is plain that if man's moral nature be rejected, (as it really is by the sensationalist,) the revelation is incapable of reaching him, and must ever remain unintelligible to him.

But then, on the other hand, sensationalism is only a partial view of the phenomenon. Sensationalism considers not man, but the product of man's action; it treats not of mind, but of the conditions of matter; and as the universal consciousness of humanity is against a mere material contemplation of the universe, inasmuch as each man finds himself capable of acting, and of understanding reasons for acting in one mode rather than another, sensationalism must be viewed only as the philosophy of the world physical. And as the world physical is only the unintelligent object, sensationalism is only the philosophy of the unintelligent object; whereas the intelligent subject (man) offers an entirely new region of investigation, and superadds various qualitative predicates, which extend knowledge into an entirely different sphere, and consequently transform sensationalism first into intellectualism, and ultimately into moralism.

The physical world, when considered objectively and exclusively, (as it is in physical science,) does not present within the field of contemplation the operation of mind. For this we must turn to man, and, having evolved the laws of physical operation, the laws of man's operation fall next to be considered. And human action falls to be considered logically in the following order:

1. Action upon the material world, for the direct purpose of producing an effect upon the material

world.

This involves the laws of the arts, which laws are drawn from the physical sciences.

2. Action upon the material world, for the purpose of producing an effect on man. This involves the laws. of political economy, which laws are drawn from an induction of observed facts, as to what effects have been ascertained to follow certain modes of action.

3. Action upon man without forcible interference, for the purpose of producing an effect on man. This involves the laws of social action, but only such social action as does not involve constraint or interference against the will of the party operated upon.

4. Action upon man by interference or forcible control. This involves the laws of justice.

Such are the modes of human action, and the laws of these modes must be evolved in this order. First, the arts, (mechanical, chemical, agricultural, &c.;) then political economy, which treats of the production of wealth; then social science, which treats of the distri bution of wealth, the public health, the public education, the public recreation, &c.; and, last of all, politics, which treats of the laws which should regulate interference, (legislation, government, &c.)

The two last of these divisions alone are entitled to the name of moral science, which lays down the laws of human duty. Anteriorly to the consideration of man's action on man, the concept of duty does not arise. Justice is the rule regulative between man and man; and the consideration of man's relations to man is the first period at which moral science makes its appearance. In chronological evolution, the scientific world is only attempting to complete the second division, (political economy,) and to break up the

ground of the third division, (social science.) The fourth division is, as yet, almost unattacked, and in practice is a mere superstition.

Now, natural theology can never legitimately go beyond those branches of science which have been evolved and reduced to scientific ordination. And every attempt to make a more complete theology than science really warrants, only produces scepticism on the part of those who find an inconclusive argument advanced as a demonstration. Moral theology, strictly and purely scientific, is at present impossible, (that is, impossible for the world;) and impossible, because moral science has not yet made its appearance, and because moral theology depends on moral science, and is an inference from it. In Britain, of course, Scripture is the source of theology, and moral theology is derived from the written revelation. But, on the continent, philosophy is the theology of the great mass of thinking men; and their theology, derived from the revelation of nature, does actually follow the development of science. And as scepticism was first posited with its negation, and then pantheism with its most general affirmation, and now, instead of a mere power, an intelligent power is beginning to be seen as absolutely necessary to explain the phenomena of nature, we may rest assured that, with the development of social and moral science, (which cannot fail to undergo their evolution in their order,) there will arise necessarily a moral theology, and the world will be indoctrinated with the theory of a moral Deity.*

* "Now, this moral theology has a peculiar advantage, over the speculative, that it leads infallibily to the conception of a single all

Now, this consummation of science, although of course still insufficient, is most earnestly to be desired, not because natural theology can ever be a substitute for the written Word, but because a true natural theology may be the great preparative for the universal acceptance of the written Word. Eighteen hundred years have elapsed since the Creator of mankind appeared on earth to proclaim the doctrine of human restoration; and yet three fourths of the world are unacquainted with the truth. Even in those countries. where the Christian religion has been accepted, no such improvement of man's condition has followed as would at all justify the supposition that the gospel

most perfect and reasonable First Being, whereunto speculative theology never directs us from objective grounds, and much less could be able to convince us of the same. For we do not find either in transcendental or natural theology, howsoever far reason therein may lead us, any sufficient ground for admitting a single Being only, which we presuppose for all natural causes, and upon which we had, at the same time, sufficient cause for making these in all respects dependent. On the contrary, if we consider from the point of view of moral unity, as a necessary law of the world, the cause which alone can give to this the adequate effect, and consequently, as to ourselves, obligatory force, it must then be a single supreme will that comprehends within itself all these laws. For how would we find, under different wills, perfect unity of ends? This will must be omnipotent; so that all nature, and its reference to morality in the world, may be subjected to it—omniscient, so that it may cognize the internal of sentiments, and their moral worth — omnipresent, so that it may be ready immediately for all the necessities which highest optimism demands-eternal, so that at no time this harmony of nature and liberty be wanting.". KANT'S Critic of Pure Reason.

See, also, some noble passages in Samuel Clarke's “Evidences," appended to his "Demonstration.”

has ever yet borne its legitimate fruits. The truth has been preserved; but most assuredly it has yet to achieve far more for the whole race of man than it has ever yet achieved for any one community. And, again, when Luther's repetition of the fundamental truth of Christianity (justification by faith) held out a promise of good, the good was gradually sacrificed to political superstitions; and the reformation failed to achieve more than a partial, and very partial, benefit to the world. In Germany, the church became rationalistic; in England, Erastian, sectarian, schismatic, rationalistic; and, lastly, there has come a sickly tendency to Roman paganism and idolatry. In Scotland, moderatism assailed the church; and for a long period the majority of the ministers were rather moralists than Christians. And this rationalistic, moralist, or moderate exhibition of Christianity is only a national diversity of the same fundamental reality — namely, a return to an imperfect theology of nature. In fact, the history of the reformation is rather the history of the dissolution of the papacy, which constructed the church on false principles, than the history of the restoration of the church constructed on true principles. And it would seem almost an inference from the past history of ecclesiastical Christianity, (we speak in no respect of spiritual religion,) that the Christian church, as one association, offers little prospect of being reunited until civil society has discovered the true principles of civil association, and founded the social institutions of mankind on the demonstrative principles of equity.

But while the written Word has not hitherto achieved a condition of society such as its principles would