22
A Search of Truth in the Science of the Human Mind, Part First (Philadelphia, 1822); selection from Book I: “CHAPTER IV. The opinions of Mr. Hume on Cause and Effect,” pp. 31–45; “CHAPTER V. The opinions of other authors upon Cause and Effect,” pp. 47–54, 58–82; “CHAPTER VI. The Opinions of Professor Stewart,” pp. 83–112; Book II:: “CHAPTER VI. Mr. Hume’s Principles,” pp. 227–32; Book III: “CHAPTER VIII. Upon Miracles,” pp. 363–90.
Frederick Beasley
Frederick Beasley (1777–1845) was an Episcopal clergyman who had been educated at the College of New Jersey. Upon graduating in 1797, Beasley stayed on as a tutor and to pursue further studies under the college president, Samuel Stanhope Smith. In 1813 Beasley was offered the provostship of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Beasley wrote A Search of Truth in the Science of the Human Mind while provost and while he occupied the chair of moral philosophy. Beasley’s students commented upon his pleasant demeanor, but he was also known for the virulence of his polemical attacks. As one of his biographers has put it, “he was absolutely convinced of absolute truth and his acquaintance with it.” Beasley’s attack on Hume is one of the most extended of all American responses. As the selections reprinted below illustrate, Beasley aimed, in part, to drive a wedge between Locke’s theory of knowledge and Hume’s scepticism. On Frederick Beasley see Ernest Sutherland Bates, “Frederick Beasley,” DAB, part II, p. 98; I. Woodbridge Riley, American Philosophy: The Early Schools (New York, 1907), pp. 519–36; Herbert W. Schneider, A History of American Philosophy (New York, 1946), pp. 239–40; John R. Shook, entry on Beasley in his Dictionary of Early American Philosophers, 2 vols (New York, 2012), vol. 1, pp. 83–84.
___________________________________
BOOK I. CHAPTER IV.
The opinions of Mr. Hume on Cause and Effect.
SUCH a full and elaborate explanation of terms, in themselves simple and intelligible, would have been unnecessary, had they not been rendered ambiguous and confused in their signification by some writers of a more recent date than the authors before referred to. That writers, whose evident aim is, to treat every received maxim in science as a professed enemy, with whom they are to wage hostility, and who, in the prosecution of this warfare, would unsettle the foundations, not only of religious and moral, but even of philosophical and mathematical truth, and conduct the understandings of mankind to universal scepticism, and even a blank atheism, should adopt as one of the expedients, by which to accomplish their purpose, a doubtful and cloudy application of terms; sometimes, taking them as expressive of one combination of ideas, and, at other times, of another; at one time, using them according to ordinary acceptation, at another, in a meaning variant from the authorised usage of the language, was to have been anticipated. Accordingly we find Mr. Hume, in his treatise of human nature, giving the following account of cause and effect, as far as his opinion is to be collected from the affected obscurity of his style, and the studied intricacy and involution in his modes of thinking. He divides all our perceptions into impressions and ideas, the latter being regarded merely as the faint images or copies of the former; and to this arbitrary division of our perceptions, alike unknown to the schools and to nature, he adverts in laying the foundation of his doctrine about causation. “To begin regularly,” says he, “we must consider the idea of causation, and see from what origin it is derived. ‘Tis impossible to reason justly without understanding perfectly the idea concerning which we reason; and ‘tis impossible perfectly to understand any idea without tracing it up to its origin, and examining that primary impression from which it arises. Let us, therefore, cast our eyes on any two objects which we call cause and effect, and turn them on all sides in order to find that impression which produces an idea of such prodigious consequence”. He maintains that, with the most diligent search, he can discover no previous impression, from which the idea of efficiency or necessary connection between causes and effects can be derived, and that the relation of contiguity and constant conjunction are all that are essential to causation. But lest it should be asserted that our having a distinct idea of force, power or efficiency in one object to produce an effect upon another, shows that we have some ideas which have not been preceded by their correspondent impression, and overthrows his theory of perception, instead of his theory overturning the doctrine of causation; he proceeds to the discussion of the two following propositions. “First, for what reason we pronounce it necessary, that every thing whose existence has a beginning, should also have a cause? Secondly, why we conclude that such particular causes must necessarily have such particular effects?” In reference to that maxim so generally received in philosophy, that whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its existence, it is neither intuitively nor demonstrably certain. And since it is not from knowledge or scientific reasoning, that we derive the opinion of the necessity of a cause to every new production, that opinion must necessarily arise from experience and observation. Now the nature of experience is this. We remember to have had frequent instances of the existence of one species of objects; and also remember that the individuals of another species of objects have always attended them, and have existed in regular order of contiguity and succession in regard to them. Thus we remember to have seen that species of objects we call flame, and to have felt that species of sensation we call heat. We likewise call to mind their constant conjunction in all past instances. Without any further ceremony we call the one cause and the other effect, and infer the existence of the one from that of the other. In giving a solution of the second question, viz. why we conclude that such particular causes must have such particular effects, he maintains; “that if it be allowed for a moment, that the production of one object by another in any one instance implies a power, and that this power is connected with the effect, we have no reason to infer that the same power still exists merely upon the appearance of the sensible qualities. The appeal to past experience decides nothing; and at the very utmost can only prove that the very object which produced any other, was at that very instant, endowed with such a power, but can never prove that the same power must continue in the same object or collection of sensible qualities; much less that a like power is always conjoined to such sensible qualities. Thus,” he concludes, “not only our reason fails us in the discovery of the ultimate connexion between causes and effects; but even after experience has informed us of their constant conjunction; ‘tis impossible for us to satisfy ourselves by our reason why we should extend that experience beyond those particular instances which have fallen under our observation.”
The passages before extracted from Locke, Newton, and Cicero, when compared to these from Mr. Hume upon the same subject, furnish us with a tolerably just conception of the difference between that clear and intense light which is shed around the investigations of the true philosopher, of him who exerts himself to the utmost to become, in sincerity and truth, the faithful interpreter of nature; and those faint and false fires which cast a dubious and deceptive glimmering along the footsteps of those who would sedulously, and with full purpose of mischief, lead us astray from the paths of truth and right reason. Is there any one who is in the smallest degree versed in the science of nature, and accustomed to trace his ideas to their origin, or compare and combine them, who would seriously maintain that our ideas of the relation of cause and effect, and of the contiguity and conjunction of objects are the same? The veriest tyro in metaphysicks could detect a fallacy of this kind. The mere contiguity and conjunction of those objects existing in nature, without conceiving of them as possessed of powers and actually exercising those powers, would not afford even a plausible account of those numberless changes and modifications both bodies and minds are perpetually undergoing, and the endless diversity of forms they are successively assuming. If contiguity and constant conjunction form the only bond of connexion between cause and effect, then, there is no one thing in nature which may not be the cause of any other. Heat may be the cause of cold, and cold of heat, health may be the cause of sickness, and sickness of health, rain may be the cause of sunshine, and sunshine of rain, winter of summer, and summer of winter. I open the lids of my eyes during the day and I perceive the objects around me; I unfold the shutters of window and my room is illuminated. Now, in both these cases, the one event immediately succeeds the other, and is constantly conjoined to it. But is the act of opening my eye-lids the cause of me seeing, or the unfolding of the shutters of my window the cause of the illumination of my room? Scarcely any one can be so little skilled in tracing the operations of nature as to be imposed upon by so palpable a sophism. Take the example furnished us by Mr. Hume himself. “We remember to have seen that species of objects which we call flame, and to have felt that species of sensation, which we call heat. We likewise call to mind their constant conjunction in all past instances. Without further ceremony we call the one cause and the other effect.” We may leave it to the judgment of any man of sound understanding, however little accustomed to metaphysical speculations, to decide whether this be a just interpretation of nature. Besides the contiguity and constant conjunction of heat as a quality in fire and of our sensation, do we not become sensible that there is a force or power in the fire to produce that sensation? We never approach the fire, but our lungs are at the same time, inflated with air and we breathe, the blood is propelled through the arteries and our pulse beats. These acts of breathing through the lungs and the pulsations of the heart are events as constantly conjoined to that of our approaching the fire as our sensation of heat; and yet is the heat in the fire the cause of our breathing or of the pulsations of the heart? In what, then, it may be asked, consists the difference between the relation which our sensation of heat bears to that quality in fire which excites that sensation, and that which the same quality in fire bears to our breathing through the lungs and the pulsations of our arteries? It is evident, that the difference does not consist in the greater or less degrees of contiguity and conjunction of those objects, as they are equally contiguous and conjoined to each other. The matter can be solved only by admitting that in the one case, we are sensible of a power residing in the fire which operates upon our sense and produces its results; in the other case we are sensible of no such power or operation. Instances without number might be adduced, that fall under every person’s daily experience, in which objects are found to be contiguous and conjoined to each other, precedent and sequent, without making the smallest approximation towards that union which is denoted by the expressions, cause and effect. In fact, if Mr. Hume’s representation of this matter be correct, the pursuits of the philosopher are greatly abridged, and his irksome and laborious exertions in the prosecution of his discoveries utterly superseded. If instead of striving with the ancient Peripateticks to attain to a knowledge of causes, properly so called, or with Newton to arrive at a solution of the phenomena of nature, by referring them to such causes as are both true and sufficient to explain them; in a word, if instead of exerting himself to the utmost with the soundest and best investigators both of an ancient and modern times, to remove the awful veil from nature, and disclose to the pupils of science her venerable mysteries; his task be limited to tracing the contiguities and conjunctions of objects, their antecedences and sequences, it might, indeed, be rendered more practicable and easy; but at the same time would become in the highest degree frivolous and futile. What could be more easy than to trace a thousand contiguities and conjunctions of objects, what more difficult than by a complete induction, to ascend upon the modern plan of philosophising to efficient causes and general maxims of science? It is worthy of remark, indeed, that there is a summary mode of philosophising, or compendious method of explaining the appearances of nature, prevalent among the vulgar, which is not unlike that recommended by him, whom Dr. Reid and his contemporaries of the same school of mephysicks [sic], so often mention as one of the acutest metaphysicians that ever lived. Minds undisciplined to thinking and inquiry, and untutored in the science of nature, appear to have a natural propensity to regard events which merely precede or succeed each other, in the light of causes and effects; as when an eclipse of the sun or moon is thought, by the vulgar, to occasion the changes that ensue in the state of the atmosphere, or itself to have arisen from the vices of men, the approach of a comet to be the cause of pestilential influences. Non causa pro causa, is a very ordinary vulgar sophism. Whenever such appearances among the heavenly bodies have been found in conjunction with such changes and influences upon earth, although these phenomena may be casual coincidences, events purely contingent and unconnected with each other in the order of nature, the vulgar imagination immediately assigns to them a real connection, and considers them as bearing towards each other the relation of cause and effect. In fine, the same mode of reasoning pursued by Mr. Hume, when extended to those limits to which it inevitably leads, however reluctant he might have felt to trace it to such consequences, would give the sanction of philosophy to the wildest reveries of folly and imposture, and the most extravagant freaks of ignorance and superstition. When the judicial astrologer pretends to foretell the future fortunes of men from the relative positions of the heavenly bodies at the period of their nativity — when the Roman Soothsayers and Augurs undertook to predict the fate of armies and empires, from the pecking of fowls, the flight of birds and the entrails of victims; when the votary of superstition performed a toilsome journey to the tomb of his tutelary saint, and waited with unwearied patience expecting to be healed of his diseases by the heavenly influence supposed to be shed from his ashes: what did all these dupes of ignorance and credulity, but rest their conclusions, and support their visionary hopes, upon the foundation laid for them by Mr. Hume? Men born at certain conjunctions and oppositions of the heavenly bodies, had been found to be partakers of peculiar fortunes. Certain appearances in the pecking of fowls, the flight of birds, and the entrails of victims, had been succeeded by prosperous or disastrous circumstances to armies and empires; devotion at the tombs of saints had been attended, on some occasions, with the cure of diseases. Hence from the contiguities and conjunctions between these events, their antecedences and sequences, the astrologer, the soothsayer, and the votary of superstition, supposed himself justified in considering them as assuming towards each other the relation of cause and effect. So nearly do the extremes in the principles of scepticism and atheism approach to those of ignorance and superstition! And thus does he, who thought himself one of the ablest and most successful enemies of superstition, unwarily establish maxims that lead to its support and encouragement!
But we have objections of a much more serious nature to bring against the principles of Mr. Hume. They lead by inevitable consequence to the rankest atheism. For, if as he asserts, we have no idea of power or efficiency in causes to produce their effects, there being no previous impression to which that idea can be traced; and if moreover, we have no reason to believe, either from intuition, demonstration or experience, that there is any efficiency in any one thing to produce another; and, still farther, if when any effect is exhibited to us there be no good ground to conclude that there must have been a cause, there being no truth in the maxim, that whatever begins to exist must have a cause; the very foundation of the argument by which the existence of a God is proved is sapped and destroyed. And yet we find the learned and judicious Dr. Reid, in animadverting upon these opinions of Mr. Hume, speaking in the following style. “If, on the other hand, our belief that every thing that begins to exist has a cause, be got only by experience: and if, as Mr. Hume maintains, the only notion of a cause be something prior to the effect, which experience has shewn to be constantly conjoined with such effect, I see not how from these principles it is possible to prove the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe.” This must be allowed to be very mild and courteous treatment of a man who had the impudence and the hardihood to broach such abominable doctrines. The Dr, need not have discovered any solicitude to relieve the principles of Mr. Hume from the charge of leading to the exclusion of an intelligent cause of all things, as he seems not to have been liable on that score to any such, compunctions visitings of nature for himself. Not only is it true, that from the principles of Mr. Hume, it is impossible to prove the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe; but it is moreover, perfectly certain, that, advancing upon the ground of such doctrines, we are led at once precipitately and unavoidably into the gulf of atheism. How much soever we may be inclined to approve of that christian temper and moderation which would induce us, like a Campbell, a Watson, and a Hooker, to treat a literary antagonist with candour and liberality, and to oppose even the most pernicious errors in a spirit of meekness and forbearance; it may be made a question, when the great and fundamental interests of truth and mankind are at stake, whether it is not at once more compatible with true sincerity and zeal in their cause, and more likely to terminate in a favourable result; instead of meeting the adversaries of truth and righteousness with such softened phrase of overacted courtesy, to assume the severe countenance and stern reproof of a Beattie, what Mr. Hume himself denominates “the arrogance and scurrility” of the Warburtonian school, or even the intrepid invective of “slashing Bentley with his desperate hook.” It is scarcely to be conceived as consistent with a hearty zeal in the cause of truth and virtue, to treat their worst enemies with so much respect and tenderness. We would not raise the Tomahawk against a literary adversary, or kindle around him the fires of the stake; but, according to all the laws of the most civilized warfare, we must be allowed to resort to the use of those weapons the best suited to the nature of the contest, and the most likely to produce a favourable issue. Atheism is a monster not to be tamed or subdued by gentleness and coaxing. But this is not all that we have to reprehend in the treatment which Dr. Reid has given to Mr. Hume’s doctrine. Not only in no part of his voluminous writings on these subjects, has he spoken in terms of such decided reprobation as the case required, but on some occasions we find him capable of offering a direct apology for it. “The common theory,” says he, “that all our ideas are ideas of sensation and reflection, and that all our belief is a perception of the agreement or disagreement of those ideas, appears to be repugnant both to the idea of an efficient cause and the belief of its necessity. An attachment to that theory, has led some Philosophers to deny that we have any conception of an efficient cause or of active power, because efficiency and active power are not ideas either of sensation or reflection. They maintain, therefore, that a cause is only something prior to the effect and constantly conjoined with it. This is Mr. Hume’s notion of a cause.
Here we find that hideous monster atheism traced to the door of Mr. Locke and the philosophers; but we shall show during the progress of these dissertations that it is the genuine offspring of Mr. Hume himself. This is not the only time in which in the writings of Dr. Reid, the errors of Mr. Hume and others are laid to the account of the great english metaphysician. Dr. Reid had before indicated his doubts whether our belief that every thing which begins to exist has a cause be gotten only by experience, and he now peremptorily asserts, “that the common theory that all our ideas are ideas of sensation and reflection, and that all our belief is a perception of the agreement or disagreement of these ideas, appears to be repugnant to the idea of an efficient cause and a belief in its necessity.” From these and other expressions more directly in point, it appears that Dr. Reid did not think that our idea of cause and effect is derived from experience, or through the channel either of sensation or reflection; and he undoubtedly would not be willing to admit any doctrine which is repugnant to the idea of an efficient cause and a belief in its necessity. And yet it is a little singular that the Dr. in a very few sentences before, in attempting to trace to its origin our idea of cause and effect, or active power, seems inadvertently to have been betrayed into the theory of Mr. Locke. “It is very probable,” says he, “that the very conception or idea of active power and efficient causes, is derived from our voluntary exertions in producing effects, and that if we were not conscious of such exertions, we should have no conception at all of a cause or active power, and consequently no conviction of the necessity of a cause to every change which we observe in nature.*
By adverting to the portion of Mr. Locke’s treatise before quoted in part, the reader will find that the author derives our idea of power, and of cause and effect also, both from sensation and reflection, from our observation of the operations of bodies upon each other, and also the operations of our own minds. Now, what does Dr. Reid, in this passage but refer the same idea to the origin of reflection or consciousness, excluding sensation from all share in producing it? But after all that has been said on this subject, we can perceive no good reason for impugning the opinion of Mr. Locke, that we derive our idea of cause and effect, power and active power, as well from witnessing the changes and alterations which outward objects produce on each other, as from the operations of our own minds, and our voluntary exertions in producing effects. — Let us now return to the doctrine of Mr. Hume. Dr. Reid asserts, that an attachment to the common theory, that all our ideas are ideas of sensation or reflection, and all our belief a perception of the agreement or disagreement between these ideas, led Mr. Hume to deny that we have any conception of an efficient cause. But the Dr. should have recollected that a man, in commencing sceptick, as soon as he is initiated into the mysteries of that fraternity, finds it imposed as one of the strictest rules of his order, to discard his attachment to all theories whatever. Like Ishmael, his hand should be against every man, convinced that every man’s hand is against him. He should believe in nothing but that nothing is worthy of belief, oppose with his utmost strength all those truths which others have been in the habit of considering as established and consecrated, and discover a leaning towards all that by others are regarded as questionable or absurd, exploded or offensive, hazard any doctrines or arguments that suit his purpose, at the time, without fear of being detected in any inconsistencies with himself, since this circumstance would not defeat or mar his great design, and whenever he finds himself at a loss for sufficient proofs to lead to his conclusions, involve the whole subject in a cloud of subtilty and confusion, and escape to his inferences, unobserved through the darkness. In all these qualifications of an able sceptick we think Mr. Hume an admirable proficient. He certainly was not led into his sceptical and atheistical principles from his attachment to the theory of Mr. Locke and the philosophers, since he found no better ground in that theory on which to erect his system, if it may be called such, than in the doctrines of those metaphysicians who have succeeded them. And after a tolerably careful perusal of his works, we profess ourselves unable to discover in him a fondness for any one truth or system throughout the whole circle of the sciences. — In fact as a professed Pyrrhonist, this would have been inconsistent with his plan, which is not to construct systems, but to limit his views solely to the subversion of the systems of others. It is true that in the commencement of his treatise upon cause and effect, he adverts to a distinction made by himself among our perceptions, in which, without any authority from the schools or from nature herself, he divides them into impressions and ideas, considering the first as our original perceptions, and the second as the mere copies or images of these. So far, however, is he from following Mr. Locke in this arbitrary division, that he expressly asserts, that in this manner he restores the term idea to its original signification, from which it had been perverted by Mr. Locke, when he makes ideas include all our perceptions. It is true, moreover, that Mr. Hume makes use of this arbitrary division of our perceptions, into impressions and ideas, as the first step in his progress towards overturning the doctrine of causation, and that he seems to think it a very convenient instrument for the purpose, since he professes that, with the most diligent search, he cannot find any previous impression to which the idea of power or efficiency is to be referred and of which it is the image or copy. Others, perhaps, might think themselves a little more fortunate in this search, and without laying claims to uncommon perspicacity, might imagine that even upon his own principles, considering the term impressions as equivalent to that of our original perceptions, an impression or original perception might be found to which the idea of power might be traced. It is worthy of remark, however, that while Mr. Hume does endeavour to subvert the doctrine of causation by attempting to show that there is no impression to which the idea of power or efficiency can be traced, yet he does not rest upon this point the main stress of his argument. — The foundation of his atheism is much deeper. Perceiving that it would be very justly alleged against him, that the very circumstance of his being able to reason on the subject, and speak intelligibly about power, cause, and effect, was decisive proof of his having ideas of them, since he could not argue about any thing of which he had no idea; and of consequence, that if according to his views there were no previous impressions, to which those ideas, which it must be allowed he possessed, could be referred, this went to overturn his theory, since it showed that we had some ideas which could not be found to originate in or be copied from any previous impressions, instead of his theory subverting the doctrine of causation; he very adroitly shifts the subject, and merges this question in the discussion of two interesting points: first, for what reason we pronounce it necessary that every thing whose existence has a beginning should also have a cause? Secondly, why we conclude that such particular causes must necessarily have such particular effects? This, it must be admitted, discovers all the management and subtilty of an able sceptick; but at the same time it justifies us in the assertion, that the doctrines of Mr. Hume, so far from having sprung out of the theory of Mr. Locke, or any of the philosophers who lived before his time, is as much at variance with it as with any system that has been or ever can be broached on this subject.
As it will naturally fall in our way, at a future period of this discussion, to prove that our ideas of power, active power, cause and effect may be derived from sensation and reflection, notwithstanding all that Dr. Reid and Mr. Hume have alleged to the contrary; and to show in what manner we arrive at the very important conclusion that every effect must have a cause, we dismiss the subject at present with remarking that the doctrines before stated as held by Mr. Hume, not only lead by inevitable consequence to atheism, but tend also to invalidate, and utterly to destroy, the force of the method of reasoning from induction, upon which all natural and experimental science is founded. “Supposing,” says he, “that the production of any one object by another, in any one instance, implies a power, and that this power is connected with the effect, we have no reason to infer that the same power still exists, from the appearance of the same sensible qualities. The appeal to past experience decides nothing; and at the very utmost can only prove, that that very object which produced any other, was at that very instant endowed with such a power, but can never prove that the same power must continue in the same object or collection of sensible qualities, much less that a like power is always conjoined to such sensible qualities. Thus,” he concludes, “not only our reason fails us, in the discovery of the intimate connection, between causes and effects, but even after experience has informed us of their constant conjunction, ‘tis impossible for us to satisfy ourselves by our reason why we should extend that experience beyond those particular instances which have fallen under our observation.”
Thus, while with one hand, he would strike away the foundation upon which rests the proof of the existence of God, with the other he would overthrow the certainty of all those sciences which consist, to use the language of Lord Bacon, in the interpretation of nature. All those sciences rest the certainty of their principles upon the ground of the stability of the constitution, and order of nature, and upon the uniformity and permanence of her laws; while Mr. Hume informs us that we have no reason to draw any inference from our own experience concerning the past or future. If this part of Mr. Hume’s doctrine be true, we have no reason to conclude, because we have ascertained by a just induction that the united influence of the Sun and Moon occasions the ebbing and flowing of the tides to-day, that the same influence will produce that result to-morrow; because bodies now gravitate towards the earth, and the Planets towards the Sun, they will do so in future; in a word, because the Sun rises and sets to-day, and has always risen and set every twenty-four hours, since the Creation, it will rise and set to-morrow. Into such extravagancies and absurdities are men driven by the wanton spirit of scepticism. And yet this frivolous, and flimsy disquisition has been dignified with the title of profound reasoning, and acute metaphysicks. It forms a part of the task we have assigned ourselves to detect its fallacy, and exhibit the force and certainty of that part of our knowledge which rests upon experience or the inductive method of reasoning. We proceed, therefore, without further delay to the opinions of the remaining authors upon the subject of cause and effect.
BOOK I. CHAPTER V.
The opinions of other authors upon Cause and Effect.
Dr. Priestley, in speaking upon the subject of cause and effect, says, “a cause cannot be defined to be any thing but such previous circumstances as are constantly followed by a certain effect, the constancy of the results making us conclude that there must be a sufficient reason in the nature of the things why it should be produced in those circumstances.” If by the expression, sufficient reason in the nature of the thing, be meant, as no doubt it is meant, a power or efficiency in the cause to produce such results, we see no room for objection against this definition, but that it is couched in language rather inaccurate, when previous circumstances are placed in the same category with thing or cause, and that it does not furnish an example in which that author has expressed himself with his usual perspicuity and precision of style.
Mr. Hume’s doctrine appears to have shed a baneful influence upon the Scottish school of metaphysicks, most of the writers of that school discovering in their productions some tincture of his opinions. Whether it be that Dr. Reid, from frequent perusal of the works of that celebrated sceptick, and from that admiration of his genius which he takes frequent opportunities to display, even while combatting his errors, was at first drawn insensibly into the vortex of that influence which the principles of Mr. Hume evidently obtained in his native country; or whether the Dr. in his earlier productions, had not as yet, (as he acknowledges to have been the case in reference to the immaterialism of Bishop Berkeley) seen those ulterior consequences that result from them, certain it is, that in his treatise upon the human mind, the first and most crude of his publications, he has not only adopted some of the opinions but the very language of Mr. Hume, relative to cause and effect.* “What we call natural causes,” says he, “might with more propriety be called natural signs; and what we call effects, the things signified. The causes have no proper efficiency or causality, as far as we know: and all that we can certainly affirm, is, that nature hath established a constant conjunction between them and the things called their effects, and hath given to mankind a disposition to observe their connections, to confide in their continuance, and to make use of them for the improvement of our knowledge and increase of our power.” Again he expresses himself to the same purport, “*For effects and causes in the operations of nature mean nothing but signs and the things signified by them; we perceive no proper causality or efficiency in any natural cause, but only a connection established by the course of nature between it and what is called its effect.” This, it will be perceived is precisely the language of Mr. Hume, and as far as the structure and operations of the physical world are concerned, to all intents and purposes, his doctrine. But how are we to reconcile these views of this matter to the following passage, as well as others which will be afterwards adduced.† “The chain of natural causes,” says Dr. Reid, “has not unfitly been compared to a chain hanging down from Heaven; a link that is discovered supports the link below it, but it must itself be supported; and that which supports it must itself be supported, until we come to the first link which is supported by the throne of the Almighty. For every natural cause must have a cause until we ascend to the first cause which is uncaused and operates not be necessity, but by will.” Professor Stewart has remarked an inconsistency between this and the language previously and subsequently held by the same writer, although unfortunately for the discernment and reputation of that author, as we shall see afterwards, he has stopped short in the crude and less digested opinions of his master and repudiated the more sound conclusions into which he was occasionally drawn by the force of truth.‡ “It is difficult to reconcile the approbation here bestowed on the above similitude,” says he, “with the excellent and profound remarks on the relation of cause and effect, which occur in other parts of Dr. Reid’s works.” But we affirm that it is not only difficult to reconcile the doctrine taught in the one case, when it said that causes and effects, imply nothing more than signs and the things signified by them, and that causes, as far as we know, possess no proper causality or efficiency; with that which is alleged in the other case, when the connection between natural causes and effects, is compared to a chain hanging down from Heaven; and when it is said that every natural cause, must have a cause; but that the two representations of the subject are in direct and irreconcilable contradiction to each other. For, if according to the above representation, between any one effect in the natural world and the Creator there be any chain of causes or any single cause forming a link in that chain, that cause must contain within itself a power or efficiency to produce that effect, upon the principles of the Dr. himself, who again and again, declares, what all but atheists admit, that for every effect in nature there must be an adequate or efficient cause. The Supreme Being must either be the immediate operating cause of every event in the physical world, or he must communicate to those natural causes intervening between him and the effects, a force, power, or efficacy, adequate to produce those effects. Thus is it evident that the Dr. in one part of his works, maintains a doctrine in direct hostility to that which is held in another.
But let us contemplate this matter in another light. We are told that what we call natural causes, might with more propriety be called natural signs, and what we call effects the things signified. Let us put this mode of speaking to the test, and see what advantage to philosophy is likely to accrue from the change of phraseology. When wax is melted in the sun, according to ordinary methods of speech, heat in the sun’s rays is said to be the cause, and the efficient cause too, and the melting of wax, is called the effect; but we are told by our philosopher, that the heat would with more propriety be denominated the sign, and the melting of the wax the thing signified. In like manner when lightning rends the oak, the electrick fluid is the sign, and the rending of the oak the thing signified. This phraseology approaches so nearly to the jargon of the schools, and is so little comprehensible, that in despair of obtaining any instruction from such a representation of things or penetrating into the motives that led to the proposal for such a change of language, we set ourselves forward in quest: of an explanation, and to our utter astonishment we find that this mode of expression is attempted to be justified by the authority of Lord Bacon, who denominates the true method of investigating nature, that method in which after a full and complete collection of facts, we ascend to the great maxims of science, an interpretation of nature, which is regarded as equivalent to the expressions interpretation of signs. “The great lord Verulam,” says the Dr. “had a perfect comprehension of this, when he called it an interpretation of nature.”* Strange that a beautifully figurative expression should have been so egregiously misunderstood and so grossly perverted.
But to return to our subject. We are informed that natural causes have “no proper causality or efficiency in them, as far as we know, and that all we can certainly affirm, is, that nature hath established a constant conjunction between them and the things called their effects.” And yet afterwards we find Dr. Reid reprehending Mr. Hume for uttering the same language and inculcating the same doctrine, to which in this and other parts of his essays he gives his decided sanction. “Mr. Hume,” says he, “maintains that the only notion of a cause is something prior to the effect, which experience has shown to be constantly conjoined to it. He seems to reason justly from his definition of a cause when he maintains that any thing may be the cause of any thing, since priority and constant conjunction are all that can be conceived in the notion of a cause.” Now, in what does Mr. Hume’s account of a cause differ from that which Dr. Reid has given in the passages before quoted from him, in which he boldly asserts that “there is no proper causality or efficiency in any cause, as far as we know, and that all we can certainly affirm, is, that nature hath established a constant conjunction between them and the things called their effects?”
I am aware, that it may be answered, and justly too, that Dr. Reid meant this doctrine as propounded by him to apply solely to the events of the natural world, and had no relation to what are properly denominated efficient causes, in which the energies of mind are always presupposed to be exerted. Although this explanation would not relieve his doctrine from the charge of inconsistency which has been shown to lie against it, as expounded by him, yet the question may then be asked, why not qualify his reprehension of Mr. Hume, and show that his doctrine was only partly true, but could not be supported in the extent to which he wished to apply it? This would have been but fair and honourable dealing, and commendable conduct even towards a sceptick and atheist.
The fact is, that what we have to complain of in the works of Dr. Reid, is, not that they do not contain a considerable portion of sound learning, judicious observations and occasionally profound reflections; but that he has not been sufficiently attentive to systematise his ideas and digest and condense his views. Essay after essay is poured out upon us, in which the same subject is recurred to, the same things repeated, and when we supposed that we had fully ascertained the opinions of the author, some additional speculations are indulged that again throw us back into total darkness as to his opinions and put our understandings to the utmost test to reconcile them with what he had previously taught. Upon the point now under discussion of cause and effect, I have to regret that after a diligent perusal of the several portions of his works which bear relation to it, which are, as usual, very numerous and prolix, I am unable to discover that clearness of conception, coherence and consistency of views and luminous exposition of doctrine, which so eminently distinguish the writings of Locke, Clarke, Des Cartes and Mallebranche, those lights of moral science. In order to let each author speak for himself, I am compelled to fill these pages with more frequent and detailed quotations than I could have desired. This, however, is an evil which is unavoidable, if we wish to ascertain with accuracy the progress which the science of the human mind has already made, to arrive at any definite conclusions in it, or that it should be cultivated with success in future, and make any further advances towards that perfection which has been attained in natural philosophy.
In Dr. Reid’s essay upon the “intellectual and active powers,” he undertakes to illustrate what is meant by giving a solution of any phenomenon in nature. After remarking that it is a dictate of common sense, that the causes which we assign of appearances should be both true and sufficient to explain them, (and by the by, why should we talk of causes being sufficient to explain appearances, if as this author we have seen maintains there be no proper efficiency or sufficiency in them, but they are to be regarded merely as signs) he proceeds — “That those who are less accustomed to inquiries into the causes of natural appearances, may better understand what it is to show the cause of such appearances or to account for them; I shall borrow a plain instance of a phenomenon or appearance, of which a full and satisfactory account has been given — The phenomenon is this: That a stone or heavy body, falling from a height, continually increases its velocity as it descends; so that if it acquire a certain velocity in one second of time, it will have twice that velocity at the end of two seconds, and so on in proportion to the time. This accelerated velocity in the stone falling, must have been observed from the beginning of the world, but the first person, as far as we know, who accounted for it in a philosophical manner, was the famous Gallileo, after innumerable false and fictitious accounts had been given of it. He observed that bodies once put in motion, continued that motion with the same velocity and in the same direction until they be stopped or retarded, or have the direction of their motion altered by some force impressed upon them. He observed also, that gravity acts constantly and equally upon a body, and therefore, will give equal degrees of velocity to a body in equal times. From these principles which are known from experience to be fixed laws of nature, Gallileo showed that heavy bodies must descend with a velocity uniformly accelerated as by experience they are found to do.
We may here observe that the causes assigned of this phenomenon are two; first that bodies once put in motion retain their velocity and their direction until they are changed by some force impressed upon them; secondly, that the weight or gravitation of a body is always the same. These are laws of nature, confirmed by universal experience, and therefore are not feigned but true causes — then they are precisely adequate to the effect ascribed to them; they must necessarily produce that very motion in descending bodies which we find to take place, and neither more nor less. The account, therefore, given of the phenomenon is just and philosophical.”
…
In order, however, to give the fairest construction possible to the language of Dr. Reid, I shall state what appear to me to be the principles which he aims to establish, although he no where fully explains himself; and then endeavour to test the truth of those principles.
As to the origin of our idea of power, active power, cause and effect, which are inseparably connected together; he is evidently of the opinion of Mr. Hume in believing that it cannot be explained upon the principles of Mr. Locke, not being derivable either from sensation or reflection. He maintains that the maxim for every effect there must be an efficient cause, is not founded either upon reason or experience, but is to be traced to an original or instinctive principle in the constitution of our nature. Finally, he asserts that mind alone can possess active power, the Supreme Being or Spirits commissioned by him can be regarded as efficient causes; and of consequence the business of natural philosophy, is not to trace real causes and effects, but merely to mark the constant conjunctions of objects or trace the connections between the signs and the things signified by them.* “With regard to the phenomena of nature,” says he, “the important end of knowing their causes, besides gratifying our curiosity, is, that we may know when to expect them, or how to bring them about. This is very often of real importance in life; and this purpose is served, by knowing what, by the course of nature, goes before them and is connected with them; and this, therefore, we call the cause of such a phenomenon.”
First, as to his assertion, that the origin of our idea of power, active power, &c. cannot be explained upon the principles of Mr. Locke, not being referable either to sensation or reflection, but to be derived from some source different from these: I shall not now stop to refute this objection, as it will naturally present itself to consideration when I shall undertake to vindicate from exception that fundamental point of Mr. Locke’s system, in which he maintains, in my opinion with unanswerable force of argument, that all our simple ideas are derived through the inlets of sensation and reflection. I trust I shall be able to show that no instance yet enumerated by Dr. Reid forms a valid exception to the theory of the English metaphysician; and until some contradictory facts are alleged, upon the true principle of philosophising, that no more causes of things are to be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain the appearances, it ought to be received as an established maxim. As Dr. Reid admits that we have ideas of power, active power and efficient causes, although he ascribes them with preposterous absurdity rather to an inference of reason, than to the simple perceptions of the mind: this concession is sufficient for our present purpose, as it places this part of metaphysical science upon a different ground from that on which it was placed by Mr. Hume.
The second point maintained though rather obscurely by Dr. Reid is, that the maxim so universally received in philosophy, for every effect there must be an efficient cause, is not derived either from reason or experience, but is to be traced to an original or instinctive principle in the constitution of our nature. “A train of events,” says he, “following one another ever so regularly, could never lead us to a notion of a cause, if we had not from our constitution a conviction of the necessity of a cause to every event.” We find, in like manner, professor Stewart interpreting and adopting the sentiment of his master, when he says, “if this part of his system (Mr. Hume’s) be admitted; and if, at the same time, we admit the authority of that principle of the mind, which leads us to refer every change to an efficient cause,” &c. Again he remarks, “in stating the argument for the existence of the deity, several modern philosophers have been at pains to illustrate that law of our nature, which leads us to refer every change we perceive in the universe, to the operation of an efficient cause. This reference is not the result of reasoning but necessarily accompanies the perception, so as to render it impossible for us to see the change without feeling a conviction of the operation of some cause by which it was produced.” Dr. Reid, as will be found in his essay upon active power, declares, that power being an operation neither of matter nor mind cannot be an object either of sensation or consciousness, but is an inference made by reason from witnessing the exercise of our powers; and yet we are here told that we have an original and instinctive principle which leads us to refer every effect to an efficient cause antecedently to all reasoning and reflection, although it is admitted, that without our having an idea of power, it would be impossible to have any conception of the relation between cause and effect. As soon as we see any change, we have a conviction of the operation of some cause by which it was produced, although reason has afterwards to go through her slow and operose process in order to arrive at the conclusion, that the cause must have power to produce the effect. This is supposing strange confusion in the works of nature. That must be a sharp-sighted instinct, indeed, which could thus rush to the conclusion that every event in nature must have a cause, before it had ascertained what was included in the idea of a cause. The writers who have broached this theory have not given a name to this principle of our constitution; though they have attempted to christen one no less disavowed by nature to be her offspring, and no less contemptuously handed over by her to its genuine parent, a mistaken and spurious philosophy, viz. the inductive principle. We are informed by these writers that man, instead of coming out of the hands of his Maker, untutored and the simple pupil of nature, in whose school only all his lessons are to be learnt, has two original principles hitherto unnoticed by philosophers, which make him at once acquainted with the deepest lessons of wisdom, the first of which tells him, that for every effect there must be an adequate cause; while the second, the inductive principle, conducts him to the very profound conclusion, a more profound one than Mr. Hume was ever able to attain with all the metaphysical acumen that has been ascribed to him, that similar causes will always produce similar effects, and induces him, at once, antecedently to all experience, to repose confidence in the stability of the order of nature. Perhaps it would have been wiser and more consonant to the maxims of a just philosophy, somewhat to have abridged this attempt at an interpretation of nature, and have resolved these two principles into the inductive principle alone; and then, like another Janus, it might have been represented as having two faces, one looking back upon the past and the other forward to the future; while from a contemplation of the past if might arrive at the maxim, that for every effect in nature there must be an adequate cause; in prospect of the future, it might deduce the inference that similar causes will produce similar effects. It is difficult to treat with seriousness and philosophick gravity opinions so evidently and preposterously absurd.
Dr. Reid could have been betrayed into such a gross misinterpretation of nature only by one of two motives; either from what I cannot but regret to perceive throughout his works, a prurient propensity to cavil at the doctrines of Mr. Locke, or to rid himself of the difficulty in which Mr. Hume had involved him by his sophistry, and from the toils of which he saw no other mode of extrication. In the one case the motive was unworthy of a man so respectable in his talents and attainments; and in the other, it is to be remarked that the expedient adopted to silence the scepticism of Mr. Hume was mistaken and altogether inadmissible. Without having recourse to any expedient of this kind, we trust we shall be able before we arrive at the close of these dissertations, under the conduct of so illustrious a guide as the metaphysician of England, to put into the hands of the votaries of metaphysical science a clue that shall lead them safely out of that dark labyrinth into which they had been translated by Berkeley and Hume. Mr. Hume denies that there is any truth in the maxim, that whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its existence, and endeavours to show that it is neither susceptible of proof, from reason, intuition or experience; and when the brave champion of scepticism vainly imagines that he has successfully silenced all opposition and fought his way to his conclusion, Dr. Reid approaches and informs him that he has all this time been entirely mistaken and wasting his skill and prowess to no useful purpose, as he has left an impregnable fortress in his rear, for there is an original principle of our nature, which without the aid of intuition, reasoning or experience, leads us to the conviction that for every event in nature there must be an adequate cause. Mr. Hume denies, that there is any ground for the doctrine that similar causes will invariably produce similar effects, maintains that we have no reason to draw any inference concerning the order of nature beyond our own experience, asserts what amounts to the opinion that because the sun has risen and set hitherto, this consideration furnishes no sufficient argument to prove that it will rise and set to-morrow; because fire warms us now, is no adequate proof that it will warm us in future: Dr. Reid relinquishing the contest in the open field, allows himself vanquished there, but again takes refuge in his fortress; and gives notice to his antagonist that he has a second time been engaged in a fruitless warfare, for although he has “clearly and invincibly shown” that our belief in the stability of the order of nature is neither grounded upon intuition, upon reasoning or experience, it is irresistibly inferred from that luminous instinct without which we should be as “blind as bats,” the inductive principle. This it must be allowed is a short road to victory, and a summary mode of settling philosophical disputations.
Of this inductive principle of Dr Reid it will be our province to treat when we shall undertake to explain the method of induction of which lord Bacon was the proposer. Of this new and unchristened instinct by which we arrive at the immensely important conclusion that for every effect in nature there must be an adequate cause, I would proceed to remark. Can we wish that any phenomenon of the human mind should be more satisfactorily explained, than this is explained upon the principles of Mr. Locke? The problem to be solved is, in what manner do we arrive at the maxim, that for every event there must be an efficient cause? According to the philosophy of Mr. Locke the account to be given of it would be to the following purport, though I believe he has no where attempted an especial solution of it. From our constant observation of the operation of bodies upon each other, by sensation, and of the operations of our own minds and the influence which our minds possess over the actions of our bodies in our voluntary exertions, by reflection or consciousness, we arrive at ideas of power, active power, agency, cause and effect. No sooner have we obtained these ideas, than continuing our observations and experiments upon the course of nature, we find from an invariable experience, that no changes or alterations take place in those objects with which we are daily conversant, but in consequence of the action of sufficient causes. This observation commences, and this inference is deduced at a period of life more remote than that to which the strongest memories extend. Hence from a complete induction of facts, from an invariable experience, as far as the imbecility of the human mind allows us to attain to a knowledge of causes, we become deeply convinced of the truth of the maxim, that every thing which begins to exist must have a cause. This is soon strengthened into a confirmed opinion, into an opinion so confirmed, that no sophistry or scepticism can shake or eradicate it.
Is not this a philosophical and satisfactory explanation of the phenomenon? For my part I could not conceive of one that bears more deeply marked upon it the genuine impress and authentic seal of nature and truth.
The following observations upon this subject are very singular as coming form the pen of an avowed champion of theism. “I know of only three or four arguments in the way of abstract reasoning,” says Dr. Reid, “that have been urged by philosophers to prove that things which begin to exist must have a cause. One is offered by Mr. Hobbes, another by Dr. Clarke, another by Mr. Locke. Mr. Hume, in his Treatise of Human Nature, has examined them all, and in my opinion has shown that they take for granted the thing to be proved; a kind of false reasoning, which men are very apt to fall into when they attempt to prove what is self-evident.”
And could Dr. Reid really have imagined that Mr. Hume, in his Treatise of Human Nature, has fairly met and refuted the arguments of Clarke and Locke, and found them liable to the charge of that logical abortion, called a petitio principii? They did not live in the days in which nature put forth abortive intellectual exertions, and it was not compatible with their habits to make them. Let us bring the matter to issue between Mr. Hume and his antagonists, and we shall see how well he is entitled to the praise bestowed upon him of obtaining a triumph over them. For our part, instead of agreeing with Dr. Reid in the opinion that Mr. Hume has exposed the fallacy of Mr. Locke’s and Dr. Clarke’s reasoning, we think that he has never discovered himself able to meet it, not taken the pains to comprehend it. We perceive in his work only an artful attempt to misrepresent and elude the force of their arguments. Thus he states the arguments of Dr. Clarke.
The second argument which I find used on this head, labours under an equal difficulty. “Every thing,” ’tis said, “must have a cause; for if any thing wanted a cause, it would produce itself; that is exist before it existed, which is impossible.” This to be sure, which is referred by the author to Dr. Clarke, it must be admitted is an admirable syllogism. Whether Mr. Hume quoted this argument from memory, and supposed at the time he wrote it, that it was Dr. Clarke’s, or whether with his usual disingenuousness and subtilty, he was willing to misrepresent and evade the force of that great man’s reasoning, it is not easy to decide. He seems to have been perfectly satisfied if he could throw all truth into a cloud of uncertainty, and make his readers sceptics either by having recourse to fair or foul means. Certain it is that he has not understood or wilfully mis-stated the argument of Dr. Clarke. “Every thing,” ’tis said, “must have a cause; for if any thing wanted a cause it would produce itself; that is exist before it existed, which is impossible.” This would have been strange language in the mouth of Dr. Clarke, who maintains that the Deity, although the cause of all other things, exists without cause. Apply, therefore, the proposition above assumed to the case of the Creator. The Deity exists without a cause, and of consequence must produce himself; that is exist before he existed. Mr. Hume probably would have had no objection to reducing the proof of the self-existence of the Deity to such a manifest absurdity, but the illustrious Dr. was quite of a different turn of thinking, and had too much penetration not to have perceived that, by such a concession, he would have uprooted the whole of his argument in demonstration of the Being and attributes of God, one of the most masterly efforts of human genius. Dr. Clarke, indeed, does maintain and justly, the self-existence of the Deity, but he expressly states in what he conceives that self-existence to consist; “not,” says he, “in producing himself, for that is an express contradiction, but in existing by an absolute necessity in the nature of the thing itself.”
Equally false and unfounded is the statement given by Mr. Hume, of the next argument which he refers to Mr. Locke as the author; but which when rightly understood and stated is common both to him, Dr. Clarke, and many other ancient and modern writers. He says, that Mr. Locke maintains, “that whatever is produced without any cause, is produced by nothing, or in other words, has nothing for its cause.” “But nothing, can never be a cause, no more than it can be something, or equal to two right angles.” In his reply to this, it is at once curious, and disgusting to a mind, devoted to the pursuit of truth, to see how he chooses to subtilize, and darken the subject, by words without knowledge and a foolish play upon the expression, “nothing as a cause;” and although he himself allows, that Mr. Locke had alleged that it could no more be a cause, than it could be something or equal to two right angles; yet in the very wantonness and pruriency of debate, he chooses to consider nothing, as Mr. Locke’s cause; and such is his rooted antipathy to causes, that he would even fight with this shadowy form and exclude it from the privilege of becoming a cause. “Tis sufficient,” says he, “only to observe, that when we exclude all causes, we really exclude them, and neither suppose nothing, nor the object itself, to be the cause of existence.” How insignificant and unworthy of the candid spirit of philosophy are such subterfuges and shifts to escape from the power of right reason!
In order that we may perceive how grossly Mr. Hume has misrepresented the opinions of Locke, and Clarke, and how readily Dr. Reid has acceded to the opinions of his countryman, and how prematurely he has adjudged him the palm of victory; let us hear those authors deliver themselves in their own person. “There is no truth, says the English metaphysician, more evident than that something must be from eternity. I never heard of any one so unreasonable, or that would suppose so manifest a contradiction, as a time when there was perfectly nothing, this being of all absurdities the greatest, to imagine that pure nothing, the perfect negation and absence of all beings, should ever produce any real existence.” Mr. Locke considers it as one of the greatest of all absurdities to imagine, that pure nothing, the perfect negation and absence of all being, should ever produce any real existence, and on this account Mr. Hume represents him as saying, that nothing is a cause, and with this kind of nothing he feels himself bound to combat. To the same purport as this doctrine of Mr. Locke, is that of Dr. Clarke. He prescribes it as an established and incontrovertible truth, that “whatever exists has a cause, a reason, a ground of its existence; a foundation on which its existence relies; a ground, or reason why it doth exist, rather than not exist; either in the necessity of its own nature, and then it must have been of itself eternal, or in the will of some other being, and then that other being, must at least, in the order of nature and causality, have existed before it.” Having laid thus the deep foundation of his reasoning, he proceeds upon this plan. “Every thing which exists, must either have come into being, out of nothing, absolutely without cause, or it must have been produced by some external cause, or it must be self-existent. Now, to arise out of nothing, absolutely without cause, is a plain contradiction. For to say a thing is produced, and yet there is no cause at all of that production, is, to say that something is effected, when it is effected by nothing: that is, at the same time when it is not effected at all.” Now, is this according to Mr. Hume, making nothing a cause, or as both he and Dr. Reid seem willing to believe a petitio principii or begging of the question? When it is alleged, that to suppose this world to have begun to exist without a cause at a time when there was nothing, is to suppose something to arise out of nothing, is so far from a begging of the question, that it furnishes an abstract argument from the reason and nature of things in confirmation of the practical truth, that for every effect there must be a cause. When I say, for every thing which begins to exist, there must be a cause, I state a proposition, the truth of which it is evident I could have derived only from experience; but when I declare that it is impossible something should arise out of nothing, I trace a relation between something and nothing, which is abstract; and the connection or disagreement between which ideas, I should be able to perceive, if the case were supposed possible, antecedently to all experience, as soon as I am made acquainted with the import of the terms made use of in the proposition. The truth that out of nothing, something cannot proceed, arise, or be produced, is intuitively discerned, and cannot, therefore, take for granted any other proposition, and more especially one which it is impossible for us to arrive at but from experience and observation of facts. In this sense of the words, the celebrated maxim of the ancients, ex nihlio nihil fit, is undoubtedly just. Notwithstanding, therefore, all that has been alleged to the contrary, we cannot help thinking, that if we were required to give an abstract argument in proof of the maxim, that for every effect in nature there must be a cause, it would be solid and satisfactory to say, that to affirm any effect had taken place without an adequate cause, is to suppose something to arise out of nothing, absolutely without cause.
By this time, I trust, we clearly and distinctly perceive the disingenuousness, and artifice of Mr. Hume, in representing Mr. Locke as asserting that nothing may become a cause, and how well he is entitled to the encomiums bestowed upon him, of which mention was made in the commencement of this article. He never has met and never could fairly have met the arguments of Clarke and Locke.*
I shall conclude this part of our subject by answering the objections alleged by Dr. Reid himself against the doctrine, that every thing which begins to exist must have a cause being derived from experience.
The first is this — “The proposition to be proved is not a contingent but necessary proposition. It is not, that things which begin to exist commonly have a cause, or even that they always, in fact, have a cause, but they must have a cause and cannot begin to exist without a cause.” But in reply let me ask, are the propositions that there is a God, that God is an intelligent Being, that God is benevolent, contingent or necessary truths? No one can deny that they are necessary. It is eternally and immutably true that there is a God, and that he is an intelligent and benevolent being — And yet are not these truths which are collected from experience, from observing in creation the proofs of his existence, his wisdom and goodness, and would it not be impossible to prove these things in any other way but by an appeal to his works? Why should any proposition, because it takes its rise in experience, be thought incapable of being rendered eternally and immutably certain, when it is laid hold of by the understanding, and found to be in accordance with the necessary nature of its ideas, and the unalterable habitudes and relations of things? We talk much, and justly too, of the eternal and immutable truths of morality, such as that, a just God will reward virtuous men and punish the guilty, that man should obey the will of his Creator and be just towards his fellowmen; and yet are not these maxims derived from experience and observation of the constitution and laws of nature?
The second objection of the Dr. to the doctrine that the truth, for every effect there must be a cause being derived from experience, is “that general maxims, grounded on experience, have only a degree of probability proportioned to the extent of our experience, and ought always to be understood so as to leave room for exceptions, if future experience should discover any such.” This is a rule in which the philosopher is bound by the principles of his order cheerfully to acquiesce. And if ever it should be found in the course of our experience that any effect is produced without the operation of a cause, we shall be compelled to abandon our maxim, whether it be estimated as a contingent or necessary proposition.
The third objection is frivolous and futile — “I do not see,” says he, “that experience could satisfy us that every change in nature actually has a cause. In the far greatest part of the changes in nature that fall within our observation, the causes are unknown; and therefore, from experience we cannot know whether they have causes or not.” But is it not a settled principle in philosophy, and indispensable to its advancement, that maxims collected from an ample induction of facts should be regarded as universal, until other facts are discovered that form just exceptions to them, and limit the the [sic] extent of their application? The whole race of man, if they could be consulted, have not had experience that every body upon the earth’s surface gravitates towards the centre, and yet have we not sufficient reason to believe that all bodies around the earth’s surface gravitate towards its centre, as universally true?
Before I conclude this article, I cannot refrain from indulging a single observation more. In the commencement of our strictures upon Dr. Reid’s doctrine on this point, we find him asserting, “that a train of events following one another ever so regularly, could never lead us to a notion of a cause, if we had not from our constitution a conviction of the necessity of a cause to every event.” Here he traces our belief in the necessity of a cause to every event, to an instinctive and original principle in our constitution, and, of course, one which is distinct from all the other constituent principles of our nature. In his further observations upon the same subject, he says; “I know of only three or four arguments in the way of abstract reasoning that have been urged by philosophers to prove, that things which begin to exist must have a cause. One is offered by Mr. Hobbes, another by Dr. Clarke, and another by Mr. Locke. Mr. Hume, in his Treatise of Human Nature, has examined them all, and in my opinion has shown, that they take for granted the thing to be proved; a kind of false reasoning which men are very apt to fall into when they attempt to prove what is self-evident.” Here, the truth, that for every event there is a cause, before traced to an original and instinctive principle in the constitution of our nature, is said to be self-evident. How do these doctrines comport with each other? If it be a self-evident truth, whence the necessity of supposing a distinct principle in the formation of our nature, in order to account for our having arrived at it? Could we not have obtained it as we do our other intuitive perceptions? Why unnecessarily multiply the original and instinctive principles in the constitution of our nature? The method which nature pursues is a method of admirable simplicity and order, that which some writers would prescribe to her is a plan of intricacy, entanglement and confusion.
Passing from the objections of Dr. Reid against the systems of other philosophers on these points, I proceed to examine the next peculiarity in his own doctrine about cause and effect. He maintains, that material substances cannot possess active power, and, of course, cannot be regarded as efficient causes; that the province of natural philosophy is not to trace real causes and effects, but merely to mark the constant conjunctions of objects and to ascertain the laws of nature; and finally, that mind alone, either the mind of the Supreme Being or Spirits commissioned by him, can possess active power, or be, in the true sense of the word, efficient causes. In favour of these views of things he endeavours to enlist Newton and the soundest philosophers. “Those philosophers,” says he, “appear to have had the justest views of nature, as well as the weakness of human understanding, who giving up the pretence of discovering the causes of the operations of nature, have applied themselves to discover by observation and experiment, the rules or laws of nature, according to which the phenomena of nature are produced.” Again to the same purport. “The whole object of natural philosophy,” as Newton expressly teaches, “is reducible to these two heads; first, by just induction from experiment and observation, to discover the laws of nature, and then to apply those laws to the solution of the phenomena of nature. This is all that this great philosopher attempted, and all that he thought attainable.” Here we perceive that all the phenomena of the natural world, are said to be referable to some law or laws of nature as their cause. But the Dr. informs us, as we have seen in extracts from his works, and I think with good reason, that the laws of nature are not agents. They are not endowed with active power, and therefore cannot be causes in the proper sense. They are only the rules according to which the unknown (or he might have added the known) cause acts. Now, since for every effect in nature there must be an efficient cause, let us ask what is the efficient cause of natural appearances? The only answer which the Dr. could consistently return, is mind, either that of the Supreme Being or of Spirits commissioned by him. The Supreme Being, then, operating according to the laws of nature, is the real efficient cause of all natural phenomena. What becomes of matter in this system, and what office is left it to perform? Surely material substances disappear from the stage in such a philosophy. Dr. Reid informs us that he once heartily embraced the opinions of Bishop Berkeley, and really and truly believed that there is no such thing as a material universe, sun, moon, stars, the earth, mountains, rivers, trees and men, and we are inclined to think, however he may have persuaded himself to the contrary, from an apprehension of those ulterior consequences which he saw resulting from this belief, that he never entirely released himself from the toils of that fantastical theory, for here we find him unexpectedly arrived at it, although by a route somewhat more circuitous than that taken by the English prelate. Plato imagined that he could construct a world out of matter, ideas, and a creating mind; Aristotle out of matter, form, and privation; but Dr. Reid can work with more dexterity than either, for he can fabricate a universe, and afterwards conduct all its operations by means of mind and the laws of nature. And this doctrine we find too attempted to be supported by the sacred authority of Newton and the philosophers. As to the philosophers, it is certain that among all the ancients, the province of philosophy was regarded as an investigation of causes, real efficient causes. See what Cicero says on this subject in his treatise de fato, which has been quoted both by Dr. Reid and professor Stewart in a mutilated form, only so far as made it appear to comport with their opinions, but so as not to elucidate the real sentiments of the author. Causa, autem ea est, quae id efficit, cujus est causa; ut vulnus morits, cruditas morbi, ignis ardoris. Itaque non sic causa intelligi debet, ut quod cuique antecedat, id ei causa sit, sed quod cuique efficienter antecedat. Nec quod in campum descenderem id fuisse causa cur pila luderem; nec Hecubam causam interritus fuisse Trojanis, quod Alexandrum genuerit. This passage shows that while the term cause was received, at that time as well as now, in so many vague and uncertain acceptations, Cicero as a philosopher perfectly understood its philosophical import. That is cause, he maintains, which has power to produce the thing called its effect; not merely that which precedes it (as if he had anticipated the theories of Mr. Hume and Dr. Reid) but which efficiently precedes it; as a wound produces death, crudity disease, and fire heat. Here we see that Cicero considers fire the efficient cause of heat. As to the opinion of Newton, that he considered it the business of natural philosophy to investigate efficient causes there cannot be a shadow of doubt. What does he mean when in the commencement of his principia he prescribes his two first rules of philosophising? “No more causes of things are to be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain the appearances; and for the same appearances, because of the uniformity of nature, the same causes are to be assigned:” What can he here mean by the term cause, true and efficient cause? Take the passages before cited from him, and his opinion is ascertained beyond any dispute. “What the efficient cause (causa efficiens) of attraction is, I do not here inquire. I use the word attraction only in general, to signify the force by which bodies tend towards each other, whatever be the cause of that force.” Could he have more distinctly marked the distinction between an efficient cause and the laws by which that cause acts? He evidently regards the efficient cause of attraction as a legitimate object of philosophical research, avowing at the same time that he had not been able to discover it, not being deducible from any phenomena he had witnessed, and he did not choose to frame an hypothesis. Of what nature this efficient cause might have been, in the opinion of this great man, is sufficiently ascertained from the conjecture he modestly hazards of its being an etherial elastic medium pervading the whole system and binding its parts together.
Thus, we perceive how fruitless and ineffectual is the attempt of Dr. Reid to enlist Newton of his part. “It is true” he says, “that a great deal may be considered as done, when we have discovered some laws of nature, by which a cause acts in producing the phenomena, although that cause itself may remain unknown. In this respect also his views were accurate and profound. Is not much accomplished by him, when from having discovered a few general laws of motion by which bodies gravitate towards each other, he has determined the sizes, distances, periodical revolutions, and all other phenomena of the heavenly bodies, although the occult cause of all these outward appearances remains unrevealed? But could the Grand Agent that produces these results be developed, would not this be making still greater advances towards perfection in the science of physical nature? Wonders have been performed by philosophers in natural science, but still greater wonders might be accomplished, could we once be so fortunate as to attain access to that great Moving Spring that sets into operation the whole vast machinery.
Let us now briefly enter into the merits of Dr. Reid’s opinions, and test their own truth without reference to the sentiments of others. On what ground do we conclude that matter is incapable of exerting active power, and that in natural philosophy we have nothing to do with efficient causes. We feel the heat of fire, and perceive the light of the sun. The natural impression of a mind untutored in the language of system is, “that fire is,” as Cicero says, “the real efficient cause of the heat, and the sun of light.” Dr. Reid, however, approaches and informs us that we are all this time mistaken, that it is not the fire which warms us or the sun which gives us light, since matter cannot act; but it is the Creator himself who produces these results by the laws of nature. We stand astonished at the intelligence, and find a difficulty in comprehending it. It is a mystery too deep to be penetrated except by adepts in the new system of philosophy. If the question were, whether matter possesses in itself the power of originating motion or could become a primary cause, I conceive the case would be entirely altered. We have arguments enough to demonstrate that mind alone could be the originator of motion, and that there must be an immaterial and Intelligent Being, who alone can have been eternal and the Great Cause of all other things. But is there any good ground to infer that it is not in the power of the Almighty, or that this power has not been exercised, to communicate to matter efficacy sufficient to enable it to produce certain results? In fact, have we not incontestible proof that it does produce them? Sir Isaac Newton, we have seen, professed himself unable to ascertain the efficient cause of gravity, and merely conjectures that it may be produced by a thin and elastic fluid; but does he say the same of the rainbow and other optical phenomena? Are not the rays of light the real efficient cause of these beautiful appearances? If we suppose the Supreme Being or mind to be the immediate cause of light that issues from the sun, is it mind also that is refracted and reflected in drops of rain falling from the clouds, so as to spread upon them, in vision, that variety of colours? There seems to be an evident absurdity in supposing mind to be the only agent throughout the whole chain of causes acting in nature. The heat of the sun between the tropics rarefies the air and occasions the trade-winds; the trade-winds act upon the sails of the vessel so as to propel her in her course; the vessel bears the navigator to his port: Now, it is easy to conceive of the creator as the first link in this chain of causes, and that he communicates to the sun the power to diffuse abroad his heat; but how shall we conceive that it is he himself who acts immediately in rarefying the air, exciting the wind, filling the sails of the vessel, and wafting the navigator to his haven? No doubt all these operations are performed by his appointment and under his superintendance and controul, and all the agents in physical nature, the light, heat, winds, seas, and clouds, when performing the various functions allotted them in creation, are only fulfilling his wise purposes. He has impressed upon all physical principles the laws or rules of their action; but there is a manifest absurdity in supposing him the sole agent in the whole train of events. Is not the wind that fills the sails of the vessel, the efficient cause of its motion in the deep, and the heat that rarefies and excites the air, the efficient cause of the winds? Thousands of other cases might be stated, in which the absurdity of making mind the sole agent in the operations of nature might be displayed; but, we cannot but be of opinion, it would be unnecessary, as those we have already alleged must be sufficient.
The doctrine, therefore, of God’s acting by means of instruments or second causes, upon which he has originally impressed their several laws, seems to have a deep foundation in nature and the necessary train of our ideas, and is conformable to the first suggestions of the human mind and the unsophisticated sentiments of all mankind. We construct a complicated piece of machinery, and prepare it for its operations. By the turning of a single wheel we set the whole in motion, one wheel moving a second, and that a third, and so on. Now, although we are ourselves the principal and responsible movers, has not the second wheel the power communicated to it of moving the third, and the third the fourth, and so forth? So it is evidently with God. He made and arranged the vast machinery of the universe, and under his superintendance it is preserved in order, and performs its diversified operations; but does it not exalt our ideas of his wisdom and greatness to suppose, that he has so adjusted its parts to each other, and so exquisitely wrought the whole into a regular system, as that: his immediate interference in the scheme, except where he originally contemplated such interference, shall seldom, if ever, be necessary?
There are two particulars in the opinions of Dr. Reid, which it will be worth while to examine a little more minutely; the one, why we should deny to matter the possibility of having active power, even when that power is considered as derived; the other, why we should deny that efficient causes are to be traced in natural events, and yet allow moral agents to be true efficients.
As to the first particular, why we should deny to matter the possibility of possessing active power, even when that power is considered as derived, there would seem to be no just ground in nature, or in the connection of our ideas for such an opinion. We have the same reason to believe that material substances possess a power, under the influence of which they act from necessity, as that mind is also endowed with a power, under the influence of which we act voluntarily. The only distinction between them is, that our knowledge and belief of the one is derived from sensation, our knowledge and belief of the other is derived from reflection. From the earliest period of life, we observe the operations of bodies upon one another, and the changes and modifications, which by their applications to each other, they produce. We remark also, when we turn our attention inward and reflect upon the operations of our own minds, that we can fix our attention upon any one subject or change, at pleasure, the train of our thoughts; and moreover, that by the determinations of our will, we can put our bodies into any motion we choose. By sensation, therefore; that is, by observing the actions of bodies upon each other and the results of those actions, and by reflection also, that is, by observing the operations of our minds and the influence which our wills possess over our bodily actions, we arrive at ideas of power, active power, efficiency. Mr. Locke thinks, indeed, and perhaps not without reason, that we have a clearer idea of active power from reflection, than from sensation. However this may be, we cannot but remark that there is a very wide difference between the power which we exercise in thinking and acting, and that which is exercised by the objects of the external world that surround us. When we move our limbs or direct the attention of our minds to any subject, we are conscious that these are voluntary acts appertaining to a being that is possessed of understanding and discretion. When, on the other hand, the cloud rises in the air and is borne along by the wind, when the stream flows in its banks, or the vessel is wafted on its bosom, we are sensible that these things are effected by a very different process from that of which we had been conscious in our own actions. Thus we derive very distinct conceptions of voluntary and involuntary, or necessary agents. But the proof is as complete and satisfactory, that matter acts or exercises powers under the controul of necessary laws, as that mind acts or exercises its powers, under the influence of its own choice or determinations.
Why, then, to merge the second question in the first; why should we deny that efficient causes are to be traced in natural philosophy, and yet allow moral agents to be true efficients? Father Mallebranche consistently maintains, that God is the sole operating cause throughout the universe, as well in the moral as the physical world. This theory, however indefensible we may deem it, and clogged with insuperable difficulties, has at least the merit of being consistent with itself in its various parts. If God be regarded as the sole operating cause of the appearances in the natural world, why not make him the sole operating cause of the thoughts and actions of men? No reason can be given for the one theory, which will not apply with equal force in the establishment of the other. But matter is not capable of exercising active power. Neither do we suppose that our minds possess power, which is underived or independent. But the Creator has endowed them with the privilege of originating motion. Why not, then, since he has made mind capable of voluntary action, make matter capable of necessary action? I have no more difficulty in conceiving that God should communicate to fire the power of reducing wood to charcoal, than that he should convey to a rational creature the power of voluntary action.
BOOK I. CHAPTER VI.
The Opinions of Professor Stewart.
I shall conclude this statement of the opinions of different writers on the subject of cause and effect, with that of Dugald Stewart, professor or moral philosophy, in the University of Edinburgh. He treads so closely in the footsteps of Dr. Reid, that when we have exhibited the opinions of the one, we have, at the same time, as to all material points, given those of the other also. What the one, had obscurely intimated as his system, the other assumes and promulges as established doctrines, merely throwing into the whole compound some slight admixtures of his own.
In the first place, Professor Stewart agrees with Dr. Reid in asserting, that we cannot arrive at the truth, for every effect there must be an efficient cause, from intuition, reason or experience, but that it is to be traced only to an original and instinctive principle in the constitution of our nature.
Secondly, he agrees with Dr. Reid in maintaining, that no such thing as an efficient cause is to be ascertained in the material world, and that the province of natural philosophy is not to trace the series of causes and effects, but merely to note the constant conjunctions of objects, and the connection between the signs and the things signified by them; and moreover, as the pupil is always more daring than his master in hazarding and supporting extraordinary tenets, he actually recommends the exclusion of the terms from the pursuits of physical science.
With principles, thus accordant with those of Dr. Reid, and Mr. Hume also, in the last particular, he kneads a few peculiar sentiments of his own. He allows, what Dr. Reid probably would have been reluctant to admit, that in espousing these opinions they advance half way with Mr. Hume on the road towards his sceptical conclusions, and there desert him. Finally, he asserts, that from premises similar to those of Mr. Hume, Father Mallebranche deduced the inference, that God is the sole operating cause throughout the universe. I shall animadvert upon each of these items in his doctrine in regular order.
In the first place, Professor Stewart agrees with Dr. Reid in asserting, that we cannot arrive at the truth, for every effect in nature there must be an adequate cause, by intuition, reason, or experience, but that it is to be traced only to an original and instinctive principle in the constitution of our nature. His opinion on this point is expressed in the following passages. “In stating the argument for the existence of the Deity, several modern philosophers have been at pains to illustrate that law of our nature, which leads us to refer to every change in the universe to the operation of an efficient cause. This reference is not the result of reasoning, but necessarily accompanies the perception, so as to render it impossible for us to see the change, without feeling a conviction of the operation of some cause, by which it is produced.” Again. “If this part of his system be admitted, and at the same time we admit the authority of that principle of the mind, which leads us to refer every change to the operation of an efficient cause, Mr. Hume’s doctrine seems to be more favourable to theism than even the common notions upon this subject, as it keeps the Deity always in view, not only as the first, but as the constantly operating efficient cause in nature, and as the great connecting principle among all the various phenomena which we observe.” Those who have taken the trouble to toil through the dark abyss of the Treatise of Human Nature, and at the same time have at heart the great interests of truth and mankind, will be somewhat startled to hear it seriously asserted, that there is any process by which Mr. Hume’s principles may be made to undergo such a thorough transformation, as to come out more favourable to the theism than even the common notions upon this subject, and to keep the Deity always in view, not only as the first, but as the constantly operating cause in nature. If such a miracle as this can be performed, they are ready to exclaim, surely that ancient and inveterate war which has been waged, from time immemorial, between the great contending powers of atheism and theism, may now be brought to an amicable termination. Mr. Hume’s principles reconcileable to those of theism! Placidis coeant immitia, serpentes avibus geminentur, tigribus agni. What pity is it, that old Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hobbes, and a long list of others of a similar stamp, had not been made acquainted with this wonderful secret? How completely might they have escaped that load of obloquy and odium, with which their memories have been burthened, and mankind, that long train of mischievous effects that have resulted from their writings? For, surely, if by any contrivance the doctrines of Mr. Hume can be brought to accord with the principles of theism, the same may be done for those of any other atheist that ever lived. A ranker and more poisonous weed of atheism never sprang from the teeming garden of Epicurus, than that which has been planted and brought to maturity, and distributed among mankind in various infusions, by the great modern sceptick of Scotland. And by what art and address is it, that this deleterious drug, is not only to be rendered innocuous but wholesome to the patient? Forsooth, by a slight decoction of that rare exotick, unknown to the walks and unrevealed to the curiosity of the scientifick inquirer, called an instinctive and original principle of our constitution, which, antecedently to reason and reflection, leads us to the prodigiously important conclusion, that for every change in nature there must be an adequate cause. The voice of this single instinct is to supersede the exercise of reason, vacate the lessons of experience, and silence the clamours of atheism. Hobbes may prove by unanswerable arguments, if he please, that the universe is subjected to the controul of an irresistible fate; Spinoza, that the universe is itself God; Epicurus, that it was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms; Mr. Hume, that it was not formed at all, since there is no good ground of reasoning from the effect to the cause; and we have only to admit the existence of this small instinct which so infallibly guides us, and all their systems are reconciled to theism.
In addition to what I have already said about this wonder working instinct, upon the decision of whose oracular voice the Scottish metaphysicians are willing to rest the infinitely important truth of the Being of a God, suppose we should ask the question, what proof have we of the existence of such a distinct principle in our constitution? The question, I shrewdly conjecture, would put the advocates of the theory to a nonplus; for, singular as it may appear, not one proof has been exhibited of the existence of such an instinct. It has been gratuitously assumed, merely to answer the purposes of a system, while not a single fact has been alleged to show that it has a real existence in our constitution. Will it be said that the fact of our having arrived at the conclusion, that for every change in nature there must be an adequate cause, is a proof of its existence in rerum natura? But has nature, or rather nature’s God, found it necessary to confer upon us a separate instinct, in order that we might attain this single maxim, and which as soon as it has accomplished this sole object, drops its commission and never again appears upon the scene? Is this consistent with the usual simplicity of nature? There would be as good ground in reason and a right understanding of nature to conclude, that so many distinct principles are given us by the Creator, in order that we might attain to a knowledge of all the rules of philosophising prescribed by Newton, as well as the fundamental truths in all the branches of science. Besides, to conclude our account of this part of the subject, by presenting it in another point of light. We are told by the professor, and his master before him, that we have an original and instinctive principle which leads us to the conclusion, that for every event in nature there must be an efficient cause. Now, does not this instinct as powerfully lead us to conclude, that those causes, which operate to produce their effects in the physical world, are really and truly efficient causes; or is this instinct so profound a metaphysician as to draw the line of discrimination between physical and efficient causes? If it cannot draw this distinction, what purpose can it serve in our constitution, but to lead us directly into error; since the first and unbiassed impressions of all mankind, as allowed by the professor is, that the causes which operate in the natural world are real efficients, or, as they have been fancifully denominated without any license from authority, metaphysical causes. The conclusion which we conceive ourselves at liberty to draw, therefore, is, that this instinct, hitherto unknown to the philosophical world, has none of the marks or lineaments of the genuine offspring of nature, but the most decisive proofs of its being a spurious bantling, born, nursed and educated in the school of a false and mistaken metaphysick. Without further ceremony, therefore, we give it its dismission without a single benediction; and consign it to that oblivion, from which it has just emerged, to become the disgrace of its parents, the outcast of nature, and the scorn of philosophy.
The second particular in the doctrine of the professor, which also he has assumed without proof from Dr. Reid, is, that no such thing as an efficient cause is to be ascertained in the natural world, and that the province of natural philosophy, is not, as all mankind have hitherto supposed, to trace the series of causes and effects, but merely to note the conjunctions of objects, or ascertain the relations between the signs and the things signified by them. He even recommends the rejection of the terms causes and effects from the investigations of natural science. As to this recommendation, however respectable the authority from which it proceeds, we are inclined to think that philosophers are likely to prove refractory in the matter, and refuse their compliance with a demand, which requires them to relinquish the use of terms at once so expressive of their ideas, so well suited to their unsophisticated views of things, and that have been consecrated to the same purpose by the immemorial usage of the soundest and best interpreters of nature; more especially when it is understood, that they are to substitute in their stead that unintelligible jargon of signs and the things signified by them, that have gained such general prevalence in the recent school of metaphysicks.
But to proceed with the sentiments of the professor. It is but just in the first instance to display, too, the merits of the author of the doctrines he espouses. “I am very ready to acknowledge, “says he,” that this doctrine concerning the object of natural philosophy is not altogether agreeable to popular prejudices. When a man unaccustomed to metaphysical speculations, is told for the first time, that the science of physicks gives us no information concerning the efficient causes of the phenomena, about; which it is employed, he feels some degree of surprise and mortification. The natural bias of the mind is surely to conceive physical events as somehow linked together, and material substances as possessed of certain powers and virtues, which fit them to produce particular effects. That we have no reason to believe this to be the case, has been shown in a very satisfactory manner by Mr. Hume and by other writers.” Here we are told that there is a natural prejudice or bias among mankind to conceive of physical causes and effects as somehow linked together, and material substances as possessed of certain powers and virtues which fit them to produce particular effects. Now is it not strange that there should be such a natural bias as this among the vulgar, to imagine the causes that operate in the physical world to be real efficients, if we are all possessed of an instinctive principle which leads us, antecedently to reflection, to ascribe all effects to true efficient causes? We presume that this must be a previous effort of instinct in its unenlightened state, before it has received its instruction in the schools, and is rendered a profound metaphysician. Are the natural biasses and prejudices of mankind usually in favour of, or in opposition to, their instincts, which are generally regarded as discriminated from the other constituent powers of our nature, by the circumstance, that they conduct us strongly and infallibly to their objects, without being subject to the errors and failures even of our higher faculties?
But Mr. Hume has discovered that this natural bias of the mind, to conceive that material substances are possessed of certain powers and virtues which fit them to produce particular effects, is altogether fallacious. That is to say, looking at the candle which is now before me, when I perceive the flame consuming the wick and spermaceti, and diffusing light upon my paper, I, and all persons, who like myself are uninstructed in the tenets of the new philosophy, am silly enough to conclude, that: there is a real power or virtue communicated to the flame to enable it to consume the wick, and shed abroad its light; but Mr. Hume has shown in a very satisfactory manner, that in this belief we are entirely mistaken, and that the flame possesses no such power or virtue. If then, we ask the question, what is the cause of the consumption of the wick, and the diffusion of the light from the flame? Mr. Hume, with a smile of indifference, would tell us that we have no reason to conclude that there is any cause in the case, as all we can know of the matter is, that these objects, the consumption of the wick, and the diffusion of light, and the appearance of the flame, are contiguous and conjoined to each other. If, dissatisfied with this solution, we turn to the Professor, he resolves all our difficulties by informing us, that although it be true, as Mr. Hume has asserted, that we have no just reason to conclude that there is any power or virtue residing in the flame to produce these results, yet they are to be referred to the efficient cause himself, that is to the Creator. Thus, God himself is brought in as the immediate and sole operating cause throughout the natural world; and one of the least defensible, though not the most dangerous parts of the doctrine of Father Mallebranche, is obtruded upon us, without the relief and advantage of its consistency and harmony with itself. When by the poison of a rattlesnake we are killed, or torn to pieces by the tiger; when the lightning darts upon our houses and the hurricane destroys us in the ocean; when the earthquake opens the earth and swallows us alive, or the lava of the volcanoe overwhelm us with ruin; in all these cases, there is no power in the poison of the snake to cause our end; no strength in the tiger to destroy us; no force in the lightning, the winds or those agents that cause earthquakes and volcanoes; but all these results are produced by the immediate operative agency of God himself. Such a philosophy partakes too much of the unintelligible jargon of the schoolmen; and offers too great an outrage to the principles of common sense and sound understanding, not to be disclaimed by the sober inquirer after truth, with indignation and scorn.
But we have a much greater exploit of Mr. Hume to relate, in the next place, than the discovery that there is no power in fire to burn us; no force in lightning to destroy us; no strength in the tiger to rend and devour us.
“Mr. Hume,” says the professor, “had the merit of showing that our common language, with respect to cause and effect, is merely analogical, and that if there be any links among physical events they must forever remain invisible to us.” This too, to be sure, was a notable discovery, and an admirable effort of genius for the great historian of England! “When we speak of a chain of causes and effects, we are informed by Mr. Hume,” says the Professor, “who seems to have attained to such deep knowledge without any aid from supernatural light, as he never laid claim to any, that there is no real chain in the case, but that the expression is merely figurative, or, if you prefer the term, analogical. For instance, the vessel moves in the stream by the force of the tide; the tide rises and falls from the approach and recess of the waters of the ocean; the ocean is influenced in its mass of fluid by the attraction of the sun and moon; attraction is occasioned by some unknown cause; this unknown cause derives its power from the hand of the Almighty. Here, we are in the habit of speaking of a chain of causes and effects, the first link of which, is, as usual, traced to the throne of the Almighty. But Mr. Hume has discovered, by mere dint of natural penetration, that there is in reality no material chain, connecting the vessel with the throne of the Almighty. If any persons ever thought so, in all good will and charity, we leave them to be corrected by Mr. Hume; but, for ourselves, although we would make it a matter of conscience not to withhold his due praise even from an atheist and sceptic; yet we cannot conceive how any one in his senses, could be so simple as to imagine that he was using, in such modes of expression, any other than a metaphorical language.
We have already displayed in the works of Mr. Hume a much more daring and gigantic effort, than that which is ascribed to him by the Professor. Not contented with discovering (if he has done so) that our language about cause and effect, is merely analogical, we find him endeavouring by one great exertion to break the chain that binds his race and all created nature to the throne of the Almighty. Like the Titans of old, he wages impious war against the throne and government of God, and essays to obliterate from the minds of men a belief in his existence, and all trust in his province. Let us see, however, with what cool indifference and philosophick sang-froid, a modern philosopher can allude to this serious and atrocious attempt of Mr. Hume. “This language,” says our Professor, “has even been adopted by philosophers, and by atheists as well as theists. The latter have represented natural events as parts of a great chain, the highest link of which is supported by the Deity; the former have pretended that there is no absurdity in supposing the number of links to be infinite.” This it must be confessed is a very polite and complacent allusion to the doctrine of a perpetual succession of causes, upon which all the best philosophers, both of ancient and modern times, have agreed in setting the seal of their reprobation, and the absurdity of which Dr. Clarke, in his demonstration of the being and attributes of God, has so completely exposed. For our part, we cannot but regret to say, that professor Stewart, popular a writer as he has rendered himself in some circles, and favourable as has been the reception with which his works have generally met; in our estimation as the advocate of virtue and religion, assumes a very questionable shape. If he be the real friend of virtue and religion, and have at heart the great interests of truth and mankind, could he refer with the same apparent approbation and satisfaction to the works of the enemies of truth and its abettors, of atheists and theists? How gently does he touch the abominable doctrines of Mr. Hume; sometimes even endeavouring to palliate them and appropriate them to himself! No matter whether men approve themselves the true interpreters of nature, or its corruptors and falsifiers; the supporters of morals and religion, or their subverters; sound politicians, or anarchists and disorganizers; the propagators of the most just and sublime lessons of philosophy, or the retailers of a miserable jargon; they all have equally respectful and honourable mention in his pages. Newton, Locke, Bacon, Clarke, Aristotle, Des Cartes, Mallebranche, Butler, successively appear upon the stage, in company with Rousseau, D’Alembert, Helvetius, Condorcet, Diderot, Godwin, and a host of worthies of a similar description, while they are all received with the most obsequious homage and courtesy, crowned with undistinguished honours, and dismissed with a like philosophick suavity and grace. This may all be regarded as appertaining to the office, and comporting with the pretensions of the modern philosopher; but we cannot withhold the observation, that it appears to us to be neither consistent with the sprit, nor indicative of those moral feelings, which should characterize the faithful friend and zealous advocate of truth and righteousness.
To proceed from this short digression in stating the opinions of the Professor. “It seems now,” says he, “to be pretty generally agreed among philosophers, that there is no instance in which we are able to perceive a necessary connection between two successive events, or to comprehend in what manner the one proceeds from the other as a cause. From experience we learn that there are many events which are constantly conjoined, so that the one invariably follows the other; but it is possible, for any thing that we know to the contrary, that this connexion, though a constant one, may not be a necessary connexion; nay, it is possible, that there may be no necessary connexions among any of the phenomena which we see; and if there be any such connections existing, we may rest assured that we shall never be able to discover them.” Again — “the word cause is used, both by philosophers and the vulgar, in two senses, which are widely different: when it is said that every change in nature indicates the operation of a cause, the word cause expresses something which is supposed to be necessarily connected with the change, and without which it could not have happened. This may be called the metaphysical meaning of the word, and such causes may be called metaphysical or efficient causes. In natural philosophy, however, when we speak of one thing being the cause of another, all that we mean is, that the two are constantly conjoined, so that when we see the one we may expect the other. The causes which are the objects of our investigation in natural philosophy, may, for the sake of distinction, be called physical causes.”
Such is the doctrine held upon this subject, and such the ground upon which it is defended. “It seems now,” says the professor, “to be pretty generally agreed among philosophers, that there is no instance in which we are able to perceive a necessary connection between two successive events, or to comprehend in what manner the one proceeds from the other as a cause.” As to the last part of this proposition, which relates to the possibility of our comprehending the manner in which one event proceeds from the other as its cause; if he considers this a part of the new system, he is entirely mistaken, since no philosopher, who understood the limited nature of the human faculties, ever supposed himself able to discover the mode in which any one cause gives rise to its effect. The water which we drink quenches our thirst, and the food which we eat relieves us from hunger and sustains our bodies, and we know that there must be a power or virtue in water and food to produce these effects, or they would not have taken place; but as to the manner in which they operate upon our bodies to accomplish these purposes, philosophy acknowledges that to be unknown to her. Many passages to this purport might be adduced from Mr. Locke, but it cannot be necessary, as it is regarded in science, as an established and incontrovertible truth.
The peculiarity in the Professor’s doctrine, may, therefore, be considered as contained in the first part of the proposition. “It is now pretty generally agreed among philosophers, that there is no instance in which we are able to perceive a necessary connexion between two successive events.” And again, he explains. “From experience, indeed, we learn that there are many events which are constantly conjoined, so that the one invariably follows the other; but it is possible, for any thing we know to the contrary, that this connexion, though a constant one, as far as our observation has reached, may not be a necessary connexion. Nay, it is possible, that there may be no necessary connexions among any of the phenomena which we see; and if there be any such connexions existing, we may be assured we shall never be able to discover them.” This is the argument, or one of the arguments, by which Mr. Hume endeavours to overturn the doctrine of causality or efficiency in objects to produce their effects; and which the professor admits to be unanswerable, as far as it relates to the natural world. The professor has evidently allowed himself to be entrapped in the snare, which Mr. Hume has laid for his victims. The whole force of the reasoning is sapped, and the subtilty of Mr. Hume revealed, by adverting to the ambiguity with which he chooses to employ the terms necessary connexion between causes and effects, which he would consider as equivalent to the expressions, efficiency in causes to produce their effects. We find the Professor imbibing his notions from Mr. Hume, and accordingly giving this as the usual acceptation of the term cause. “When it is said that every change in nature indicates the operation of a cause, the word cause expresses something necessarily connected with the change, and without which it could not have happened.” Here we find an entirely new definition of the term cause, embracing a wider latitude of meaning than any before annexed to it. Now, is it possible for the narrow mind of man to decide, that there are any two events in the whole compass of the moral and physical world, which are so necessarily connected together that the one could not have existed without the other? The only single object which we are able to conceive, that could not possibly have existed without another, is the universe without a God to create it; for we are sure that God might exist without the universe, as it was not an act of necessity that he formed it, but of choice. So then, if it be true, that a cause is something so necessarily connected with its effect, that without it that effect could not have happened, it is evident that there can be but one such single and sole cause in the universe, and that is the Creator himself. For put the matter, for a moment, to the trial of a few examples, taken from the physical and moral world. Fire burns us, and we are sure from our sensation, that there must be in the fire power to produce that effect upon us; but can we be certain, that the sensation of heat in us, and the operation of that power in fire, are so inseparably connected together, that the one could not have happened without the action of the other? Could not God have contrived other methods of affecting our senses in the same way, or have done it by his own immediate agency? The same reasoning will apply with equal force in reference to mind. Not a thought, volition, desire, voluntary exertion, of which God himself could not be the author, without the exercise of our powers. Not one of those effects, which are always regarded to be caused by the exertion of our mental powers, which God himself might not have brought about in a way different from that which he has now established, and which, of consequence, cannot be considered as so necessarily connected with the exertion of those powers, that, without them, they could not have happened. I repeat it, therefore, if by the word cause be meant something so necessarily connected with its effect that, without it, that effect would not have taken place, there can be but one great cause both in the physical and moral world, and we are completely landed in the mystical and incomprehensible theory of Father Mallebranche. Here, then, God, who was before, as we have seen, made the immediate operating cause of both evil and good in the physical world, is now made equally the immediate operating cause of all evil as well as good in the moral; and the free agency of man together with all accountability to his Maker are at once uprooted. When the traitor betrays his country, or the child puts his father to death; when the assassin cuts off his benefactor, or the suicide throws back indignantly into the face of his Creator that existence which he had communicated; all these culprits are become irresponsible agents, and are no longer criminal, for God is the sole and immediate operating cause in all these transactions. In a word, under a theory of this kind, God is the true author of all the blasphemies, treacheries, adulteries, murders, and the whole train of enormities which are perpetrated among mankind. Father Mallebranche laboured hard, indeed, to relieve his doctrine from these formidable objections; but, although we cannot but award him the praise of having connected with his system great sincerity and zeal in its cause, together with an ardent, though mystical piety, yet it is not to be denied that he was unable to defend it. We had thought, that this mystical theory had passed away as the tale of other times, until we find principles stated, that lead to it by inevitable consequence in the writings of the Professor. Does the Professor, then, show himself in his works to be a disciple of Mallebranche? Evidently not: for neither do we find in his productions, any of that spirit of piety which breathes through the works of that venerable father, nor does his language in any part imply, that he intends to extend his doctrine farther than to exclude all causation from the events of the physical world; and as to Mr. Hume, nothing could be more remote from his views or his principles than to acknowledge the immediate action of the Creator throughout the universe. The Professor certainly does not perceive the consequences to which this doctrine of Mr. Hume, which he unwarily adopts, unavoidably conducts him. He, in one of his notes, indeed, informs us that Mallebranche deduced his conclusion from premises very nearly the same with Mr. Hume’s, the fallacy of which in the extent to which it is applied, we shall soon detect; but he no where avows himself to have embraced the principles of that father.
The fallacy of Mr. Hume, on this point, consists in confounding two things that are entirely distinct, necessary connection between causes and effects, with efficiency in causes to produce their effects. We may be perfectly satisfied that a cause has power and efficiency to produce its effect, and that in the exercise of that power it operates under the influence of necessary laws, or laws over which it has no controul, without there being supposed between it and its effect, in the nature of things, such a necessary connection, that the one could not have taken place without the other. The sun gives us light and heat, and we are sure as things are now constituted there must be a power in that luminary to produce these results; but it is impossible for the mind of man to say, that these things are so inseparably united, that the infinite power and wisdom of the Creator might not have occasioned the one without the intermediation of the other. When we witness any effect, indeed, we are sure of one thing only; and that is, that there must be some cause, as this is a truth confirmed by invariable experience, and by the abstract conclusions of the understanding; but of what nature that cause is, we can derive only from observation, or, in the case of the Creator, from an examination of his works and from revelation. Neither is it possible to the human mind to determine a priori, or by any strict rules of demonstration that the efficiency which we have found in causes, in one or two or more cases, will always inhere in that collection of sensible qualities. This is a lesson to be learnt only from experience; and upon our continued experience it must rest as its foundation, as there are no abstract arguments that can minister in this case to its support or confirmation. But does this consideration render the proof less satisfactory to a reasonable mind, diminish its confidence in the stability of the order of nature, or justify the scepticism of Mr. Hume when he maintains, that we have no good ground of reasoning from the past and present to the future, would vacate all the lessons of experience, destroy the force of the whole argument from induction, and, thereby upturn the foundation of experimental and moral science? We cannot strictly demonstrate that fire will burn us to-morrow, or water drown us, the sun rise and set, or the tides ebb and flow in our rivers; but does this consideration lesson our confidence that all these events will take place? This view of the matter will serve to explain to the Professor, what he has quoted from Dr. Barrow and others, in a note on this subject, and seems not rightly to have understood; and will convince him that that Great Philosopher and eloquent preacher, instead of agreeing with him and Mr. Hume in asserting, that there is no efficiency in natural causes, expressly recognizes in his very modes of expression an opposite doctrine. “That the object of the physical inquirer, “says the Professor,” is not to trace necessary connections, or to ascertain the efficient causes of phenomena (here we see to trace necessary connections, and ascertain efficient causes, are considered by Mr. Stewart equivalent expressions), is a principle which has been frequently ascribed to Mr. Hume as its author, both by his followers and his opponents; but it is in fact of a much earlier date, and has been maintained by many of the most enlightened, and the least sceptical of our modern philosophers: nor do I know that it was ever suspected to have a dangerous tendency until the publication of Mr. Hume’s writings. It we except, says Dr. Barrow, the mutual causality and dependence of a mathematical demonstration, I do not think that there is any other causality, in the nature of things, wherein a necessary consequence can be founded. Logicians do indeed boast of, I do not know what kind of demonstration from external causes either efficient or final, but without being able to show one genuine example of any such; nay, I imagine it is impossible for them to do so. For there can be no such connection of an external efficient cause with its effect, through which, strictly speaking, the effect is necessarily supposed by the supposition of the efficient cause, or any determinate cause by the supposition of the effect. Therefore, there can be no argumentation from an efficient cause to the effect, or from an effect to the cause, which is strictly necessary.” The observations before made, afford a sufficient key to explain this opinion of Dr. Barrow, and show that it is perfectly just and true; but at the same time instead of answering the purpose for which it was brought by the Professor, namely, to prove that causes in the natural world are not considered by Dr. Barrow as efficient causes, that it is in direct hostility to it. Dr. Barrow all along speaks of external causes as efficient or final, of demonstration from external efficient causes, thereby proving, beyond any doubt, that he considers external causes as true efficients. But Dr. Barrow, it is said, avows, that there can be no such connection of an external efficient cause with its effect, through which, strictly speaking, the effect is necessarily supposed by the supposition of the efficient cause, or any determinate cause by the supposition of the effect.” This is true, and amounts to the doctrine we have before inculcated. That is to say, Dr. Barrow maintains, that although by an evidence satisfactory to the mind, we have ascertained that the influence of the sun and moon causes the rising and falling of the tides in our river, we cannot prove by strict demonstration or necessary consequence, that although the cause or influence of the sun and moon should subsist, it must unavoidably produce that effect, or the rising and falling of the tides in future, or, if we suppose the effect to have taken place, it must unavoidably have resulted from that determinate cause. This, no person who understands the subject will pretend to deny; and to maintain a contrary doctrine would be to confound the different degrees of evidence upon which our knowledge rests. We can no more attain to strict demonstration in the science of nature, than we should be contented with the ground on which inductive reasonings rest in pure mathematicks. The only proof we have that the sun will rise to-morrow, and the tides flow, or that the whole course of nature may not undergo a complete change, is derived from an experience of the uniformity of its operations hitherto; and if we are not contented with this degree of proof, the Creator furnishes us with no better; and if we repose not confidence in the order of nature, until we shall prove its stability by strict and mathematical demonstration, we shall never do so.
But, if any one is inclined to think that I have given a wrong interpretation to Dr. Barrow’s meaning, hear him speak further in illustration of his doctrine. In his sixth mathematical lecture, after expressing himself as has been already mentioned, he proceeds. “For every action of an efficient cause, as well as its consequent effect, depends upon the free will and power of Almighty God, who can hinder the influx and efficacy of any cause, at his pleasure; neither is there any effect so confined to one cause, but it may be produced by perhaps innumerable others. Hence it is possible that there may be such a cause without a subsequent effect, or such an effect and no peculiar cause. Because there is fire, it does not necessarily follow that there is fuel for it to feed on or smoke sent from it, since history relates that, in fact, it has happened otherwise. Neither, on the contrary, is the necessary existence of fire inferred from ashes or smoke. For who doubts but God can immediately create ashes and smoke, or produce it by other means? In like manner, from that most celebrated and trite example of a demonstration from the efficient cause which is used by Aristotle and other writers of logick, of the Earth’s interposition between the sun and moon, it does not follow that the moon undergoes an Eclipse; for if God please, the Solar rays may pass through the body of the Earth, or reach the moon by an indirect passage, without touching the Earth; or otherwise the moon may be enlightened some other way. Nay, the sun itself does not infer light; for at the death of our Lord, the setting of the better light of the world, the sun, as if struck with fear and confounded with shame, drew in his rays and hid his face, and even at noon day suffered an Eclipse without any moon to intercept his light, or any cloud to darken his brightness. A defect of light, then, cannot be concluded from the interposition of an opaque body, nor this from that. I own, according to the law and custom of nature, that such effects do always proceed from such causes; but, in reality, it is one thing to happen naturally, and another to exist of necessity. For necessary propositions have an universal, immutable and eternal truth, subject to nothing, nor to be hindered by any power. Because, therefore, the efficacy of agents may be stopped or changed, and every effect may proceed from various causes, there can be no demonstration from an efficient cause, or from an effect.”
We shall conclude these strictures upon the doctrines of the Professor upon cause and effect, by briefly descanting upon his peculiarities. “In consequence of the inferences,” says he, “which Mr. Hume has deduced from this doctrine concerning cause and effect, some late authors have been led to dispute its truth; not perceiving that the fallacy of Mr. Hume’s system does not consist in his premises, but in the conclusion which he draws from them.” This to be sure, is speaking in very complacent terms of the premises of Mr. Hume, and greatly calculated to palliate their atrocious nature in the estimation of his readers; and at the same time paying no very flattering compliment to the ingenuity of that celebrated atheist, since it implies, that he has constructed his premises with so little address, that two directly contradictory conclusions may be drawn from them, that there is a God, and that there is no God. Mr. Hume, thick as is the cloud in which he frequently chooses to involve himself, and full of jargon as is his metaphysical language, knew better than all this how to draw his readers towards his sceptical conclusions. Which of the premises of Mr. Hume would the Professor admit, and yet avoid the force of his conclusion? Does he imagine, that all the premises of Mr. Hume are concentrated in those two propositions, we can discover no power or efficacy in causes to produce their effects, and there is no necessary connexion between effects and causes? This seems to be implied in what he remarks on this subject relative to Father Mallebranche, “this accordingly was the conclusion which Mallebranche deduced from premises very nearly the same with Mr. Hume’s.” The shade of that venerable and truly philosophick Father, methinks, would frown with indignation upon any one who should presume to accuse him of abetting such abominable principles as those of Mr. Hume. How easy a task to throw philosophical subjects into confusion and obscurity; how difficult the task to present them in a clear and satisfactory point of light! Let us hear Mallebranche speak for himself, and we shall then be able to discover how nearly his principles approach Mr. Hume’s* — “Il y a,” says he, “bien des raisons qui m’empechent d’attribuer aux causes secondes ou naturelles, une force, une puissance, une efficace pour produire quoi que ce soit — Mais la principale est que cette opinion ne me paroit pas meme concevable. Quelq’effort que je fasse pour la comprendre, je ne puis trouver en moi d’idee qui me represente ceque ce peut-etre que la force ou la puissance qu’on attribue aux creatures. Et je ne crois pas meme faire de jugement temeraire d’assurer qui soutiennent que les creatures sont en elles-memes de la force et de la puissance, avancent ce qu ils ne conçoivent point clairement. Car, enfin, si les philosophes concevoient clairement que les causes secondes ont une veritable force pour agir et pour produire leur sembable, etant homme aussi bien que’ux et participant comme eux a la souveraine raison; je pourrois apparement decouvrir l’idee qui leur represente cette force. Mais quelq’ effort d’esprit que je fasse, je ne puis trouver de force, d’efficace, de puissance, que dans la volunte de l’etre infinement parfait.” Again, he says, “Mais non seulement les hommes ne sont point les veritables causes des mouvemens qu’ils produisent dans leur corps, il semble meme qu’il y ait contradiction qu’ils puissent l’etre. Cause veritable, est une cause entre laquelle et son effet l’esprit apperçoit une liaison necessaire, c’est ainsi que je l’entens. Or, il n’y a que l’etre infiniment parfait, entre la volunte du quel et ses effets l’esprit apperçoive une liaison necessaire. Il n’y a done que Dieu qui soit veritable cause, et qui ait veritablement la puissance de mouvoir les corps. Je dis de plus, qu’il n’est pas concevable que Dieu puisse communiquer aux hommes ou aux Anges la puissance, qu’il a de remuer les corps: et que ceux qui pre-tendent, que le pouvoir que nous avons de remuer nos bras, est une veritable puissance, doivent avouer que Dieu peut aussi donner aux esprits la puissance de creer, d’anneantir, de faire toutes les choses possibles; et en un mot, qu’il peut les rendre tout-puissans.” However indefensible we may deem the principles of Mallebranche, and the extravagant and absurd lengths to which he extends them, render their refutation altogether superfluous, we cannot but perceive the very essential and important distinction between them, and those which are maintained by Mr. Hume. Those of the one, introduce God as immediately and constantly operating throughout the whole structure and course of nature; those of the other totally exclude him, and lead to a denial of his being and providence. You cannot admit the premises of Mallebranche, without allowing his conclusion, neither can you those of Hume. And what are the points which constitute this essential distinction? They are the following — Mallebranche cannot discover an idea which represents to him any force, efficacy or power in finite beings, and can clearly conceive of these as subsisting only in the will of a perfect Being. Mr. Hume denies, that we have any idea of power or efficacy in any being whatever. Mallebranche defines a true cause to be a cause, between which and its effect, the mind perceives a necessary connection, (une liaison necessaire) and asserts that this necessary connection can subsist only between God and the universe; Mr. Hume gives the same definition of a cause, but supposes that this necessary connection can in no case be perceived. Mallebranche confines all efficiency to one sole cause; but Hume maintains that we have no reason to conclude that there is any efficiency in any cause whatever, and reduces us to the necessity of admitting an eternal succession of objects. Mallebranche recognises in the very structure of his argument the immutable truth, that for every effect there must be a cause, but concludes that this cause in all cases is God alone; Hume denies the truth of that maxim, and endeavours to demonstrate that we have no good reason to admit it, and of course uproots the very foundation of the argument in proof of God. So little ground, therefore, is there for the representation of the Professor, that the conclusions of the one are deduced from premises very nearly the same with those of the other! They are as widely different from each other, as the principles of a mistaken and mystical theism can be from those of a rank and unblushing atheism.
The account which the professor gives of “that bias of the mind,” which leads us to conceive that physical events are somehow linked together, and that material substances are possessed of certain powers and virtues which fit them to produce particular effects, is really a philosophical curiosity, and on this account alone worthy of insertion here. “It is a curious question,” says he, “what gives rise to this prejudice? In stating the argument for the existence of the Deity several modern philosophers have been at pains to illustrate that law of our nature, which leads us to refer every change we perceive to the operation of an efficient cause. This reference is not the result of reasoning, but necessarily accompanies the perception, so as to render it impossible for us to see the change without feeling a conviction of the operation of some cause by which it was produced; much in the same manner, in which we find it impossible to conceive a sensation without being impressed with a belief of the existence of a sentient Being. Hence, I apprehend it is, that when we see two events constantly conjoined, we are led to associate the idea of causation or efficiency with the former, and to refer to it that power or energy by which the change was produced; in consequence of which association we come to consider philosophy as a knowledge of efficient causes, and lose sight of the operation of mind in producing the phenomena of nature. It is by an association somewhat similar, that we connect our sensation of colour with the primary qualities of body. A moment’s reflection must satisfy any one, that the sensation of colour can only reside in the mind (by the by, it took philosophers some time and study to discover this); and yet our natural bias is surely to connect colour with extension and figure, and to conceive white, blue, yellow as something spread over the surfaces of body. In the same way we are led to associate with inanimate matter the ideas of power, force, energy and causation, which are all attributes of mind.”
By those persons who read merely for amusement, and who are entirely satisfied, if they find in the author, whose pages they are perusing, sounding phrases and well turned periods; and who, when they cannot comprehend his meaning from the obscurity of his illustrations, imagine it to be very profound for that very reason, this account of the phenomenon supposed to exist, and attempted to be explained, may be deemed satisfactory. But to those whose province it is to study and understand what they read, and develop, faithfully and truly, the operations of nature, never surely could there be presented a specimen of a more abortive attempt to philosophise. To make good our assertions, let us examine, for a moment, the solution here attempted to be furnished of a phenomenon in the moral world. These writers of the late school of metaphysics, having discovered in the structure of our nature an instinct perspicacious enough to induce us to refer every effect to an efficient cause, and moreover to penetrate into the deep and mysterious doctrine, that mind alone can be the efficient cause of any thing; have now to explain by what bias or prejudice it is, that when we approach the fire, we are so childish as to conclude that there is any power in fire to produce in us the sensation of heat, instead of referring the sensation at once to mind, the real cause. Mark now, the solution; although I am afraid it will not be found so satisfactory as that of Gallileo above referred to. From finding that fire and our sensation of heat are always conjoined together, we associate the idea of power in fire with that element, as we do sensation with the existence of a sentient Being; or as we do colours, for instance, white, blue, yellow, with the primary qualities of body as extension, figure, solidity, &c.” Such is the solution, which is certainly entirely original; and if any one feels disposed to be satisfied with it, we have only to recommend to him, to pore over the pages of Newton, Locke, Bacon and Clarke, and he will learn to repudiate fruitless disquisitions.
We have only one single view more to take of the doctrines of the Professor on cause and effect, and we have done; but this view is a very serious one. We may be thought singular in our opinion, but we do not hesitate to consider his doctrines upon this point, as having a portentous aspect towards religion and morality, and verging strongly towards atheism. The immediate reference of all the phenomena of nature in the physical world to the agency of mind or the Supreme Being, spreads over his system a specious appearance of truth and orthodoxy, but it is only a specious appearance, and delusive. We will not say that atheism was ever intended to be inculcated by the Professor, although we cannot relish the very favourable and softened terms in which he always refers to the principles of Mr. Hume. Independently of this consideration, however, we do assert, that the ground taken by him is a very dangerous one, and that his system carries in its bosom the seeds of its own speedy destruction; and if confided in, in its ruins might be buried the interests of those truths to which it ostensibly essays to extend a feeble and ineffectual support. He admits in their utmost extent the premises of Mr. Hume; avowing that the fallacy of his argument does not consist in his premises, but in the conclusions which he draws from them. He adopts, to all intents and purposes, the principles of Mr. Hume, as far as relates to the physical world; and maintains, that we have no reason to believe that there are any such things as efficient causes to be found in it. We have already shown that, by parity of reasoning, we may deny all efficacy in all moral causes, save the Deity alone. He allows that Mr. Hume has shown that the maxim, for every effect in nature there must be a cause, can be proved neither from intuition, reason, or experience; and asserts, that we derive it solely from an instinctive and original principle in the constitution of our nature. The whole foundation of the argument, upon which is constructed the infinitely important truth of the existence of God, is thus made to rest upon the evidence we derive from this single instinct. All, therefore, that is left to the Atheist, is the easy task of proving, that we are possessed of no such instinctive principle, and his mighty fabrick of pretended theism crumbles to dust and confusion. Never surely was a wider door thrown open, by those who pretend to be the champions of theism, for the admission of atheistical principles. To make such broad concessions to the enemies of truth, and yet expect to retain the infinitely important doctrine of the Being of a God, appears to us, like expecting to sustain the superstructure, after we have allowed the foundation to be demolished. And yet we find the Professor, as if totally unapprised of the dangerous tendency of his own doctrine, expressing himself in the following language. “For however important,” says he, “the positive advantages may be, which are to be expected from the future progress of metaphysical science, they are by no means so essential to human improvement and happiness, as a satisfactory refutation of that sceptical philosophy which struck at the root of all knowledge and belief. Such a refutation seems to have been the principal object which Dr. Reid proposed to himself in his metaphysical inquiries, and to this object his labours have been directed with so much ability, candour, and perseverance, that, unless future scepticks should occupy a ground very different from that of their predecessors, it is not likely that the controversy will be ever renewed.” From the sentiment expressed in the concluding part of this paragraph, we crave leave entirely to dissent. The controversy with scepticks, it is true, has been removed from the ground on which it was formerly maintained, and with triumphant success; but we cannot withhold the opinion, that it has been removed from a place of safety to that of extreme danger, where it is protected by very insufficient guards and fortifications; and we must still be excused for giving a decided preference to enlisting under the banners and submitting to the guidance of such men as Locke, Clarke, Mallebranche and Des Cartes, to any of those who have succeeded them, and have undertaken the task of filling the world with an account of their errors and miscarriages.*
We cannot take leave of this subject of cause and effect, in language more expressive of the sentiments we entertain, than is that of Mr. Locke, in his reply to the unintelligible jargon of Mr. Norris, a follower of Mallebranche. “Whether the ideas of light and colour come in by the eyes or no; it is all one as if they did, for those who have no eyes, never have them. And whether or no God has appointed that a certain modified motion of the fibres, or spirits in the optic nerve, should excite or produce, or cause them in us, call it what you please, it is all one as if it did; since where there is no such motion, there is no such perception or idea. For I hope they will not deny God the privilege to give such a power to motion, if he pleases. “Yes,” say they, “they be the occasional but not the efficient cause, for that they cannot be, because that is in effect to say, he has given this motion in the optic nerve a power to operate on himself, but cannot give it a power to operate on the mind of man. It may by this appointment operate on himself, the impassible infinite Spirit, and put him in mind when he is to operate on the mind of man, and exhibit to it the idea which is in himself of any colour. The infinite Eternal God is certainly the cause of all things, the fountain of all being and power. But because all being was from him, can there be nothing but God himself? Or because all power was originally in him, can there be nothing of it communicated to his creatures? This is to set very narrow bounds to the power of God, and by pretending to extend it, takes it away. For which, I beseech you, as we can comprehend, is the greatest power; to make a machine, a watch for example, that when the watchman has withdrawn his hands, shall go and strike by the fit contrivance of the parts; or else requires that whenever the hand by pointing to the hour, minds him of it, he should strike twelve upon the bell? No machine of God’s making can go of itself. Why? Because the creatures have no power, can neither move themselves nor any thing else. How, then, comes about all that we see? Do they do nothing? Yes — they are occasional causes to God, why he should produce certain thoughts and motions in them. The creatures cannot produce any idea or thought in man. How, then, comes he to perceive or to think? God, upon the occasion of some motion in the optic nerve, exhibits the colour of a marygold or a rose to his mind. How came that motion in his optic nerve? On occasion of the motion of some particles of light striking on the retina, God producing it, and so on. And so, whatever a man thinks, God produces the thought, let it be infidelity, murmuring or blasphemy. The mind doth nothing — his mind is only the mirror that receives the ideas that God exhibits to it, and just as God exhibits them. The man is altogether passive in the whole business of thinking. A man cannot move his arm or his tongue; he has no power; only upon occasion the man willing it, God moves it. The man wills, he doth something; or else God upon the occasion of something he did before, produced the will and this action in him. This is the hypothesis that clears all doubts, and brings us at last to the religion of Hobbes and Spinoza, by resolving all, even the thoughts and will of men, into an irresistible fatal necessity. For whether the original of it be from the continued motion of eternal, all-doing matter, or from an omnipotent immaterial Being, who having begun matter and motion, continues it by the direction of occasions which he himself has also made; as to religion and morality, it is just the same thing. But we must know how every thing is brought to pass, and thus we have it resolved without leaving any difficulty to perplex us. But, perhaps, it would better become us to acknowledge our ignorance, than to talk such things boldly of the Holy One of Israel, and condemn others for not daring to be as unmannerly as ourselves.”
END OF BOOK FIRST.
…
BOOK II. CHAPTER VI.
Mr. Hume’s Principles.
FROM Berkeley let us proceed very briefly to advert to the principles of Mr. Hume. Nothing can be more certain, than that the system of the former leads by unavoidable consequence to that of the latter. It may be remarked also, that the Bishop has not taken any pains, or discovered any solicitude to fortify his theory against invasions from this quarter. If by our senses we cannot attain to a knowledge of the existence of material substances without, by our consciousness, we can, with no greater degree of certainty, ascertain the existence of an immaterial principle within. If the whole outward world consists of a mere train of perceptions and ideas, surely there is good reason to infer, that the whole of the inward world consists of another train of perceptions and ideas. The whole universe, therefore, upon the principles of this sublime philosophy, is resolved into a succession of fleeting ideas, following each other according to certain laws of association. The metaphysicians of the Scottish school, and particularly Reid and Stewart, are lavish of their encomiums upon Mr. Hume; and undoubtedly, as an elegant historian, too much praise cannot be bestowed upon him. His history, as a production of genius, stands unrivalled, except by Thucydides and Livy; and I think, taking it altogether, considering it in reference to the simplicity and beauty of the composition, the lively and agreeable narration which it contains of matters of fact, the masterly delineation of characters, and the mass of important and useful information he has included in it, it is to be preferred to all others. But as a metaphysician, I utterly deny his claims, either to a just comprehension of his subject, or to propriety and perspicuity in his modes of expression. He had read on this subject, as he had on those connected with religion, without having studied and understood them. Let me, however, in order to justify my strictures give a brief sketch of his opinions, in his own language.
He divides all our perceptions into impressions and ideas, without any license from the received philosophy of his time, or any ground in nature for such a distinction, and yet he gives us no reason for it. The difference betwixt impressions and ideas, consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions which enter with the most force and violence, we may name impressions, and under this head he comprehends all our sensations, passions and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul.
By ideas, he means the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning. All our simple ideas are in their first appearance derived from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent. He finds by experience that the simple impressions, always take the precedence of the correspondent ideas, but never appear in the contrary order. This appears both from the order of their appearance, and from the phenomenon, that wherever by accident the faculties which give rise to any impressions are obstructed in their operations, as when one is born blind or deaf, not only the impressions are lost, but their correspondent ideas.” Again he proceeds — “Impressions may be divided into two kinds, those of sensation and those of reflection. The first kind arises in the soul, originally from unknown causes. The second is derived in a great measure from our ideas, and that in the following order. An impression first strikes upon the senses, and makes us perceive heat or cold, thirst or hunger, pleasure or pain of some kind or other. Of this impression there is a copy taken by the mind, which remains after the impression ceases, and this we call an idea. This idea of pleasure or pain, when it returns upon the soul, produces the new impressions of desire and aversion, hope and fear, which may properly be called impressions of reflection, because derived from it. These again are copied by the memory and imagination, and become ideas; which perhaps in their turn give rise to impressions and ideas.” Thus is laid the foundation of a theory, which has received such frequent and honourable mention, in the works of most metaphysicians of the Scottish school. First, impressions beget ideas, their images or copies, and distinguished from them only by having a less degree of force and vivacity; then these ideas again beget other impressions, having a greater degree of force and vivacity than themselves; then again, to carry on the work of procreation in regular line, these new impressions beget new ideas, and so on. We have heard a great deal of the jargon and intellectual fooleries of the schoolmen, and Mr. Hume is as ready as any one to join in the cry against them; but we defy any one to produce from their voluminous works, any specimen of a more complete Babylonish dialect, than that which we have presented from the Treatise of Human Nature. For our part, we must confess, that we are utterly at a loss to account for the repeated panegyrics bestowed by Dr. Reid and others upon this author, as when he is called the acute metaphysician, one of the acutest metaphysicians that ever lived, and his works and opinions are made to occupy as large a share of attention, and considered as entitled to the same respect as those of Locke, Aristotle, Des Cartes, and Mallebranche. We think that all that he has written on these subjects, have detracted from his reputation, instead of making any addition to his, in other respects, well deserved fame. He had read Mr. Locke, Berkeley and others, with just sufficient care, to obtain crude and indigested ideas of the subjects treated of by them, but he evidently discovers that he never understood them; and with the crude materials thus collected by a cursory perusal, he has attempted to rear a ridiculous superstructure of scepticism and foolery. In order to justify animadversions that may appear to be severe, let me briefly state some of the points attempted to be maintained in the Treatise of Human Nature, and the language in which they are conveyed. I would premise, however, this statement of his doctrine with this single observation, that it will readily be perceived, if the account before mentioned be regarded as a true one, then his sceptical inferences are irresistible. For if our original impressions are derived from unknown causes, and these impressions beget ideas their copies, these copies of external impressions, again produce impressions of reflection, and these again ideas of reflection; it is clear that all the objects of human perception and knowledge are resolved at once into fleeting trains of ideas, and there is no necessity for supposing the existence of a material or immaterial principle in man.
To proceed with our proposed statement of his opinions. Mr. Hume maintains, that we have no idea of substance, space, time, extension, or of a mathematical point, and no abstract ideas. He says, a straight line is not: well defined to be the shortest distance between two points, and thinks that more than one right line, may be drawn between two points; as for instance, supposing two lines to approach at the rate of an inch in twenty leagues, he perceives no absurdity in asserting, that upon their contact they become one. He asserts, that we are incapable in geometry, of telling when two figures are equal, when a line is a right one, and when a surface is a plain one. He maintains, that it is impossible for us to form any idea of any thing specifically different from ideas and impressions; that all our arguments concerning causes and effects, consist both of an impression of the memory or senses, and of the idea of that existence, which produces the object of the impression, or is produced by it. “He asserts, that it is impossible to distinguish the memory and imagination; that the belief or assent which always attends the memory and senses, is nothing but the vivacity of those perceptions they present; that the necessity which makes two times two equal to four, or the three angles of a triangle equal to two right ones, lies only in the act of the understanding, by which we compare these ideas; and that in like manner, the necessity or power which unites causes and effects, lies in the determination of the mind to pass from the one to the other. Mr. Hume maintains, that any thing may produce any thing, creation, annihilation, motion, reason, volition, &c. defines reason to be nothing but a wonderful and unintelligible instinct in our souls, which carries us along a certain train of ideas, and endows them with particular qualities, according to their particular situations and relations. He asserts, that all our reasonings concerning causes and effects, are derived from nothing but custom; and belief is more properly an act of the sensitive, than of the cogitative part of our nature. Finally, to hasten to the conclusion of this list of absurdities, he asserts, that the doctrine of the immateriality, simplicity, and indivisibility of a thinking substance is true atheism, and will serve to justify all the sentiments, for which Spinoza is so universally infamous; that we have no idea of self or personal identity; that the true idea of the human mind, is to consider it as a system of different perceptions or different existences, which are linked together by the relation of cause and effect, and mutually produce, destroy, influence, and modify each other; that identity depends on the relations of ideas; and these relations produce identity, by means of that easy transition they occasion; and lastly, he defines belief to be a lively idea associated to a present impression.” Was ever such a chaos of absurdity, such a despicable jargon attempted to be imposed upon the world, under the respectable name of philosophy! And this too in a writer, who in his metaphysical disquisitions had promised the literary world, “to throw some light upon subjects, from which uncertainty had hitherto deterred the wise, and obscurity the ignorant,” to unite the boundaries of the different species of philosophy, by reconciling profound inquiry with clearness, and truth with novelty, and “to banish all that jargon, which has so long taken possession of metaphysical reasonings, and drawn such disgrace upon them.” He says himself, of the Treatise of Human Nature, that it fell still-born from the press, and was not called into life, until buoyed up into notice, by his next publication, its more fortunate brother; and it would have been better for it, if it had been allowed by the literary world, to make its peaceful exit unnoticed and unknown, than to have been ushered into light, only to drag out a miserable existence, with a distempered constitution and a crazy brain; and at the same time uttering a language blasphemous and confused, to expose it to the contempt and enmity of both God and man. Happy would it be for this author, if those portions of his works which relate to metaphysics, to morals and religion, could be erased. His reputation would then be untarnished, and his name descend to future ages, with unsullied and continually increasing honours.
…
BOOK III. CHAPTER VIII.
Upon Miracles.
“EXPERIENCE, it is said, is our only guide, in reasoning concerning matters of fact. Experience is in some things variable, and in some things uniform. A variable experience gives rise only to probability; an uniform experience amounts to a proof. Our belief or assurance of any fact from the report of eye-witnesses, is derived from no other principle than experience; that is our observation of the veracity of human testimony, or of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of witnesses. But this experience is variable, since mankind sometimes tell us the truth, and at other times, impose upon us by falsehood. Now, our experience of the established laws of nature, is uniform and invariable, since nature never deceives us. In the case, therefore, of a miracle reported by witnesses, which is acknowledged to be a violation of the established laws of nature, there is a contest between two opposite experiences; our experience of the veracity of human testimony, which is variable, and our experience of the established laws of nature, which is invariable. Now, when our variable experience of the veracity of human testimony, which inclines us to the belief of a miracle, is placed in one scale; and our invariable experience of the established laws of nature, which would lead us to reject it, is placed in the other, which scale ought to preponderate? In other words, is it not always more probable, that mankind will impose upon us by false reports, than that the established laws of nature have been violated?”
This, I conceive, is a true statement, without any abatement of its force, of this celebrated and much vaunted argument, which all the writers who have undertaken to answer it, have agreed in ascribing to Mr. Hume. Into this too ready concession in favour of Mr. Hume, they appear to me to have been incautiously betrayed, by the pompous expressions, with which that author ushers in his claims, assumes to himself the merit of a new invention, and sets off the advantages, which may be expected to result from the application of it. We shall first state his pretensions, and then see if it be not in our power to strip him of his plumes. “I flatter myself,” says he, in the commencement of his treatise, “that I have discovered an argument, which, if just, will with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently will be useful as long as the world endures.” And when writing to his friend Dr. Campbell, we find the following romantic account of the circumstances under which this hint was suggested to him, by which he seems to expect to perform miracles, while he refuses that power to all other persons.
“It may, perhaps, amuse you to learn the first hint, which suggested to me that argument which you have so strenuously attacked. I was walking in the cloisters of the Jesuit’s College of La Flêche, a town in which I passed two years of my youth, and engaged in a conversation with a Jesuit of some parts and learning, who was relating to me, and urging some nonsensical miracle performed in their convent, when I was tempted to dispute against him; and as my head was full of the topics of my Treatise of Human Nature, which I was at this time composing, this argument immediately occurred to me, and I thought it very much gravelled my companion; but at last, he observed to me, that it was impossible for that argument to have any solidity, because it operated equally against the Gospel as the Catholic miracles, which observation I thought proper to admit as a sufficient answer. I believe that you will allow, that the freedom at least of this reasoning makes it somewhat extraordinary, to have been the produce of a convent of Jesuits, though you may think the sophistry of it, savours plainly of the place of its birth.”
Such are the pretensions of Mr. Hume. Let us now ascertain, whether they are as unquestionable as he would have us believe. It is evident from his frequent references to the works of Mr Locke, and more especially, to those which are metaphysical, that he had read the Treatise upon Human Understanding, although it is equally certain, that, as was the case with the evidences of Christianity, he had neither taken the pains completely to understand it. Hear, then, the language of Mr. Locke on this very topic, when treating of the degrees of assent in the last part of his second volume. “Thus far the matter goes easy enough,” says Mr. Locke, “and probability upon such grounds carries so much evidence with it, that it naturally determines the judgment, and leaves us as little liberty to believe or disbelieve, as a demonstration does, whether we will know or be ignorant. The difficulty is when testimonies contradict common experience, and the reports of history and witnesses clash with the ordinary course of nature, or with one another; there it is where diligence, attention, and exactness, are required to form a right judgment, and to proportion the assent to the different evidence, and probability of the thing, which rises and falls according as the two foundations of credibility, viz. common observation in like cases, and particular testimonies in that particular instance, favour or contradict it.” Here we have both that mystical balance of contradictory evidences, with which Mr. Hume makes such a display, and the substance of that argument by which some are willing to believe he has sapped the foundations of Christianity. But to make the matter still more clear, that this objection was felt and understood by Mr. Locke, hear him proceed in the same chapter. “Though the common experience, and the ordinary course of things, have justly a mighty influence upon the minds of men, to make them give or refuse credit to any thing proposed to their belief; yet there is one case wherein the strangeness of the fact lessens not the assent to a fair testimony given of it. For where such supernatural events are suitable to ends aimed at by him, who has the power to change the course of nature; there, under such circumstances, they may be the fitter to procure belief, by how much more they are beyond, or contrary to ordinary observation. This is the proper case of miracles, which, well attested, do not only find credit themselves, but give it also to other truths which need such confirmation.
From these passages it is evident, that Mr. Locke perceived and stated Mr. Hume’s objection in all its force, but with that deep insight into things, which always distinguished him, discerned at the same time, in what manner the argument in favour of miracles might be relieved from it. Mr. Hume stopped short in the objection, and endeavoured with all the subtilty and address, which he could summon to his aid, to set it off to advantage; Mr. Locke with clearer views and deeper penetration perceived, that although the objection is natural and not without its weight, yet a satisfactory answer might be furnished to it; thereby verifying the excellent apothegm of lord Bacon; certissimum est et experientia comprobatum, leves gustus in philosophia movere fortassè ad atheismum, sed pleniores haustus ad religionem reducere.*
Let us now proceed to answer this celebrated objection, which Mr. Hume has thus purloined from Mr. Locke, and endeavoured to palm upon the world as his own invention; while at the same time he has infused into it all the venom of his own subtilty, and recommended it by all the parade of language, and embellishments of fancy and illustration, of which he was capable. From the account which we have before given of the progress of the human mind, in its advancement in knowledge, and the grounds of our assent to truth, we doubt not, that we shall render the solution of this difficulty, about the proof of miracles from human testimony, extremely easy and completely satisfactory.
In our entrance upon this inquiry, which is undoubtedly of fundamental importance to mankind, we cannot but remark, how little solicitous a professed sceptic is, whether one part of his works coheres with another, and whether opinions hazarded at one time, be in exact coincidence with those he had delivered at another. In this treatise upon miracles, we hear Mr. Hume talking of, “experience giving us assurance of the uniform course of nature,” and of “the laws of nature being established, (or rather shown to be established,) by a uniform experience.” And yet this is the same writer, who, as we have shown, in his Treatise of Human Nature, maintains the atheistical doctrine, that we have no reason to believe that in any case, there is any power in causes to produce their effects, that there is no ground for that universally received maxim, that for every effect there must be a cause, that all we can know from experience in reference to cause and effect, is, that they are objects bearing towards each other the relations of contiguity and conjunction; and finally, that even in regard to these, we have no reason to draw any conclusion beyond our own experience.” Now, if after a complete course of observation in regard to the order of nature, we have no reason to draw any inference concerning the past or future, what ground has Mr. Hume for deducing any conclusion from his own experience, in reference to those events which took place in the days of the Apostles, and the early ages of Christianity? Upon his own principles, for aught he can know, at any period before his time, nature may have produced all sorts of monsters, centaurs, giants, pigmies, gorgons, hydras, and chimæras, and have sported herself with the violation of her own laws. If we have no right to reason from our own experience, to what in all probability has taken place in time past, or may take place in future, then, the slightest degree of evidence derived from the testimony of others, and he allows that testimony affords us probability as to matters of fact, should lead us with the blindest credulity, to embrace all the fabulous tales of heathen mythology, as well as the wildest stories of faction and romance. Into such absurdities and contradictions, are men driven by the wanton spirit of scepticism!
Dr. Campbell, in his answer to Mr. Hume’s Essay upon Miracles, pays him the very high-wrought and unmerited compliment of remarking, that, “he has not only been much entertained and instructed by his works, but if he possessed any talent for abstract reasoning, he was not a little indebted to what he (Mr. Hume,) hath written on human nature, for the improvement of that talent.” He then concludes, in the following terms. “If, therefore, in this tract, I have refuted Mr. Hume’s essay, the greater share of the merit is, perhaps, to be ascribed to Mr. Hume himself. The compliment which the Russian monarch, after the famous battle of Pultowa, paid the Swedish generals, when he gave them the honourable appellation of his masters in the art of war, I may with great sincerity pay my acute and ingenious adversary.” This it must be admitted is very courteous treatment of the Arch-Atheist, and the inveterate enemy of all religion and morals. What advantage Dr. Campbell could have derived from reading Mr. Hume’s Treatises upon the Principles of Human Nature, which, as far as we have become acquainted with them, as represented by him, are false, hollow and counterfeit, we cannot imagine; but we certainly must be indulged in thinking that there would have been no difficulty in recommending him to much more able masters in abstract reasoning, in whose school he might have imbibed much more wholesome, and certainly not less profound lessons of instruction, than the author of the Treatise of Human Nature. Must he pass by Bacon, Locke, Clarke, Chillingworth, Barrow, Stillingfleet, Butler, Warburton, and a host of others of similar pretensions, in whose presence Mr. Hume twinkles but as a dim star, in the midst of so many suns, to obtain his views of human nature, and cultivate his powers of abstract reasoning from the great perverter, and falsifier of reason? Could he not have obtained from these champions of the truth, much more invincible arms with which to subdue an enemy to the faith, than those with which he was furnished by that enemy himself? To hold such language is certainly one of the best expedients, by which to give currency, and authority too, to the most pernicious productions that ever issued from the press in any age or country. The compliment too, as I have said, is as unmerited as it is far-fetched and over-strained. There is not a single treatise of Mr. Hume, which his warmest friends and admirers, if they have just conceptions of such matters, could consider as a master-piece of abstract reasoning. Where is it? Which of his works deserves that praise? His merits as an historian, although even in this respect his fidelity and accuracy have been impeached, I am willing to admit; and to this I might add, that he sometimes discovers considerable acuteness and erudition as a critick, and polite scholar. But his claims to distinction and superiority, as a metaphysician or profound reasoner, I utterly deny. His logick is obscured and enfeebled by subtilty, his notions of metaphysicks are crude and unconcocted, a vein of cold and deadly scepticism pervades all his writings, together with the most abandoned profligacy of moral principles. Is this the author from whose works alone, a Christian Theologian could derive the weapons with which to subdue him?
But to pass from a discussion of the character and pretensions of Mr. Hume, let us proceed to the consideration of his objection to miracles. Never surely has any subject been more egregiously misconceived and misrepresented. Passing by all minor considerations, such as the ambiguous use of words with which this author is so frequently chargeable, and the inconsistencies with himself in which he has been detected in this essay, I shall enter immediately upon that objection, which every rational mind will perceive to be by no means destitute of force, and which of consequence, it is important to obviate. The whole force of the objection which has been so largely dilated upon by Mr. Hume, may be collected into a single point, and consists in this. Should we ever place such confidence in the veracity of human testimony, of which we can be assured only by a variable experience, since men sometimes tell truth, and sometimes falsehood, as to believe in a miracle, which is a violation of the laws of nature; when by an uniform and invariable experience, we know that those laws are established? In other words, will it not forever remain more probable that men should impose upon us by falsehood, than that the laws of nature should be violated? This is the pith and substance of the argument, and we trust we shall be able completely to refute it upon those principles of science and philosophy before stated.
It is to be observed, that with the error contained in this argument, there is also an admixture of truth, and that it is this ingredient in the mixture which renders it so palatable to some men, and so likely to impose upon the understanding. Error would gain no credit or countenance among the virtuous and reflecting part of mankind, unless she assumed the semblance, and wore the habiliments of truth; and her form becomes still more imposing and deceptive, when their resembling features are so intimately blended together, that it is difficult to mark the lines or unfold the lineaments that distinguish them. Let us now, with all imaginable candour, proceed to weigh this objection against miracles in the scales of a just philosophy, ascertain its true force, how far the rule proposed for testing the truth of miracles will properly extend, when it ceases to be a just criterion of their authenticity; and determine if possible, that degree of evidence in human testimony upon which, in such instances, a rational mind ought to repose with full and entire confidence.
As the contest here lies between the evidence of experience, and that of testimony, or as Mr. Hume represents it of two kinds of experience, viz: that which we have of the established order of nature, and that which we have of the veracity of human testimony; let us endeavour in the first place, accurately to determine the weight of these two kinds of evidence, so that we may be able fairly to balance them against each other, and see in what cases the one or the other ought to preponderate. First, let us speak of the evidence of experience. When it is alleged that from uniform experience we derive proof that the order of nature is established, we enunciate a true proposition; but we must carefully note, in this case, what is implied in the term proof. We have before shown that all that portion of our information which we properly denominate knowledge, may be divided into intuitive, sensitive and demonstrative. Now it will not be contended that, either from intuition, or demonstration we derive proof, that that portion of the past or future course of nature which falls not under our own observation, has been, or will be, the same as we have always found it. There are no lights with which we are furnished, either by nature or philosophy, which will enable us to determine with any thing like demonstrative or undoubted certainty, that any portion of the past course of nature, of which we were not ourselves witnesses, was like that which has fallen under our own observation, or that any portion of the future will be like it. The inhabitants of Lisbon and the Caraccas, as we before remarked, remained in as perfect security that the order of nature was established, and that the ground would remain stable beneath their feet, but a moment before they were swallowed by an earthquake, as they had done for centuries before. And here we see their uniform experience deceived them. There are no principles of science, at this time in possession of the philosophick world, by which we could prove that at any moment from the one on which we touch, the whole frame of the solar system may not have its springs unloosed, and sink to ruin. From this view of the subject, which we venture to assume as founded in the deepest philosophy, it will be perceived, that all the proof, which we can derive from the most invariable experience of the past course of nature, can amount at best to only strong and satisfactory probability. If we could arrive at what might be called knowledge, or demonstrative proof, that the past has always been like the present, the argument would be brought to a summary conclusion, and Mr. Hume’s objection obtain a speedy and complete triumph. But this can never be done by the feeble and limited faculties of man. But have we not sufficient reason to believe from our own experience, that the past course of nature has been invariably like the present? If we had no evidence presented to us of the contrary, and supposing ourselves reasoning from the unaided lights of our own minds, we should certainly say that we have. We entertain no doubt, although we cannot prove it, and know that it rests upon probable evidence only, that the sun has risen and set, from the beginning of the world as it does now; that the Earth has rolled round that luminary, and the tides risen and fallen in regular succession. And had we no proof to the contrary, we should say, from the exercise of our own powers, that the same had taken place in all the other departments and laws of nature. While we are propelled by a regard to truth, and the principles of science, to make this concession to our adversary, in order to come immediately to the point in controversy, the question may be asked; since it is admitted that the evidence which we derive from experience, that the order of nature has always been the same, supposing that no proof were alleged to the contrary, would amount to strong and satisfactory probability, is there any evidence which can be derived from human testimony which should overcome this probability, and lead us to conclude, that in any cases whatever the laws of nature have been violated? As the two kinds of evidence, that derived from experience, and that from testimony, which are sui generis, distinct from each other, are here attempted to be poised the one against the other; the intelligent reader will perceive, that the subjects not being homogeneous, it will be extremely difficult to determine by a test of this nature, what degree of weight should be respectively assigned to them, and how far the one may preponderate over the other. This observation has been made by Dr. Campbell. Where the subjects are homogeneous to each other, it would be a fair mode of reasoning, and consistent with the true spirit of the Baconian philosophy, to allow the judgment to be determined by the more frequent experiences we have had of the fact. For example, to give the instance adduced by Dr. Campbell, suppose a ferry-boat to have passed a river in safety, thousands of times within our knowledge, and but once or twice had been known by an accident to be carried down the stream, and the passengers drowned. Here the very frequent instances of the safe passage of the boat, and the very rare ones in which it had been subject to any unpleasant accident, would, when the first were weighted against the last, render the probability so strong, that they would pass in safety as to awake no apprehensions in the minds of the passengers. But suppose that, instead of the boat being carried down the stream, and all persons on board having been lost twice out of thousands of times, this fatal accident should have taken place every fourth or fifth time, would not every person on board feel extreme anxiety, and be in painful doubt of his fate? In cases of this kind, where the subjects compared are homogeneous, or alike in nature to each other, the rule of Mr. Hume, by which experience is weighed against experience, would be a good one, and the result would afford a tolerable calculation of chances in favour, or against us. But by what process shall we be able to balance the evidence of testimony against that of experience in a similar mode? It is evident to the most superficial thinker, that although the above mentioned ferry-boat had within our experience, passed the river in safety thousands of times, and never been known to be subjected to any disaster, yet the testimony of any one man in whose veracity we confided, would overturn the evidence of all past experience, and lead us to believe in the fact without doubt or hesitation. Of this statement of the matter no rational mind can doubt. At the same time, to pursue the argument with the same candour, and impartial regard to truth with which we commenced it, if the question were asked, how we come, from the testimony of a single witness, to believe in a fact that contradicts all our former experience in the matter, our answer would undoubtedly be that, although the loss of the boat and passengers, was contrary to all our former experience in this case, yet it was not contrary to our former experience of the ordinary course of nature in similar cases. We know that boats are liable to be borne down the stream, and the passengers to be drowned. We have, perhaps, been witnesses of similar casualties. The agents producing these results exist in nature. The ready assent, therefore, which we should give to a fact of this kind, would not depend solely upon our confidence in the veracity of the relator, but also upon our previous knowledge of the constitution and laws of nature. On this account it is, I am inclined to think, that while the example adduced by Dr. Campbell goes conclusively to show, that the two kinds of evidence, that of testimony, and that of experience, being heterogeneous, cannot be well balanced against each other, until, by a sort of metaphysical reduction, we shall be able to bring all kinds of proof to a similar denomination; yet that by the answer he has given to Mr. Hume, when he refers to the case of the ferry-boat, he has not reached the very heart and marrow of the argument. The passages and losses of the ferry-boat and passengers, are all events acknowledged to come within the compass of the ordinary laws of nature; while the case of a miracle is admitted to be a suspension or violation of those laws. To illustrate the case by an example in point. Suppose, in passing to this same river, we had met the same man whose integrity was known to us, and instead of informing us that the ferry-boat had been carried down the stream, which we should believe upon his word without a moment’s hesitation, he should give us intelligence, that he had just returned from witnessing a most extraordinary scene, that of a Being who had raised a man from the grave, after he had been dead four days, and was in a state of putrefaction. Should we now yield assent to the truth of his story, however confident we might have felt before of the integrity and veracity of the narrator? Certainly not. We should require much stronger evidence, than the testimony of any man, to convince us of such a miraculous fact. Here, then, we are truly brought to the point at issue.
Is there any evidence which can be derived from human testimony, the veracity of which must always rest upon a variable experience, that can so far vanquish our confidence in the established laws of nature, as to lead us to give credit to a miracle, which is a violation of them?
We have before remarked with Dr. Campbell, that as the evidence of testimony, and that of experience are not homogeneous to each other, it is impossible in many, or even most cases, to reduce them to a common standard, and by placing them in the same scales determine which will overbalance the other; or in other words, decide what quantum of testimony will be able to outweigh a given portion of experience, and vice versa. Notwithstanding this difficulty, however, which meets us in coming to settled and determinate conclusions in these matters, and which, in all probability, will forever preclude the possibility of our being able nicely to graduate a scale, by which the force of these two kinds of evidence shall be ascertained; yet, there is one consideration which makes us some amends for our deficiency in this respect, and that is this, viz. that we are able, I think, with tolerable certainty to decide, what degree of evidence ought to be regarded by every rational mind, as inadequate to the proof of a miracle, and what degree should be considered adequate.
In the first place, then, to hasten forwards in the prosecution of our inquiry, we are willing to admit that a miracle can never be sufficiently substantiated by the simple testimony of any man or any ordinary set of men. By simple testimony, I mean testimony which is uncorroborated by any other circumstances or proofs, but the attestation of the parties concerned; and by any ordinary set of men, I would be understood to signify a number of persons selected from the bulk of mankind without choice or discrimination. I say, then, I am willing to admit, that a miracle can never be considered as substantiated by the simple testimony of any man, or any ordinary set of men. Let us now compare this concession with the statement of that argument usually ascribed to Mr. Hume, and it will be readily perceived that we have allowed its full force, as far as it can be legitimately extended. The substance of that objection is, that we should never allow our confidence in human testimony, of the veracity of which we can be assured only by a variable experience, to lead us to believe in a violation of the established order of nature, of which we are assured by an invariable experience. Now this objection invalidates that kind of testimony, of the veracity of which we have had proof only from a variable experience, that is, simple and uncorroborated testimony. We have had, it is alleged, only a variable experience of the veracity of human testimony, since men sometimes tell us truth, and at other times impose upon us by falsehood. It is evident, this could be justly asserted only of the bulk of mankind, with whom we casually meet in the intercourses of life. Add to this general proposition some of those circumstances of corroboration to which I have alluded, and the maxim has no longer its force or justness of application. It is certain that, when we speak generally of mankind, the proof which we have of the veracity of their testimony rests only on a variable experience; but have we a like variable experience of the veracity of good men, or of men who have afforded us all the outward and inward demonstrations of unsullied purity, and excellence of character? Is it by a variable experience only, we are assured, that men who have given every possible proof of probity, will not suddenly change their religion, shake off all their early prejudices and prepossessions, embrace the tenets, and enlist as the champions of a new faith, in order to become the propagators of a string of falsehoods? Is it by a variable experience only, we are assured, that men of undoubted probity will not, after they have relinquished their own religion and embraced a falsehood, to promulgate that falsehood, relinquish all the sweets of home and a peaceful life, and voluntarily encounter hardships, toils, ignominy, perils, persecutions, and even persevere unto death in attesting it? Is it by a variable experience only, we are convinced, that those men could not have been impostors, and the propagators of a string of falsehoods, who not only changed their religion and all their views, and habits of thinking and acting, and subjected themselves to all kinds of sufferings and death, from attachment to their new faith; but who, by some wonderful influence, induced hosts of others to make the same sacrifices as themselves; made converts of all nations; without power, wealth or influence, effected a complete moral change in the world; planted the standard of the cross, upon the ruins of paganism and idolatry; and in spite of the most furious opposition of Jews and Gentiles, backed by the whole force of civil and ecclesiastical power, made their way triumphantly through the earth? In fine, is it by a variable experience only, we are assured, that these men could not have been deceivers, who not only deserted their own faith, and embraced another, spent their lives in suffering, and died the most painful deaths in promulging the tenets of the last, made converts of a host of others of all ranks and conditions; but who also had the address and good fortune, to have the great events of their lives annually celebrated by a succession of followers from their times to the present, and monuments erected to perpetuate the remembrance of them?
Under such circumstances as these, can it be said with any show of reason, or rather without an outrage upon the principles of right reason, that of the veracity of the testimony furnished by the first promulgers of Christianity in favour of those miracles by which it is supported, we have only a variable experience? Would human testimony, when thus corroborated by circumstances and facts, be liable to any exception; or subject even to the chance of error or imposition? Would courts of justice admit, that they have only a variable experience of the veracity of testimony, which is offered to them by men of unblemished reputation, and acknowledged probity and good sense? Do they not feel themselves perfectly secure, in resting upon the ground of such evidence, those decisions that effect the fortunes and lives of their fellow creatures? How much stronger, then, would be the case, if to the single circumstance of acknowledged probity in the character of the witnesses, we add those important considerations to which I have before alluded, their change of religious habits and views of things, the privations and difficulties they encountered in promulging the doctrines of their new faith, the horrid deaths which they calmly and triumphantly underwent, the wonderful success of their ministry, and to crown the whole, the institutions founded upon the great events of their lives, and the monuments erected to perpetuate them? Here then, from this view of the subject, we have unexpectedly arrived at a conclusion, which allows us to admit the whole force of Mr. Hume’s argument, when rightly understood and justly applied, and yet open no door by which any danger can be introduced to the christian religion. He avers, that no human testimony can establish a miracle, because of the veracity of human testimony we are assured only by a variable experience, and we have an invariable experience against a miracle. We avow, and think we have now proved that, in the case of Christianity, we have a testimony in favour of its miracles, not resting upon a variable, but invariable experience.
We can be liable to no possible deception in the case. The accumulated evidence which is afforded us in this matter, is stronger and more conclusive, than any evidence which we can derive from our own experience, of what may have been the past course of nature; and we should, upon better principles of reason, admit any the most stupendous violations of the established laws of the physical world, than allow a testimony so corroborated by circumstances and facts to be false. The thinness and impalpable nature of the whole frame and constitution of the moral world, render it extremely difficult to determine with precision and accuracy, at what points its regular and ordinary laws cease their operation, and the violations or suspensions of them commence. But, on this subject, we may, I think, arrive at tolerable certainty, that to suppose all this compound and strongly corroborated testimony, in favour of the gospel miracles to be false, would be to suppose as great a violation of the established laws of the physical world, as to admit its veracity, is to allow the violations of the established laws of the physical world. So that upon this view of the subject, we know not that any detriment could result to Christianity, if the truth of Mr. Hume’s maxim were admitted in its utmost extent, as before we have admitted it, as far as it is grounded in reason and philosophy, viz. that we should never believe a miracle, unless it would be as great a miracle, that the evidence which supports it should be false, as that the fact itself should be true. It would be as great a departure from the ordinary laws of the moral world, that such a stupendous imposture as Christianity must be, if it be false, should have been embraced, propagated, and palmed upon the world as a system of divine truth, in the manner in which it was done; as it was a departure from the ordinary laws of the physical world, that all the miraculous works recorded in the gospel, should have been performed. In this view of the subject, however, it is proper for us to remark, we do not acquiesce. We do not agree that this is a proper, and the only test of a miracle.
Let us now see, whether the principles we have stated, are conformable to the views of Christ and his Apostles, as disclosed to us in the sacred scriptures. We have admitted, in treating of the subject, that no miracle can be sufficiently authenticated, by the simple testimony of any witness, or any ordinary number of witnesses. There can scarcely remain a doubt, that there is a natural and well founded prejudice, existing in the mind of every intelligent man against marvellous stories, that cannot be overcome, and should not be overcome, when they become so serious as to be miraculous, by such slight evidence, as the mere declaration of any individual, or a few individuals. The conduct of the king of Siam was very natural, who refused to believe the report of the Dutch ambassador, when he informed him that in Europe, water could become so hard by the influence of cold, as to sustain upon its surface a loaded wagon. He followed the dictates of nature, in refusing his assent in this instance, as he had never seen water in any other condition than a fluid state, and supposed it impossible, so to change its consistence as to make it hard; but in this business he did not act the part of the philosopher. He ought to have known that experience and observation, alone, can give us information of the effects, which the different agents in nature produce upon each other; and until he had tried the operation of the utmost influence of cold upon water, he could come to no probable conclusion about it. That we do, however, naturally and properly make our own experience, in a degree, a criterion or standard, by which we judge of the probability or improbability of the tales related by others, we have just seen acknowledged by Mr. Locke, and of the fact there cannot be a shadow of doubt. Even the credulity of children, and the most ignorant persons may be shocked by stories too improbable, or contrary to experience to be credited. Suppose, then, a man should present himself to us, at this time, alleging that he had been connected with a being, who had performed miracles, who had raised the dead, cured the sick by his word, controlled the winds and waves, fed thousands of a hungry multitude with a few loaves and fishes, should we give credit to his simple testimony? Undoubtedly no rational person would. The answer to him, in such case, would be entirely satifactory [sic], we have proof from our uniform experience of the established order of nature, and we shall not believe that it has been violated at your word, of whose veracity the probability can never be so strong, as that derived from our own invariable experience. No apparent sincerity or earnestness of asseveration on his part, would ever persuade us, or should ever persuade us, that he was not either deceived himself, or attempting to practice an imposition upon us. Thus far we readily admit the conclusive force of this argument, and yield our understandings willing captives to its influence. But, in reference to the miracles ascribed to Christ and his Apostles, does this objection go, in the smallest degree, to the falsification of them? Was there ever a time, in which the truth of these miracles, rested solely upon the simple testimony of men? When Numa, following the example of other lawgivers, in order to give authority to his laws, pretended that he received them from the goddess Egeria, and Mahomet declared that the Koran was communicated to him by successive revelations from the angel Gabriel; these men rested the truth of their pretensions upon their own declarations; and upon this proof alone no rational mind, not blinded by ignorance and superstition, could have reposed confidence. But the course of the Divine Founder of the Christian faith, presents us with a fine contrast to such flimsy pretences. He, indeed, laid claim to a divine mission, and had any objector, such as those with whom we have to contend, been present and put to him the interrogatory, how can you prove to us, that you have been thus supernaturally endowed? To admit that God has thus interposed in your behalf, would be to allow a miracle or violation of the laws of nature. Now, is it not much more probable, that you should impose upon us by a false declaration, than that the established laws of nature should be violated? We doubt not, that the great author of our religion, would have felt and acknowledged the force of the objection. He has felt and explicitly acknowledged the force of the objection, when in some conversations with his disciples and hearers, he declared, “if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true,” and again, “if ye believe not me, (that is upon my simple declaration,) believe me for my work’s sake.” Here we perceive the true ground, upon which Christ, during his own life, rested his claims to a divine mission. He was not contented, as were the ancient lawgivers, and the impostor Mahomet, with simply declaring his heavenly mission, but made the appeal to the evidence of their senses, those very senses from which they derived their knowledge of the uniform laws of nature. Here was a criterion that was infallible, and could not mislead them.
Thus we perceive, that our holy religion in its outset, did not rest its pretensions upon the simple declarations of its author. Nor after his death, did his successors the Apostles, who became the promulgers of his system of faith and doctrine, repose their claims to the confidence of their fellow-men, upon their own testimony. As if anticipating an objection like that with which we are now combatting, they renewed the miracles which their Lord had performed, and thus by continuing the appeal to the senses, silenced all opposition from this quarter. Hence the necessity of the performance of miracles by the Apostles. And even in the third and last stage of evidence in this matter, in the days immediately succeeding the Apostles, we find Christianity, instead of grounding its pretensions to truth and divine authority upon the simple testimony of its professors, reposing itself in safety upon all that accumulated evidence in its confirmation, which we derive from the character and conduct of its propagators; from their unblemished purity of intention, and uprightness of conduct; from their relinquishing all the comforts and satisfactions of life, to devote themselves to perpetual toils, hardships, imprisonments, dangers and death; from the wonderful success of their exertions, and their triumphant progress in the promulgation of the faith, in the midst of difficulties, which appeared insurmountable. But besides all these considerations usually urged in this case, we find at this period of the church, a moral phenomenon presented to our inspection, for which no rational solution can be furnished, but the prevailing influence of miraculous power. A large proportion of mankind have, from some cause or other, been induced to abandon the religion in which they had been educated, and in opposition to all those motives, which generally operate most powerfully upon the minds of men, to become christians.
The fact is, that besides all this proof which may be exhibited in favour of Christianity, and which every unprejudiced mind must deem satisfactory, there is another of a peculiar nature, and which of itself, would frustrate the force of Mr. Hume’s objection. We are in the habit of considering intuition, experience, and testimony, as the three distinct grounds of human knowledge, and undoubtedly they are so; intuition being the ground of demonstrative certainty, experience the ground of natural and moral science, and testimony that of historical information. Science knows no other distinctions but these. But at the same time, is it not worthy of remark, that there is a kind of knowledge which we possess, that is not derived from what we properly call experience, and yet does not depend for its certainty upon testimony alone, but partakes of the force of both, and may be regarded as a compound mixture, composed of both these ingredients? Such facts, for example, as the following; that there were once such republics as those of Athens and Lacedæmon, such an empire as the Roman, and that such men a Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and Cato, once lived in them, cannot be justly considered as resting solely upon the testimony of the Greek and Roman writers. Have we not the productions of their genius, and their monuments of art remaining? We can visit the capitals of Greece and Rome, and find the accounts of their philosophers, historians, orators, and poets, confirmed by the venerable ruins still to be perceived of their ancient grandeur. Have we not here a proof of the former existence of these nations, and that such illustrious men once adorned them, as we have above enumerated, much stronger than that which can be derived from mere testimony, and which if it cannot be regarded as amounting to our own experience, very nearly approximates to it? If all the monuments of the ancient greatness of these nations, could be supposed so completely erased, as that not a vestige of them was to be seen, the evidence of these facts would be totally changed, and there might be found some better excuse, than is to be discerned at present, for the opinion of Father Harduin, that almost all the classics are the supposititious productions of the middle ages. To illustrate our meaning by reference to a case exactly in point. Plato informs us in his Timæus and Critias, that when Solon was in Egypt, into which country he went in pursuit of knowledge, as was the custom among the philosophers of Greece, and Egyptian priests informed him, that the Greeks were as yet but children in matters of antiquity, for that at a period long anterior to that to which their records extended back their history, there lived a great and flourishing nation, inhabiting an island called Atlantis, beyond the pillars of Hercules, the present straits of Gibraltar; that this island was connected with other islands in the Atlantic ocean, and these with a large continent; and that this powerful nation passed over into Africa and Europe, and conquered the greater part of them. Now this whole account of the island Atlantis, and the powerful nation of the Atlantidæ, may be considered as described by Plato, as resting upon the simple testimony of the Egyptian priests. But suppose an island and a continent, of the kind mentioned above, had been discovered by modern navigators in the Atlantic ocean, inhabited by a people tracing their origin to a great and powerful nation, from whom they professed to derive their improvements, usages, laws, and institutions; that the remains of their ancient glory were still perceptible in their cities, temples, and other specimens of architecture, sculpture, and painting; would not such circumstances strongly confirm the truth of this Egyptian story, and, in fact, render credible what at present, is justly regarded only as a romantic and fabulous tale? Take this mode of reasoning, and apply it to the case of Christianity. Have we not undoubted proof that Moses and Christ once lived, and performed the actions which are ascribed to them in the circumstances, that from the very times in which they lived, there has been a continued succession of men, who have submitted to their laws, and professed themselves their followers; that great and mighty empires have been erected on the foundations which they laid; that the monuments of these empires are still existing, and that institutions arising out of the great events of their lives, continue to be observed in sacred commemoration of them? When the whole of this species of evidence is classed under the general appellation historical, it is certainly throwing into one confused heap, things which, if not discrepant from each other in kind, are certainly greatly discrepant in their degree of force. Science, indeed, furnishes us with no term to designate this degree of proof, by which important facts and events may be authenticated, but its superior weight and influence upon the understanding, are no less perceptible on that account. The evidence which we derive from considerations of this kind, when taken in connection with the other proofs of Christianity to which we have before alluded, affords a clear, intense, and irresistible light, which cannot fail to flash conviction upon every unprejudiced mind. Under this view of the subject, and in the full possession of such satisfactory proof, what shall we say of that bold, though unfounded declaration of Mr. Volney, in a work very descriptively and characteristically entitled his Ruins, as it may emphatically be styled a chaos of follies, fantasies, and absurdities; “that there are absolutely no other monuments of the existence of Jesus Christ as a human being, than a passage in Josephus, a single phrase in Tacitus and the gospels; and that the existence of Jesus is no better proved, than that of Osiris and Hercules, and that of Fo or Bedou.”
Is there any extravagance of opinion or impudence of assertion, of which the impugners of the gospel are not capable, when it happens to suit their purpose at the time, and more especially, when the prospect is presented to them, by the boldness of their assumptions, to dupe the ignorant and ensnare the unsuspecting? It is impossible that Mr. Volney could have been ignorant of the egregious mistatement, and even palpable fallacy of a declaration of this kind. After the view which we have already taken of the subject, it is certainly unnecessary to enter into the refutation of an assumption so glaringly unfounded, as the answer to it must by this time be obvious to the reader. The same view of the matter which we have exhibited above, serves also, as we have asserted, completely to sap the force, and defeat the purpose of the much vaunted argument ascribed to Mr. Hume, although, as we have already shown, he was not entitled to the merit of inventing it. Even supposing his reasoning upon the point to be conclusive, and we have proved, we trust, by unanswerable arguments it is not, it would not accomplish the object he had in view. The fact, that: the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were performed, rests not solely upon the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists, unimpeachable as it is, and corroborated as it is moreover, by circumstances that render it satisfactory. It is written in deep and legible characters, if I may speak so, upon the moral order of the world. Effects were produced at that time, by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles, of which such extraordinary acts alone could have been the adequate cause. The more remote results of them are discernible at the present day.
Thus we have endeavoured to refute this celebrated argument against miracles, to separate what is true from what is false in it, and to show that when properly understood, instead of proving of any detriment to the interests of our holy religion, it is rather a confirmation of its truth; since after a scrutiny of this kind, it is found impregnable also upon this quarter, in which it at first appeared to be most vulnerable. We shall conclude the subject by a few brief observations, in the form of scholia, connected with the foregoing investigation.
In the first place, it will be an abuse of the doctrine we have held on this subject, if it should be said, that we regard every miracle as incredible, which has not been substantiated by such proof as that which we have required above. When we have obtained in the manner described, sufficient evidence of the interference of God as the conductor of any dispensation, as that of the Jewish or Christian, every insulated miracle which may be exhibited, will not require the same evidence to prove it, as was necessary in the first instance, to establish that important fact; as after we have conclusively deduced from an examination of some of the most important parts of the works of the Creator, the existence of a contriver, we readily refer the less important portions of creation to the same original. Under this description, would be included many of the insulated miracles, both of the Old and New Testament. When Moses and Christ had established their claims to a divine commission, and we are convinced of the validity of those claims, our belief in such miraculous interferences becomes easy.
Secondly. As Mr. Hume promised himself, that he had discovered an argument which would put an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, under which he no doubt included Judaism and Christianity, we think we may avail ourselves of the principles we have prescribed, to put an end to superstitious delusion, without having an ill aspect upon the system of our holy religion. Before we believe any miracles in future, let us put them to the same test, which we have seen the scripture miracles so well sustain, and if they can bear it we will receive them. I need scarcely remark, that so severe a test as this will at once exclude the pretensions of all those impostors who have attempted thus to trifle with the interests of mankind, commencing with Simon Magus, and continuing down through the whole line of his successors to the present day. This view of the subject, renders an object of ridicule rather than serious consideration, those stories of a blind man cured by the emperor Vespasian in Egypt; and that of a lame one cured at Saragossa, as related by the cardinal De Retz, as well as the tales of the cures, which were said to be performed at the tomb of the Abbe de Paris. These accounts, under this philosophical view of the subject, are too frivolous to be rendered worthy of a serious discussion; and could have been brought forward, and considered by Mr. Hume in connexion with the scripture miracles, only from the mere wantonness of opposition, and pruriency of debate.
Finally: If the fact be established, that miracles were performed by Christ and his Apostles, the infallibility of their doctrines results by necessary consequence. Knowledge is power, says lord Bacon. And with equal justness and propriety, we may reverse the maxim, and declare that the existence of extraordinary power, indicates the possession of extraordinary wisdom. It is not to be presumed for a moment, that any being will be allowed to exercise the prerogatives of deity, or be invested with his awful authority, who is not delegated by God himself. To suppose that God would enable one commissioned by himself, to perform miracles in the confirmation of error, is to suppose him to give his awful sanction to deceive mankind.
END OF BOOK III.
*See Essay fourth, upon cause and effect, page, 409. vol. 2.
*Chap. 5. sect. third. Inquiry concerning the human mind.
*See chap. 6. sect 24. Inquiry concerning the human mind
†See Essay 2. chap. 6. vol. 1. Intellectual and active powers.
‡See note N. to vol. 2. On philosophy of the human mind.
*See chap. 5. sect, third. On the human mind.
*See Essay 1, ch. 6, vol. 2. Intellectual and active powers.
*Bishop Watson, in his biography of himself, lately published, has given the following account of one of the events of his college life. “I had not been six months in College before a circumstance happened to me,” says he, “trivial in itself, and not fit to be noticed, except that it had some influence on my future life, inasmuch as it gave me a turn to metaphysical disquisition. It was then the custom in Trinity College for all the undergraduates to attend immediately after morning prayers, the College lectures at different tables in the hall, during term time. The lecturers explained to their respective classes certain books, such as Puffendorf de Oficio hominis et Civis, Clarke on the Attributes, Locke’s Essay, Duncan’s Logic, &c.; and once a week the head lecturer examined all the students. The question put to me by the head lecturer was — whether Clarke had demonstrated the absurdity of an infinite succession of changeable and dependent beings? I answered with blushing hesitation, non. The head lecturer, Brocket, with great good nature, mingled with no small surprise, encouraged me to give my reason for thinking so. I stammered out in barbarous Latin (for the examination was in that language) that Clarke had inquired into the origin of a series, which, being from the supposition eternal, could have no origin; and into the first term of a series, which, being from the supposition infinite, could have no first. From this circumstance I was soon cried up, very undeservedly, as a great metaphysician.”
From the account here given by the Bishop, we are at a loss to determine whether he considered his argument against the principles of Dr. Clarke valid and conclusive or not. He says, indeed, and very justly, that it gained him undeservedly the reputation of a great metaphysician in the College, but he no where discovers that he was conscious of its fallacy. Now to us the fallacy appears so glaring and the objection so frivolous and shallow, that it was no great compliment to the discernment of his contemporary undergraduates of the institution, that it should have gained him reputation with them for metaphysical acumen, or to his head lecturer, if he did not detect and expose his error. Let us examine the matter as it is stated by the Bishop. The question proposed by the head lecturer was, has Dr. Clarke demonstrated the absurdity of an infinite succession of changeable and dependent beings? The Bishop’s reply was no: for Clarke had inquired into the origin of a series, which, being from the supposition eternal, could have no origin; and into the first term of a series, which, being from the supposition infinite, could have no first. — Now, with all due submission to the Bishop’s better judgment, it would be strange, indeed, if in determining the question whether it is not absurd to suppose an eternal succession of changeable and dependent beings, that eternal succession or infinite series were taken for granted or included in the supposition. So far from this eternal succession of such beings that have no origin, or this infinite series that could have no first term, being included in the supposition, it formed the very point at issue, viz. to determine, whether there could be any such eternal succession or infinite series of changeable and dependent beings; or in other words, whether changeable and dependent beings must not always have an origin or first term. Dr. Clarke, in our estimation, has shown with irresistible force of argument, the gross absurdity of an eternal succession of changeable and dependent beings, or what is the same thing, beings of this description who have no origin. Thus the Bishop is found guilty of that grossest of all logical abortions, called an ignorantia elenchi, or ignorance of the question, and Dr. Clarke’s argument relieved from an objection that might be supposed by those who were unacquainted with the subject to lie against it. Of a nature similar to this of Bishop Watson will be found most of those objections brought by Dr. Reid against the principles of Clarke and Locke. They appear plausible at first sight and upon a superficial view; but when narrowly examined, are found to be frivolous and futile. We consider Dr. Clarke’s demonstration of the being and attributes of God as one of the finest monuments of human genius, and would strongly recommend to all students of divinity diligently to study it, and never to be contented until they completely understand it. “Ille se profecisse sciat,” says Quintilian, “cus Cicero valde placebit.” The same may be said of the writings of Samuel Clarke. That candidate for the ministry may consider himself as having made no inconsiderable advances in divinity, who has learned to understand and relish the writings of that author.
*Book 6, part 2, ch. 3. Touchant l’efficace attribuees aux causes secondes.
*Thomas Brown, M.D. professor of moral philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, carries the principles of Mr. Stewart to their ultimate excess. He says, that when we use the term power, we as much make use of a term without any idea annexed to it, as the Peripateticks did when they spoke of substantial forms and occult qualities. He affirms that what can be meant by power, is only immediate invariable antecedence. He defines cause to be the immediate invariable antecedent in any sequence; while the immediate invariable consequent is the correlative effect. Upon the principles of Dr. Brown, we should soon see all the ridiculous jargon of the schools revived. Never surely since the days of the Schoolmen have there been published such works as his upon any philosophical subject.
*The reader will perceive, that the only difference between the argument here stated by Mr. Locke, and that of Mr. Hume, consists merely in the artful manner, in which the latter has dressed it off to advantage. They are in substance the same; but Mr. Hume has contrived to render it more imposing, by his mode of exhibiting it. Mr. Locke allows, that, a great difficulty which we find in receiving the report of witnesses, lies in that report clashing with the ordinary course of nature; Mr. Hume states, in substance, the same objection; but discovers his utmost skill and adroitness, in representing the evidence of testimony, as always resting upon a variable experience only, while the course of nature is found to be established by an invariable experience. Of course, he concludes, that that evidence which we have of the established laws of nature, which is derived from an invariable experience, must, in all cases, preponderate over that which we derive from the testimony of witnesses, which, at best, can be substantiated only by a variable experience. How far this view of the subject is well-founded, we have undertaken to show in the text; but we take this opportunity of endeavouring to illustrate still further, the objection of Mr. Hume, as perhaps, no subject was ever more grossly misunderstood and misrepresented.