truth to be believed. If seen in its true nature, it is believed; just as beauty is believed as soon as seen. "Faith is no work of reason, and therefore cannot be overthrown by it, since believing no more arises from arguments than tasting or seeing."

It is very true, that the great majority of men have no such perception of the peculiar truths of the gospel as produces this unwavering faith. The only belief that they have rests on tradition, or prejudice, or, in the learned few, on the external evidences of the gospel. The reason of this fact, however, is not that the doctrines in question do not contain the evidence of their own truth, but that the minds of the majority of men are not in a state to perceive it. What is the reason that savages do not perceive many things to be wrong, the moral turpitude of which is to us a matter of intuition? The reason lies in the state of their minds. So, also, the "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them; for they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual, discerneth all things." The spiritual man, then, (that is, the man under the influence of the Spirit of God,) discerns the excellence of the things of the Spirit; and he receives them because he does discern them. He sees the excellence of the divine character; the glory of God as it shines in the face of Jesus Christ; the perfection of the divine law; the accordance of the declarations of God with his own experience; the suitableness of the plan of salvation to his necessities, and to the perfections of God. He feels the power which attends these truths in his own soul, and his faith, therefore, rests not on the wisdom of man, but on the power of God. It must be remembered, that the Bible is a whole. The believer sees these doctrines every where, and he therefore believes the whole. One portion of scripture supposes and confirms another. The authority of the ancient prophets, of Christ, and of the apostles, is one and indivisable. As the prophets testified of Christ, so he testified of them. As Christ testified to the apostles, so did they testify of him. The object of the believer's faith, therefore, is the whole Bible. He sees every where the same God, the same law, the same Saviour, the same plan of redemption. He

Der Glaube ist kein Werk der Vernunft, kann also auch keinen Angriffen derselben unterliegen, weil Glauben so wenig durch Gründe geschieht, als Schmecken und Sehen.

believes the whole, because it is one glorious system of effulgent truth.

As this is the doctrine of the Bible on this subject, so it is also the doctrine of the church. Were it our present object to establish this point, the correctness of the above statement could be easily proved. We cannot forbear, however, to quote the following beautiful passage from the Westminster Confession: "We may be moved and induced," says that venerable symbol, "by the testimony of the church, to an high and reverend esteem for the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery which it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the truth in our hearts."

Owen wrote a treatise on this subject, which bears the impress of his sound and vigorous understanding, as well as of his intimate acquaintance with the nature of true religion.* In his Treatise on the Reason of Faith, he says: "The formal reason of faith, divine and supernatural, whereby we believe the scriptures to be the word of God, in the way of duty, as it is required of us, is the authority and veracity of God alone, evidencing themselves unto our minds and consciences, in and by the scripture itself. And herein consisteth that divine testimony of the Holy Spirit, which, as it is a testimony, gives our assent unto the scripture, the general nature of faith, and, as it is a divine testimony, gives it the especial nature of faith divine and supernatural.

"This divine testimony given unto the divine original of the sacred scriptures, in and by itself, wherein our faith is ultimately resolved, is evidenced and made known, as by the character of the infinite perfections of the divine nature which are in and upon it; so by the authority, power, and efficacy, over and upon the souls and consciences of men, and the satisfactory excellence of the truths contained therein, wherewith it is accompanied."

See his work on The Divine Authority, Self-evidencing Light and Power of the Scriptures, with an answer to that inquiry, How we know the Scriptures to be the word of God?

This view of the ground of faith is confirmed by the experience and testimony of the people of God in all ages.

It is a monstrous idea, that the thousands of illiterate saints who have entered eternity in the full assurance of hope, had no better foundation for their faith than the testimony of the learned to the truth of the Bible. Let the advocates of such an opinion ask the pious believer, why he believes the word of God, and they will find he can give some better reason for the hope that is in him than the faith or testimony of others. Let them try the resources of their philosophy, empirical or transcendental, on a faith founded on the testimony of the Holy Spirit by and with the truth; let them try the effect of demonstrating that such and such doctrines cannot be true; they will assuredly meet with the simple answer, "One thing I know, whereas I was blind now I see."

It is by no means intended to undervalue the importance of the external evidences of a divine revelation, whether derived from miracles, prophecy, or any other source, but simply to protest against the extreme doctrine of Mr. Norton's Discourse: that such evidence is the only proof of a divine revelation, and that all who cannot examine such evidence for themselves must take their religion upon trust. The refutation of this doctrine occupies much the larger portion of the Letter of the Alumnus of the Cambridge Theological School, the title of which is placed at the head of this article. The argument of the Alumnus, as far as it is a refutation, is perfectly successful. With his own doctrine, we are as little satisfied as with that of Mr. Norton. "The truths of Christianity," he tells us, "have always been addressed to the intuitive perceptions of the common mind." He quotes, with much commendation, the following passage from Prof. Park, of Andover: "The argument from miracles is not the kind of proof to which the majority of cordial believers in the Bible are, at the present day, most attached. They have neither the time nor the ability to form an estimate of the historical evidence that favours or opposes the actual occurrence of miracles. They know the Bible to be true, because they feel it to be so. The excellence of its morality, like a magnet, attracts their souls; and sophistry, which they cannot refute, will not weaken their faith, resulting as it does, from the ACCORDANCE OF THEIR HIGHER NATURE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE BIBLE.' This language, as coming from

* Letters, &c. p. 116.

Professor Park, if it be any thing more than a specimen of the affectation of expressing a familiar truth in a philosophical form, is something far worse. If this "higher nature" of man, which thus accords with the spirit of the Bible, is his renewed nature-his nature purified and enlightened by the Holy Spirit-then we have a solemn truth disguised and dandified in order to curry favour with the world. But if this "higher nature" be the nature of man, in any of its aspects, as it exists before regeneration, then is the language of Professor Park, a treasonable betrayal of the scriptural truth. The doctrines of depravity, and of the necessity of divine influence, are virtually denied. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; unless a man be born of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God; the carnal mind is enmity against God; the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; we preach Christ. crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and the Greeks foolishness, but unto them which are called (and to them only) Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. To assert, therefore, the accordance of the higher nature of unrenewed men with the spirit of the Bible, is to contradict one of the primary doctrines of the word of God. It contradicts, moreover, universal experience. Does the character of God, as a being of inflexible justice and perfect holiness; do the doctrines of Christ crucified, of the corruption of man, of the necessity of regeneration by the power of the Holy Ghost, and of eternal retribution, commend themselves to the hearts of unrenewed men? Are they not, on the contrary, rejected and blasphemed by those who delight to talk of the accordance of their higher nature with the spirit of the Bible?

If the passage on which we are commenting, refers to nothing more than the accordance between the ethics of the Bible and the moral sense of men, and between its general representations of God and human reason, it is still more objectionable. It supposes that all that is peculiar to the gospel, all that distinguishes it from a system of natural religion, may be left out of view, and yet its spirit, its essential part, remain. Is the spirit of a system which makes Christ a mere man, which denies the apostacy of our race, which rejects the doctrines of atonement and regeneration, the spirit of the Bible? Then, indeed, has offence of the cross ceased.

In every view, therefore, which we are able to take of this language of Professor Park, it excites the strongest feelings

of disapprobation. If he believes what all evangelical Christians have ever believed on this subject, why use language, to express that belief, which those who deny the essential doctrines of the gospel seize upon with avidity, as expressing their own views? On the other hand, if he does not agree with evangelical Christians on these points, why does he call himself by their name? Why does he march under their banner? We sincerely believe that the cause of Christ is in more danger from the treason of friends than from the open opposition of foes. While the infidels of Germany, and the Unitarians of this country, are employing Christian language, to convey anti-christian doctrines, professing Christians are using the language of an infidel philosophy in treating of the mysteries of God. Whether this results from mere vanity or from secret unbelief, the result is the same. The truth is burried or betrayed. Statements are made of Christian doctrine in a form which those who deny the doctrine readily adopt. Thus common ground is obtained, on which friends and foes of the gospel can stand side by side, in seeming concord. The distinction between truth and error is done away, and Christians and infidels come to speak the same language. A more effective devise than this, to destroy the power of the gospel, cannot be conceived. The new philosophy promises to be an universal solvent, reducing all forms of opinion into vague formulas, into which every man may insinuate what sense he pleases. We should not have thought it right to make these remarks on a single ambiguous sentence, quoted from Professor Park, were it not for two reaThe first is, that this disposition to hide the truth in the mists of philosophical language, is making rapid progress among us; and the second is, that it is peculiarly characteristic, as it strikes us, of that gentleman's writings.

sons.

While, therefore, we dissent from Mr. Norton's doctrine, that miracles are the only adequate proof of a divine revelation, and that those who cannot examine that proof for themselves, must believe upon the testimony of others, we dissent no less earnestly from the doctrine of his opponent, that Christianity is addressed to the intuitive perceptions of the common mind; that it is embraced because of the accordance of its spirit with the higher nature of man. We believe the external evidence of the Bible to be perfectly conclusive; we believe its internal evidence, (that is, its majesty, its purity, its consistency, its manifold perfections,) to be no less satisfactory; but we believe also, that the ultimate founda