to meet the ignorant pedantry of this attempt, is to make distinction between such a scripture-criticism as that which accomplished the English translation of our Bible, and that very best and highest scripture-criticism, which, if brought to bear on this our own popular version, might confer on it the utmost improvement or rectification of which it is susceptible. The one might be termed the ordinary scripture-criticism of which we enjoy the benefit in our own land, the other, the transcendental scripture-criticism, most cultivated in Germany while comparatively unknown among ourselves. Now what we affirm is that the ordinary scripture-criticism brings the whole substance of theology within our reach; and that in our authorized version, the product of that scripture criticism, not only are all the articles of theology accurately rendered; but that every article of the least importance, whether estimated practically or scientifically, is therein to be found. And it further admits, we think, of sound and impregnable demonstration that it lies not within the power of the transcendental scripture-criticism either to change or to undermine this theology. It might make certain infinitesimal additions to our former knowledge, in things minute and circumstantial, and by all means let us have these; but we utterly mistake and overrate its powers, when we think that, by its means we shall ever be able either to make any material additions by which to enlarge, or any material alterations by which to transform discussing the subjects of Scripture Criticism and Systematic Theology-a discussion that we must now postpone to a future volume of the series. the system of doctrine, that, with slight variations, has been espoused by all the reformed churches of Christendom. It might defend the faith; but it will not enlarge the faith. As an instrument of defence it is most valuable; but as an instrument of discovery it is a microscope, and not a telescope -dealing in things that are minute, but not in things that are momentous. There are certain nugæ difficiles which it can master, certain scriptural enigmas which it can resolve, certain éclaircissemens which we should like it to prosecute to the uttermost. But as to the capita fidei, as to all the moralities of the Christian practice, or all the heads and articles of the Christian faith, it can make no additions to these, it can make no changes on these. It is powerful as a protector of the great truths we have; but not as a discoverer of more-as a shield to our existing orthodoxy, but not as an architect by which either to take it down, or to substitute another orthodoxy in its place. We are not refusing its pretensios to a very high place in our schemes of ecclesiasti cal education; for by its means, we repel the inroads of heresy, and raise a bulwark to the faith. But we utterly refuse the mischievous pretensions. which have been made for it, to amend, or to alter, or even to subvert that faith. They who put forth such extravagant pretensions wholly misunderstand the instrumentality and the functions, not of the ordinary, but of the superlative scripture criticism; and this attempt to injure and to unsettle, by means of the science of scripture-criticism, is of a piece with the attempts to turn to the same unhallowed purpose all the other sciences. CONTENTS. CHAP. I. On the Distinction between the Moral and Mental Philosophy, IX. On the Duties of Perfect and Imperfect Obligation, 365 X. On Diversities of Statement, in regard to the 396 CHAPTER I. On the Distinction between the Moral and Mental Philosophy. 1. THE two terms Moral and Mental are often held as synonymous with each other. In its primitive and right meaning, Moral stands opposed to vicious or immoral, and so is tantamount to the virtuous or good in character. In its later meaning, it stands contrasted with Material; and thus by the moral world, we are made to understand the world of minds-and so Moral Science is equivalent to Mental Science, or that Philosophy, the object of which is to assign the laws and properties of the substance Mind, in contradistinction to that other Philosophy, which, comprehensive of many sciences, assigns the laws and properties of the substance Matter. It is thus that Moral Philosophy has greatly widened, of late, the field of its topics and inquiries; and, instead of being what it wont, a manageable and well-defined science, has become a medley of incongruous subjects-charging itself with a sort of mastery or control over all the sciences; and, on the principle perhaps, that, in virtue of the cognizance which it takes of mind, |