In a discourse delivered in New York, you say, "Now we learn as rational creatures, that God spoke to the Israelites not only as such, but that he always addresses us as rational creatures. Were we not rational creatures we could not understand; for nothing is a recipient for the spirit of God but the rational soul, and therefore we are always to understand him rationally; for this is _according to the nature of things_." In this remark, the only novelty is, the confusion in which your ideas are involved; for I cannot believe there were any of your audience so ignorant as not to know that it is _according to the nature of things_, that as we were created rational creatures, we should be addressed as such; and that if we were without understanding, we could not understand. Again you say, "as reason is a dormant principle without revelation, so when God is pleased to reveal things unto the immortal souls of the children of men, they are then seen rationally: and then reason has an opportunity to exercise its _balancing and comparing principle_ in man, and therefore there is a two-fold revelation to man." You surely cannot intend to persuade us, that reason has always been dormant without revelation, or you must yourself be ignorant, or believe that we are ignorant, of the writings handed down to us, and which sufficiently attest the powers of the human mind, even when unilluminated by the revelations of the Gospel, and in the darkest ages of Paganism. And if, as I suppose, you meant to limit this dormant principle, (as you call it,) to the revelations of the spirit, you involve it in absurdity. We will now examine your propositions, and endeavour to discover the deductions to be drawn from them. You say that reason is a dormant principle without revelation:--when any thing is revealed by God, it is seen rationally;--that then reason is to exercise its balancing and comparing principle, and the result is, that there is a two-fold revelation in man.