mena essentially different. For example, we know, let all the exercises whose nature is knowledge, form one class-we feel, let all the phenomena of feeling constitute another class-and we will, let all those exercises whose nature is choosing or refusing, that is will ing, be disposed in another distinct class. This is the general, and we think only correct, principle of classification; except there may be sub-classes, disposed according to the relations, combinations, or circumstance of phenoinena, having the same nature. But in this sub-classification, the whole nomenclature might be exhausted to name the classes. We trust it will be evident, that the general principle of classification is sufficient for our guidance in mental analysis; although we may some times have occasion to make a secondary class, the principle and reason of which will hereafter be explained.

According to the general prin ciple of classification, we denominate the faculties of the mind. Let us be understood in our use of the term faculty. We mean what is sometimes called capacity, property, preparedness, or adaptedness; something antecedent to the exercise which developes its character. The faculties of the mind are the simple elements of mental science, and somewhat difficult logically to define. We may use other terms to express the same simple ideas; but that will not furnish logical definitions. We may also guard our meaning, by dissociating such things as others might be liable to suppose belonged to our intention. The latter may be important. We do not mean by faculty, a distinct agent, as if the mind were a habitation of different agents; nor do we mean parts of the mind, as if it were divisible like matter. The mind is one indivisible agent, capable of knowing, feeling and will ing. This capability is what we

mean by faculty; and the distinc tion to which we have already alluded is obvious, that the capability of knowing is not identically the capability of feeling, or of willing. They all belong to one agent, but differ as much as the essential character of the phenomena which they exhibit. Without supposing any analogy in the things themselves, the illustration is appropriate which we take from the process of thought, in associating and dissociating the properties of matter. The process is similar. Take the following example. Gold has colour, weight, malleability, &c.; but we ascribe not the phenomena belonging to one property, to any other, yet we ascribe them all to the one mass, and to its every particle. So we ascribe to that one indivisible essence, which we call mind, all mental phenomena, but to each faculty its appropriate character and exercise, and not the same to another faculty, or to all indiscriminately.

Faculty is an inherent and inseparable property of the human mind, which has its own peculiar character, and all the faculties belong to the mind. We ascertain the character of each faculty by its appropriate phenomena. The faculties are the real basis of classification in all mental phenomena, because each faculty exhibits its own peculiar character, in its own exercises. But we must pursue the inductive method,-learn first the character of the phenomena, then by them the character of the faculty to which they belong. When, therefore, all the phenomena are classed, and the character of each faculty ascertained, their whole estimate indicates the character of the mind. Thus it will be perceived there are three stages in the process of this examinationthe first is the character and classification of the phenomena-second, the character of each faculty,

third, the character of mind.

Now if we were conscious of that spiritual essence itself, and could take cognizance directly of its character and properties, this process would be unnecessary. We should then know, with certainty, all the mind's properties and principles of action, and precisely how it would act in all supposable circumstances. This would be knowing the mind in some measure as God knows it. Possibly this may be one thing included in the apostle's assurance of knowledge, when that which is in part shall be done away" then shall I know even as I am known." But such knowledge, and such method of acquiring knowledge, are denied to us in our present state. We must now examine facts as they come under our cognizance, and by slow degrees learn their character and reTations, to acquire a useful and practical knowledge, even of ourselves.

It has been said that faculties and exercises of mind are only different states, in which the mind exists. This may be true or it may be false, just as it is understood. The term state is so indefinite as to furnish a cover for almost any conceivable associations of thought; and yet the acute metaphysician, Payne, who uses the phraseology, may have had an entirely correct view of the facts. The term may mean condition, modification, relation, quality, or character. It is true that qualities belong to substances, and have not a separate existence; so actions are evanescent, and cannot exist without an agent; but the agent and action are not the same thing. Connected with mind, action has existence, quality, mode, relation and character, not independently, but as expressive of mind. As objects of consciousness, therefore, mental actions, thoughts and emotions, have real existence, and are not mind, nor its condition, but indices of its character. We may as well speak of the state of mental affec

tions, thoughts and volitions, or of the faculties, as to speak of the state of mind: in all we might speak truth. If the phraseology be intended merely as a caution against considering mental phenomena material, it is very well, nothing is lost by the word state; but if it mean any thing more, it may not be so harmless. It adds nothing to the definiteness of thought or expression. The mind in action, is just as definite as mind in a state of action-the mind feeling, as in a state of feeling-the mind willing, as in a state of volition. Still we admit that the state of the mind is ascertained by the phenomena, but they are not the same; and we have an objection to use a term differently from its proper significance, and without gaining any thing in the definiteness sought, especially when the term is intended to denote any important distinction.

In order to be the better understood, we state here the result of our general classification, so far as the names of the faculties are concerned, before we give the process and application of the principle in detail. The general faculties are three, understanding, or faculty of knowing; heart, or faculty of feeling; will, or faculty of volition.

Having disposed of three inquiries, namely, concerning the mind itself, the meaning of faculty, and the principle of classing mental phenomena, it will be convenient to close this article with some general remarks, on the application of our principle in distinguishing mental operations. We call it our principle, not because we claim to have discovered it, but because we adopt and use it. Indeed we affect no originality in these discussions; and our main object is to simplify the application and use of known principles.

In applying the principle of classification, it is obviously the first step to examine carefully the sha

racter of the phenomena. To do this successfully, we must examine each exercise distinctly, and compare it with others, that we may avoid mistaking the character, and shun confusion in the arrangement. After all, it must be confessed, there is a difficulty in the process. It is difficult to apply the principle to thoughts which are evanescent, feelings which are transient, and volitions which are momentary. We cannot lay them by in some repository, and examine them at our leisure, as we analyze material substances in the laboratory of the chemist. We must take cognizance of them as they pass in instantaneous succession, and if we continue the examination, recollection must furnish the subject.

But there is less difficulty in applying this principle of classification, than any other which we have seen, or of which we can form any conception. If relations and circumstances are to form the rule of classification, we cannot reduce them to form, or complete the work of distribution. If we take the objects of thought, feeling, and volition, as the basis of classing mental phenomena, there will be as little prospect of relief and success. On this principle, our classification must be confused, and our labour interminable. It is not at all wonderful that philosophers, who have attempted classification on the principle of relations, or of objects, have uniformly failed of success, both in distinctness and completion. All variety in circumstance, complexity, or objects, would, in such a case, indicate a different state of mind. What, therefore, becomes of the principle of distribution? It becomes a mere arbitrary name of resemblance, or else there will be no limit to the number of classes. But if resemblance, or difference, in the nature of exercises, be the principle of classification, we have some prospect of cognizable distinction, and the completion of our labour. Re

PRACTICAL METHODISM. (Continued from p. 25.) To the Editor of the Christian Advocate. Rev. and dear Sir,

In the present paper, I shall confine myself to some general remarks on the effects of Methodism on the church, and on the world.

By way of preliminary, I would state,that I am very far from depreciating the good the Methodists are accomplishing all around us. I do, yea, and will rejoice, that through their zeal and activity, the lamp of the gospel is carried to many sitting in the regions of darkness. In the wild wastes, and new settlements of our country, as well as in foreign lands, they are accomplishing much, which without them, would probably remain undone. But yet, in several respects, I think the effects of their influence are very much to be deplored. And

1. As it regards the church. Here the first obvious effect of their influence, is in lowering the stand

ard of qualification for the Christian ministry. All history bears its mournful testimony to the deplorable effects of an unqualified ministry. Incompetent teachers of religion, have ever been the scourge of the church, the abettors of error -the tools of wily ecclesiasticks and politicians, and at once the victims and supporters of superstition and fanaticism. Need I refer the readers of the Advocate, to the evidence which proves these allegations? It is written in sunbeams on the pages of every ecclesiastical and civil historian. And in the face of all this light and evidence, the Methodists, as a body, are the stern advocates of an untaught ministry. Throughout the country, we see them elevating men to the dignity of ambassadors of Christ, utterly unprepared to discharge correctly, a single duty of the sacred function. And if report speaks the truth, in the south and west it is no uncommon thing to hear them commence their sermons, by thanking God that they were not "man made ministers," that they did not preach with the enticing words of "human larnin." To the ignorance of their clergy, as a primary cause, we may trace nearly all the conduct on which strictures have been made, in my preceding papers. And I am sorry to state, that the influence of Methodist example in this respect, is felt and seen in other branches of the church of Christ. Influenced by motives not altogether justifiable, they admit young men to the holy calling, before they have passed through a tythe of the necessary preparation. This is one of the signs of the times that makes me tremble, like Eli, for the ark of God. If ever the church sinks again into the darkness from which she was freed by the reformation, it must be for the want of an intelligent ministry. And if ever she becomes the joy of the whole earth, diffusing her saving light from pole to pole, and

" from the rivers to the end of the earth," it must be, under God, to the influence of a pious, devoted, talented, well-informed ministry. And the influence exerted by the Methodists in advocating an illiterate ministry, and in slandering the learning and talents of their more enlightened neighbours, will, in its ultimate results, be found sufficient to counterbalance a large proportion of the good they are effecting.

Another of their evil effects upon the church is, the little value they place upon Christian instruction. Their system is mainly formed with a reference to the passions. Their preaching, praying, classes, campmeetings, and love-feasts, are all conducted so as to affect the passions. As respects instruction, a moral famine pervades every thing they do. This might be expected from the character of a large majority of their clergy. The time was, when the labouring oar of ministerial duty, was the instruction of the rising and risen generation; when none were admitted to the church, without a knowledge of its doctrines and duties, without being able to give a reason for the hope which they professed. That was the golden age of the church, which produced the Erskines and Owens; the Henrys and Baxters; the Charnocks and Howes. But it would seem as if that time were passing away. Certain it is that what these great luminaries considered a necessary course of instruction for admission to Christian privileges, is by the Methodists, in a great measure neglected. A person professes conversion to-day, and is admitted to the communion to-morrow. And thus the church is filled with ignorant members; ignorant of the Bible, and in a very lamentable degree, of the plan of salvation. Were it not for their reigning desire to make members, they would probably, to some extent at least, pursue a different plan; but as it is, the course which they pursue is