words, he cannot be a wicked, unconverted sinner, at the same time that he is a devoted follower of the Saviour. If a man be really crushed and tormented with "this body of death" and sin, he cannot, during his sufferings, rejoice in "the liberty wherewith Christ has made him free," having "no condemnation" whilst in Christ Jesus. Much allowance should be made, for too strong or hyperbolical expressions.

If it should be said, as it often has been, that Paul was not speaking of himself, (and those of like condition whom he represented,) as actually a sinner, having expressly asserted, that "it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me," our reply is ready, viz.: that being the case, there is no more to be said on the subject, in this discussion; because, we are inquiring after the origin of sin among human sinners - not the origin of sinning "sin"! But not being elated with the vantage-ground thus taken, we should like to be informed how the above can be literally true, in the broad and universal application made of that conscience-soothing position, providing the words of Paul, so emphatically used at the close of the seventh chapter, are also literally true, viz. : "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh [I myself] serve the law of sin." Was not the same "I myself" responsible and rewardable, in both instances? both of obedience, and disobedience? Will any rational "mind" contend that Paul meant to be understood, that his flesh, literal flesh, could have a volition, an evil intention, and do a moral wrong? Impossible! Nor did he mean that he was such a monstrous compound of moral contrarieties as some have contended for, and constantly maintained in himself, the character of the saint and the character of the sinner, an angel and a demon incarnate! He speaks of himself, or in the first person, to render the discourse more acceptable and impressive. Though the doctrine advanced was no more true of him than of all others in similar circumstances, and his meaning obviously is, that though with his mind he could but constantly approve, and, when consistent with his Christian profession, serve, the law of God, yet, when his mind became sensualized, or yielded to the impulses of wrong affections, he violated that law, or sinned. He sought no scape-goat

for his sins, but took the whole responsibility upon himself, when he speaks directly and plainly.

This view of the subject, then, is peculiarly important, because eminently practical in its tendencies. It shows that we are sinners - if sinners at all-in the obvious, every-day sense of the word; implying the transgression of moral law in such a manner, as to deserve punishment, or the infliction of pain, for a benevolent purpose.

To be conscious of such desert, we must also be conscious that in our actions we have enjoyed moral freedom, or acted according to our own moral choice. A sinner feels that he has done inorally wrong-has voluntarily transgressed the law of God. Though his heart be not constantly alive to a conviction of guilt, he cannot effect. ually smother it. His sin may be hidden deep in secresy; but he knows where it is! It is recorded in his own bosom, in characters of fire. The record of guilt may be long suppressed, but it will ultimately be revealed and read. The hidden but living coals, fanned by circumstances, will break through their ashy covering, and burst forth. He that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong he hath done, saith inspiration. Sooner or later, the voice which cried in Eden, "Adam, what hast thou done?" will pierce the soul of the stoutest transgressors. They shall "eat of the fruit of their own doings;" "be rewarded according to their works."

Vain must be the attempt to prove, that God is the author of sin, in any sense of the term. Indeed, those who have undertaken the task, from Hopkins downward, have saved us the trouble of refuting their arguments in detail, by inadvertantly refuting themselves. They tell us that, "in the sense in which God is the author of an act, it is not sin;" not a moral evil! What possible "sense," then, can there be in saying, "God is the author of sin"? Is he the author of that which does not exist? so to speak. The idea is grossly absurd. "Sin is the transgression of the law." God cannot transgress the law. "The woman being deceived, was in the transgression." An all-wise being could not be the author of an act, which resulted from deception.

The mere visible effects of actions do not always determine their moral character. One of our most able authors

has said, "It will be granted, on all sides, that no action unconnected with design, ought to be considered sin. It is, then, an evil intention, which constitutes an evil action." 1 We call "evil intentions" sin. How can we say, then, that God is the author of those acts, which we call sin? Is he the author of evil intentions? By no means. Things which men have "meant" for evil, God has meant for good. So says observation; so say the Scriptures. We do not deny but that an overruling Prov idence may bring about benevolent results, by the concur rence of all human actions. Perhaps it may be safely assumed, that, in some possible sense, God works in all the agencies of the universe; in the saint and the sinner,Moses and Pharoah, for instance, - both to will and to do of his great pleasure. But it would no more follow, as a consequence, that the moral character of their acts should be attributed to Him, than it would that He was wise and foolish, prudent and reckless, meek and haughty, kindly disposed and hard hearted, in proportion as the deliverer or the oppressor of God's people was so. Therefore, to call any act, of which he is the author, sinful, would be as unphilosophical, and more irreverent, than to call it foolish! With the most profound veneration, then, for the reasonable and scriptural doctrine of the sovereignty and allpervading agency of Deity, we still contend for the moral agency of man, on the ground that he is the author of his own moral actions; and that this is the ground, and the only true ground, of moral responsibility.

R. S.

ART. XVI.

The Connection between Natural and Revealed Religion.

THE object proposed in the present article is this:-to point out the relations, and the reciprocal influence, between natural and revealed religious truth; between those

1 Rev. H. Ballou.

ideas of God, the spiritual relations of men, and human destiny, which inquiry, research and reflection, have at tained, and those ideas which are unfolded with authoritative clearness in the Bible. It does not come within the scope of our plan to refer at all to the preliminary question, so widely agitated in our time, whether the Bible itself contains a revelation, in our common understanding of that term, or whether its truths are merely the highest discoveries as yet attained by the religious nature in its natural and ordinary developement. Standing on the commonly recognized Christian ground, without reference to that point, we wish to trace the connection between the religious truths of the Bible, as they are clearly unfolded, whether supernaturally revealed or not, and the developement of philosophical and scientific researches in the same field.

And, in the first place, we must remark that the distinction between the two provinces of Natural and Revealed Religion, is founded not in a difference between things, but in the relation which certain truths bear to the laws and limits of human knowledge. By the terms "Natural" and "Revealed," we do not distinguish different kinds of religion, separate fields of investigation essentially distinct; we do not intend an intellectual partition such as, in the realm of science, is conveyed by the terms, Astronomy and Geology, Chemistry and Mathematics. Evidently, there can be but one religion, one absolute system of spiritual truth, as there can be but one science of Geometry, or one theory of light and of mechanic forces. And this absolute religion remains true, independent of human thought and culture, entirely unaffected by the faith or the ignorance of men. The difference marked and conveyed in common speech by the terms we have used, is a difference of relations solely; it implies, not a generic separation, but refers to a diversity in the methods of attainment, and the character of the evidence adduced. To the domain of Natural Religion belong all the features of this universal truth, which human reason, in its highest elevation, can attain. It includes all those discoveries, which, in accordance with the natural adaptation between our finite intellect and the laws of mental light, flow in upon us from the infinite depths of being; while Revealed Religion, supplying a higher instrument, and collecting and concen

trating the rays into a powerful focus, intensifies-to use that word our natural knowledge, at the same time that it extends the range of our acquaintance with the universe, and brings within the circle of our vision vast relations, which must forever have been denied to the most ardent researches of the unaided eye. The distinction in the terms reposes, then, not on objective peculiarities in truths, but on subjective powers of discovery.

Reasoning a priori, we cannot discover that, independent of the pleasure of the Deity, there need be, to us, any natural connection between the evidences for these two divisions. The Infinite cannot exhaust itself by any revelations, and there would seem to be no necessary relationship between the actual manifestations of the Deity in the mechanical arrangements of nature and the powers of the mind, and any further communications which He might choose to make directly through an accredited agent, and by super-ordinary means. It was within the option of the Deity to rest revelation on independent evidence entirely overwhelming, to introduce it into the world like light borne suddenly into the midst of total darkness to strengthen it wiih evidence that should command the belief of all times, not at all by the harmonyof its truths with known or observed or supposed principles of Divine agency and action, but by the crushing exhibitions of supernatural interference, which establish, beyond all cavil, the communicated facts. Nature might have been constructed so meaningless, or the intuitive energies of the mind might have been so dull, that, for any practical knowledge of the character and will of the Almighty, we should be obliged to rely entirely on definite statements, endorsed by evidence addressed to the senses, -evidence which should always consist of historical and material proof. Beyond any attainable depths "a lower deep" still opens in the Infinite; and, as the scale of revelation, through common or uncommon means, is solely the arbitrary pleasure of the Deity, we can discover no necessary tie, which, in the nature of things, binds the truths of the two departments into mutual relationship and dependency.

But this, although it might have been the order of providence, is not the order of fact. It will not be pretended 20

VOL. IV.