site to the established sentiments of philosophers. By this process he has done more to ascertain the principles of the human constitution, than all the philosophers who preceded him; and it is only by following in his track, that this science can be perfected.

It would not be without interest for a Christian to read the observations of this philosopher on hypotheses, as almost without exception, they apply to the theories of men with respect to the contents of the Scriptures. If hypotheses have led men to misinterpret the works of God, hypotheses have led them to misinterpret his word. The analogy is singularly striking.

And if human conjecture has ever failed with respect to the works of creation, shall it succeed with respect to the depths of the divine counsels in the redemption of sinners? Vain theologians, will ye not learn from this, that the way to discover the mind of God, is not to form hypotheses, but to examine the Scriptures ? What is it produces your infinite diversities? How is it ye deduce from Scripture your innumerable errors? Ye form theories, and then wrest the Scriptures to agree with these. With the arrogance of Satan, ye determine, by your own views, what must be the divine conduct and plans, and with satanic ingenuity and effrontery, ye torture his word to speak your sentiments. While in words ye acknowledge the Scriptures to be a standard, ye take the liberty of erecting a standard of paramount authority in your own understandings, and of interpreting the oracles of God, by the delusions of your own fancies. Though ye call the Scriptures a standard, ye do not allow them to be the sole standard of divine truth. Some things, ye say, God has left to be planned by the wisdom of man. How, then, can ye escape error? How can ye agree with each other? Christians, have ye no errors, have ye no differences? Believe it, they are mostly owing to the same cause. Strange as on first view it may appear, Christians do not all agree in the source of religious sentiments. Do not some, even till this moment, contend that some things are left to human institution? What common principle have we then to reason with such? With them the Scriptures are not the sole

standard. Others by distinctions and difference of times, and various inventions, have considerably abridged this standard, so that almost the half of its testimony is not heard in evidence, but rejected as irrelevant. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is treated like that of an old honest but doating man, who speaks now and then to the purpose, but is perpetually subject to mental wanderings. Even among those who acknowledge the Scriptures as the sole standard, I find there are vain controvertists, who steadily and uniformly act up to their avowed principles. When the interest of a favorite dogma is at stake, every artifice is employed to make the witness prevaricate. With all their deference for the authority of the divine word, how do they grapple with it, when it seems to enjoin any disagreeable practice? Christians, in ascertaining the mind of God, let us banish all the prejudices and prepossessions of our own minds. Let us listen to the Scriptures as the rule, as the perfect standard. Let nothing be received, because it commends itself to our wisdom; let nothing be rejected for want of this sanction. Let us remember that, in all things, the wisdom of God is not like the wisdom of man.

FAITH THE FOUNDATION

OF THE

GREATER PART OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.

PHILOSOPHERS have laboured much to rest all their knowledge on the foundations, not only of self-evident, but of necessary truth. They have esteemed it an affront to their art, not to be able to deduce all their doctrines from the intuitive light of their own reasoning faculty. Evidence has been supposed to consist in the perception of the agreement or disagreement of our ideas; and, consequently, to believe anything which is not the result of the operation of reason, is to believe without authority.

For this purpose, some of our greatest philosophers have renounced the empire of common sense, and commenced their career with universal scepticism. Even their own existence, and the existence of the world, cannot be taken for granted. These truths must be proved by reason, or they must want a foundation. But they have laboured in vain. After all the exertions of the greatest human faculties, it cannot be proved even that there is a world, unless implicit credence is given to the testimony of the senses. only do men in general, but even philosophers themselves, continue to believe in their own existence, and in the existence of the world, not from the arguments alleged by Des Cartes, Malebranche, Arnauld, and Locke, but from the testimony of consciousness and the senses.

Not

The theologian who loves to strut in the philosopher's steps, and to ape his sentiments and language, has, also, talked much of subjecting the contents of the Word of God to the control and determinations of reason. What

cannot be comprehended or accounted for by the reasoning faculty, it is supposed irrational to believe. With this standard in his hands, he goes through the Scriptures, pruning, and retrenching, and refining, and supplying, that the dictates of the Spirit may be modelled, so as to pass the review of human reason.

According to their different degrees of intrepidity and prejudice, the various sects have modelled the Scriptures by the principles of reason. Some content themselves by taking from divine truth some of her strongest features, and giving her those additional graces that human wisdom can supply; while others deface every marked feature in her countenance, diminish her to a very pigmy, and, instead of her own noble deportment, give her the airs, gestures, and voice of our rational christians.

It is no unpleasing thing to find these vain pretensions refuted and ridiculed, even in the philosopher, by the first name in moral science. Doctor Reid irresistibly proves, that the greater part of the knowledge, even of the philosopher, rests upon foundations of which no account can be given. Many things we believe, not because our reasoning faculty perceives the evidence, but because, by the principles of our constitution, we are irresistibly determined to believe. Reason, he asserts, can lay no claim to the greater part of the knowledge of which philosophy boasts. "By his reason he can discover certain abstract and necessary solutions of things; but his knowledge of what really exists, or did exist, comes by another channel, which is open to those who cannot reason. He is lost to it in the dark, and knows not how he come by it."

How is the philosopher assured that he thinks, and reasons, and exists? Is the belief of these truths a deduction of his reason? or must he depend solely on the testimony of his consciousness for the reality of these things? Why does he believe the reports of memory with respect to what happened to him the preceding hour? Does he ever seek any other reason than that he clearly remembers it? Yet the belief of the veracity of memory is not a deduction of memory, but a principle of the human constitution. Let him open his eyes and

look at the sun. Why, great philosopher, do you believe in the existence of yon vast orb of light? Can you prove it by abstract reasoning? Is your conviction the result of the operation of your reasoning powers? No; you believe that the sun exists, because you see it. You have no better foundation for your conviction than the absolutely perfect reliance you have in the testimony of the senses. And what are the senses? Are they not witnesses appointed by God to report to you certain truths that are necessary for your welfare? You receive the reports of your senses with the unsuspecting confidence of a little child; but the testimony of God in the Scriptures, with respect to his own character, and the work of his Son, Jesus Christ, you will not receive upon all the authority of the Almighty. Yet, you never will enter into the kingdom of heaven, unless you receive it as a little child. The testimony of God must be received on the authority of the reporter. Implicit credence must be given to his word, without requiring corroboration from the testimony of human reason. We can give no more account of our belief of the existence of the world, than of our belief of the character and atonement of the Son of God.

What a vast proportion of our knowledge depends upon the testimony of men! Were we to refuse assent to every thing but what comes under our own immediate review, we would sweep away all our knowledge of foreign countries and of past times, and reject the immense treasures heaped up for our use by the experience of others. On these principles, the greatest geuius on earth would never advance beyond childhood. But whatever incredulity a man may profess, he is irresistibly determined to rely upon the testimony of others, and it is not till we are deceived that we learn to regulate our belief in human testimony by the criterion that experience has proved to be a necessary limitation. If, then, we believe the testimony of men, greater is the testimony of God. Why, then, will not men submit to the report that God has given of his Son? Was the credibility of any witnesses ever better attested than that of the apostles? Was there ever