concluding argument near the beginning of his discussion of the question whether it is possible to choose two contradictory ends at the same time. But I was doubtful which was his latest purpose, and accordingly choose to place it where I have. This prevented the necessity of making any alterations of importance in what he had written.

It will doubtless strike the tasteful reader who has perused his previous articles, that there is not in this last one that literary finish and elegance which have characterised them. Had he lived he would doubtless have given it equal excellence; but, as it is, it is by no means destitute of these merits, being stamped throughout with the marks of his gifted and cultivated mind.

One further remark: The subject is unfinished. It will be seen that he had about concluded the metaphysical part of the subject; but, on the Scriptural argument, he left nothing but a brief program. It is to be regretted that he could not have executed this part of his profound and important work. But he has done enough in what he has written on the subject to settle the matter forever, that the whole theory of mixed moral action, whatever form it may assume is an absurdity, and a pernicious error in ethical science. Nor will the results of his labors on this essential point soon die from among men.] S. D. C.

ARTICLE LXIII.

Light and Love.

BY REV. WILLIAM GOODELL, OF HONEOYE, ONTARIO CO., N. Y.

THE readers of the Oberlin Quarterly Review cannot but remember two connected articles in this periodical from the pen of Prof. THOE, the first entitled LIGHT AND LOVE, and the secondCOME-OUTISM AND COME-OUTERS.'

**

It is the design of the present contributor to present, in two successive articles, a somewhat different train of thought on those subjects, embracing substantially, the views of a considerable class of the friends of Christian progress and reformation, whose sentiments have seldom or never found expression in the Literary and Theological Reviews of this country, and who conceive that their views and their position are very commonly misapprehended and misunderstood. In the course of the discussion proposed, the articles above mentioned may come, perhaps, more or less directly, and in some particulars, under review.

The subject, then, of consideration, in the first place, is LIGHT, and the relation it sustains to Love.

By the term Light, in a literal sense, we mean the medium, composed of etherial or luminous matter, through which all visible objects are beheld, by the organs of vision. In a fig. urative use of the term, we express by it, the medium through which the mind, in a healthful and proper condition, perceives the objects, intellectual, moral and spiritual, which are presented for its inspection. Truth is light. The fundamental principles of philosophy, of morals, and of religion, are light, because they consitute the proper medium through which all the objects coming before the mind, in the investigation of those sciences, should be seen and examined. Strictly speaking, the objects themselves, the facts or things presented for inspection are not light, either in the natural or moral

*See Oberlin Quarterly for August, 1846, Article 28, and for November, 1846, Article, 32,

world, though a proper collection and arrangement of those objects, facts, or things, may be very essential to a proper use of the organs of vision, through the medium of light.— Men do sometimes speak of collecting and of diffusing light, on a certain subject, when they only mean the collecting and dissemination of information in the form of statistics, or facts, which are to form the objects of mental and moral vision. But this is, evidently, a lax and somewhat improper use of the term. A man may arrange, in his appartments, the best collection of the proper objects of vision, without introducing into them, for the benefit of his guests a single particle of light. The use of light implies organs of vision, and objects of vision, but neither of these are to be confounded with the medium of vision, the light. It may be well to notice and bear in mind these distinctions, to prevent needless confusion; though, if any one should question the propriety of them, the writer will not insist upon them, as vitally essential to the discussion. He will consent to include facts as well as principles in the definition of light. It is only necessary that the term should be defined.

Our definition is yet incomplete. "Whatsoever doth make manifest is light." Eph. v: 13. Truth exists, independently of the human mind. Fundamental first principles are fixed, and changeless, whether men welcome their presence or not.— The objects of mental and moral vision, the facts of the moral world, (if we choose to call these a part of the moral light communicated to us,) are not changed by our apprehensions of them. We may shut our eyes upon them, or our eyes may be diseased, or the medium of vision may be illusory, but the facts are the same still. Thus far, our definition of light includes only what is out of ourselves.

In its highest, its most spiritual sense, the term Light expresses much beyond and above this. The soul of man is gifted, not merely with the organs, so to speak, of intellectual, moral and spiritual vision. It has, within itself, to a great extent, the power of furnishing and of modifying the medium through which, in the proper use of its powers of intellectual and moral vision, the objects of the moral and spiritual. world are to be perceived and inspected. It is not enough. that we have the light of truth-the light of the fundamental first principles of theology and ethics to guide us. In addition to this, we need the light, (that is to say, the medium of spiritual perception,) furnished by a right state of the mind itself, especially by a right state of the affections, the volun

tary exercises, the HEART. Whatever the mind sees, on moral and spiritual subjects, it sees through the medium of the af fections, the desires, the aims, the purposes, the volitionsthe will, the HEART. I use all these terms, so as to cover the whole ground, and ensure the expression of my meaning, to men of all metaphysical schools, if it be possible, neither af firming nor denying the precise identity or synonymous import of all of them, nor aspiring to be metaphysically exact in their use.

We have then, a two-fold definition of the word Light, when used in a figurative, or moral sense. By the first definition, men have light when they have clear intellectual perceptions of moral and religious truth, of the first principles of theology and ethics, whatever may be the state of their hearts, their moral and spiritual condition, in God's sightBy the second, additional definition, we say men have light, when, over and above their intellectual perceptions of fundamental moral and religious truth, they have hearts in harmo hy with truth, thus furnishing them with a transparent medium through which moral and spiritual objects may be seen.

The Scriptures recognize our first definition when they say that "Light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil." And they recognize the second when they say, that "if the eye be single, then the whole body shall be full of light.”

The relation subsisting between light and love, therefore, may be readily understood. Light, in the sense of the first definition, "comes first in the order of time" (at least in the order of nature,*)" and comes to wake love." "Light is in order to Love." So says Prof. Thome. And he urges the absurdity, of "making love chronologically antecedent to light." [August number, 1846, page 98.] There can be no love without light. In this sentiment of Prof. Thome, I concur. And it is a point in my argument, of too much importance to be overlooked. Whatever may be said concerning light, of a certain description, as existing without love, there can be no such thing as love without light.

In the sense of our second definition, Light becomes synonymous with Love. In every point of view therefore, Love must imply Light. A "loveless light," in a modified sense,

*I would not affirm of Adam, before the fall, or of angels in heaven, that they ever possessed light, for any perceptible space of time, without love. The two may have been simultaneous, but certainly they never could have possessed love, for a single moment, without light.

there may be but in a proper use of the term, there can be no such thing as a "lightless love."

Bearing these things in mind, we approach the great practical problems-(1.) Whether or no professors of religion, churches, and ministers, in this country at the present day, are in possession of the Light requisite to guide them in disposing of great and important questions of fundamental morality and religion, such, for example, as those involved in the alternatives of continued slaveholding and slavery, or of immediate and unconditional emancipation and abolition; and (2.) Whether or no the want of such Light, if it be found wanting, is to be regarded as an excuse or palliation, so far as to warrant us in giving credence to their christian profes sions.

To solve these problems understandingly and correctly, two other questions must come under consideration-first, what light do all real christians of necessity possess, and without which they could not be christians! Second, what pecu liarities, if any, in respect to the Christians, or professors of Christianity, in this age and nation, should be taken into the account, in forming an estimate of the light possessed by them, or which they might possess if they would?

We take up the first of these questions. What Light, of necessity, do all true Christians possess, and without which they could not be Christians?

In order to be Christians, men must have of necessity, all that Light which is necessary to constitute them free moral agents, accountable to God for their actions. Whatever of Light, the scriptures attribute to man as man, to the race, to the species, must be predicated, most assuredly, of all. Christians. Truths self evident in themselves, and apprehended by all mature and sane men, truths that whole nations, en masse, with united voices, with beaming eyes and throbbing bosoms, will declare to be self evident, must, of course be apprehended by all christians. A christian cannot be less than a man. In becoming christians men do not put off manhood. Christians have consciences and common sense. They know what all other people know, to begin with, whatever of additional light they may or may not possess. Christianity does not dwarf them. Regeneration does not dishumanize them. Thus much, without incurring the imputation of extravagance or ultraism, all may be bold to affirm, though in doing it we should assume a position altogether decisive of the whole controversy.