ing and weighing the evidence, in distinguishing one proposition from another, and in keeping truth consistent with itself; and there is a place for the affections to collect an interest around it. Nor is it to be forgotten that the will, or the choosing and resolving faculty, has a very special work to do in following out the obligations lying on us in the discharge of duties, which are an essential part of religion, and react upon our whole intellectual and moral nature; "by works faith is made perfect." It is all true that a performance of duty without respect to God and godliness will become empty formalism or self-righteous Phariseeism, out it is just as certain that a mere gazing intuitionalism will end in idle musing-wasting itself, and so dying out.

It was never meant that any one of the members of our psychical frame should act apart from the others in religious exercises, just as it is not intended that one limb of the body should act without the others, or that the eye should act without the ear, or the taste without the touch. In a sound piety the various powers act in combination, like the various elements-heat, colour, and chemical -of the sunbeam, and they are to be separated only for scientific ends by a scientific process. True, there may, even in natural operations, be a preponderance of one of the elements above the others, for the accomplishment of special ends; still they are never altogether separated; and if studiously kept apart, or if certain of them be allowed to gather to excess, their action may become deleterious, or they may burst ont in a destructive discharge. In particular, the contemplative element, if unduly fostered (like a plant in a stove), and dissevered from rigid thought and a resolute will, must issue in a mystic creed and a life of day-dreams. Revelation calls forth all the powers of the soul. The truth of the Word-like the light of the sun-is one, but it has, after all, 8 number of elements, such as narrative, example, description, type, argument, appeal, exhortation, warning, precept, promise, presentations, and representations, in prose and poetry, each fitted to evoke a corresponding power in our souls, and to draw it forth in a proper direction, and give it the proper hue; and piety is in the healthiest and loveliest state when every essential principle of our constitution is exercised in due measure and proper proportion.

VI. In a living piety the intuitions have a very important place, being always associated with other mental exercises. All the deeper convictions of our nature rest on the objects which are presented in a living religion; indeed they can be satisfied with nothing else. The self-existent being, the self-subsistent substance, the inherent power, the loveliness, the love, the righteousness, the truthfulness of God, these, not in their abstract forms (which are far too like skeletons to delight the eye), but as embodied in full form in a Living Being, are objects on which the soul would gaze with rapture in its pure and unclouded moments; it would turn towards them as towards an attractive light; it reclines upon them as upon a mountain whose foundations can never be moved; and it expands towards them as towards the expanse of heaven, with its still stars away in the depths. We have never reached the proper objects of religious faith, nor even the region in which they dwell, if intuition has not been bearing up the soul. In our highest exercises of rapt devotion, other operations, though still present in their results, may disappear in their processes, to allow the soul to gaze without distraction immediately, and, as it were, face to face, on GOD WHO IS A SPIRIT, on GOD WHO IS LIGHT, on GOD WHO IS LOVE.

APPENDIX.

THE ANALYTIC OF LOGICAL FORMS. (P. 359.)

CONSIDERABLE improvements have been made within the last age in Formal Logic. In particular, the regulating principle and forms of reasoning have been subjected to a sifting examination. Less attention has been paid to the Notion, and yet I believe that it is by a thorough exposition of its nature that the disputed points in Logic are to be settled.

I. There are evidently three kinds of NOTIONS. First, There is the Singular Concrete Notion: singular in that it is of one object; concrete in that it contains an aggregate of attributes. Secondly, There is the Abstract Notion, or the notion of a part of an object as a part, say the leg of a chair; more particularly a quality of an object, such as transparency, clemency, energy. Thirdly, There is the Universal or General Notion; that is, the notion of objects as possessing a common attribute or common attributes, the notion including all objects possessing the common attribute or attributes. It is of the utmost moment to distinguish the second of these notions from the third. The merely abstract notion, e. g., tranquillity, does not embrace objects; it cannot be described as having extension; in fact, it has nothing general in its nature. It is the general notion (and not the abstract) which has extension, that is, objects; as well as comprehension, that is, attributes or marks. It is the general notion (rather than the abstract notion) which has been treated of in the common logical treatises; and in the logic which has sprung out of Kant's system, the abstract notion is altogether overlooked.

A distinction of some importance may be drawn between two classes of General Notions, between those in which the attribute or mark is one, e. g., transparent, benevolent, pious, and those in which there is an aggregate of attributes, such as metal, dog, man, in which no man can tell how many qualities are comprised. The former may be called the Generalized Abstract; the latter the Generalized Concrete, inasmuch as in it an aggregate of the attributes to be found in the singulars goes up into the universal. In the one the comprehension is definite, in the other indefinite. The latter is the Species of the schoolmen, and embraces the classes called Kinds. (See Mill's Logic, Book L Chap. vii. 4.)

I have hinted at some of the laws involved in the formation both of the Abstract and General Notion. Thus, in regard to the former: (1.) The Abstract implies the Concrete; (2.) When the Concrete is real the Abstract is also real; (3.) When the Abstract is an attribute it has no independent reality, its reality

(416)

is simply in the Concrete objects (see supra, pp. 137, 220. Again in regard to the General Notion: (1.) The Universal implies the Singulars; (2.) When the Singulars are real the Universal is also real; (3.) The reality of the Universal consists in the objects possessing common marks (see supra, pp. 138, 226). These laws, consistently carried out, settle for us the long agitated question as to the reality in the general notion, and also in the abstract.

II. We must have it settled what is the precise relation of the two notions in JUDGMENT. The language employed by logicians generally is sufficiently uncertain. Sometimes the relation is described loosely as agreement or disagreement, without saying in what; sometimes it is represented as being identity, or equality, or that of whole and parts. We must, as it appears to me, draw a distinction between two sorts of judgments. When the notions are abstract, it is one of identity and equality, as when we say, "Logic is the science of the laws of thought," or that "two and two are four." In all such cases the judgment is substitutive, and the two notions are convertible, so that we can say, "The science of the laws of thought is logic," and "four is two and and two." But when there is a general notion in the proposition, the relation is one of extension and comprehension. Thus “ Man is responsible," means, in extension that man is included in the class of responsible beings, and in comprehension, that responsibility is an attribute of man (see supra, p. 364).

III. If we carry the distinction between the abstract and general notion into REASONING, it introduces clearness into points at present confused. The mode in which the regulating principle of reasoning is commonly put is very vacillating. Thus it is said (in the affirmative form) to be, "Things are the same which are the same with a third ;" and again, "Things which agree with one and the same thing agree with one another;" and again, Things which coexist with the same, co-exist with one another" (MILL). The first of these is too narrow; the others are to vague, for they do not specify the nature of the agreement or co-existence.

66

(1.) When the Notions are singular or abstract, the Regulating Principle of Reasoning is, "Things are the same which are the same with a third," or, "Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another." Thus (to take as an example, the unfigured syllogism of Hamilton, only put in its poper form):

(2.) When there is a General Notion, the main (for there are others involved) Regulating Principle is the Dictum of Aristotle, as shown by Whately, and logicians generally.

INDEX.

|