the Gospel will be found to ftand in the opposition of flat

⚫ contradiction to itself.

The paragraph in which Mr. Heathcote hath afferted this extraordinary propofition, adduceth in proof of it three texts of Scripture, containing,

I. A caution of our Bleffed Saviour, not against refting the truth of Chriflianity upon the fimple teftimony of its miracles, but against going after false chrifts and falfe prophets.

2. A caution of St. Paul against giving heed to St. Paul himself, or an angel from heaven, preaching any doctrine • different from that of the gospel; fuppofing, not granting, that it were poffible for an angel fo to preach.

3. A caution of St. John against believing every spirit, because many falfe prophets, anti-christian spirits, were gone ' out into the world. Try therefore, faith he, what manner of fpirit they are of; try whether it be the spirit of God, by the touchstone (not of eternal, unchangeable fitness, but) of the Gospel of Jefus Christ. "For, hereby, addeth "St. John, know ye the spirit of God: every spirit that con"feffeth that Jefus Chrift is come in the flesh, is of God; "and every spirit that confeffeth not that Jefus Chrift is "come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that spirit of "antichrift, whereof ye have heard that it fhould come, "and even now already is it in the world.' 1 John iv. 1—3.

Let the candid reader now, or let Mr. Heathcote himself, determine whether any of these three texts of fcripture do caution us, in the most explicit terms, against refting the truth of Chriflianity upon the fimple teftimony of its miracles: nay whether they caution us against any thing else, than the forfaking of the Gospel, fupported as it is by its miracles, and of Jefus Chrift, its bleffed author, upon any preten

fions whatfoever.'

Again, p. 56. Mr. Heathcote's argument (Says he) fup-› pofeth the Christian Apology to affert, that the knowledge of facts can only be acquired by the testimony of our fenfes ; leaving out the words mediate or immediate, which in both. editions of the fermon stand before the word teftimony, and evidently mean, in connection with it, the teftimony of our own, or of other people's, fenfes.

2. It pretendeth, that, from the confideration" that we "cannot reason furely or effectively but upon the ground of "facts," the Chriftian Apology inferreth" that we should reft "the truth of Christianity upon its miraculous facts." Whereas this propofition, however afferted in the fermon, is not there afferted in confequence of the above confideration, nor fup'posed to have any connection with it.

Of this the candid reader will be convinced, who fhall be pleafed to turn to the 16th and 17th pages of the ⚫ fermon. There the author, in order to fhew (what he had undertaken to fhew) the inability of the understanding to come at real truth by abftract reasoning, hath afferted, that the only path to this real truth is the knowledge of realities and facts; fince the moft fuccefsful comparing of fuch ideas as ❝ are not known to have any thing in nature correspondent to them, can only furnish the mind with chimerical propofitions inftead of real truths: that this knowledge of facts and realities can, ordinarily, come into the mind no other way than by the mediate or immediate teftimony of the senses: that, confequently, reafon cannot difcover them; and accordingly, i. e. agreeably to this confequence, God did not • leave it to reason to find out those realities which it was neceffary for us to know, concerning his nature, his acts, and purposes; but communicated to us, as well those which could be attefted by fenfe, as thofe which lie beyond the • reach of it," by declarations made to us by his Son, and by "his apoftles and prophets," who, that we might believe them to be fent from God, and might implicitly receive their informations, ftamped them with the divine, authentic feal of aftonishing and awful miracles.

• I will not exclaim in the language of Mr. Heathcote, What shall we fay now to this affiftant-preacher of ours? • But I will fay, that this gentleman having, as he conceiveth, 'gained a compleat victory, first by the help of a difinge

nuous quotation, and fecondly, by mistaking, or wilfully • misrepresenting the point in question, infolently closeth this ⚫ fifth argument with giving his adverfary the hard name of cabaliftic theologue, and wondering at his indifcretion" in 66 venturing out of his thickness of cover into the broad, open paths of nature and common sense."

66

L 2

The

The Doctor, towards the conclufion of his pamphlet, prefents us with the two following illuftrations in support of his darling opinion, which he hopes may furnish fatisfactory reafons for refting the proof of the reality of a revelation upon external evidence.

Let us (fays he) suppose Abraham to have laid down to himself this rule, recommended by Mr. Heathcote, of ex• amining communications pretended to, come from God, by the teit of the plain, unerring dictates of common sense, the first and fimpleft principles of all morality and religion. Ac'cording to this plan of proceeding, Abraham must have su• spended his affurance that the voice which commanded him to flay his fon for a burnt-offering, that this voice was a real revelation, until he fhould have examined the matter of the command, by the principles of natural religion, to try whether it was not contradictory to, or at least not inconsistent • with, any of them. Until this should appear to him, the • external evidence of a voice from heaven was not to be allowed that God was the author of this comany weight to prove mand; it might be a voice proceeding from the prince of the power of the air,

Abufing him to damn him*.

In this examination he would foon meet with two principles, which Mr. Heathcote will place high in the lift of moral truths. • written on the invisible tablet of our hearts, "That parents are "to love and cherish their children;" and, "That we are not "to commit murder." How, then, according to Mr. Heathcote's examining fiftem, will Abraham be defended from the imputation of enthufiaftic, or, to use Mr. Heathcote's favourite word, fanatic rashness, in receiving for a divine revelation, and obeying, a command fo directly repugnant to the true • criterion of revealed truths? Certain it is, that this procedure of Abraham was fo fhocking to a late reasoning divine of great hopes, who afterwards went into Ireland, that he fcrupled not to fay, "if he had been a justice of peace in "the parish where Abraham lived, he would have put him "in the ftocks."

5

* Shakespeare, Ham!,

6

In vain will it be faid, upon Mr. Heathcote's plan, in • defence of Abraham's conduct, that he had reafon to depend upon God's former promises, and to believe that God, would raife his fon from the dead: this is fuppofing him affured that "the command was from God, when its failure on the teft, its repugnancy to the first and fimpleft principles of all morality and religion, compelled him to pronounce it an imposture. In vain alfo will it be alledged, that God may, in fubfequent revelations, difpenfe with the prefcript of his primary revelation: this is again fuppofing the difpenfation to come from God, which, by the never-failing criterion, is demonftrated to be altogether unworthy of him; not to mention that God, having, according to Mr. Heathcote, made that primary, the touchstone of every subsequent revelation, hath ❝ thereby abridged himself of the power of difpenfing with it. 'Our fecond illuftration for manifefting the neceffity of refting the truth of revelation upon external proofs, is this:

'Let us divide the inhabitants of the globe, as Mr. Heathcote hath divided the globe itself, not into thirty parts, but ❝ into as many thoufands as they may be supposed to confist of; and then let us enquire whether there be one perfon in each of thefe thousands who hath any clear conception of this author's glaring first and simplest principles of morality and religion, or is at all qualified for this author's proposed examination into the reasonableness of its doctrines, and the • worthiness of its ends and purposes. Now what is to become of thofe vaft numbers who are thus incapable of examining? Was not the gofpel preached to thefe poor and ignorant creatures, as well as to philofophers? And yet, according to 'this author's scheme, they are utterly excluded from all posfibility of believing and embracing it. Will he tell us they are implicitly to take philofophers for their guides? This 'cannot be. He will not allow an implicit regard to be paid to what he acknowledgeth to be the word of God; much lefs then to the word of man. But fuppofing him to allow this, or rather (as his fyftem will lead him) to contend for it: in this case a new difficulty will arife. They must ask 'what class of philophers they are to follow? Christians and

L 3

infidels,

• infidels pretend alike to have tried this gospel by the test ❝ of reason, common sense, and natural religion; and though Prideaux, Rogers, and Mr. Heathcote declare it to be, in all its parts, confiftent with thofe facred canons, Shaftesbury, <Tindal and Morgan will declare directly the contrary. How is the poor untaught foul to decide between the two parties? Bare affeverations are, on each fide, of equal weight in the scales. These therefore cannot determine him. Is he then to examine their several reafonings, to find on which <fide the truth lieth? Alas! he cannot read, nor hath the least ⚫ conception of the meaning of the terms which make up their disputation, And if he could read, and understand, yet his life, were it of antediluvian length, would end before the controverfy, which is now as much alive as ever it was, and • leave him but partially acquainted with the pleadings of the • several advocates, and confequently without any pretensions to give judgment upon the cause. Or if the whole pleadings lay actually before him, yet to fuppofe him able to determine the controverfy, would be to make him wiser than these philofophers who are unable to determine it, and who were, juft now, appointed as his guides, because he was not wife enough. In fhort these millions of the vulgar, yea and thefe philofophers alfo, however raised in their own conceit ⚫ above the vulgar, muft, if Mr. Heathcote's be the true manner of proceeding, remain in a state of invincible fufpenfe during their whole lives; no life being long enough for opening and explaining, even though we were mafters of the proper facts, the grounds and reafons of every act or purpose, or law of God recorded in the fcriptures, fo as to demonftrate against all objections, that it is confiflent with our notions of the divine attributes, and not contradictory to any manifeft • truths natural or moral.

Nor is there any cure for this miferable uncertainty and fufpenfe, but the decifive authority of those miracles which were wrought and appealed to for this very purpose of recom¬ mending the revelations of God in the old and new tefta⚫ment to the reverential acquiefcence of mankind.*

The Doctor then endeavours to obviate three infinuations by which Mr. Heathcote hath endeavored to difcredit the plan

of