in every misinterpretation of the inward word-but yet, there is a vast difference between an honest misinterpretation of it, and a direct violation of it. And this difference is fully recognized in the Bible. Thus it appears to me quite evident, that among the Jews there were many who followed their consciences, or at least did not offend against them, in rejecting the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah. This might happen from their not seeing much of him, and from their satisfying themselves with the judgment of the Scribes, that one who broke the law by doing works on the Sabbath day, could not be a messenger from God. Between such honest and conscientious rejecters of him, and such as refused to acknowledge him although they really felt his holiness, and his miracles, and his heart-searching words commend him to their consciences as a true messenger from God, because they feared that in consequence of making such an acknowledgment, they might be called to make sacrifices of ease, or property, or life, which they did not like to make, between these two classes of persons Jesus distinguished, when he said, (Matt. xii. 32,) " Whosoever speaketh a

word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this dispensation, (that is of the law,) nor in the dispensation that is to come, (that is of the gospel.) The man who sins against his convictions must bear his punishment, even under this dispensation of forgiving mercy—yet let him accept his punishment, and the Lord will remember his covenant of life towards him.

I have known persons who seemed to think that the whole doctrine of the inward witnessing, was overturned by the mere fact that opposite interpretations are put upon its intimations, in different parts of the world and by different individuals. Thus they would ask, "What sameness or identity can be recognized in an internal monitor which, in India, prompts a son to lay his bed-rid father within the water mark of the Ganges, and, in Europe, commands the son to sustain and prolong the old man's life, even by abstracting from that which nature might require for his own support?" But the true answer is, that the inward voice does not specify the particular form of the external action, but teaches the principle or spirit

in which the action should be done. The specific form of the action is the interpretation which man puts on the inward teaching. If the Hindoo really feels that by thus exposing his father to the sacred flood, he is doing the best for him in his power, and that he is acting towards him in love and reverence, we may condemn the interpretation, but we must approve the principle, and acknowledge its oneness with the European conscience.

I believe that in every people, nation, and language, the voice within, condemns selfishness, and approves of self-sacrifice. And here I see the identity between that voice and Jesus Christ, whose continual word was, "take up thy cross and follow me." If we would look through the corruptions of man's interpretation of the voice within him, and make allowance for them, we should find that God has indeed put a testimony to the truth of Christianity in the heart of every man. For example, if we ask a North American Indian, Who is the best man in the world? he will answer, "The man who devotes himself for his tribe;"-if we go back to past times, and ask the same question of Ancient Greece and Rome, they also will answer, “The man who dies for his country;" and if we return

to polished, and civilized, and infidel Europe, and ask the same question, will not the true sentiment of all hearts concur with the modern savage, and the ancient patriot? Now what is this, but the concurrent testimony of the world, that there is set up in the hearts of all men, a living representation and type of the work which was completed on Calvary, when Jesus tasted death for every man? No doubt, it is much misinterpreted by the darkness,-much mixed up with pride, and vanity, and falsehood—but still it is a testimony to the excellence of self-denying love, and to there being a blessedness in such a death beyond what there is in any earthly life, which testimony is truly the spirit of Jesus.

The reception and interpretation which the Jews gave to the outward manifestation of the Word, when they would have made Jesus a king, to deliver them from the power of the Romans, exactly correspond to this reception and interpretation which the inward word meets with in the hearts of men. And as we do not the less on account of the Jewish misinterpretation of him, judge Jesus to have been the true Messiah, so neither let us allow the vain imaginations with which men have mixed up God's testimony within

them, to lead us to deny God the glory of having placed in every heart that true light which is the gift of righteousness abounding unto the many, and becoming eternal life in those who will accept it.

In accordance with all this, it appears to me, that the difference between the law and the gospel consists more in man's reception and interpretation of God's communications, than in any real difference between the communications themselves. And if any one objects that this view of the subject is derogatory from the gospel, and should support his objection by saying, that the law declares death as the wages of sin, whilst the gospel declares life, as the gift of God through Jesus Christ-I would answer, that the gospel declares death as much as the law does, only that along with death it declares a love of God which uses death as the way to, and the preparation for, eternal life-for it declares the death of Jesus as the way by which the Father's love led Him to His own right hand-and now it proclaims the same way to us, saying, "If ye die with Him, ye shall live with him; if ye suffer with Him, ye shall reign with Him."

A man is in the state of law so long as he