Mill's more elaborate work. Deductive logic is ingeniously treated, but we think, at least for purposes of instruction, we must prefer the treatise of Whately. Indeed, deductive logic is so much of a pure science, that we do not anticipate much improvement in the mode of treating it. We notice one slight oversight.*

We would say in conclusion, that although we disagree with Mr. Tappan on several subjects, both in this work and in his other works, still we regard his productions as valuable contributions to our philosophical literature. We hope to meet with him again in the same field; and it is because we have such an expectation, that we venture, though with some reluctance, to make a few remarks upon the style of his writings. We are disposed to demand of the philosophical writer, an approximation to mathematical precision of language. We like to see the thought firmly grasped, and the fit word deliberately chosen, and uniformly employed, without subsidiary epithet, or alternative expression. Of all the books ever

In illustrating the application of the rules of the syllogistic logic to one of the demonstrations in Euclid, the author has the following syllogism. All alternate angles are equal, but the angles BCD and EBC are alternate angles, and are, therefore, equal. He calls this a syllogism in Darii--but the minor premise being a singular proposition, is a universal, and the syllogism is in Barbara. Ifit were not so, the next syllogism BCD is equal to ACD --EBC is equal to BCD, and therefore EBC is equal to ACD, would be in an unlawful mood, III. We think, besides, that the proposition EBC is equal to BCD is not the same as the proposition EBC is BCD, so that there would be four terms in the syllogism. These of course are mere oversights. It is a little remarkable that

Mr. Mill has made a far worse mistake, in the same way. For, in attempting to apply the Inductive Logic to the demonstration of a proposition in Euclid, he has been guilty of that most disgraceful of Logical Fallacies, the Petitio Principii; as any mathematician may see, who will turn to it.

written, the most perspicuous, and, by the attentive student, the easiest to be understood, is, as we think, Butler's Analogy; and this excel. lence is attributable in great part, to precision of language. In studying Mr. Tappan's work carefully as we have done, we have found a great deficiency in this respect. We have not room to prove this; but we refer to two examples, as specimens. The author speaks "of sensations, perceptions, &c. as being immediate knowledge and consciousness." (p. 16.) Is there any difference? And again; "Hence arises a new and unique form of knowledge, through the power of reflection or self-consciousness." (p. 27.) Which? for there is a difference. Coleridge as a poet, could not help stating philosophical truths in poetic language; but is his example to be followed? "The lower faculty sings as it were a joyful matin song, under the window of the reason: then this glorious power awakes, and looking out, recognizes the reality, beauty and laws of God's works, and the Great Maker himself." (p.28.) The Transcendental School has introduced a kind of sentimentality into their philosophical writings, every way of fensive to good taste. Mr. Tappan

66

has very little of it, we would have him entirely free. "It is a kindly doctrine, and to be heartily receiv ed." (p. 40.) Philosophically speaking, it is to be received, if true; and, if false, to be rejected. We find some instances of gross carelessness; though we know not whether to attribute them to the author or the printer; for we have rarely seen an important work worse printed,though it is published by the respectable firm of Wiley & Putnam. principle, &c. involve the denial." (p. 37.) "Whether the mind be in the material masses, &c. or whether it have, &c. makes not."—(p. 22.) We would respectfully ask if the word "knowledges" might not be dispensed with? and, generally,

"The

age. But when we find an evangelical minister of our own day, gravely arguing for such principles, we feel inclined to ask him if he does not believe that the earth is a broad plain in the center of the universe, and that the sun and stars revolve around it.

He betrays also, to our apprehension, an overweening fondness for the highest style of Presbyterianism. We do not censure him for vindicating the principles of his denomination. It was natural for him to do so, and it was right. If a man does not think his own distinctive principles worthy of being maintained; if he does not grow fervent, and even eloquent in pleading for them; it costs us some stretch of charity, to believe he has any principles. There is no feature in the history of the period, concerning which Mr. H. writes, which compels our admiration more than the downright earnestness with which the different parties maintained their respective peculiarities. It does not impair our confidence in a man's piety, nor respect for his intellect, to find that he puts an high estimate on the distinctive principles of his denomination, whatever it may be. It rather indicates a strong adherence to religious principle, which we can not but reverence, even when we consider it a mistak en principle. We are far from being displeased to find Mr. H., even as a historian, eager to prove that Presbyterianism of the straitest sect is right, and all right. And we are far from being dipleased, to find an Episcopalian eager to prove, that Episcopacy is right, and will bear to be tested by Scripture;' nor would we be, although he should carry the argument even to the fashion of the surplice and the lighting of six wax candles. But our complaint of Mr. H. is, that his zeal for Presbytery disturbs the course of fair historical narration. Over and again he boasts of the overwhelm

ing force of the arguments, advan ced in behalf of Presbyterian pe culiarities, although, when he gives us examples of such arguments, we are quite unable to discover wherein their overwhelming potency con. sists, and when he sees fit to withhold them, we strongly suspect, that, if not designedly, it was at least, prudently done. We are afraid of the historian, who seems resolved to raise the shout of victory, always on one side, even before he lets us see the positions of the conflicting parties. The professed controver salist, is expected to claim that the strength of the argument is wholly on his own side. But it is incumbent on the historian to lay the facts and arguments before his readers, and leave them to judge of the merits of the case. He is a witness, and we do not care to see a witness on the judge's bench. We think that Mr. Hetherington's unchastened zeal for high Presbyterianism, will impair the force of his testimony as an his torian.

reason.

We think him amenable to criticism also, in another respect, and that of a more serious character. He be trays a disposition to asperse the characters of those whose principles he disapproves. He says hard things of the Erastians, especially those in the Parliament, and, in our judgment, without any The Westminster Assembly was called by the voice of Parliament, and obeyed that call, acting in professed subjection to the authority, by which it was constituted; and yet, in the result, it aimed to set up a system of government by the side of the civil government, extending its power over the whole nation, every foot of territory, and every living soul in it, which should be, in its operation, wholly independent of the civil magistrate. The Erastians insisted, that the subjects should have the privilege of a final appeal to Parliament. As our author him. self informs us, self informs us, "the kingdom had

suffered so much severe and protracted injury, from the usurped authority and power of the prelates, that the assertors of civil liberty almost instinctively shrunk from even the shadow of any kind of power, in the hands of ecclesiastics." And, verily, we think these Erastians were in the right, so far as there could be any right, in such an unhallowed alliance. If a church claims to be established by law, and to govern a nation by force, and to be maintained at the expense of the state, then it ought, in all reason, to be in subjection to the power that gives it its being. An established church is, of course, and ever must be, an Erastian church, or an abso, lute hierarchical despotism. The only way to obtain freedom, is to renounce its alliance with the state, and trust in its spiritual head, whose kingdom is not of this world. We regard the hard sayings of Mr. H. against the Erastians, therefore, as altogether unreasonable.

But the independents are treated with still greater injustice, and the more glaringly so, as the author himself acknowledges them to be "men of considerable talent and learning, and of undoubted piety." Such expressions as, "disingenuduplicity," ," "intriguing poli," "pertinacious obstinacy," do not fall like sweet tones of heavenly music upon the ear, when used of men "highly esteemed for their piety and talents."

ous, cy,"

99.66

But we especially think Mr. H. guilty of injustice to the Independents of the Assembly, in respect to the very transaction in which he finds occasion for the loudest condemnation. When it became evident, that the Assembly were deter mined to make Presbytery, in its most rigid peculiarities, an establish ment in England, and of an exclusive character, the five leading Inde pendents presented a paper to Parliament, giving a short account of their principles, and asking a toler

46

66

ation. In this paper, there was not a single harsh expression. It had, as Mr. H. well describes it, a calm, plausible and stately tone,' and yet he asserts, that through this, a bitter warfare was begun by the Independents, and that they are justly chargeable with all the consequences of the fatal feud ;" and he elsewhere terms it "that most illomened production." But we would like to ask, wherein consisted the atrocious wickedness of these men? A church establishment was about to be put on the throne, which thing was directly opposed to some of their own settled principles. They had no good reason to expect any toleration from that establishment.* Mr. H. acknowledges, that the Presbyterians, "were led to regard with considerable distrust, the requests of the Independents for toleration, and that they were excited to use the language of intolerance;" and we learn from Neal, that, even in their last proposed treaty with the king, "they insisted on Presbyterian uniformity, without making the least provission for liberty of conscience. And Mr. Baxter acknowl edges that "the Presbyterian ministers were so little sensible of their own infirmity, that they would not have them tolerated, who were not only tolerable, but worthy instruments, and members in the churches." In this exigency, what were the Independents to do? One of three things, either to stifle the voice of their own consciences, and submit to the establishment; or "be punished as sectaries, and driven out of the land," as those in the army were explicitly told they should be; or finally to appeal to the Par

While the Assembly was yet in the midst of its discussions, Mr. Goodwin, one of the most prominent of those five Independents, was ejected from his living, for refusing baptism and the Lord's Supper to all the people in his parish, ing discriminately.-See Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. ii, p. 45.

liament, and ask for a toleration They took the last named course, pursuing as they declare, "no other design, but a subsistence, be it the poorest, and meanest, in their own land, with the enjoyment of the ordinances of Christ, as not knowing where else, with safety, health and livelihood, to set their feet on earth." This was their offense. That the eager partisans of the day should have attempted a "most ungracious refutation of their main position," is not strange; but that a good evangelical minister of a persecuted church, in the nineteenth century, should attempt for such an act, to stamp infamy upon the characters of acknowledged christian brethren, on the page of history, we marvel and we mourn.

We find reason to marvel also, at the aspersions cast upon the churches of New England, where he says, "the Independents showed themselves to be as intolerant as any of their opponents," adding too-in such a connexion, as makes the remark applicable to the churches of New England," that they would not admit Presbyterians to communion with them, unless they were willing to abandon Presbyterianism, and become Congregationalists ;" and again, that "the ecclesiastical system introduced into New England, was found to be absolutely incompatible with the peace and good order of society." Truly, we should marvel at such statements, if we had not found so many calumnious reports concerning the New England fathers current in our own country, and circulating among their own children. We can readily for give a foreigner, for saying what he and every other intelligent man ought to know to be false. We hope that the substantial sympathy manifested in New England for his own noble church in the day of her need, will constrain Mr. H. to read the history of Congregationalism with a little more care, and to

write of it with somewhat more candor.

Mr.

At this point, our review of the work before us might be terminated; but there are some matters suggested by a glance at the history of that period, which may be pertinently considered in this connexion. A brief review of the tremendous concussions of these conflicting systems, must give an interest to the inquiry, as to what was the real nature of the ecclesiastical government which was contended for in those days? Mr. Hetherington objects to the plan of the Independents, as tame and inefficient, alledging that "they practically admitted no censure, but admonition," and that “that can not properly be called excommunication, which consisted, not in expelling from their body an obstinate offender, but in withdrawing themselves from him." What more was considered necessary to constitute an efficient church government, we learn from other sources. Neal informs us, that the Independents, in the Westminster Assembly, objected to the high powers claimed by the Presbyteries, and gives as an example," the right of admission, and exclusion from the Christian church, with pains and penalties." Mr. Baxter gives us further information. "I disliked," he says, "the course of some of the more rigid of them, that drew too near the way of Prelacy, by grasping at a kind of secular power, not using it themselves, but binding the magistrates to confiscate, or imprison men, merely because they were excommunicated, and so corrupting the true discipline of the church, and turning the communion of the saints into the communion of the multitude, that must keep in the church against their wills, for fear of being undone in the world." Truly, this is a sad account to be given of those good men; and that by one of their admirers; and we should be ready with a loud voice