affections or to exert its benignant influence upon the intellect. Now, the difference between a faith which controls the understanding, and a faith which cheerfully obeys the voice of an enlightened Reason,-as a dutiful child the mind of its parent, is very conspicuous and unmistakable. The conservative child,—to preserve the analogy, whose parents are authority and antiquity,―always employs the faculties of reason as special advocates and counselors. Let any new discovery appear, and the conservative employs Reason forthwith to use its native wisdom and dignity, in the capacity of an attorney, to argue against the approaching innovation. Let philosophy teach the plain doctrine that the physical and moral government of God is founded upon certain great general laws,—teach that obedience to these laws brings its own happiness and rewards, and disobedience its own adequate punishments,—and you will see conservatism, with all the erudition and talent it can possibly command, fully aroused to a sense of approaching “danger" and the immediate necessity of greater vigilance. Let Geology arise from the sepulchre of earth and stone, and read in a confident voice the gospel which nature has been myriads of centuries in writing upon the broad tablets of the inner world; and, lo! the Child of Conservatism is alarmed for the safety of her strong towers, and seeks the startling words—" deception”—“ infidelity”— "innovation," as expressive of its fear of the new manifestation.

Not so with the Child of the Reason. Having inherited by hereditary transmission of qualities, the ruling characteristics of its progenitor, the faith of the understanding is always ready to hear, to investigate, and to obey. It feels a religious confidence in the decisions of its progenitor. And although it changes in order to suit the increasing demands of progressive principles; yet it is as fixed and unyielding, in its spirit, as Truth is immutable and honesty inexorable. It is,

therefore, an easy thing to decide in what minds the reasonprinciple is held in subjection to faith, or where faith exists as an effect of knowledge, based upon the reason-principle. We must always judge by the external manifestation.

In my review of Dr. B's introductory discourse, on rationalism as opposed to supernaturalism, I was impressed to affirm, that I did not regard his conservatism as wrong in itself-considered as a principle or characteristic of mind; but that it is exceedingly at fault in its present mode of manifestation. This tendency to wrongly use a prudential faculty, by a mind enriched with good native powers and a scholastic education, was very faintly foreshadowed in Dr. B's first lecture. But in his second discourse, delivered by him last Sabbath evening, he developed in bold relief the fact, that he has not yet attained that harmonious moral growth which enables the mind to conduct an honest and impartial investigation.

Of the latter discourse I may in this place briefly say, that it was not as well conceived and elaborated as the former; neither did it contain the perspicuity and beauty of expression; the broadness of thought; nor the purity of feeling; which characterized the opening lecture. Nor was he so ingenuous in his allusions to the positions which the rationalists occupy. On the former occasion, his language was free from unfairness and derision; and only betrayed some severity toward the Progressive Party in the modulations of his voice; but, in the second discourse, his method and words were more suited to the internal feelings which prompted the anxious and disturbed manner of his delivery. None of this would emanate from a mind which fully realizes that TRUTH is immortal and God unchangeable; that all things must have a high and happy termination; because the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Why the Dr. does not fortify himself in this conviction, and set about the discharge of his highest

duties with a positive, frank, and calm demeanor, is a question which he can best answer, and reconcile to the inexorable principles of truth and invincible honesty.

Dr. B—. originally avowed the principal object of his lectures to be centered in this thought-viz.: to effect a reconciliation between Naturalism and Supernaturalism, to the end that the young minds of the community might be preserved or reclaimed from the vortex of a manifold infidelity. He began very nobly the task before him, and laid the foundation broad and somewhat logically; but it seems thus far that he builds the house with no strict reference to the shape and principles of the primary arrangement. He does not do himself justice as a theological architect. This can not but be regretted. For there are many honest-minded citizens awaiting and watching the erection of the new Zion; which this LUTHER has promised to erect on the rock of ages,-an impregnable and indestructible fortress, in which to place the purest and highest form of Christianity, where it can forever remain unmoved and unchanged by the march of intelligence and human independence. Upon an octagon foundation, he builds a three-cornered house. Upon a foundation large enough to embrace the whole human family, he erects a temple scarcely capable of meeting the internal wants of his own mind. Such inconsistency, alas, is the common, inevitable result of the pernicious habit of maintaining the reason-principle in a state of subordination to Faith.

I come now to consider Dr. B's second discourse; with strict reference to its inconsistencies and details.

He opened with his text, selected from that classic book attributed to Joв, eleventh chapter, ninth verse, wherein it is asserted that the perfections of the Almighty lie beyond man's limited comprehension. "The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." In this connection, Dr. B. glanced at the transcendent efforts of the human

mind. How it searches and explores the earth; calculates its extents and magnitudes; and mounts on high, to examine the distant myriad orbs whose light has been ages in traveling toward and reaching our planet. Mind, he said, has exerted its powers to comprehend the drops in the great fireocean, which constitutes the physical universe. But failing to achieve its object, the mind comes back to earth, exhausted and overwhelmed with the contemplation. Still it is not satisfied, and so recovers strength for a fresh exertion. It mounts again, on the wings of fancy, and climbs the rugged sides of the material creation, in order to get at or "imagine something" to meet the soul's demands for the mysterious and the supernatural. Hence it sets its speculative faculties energetically into play, and "imagines spheres, &c., entirely above the comprehension of reason."

From this Dr. B. inferred that Nature could not be "the system of God;" and that man absolutely demands, in the deeper wants and consciousness of his nature, a FAITH independent of, and above, reason or unilluminated judgment. From this proposition the Lecturer derived what he termed, his essential "definition" of Nature in contradistinction to the Supernatural system. He confessed, that, unless his definition was understood and accepted by the audience, all his subsequent reasonings would be obscure and almost valueless. Therefore, as this "definition" is the main point or the very foundation of all he designs to say, in the great work of reconciling rationalism with supernaturalism, it is but just to him that we proceed to analyze and examine this cornerstone of the supernatural temple. He said, in substance, that the spirit of God must be "longer than the earth, and broader than the sea;" that extents and magnitudes "expressed" the deific spirit, but did not "include" him; that we, in our speculations, might expand matter or the material creation illimitably, but God was more expanded and more illimitable.

In a word, that the "system of Nature by itself is not the system of God." Dr. B. then defined Nature to be a "system within itself." In its inherent laws and material combinations, almost wholly independent of "the supernatural creation, which is particularly the system of God!" Dr. B. thinks that Nature is a "system of cause and effect; but, that the Supernatural is not subsisting upon, and controlled by, these mechanical forces or reciprocal principles." He thinks, that when miracles are performed, the RESULT is accomplished, not "by violating or suspending any of the inherent laws of Nature," but by the action of the supernatural kingdom or government of God UPON Nature,-producing effects and phenomena therein, which could never otherwise be developed by the unceasing operations of nature's inherent principles. Dr. B's definition, therefore, amounts substantially to this: that Nature is a system of matter, mechanism, and forces, operating outside of, and a long way beneath, the real kingdom and government of God; that the Supernatural system, which is far greater and beyond the extents and magnitudes of the system of nature, and is the system of God, "operates upon the world,"-and produces therein effects and miracles, varying very prominently from the usual progressive developments of unchangeable laws,—without disturbing or suspending, in the least degree, the general processes of natural or causative creation.

Dr. B. was very desirous that the people should accept this definition, to the end that his future lectures might have the desired effect. Now this is all exceedingly superficial and unsound. I make no doubt but that his reasonings and deductions would be very good and legitimate, in case we adopt his premises as fixed and unquestionable truths. But this can not be allowed him. For his premises are contradicted by every thing in existence; as I will presently proceed to demonstrate. His reasonings and conclusions, I