reafon of God's mercy, and loving kindness to them. Faith in, or an affenting to the truth of any propofition, whether human or divine, when confidered abstractedly, cannot, in the nature of the thing, render men more or less pleafing to God; because, in this cafe, they are so far paffive, as that if they attend to the fubject, they cannot poffibly think and judge otherwile of that propofition than they do; and therefore it is repugnant to reafon, that God fhould make it the ground of his favour or difpleafure. And,

As the doctrines I have now been examining, are manifeftly repugnant to reafon, and therefore cannot be the truth of the cafe; fo if it could be made appear (which I think cannot be done) that thofe doctrines are contained in the chriftian revelation; then that would be an evident proof, that that revelation could not poffibly be divine. It is true, Chrift is faid to redeem us to God by his Blood, and many like expreffions are contained in the New Testament; but then these are plainly figures of fpeech, which were not intended to be a foundation and Support for the doctrines I have now been confidering. And as thofe doctrines cannot be dif covered by reafon, because the are repugnant to it; fo, I think, what is urged on this head, does not prove, that reafon is not a fufficient guide in matters of religion. Again,

If it fhould be farther urged, fuppofing that repentance and reformation be the only

proper

proper ground or reafon of God's fhewing mercy to the tranfgreffors of his law; yet this is what reason could not discover, at leaft it could not come to any certainty that this would be the cafe:.

I answer that repentance and reformation are proper grounds of forgiveness is most evident to realon when difcovered; and to say, that reafon camot dilcover, what is most agreeable to itself when difcovered, is prefuming a point, without the leaft ground for it. And farther, to fay that no man who was deftitute of divine revelation, ever did difcern the fitness of fuch a conduct, viz, of pardoning a tranfgreffor upon his repentance and amendment of life, is venturing to fay what furely is not true. And if reafon may be fuppofed capable of discovering the fitness of fuch conduct, of which, I think, we may be certain that it is; then reafon may come to a certainty, that this would be the cafe, with respect to God and his finful creatures, upon their repentance and amendment of life; becaufe reafon affures us, that God will always do what is right and fit, and that he never will act otherwife. But admitting that reafon is uncapable of difcerning the certainty of this point, and that fuch certainty is neceffary to be difcovered, in order to engage mankind in the practice of their duty under their prefent circumstances; then, I say, that reafon ought to have been fufficient for this purpose, fecing divine revelation, which

makes

makes the discovery, has been withheld from much the greatest part of our species. The cafe is the fame, with refpect to the knowledge and certainty of the refurrection of the body, and a judgment to come; of a future ftate of rewards and punishments, and of the perpetuity of these. For, if the knowledge and certainty of thefe, are neceffary to engage mankind in the practice of their duty, as they are by the prefent conftitution of things, unavoidably fubjected to manifold and strong temptations; and if reafon is uncapable of making fuch discoveries: then, I fay, that in juftice and equity it ought, however, to be fufficient for thefe purposes; seeing (as I faid before) divine revelation, which makes thefe discoveries, has been withheld from much the greatest part of mankind. Again,

If it should be farther urged, lastly, that reafon is not a fufficient guide in matters of religion, as is evident from the fate of those ages and parts of the world, which have been deftitute of divine revelation; who, having only their reafon to guide them, have run into the most vile and abominable principles and practices; of which my Lord Bishop of London, in his fecond paftoral Letter, has given a large and full account:

I answer; it is true, that reasonable creatures, or creatures endowed with the ufe of reafon, when they neglect, or abuse, or lay afide the ufe of that noble faculty, are liable to run into the most vile and abominable

opinions

opinions and practices; and this is abundantly evident from my Lord Bishop of London's account of this matter: but, that reafon, when duly and faithfully exercifed, is not a Sufficient guide in matters of religion, does by no means follow, from any thing which his Lordship has advanced on this head. But farther; fuppofing what my Lord Bishop of London has urged, be to his purpose, and that it proves his point, viz. that reason is not a fufficient guide in matters of religion; yet then, I fay, that it does not take off the force of my argument. For if the true ground of the pagan world's running into all thofe vile and abominable opinions and practices, was the weakness and deficiency of reafon to have directed and guided them better; then, furely, reafon ought to have been fufficient for this purpofe; that fo thofe pagans might have been prevented from running into fuch extravagancies, or might have been inexcuf able if they had: I fay, that in justice and equity, this ought to have been the cafe, feeing thofe pagans have been deftitute of divine revelation.

Upon the whole, I think, I have made good the point I undertook; and have fhewn, that either reason is, or elfe that it ought to be, a fufficient guide in matters of religion. And if reafon ought to be a fufficient guide in matters of religion (that is, if it be repugwant to reafon for the cafe to be otherwile;) then this is a fair ftep towards the proving.

it to be fo. Amongst the feveral arguments, which have been urged against the doctrine of abfolute election and reprobation, none, I think, has bore harder upon that doctrine than this, viz. that it is repugnant to reafon. That is, it is unreafonable, that God should make a 1pecies of creatures capable of future blifs or torment, and that he should pre-ordain a few of that fpecies to a ftate of unfpeakable and eternal happinefs, and the reft of them to a ftate of extream and eternal mifery: which determination is fuppofed to refult folely from fovereign and arbitrary plea fure, antecedent to, and independent of the behaviour of thofe creatures, which might render them the proper objects of his approbation or diflike. And as fuch a procedure is unreasonable in itself, and is thereupon repugnant to our natural notions of the Deity; fo this has been very justly esteemed a conclufive argument against the truth of the aforefaid doctrine. In like manner, if it be unreasonable, (of which, I think, every man is a judge, when the cafe is fairly propofed to him) that God fhould call a fpecies of creatures into being, fhould render them accountable for their actions, and will reward or punish them in another world, according as they behave themselves in this; and yet fhould not funish them with a capacity, or power, which (when faithfully and duly exercifed) is fufficient to difcover what it is they are accountable for; what it is which will

render