34. To use the trite instance. As you cannot _reason_ concerning colours, if you have no _natural sight_, because all the _ideas_ received by your other senses are of a different kind; so that neither your _hearing_, nor any _other sense_, can supply your want of _sight_, or furnish your reason in this respect with matter to work upon: So you cannot _reason_ concerning spiritual things, if you have no _spiritual sight_; because all your ideas received by your _outward senses_ are of a different kind. Yea, far more different from those received by faith or _internal sensation_, than the idea of colour from that of sound. These are only different species of one genus, namely, sensible ideas, received by external sensation: whereas the ideas of faith differ _toto genere_ from those of _external sensation_. So that it is not conceivable, that _external sensation_ should supply the want of _internal senses_; or furnish your _reason_ in this respect with matter to work upon.
35. What then will your reason do here? How will it pass from things natural to spiritual? From the things that are seen to those that are not seen? From the visible to the invisible world? What a gulph is here? By what art will reason get over the immense chasm? This cannot be, till the Almighty come in to your succour, and give you that faith you have hitherto despised. Then upborn as it were on eagle’s wings, you shall soar away into the regions of eternity; and your enlightened reason shall explore even _the deep things of God_, God himself _revealing them to you by his Spirit_.
36. I expected to have received much light on this head, from a treatise lately published, and earnestly recommended to me, I mean, _Christianity not founded on argument_. But on a careful perusal of that piece, notwithstanding my prejudice in its favour, I could not but perceive, that the great design uniformly pursued throughout the work, was to render the whole of the christian institution both odious and contemptible. In order to this, the author gleans up, with great care and diligence, the most plausible of those many objections that have been raised against it by late writers, and proposes them with the utmost strength of which he was capable. To do this with the more effect, he _personates_ a christian: he _makes a shew_ of defending an avowed doctrine of christianity, namely, the supernatural influence of the Spirit of God; and often, for several sentences together, (indeed in the beginning of almost every paragraph) speaks so _like a christian_, that not a few have received him according to his wish. Mean while with all possible _art_ and _show of reason_, and in the most laboured language, he pursues his point throughout, which is to prove, “that christianity is contrary to reason;” or, “that no man acting according to the principles of reason, can possibly be a christian.”
37. It is a wonderful proof of the power that smooth words may have even on serious minds, that so many have mistook such a writer as this for a friend of christianity: since almost every page of his tract is filled with gross falshood and broad blasphemy: and these supported by such _exploded_ fallacies, and _common-place_ sophistry, that a person of two or three years standing in the university, might give them a sufficient answer, and make the author appear as _irrational_ and contemptible as he labours to make Christ and his apostles.
38. I have hitherto spoken to those chiefly, who do not receive the christian system as of God. I would add a few words to another sort of men; (though not so much with regard to _our_ principles or practice, as with regard to _their own_:) to you who _do_ receive it, who believe the scripture, but yet do not take upon you the character of _religious men_. I am therefore obliged to address myself to you likewise under the character of _men of reason_.
39. I would only ask, Are you such indeed? Do you answer the character under which you appear? If so, you are consistent with yourselves. Your principles and practice agree together.
Let us try whether this is so or not. Do you not take the name of God in vain? Do you remember the sabbath-day, to keep it holy? Do you not speak evil of the ruler of your people? Are you not a drunkard, or a glutton, faring as sumptuously as you can every day? Making a God of your belly? Do you not avenge yourself? Are you not a whoremonger or adulterer? Answer plainly to your own heart, before God the judge of all.
Why then do you say, you believe the scripture? If the scripture is true, you are lost. You are in the broad way that leadeth to destruction. Your damnation slumbereth not. You are heaping up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. Doubtless, if the scripture is true, (and you remain thus) it had been good for you if you had never been born.