reafon? It cannot make any variation in the words; it cannot make them to be what they are not: all that it can do is, it can reject the words; but, if it rejects them, it, by neceffity, likewife rejects the Author of them; and, in rejecting him, it denies what it acknowledges, that he has a divine miffion, and that his words are truth. In fhort, when we talk of an appeal to our reafon upon the fubject of revelation, I fear, in general, we mean an appeal to our own opinions, which, I am perfuaded, are often miftaken by the human mind for reafon, and when they are deeply rooted, all the powers of reason are infufficient to eradicate them. If the preconceived opinion is, that Gop the Divinity cannot be united to a human being, it is impoffible that the doctrine of the New Teftament can accord with fuch opinion, because, it teaches, that JESUS, the Son of Man, is in the proper sense at the fame time the Son of GOD, and of courfe truly GoD; and hence the doctrine being contrary to the opinion, will be deemed contrary to reason. But reason establishes it, certainly and infallibly, that whatever comes from the GoD of Truth must be true; and, therefore, in fuch a cafe, that is, where a doctrine really comes from the GoD of Truth, it totally difcards, annihilates, opinion, and fuffers it not to operate in the smallest degree; for, what is opinion when oppofed to what reafon acknowledges, is, and muft be, true? Doth it cease to be true because it varies from opinion? Then the ultimate appeal lies to opi nion nion and not to reafon. Then a revelation from GOD of the Divinity of JESUS CHRIST may be rejected, because opinion disapproves of it, although reason establishes that it must be true, because it comes from God. The I have used the word opinion here, but, perhaps, the more proper word would have been imagination. It is thus our tranflators, and very properly, have rendered the word λoyous in 2 Cor. x. 5. 2071μους καθαιρούντες, cafting down imaginations. true Christian keeps all imagination in subjection to the controul of reason and truth, and fuffers nothing in his mind to exalt itfelf against the knowledge of GOD, a knowledge which he obtains determinately from revelation alone, and from no other fource. And this knowledge he obtains either mediately or immediately. To the latter mode of obtaining it we have no pretenfions, and therefore it concerns not our present subject. The former mode only is that by which the revelation of the knowledge of GoD comes to us, and that revelation we know affuredly comes from him, when our reafon is fully fatisfied that he comes from him by whom it is communicated to us, and when our reafon is thus fatisfied it filences all imaginations, and will not fuffer them to be heard; for, however loudly they may plead with their difficulties and impoffibilities, the final anfwer of reafon is: The doctrine communicated to us certainly comes from GOD, and therefore is, and must be, be, true. Now, then, if the New Teftament is acknowledged to have been a revelation from GOD, all that we have to do is, to enquire whether the words of the New Teftament do, or do. not, express the doctrine proposed to us. Are they the words of the New Teftament, that JESUS CHRIST is aos naι Κυριος, that he is αληθινος. Θεος, that he is εν μορφή Oεou hapxav; that he is one with the Father; that he is in the Father, and the Father in him? Are these, and fuch like expreffions really in the New Teftament? or are they not? If they are, what hath imagination to oppose against them, which can be attended to? The voice of reafon moft loudly proclaims, that the words are true, because they are the words of GOD. In vain, then, doth imagination plead against them; for, if the revelation is a revelation from GOD, and the words are in that revelation, reafon pronounces them to be true, notwithstanding every effort of the imagination to the contrary. It were to be wifhed, that thofe who talk fo loudly, and as they think fo wifely, concerning rational religion, and rational Chriftianity, could be perfuaded to adopt what is really a rational religion, and a rational Chriftianity; for, while they acknowledge, as they affect to do, the truth of the New Teftament, they act moft irrationally in oppofing and calling in queftion its doctrines. Reafon never will justify them in admitting the New Teftament to be be a divine revelation, while they reject its doctrines. In the one or the other they must act with infinite abfurdity. If the New Teftament is a revelation from GoD, its doctrines must be true; if its doctrines are not true, it cannot be a revelation from GOD. This confideration, I fuppofe, is that which hath driven fo many into Deifm; for the mind, naturally revolting from the many numerous abfurdities with which what is falsely called rational Chriftianity is clogged, perplexed with its wildneffes and intricacies, and, in this ftate, feeing no ground on which it may reft with peace to itself, withdraws from fuch a fcene of endlefs inconfiftencies, and even from Chriftianity itself, to take refuge in the hopeless rigour of Deifm, wherein, if it experiences nothing of comfort, it nevertheless imagines itfelf > emancipated from contradictions. And, indeed, what is called rational Christianity hath a natural tendency to drive men into Deifm; for, however the mind may for a while be delighted with the felf-importance into which rational Chriftianity introduces it, it cannot always be blind to its abfurdities and contradictions. At length, it will difcover and feel them; and when once this happens, having rejected genuine Chriftianity, it hath no-other refource if it would retain any appearance of religion, but in Deifm. Men, therefore, cannot be too much upon their guard again this' strange infatuation. For, what is called rational Christianity, when examined and brought to the teft, will be found to be moft irrational, moft contrary to reafon, if it be irrational to admit a revelation as true, and then to reject its doctrines as false, to receive a man as a divine meffenger, as certainly coming from the GoD of Truth, and then to make enquiry whether he does not speak what is false. Reason can have no fhare in an enquiry of this nature. It is opinion only, imagination, or by whatever other name you chufe to diftinguifh fuch a delufion of the mind, that is concerned in it, and the name of reafon is moft unjustly and abufively given to it; fo that, after all, thefe advocates for rational Christianity, these gigantic affertors of the dignity of human reafon, who trample upon the faith of Chriftians with fo much difdain, are the greatest enemies which reafon has; they reject the true and certain dictates of reafon as impofture, and appeal to conceit and imagination for truth; they treat the reft of the world as the enemies of reason, and are themfelves the dupes of folly. Reason is undoubtedly the gift of GOD to us, and the diftinguifhing property of man, and therefore as certainly its decifions ought to be attended to; and if, after a rigorous enquiry into the credentials of a perfon who comes to us as from GOD (and the enquiry cannot be too rigorous); it decides, that he certainly does come from him, there lies no appeal from its decifion. An appeal to what he teacheth against what he teacheth is abfurd in the highest degree, because 7 the |