have the benefit of. But the main Principles and Duties of Chriftianity are fo frequently repeated and plainly inculcated, that a Man of common Understanding may, without any nice Criticism or Acquaintance with Hiftory, by a careful confidering the Scripture, understand them as far as is really neceffary for Faith or Practice.

This Gentleman having affigned what he calls the true Principle of Gofpel-Evidence, proceeds in the remaining Part of his Pamphlet to heap up many things without much order, to fhew that Faith is not only not founded in Reason, but directly contrary to it; and that there is an irreconcilable Oppofition, as he expreffes it, between the Faith of Grace and the Faith of Reafon.

The Proofs he pretends to bring of this from Scripture are very weak, and indeed fcarce deferve a particular Confideration. Thus he argues from our Saviour's declaring that no Man can receive the Gospel except he receive it as a little Child, which he explains as if Chrift required that Perfons in order to their receiving his Religion fhould be Children in Understanding; when it is manifeft, that what he intends is, that they fhould be like Children in Humility and Innocence, and a freedom from Pride and Ambition, and from carnal vicious Prejudices. Thofe Words of the Apostle Paul effectually obviate fuch Misconstructions; Brethren, be not Children in Understanding: bow

Matt. xviii. 3, 4.

beit

beit in Malice be ye Children, but in Understand ing be Men*. In like manner St. Peter exhorts us to receive the Word as Babes, but what he intends by it he himself explains, that it is a laying afide all Malice, and all Guile and Hypocrifies, and Envies and Evil-speaking t And on the other hand, being Babes in refpect of Knowledge, or unfkilful in the Word of Righteousness, is reprefented as a Fault in Chriftians, for which they are reproved ‡.

If the Apostle describes Faith to be the Evi dence of things not feen, this does not prove that there is an Inconfiftency and Oppofition between Faith and Reason, though this Gentleman attempts to bring an Argument from it to serve his purpose, p. 77. On the contrary, it appears from this very Defcription of Faith, that tho' the Object of it be Things not feen, yet Faith gives fuch an Evidence of them (and the Word there ufed properly fignifies an argumentative Evidence) as is fufficient to fatisfy the Mind of their Truth and Reality. The first Instance of Faith there produced is this, that by Faith we understand that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that Things which are seen were not made of Things which do appear. ver. 3. And it is reprefented as the main Principle of Faith, that he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the Rewarder of them that diligently feek him. ver. 6. And in both

* 1 Cor. xiv. 20. † Pet. ii. 1, 2. iii. 1, 2.

L 2

Heb. v. 13. 1 Cor.

thefe

thefe Cafes, though the Things to be believed are Things removed from our bodily Senfes, yet the believing them is no way inconfiftent with Reason, but perfectly agreeable to it. The other Inftances of Faith recorded in that Chapter are high Inftances of Truft in God, and Reliance on his Promife and Faithfulness, his Power and Goodnefs, even in very difficult Circumftances. But in none of them was Faith contrary to Reafon. Our Author indeed would fain have the Faith of Abraham pafs for an unreafonable one, because it is faid, that against Hope he believed in Hope; the Meaning of which is no more than this, that he believed a Thing which feemed very improbable, and contrary to the common Courfe of Things: yet he did not believe against Reason; for as he had fufficient Affurance that God had promifed it, fo he was fully perfuaded that what he had promifed he was able aljo to perform. And there was nothing in this way of judging, but what right Reafon muft approve. See Rom. iv. 18,

20, 21.

Our Author thinks it a hard Cafe, p. 78. that Zachariah should be ftruck dumb for befitating about a Thing contrary to the common Courfe of Nature; but fuppofing him to have believed that it was an Angel that came to him with a Meffage from God, Reafon ought to have led him to conclude, that it was a Thing not beyond the divine Power; and his being ftruck dumb for a time, was both defigned as a Chaf

tifement

tisement for his Fault in hesitating, and as a Sign to himself and others too of the Certainty of the Event foretold. And whereas he alfo thinks our Saviour was in the wrong to reprove his Difciples as of little Faith, because they thought they were going to be drowned when the Ship was finking under them, and it would have been a Sin against common Senfe to have thought otherwife; it is manifeft the Reproof was juft. For if their Faith had been as ftrong as in reafon it ought to have been, confidering the many illuftrious Proofs they had feen before this of Christ's divine Power, they needed not to have been afraid of perishing, when they had him

with them.

When our Saviour faid to Thomas, because thou hast seen, thou haft believed; bleffed are they which have not feen, and yet have believed; he did not intend to pronounce thofe bleffed who fhould believe without any Reafon at all, as this Gentleman infinuates; but he blames Thomas for not believing that he was rifen from the dead, except he himself faw him with his own. Eyes; though he had Reafon fufficient to believe it, both because he knew that it was what Christ himself had foretold and promised whilst alive, and because it was confirm'd to him by the concurring Teftimony of those who had feen him after he was rifen. So that our Saviour here condemns the Principle of those who are not for believing a Thing, however well attefted, except it be confirm'd to them by the

Teftimony

Teftimony of their own Senses; which is the very Principle this Gentleman proceeds upon; a Principle perfectly unreasonable, and which all the World owns to be fo in every other Cafe.

He produces with great Pomp that Paffage Rom. x. 6-10. The Righteousness which is by Faith Speaketh on this wife; Say not in thine Heart, who fhall afcend up into Heaven? (that is, to bring Chrift down from above) Or, who Shall defcend into the Deep? (that is, to bring up Chrift again from the dead.) But what faith it? The Word is nigh thee, even in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart, that is, the Word of Faith which we preach. For with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteousness, and with the Mouth Confeffion is made unto Salvation. I am not fo clear-fighted as this Gentleman, who sees in this Text a full Demonftration that the Faith required in the Gofpel is not a rational one. To me the contrary appears here to be fupposed, viz. that the Gofpel does not infift upon impracticable Conditions, and that the Faith of the Gofpel is founded upon Evidence not very abftruse, and above our Capacity, but fuch as is clear and obvious to a fincere and well-difpofed Mind.

It would be more to his purpofe, if it were true, what he alledges, p. 84. That "there is "no one Leffon, that the holy Writings have "taken more Care to inculcate, than that of

denying our Reafon to give our Faith Scope."

For