loss what to think is best for him? Men's not attending to the dictates of right reason, but embracing things as truths, which are inconsistent with it, and contrary to it, shews that the light of nature, as it is now in them, is far from being a sufficient guide to them in matters of religion.

It is not agreeable to truth to say, that the reason of any finite being is perfect or sufficient, in an absolute sense; but if this could be allowed, it does not alter the case as to us, who are the descendants of apostate Adam: our nature, as we are fallen sinful creatures, is corrupt, and consequently our reason is no sure light to guide us, because there is in our understandings much darkness, mingled with a little light. We need not desire a more plain proof of the imperfection of reason, in our corrupt state, than what we may gather from the consideration of the errors men have run into, who have set up their reason in opposition to the mysteries of nature and revelation. Many who have done this, have fully come to what the Apostle Paul said of the Gentiles, Rom. i. 22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. When their pride has been so great, that they would not be content with owning the great mysteries of natural religion, without explaining the manner how they are, and when their insolence has risen so high, as that they have set up their reason in opposition to the mysteries of revelation, they have shewn what short-sighted creatures they are, in vending opinions as most rational, which are entirely inconsistent with right reason. Some have not been able to bring themselves to own, that the distinction of right and wrong is dependent on the will of God; they therefore have laid down this nonsensical paradox, that there are moral fitnesses in the reason and nature of things, which must be conceived as prior to the will of God; and hence it is argued, that God is as much bound by the rules of justice, as any of his creatures. That there is an essential difference between right and wrong, is most certain; for if we conceive of God, as an infinitely good, just, and perfect Being, all which is

laws, and that he is not accountable to the Most High; so that the living God must be supposed to be an indolent Being, not minding what those who are the product of his hands do, in contempt of his authority.

If these things are duly considered, it is as insolent as it is erroneous, in the patrons of reason, to stand up for the sufficiency of it in matters of religion. However it may be in others, it is apparent, that it is greatly debased in those muddy creatures, who will not make use of the common helps that are thrown in their way, to guard them against the most gross absurdities. They come under the judgment which Moses, by commission from God, threatened should come upon Israel, in case of disobedience, when he said, Deut. xxviii. 28, 29. "The Lord shall strike thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart; and thou shalt grope at noon-day, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and shalt not prosper in thy ways. Though reason improved by revelation proclaims, that the supreme God is our Judge and Lawgiver, that there is but one living God, who is our Creator, and who is to be worshipped by us, and that in him we live, move, and have our being, and to him must give an account of our actions; yet they shut their eyes against what light they might have, in their state of frailty and imperfection, and go about to palm upon the ignorant, such irrational stuff as this*, that there is a cause prior to the first cause, that the independent Sovereign is himself dependent; that creatures may be subordinate deities, dependent creators, to be worshipped with inferior Divine worship; that he who sits at the head of the empire of providence, has brought into being rational creatures, which he made not for himself, and which are not accountable to him. Let the pleaders for the sufficiency of reason, of itself, without a revelation, to be a guide to religion, blush, when they shew it to be so insufficient in them

⚫ I am not concerned whether all these paradoxes have been started by any one advocate for the sufficiency of reason: it is enough, if each has been maintained by any one of the antiscriptural faction, who still call themselves Christians.

selves in bolting out such glaring absurdities; and let them no longer assume to themselves the title of men of reason, when reason is sunk so low in them. When we think on the irrational things they amuse themselves with, we cannot but see how God is secretly pleading his own cause, even by their folly; they receive not the truth in the love of it, and he in judgment gives them over to strong delusions, so that they are fond of the most senseless figments, which appear in the garb of novelty. When they, through pride, cry up their own reason, to the disparagement of scripture, they are left to dote upon irrational vanities, which are a disgrace to that very reason, which they labour, by undue methods, to advance to a height to which it can never be justly raised.

The treacherous betrayers of revelation, who stand up for the sufficiency of natural religion, would not appear to renounce the Christian doctrine, which they really give up into the hands of the Deists its implacable enemies, and therefore they pretend to give full proof of the sufficiency of human reason in matters of religion, from scripture itself. Had there been such proof, it must have been owned to have been strange; for then scripture would have declared itself not to have been absolutely necessary for the uses of men: but the case is far from being what these inaccurate blunderers would give out. They appear only to have cast their eyes on some passages of sacred writ, and to have laid ' hold of them, as in sound, seeming to countenance their cause, but not to have considered the texts they bring in connection with the context. In their manner of quoting scripture, they imitate exactly the father of lies, who when he tempted the God of truth manifested in the flesh, cited scripture only to curtail it, and to wrest it from its genuine sense. Their arguings are so mean, that a person almost needs pardon who goes about to answer them; however, let us see what they have to say to keep their wretched cause in countenance and to fence off conviction from themselves.

It is insolently said,* that the doctrine of the sufficiency of buman reason is the doctrine of the apostle Peter who said thus. Acts x. 34, 35, with respect to Cornelius, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but, in every nation, he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted of him. From hence this strange inference is drawn, that it appears, that, in every Heathen nation, they who followed the light of their natural reason and conscience, feared God; whence it follows, that in the judgment of the apostle, every Heathen, by the light of natural reason, had a sufficient guide to lead him to the religious fear of God. Now, nothing can be more contrary to the apostle's sense than this: He did not speak of Heathens, who were left to the bare light of nature, being able, by the help of that, to fear God; but he owned his conviction, that salvation by Christ was not to be confined to the Jewish nation, but was to be made known to the Gentile world. Cornelius was one of good report among the Jews, or one who was proselyte to the Jewish religion, but was not circumcised, being one of those who were called proselytes of the gate, and so he had the scriptures of the Old Testament to instruct him, and was not left to the bare light of nature. Besides, when he, under some doubt, prayed for illumination he was directed by an angel appearing to him to apply himself to the apostle Peter for instruction, which is a certain evidence, that his natural light was not a sufficient guide in all probability the thing he desired to be infomed in, was the truth of the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth; because, when Peter came to instruct him, Acts x. 36, 41, 42, he declared Christ's supreme Deity, or that he is Lord of all; he asserted the truth of his resurrection, of which he had been an eyewitness, having eat, drank, and freely conversed with his risen master; and he shewed him, that this Jesus who died, rose, and revived, was ordained to be Judge of the quick and dead. These were things which the light of nature never taught: yet they were matters in

Plea for Human Reason, p. 49, 50.

which the great apostle thought it was necessary to instruct Cornelius and his friends. A man must then have a very odd turn of head, who can bring himself to fancy that Peter judged the light of nature was sufficient to guide those whom he instructed in things above it, into the religious fear of God. Had the case been so, Cornelius would not have needed to have been directed by an angel to send for Peter, in order to shew him what it was that God would have him to do.

We are told, that seeing the apostle Paul, Rom. ii 10. has declared, that glory, honour, and peace, would be to every one that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile, it follows, that the law of reason, by which they were to be finally judged, was a sufficient guide in matters of religion and salvation, to those who knew not the Gospel: but it is amazing, that such masters of reason could not see, that the apostle here spoke of such Jews and Gentiles as had received the Christian faith; for he intimated as plainly as words could do it ; that the persons he had mentioned, Jews as well as Gentles, were to be judged, as to their sincerity, or the secrets of their hearts, according to the Gospel which he had preached, Rom. ii. 16. Whether it was from the stupidity of these perverse disputers, that they could not see this, or whether it was from their knavery, that they would not see it, is not easy to be determined; they may choose which they please. The apostle had not respect to such as knew not the Gospel, but to such as had received it, and made a profession of it; and it is mere ignorance to take him as owning the light of nature to be a sufficient guide, as well as great conceit, to put off such blundering stuff for argument.

It is further pleaded, † that the same apostle Paul has said, Heb. xi. 6. He that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of all them that diligently seek him. From hence a conclusion is drawn, that if reason, or the law of nature, has the sanction of rewards and punishments annexed to it, it must follow that it is a sufficient guide in matters of religion. These • Plea for Human Reason, p. 50, 51, + Plea, p. 51, 52.