Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

99

CHAP. III.

OF THE

AFFINITY

SUBSISTING BETWEEN THE

PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE, EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL, AND THOSE OF THE INDUCTIVE PHILOSOPHY.

DR C. represents his views of Christian Evidence, as entirely consonant to the principles of the Inductive Philosophy. And in order to exhibit that consonancy, and to evince the applicability of these principles to the investigation of the truth of Christianity, he gives a sketch of the inductive philosophy :-declaring that all he wants is the application ' of Lord Bacon's principles to the investiga'tion before us.'*

The only principles or operations which Dr. C. has stated as necessary or admissible, in order to the successful completion of the inductive method, are such as are expressed by the terms' experience,' 'observation,' clas* § 59.

'together.'

6

[ocr errors]

'

[ocr errors]

'sification,' or grouping' of phenomena,' 'expressing resemblances in words, and an'nouncing them to the world in the form of 'general laws.'*A law of the human mind,' he says, must be only a series of facts, reduced to one general description or grouped He states it as the duty of a philosopher, not to assert what he excogi'tates.' He speaks of collecting the law or 'character of a process,' and mentions Newton as announcing the fact and its legiti" mate consequences.' But he no where declares that the investigation of causes, either Efficient or Final, is a subject embraced by the inductive philosophy, or admissible in consistency with its principles: and he has left it uncertain, whether Synthetical reasoning, as well as the a priori spirit,' may not have been chased away' by Lord Bacon from metaphysics.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

There is one feature of Dr. C.'s inductive philosophy which has something of a novel appearance. That facts which are ascertained by testimony, are entitled no less than those which have fallen under the personal observation of the inductive philosopher, to form part of the data on which his investigations § 152. t $136. § 136. | $ 163.

*

$156.

[ocr errors]

proceed, is a principle generally acknowledged and universally acted upon. But that he should be obliged to ground his investigation solely upon the experience of others, rejecting his own, certainly has the appearance of something new. Yet such seems to be the principle which Dr. C. lays down for the guidance of his inductive philosopher. Having stated experience as the source whence all knowledge is derived, he proceeds to reject all experience, unless that which is conveyed through the channel of testimony; a species of evidence which, according to him, we attach credit to merely from experience. He cannot conceive a

[ocr errors]

more glaring rebellion against the authority ' of his (Lord Bacon's) maxims, than for the 'beings of a day to sit in judgment upon the

[ocr errors]

Eternal, and apply their paltry experience to 'the counsels of his high and unfathomable 'wisdom.'* He proposes and determines in the negative the question, whether the experience of man can lead him to any certain 'conclusions, as to the character of the divine 'administration 't-and he rests every thing upon the credit which should be annexed to 'the testimony of the Apostles,'‡ which he as* § 165. † § 167, 168. § 168.

sures us is altogether a question of experience.'* Nay, it is a question of observation. "We are competent to judge of the behaviour of man in given circumstances; this is a subject completely accessible to observation-and being precluded by the nature of the subject from the benefit of observa'tion,' we are precluded from judging of the 'conduct of the Almighty in given circum"stances.' +

But the more prominent character which Dr C. ascribes to the inductive philosophy, although it possesses no novelty to recommend it, renders insignificant all subordinate attributes with which he invests that philosophy, however new they may be in appearance. It is impossible to render his assertions or reasonings on the subject intelli. gible, without understanding him as holding the opinion, that experience, in the strict philosophic sense of the term, is the sole source from which, in consonance with Lord Bacon's principles, human knowledge is derived. For if we suppose that he uses the term 'experi

ence,' in its vague and popular acceptation, his whole argument against the validity of the conclusions of natural religion, falls to the ground: nay his assertion that we have no * § 168. + § 170.

"experience of God,' is in this sense directly contradicted by the affirmation already quoted from another of his works, that we have experience of God; and is false not merely in the spirit, but the very letter. It is singular, that in adopting this common sceptical maxim, that all our knowledge is entirely derived from experience, in the strict sense of the term, Dr C. did not perceive that he set aside the external evidence of Christianity no less effectually than the internal,-that we have, philosophically speaking, no experience of any Efficient Cause, either in miraculous or natural phenomena ;—that knowledge of the moral qualities of our fellow-men cannot be derived from mere experience ;-that it is not experience which teaches us the intellectual existence of others; and that therefore we cannot learn from experience solely, that any credit is due to testimony.

But are we bound to believe that the principle here laid down is really recognized by the inductive philosophy? Are we obliged to take our ideas of that philosophy from the Philos* and Demeas of the age, because Dr C.

[ocr errors]

Whatever additional plausibility Philo may have lent ⚫ to the argument of Aristodemus, is derived from the much a⚫bused maxim of the inductive logic, "that all our knowledge is entirely derived from experience." It is curious that Socra

« VorigeDoorgaan »