“Can the superstition of the _Pagans_ be imputed to any defect or insufficiency in the light of reason, when it was wholly owing to their abandoning that divine light; and in defiance of it, running into senseless traditions?”¹ ¹ Page 37. But how came it, that they ran into senseless traditions? What was it that admitted these traditions as just and good? Why, it was that faculty which judges of every thing, and which this writer recommends as an unerring guide. And to say, a man’s superstition is not owing to any defect or weakness of his reason, but to his admitting senseless traditions, is as vain, as to say, a man’s false reasoning is not owing to any weakness of his reason, but to his proceeding upon foolish and absurd arguments. He proceeds thus: “It is certainly no good argument against the sufficiency of the divine light of nature, that men could not err, except they left it, and followed vain traditions.”¹ ¹ Second Address, page 39. This observation has just the same sense and acuteness in it, as if it had been said, _It is certainly no good argument against_ the sufficiency of the divine healthfulness _of human nature, that men could not be sickly, except they left it_, and _fell into various distempers: or, against the_ sufficiency of the divine strength of natural courage, that men could not be timorous, till they left it, and followed vain fears. For, to prove that reason is sufficient, because every thing that is absurd, is contrary to reason, is like proving our healthfulness to be sufficient, because all distempers are contrary to it: or our courage to be sufficient, because fears and cowardice are contrary to it. Besides, how is it that men leave their reason? Why, just as ignorant men leave their knowledge; as dull people leave their wit, or cowards leave their courage. The first part of this paragraph tells you of a sufficiency of the divine light of nature: well; What has this divine light of nature done? What sufficient effects has it had? Why, it has covered all the world with darkness. Again: Supposing that all mankind, even the wisest nations, have for this six thousand years been thus imposed upon, not knowing how to distinguish idle tales and senseless traditions from true religion; is not this a noble foundation for this writer to build the _sufficiency of the divine light of nature upon_? For supposing it had been in the greatest degree insufficient, what other effect could have followed from it, but only this, that _all mankind_, even the _wisest nations_, should have been over-run with error? And is it not strange, that effects should bear no proportion to their causes; that the same things should follow from the _sufficiency_ of the divine light of nature, which must have followed from its _greatest insufficiency_?