growing idolatry; had a tendency to spread the knowlege and worship of the one true God among the nations, and, in fome measure, had its effect: if therefore the generality of the Pagans made no use of these advantages, the fault is not to be charged upon God, but themselves.

3. Idolatry gathered ftrength among the nations, as they grew in learning and politenefs: tho' the arts and sciences made a great progrefs among them, yet they ftill became more and more addicted to the most abfurd idolatries, as well as to the moft abominable vices; both of which were at their height at the time of our Saviour's appearance.

4. Human wisdom and philofophy, without a higher affiftance, was infufficient for recovering mankind from their idolatry and polytheism, and for leading them to a right knowlege of God and religion, and the worship due to him. Nothing was to be expected from Philofophers, Priefts, or civil Magistrates; a revelation from God the only effectual remedy.

Laftly, The Christian Revelation is fuited to the neceffities of mankind; a glorious change was brought about by it in the ftate of religion in the world; was accomplished by the feemingly meanest inftruments, in oppofition to the greateft difficulties it was published to the world in the fitted feafon, and attended with the moft convincing evidence of a divine original. How thankful fhould we be for the falutary light it brings, and how careful to improve it! What an advantage is it to have the Scriptures in our hands; and how neceffary to adhere to this facred rule, in order to the preferving the Chriftian religion in its purity and fimplicity!

The fecond volume of the work before us, the former part of which contains an enquiry into the state of the ancient Heathen world, with refpect to a Rule of Moral Duty, opens with fuch introductory fentiments as thefe, viz. That man appears from the frame of his nature to be a moral Agent; that God hath given him a law to be the rule of his duty; that this law is not naturally and neceffarily known to all men without inftruction; and that the methods by which men come to the knowlege of this law, are the moral fenfe, the principle of reafon, education, human inftruction, and extraordinary Revelation from God. The principal heads of moral duty were made known to mankind from the beginning, and continued to be known and acknowleged in the patriarchal ages: but when men fell from the right knowlege of God, they fell alfo in important inftances from the right knowlege of moral duty. Many measures were purfued in the economy of Divine Providence, to preferve the fenfe and knowlege of morals among the Heathen

nations; but they did not make a right ufe of the helps afford

ed them.'

After thus introducing the subject, the Doctor enters into a particular enquiry into the ftate of Morality in the Heathen world. A compleat rule of morals, he fays, comprehends the duties relating to God, our neighbours, and ourselves. If the Heathens had fuch a rule among them, it would appear either in the precepts of their religion, or in the prefcriptions of their civil laws, or customs which have the force of laws, or in the doctrines and inftructions of their Philofophers and Moralifts. Morality was no part of what they esteemed religion, nor was it the office of their Priests to teach men virtue. As to the civil laws and conftitutions, however proper they might be for the civil government, they were by no means an adequate rule of morals. The best of them were, in feveral refpects, extremely defective.' In illustration of these positions, our Author enters into a very fair and candid examination of various civil laws, and cuftoms which had the force of laws, among the most civilized nations, especially amongst the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, which were contrary to the rules of Morality. The principal inftances here cited, are from the laws and customs of the Lacedemonians, fuch as whipping of boys to death, at the altar of Diana Orthia; their exceeding cruelty to their flaves, the Helotes, as they are called, who had not the common claim of juftice under their laws; the expofing weakly and deformed children, which was pofitively enjoined; the training up the Spartan youth to dexterous thieving; and fome other conftitutions totally inconfiftent with modefty and decency. The fubject of Pæderafty is alfo largely examined, and the authorities fupporting the charge against the Heathens, in this refpect, fairly reprefented; to which feveral undeniable inftances might have been added. I have infifted, fays the Doctor at the close of this examination, more largely upon this, because there cannot be a more convincing proof, that the laws and customs, even in the more learned and civilized nations, are not to be depended upon as proper guides in matters of morality. The Greeks are regarded and admired as the moft eminent of the pagan nations, for their knowlege in philofophy, and especially in morals, and as having cultivated their reafon in an extraordinary degree. They valued themselves mightily upon their wifdom, and the excellency of their laws; and yet their laws, or generally allowed cuftoms, fhewed, that they were become amazingly corrupt, both in their notions and practices, with regard to morals; and that in inftances as to which one would have thought the light of nature would have given them a fufficient direction. For tho' fome of them acknowleged the evil and tur

pitude of that unnatural vice, yet, in the general opinion, it feems to have paffed among them for no fault at all, or a very light one.-St. Paul therefore, in drawing up his charge of an amazing corruption of morals in the Heathen world, very juftly puts this in the first place, as being both of the highest enormity, and very common, not only among the people, but the Philofophers themselves. Nor is it probable, that any thing lefs than a divine law, enforced by the authority of God himself, and by the most express denunciations of the divine wrath and vengeance againft fuch crimes, could have overruled the force of fuch inveterate cuftom and example, countenanced by the maxims and practice of those who made high pretences to wifdom and reafon.'

From the Greeks our Author paffes to the Romans; whofe good policy and government has always been greatly admired: he examines the laws of the twelve tables; animadverts upon the law of Romulus, concerning the expofing of diseased and deformed children, which was confirmed by a conftitution of the twelve tables; upon their cruel treatment of their flaves; upon their gladiatory fhews, contrary to humanity; and upon their unnatural lufts, common among them as well as the Greeks; and juftly concludes, that we are in vain directed to look for a proper rule of morals to guide the people, in their laws and conftitutions, many of which were very defective, and others highly immoral.

After having largely confidered the laws and cuftoms of the ancient nations, we are led on to the examination of the Morality which was taught by the ancient Heathen Philofophers, whofe inftructions and precepts, it may be alledged, were fufficient to guide men to the true knowlege and practice of virtue, The Doctor is far from detracting from the praifes due to the ancient Philofophers and Moralifts. He acknowleges, that many admirable paffages are to be found in their writings; that they speak nobly of the beauty and dignity of virtue; and give many excellent directions for the conduct of life: nay, he is willing to allow, that they were ufeful inftruments under the affiftance of Divine Providence, for preferving among men an efteem and approbation of virtue; for ftrengthening and improving their moral fenfe, and giving them, in many inftances, a clearer difcernment of the moral reafons and differences of things. But after all this, he apprehends, there are many fubstantial reasons, why they were not a fufficient guide; and that men stood in need of a divine Revelation to lead them to virtue. • The Philofophers could not furnish a rule of Morals that had fufficient certainty, clearnefs, and authority; their fentiments

were

were in no fenfe laws obligatory upon mankind; nor could a compleat fyftem of morals be extracted from them all collectively confidered. Many of the Philofophers were fundamentally wrong in the first principles of morals; denied that there were any moral differences of things founded in nature, and refolved them all into human laws and cuftoms. In illuftration of this, the moral fyftem of Epicurus is examined; and if purfued thro' all its genuine confequences, fhewn to be deftructive of all virtue and good morals. They were generally wrong with respect to the duty and worship proper to be rendered to God, tho' they themselves acknowleged it to be a point of the highest importance. Some pleaded for revenge, and against forgiveness of injuries. Many countenanced the most unnatural lufts and vices, both by their principles and practice. And even fome of the best of them, encouraged an impurity and indulgence inconfiftent with the ftrictnefs and dignity of virtue.'

Our Author proceeds in the next place, to the confideration of the Stoical fyftem, against which the following are his principal objections; of the true force of which every Reader must judge for himself.

One great defect which runs through their nobleft precepts of piety is, that they are promifcuously rendered to God and Gods, herein giving encouragement to polytheifm. Their doctrine tended to take away, or at leaft very much to weaken and diminish the fear of God, especially as a punisher of fin. It tended also to raise men to a state of felf-fufficiency and independency, inconfiftent with a due veneration for the Supreme Being. They gave excellent precepts with regard to the duties men owe to one another; yet they carried their Apathy so far, as to be, in fome inftances, not confiftent with a humane difpofition. They recommended forgiveness of injuries; but, in feveral refpects, they carried this to an extreme, placed it on wrong foundations, or enforced it by improper motives. They spoke much of fubduing their paffions; but had not a due regard to purity and chastity. Their doctrine of Suicide, immoral, and of pernicious confequence. They profeffed to lead men to perfect happinefs in the prefent life, abftracting from all confideration of a future ftate, which feems inconfiftent with the defign of Divine Providence. The feverity of their philofophy was not reducible to practice, and had little influence either on the people, or those who taught it.'

The Doctor concludes this part of his work with obferving, That the nations were actually funk into a deplorable state of corruption, with regard to morais, at the time of our Saviour's appearing that one principal end of the manifeftation of Jefus

Christ was, to recover them from their wretched and guilty ftate, to holiness and happiness: that the Gospel scheme of morality exceeds whatsoever had been publifhed to the world before: that its precepts are enforced by the moft powerful and important motives: and that the tendency of the Gofpel to promote the practice of holiness and virtue, is an argument to prove the divinity of the Chriftian Revelation.'

We are now arrived at the third and last part of our Author's plan, in which he confiders the ftate of the ancient Heathen nations respecting a Future State of Rewards and Punishments.

After introducing this part of his fubject, by afferting the high importance of the doctrine of a Future State; and acknowlegeing, that the natural and moral arguments used in fupport of it are of great weight; he proceeds to obferve, That they are not fo evident, but that if men were left merely to their own unaffifted reason, they would be apt to labour under great doubts and difficulties; and that therefore a Revelation from God concerning it, muft be highly advantageous. That fome notions of a future ftate did obtain among mankind, from the earliest ages; not the effect of human reafon and philosophy; nor yet the invention of Legiflators for political purposes; but derived by tradition, and probably a part of the primitive religion communicated to mankind. That these traditions became gradually obfcured and corrupted; and were, in a great meafure, infufficient to the purposes of virtue.

Many of the Philofophers abfolutely denied the doctrine of a future ftate, rejecting it as a vulgar error: others represented it as wholly uncertain: nay, even their fentiments concerning the nature of the human foul, were various and contradictory. The Peripatetics feem to have denied the fubfiftence of the foul after death: the Stoics had no fettled confiftent scheme on this head; nor was the immortality of the foul a doctrine of their school. Neither was a future ftate acknowleged by Confucius, or those who profeffed to be his difciples.

Of those Philofophers who profefs to believe and teach the immortality of the foul, Pythagoras is generally esteemed the moft eminent but to fay nothing of the uncertainty we are under as to his real fentiments, when we confider that he afferted the immortality of the foul from this argument, that the foul was part of the Divinity, and after it departed out of the body, went to the foul of the univerfe, to that which is congenial to itself; when we confider that he afferted its pre-existence, and that after death it tranfmigrated from one body to another, even to the bodies of beafts as well as men, we may prefume, that the doctrine, thus taught, could be of no great ad