moft extraordinary fupport of the Almighty. t After what has been faid, it is almoft incomprehenfible how Lord Lolingbroke could object against the Chriftian religion, that it had produced no effects worthy of a divine origin. What kind of effects is then demanded? "If the revelations (fays Bolingbroke") which have been pretended, had not been pretended only-the neceffary confequence would have been, that the fyftem of religion and government would have been uniform through the whole world.' And why? Because the divine Omnipotence would have impofed it on all mankind, fo as neceffarily to engage their affent.' But God never acts in this manner in the government of the world as far as we are acquainted with it. He has given us, as Bolingbroke confeffes, a natural revelation of i h Works, vol. iv. p. 224. his his will; fince He has connected with certain modes of conduct either falutary or pernicious confequer.es, and beftowed Reafon on man to enable him to discover them. And yet it is evi dent, that He does not compel men to comply with this revelation.-Religion cannot operate like a charm or a médicine; we may study and practice it, or not. Agreeably to the moral nature of man, it produces no effects otherwise than through the understanding. And admitting that God had intended to compel men by his Omnipotence to the practice of a certain religion; of what ufe then would have been an immediate written revelation? Either, therefore, there is no imme diate written revelation of God; or the very existence of fuch a revelation proves, that it is God's will to deal with us, not according to his Omnipotence, but in a moral manner, and to leave it entirely to our free-will, whe ther ther we will follow what He has clearly revealed or not. Indeed the opponents of Christianity labour to deftroy the miracle of its propagation, by producing a variety of natural causes, through which they endeavour to explain it. But the greater part of these pretended caufes are forged; and even if we unite them all together, this event remains incomprehenfible, unless we take into the account a higher fupport. 1ft. What they fay, in the first place, of Fanaticifm, is amply refuted in page 280 f. -2d. The pretext of universal Tolerance under the Jews and Romans is evidently contradictory to history *.2d. And the fame may be faid in anfwer to the affertion, that the first fupporters of the chriftian religion were exclusively fimple and mean people'.Bolingbroke has chofen ftill another *See above, p. 363. 3 1 See above, p. 342. mode. mode. He fuppofes this to have been the cause of its rapid and extenfive progrefs, that the Apoftles used the artifice of receiving into the pale of: Christianity all, without exception, both Jews and Gentiles". But what affiftance could that give to a religion, which afforded not the leaft temporal advantage, but, on the contrary, placed its firft fupporters in danger of lofing every thing they poffeffed in this world, may even life itself? Suppofe a poor, defpifed man, who could fcarcely find fupport for himself, were to publish a declaration, that he would receive every one without diftinction into his fervice; is it probable that a fingle perfon would be induced to enter into it? Another affertion, that a community of property was introduced in the earliest ages of the church, is ftated as a moft powerful caufe of the propa m Works, vol. iv. p. 306, gation of Chriftianity". Should we grant, as his Lordship pretends without any foundation and in oppofition to history, that fuch a common stock exifted in the primitive church; this very circumftance would have rather hindered the rich and powerful from embracing the religion. But the afsertion is evidently falfe. Such a community of property existed only in the beginning, and indeed only in the parent-community at Jerufalem. The converts from Paganifm, who composed the far greatest part, were reftrained from leaving their former condition and calling; that through their diligence they might obtain fupport for themselves, and a trifle for the affiftance of the neceffitous ; but were by no means allowed to afford nourishment n Works, vol. iv. p. 422. • Acts v. vi. § 1 Cor. vii, 17-34. 30, 31. Tit. ii. 9, 10. 9 Ephef. iv. 28. to |