extremes, both of which are inconceivable, and yet one of which must be true. This principle can be illustrated by a reference to the doctrine that the universe began to exist. This doctrine is evidently inconceivable, but so also is the contradictory doctrine that the universe did not begin to exist; and yet, by a necessary law of thought, one or the other must be regarded as true.

Mr. Mansel, in his Limits of Religious Thought has applied this philosophy to the doctrines of revealed religion, and has furnished materials, it seems to us, for a most powerful argument in behalf of evangelical truth.

The Hamiltonian Philosophy has demonstrated that there are certain things which are inconceivable which nevertheless must be

true. The conceivable, therefore, has ceased to be the limit of the true. This destroys at once the whole class of objections against the doctrines of evangelical religion, on the ground that they are inconceivable, and leaves us to

accept or reject them, according as they are supported or not by appropriate evidence.

The next position which it enables us to take is this: If it is impossible for the human faculties to reach the infinite, inasmuch as the infinite is inconceivable, all systems of religion which rest upon human speculation are baseless. It is an utterly abortive attempt for the mind, in the exercise of its own powers, to affirm or deny any thing in reference to the infinite. This principle sweeps away all those systems of religion which claim to be pre-eminently rational. It is true that evangelical religion is placed, in this respect, upon the same level with every other system; but the advantage which evangelical religion derives is that, although it is left without defence, on the ground of human reason, it is also secured against attack. The field of discussion is thus very much narrowed. The controversy between those who hold evangelical views and those who do not, must turn upon the interpretation of the Scriptures. If this philosophy is true, we come clearly and

inevitably to this result, that so far as certain ty in reference to our relations to God is concerned, the Scriptures are not merely our chief but our only guide.

If the appeal then is made to the Scriptures, there is one fact which is most significant as to the result. It can not be disputed that the evangelical system is the only one which has ever been willing to rest its claims exclusively upon the Word of God. No matter in which direction men have wandered from evangelical truth, they have always wandered from the Bible also. Not merely, let it be understood, from the evangelical interpretation of the Bible, but from the authority of the Bible itself. On the one hand they have placed Reason, and on the other the Church above the Bible. They have added to or they have taken from the Word of God. So that it has become perfectly clear that evangelical religion alone is in harmony with the Bible. just as it is. If any other system is adopted, the decrees of the Church must be taken as equal in authority with the Bible; or a Bible

must be had from which every thing inconsis tent with the system has been expunged; or a divine revelation must be given up altogether.

It will be seen that it is not necessary for the purposes of our argument that this philosophy in all its details should be regarded as true. We may hold that there is such a thing as an intuitive knowledge of the infinite, and that a science of theology is possible; but that with which we are now concerned is the fact that the most influential philosophy of the age, that which will soon give the prevailing tone to the thinking of our times, if logically carried out, compels us to choose between evangelical religion and universal skepticism.

But besides this, a Restoration of Faith is, we think, foreshadowed in the fact that schemes of reform on the rationalistic basis have run themselves out to the most wicked or ridiculous consequences, so that the age finds itself baffled and cheated in that direction, and is beginning already to retrace its steps. The fact is, and it is more and more recognized, all social evils resolve themselves

into one or another form of sin. The difference between true and false systems of reform is, that the former bring the agencies of Redemption to bear upon evil, while by the latter these agencies are discarded. Rationalistic systems of reform proceed upon the idea that social evils are the result of man's circumstances, and not of the corruption of his nature; and these systems, we maintain, are right, and must and should prevail, unless the Fall and Redemption, which are the fundamental principles of evangelical religion, are to be recognized as the fundamental principles also of social and political philosophy. It is well that we should understand that the rejec tion of evangelical religion leads necessarily to the wild and wicked schemes of reform which are the curse of the present day. Give up the idea of the Fall and of the native depravity of man, and you inevitably seek for the remedy for evil in the powers and tendencies with which man is endowed. If he is not naturally depraved, he needs no redemption which his own nature does not afford. And