to virtue, and diffwafive from vice, which arifes from the confideration of future rewards and punishments, as fome of our Divines have too haftily maintained that they were.

By the term Heathenifm, I think, Dr Stebbing must mean natural Religion; and by mere Heathenifm, I think, he must mean pure uncorrupted natural Religion without any mixture or addition; this, I fay, I think, must be his meaning, if he has any fixed ideas to his words. And forafmuch as the Chriftian Religion is, (as it must needs be, if it be of God) the pure uncorrupted religion of nature, or as Dr Sherlocke the prefent Bishop of Salisbury has very juftly and truly expreffed it, The Religion of the Gospel is the true original Religion of reafon and nature; fo, in this view of the cafe, mere Heathenifm is the uncorrupted religion of Christ, or it is that religion which Chrift published to the world. without any mixture or addition. But then, this is putting the cafe into fuch a light as no doubt Dr Stebbing never intended it should appear in. True religion is not a precarious thing, founded only on fovereign and arbitrary will; but is grounded on eternal reafon and truth; and as fuch it must be the fame both yesterday, to day, and for ever. And therefore, if the Chriftian Religion be of God, (which furely Dr Stebbing will not deny) then, of neceffity, it must be neither more, nor lefs, nor otherwife, than the true original Religion of reafon and nature. And,

As

As true Religion is founded in nature; fo nature exhibits a proper rule of action to all intelligent beings, in all cafes, and under all poffible circumftances where a law or rule of action is wanting; and this denominates it a perfect law. For, were nature deficient in this respect in any cafe, or circumftance whatever, then, the law or rule of action refulting from it would not be perfect, and confequently, the law of nature would not be a perfect law, which fuppofition is greatly abfurd. So that nature exhibits a proper rule of action to intelligent beings as well after they are become offenders, as antecedent to the offence committed; that is, nature as much, and as plainly points out to men what they ought to do after they have offended, in order to render themfelves the proper objects of mercy, as it points out to them what they ought to do, fo as not to ftand in need of that mercy. I fay, nature as plainly points out a proper rule of action in this, as in any other cafe. I am fenfible, this is running counter to our modern Theology, which fuppofes that nature is defective in this particular, and that there is no proper rule of action refulting from it with regard to criminals; and confequently, that God is at liberty to act arbitrarily in this refpect, by appointing what conditions he pleafe for his creatures to obtain his mercy, and for them to be reconciled to him; but this is grofsly abfurd as I have already observed. And,

From hence a queftion very naturally arifes, viz. what difference is there between Dr Stebbing's Chriflian Religion and mine? if I may be allowed to use those terms, without being charged with great impropriety. And the anfwer is, that the difference is very great. My reprefentation of Chriftianity is all natural, it is pure nature without any mixture or addition. Whereas, Dr Stebbing's Chriftian Religion is a compound, it is partly natural, and partly artificial; it is cooked up in a polite manner, and after the French fashion, with bigh fauces, forced meats, and made dishes, fuch as nature and reafon are perfect strangers to, and by which it is fuited to the vitiated appetites of mankind. But then, it ought to be remembered, that no doctrine is to be admitted, or at leaft ought to be admitted, as an important truth, until upon a fair trial it is proved to be fuch; and therefore, the doctrines of atonement, of propitiation, of pecuniary mules, of tranfubftantiation, and the like, these must all be tried before they be admitted; and if upon a fair trial thefe, or either of them, fhall plainly appear to have the stamp of reafon and truth upon them, then, where that appears to be the cafe, every fuch doctrine ought, for that reafon, to be received; but if upon fuch trial thefe doctrines, or either of them, fhall be found wanting, then, where fuch defect appears, every fuch doctrine ought, for that reafon, to be rejected.

There

There are many words and even affertions in the New Teftament that are either mere figures of fpeech, or elfe are only allufions to what took place amongst men, and in particular to what took place among the Jews under the difpenfation of Mofes. And though the doctrines that are or may be grounded upon these, may afford matter for an artful barangue; yet a little attention will discover that they will not bear being reasoned upon, without being found wanting. Thus for example, it is afferted that Chrift fits at the righthand of God, which affertion feems at least to imply that God is a material being, who, in fome particular place in the universe, fits on a glorious throne, and that Chrift, as his fon, fits in a chair of ftate at his right-hand; in which fenfe, probably, those words are understood by many young and tender minds, who have been taught frequently to repeat them from the time they first came to the use of fpeech. Now, tho' what is thus implied in the forementioned affertion, may with as much juftness be grounded upon it, as other doctrines are grounded upon other words or affertions in the New Teftament; yet it is not to be admitted, because the contrary can be proved, viz. that God is an immaterial being, who is present in the fame manner, kind, and degree, in every part of infinite space; and confequently, has no right-hand for Chrift to be placed at. So that these words, viz. Chrift fits at God's right-hand, tho' they are made an article

article of Chriftian Faith; yet, I think, can be no other than an allufion to the custom and ufage of an earthly prince, who, when feated on his throne, has his fon, or the heir apparent to his crown, fitting at his righthand; and as to what we are to understand by it, and learn from it, thefe are queftions that at prefent I am not concerned with. In like manner, Chrift is faid to be the propitiation for the fins of the whole world, which words, as they ftand in our translation, 1 John ii. 2. are scarce fenfe; and if we understand them to mean, that Chrift by his mediation, or any other way, difpofes or inclines God to be propitious to a finful world, then, in this fenfe they cannot poffibly be true, because God is in himself, and from his own nature, difpofed and inclined to be propitious to all fuch finners as fhall render themfelves the proper objects of his mercy antecedent to, and independent of, Chrift's undertaking, and therefore, cannot poffibly be made fo by it. And this truth is as evident and plain as that God is not material. It is the evil difpofition of mind that takes place in us, and is the ground and caufe of all our tranfgreffions, which is the ground of God's diflike of us, and of his refentment against us; and therefore, there cannot poffibly be any thing in nature which can render God actually propitious, that is, which can actually remove God's diflike and refentment, but the actual removal of that which is the ground and cause of these, viz. the