a question of much use, since there are many things, which cannot be said to be absolutely above the reach of human capacity, which yet very few of the human race would ever come to know without particular information. The present question, as far as natural religion is concerned in it, is, how far the bulk of mankind, taking them as they are in the present state of the world and of human nature, immersed in flesh and sense, with all their appetites and passions about them, and amidst the many avocations, businesses, and cares in which they are involved, can ordinarily arrive in matters of religion, by the mere force of their own natural powers, without any farther assistance or instruction: If we should suppose that some persons of strong reason and extraordinary judgment and sagacity, were capable, by the mere force of their own reason and studious researches, to make out for themselves a system of religion and morals, in all its main principles and duties, yet this would not reach the case of the generality of mankind, who have neither capacity, nor leisure, nor inclination, for profound enquiries. Nor could these wise men pretend to a sufficient authority for imposing their own sentiments as laws to mankind. Or, if the people should be brought to pay an implicit regard to their dictates, here would a way be opened for what those gentlemen, who set up for the patrons of natural religion, in opposition to revelation, so much dread, priestcraft, and the impositions of designing men.*

* It may not be amiss here to produce the acknowledgment of an ingenious author, who cannot be suspected of being prejudiced in favour of revelation, and has taken pains to convince the world of the contrary. They," saith he, "who "would judge uprightly of the strength of human reason, in matters of morality "and religion, under the present corrupt and degenerate state of mankind, "ought to take their estimate from those parts of the world, which never had "the benefit of revelation: and this, perhaps, may make them less conceited of "themselves, and more thankful to God for the light of the gospel." He asks, "if the religion of nature, under the present depravity and corruption of man"kind, was written with sufficient strength and clearness upon every man's heart, why might not a Chinese or Indian draw up as good a system of natural religion as a Christian, and why have we never met with any such?" And he adds,

66

But without entering into a nice speculative disquisition, concerning the powers and abilities of human reason in matters of religion, independent of all revelation, the surest and plainest way of judging is from fact and experience. It is therefore of great moment, for the decision of this point, to enquire what it is that human reason hath actually done this way, when left merely to its own force, without any extraordinary assistance.* And this cannot be judged of 'from

"let us take Confucius, Zoroaster, Plato, Socrates, or the greatest moralist that "ever lived without the light of revelation, and it will appear, that their best " systems of morality were intermixed and blended with much superstition, and "so many gross absurdities as quite eluded and defeated the main design of "them." The same author observes, that "at the time of Christ's coming into "the world, mankind in general were in a state of gross ignorance and darkness "with respect to the true knowledge of God, and of themselves, and of all those "moral relations and obligations we stand in to the Supreme Being, and to one "another."―That "they were under great uncertainties concerning a future "state, and the concern of divine Providence in the government of the world. That "our Saviour's doctrines on these heads, though they be the "true and genuine dictates of nature and reason, when he had set them in a proper light, yet were such as the people never would have known without such an "instructor, and such means and opportunities of knowledge." And that it doth not follow, that "because these are natural truths, and moral obligations, there"fore there could be no need of revelation to discover them; as the books of "Euclid and Newton's Principia contain natural truths, and such as are necessarily founded in the reason of things, and yet none but a fool or a madman "would say, that he could have informed himself in these matters as well without "them." Dr. Morgan's Moral Philosopher, vol. I. p. 143, 144, 145.

• A very learned writer, who will not allow that any single person of the human race ever, in fact, arrived at the right knowledge of God, merely by the natural exercise of his own rational powers, without foreign instruction and assistance, yet does not carry it so far as to affirm, that it is not possible for any man to do so. He observes, that "in examining how far mankind are able, of themselves, to ex. "tend their knowledge of religious matters, we must all along mean the bulk of "mankind, and only regard the common powers of human nature, as they may, "possibly, be employed and exerted by the individuals of our species in the com"mon circumstances of human life, so that although one man, or some few men, "in this or that age or place of the world, should happen, by some lucky juncture, "from one step to another, to come at length to show themselves able to discover "the being and perfections of God, the immortality of the soul, and other articles "of natural religion, yet this uncommon event can never be accounted a fair "standard, whereby to judge of the common powers and abilities of the bulk of "mankind." Campbell's Necessity of Revelation, p. 64. He expresses himself to the same purpose, p. 66, and 72.

any systems formed by persons that live in ages and countries which have enjoyed the light of divine revelation, and where its discoveries, doctrines, and laws, have been received and entertained; since in this case it may reasonably be supposed, that they have borrowed light from revelation, though they are not willing to acknowledge it, or may not themselves be sensible of it. And therefore systems drawn up by our modern admirers of natural religion in Christian countries, cannot be brought in proof of the force of unassisted reason in matters of religion. And the same may be said of those Pagan philosophers who lived after Christianity had made some progress in the world.

Nor can the sufficiency of the light of natural reason, left merely to itself, without the aids of revelation, be regularly argued from the systems of the ancient philosophers, lawgivers, and moralists, who lived before the Christian revelation was published; except it can be shown, that they themselves derived the religious and moral principles which they taught, solely and entirely from the researches and disquisitions of their own reason, and disclaimed their having had any assistance, with regard to those truths and principles, from tradition or divine instruction. And it is no hard matter to show by testimonies from the most celebrated ancients, that this was not the case, nor was it what they assumed to themselves. It is a thing well known, that the most admired philosophers of Greece did not pretend to set up merely on their own stock, but travelled into Egypt, and different parts of the East, to improve their knowledge by conversation with the sages of those countries; who themselves professed to have derived their knowledge, not merely from the disquisitions of their own reason, but from a higher source, from very ancient traditions, to which for the most part they assigned a divine original. And indeed, supposing an original revelation to have been communicated to the first parents and ancestors of the human race, which (I shall show) there is great reason to believe, the most considerable vestiges of it were to be expected in the eastern nations, which lay nearest to the

seat of the first men; and from which the rest of the world had their knowledge of religion and letters. To this it may be added, that the most celebrated and sagacious of the ancient philosophers made pathetical complaints of human darkness and ignorance, and the great difficulties they met with in searching after truth. Many of them were sensible of the great need there was of a divine instruction and assistance, for enlightening and directing mankind in matters of religion and their duty.* So that no argument can be justly drawn from the wise men and philosophers among the ancients, to show that the knowledge of what is usually called natural religion, in its just extent, is wholly and originally owing to the force of human reason, exclusive of all divine revelation. And perhaps it would not be easy to mention any nations, among whom any true knowledge of religion has been preserved, concerning which we can be assured, that they never had any benefit from the light of divine revelation; and that the principles of religious truth and duty, which were to be found among them, were originally the mere product of natural reason, without any higher assistance. Several things may be observed amongst them, which seem to be the remains of an ancient universal tradition, or primeval religion, derived from the remotest antiquity, and which, probably, had their original source in divine revelation, though, in process of time, it was greatly altered and corrupted. This is only mentioned here, but will be more fully considered in the sequel of this treatise,

SECT. II.

OF REVEALED RELIGION.

By revealed religion is commonly understood that knowledge of religion, which was originally communicated from God to

*This is particularly shown in Dr. Clarke's Discourse of Natural and Revealed Religion, p. 304, et seq. and in Dr. Ellis's "Knowledge of Divine Things from "Revelation, not from Nature or Reason."

men in a way of extraordinary revelation, for instructing them in important religious truth, and directing and engaging them to the practice of their duty. In a general sense, all truth, and the manifestation of it, may be said to come from God, even that which we discover in the ordinary use of those rational faculties which he hath given us. But when we speak of revealed religion, as distinguished from that which is usually called natural, it is to be understood of that knowledge of religion, which was originally communicated in an extraordinary and supernatural way. And such a revelation must either be by an immediate infallible inspiration or illumination of every particular person, for enlightening and directing him in the knowledge and practice of religion; or by God's making an extraordinary discovery of himself and of his will to some person or persons, to be by them conimunicated to others in his name. In the former case, it could not be properly called extraordinary revelation: for if it were a universal infallible light, imparted to every single person, in every nation and every age, from the beginning of the world, it would be as common and familiar to every one as the common light of reason, and by being universal would cease to be extraordinary. That this is possible to the divine power, cannot be doubted; but it is evident, in fact, that this is not the way which it hath pleased the divine wisdom to take with mankind. For if every man were inspired with the knowledge of religion in a way of immediate infallible revelation, it could not possibly have happened, that the most of mankind, in all ages, have been involved in darkness and error, and have fallen into a gross ignorance of true religion, and into the most absurd superstitions and idolatries. If, therefore, there be such a thing as revealed religion; if it hath pleased God to make discoveries of his will to mankind with regard to religious truth and duty, in a way of extraordinary revelation, the most natural way, and that which is best accommodated to the present state of mankind, seems to be this; that the revelation should be imparted to some person or persons, to be by them communicated to others in his

mid o

1

I