Some men, classed among Freethinkers, have adopted an opinion quite opposite to that held by those who call themselves Orthodox; and on this occasion, singularly enough, these opponents seem to have changed sides: the first, without intending it, maintaining the fundamental principle of the gospel; and the last laying claim to orthodoxy, and yet striking at the very root of Christianity. The first have maintained that there is an implanted sense, or power in the mind, which if obeyed in all its secret monitions, will lead man safely in his duty: the last have denied such a dogma, and have had recourse to the outward revelation of Holy Scripture to make up what they consider a palpable deficiency in man's moral eco

.

nomy.

The opinion of the first, therefore, though it were just in itself, might be liable to some doubt or suspicion, merely because it was embraced by authors of that description. For, when the current of infidelity was running strong, and natural religion was making way, in contradistinction to revealed, it was objected by the supposed orthodox, that the notion of a moral sense or moral law-giver being implanted in the mind, to dictate the path of duty, was invented for the purpose of exalting the dignity of human nature, and lessening the value and importance of Christianity.

Without question, there was some ground for this imputation; and there is good reason to believe, that the class of Freethinkers did, with a sinister motive, make use of such an argument; for, the more perfect

they made human nature to be in itself with its own natural powers, the less need there was for the supposed adventitious aid of Christianity, or for any other special dispensation from above, to teach the lessons of morality and religion. In so far therefore as this power was held to be a natural faculty, belonging intrinsically to the constitution of the mind, like the memory or fancy, there was an obvious leaning to natural Religion, in contradistinction to Revealed. And this opinion was accordingly rejected entirely by their opponents; who, in their rejection of the principle, though they might perhaps have justly found fault with the terms, appear not to have considered that they were undermining the foundation of Christianity itself.

Because, the internal light of a moral principle, the still small voice of Conscience, the candle of the Lord in the soul of man, the unerring and infallible witness for Truth, may be different appellations, or other names, for the divine light of Christianity itself; which in the language of Scripture is emphatically stated to have "appeared to all men;" and "to lighten every man that cometh into the world." It is moreover stated, that "a manifestation of it is given to every one to profit withal."

Bolingbroke, Shaftesbury, and others, seem to have been advocates for the sufficiency and natural jurisdiction of a Moral Sense. Locke, Berkley, Paley, and their followers, appear to have been among the

supporters of that opinion which makes Reason the umpire and judge, Education or human instruction the medium, and Scripture the only revelation now vouchsafed to man, therefore the only adequate rule of faith and manners. The latter however do not deny the casual operation and influence of a Holy Spirit.

But a third class have ranked themselves among the advocates of a moral faculty, acknowledging the use of Reason, but not its entire sufficiency, therefore without committing themselves on the side of Deism like the first, and yet without clearly explaining the relation of a moral sense to the Gospel principle of Light and Truth, as Reid, Hutcheson, Stewart, Beattie, and Smith. Of all these writers Dr. Reid appears to have taken that view of the subject which agrees best with Scripture; his description of a moral principle with the accompanying illustrations and analogies applying very closely to the Scripture model.

It might not be a difficult task to show what errors are likely to arise from that opinion, which, admitting a revelation, confines it to the written record, thereby limiting its effects to certain minds; as well as from that, which, extending it beyond the written record, would interpose so many bars and difficulties in the way of its reception, by imagining a host of dangers from mistaken zeal, and insisting upon the controul of an outward faculty like Reason, as would virtually

tend to exclude this divine influence, or negative its operation, or at least to make it extremely rare and partial.

On the other hand, when we consider that those who admit a Moral Principle, are so divided among themselves respecting its nature, that they can affirm nothing certain upon the matter; we are naturally led to wonder that they do not at once apply themselves to Scripture for the only clear and lucid explanation of the difficulty which can be given.

This Moral Sense or Faculty, Moral Principle, Internal Teacher, Light of Nature, Divine Reasonunder whatever name it may pass-represents the self-same Spiritual Power, operating variously, according as it has to act in greater or less measure,-according to the diversity of talents intrusted to man"for there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit" according as it has to act in the natural and uncivilized state; or in those who, possessing the outward knowledge, are without the inward virtue; or, possessing the inward virtue with prompt obedience and simplicity of heart, yet have nothing of human learning, or at least a mere sketch of religious principle unfolded to them by outward instruction. It cannot be supposed that, because different effects are exhibited in these different states of the mind, in different persons, the power or influence should itself be different; and at one time deserve no better name

than a Moral Sense, and at another be dignified with that of a Holy Spirit. At the same time, its mode of action is, and ever will be, a mystery. For "as the wind blows where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the spirit:"-so little does any man know of its power and influence upon the mind. It is distributed in different measures. Therefore it is not one thing in the Jew and another in the Greek. In Scythian and Barbarian, Christian and Heathen, bond and free, it is the same; varying only in degree of intensity and manifestation; like the light of the great luminary of the world from the faintest ray to the brightest beam. Even those who have been enlightened may become dark. Take heed that the light in thee be not darkness."

I have stated that philosophers differ in their speculative notions respecting the nature of this moral principle. With regard also to Virtue, that perfection of human conduct in thought, word, and deed, for which we may suppose the principle in question was implanted, there is a like diversity of opinion, perhaps consisting more in name than in reality.

1

Dr. Adam Smith observes, that "it is the opinion of some, that Virtue is recommended to us by the principle of Self-Love, as the former tends to promote our private interest: others think that Reason points out the difference between one character and another in the same way that it does that between truth and