altogether improper to attend them, in thofe high and fublime Exercises of Religion, where there is nothing to be admitted, to be heard, or felt, but Infpiration.

A. Can you blame them, when Men of great Note, not only amongst themfelves, but other Societies and Churches, have fo terribly exclaim'd against the ufe of Reafon in Religion, as a horrid Atheistical Thing? What fhall load a Man with more Infamy than to be known to üfe one's Reafon in Matters of Revelation or Infpiration? Is not this to join with Spinoza, with Socinians, Deifts, and Atheists, and what not? The very Name of Reafon in Religion, frightens many Men, which muft furely be owing to their confufed Apprehenfions of the Thingsto a want of a clear Difcernment of the juft Limits or Bounds of Reafon; in what Cafes it may be useful, nay, abfolutely neceffary, and in what improper, and unferviceable, and detrimental (although upon juft Examination, I believe, in few Cafes, will true Reafon be found to be detrimental and unferviceable.) But becaufe Reafon may be mifapply'd, or indeed falfely pretended in fome Cafes, it is furely very weak to decry it in all. For what do Men underftand by Reafon? Generally, I believe, a Faculty of Reasoning, and that a Faculty of true Reasoning fhould prove prejudicial to any Man, is very ftrange. By the Scope of our Argument, we are not bound to confider this exactly, it being fufficient to our Purpose, if many Men have been difcourag'd from examining Pretences of Infpiration from these general Reflections that have been caft on Human Reafon, as not only an incompetent, but a very dangerous Principle or Guide in Religion. But that this is not univerfally true, I fhall

step

ftep out of my way to fhew you in an Inftance

or two.

of the Ufe First, It is no difficult Matter to evince the ufe of Reafon and neceffity of Human Reafon, to judge of a in Matters Divine Revelation. When a Revelation is of Revela protion. pofed to a Man, as coming from GOD, it is prefumed, all Men will own a neceffity of judging of that Revelation. For if Men muft not judge of a Revelation, but receive it, without judging of it, a Man is equally bound, or liable to receive all Pretences, falfe as well as true, to Revelation. For feeing there are falfe Pretences to Revelation, as well as true, how fhall a Man diftinguish the falfe from the true, without judging of them? And what does a Man judge of a Revelation by, but his Reason? This is too plain to be deny'd, or farther dif puted.

Only we may remark; If this be all the ufe of Reason, it is of very great ufe rightly used; it brings Men to the true Religion.

Secondly, Such as difcard Reafon in general, as an incompetent Judge in matters of Revelation, do forget that Man is a reasonable Creature, and confequently the plain Neceffity there is of fuppofing a very great Agreeablenefs between a Divine Revelation and the clear and evident Dictates of Human Reafon. In the Virtue of which Principle, one cannot but believe, when GOD makes a Revelation of his Will, but that Regard is had to the Nature of the Creature, to which it is made, and if we are rational Creatures, Revelation must be directed to us as fuch, otherwise it implies us Creatures of a different Nature than we are, or than GOD himself made us. A Revelation is made in order to be believ'd by Men, and I take it, as a certain Truth, in order to be believ'd, it

muft

muft appear rational; while it lies under the contrary Appearance, while irrational and abfurd, furely a Man can hardly believe it. How it comes to appear rational, I do not here examine; neither will, I hope, any Man hence fanfie, I deny the Affiftance of the Spirit, in order to believe a Divine Revelation, or if he fhould, he would greatly mistake both my Intent and Opinion; according to me, the Affiftance of the Spirit not a little confifting in giving the Objects of Faith this agreeable and rational Ap

pearance.

B. The Divine Wisdom that hath acted the true Meffengers of GOD, feems not only to have condefcended to the Reafon of Man, but in fome Cafes to his very Weakneffes and Infir

mities.

A. Whatfoever keen Invectives Enthufiaftical Men have utter'd againft Human Reason, they fufficiently answer and confute themfelves. For while they rage against Human Reafon, will they not offer fomething to confute other Men's Opinions and establish their own? And what do all their Words fignifie, but to induce other Men to believe their Opinions? That is, I fuppofe, they endeavour to make their Opinions and Doctrines look credible, probable, rational. For no otherwise will they be able to make Men believe them. For fuppofing in the midft of their Rant, a Man fhould ask them, while ye. thus condemn other Men's Notions or Doctrines, do not ye difcourfe more wifely, more cogently? No doubt of it, or elfe ye were as good give over all Talk and Difpute. But here is the Difference; perhaps you will fay, we Discourse. in Virtue of the Divine Spirit; admitted! But ftill doth not the Divine Spirit teach you, to Difcourfe more wifely, more convincingly, or

more

more rationally? Sure this must be faid, or elfe great Reflections will be caft on the Divine Spirit, and no End can be attain'd in the Vir tue of it. What Right have you then fo ter ribly to exclaim againft Human Reafon, as i if all Reafoning were abfurd? For what is it you do, when you confute other Men's Opinions? Do you not labour, as I faid, to make them appear falfe? Can you do this, without making them appear to the Understandings of other Men, upon fome Accounts or other, abfurd or incredible? Is it not the contrary, when you establish your own? Suppofing you establish your Opinions from Scripture, here will immediately follow much Reafoning on Scripture. When you gain a Profelyte, what will he have to fay for himself, but only that according to the best of his Understanding and Judgment, your Senfe of Scripture looks the trueft, that is ftill the most rational, the moft worthy of Belief? So that whatfoever a Man believes, upon fome Account or other, muft come under a rational Appearance to the Mind. Or in other Words, whatsoever a Man believes, he must have Motives to believe, and these Motives perfuade, as they make the Objects propofed to our Belief, look true, credible or reafonable. All turns upon this, as the Things offer'd to our Belief act upon the Reafon or Judgment of Man.

For again 3dly, I would propofe it impartially to be confider'd, by what Means it is, Men are capable of understanding and explaining the true Senfe of any Revelation that they rereceive as Divine. It is true, fome have faid of St. Francis, that he Preach'd the Gofpel Beafts and Fishes, and that thefe Creatures void of Reafon, heard and receiv'd, and were con

vinc'd of the Chriftian Faith; but the Authors of these Tales in even thofe dark Ages, fuppofe this a very miraculous Cafe; ordinarily Beasts now will hardly understand a Revelation, although never fo plain, and this must be, becaufe they are deftitute of this Principle of Reafon. And Men, whofe Profeffion and Study it is, truly to understand and expound Sacred Writ, I would fain know, how they do it, but by their Reafon and Understanding. That fuch or fuch a Doctrine is contain'd in Scripture, that another is repugnant to it, how do Men know but by their Reafon? That is, I fuppofe, they confider, they compare one Text of Scripture with another, and by this Means, they endeavour to enter into the fame Chain of Ideas or Thoughts, that poffeffed the Sacred Writer; they infer, collect from diverfe Paffages, till clearly his Meaning be understood, as to any particular Doctrine. And what is it tells a Man, that this must be the Senfe and Meaning of any Scripture, or Divine Author, but his Reafon? What does a Man confider or compare Texts of Scripture with, but his Natural Reafon? Or what perceives the Agreement or Difagreement of Texts, but the Natural Understanding of Man? That fuch a Doctrine is Repugnant to Scripture, how does any Man know, but by perceiving the Repugnancy between that Do&trine and the Scripture? And how does he perceive either the Senfe of Scripture, or the Doctrine, or the Repugnancy between them, but by the Power lodg'd within him of Refleating, or Judging, or Reafoning? This is not the Meaning, fays one, of fuch a Text of Scripture. Why? 'Tis contrary to common Senfe. The Man therefore must have common Sense, and it is by common Senfe he judges. At anoN

ther