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 ele ments 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 revelation, which distinctly recognise the facts as they actually exist. Otherwise theory may be substituted for fact, and speculation for dictates of the Holy Ghost. But we need not here pursue this topick, because we have already stated the doctrine in our remarks on the proper method of investigating 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 examination proposed, which is the principal object of this article. Here it may be proper to collect the radical 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 phenomena according to their appropriate 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, spiritual 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 further. But on this principle we encounter 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 agreement 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 ascertained 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 Hebrew 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 intended in application to the soul of Adam. We might cite multitudes of other passages where the immaterial 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 departing," &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, immaterial 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. 3. "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.

The next Hebrew word above alluded to, is, which primarily signifies breath, but is applied in its secondary meaning to the incorporeal spirit. Job asks, chap. xxvi. 4-" Whose spirit came from thee?" It is a question which Job puts to Bildad, in the cutting reply which he makes to the allegations of his friend. Solomon has used the same term, Prov. xx. 27, with application to the soul of man; "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord." But there is a passage in Isah. Ivii. 16, which is very decisive. "For I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." This solemn declaration of Jehovah concerning the souls which he had made, must have reference to the incorporeal spirit, and decides the meaning of the term as here used. It can have no other application consistent with the scope and design of the preceding and subsequent verses.

The remaining Hebrew word is which has nearly the same signification as the first, and is translated breath, wind, air, and spirit. It is very often used to denote the immaterial soul of man. We cite a few of the many. The prayer of Moses and Aaron is worthy of notice, Num. xvi. 22. "And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation." Moses used the same form of expression," God of the spirits of all flesh," as is recorded in Num. xxvii. 16. In the thirty-first Psalm, verse 5, we have the words of David, "into thine hand I commit my spirit." To the same purpose is the sentiment of Solomon, Eccl. xii. 7"The spirit shall return unto God who gave it." In the prophecy of Ezekiel, chap. xi. 5-" Thus saith the Lord-I know the things that come into your mind, every one of

them." Evidently this mind is the spirit of man recognised in the other passages by the same Hebrew word, and which in Zach. xii. 1, it is said, "the Lord, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." These passages are sufficient to show a prevalent meaning in the use of those terms in the Old Testament a meaning which need not be mistaken, and which cannot, without violence to the plain import, be applied to any thing else than the immaterial soul of man. Can any man read attentively these and hundreds of other similar passages, without perceiving that such a spirit is ascribed to man, and that it constitutes by far the noblest part of his being? We think not. But we have yet to examine some passages of the New Testament, where we find the same principles recognised.

The Greeks used several terms to designate this immortal and incorporeal principle. More commonly two are used in the New Testament, viz. veμa and Yuxu, but vous and diavola are sometimes used. These words are not invariably used in the same sense, nor are they precisely synonymous in their meaning. What we affirm is, that the sacred writers have used all these terms to denote the same thing. We have not room to discuss the various meanings of πνευμα, nor is it necessary, since the principle which we allege is so conspicuous throughout the New Testament. It is doubtless true, that πνευμα, like the Hebrew word for which it is used in the Septuagint, means breath, air, and wind. But it

may be doubted whether the New Testament writers ever use it for wind. It is rendered wind in but a single passage, John iii. 8, and the correctness of that translation is questionable. However that may be, it is perfectly certain that the

New Testament writers applied this word to something belonging to man, and something distinct from the body which it inhabits. It was this TV which Jesus yielded up and commended to the hands of his Father, Luke xxiii. 46. It was the same which the martyr Stephen besought the Lord Jesus to receive, Acts vii. 59. It is the same which knows the things of man, as stated in Paul's interrogatory to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. ii. 11. It is that in which we are commanded to glorify God as well as our bodies, 1 Cor. vi. 20. It is the same which is described as completing the first man Adam, 1 Cor. xv. 45. But quotations might be extended to very great length. All the New Testament writers use this term for an immaterial and immortal soul,

The other word, vxn, is frequently used by the same writers in the same sense as vevμa, but is more commonly applied to life. We had marked seven or eight different shades of meaning, in the one hundred and four times which it occurs in the New Testament. But it would extend this article to unreasonable length to give them here. We cite a few passages to show one of its common meanings, Matth. x. 28-" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; bat rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." To the same purpose as it respects the meaning of Vuxn, is Matth. xvi. 26. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul; or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul." See also in Luke xii. 20-"This night thy soul shall be required of thee." In Acts xiv. 2, mind is used in the translation-" But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and made their minds evil-affected against the brethren." See also Phil. i. 27, and Heb. xii. 3. In Heb. x. 39, it is said Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

of believers, we are "of them that believe to the saving of the soul." In James v. 20-"he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death.” We mention but one passage more, found in the first epistle of Pet. iv. 19. "Wherefore, let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing as unto a faithful Creator." An examination of these passages, to say nothing of many others which occur, are sufficient, not only to show a common meaning of the term, but to prove the doctrine, so fully ascertained from the Old Testament, of a spiritual existence, antecedent to all its acts, and distinct from its exercises.

For the Greek words vous and diavola which are sometimes figuratively used for mind or soul, we refer the reader to some of the passages where they may be found. Rom. i. 28, also vii. 23 and xii. 2; Eph. iv. 17, 23; 1 Tim. vi. 5, and 2 Tim. iii. 8. In these passages, if we mistake not, vous will be found to indicate man's immaterial soul. The following passages may furnish a specimen of the same meaning attached to the use of diavola, Eph. ii. 3" fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind," Col. i. 21"Alienated and enemies in your mind." See also Heb. viii. 10, also x. 16; 1 Pet. i. 13; 2 Pet. iii. 1. To all these many other passages both from the Old and New Testament might be added, which teach in plain terms that man has a soul or mind incorporeal, a simple, spiritual substance. This is a first principle in our philosophy, and which bears the test of divine revelation. We have spent more time on this topic, than was perhaps necessary to prove the truth of the doctrine. But as it lies at the foundation, it seemed proper to give a somewhat connected view of the revealed fact.

The next radical principle to be 2 K

examined is, that the mind possesses three distinct faculties, which we call understanding, heart, and will,

But this, with the other principles, will constitute the subject of a future number. F.

REVIEW OF SCOTT'S THIRd volume.

Concluded from page 231.

We proceed to offer some concluding reflections, and they shall be brief, on particular points in the character and theology of Calvin. We of course allude to his doctrines relating to the predestination and election of Almighty God. These are the chief grounds of odium against his theology, for which we at once frankly avow that some cause was given. He carried his metaphysical deductions from Scripture beyond the statements of the inspired oracles; he employed the word reprobate in a sense in which it does not occur in the Bible; he alluded too frequently to the secret will and purposes of God, and spoke of men in that point of view so as sometimes to seem to contradict the general tenor of Scripture, and the universal practice of the inspired teachers; and he framed too boldly a system, which was drawn, as he conceived, from Scripture principles, but certainly not found explicitly in the sacred volume.

The consequence of this admixture of over-statement was, that a controversial air was given to Protestantism; that the Lutheran churches were by degrees cooled in their communion with those of Switzerland, and the separation occasioned by the Sacramental question was widened. And, what is worse, the first encouragement was given to all those subsequent systems and courses of preaching, which, going far beyond Calvin, and omitting the sound and practical views, which, in his theology,

corrected his opinions on predestination-paved the way for the Calvanistick controversy, and for that decline in vital religion and really Scriptural truth which overstatements invariably occasion. Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, cold-hearted orthodoxy without spiritual life, and the acerbity of theological debate throughout the Reformed churches, were in no small measure the consequences of Calvin's incautious language.

But after this admission, let it still be remembered, that his doctrines upon the deep and difficult subject of the Divine purposes, were, upon the whole, no peculiarities of his; that they were not his main subject; and that on nearly all the additional points which have been called Calvanism in later times, he took the opposite side to that which his supposed followers occupied. We will briefly corroborate these statements.

With regard to the first, it is remarkable, as Mr. Scott justly observes, that we pass through more than half of the twenty-eight years of Calvin's ministry without even hearing of the question of predestination. His sentiments were before the world on that subject, and he never varied respecting it; but no controversy arose upon it among Protestants. Calvin, though he reduced the tenets he held on this head to a more regular system, and sometimes carried them, as have remarked, to a faulty excess, yet invented none: he has said nothing which St. Augustine had not said eleven hundred years before he was born. And what is more important, he rather softened

wę