of life" and "the helm by which we are to steer our course across the tempestuous billows of mortality." They say that it is "the supreme umpire in every difficulty and doubt;" and not content with thus exalting reason above Revelation, they proceed to tell us that the Scriptures contain "puerile conceptions of God;" that "cruel denunciations disfigure both Psalm and Prophecy;" that contradictions are to be found between different parts of both the Old and New Testaments; that Paul reasoned inconclusively, and was not inspired; that the Saviour was ignorant and prejudiced as other men ; and finally, boldly affirm that if the Bible contains any thing contrary to their reason, they will not believe it, but invent some other way of speaking.

What is this but saying we are determined to regulate, not our theological sentiments by the Scriptures, but the Scriptures by our pre-conceived opinions? As we believe that this course of our opponents, in thus placing reason above Revelation, is calculated to sow the seeds of infidelity in the minds of the unwary, we shall, for the following reasons, here enter our solemn protest against it:

1. Human reason has been corrupted by sin. Were it not for this, we might have placed a great degree of dependence upon it; yet even then it would not have been rational, to rely more on the powers of our own understanding, than on the light of Divine Revelation, supposing such a Revelation to have been enjoyed: because the knowledge of man, when his reason was unimpaired, was limited; but the knowledge of God is infinite. What a disparity, then, must there be, when the human understanding is not only limited, but corrupted; when the unavoidable commerce between a man's thoughts and his depraved passions, fills his mind with a multitude of prejudices, which have a tendency in various ways to disguise, or conceal, the truth!-Were we bound to believe nothing but what appears conformable to reason, in its present state, we might soon reject the great objects

revealed in the gospel, in general. For, after all the strenuous efforts of our adversaries, to remove the grand difficulties attending the Christian religion; there are, and there always will be, such depths in it, as are unfathomable by the plummet of human reason. On this account, the apostle of the Gentiles calls the gospel foolishness. If the doctrines of Christianity had nothing mysterious and inexplicable in them, there would be no difficulty in believing; nor would faith be any more the gift of God, than the persuasion we have of natural truths. Consequently, there would be no more occasion for the agency of the Holy Spirit, in order to our believing the truths of the gospel, than there is to our understanding the problems of geometry.

2. "To act on this principle of our opposers is to treat God, as if he were less worthy of credit than an honest man. A fallible mortal, who has not forfeited his character, as a person of veracity, would take it deservedly ill, if, when speaking of an extraordinary fact, of which he was an eye-witness, he was to say, 'Take my word for it; it is as I assert :' and we should reply, 'We must consider what you say. If we find it agreeable to our reason, we will believe you; if not, we shall entirely reject your testimony.' If, then, such language would be reckoned indecent towards a fellow-worm, what must we think of a similar conduct, in regard to God, who is equally incapable of deceiving us, as he is of being deceived?

3. "If reason were to be the rule of our faith, Revelation would be superseded. For, to what purpose should God make known the counsel of his will, if reason were allowed to say: 'This is not the counsel of God. It cannot be, for I do not comprehend it?' Thus the conscience would be influenced, not by Revelation, but by the doubt which reason had raised upon it.-Besides, if it were lawful for human reason to sit in judgment on Divine Revelation, the darkness introduced on our minds, by sin, could never be dissipated. For how

should reason, proud of her own pretended abilities, and resolved to correct Revelation itself, be enlightened? According to this arrogant and self-sufficient notion, faith in the Divine testimony is entirely set aside; reason being resolved on following her own light, in preference to that of God in the Scriptures. So that, instead of saying, I believe such a proposition, how incredible soever may seem, because God has revealed it; we must say, Though God has revealed it in the most plain and express terms, we will not believe it, because it appears incredible to us.

it

4. "Were we thus to exalt reason, what is usually called Divine faith, would be much inferior to that which is human; because we should not pay so great a regard to the declarations of GOD, as to those of our parents, masters and tutors; on whose bare authority we receive a great number of truths, relating to the affairs of common life. But, in such a case, where is humility, where is that filial, teachable spirit, which is one of the marks of our adoption and regeneration? What need of submitting to the dictates of Inspiration, because it is the Eternal Sovereign who speaks; when we have nothing to do but convince ourselves of all necessary truths, by their own internal characters; and to reject, or embrace them, in exact proportion as they agree or disagree with the light of our own understanding?

666

Reason, our opponents will say, reason is the foundation of faith: consequently, faith cannot be more certain than reason.'-Reason, I confess, leads to Revelation because we are taught by it, that God is infallibly wise, and that we are liable to err; that we cannot, therefore, do better than regard the light of Revelation, in preference to the uncertain conjectures of our own minds. But then, as reason leads us to this infallible rule, which was given by uncontrollable authority; she requires us to receive, with submission, whatever the Great Revealer asserts, as a fact; commands, as a duty; or proposes, as an object of faith."-Abbadie.

5. "However unwilling modern philosophers, who have received all their true wisdom from the Bible, may be to confess the insufficiency of human reason in things Divine, the sages of antiquity were honest enough to acknowledge the uncertainty of its researches.

Pythagoras changed the name of wise men into lovers of wisdom, as believing it not to be attained by human means. Socrates often repeated, 'that he knew but one thing with certainty, and that was his ignorance of all things.' Plato frequently reminds his pupils, that in religious subjects they were not to expect proof, but only probability from them. Aristotle condemns his predecessors as the most foolish and vain-glorious persons in the world, from a conviction of their ignorance, and the vanity of imagining that he had carried philosophy to the utmost perfection it was capable of; though no one said or believed less of Divine things than he did. Tully complains, that we are blind in the discernment of wisdom; that some unaccountable error, and miserable ignorance of the truth, has got possession of us. The Stoics pretended to know all things; yet Plutarch says, 'that there neither had been, nor was a wise man on the face of the earth.' Lactantius observes, They could not exceed the powers of nature, nor speak truth on these (sacred) subjects, having never learned it of him who alone could instruct them; nor ever came so near it, as when they confessed their ignorance of it.' Epictetus found so much uncertainty in Divine things, that like many other heathen philosophers, he advised every one to follow the custom of his country. (Dr. Ellis on the Knowledge of Divine Things.)

But

"Socrates told Alcibiades, It is necessary you should wait for some person to teach you how you ought to behave yourself toward both the gods and men. He (says he) will do it who takes a true care of you. methinks, as we read in Homer, that as Minerva dissipated the mist that covered Diomedes, and hindered him from distinguishing God and man; so it is necessary

that he should in the first place scatter the darkness that covers your soul, and afterward give you those remedies that are necessary to put you in a condition of discerning good and evil; for at present you know not how to make a difference.' (Stanley's Lives.) Plato wished for a prophet to reveal the will of God to us, without which we cannot know it." And Plutarch says the same, that the knowledge of the gods can be had only from them.' Thus did they plainly attribute whatever they knew of the gods, or of divine things, to no principle but the gods.

6

"When Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse, asked the philosopher Simonides, that important question, What is God? the prudent philosopher required a day to consider it, and doubled his request whenever he was called upon to give in his answer. When Hiero was weary of procrastination, and inquired the reason of his delay :'Because,' said the philosopher, the longer I consider the subject, the more I am at a loss for a reply.'

"Such were the modesty and diffidence of Simonides! One who was much more justly reputed for wisdom, exclaimed, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!' Rom. xi, 33. Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? It is as high as heaven: what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. But vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt. Job xi, 7, 9, 12. The labor, however, has always been useless: the world by wisdom knew not God.' 1 Cor. i, 21. Among those who have not seen the dawn of Divine revelation, there is none that understandeth, that seeketh after God.' Rom. iii, 11. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.' 1 Cor. ii, 11.