditions, he muft be un- derftood as offering this to us as a Motive, or Argument, to lead, us to the Per formance of thefe Conditions ; which, fince they all of them (fo far as our Be- kaviour. is concerned) center in Repen tance, Repentance muft therefore be the End to which fuch Declarations were in tended to ferve as a Means fubordinate. The like may be faid of Religious Wor- fhip, which tho' ( in Dr. Clarke's Ac count ) it implies fomething to be done which the Law of Nature does not com mand, yet adds nothing to the Per fection oi that Law (which it leaves juft as it finds it) but only adminifters a Help to the Infirmities and. Imperfect ions of Men. Let us fuppofe this Religious Worfhip to confift of 'Prayer, .Sacrifice, or whatever elfe you pleafe; feparate fuch Ads from Natural Religion, and fee what they are good for. To perform an Ad of Religious Worfhip in Obe dience to the Command of God, is the adual Exercife of Natural Religion ; that is, it is an Ad of Obedience to a ge- E a neial 2 8 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c neral Law of Nature, applied to fuch or fuch particular Inftances of Duty ; and if, in confequence of this, our Confciences are awakened, our Hope and Truft in God confirmed, and our good Refolutions of Amendment brought forth into fuit- able Ads of Virtue and Piety, they have their juft and proper Effed, and will appear to be what they were intend ed to be, the Means of Virtue. But fuppofe the fame Ads done without Re gard to God in the Intention, or with out Repentance and Amendment in the Execution, and there will be no more in them than there is in the moft indiffe rent and trifling Adions of Life. Now if fuch Ads of Worfhip borrow all their Virtue from Natural Religion, it is plain that Natural Religion can receive no Per- fedion from them. Men may improve by the Ufe of them, and grow more perfed in the Practice of Religion ; but Religion itself is what it always was, without Alteration. This Obfervation perhaps may help to clear up the Senfe of a Paffage, which the Objector has, more than once, in troduced with great Triumph ; viz. That * the Religion of the Gofpel is the true. Original Religion of Reafon and Nd- * Bp. of Bangw's Semi. Prop. Goip. p. 10-13. ture A Defence oj Dr. Clarke, &c. 29 ture and its 'Precepts declarative of tkat Original Religion wkick was as old as tke Creation. What the Gentle man would make the Bifhop fay in thefe Words, is, That Chriftianity (including all the Light it gives, and all the Helps it adminifters ) is nothing elfe but mere natural Reafon. This is kis own Dodrine indeed, but it is none of his Lordfhip's, who exprefly fays that there are * Do- Brines peculiar to Ckrifiianity, whick tkough not different (i. e. which though they do not contradict) are yet distinct from tke 'Principles qf Reafon and Nature. Upon this the Objedor remarks, That the Bifhop -f does not fay tkat tkefe Do- Brines (which he mentions as peculiar to Chriftianity) are diflinB from tkofe Do- Brines wkick flow from the 'Principles of Reafon and Nature ; that is, (as I under- ftandhim) which may be deducedhy plain Confequence from the Principles of Rea fon and Nature. Asking the Gentle man's pardon, his Lordfhip does fay fo, and that in exprefs Terms : For he fays that \\The Gofpel kas taught us tkings, wkick by Nature we could not know — and that there are fome- Institutions in tke Gofpel, wkick in tkeir own Nature are no constituent Parts of Religion. And * Ibid. p. 19. f p. 82. || p. 23. to 30 ADefince of Dr. Clarke, &c. to what end does his Lordfhip fay, that the Gofpel has taught us thefe things ? Why, to confirm and frengtken our Hope in God. — — — and to convey to us new Sup- flies of fpiritual Strength ; that is, (as he elfewhere fays) * not to fupply tke Defects of Religion, wkick continued in its firfi fPurity and 'Perfection, but of Nature, wkick was fallen from tke ori ginal Dignity of tke Creation. ¦ If Dr. Clarke, or the Bifhop, had either of them any Oecafion for that Honour which they might receive from an exr ad Agreement in each other's Senti ments, they have, in this particular, Both a Right to demand it. What is peculiar in the Gofpel is by neither con fidered as any conftituent 'Part of Religi on, but as an Inftrument ferving to fer cure the Pradice of Religion, in which View it is certain that nothing will be left to be theReligion of the Gofpel, but the Religion of Nature. Some perhaps will objed and fay, that the pofitive Duties of Chriftianity, fince they are the Commands of God, fhould be confidered as conftituent 'Parts of the Religion of the ' Gofpel, But to what Purpofe is it to contend about Words, when the thing is agreed on ? That po- * p. 20. fit 1 ve A Defence of Dr. Clarke, {§P c. 3 1 Jitive Inftitutions were intended as Inftru- merits to fecure natural Religion, you muft fay as well as the Bifhop. That the Gofpel kas added fuch Inftitutions, his Lordfhip maintains as fully as you. Call thefe Inftitutions Religion, or Helps to Religion, it makes no Difference. The Matter will ftand juft as it does, and the Objedor's Inference will be ei ther falfe, or nothing to his Purpofe, viz. That * nctking could be added by our Saviour to a Law that had no DefeBs. To the Law, as a Law, nothing could be added : and this is what his Lordfhip fays. But this Conceffion can be of no Ufe to the Objedor, becaufe there will ftill be room enough for Revelation to come in, if human Knowledge, or human Nature, was capable bf fuch Improve ments by it, and of receiving fuch Helps from it, as would enable Man, in his corrupted State, to underftand the Law more perfedly, and .to pradife it more uniformly and fteadily; and if the Gen tleman means to infer from his Lord- fhip's Affertion, that human Knowledge was not capable of fuch Improvements, &c. from the Gofpel Revelation, he will draw an Inference which the Premi- fes will not juftify, and which his Lord- * p. 82. fhip's 32 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, ftiip's declared Senfe apparently ccjntra- dids. As this Obfervation fhews his Lord- fhip's Account of Chriftianity to be right and true ; fo it fhews the Falfhood of a Notion of the Objedor, which he. advances againft Dr. Clarke, and which lies at the bottom of almoft all his Mi- ilakes. It is this : That becaufe the Law of Nature is the Supreme Law, therefore it muft be the.s Sole Law.. Whereas it is very, clear, that tho' the fupreme Law will admit of no Law in Oppofiticn to it ; yet in Subordination to it, it will admit of many. It farther fhews his Abfurdity, in charging the Do- dor with introducing arbitrary Commands, in confequence of his affigning to the Gofpel, Dodrines and Precepts which the Law of Nature teacheth not. For a Command founded upon juft and weighty Confiderations is certainly no arbitrary Command : Now the Confide ration upon which Dr. Clarke founds eve ry thing introduced by the Gofpel, is its Subferviency to promote natural Religi on. * Every one of the DoBrines ( fays he) wkick Chriftianity teaches as Matter of Truth, has a natural Tendency, and a direB powerful Influence to reform Meni * p. 361. Lives, A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &>c. 33 Lives, and to correB their Manners. This is tke great End and ultimate Defign of all true Religion ; and 'tis a very great and fatal Mifi ake, to think tkat any Do- Brine, or a n y Belief wkatfoever, can be any otherwise of any Benefit to Men, than as it is fitted to promote this main End. Again ; \ The Moral 'Part of our Saviour's DoBrine would have ap peared infallibly true, wketker ke kad ever worked any Miracles, or no. The rest of bis DoBrine was wkat evident ly tended to promote tke Honour of God, and the 'PraBice of Rigkteoufnefs among Men. You fee plainly, that, according to Dr. Clarke, whatever there is in Chri ftianity befides Morality or natural Reli gion, is to be confider'd as a M.ea.nsjitb- Jervient to Morality ; to promote which, he fays, that there is nothing revealed by Chrift, which has not a direct evident Tendency. Suppofo now this to be Fad ; and let the Gentleman tell me, what Senfe there is in all this Outcry about arbitrary Commands. If the Dodrines of Chriftianity have (as the Dodor fays) a dired evident Tendency to promote tke 'PraBice of Right eoufhefs, I hope they are good for fomething ; and if fo, then they are not arbitrary. t p. 184. F But 34 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &fe.' But he goes on : * The Deifts can by no means come into tke Dodor's DifiinBi on between the Moral Part of our Sa viour's DoBrine, and that 'Part which evidently tends to PROMdfE the Honour of God, arid the 'PraBiCe of Right eoufriefs, it being manifefily a DifiinBion without ctny Difference. His Meaning is, That whatever has an evident Tendency to prornofe the Hpnour of God, and the Pradice of Righteoufhefs, is really a Duty of natural ELeligion. To this Pur pofe he fpeaks plainly in tfre following* Words : ^ It is demonfir ably fit, jufi, arid reafonable for Man to do every thing ikat evidently tends to promote tke Honour of God, and the 'PraBice of Rigkteouf- nefs. And again, in the next Page^ Tkofe tkirigs wkick evidently tend to pro mote tke Honour of God, and tke PraBice of Righ%eoufnefs, are plain Moral Du ties, and perpetually oblige. What the Gentleman would have us infer frbtn all this, is, That according to t)r. Clarke's own Account, Chriftianity can be no thing elfo but mere natural Religion. For fince the Dodor admits nothing in to Chriftianity but natural Religion, and what has an evident Tendency to pro- * p. 372. f Ibid. more A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 35 mote natural Religion, it niuft follow, that if (as is now alledged) there be no real Difference between thefe things, the jvhole muft be natural Religion, and no thing clfe. The Conclufion I difpute, not allowing the Premifes to be true : But they are abfutd, whether you con fider them upon the foot of natural Re ligion, or upon the foot of Revelation. Let us, in the firft place,, fuppofe that there was no Revelation in being, and that all Men were left merely to the Guidance of natural Light. Upon this foot, I ifay, there are evidently ma ny things, which have a Tendency to promote natural Religion, which yet themfelves are precifely no Duties of na tural Religion. To give one Inftance : ABs of Mortification and Selfrdenial have many times a natural Tendency to pro mote Virtue. But will you fay that they are plain moral Duties, which per petually oblige? You cannot fay it; for tho' they are proper, yet they are not at. all times neceffary. The fartheft you can go in this Cafe will be to fay, that every Man is under a general Obligation^ in fame, way or other, to do what to kim appears neceffary and expedient to pro mote natural Religion ; and in this way rather than in another, if he finds it F 2 moft 36 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, ftfc. moft expedient. But in plain moral Du ties the Cafe is otherwise. For a Man muft not pretend to fay, I will fhew my Reverence to God, . either by paying my jufi Dues, or by living fioberly , as I fhall fee Caufe ; for he muft always fee Caufe, why he is perpetually*ob\\.%£dL to both. This Cafe might be exemplified by a Variety of Inftances taken from Civil . Government ; for there are hundreds of ways by which the publick Good may be promoted, which yet a Man may de cline without being guilty* of the Breach of Law. Take now Revelation into the Queftion, and the Diftindion will be much clearer. For here that which is appointed, as tending to promote the Ho nour of God, and tke 'PraBice of Rigk- teoufnefis, may be of fuch a Sort, as that even the Tendency and 'Propriety of the Means in order to the End, fhall entire ly depend upon the Suppofition of fome FaB or other declared or made known by Revelation. In the Cafe already mention'd, the Tendency to promote the Honour of God, 6tc. appears to the na tural Underftanding of Man, fuppofing him to be only under the Guidance of natural Light ; and all that I obferve is, That tho' thefe Ads have this Tenden cy, yet they are not plain moral Duties. But A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &fe. 3 7 But there are fome Inftitutions in the Gofpel, from which if you take away the Gofpel, they will not only not be obligatory, but the very 'Propriety of them, as a Means to promote the Honour of God, cXo will immediately ceafe. Thus, for Inftance, the Revelation of the Go fpel fuppofed, and the Redemption of the World by the Death of Chrift, and our Obligation to obey his Laws ; it is moft apparent, that the Inftitution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in order to perpetuate the Memory of Chrift's Death, and to revive the Senfe of our own Obligation, has a manifeft and natural Tendency to promote the Honour of God, and the Pradice of Righteoufhefs. But if you throw out the Revelation-, i. e. if you take away the FaBs to which this Inftitution has a Relation, it is not only .improper, but abfurd. Here then is an Inftance ofjbme- tking, which, tho' upon the foot of Re velation, it has a manifefi Tendency to promote tke Honour of God, and tke Pra- Bice of Righteoufnefs, yet cannot be con fider'd as a plain moral Duty, or any thing like it.' I chufe rather to inftance in pradical Matters ; becaufe, as tofpeculative Trutks, there is not the leaft Difficulty in con ceiving, 3 8 A Defence of Dr. Clarke,^. ceiving, that there may be feveral, which tho' they be fuppofed not difcove- rable by Reafon, yet when made known to us by the Light of Revelation, will greatly tend to promote the Honour of God, and the Pradice of Righteoufhefs; of which Sort the Dodrineof Reconci* liation, as taught in the Gofpel, is an unexceptionable Inftance. But even as to PraBice, I fay, it appears plain, that. there are many things which have a na<- tural Propriety and Ufefulnefs to promote moral Virtue, upon the foot of both natural, and. reveal 'd Religion, which are yet themfelves no moral Duties. This is the Foundation of that common Di- ftindion between Duties moral and pofi- tive, or (as Dr. Clarke fometimes ex- preffes it ) * neceffary ,and indifferent ; and the Gentleman may from hence fee his own Miftake in asking, \ How can tkere be any fitck ( indifferent) DoBrims in the Chrtfiian Religion, if what ke (Dr. Clarke) fays be true, tkat every one of the DoBrines it teaches, has a natural Tendency to promote tke Honour of God, and tke PraBice of Rigkteoufriefs ? For if you fpeak of indifferent with refped to Ufe or no Ufe, there can indeed be no indifferent Dbdrines in the Chriftian Re- * P. 384. f P. 370. ligion, A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 39 ligion, i. e. there can be no ufelefs Do- dtines. But if you fay indifferent with refped to Obligation or no Obligation, (which is the Senfe in which Dr. Clarke vifes the Word ) there may be, and are fuch Dodrines, as fhew us Duties, which would haye been no Duties, if the Go fpel had not commanded them. And this is one great Ufe of Revelation, that it has prefcribed to us many Rules of Worfhip that are proper to promote the Honour of God, and the Pradice of Righteoufnefs, which either (Revelation not fuppofed) have no Foundation in Reafon, or which if they do appear-to Reafon to be in themfelves' ufeful and proper, we fhould yet have been under no dired and formal Obligation to com ply with. What I mean by this, at prefent, is only to fhew that Dr. Clarke is through out confiftent with himfelf, in making Natural Religion the End, and the par ticular DoBrines and Inftitutions of the Gofpel the Means fubordinate to that End: And that if it be true, what he afferts, that natural Reafon can give us no Satisfadion, either as to the Method by which Sinners may be reconciled unto God, or as to the Way or Manner in which God may be acceptably worjhipped, he 40 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, he has laid a good Foundation whereup on to build the Ufe and Neceffity of Revelation, in order to recover Man kind out of their corrupted Eftate. It remains now therefore to confider what Objedions the Gentleman has made a- gainft thefe Principles. To begin with the Firft, to wit, the Method by wkick Sinners may be reconciled- unto God. Upon this Point Dr. Clarke lays down the following Propofition, viz. That *" t h e y cannot certainly know, to whom God has not declared it, . that ke will receive returning Sinners, arid accept of Repentance inftead of perfeB 0- tedience. Becaufe, though this be tke most probable, and only Meansrof Recon ciliation tkat Nature fuggefts, yet —. — tt cannot pofitively be proved front-tiny of God's Attributes that ke is abfolutely obliged to pardon all Creatures, all their Sins, at all times, barely and im± mediately upon their repenting. In op- pofition to which the Objedor afferts, That \ the fame Knowledge in Man which fhews him the Law he is under as a Man, fhews him alfo the Way of attoning the merciful, kind, cempaffionate Author of kis Being, when ke has tranfgreffed that * P.293. f P. 391. Law; A Defence oj '.Dr. Clarke, ». 4! Law ; and tkat it is an Article of Na tural Religion, tkat Forgivenefs does. CERTAINLY follow REPENTANCE. That the Oppofition between thefe Writers may be clearly underftood, it will be neceffary to confider what Dr. Clarke means by receiving returning Sinners : And by this it is plain that he intends receiving them to tkat Favour which they would have enjoyed, upon Suppo- fition that they had never finned. For this receiving returning Sinners, is im* mediately explained by accepting Repen tance instead of perfeB Obedience; that is, aecepting Repentance as an Equiva-* lent to perfed Obedience; .or, as an- fwering every Purpofe that would have been anfwered by perfed Obedience. So that if the Gentleman will contra- did Dr. Clarke, he muft maintain, that whether a Man hath never finned againft the Law of Nature, or whether he hath finned, and afterwards at any time re-* pents, it is clear and certain from the Light of Nature, that his Condition before God, with refped to his Favour, and the Happinefs eonfequent upon that Favour, will be exadly the fame. But ' how does the Light of Nature fhew this? Or how can it fhew it? Why, it is clear, he fays, from the Mercy and G Good- 42 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. Goodnefs of God. And does our Reafon fhew us the exad Meafure of God's Mercy and Goodnefs ? Not mnlefs it fhews us the exad Meafure of his Wifdom. God is merciful and good ; but his Mercy and Goodnefs. muft always be fuppofed to be exercifed in fuch a manner as becomes his Wifdom; that is, in fuch a manner as is confiftent with the * whole Scheme, Order, and State of Things, the Method of his governing the World, and his Defign in creating Mankind; of which, fince (as Dr. Clarke f obferves, and the Reafon of the thing fhews) we are not competent Judges, it is impoffible that we fhould know, without fome Declaration from God, whether it is fit or not fit that he fhould deal with Mankind in fuch a fort, as if there were no Difference be tween not finning at all, and finning, and afterwards repenting. Mercy and Qoodnefis are amiable Perfedions; and when we confider them as fubfifting in God, before whom we all: of us ftand as Sinners, and without whole Mercy we muft all perifh , Paffion and. Self- love will be verytapt to carry us to fay more of them than Knowledge will ju- itify. This -perhaps may be the Reafon why fome great Men (who had no De* •¦P. 289. f ibid. . . fign A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 43 fign to undervalue the Gofpel) have fpoken of it as a thing which the Light of Nature puts beyond all doubt, Khzxthe Author of tke Law of Nature, and God of 'Patience and Conjolatiop, who is rich in MeHy, will forgive his frail Offspring, if tkey acknowledge their Faults, beg fas ^Pardon, arid refolve in earneft for the future to conform their ylBions to this Rule, wkick tkey own tp be juft and right. They are the Words of Mr. Locke, as cited by the Objedor : But great Names weigh nothing in a Cafe where the greateft may 1b eafily be miftaken. It is plain that this Argument refts upon the Goodnefs of God, and upon nothing elfe : Now there is no Argument to be drawn from the abftraded Notion of Goodriefs to fhew that it is fit and rea fonable foi <*od to forgive all Sinner?, barely and immediately upon their Re pentance, that will not as well prove that every Man, and confequently every Magiftrate, ought to do the fame. But in this Cafe he muft needs fee and con- fefs that the Argument will not hold : Magifl rates do not forgive all Offenders againft L-aws either .Human or Divine, upon their ^Repentance ; and there are evident Reafons arifing from the Con fideration cf the general Good, which G 2 fhew 44 A Defence of Dr. Clarke,^, fhew that they ought not. Now if in fuch Cafes any one fhould objed againft the Goodnefs of the Magiftrate, the An fwer would be obvious, viz. That Good- nejs muft be direded by Wifdom, and fhewn in fuch a way as is confiftent with the general Ends of Government; all which will be as true when applied to God, who muft be confidered, not merely as a good Being, but as a wife Being too, who in the Government of the World muft be fuppofed to have fome general View, to which every par ticular Adminiftration muft be directed, as to one common Center. So that un- lefs you had fuch a perfed Notion of the whole Scheme of Providence, as to be able to demonftrate, that in the Nature of . the thing it is impoffible that there fhould be any fuch Circum fiances or Confiderations refpeding the general Syfiem, which may make it fit and reafonable that God fhould not for give Sinners barely and immediately upon their Repentance, all you can urge from the Goodnefs of God will fall fhort of the Purpofe. Does the Gentleman now pretend that we have fuch a per fed Knowledge of the whole Scheme of Providence ? No : He * allows we have * P. zH- not, A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &*c. 4 5 not, and believes there's none at, prefent who have, or pretend to have, fo exten- five a Knowledge. I am glad to hear once a Gonfeffion from him that he is lefs wife than his Maker : And had he at all times been mindful of this, when he has undertaken to prefer ibe to God, and to tell Him what it is fit or not fit for Him to do in the Government of the World, .fome great Miftakes might have been avoided, as you will fee more fully afterwards. In the prefent Cafe it is plain, that can we have no fure Foot ing without Revelation. The Gofpel affures us, that through the Attbnement made by Jefus Chrift, our Repentance fhall be accepted as the-Fulfilling of the Law. But; fetting this apart, all our Reafonings upon this Subjed would have been (as Dr. Clarke fays) like wan dering in the wide Sea, wit.ho.ut a Guide tozonduBus', Men might have talked confidently if they had pleafed, but they could have proved nothing. , , But let us take this .Matter a little higher. When, we fpeak of God's for giving or accepting Sinners upon their Repentance, we mean, I [fuppofe, that he will forgiye them in fuch a manner as to accept them to a , State of eternal Happinefs after Death. Upon the Deifi's Scheme, 46 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. Scheme, we muft fuppofe that Man from the Beginning was made mar tal; and it is certain, that letting Revela tion afide, nothing a'ppears to the con trary. Let us fuppofe now, that every Man had ftridly fulfilled the Law of Nature, and that Matters were fo or dered in this World, as that Virtue fhould be its own Reward. " Upon this State of the Cafe I beg leave to ask, What certain Foundation we could have to conclude, that there would be any fuch thing as a future State at all. All Arguments drawn from the Nature of the Soul are precarious, and ( as Dr. Clarke acknowledges) amount only to a * 'Probability. And his only Demonfira- tion ( as he very juftly terms it ) from the unequal Difiribution of Good and Evil -in this Life, will be entirely taken away. For upon the Hypothecs, Happinefs and Mifery are fuppofed to have a con- ftant, orderly Connexion with Virtue and Vice. So that it is plain upon this foot, that there can be no certain Proof •of a future State. For as God was at liberty at firft to create Man, or not to create him, he is at liberty to continue him in Being for as long, or as fhort a time as he pleafes ; and if, whilft he was * P. 263, &c. in A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 47 in Being, every one has been happy in proportion to his Virtue, there can be no Caufe for Gomplaint. Take now Sin and Corruption into the Cafe, together with an unequal Diftribu-. tion of G°°d ana< ^°il xxx this Life ; and fee how much you will gain by it. Here is a LaW which you have tranfgreffed. Your Difohedience, I hope, will not be pleaded as a Title to any Reward. No; but I have repented, you will fay ; and my Obedience, fubfequent to my Repen tance, will entitle me to a Reward. But how fo ? Obedience fubfequent to Tranf- greffion is but a Part of the Debt you owed to God, and certainly cannot have greater Virtue than the fame Obedience Sivould have had, in cafe you had never iinned. All you can fay is this, That an unequal Difiribution of Good and E- vil in this Life being now admitted, there will arife a Neceffity (in order to juftify the Providence of God ) of fup pofing a future State of Happinefs and Mifery. Very well; but there will a- rife no Neceffity of an eternal Reward. iFor an eternal Reward, is not neceffary to juftify the Providence of God, in ad- jufting' the Inequalities which arife in this fhort and momentary State. So that in every View, eternal Life, as of fered 48 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &>c. fered to us in and through Jefus Ckrifi, is tke Gift of God; of which (how deli-* rable foever it be to the Reafon of Man) Reafon, without the Promife of God, could have given us no firm and certain' Affurance. It. will be of little Weight perhaps with the Objedor to be told, that what I have now laid down is the Dodrine of St. Paul, and contains in it the whole Foundation of his reafoning in his Epi- ftles to the Romans and the Galatians, where he endeavours to bring both Jews and Gentiles to the Faith of the Gofpel, by offering tkis Confideration, that they were all Sinners; and that neither by the Law of Mofes, nor by the Law of Nature, was there any Juftification. E- very one fees, that the Sufficiency of the Law, and tke Neceffity of coming to tke Gofpel for Juftification, cannot both ftand together. And yet a * late Writer , a Friend of the Objedor's, (that he might feem not to have loft all Regard for the Scriptures) has attempted to reconcile them. The 'Pofition he lays down in the ftrongeft Terms : " Tke Religion of Na* " ture will fhew kow Men may be reconcU " led to, and accepted of God." How * Tt'e true Foundations of Nat. and Rev. Relig. p. 68, &c. ' ' fo? A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &*c. 4^ fo ? Why thus Every Argument that concludes for God's Goodnefs, Mercy, Long- fuffering and Patience, are Demonfirati- pns how Men may be reconciled to, and ac cepted of God. Of what Weight all fuch Arguments are, I have already fhewrt, and need not repeat. The Point at pre fent is, How is this Dodrine reconcile- able with St. Paul's Reafohing ? And thus the Gentleman explains it : If a Man is to ftand or fall by Law, his ABi- ons muft be exaBly agreeable to that Law. But all have finned— ^therefore none fhall be jufiijied by Law. But what then? Natural Reafon will teach Men how they may be reconciled to God, and accepted by him, though they will not be juftifed by Law. With the Gentleman's Leave, this is avoiding the Difficulty, inftead of removing it. The Apoftle reafons in this manner : " Againft the Law ye u are all Sinners— By the Law' there* " fore ye cannot be juftified- -There^ " fore ye muft come to the Gofpel for " Pardon and Reconciliation." But how is this Reafoning confiftent'(I fay) with fuppofing, that the Light of Rea* fbn fhews the Way of Reconciliation and Acceptance, as plainly as the Gofpel does ? To this Queftion we have no An fwer. All that he fays amounts to no H more 50 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &*c. more than this, viz. That tho' we can not be juftified by the Law, i. e. ( for this is what he means) tho' we cannot plead Innocency according to the Law, it may neverthelefs confiftently be fuppo fed, that natural. Reafon will teach us how we may be reconciled and accepted. But the Difficulty (in my Apprehenfiori) lies here ; How is it confiftent to offer the Gofpel as a neceffary Means of Re conciliation and ¦ Acceptance, in virtue of this Confideration, that we cannot be jufiified by tke Law, if the Way of Re conciliation and Acceptance be ( as he fays it is) demonftrable by natural Rea fon without the Gofpel ? The Gofpel it felf juftifi.es no otherwife, than as it is a Declaration of the Terms upon which God will be reconciled to Sinners. Now if the Law of Nature declares thefe Terms as plainly as the Gofpel, tell me, if you can, in what refped one is a, Law of Juftification more than the other. Here it is that the Queftion pinches; and that the Gentleman felt it, is clear from the following Paflage. * The Law cf Nature is a Law of firiB unerring 0- bedience, and Right eoufinefs confifted in exaB Obedience; and Juftification could he- demanded only by fuch as. were exactly * P. 75. s righteous. A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 5 1 righteous. But what tken ? All are Sin~ ners, as is manifeft from the Scriptures, as well as from Experience. Thus far we are agreed; and now pray mind what follows : What tken is tke Us e the Apo- Jlle makes of this ? Why, we mufil not ex- peB our Jufiification from our Obedience to tke Law of Mofes, no, nor to tke Law of Nature, but from something else. Very right; and would it not have been natural for the Gentleman to have faid what that something else is ? No doubt ; but then his Inconfiftency with the Apoftle would have been too vifible ; and therefore, in ftead of fetting forth what will juftify us, he goes on with telling us only what ¦will not : For thus it follows ; and does not tke Religion of Nature teach men not to depend, or put tke Iffue of tkeir Caufe upon exaB, never-failing Obedience ? Cer tainly it does! Come out of the dark, Sir, I befeech you, for once, and tell us plainly what it is we are to depend up on. If the Apoftle were asked, he would lay, that it is tke free Grace and Mercy of God, tkrougk tke Sacrifice of Jejus Chrift. Of the Attonement made by Je fus Chrift, for certain, the Light of Na ture fpeaks not one Word, and there fore this Circumfiance the Gentleman H 2 rauft 5 2 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. muft be prefumed to throw entirely out pf his Account. And if he. will fay that the Light of Nature fhews us that Repentance, without the Attonement made by Jefus Chrift, is that something else which we may depend upon for Juftification, I will believe him when he can prove it. But, for fhame, let him not pretend that he agrees with St. Paul, whofe Dodrine no more fuits with his Notions, than Light does with Darkr nefs. - — r But, to proceed : The next Point to be confidered is, Whether the Light of Reafon fuffi- ciently inftruds us, in what Way God will be acceptably worjhipped; upon which, that Dr. Clarke's Opinion may he the better underftood, it will be neceffary to fet it down in his own Words : %That God ought ta be worjhipped, is, in general, as evident and plain from the Light of Nature, as any thing can be : But in what particular Manner, and with what Kind of Service he will be worjhipped, cannot certainly be difcovered by bare Reafon. Obedience to the Obligations of Nature, and Imitation of the Moral Attributes of God, tke wifeft Philofophers eafiily knew was undoubtedly the mofi acceptable Ser vice to God. But fome external Ano- * P. 290.. \ RATION A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 5 3 KATiou fiemed alfo to be neceffary ; andhow this was to be performed, they could not, with any Certainty, difcover. Upon this I muft obferve, That when the Dodor fpeaks of it as a thing evident from the Light of Nature thzX. God ought to be wor- fhipped, he confiders Worfhip in its lar- geft Extent ; that is, as including every thing by which we may exprefs our Re-' verence to the Supreme Being, This, he fays, the Philofophers eafijy under ftood would befi be done by Obedience to the Obligations of Nature, and Imita tion of the moral Attributes of God. The Objedor has taken notice of this as Dr. Clarke's Opinion, and yet asks, How tken can we be ignorant what Worfhip we are to pay? Why, no, Sir; thus far we, cannot be ignorant what Worfhip we are to pay, and Dr. Clarke tells you fo : But the Difpute is concerning External Adoration, which, (fays the Dodor) feemed to be neceffary ; and that it does Jo feem appears from the Pradice of all Mankind. And indeed the Light of Nature fhews us, that (the prefent cor rupted State of Mankind confidered) fome fort of external Worfhip is necef fary, to preferve a Senfe of Religion in the World : But in what Way this may bf be performed, or what Sort of Wor fhip 54 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, ^ft?. fhip God will moft approve, Natural Reafon cannot, with any Certainty, dif cover. This appears to me to be Dr. Clarke's Senfe. Does the Objedor now deny that fome fort of external Worfhip is neceffary, to preferve a Senfe of Reli gion in the World ? No: He tells us * It is the Voice of Nature tkat God fhould be worjhipped publickly : But he thinks it fkard Fate, tkat thefe 'Pkilofopkers fhould be indifpenfiably obliged to worfhip God acceptably, and yet be unavoidably ig norant how to perform this acceptable Wort fhip. Where did the Gentleman learn that thefe Philofophers were indifipenfia-> bly obliged to worfhip God acceptably? Dr. Clarke fays no fuch thing, nor can any fuch thing in reafon be affirmed ; becaufe, what a Man has not the Means of knowing, he can be under no indi fpenfable Obligation to perform. But what Men are bound, or not bound to do, is no Part of the Queftion, as I fhall fully fhew by and by. The Point is, Did thefe Philofophers, in faB, under ftand what Sort of external Worfhip God would beft approve ; or, does Rea fon afford fufficient Light in this Mat ter ? Dr. Clarke has produced good Au- * P. 116. t P. 394. thorities A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 55 thorities to fhew that the wifeft of them fell in with the idolatrous Worfhip of their feveral Countries. And what fays the Gentleman to this ? Why, That •the Pradice of the Philofophers in thefe Cafes does not prove any unavoidable Ig norance. They might know that this Worfhip was wrong, but not think it fafe or prudent to attack tke reigning Superfiition.. Be all this admitted, ( for it is not worth difputing) did, they, I ask, know what was right ? If he fays, they did, let him produce his Authori ties to vouch for what fays : Or if he thinks Reafon can decide this Point, let him now fhew what Manner of outward Worfhip it is which all Men are precifiely direded to by the Law of Nature. I have very little Expedation that the Gentleman will ever engage in any fueh Attempt as this, becaufe he does as good as tell us, that there can be no fuch thing as one general, uniform Way of external Worfhip ; for, fays he, * Since external Adoration can't be per formed but by external Signs, thefe muft be different in different Places ; becaufe what are Marks of ReJpeB in one Country, are Marks of DifrefpeB in another, or at leaf look ridiculous. It is true, the out- * P. 395- ward 5 6 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, Wc. ward Tokens of Civility, are, in many! refped, different in different Countries i But what has Religion to do with fuch Trifles' as thefe ! I am forry the Gen tleman has no better Notion of worjhip- ping God, than he has of pulling off his Hat, or making a Bow, at fome great Man's Levee ; and, if it would not be too great an Offence, I would defire him, for once, to go to the Gofpel, and fee whether the Worfhip it prefcribes deferves to be treated in this manner. We are there commanded to affemble ourfelves together, to confefs our Sins to God, to pray to him for what we want, to give Thanks to him for what we have received; to hear that holy Word^ in which we are by the moft weighty Considerations exhorted and admonifhed to repent and amend, and to comme morate the Mercy of our Redemption from a State of Sin and Death by the frequent Communion of the Body and Blood of Chrift. All thefe feveral Ads of Religion have in them the Nature of external Signs, no doubt : But then they are fomefhing more : For, the State of a Man who accuftoms himfelf to a ferious and regular Attendance upon them, is a State of perpetual Discipline, by which Gonfcience is always kept upon its Guard, to A Defence of Dr. Clarke, g?c. 5 7 to acquit us When we do well ; and to reproach and condemn us when we do evil ; and to put us upon that vigorous Oppofition Of ourfelves to Flelh and Blood which -is neceffary to 'carry us through the Temptations of the World, which never can prevail but when Con- fbience fleeps, and thofe Confiderations which fhould fupport Virtue grow faint and languid upon the Mind. This is one great Ufe of external Worfhip ; iri all which it is plain, that there is no thing which is not in all Places alike proper ; nothing which will not to all Perfons be alike ufeful and beneficial ; efpecially if we take into the Account that Supernatural Assistance of the Spirit of G o d, which ( as Dr. Clarke teaches in many Places ) under tke Chr't" Jlian Difpenfation, they who fincere- ly endeavour io obey the Will of God kave Encouragement tp hope for, (in con* fequence of the Ufe of thefe Ordinan ces ) upon all neceffary Occafions. I fpeak this only to fhew the Objedor's Abfur- dity in treating outward Worfhip- as a mere Formality, not capable, in the Na ture of it, of being reduced to any common Rules. But, fetting apart every thing that is peculiar to the Chri- flian Religion, I will only ask this ge- I neral 58 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &>c. neral Queftion, viz. Since it is adrhitted that there ought to be fome external Worfhip, and Reafon direds to no one particular Method, as what all Men are precifely obliged to follow, How fhall the particular Method of external Wor fhip be determined ? The Objedor tells us, that * this fhould be left to Human Discretion, and that Men are to do it hi tke moft convenient Way, by appointing among themselves Time, Place, Perfons, and all other things which require fpecidl Determination. What Senfe there is in this, let any Man of ordinary Ap- prehenfion judge. Man is confeffedly ignorant and corrupted : In confequence of this, we now fuppofe that he is be come obnoxious to the Juftice of God^ and wants to be put into a Method, whereby, his Confcience being awaken'd, and his Paffions reftrained, he may at tain to fuch a Degree of Reformation as God will accept, in lieu of that Obe dience which he is no longer able to pay. Under this State of the Cafe, the Gen tleman, it feems, thinks it moft rea fonable and proper, not that God fhould prefcribe a Method for him, but that he fhould prefcribe one for himfelf! If it were left to the Objedor's Difcre- tion to fettle a Publick Religion for his * P. 1 1 6. Country- A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 59 Countrymen, it is probable he would take care it fhould be a very eafy one. And I am afraid it is too natural to us all in fuch Cafes as thefe, to be inclined to lay as little as poffibly we can upon ourfelves. The greater the Corruption of Mankind is fuppofed to be, the greater Reftraints will be neceffary, in order to' bring them to a fober Senfe of themfelves; and yet it is plain, that the'y will be fo much the lefs difpofed to fubmit to any Reftraint at all : And I doubt not, but that in many Parts of the World the Cafe is fo bad, as that it would be as reafonable to exped, that a Perfon difordered in his Underftanding fhould prefcribe to himfelf a proper Diet, and put himfelf under proper Degrees of Confinement, as that they fhould de termine for themfelves any proper Mea- fures for their own Reformation. In ge neral, if we will judge by Reafon, and not by Paffion, we muft perceive that in Affairs of this Sort, Mankind will always be moft fecure under the Diredi- on of God, who beft knows the Wants of his Creatures ; and amidlt that infi nite Variety of Methods which may be prefcribed,' can never be deceived in judging what, all Circumfiances confi der'd, is fittejl to be prefcribed ; nor is I a it 60 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. it hard to underftand, that a Religion fupported by the exprefs Authority of God, muft have a much more forci ble Influence upon the Behaviour of Men, than any Religion of mere 'hu man Appointment poffibly can have ; as they may abfolutely depend upon his Ap probation, if th'ey comply with it, and his Difpleafure, if they negled and de- fpife it. Thefe, I think, are no unrea- fonable Suppofitions; that God is wifer than Men, and knows much better than they do, what Courfe it is beft to take with them, to lead them back to a Senfe of their Duty ; and that many will reverence what they know or be lieve to come from God, who may be difpofed to pay little Regard to what mere human Prudence recommends. But the Objedor, inftead of attending to fuch natural Obfervations as thefe, fpends much of his own and his Reader's ' time, in complaining of I know not what * Handle that defigning Men may take ( if the Authority of God be laid down as the Foundation and Rule of external Worfhip) to impof'e upon weak Perfons wkat tkey pleaje, on pretence of Divine Right. Upon this Topick niany J*ages are fpent ; but what does it all * P.nS, &c. amount A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 6 1 amount to? Much Mifchief may be done by Pretenders of all Sorts, of which this Gentleman himfelf is not the leaft Example. But how comes this to be an Objection againft Revelation? Has not Pkyfick produced Quacks, Law Pettyfoggers , Mathematicks Conjurers and Fortune-tellers? What then? Will you expel the Arts and Sciences out of the World, becaufe they have been made ufe of by Knaves to abufe Fools ? Nay, (to come nearer to the Gentleman's Point) has not Reafon itfelf been abu fed ? Muft we then argue, that it came not from God ? Or if you fay that God ought not to have given Revelation, fore- feeing the ill Ufes that would often be made of it, may not the fame thing be faid of his giving Reafon to Men ? The Gentleman tells us of many Superftiti- ons that have been grafted in Chriftian Countries upon the general Laws of the Gofpel relating to religious Worfhip; and I can tell him of many more. But cannot he tell as long and as difmal a Tale of much worfe Superftitions pra- difed in other Places, where no divine Appointments have given the Handle he complains of? Or can he tell, that if God had given no Laws about Religion, but had left it to particular Perfons, or particu- 62 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, particular Families, or particular Com munities, ( for by which of thefe Ways Religion is to be fettled, he has not told us) to appoint among tkemfelves the mofi convenient- Method, fome confiftent, ra tional, and ufeful manner of publick Worfhip or other would generally have been purfued ? He may fay this, if he pleafes, with the fame Eafe that he has faid a great many other as incredible things. But if he fhould undertake to prove, that human Reafon is a better Guide in thefe Matters than Revelation, he will be hard put to it to deal with this certain Observation, That no In ftance can be given of any heathen Coun try, where the human Inventions and Conftitutipns relating to publick Wor fhip have not beetifubverfive of all true Religion. . I have now done with the two Points, which the Objedor has given me Oeca fion to confider ; and upon the whole, T hope it will appear to reafonable Judges, that the Inference that Dr. Clarke hzi drawn in his 7th Propofition, That tkere was plainly wanting a divine Revelation to recover Mankind out of tkeir univerfally degenerate State, is a very juft one. Allowing thefe Principles, that Men wanted to be inftruded, and yet that there. A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &*£. 63 there were none fufficiently qualified to inftrudthem; that they wanted to be encouraged to Repentance and Reforma tion by the Affurance of Pardon, and yet that none could give any certain Affurance to Repentance; that as a Check to that Inadvertency and want of Attention, which is apt to render the beft Motives ineffedual, they wanted to be frequently reminded by fome outward Rules of religious Worfhip, and yet that they were in no fort qualified to pre fcribe fuch a Method to themfelves : Thefe Principles, I fay, allowed, the Conclufion muft follow of courfe. Here then I leave this Point ; and will go on to anfwer fome few general Objections, which the Gentleman has fcattered up and down in his Book, in prejudice to Dr. Clarke's Syftem in general. The Objedor is fo little an Obferver of Or der and Coherence, that it will be diffi cult to reduce thefe Obfervations to any juft Method. But the chief of them, I think, will fall under one or other of the following Queftions, viz. 1 . Whence came this Corruption, which is made the Foundation of the Want of Revelation? Or, Why did God bring a Race of Creatures into Being,, whom he forefaw 64 ADefenceofDr.Chxkzi&'c. forefaw would fall into fb deplorable a State ? Setting afide the Scripture Account of this Cafe, (which a Deifi cannot be fup pofed to admit): To the firft Part of this Queftion I anfwer. That Man being made a rational Agent, capable of dis cerning between Good and Evil ; and a free Agent, capable of ading or of for bearing ; the Caufe of this general Cor ruption muft originally be refolved into his own voluntary Choice, who wanted not either Means to know, or Power to fulfil, what God required ; but was di verted ( by what Means it is not ne ceffary now to enquire, but was in FaB diverted) from following that Light which Nature had afforded him. Whe ther in confequence of this original Cor- ruptionl and under fome particular Cir cumfiances of the World, Jbme might not be unavoidably ignorant of the plaineft Duties, is a Queftion neither neceffary, nor poffible to be determined with any Certainty, as I have before obferved: Nor is it needful ( if it were poffible) to fay, Why God brought fuch a Race of Creatures into Being. For what have thefe Queftions to do with the Ufe and Advantages of Revelation? That the State of Mankind was miferably cor rupted the Argument fuppofes, and is in faB ' ADefence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 65 faB true ; and in order to recover them from this corrupted State, we fay, and have proved, that Revelation was necef fary. If now you will fay> that God ought not to have fuffered Mankind to fall into this corrupted State ; this has no manner of Tendency to fhew, that the corrupted State of Man beingtfup" pofed, Revelation was not neceffary to recover them out of it, but only to impeach the Providence of God. The Objedor fays,, that to fuppofe that God * foresaw this Corruption, and the Confequences ofit^ (and forefee it he cer tainly did) is to fuppofe that he brought Mankind into Being out 0/ Spite and Hatred. For the Decency of the Language, let the Gentleman anfwer ; and for the Reajbning, he ought alfo to ¦ anfwer, if he has any Regard for natu ral Religion. For the Objedion falls as hard upon natural Religion, as it does upon revealed, and in truth fomething harder; fince natural Religion fees the Evil, but has no Remedy for it ; Reve lation, fees it, and has provided for its' Cure. Whatever elfe he may objed to the Gofpel, he cannot object this Cor ruption; for the Gofpel did not make this Corruption, but found it. And * P. 399. K there- 66 A Defence of Dr.Oa&^&c. therefore the Difficulty lies againft God's Creating Man, but certainly cannot lye againft redeeming him. For what will you fay? Man was brought into Being; Man was thus corrupted: Was there any Spite or Hatred in refiuing him from this Corruption? No furely ! But it may be a&ed, i. Could it fierve to any good Purpofe, for God to reftore Mankind from this Cor ruption by offering tkem new Light ? The Gentleman has ftarted many-Difficulties, which, if they have any Meaning, tend to fhew that it could not. As this Ob- jedion ftrikes at the Root of Chriftiani ty, and (as I took notice heretofore) unhinges Dr. Clarke's Syftem all at once, it is neceffary it fhould be confidered. I fhall begin with his moft general Obfer- vations. Speaking then of the State Mankind was in before the preaching of the Go fpel, he fays, That * if tkey had not 'Power when fallen to recover tkemfelves, and it was not tkeir Fault tkat tfiey at firfi were in, and after remained in a State ef ttniverfal Degeneracy and Corruption, this mujl tken be tke State God designed tkey fhould be in ; and it would feem not only to * P- 37S' he A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &>c. 67 be in vain, but a C r i m e in tkem to endeavour to change tkat State, in which God of his infinite Wifdom and Goodnefs thought fit to place tkem. Setting afide his Sneer againft Providence, to the Ar gument I thus anfwer : That the Corruption of Mankind (as before obferved) was originally owing to the Abufe of Man's Liberty; and that fo long as this Liberty fubfifted, and fo far as it extended, it will be abfurd to fay, that a State of Degeneracy anu Cor ruption was the State God defigncd they fhould be in. Permit it he did, (and otherwife he could not do without offer ing Violence to Man's Liberty ; ) but defign it he did not, any more than a good Father defigns th'at his Son (whom he has left to his own Condud ) fhould throw himfelf into a Gaol, or bring himfelf and his Family to Beggary. But let us fuppofe the Corruption begun, and growing every Age worfe and worfe, till at length Ignorance and Wickednefs had (by evil Education and vicious Habits) taken fuch deep Root, that Liberty was greatly impaired, and there was no Pof- fibility of recovering without new and fupernatural Affiftance from God. Up on this State of the Cafe, it muft in deed be in vain for Man to attempt his K a own *>% A Defence of Dr. Clarke* &c. own Reformation : But why muft it be a Crime ? Why, (fays he) becaufe it was endeavouring to change tkat State in which God thought fit to place them. He fhould have faid (for it is all that can in truth be faid) that it was endeavouring to refcue themfelves from that State, into which the Providence of God had per mitted them to fall through their own and their Forefathers Wickednefs. Their own Wickednefs, I fay, as well as their Forefathers : for in none has human Li-r berty been fo much impaired, as not to leave them inexcufable in many Violati ons of Duty. And ( if the Gentleman be really in earneft in what he fays) I would ask him, How it can poffibly be a Crime to endeavour to grow better ? Or, what is there in fuch an Attempt that is not juft and praife- worthy, efpe- cially if ( which was the Cafe of many of the wif er Heathens) thefe Endeavours were fupported by an humble Confidence in the Goodnefs of God, that he in his own t-ime would apply a Remedy to that. Evil, which they found they were not able themfelves Sufficiently to cure ? To argue that it was a Crime in Men to en deavour to change this State, becaufe God defign'd they fhould be in it, is in effect to fay, That, feparate from all Confix ADefenceofDr.Chtkei&'c. 69 Confideration of Man's Behaviour, God chofe it for them, as what he befi appro ved. But God no more defigned that Mankind fhould be in this degenerate State, than he defigned that firfi Corrup tion, which was the Oecafion of it ; that is, he only permitted it. Or if the Gentleman will fay, that there is no Difference between God's doing a thing, and permitting oxfuff'ering it to be done, he will again break in upon his own Re ligion (as he would have us believe) na tural Religion, which is more concerned (as has been, fhewn) in all Objedions of this Sort than Revelation is. Thus much muft be faid, that the State of Corruption once fuppofed, God defigned that Men fhould continue in it, till fuck time as he thought fit to apply the proper Remedy. I ask then, Was it becoming the Wifdom and Goodnefs of God to offer a Remedy ? Why,*No; for he tells us, 1. That tke Happinefs of Man was tke sole End of his Creation, 2. That f all Men living up to that Light God has given them, are upon a Level as to their future Happinefs. Further, That * God has given to all 'Perfons, and at all times, sufficient Means of dif- covering wk at ever makes for their present . tP.417. * P. 362^363. and. 70 A Defence of Dr. Clarke,^. and future Happinefs , or (as he expref- fes himfelf elfe where) || al) tkat Happi nefs tkeir Nature is capable of. All this fhews, that in the Objedor's Ac count, no wife or good Purpofe was to be ferved by any Offers of new and bet ter Light to reform the World. And fomePaffages there are, in which he de clares that Revelation will do more hurt than good. For he fays, that * if we fuppofe any arbitrary Commands in tke Gofpel, ( and fuch in his Account are all Commands, which are not original Du ties of natural Religion) we place Ckri- fiians in a worse Condition tkan tkofe un der no Law but that of Nature — and con fequently tke great efi Part of Mankind — are in a better Condition, as to tke next World, tkan Ckrifiians, becaufe tkey do not hazard the Favour of God by any Mifiakes or Omiffions in fuch matters. A- gain ; f To fuppofe fome Men, wko tko' tkey exaBly obey tke Law of Nature, may yet be punifhed even eternally for not obey ing another Law befides , would be to make God deal infinitely less mercifully with tkem, tkan with tkofe tkat kave no , other Law-— —And I may add, tkat even as to temporal Happiness, tkey who] think original and traditional Religion II P- 393j 4°9- * P* ias« T Ibid- don't . A Defence of Dr.Chrkei&c. 71 don't differ, (/. e. they who throw every thing out of Religion but the mere na tural Law) are in the better State- as kaving notking required of tkem, but what they mofi evidently fee tends to tkeir Good, and confequently are free (no Jmall Happinefs) from all panick Fears, &c. The Gentleman thinks (and fo far he is in the right) that to be the beft Religi on, which provides beft againft the Fears of divine Vengeance. But how would he have this Provifion made? By taking a- way Offence and TranJgreJfion ? No, but by taking away tke Law; for tke fewer the Laws (fays he) the lefs tke Hazard of offending. Thefe are the genuine Max ims of Epicurus ; and deftroy all Syftems of Religion, revealed or not revealed. They fhew, if they fhew any thing, that there ought to have been no fuch thing as Law or Liberty ; for Law and Liberty fuppofed, there will always be a Foun dation for Fears, always a Hazard of of fending. Let us then examine a little into thefe Principles. The firft is, that tke Happinefs of Man was the sole End of his Creation. This the Gentleman perpetually takes for grant ed; but it is fo far from wanting no Proof, that in truth it is not capable of any ; and by what we are able to judge 1 from 72 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, && from that little we know of the Works of Providence, the Cafe is otherwife. Confider Man under the abftraded No tion of a Creature, and there is no more Reafon to fay, that kis. Happinefs was the fole End of his Creation, than there is to fay the fame thing of any other Creature made capable of Happinefs. And yet we fee plainly, that Beafts are made ferviceable to the Ufes of Men ; and fince this Ufe is neceffary for Man, no doubt it was intended in their Creati on. There is not indeed any Order of Beings which bears any fuch Relation to Man, as Man does to the Race of Brutes : But there may be ( and doubtlefs is) a Relation between Man and other created Beings, which we know not of, which confpires to make up the Harmony of the whole Syftem. Dr. Clarke therefore fays very truly and confiftently, that * we know not tke Defign of God in crea ting Mankind ; that is, we know not the whole of it. For tho' he fuppofes that God created Man, (as he did all other intelligent Beings) to communicate to tkem his Happinefs ; yet this doth not exclude all farther Views which God might have with refped to the whole Frame and Conftitution of things, in virtue of * P. 289. which A Defince of Dr. Clarke, &c. 7 3 which it became fitting and proper that Man Jhould be, what in fad he is, fupe- rior to all other Parts of the known Creation, t If therefore . the 'Happinefs of Man was the fble End of his Crea tion, mere Happinefs certainly was not fo, but Happinefs in fome certain *Po- fiure, Order, or Scituatio% of Being* Now whatever was the Foundation of this Order, i. e. whatever Caufe moved the Eternal Author of all Things fco place us in that Degree of -Excellency, which is proper to us as Men, and gives us a Superiority above many other Crea tures; it may very juftfy be prefumed to be as agreeable to- his Wifdom and Goodnefs ; to reftore us when we were fallen from our original Perfedion, as it was at firft to bring us into Being. In other Words : If there were wife Rea fons, why at firft God made us Men and not Brutes, there may certainly be as wife and as good Reafons, why after we had debaied ourfelves more or lefs to- . wards: the Condition of Brutes, he fhould .again reftore us to the Dignity of our Natures. t .. This- Confideration fuggefts to us a poffble Ufe of Revelation, letting apart all Regard, to the Happinefs of Man. For if it were faid, that Man's Happi ly nefs 74-^ Defence of Dr. Clarke, &> c. nefs would have been as well provided for under leffer Light, as under greater ; ftill it cannot be denied, that there might be other Reafons of Providence refpeding the general Order and Syftem of things, which might make the Re formation of Mankind proper and necef fary* But our Caufe wants not this Support ; and it will be more material perhaps to enquire^ what Foundation there is for what the Gentleman advan ces in his next general Principle, viz. That all Men living up to tkat Ligkt •God k as given them, are upon a level as to tkeir Happinefs, whether- prefent or future. It might reafonably be demand ed in the firft place, Wko thofe are that live up to tke Ligkt tkat God kas given tkem? If there are none fuch (and none certainly there are, who in many things have not offended) the Queftion will ftill return, (not to be anfwered upon any Principles of natural Religion) What fhall they do to attone for their wilful Tranfgrejfions? It might farther be ob- ferved, that allowing that Virtue to Sincerity which' the Gentleman- contends for, the Gofpel may ftill be fuppofed to be ufeful, and (confidering the Prone- hefs of Mankind to offend) even necef fary to lead them to ad with Sincerity. It A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 75 It is very certain, and Dr. Clarke fup- pofes, that the Caufe of the Corrupt m on of Mankind in many Cafes was not owing to the Want of proper Light to inftrud them better, but for want of a Will and Refolution to do what the Rea fon and Underftanding imparted to them by God, fhewed them plainly enough they ought to do. And when God vouch- fafed the Gofpel, he did not barely give new Light, and then leave Men abfo lutely to themfelves to ufe or to negled it ; but furnifhed them with fuch Helps as were proper to engage their Attenti on, and to awaken them into fuch an habitual Senfe of their Duties, as that, fo far as was confiftent with human Li berty, this Light fhould not be vouch- fafed in vain. But after all, I do not fee what Reafon there is for that Confidence with which the Gentleman afferts, that greater, or leffer Degrees of Light and . Knowledge make no Difference as to Man's Happinefs. It will be allowed, I prefume, by all reafonable Judges, 'that Man is naturally made capable of more Happinefs than Brutes. Whence. > this Difference? Is it not from thofe Fa culties by which he is difiinguifhed from - Brutes? Now, if this Advantage on the Part of Man arifes from thofe Faculties, L 2 which. 76 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, ^Pc. which are proper to him as Man, it jnuft (naturally) bear a Proportion to the Extmt and Improvement of thofe Facul ties ; fo that (all fpecial Reafons fet a- part) the greater Knowledge added to the greater Virtue muft be attended with the greater Degrees of Happinefs; and greater Knowledge ( in thofe Points, I mean, in which moral Duties are con- ceened) will always be a good Founda tion for greater Virtue. Now this Ad vantage the Light of the Gofpel yields, viz, that it not only lets before us the Duties of natural Religion in the beft and the plaineit manner, but furnifhes rus alfo with fuch Helps and Motives to all virtuous Improvements, as the fnere Light of Reafon could not adminifter. This, I think, has been already fhewn ; fo that the Gofpel (naturally) muft be 3 a Means of promoting Man's Happinefs both in this Life and in the next. In this/Life, as it is plain from Experience, that in proportion as the Duties of na tural Religion are more generally and more, clofely adhered to, the World will generally be fo much the happier; and in the next, becaufe a future State being intended as the Reward of Vir tue, our Happinefs there muft be fiippofed to have a great Dependance upon A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 77 upon our Improvement here. Thefe, I think, are very plain and eafy Dedudi- ons ; and how the Gentleman will be able to fupport his general Principle, that greater or leffer Degrees of Light make no Difference as to Man's Happi nefs, let him confider. The only true thing he has faid upon the Subject hap pens to be nothing to the purpofe, which is this, That no Man can be * account able to God for more than the Light vouchfafed him has enabled him to perform : The Confequence of which is only this, that if God had 'never of fered the Gofpel to Mankind, thofe who lived up to the Knowledge they had, fhould have been accepted, as having done all that they were bound to do. But this will not prove that, now the Gofpel is offered, Mankind are not, or may not be, the happier for it ; unlefs you will fay, that all who are not charge able with Guilt, are therefore equally happy ; which were to confound all Or ders and Degrees of Happinefs in the World, and to level the Condition of Men with the Condition of Stocks and J Stones. His laft general Principle under this Head is, That the Gofpel, by multiply- * P. 414- ing; 78 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. ing Laws, has fncreafed the Hazard of offending; which is juft as good an Ob- jedion againft all the wife and whole- fome Laws in the World, as it is a- gainft the Gofpel. The more Laws there are, the more Obligations there muft be; and the more Obligations there are, the more particular Infianoes there muft alfo be, againft which you may poffibly tranfgrefs : And yet Laws (be they many, or be they few) may be fo contrived that Mankind fhall be the better and the happier for them, or Go vernment is the moft idle thing in Na ture. I defire the Gentleman to confi der a little what thofe Laws of the Go fpel are which give him fo much Uneafi- nefs, and to what purpofe they were in tended to ferve. He calls them arbitrary Commands ; but it has been fhewn that all the Laws of the Gofpel have a dired Tendency to promote Natural Religion ; and will you then fay that Natural Re ligion is lefs fecure, by means of the Gofpel? Or can the Hazard of breaking any Law be increafed by thofe very Methods which have a dired Tendency to lead Men to obferve it ? 'Tis true ; Men may trangrefs the Laws of Religi on, in fpite of all the Means provided by the Gofpel, But even in this Cafe the A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &C. 7 9 the Gofpel offers a Remedy, which the Law of Nature does not provide. What then is the Ground of all thefe Com plaints? Why, the Laws of the Gofpel may be miftahen : Very well ; and fo Men may miftake any other Laws, and dayly do fo. But let us fuppofe the worft, and fay, that they are miftaken : What follows? Why, (fays the Objedor) eternal. Damnation. Where did he learn this ? Not from the Principles of Na tural Religion, according to which, he fays, Men are not accountable for their Miftakes; nor yet ( as I am perfuaded ) from the Gofpel. If Men wilfully break the Laws of the Gofpel, it can be no Objedion, I hope, that God will inflid the Penalty : But if Men offend igno- ¦rantly, there is juft the fame room for equitable Allowances under the Gofpel, as there 'would have been without the Go fpel ; and Revelaf 'on, though it pre- feribes Laws to Man, yet does not fet Bounds to the Mercies of God. — —But if reftoring Mankind from his corrupted State is of fuch Advantage, it may be : asked, 3 . Why did not God adminifier tke Re medy at all times and to all Persons ? What if this Queftion is not to be an fwered ? Will it follow, that Revelation c f,f was 80 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. was not wanting, or that it is the lefs ufeful to thofe to whom it is vouch- fafed ? If of two poor Men you relieve but one, can it be faid that one is not relieved? Or lhall he, becaufe the o- ther was left unprovided, throw the Money back in his Benefador's Face, and fay, I have no Oecafion for it ? The Comparifon reaches fo far, I think, as to fhew, that if it can be proved by good Reafons that Revelation is a neceffary Means to reform Mankind, the want of Univerfality ought never to be admitted in prejudice againft its being received where-ever it is offered : And indeed the Objedion, if it has any Weight in it, falls not upon Revelation, but upon the Author of Revelation. But in vain is it urged againft one or the other : For, as Dr. Clarke has obferved, * tho\ the Confideration of tke manifefi Corru ption of Human Nature Jbews the Want of a divine Revelation- it does not fol low from kence, eitker tkat God is abso lutely bound to make fuck a Revelation; or, tkat ifke makes it, it muft be equally made to all Men, Were the granting a Revelation an Xd of Juftice, it muft have been mad? to all Men ; but as it is an Ad of Mercy, God was at liberty * P. 316. to A Defence of Dr. Clarke, ®c. 8 1 to fhew it fooner or later, to all, or to fome, according as he in his Wifdom faw would be moft agreeable to the fettled Rules and Meafures of his Providence. In anfwer to all this, the Gentleman asks, * Wkat otker Reafon have we to fay God is obliged to do any one. thing what ever, but tkat 'tis, agreeable to the na tural Notions we have of his Wifdom and Goodnefs, and to ike DiBates of Nature and Reafon for kim fib to do ? The Oeca fion of his asking this Queftion is, be caufe Dr. Clarke has faid,' that it was agreeable to tke DiBates of Nature and rigkt Reafon, to expcB or hope for a di vine Revelation ; and his Intention is to deny that there is any Diftindion to be made between Jufiice and Mercy in God. To clear this Difficulty, let it be obferved, that, ftridly fpeaking, God does nothing but what he is obliged to do ; that is, nothing but what, accord ing to the eternal Relations of things, is fit and reafonable to be done. But do but take this along with you, (which one would think it were no .eafy matter for a Man to miftake) that the infinite Wifdom of God comprehends the eter nal Relations or Fitneffes of all things, whilft human Knowledge is confined to * P. 401. M fome 8 2 A Defence if Dr. Clarke, ftfo fome few Inftances ; and the Diftindion between Juftice and Mercy will be plain beyond Contradidion. What w e mean when we fay God is obMged to do a thing, is, that he cannot do otherwife Without contradiBing the eternal Reafons fef things ; . which fuppofes, in thofe In ftances, that the Underftanding of Man is an adequate Meafure of thofe Reafons, as, in many Cafes, certainly it is ; As, if God commands a Man to fee, it muft be fuppofed that he has Eyes; if to run, that he has Legs, and the like ; becaufe the Relations of things are thus far cer tainly Jcnown to us, that it is abfurd to require, the End where the neceffary Means are wanting: This therefore is What we term Juftice. But there are other Cafes, in which the Relations of things, tho' they are known to God, are not apparent to us : As, fuppofe a Man wants any thing, which if he had it would be much for his Advantage; God may give it him if he pleafes : And if to his Wifdom it feems fit and reafon* able, we. may in fome Senfe fay that he will find himfelf obliged to do it : Yet, fince this Man's Wants are not the fin* gle Rule of God's Adions, and there may poffibly be Reafons unknown to him, but known to God, why he fhould A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 83 not fopply them : Should God refufe to fupply them, h e would have nothing to impeach him with ; and therefore if God does fupply them he will call it Mercy. Confider Juftice and Mercy as they fubfift in Man, and they will be found diftinguifhable exadly in the fame manner. If I borrow a Shilling of ano ther Man, and refufe to- pay it, this js Injuftke; becaufe the Reafon why I ought to pay it is plain and vifible; But if I ask a- Shilling of another Man as a Gift, Cireumftances may be fo put that if he refufes to give it me, ke fhall ftand condemned before God and his own Conference, as having done a wrong thing : And yet, becaufe my Wants are not the-fole Rule of his behaviour, and every Man is fuppofed to be the beft Judge in what way to difpofe of his own Property, if he does give it me, it will not be Juftice, but Mercy. It is no unreafonable Demand then, I hope, if we exped that the'fame De ference lhould be paid in this Cafe to the Wifdom of God, that is due in like Cafes to the Judgment of Man : And this is all that Dr. Clarke means. He fuppofes that the Wants of Mankind, in confequence of their corrupted State, were fuch as afforded a reafonable Ground M a for 84 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. for tkem to wish and hope (pray mind the Words, for they are the Dodor's own ) tkat God would grant tkem a Re velation: But he does not go fo far as to fay, that the Reafons are fuch, as that fuppofing God had not granted a Reve lation, we could have impeacked him for it, and fhewn that he had aded con trary to what is right and fitting." The Reafons, as they appear to us, are fo ftrong in favour of Revelation, as to lead 'a wife Man to tkinkit -very probable tkat tke infinitely merciful and good God would aBually vouchfafe to afford fuch fuper natural Ajfiftance : This Dr. Clarke fays.- But that we could have been ab folutely certain, antecedently, or from the Nature and Reafon of things , that , there neither were, nor could be, any fuch Circumfiances refpeding the gene ral and fettled Rules of Providence, as would make that which, the Wants of Mankind only confidered, appear'd right and fitting, to be upon fome other Ac counts wrong and unfitting ; this Dr. Clarke does not fay ; nor can any one fay who is ih his right Senfes. Upon Ex perience of ^hat-God has; done, we may reafonably enough conclude what it was fit fox him to do: But without this Expe- A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 8 5 Experience we could have known no thing with any Certainty. To come now clofe to our Point : If, for ought that appears from the Nature of things, God might, without any Impeachment of his Providence, have denied us any Revelation at all; how can the Nature of things fhew, that if he does think fit to grant it, he is obli ged to grant it to all Perfons, and at all times? The Gentleman will anfwer per haps, That the fame Reafons which make it fit that he fhould grant it to fome, make it as fit that he fhould grant it to others. But how does he know this ? That the fame Reafons which fhew it to be neceffary for fome, will fhew it to be as neceffary for others, may be granted. But fince the Neceffities of Men are not (as before obferved) the fole Rule of God's Adions ; it is plain that this Confideration will not fhew, that God is obliged to reveal himfelf a- like at all times, and to all Perfons ; up on Suppofition that there may be Rea fons of Providence unknown to us, which make a different Method more fit and proper. Will the Gentleman now pretend to fay, that it is impoflible that there can be any fuch Reafons? Confiftently with common Senfe, and his 86 ADefencetf Dr. Chrke>&e. his own Gonceffion, he can-not fay it; for he grants that * we have no Knowledge of the whole .S,ch&me, Qr der, and State of things ; th© neceffary Confequence of which is, that yte can have no perfeB Knowledge of the feveral Reafons of Providence which arife from that Order. And yet this jeally lies at the bottom o£ all that he has faid : For What elfe can be the Meaning of fuch bold Ex- poftiilations as thefe? f What human Le- giflator, if ke found a DefeB in his Laws, and tkottght it for the Good of Ms Sitb- jeBs to add new. Laws, would mt promul gate them t$ ah & People ? Or what 'Parent would aB after fo partial a. man ner, as the Dodor in a felf-cmfaund'mg Scheme fuppofes . the common 'Parent of Mankind has. done; and not let all bis Children know, as soon as possible, wkat was for tkeir common Good ? Of. yhat Weight, I ask,, are thefe and a hundred fuch Queftions more, unlefs you fuppofe that we are as competent Judges of the Affairs, of Providence, as we are of the Affairs of this World; and can as, certainly tell what it is right for God to do in the Government of the Univerfe, as what it is right for a King to do in the Government of his Sub- * P. 384. + P. 399. jeds, A Defence of Dr. Clarke,^. 8^ jeds, or for a Parent and Mafter to do in the ordering of his Family? One would be tempted to think, that the Author himfelf went Upon this Suppo* lition, by the many peremptory Decla rations he has given us of God's Defigns. To inftance in a few Paffages before quo ted. * The Defign of God in communica ting any thing of himfelf to Men was their Happinefs — ¦ — —This Defign, he fays, obliged kim at all times alike tb com municate it to tkem. A little after he fays, that G&d at all times intended Man kind that Happinefs their Nature is ca pable of — -And therefore he fays, that ^ tke common Parent of Mankind has gi ven all his Children, even thofe of the lowest Capacities, and at all times, fufficient Means of difcovering whatever makes for tkeir present and future Hap pinefs. Surely fo many and fo great Abfurdities are not eafy to be met with in the Compafs of fo'few Words ! That the Happinefs of Man is one End of all the Difpenfations of Providence with refped to Man is true, and Dr. Clarke always fuppofes it ; yet he does not fup pofe, nor is it right to fuppofe, that mere Happinefs is the End of God's Dif penfations with regard to Man, of any * P. 393- t P- 3^3, 363. other 88 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. other Creature ; but Happinefs ( as I faid before) under fome certain 'Pqfture, Order, and Scituation. of Being. ¦ This is evident from the different Orders of Beings that are in the World, and the different Degrees of Happinefs alotted to different Creatures of the fame Spe cies. For if mere Happinefs were the only thing intended, all Creatures wou'd have had the fame Perfedions, all the fame Degrees of Happinefs: for one in variable Defign of Providence muft have produced one invariable Effed* This being obferved, let us examine a little the Particulars that follow. • God (fays the Objedor) at all times intended Man kind that Happinefs (that is, * all that Happinefs) their Nature is capable of. If he means, that Man was font into this World only to pleaje himfelf, it is eafy to underftand what he means by, what he fo often talks of, following Na ture. But let me ask him this Queftion, Is he in want of any thing? If he is not, he may meet with hundreds every Day that are, and, who confequently have not all the Happinefs their Nature is capable of. To what purpofe then is it to tell lis, that God intended a thing, which, Fad and Experience fhews us he * Seep. 409. A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &*c. 89 did not intend, or (which it is abfurd to fuppofe of God in any Cafe where his own Power alone is concerned) that if he did intend, he intended it in vain ? If God intended Mankind at all times all that Happinefs their Nature is capa-. ble of, * we muft allow ( fays the Ob- jedor) tkat at all times ke has given them the Means of obtaining it by . the Rules ke kas prefcribed them for their ConduB. Very well, Sir! And is it true then that God has at all times given thefe Means? With refped to the prefent Hap pinefs, it is certainly not true ; and why muft it needs be true with refped to the future? Or why is it not confiftent with our natural Notions of God to fuppofe, that as he has conftituted different States and Degrees of Happinefs for Men in this Life, fo he may have ordained as great a Diverfity ih the next? But why does the Gentleman flop with faying, that God intended to Mankind, at all times, all that Happinefs their Nature is capable of? Would it not be juft as good Senfe to go a ftep farther, and fay^ that he intended- to give them a Nature capable of enjoying all the Happinejs Om nipotence could bestow ? The true Confequence of which Principle would * P. 393. N be 90 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &>c. be this, That no Time would be affign- able in which Mankind did not exift in a State capable of enjoying the moft perfed Happinefs;' and what is faid of Mankind may as well be faid of all other created Beings in the Univerfe that are capable of Happinefs. , But this again is falfe in Fad and .Experience : For though noTime can be affigned, in which God could hot have created the World, if he had pleas'd; yet an Eternity had paffed before he did in faB create it ; and tho' he could have madeall Creatures capable of the mofi perfeB ' Happinefs, yet he has in faB placed them in diffe rent Ranks and Degrees with refped to Happinefs. If any will prefume to fay, that this Order of the World contradids the Reafon and ' Fitnefs of things, and ougkt to have been ctkerwife, they are not Deists, but Atheists ; and with fuch at prefent I have nothing, to do: For it muft be remember'd, that the Argument fets out upon the Suppofition of the Being of a God, ( that is, of a wife and good Creator and Governor of the World ) as a Principle allowed on both Sides. This admitted, let the Gentleman tell me, why God was obli ged to difpenfethe Happinefs of the Redemption (in his Phrafe ) as foon as pqssi- ADefejice of Dr. Clarke, clfc. 91 possible, any more than h^' was obliged to dilpenfe the Happinefs of the Crea tion as foon as possible ? Or why, when in creating the World he was at liberty to deal out Happinefs gradually and unequally among his Creatures, he may not in refioririg the World be allowed, if he pleafes, to purfue the fame Meafiires ? Thefe are Queftions proper to be asked in this Cafe, and which I fhall leave th® Objedor to confider of at his Leifure. And if he has but that Humility and Honefty of Mind,, which may be learn'd from that natural Religion which he talks much of, but (I fear) little underftands, I am perfuaded he will not find it diffi cult to fee the true Anfwer. As to what he fays farther, That the common 'Parent of Mankind has given all his Children, even thofe of the low eft Ca pacities, and at all times, fufficient Means of difiovering (for themselves, I imagine, and without any Help orlnformation from others) whatever makes for their prefent and future Happinefs : This indeed is a mafterly Stroke, and ftrikes'to the bot tom. It fets afide human Laws as well as divine, and will make the judge and the Jufiice as infignificant as the Parfen of the Parifh. But let us confider in other Inftances, / how able Men of the • 'N 2 loweft 92 A Defence of Dr. Clarke,^ c . loweft Capacity are to provide for their prefent Happinefs. Health is certainly one of thofe things which make for a Man's prefent Happinefs ; yet there are many of fo low a Capacity, as not to be able to difcover how to cure themfelves of any Diftemper. Riches, I fuppofe, may be reckon'd another ; yet there are many who know not either how to get an Eftate, or how to keep it, without the Afliftance of others, who fee farther than themfelves. And fo in a hundred other Inftances, which . any Child can help him to. Now if God has not gi ven to every Man fufficient Means to difcover for himfelf every thing that makes for the Happinefs of this Life, why muft it needs be faid, that he has given to every Man. fufficient Means to difcover whatever makes for his Happi nefs in the next? But take Mankind with all the Help that he can procure ; all that can with any Reafon or Truth be faid is this, That God has given to every Man fufficient Means to come at fb much Happinefs, as h e in his Wif dom, from time to time, and at all times, thought fit to beftow upon him. And that any Confequence will follow from hence in Prejudice to Revelation, let A Defence of Dr. Clarke, ®Pc. 93 let the Objedor fhew when he is able. It may be asked, 4. How can Revelation be efieemed a proper Remedy to the Corruptions of Man kind, when this EffeB is fo little feen in Experience? Upon this Argument the Objedor feems to triumph * If (fays he) Revelation was abfolutely neceffary to re cover Mankind out of tkeir. univ erf ally de generate and corrupted State, and replace tkem in a State fuitable to tke original Dignity of tkeir Nature ¦ ¦ Muft not Revelation kave kad its intended EffeB, and made Ckriftians — — muck more per feB and excellent tkan Men could poffbly be when under Times of unavoidable Cor ruption ? And yet the Dodor, kaving taken a large Paffage from Cicero, where tke Orator very rhetorically defcribes the great Corruptions of his Time makes this Remark, That " a livelier Deficri- " ption of the present corrupt State of " human Nature is not eafy to be met " with ;" wkick, I think, is fufificiently owning tkat human Nature at prefent is far from being exalted to fo high a State of PerfeBion, or in the least mended. The Gentleman thinks, it feems, that notwithftanding the fuppofed Virtue of the Gofpel to reform Mankind, the * P. 402. World 94 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &C. World is not one jot the better for it ; and he would be very glad to perfuade you that Dr. Clarke was of the fame O- pinion. But what does the Dodor fay ? Why, that the Defeription which Cicero gave of human Nature in his Time, a- grees \vith the corrupted State of Man kind in this : Very well ; and whoever looks into the .Paffage of Cicero cited by Dr. Clarke, will find that it does. But what then ? vDid the Dodor mean to fay, that the State of Mankind is not in the leaf mended by the coming in of the Gofpel? No fuch matter. He fpeaks here of human Nature as fuck, or ab ftraded from any Influence or Improve ment from tlie Gofpel: And in this Senfe it is certain that human Nature is now, and was tken, exadly the fame. Bnt fo far is he from affirming that in FaB and Experience Mankind have re ceived no Benefit from the Gofpel, that he maintains the dired contrary, and that in the flrongeft Terms. * We may (fays he) fafely appeal, even to our Ad- verfaries tkemfelves, wketker tke Tefii- mony ofCkrifi concerning tke Immor tality of tke Soul, and the Rewards and tPuni/bments of a future State, kave not had (notwithftanding all tke Corruptions *P. 311. A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 95 of Chrifiianity) vifibly, in Experience and EffeB, a greater and more powerful In fluence upon tke Lives and ABions of Men, than tke Reafonings of all tke Pkilofopkers tkat ever were in the World Wketker in Chriftian Countries, ( at leaf where Chrifiianity is profeffed in any tolerable Degree of Purity ) tke generality, even of the mearier and moft vulgar and igno rant 'People, kave not truer and worthier Notions of God, more jufi and right Appre- henfions concerning his Attributes and Per- feBions, a deeper Senfe of tke Difference of Good and Evil, a greater Regard tumoral Obligations, and to tke plain and moft rie- cejjwsy Duties of Ufe, and a more' firm and univerfal ExpeBation pf a future State of Rewards and Punifhments, than in any ¦ Heathen Country any confider able number cf Mm were ever found to kave had. The Dodor is thus far certainly in the right, that the Nature of God, and the Duties of Religion are much better, and more generally underftood, in Chriftian Countries than in Pagan. And as to PraBice, though we cannot in this re fped fay as much in behalf of Chriitians as we could wifh, yet, I hope, there is yet Virtue enough left among us to fhew that the Gofpel has not been (as this Gen tleman would reprefent the Cafe) en tirely 96 A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. tirely without Effed. View the Lives of the firft Chriftians, and the Power of the Gofpel in reforming the Manners of Men will be vifible beyond contradidi- on : And if the Gofpel has not now e- very where a proportionable Effed, this will fhew indeed^ that Men are grown worfe, but the Value of the Means will be juft the fame. And, probably, had the Gofpel never been publifhed the World in general would have been by this time in a much more deplorable Condition than it is. It is very certain that Chriftianity, for fome hundreds of Years, made a confiderable Reformation in the World, and does fo in Multitudes ' every Day : And if fome Corruptions in Chriftianity have given a Handle to bad Pradices, it is certain there are as bad Pradices at leaft in other Places, where no fuch Oecafion has been admi- nifter'd. So that' I cannot fee that Chri ftianity has, upon any account, done any Hurt to balance againft the Good ; becaufe thofe bad Men who abufe the Gofpel to bad Purpofes, would certainly have abufed Natural Religion to as bad, and adually do fo ; for there is no fuch thing as abufing the Gofpel, without an Abufe of natural Reafon too. We are on this Oecafion often put in mind of the A Defence of Dr. Clarke, &c. 97 the Corruptions of Popery, in view of which I prefume it is that the Gentle man obferves, that wkat in mofi Places paffesfor tke Ckrifiian Religion has transformed this fecial and benign Crea ture ( Man ) into one fierce and cruel; and made him aB with fuck Rage and Fu ry againft tkofe wko never did or defign' d kim the leaf Injury, as could not have enter'd into tke Hearts of Men to conceive, even tkcugk tkey were in the Dodor'j un avoidable State of Degeneracy and Corru ption. It fhould be obferved here, that the Objedion, as the Gentleman him felf has ftated it, does not lie againft the Chriftian Religion, but againft what paffesfor the Chriftian Religion ; i. e, not againft the Gofpel, but againft fome- thing elfe, which is miftaken for the Gofpel ; and from the Corruption of the Gofpel, no doubt, much Mifchief may and does arife. But, pray, Sir, Are there more Murders and Outrages com mitted in France or Spain, than in Tar** tary or the Indies ? Or, cannot it eafily enter into your Heart to conceive, that Men brutifh and favage in their Difpo- fitions will find Ocafions to harrafs and opprefs their Fellow-creatures, whether they have a Religion, to quarrel about, 0 or i oo A Defence of Dr. Clarke,^. dy the Corruptions of Natural Religion ? The Objedor, fpeaking of the vile Max- , ims of fome Chriftians, asks, * What lefs than a n e w Revelation can expofe their Expofitions, and explain away their Explanations of tke prefent Revelation ? And a little after he fays, We kave no great Reafon to hope it will ever be fb well with Mankind, but that there will alwdys be too much room for fuch Argu ments as the Dodor urges from ike Cor ruptions of Mdnkind, for new Revelations. What, he would have us underftand by thefe Remarks, I prefume is this, That it is not reafonable to fuppofe that there will for ever be a Neceffity of new Re velations ; and yet that, according to Dr. Clarke's Way of arguing, we have little Reafon to hope for the contrary ; that is, we have little Reafon to hope that the World will ever be fo free from Corruption, as not to afford Oeca fion, to thofe who are willing to make ufe of it, to argue for the Want of new Revelations. To this Objedion I give this fhort and plain Anfwer, viz. That if theChriftian World is.not ye t bad enough, it may in time be bad enough to make 3 new Revelation neceffary ; and that * P. 406, 407,, 1 even A Defence of Dr. Clarke,^, i o i even now, it would be unreafonable to rejed any further Revelation which might be offered as coming from God, merely upon a Pretence that no farther Revelation is wanting. The Objedor feems to be too fond of the Difeafe to wifh for a Cure. But thofe who un derhand the Value of true Religion would be glad to fee it fo prevail, tkat tke wkole Eartk may be filled with tke Knowledge of Godj as tke Waters co ver tke Seas. Then, and not //// then,, (fo far as we can judge) will there be an End of all Ufe of farther Revelations. The Gentleman's Hopes, you fee, will not carry him fo far. I wonder not at it ; for natural Religion affords no fuch Hopes as thefe. But the Gofpel, which forefaw thefe Corruptions, has alfo fore told the Remedy, and teaches us to look for new Heavens and a new Eartk, wkerein dwelleth Rigkteoufihefs ; previous to which, there will be another gfeat and more glorious Manifeftation of the Son of Man. When this Revolution will happen we cannot tell ; for to us it belongs not to know tke times and tkefea- Jbns, wkick tke Father has put in his own power. But come it will ; and at fuch a time are we taught to exped it, when the i 04 A Defence of jDr.'ClaifeiftP^ things in an even Balance one againft the other; will, lam perfuaded, find thefe Evidences fo much to preponde rate, thit it will appear to be far more reafonable to embrace the Gofpel, againft all thefe Objedions, as a divine Re Vela-1 tion, than, for the fake of fuch Objedi ons, to rejed it as an Impofture. .FINIS. Lately 'Publifh'd by the fame Author, ADifcourfe concerning the Ufe and Advantages of the Gofpel Revela tion ; as it was deliver'd on three feve-* ral Sundays, at the New. Chapel in the Broad Way, Wefminfier. In which are obviated the principal Objedions con tain'd in a Book, entitl'd, Chrifiianity as old as tke Creation. Printed for J.'Peinberton. 3 9002 08561 5426