192 W. L. COURTNEY, M.A., LL.D., ON 
the manner of His existence must remain in large measure un- 
known. 
T. Cuapiin, Esq., M.D., writes :— 
Standing, some months ago, in the memorial building erected to 
Kant at K6énigsberg, and musing on the line from one of his own 
works which serves for him as an epitaph— The starry heaven 
above me; the moral law within me”—I naturally found myself 
asking (not by any means for the first time), What has been the 
practical outcome of the great philosopher’s studies, thoughts, 
and teaching? Did he put already known truth upon a wider, 
firmer basis? Did he discover any truth not before known to 
mankind? Jid he point out any new method of research by 
which the scope of man’s knowledge may be widened, his con-_ 
ceptions of things unseen be made clearer, his power over the 
forces of Nature be increased? Or, did he lead men’s minds away 
from the pursuit of truths which are demonstrable, into devious 
and obscure paths of metaphysical subtlety ? It has seemed to me 
that the revolution in philosophy which Kant is said to have 
inaugurated, influences the thoughts of a few philosophical and 
(if I may so say) speculative minds, rather than serving as a 
guiding power to the army of scientific enquirers who have made 
this century which is now drawing to its close so remarkable—that 
it is in the barren waste of metaphysical speculation, and not in 
the fruitful field of experimental science, that its results are to be 
found. 
We are greatly indebted to the author for putting before us so 
clearly and with so few technicalities the general drift of Kant’s 
enquiries and doctrines, and I think all will recognise how ably 
and convincingly he has defended the sage of Kénigsberg from the 
imputation of any kind or degree of scepticism beyond that which 
is the normal habit of mind of every sincere searcher after truth. 
Yet, I confess that I cannot easily bring myself to believe that 
the arguments upon which great thinkers of former days were 
content to rest their belief in the existence of God are but “a 
broken reed.” To trace causes backwards until, with our limited 
knowledge, we can go no further, and then to take refuge in a 
great First Cause, still seems to my mind not unphilosophical: the 
teleological argument, now so brusquely thrust aside, seems to me 
not weakened by the consideration that the Almighty Himself gave 
to the materials with which He works their “ natural forces and pro- 
perties ” (p. 178.) Would anyone be prepared to assert that a brass 
