If it be afked, whether the revelation to the Patriarchs by Mofes did not teach this, and why that was not enough; the answer is obvious, that however clearly the knowledge of one invifible God, maker of heaven an earth, was revealed to them, yet that revelation was shut up in a little corner of the world, amongst a people, by that very law which they received with it, excluded from a commerce and communication with the reft of mankind. The Gentile world, in our Saviour's time, and feveral ages before, could have no atteftation of the miracles on which the Hebrews built their faith, but from the Jews themselves, a people not known to the greatest part of mankind, contemned and thought vilely of by thofe nations that did know them; and therefore very unfit and unable to propagate the doctrine of "one God" in the world, and diffufe it through the nations of the earth, by the ftrength and force of that ancient revelation upon which they had received it. But our Saviour, when he came, threw down this wall of partition, and did not confine his miracles or meflage to the land of Canaan, or the worshippers at Jerufalem; but he himself preached at Samaria, and did miracles in the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and before multitudes of people gathered from all quarters; and after his refurrection fent his apoftles amongst the nations, accompanied with miracles, which were done in all parts fo frequently, and before fo many witneffes of all forts, in broad day-light, that, as I have before obferved, the enemies of Chriftianity have never dared to deny them; no, not Julian himself, who neither wanted skill nor power to enquire into the truth, nor would have failed to have proclaimed and exposed it, if he could have detected any falfhood in the hiftory of the gospel, or found the leaft ground to queftion the matter of fact publifhed of Chrift and his apoftles. The number and evidence of the miracles done by our Saviour and his followers, by the power and force of truth, bore down this mighty and accomplifhed emperor, and all his parts, in his own dominions. He durft not deny fo plain matter of fact; which being granted, the truth of our Saviour's doctrine and miffion unavoidably follows, notwithftanding whatsoever artful suggestions his wit could invent, or malice fhould offer, to the contrary.

2. Next to the knowledge of one God, maker of all things, a clear, "knowledge of their duty" was wanting to mankind. This part of knowledge, though cultivated with fome care by fome of the heathen philofophers, yet got little footing among the people. All men indeed, under pain of difpleafing the gods, were to frequent the temples, every one went to their facrifices and fervices; but the priests made it not their bufinefs to teach them "virtue." If they were diligent in their obfervations and ceremonies, punctual in their feafts and folemnities, and the tricks of religion, the holy tribe affured them, the gods were pleased; and they looked no farther. Few went to the fchools of the philofophers, to be instructed in their duties, and to know what was good and evil in their action. The priests fold the better penny-worths, and there

fore

fore had all their cuftom. Luftrations and proceffions were much easier than a clean confcience, and a steady courfe of virtue; and an expiatory facrifice, that atoned for the want of it, was much more convenient, than a ftrict and holy life. No wonder then, that religion was every were diftinguished from, and preferred to "virtue," and that it was dangerous herefy and prophaneness to think the contrary. So much "virtue" as was neceffary to hold focieties together, and to contribute to the quiet of governments, the civil laws of commonwealths taught, and forced upon men that lived under magiftrates. But thefe laws, being for the most part made by such who had no other aims but their own power, reached no farther than thofe things that would ferve to tie men together in fubjection, or, at moft, were directly to conduce to the profperity and temporal happiness of any people. But "natural religion,' in its full extent, was no where, that I know, taken care of by the force of natural reafon. It fhould feem, by the little that has hitherto been done in it, that it is too hard a task for unaffifted reason to establish morality, in all its parts, upon its true foundations, with a clear and convincing light. And it is at leaft a furer and fhorter way, to the apprehenfions of the vulgar, and mafs of mankind, that one manifeftly fent from God, and coming with visible authority from him, fhould, as a king and lawmaker, tell them their duties, and require their obedience, than leave it to the long, and fometimes intricate deductions of reason, to be made out to them: such ftrains of reafonings the greateft part of mankind have neither leifure to weigh, nor, for want of education and ufe, fkill to judge of. We see how unfuccefsful in this the attempts of philofophers were before our Saviour's time. How fhort their several systems came of the perfection of a true and complete "morality." is very vifible. And if, fince that, the Chriftian plilofophers have much outdone them, yet we may obferve, that the first knowledge of the truths they have added are owing to revelation; though, as foon as they are heard and confidered, they are found to be agreeable to reafon, and fuch as can by no means be contradicted. Every one may obferve a great many truths which he receives at firft from others, and readily affents to, as confonant to reason, which he would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond his ftrength, to have difcovered himself. Native and original truth is not fo cafily wrought out of the mine, as we who have it delivered ready dug and fashioned into our hands are apt to imagine. And how often, at fifty or threefcore years old are thinking men told what they wonder how they could mifs thinking of, which yet their own contemplations did not, and poffibly never would have helped them to! Experience fhews that the knowledge of morality, by mere natural light (how agreeable foever it be to it), makes but a flow progrefs, and little advance in the world. And the reafon of it is not hard to be found, in men's neceffities, paffions, vices, and miftaken interefts, which turn their thoughts another way. And the defigning leaders, as well as the following herd, find it not to their purpose to employ

much

much of their meditations this way. Or whatever elfe was the caufe, it is plain in fact, that human reafon unaffifted failed men in its great and proper business of "morality." It never, from unquestionable principles, by clear deductions, made out an entire body of "the law of nature." And he that shall collect all the moral rules of the philofophers, and compare them with thofe contained in the New Teftament, will find them to come fhort of "the "morality" delivered by our Saviour, and taught by his apoftles: a college made up for the moft part of ignorant, but inspired fishermen.

Though yet, if any one fhould think, that, out of the fayings of the wife Heathens, before our Saviour's time, there might be a collection made of all thofe rules of "morality" which are to be found in the Chriftian religion; yet this would not at all hinder, but that the world nevertheless stood as much in need of our Saviour, and "the morality" delivered by him. Let it be granted (though not true) that all "the moral precepts" of the gofpel were known by fomebody or other, amongst mankind, before. But where, or how, or of what ufe, is not confidered. Suppose they may be pickt up here and there; fome from Solon and Bias in Greece; others from Tully in Italy; and, to complete the work, let Confucius, as far as China, be confulted; and Anacharfis the Scythian contribute his fhare. What will all this do, to give the world" a complete morality," that may be to mankind the unqueftionable rule of life and manners? I will not here urge the impoffibility of collecting from men, so far diftant from one another, in time, and place, and languages. I will fuppofe there was a Stobæus in thofe times, who had gathered "the moral fayings' from all the fages of the word. What would this amount to, towards being a steady rule, a certain tranfcript of a law that we are under? Did the faying of Aristippus, or Confucius, give it an authority? Was Zeno a lawgiver to mankind? If not, what he or any other philofopher delivered, was but a faying of his. Mankind might hearken to it or reject it, as they pleased, or as it suited their intereft, paffions, principles, or humours: they were under no obligation; the opinion of this or that philofopher was of no authority: and, if it were, you must take all he said under the fame character. All his dictates muft go for law, certain and true, or none of them. And then, if you will take any of the moral fayings of Epicurus (many whereof Seneca quotes with efteem and approbation) for precepts of " the law of nature," you must take all the reft of his doctrine for fuch too, or elfe his authority ceafes: and fo no more is to be received from him, or any of the fages of old, for parts of "the law of nature," as carrying with it an obligation to be obeyed, but what they prove to be fo. But fuch a body of Ethicks, proved to be the law of nature, from principles of reafon, and reaching all the duties of life, I think nobody will fay the world had before our Saviour's time. It is not enough, that there were up. and down fcattered fayings of wife men, conformable to right rea

fon.

fon. The law of nature was the law of convenience too; and it is no wonder that those men of parts, and ftudious of virtue, (who had occafion to think on any particular part of it), thould by meditation light on the right, even from the obfervable convenience and beauty of it, without making out its obligation from the true principles of the law of nature, and foundations of "morality." But thefe incoherent apophthegms of philofophers and wife men, however excellent in themselves, and well intended by them, could never make a morality whereof the world could be convinced, could never rife to the force of a law that mankind could with certainty depend on. Whatsoever should thus be univerfally useful as a ftandard to which men fhould conform their manners, must have its authority either from reafon or revelation. It is not every writer of morals, or compiler of it from others, that can thereby be erected into a lawgiver to mankind; and a dictator of rules, which are therefore valid, because they are to be found in his books, under the authority of this or that philofopher. He that any one will pretend to fet up in this kind, and have his rules pafs for authentic directions, muft fhew, that either he builds his doctrine upon principles of reafon, felf-evident in themselves, and that he deduces all the parts of it from thence, by clear and evident demonftration; or must shew his commiffion from heaven, that he comes with authority from God, to deliver his will and commands to the world. In the former way, nobody that I know, before our Saviour's time, ever did, or went about to give us a "morality." It is true, there is "a law of nature:" but who is there that ever did, or undertook to give it us all entire as a law, no more nor no less than what was contained in, and had the obligation of that law? who ever made out all the parts of it, put them together, and fhewed the world their obligation? where was there any fuch code, that mankind might have recourse to, as their unerring rule, before our Saviour's time? If there was not, it is plain, there was need of one to give us fuch a "morality," fuch a law, which might be the fure guide of thofe who had a defire to go right; and, if they had a mind, need not miftake their duty, but might be certain when they had performed, when failed in it. Such a "law of morality" Jefus Chrift hath given us in the New Teftament; but by the latter of thefe ways, by revelation. We have from him a full and fufficient rule for our direction, and comformable to that of reafon. But the truth and obligation of its precepts have their force, and are put past doubt to us, by the evidence of his miffion. He was fent by God: his miracles fhew it; and the authority of God in his precepts cannot be queftioned Here "morality" has a fure ftandard, that revelation vouches, and reafon cannot gainfay, nor queftion, but both together witnefs to come from God the great lawmaker. And fuch an one as this out of the New Teftament, I think, the world never had, nor can any one fay is any where elfe to be found. Let me afk any one, who is forward to think that the doctrine of "morality” was full and clear in the world at our Saviour's birth, whether would VOL. IV. H

he

he have directed Brutus and Caffius (both men of parts and virtue, the one whereof believed, and the other difbelieved, a future being), to be fatisfied in the rules and obligations of all the parts of their duties; if they should have asked him where they might find the law they were to live by, and by which they fhould be charged or acquitted, as guilty or innocent? If to the fayings of the wife, and the declarations of philofophers, he fends them into a wild wood of uncertainty, to an endlefs maze, from which they fhould never get out: if to the religions of the world, yet worse: and if their own reafon, he refers them to that which had fome light and certainty; but yet had hitherto failed all mankind in a perfect rule; and, we fee, refolved not the doubts that had rifen amongst the ftudious and thinking philofophers; nor had yet been able to convince the civilized parts of the world, that they had not given, nor could without a crime take away the lives of their children, by expofing them.

If any one fhould think to excufe human nature, by laying blame on mens "negligence," that they did not carry morality to an higher pitch, and make it out entire in every part, with that clearness of demonftration which fome think it capable of, he helps not the matter. Be the caufe what it will, our Saviour found mankind under a corruption of manners and principles, which ages after ages had prevailed, and muft be confeffed was not in a way or tendency to be mended. The rules of morality were, in different countries and fects, different. And natural reafon no where had, nor was like to cure the defects and errors in them. Those just measures of right and wrong, which neceffity had any where introduced, the civil laws prefcribed or philofophy recommended, ftood not on their true foundations. They were looked on as bonds of fociety, and conveniences of common life, and laudable practices. But where was it that their obligation was thoroughly known and allowed, and they received as precepts of a law, of the highest law, the law of nature? That could not be, without a clear knowledge and acknowledgement of the lawmaker, and the great rewards and punishments for those that would or would not obey him. But the religion of the Heathens, as was before obferved, little concerned itfelf in their morals. The pricfts that delivered the oracles of heaven, and pretended to fpeak from the God, fpoke little of virtue and a good life. And, on the other fide, the philofophers who spoke from reason, made not much mention of the Deity in their Ethicks. They depended on reason and her oracles, which contain nothing but truth: but yet fome parts of that truth lie too deep for our natural powers easily to reach, and make plain and vifible to mankind, without fome light from above to direct them. When truths are once known to us, though by tradition, we are apt to be favourable to our own parts, and afcribe to our own underftandings the difcovery of what, in reality, we borrowed from others; or, at leaft, finding we can prove what at firft we learnt from others, we are forward to conclude it an obvious truth, which, if we had fought, we could not have miffed. Nothing feems hard

to