THE ALLEGED SCEPTICISM OF KANT. 193 
Jamp could not have been made by the hand of man, because the 
ingenuity of man had contrived to produce the compound metal 
which possesses the properties requisite for the same P 
Whilst then we should be grateful for those philosophical 
considerations set before us, which afford “a special ground on 
which to assert the reality of God,” I cannot but think that these 
should be regarded as supplementary to older, and perhaps more 
easily comprehensible arguments, drawn from cazse and design, 
and not as destructive or subversive of them. I may not, in an 
enquiry of this kind, quote the Apostle Paul as an inspired writer— 
philosophical investigations do not take cognizance of inspired 
writings—but we shall all agree that that great man had a 
powerful and highly cultivated intellect, and no inconsiderable 
knowledge of philosophy; and we find him affirming that “the 
invisible things of God from tke creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal 
power and Godhead.” St. Paul then did not reject ‘the teleo- 
logical argument.’ And so also our great English philosopher: 
“God never wrought a miracle to convince Atheism, because His 
ordinary works convince it.’ We shall not therefore err in bad 
company if we still keep to the old paths, whilst appreciating any 
new light that may be thrown upon them by the more modern 
thinker; and it may be well to give due weight to another saying 
of Bacon, namely, that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to 
atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to 
religion.” 
Professor Duns, D.D., F.R.S.E., writes :— 
I have read Dr. Courtney’s paper with much interest. It 
is an able review and criticism of several important aspects of 
Kantian philosophy, held by thinkers to beget and favour scepticism. 
A philosophic spirit, wide, yet acute and accurate, thinking, crisp 
“phrasing,” and firm grasp of the leading lines of Kantian 
thought characterize the paper throughout. It is very sug- 
gestive. A worthy and full criticism would be longer than the 
essay itself. I limit my remarks to one feature mainly. That 
Dr. Courtney’s standpoint is that of Kant, and that he sym- 
pathetically identifies himself with the philosopher’s own attitude 
to, and estimate of, the subjects dealt with, will be held by some to 
add weight to his paper. Others will think that he thereby lays 
himself open to hostile criticism. What they wish to know is not 
