civil, and religious-things of your native land and of foreign coun tries things domestic and national-things present, past, and future -and, above all, be well acquainted with God, and with yourselves, with animal nature, and the workings of your own spirits.' Aristotle is a name of nearly as great renown as that of Plato indeed, if the number of suffrages be taken as the criterion, or the length of time during which his authority was held to be paramount, were the test, he might be regarded as the greater of the two. Mr. Blakey calls Aristotle "One of the most surprising men in point of talent, reputation, and influence, whom the world has ever seen. The longest life of man would be inadequate to give a naked abstract of all that has been said and written on his logical works alone; and, as to the direct and indirect influence which these works have exercised over the minds of men for more than two thousand years, who can form an estimate of its intensity and range ?......... These two Grecian philosophers have been dialectic rivals from their very first appearance on the stage of life; and, even at this hour, they may be said to divide substantially between them the suffrages of all logical thinkers in every section of the globe" (34). Logic in the school of Plato was a science: with Aristotle it became an art-that is to say, methodising the thoughts was Plato's great object; that of Aristotle was to give order and precision to our expressions. Plato sought to attain his object by synthesis and generalisation-Aristotle chose the way of analysis and specification: in this point of view they were rivals. But, as we think that neither method ought to be neglected, as neither can be safely dispensed with, so we think they ought not to be regarded as hostile and incompatible systems, but as auxiliary to each other in our mental progress. For as we may safely affirm that Aristotle would not have been what he is had he not been preceded by Plato, for he would not have had the same materials to work upon, so we hold Aristotle to afford a salutary curb upon Platonism, preventing its evaporation into dreamy mysticism, and useless abstractions, and idle speculations. Without Plato, we think, there would have been no Aristotle, and the separating them has been, we conceive, the main cause of the abuses in both systems which have brought them severally into such disrepute: we allude particularly to the debased Platonism of the Alexandrian school of divinity, and the dialectic quibbling of the schoolmen, miscalled Aristotelian logic. It was by perversions like these that genuine philosophy was brought into disrepute; for Coleridge justly observes concerning Bacon's prejudice against the Grecian philosophy-" He was, perhaps, influenced in part by the tone given to thinking minds at the Reformation, the founders and fathers of which saw in the Aristotelians or schoolmen the antagonists of Protestantism, and in the Italian Platonists (as they conceived) the secret enemies of Christianity itself." Luther asks: "What doth it contribute towards the knowledge of things to be perpetually trifling and cavilling, in language conceived and prescribed by Aristotle, concerning matter, form, motion, and time? I am persuaded that neither Thomas, nor all the Thomists together, ever understood a single chapter of Aristotle...... You ask how far I think dialectic is useful to theology: verily, I do not see how it can be other than poison to a true divine. Grant that it may be useful as a sport or exercise for youthful minds, still in sacred letters, where simple faith and divine illumination are to be awaited, the whole matter of the syllogism is to be left below; even as Abraham, when about to sacrifice, left the youth with the asses" (190). "Melancthon's antipathy to the scholastic logic was not so bitter as that of Luther, but he by no means entertained a very high opinion of its merits. Speaking in general terms, he says, it was, however, the prevalent opinion that logical philosophy was to be pursued merely in subservience to theological disputation and to furnish weapons for controversy. Nothing but abstruse and subtle questions were proposed which generated a war of words. It was characteristic of the scholastic philosophy to display all possible ingenuity in reasoning about nothing, or nothing better than the merest trifles. Dialectics were employed, not to assist the understanding in the search for truth, which is their only legitimate application, but to perplex what was plain, to distinguish what did not differ, and to entangle the mind in a labyrinth of inextricable absurdities. Aristotle was considered as having reached the utmost limit of human knowledge a convenient opinion, it must be admitted, for those who were desirous of being spared the trouble of thinking or examining for themselves" (192). "Melancthon's opinions underwent, however, a change as to the Peripatetic system. He conceived that it was not, in its general tenor, so inimical to the Christian faith as Luther supposed. He says 'I will add something concerning philosophy, and the reasons for believing that of Aristotle to be the most useful for the Church. It is agreed, I think by all, that logic is of prime importance, because it teaches method and order: it defines fitly, divides justly, connects aptly, judges of and separates monstrous associations. Those who are ignorant of this art tear and mangle the subjects of discourse as puppies do rags. I admire the simile of Plato, who highly extols it as resembling the fire which Prometheus brought from heaven, to kindle a light in the minds of men by which they might be able to form correct ideas. But he does not furnish us with the precepts of the art, so that we cannot dispense with the logic of Aristotle'" (193). This is the right way of regarding logic in its bearing upon Christianity. True philosophy strengthens and enlarges the mind of man, and logic teaches him to think and to reason correctly on all subjects which are brought within his reach. Christianity has brought within our reach subjects which are of the very highest importance, and on a right apprehension of which our everlasting happiness depends; and it would be monstrous to forbid men the art of thinking and reasoning correctly on these the highest and most momentous subjects of all. And as the profoundest thinkers among the Greek philosophers had been led to conclude, by the natural understanding alone, that there must be an ultimate basis on which every species and degree of truth must rest; that from mere matter, and its laws and properties, nothing can be rationally deduced calculated to satisfy the cravings of an enquiring spirit; and, therefore, that it is of the greatest moment to all science that we entertain proper ideas of the relation in which the mind of man stands to the Divine Mind or First Cause-Aristotle saying "that the thought of God is the thought of thoughts," and that "the reason of man is exactly the same in its nature and offices as the reason in God"-so the revelation which has set these conjectures of philosophy in a clear light and fixed them on an immovable basis has nothing to fear from true philosophy; but, on the contrary, may well avail itself of such help to commend its sublime discoveries to the understanding and capacities of men. "Nine-tenths of all ancient speculation (says Mr. Blakey) are constituted of little else save the constant effort to penetrate into the secret connection between what is called the science or knowledge of human nature, and the existence, attributes, and modes of government, of him who was considered as the great author and sustainer of it," and of the universe. The Christian system cleared up these mists, and not only satisfied speculative curiosity, but became the only source from which any positive knowledge of such subjects could be derived: "An union was now formed between the religious and literary elements which has subsisted ever since. Christianity was placed as a beacon on a hill, to be a light and a guide to all succeeding generations of thinkers. It threw a new element into the rational powers of man it made his logical path shorter and smoother. There was a glare of sunshine thrown upon all those speculative dogmas which had previously engrossed the attention and bewildered the ingenuity of the most refined and intellectually gifted of the sons of men. This great and renovating change was effected, not by the ntroduction of philosophical dissertations on each or any of these dogmas, but there was simply though under external circumstances the most sublime and impressive-a declaration from heaven made respecting, among other things, many of those matters which had previously been stumbling blocks to all the ancient sages of the world. And within the sphere where this declaration was proclaimed there became inseparably amalgamated with the elements of human thought certain principles of knowledge and criteria of truth, which were henceforward to effect great and permanent changes in all the grades of society, on their future intellectual pursuits and speculations" (72). The single incident recorded in Acts xvii. 22, as the occasion of St. Paul's first address to the Athenians, evinces the importance of the new element introduced by Christianity. The religion of Greece was at its best the worship of an unknown god, the alternative being the gross idolatry of the vulgar. Paul, addressing himself to both these classes, said to the philosophers, "Whom ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you-God that made the world." And, addressing the idolators, said, "Forasmuch as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." And to the consciences of both classes he makes one common appeal by declaring that God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by one whom he had raised from the dead, of which fact St. Paul and the other apostles were witnesses. Nearly all the questions which had most perplexed the ancient philosophers are capable of solution in the few simple truths thus announced by St. Paul; for we find throughout all their discussions that the questions which lay at the root of the most celebrated of the logical systems were such as the following:-Whether there is a creative power in the universe? Whether this power is of the nature of a person or of a law? Whether it was vested with the attributes of goodness, wisdom, and truth? Whether the mind of man formed a part of, or was made analagous to, this divine mind? Whether the soul of man was immortal? Whether there be anything absolutely true or absolutely good in the nature of things? And many other questions of a like kind. But there is one element necessary to be taken into the account for the right adjustment of all these questions, of which element the ancient philosophers knew nothing and which has been brought to light by Christianity—namely, the fall of man, the corruption of his natural faculties, and the deterioration of the whole material creation in consequence of the sin of man. They must have clearly perceived that many things around them were evil, and we know that they often speculated upon the origin of evil; but they could not know to what an extent it had penetrated their own bosoms, vitiating their perceptions of the difference between good and evil, as well as rendering it impossible to find any perfect standard of truth or goodness in all mankind. They might talk of the moral beauty and attractiveness of virtue; but ever and anon such cases as that of Socrates and Aristides would arise, of men persecuted, even to the death, only because they were more virtuous than corrupt human nature would tolerate. At length the Perfect Man came, and him they crucified: accomplishing therein the two great ends of demonstrating the hostility of man to goodness, even when exhibited in its, most attractive form; and also of manifesting the love of God in that this very act of hostility is made the means of reconciling man to God (2 Cor. v. 18.) And this act of reconciliation did more than establish these two great truths of the fall of man and of the love of God: for it brought a new principle of enquiry which cannot now be safely overlooked, though it is often neglected, in logical discussions, to which neglect we think that the unsatisfactory results of many of those discussions is mainly attributable. We allude to the distinction between the spirit and the mind-the reason and the intelligence the judgment and the information of a man. Saint Paul beseeches the Corinthians to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. i. 10); and Saul, the persecutor, had the same intelligence as Paul, the apostle, but the spirit in the one case and in the other was wholly different; and hence it follows that a Christian is not, only responsible for his conduct but also for his faith, This connexion was pointed out by many of the fathers. Athenagoras maintained that, though the faculty of reasoning is essentially the same in all mankind, yet it is indispensable that it should be under the guidance of some superior influence to reap the happiest results from its exercise. Unless it be based on theological principles it must fall a prey to the most wild conceits and irrational crudities (99). The necessity for this is pointed out in that portion of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus in which he treats of the logical connexion subsisting between faith and science, and in all those rules which guide the understanding in every rational investigation or enquiry (101); and some of the fathers went so far as to maintain that logic was not only inferior to, but destructive of, this higher reason. Tertullian disliked the system of Plato, and considered the academic mode of reasoning as destructive of |