But it must be said for these writers, that they decline all arguments from facts and experience, to give a better account of human nature; but with the same justice, as if a man was to lay aside the authority of history, to give you a truer account of the life of _Alexander_. Their objection against revelation is founded upon the pretended sufficiency and perfection of human reason, to teach all men all that is wise, and holy, and divine, in religion. But how do they prove this perfection of human reason? Do they appeal to mankind as proofs of it? Do they produce any body of men in this or any other age, that without any assistance from revelation, have attained to this perfection of religious knowledge? This is not so much as pretended to; the history of such men is entirely wanting. And yet the want of such a fact as this, has even the force of demonstration against this pretended sufficiency of natural reason. Because it is a matter not capable of any other kind of proof, but must be admitted as certainly true, or rejected as certainly false, according as fact and experience bear witness for or against it. * For an enquiry about the light, and strength, and sufficiency of reason, to guide and preserve men in the knowledge and practice of true religion, is a question, as _solely_ to be resolved by _fact and experience_, as if the enquiry was about the _shape_ of man’s body, or the _number_ of his senses. And to talk of a light and strength of reason, natural to man, which fact and experience have never yet proved, is as egregious nonsense, as to talk of natural senses, or faculties of his body, which fact and experience have never yet discovered. From the bare consideration of a rational soul in union with a body, and bodily passions, we can neither prove man to be _strong_ nor _weak_, _good_ nor _bad_, _sickly_ nor _sound_, _mortal_ nor _immortal_: all these qualities must discover themselves, as the _eye_ discovers its degree of _sight_, the _hand_ its degree of _strength_. To enquire therefore, whether men have by nature light sufficient to guide, and keep them in the true religion; is the same appeal to fact and experience, as to enquire, whether men are _mortal_, _sickly_, or _sound_: or how far they can _see_ and _hear_. * As therefore these gentlemen are, in this debate, without any proof, or even pretence of proof, from experience, so their cause ought to be looked upon to be as vain and romantic, as if they had asserted, that men have senses naturally fitted to hear sounds, and see objects at all distances, tho’ experience has, from the creation to this time, proved the quite contrary. For he that asserts the sufficiency of reason, to guide men in matters of religion, is not only without any positive proof from experience on his side, but has the history of all ages, for near six thousand years, fully demonstrating the quite contrary.