without an aim. I myself am one of these images; nay, I am not even thus much, but only a confused image of images. All reality is converted into a marvelous dream, without a life to dream of, and without a mind to dream; into a dream made up only of a dream of itself. Perception is a dream; thought, the source of all the existence and all the reality which I imagined to myself of my existence, of my power, of my destination, is the dream of that dream."1

It is not necessary here to give any detailed account of the Philosophy of Schelling, the proper successor of Fichte, as this has been done by Sir W. Hamilton (Discussions, p. 26, et seq.) in a manner so clear and adequate. The philosophical patriarch of Berlin is an idealist, though labor ing all his life long to reach "the real," and professing in his old age, to believe in a personal God, in the divine mission of Christ, and the immortality of the soul. His method, however, is rationalistic, and the result ideal, and ideal only—that is, identity of subject and object, not in the individual mind, as in the philosophy of Fichte, but in the absolute object, infinite and eternal. Psychology is abandoned as incapable of leading to absolute reality; God, the absolute, the all-comprehending is discovered only to the supernatural intuition of the human mind. Hence knowledge and being correspond. They are correlates. To know the Divine, the soul must be divine; to discover the absolute, it must itself be absolute. Thus the system of Schelling may be described as a transcendental or ab solute idealism—the title, in fact, of one of his principal works, "System des Transcendentalen Idealismus."

112

Hegel, who commenced his studies with Schelling, and, while possessing less imagination, had more logical power, is the real Coryphæus of German idealism. He rejects what he conceives to be the partial views of both Fichte and Schelling, and attempts to construct a purely rational or ideal system, without assuming "the finite Ego" of Fichte, or “the intellectual intuition" of Schelling. He begins with nothing-that is, a pure abstraction-which, existing as thought, in his view, posits a real idea, as the basis of all logic and all philosophy. Nothing, for example, is the extreme of two contradictory poles-nothing-something-and the rela tion between them. This is the order or process of thought; this also must be the order or process of the universe. Thus, unconsciously to himself, he assumes the reality of thought, and not only so, but its identity

1 Quoted by Sir W. Hamilton.-Reid's Works, p. 129. The translation may be relied upon as precise and accurate. Fichte is here seen to be the most thoroughgoing and consistent idealist. And yet in the "Bestimmung des Menschen," how loftily he speaks of God, of duty, and of destiny.

2 For one of the most ample and satisfactory accounts of Schelling and his philosophy, see M. Willm's Histoire de Philosophie Allemande.-Tome iii.

3 The following are his propositions upon this point: 1. Thought is the real essence of man. 2. Thought is the essence of the world—the reality of things. 3. The true knowledge of things is the work of my thought; therefore my thought is identical with absolute thought. See Encyclopædie, § 19–83.

with existence. He is consistent enough, however, to maintain that we can know nothing of either, except in their relation. His universe is onebut it is a universe of relations; we can never say that it is, but only becoming. The whole is negative and positive-this and that—nothing and something at once; in other words, all is absolute and concrete, which we can never know except in their eternal oscillation. Thus subject and object, finite and infinite are lost in the boundless relations of absolute thought.1 So that we may justly say, that the entire Hegelian philoso phy, grand and comprehensive as it seems, lies between two Zeros, or nothings. This, then, is the sum of idealism, the apex of speculative or ontological thought. Philosophy has reached its goal, beyond which is nothing.

We fully agree with Michelet, of Berlin, one of the most distinguished expounders of the Hegelian philosophy, in his "Geschichte der letzen Systeme der Philosophie in Deutschland, von Kant bis Hegel," that the true secret of nearly all the German philosophy is idealism, first subjective in Kant and Fichte; secondly, objective in Schelling; and lastly, absolute in Hegel. "When thought," says Michelet, "becomes the leading principle, then one of two things follows; either real being or object entirely vanishes, and the subject of thought remains the sole reality-the philosophy of Kant and Fichte-or thought realizes itself in the object, and reality becomes intelligence-the philosophy of Schelling; finally Hegel, who reunites the two opposite systems, and blends together idealism and realism, has carried philosophy to that lofty elevation, that last degree of development, where it deserves the name of Absolute Idealism.”

What then, in the way of originality, is left to the speculative thinker, who wishes to make a tour of exploration in the region of the absolute? One would say nothing. Cousin, however, replies, Eclecticism! Psychology and Ontology must be brought together. The passage must be made from the one to the other. Schelling, indeed, has pronounced it impossible. Hegel has rejected the thought with disdain. The finite and formal, he would say, can never give the real and the absolute. But it can, is the decisive claim of Cousin, ingenious, learned, and eloquent, and therefore bold and enterprising. For, in his view, man is both personal and impersonal-that is, finite and infinite; personal and finite in his understanding and will, impersonal and infinite in his spontaneity and reason. He can transcend himself, he can see God in his absolute essence, he can construe the universe from this awful height.2 The words mysterious and incomprehensible, Cousin leaves to theology.3 Knowledge, absolute and perfect, the comprehension of God, and in God of all things, he claims for philosophy; for once more being and thought are identical, the process of logic is the process of the universe.

1 Encyclopädie, § 93.

2 Histoire de la Philos. (Intro.) p. 95.

3 See Introduction à l'Hist. de la Philos. p. 18, p. 97.

But we leave him in the hands of Sir William Hamilton, who as Cousin himself confesses, has given one of the most candid and luminous statements of the Eclectic theory, and presented objections to its fundamental positions, which have never been answered. Cousin has attempted a reply, but without changing the case in the slightest degree. It is quite amusing to see how Morell, after dogmatically asserting over and over again the validity of the Eclectic method, which he makes his own, turns away from the impregnable positions of the Scottish philosopher. It is as if a besieging general had proudly carried all the redoubts and outworks of a beleaguered city, and coming up close to the walls, bristling with cannon, had made a handsome bow, and retired! "And here," says he, "we freely confess that we are not prepared to combat, step by step, the weighty arguments by which the Scottish metaphysician seeks to establish the negative character of this great fundamental conception; neither on the other hand are we prepared to admit his inference."1

D

We think Morell does not fully appreciate Sir W. Hamilton's position, for even were it admitted, it is not necessary to abandon our belief in God and the soul, as immaterial and immortal realities. We simply confess, humbly and reverently, that we can not comprehend them in their essence. It is only as revealed to us in finite, yet august and fair forms, in nature or in "Scripture," that we can appreciate their vast and momentous relations. To us the Infinite Good, the All Beautiful and Everlasting is known, and yet unknown, an apparent paradox, but true as the boundless and ineffable nature of infinite existence.2 It is on this ground that the Apostle Paul prays, with a philosophy as profound as it is devout, that the Ephesian converts might "know the love of God, which passeth knowledge."

But more of this presently. In the mean while, let us indicate as briefly as possible, the fundamental views of Sir W. Hamilton, and the amount of his contributions to mental science.

The leading principle of his philosophy is, that all our knowledge is conditioned and relative, true so far as it goes, but limited. Good, of course, for all practical purposes, both of life and religion, but not absolute or unconditioned, not infinite or boundless, and therefore not, in the scientific sense, perfect.

It is a legitimate inference from this that the science of the absolute is impossible. We can neither know (scientifically) the finite absolutethat is, mind or matter in its interior essence, or unconditioned state nor the infinite absolute-that is, the essential totality, or unity of all

1 Hist. of the Philos. of the Nineteenth Century.-Am. Ed. p. 656.

2 We might have said, true as the finite and conditioned nature of the human soul. The finite may adore, but can never comprehend the infinite God. In this respect, we may well say with the prophet: "Verily, thou art a God that hidest thyself!"

things, including infinite space or infinite duration, as also, infinite Spirit, which is God in his unlimited and eternal essence. To be known in any way, God must be manifested under conditions and limits, as possessing specific attributes, or performing specific acts, beyond which the loftiest intellect must exclaim reverently, "O the depths!"

And thus philosophy, as well as religion, is compelled to acknowledge the presence every where, in nature, in man, and in God, of inscrutable mystery.

On this ground the French and German Ontologies are demolished. The adventurous wing of speculation is checked. Philosophy is brought from the "dim obscure" of the possible and transcendent, into the clear atmosphere of the actual and concrete. Pantheism is made impossible. Religion is left to stand upon its own grounds; and man, the finite and fallible, is left to adore the One living and true God, unknown as essence, but well known as goodness, holiness, and love.

The reason, in this view, does not contradict the conscience and the heart; but rather aids them in the devout recognition of the invisible and ineffable Causa Causarum. Transcendent wonder, humility, and trust, are its necessary moral results.

This fundamental principle of Sir William Hamilton's philosophy, is not reached in an empirical or merely speculative way. It is not an hypothesis or an assumption; but a fact reached by a rigid analysis of human thought. Nothing is assumed but the authority of Consciousness, which of course must be assumed, or thought itself is null.

Hence it has been the life-labor of this acute and candid thinker to ascertain the ultimate facts of consciousness.

Deduction, induction-in fact the first processes of thought—imply certain fundamental principles, convictions, intuitions, or whatever they may be termed of the "Communis Sensus," or Common Consciousness. To these all our knowledge, all our reasonings, must be referred as basis or touchstone. These are original as the mind itself-bringing with them no reasons or explanations. They are not to be proved, but seen, felt, realized. Hence they have been termed, revelations, fundamental convictions, axioms of thought, interior perceptions, intuitions, inward beholdings, decisions of the reason, categories of thought, and so forth.

What these are is a question to be determined, by no a priori reasoning, but by a simple appeal to universal consciousness. The criterion of Descartes, “ clearness and distinctness" is not sufficient. They must possess other features; thus one of the great objects of Hamilton's investigations, has been to settle the criterion by which to try the validity of what are claimed as fundamental or infallible convictions. This criterion he finds not merely in clearness, but in simplicity, necessity, and universality. They must be simple and incomprehensible-not modifications or inferences; necessary and universal—acknowledged by all men; and possess

a sort of unique or peculiar evidence, which can neither be proved or disproved by any thing clearer or more evident.1

Hamilton, on these grounds, proceeds to ascertain what these fundamental axioms of thought are. Among those upon which he has dwelt the most fully, as defended by Reid, in opposition to the idealists and skeptics, is the conviction not only of our own being, or the "Cogito ergo sum" of Descartes, but the conviction of an exterior existence. Mind is real-matter, or whatever it may be called, the external world, the not me, is also real.

Hence also he contends that Perception is immediate or direct, present- . ative as he calls it, and not mediate or representative. Idealism therefore is impossible.

But he finds, by an appeal to conscience, to which all must respond, that thought, as actualized, is brought into relations or conditions. It involves ever the idea of subject and object, the thinking mind, and the thing thought of. The thought of cause is impossible without effect, of substance without qualities, of matter without extension or space, of mind without thought. Strip a thing of all conceivable qualities, it becomes an abstraction, it is, to us, a practical no-thing. It may exist in reality, but it is not cognizable in thought. It escapes into the void. In a word, all thought is conditioned, whence the absolute or unconditioned as such, is not cognizable; above all, can not be made the subject of scientific speculation.

Thought would thus seem to play unconsciously between two extremes, or poles, as if it belonged in part to the finite, in part to the infinite, or as if neither finite nor infinite expressed the true reality, except by an apparent contradiction. So that all subjects of human inquiry have, so to speak, two sides, or two poles, which united give us reality. For example, man is free, but he is also under necessity-freedom and necessity may both be predicated of him, in the one case as a finite personality, in the other as a part of a whole, or as the object of divine control. Space may be spoken of as limited, and at the same time as unlimited. But we can not conceive either of these as possible-for beyond all space as limited is a boundless region, which belongs to it as much as the other; but this also as unlimited we can not conceive, for it advances as we advance, and beyond our furthest range of conception is unlimited extension. But practically space is limited, in this finite world of ours, as we speak of it; so that we are justified in saying it is both finite and infinite, limited and unlimited.

Hence Sir William Hamilton's enunciation of the axiom: "That positive thought lies in the limitation or conditioning of one or other of two opposite extremes, neither of which as unconditioned, can be realized to the mind as possible, and yet of which as contradictories, one or other must, by the fundamental laws of thought, be recognized as necessary.*

See Reid's Works Note A, § 4.

2 Reid's Works, i. p. 743.