inducements. This may be thought by some a priori reasoning, and not inductive. But we have a right to use this argument, if we have ascertained a fact, which is implied in the supposition of a revelation from God to men. Need any thing more be added, to show that the implication is all contained in the fact of a revelation to mind? Would not the idea of a revelation to men, incapable of understand ing, feeling, or acting, be absurd? Nothing can be more plain. Now if the facts, that men are capable of knowing, feeling, and acting, are proved by this general argument, the only remaining step in the argument is to show that the facts prove the mind to have these distinct faculties. This we think is plain without any further illustration.

But it may be important to examine the manner in which these faculties are recognised in the documents of revelation. We wish to proceed on sure ground, and ascertain the truth as it is contained in the sacred pages; also to learn as definitely as practicable, the correspondence of facts in philosophy with those of revelation.

When we look into the sacred documents, to ascertain what is said, which expresses or implies the faculties or capabilities of mind, we shall find the passages so full and numerous, that a selection will be difficult. We request, therefore, the reader, after he shall attend to the examples which we shall adduce, to bear this thought in mind while reading the Bible, that he may be able to test its correctness.

Take now the faculty of understanding, and inquire, what saith the Scriptures on this subject? Here we have all those passages and expressions which ascribe knowledge to men-all those which command them to acquire knowledge all those which reproach them for neglecting its acquisition Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

all those which describe or furnish the means of teaching men intelligence, which, it will be readily perceived, are very numerous; and all of them necessarily imply a capacity for knowing. This is what we mean, and what we have explained, as the faculty of understanding. Here let it be asked and the question pondered well, if men have no faculty of knowing, why should they be taught? Why else should God, their Maker, teach them?

We are well aware that the terms knowledge, understanding, intelligence, and others which imply them, are variously used in the English translation of the Scriptures, but this will by no means prove that they have no defined meaning. The same remark is true of the Hebrew and Greek words which are translated by these terms. Understanding has several significations in the Bible. Sometimes it means a faculty employed in obtaining knowledge, as Prov. iii. 5. "Lean not unto thine own understanding." Prov.xix. 25. "Reprove one that hath understanding"-also Prov. xxx. 2. "And have not the understanding of a man." Isaiah xxix. 14. "The understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." Luke xxiv. 45. "Then opened he (Christ) their understanding"-and Eph. iv. 18. "Having the understanding darkened." Sometimes it is used for the exercise of the faculty, or the actual process of acquiring knowledge, as 1 Kings vii. 14. "Filled with wisdom and understanding." Ps. cxix. 104. "Through thy precepts I get understanding" Prov. iii. 13. "Happy is the man that getteth understanding." Sometimes it is used for knowledge acquired, as Luke i. 3. "Having had perfect understanding of all things, &c." 1 Cor. i. 19. "and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." It is sometimes used for all the ૩૨

mind's faculties, as Job xx. 3. "The spirit of my understanding causeth me to answer.' Dan. iv. 34. "Mine understanding returned unto me"-and Rom. i. 31. "Without understanding, covenant breakers" and sometimes it is used for true religion, as Col. i. 9. "In all wisdom and spiritual understanding"-and Col. ii. 2. "Unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding." It is entirely clear, that this term must, in some of those instances, be used figuratively; and the question to be decided is, what is its proper meaning? This question must be decided from the common and prevailing use of the word in the Bible, or from its technical signification. As to its technical meaning, we need not say much, since it is perfectly obvious that as a participle, it means apprehending the objects of knowledge, and as a substantive, it means the faculty of mind which apprehends. It is only necessary further to say, what we think every attentive reader will readily perceive, that the most common uses of the term understanding, in the Scriptures, are two, for the faculty, and its exercise in the acquisition of knowledge. Now from this obvious fact, which corresponds with the technical meaning of the substantive and participle, it is fair and conclusive to affirm, that the scriptural uses of the term designate the mental faculty as its proper meaning, and the exercise of that faculty as its secondary meaning. But if any one should insist that the mental exercise is the proper signification of the term, we shall still be brought to the conclusion that there is a faculty so called in the Scripture, and that it is so denominated from the character of its exercises. This will vary but little the result, although it accords not in our estimation with the accustomed use of language, or the common style of the Scriptures.

If it were at all necessary to record in this article the process and result of a critical examination into the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words translated by the term understanding, we would give the analysis of the words and phrases, together with the various uses of the words, which would bring us to the same conclusion stated above. But of this there can be no necessity, except for a specimen and a few references. The case is so exceedingly plain, that every candid mind will perceive and admit its truth. The principal Hebrew word used for understanding is v2, which radically as a verb in Kal, signifies to distinguish, to discern, to understand. When it is used as a substantive, it means understanding, discernment, knowledge. Let any one, capable of examining those passages in the original, which we have already quoted from the Old Testament, investigate their meaning, and he will not fail to recognise the truth and full force of what we have asserted. By recurring to Taylor's Hebrew Concordance, it will be seen that this word is used as a substantive more than eighty times in the Old Testament, with many dif ferent shades of meaning. Sometimes it indicates knowledge simply, sometimes wisdom, as in Psalm cxxxvi. 5, and Prov. xxiii. 4. Sometimes it means true religion, as in Prov. ii. 3; iii. 13; iv. 1, 5, 7; but in many of the uses it plainly indicates the intellectual power or faculty; and in every one of the whole, such a faculty is necessarily implied. The conclusion may therefore be stated thus; the revelation of God teaches that man has a faculty, which we call understanding, distinct from all other faculties, and distinct from all mental exercises. The plain construction of both languages, [Hebrew and English] conveys this truth in multitudes of passages,

and every use of the term necessarily implies the fact.

If we now examine the Greek of the New Testament, the result will be the same. The words principally used for the intellectual faculty are, vous, vonua, diavora and συνεσις. Of these, vous is used more frequently than the others, it being found twenty-four times in the New Testament. The four following passages have the meaning restricted to the faculty of knowing. Luke xxiv. 45. Rom. xiv. 5. Apocalypse xiii. 18; xvii. 9. All the rest necessarily imply the same fact. The word vonua, is read but six times in the New Testament, but it is used distinctively in Phil. iv. 7, for the understanding of those who are kept. Arava is read thirteeen times, and used distinctively in Eph. i. 18-iv. 18. Heb. viii. 10-xx. 16. 1 John v. 20. Συνεσις is found in the Greek Testament only seven times. In Luke ii. 47, and 1 Cor. i. 19; it may be understood of the faculty, or if it be not necessarily so understood it must imply the philosophical fact. Our limits would not allow us to give the exegetical analysis of these and several other Greek words, which are used to denote either the faculty or its exercises and acquirements. We only refer to the passages and the principles which must lead to the true result. They have led us to the result stated above, viz. that the revelation of God recognises and confirms the truth of philosophy. Throughout the Bible, God has treated men as possessing a faculty of knowing his communications to them. On this topic there is an accumulation of evidence and argument perfectly exhaustless. Every man who examines, will find it as clear and forcible as it is abundant.

We now inquire what the Scriptures teach concerning the faculty which we call heart.

The term heart is doubtless used

in several senses in the holy scriptures, to a few of which we shall advert, but it will be our main object here, and entirely sufficient, to show that it is often used to denote a faculty of mind, and in such a manner that it cannot with any propriety be applied to any thing else, except a faculty of feeling. If this be shown it will establish the philosophical fact, and we think, prove all other uses of the term to be subordinate and secondary to this.

In the Hebrew scriptures the principal word for heart is a. There are, it is true, several words occasionally used to express the same idea in some of its relations, but they need not be here examined. The radical meaning of 1, seems to be applied to the physical heart, or muscular organ, and so applied on account of its vibratory motion, or pulsation. The abstract meaning, therefore, would be vibratory motion, but it is never used in the Hebrew scriptures abstractly.Heart, therefore, being its radical meaning, as used in the bible, it is proper to observe that it is applied to several other things secondarily, or figuratively. From the position of that physical organ in the midst of the body, the word is applied to the middle of heaven, Deut. iv. 11.-to the midst of the sea, Prov. xxiii. 34., Jonah, ii. 3. It is often applied to the mind, and sometimes includes its every faculty, action, passion, disposition, and affection. So it is used, Gen. viii. 21, and many other passages. It will be obvious to every reader of the Hebrew scriptures, that the word is more frequently applied to the mind, its faculties and affections, than to any and all other things. While, therefore, it is true, that the Hebrew language describes the motions and passions of the mind by the effects which they produce upon the body, it is also true that all the descriptions involve some mental faculty of feel

"The

ing or of being affected. To ascertain the distinctive character of this faculty, is our present object. Take the following as a specimen of very many passages in which the word occurs distinctively, Ps. xix. 9. "The statutes of the Lord are right rejoicing the (5) heart." Ps. xxxiv. 19. "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken (1) heart." Ps. ci. 5.-"him that hath an high look and a proud (1) heart will not I suffer.' Prov. xiv. 13. "Even in laughter the (5) heart is sorrowful." Prov. xv. 15. "He that is of a merry (1) heart hath a continual feast." Isah. xxx. 29. "Ye shall have-gladness of (a) heart." Isah. xliv. 20. "A deceived (1) heart hath turned him aside.' Jer. xvii. 9. (n) heart is deceitful above all things." Ezek. xi. 19. "I will take the stony (1) heart out of their flesh." Ezek. xviii. 31.-" and make you a new (4) heart." Nahum ii. 11.-"and the (1) heart melteth." These are sufficient to show that the Hebrew word for heart is used for that which feels joy, contrition, pride, sorrow, and gladness; and is deceived, deceitful, and hard, or melts. All those definite and limiting expressions indicate the faculty of feeling in distinction from understanding, or the faculty which knows. With the exception of deceiver and deceitful, none of them could be applied to understanding without violating all propriety of language: nothing except a faculty of feeling can agree with the appropriate meaning of those terms. Let any man substitute faculty of feeling for heart in the above cited passages of the English translation, and the sense will not be altered.

Let the inquiry be pursued in the New Testament, and learn its result. The examination of a single Greek word (xapdia) will be sufficient for our present purpose, although some other words are used to indicate the same thing.

Kagdia is frequently used by all the New Testament writers, and in various senses. The different shades of meaning in the use of this word will be found to correspond with those already mentioned, as indicated by the Hebrew (7) and with the uses of the English word heart. It is not found at all in the New Testament, however indicating the muscular organ, whose vibration sends the blood through the arteries, and receives it through the veins, but this is undoubtedly the radical meaning of the word, being derived from a verb which signifies to pour out. It is used for the middle of the earth in Matth. xii. 40. But what concerns the present discussion is the distinctive use of nagdia for the faculty of feeling, from which all the affections proceed, and which is the source of moral character. Take the few passages which follow to illustrate our meaning. In Mark vi. 52, we read "their heart (xagdia) was hardened." chap. x. 5. "For the hardness of your heart (xango-xagdiar) (σκληρο-καρδιας) he wrote you this precept;" and the same sentiment is contained chap. xvi. 14. John xvi. 6, we have the phrase "sorrow hath filled your heart (xagdav), and verse 22, "your heart (xagdia) shall rejoice." also, Acts ii. 26. "Therefore did my heart (xagdia) rejoice," verse 37. "they were pricked in their heart” (xagdia); also xxi. 13," what mean ye to weep and break my heart," (xagdav); Rom. ii. 5, "after thy hardness and impenitent heart (xagdav) treasurest up unto thyself wrath;" ix. 2, "I have great heavi ness and continual sorrow in my heart," (xagdia): and 2 Cor. ii. 4, "For out of much affliction and anguish of heart (xagdias) I wrote unto you." These are a few of many passages in which agdia is used to denote the faculty of feeling, and when it cannot consistently mean any thing else. It is entirely plain that there must be a permanent something, call it fa

culty, or principle, or what we please, which is distinct from understanding, and distinct from all mental exercises. The above associated expressions which limit the application, and define the meaning of heart, cannot be applied to mind in its general signification, without perverting the intention of the Spirit; and they would make nonsense if applied to understanding, or to any mental exercise. It would express neither sense nor truth, to speak of a hard or pained understanding: and it would be still more absurd to speak of sorrow filling their exercise, or of being pricked in their exercise. If there be any distinction in language, between things and the motions of things; there must be in the language of the bible distinctions between faculties and their exercises. Can any one, who believes the divine origin of the scriptures, entertain the absurdity of ascribing to the Holy Ghost such instruction as this phraseology would convey, a deceived, hard, and pained exercise, desires of the exercise, &c. Nothing can be more inconsistent than such a supposition with the language of the bible. Enough has been intimated on this subject. Every man, who examines the scriptures for himself, whose mind is not governed by prejudice, and whose opinions and exercises are not guided by speculative theories, will perceive that the New Testament most clearly recognises the existence of a distinct faculty of feeling denominated the heart.

As we enter on the inquiry which respects the will, it may be proper to state the philosophical doctrine contained in our essays, that it may be distinctly compared with the scriptural instruction. The doctrine is this, the will is a distinct faculty of choosing, and is always governed by the pleasure of the

heart.

examination here, because the subject will again recur in a subsequent article. We have now room only to say some general things on this part of the subject.

It is obvious that the terms for will in the Hebrew, Greek, and English scriptures are used in various senses. As a matter of interpretation it is important to distinguish those meanings. Sometimes the meaning will be found to be equivalent to command, sometimes to express desire, at other times volition, and often the faculty of choosing. If it shall be found on examination, that in some instances, the latter is its meaning, the doctrine will be established, and it must have an important bearing on some speculations which are disturbing the church at the present day. On the right interpretation of those passages, which contain the recognition of the human will depends the settlement of many controversies which have often disturbed the peace of the church. We deem it, therefore, of great importance, at the present day, to examine this subject with great care. This we propose to do in our next article.

In the mean time, let those who take any interest in this discussion, apply some of the suggestions, relative to the discriminating use of the terms heart and understanding, to the scriptural use of the term will. A few experiments in substituting the phraseology involving the doctrine which we have stated for will, cannot fail to convince them that any other meaning would be inadmissible in many instances. Let them substitute heart for will, in those passages where faculty or principle is intended, and the sense will be much perverted or destroyed..

We are aware that the distinc