city of judging for yourself, I recommend it to you, to examine thofe things, and the Reasons and Evidences on which they are founded, with a Mind open to Evidence and a Love of Truth; and am perfuaded that the more you do fo, the more you will be convinced of their Reasonablenefs and Excellency. This is a way of recommending Enquiry and Examination perfectly confiftent with a firm Belief of the Truth of the Things enquir'd into; nor is there any thing unreasonable in fuch a Proceeding.

Having confidered this Gentleman's Account of the Nature of Examination and Enquiry, it will be no hard matter to fhew the Weakness and Fallacy of the Argument he builds upon it. He first fuppofes, that a Man may, nay muft, difbelieve a while for Information's fake, and then asks, Why may be not even difbelieve for ever, for want of Information? And if Doubting be once allowable, who fhall afcertain the precife time for fumming up the Evidence, and pronouncing Sentence? He fuppofes that, according to the Scheme of those that are for a rational Faith, the first Motions of Doubt are necelary Preparations, and therefore not in themselves criminal. And then he afks, By what Authority (if the Evidence happens never to take effect) can a Man be obliged ever to be refolved? I fee no other Tendency in this way of talking, but to promote univerfal Scepticism. But the Foundation of it has been fhewn to be wrong, viz. that Examination in all Cafes neceffarily fuppofes a previous Disbelief. But if we fhould grant it to be fo, it does

P. 13.

does not follow, that if a Man be allowed to doubt. or difbelieve for a while, therefore he may be allowed to doubt or difbelieve for ever; and that if Doubting in fome Cafes may be innocent, i. e. before the Evidence is laid before him, therefore it may be alfo innocent after the Evidence is fully propofed to him. I think it cannot reasonably be denied, that Doubting in many Cafes may be a Diftemper of Mind, owing to very faulty Caufes'; and when once a Man's Doubting is become criminal, he is under a real Obligation to lay it aside, and to rectify it, and may be required to do so, at leaft by a divine Authority. When Evidences have been propofed fufficient to remove his Doubts, and his being still in doubt is owing to a bad Temper of Mind, to a faulty Affectation, to an Unwillingnefs to be convinced, and to fubmit to Evidence, which may often happen with regard to religious Truth; in that cafe, his perfifting in his Doubt is really vicious and unreasonable; and all the time he perfifts in it, he is chargeable with a Crime, and accountable for his Conduct to the Supreme Judge, who knows the fecret Difpofition of his Mind, and may juftly condemn him for it.

In Pag. 16, 17. our Author, by a high-flown Encomium on Faith, its great Neceffity and Importance, endeavours to deftroy its Reasonableness. He had reprefented, in ftrong Colours, the early Influence of Prejudices and Paffions, to fhew that Reafon comes too late to our affiftance, and is too flow in her Advances; whereas Faith is neceffary to guide us from the beginning of our Lives. And then he goes on to obferve, that Faith is necessary to Stamp

G 2

ftamp a Value on Morality, which, without it, is of no esteem or acceptance with God: That it is the neceffary Paport, without which we cannot die fafely. But what his Design is, in all this fine Harangue on the Neceffity of Faith, he lets us know, when he afks," Is it now any unwarrant"able Conclufion from all thefe Confiderations, to infer, that Religion therefore can never be a "thing to be taught, that it muft needs be fome

thing that doth not require Time to attain, like "other common Leffons and Sciences, which are indifferent in their Confequences? Since the very "fame Reasons that make it neceffary at all, make it equally fo every moment of our Lives."

The Maxim here advanced by this Gentleman, that Religion or Faith can never be a thing to be taught, and that it is fomething which doth not require Time to attain, is a very convenient one for him, and would no doubt answer his Intention very well. For if Religion cannot be taught, it is certain the Intellectual Faculty is not defigned to lead Men into it. And it would follow, that neither Parents fhould inftruct their Children in the Principles of Religion, nor fhould any Perfons be employed as publick Teachers; nor is there any need of the Scriptures, or of any Books at all for our Inftruction; nor fhould any Man ufe means to underftand Religion himself, or teach it to others.

The Method he takes to prove, that Faith or Religion can never be taught, and that it requires no time to attain, is pretty extraordinary. It is what he infers from the Account he had given of the Neceflity of Faith. And he obferves, that the very

Jame

fame Reasons that make it necessary at all, make it equally fo every Moment of our Lives; that is, from the time of our Birth to our Death, and confequently equally neceffary to Infants as to adult Perfons, neceffary before we have any use of our Reafon, or are capable of being taught at all.

But this is a strange way of reprefenting things. Let us grant all he can defire about the Neceffity of Faith to our Acceptance with God, and to our Salvation, yet still it is neceffary only in those that are the capable Subjects of it. The neceflity of holy Obedience, and of good Works, or keeping the Commandments of God, is as strongly infifted upon in the facred Writings, as that of Faith. But Common Senfe teaches every Man to limit this, and the Nature of the thing limits it, that it muft relate only to Perfons that are capable of moral Agency; and therefore not to Ideots, nor Infants before they come to the Ufe of their Reason. And the fame thing may be faid with regard to the Declarations made concerning the Neceffity of Faith. They are to be understood as relating only to those that are naturally capable of it. Allowing Faith to be never fo neceffary, the Meaning is not, either that an equal Degree of Faith is neceffary to all the Adult, how different foever their Advantages or Opportunities may be; or that it is at all neceffary, in any degree, to be actually in Infants, before they have any ufe of Reason, or are capable of knowing good and evil.

One thing he urgeth, to fhew the abfolute Neceffity of Faith at all times, is, that it is neceflary to ftamp a Value on Morality. This is not true in

the

the Extent in which he reprefents it, that without it the best of Lives, and the most virtuous Actions, are highly criminal and difpleafing to God; tho' he endeavours to prove this, according to his manner, by fome mifapplied Texts of Scripture, which I fhall not now turn afide to examine. But allowing it to be fo, it will not follow, that Faith is neceffary before we are capable of moral Agency. It is some time before Children are capable of Actions properly moral, and for which they are accountable as moral Agents, because it is fome time before they are properly capable of exercising their Reafon; in like manner, it is fome time before they are in any degree capable of Faith. And by the time they are capable of Actions properly moral or religious, they are capable of believing too, as far as it is neceffary for them to believe. So that Faith, and a good moral or religious Practice, may go together, from the time of their beginning to think and act rationally. And this, inftead of proving that Faith or Religion cannot be taught, only fhews the great neceffity of teaching it betimes. And as their Reafon or intellectual Faculty is for fome time very imperfect, fo their Faith is very imperfect too, and is capable of continual Increase and Improvement, as their Reafon and Understanding improves. As Children begin very early to ufe their Reafon, tho' in a very imperfect manner, fo it is highly fit to begin to instruct them early in the Principles of Religion; and this may be fairly concluded from what our Author reprefents in fo lively a manner, concerning the danger we are in betimes from the Snares of the World,

and