We have heretofore been taught to believe, that the only way in which we can arrive at a knowledge of the truth of any thing by our reason, is by the deductions drawn from the ideas which have been impressed on our minds by the use of our natural faculties; and that revelation is a special communication, in a manner independent of these faculties. But admitting that all the theologians and metaphysicians who have preceded you, have been in error, and that you alone are acquainted with the nature and operation of the faculty of reason, in what does it result? Why, when the Almighty reveals any thing to our souls, He, by another revelation, enables us to examine and discover whether the first revelation is right; but you have not told us, by which we are to be governed, if they differ. If you say they always accord, then a two-fold revelation is superfluous, and you admit that "our Creator never deals superfluously with us;"[9] and if they should disagree, how are we to decide? Your great and leading maxim, "that for which a thing is such, the thing itself is more such," will not apply, for both revelations are immediate and from the same source; and it will be necessary for the _numerous[10] converts_ which your maxim has made, again to apply to you to solve the difficulty. Can folly itself believe that the truth of any thing revealed to our immortal souls by infinite wisdom, requires confirmation; or that if it does, that confirmation can be found in the authority from which it was first derived? And is it not extraordinary, that any individual can go on day after day, and year after year, professing to explain to us the nature and object of revelation, and the use of our reason when applied to it; and yet not know, that divine revelation must be immutably true, and that as it is communicated in a way wholly unconnected with our reason, all reasoning upon it is vain. Whether the revelation is from a divine source is another question, and one which our reason may sometimes enable us to resolve. Footnote 9: See sermon preached in Philadelphia, page 8. Footnote 10: See letter to Dr. Atlee. In the discourse you delivered at Newtown in Bucks County, you enter more largely on this subject; and as it seems to comprise all your notions in relation to reason, as connected with our religion, it is proper to examine it with particular attention.