to have recourse to the facred fcriptures, in order to find out the truth, and defend it against such innovators. Well, fays our author, this was actually done; but, alas! to no purpose: the innovators had recourfe to fcripture as well as the orthodox, and each fide boafted of victory. Strange, indeed! that the only rule acknowledged by Proteftants, as given us by God, whereby to know the truth, should be incapable of defending it. But, whence could this arife? Why? fays our Reverend Author, "The radical error "was a notion, that religion was concerned "on a particular fide, or that fcripture had faid

any thing that could ferve to decide the point "debated." Boldly faid indeed, Reverend Sir! now at last you have spoken out, and clearly dif covered your true fentiments: What! errors that explained away revealed truths; errors that, from mens inquiring into the Why and the How incorporated adventitious tenets into the Chriftian doctrine, which were quite inconsistent with it; errors that destroyed the reality of the Chriftian religion, and fubftituted fhadows in its place: Are these points in which religion has no concern! points of which the fcripture has faid nothing that can decide the question! Nay, is it even a radical error to fuppofe, that these weighty and most effential matters can be decided by the fcripture! Rejoice then, O Deifm! and be exceeding glad, O Infidelity! It is now a gained caufe for you. Here is a plain acknowledgment, by a Doctor of the Proteftant Church, that the facred word of God, the only Proteftant rule of faith, is incapable of deciding where the truth lies, even in those very points where the vitals of Christianity are attacked, where revealed truths

are at ftake; and confequently, that Christianity is without a rule, without ground, without foundation; and therefore not from God! O tempora ! O mores!

I must here, however, do this juftice to our author to obferve, that he feems afhamed of what he had faid, and wants to mollify it by what follows: "Methinks, fays he, I hear it asked with furprise, Is there any question relative to religion on which the fcripture is neutral? I must beg leave to ask in return, Was it the inten"tion of the fcripture to render men omnifcient? "Are there not many things on every fubject "which we cannot apprehend?" &c. Here you fee he would have us believe, that all diffenfions in religion were only about points in which religion has no concern; points not revealed by God; points of mere curiofity, the knowledge of which God had referved to himself; and there fore no wonder the scripture should not be able to decide them. But alas! this evafion is directly contrary to what he had faid above; as well as to experience. He tells us, p. 46. that the errors that introduced the divifions among Chriftians were fuch as explained away revealed truths, that is, truths which God had difcovered to mankind, and of which he abfolutely requires our belief: again, that they were fuch as embraced falfehoods inconfiftent with Christianity, instead of God's truths; and, laftly, fuch as mistook fhadows for realities; and that thefe two laft efpecially arofe from mens inquiring into the manner in which the Divine operations are conducted, and gave rife to that Theologic war in which he exprefsly declares, that the scripture is incapable of deciding. Now, were thefe all points in which

religion had no concern? befides, does not experience itself condemn his evafion? Did ever the Chriftian church blame any opinion that did not injure fome revealed truth? Even the Papifts themselves, to this day, allow their divines to hold what opinion they please in explaining the manner in which the Divine operations are conducted, and other fuch points; provided their opinions do not encroach upon any revealed truth. And does not every fect of Proteftants pretend, that their respective tenets are the truths of God, clearly revealed in holy writ? Is it not in this view, and under this notion alone, that they embrace and adhere to them? Now, if the fcripture be not capable of deciding what are, and what are not, revealed truths, what must become of Christianity? Laftly, let us only confider the nature of these points upon which Christianity is divided, and we fhall, at firft view, fee clearly the importance of them. The Trinity of the Godhead, the confubftantiality of the Son, the incarnation, original fin, the neceffity and efficacy of the facraments, the real or figurative prefence in the fupper, the neceflity and fufficiency of faith alone; and the like: thefe are fome of the grand points of controverfy which at prefent divide Chriftians; and fome of which have done fo fince the earlieft ages. Now, are these queftions of mere curiofity? Is not the one fide or the other of these revealed by Almighty God? Does not each party embrace the fide they are on, merely from the conviction that revelation lies there? How ridiculous is it then in our author

to impofe upon his reader, by pretending, that the debated points were questions of mere curiofity, Y

things above our fphere, the knowledge of which God had referved for himself; by which he contradicts experience, and plainly gives the lie to what he himself had before advanced?

I have now confidered this Reverend Author in the characters of a friend to the Proteftant religion, of a man of humanity, and of a Christian; and I have given pretty convincing proofs to show, how extremely deficient he is in all these respects. I have alfo occasionally taken notice of fome very unphilofophical steps he has taken in managing his argument; and shall now only add an observation or two more upon this head.

A judicious philofopher, who acts upon folid principles, will never be guilty of glaring felfcontradictions, advancing one thing upon one occafion, and the very contrary upon another, as he finds neceffary to serve a prefent turn. A conduct of this kind evidently fhows a man to be without principles, influenced by paffion, and that he writes at random. I have hinted above at fome pretty inconfiftent propofitions which our author advances, when fpeaking against religious ceremonies, and elsewhere; but, in what I am here to obferve, his felf-contradiction is very confpicuous. In order to bring in the Roman-Catholicks as guilty of grofs fuperftition, among other things, he makes a great handle of their religious men and women, who make vows of poverty, by which they deprive themselves of all property in this world, that they may the more perfectly follow their Lord and Mafter; and he tells us, p. 54. that, by this means, they think they confecrate themfelves to God. From this one should naturally imagine, that Papists had a vaft efteem for poverty, and that they looked upon it as a

great means to find favour with God, and procure a more certain admiffion into heaven; which indeed is their real fentiments. But, a few pages after, our author forgets what he has here advanced; and being refolved to condemn them of felling pardons for fins, which they deny to the poor who have not money to buy, he affures us, that, among them, the rich alone have any chance for heaven, and the only difficulty is for a poor man to get hither; and that, according to their tenets, the woes denounced against the rich, and the bleffings pronounced upon the poor, ought all to be reverfed. Pray, Reverend Sir, how are these contradictory affertions to be reconciled? or which of them shall we believe? Is this acting in the character of a philofopher? Would ever the judicious author of the Differtation on Miracles have been capable of publishing to the world affertions fo unworthy of himself?

Again, to act in direct opposition to one's own principles, is no lefs unworthy of a philofopher, than to affert contradictory propofitions; yet I find our author is not free of the one more than of the other. P. P. 43. he fays, "Where do we 66 now find any attention paid to these important "leffons of our Lord, Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Mafter, even Chrift, and all ye are "brethren; and call no man your father upon earth, for one is your Father which is in heaven?" After fo warm a lamentation of the tranfgreffion of thefe orders of our Saviour, who would ever imagine, that our author would himself be guilty of the very fault which he here condemns; and yet, p. 5. he addreffes his audience by the name of Fathers: "I have too high a respect (fays he)