proceeds to detail at considerable length the first and progressive attempts towards the formation of a literature for them. The first attempts to teach them to read were made at Paris, in 1784, but were unsuccessful, owing to the letters being made of the ordinary form, which made it necessary that they should be very large, and to their retaining of the capital as well as the small letters, which doubled the difficulty of learning to read. These causes conspired to repress the first attempts to teach reading to the blind and provide books for them; and no additional attempts were again made until about 1826. To the author, the benevolent public, and especially the blind themselves, are indebted for the formation of the alphabet which now bids fair to remove the causes of the former failure. By multiplied experiments he found that angular letters are much more tangible than the common ones which are in great part curved; but the principal point to be decided in adopting an angular alphabet was, whether to adopt an arbitrary character, or such a modification of the Roman alphabet as should be at once angular and sufficiently like their original form, to be easily recognized. The advantage of the former is the extreme simplicity of which it is susceptible. That of the latter is that it can be read with ease by all who can read any ordinary English book. This advantage the author correctly considered of paramount importance, because, however simple an arbitrary character might be, extremely few would or could qualify themselves to teach the blind, by first learning to read it themselves. In proceeding, therefore, with attempts to introduce an angular alphabet modified from the Roman, and without capitals, he experienced a series of difficulties that for several years retarded his progress, and which nothing but the perseverance of genuine Christian benevolence has enabled him ultimately to overcome. These arose from the well-meant, but not equally well-judged attempts of others to introduce a variety of arbitrary alphabets, from the necessity of obtaining types, by means of matrices and other implements for the express purpose, and at the author's expence, and from the numerous experiments requisite for ascertaining the tangible powers of the letters, and the smallest size that could be read with ease, so as to give the books the utmost possible portability. We perused-and we think those who read the book must peruse with interest-his narrative of the progress of the work of procuring books for the blind, in the face of many difficulties, in addition to those mentioned. It ought not to be omitted that he proved the efficacy of his system by a variety of experiments on adult pupils, before committees formed by the Principals of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities, and in the London Incorporation for the blind. In all these instances the system recommended itself to the approbation of those appointed to judge of its merits, and drew forth resolutions of their cordial thanks to the author. Distinguished honours were conferred on him by the Directors of the last-named institution; and in addition to this we learn that he has lately been elected an honorary member of the Verulam Philosophical Society of London.

The latter part of the volume is occupied in removing objections not merely to this or any particular system, but to the possibility and usefulness of all attempts to teach the blind to read and write, and also in a lengthened address to the blind, on the importance of the literature for them, and on the duty devolving on them to be diligent in mastering it, and in cultivating their minds by its means, and, as immortal and ac countable creatures, to make a practical use of the knowledge thus aequired. This part of the work, though ostensibly an address to the

blind, appears to us at least an equally suitable address to those who can see, and certainly much more likely to be perused by them, than read to the blind; perhaps it might also be considered rather more lengthened than this part of the subject required. But we feel little disposed to indulge in trifling strictures on a work, the design of which must command universal and unqualified approbation, and the execution of which reflects honour equally on the intellect, the taste, and the Christian feeling of its author. Towards the last it contains a considerable quantity of matter, which, though rather digressive from the subject, we read with pleasure, embracing a familiar and endearing exhibition of the love of God in Christ Jesus, and other fundamental principles of the gospel, as the basis and the motive of the great duty of Christian philanthropy.

In the course of the work the author introduces some excellent observations, on the practicability of educating individuals labouring under the double and deplorable privation of deafness and blindness. He proves the possibility of this from various analogies, and shows that even to them, the art of reading, by means of the tangible alphabet, may be rendered useful, though it is obvious their education would be slower in progress than that of those who are simply blind. He also explains in an interesting manner the way in which the blind and the deaf may, with ease and considerable facility, converse together. This part of the subject ought not to be overlooked; for though very few are born blind and deaf, the blind may lose their hearing, or the deaf their sight; and it is now shown that artificial language, with all its advantages, is in the power even of such individuals.

An appendix is added, containing concise, but sufficient and easily understood directions to the blind in learning to read and write, either by themselves or with the assistance of a teacher, including a description of a real and convenient apparatus for writing.

The author's attempt to better the intellectual and spiritual condition of the blind, especially when taken in connexion with his original and excellent means of Sabbath-School instruction, and his praiseworthy and unwearied labours in various ways of doing good, cannot fail to endear him to the hearts of Christians generally, and to build up for him a monument of imperishing fame among the benefactors of mankind. His system of literature for the blind will form a new and conspicuous era in the brightening prospects of that scattered portion of humanity; and such a work as that before us was necessary not merely to develope the principles of the newly-invented art, but to prevent the history of it from becoming a matter of speculation and mystery to after generations, as the origin of many useful arts is to us, and must always remain. Feeling assured that the perusal of the book will be both interesting and profitable, we cordially recommend it to the attention of our readers.

It may be interesting to the public, in connexion with this subject, to know, that in Belfast the education of the blind, as well as of the deaf and dumb, is efficiently and systematically carried on. In addition to the regular weekly school for the deaf mutes, which is supported by the contributions of the religious public, there is a Sabbath-School both for the deaf and the blind, in which they are not merely taught to read, but this part of their education is made the instrument for inculcating the principles of the gospel. The lesson-system of instruction, which owes its origin to the excellent author of the work noticed above, is found by experiment to be as advantageous in the education of the blind and of the deaf, as in that of ordinary pupils.

THIS is a sublime and important subject. An error in the article of a sinner's justification before God, is one of a most serious kind. If we have wrong views of this doctrine, we cannot have correct views of the economy of salvation. It has been called the doctrine by which a church stands or fallsthe very hinge of christianity-the rock of safety to those who are taught of God-and the stone of stumbling to all to whom the Gospel is hid.

Various are the views which men still hold on this subject. Some quarrel with the term, imputed righteousness. But we may here observe that, though mechanical language ill applies to Almighty God, "whose ways are not as our ways," and though it is not to be supposed that infinite power and wisdom proceed by abstraction, and detaching particulars as we do, yet, perhaps, there is no language more accurate to be used, respecting our justification, than that which represents God as a judge, imputing our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us; "or his accepting us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.' Those persons that quarrel with the term, imputed righteousness, do certainly forget, or do not wish to believe the doctrine of imputed sin. For all arguments that can be produced against imputed righteousness, will bear equally strong against imputed sin. They, therefore, who deny imputation of Christ's righteousness, to be consistent, should deny the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, and the imputation of our sins to Christ. Here Arians and Socinians, who deny both, are much more consistent than those who, in some sense, admit both, and yet deny the imputation of the Redeemer's righteousness to the soul.

I. Some maintain that faith is the condition of the covenant, or our justifying righteousness. To this sentiment, when rightly understood, I see no objection. I can cordially enough many a good old writer on the subject, that faith is

say,

with

4

the interesting condition of the covenant, or the mean of an interest in Christ. I am willing to believe that it is our duty to exercise faith in the blood of the covenant, and that faith is a condition God may justly demand from us.

But this is not the sense in which some understand it; that is, if they affix any precise idea to it as a condition opposed to imputed righteousness. They say that we are called on to exercise faith in Jesus, and that that faith is the procuring condition of our justification; that on account of that faith we are justified in the same sense as others maintain that a man is justified by the righteousness of Christ. This must be the sense in which they understand it; for if they held faith merely as the instrumental condition of the covenant, the controversy, of course, would be only a jangle of words. That faith does not justify in the former sense of it, will appear from the following considerations.

1. Faith is only finite in its nature. Faith cometh from above. It is the gift of God" for by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." It cometh from the Father of spirits, and Jesus is its author and finisher. It is, nevertheless, ours subjectively, because implanted in us, and exercised by us. It can only be said to justify as exercised by us. "Therefore we conclude," says the Apostle, "that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." It is only said to justify us, as being our own, and must therefore be finite. Man can only be the subject of that which is finite; the contrary assertion would tend to deify him. And let it be remembered, that if faith were infinite, man would be able to do an infinite good; for like cause like effect holds true in this as well as in other cases. But if man were capable of doing an infinite good, he must be infinitely good himself, and if infinitely good, he must be divine. On rational principles, then, it is easy to show that faith, in the only sense in which it can be said to justify as exercised by us, can only be a finite good at best. But if sin be an infinite evil, how will that which is finite form a counterpart to that which is infinite? If the offence be infinite, is justice likely to be satisfied with that which is finite in return? By no means. Besides, on such a principle, there would be no propriety in that declaration on which believers insist so pothetically "having done all in our power we are unprofitable servants." If, on account of faith, their persons were accepted, and that faith were subjectively exercised by them, then, undoubtedly, they would be, in the highest sense of the word, profitable servants.

2. The faith of believers is strong and weak. Some are said, like Abraham, to be "strong in faith, giving glory to God," and others are reproved, as our Saviour does his disciples when he says, "O ye of little faith." There is much darkness and some fears still remaining in the minds of many of God's children, whilst others have arrived at full assurance. If, then, men were justified on account of their faith, the Almighty would justify one man on account of one quantity of faith, and another man on account of another quantity of faith. In that case, the condition of the covenant would vary exactly in proportion to the quantity of faith that the believer possessed. God would, in the one case, either have too much from the one, or too little from the other, which is absurd. By carefully examining the covenant of works and grace, we cannot find that ever the Almighty represented one quantity of righteousness as sufficient for one man, and another quantity as sufficient for another. The principle would be precarious for the sinner. He would find it extremely difficult to ascertain precisely what quantity would suffice.

3. It is obvious that if a man were justified on account of his faith, then at one time the same individual would be more, and at another time he would be less justified. Faith is not equal in all, nor is it the same at all times in the same individual. Take the example of Peter by way of illustration. He had little faith when he was afraid and began to sink in the water. He had more when he could appeal to Christ and say, "Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee." How weak was his faith when he could swear that he knew not Jesus? It was so weak that he had not one particle of it in exercise. Now it is not faith in habit, but faith in exercise that justifies the sinner; of course, Peter, on the principles referred to, would have been more justified at one time than another. So it is with all believers, they are sometimes stronger, at other times weaker; but agreeably to the scriptural view of the subject, they are always just in the sight of God on his account who is the Lord our Righteousness. It follows, from these remarks, first, that the doctrine of being justified on account of faith is highly improper; and, secondly, that the doctrine of being justified by faith is the true scriptural view of the subject-by it as an instrument, though not on acccount of it as a procuring cause. And for the use of this language, when speaking on this subject, there is

*