General Objections against a divine revelation stated and answered. 1 PETER iii. 15. -Be ready always to give an answer to every man that afketh you a reafon of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. TWh. To lay before you fome prefumptive WO things I propofed from this text, Ift. arguments for the truth of Chriftianity, which muft ftrongly dispose every reasonable, intelligent and honest person to receive the holy fcriptures as a revelation from GOD, the father of lights; and, fecondly, to anfwer fome objections, which are alledged by infidels, against revelation in general, and the Chriftian revelation in particular. I Now proceed to the second general head propofed, namely, to answer some objections, alledged by infidels, against revelation in general, and the Chriftian revelation in particular. I confefs, indeed, indeed, that these objections might seem to be more properly anfwered, after having faid all I intend to fay upon the argument; but, however, I have preferred this place for them, as I imagine, what may be faid upon them, may throw fome light on the remaining part of the fubject. Ift. ONE of the grand objections which infidels make against revelation in general is, that it is entirely unneceffary. For, fay they, the light of nature and of reafon is fully fufficient to fhew every man his duty, in every circumstance and condition of life; and therefore, it is not confiftent, they tell us, with the wifdom of GOD to give us a vain and needless revelation of his will, feeing he has revealed it fufficiently to every man, by his reafon and natural light. To this I answer, that this is not true in fact, and therefore to argue thus, is to fet fuppofition against fact, and to reafon from poffibilities against experience and certainty. I HAVE fhewed elsewhere, that mere unaffifted reason and natural light has not been fufficient to lead one in a thousand of the heathen even to the knowledge of one, true and eternal GOD, and much less to give them the knowledge of his will, and of their own duty in its whole extent:-And I could wish that those gentlemen, who argue fo ftrongly for the fufficiency of the light of natural reason, in matters of religion, would travel a little among the Hottentots at the Cape of Good-Hope, or among the Miffifippi and Florida Indians, and fee what fine philofophers the light of nature has made them; and what juft notions it has E 2. given given them about GOD and religion. And certainly they cannot deny but that thofe hea thens have as great degrees of this natural light as themselves, and are much freer from prejudice, as their minds have never been biaffed or prepoffeffed by a Chriftian education. THE truth is, our baptized infidel deifts have borrowed their notions of GOD, and morality from a Chriftian education, from reading the fcriptures, and the ancient philofophers; and then endeavour to perfuade themfelves and others, that they have taken all these fine notions from the pure, unaffisted light of nature and reason. Whereas, in truth, had thefe very men been born and educated among the Hottentots at the Cape, or among the Indians on the continent of America, all their boafted light of reason would not have prevented them from being as brutish canibals and idolaters as other Indians and Hottentots, among which they lived. Is it not therefore pleasant enough to hear men cry up the fufficiency of natural light in matters of religion, when they. have fuch undeniable demonstrations of its utter infufficiency, from plain experience and matter of fact? IF infidels will answer to this, that the heathen philofophers attained to very clear notions of the nature of GOD, and moral duty, by the mere unaffifted light of nature, and that other heathens might do fo too, if they would take the fame pains. I anfwer, this wants proof. It is certain, from many paffages im the writings of Plato, Socrates, Juvenal and others, that they had read the Jewish fcriptures, which were tranflated into the Greek when those men wrote, wrote, and doubtless they borrowed many of their jufteft notions about GoD and morality from the law and the prophets, though they do not acknowledge it: And we are morally certain, that Seneca, Epictetus, Jamblicus, Mark Antony, and many other heathen philofophers, who wrote fince Chriftianity has commenced, are much indebted to the light of the gospel, for their great improvements in morality: So that, I am verily perfuaded that the ancient heathen philofophers have drawn moft of their celebrated fentiments concerning GOD and religion, from the fcriptures of the old and new teftaments. But, 2dly. To argue, that because our natural reafon may give us fome juft notions about GOD and moral duties; therefore revelation is unneceffary and useless,-is but about as good sense as to argue, that because we can fee the stars and planets with our naked eyes, therefore telescopes are of no ufe in aftronomy. For although we should grant, that a man may, by his own reafon, know that there is a GOD, and that he is to be feared, worshipped, loved and obeyed yet would not a farther revelation be neceffary, to give us clearer and jufter notions of the nature and will of GOD, and to teach us how we may worship him acceptably to be happy in his enjoyment?-Hence, you fee how weak and groundless this objection against revelation is, which is taken from the fufficiency of the light of reafon, in matters of religion. But, IIdly. THE infidels object, that to fuppofe the abfolute neceffity and great expediency of a revelation, will infer that it must be universal, extending E 3 extending to all ages, nations, and particular perfons. For, fay they, as God gave the natu ral fun to enlighten, warm and fructify the whole earth; fo if his goodnefs difpofed him to give a revelation to enlighten the minds of men, he would give it to the whole world without exception; whereas the Chriftian revelation is not enjoyed by the one half of the world, and the greatest part of those who have it, are faid to mifunderstand and abuse it.-I anfwer, the matter of this objection supposes the greatest abfurdity, and that which is contradicted by univerfal experience; namely, that God almighty is obliged to give the fame natural capacities, the fame advantages for the discovery of truth, and the fame outward bleffings of providence to all men, without diftinction. For the fame reasoning which would prove that the gospel is not a revelation from GOD, because all men do not enjoy it, would equally prove that reason is not the gift of GOD, because God has not given as much of it to every dunce and idiot as he gave to Des Cartes or Sir Isaac Newton; for if GOD is obliged, by his goodness, to give the gospel, with the fame advantages, to all nations, ages and individual perfons; he must be obliged for the fame reafon, to give the fame honour, the fame power, the fame riches, the fame natural talents and capacities, to all ages, nations and particular perfons; thefe being all the gifts of God, as well as the gofpel: But this is not fo in fact. GOD appears plainly to give all his bleffings partially, or in different degrees, to different perfons and nations. And therefore, if there is any weight in this abjection, it lies as ftrong against the being and providence |