studying the Scriptures, wherein our duty is fo plainly revealed."

Befides if natural religion teaches us but imperfectly our duty to man, it leaves us ftill more in the dark refpecting our duty to God. Nature, indeed,.proclaims aloud " there is a God," and every one has a natural conviction that it is right to worship him; witnefs the heathens of all climates, whom I believe, without exception, worthip a fomething as their God, but revealed religion alone has given us a clear difcovery of the nature and attributes of that deity, fo univerfally acknowledged, and pointed out the true method of worshiping him acceptably. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him muft worship him in Spirit and in truth, is the language of infpiration. But even thofe fcw Deifts among us, who have not caft off morality, are at leaft chargeable with, and highly culpable for a neglect of the worship of God, and a total deviation from the duties of the first table, which teach them, (as they affirm their natural religon does; and would to God if it does, they would obey its teachings) to worship, to reverence, to obey him in all things.

It is an obfervation I have made, and perhaps it has not altogether escaped the notice of others; that our modern Deifts, or the greater part of them. have a particular propenfity to abfent themfelves from public worship: how can it be otherwife indeed? Can we expect them to listen to truths which they defpife? By no means, except it be to criticife on them, and ridicule the fimple faith of the Chriftian who is determined to believe what God hath revealed, tho in fome inftances he is not at prefent in a capacity to comprehend the whole of feveral revealed truths, yet he is enabled to diftinguish between thofe things that are incredible and thofe which are merely incomprehenfible; and, as in Providence where he cannot unriddle, he learns to truft, fo in grace, where he cannot understand he learns to adore. But thofe who fet up their reafon in oppofition to faith, and fuppofe that this fublunary fpark as Dr. Young emphatically tiles it) is fufficient to comprehend all neceffary truths, and that thofe which it cannot comprehend are of confequence to be rejected, make a grand miftake as well as act inconfiftent with other parts of their conduct : for they are obliged to believe many things in nature, which the utmoft ftretch of their boafted reafon cannot fully comprehend, fuch as the growth

of

of plants, the formation of the body, the union of the body and foul, &c.

Even Lord Bolingbroke will confefs this much, and admit that there are many appearances in the phyfical and moral fyftems, which cannot be fully comprehended, ye are not repugnant to any excellency of the Supreme Being, (and confequently not incredible) but that may not do injustice to fo eminent a writer, I will tranfcribe his own words, as they contain a conceffion not often to be met with in the writings of Deists.

"There are many appearances no doubt in the phyfical and moral fyftems, which may pafs for myfteries, because we cannot fully comprehend them; but there is nothing in either of thefe," (and I may add or in any of the doctrines of revealed religion)"repugnant to any excellency which we ought to attribute to the Supreme Being WE CONFESS OUR

IGNORANCE BUT WE DO NOT THEREFORE CALL IN QUESTION THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES, nor difbelieve thofe fyftems to be his work, nor the law of nature to be his law." Vide Lord Bolingbroke's Letter occafioned by one of Archbishop Tillotfon's Sermons, in his Lordship's works, Quarto Edition.

Faith teaches nothing contrary to, though above re fn; the latter has more to do with Chriftianity than the Deifts are perhaps aware of: They fay our fyftem fhuts out reafon, and pretend to monopolize that neceflary article to themfelves; but to fuch I would addrefs myfeif in the language of the great Dr. Young, who fhews us the happy effects of a combination, of reafon and faith, which the Chriftian fyftem allows.

"Ye pompous fons of reafon, idolized
"And vilified at once; of reafon dead,
"Then deifyed, as monarch's were of old.
"Wrong not the Chriftian, think not reafon yours?
"'Tis reafon, our great mafter holds fo dear,
"'Tis reafon's injured rights, his wrath resents;
"Tis reafon's voice obey'd, his glories crown; .
"To give loft reafon life, he pour'd his own.
"BELIEVE, and thew the reafon of a man,
"BELIEVE, and tafte the pleafure of a God;
"BELIEVE, and look with triumph o'er the tomb,
Through reafon's wounds alone thy faith can die."

I was

I was infenfibly led into this digreffion from the mentioning of a phrafe which the DEISTS and FREETHINKERS OF the age we live in, are very partial to mean REASON. But to return; the gentlemen I have been fpeaking of, are not only liable to a propenfity of abfenting themfelves from the public worship of God, (which the before-mentioned reafons account for,) but neglect the worshipping of God in private. I have obferved it in feveral that I have converfed with, that they do not fee the actual neceffity of the duties of the firft table, or thofe which relate to (and command) the worship of God, neither are they over and above fcrupulous in obferving the Lord's day. The whole of religion (fay they) confifts in doing as you would be done by:" my ufual reply, to fuch an infinuation as this, is generally No fir,' that is but the half of religion, (though I grant it may be confidered as the best half, for I look upon piety without morality, if it were poffible to feparate them, to be worse than morality without piety). It takes in our duty to man, but not to the deity: a man may act agreeable to that rule, yet be guilty of defrauding God of that worship which is due from every creature to his Creator."—I can always fee, however, that they are willing to difpenfe with at, and for the most part do difpenfe with it, which must be alfo evident to those who dwell under the fame roof with any of that description; at the fame time candour calls upon me to admit that others are equally apt to neglect those duties; but I mention this defect in them because it arifes not from a frailty of conduct merely, but an error in judgment fpringing from their avowed fentiments, which they allow themfelves in.

The only worship which Deifts approve of, and fome of them (I fear not many) condefcend to practife, is a mere acknowledgment of God, but as to praying to him in private, or affembling with others for the purpofe of public prayer, or to hear his word preached, they leave that for those to do who believe in a revelation, that dictates and enforces it: and who are timid enough to fear a future punishment for fins of om ffion as well as commiffion. 'Tis no part of their creed, and therefore they do not practise it.

August 12, 1797+

J. H. PRINCE.

DEITY

SIR,

I.

DEITY OF CHRIST.

(Continued from page 527, of VOL. I.}

NOW refume the fubje&t under debate, by noticing the little criticifm which Mr. Thompfon makes upon the ufe of the Greek article o, which according to the grammatical declenfion in the accufative cafe is ton when joined to Theon, as in John i. 1. On this Mr. T. fays, Obferve the particular diftinction made between the God, with whom the Word was, and the Word himfelf.' The Apoftle fays, "In the begin ning was the Word, and the Word was with ton Theon," the God, or the fupreme ruler: " and the Word was, Theos," a god, or ruler, i. e. one that had dominion under God. Here are two beings diftinctly fpoken of, one faid to be with the other in the beginning, and each called God; though with the distinction before mentioned in the original, which must certainly be intended to keep us from the error of having more gods than one." I afk, Does Mr. T. mean to impofe upon his readers? or is he impofed upon himself? Can it be that he should fuppofe the ufe of the article o, in any of its declenfions, thould have the power to point out the Father as the fupreme God, and the omiffion of it to the Son, as an inferior God? For the article is fometimes omitted when Theos is applied to the Father, and ufed when the fame word is applied to the Son; fee Tit. i. The word Theos, God, occurs four times in the first four verses, and each time without the article in the Greek Teftament. It is prefumed Mr. T. will not difpute but that the Father is there meant. According to his criticism, therefore, the Father is only called a God, not the God, by way of eminence. But in Matt. i. 23, where the Son is called God with us, there the article is prefixed to Theos; as alfo in Heb. i. 9. thy throne O God, &c. fo that according to Mr. T. the Son is by way of eminence called the God, while the Father by way of inferiority is only called a God. I only mention thefe as a fample, but could bring forward more inftances, if neceffary.

If Mr. T. is poffeffed of fuch proof of the inferiority of the Son to the Father, it is pity he has made use of so low a criticifm as the above. I might with much more truth observe, that the literal reading of John i. 1. is, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (kai Theos en a Logos). But as I do not think that

the

the doctrine of the Deity of Chrift refts upon a mere verbal criticism or two, I fhall leave the reader to make his own reflections upon this.

Mr. T. like all other gentlemen on his fide of the queftion, talks much of the unity of God, and appropriates the name of Unitarian to himself and those of his own fentiment. But give me leave to fay that I think there is fome deception in this, because it implies more than is true, for it implies that all who hold the Deity of Chrift believe in two Gods, and confequently are not Unitarians, but Dualians. But, Sir, 1 as much believe the unity of God as Mr. T. or any other man, and I think that our Lord has taught me so to do, for he has not only faid, This is the first commandment, the Lord our God is one Lord, and there is no other God but one;' but he hath also faid, 'I and the Father are one.' And when Philip faid, Shew us the Father, and it fufficeth us:' he said unto him, Have I been fo long time with you, and yet haft thou not known me, Philip? He that hath feen me hath seen the Father; and how fayeft thou, fhew us the Father? Believeft thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I fpeak unto you, I fpeak not of myfelf; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works: believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.'

Mr. T. may be poffeffed of greater intellectual powers than I am he perhaps understands fully how the Father and the Son are one, fo that he who hath feen the Son hath feen the Father alfo. I confess I do not understand it ; but with the deepest humility of heart I do what Chrift requested Philip to do, I believe that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, and he that hath feen the Son, hath feen the Father alfo. And however any may fneer at me for thus believing, yet I can but think I act rationally in it. For, firft, I have the moft profound reverence for the character and person of Christ. I think his credibility is fuch as ought to command my faith in every thing which he has faid, even though I cannot fully understand it. Secondly, I do not fully understand the mode of my own existence. I am pofitive I have a foul, I am fenfible of its operations at this moment. I know that my body is not my foul, and I know that my foul is not my body: I know also that my foul and body are one man; but how, or by what tie, they are united so as to make one man, I do not know, it is above my reafon to comprehend it. Hence I am conftrained to believe fomething concerning my own existence, which I do not underftand. If then I find

difficulties