It seems to me, that, of all faults, this [an unsubmissive understanding] is the most difficult to define or to discern; for who shall say where the understanding ought to submit itself, unless where it is inclined to advocate any thing immoral? We know that what in one age has been called the spirit of rebellious reason, has in another been allowed by all good men to have been nothing but a sound judgment exempt from superstition. DR. THOMAS ARNOLD: Letter 20; in Life and Correspondence, p. 69.

...

There is not necessarily any real humility in a disparagement of the human understanding, the intellectual powers, as contrasted with the affections and other feelings. "The pride of human reason" is a phrase very much in the mouth of some persons, who seem to think they are effectually humbling themselves by feeling, or sometimes by merely professing, an excessive distrust of all exercise of the intellect, while they resign themselves freely to the guidance of what they call the heart; that is, their prejudices, passions, inclinations, and fancies. But the feelings are as much a part of man's constitution as his reason: every part of our nature will equally lead us wrong if operating uncontrolled. . . . It may be observed, by the way, that the persons who use this kind of language never do, in fact, divest themselves of any human advantages they may chance to possess. Whatever learning or argumentative powers any of them possess (and some of them do possess much), I have always found them ready to put forth, in any controversy they may be engaged in, without showing much tenderness for an opponent who may be less gifted. It is only when learning and argument make against them, that they declaim against the pride of intellect, and depreciate an appeal to reason when its decision is unfavorable. that the sacrifice which they appear to make is one which in reality they do not make, but only require, when it suits their purpose, from others. . . . They appear voluntarily divesting themselves of what many would feel a pride in; and thus often conceal from others, as well as from themselves, the spiritual pride with which they not only venerate their own feelings and prejudices, but even load with anathemas all who presume to dissent from them. It is a prostration, not of man's self before God, but of one part of himself before another. ARCHBISHOP WHATELY: Dangers arising from Injudicious Preaching; in Essays on Dangers to Christian Faith, pp. 59–62.

So

All who insist upon a blind faith only show the feebleness and timidity of their faith. Nay, at the very moment when they are calling upon mankind to cast down their understandings before what

they assert to be an incomprehensible mystery, there is no little selfexaltation in assuming that their own understandings are the measure of human capacity, and that what to them is obscure and perplexing must needs be so for ever to all mankind. — JULIUS CHARLES HARE: The Victory of Faith, pp. 63–4.

We dissent, on the other hand, very widely from those who are in the habit of decrying reason, and of uttering strong reproaches against her, as though she were the great corrupter of the human race, and the determined opposer and enemy of revelation. Things like these we have heard and read, to our deep regret and utter astonishment; and we would fain put all the friends of evangelical sentiment on their guard against uttering or countenancing them. Nothing can be farther from the truth than that revelation requires us to abandon reason. Nay, so far is the case from this, that revelation addresses itself, first of all, to the faculty of reason. It is admitted, on all hands, that the Bible does not prove the being of a God: it assumes this truth, as already known and conceded.... What is it that weighs and compares the various testimonies and evidences that a God exists, and that he has revealed himself in the Scriptures; and then deduces conclusions from this? Reason. What is it which ascertains the laws of interpretation for that book which professes to be a revelation from God? Reason. What determines that God has not members of a physical body like our own, when the Bible seems to ascribe them to him? Reason.... Reason, then, is our highest and ultimate source of appeal in the judgment that we form of things which are fundamental in regard to religion. Even if a revelation were to be made to us in particular, we must appeal to reason to judge whether the evidences of its reality were sufficient. Such being most plainly the fact, we can never join with those who think they are doing God service when they decry the faculty of reason; a faculty which we regard as one of the highest and noblest proofs that our nature was formed in the image of God. Shall we say, now, that reason can never be trusted; that she is always so dark, so erring, that we can have no confidence in her decisions? If so, then why should we trust her decisions in favor of the being of a God, or of his spiritual nature, or of his moral attributes, or of the truth of revelation? If reason does not decide in favor of all these and many more truths, then what is the faculty of our nature which does decide? and is that other faculty any more secure against error than the faculty of reason? - Spirit of the Pilgrims for April, 1828; vol. i. pp. 204–5.

There are limits to the duty of faith in alleged mysteries. If there were not, there could be no defence against absurdities the most gross, promulgated under the cover of the Bible. The advocates of transubstantiation take refuge behind the shield of mystery; but all Protestants agree in the decision, that a dogma which does violence to the intuitive convictions of the human mind, through the senses, shall not be sheltered by the plea of mystery and faith. So there are certain first truths on which all reasoning rests. Without them, we cannot evince the being of a God, or establish the divine origin or authority of the Bible. The intuitive convictions of the human mind as to honor and right are of no less authority. Without them, we could form no idea of the moral character of God. If any statements are directly at war with these, the resort to mystery and faith, in their defence, is not legitimate. DR. EDWARD BEECHER: Conflict of

Ages, p. 129.

He [Christ] always respected reason in man, and addressed himself frankly and magnanimously to man's free will, teaching everywhere that when we neglect those faculties given us by nature for perceiving the truth, we judge falsely of true religion, and involve ourselves in disgraceful inconsistencies. For examples, consult Matt. xii. 9-12. Luke xiv. 1-6. Matt. xxiii. 16-33, &c. In reading the whole history of Christ's life and instructions, we cannot fail to be struck with astonishment and delight at the carefulness with which he ever honored the freedom and capacities of the human mind; in all cases seeking to create rational convictions, and never employing coercion aside from the constraints of love. — E. L. MAGOON: Repub. Christianity, p. 144.

Let us ever beware of the sin and folly of disparaging the reason. It is the only high and godlike endowment possessed by us, — the only attribute in which man still bears the image of his Maker. Seek not to degrade and humble it; but bow in willing submission to its rightful authority. It is the voice of God speaking within you. Every one of its utterances carries with it the divine sanction. Whatever we learn from other sources is at best but knowledge at second hand. It has authority, and demands our reception and confidence only as it comes with credentials recognized by the intelligence. Veil this light within, and you have nothing without but mist and obscurity. Extinguish it, and you are at once and for ever enveloped in profound darkness. Disparage the reason, deny its paramount authority, and you cut off the only arm by which you hold on to the plank of truth floating upon a boundless ocean of possibilities. From the free air

and sunlight of day, you go down, down into the gloomy depths of a fathomless, bottomless scepticism. . . . If your faith be in conflict with the clearly ascertained laws of nature, or the well-established principles of science, which are only the inductions of a larger experience, — you will do well to modify it. If you continue the unequal contest, you are sure in the end to be beaten. The ever-active spirit of investigation, and the continually growing developments of knowledge resulting from it, cannot be restrained by the fetters of a creed. As well might you hope to bind leviathan with threads of gossamer, or stop the fiery steed to which the car has been harnessed by modern invention, by placing your hand upon it, or by simply looking at it. Interpretation has always, in the end, yielded to the demands of advancing science, however long it has struggled against them; and it always must yield. Nor are the interests of piety and religion in danger of permanently suffering from it. The truth, although for a time depressed, it may be, at length, detached from the leaden weight of error that bore it down, is seen floating still more buoyantly upon the surface. Resist not progress in any of the paths of human inquiry. There is surely everywhere need enough of more knowledge. If the light pain you, it is because your eyes are weak or diseased. Give the necessary attention to them; but do not attempt to put out the sun. In your zeal for the interests of Christian truth, do not exalt the Scriptures at the expense of the reason. Remember that the latter is the elder daughter of Heaven. At least, pay her equal honors. DR. GEO. I. CHACE: Relation of Divine Providence to Physical Laws, pp. 41-4.

When preparing the way for others to receive mysterious and unintelligible dogmas, it is not unusual for some religionists to depreciate that reason which God has graciously bestowed on man, by a process of argumentation, such as it is, which implies that they do not consider it altogether unworthy of respect; and to represent Unitarians as deifying their intellectual powers, because they aim at testing the truth of theological opinions by an appeal to the principles of reason; thus betraying their own fears, that, if tried at the bar of that divine judge, the doctrines which they propound would be found wanting in evidence sufficient to establish their truth. The sentiments, however, quoted in this and the next section, are of a far different and more honorable character, and are perfectly accordant with the principles held by all Unitarians. But if, as we believe, they are founded in truth, and if the doctrines of reputed Orthodoxy are opposed to the dictates of reason, as we will hereafter show from the confessions of eminent Trinitarians, then, because reason and revelation, proceeding equally from the Father of lights, cannot be repugnant, should these doctrines be rejected as unworthy the credence of rational men or of enlightened Christians.

SECT. II.

- REASON AND REVELATION CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER.

An opinion hath spread itself very far in the world, as if the way to be ripe in faith were to be raw in wit and judgment; as if reason were an enemy unto religion, childish simplicity the mother of ghostly and divine wisdom. - RICHARD HOOKER.

God never offers any thing to any man's belief, that plainly contradicts the natural and essential notions of his mind; because this would be for God to destroy his own workmanship, and to impose that upon the understanding of man, which, whilst it remains what it is, it cannot possibly admit. For instance, we cannot imagine that God should reveal to any man any thing that plainly contradicts the essential perfections of the divine nature; for such a revelation can no more be supposed to be from God, than a revelation from God, that there is no God; which is a downright contradiction. · - ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON: Sermon 56; in Works, vol. iv. p. 296.

Though some deluded men may tell you, that faith and reason are such enemies that they exclude each other as to the same object, and that the less reason you have to prove the truth of the things believed, the stronger and more laudable is your faith; yet, when it cometh to the trial, you will find that faith is no unreasonable thing, and that God requireth you to believe no more than you have sufficient reason for to warrant you and bear you out, and that your faith can be no more than is your perception of the reasons why you should believe; and that God doth suppose reason when he infuseth faith, and useth reason in the use of faith. They that believe, and know not why, or know no sufficient reason to warrant their belief, do take a fancy, an opinion, or a dream, for faith. RICHARD BAXTER: Christian Directory; in Practical Works, vol. ii. p. 171.

Right reason, no less than Scripture, proceeds from God, and is as a light set up for our use, by which we are enabled to discern truth from error. It is incredible that divine revelation should ever be repugnant to reason, or that any thing should be philosophically true which is theologically false; for, since reason, as well as revelation, is the gift of Heaven, God would be opposed to himself if these were inimical. Light is not contrary to light, but the one is greater than the other. Revelation does not destroy, but perfect, reason: what the latter is of itself unable to discover, the former being superadded clearly perceives. LIMBORCH: Theologia Christiana, lib. i. cap. 12, § 4.