Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

and necessary truths, which form the original premises for all reasoning, and are quite as essential to it as extension to figure, or light to colour. As he derives even axioms and first truths from inductive generalization, so it is in his treatment of induction, that the main power and value of his logic consist. And in pointing out the tests of the validity of universal inductive conclusions from particular instances, his logic is altogether peerless and invaluable. Our author also in this connection presents what we deem, on the whole, a just view of Hamilton's great advances at the opposite pole of logical science, i. e., in formal logic. He awards deserved commendation to some of these innovations, while he repudiates others among the more extreme of them, as at least useless or worse than useless. Among these may be classed the quantification of negative predicates as particulars.

The radical principles of Mr. Mill's , philosophy already brought to view of course make him a utilitarian in ethics, and a fatalist, if not rather an atheist, in divinity. Few writers could bring greater ingenuity to the support of these debasing schemes; still, when he comes to account for the idea and feeling of obligation expressed by the word “ought,” as arising out of the mere conception of virtue as a means of happiness, it is the old paralogism over, of transmuting stones into gold, provided the gold be furnished beforehand. All attempts to define virtue as a compound or derivative from something more original or simple, or better than itself, presupposes virtue itself in the definition, or in the original elements out of which it is alleged to be compounded. It is in full consonance with his whole system, that Mill should tell us, “we venture to think that a religion may exist without a belief in a God, and that a religion without a God may be, even to Christians, an instructive and profitable object of contemplation.” This needs no comment.

There are some points which we think admit of a more exact and clear analysis than that presented by our author in this and other works in which he has done such signal service to the cause of truth. We refer especially to some of his remarks in regard to à priori and necessary truth, and the relations of our knowledge of it to proofs from inductive generalization.

These, however, are too slight to be dwelt upon in our limited space, and constitute no serious drawback from the great value of the book. We close with the following summation by our author of this new philosophy.

“What have we left us according to this new philosophy? We have sensations; we have a series of feelings aware of itself, and permanent, or rather prolonged; and we have an association of sensations, and perceived resemblances, and possibilities of sensations. The sensations, and associations of sensation, generate ideas and beliefs, which do not, however, either in themselves or their mode of formation, guarantee any reality. We have an idea of an external material world; but Mr. Mill does not affirm that there is such a world, for there are laws of the series of feelings which would produce the idea, whether the thing existed or not; and our belief in it may be overcome—just as our natural belief in the sun rising is made to give way before the scientific conviction that it is the earth that moves. He thinks he is able by a process of inference to reach the existence of other beings besides ourselves. But the logic of the process is very doubtful. I believe that neither Mr. Mill nor any other has been able to show how, from sensations, individual or associated, we could ever legitimately infer the existence of anything beyond. What he claims to have found is after all only other series of feelings.'” Pp. 272—3.

The wide acceptance of this and other forms of philosophic scepticism is among the ominous symptoms of the day, and summons to a vigorous and united array against it, all who would contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

ART. V.-The General Assembly.

The General Assembly of 1866 was in many respects a remarkable body. It was numerously attended, two hundred and fifty-one members being present the first day. It embraced many men of distinguished ability. It came together at a time when the public mind, in the church and state, was deeply agitated. The questions presented for discussion included topics in which the whole community took the liveliest interest, and the conclusions arrived at are likely to have a very great and perhaps lasting influence on the character and destiny of the Presbyterian church.

As so much of the time of the Assembly was taken up with the case of the Louisville Presbytery, and so much of the debates had reference to documents which do not appear on the minutes, it is necessary, in order to understand the measures, and to account for the animus of the Assembly, to advert to some things which occurred prior to the meeting of that body.

Declaration and Testimony.The action of the Assembly of 1865, having given offence to many ministers and elders, especially in the border states, the Presbytery of Louisville adopted and issued a “Declaration and Testimony,” to which they solicited the adherence of those in all parts of the church who agreed with them in opinion. This document, making twenty-seven octavo pages, is much too long, notwithstanding its historical importance, to be inserted in this journal. It testifies against fourteen errors in doctrine and practice as to which it charges the General Assembly with having departed from the faith and practice" enjoined by the Head of the church. It testifies, 1st, against "the assumption of the courts of the church, of the right to decide questions of state policy.” 2d. “Against the doctrine that the church as such owes allegiance to human rulers or governments." 3d. Against the perversion of Christ's direction to render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and the Apostle's command to be subject to the higher powers. 4th. Against "the action of the Assembly on the subject of slavery and


emancipation in 1864, and confirmed in 1865.” 5th. Against “the unjust and scandalous contradiction of their own recorded testimony and well-known facts, in regard to the labours of the Presbyterian church and ministry, for the christianizing of the slaves of the South, and the preaching to them of the gospel of Christ.” 6th. Against the doctrine widely taught in the church, and even countenanced by the Assembly, that the acts and deliverances of the courts of Christ's common. wealth may properly be based upon, and shaped in accordance with the ordinances and laws of state legislatures, the orders and proclamations of military chieftains, and even the results of popular votes given at elections.” 7th. “ Against the doctrine that the will of God, as to the duty of the church and of his people, is to be learned from particular providential events, and that the teachings of the Scriptures are to be interpreted by these providences.” 8th. “Against the sanction which has been given both directly and indirectly, to the usurpation by the secular and military powers of authority in and over the worship and government of the church.”

In support of this charge they refer, among other things, to 6 the endorsement in word and act of such usurpation as perfectly right by the Seminaries at Princeton and Danville, as witness the doctrine laid down by the Princeton Professor of Theology, and the doctrine and practice of the Danville Professor in the same department.” 9th. “Against the alliance which has been virtually formed, by the church with the state, by which the state has been encouraged, and even invited to use the church as an instrument for giving effect to its various schemes of a political character.” 10th. “Against that persecution which has been carried on for these five years past, and with increasing malignity toward all those who have steadfastly refused to sanction or acquiesce in these departures of the church from the foundations of truth and righteousness.” 11th. “ Against the wide-spread and destructive perversion of the ministry and the province of church courts.” 12th. “Against the aotion of the Assembly in reference to the churches in the seceded and border states, and against the basing of that action upon an assertion of what the Assembly had the clearest evidence was not true." 13th. “ Against the act of

the Assembly by which the Board of Missions, i. e., (the Executive Committee at Philadelphia or its Corresponding Secretary) were constituted a court of final and superior jurisdiction,—&c.” 14th. Against all and every movement in the church, however cautiously or plausibly veiled, which looks to a union of the state with the church, or a subordination of the one to the other, or the interference of either with the jurisdiction of the other.

Reasons for this Testimony. Against each and all these errors in doctrine and practice we testify:

1st. Because they are contrary to the word of God, and subversive of its inspiration and supreme authority as the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2d. Because they are contrary to the doctrine of the Presbyterian church as taught in her catechisms, confessions, and constitution.

3d. Because they tend to obliterate all the lines of separation between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, &c.

4th. Because they brought the ministry and the ordinances of religion and the authority of the church into public disrepute.

5th. Because they tend to keep up strife and alienation among brethren of a common faith, and thus delay the pacification of the country.

6th. Because they are schismatical. “Those who invent new doctrines, who teach for doctrines the commandments of men, who bring in damnable heresies, are, by the word of God, adjudged as schismatics. It is not those who withdraw from such corruptors of the gospel that are chargeable with the sin of schism; but those who by their false teaching and scandalous practice render it necessary for the faithful to separate themselves in order to preserve their garments undefiled.”

In the conclusion of this section they say: “We declare our deliberate purpose, trusting in God, who can save by a few as well as by many, to use our best endeavours to bring back the church of our fathers to her ancient purity and integrity, upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and under the

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »