It is not an unusual circumstance, that objects contemplated at a great distance apart, or at different periods, leave the mind undecided with regard to them—we read a book now, twenty years hence we read another on the same subject-we cannot decide which possesses the greater merit. We see a painting from the pencil of a distinguished artist; we pass away, and in a week hence behold, amid another collection, the best performance of a rival—we cannot determine between them: bring the objects immediately together, and one is astonished that he should ever have been, for a moment, in a state of indecision. It is thus, sometimes, with rival views of truth, with contending theories; all that is necessary to decide the mind in regard to them is to behold them in juxtaposition. What would have seemed plausible enough, presented to the mind alone, and perhaps have met an unquestioned reception, when exhibited together with another and antagonistic view, is promptly rejected. Mere statement, unaccompanied with elaborate argument, is of incalculable service in the discovery of truth.

Let us now, therefore, furnish a succinct statement of the various theories in answer to the question, What is the highest attainable moral and spiritual excellence in this life? And as it will not greatly add to the compass of the statement, and yet may be both interesting and useful to the reader, we may present, in company with the theological or Christian views, the philosophical and semi-religious theories.

1. Beginning with the extreme view in one direction, we find a sect of philosophical speculators who answer it thus: "Man has no spiritual character. Purely a material being, under the inexorable despotism of fate, neither his actions

nor affections can be said to be right or wrong, good or bad. The offspring of necessity himself, without his consent or agency, and the whole phenomena of his life-the outward and actual, no less than the inward and emotional-but a chain of unavoidable sequences, he cannot be said to possess either merit or demerit, any more than the vegetable organism, or the unreflecting brute." This school of materialistic fatalists, always few and never respectable, may be said to have descended to the lowest possible level in their speculations about morals. From this deep abysmal platform other schemes rise up in successive gradations, approximating, then reaching, and finally, to as great an extreme on the other hand, transcending the truth.

2. Another class, like the one already quoted, assuming rather a philosophical than religious style, go somewhat beyond their brethren in their admissions. They allow moral character to human actions, but disallow it to the affections; while, at the same time, they leave it extremely questionable whether they allow a proper spiritual soul to man, or, like those named above, reduce him to a mere material organism. According to their view, the sum of a man's outward actions makes up the texture of his moral and, as far as he possesses any, of his spiritual character, without any regard whatever to his internal sentiments, emotions, affections, or even intentions. These allow some progress in moral excellence, but, of course, only with respect to outward actions; here, indeed, it may be the greatest imaginable, varying from the extremes of the most abandoned dissoluteness to the highest and most unexceptionable morality. The inward life being without moral character-according to the theory all states being of the same negative kind—here, there can be no improvement, one state differing nothing in moral

tone from another. As a shrub, which is without moral character, makes no advance or retrogression in moral excellence when it blooms in the spring or decays in the autumn; so the inward life of man, being also without moral character, neither advances nor retrogrades, when it passes from one extreme to another in the kind of its affections. Two men who perform the same acts precisely, have precisely the same moral character; though the one, in heart, may be as corrupt as a fiend, and the other as pure as an angel.

3. Next in order is a class assuming the Christian name, but certainly, if entitled to that designation at all, it must be in the lowest possible sense; if allowed to belong to the genus, it must be as the most inferior species, the mere chrysalis of the family. These admit the proper spirituality, and allow of moral character, both with respect to the inward and outward life of man-the actions and affections; and accordingly they admit of progress in moral excellence in both directions, embracing reformation, outward and inward. They do not, however, admit of inward renewal or regeneration of a change of heart, by which the sources of the affections, which were radically corrupt, become cleansed and purified. They do not receive the doctrine of spiritual depravity, and hence discard the idea of regeneration, not finding it necessary, or even possible, according to their theory. The claim of those holding this view, to be Christians, can only be admitted by finding them to possess in fact what they disclaim in theory, namely, a change of inward nature.

4. Next in order we come to the view maintained in common by all orthodox Christians, of whatever name or sect— the catholic platform upon which they all stand, and whence they unitedly contend for, at least, so much of

"the faith once delivered to the saints:" namely, the belief that man has moral and spiritual character, not only with respect to his actions, but also with respect to his affections, embracing both, and equally his outward conduct and his inward nature; and further, that moral and spiritual progress is possible, not only to the extent of reformation from sinful habits, and pardon for previous guilt, but also to the extent of an inward change, a radical renewal of the inward nature itself, by which the sources of the affections become purified and the man is made, in a certain sense, a new

creature.

This, we have said, is the common ground occupied by all evangelical Christians. It may be well to be more particular and full in its statement. Three things are seen to be included in their idea as now expressed :

1. Reformation: which consists in a change, for the better, in outward conduct; "the ceasing to do evil and learning to do well."

2. Pardon for the guilt of former sins, styled justification. This is understood, with great unanimity, to mean simply forgiveness, or the removal of the condemnation incurred by past sins, whether of the life or affections. The difference of moral state between a man justified and one not justified is this: both have sinned, it may be equally; but one has renounced his sins and obtained pardon for them, the other retains his, and remains under their guilt and subject to their punishment. In point of fact both are sinners; but in view of certain reasons, the law consents to treat one as though he were not a sinner, while it holds the other, the same reasons not existing, amenable for his sins.

3. Renewal of the inward nature, styled regeneration. This is understood to differ essentially, both from reforma

tion and justification, though it is supposed always to accompany the latter. The general difference between justification and regeneration is this: the one is a work done for us, the other is a change wrought in us-one is pardon, the other is renewal-by one guilt is taken away, by the other the principle of a new life is implanted—one removes condemnation, the other removes corruption-one affects the relation, the other affects the nature-in justification God consents to regard the sinner, for Christ's sake, as though he had not sinned, in regeneration he takes away from his heart" the love of sin," and imparts to him a new class of affections and dispositions, the principle of a new life, which gives him power over sin. Renewal or regeneration being a concomitant of pardon, or invariably occurring in connexion with it, in common Christian parlance the two are represented by the one term justification-a soul forgiven and renewed is said to be justified.

To this grade of moral and spiritual character, all evangelical Christians believe it is possible to attain-nay, not only possible, but indispensable to present and final salvation. Nothing short of it entitles to the Christian name— nothing less admits into the Divine family. There may be slight variety in the idioms of sects-in the nomenclature of denominations-in the spoken and written parlance of the schools in theology; but in regard to the thing itself, there is no difference-there is entire harmony.

But now right here, starting from this common centre, as to what is the specific degree of attainment implied in justification and regeneration, and as to whether anything more or beyond is attainable in this life, are several divergent theories, more or less essentially dissimilar, and of very great moment indeed. It will, we are persuaded, subserve