_Enquiring, whether there be any thing in the |nature| and |condition| of man, to |oblige| him to think, that he is not to admit of any doctrines or institutions, as revealed from God, but such as his own reason can prove to be necessary from the nature of things._
I BEGIN with enquiring what there is to _oblige_ a man to hold this opinion, because if there is not some strong and plain proof arising from the _nature_ and _condition_ of man, to _oblige_ him thus to abide by the sole light of his own reason; it may be so far from being a duty, which he owes to God, that it may be reckoned amongst his most criminal presumptions. And the pleading for this authority of his own reason; may have the guilt of pleading for his greatest vanity. And if, as this writer observes, _spiritual pride be the worst sort of pride_,¹ a confident reliance upon our own reason, as having a right to determine all matters between God and man, if it should prove to be a _groundless pretension_, bids fair to be reckoned the highest instance of the _worst_ kind of the worst of sins.
¹ Page 150.
Every other instance of vanity, every degree of personal pride, and self-esteem, may be a pardonable weakness in comparison of this. For how small is that pride which only makes us prefer our own personal beauty or merit to that of our fellow-creatures, when compared with a self-confiding reason, which is too haughty to adore any thing in the divine counsels, which it cannot fully comprehend; or to submit to any directions from God, but such as its own wisdom could prescribe? Thus much is certain, that there can be no _medium_ in this matter. The claiming this authority to our own reason, must either be a very great duty, or among the greatest of sins.
If it be a _sin_ to admit of any _secrets_ in divine providence, if it be a _crime_ to ascribe wisdom and goodness to God in things we cannot comprehend: if it be a _baseness_ and _meanness_ of spirit to believe that God can teach us _better_ or _more_ than we can teach ourselves: if it be a _shameful apostacy_ from the dignity of our nature, to submit to any _mysterious providence_ over us, to comply with any other methods of _homage_ and _adoration_, than such as we could of ourselves contrive and justify; then it is certainly a great duty to assert and maintain this authority of our own reason.
On the other hand; if the profoundest humility towards God, be the highest instance of piety: if every thing within us and without us, if every thing we know of God, every thing we know of ourselves preaches up humility to us, as the foundation of every virtue, as the life and soul of all holiness: if _sin_ had its beginning from _pride_, and _hell_ be the effect of it, if _devils_ are what they are through spiritual pride and self-conceit, then we have great reason to believe, that the claiming this authority to our reason, in opposition to the revealed wisdom of God, is not a frailty of _flesh_ and _blood_, but that same spiritual pride which turned _angels_ into _apostate_ spirits.
Since therefore this appealing to our own reason, as the absolutely _perfect rule_ of all that ought to pass between God and man, has an _appearance_ of a pride of the _worst_ kind, and such as unites us both in temper and conduct with the fallen spirits of darkness, it highly concerns every pleader on that side, to consider what grounds he proceeds upon, and to ask himself, what there is in the _state_ and _condition_ of human nature, to oblige him to think, that nothing can be _divine_ or _holy_, or _necessary_, in religion, but what _human_ reason dictates?
I hope the reader will think this a fair state of the case, and that all the light we can have in this matter, must arise from a thorough consideration of the _state_ and _condition_ of man in this world. If without revelation he is free from mysteries as a _moral_ and _religious_ agent, then he has some plea from his state and condition to reject _revealed_ mysteries.
But if in a state of natural religion, he can’t acknowledge a divine providence or worship God, without _as much_ implicit faith, and submission of his reason, as any revealed mysteries require; then his _state_ and _condition_ in the world, condemns his refusal of any revelation sufficiently attested to come from God. This enquiry therefore into the state and condition of man, being so plainly the true point of the controversy, I hope to obtain the reader’s impartial attention to it.
Had mankind continued in a state of _perfect innocence_, without ever failing in their duty either to God or man, yet even in such a state, they could never have known what God would or would not reveal to them, but by some express revelation from him. And as God might intend to raise them to some higher, and unknown state of perfection; so he might raise them to it by the revelation of such things as their own reason, though uncorrupt, yet could not have discovered.