whofe name and character I reverence, and would defire to imitate, but being perfuaded there can be no title truly honourable or acceptable to him, whofe particular errand was to bear witness to the truth, but what is founded in truth, I fhall, regardless of the reproach of men, perfevere in the glorious task for which the Jews of old were called, and for which Chrift came into the world, viz. bear witness to the unity of God; that there is one God and none other but he, and that Jefus is the Son of God.

Two letters have appeared in your Mifcellany entitled, Deity of Chrift, intended as an answer to mine on John i. 1. &c. The first of which I fhall reply to at this time, and referve my answer to the fecond for another letter. The first thing that strikes my attention is fome general reflections on the Arian doctrine and its confequences, with an attempt to traduce reason, and thereby, in my opinion, undermine the glorious fabric of Chriftianity; for if Christophilus can prove its doctrines are unreasonable, I would renounce it that moment; for why fhould I believe that in preference to Paganifm, Mahometanism, or Deifm, but because it is more reafonable? or if I or C. were to attempt to bring either of them over to Chriftianity, we should firft endeavour to prove the reasonableness of fuch a change. But I have obferved, with regret, that reafon is contended for with unbelievers, while it is denied to the Chriftian; indeed, Sir, a nice diftinction is attempted to be set up, that there is nothing in Revelation contrary to, but many things above reafon. Now it will be neceffary to enquire into the truth of this fentiment, fo fpecious in its appearance, and fo calculated to deceive the unwary. We are commanded to fearch the fcriptures; furely more must be meant than merely reading them, or receiving implicitly the opinions of others; fearching muft imply an earnest endeavour to find out for ourselves, and to understand the truths contained therein; and what faculty can we employ for this purpose but that which is commonly called reafon, whereby we are capable of thinking, reflecting, comparing, and judging of things; indeed reason, as well as revelation, are the gift of God, from whom every good and perfect gift cometh; and I am perfuaded no man is against either reason or revelation, till he finds they are against him:but it is faid there are many things in Revelation above`reafon; if fo, these things are no article of my faith, for a righteous God can never make the belief of any thing I cannot understand essential to my falvation. I believe in a God

felf-exiftent, independent, &c. because it is revealed, and it is exceedingly reasonable, that he that is the first cause of all things must be so; but how he is fo is not revealed, and therefore is not an article of my faith. It may be faid, if God were to reveal how he exifts of himself, a finite being could not comprehend it, it would be above his reafon; this I do not know to be a truth, but if it should be fo, that, in all probability, is the reason why he has not made it an article of my faith. That there is a God is revealed, and now it is revealed it is no longer above my reason, but it is effential to my falvation to believe it, for he that cometh to God muft believe that he is, not how he exifts.

Now, to illustrate what I have been saying, fuppofe any man were to meet me and tell me my houfe was on fire; if I had a house, it would not be above my reason to believe it was fo, if I had confidence in the man who told me; but if, to the best of my knowledge, I had no houfe, it would be above my reason, nay it would feem to contradict it, therefore could not give offence if I did not believe it; but if he revealed and proved to me that though I did not know I had a house, yet a friend had died and left me one, and that house was on fire, the difficulty would be removed, and that which before was above reason, and not an article of faith, is now strictly reasonable, and entitled to my belief: So it is with Revelation; there are many things which would, have been above reafon to discover, but being revealed are no longer above reason, but agreeable thereto, and therefore articles of faith. "It is afked, who can comprehend the manner of the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart in regeneration, feeing our Lord likens it to the blowing of the wind?" Here I would anfwer, our Lord does not say the manner of the operation of the Spirit upon the heart is like the blowing of the wind, but the person who is regenerate, or born again; "fo is every one who is born of the fpirit:" John iii. 8. Agree able to that faying "your life is hid with Chrift in God," and "the spiritual man" (he that is born of the Spirit) “difcerneth all things, while he himself is difcerned of no man." As to the manner of the operation of the Spirit it is no myftery, but clearly revealed; when our Lord promifes the Spirit, he fays it "fhall convince the world of fin,of righteoufnefs, and of judgment;" and "faith cometh by hearing;" therefore the Spirit of God, which is the mind of God in his word, acts in a reasonable way, by convincing our judgments that we are finners, exhorting us to feek for

jufti

juftification through Jesus Christ, because God has appointed a day in which he will judge every man according to his works. Thus it is by the motives of the gospel that amazing change is wrought in every man who is born again; being born again, not of corruptible feed but of incorruptible, by the word of God, 1 Pet. i. 23, which appears fo ftrange to every unregenerate man, that he must be born again before he can understand, or thus enter into the kingdom of God. Again it is faid, the doctrine of the refurrection is above reafon; who can defcribe the manner and circumstances of it? or, who would ever have known it if it had not been revealed? To this I fay, that which is revealed can be no longer a myftery (things that are revealed belong to us and to our children, hidden things to God), nor above reafon, for it cannot be faid to be revealed to me unless I can comprehend it, though I grant a fact may be revealed without the circumftances attending that fact; but then the fact alone is an object of faith, not the circumstances attending it; but that is not the cafe in refpect to the refurrection, for Paul, in speaking to Agrippa, afks, why it should be thought a thing incredible, or unreafonable, that God fhould raise the dead? So much for the fact; now for the circumftances: In 1 Cor. 15. Păul supposes a person, having heard the fact, enquiring the circumstances, faying, how are the dead raised, and with what body do they come? But instead of answering it is above our reason, we must believe it though we cannot understand it, he answers, "thou fool," as though he would say, if you had exercised your reafon your difficulty would have been immediately removed. C. has attempted to throw an odium on Arianifm, as he calls it, by faying it draws after it fo great a defection of feveral of the first principles of the gofpel, fuch as the fall of man, the atonement by the blood of the cross, and confequently the neceffity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. To the last I have already replied, and to the other two I must say something, though it would not surprise me, if in the giving up one error, many should fall with it; as for example: the giving up the idea that reason had nothing to do with religion, was the means of bringing down tranfubftantiation, &c. &c. but the fallen ftate of men even Arians do not deny, for reafon and Revelation both bear teftimony to the truth of it; but they hold it in a different manner to what profeffors of Chriftianity do in general; for it is contended we all fell in Adam as our federal head, and that his fin, in which we could have no hand, is

imputed

II.

imputed to us, hereby contradicting, not only reafon but alfo the juftice and goodnefs of God (who has declared the fon fhall not bear the fin of the father, but that the foul that finneth it fhall die), and bringing in that doctrine fo inimical to all perfonal holinefs, the imputation of Chrift's obedience to us; whereas the fcripture reprefents, that "as by one man fin entered into the world, and death by fin, fo death hath paffed upon all men; for or because that ALL have finned," and that as "by or through the offence of one many were made finners, even fo by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous;" and as none are made righteous but those who hear of the obedience of Chrift and follow his example; fo none are made finners by imputation, but by their own act in following the evil example of Adam, the first apoftate. In refpect to the doctrine of the atonement, it is a word fo differently understood by Chriftians, that I cannot say whether I agree with C. or not; it is mentioned but once in the New Teftament, Rom. v. 11. "By whom we (believers) have received the atonement.' Here it is faid believers receive the atonement, not God, and the marginal reading is reconciliation: now if by atonement is meant our reconciliation to God through the blood of the crofs, I believe and rejoice in it; but if it is intended that Christ died to appease the wrath of God, to fatisfy divine justice, and to make God merciful and reconcile him to us, I cannot believe it, because God is unchangeable; he ever was, he ever muft be, merciful and good; and the death of Chrift is not the cause but the effect of God's love, for God fo loved the world that he gave his only begotten fon, &c. C. wishes I had confidered the Deity of Chrift as not contrary to, but above reason; perhaps I may be led to do fo when he can fhew me that the following things, connected with the Deity of Christ,are not contrary to, but only above reafon. Deity in the womb, fucking at the breaft, growing in ftature and knowledge, hungering, praying, being in an agony, made perfect through fufferings, emptying himfelf, dying, rifing, afcending, being exalted at the right hand of Deity, receiving power and dominion, and afterwards refigning it and being fubje& to him who gave it him, these things can never be faid of Deity without contradicting reafon; though it might of the moft exalted derived fpirit, who might have his powers fo diminished as to depend on the maturity of bodily organs, and for the exercise of them might experience change of place or circumstances; but it would be the highest pitch of folly to

fay

fay the fame of Deity. C. goes on to introduce a dialogue between an Atheist and a very foolish Deift, who might upon that occafion have ufed Paul's argument with fuccefs, Rom. i. 20. "For the invifible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." I do not know what kind of Deifts C. has met with, for my part I never found them fuch fools. As to his not finding his confequence hurt, or the dignity of his nature infulted, by believing what he does not understand, I take this opportunity of telling him, I do not envy him his happiness; he is not alone, the whole body of Papifts, Pagans, and Mahometans, nay even the Athenians who worshiped the unknown God, thank him for the apology, and recognize the principle he lays down as belonging to them and their forefathers. C. fuppofes why I reject the Deity of Christ is, because I cannot understand how they can both be truly God; by his own confeffion they are two diftinct beings, for what can be truly God but he that is the firft caufe, but he who is felf-exiftent and independent? and if both are truly God, there must be two first causes, two self-existent and two independent Gods, in exprefs contradiction to what our Lord has faid, that the Father is the only true God. I think I have proved in my former letter that thefe characters do not belong to Chrift, therefore he cannot be truly God in the fenfe the Father is, but a derived and dependent being; and though C. laughs at the idea of a creating creature, he has brought no argument to prove it abfurd, contrary to, or above reason, that God fhould give power to a creature to create; and I think his prefumption must be, if poffible, greater than his credulity, were he to fay God could not give that power to a creature; for Chrift says, with God all things are poffible; and when Paul afcribes creation to Chrift, he calls him the first-born of every creature.

And now, having anfwered his principle affertions, I will examine the texts of fcripture he has brought to support his caufe; but I must confefs I think he has taken a deal of pains to no purpose; because a man may be a good christian without believing any of the mysteries he is fo concerned about, as he would have found, if he had confidered 1 John iv. 15. "Whofoever fhall confefs that Jefus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God." The first paffage he quotes, is John i. 1. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." I answer,

1