196 W. L. COURTNEY, M.A. LL.D., ON 
where it might become operative, and, as a dictate of the moral 
nature, supersede the teaching of Revelation, thus making an 
historical theology impossible. But even to make good any call to 
discuss these topics in remarks on Dr. Courtney’s paper would lead 
us too far afield. Having in view Hume’s influence on Kant, my 
object in these remarks was to suggest, that the sceptical outcome of 
the writings of both might be identical, and that a good deal might 
be said on the side of tne French critic's sweeping statement, 
“Kant has spread through the whole of Europe the spirit of 
doubt.” Ithink the history of religious thought both in Europe 
and America is strongly in his favour. 
The Rev. J. J. Lras, M.A., writes :-— 
The paper on the whole is a useful and a helpful one, but there 
are some points in it which appear to me open to criticism. Iam 
afraid my acquaintance with Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is not 
exhaustive, but one is not disabled thereby from endeavouring 
to exercise pure reason upon the questions treated therein. 
First of all, the statement in the second page that before we can 
arrive at any conclusion on phenomena, it 1s necessary to investigate 
the conditions of being and knowledge, and to study logic, ethics, 
and psychology, seems at least questionable. That some study of the 
conditions of knowledge preceded progress in physical science is 
undoubtedly the case; but it was simply a question of method, as 
Dr. Whewell shews in his History of the Inductive Sciences. The 
barrenness of the physical science of the ancients was almost 
entirely due to the fact that they used the deductive instead of the 
inductive method, and based their philosophy on dogma instead of 
on observation. But no very considerable progress had been made 
in psychology when Bacon laid the foundation of the inductive 
method, nor does he appear to have depended much upon the 
scientific teaching of logic or of ethics: nor, on the other hand, is 
physical science usvally supposed to have owed much to Kant. It 
is a question whether its advance would not have been as rapid if 
Kant had never written a line. 
Dr. Courtney’s distinction between criticism and scepticism as 
appled to Kant’s method is striking, and it appears to me conclu- 
sive. But I must venture to question the soundness of that 
method as applied to the Being of God. The necessity which an 
ordinary mind feels to be imposed upon it of finding some ulti- 
mate cause of things is in no sense disposed of by the illustration 
