[ocr errors]

agreeable to them, which continually force themselves on the mind, in the exercise of our moral judgments, both with respect to our own conduct and that o fother men. - The reverence which we feel to be due to the 6 admonitions of conscience; the sense of me(rit and demerit which accompanies our good and bad actions; the warın interest we take in the fortunes of the virtuous; the indignation we feel at the occasional triumphs of successful villany; all imply a secret convic

tion of the moral administration of the uni. 'verse. An examination of the ordinary course of human affairs adds to the force of these considerations; and furnishes a proof from the fact, that notwithstanding the seemingly promiscuous distribution of happiness and misery in this life, the reward of virtue and

the punishment of vice, are the great objects of . all the general laws by which the world is go

verned. The tendency of these laws will be 'found in every instance favourable to order and

to happiness; and it is one of the noblest employments of Philosophy to investigate the benificent purposes to which they are subservient.' Yet notwithstanding this clear exposition of the natural evidence for the moral character

and administration of God,--notwithstanding this decided assertion of the sound philosophical character of that evidence,-and in the face of encomiums bestowed by himself on the philosophical nature of those very writings' from which these extracts are taken ;--does Dr C, affirm, that all our conclusions regarding the Divine character and administration drawn from such sources are unphilosophical, and of no more value than the fooleries of an ' infanti

The points now established, are sufficient to secure the chief conclusions of natural theology, from the charge of inconsistency with the principles of the inductive philosophy. In order to connect these conclusions, wiih others of a subordinate nature, and with revelation, so as to complete the philosophisal character of the internal evidence, all that seems yet remaining to be ascertained is the legitimacy of synthetic reasoning. It is not clear, whether reasoning of this description is admissible according to Dr C.'s philosophy, or whether he means to reject it as animated by the a priori spirit.' However this may be, we shall rest its soundness on the assertion, that it is held legitimate by the eminent masters of the inductive philosophy already re

ferred to, and on the following passage from the writings of Mr Stewart. It is the peculiar 6 and exclusive prerogative of a system fairly obtained by the method of induction, that

while it enables us to arrange facts already • known, it furnishes the means of ascertain'ing, by synthetic reasoning, those which we

have no access to examine by direct obserovation. The difference among hypothetical theories, is merely a difference of degree, arising from the greater or less ingenuity of their authors; whereas legitimate theories ' are distinguished from all others radically

and essentially; and accordingly, while the ' former are liable to perpetual vicissitudes, the latter are as permanent as the laws which regulate the order of the universe.'

From these brief illustrations, the true nature of the inductive philosophy, so far as it regards the subject under consideration, will be sufficiently apparent; as well as the sound and philosophical character of the evidence on which Christianity rests its claims to reception. Consciousness;

the external senses; the power of intuition, by which among other truths the existence of efficient causes is ascertained, and the character of such causes

inferred from our perception of ends and uses in their effects these are the sources, from which the whole evidences of Christi anity are ultimately derived. All evidence drawn from these sources, is recognised as legitimate by the greatest masters of the inductive school, and cannot be questioned without subverting all sound philosophy. What grosser perversion of terms can be imagined, than to characterize conclusions legitimately founded on evidence furnished by these sources, as mere speculations,' or matters of taste' and fancy?' With equal propriety, may the whole of human science be denominated speculation, taste, and fancy; for in the whole circle of science - no surer foundation for any one conclusion can be discovered. From the phenomena of the material world ;-from the intellectual and moral constitution of the human mind;-from the condition and circumstances of man ;from our conceptions of space and duration; from the idea formed by the human mind of a perfect Self.existent Being ; *-conclu

* To display at length the evidence of Christianity, tracing ap in detail the various proofs composing that evidence to the fundamental principles on which they rest, is not the design of this Essay. Its object is no more than to point out what those

sions which regard the existence, character, and administration of the Great First Cause of all things, may be legitimately and philosophically drawn. Availing ourselves first of all


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

principles are, and to vindicate their stability and trustworthi.

In regard to the arguments of Newton and Des Cartes last alluded to, it is obvious that they rest, no less than the reasonings which the term a posteriori has been employed to designate, on evidence derived from the sources now shewn to be legitimate. Des Cartes thus states the premises upon wbich his conclusion is founded. “ Dum in meipsum mentis aciem

converto, non modo intelligo me esse rem incompletam, et ab • alio dependenteni, remque ad majora et meliora indefinite as. pirantem, sed simul etiam intelligo illum, a quo pendeo, man

jora ista omnia non indefinite et potentia tantum, sed re ipsa * infinite in se habere, atque ita Deum esse,' &c. Newton's argument is thus stated by Dr Clarke :--Space and time are

only abstract conceptions of an immensity and eternity, which force themselves on our belief; and as immensity and eter

nity are not substances, they must be attributes' (or as he elsewhere expresses it,' modes of existence') of a Being who * is necessarily immense and eternal.' I conceive that the facts which support the conclusion in both cases, are partly to be as. certained by observation, partly by reflection—and that what. ever may be the opinion formed of the clearness or conclusive ness of the argument in either case, nothing can be more oppo site to the character of hypothetical assumption. • The above

argument (Des Cartes's) for the existence of God (very im. properly called by some foreigners an argument a priori) was " long considered by the most eminent inen in Europe as quite • demonstrative. For my own part, although I do not think it is by any means so level to the apprehension of common en*quirers, as the argument from the marks of design every where

[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »