granted, and will flow in the stream of logical demonstration, which in itself is at least questionable, and which, whether true or false, should be stated as simple matter of fact, and by no means confounded with those unchangeable truths which would be what they are, though no such being as man existed. This error of method-an inveterate one-is as if a mathematician in calculating (for example) the necessary dimensions of a timber which, being supported at its two extremities, was to sustain a given weight, were, in carrying on the mathematical part of his reasoning, to assume the specific properties of timber as an invariable abstraction; or were either to leave out of the process all consideration of the density, compressibility, and tenacity of oak, ash, fir, elm, &c., or were to take certain facts of this sort upon vulgar report, and blend them with his calculations, without having experimentally informed himself of the physical constitution of the materials in question.

In the scientific procedures of the mechanic arts, the ultimate result, whether it be a building, a bridge, or a machine, usually combines three perfectly distinct and independent series of truths, or classes of causation; namely, 1st, the mathematical relations of extension or number; 2d, the mechanical laws of gravitation, motion, friction, &c.; 3d, the qualities and properties (in part mechanical, in part chemical) of the several materials that are to be employed or wrought upon.

Now these distinct principles or truths must be separately considered; and each in the method proper to itself; and must then be combined

in the single result. It is thus alone that the arch can be made to sustain itself and its intended burden;-that the roof will rest on its plate; that the engine will perform its complicated part; or the simplest implement execute its destined drudgery.*

But owing, in part, to the abstruse nature of the subject, and to its not being susceptible of palpable proof; and, in part, to the unhappy accidents which in every age have beset intellectual philosophy, problems belonging to the science of mind have commonly been attempted to be solved, on the principle of confounding the abstract with the physical. And then if, in addition to this capital error, there have been mingled with the process the jargon of religious factions, and with that, the antagonist dogmas of the enemies of all religion, the smallest probability of attaining a satisfactory result has been removed; and the actual issue of the controversy, instead of going calmly to its place, like the conclusions of physical science, has served only to exacerbate new contentions, either among theologians, or between them and the assailants of Christianity.

In the case, therefore, of our availing ourselves of the reasoning of a writer like President Edwards, it behoves us to take heed that we do justice, at once, to him and to ourselves. To him, by not imputing to him, individually, a blame which belongs in common to all metaphysico-theological writers, of every age-not one perhaps excepted. And to ourselves, by assenting to his argument only so far as it is

* See note B.

to the inexplicable whims of men who abound in learning and leisure.*

Yet let us for a moment contend, as if in serious controversy with the supposition, that such doctrines as the Pyrrhonic or the Stoic; or the modern doctrine of necessity; or if there be yet in the womb of chaos any other dogma of similar quality, that these high principles have a claim to be listened to before men can, with reason or consistency, proceed to transact the business of life, or with propriety give indulgence to certain vulgar emotions.

Now, we should overturn a preposterous pretension of this sort in more ways than one; as, first, we should, by a loose technical argument, procure a relegation of any such controversy from the haunts of real life in this manner. Let it be supposed, that, in due course of law, and after hearing and sifting of evidence, a prisoner at the bar has received sentence of death; but his legal advocate pleads an arrest of judgment, on the ground, we will say, of an error in the arraignment. The court assents to the propriety of this sort of interruption - admits the objection to be formal and pertinentexamines with care the allegation, and finding it valid, allows to the convicted man the benefit of the demurrer. But let it be imagined that

"When the Pyrrhonian awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join in the laugh against himself, and to confess that all his objections are mere amusement, and can have no other tendency than to shew the whimsical condition of mankind, who must act, and reason, and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent inquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections that may be raised against them."-HUME'S Inquiry concerning the Human Understanding, sect. xii. part 2.

the prisoner's legal defender, destitute of any such fit objection, wherewith to protect the life of his client, stands up to impugn the good policy, or the abstract justice, or the morality of the statute under which he has been condemned; or he affirms that this enactment is contrary to the spirit of the constitution, and is in itself an outrage upon unalienable rights. In an argument of this sort, he might happen to have all reason and good principles on his side; and might, if permitted to speak, actually bring judge, jury, and the crowd around, to think with himself. But the court peremptorily excludes any such impertinence, though valid in itself, as utterly improper to the place and occasion; nor for a moment to be listened to, where laws are to be put in force--not repealed or amended.

And yet this very same argument, overruled and rejected in a court of justice, may be carried into the senate, and shall there be respectfully entertained. Senators will hear and weigh reasons which judges repudiate. The ground of this practical procedure is manifest;-every one to his business. In the senate, motives of policy, and legal consistences, and special necessities of state, together with arguments of abstract or universal justice; and even, to some extent, religious considerations, are brought together from all sides, and go to influence the legislative decision. Nevertheless, limits are imposed upon the indulgence given to senatorial argumentation. Were it, for instance, to happen that a legislative body included a mere theorist, or dabbler in philosophy; and were such a one, instead of alleging some of the topics just mentioned, to advance, as a motive

C

for repealing a penal statute, certain doctrines of phrenological science, and were to say, that inasmuch as the murderer and the thief are the pitiable victims of an unhappy cerebral malformation, and in depriving their fellows of life or chattels do but yield to an organic necessity, springing from a certain too-much-bloated inch of brain-therefore, to pursue crime by punishment is only to add cruelty to misfortune;we say, in such a case, the improper argument would be overruled. Or, instead of the phrenologist, let it be supposed that a stanch and consistent disciple of the modern " Philosophy of the Human Mind" announces to his peers the now demonstrated fact, "That virtue and vice are mere relations-absolute nonentities, except just so far as they are thought of and perceived by other minds; and not more real or positive than the most recondite properties of a triangle." Let him thence argue that, to inflict the pains of death upon an unfortunate being, who (in consequence of a volition in itself purely contingent) has given rise to the existence of some such relative notion in the minds of other men, would be an inhumanity, equally barbarous and unscientific.

Or, to come nearer to our subject, we may imagine some such speculative senator to oppose a penal enactment, on the ground of philosophical fatalism, averring that, as "all things are as they must be," human responsibility is a

*Brown's Lectures, 73 and 74, especially pp. 595 and 596, vol. iii. Brown must not, however, be confounded with the enemies of religion and virtue. But his preposterous theory of morals affords striking illustration of the assertion, That intellectual philosophy is yet in its infancy.