authority we receive a great number of truths, relating to the affairs of common life. But, in fuch a cafe, where is humility, where is that filial, teachable spirit, which is one of the marks of our adoption and regeneration? What need of fubmitting to the dictates of Inspiration, because it is the Eternal Sovereign who fpeaks; when we have nothing to do but convince ourfelves of all neceffary truths, by their own internal characters; and to reject, or embrace them, in exact proportion as they agree or difagree with the light of our own understanding?

*

Reason, our opponents will fay, reafon is the • foundation of faith: confequently, faith can⚫ not be more certain than reason.'-Reason, I confefs, leads to Revelation; because we are taught by it, that God is infallibly wife, and that we are liable to err; that we cannot, therefore, do better than regard the light of Revela tion, in preference to the uncertain conjectures of our own minds. But then, as reafon leads us to this infallible rule, which was given by uncontrollable authority; fhe requires us to receive, with fubmiffion, whatever the Great Revealer afferts, as a fact; commands, as a duty; or proposes, as an object of faith..-We may dif tinguish three things in faith; and thefe are, the principle, the difcretion, and the conclufion of it. That fundamental maxim and firft idea in Revealed religion, Whatever God fays is true;" I call the principle of faith. Its difcretion, is that examination by which we affure ourselves that God fpeaks, and endeavour to understand what he means. And the conclufion of it, is that affent which we give to the truth of a propofition, because it is contained in the Revelation of God; and because we are perfectly satisfied, that whatever God fays must be true.-These things pre

mifed, I readily grant, that reafon leads us to the principle of faith. By the pureft light of our underflanding we are perfuaded, that whatever God fays is true. Reafon alfo, I freely acknowledge, makes the difcretion of faith: because it is that faculty of the mind which is impreffed with thofe characters of Divinity, that are contained in Revelation; and afterwards inquires, whether fuch or such a doctrine be revealed, by examining and comparing one paffage of Scripture with another. But this is all; and reafon muft acquiefce in what God fays, without prefuming to call into question the truth or the propriety of his words, when once their meaning appears. The contrary difpofition is not divine faith, but an intolerable temerity of a kind of reason that would be independent on God. We may, therefore, fafely conclude, without the imputation of rafhnefs, that the language of Smalcius, in the paffage produced, is pregnant with blafphemy against the Revelation of God: and in direct oppofition to it we fhould fay; Though this propofition, God was made man,' appeared much more contrary to reafon than it really does; yet we ought to conclude, that we are under a mistake, and that the propofition expreffes a wonderful fact and a capital truth, because it is contained in THE WORD OF JEHOVAH.-Thefe two declarations compared, it will appear, that the former is daring and prefumptuous; as it includes a manifeft preference of the powers of our own understanding, to the infallible dictates of infpiration; which is directly contrary to the nature of true faith. But the latter is modeft, humble, rational; as it implies a reverence for Divine authority, and an evident preference of the light of God's Revelation, to

that

that of our own reason; dispositions these, which are effential to real faith (ƒ).

(f) To what is here faid by our Author on this interefting fubject, I beg leave to fubjoin the reasoning of a lite elegant and evangelical writer, and the teftimony of a great genius in the beginning of the last century, relating to the fame truth. The former expreffes himself thus: We by no means approve of a general and indifcriminate outcry against reafon. This would be injurious to our facred caufe, and imply a reflection on our holy religion; as though it could not bear the fcrutiny of reafon. Whereas it will always appear to be a reafonable fyftem; a reasonable service; reafon in its highest refinement.-If, indeed, reafon-affects to be felf-fufficient, fhe is an impotent ufurper: but if the act in a state of dependence, she is a valuable fervant. Does he pretend to be our light, in matters of a spiritual and heavenly nature? the is then a defpicable dotard, or an ignis fatuus. Does the kindle her < torch at the fire of Revelation? fhe may then be a difcerner of doctrines, and we will call her "The candle of the Lord." Submitting to her Divine Author, and learning at the feet of Om-' Infcience, he is reafon in ber fenfs: prefuming to be equal with the All wife; undertaking to comprehend his works, or daring to to difpute his word; fhe is reafon run mad. In this quality we 'difclaim and cahier her in the other we cherish and employ her. -Though I could not, by the powers of my reafon difcover' though I cannot, by the exercise of my reason fully explain all the articles of my belief; yet I can "give a reafon," a very 'fatisfactory reafon," of the hope that is in me." This is what the apoftle requires us to do; and without doing this, we are neither wife nor happy.'

The

The latter bears his teftimony in the following words: 'prerogative of God comprehends the whole man; and is extended, as well to the reafon, as to the will of man: that is, that man renounce himself wholly, and draw near to God. Wherefore, as we are to obey his law, though we find a reluctation in our will; < fo we are to believe his word, though we find a reluctation in our reason for if we believe only that which is agreeable to our reason, we give affent to the matter, not to the author; which is no more than we would do towards a fufpected and difcredited 'witnels-Sacred theology is grounded on, and must be deduced from, the Oracl s of God; and not from the light of nature, or the dictates of reafon- TO THE LAW AND 10 THE TESTI"s MONY; if they fpeak not according to this word, it is because "there is no light in them." Lord BACON's Advancement of Learning, p. 468, 469.

CHAP.

An Objection from the fuppofed Silence of the Scripture, answered.

THA

HAT we may not be fufpected of weakening the arguments of our adversaries, we shall make use of their own words; and if, to avoid prolixity, we contract them a little, their objections will not be the lefs forcible. The argument, then, which appears to us to be the first in order, and one of the most plaufible, is that which they form on the fuppofed filence of the Scripture, as to the mystery of the Incar

nation.

"We see, say they, that thofe things which C are difficult to be believed, yet abfolutely neceffary to falvation, are very frequently and plainly expreffed in the Scriptures. Such, for inftance, as the creation of heaven and earth; the care which God takes of human affairs; his knowledge of our thoughts; the ⚫ refurrection of the dead, and eternal life. Various things alfo of lefs importance, are clearly and diftinctly contained in holy Writ. For • example, "That Jefus Chrift is of the feed "of David."-Now, if the incarnation of the fupreme God were a fact, it would be an article of faith abfolutely neceffary, and at the fame time very difficult to be believed. It ought, therefore, to have been very clearly afferted, in the Scripture; and fo frequently inculcated, by the facred writers, who defigned to promote and fecure our happiness, ⚫ that none should have had any reason to doubt ' whether it was a part of Divine Revelation. Yet it appears to us, that there is no fuch

⚫ thing

1

thing contained in their writings. For the paffages, produced by our adversaries to prove the tenet, are of fuch a nature, that they are obliged to draw feveral confequences from them, before they can infer the incarnation of the most High God; or, that he was made ‹ man. Nor is the doctrine of the incarnation <mentioned where it fhould be, fuppofing it were < true. For, when Matthew and Luke write <the history of the birth of Christ, and relate a variety of particulars, of much less importance than the incarnation of the fupreme God; how is it poffible they fhould have omitted, fhould have entirel paffed over in filence, that wonderful fact, had it been true? They inform us, that Jefus was conceived by the Holy Ghoft; that he was born of a virgin, in the days of Auguftus, and at the town of Bethlehem, with many other particulars: why, then, fhould they omit the most important and wonderful thing, and that which was more neceffary to be known and believed than any other in the whole narration? Luke has not forgotten the manger, in which the new-born Saviour was laid; yet he has omitted the incarnation of the fupreme God, and fays nothing about the hypoftatical union of the Divine and human nature. How came it to pass, that Mark fhould forget the whole hiftory of Christ's birth, which fhould have included the incarnation; and John, whom they will have to speak of it, fhould pafs over it fo flightly, and exprefs himself with fo much obfcurity?---Again: How came the apoftles to make no ⚫ mention of fo important a doctrine, when they preached the gofpel, and exhorted men to believe on Jefus Chrift; and, to induce them fo

to