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 beingAnd 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 eter

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, "cui 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.

nal 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 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 must be 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 selfevident 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

K

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 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 consist

cause.

ently 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 ean 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, quæ id efficit, cujus est causa; ut vulnus mortis, 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 descende