The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-12-22
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

y" t.ihI III oiSo yin LIE EClbNOG VT EhNLf 1AOAN
By John Miller. Princeton, New Jersey 70.
Dodd Mead, ISL Broadway, New York. 1875
These works bear so intimate relation to each
other that they may very properly be brought
under single notice. Noaony are they from the
same pen THAT of Rev. Jpbn Miller, D. D., for
many years pastor of the Second Presbyterian
church In Petersburg-a brother widely known end
universally beloved in yirgRia) but the first is at
once the outgrowth and the precur er Of the second
Thus the author tells US in the preface to his
Fetch in Theology" that his ethical studies in
the preparation of his Metap physics, led him to
the discovery of certain " dii agreeable doctrines
hat have planted themselves in our common Cal
vinism." To reiute these doctrines, it might have
been sufficient to wait until bis system OF ethics was
prepared, and shew their inconsistency with the
philosopbic principles which it would establish
This however, would be to base his doctrine to some
extent upon the tensts of an uusccepted system OF
| philosophy; and he therefore preferred to pub
lish his theological views first, letting them rest
entirely upon Scrptural argument, and freeing the
discussion OF them from all connection with the new
system of ethics out of which in due time srgu-
ments confrmatory Of his theological views would
arise.
AS his theological views were thus first publish
ed, and as he desired them to be weighed apart
from his philosophical creed, let US look for mo
nent at his first work Fetch in Theology" which
as we learn is just passing through second edition.
There are two things nay be regarded as
very unfortunate in ralsll I'D to it. First that it
seems to be Of the nature of personal attack upon
DR.. Hodge, the venerable Professor of Theology
at Princeton. And yet DR.. Miller clearly states
that he selects DR.. Hodge only as the ablest and
most logical representative Of large class Of Cal.
whistle theologiaus-as the one in whom the views
which he wished to combat are most explicitly
stated and most ably defended. Second, that he
has selected title which in the bitter sarcasm
which it implies, seems disrespeetfu towards one
who is entitled by lifelong service in the Church
to the highest veneration and regard. No one
however who knows the author will fail to perceive
the wen of pleasantly which runs through all this
pleasantly illtimed it may be- but neither satir-
cal nor discourteous in spirit.
We cannot of course follow DR.. Miller through
the ten points in which With so much acuteuess and
jeu esprit he arraigus the Princeton Professor
We cannot undertake to say how far a comparison
of the passages quoted, With others from the writ
iDgs of DR.. Hodge, may serve to explain his teach
ing, and remove the objection raised by DR.. Miller
but that these criticisms are justified in almoNt
every instance by the inaccaracy or vagueness OF
| Dr. Hodge anguage-tbat In some instances they
contain vigorous protest against palpable error,
and that in all cases he is clever, trenchant, and
vigilant, independent, bold, and earnest--these
are impressions which any candid reader of the
work will be sure to receive-and whether our
younger theologans to whom the field of discus
sion in this work is still fresh and to some extent
untrodden shall agree with Dr. Hodge or DR.. Mil
Ter, they will fad perusal of this work interest
ing and profitable. As a contribution to that de-
partmcnt of theological literature, which concerns
itself with the border line between philosophy ard
theology, it is entitled to patient aud thoughtful
hearing.
We pass now to the second of these two volumes
metaphysics or the Science Of Perception.
II has been the dream of the philosophy Of the
nineteenth century to discover some higher princi
pie of unity into which all mental phenomena may
be resolved. That the soul is unit, that its en-
ergy is one and that its various faculties are but
the modes in which this 5Ee enorg5 is extended
these are facts admitted on all hands-but that al
these modes of energizng may be resolved into one
mode, and so all these faculties be grouped under
one faculty-that is as yet, only the psychologist
dream. Sir William Hamilton thought he had
discovered this unitizing element in consciousness
His theory was that all knowledge begins and
end, in consciousness, arc that all mental phenom-
ena are but forms OF consciousness. The grand
defect of this theory is that it comes 10 direct con-
aict With the doctrine of natural realism of which
he was SO able exponent, which lies at the very
basis of the Scotch philosophy, and which we can
not abandon without surrendering one of the very
bulwarks of Christian Thesm. For if sense per-
ception be, as Sir William Hamilton holds, only q
form of consciousness, then that which we perceive
is not the external object but the impression of
that external object upon our own sensual organ
ism, and between that impression in sensation, and
the external object which awakens it, is still chasm
which his theory does not bridge
DR.. Miller has avoided the difficulty of Sir Will
liam Hamilton by choosing, as the element of uni
fcatiou not consciousness but perception-that
faculty which is Immediately cognzant of the exter-
nal world. He has in this, however, ran upon
difficulties which did not embarrass the system of
Sir William Hamilton. and will doubtless share the
fate of all who have attempted before him to find
single faculty of the mind which shall be ex.
pressiye of all possible mental states.
| One thing we regret very much in this work of
our honored and esteemed brother, and that is the
countenance which it unwittngy gives to the csvils
| ard sneers of materialists against psychological
science 10 saying as he does on the very first
mage that Metaphysics is no certain thing" that
it has not yet taken shape &C., he is baDdying
the weapons of those with whom he would scorn to
be associated, and is thrusting an arrow at that
science which, next to theology is the most sacred
on earth. 1t is not true that Metaphysics, (using
that term as he evidently does in its broader sense
for the science of mind is mo certain thing" The
great principles of psychology are as fully eStab.
lished and as accurately defined as those of any
other science in the world
And here we must say further that no man has
right to do what DR.. Miller has done in this
work, namely, to take words the usage of which is
clearly defined, and generally understood aud per.
vert them to other and homogeneous Meanings
The terms perception, consciousness, emotion, SeaSa
ton, &c., have distinct and accepted meanings
which, when employed as philosophical terms, We
are bound to respect
This ndiscriminate and wholesale rejection of
established usage leads the author to collocations
which are really amusing and amazing, as that for
instance in which Up. l9l OntolOgy appears as
department of Logic, the latter being the science
of Perception as knowledge, and the former the
"Science of Perception as the knowledge of
Being"