to be estimated by a few bright examples, while millions are left in ignorance and vice:) also by a comparison of it with the gospel revelation; which latter was given to restore human nature and deliver reason from bondage by grace. Conclusionthe bad return made for so great a blessing by those who set up reason and nature in opposition to it. The success of such an attempt however will not be greater than its wisdom and piety.

PART II.

Second head considered: religion shown to be founded in the principles of reason and nature; hence it must be formed with a view of securing our future happiness: that therefore is the best religion which will most surely conduct us to the end proposed: the nature of religion enlarged on: eternal happiness out of our own power; it is the gift of God alone: if eternal life therefore be the end of religion, and likewise the gift of God, religion is nothing but the means of obtaining from God this most excellent gift thus far all religions that have appeared in the world are shown to agree: from this account of the nature of religion, that it is to know the living God and to serve him acceptably, some consequences follow-first, since to please God and to act according to the will of God are but one and the same thing, that must be the most perfect religion which instructs us best in the knowlege of his will: defect of reason and nature in this point of view-secondly, it is wrong to compare natural religion and revelation together, for the purpose of inquiring which is preferable; for this is to inquire whether we know God's will better than he himself knows it. Since revelation must needs be the surest guide in religion, every man is bound to consider its pretensions when offered to him: this inquiry excluded by those who argue against all revelation, à priori, as inconsistent with God's wisdom. Sum of the argument against revelation à priori stated-viz. that God, having given to us reason, has bound us

to obey its dictates, and will judge us by its rule; otherwise he would have given an imperfect rule, which is inconsistent with his wisdom: but, the rule being sufficient, revelation must be useless and impertinent, and therefore not derived from God: moreover, as reason and natural religion never yet prevailed universally, it must be supposed that whatever happens in the world is designed by God, and those who have least reason are in that state for which he designed them; it is therefore absurd to suppose a revelation would be given to take them out of that state. On this argument four observations are briefly made; involving-1. the principle that the creature is always bound to obey the Creator :—2. that human reason cannot be said to be absolutely, but only relatively perfect, as a rule; and it is begging the question to suppose there is no other rule but reason given; which must be proved, not supposed:-3. to add to a law once considered perfect as a rule, when an alteration of circumstances requires it, is oftentimes the effect of wisdom and necessity:-4. to say that revelation is unnecessary because reason is a perfect rule, and yet to affirm that those who have an imperfect use of reason have need of a revelation, is a contradiction; again to say, that those who are in such a state that they do not and cannot obey the laws of reason, are yet in such a state as God designed for them, is not only making God the author of evil, but ascribing to him two inconsistent intentions: we do not argue now in behalf of any particular revelation: this alone is urged, that revelation is the surest foundation of religion: hence it is incumbent on every man of sense and reason to inquire whether there be a revelation or no: for the precepts of natural religion cannot be taken into consideration until it be certain that there is no revelation to guide us; there can be no comparison made to determine our choice; for the revelation must be rejected, before natural religion can pretend to take the lead the beaten but false path, which unbelievers tread, explained: the conclusion of their reasonings shown to be--that

because there may be a false revelation, there cannot be a true one: application of what has been said to the Christian revelation: its pretensions are worthy of the deepest consideration: reasons given why such pretensions are not to be turned off with general and loose observations: neglect of this consideration shown to be inexcusable: want of sincerity in religious professions, and desire of salvation, give a wrong turn to controversies about religion different conduct is pursued with respect to those worldly objects which we highly value: concluding exhortation.

PART III.

There cannot be a fairer trial of any religion than a consideration of its efficacy in leading us to eternal life, which is the end of all religion: the difficulty is, how to apply this rule so as to direct our choice, since all religions pretend to have the words of eternal life: our object therefore must be to enable ourselves to determine, which are, and which are not, words of eternal life. Some principles in all religions are allowed, which may help our determination: such are these that life eternal can be had only from God; and that from him the only way to obtain it is to live agreeably to his holy will; whence it follows, that since to do God's will is the only way to obtain eternal life, the words which instruct us in the knowlege of his will must be the words of eternal life: when therefore we inquire from what principle we ought to derive our religion, we do in truth inquire from what we may best derive our knowlege of God's will, since this is the true measure of our religious obedience. Two ways only by which we can arrive at this knowlege: one, by following the dictates of reason and nature; - the other, by learning it either from God's own declaration, or from persons sufficiently authorised by him, which is what we call revelation. Between these two general principles, it is no hard matter to judge which is the safest: as nature is a better

guide than any pretended revelation, so every true revelation, as far as it goes, is better than nature: absurd to compare natural religion and revelation together, as considered in themselves since, if the revelation be false, no arguments are necessary to make it yield to nature; if true, none can be sufficient. On the same principle other general objections against the gospel of Jesus Christ examined: its methods of salvation, which human sagacity cannot fathom, are matters of complaint with unbelievers: they think it unreasonable that God should propose such as objects of faith, and from this presupposed unreasonableness conclude they were not of God's contrivance, but the tricks of impostors: this objection, however, is opposed to all revelation in general, considered as a principle of religion, which adds any thing to what reason teaches us: the question then will be--can it be reasonable for God to propose any articles of faith or conditions of salvation, the reason and propriety of which do not appear to man? This the case of the gospel. In the sense of the gospel, what is a mystery and what is not: it must be remembered that not human reason, but God's will is the rule and measure of religious obedience; and therefore the terms of it must be tried by their agreement with God's will rather than the narrow compass of man's reason. If reason can by any means discover that the conditions of salvation proposed to us are the will of God, its work is over, and we are bound to use the means prescribed in order to obtain the desired end and how little soever reason may be able to penetrate into mysteries, yet if it can discover them indeed to be the mysteries of God, and proposed by him as terms of salvation, it discovers to us that these mysteries are the words of eternal life; and what more does a man look for in his religion? This, it may be said, is true, on the supposition that God re quires the belief of mysteries; but how does this prove it reasonable for him so to do? Certain allowances being made on each side, the question is reduced to this-whether it can ever

be necessary to reveal mysteries, in order to perfect the salvation of mankind? whenever it is necessary, it must be reasonable, unless it be unreasonable for God to save the world. Nature of a mystery stated: no real or positive thing in nature, but merely negative with respect to ourselves: what the complaint against mysteries amounts to shown. Return to the question, whether it can be ever necessary for God to use such means for the salvation of the world, the agreeableness of which to the end proposed human reason cannot discover: this shown to be necessary by various arguments, particularly by the difficulty of reconciling it with the wisdom and justice of God so freely to pardon sin as not to leave the marks of his displeasure on it, and vindicate in the face of creation the honor of his laws and government no religion but that which is able to adjust these difficulties can have the words of eternal life: mysteries are so far from being an objection to the gospel, that without a mystery it is impossible for us to be saved: a religion without them might serve for this life, since they are not necessary parts of religion considered only as a rule of action; but they are most necessary when considered as means of obtaining pardon and eternal glory.

PART IV.

Religion acting on the soul, compared with a regimen necessary for the body-one sort proper for a sound constitution, and another for repairing a broken one: an innocent man has nothing to do but to preserve his innocency, which is his title to God's favor; his religion therefore is only a rule of life, and there is no room in it for mystery; but on the supposition of mankind becoming sinful and liable to God's wrath, religion itself becomes a new thing. Unbelievers may think that too much is required to believe that all are sinners and are fallen short of the glory of God: but this is the principle on which