forts from being offered to the fubject; and to protect all in the poffeffion of their reSpective privileges. But that men should propofe their difficulties openly and fairly, in order to a friendly impartial debate, is, I humbly apprehend, necessary to support the caufe of truth in general, and the credit and honour of Chriftianity in particular.

I cannot however but greatly wonder at the mighty zeal, which hath lately appeared in fome gentlemen to run down Chriftianity, and to reprefent it as an idle and groundless inftitution. That men of immoral profligate lives fhould endeavour to perfwade themselves that the religion of the gospel is a cheat, is not at all furprizing; because they have nothing to hope for, but every thing that is bad to fear, should it happen to be true. But that fuch, who would be thought friends to the interests of mankind, and lovers of virtue and goodnefs, fhould, with zeal and warmth, oppofe, and endeavour to fubvert a religion, which evidently maintains, and is built upon these principles; I know not how, by any juft maxims whatsoever, to account

for

for. Surely it will be owned, that there are a great many wife precepts, and excellent principles in the Chriftian Scheme: and therefore when they argue against it, it Should be with an exception to thofe things which are confefsedly agreeable to truth and reafon; they ought only to expose the impoftures, frauds, falfe principles, the idle and deftructive maxims, the falfe reafonings and comparisons that are to be found in it, if any fuch they can produce. And here we are willing to joyn issue with them. If they can fairly prove the principles we maintain to be falfe, we own we must reject them; and if they can prove thefe to be the principles of the gospel, we must be forced farther togive up its divine original. But doth it therefore follow, that fuppofing the gospel was no revelation from God, it hath nothing in it true or valuable? And would not a wife and good man, who hath any just fenfe of honour, or value for the interests of virtue, own and commend what was commendable in Chriftianity; and be content with expofing the abfurdities which he imagines do attend

b 2

attend it, without condemning in the lump, without any difference or excepti ons, the excellencies and the faults of it? And will not thofe who read thefe gentlemens writings, in which there are no footSteps of fuch a neceffary diftinction to be found, conclude them enemies to the whole of Christianity, tho' they would be thought fo only to fome particular parts of it? If they were not fo, would they imploy all their zeal and time in endeavouring to unfettle mens minds, without fo much as attempting to lay down any more folid and fubftantial rules to lead men into virtue and happiness? What tho' Cicero and Seneca, and other men amongst the Heathens, were free-thinkers, and had no great opinion of the religion of their own country; were they enemies to virtue and morality too? Did they not endeavour to establish thofe great principles of the being of a God, and his providence, and a future ftate? And did they not recommend the worship of the fupreme being, and the practice of univerfal virtue? Did they, like our modern deifts, confound all

good

V

good and evil, and argue indifferently a gainst them both? Fain, Iperceive, they would be thought like these great men : but they must be content to be without this great honour, 'till they better understand their principles, and learn from them to write with a more fincere regard to truth and virtue.

If the enemies to religion and Christianity would do any thing to the purpose, let them difprove the being of a God, and his providence, and the neceffary diftinction and difference between moral good and evil. If they profefs to own and believe these things; let them shew that men are not accountable for their actions, or that if they are accountable, they are rewarded and punished in the prefent life, and that therefore there is no need of a future reckoning. If they own there is; let them fhew that the method laid down in the gof pel, of God's pardoning finners, is abfurd and unfuitable to his nature and perfections. Let them lay down any more proba ble and likely fcheme, which shall be liable to lefs difficulties. Let them prove that repen.

repentance must neceffarily entitle to par don; that God cannot have wife and valuable ends to answer by the punishment of finful men in another life; that the refurrection of the body is impoffible; that the foul can fubfift in a state of compleat happiness without any union to body; that Jefus Chrift was no prophet; that his death and fufferings were not a proper method to spread the knowledge of God, and encourage the practice of true religion. In a word, let them prove that religion in general is a groundless idle thing, and that the grand principles of the Chriftian religion are abfurd and falfe; or their method of writing against Chriftianity will appear to every ferious mind to be indefensible and highly criminal.

Not to mention here, that they do not feem fo much to argue against Christianity, as to infult and banter it. The author of the Grounds, when he should have been more seriously imployed, makes himself merry with his Rabbi, and his Devil ; and reprefents St. Paul as talking divine nonsense, in a beautiful allegory he did not understand. And when fatire fails him, meanly