Christian, and answers these questions in the affirmative, reason and Scripture would be equally thrown away.

"We must acknowledge," says our author, "that there are many things in the Divine Nature out of the reach of our reason, for how can finite comprehend infinite? Who can think what eternity is? A duration without beginning or succession of parts of time! Who can so much as imagine or frame any idea of a Being, neither made by himself, nor by any other! of omnipotence! of a boundless immensity! Yet all this reason obliges us to allow, as the necessary consequences of a first cause.

"And where any thing is established upon the full proof of reason, there, ten thousand objections or difficulties, though we cannot answer them, are of no force at all to overthrow it. Nothing can do that, but to refute those reasons upon which it is established. Till then, the truth and certainty of the thing remain unshaken, though we cannot explain it, nor solve the difficulties that arise from it. And if it is so upon the point of reason, much more upon that of revelation, where the subject matter is above our reason, and could never have been found out by it. All to be done in this case is, to satisfy ourselves of the truth of the fact, that such things were revealed of God, and are no imposture." (p. 35.)

The substance of this passage is professedly taken rom Mr. Leslie, a writer of profound research, an able maintainer of the Catholic Faith, and perfectly skilled in the Deistical contro

versy.

One principal cause why some upright Christians, whose understandings rise above the common level, often experience a severe contest betwixt their faith and reason, is, their making some things which are purely matters of faith, subjects of rational investigation. In proportion as they do this, they retard their progress in holiness, and multiply sorrows to themselves. To readers of this description, the following just observations may be of essential service.

"If the philosophers, (says Mr. Fletcher, from whom this is a quotation,) who attack the Catholic faith, cannot overthrow the doctrine of the Trinity by the arguments they draw from their avowed ignorance of the Divine Nature, they seem determined to make us give up the point, by arguments drawn from fear and shame. Availing himself of our dread of Popery, and our contempt for the Popish error of transubstantiation, the learned Doctor (Priestley) loses no opportunity to compare that pretended mystery, that despicable absurdity, with the awful mystery of the Trinity-exhorting as to reject them both, as equally contrary to common sense. Thus, in his Appeal to the Professors of Christianity, speaking of the Divinity of Christ, he says, "the prevalence of so impious a doctrine can be ascribed to nothing but that

mystery of iniquity, which began to work in the times of the Apostles themselves. This, among other shocking corruptions of christianity, grew up with the system of Popery. After exalting a man into God, a creature into a Creator, men made a piece of bread into one also, and then bowed down to, and worshipped, the work of their own hands.' And in the Preface of his Disquisitions, he writes, Most Protestants will avow they have made up their minds with respect to the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation, so as to be justified in refusing even to lose their time in reading what may be addressed to them on it; and I avow it, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity.'

"As these comparisons are the second store-house, whence the learned Doctor draws his arguments against our supposed idolatry, it is proper to shew the unreasonableness of his method. For this, three remarks will, I hope, be sufficient. 1. The question between Dr. Priestley and us is, whether there are three Divine Subsistences in the one Divine Essence? Now it is plain, that to deny this proposition as reasonably as we deny that bread is flesh, and that wine is human blood, we must be as well acquainted with the nature of the Divine Essence, and of Divine Personality, as we are with the taste of bread and wine. But how widely different is the case, the Doctor himself being judge! Do not his Disquisitions assert, that the Divine Essence hath properties most essentially different from every thing else—that of God's substance we have no idea at all-and that he must for ever remain the Incomprehensible? Therefore, if God hath revealed, that he exists with the three personal distinctions of Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, the Doctor, after his concessions, can never deny it, without exposing at once his piety, his philosophy, his logic, and his common sense; unless he should make it appear, that he is the first man, who can pertinently speak of what he has no idea at all, and who perfectly comprehends what must for ever remain incomprehensible. But, 2. The question between the Pope and us, with respect to transubstantiation, is quite within our reach; since it is only whether bread be flesh and bones; whether wine be human blood; whether the same identical body can be wholly in heaven, and in a million of places on earth, at the same time; and whether a thin round wafer, an inch in diameter, is the real person of a man five or six feet high. Here we only decide about things known to us from our cradle, and, concerning which, our daily experience, and our five senses, help us to bear a right judgment, agreeable to the tenor of the Scripture. Therefore, 3. Considering that the two cases are diametrically contrary, and differ as much as the depths of the Divine Nature differ from a piece of bread; as much as the most incomprehensible thing in heaven, differs from the things we know best upon earth-we are bold to say, that when the learned Doctor involves the Protestant

worshippers of the Trinity, and the Popish worshippers of a bit of bread, in the same charge of absurd idolatry, he betrays as great a degree of unphilosophical prejudice, and illogical reasoning, as ever a learned and wise man was driven to, in the height of disputation for a favourite error.

"Do what you can, (says the Socinian,) you must either sacrifice the Unity to the Trinity, or the Trinity to the Unity; for they are incompatible. But who says it? Certainly not our Lord, who commands all nations to be baptized into the one name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And if Dr. P. says it, then he says it without knowing it; for, speaking like a judicious Philosopher, he has just told us, that probably the Divine Nature, besides being simply unknown to him, most essentially differs from the human in many circumstances, of which he hath no knowledge at all." p. 47-49.)

(To be continued in the next.)

THE WORD OF GOD ILLUSTRATED.

“ Ir there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds," 2 John 10.11.

In order fully to understand the meaning of this passage, it may be proper to notice some of the principal heresies which St. John condemns in his Epistles. This cannot be done better than in the following quotation from the works of a late eminent Commentator. "The apostle John, (saith he) having lived to see great corruptions in doctrine and practice, introduced into the church by many who professed themselves to be the disciples of Christ, employed the last years of his life in opposing these corruptions. For he wrote his three epistles, to establish the truths concerning the person and offices of Christ, and to condemn the errors then prevailing contrary to these truths. Also to repress the lewd practices, for the sake of which these errors were embraced.

"The heretical teachers who infested the church in the first age, finding Messiah called in the Jewish Scriptures, God, and the Son of God, thought it impossible that he could be made flesh. In this sentiment, these teachers followed the Jewish high priests, elders, and scribes, who being assembled in full council, unanimously condemned Jesus as a blasphemer, because being a man, he called himself Christ the Son of the blessed God. Upon this decision, one class of the ancient false teachers founded their error concerning the person of Christ. For while they acknowledged his divinity, they denied his humanity; that is, the reality

of his appearing in the flesh; (see 1 John iv. 2, 3.) and contended, that his body was only a body in appearance; that he neither suffered nor died; and that he did none of the things related of him in the gospel. He seemed indeed to do these things, which, in their opinion, was a sufficient foundation for the evangelists to relate them as done by him. But their reality, as matters of fact, they absolutely denied. More particularly, they affirmed that he died only in appearance, they denied his having made a propitiation for the sins of the world by his death, chap. ii. 2. They likewise denied, that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. In short, according to them, the things ascribed to Jesus in the gospels, were altogether imaginary, This was the opinion of Basilides, and of all the heretics in the first age, to whom the fathers have given the name of Docetæ, or Phantasiasta: but who, by the apostle John, are more emphatically called Antichrists, chap. iv. 3, because they were opposers of Christ as come in the flesh.

"On the other hand, the Cerinthians and Ebionites adopted a doctrine concerning Christ, which, though contrary to that just now described, was equally erroneous. They acknowledged the reality of the things written in the gospels concerning Jesus. But, like many in modern times, who admit nothing as true which they are not able to comprehend, they denied that Jesus was the Christ, or Son of God, (chap. ii. 22,) because they could not reconcile the things which happened to him to their idea of the Son of God. Fancying it impossible that both parts of the apostle's doctrine concerning Christ could be true, the one class of heretics, to maintain his divinity, thought themselves obliged to deny his humanity, and the other, to maintain his humanity, supposed it necessary to deny his divinity.

"Besides these heretics, there was a third sort who troubled the church in the apostle's days, named Nicolaitans, Rev. ii. 15. These the ancient Christian writers called Gnostics: because, misunderstanding our Lord's words, John xvii. 3, "This is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," they affirmed that nothing was necessary to eternal life, but the knowledge of the true God and of his Son Jesus Christ. With them, therefore, knowledge was the highest, and, indeed, the only Christian virtue; and, therefore, whoever possessed the knowledge of God and of Christ, was sure of salvation, whatever his character and actions might be. Farther, because the Apostle Paul, in his epistles, taught the doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law, these heretics affirmed, that Christ had set men free from the obligation of the law of God as a rule of life; consequently that in the gospel dispensation, believers being under no law whatever, they sinned not by any thing they did, however contrary it might be

to the laws, whether of God or of men. According to them, the only thing incumbent on believers, in order to their obtaining eternal life, was to abide in Christ; by which they meant, abiding in the knowledge and profession of the gospel. This impious doctrine, the Nicolaitans anxiously propagated, for the purpose of alluring wicked men to become their disciples, that they might draw money from them, which they spent in gratifying their lusts. Accordingly our Lord, in his epistle to the Church of Pergamus, Rev. ii. 14, represents the Nicolaitans as holding the doctrine of Balaam, who, as St. Peter expresses it, 2 Pet. ii. 15, "loving the wages of unrighteousness, taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit whoredom." Farther, because these ungodly teachers, whilst they inculcated the most immoral doctrines, pretended to be inspired, our Lord gave them the name of Jezebel Ahab's wife, who, being addicted to sorcery and divination, was a great favourer of the prophets of Baal.Perhaps also the Nicolaitans, to gain the reputation of inspired teachers, imitated the prophets of Baal in their ecstacies. Our Lord's condemnation of the doctrines and practices of these impostors, we have in the following passage, Rev. ii. 20, “Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach, and to deceive my servants to commit whoredom, and to eat things sacrified to idols." Concerning this class of false teachers, it is proper to remark, that their error did not consist in denying the essential difference between moral good and evil, but in affirming, that Christ, having purchased for his people an absolute freedom from the laws both of God and men, they were not bound by any rules of morality, but were at liberty to do what they pleased; so that being incapable of sinning, they were not subject to punishment.”

The forementioned errors, being, in the strictest sense of the word, fundamental, and consequently subversive of Christianity, it is no matter of surprise that St. John should charge the followers of Jesus to whom he wrote, not to give such as propagated them the smallest encouragement.

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine," namely, the gospel doctrine concerning Christ's person and offices, "receive him not into your house." From this precept it appears, that when those who professed to be the disciples of Christ, came to any place where they were not known to the brethren who resided there, nor were recommended to them by some with whom they were acquainted, they made themselves known to them as the real disciples of Christ, by declaring their faith. The ground of the prohibition, Receive him not inte VOL. XXXVI. MARCH, 1813.