the range alike of the senses and of intuition, would not be a revelation. Nothing outside of the mind can be so regarded. Nothing but its own intuitive perception of truth can constitute a revelation.

And yet, with a strange inconsistency, he says that the material universe is a revelation to the mind; P. 131, and "that Christ was in himself a divine revelation." P. 159. Is the universe then a mode of intelligence? Was Christ a mode of intelligence? Here is a plain inconsistency with his own definition.

But we are not at the end of his inaccuracies. On P. 147, he says: "All revelation implies two conditions; it implies, namely, an intelligible object presented, and a given power of recipiency in the subject; and in popular language, when speaking of the manifestation of Christianity to the world, we confine the term revelation to the former of these conditions, and appropriate the word inspi ration to designate the latter."

Here he says that common usage applies the term to "an intelligible object presented," and not to a mode of intelligence. But on the next page he thus proceeds: "According to this convenient distinction, therefore, we may say, that revelation, in the Christian sense, indicates that act of Divine power by which God presents the realities of the spiritual world immediately to the human mind; while inspiration denotes that especial influence wrought upon the faculties of the subject, by virtue of which he is able to grasp these realities in their perfect fulness and integrity." Here revelation is defined to be an act of divine power in presenting spiritual realities to the mind. Thus, then, revelation is first a mode of intelligence. Then it is an object presented to the mind. Then it is an act of divine power in presenting an object to the mind. If he calls the first view the scientific view, and the second the popular view, what is the third view? He seems to speak of it as the same, with what he calls the popular view. But it is not. An intelligible object is not the same with an act of divine power in presenting that object. The third use of the term is most correct. An act of God in disclosing truth to the mind is, in common and correct usage, called a revelation. But the objects presented are not a revelation, but the subject-matter of the revelation. Still farther, there is no propriety at all in calling the act of the mind in perceiving the objects presented, a revelation. But a record for others of the truths disclosed to the VOL. III. 32

mind by an act of God, is also properly called a revelation. If God thus makes known in human language his own actions in past ages, or facts concerning angels good or bad, or concerning the future state of man and the universe, these recorded disclosures are a revelation, even though containing no intuitive truths of any kind. In this sense we properly call the Bible a revelation.

To the subject of inspiration, he devotes the whole of the sixth chapter. The definition previously given of revelation, in fact expresses his view of the nature of inspiration. It is, according to him, a spiritual intuition of divine things; that is to say, it is "a mode of intelligence."

Concerning this mode of intelligence, he thus remarks:

"Inspiration does not imply any thing generically new in the actual processes of the human mind; it does not involve any form of intelligence essentially different from what we already possess ; it indicates rather the elevation of the religious consciousness, and with it, of course, the power of spiritual vision, to a degree of intensity peculiar to the individuals thus highly favored by God. We must regard the whole process of inspiration, accordingly, as being in no sense mechanical, but purely dynamical: involving, not a novel and supernatural faculty, but a faculty, already enjoyed, elevated supernaturally to an extraordinary power and susceptibility; indicating, in fact, an inward nature so perfectly harmonized to the Divine, so freed from the distorting influences of prejudice, passion, and sin, so simply recipient of the Divine ideas circumambient around it, so responsive in all its strings to the breath of heaven, — that truth leaves an impress upon it which answers perfectly to its objective reality." Pp. 148, 149.

This elevation of the religious consciousness he says, in another place, has been carried so far sometimes as to become miraculous; and states that such an elevation took place in "certain chosen individuals for the express illumination of humanity at large." In this he refers to the writers both of the Old Testament and of the New. But this leaves two questions of radical moment still to be answered. Did this inspiration save those who were the subjects of it from a mixture of error and sin in their religious experience? And did it so extend to their writings, that in these we have a record of truth preserved, by the inspiration of God, free from error and sin?

Both of these questions he answers decidedly in the negative; and argues at great length to shew, that the facts of the case disprove the common views of the inspiration of the Word of God. He argues to this effect from the progressive nature of the Scrip

ture morality. Progressive revelation of doctrine does not of necessity involve error; but if moral laws are imperfectly revealed, it implies an impure morality.

"And yet such an imperfect morality is plainly discernible throughout the period of the Old Testament dispensation, and frequently embodied, too, in the Old Testament Scriptures. The fierce spirit of warfare, the law of retaliation, the hatred of enemies, the curses and imprecations poured upon the wicked, the practice of polygamy, the frequent indifference to deception to compass any desirable purposes, the existence of slavery, the play, generally speaking, given to the stronger passions of our nature, all these bespeak a tone of moral feeling far below that which Christianity has unfolded." P. 161.

He argues also to the same effect, from the seeming discrepancies of different parts of the Bible, and from alleged "discrepancies between some of the Scriptural statements, and scientific truth." He argues in like manner from alleged errors in reasoning, and from the mode in which the canon was formed. He also regards the kind of inspiration commonly assigned to the Scriptures as needless.

"Why should we be perpetually craving after a stiff, literal, verbal infallibility? Christianity consists not in propositions it is a life in the soul; its laws and precepts are not engraven on stone, they can only be engraven on the fleshy tables of the heart. The most precise words could never convey a clear religious conception to an unawakened mind; no logical precision of language and definition, on the other hand, is needed in order to awaken up intuitions which convey more by a single flash of the inward eye, than a whole body of divinity of most approved order and arrangement could ever teach." P. 172.

His views are rendered still more definite by the facts, that he teaches a generic resemblance between inspiration as defined by him, and the inspiration of genius; that he holds all holy persons to be inspired in the same sense as were the writers of the Scriptures, but in a lower degree; and that as they become more holy, they may indefinitely approach the same degree of inspiration.

In making out a system of theology, the intuitions of spiritual truth proceeding from this source furnish the essential materials, and the logical powers give them their form. The great importance of the Bible lies in the fact, that it contains the intuitions of man raised to the highest degree of inspiration, and that it is eminently fitted to bring our minds into a similar state. It also furnishes historical facts in the life of Christ and holy men, to the full understanding of which similar intuitions are needed.

T

The bond of Christian fellowship in the church at large, he insists, should be unity in such spiritual intuitions as are common to all true Christians, and not a fixed logical system of doctrine. Individuals may indeed frame for themselves such a system, and particular churches may do the same; but to unite Christians on the great scale is impossible, except on the basis of unity in spiritual intuitions. In these intuitions is also found the source of certainty as it regards religious truth; and not in any logical definitions, processes, and formulas.

It will be seen that the whole theory of Mr. Morell is based upon his views of spiritual intuition. This leads him to say many true and important things as to the essential characteristics of a theologian. He insists that none but a regenerated man is fit to be a theologian, for none other can have a spiritual perception of the highest and most important truths of the Word of God. But this is no new discovery. It is simply a reiteration of the statement of Paul, that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, and cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If it were consistent with our limits, we could exhibit at great length many excellent things, well expressed in this work. But if in a glass of water two or three drops of Prussic acid had been put, it would be of little avail to shew that the greatest part of the contents of the tumbler was pure water; the most essential thing would be, to make manifest the fact that there was a fatal poison there.

That such is the case in this work, we think our readers will see without any additional remarks from us. The greatest, the most important thing on earth is the Word of God. If a man desires and labors to destroy just views of the inspiration of this Word, there cannot be in him truth and goodness enough to neutralize the evil. No matter how good or orthodox he may be. The better the worse. Some of the very worst works of the devil cannot be done except by good, but deluded, men. Morell's views of inspiration are not the source of any thing that is good in his work. A believer in the plenary inspiration of the Word of God can hold every truth that Mr. Morell holds. No incidental benefit, therefore, flows from his views. On the other hand, they do tend logically and directly to evils, the magnitude of which cannot be overstated.

GOD KNOWN BY HIS JUDGMENTS.

A MORE decisive proof can scarcely be furnished of the depraved condition of man, than that which is indicated by the words placed at the head of this article. The Lord our Maker, in order to make himself known to us, must pour out upon us the vials of his judgments. In the innocence of Paradise, Adam and Eve knew their Creator well, and daily talked with him face to face; guilt had not yet imposed upon them the necessity of learning his character through the displays of his vengeance. But a sad change came over them by transgression; and as one consequence of this change, their posterity, not liking to retain God in their knowledge, are doomed to the severe discipline of the divine terrors. It is true, that judgment is not the only thing taught in the school, where fallen man is placed to be trained for immortality. It is not alone by his frowns, that the character of Jehovah is made known to men. The goodness of God displayed continually, and in countless forms, is designed to lead them back from their errors through the paths of penitence, to the divine favor. But how many there are, who knowing not or perverting this tendency of the bounties of heaven, treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God! And so it comes to pass, while we rejoice in the assurance that God is love, that we see some of the brightest exhibitions of his benevolence towards his intelligent creation in those judgments upon transgression which make him known to the sons of men.

The divine vengeance executed upon the wicked in the future world will doubtless be a display of Jehovah's perfections, of which the present life can afford no adequate example, or even conception. Nevertheless there is enough of retribution here to shew its nature hereafter; the Lord is known by the judgments which he now executeth upon transgressors.

The penal dispensations of God make him known as the God of creation; for although the heavens declare his glory, although the earth speaks forth his praise, yet it would seem that the language of neither is fully comprehended by mn until his dull perception is quickened by the stars in their courses fighting against the rebel host, or by the elements employed in the unusual and terrible office of raining down ruin on the cities of the plain.