came, it is impossible to say. Certainly it was a most essential service to the cause of morals, thus to expose to the contempt of every reflecting mind the cold and desolating system of expediency.

From those reasoners who deny the existence of a moral faculty, for the sake of reducing all moral laws to the simple rule of utility, we may turn our attention to those who pursue the same argument for the sake of establishing the authority of divine revelation. We are bound to respect

cessors.

1 By turning to pages 207-217 of the remarkably, acute and ably reasoned treatise of Dr. Turton, entitled Natural Theology considered with reference to Lord Brougham's discourse on that subject," the reader will obtain some curious and important information on the history and progress of the opinion here objected to. It appears to have been first promulgated after the reformation by Faustus Socinus, and to have received the patronage of several of his most distinguished sucIn the latter part, however, of the seventeenth century, it was adopted by a very different class of writers for a very different purpose. Doctrines verging towards Antinomianism had prevailed to a considerable extent, and these were met by divines of great eminence,' with representations on the subject of natural religion, which tended to make Christianity suffer in the comparison. Hutchinson, followed by Bishop Horne, Parkhurst, and others, took the opposite extreme, and spoke of natural religion as of Deism in disguise.' Dr. Ellis, before referred to in these pages, undertook to prove that neither the being of a God, nor any other principle of religion, could possibly be deduced from the study of the phenomena of the universe.' Yet these principles did not extensively prevail among the learned. Dr. Milner, the Dean of Carlisle, condemned the whole theory of Ellis in the strongest terms; and his equally pious, if not equally gifted brother, maintained, in substance, the views which it has been the design of this volume to illustrate. The author is happy to confirm his own reasonings, by the following extract, from Milner's Strictures on Gibbon, contained in Dr. Turton's pages. Thus, St. Paul being judge, God has not left himself without witness, even in the natural world. The works of creation speak to us from without; and the moral nature which he has given us, speaks to us from within. In

6

the motive, if we are not convinced by the reasoning of such advocates. It is however, of great consequence to distinguish between good intentions and defective arguments; and while we rejoice to honour the former, we must refuse our assent to the latter. It is certain that though the writers who have adopted this view, are far from concurring in the doctrine of expediency, so justly and so severely reprehended in the preceding extract, yet they do, in common with those who hold that doctrine, withdraw attention from internal sentiments and destroy their authority,' they are not content to let morality remain on the firm basis of the dictates of conscience,' as well as on the will of God.' And we regard their argument as open to the objection, that in the same degree in which they render the existence or the authority of the moral sentiments doubtful, they virtually, though unintentionally cast discredit on revelation itself. The Bible was not written for the purpose of proving the being of God, or of explaining the nature of that faculty in man which is capable of moral and religious impressions; but it invariably presupposes both. conjunction they declare his being and sovereign authority, his power, wisdom and goodness, his equitable government, and the accountableness of the human race for all their moral conduct before him, And this is the utmost stretch of natural religion, an intuitive feeling rather than the result of any laborious investigation. Strong and deep in its nature, though confused and indeterminate in its degree, it lays, however, all mankind under a formal obligation of obedience, because all mankind feel its force, and of necessity acquiesce in its authority, while they strive in vain to reason away its validity.'

It proceeds on the assumption of the fact, that God's existence was previously known and acknowledged, and takes for granted the moral faculty in man, by addressing him as a creature to whom moral distinctions are familiar, without explanation. Hence it follows, that to deny the existence, or to undermine the authority of the moral faculty, is a blow struck indirectly at divine revelation, which the avowed adversaries of religion will not fail to follow up, with great advantage to the cause of scepticism. For let it once. be conceded that the "law written in the heart" does not agree with the law promulgated in the scriptures, and a discrepancy is found in the several portions of the divine system of administration, which would go far to prove that they did not belong to the same scheme, or that the scheme was not characterized by that congruity of parts, which is essential to the consistency and harmony of the whole.

This objection is not to be set aside by the allegation, that man, having fallen from original righteousness, the moral law within, no longer corresponds with the law of external revelation, and that thus the discrepancy complained of between them, is a matter of fact, which is fully accounted for.' A reply of this kind leaves the true point in debate just where it was. For we are not speaking of a discrepancy between God's law and man's character, which is indeed sufficiently great, but between two laws or rules by which God governs

his creatures, one written on the heart, the other in the sacred volume; between which we are bound to maintain that there is no disagreement whatever, The scriptures, by constantly referring the reader to certain principles of truth and equity which he carries in his own breast, without any attempt to unfold the meaning of the terms made use of, bears its testimony to the authority of the law within; and it is consequently impossible to lower the authority of that law, without also depreciating the authority of the scriptures by which it is asserted and vindicated. If the author has, in any degree, succeeded in throwing light upon this question, his labour will not have been in vain.1

3. While the desire of finding truth amidst the conflicting judgments of mankind, has influenced the writer of these pages to enter at some length on the several topics submitted to the attention of the reader; it will be proper to mention, as a further inducement which has powerfully operated on his mind, the confident persuasion that strong and decisive views respecting the office and authority of conscience, are not only consistent with the firm maintenance of the doctrine of gratuitous salvation by Christ alone, but that they are closely interwoven with all just views of this vitally important doctrine, and that therefore the cause of evangelical truth is essentially served by a stre

See Chap. VII.

nuous enforcement of the claims of conscience. It affords just occasion for serious regret, that the fundamental truths of the gospel are but vaguely apprehended and coldly received, by many of those who have had the opportunity of gaining the most intimate acquaintance with them. Much of this uncertainty and coldness may be set down as the natural consequence of a lax system of moral training. The mind has been informed on points of doctrine, while the heart has not been schooled on questions of duty. Conscience has been less carefully cultivated than the understanding; moral obligations have been enforced with less earnestness than speculative opinions; and consequently the mind has not been taught to feel promptly and painfully the insidious approaches of moral evil. We do not contend, that the mental condition here described, interposes an obstacle in the way of a moral change, too great for

divine power and grace to overcome, Yet it may fairly be presumed, that-all other circumstances in any given case, being equal-the mind which has been early and deeply imbued with conscientious feelings, will much more readily embrace the gospel, much more fully understand its provisions, and much more highly appreciate its blessings, than the mind which, by the neglect of its moral powers and the forgetfulness of its moral responsibilities, has been suffered to proceed from one degree of induration to another, till all its perceptions are blunted, and all its energies laid prostrate.