ferer. Strange! that a heathen foldier should have a juster view of this than a Christian doctor; for the Centurion feeing Chrift die in his strength, without any appearance of a diminution of his natural powers, cried out, "Verily this "was the Son of God."

P. 181. l. 12. "When his virtue and piety were put "to the fevereft teft,---who is there but muft acknowledge "the perfection of his character ?" And again, 1. 24. "Had an ordinary man, though of eftemed probity and re"ligion," &c. Here he contrafts him with an ordinary man, which gives too much reafon to suppose that he confiders him as a mere, though extraordinary man.

A

P. 226.1. 3. "He was now no more in the ftate of "mortality and it was fit he should wean them by de66 grees from their fond attachment to his perfon, and ac"custom them to bear his bodily absence, before he should "take a final leave of them." Let not our language appear too ftrong, though we affert, that this fentence is fraught, either with error, or with absurdity and contradiction. For, from a particular examination of its members, one of these conclufions will appear unavoidable. "He was no more in the ftate of mortality." This fupposes that Chrift was formerly in the flate of mortality. But what are we to understand by this ftate? Why, it certainly fignifies that in which all men naturally are. ftate of mortality is a ftate of fubjection to death. Subjection to death only proceeds from a ftate of fubjection to fin: for, by one man fin entered into the world, and "death by fin.-The wages of fin is death." Now, if Chrift was in a state of mortality before his crucifixion, he must have been fo, either by reafon of his natural frame, or of a peculiar divine conftitution. The laft our author will not allow, because he denies that Jefus was under the curse. Indeed, even in this fenfe he could not properly be faid to be in the ftate of mortality; for this implies a natural tendency to death and corruption in the frame of the man. But there was nothing of this kind in Christ. His death did not proceed from any tendency of nature to it, but was an act of his own will, in confequence of his eternal undertaking for, according to the words lately mentioned, "No one had power to take his life, he laid it down of himself." The Doctor must then grant that he was in that ftate ac

cording

tording to the common courfe of nature. But what blafphemy is this, that the holy Jefus, who was " separate from finners," fhould be naturally fubject to death like other men! What inconfiftency! How could a perfon perfectly holy be fo? Neither blafphemy nor inconsistency. here, if the Doctor please to avail himself of the divinity of his near kinfmen the Socinians. For, according to them, all men have the feeds of corruption and mortality in their nature, proceeding, not from fin, but from the neceffary weaknefs of their material frame. From this they do not exempt our common father Adam." And it was "fit that he fhould wean them by degrees from their fond "attachment to his perfon, &c." Here, from the con-, nection, his person feems to be viewed as the fame thing with his human nature, as if this conftituted the whole mediatory perfon of Chrift. Now, if his person be meant in this fenfe, it is shocking to fay, that "it was fit to wean them from their fond attachment to it ;" because the mediatory person of Chrift is the immediate object of faith. If it be understood as only referring to the human nature, then there is a denial of his real deity. So that the expreffion is in the highest degree erroneous, whatever way you view it. But how was he to take" a final leave of them?” Was it with respect to his person? then his promife failed;

Lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the "world." Was it only as to his body? Then his whole human nature did not leave this earth, unless we suppose with fome, who are no great friends to the deity of Chrift, that the foul and body are not effentially different in their nature, but only different modifications of the felf-fame matter. If the laft be the author's meaning, we are at no lofs to understand the defign of the phrafe bodily abfence. For there are certain perfons, who, though they pretend to grant that the foul and body are in fome fenfe distinct on earth, maintain that there is no distinction after the refurrection; which they apply to Chrift as well as to others. But, after all, what can be meant by a final leave? Does he mean, that he is never to return? No. This cannot be fuppofed. Then it must be meant of the period between our Lord's afcenfion and his fecond coming. And has our Lord really in this fenfe taken a final leave of his church? Alas, what an uncomfortable idea! But how can it be o

Ε

therwife

therwife according to this gentleman's doctrine? For, in the fentence now confidered, he fo connects his perfon and his bodily abfence, that, by reafon of the latter, he evidently means, that we are deprived of the former; and that our Lord has really taken a complete farewel of his church for a time. If then his perfonal and bodily prefence are to be viewed as one, and if it was fit that he fhould wean them from their fond attachment to his perfon," what is left to the poor difciples of Chrift? To what in their bleffed Lord is it that they are to retain " their fond attachment?" He has thought it "expedient for them that he fhould go away," with refpect to his human nature; and we grant that 66 now we know him no more after the flefh." But here is a profeffed difciple, who feems perfectly contented to be weaned from an attachment to his perfon itself, and who has removed this alfo from the followers of Jefus ? And where is our confolation now? If we be thus "bereaved, we are bereaved." Much more reafon have we to cry out than had Mary Magdalen, "They have taken away my "Lord, and I know not where they have laid him."

Thus far have I followed the learned author regularly through the hiftorical part of his effay. Several other expreffions might afford fufficient fcope for animadverfion; but as the length of this letter has already encroached too much on your patience, I fhall pafs thefe, and alfo delay the prefent confideration of the fecond part.

That the Father of lights may give you an understanding to know him that is true, and that you may be in him that is true, even in him who is the true God, and eternal life, is the earneft defire of,

MY BRETHREN,

Your very humble Servant,

A FRIEND TO TRUTH.

LETTER

LETTER II.

To the Lay-Members of the Church of ScorLAND, and especially to those of the COLLEGIATE CHURCH of AYR.

MY BRETHREN,

N the foregoing letter I have confidered feveral things effay, without any regard to order. As the fecond part is properly intended as doctrinal, I thall observe another method, by confidering his fentiments under diftinct heads. By bringing together, in one point of view thefe which are scattered throughout the treatise, you will be more able to form a judgment of his real opinions, and more eafily difcern the extenfive influence of that fyftem of error which he unhappily adopts.

I fhall begin with his doctrine concerning human REASON, because this is in fact the foundation of the whole Socinian scheme. By exalting this idol into the throne of God, those who embrace this fyftem, not only degrade the rightful poffeffor, but undermine the whole of that revelation which he hath graciously given to mankind. I thall not infiit on fome very fufpicious expreffions contained in a note at the foot of pages 370, and 371, where he speaks of "human doctrines and traditions in religion, which are supported by no reasonable evidence." i fhall pass on to another place, p. 469. 1. 3. where, though he expreffes himfelf more cautiously on this topic than on many others, he seems to discover his fentiments pretty plainly; "The gof"pel does not address itself to brute creatures, but to those "who are rational. It encourages and requires the faith"ful exercise of that leading faculty of man which we call reason; and all its words, fairly interpreted, are perfect"ly confonant thereto." As there is no limitation in this expreffion, it would seem that it is the natural reason of

man, even as unenlightened by the spirit of God, which is here meant. This indeed can fcarcely admit of a doubt; for he adds a little lower: "It (the gospel or divine philo"fophy) does not require capacity and penetration fo much << as an honest mind.” The gofpel, indeed, "encourages and requires the faithful exercise of this leading faculty.' So far we are agreed in found. But let us fee, whether we agree in fenfe. It requires the faithful exercise of reason in the fame respect in which the father of the faithful exercised it, by fubmitting it fimply to the authority of the great Revealer, when he who had received the promises, offered up his only begotten fon*." This indeed is the moft "faithful exercife of that leading faculty," to bow down before the Lord its maker; and while it asks the evidence of the truth of the revelation, to demand no evidence of the thing revealed. But is this our author's fenfe? I fear not. For, fays he, "All its words, fairly interpreted," that is, according to what he elsewhere calls "reafonable evidence-are perfectly confonant thereto." His meaning plainly is, that they are "perfectly confonant” to reafon in its natural ftate. Now, what are we to understand by a perfect confonancy? Does not this fignify fuch an agreement between REASON and REVELATION, that all the doctrines of the latter are quite intelligible to the former? Surely. For it does not "require capacity and penetration to understand it so much as an honest mind." But it is all one, whether he mean natural reafon, or reafon as renewed and enlightened by the Spirit of God; for to neither will his doctrine apply. Even to the last of these the doctrines of revelation cannot be faid to be perfectly confonant. For Paul himself could acknowledge, and no one will doubt that he knew a good deal more than this reverend doctor : "Here we fee but in part, and know but in part. We "fee darkly as in a glass," or, "We fee enigmatically, as "in a riddle." But let us give our author a fair hearing. Perhaps, there is a fecret contained in that expreffion, "fairly interpreted," which we have not yet difcovered. Pray, what is this fair interpretation? When the fcripture informs us, that there are "three that bear record in hea

ven is it to believe that it means only one; if the infpiration of the text be not denied altogether? When it

*Heb. xi. 17.

tells