sitions. In the excitement this occasioned, Hamilton took part, and entered into an elaborate and long-continued investigation-by an extensive and minute course of anatomical experiments, in which he dissected several hundred brains of men and animals-into the principles of that (real or so-called) science. In 1826 he read two papers, containing the results of these researches, before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which involved him in a controversial correspondence both with Dr. Combe in the first place, and latterly with Dr. Spurzheim in 1828. The debate was never explicitly terminated. On the election of Francis Jeffrey to the Deanship of the Faculty of Advocates, he regarded it as his duty to resign the editorship of the Edinburgh Review-in which, during the twenty-seven earliest years of its existence, he had written no fewer than 201 articles. Mr. MacVey Napier, Professor of Conveyancing in the University of Edinburgh, author of two clear and succinct essays on Lord Bacon and Sir Walter Raleigh, and afterwards editor of the seventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica-a personal friend of Hamilton's-was chosen to succeed the Scottish Aristarchus. On accepting the management, Napier at once set about collecting an able staff of collaborateurs, and, among others, requested Sir William Hamilton to lend him some assistance. The brilliant, specious, and eloquent lectures of Victor Cousin, delivered in 1828, on the "History of Philosophy," had received no notice from the reviews and magazines of Britain; and Napier, anxious to signalize his opening issues, suggested them as a fitting topic for Sir William Hamilton's consideration. This he was at first unwilling to undertake, because he highly admired Cousin, and yet felt compelled to dissent from the theory he advocated with so much energy, ability, and learning. Napier insisted; Hamilton consented; and in October, 1829, the paper, hurriedly written, appeared, with the title, the "Philosophy of the Unconditional." Sir William Hamilton acknowledges himself that its "reasonings were of course not understood, and naturally, for a season, declared incomprehensible." Cousin was himself among the first to perceive, to admit, and to proclaim its singular excellence as "an article written for a few minds only throughout Europe, whilst to the multitude its very force and merit will render it obscure;" and pushed his chivalry so far as to invite M. Peisse to translate it into French. A life-long literary friendship sprung up from this intellectual warfare, and Hamilton and Cousin, though opposed to each other in philosophical theories, maitained a chivalrously honourable admiration and respect for each other thenceforth.

The article which met such a magnanimous reception from the Plato of modern France is a lucid, comprehensive, critical, and almost encyclopædiac paper, showing a perfect mastery of the details, historic and speculative, of the course of philosophy, and exemplifying a capacity for persistent introspection and exquisite analysis such as is rare and singular. Cousin's eclectic attempt to combine the philosophy of experience [Reidism] and the philosophy

of pure reason [Kantism] into one by the correlation and unition of the unconditioned with the conditioned-one, many, and connection -infinity, finity, and a mutual nexus, or Ego-is first concisely and clearly summarized, then ably and distinctly controverted-the counter-assertion being, that "the unconditioned is incognizable and inconceivable; its notion being only negative of the conditioned, which last can alone be positively known or conceived." In the course of the critique, acute analyses of the systems-so far as they relate to the topic-of Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Aristotle, &c., are given, and Cousin's position in relation to these thinkers is estimated and adjudged upon. The concluding observations on Cousin's speculative theology are singularly keen, chiselled, and discriminative; yet towards the close he re-animates the mind of the thinker, who laments this everlasting evanishment of a true, or rather a trustworthy metaphysic, by saying,-" Not to despair of philosophy is a last infirmity of noble minds.' The stronger the intellect, the stronger the confidence in its force; the more ardent the appetite for knowledge, the less are we prepared to canvass the uncertainty of the future;" and Socratically counselling "a learned ignorance" as man's highest intellectual aim, he closes his striking and thoughtful paper-now acknowledged to be one of the most invaluable original contributions to speculative theology which our day has produced.

In the same year, 1829, as he made his first distinct step into the arena of philosophical literature, and at the age of forty-one married his cousin, Miss Marshall, and this may perhaps have been the reason that the paper was " hastily written." During the succeeding seven years Hamilton continued to contribute to the Edinburgh Review, and enriched its pages with many valuable papers. Of these it would be unfair to cite any except those which he has acknowledged and withdrawn from their anonymity by re-publication; nor can we even mention all these, because they do not explicitly appertain to that character in which we are specially desirous of presenting Sir William Hamilton to the reader, viz., as a modern logician.

"The Philosophy of Perception" is the very basis and groundwork of Psychology. It is the very central pith of the Scottish metaphysic-which is, in reality, an outgrowth of consciousnesswhich is the faculty of knowing that and what we know. Hamilton's paper bearing the above title, published in the Edinburgh Review, October, 1830, is a most exhaustive inquiry into the grounds of consciousness, and the means, methods, and results of perception. It has been excelled in acute research and historic accuracy only by the author's own "Note B of Presentative and Representative Knowledge," subjoined to his edition of Reid's works-of the issue of which this paper was the occasioning cause.

These two contributions to the psychology, however, rather than to the philosophy of perception, are perhaps the most erudite and explicit discussions the subject has yet had. They are a concise

summary of the best speculations of the best thinkers-British and foreign-on this intricate topic. Their highest praise is the fact, that their doctrine has been more or less overtly or covertly introduced into every subsequent philosophy of the mind. The phraseology of the article might, in some respects, be objected to; the singular skill in introspective analysis cannot be denied. Perhaps a little animus against Brown is perceptible in the passer, though we ourselves are not prepared wholly to exonerate that subtile and daring extemporizer of philosophy from the charge brought against him by the man who failed to become his successor.

The various papers Hamilton furnished to the Edinburgh Review in 1831 on "The National Satire of Germany"-erudite, acute, and interesting; and on "The English Universities"-trenchant, pithy, and important; in 1820, "On the Revolutions of Medicine'-ingenious, learned, and curious; in 1833, On German Schools" honest, clear, unhesitating, and minutely accurate; in 1834, “On the Patronage of Universities"-not untinctured with personal feeling, but extremely historical, and exceedingly able; On the Rights of Dissenters to admission to the English Universities"forethoughtful, liberal, critical, and able; in 1835, in continuation of that same subject, and "On the Deaf and Dumb"-rich in fact, philosophy, and feeling,-do not come specially within the scope of our article, though worthy of mention and praise; nor do we think the critique on the translation of Tenneman's "Manual of the History of Philosophy" ought to detain us now-as its object has been attained, in the issue of a superior, though still a heavy, rendering of that able work. We may also advantageously defer-with the mere mention at present in chronological order-the noticeable paper on "Logic," 1833, and those on Mathematics" and "Classical Learning," 1836. Other opportunities will arise for dealing with these materials.

We take as a halting-place for our present article the pause in the energies of Hamilton which preceded the attainment of that success which he merited, but had hitherto failed to gain. A life of intense labour, unencouraged, unrewarded, uncheered by scholastic appreciation or popular favour, had been undergone, and every effort seemed to leave him as hopeless as before. There is, however, a silver lining to every cloud," and the gloom was getting overpast. The persistent industry of his life was not to go unrewarded; and when we open the scene again, we shall find that the coyest damsel of the Fates-Success-had begun to look upon his wooing not unpropitiously. S. N.

66

Religion.

IS THE

CHRISTIAN

MINISTRY RECOGNIZED IN

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A DISTINCT ORDER IN THE CHURCH?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

Ir is obvious that in the discussion of this question everything turns upon the meaning attached to the word order. It is sometimes used in the sense of a religious fraternity; as, for example, "the Order of Benedictines," who affect a sanctity altogether spurious. So understood, its kindred term is caste; as, for example, the caste of Brahmins, denoting a breed or race of men, by birth and calling superior in sanctity to the rest of their fellow-men. As such, the word "order" cannot, in connexion with christian ministers, be too strongly repudiated by a clergy anxious to ennoble, instead of degrading mankind, and by a laity alive to the fact, that a clerical caste and liberty, civil and religious, can never coexist. In the words of Bishop Hoadly, "till a consummate stupidity be established and spread over the land, nothing tends so much to destroy all respect to the clergy, as the demand of more than can be due to them." We shall employ it as denoting a distinct class in a christian community, with well-defined office, claims, and dues in the church, and a status in society.

In 1 Cor. xii. 28, a distinction is made between the "some" and "the church ;" and this distinction is declared to be of "God." In apostolic times, "all" were not apostles, or prophets, or teachers (ver. 29). In the nature of things it could not be otherwise; for "if the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing ?" and, "If the whole body were hearing, where were the smelling?" Therefore "God has set some in the church." The gifts of God are unequally distributed among men, and becoming disciples of Christ does not alter this diversity of talents and influence. Spiritual graces are undoubtedly communicated, but with the same inequality of distribution; for "to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another faith; the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (ver. 8-11). After the ascension, Christ gave some, (to be) apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry" (Ephes. iv. 8-12). These are orders" in the church, if words have any distinct meaning. They are of divine appointment, as denoted by the expressions, Christ has "given "God has "set them in the church."

66

The bishops, or elders, equally with apostles and evangelists, had a status, because of their office. "If any man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work (1 Tim. iii. 1). This official position is honoured by a special mention: "To the saints that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. i. 1). In writing to the Hebrews, the apostle sent a salutation to the rulers and the saints (Heb. xiii. 24), a discrimination which would not fail to be significant of a recognized status of the former among the latter. The prominence given to "some set in a church" gave a position to those thus singled out, had they none before. The apostle unquestionably recognized a difference between official and nonofficial persons. A flock implies a shepherd; a vineyard, a cultivator; and a soldier, enlistment and warfare, on behalf of those out of whose ranks he is chosen. The church is described as a flock and a vineyard, and the minister as the shepherd and the planter (1 Cor. ix. 7). In the defence of general interests, the minister engages in warfare." And as the apostle honourably mentions the office-bearer, so he enjoins a similar recognition on the part of Christians, who are to know and to "esteem highly in love" those who are "over them in the Lord" (1 Thess. v. 12, 13).

66

66

66

To the distinction arising out of superior spiritual graces, a divine appointment, and an official position, to which an inspired apostle designedly gives prominence, is added that which grows out of spiritual direction and authority. The word over you," in 1 Thess. v. 12, 13, is rendered by "ruleth" in 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12. To denote this rule, the word archein is never used in the New Testament, but proistasthai. The former savours of a despotic sway, uncongenial in a community of freemen. The latter is selected because the rule of a minister is strictly constitutional; whose object is not personal power, but subjection to the wise and beneficent laws of Christ, whom he represents, and in whose name and behalf he presides. Discipline, for harmony's sake, cannot be dispensed with in a church. "He," says Milton, "that hath read with judgment of nations and commonwealths, of cities and camps, of peace and war, sea and land, will readily agree that the flourishing and decaying of all civil societies, all the movements and turnings of human occasions, are moved to and fro as upon the arch of discipline." Anarchy results as much when all affect to rule, as when none submit. "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (1 Cor. xiv. 33). Hence the injunctions to submit to rule are of frequent occurrence in the epistles. The Thessalonians were required to "know "—that is, to recognize their elders as over them" (1 Thess. v. 12, 13). The Hebrews were to "remember" (Heb. xiii. 7) to " obey," and "submit themselves" (ver. 17) to those "who had the rule over them." In selecting a man for the office of elder, care was to be taken that he had the qualities of mind that would command deference and submission (1 Tim. iii. 5); for if he knew not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

66

66