so far as we have gone, in the entire possession of the field.

REASON AND CONSCIENCE.

SO.

If we find in scripture, precepts or parables, or historical illustrations, preponderating in favour of an unity of spirit in variety of form, as a constitution of the catholic church, not uncongenial with the spirit of the gospel, and as we see unavoidable to all appearance, at least in such a state of society as that which now prevails in the world, we are safe in calling upon Christians to put away the grudges which they bear towards one another, while it is but prejudice of education, or at best but conscience not yet fully enlightened, that parts them into various communions. We are safe in calling upon them "to receive one another," and to strive together to "maintain the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace." Nay, we are more than safe. All Christians are bound to do Harmony, in the mean time, is in that case plainly indicated, as the way to a complete agreement and unity in the end. But if, on the contrary, we find an universal uniformity unconditionally taught in the word of God, every thing must give way before an immediate effort to establish it. In that case, however unattainable in such a state of human nature as the present, such an uniformity over all may appear, however seemingly inappropriate in the present day to such an institution as an universal church, extending over many people, in various states of social development-still all the difficulties which it seems to involve, must be surmounted. All the arguments against it must be rejected. They must all be ascribed to a defect in our intellect, failing in this case, as we may well expect it to do in many cases, when attempting to discover the fitness of the appointments of

the Infinite, who, looking at the end from the beginning, and co-ordinating his designs with infinity and eternity, not with a single point in space and time as we do, may well be expected to transcend in all that He does, the finite comprehensions of such creatures as we are. If an universal uniformity be the revealed will of God, then, however decidedly reason may give the preference to something else, still, in that case, her first act, in order to entitle her to the name of reason, were to suspect either her own processes or the data on which she proceeded; her first duty were to discover, or at least admit, that she was wrong.

Reason can only be the handmaid, not the mistress, of revelation. But as the handmaid, she can do very much for the advancement of the truth. In fact, though the primary object of the gospel revelation be to make known the salvation of man by Jesus Christ, yet, in all that is secondary, and relating to this world, revelation consists much more in the bringing to light of those great principles of piety and morality, which are necessary for the enlightenment of reason and conscience, than in the laying down of particular laws, calculated to supersede the activities of these heaven-born principles. There are certain states of mind, indeed, when positive precepts are indispensable, in order to a pious and virtuous life. And when such states of mind existed, and such precepts were needed, they have not been withheld. Positive precepts were needed by the Israelites, for instance, just emancipated from the degrading bondage of Egypt; for in that people, at that time, reason and conscience were at zero, and would scarcely be trusted for anything. And accordingly, we find a very ample code of ordinances in the institutes of Moses. And yet, as if to intimate that a positive precept should always be something more also than a mere positive precept, and have a spirit as well as

a mere body, these ordinances were also made types, so that they are not positive precepts merely, but beautiful symbolic pictures also, figuring to those to whom they were given, the evangelical principles and economy, which were to be fully developed only in an age long after. Yet, high as their nature thus was, they were not intended to last for ever. They were, in fact, a ministry designed for the infancy of the church only. And as there was an infancy of the church then, so was there a manhood to follow thereafter. As the people of God were placed under a schoolmaster then, so did the Son of God set them free thereafter.

But, while it is thus maintained that a grand object of revelation is to enlighten reason, and restore supremacy to conscience, and so to establish Christian liberty, let it never be forgotten that the enlightener is ever superior, and more trustworthy than that which it enlightens; and that in every inquiry, such as that on which we are now entering, the precepts of revelation, when such are to be found in the word of God, are of supreme authority. In reference to all such, reason, if she cannot understand them, or see their fitness, must at least be silent; and conscience, if she cannot feel their justness, must at least maintain their authority.

GRACE.

But are reason and conscience, it may possibly be asked, ever placed in such a predicament by the Word of God that neither can the one understand nor the other approve what revelation propounds? This is a very interesting question, and a few words in answer to it are needful here; for it may be thought by some that in the following work too much is built on the deductions

of reason and the testimony of conscience. The author is, therefore, naturally anxious to point out what he regards as the limits and the proper sphere of these principles.

With regard to the place of reason and conscience, then, it is to be maintained that on all subjects on which the Word of God gives no rule, these instructors give the best, indeed the only trust-worthy guidance. But it is no less true, and needs still more to be considered (for it is not equally assented to), that reason and conscience, however valuable for all practical and many doctrinal purposes, are yet, when unassisted by grace, quite incompetent to appreciate and lay hold of the principles of evangelical religion. Nor is this difficult to be accounted for. Such an incompetency unavoidably results from the fact that reason and conscience were constituted in paradise, while evangelical religion, on the contrary, was not constituted till after the fall. Nor is any disparagement implied in this remark. Evangelical religion, in fact, could not have been constituted sooner; for not till the fall was the element of guilt introduced. Not till the fall, therefore, could religion become sacrificial. But if so, not till the fall could it become evangelical; for sacrifice is the element out of which all that we call evangelical in doctrine is developed. And if reason and conscience when unaided cannot appreciate the doctrine of sacrifice, they must be in the same predicament with respect to the doctrine of the atonement, and all the peculiar doctrines of evangelical religion.

Now, from the circumstance which has been mentioned, (namely, the fact that reason and conscience were organised before the fall, and in relation to a state of innocence and consequently of self-righteousness) it is not to be expected that these powers, in the exercise of their natural functions at least, should be able to understand

the doctrine of sacrifice. It would even be strange if they did. For natural reason being an original endowment of man, an endowment of an unfallen creature, and consequently co-ordinated with a state of innocence, and framed to act in relation to an unfallen or guiltless state, its views are unavoidably those suitable to an unfallen creature. Natural reason, therefore, can only be expected to frame and build up a system of religion, on the hypothesis that the subjects of it are, or at least ought to be, innocent creatures. It cannot be expected to frame and build up, or even acquiesce in a system, of which a first principle is, that the subjects of it are all of them unavoidably and from the first guilty and condemned creatures.

The doctrine of merit and demerit, therefore, of rewards and punishments, of the necessary connection between happiness and holiness and between sin and misery, the principles of natural religion, in short, these are all that are to be looked for from natural reason. The doctrine of the atonement and justification by the merits of another, as it had no place in the economy of man's primeval state, so is it not to be expected that there will be any feelings to respond to it in the primeval mental or moral economy of man, of which natural reason and conscience are the principal elements. The scheme of salvation being a subsidiary system, developed out of the infinite resources of a God of love to meet the emergency into which sin had plunged the world, it is no wonder if both reason and conscience (which are not subsidiary but original faculties) when first addressed on the subject of redemption, should feel themselves strangers to that scheme. Although that scheme was no afterthought with Him who seeth the end from the beginning, and has provided for every thing that we call a contingency from eternity, yet not being manifested and realized till after our moral and mental constitution had been framed and