So that if the _fitness_ of actions is founded in the _particular nature_ of things and persons, and the fitness of God’s actions must arise from that which is _particular_ to his nature, then we have from this argument, the _utmost certainty_ that the _rule_ or _reasons_ of God’s actions must in many cases be entirely inconceivable by us, and in no cases perfectly apprehended; and for this very reason, because he is not an _arbitrary being_, that acts by _mere will_, but is governed in every thing he does, by the reason and nature of things.
How mistaken therefore is this author, when he argues after this manner. _If God requires things of us, whose fitness our reason can’t prove from the nature of things, must he not be an arbitrary being?_ For how can that prove God to be an arbitrary agent, which is the necessary consequence of his not being arbitrary?
Supposing God not to be an _arbitrary being_, but to act constantly, as the perfections of his own nature make it _fit_ and _reasonable_ for him to act, then there is an utter impossibility of our comprehending the reasonableness and fitness of many of his actions.
* For instance; look at the _reason_ of things, and the _fitness_ of actions, and tell me how they moved God to create mankind in the state and condition they are in. Nothing is more above the reason of men, than to explain the reasonableness of God’s providence in creating man of such a _form_ and _condition_, to go through _such_ a state of things as human life is. No revealed mysteries can more exceed the comprehension of man, than the state of human life itself.
Shew me according to what _fitness_, founded in the _nature_ of things, God’s infinite wisdom was determined to form you in such a manner, bring you into such a world, and suffer and preserve _such a state_ of things, as human life is, and then you may have some pretence to believe no revealed doctrines, but such as your own reason can deduce from the nature of things.
But whilst your own _form_, whilst _creation_ and _providence_ are depths which you cannot thus look into, ’tis strangely absurd to pretend, that God cannot reveal any thing to you as a matter of religion, except your own reason can shew its foundation in the nature and reason of things.
_Revelation_, you say, is on your account, and therefore you ought to see the _reasonableness_ and _fitness_ of it. And don’t you also say, that God has made you for your _own sake_; ought you not therefore to know the reasonableness and fitness of God’s forming you as you are? Don’t you say, that providence is for the _sake_ of man? Is it not therefore fit and reasonable, in the nature of things, that there should be no _mysteries_, or _secrets_, in providence, but that man should so see its methods, as to be able to prove all its steps to be constantly fit and reasonable?
Don’t you say, that the _world_ is for the _sake_ of man; is it not therefore fit and reasonable that man should see, that the _past_ and _present_ state of the world has been such as the reason and fitness of things required it should be?
* Now if the _imperfect_ state of human nature, the _calamities_ of this life, the _diseases_ and mortality of human bodies, the _methods_ of God’s continual providence in governing human affairs, are things that as much concern us, as any methods of revealed religion; and if these are things that we cannot explain, according to any _fitness_ or _unfitness_ founded in the _nature_ of things, but must believe a great deal more of the infinite wisdom of God, than we can so explain; have we any reason to think, that God cannot, or ought not to raise us out of this unhappy state of things, help us to an higher order of life, and exalt us to a nearer enjoyment of himself, by any means, but such as our own poor reason can grope out of the nature and fitness of things?
Now what is the reason, that all is thus mysterious and unmeasurable by human reason, in these matters so nearly concerning human nature? ’Tis because God is not an _arbitrary being_, but does that which the _incomprehensible perfections_ of his own nature, make it _fit_ and _reasonable_ for him to do. Do but grant that nothing can be _fit_ for God to do, but what is _according_ to his own _infinite perfections_: let but this be the _rule_ of his actions, and then you have the _fullest_ proof, that the fitness of his actions must be above our comprehension, who can only judge of a _fitness_ according to our _own perfections_; and then we must be surrounded with mystery for this very reason, because God acts according to a _certain rule_, his own nature.