Prayers, and Praises, and Repentance for Sins paft, are Acts of Devotion, which Nature pretends to instruct and direct us in: But why does fhe teach us to pray, to praise, or to repent, but that she esteems one to be the proper Method of expreffing our Wants, the other of expreffing our Gratitude, and the third of making Atonement for Iniquity and Offences against God? In all these Acts Reference is had to the overruling Power of the Almighty; and they amount to this Confeffion, That the Upfhot of all Religion is to please God in order to make ourselves happy.

This will fhew us what muft neceffarily be understood by any Perfon's, or by any Religion's, having the Words of eternal Life: For, fince eternal Life can only be had by pleafing God, no Perfon, no Religion, can be faid to have the Words of eternal Life upon any other Account, than because it teaches and enables us fo far at least to please God, as to obtain eternal Life from him.

If we confider God as the Ruler of this. World as well as of the next, Religion indeed will be as neceffary a Means of obtaining the Bleffings of this Life, as of that which is to come. But this will make no Alteration in the Nature of Religion: For,

if the Bleffings of this Life are the Gift of God, they must be obtained by pleasing God; and the fame Services muft intitle us to the Bleffings of this Life and of the next, unlefs you can fuppofe that there are different Ways of pleafing God; one Way to please him, in order to obtain the Bleffings of this World; and another, in order to obtain the Bleffings of Heaven.

From this Account of the Nature of Religion, That it is the Knowledge of pleafing God, and ferving him acceptably, (I speak of Religion now confidered only as a Rule) there are fome Confequences which naturally follow, that may be of great Service to us in directing us in our Choice of Religion.

First then; Since it is the Perfection of Religion to inftruct us how to please God; and fince to please God, and to act according to the Will of God, are but one and the fame Thing; it neceffarily follows, that must be the most perfect Religion, which does most perfectly inftruct us in the Knowledge of the Will of God. Allow then Nature to have all the Advantages that ever the greateft Patrons of Natural Religion laid claim to on her behalf; allow Reason to be as clear, as uncorrupted, as unprejudiced, as even our fondest Wishes would make it; yet ftill it

can

can never be supposed, that Nature and Reason, in all their Glory, can be able to know the Will of God fo well as he himfelf knows it: And therefore, fhould God ever make a Declaration of his Will, that Declaration muft, according to the Nature and Neceffity of the Thing, be a more perfect Rule for Religion, than Reason and Nature can poffibly furnish us with. Had we the Wisdom and Reason of Cherubims and Seraphins to direct us in the Worship and Service of our Maker, nevertheless it would be our highest Wisdom, as it is theirs, to fubmit to his Laws, that is, to the Declarations of his Will.

Secondly; From hence it appears, how extremely wrong it is to compare Natural Religion and Revelation together, in order to inquire which is preferable; for 'tis neither more nor less than inquiring, whether we know God's Will better than he himself knows it. Falfe Revelations are no Revelations; and therefore to prefer Natural Religion before fuch pretended Revelations, is only to reject a Forgery: But to suppose that there is, or may be, a true Revelation, and yet to say that Natural Religion is a better Guide, is to say that we are wiser than God, and know better how to please him C 4 without

without his Directions than with them. Upon this State of the Cafe then, a Revelation must be entirely rejected as a Forgery, or entirely fubmitted to; and the only Debate between Natural Religion and Revelation must be, whether we really have a Revelation, or no; and not whether Revelation or Nature be, in the nature of Things, the best and furest Foundation of Religion; Which Dispute but ill becomes our Condition, and is a vain Attempt to exalt ourselves and our own Reason above every Thing that is called God.

Since then Revelation, confidered as such, must needs be the fureft Guide in Religion, every reasonable Man is bound to confider the Pretenfions of Revelation, when offered to him; for no Man can justify himself in relying merely on Natural Religion, till he has fatisfied himself that no better Directions are to be had. For, fince 'tis the Business of Religion to please God, is it not a very natural and a very reasonable Inquiry to make, whether God has any-where declared what will please him? at least, 'tis reasonable when we are called to this Inquiry, by having a Revelation tendered to us, fupported by fuch Evidence, which, though it

may

be

eafily rejected without Reason, yet to Reason will ever approve itself.

But the Inquiry into the Evidence for any particular Revelation is excluded by thofe who argue against all Revelation a priori, as being inconfiftent with the Wisdom of God. What they say amounts to this; That God, having given us Reafon, has bound us to obey the Dictates of Reason, and tied himfelf down to judge us by that Rule, and that only: To fuppofe otherwise, they imagine, would be to maintain that God gave us an imperfect Rule at first, and which wanted to be mended; a Thing, they imagine, inconfiftent with his Wifdom: And, the Rule of Reason being fufficient, all Revelation, they judge, must be useless and impertinent, and confequently can never derive itself from God. But, as it is too apparent to be denied, that Reason and Natural Religion never did in any Age universally prevail; to help out the Argument, it is farther supposed, that whatever happens in the World is agreeable to the original Defign of God, and confequently, that those who have least of Reason and Natural Religion, are in the State for which God defigned them; and, if so, 'tis absurd to suppose a Revelation should be