This shows, glaringly, what St. Augustine's testimony, under Romish manipulation, amounts to; and that when fairly treated and comprehended, -as he himself would have wished it treated and comprehended,—it makes altogether for our view of the matter. Indeed, for it is quite unnecessary to run over a catalogue of the Fathers, and present the testimony of Melito, Origen, &c., &c., down to Gregory the Great, which one can easily find in any modern work,-if we can be allowed to make but that distinction, which the Ancients made, between the Canon of Scripture, in a common and large sense, and the same Canon in a strict and univocal sense, the whole subject lies in a nutshell.

In a common and large sense, the Romish Canon may easily be accepted; and we do accept it, when we say, that its various books may be read in Church, "for example of life and instruction of manners.' In this sense, we even extend the Canon beyond the bounds of Romish orthodoxy; since we allow the books of Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, to stand in the Apocrypha by the side of books which Rome dignifies as fully canonical Scripture. We do not actually read them in our churches; but an order to that effect in the Prayer Book, a change in the Table of Lessons, would render them just as readable in Church as the books of Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus;which are the only ones permitted to be read in these United States. The Church of England allows some other books; but not the book of Esdras, or the prayer of Manasses.

In a strict and univocal sense, the Romish Canon cannot be sanctioned; for we may not appeal to any books for proof of doctrine, whose canonical character is not clearly established.

This is the rule we go by; and our readers have seen how the Church in primitive times bears us out. It may not be unimportant to add, that the Greek Church, the oldest of all Churches, takes cur stand upon this subject; and that the earlier and better non-Episcopal Protestants did the same.*

With such testimony in behalf of the stand assumed by our Church, from antiquity, from the Oriental Church, and from

*Blackmore's Russ. Catechism, p. 38,-Belgic Confession in Hall's Harmony of Confessions, p. 11,-French Divines. Bingham's Ant. IX., 95.

Protestantism in its purer and better developments, Episcopalians will not hesitate to accept the Sixth Article of the Thirty Nine, as historically the belief of the Church of Christ, respecting the Canon of Scripture, from remotest times, and among all its better, and purer, and genuinely catholic portions. As to what may be called the Doctrinal Canon, they will have, perhaps, hardly so much as one serious qualm; and if they are at all fastidious respecting the Apocrypha, just let them refer to the Table of Lessons for Holy Days, and they will discover more latent Protestantism in its arrangements, than many are apt to suspect. Thus, those days which are set apart as at all commemmorative of the Virgin Mary, of St. Peter, or St. Paul, are sure to have apocryphal lessons prescribed for them; while on St. Andrew's day, and even on St. Thomas's, we read nothing but entirely canonical Scripture. A singular fact this, if our Church were at all disposed to unduly exalt the Virgin, or "chiefest Apostles," after the fashion of AntiCatholics, in their worship of saints and ecclesiastical heroes. Now, it was with the deeply Protestant design of preventing the Virgin's days, with St. Peter's and St. Paul's days, from being over-honored, that portions of inferior or doubtful Scripture were assigned to them, to let it be seen and felt, that how much soever they might be honored, as instances of God's grace and benedictions, they were still but mortals, and as such, worthy our veneration only, and not our spiritual homage.* We once mentioned this design of the Apocryphal Lessons, to a clerical brother, as we were on our way to Public Worship, on a Saint's Day, and when an impracticable Bishop would not excuse him from the task of reading them. He was eminently Protestant and "evangelical," and was going to service with a somewhat heavy brow. Our explanation cleared his downcast eye, and he walked onward with a free step and a disburdened heart. We will only subjoin, in closing, that he found true, what hundreds of others have done, that when the usages of our Church are patiently inquired into, they will be found always, or almost always, to bring out the same results, to any but a one-sided mind, which will have no stand-point but its

*Shepherd on the Com. Prayer, I., 177, 178.

own for discursive observation. No wonder is it, that such a mind is perpetually fault-finding. It is like a man dwelling in a cave, with a single crevice, and who can never enjoy light, except when it comes in one direction. Our Church was not designed for such men, but for those who will judge her by the well-weighed testimonies of long and impartial history. She will be found to be a reasonable mother, to those who will ask modestly and filially for the philosophy of her counsels. If we condemn her, a priori, it is not surprising that she should, sometimes, appear stiff and unaccommodating. Let us do unto her, as we would she should do unto us; and we shall assuredly understand her better, better appreciate her gentle and amiable temper, and love and obey her with increasing willingness and zeal.

ART. V.-JONES'S CRITIQUE ON THE HAMILTONIAN PHILOSOPHY.

Know the Truth. A Critique on the Hamiltonian theory of Limitation, Including some Strictures upon the Theories of Rev. Henry L. Mansel, and Mr. Herbert Spencer; by JESSE H. JONES. New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1865.

THIS is, evidently, Mr. Jones's first venture in the region of metaphysical thought. There is much to commend; but there is also much that will lead him to regret, in after years, that he had not read and studied more before going into print. We doubt whether any thinker or writer has ever presumed to speak with so much assurance, upon themes of so much depth and gravity, with so little preparation. In view of the nature of the subjects handled, and the vast amount of labor bestowed upon them, by many of the best trained and furnished intellects of the race,-in view, moreover, of the large space they have occupied in the history of controversial thought,—we are constrained to say that, in our judgment, this author has sinned against modesty and good taste, in coming before the public as a party to the profoundest issue in metaphysical science, while manifestly ignorant of the illustrious record of thought and learning in the department of mental activity to which it belongs. A wider and deeper knowledge of what has been said, during more than two thousand years, upon the themes he handles, if it had not served to enrich and chasten his current of thought, would, at least, have taught him a much needed lesson of self-distrust.

Sir William Hamilton possessed many qualities which rendered him the ablest metaphysician in England, during his day. His learning was immense. His faculty of analysis and generalization has scarcely ever been surpassed. His devotion to his favorite science amounted to an enthusiasm. His candor, his love of truth, his regard for rival genius, were excelled only by his gentleness of disposition. His Essay on the Philosophy

of the Unconditioned, is admitted on all hands to be one of singular power and distinctness. Not a few of the ablest minds who have controverted its positions, have nevertheless freely declared it to be the most remarkable contribution to the philosophical literature of England made in our time. And yet, Mr. Jones, a novice and a fledgeling in Metaphysics, deals with Sir William, at times, very much as a learned and veteran professor would deal with a crude and blundering scholar. He is amazed at Sir William's faux pas, exclaims at his unaccountable absurdities, and grows almost facetious over the exposure of the weaknesses of his logic.

Quite in the same temper is his handling of Dr. Mansel and Herbert Spencer. There is something in the air and port of this Book, which savors of the assumption that "the coming man" has arrived. The writer is a good specimen of the character produced by the chronic speculative habit of the New England mind. He is not sui generis. He is a growth, and belongs to a species. But in spite of his ignorance, crudeness and presumption, Mr. Jones has merit. He shows the freshness, vigor and pertinacity of an enthusiast in the department of thought to which he has devoted his energies. He has an evident aptitude for metaphysical studies. He grasps the questions before him firmly, and discusses them with an acute ness and general ability seldom seen in so unpractised a thinker. He possesses, moreover, in a very considerable degree, that most desirable and needed gift in Metaphysical writers, the capacity to move among the shadows of abstract thought, as though they were the tangible realities of the hour.

It is the object of this work to refute and demolish Mansel's "Limits of Religious Thought," and Herbert Spencer's "First Principles," &c. But to do this, the writer must first destroy the metaphysical foundation on which they rest, viz., Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy of the Infinite and Absolute. We cannot enter into the details of the assault. The battle between Sir William and his assailants is really a battle between rival psychological theories, which, in substance, have antagonized since the days of Plato and Aristotle. It is a contest for premises. The question turns upon what the human