march of mind-to arrest the progress of Reformationand to lead us back into darkness and Popery? How different the sentiments of our blessed Redeemer and his Apostles! "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy "word is truth.' "God hath chosen you to salvation "through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth. "Because they received not the love of the truth, that they "might be saved, God gave them over to strong delusions "to believe a lie, that all might be damned who believe not "the truth.""Come out from among them, my people," &c. Nearly allied to the Doctor's sure guide, and safe rule, is the following maxim laid down in his treatise on the Being and Attributes, (P. 12): " It is also a law of our nature, "that we cannot discredit testimony, when sufficiently "strong." Though this maxim, at first sight, appears quite plausible; yet, if duly examined, I humbly conceive, it will be found to subvert the foundation of the Christian system, and to lead directly to Deism, to Atheism, and to blasphemy, -These assertions are strong, I acknowledge. That they are not too strong will appear, I am convinced, by the following syllogisms: "It is a law of our nature, that we cannot discredit tes"timony, when sufficiently strong.' But the testimony in favour of the truth of Christianity, has been discredited; Therefore, the testimony in favour of the truth of Christianity, was not sufficiently strong. Does not this syllogism, founded on the Doctor's maxim, level to the dust the whole fabric of Christianity? Does it not lead directly to DEISM? Again: "It is a law of our nature, that we cannot dis"credit testimony, when sufficiently strong.' But the testimony, which God has given in favour of the truth of his own being and attributes, has been discredited ; Therefore, the testimony, which God has given in favour of the truth of his own being and attributes, is not sufficiently strong! I ask again: Does not this syllogism, founded on the Doctor's maxim, lead directly to ATHEISM? Once more: "It is a law of our nature, that we cannot "discredit testimony, when sufficiently strong.". But the testimony God has given of his Son, the testimony which the Son has given of the Father, and the testi mony which the Holy Spirit has given of both, have been discredited; Therefore, the testimonies of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not sufficiently strong! Whether or not this syllogism, founded on the Doctor's maxim, leads to blasphemy, let the reader judge. If testimony, when sufficiently strong, cannot be discredited; neither faith is a duty nor unbelief a sin. Necessity of nature is quite incompatible with virtue and vice, praise and blame. Hence it is, I humbly presume, that the unphilosophical, and unscriptural ideas of the innocence of error, * and the trivial importance of truth, have gained such currency in the present age. When testimonies or doctrines are discredited, the fault must either be in the evidence, or in the mind that perceives it. Now, with regard to the doctrines of the Bible, or the testimony in favour of the truth of Christianity, what Christian would say, that the fault is in the evidence? God never requires of his rational creatures any thing unreasonable-any thing naturally impossible. If he requires men to believe in the truth of Christianity, he has given sufficient evidence of that truth. If he requires men to believe in the doctrines of the Gospel, he has given sufficient evidence of the truth of those doctrines. It is on this principle alone, that faith is a duty, and unbelief and error, sins. The understanding is the judge, bound to give a verdict according to evidence; but the judge may be bribed. The will, the affections, the appetites and passions, blind the understanding, pervert the judgment, and influence the belief. It is almost proverbial, that what we wish we easily believe; and that -- "A man convinced against his will * Dr. B. maintains that error may not only be innocent, but rightcous and holy! The well-instructed Christian, he assures us (P. 157), will see" that while he adhered to the gospel he was at least safe: "that the sincere profession of a holy and righteous faith, though it "were erroneous, must be pleasing to a holy and righteous God." What! Holy and righteous erroneous faith! What a combination of words! "Pious frauds" are not more monstrous, than holy and righteous errors. It is not more blasphemous to affirm, that the God of holiness may delight in sin, than to assert, that the God of truth must be pleased with error!-Need we be at all astonished that Infidels exclaim, Priestcraft! and Imposture! when we hear an erroneous faith not only pronounced innocent, but righteous and holy, by a learned Divine, a Doctor of Divinity? If error, unbelief, Deism, and even Atheism, arose purely from the exercises of the understanding, without any concern of the will, the affections, the heart; they would not be criminal. But the case is quite otherwise. Each of these is highly criminal; because the decision of the judgment is perverted by the influence of the will, the affections, and dispositions of the heart. It is "with the heart man believes"-there is "an evil heart of unbelief"" the fool says in his heart, There is no God." This is a subject of great delicacy and importance. Confounding the pure acts of the understanding, with those which are influenced by the will and inclination, has induced men of the greatest talents, to consider error, unbelief, Deism, and even Atheism, as innocent. A remarkable instance of this we have in Brougham's inaugural address, in Glasgow University; and in his speech in the House of Commons. In the former he represents man, as having no control over his belief, and as no more accountable for it, than for the "hue of his "skin, or height of his stature." In the latter, he declares, “that if a man were an Atheist, or an Infidel, it was his "misfortune, not his fault; and that he should be viewed "with pity, not with blame." All this proceeds upon the erroneous hypothesis, that our wills, inclinations, appetites, passions and prejudices, have no influence on our belief. Were the premises true, the conclusion would be unavoidable; but the premises are false, and therefore the conclusion is erroneous. It is equally opposed to the philosophy of the human mind, and the infallible dictates of divine Revelation. "He that believes not shall be damned. And "this is the condemnation, that light is come into the "world, and men love darkness rather than light; because "their deeds are evil. (2 Thes. ii. 10, 11, 12.) "Because "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be "saved. God shall send them strong delusion, that they "should believe a lie, that they all might be damned, who "believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous"ness." By confounding what is natural with what is moral, some orthodox divines have fallen into the same error. MacGowan in his letters to Priestly, speaking of those who are grossly erroneous, says: "They are certainly "more properly objects of my pity, than of my resentment. "With as much propriety might I be offended with a poor "man, who was born blind, and continues so, because he " is not a judge of colours; or with a deaf man, because "he understands not the harmony of sounds." Thus the acute and penetrating MacGowan stumbles on the same ground with our great Parliamentary Orator. He stumbles by confounding natural with moral blindness. The cases, however, are completely distinct, and altogether different. The man born blind says, "Lord that I might receive my "sight." On the contrary, those who are morally blind, hate the light; they love darkness rather than light. This is their condemnation. This is the ground of their criminality and guilt.* By what I have written in the preceding pages, I do not mean to deny, that some parts of the sacred volume, and that some doctrines of divine revelation, are more important than others; but I maintain that they are all important. They are all necessary-necessary to complete the glorious fabric of divine truth. We hear much of essential truths, fundamental truths, &c. It is true, indeed, that the removal of foundation stones is the speediest mode of destroying a building; but it is no less true, that a greater number of houses are ruined by the deficiency of their slates, pinnings, mortar, &c. than by the razing of their foundations. What wise man would say, when robbers are attacking his house, "Let them alone. If the foundation stones are safe, the other parts of the house are of inferior importance?" All the parts of the human body are not equally important, but they are all necessary to complete the frame. "The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of "thee; nor, again, the head to the feet, I have no need "of you. Nay, much more those members of the body "that seem more feeble are necessary." The same is the case with regard to the different parts of the Bible. They are not all equally important; but they are all necessarynecessary to complete one glorious body of divinity. The *I had intended to proceed farther in the discussion of this subject; but, with much surprise and pleasure, I find myself anticipated by an able defender of the faith of the Gospel-the Rev. Dr. Wardlaw, Glasgow. This pious and learned divine has published two sermons in refutation of those very sentiments, which I had previously marked out as the subject of animadversion.-These sermons I would recommend as useful and important-giving at once a scriptural and philosophical view of this difficult subject. amputation of a leg, an arm, or even a finger or a toe, destroys the uniformity, and mars the beauty of the human body. Who would not contend for his feeblest members, as well as for his head or his heart? On similar principles, what true Christian would wilfully suffer the body of Revelation to be maimed or mutilated? That man is not worthy of the name of a Christian, who would wilfully surrender one hair or hoof" of truth. She was not the true mother of the child, who unfeelingly exclaimed, "Let it be "neither mine nor thine, but divide it." CHAPTER III. The Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ defended. His names-particularly the names JEHOVAH and GOD. It is, I conceive, no contemptible proof of the doctrine I advocate, that the opponents of our Lord's Divinity, feel it necessary to depreciate the sacred oracles. No man can degrade the Son of God, till he first degrade the Word of God. Having, in the preceding pages. endeavoured to repel our author's attack on the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, we shall now proceed to defend the Supreme Deity of our blessed Redeemer. The reader of these pages may be anxious to know, why the defenders of the Divinity and Atonement of Jesus Christ appeal more frequently to the Epistles than the Gospels. The reason is this: In the Epistles those doctrines are more clearly taught. Were the question put, Why more clearly taught by the Apostles than their Master? I answer, first, Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy "sight." This is a sufficient answer to all those who do not suppose their own wisdom superior to the wisdom of God. In the second place, I answer the question by asking another. Why were more souls converted by one sermon of the Apostle Peter, than by all the sermons which his |