necine war would be far more conducive to their good, whether 
they are called theologians, philosophers, or men of science. 
One of the conditions of such a peace is, that they must agree 
to divide the world of thought in proportion to the rights of the 
respective parties. 
The object of this paper is, to institute an inquiry on what 
terms such a peace is possible ; what are the proper dominions 
which belong to reason and theology ; how the border land 
may be occupied without acts of mutual rapine ; and what are 
the products of each country, which may become the subjects 
of mutual commerce. 
I object to conceding to the opponents of revelation the 
exclusive right to the designation of rationalists. It leads to 
great confusion of thought, and induces numbers to think 
that there is a natural opposition between reason and theology. 
It is a term which is properly applicable to all those inquirers 
after truth who use reason as their instrument of investigation ; 
and besides reason, the human mind has no other instrument 
for investigating truth, whether it prosecutes its inquiries in 
the regions of theology, philosophy, science, or critical inquiry. 
I am deeply sensible that I am surrounded by ambiguities, 
from which it will be difficult to keep clear. Our language 
has not the advantage of the Greek, in having several different 
terms to designate different functions of that principle which 
we call reason. We use the word without definite meaning, 
either in a philosophical or popular sense. Coleridge en- 
deavoured to draw a distinction between the reason and the 
understanding ; others speak of a distinction between reason 
and pure reason; but neither of these has succeeded in 
impressing itself on language. A numerous class of writers 
use the terms reason and faith as though they were mutually 
exclusive of each other. After giving deep consideration to 
the subject, I am unable to recognize the truth of this dis- 
tinction. The only one which I am capable of understanding 
is that wffiich exists between maffis unassisted reason and a 
supernatural illumination imparted to that reason. The 
phenomena which, in common parlance, are designated Ra- 
tionalism, are chiefly characterized by an unlimited use of 
the faculty of conjecture. 
It is obvious that our first inquiry must be, Are there any 
limits to the competency of reason in the discovery of truth, 
understanding by that term the legitimate exercise of all the 
faculties of man in their due subordination ? Do the limita- 
tions of our minds assign bounds beyond which even the com- 
munication of a supernatural revelation is no longer possible, 
owing to conditions imposed on itself by the action of creative 
