Whatever theories also men may adopt, however deeply schooled they may be in the dogmas of involuntary, constitutional, or propagated sin-it is their irrepressible conviction, that doing right, and nothing else, is obedience to God-that doing wrong, and nothing else, is disobedience. The common sense of the world has ever testified to the identity of right and holiness, of wrong and sin, of the law of conscience and the law of God.

It might be shown too, were it not so difficult to prove first truths, that nothing can be obligatory, except what Reason imposes, that her mandates constitute the Rule of Right (either as an abstract principle, or in its applications,) and consequently, that nothing else in opposition to it, is or can be binding.

We would not be understood to deny that a thousand applications of this rule could never have been known, had they not been revealed from heaven. We only mean to say, when any duty is enjoined, it must, either by virtue of its perceived nature, or by virtue of the authority of the being who enjoins it, receive the sanction of Reason, and thus be brought within the Rule of Right, in other words, be affirmed as duty, by the conscience of the subject himself, or it can not be binding.

It is an indisputable fact, we remark finally, that obedience to the Moral Law produces inward peace. Why is this? How can we account for the peace passing understanding, which reigns in the heart of the Christian? Why is there "no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus?" The reason is obvious-in obeying God, they obey the laws of spiritual life, as revealed in our own nature, and affirmed by our own consciences.

Why, on the other hand, is there no peace to the wicked? What makes the murderer so wretched? At midnight he has imbued his hands in the blood of his fellow. He has buried the corpse, and to the best of his ability concealed the evidence of the deed. Now he retires to rest, but how restless! How like an angry maniac he tosses on his pillow! His conscience shrieks in agony, and every feeling of his soul is in insurrection. Ah, let me lie on a bed of fire rather than feel what wrings his heart!

Sin is a pang where more than madness lies,

A worm that can not sleep and never dies."

"He that sinneth against me, wrongeth his own soul." Why such facts as those above referred to in the unvarying

history of humanity? The answer and the only true answer is this, When we obey the Rule of Right, we know that we have rendered obedience to the law of God, and conversely when we have obeyed the law of God, inward peace proclaims a corresponding conformity to the Rule of Right. When we transgress the Law of Reason, we know we have disobeyed God, and when we disobey God, inward pangs tes tify, in no dubious language, that the laws of the soul have been trampled upon. This is demonstration that the laws of God and the laws of our inner being are identical. There is the same connection between the transgression of Moral Law and mental pain, that there is between the transgression of physical law and physical pain. The former belongs to our moral nature, in the same sense in which the latter belongs to our physical nature. Moral law is simply the demands of our spiritual nature written out. To the doctrine which we have endeavored to establish the following objections may be urged-objections demanding a passing notice.

This doctrine, it may be said, is inconsistent with that of Total Depravity. If any one faculty of our nature is true to God and his government, the whole being is not depraved. This objection would indeed be fatal to our doctrine, if the depravity ascribed to the sinner were not moral but constitutional. This however is by no means the case. The sinner is not to be called into judgment for his constitution, but for "the deeds done in the body." On this subject the Bible is perfectly explicit. No other depravity for which man is held as morally responsible, is therein spoken of, or implied, but that which consists in the transgression of the law." Now were our doctrine untrue, total moral depravity, in the Bible sense, would be an impossibility. "Where there is no law [when the rule of duty is not in some way revealed to the subject] there is no transgression." Either all mankind are not, in the light of God's law, totally depraved, or that law has been revealed to all, and they in all their moral acts, have violated it. Our doctrine, therefore, in respect to the identity of the moral law, and the idea of right, as it exists in the minds of all moral agents, must be true, or the doctrine of universal total depravity can not be true.

The inspired Apostle, it is urged again, informed Agrippa that previous to his conversion he "verily thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." Here, says the objector, we have an instance of a manifest discrepancy between the edicts of Reason and those

of the Moral Law. The former requires what the latter forbids. Is our opponent serious in this objection? Will he maintain that it was right for Saul of Tarsus to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth? Certainly not. Then what discrepancy between right and God's requirements does this case afford? Will he say conscience required him to do what was not right? But this is absurd, for the demands of conscience are the very things, universally designated by the term "right."

The true explanation of the difficulty we suppose to be this; The Apostle intended to express merely an opinion which he had entertained in the days of his impenitencyan opinion which had no connection with his conscience. The word translated "ought" means 'expedient, fit, necessary. He said he thought it necessary, (perhaps to support the religion of his fathers) to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. There is no evidence that he acted with the least reference to conscience or duty. Blinded by rage and passion, he was doubtless entirely reckless of both. As in case of other wicked men, in doing what they think proper, the voice of obligation was not heeded. Other principles had usurped their place, and controlled the will. Had he listened to the silent admonition of his conscience, he would have done far otherwise.

It is urged still further, that the same apostle affirmed to the Jewish council, that he "had lived in all good conscience before God until that day." It is contended that he here meant to assert, that he had never, during his life, violated his conscience. But this construction makes the apostle assert what no honest, much less divinely inspired man would assert. What then did he mean to affirm? The answer is plain. On the preceding day he had given to the same tribunal a history of his experience up to the time of his conversion. Here he resumes the narrative, and intends to be understood that since that event, and in respect to the questions then in controversy between him and his accusers, he had lived in all good conscience before God. This was evidently his meaning, for it was his life as a Christian that he was endeavoring to vindicate. With his previous course his accusers found no fault. Of that consequently, he had no occasion to speak at all.

If any inference relating to the subject in hand, can be deduced from this assertion of the apostle, it is favorable to the position we have taken. He had obeyed God's law, since

his conversion. If he had obeyed the law of conscience too, there was certainly no discrepancy between them. He subsequently affirmed, that he "exercised himself to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man." Would he have done this, had he believed that the dictates of conscience ever contravened the Moral Law? Would he have done this, had he not believed that they never disagree?

This view, it is still further objected, renders the Bible unnecessary. If the rule of duty be found in the Reason, there is no need of a special revelation of God. Will the objector say that no communication from heaven is needed, except a law that no light relating to the objects and limits of human existence, the nature of God, and the conditions upon which he can be reconciled to offending man, is important? Will he deny that the law of Right itself needs to be unentombed from the depths of the soul, separated from every thing else, and brought with greater distinctness before the mind--that it needs to be clothed with Divine authority and rendered sacred by Divine sanctions--that light is espe cially needed relating to its endlessly diversified applications? But can we not, according to this theory, it is asked, reach heaven, by following the dictates of Reason unaided by the Bible? Certainly, we answer, had the Bible never fallen within our reach. Enoch, Abraham and Job were never blessed by its heavenly light, yet they are among the redeemed. From the fact, that heathen may be saved without a special revelation, however, it by no means follows that they will be. Such a revelation is requisite, not to render their salvation possi ble, but to render it probable, and more especially certain. The admission made above, however, affords no encouragement to the infidel and transcendentalist, who, repudiating the Bible, think to secure a happy immortality, guided only by the star-light of Reason. Enoch and Abraham never rejected the Bible. They availed themselves of all the light within their reach; so must all do who would follow the Rule of Reason. It requires us, for example, to do all we can to relieve suffering. This implies a command to do all we can to ascertain where suffering exists. Can we turn our back upon light relating to this point, and at the same time follow this rule? No, the idea is absurd, but no more so than the idea that we can follow Reason and reject the Bible, Would he who claims to do this, enter into a candid examination of himself, he would see, we think, that he comes far short of conformity to the Law of Reason. It requires him to do all

the good within his power. Is he willing honestly to enquire whether by becoming a missionary to instruct the degraded inhabitants of Tunis, or Algiers, he could not do more to benefit his race than by living in ease and luxury at home? Is he willing candidly to investigate this subject, and then to follow the dictates of his Reason? Probably not. An examination doubtless would convince him that he is covering up a deeply dishonest heart-that inclination not reason is his guiding star.

This view, it is objected finally, makes conscience an infallible guide. In one sense, we answer, conscience is, and in another, it is not an infallible guide. The Divine law, and the law of conscience are a single identical principle, requiring supreme love to God and equal love to man. It is susceptible, however, of applications to all the exigencies of life. Some of its specifications are written out in the Bible; but in most cases we are left to our own honest judgments, in the use of all the light falling within our reach, to determine the forms of duty which the great law of love devolves upon us. Now in applying this law, we may err. From partial views of truth, we may feel conscientiously bound to take a course which more light might have shown to be injurious. In this sense conscience is fallible. But here is error, not sin. It is absurd to suppose any other course under the circumstances could have been obligatory. Left as we are to follow our own best judgments in applying the Law of Love, we certainly can not be involved in guilt in doing it. A conscientious sin, then, is an impossibility. The man who follows his conscience does no moral wrong. In this sense conscience is infallible.

The great truth which we have attempted to elucidate and establish, leads to many important suggestions. With a brief notice of a few of these, we shall close this article.

1. No sentiment is more untrue or dangerous than that which makes Religion and Reason antagonisms. So far as this sentiment obtains, men will reject religion; for implicit reliance on the decisions of the Reason, is a law of humanity never to be violated. Reason is and must be the final umpire of appeal. God so treats it. "Come now and let us reason together," is his language, meaning, let us bring the controversy before the bar of Reason and abide its judg

ment.

There are facts of infinite moment revealed in the Bible, and consequently fields opened for the application of the Law