ble, that he may have generously consented to bear what was deserved by some one, whom he affectionately loves, and who is less able than he, to endure the merited chastisement. But I am assured that this too is not the fact. I feel perplexed, and the proceeding is to me the more unaccountable, because I know the father to be eminently affectionate, wise, and prudent. The explanation, at last, is given. The father designs this as a display of his deep abhorrence of profane and licentious conduct. He intends to make manifest to all around, by this severity, that he feels an irreconcilable detestation of such conduct. Now, while I admire the design, I cannot but think that the means are very strange and irrelevant; and that special kindness to his son, and express disapprobation of the guilty, would have exhibited his state of feeling more intelligibly, and with more monitory effect.

In this view of the sufferings of Christ, there is a departure from justice, incomparably wider than in his sufferings regarded as strictly vicarious.

2. The same thing is true as respects the justification of those who believe. A sinner who has in ten thousand instances violated the law, and never perfectly obeyed it in any instance, is not only pardoned, but justified, and entitled to eternal glory. "It is, therefore," says one writer, "a real departure from the regular course of justice, and such a departure from it, as leaves the claims of the law on the persons justified, forever unsatisfied." With what propriety, I ask, can this be called justification? It is a case with which justice has nothing to do. God may be gracious in saving sinners, but he is not just nor does he in this view justify any believer in Christ. Justification can take place only on one of two reasons, either per

fect innocence, or the demands of the law being otherwise fully satisfied: neither of which reasons are supposed to exist in this case.

As to the question, which scheme departs farthest from justice? there can be no doubt. The scheme we oppose expressly admits that in the justification of a sinner, justice and law have none of their demands. His sins have not been expiated by the obedience of Christ; he is not made legally righteous. There is in this case a total abandonment of the claims of justice and righteousness: and in contradiction to them, the sinner enjoys not only impunity, but the most exalted rewards of righteous+ ness, even eternal glory. This scheme of abstract atonement it is supposed so accounts for the sal vation of a sinner, as that his "pardon is absolute, and an act of mere grace; and of grace on the part of God the Father, as well as on that of God the Son." But we think, if it be an objection to the grace of the other scheme that it supposes satisfaction made to Divine jus tice, the same objection lies against this scheme also, when fully examined. An atonement, it is admitted, has been made; and that if the salvation of man had not been designed, it would not have been made. But, moreover, it was made with special reference to the sinner's salvation; every sinner is justified in consideration of it, and not until he has acknowledged the wisdom and necessity, and pleaded the benefit of that atonement. Justification, then, in this case, is not in all respects an act of mere grace, but involves a regard to an atonement made, as manifestly as when Christ's death is considered as strictly vicarious.

Farther the justification of sinners, it seems to be thought, is not of grace, if Christ paid for them the demands of the law. Why not? Though it be in its general

character a dispensation of justice, it is to man wholly of grace. There is grace, on God's part, in admitting a substitution, and accepting the sinner on his pleading that vicarious satisfaction. In the plan of redemption, God the Father maintains the rights of the divine government and authority; and I see no objection to the grace of man's salvation, though the Mediator paid the uttermost farthing, whilst the benefits of his mediation are given to man most gratuitously. The divine plan secures a perfect satisfaction to the law. It is a mattter wholly between the glorious persons of the Trinity. And having made a wise and holy adjustment, with a view to the salvation of sinners, they bestow it on man according to the riches of divine grace. The Scripture speaks of grace, not so much with respect to the motives or measures of God's acts in themselves, as in their effect on men. The special application of the effects of atonement, is as much a matter of sovereign pleasure, and distinguishing grace, on the vicarious plan, as on the other. An atonement for sin in general, it is said, leaves it as a matter of sovereign pleasure to whom it shall be applied. True; but God's purpose ascertained to whom this application would be made. This purpose also ordained the death of Christ, and ascertained to whom that application should be made. In either way, the sovereign freedom and grace of salvation is the same. The scheme of abstract atonement, therefore, removes no difficulties alleged to belong to the contrary scheme; but increases them in magnitude and number.

MENTAL SCIENCE.

M.

Radical Principles brought to the test of Revelation. Truth is worthy of being sought, examined, and treasured as pre

cious and imperishable. But it has often been said, no certainty can be gained in mental science. Attainments in this department are only theories, which may or may not be true: these theories are built on mere speculation, contradictory, unsettled, and changing as often as the fashions of the times. Now in sober earnestness, we believe the above representation has more of truth than of caricature or prejudice, in its application to the multiplied theories for explaining mental phenomena which have prevailed for ages. Even since Bacon furnished the key to knowledge, and taught men how to explore the recesses of philosophy, this department has been left mostly in the hands of speculative theorists. It is not now entirely rescued from the mysticism and dogmatism of theoretick speculation; and we fear it is not likely soon to be so rescued. There is ground for strong prejudice, not against the science itself, but against the manner in which multitudes have written and spoken on the subject; and against the unwarranted application of the speculations.

Every man who now undertakes to write or speak on the subject, is met by this prejudice, and will be considered by many judicious and good men as enamoured of deceptive and uncertain speculation. We propose now to disabuse ourselves of such an imputation; and we tl.ink this can be done in two ways

by a fair and candid examination of the method which we have pursued, and which we have called inductive-and secondly, by bringing the radical principles of our articles to the test of divine revelation. If we do not greatly mistake, both these ways will bring us to the same result, and conduct us to the truth.

The first method will ascertain the facts as they exist, together with their character and relations, which must be true. If this method

be properly understood and followed, there can be no doubt of what is fully ascertained. The only difficulty that can be found in this method, occurs in the process of examination. It is confessedly difficult to adhere rigidly and throughout to the inductive method. In a subject so abstracted in its nature from material things, which claim so much of our attention and contribute almost solely to form our habits, an honest mind may mistake some part of the process and substitute theory for fact; this being done in the examination of radical principles, the whole result may be vitiated. For we maintain that facts, truly estimated, constitute the whole science: consequently if some are mistaken or falsely estimated, it will be analogous in the end to the results produced in arithmetical calculations, when a false value is applied to some of the numbers employed. But difficulties are not to be esteemed impossibilities. We think this whole subject may be so examined as to dispel all reasonable doubts, and bring us to a satisfactory conclusion. It has been our object in the preceding articles to examine facts as they are found, without regard to theory. If we have succeeded in our object, it is unnecessary to reconsider the inductive test in this place. We call upon all those who are accustomed to examine their own minds, to bring the radical principles of these essays to the inductive test, and we fearlessly abide the result. If we have made a mistake in any fact, or in the estimation of any fact, we shall be glad to correct it, and ascertain the whole truth. We pass We pass over this method for the present, and proceed to bring the radical principles, which we think sufficiently ascertained for the purpose, to the scriptural test.

We have said, an honest mind may err in the inductive process, therefore, let the principles of our

philosophy be brought to the standard of divine revelation. But even in this process there is a liability to error, against which we should be specially guarded. There is a strong propensity in men to interpret the holy scriptures by theory, and not on philological principles. This method will prove any dogma, however absurd, provided it correspond with the theory. By using a theory which gives a peculiar shade and meaning to all those passages of the scripture which recognise the phenomena and principles of human action, that particular theory will be established, however absurd in itself. Great care should therefore be taken, first to ascertain the meaning of such passages as develope the laws of human action and faculties of mind, from the legitimate rules of interpretation. This difficulty will be readily appreciated by the careful and conscientious interpreter of revelation.

We mention one other ground of liability to err: taking detached portions of the scriptures, without due regard to the scope and intention of the writer, the usus loquendi, and all appropriate methods of ascertaining the mind of the spirit. But if we can ascertain the true meaning and intention of the Holy Spirit, and find the principles and laws of the human mind recognised in the bible, we shall have a sure test by which to estimate any given principles of mental philosophy. We shall endeavour to take such a course in the present examination. In doing this it is not necessary, nor will our limits permit us, to attempt the interpretation of all those portions of the scriptures which refer to the radical principles of mental science, or which may be supposed to recognise the elements of true philosophy. It will at once be perceived that such an extended examination would furnish a volume instead of a brief essay. That on which we intend particularly to insist is,

that all the radical principles of mental philosophy which can stand, must be brought to the test of the scriptures, fairly and philologically interpreted. And while we insist on this, we shall adduce a few examples to illustrate the principle. A few cases, if they be fair specimens, may as truly and satisfactorily prove the doctrine, as to go over the whole ground and attempt to collect all those passages which recognise the facts in this science. Some of those facts are so obviously on the face of the whole bible, that it is scarcely necessary to mention them at all. This is one feature of divine revelation which adapts it so precisely to the wants and condition of men.

We have said that "all the high and holy communications of revelation are made to man, and principally respect his mind. The character of man's immortal spirit is there described; its present obligations are defined, and its future prospects indicated." In the application of this doctrine, we may be sure that the facts, which constitute the basis of all correct mental philosophy, will be found in the infallible revelation. We are not sure that the facts will be found together, and arranged in systematick form. It was not the intention of God's revelation to teach men a system of mental philosophy, but all the facts which are the elements of the science must be directly or incidentally recognized. Were it not so, the document would be imperfect in its adaptation to men's condition, and fail to accomplish the object for which it was given.

We have also said that "all men are governed in their interpretation of many things in the bible, by some principles of mental science, which they have adopted. This is matter of necessity, inasmuch as many directions refer men to their own consciousness of mental phe

nomena." This we still affirm, and therefore insist, that all the radical principles of mental philosophy so employed, in order to be safe, must accord with facts, and be tried by other portions of reve lation, which distinctly recognise the facts as they actually exist. Otherwise theory may be substi tuted for fact, and speculation for dictates of the Holy Ghost. But we need not here pursue this to pick, because we have already stated the doctrine in our remarks on the proper method of investi gating this branch of philosophy. The reader will find those remarks, as they are connected with some other important principles in vol. IX., pages 125 to 131.

We now proceed to the exami nation proposed, which is the prin cipal object of this article. Here it may be proper to collect the ra dical principles of our essays, and state them briefly in connexion, that we may distinctly perceive what are to be examined. So far as will be necessary for our present purpose, the following enumeration will be sufficient.

Mind is a simple, immaterial, spiritual substance, cognizable by its exercises. This mind has three distinct faculties, which we call understanding, heart, and will; and to which we ascribe all mental phe nomena according to their appro priate classification-the doctrine of motive and of ultimate and subordinate objects-the doctrine of freedom and of power-and the doctrine of responsibility.

When this enumeration shall have been brought to the test, and found to correspond with the infallible standard, whatever parts of the system remain will be readily seen and proved.

The radical principle, with which we commence, is, that the human mind is a simple, immaterial, spi ritual substance. If this be not true, the very subject, of all our

investigations has been mistaken; and all our inquiries are worse than lost. If this will not bear the test of revealed truth, we shall have occasion to proceed no fur ther. But on this principle we en counter very little opposition from any believer in divine revelation. The doctrine in its length and breadth, is so conspicuous on the pages of that infallible word, that there is almost an entire agree ment among all who receive the document as inspired. Still, it may be well to examine the alleged principle, and compare it with a few passages selected from a great multitude. If we have proved any thing on this topick, we have as certained that mind is the permanent subject of those numerous and diversified phenomena, of which we are conscious, and which differ in their nature and laws from all that pertains to matter. This permanent spiritual substance we call mind, soul, or spirit. The scriptures, in the common translation, use the same terms, and add one most important item of intelligence concerning its destiny: it is immortal.

The Hebrews employed three terms with great frequency to denote this incorporeal part of man. Those terms, it is true, have various other significations, but it is not possible to doubt, that they are often used for the purpose here alleged. And we consider it unnecessary to attempt any protracted inquiry into the radical meaning of those terms. A few passages containing each of the terms, will be entirely sufficient to furnish an undoubted test in the present case. The first word alluded to above, is, which is employed in Gen. ii. 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." With reference to this He brew word, it may be proper to say

that the sacred writers have used it to denote respiration, a living creature, and the animal economy; but neither of these can be intend ed in application to the soul of Adam. We might cite multitudes of other passages where the imma terial soul of man is intended, but a few will suffice. Take Gen. xxxv. 18. "And it came to pass, as her [that is, Rachel's] soul was in de parting," &c. We know that it has been said this soul intends her breath, but if she had an immortal spirit, it is certainly most natural and most rational to suppose that the historian intended to refer us to its departure. The same term is used in 1 Kings xvii. 21, 22. When Elijah prayed," let this child's soul come into him again;" and the recorded answer to his prayer is the soul of the child came into him again." Can any one doubt that this Hebrew term here refers to the living, immate> rial spirit of the widow's child? We think the circumstances of the history render its meaning exceedly plain. Take one specimen of God's command to Israel, from

Deut. xi. 13-" to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart, and with all your soul." This must mean something in men not corporeal; and if so, it includes all that belongs to their spirit. Take another passage from the prophet Isaiah, chap. Iv. S. "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live." We consider this decisive in its reference to the immortal spirit. We cite only one example more, and that is from Ezek. xviii., 4. "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth it shall die." The testimony of these passages, and of multitudes more, is conclusive that the Hebrews used the term above mentioned to designate an immaterial, spiritual principle in man.