Heathens moft undoubtedly are? Are thefe Chri ftian virtues, which are fo warmly recommended to us by Almighty God in his holy word, are they, I fay, the fuggeftions of knavery and folly, as the practices of thofe Heathens are by all Christians confeffed to be? Does the daily and continual exercise of thofe holy virtues bear no proportion to the end proposed to be obtained by them, viz. the purifying the foul, and advancing her in Divine love? or do the higher aufterities of the fakiers and bonzas contribute as much to the obtaining their ends, the appeafing the wrath of their dumb idols, and obtaining fayours from them? Or, finally, have these Chriftian virtues, practifed in honour of the God of heaven, and by the counsel and recommendation of Jefus Chrift himself, have they, I fay, no more efficacy to obtain favour from him, than the tortures fo unmercifully inflicted on their own flesh by the Chinese bonzas, in honour of the demon Fo? Be ashamed, O Britain! that fuch blafphemies should be published to the world by any of your unhappy fons. But what terms fhall I find fufficient to exprefs what our worthy author adds here in his notes, to the difgrace of the name of a Christian? Having told us in the text, that for their god Fo the Chinese bonzas con over their rofaries, and make proceffions and pilgrimages, he adds, in the note: "But whether the fyllables, O mi to Fo,

pronounced by a Chinese, have more or less "virtue than the fyllables Jefu, Maria, pronoun"ced by a Romanift, let him, who thinks a found "mind hath any concern in religion, fay." Sayeft thou so, my friend! Is it then a doubt with thee, whether the invocation of the devil, or a dumb idol, or the calling upon the Lord Jefus

Chrift, have more or lefs virtue in it? And will any doubt remain after this, with thy Christian readers, whether or not the author of this fermon be a Christian? It is not my province here to inquire, how far the Papifts are justifiable in their rofaries, proceffions, or pilgrimages, and in their invocations of the names of Jefus and Mary; let them anfwer for these things themfelves but this we are certain of, that whatever they do of this kind, is intended by them in honour of the true God, and of Jefus Chrift his Son; and if what they do with this intention be not in itself a criminal or prohibited action, certainly the doing it with the view of honouring God, renders it, at least excuseable, if not justifiable; for it is an undoubted principle of found morality, that every action, of itself indifferent, takes its whole praise or blame from the intention with which it is ufed. My taking a walk, for example, to Hide-park, is in itself neither good nor evil: if I go there on purpose to meet a poor man, and give him an alms, this design makes my going there an act of Christian charity, even though I should not meet with the object: on the contrary, if I go there with the intention of picking fome one's pocket, or committing a robbery; this intention, without doubt, makes my going an act of injustice, and offenfive to God, even though I should miss my defign. In the fame manner, my taking a journey to Jerufalem, confidered in itfelf, is a thing perfectly indifferent, neither good nor evil: if my motive for going there be merely to fatisfy a vain curiofity, and to be able afterwards to vaunt that I have seen thefe places; my journey, by this means, becomes a journey of pride and vanity: but if, on the contrary, my

defire of feeing thofe countries be for love to Je fus Chrift, to excite in my heart more feeling fentiments of devotion towards him, by the moving fight of those very places where he was pleased to perform the great work of our redemption; let any one, who has ever felt the effects of love in his breaft, fay, whether, in this cafe, my pilgrimage to Jerufalein would be an act of devotion, and agreeable to God, or an act of demoniacal superstition, as our author would have it? But (fays he) the Chinese bonzas make proceffions and pilgrimages in honour of their god Fo. What then? Why? the confequence our author would wish to lead us to, by his fophiftical argumentation, detected above at large, is this: "Thefe exterior "acts in honour of the idol Fo, are certainly fu

perftitious: Ifrael, in like manner, as we have

feen above, from their attachment to the exte"rior of their religion alone, were guilty of the "like fuperftition; therefore the fame exterior profeffions of our devotion towards the only

86

46

living and true God, are fuperftitions also. Su"perftition (fays he) is the fame under every denomination; the form and the garb may be different, "but the fpirit is the fame." And in this lies the whole force and energy of his argument. But, my God! what a ftrange way of arguing is this in the mouth of a Chriftian? What! because the devil, who always wants to imitate the works of God, infpires his votaries to honour him by the fame exterior actions by which Chriftians endeavour to honour the God of heaven, hall we, therefore, conclude, that these laft, done in honour of God, are no lefs criminal and fuperftitious than those done in honour of the deyil? May we not, with equal reafon, fay, that

it is criminal and fuperftitious to pray to the true God, because the Heathens also pray to their false deities? Our author readily grants the confequence, and fairly acknowledges, that a Chriftian invocating the name of Jefus, Son of Mary, can reap no more benefit by it, than a Chinese bonza calling upon the idol Fo!

I come now to confider another grand attempt which this author makes to undermine the Christian religion, by endeavouring, under an appearance of zeal for its fimplicity and purity, to enervate the whole force and efficacy of its facraments. Before he comes close to the point upon this head, he prepares his reader's mind by throwing out, in his ufual way, several grofs mifreprefentations and unjuft fneers at what he terms the corruptions of ritual worship; but speaks with fuch confufion and feeming incoherency upon this fubject that the reader is confounded and fcarce knows what he would be at: only, from the fevere cenfures paffed upon these corruptions, and the odious terms ufed in fpeaking of them, there is impreffed in the mind a fecret indignation and averfion at fomething, without being told for a while what that fomething is, and a readiness, or even impatience to pass fentence of condemnation upon it when ever the writer fhall be pleased to discover it. When in this manner he has inflamed the imagination to the pitch he wants it, he then discovers the odious monster, which is the folly of believing that the facraments of Jefus Chrift are ordained and appointed by him as an efficacious means of bringing his heavenly grace to our fouls!

Time will not allow me to point out the feveral inconfiftencies which our author is guilty of

on this fubject, nor to clear up the real doctrine of Christianity concerning religious ceremonies in general, from the calumnies and falfe lights under which he represents them. I fhall, therefore, confine myself solely to what our religion teaches us concerning the facraments; this being by far of most importance, and what the author chiefly wants to destroy. In doing this I am under no neceffity of appearing as an advocate for any particular set of Chriftians: The Church of England and the Church of Rome are here embarked on the fame bottom; their doctrine in this respect is much the fame as to the nature and efficacy of the facraments; they only differ as to the number they admit: The Greek church, and all the different churches in the East, teach the fame doctrine, in which alfo most of the Prote ftant churches abroad, the Calvinifts excepted, agree; and, even among the Calvinifts themfelves, our author's antichriftian system has not been univerfally received; their people in general are still strongly perfuaded of the neceffity of baptifm for falvation, notwithstanding the opinion of many of their leaders to the contrary. It is therefore the common cause of Christianity which I am here to engage in against a writer, who, by the fubtile addrefs with which he endeavours to rob it of one of its greatest treasures, convincingly fhews how little he is a friend to that facred inftitution.

Experience teaches us, that there are many difputes in the world, carried on with the greateft acrimony, which would entirely ceafe, were the points in debate clearly explained. Truth carries that amiable quality along with it, that, in L