190 liEV. H. J. CLARKE. 



REMARKS BY THE REV. R. COLLINS, M.A., 



late Principal of Collayain Collerje, Travancore. 



Mr. Clarke hiis tackled a very difficult subject— or rather, perhaps, it 

 would be better to say, the highest mystery of the universe under its most 

 difficult aspect, namely, the aspect disclosed from the standpoint of " pure 

 reason." How far can pure reason indicate an Eternal Being, or Person I 

 The agnostics allow, nay, infer, an Eternal Something. It is true that pure 

 reason must find something beyond the last link of consequent and ante- 

 cedent empirically determined. Herbert Spencer, from pure reason, finds 

 that something in the " Infinite and Eternal Energy, from which all things 

 proceed." Kant saw the noumenon behind the phenomenon as a mode of 

 the " unknowable" something. Spinoza, whether actually from pure reason or 

 not, though professedly so, found that something in what he names "God " — 

 according to his definition, "naturanaturanset natura naturata in identitate 

 Deus est." The question is, whether Mr. Clarke's argument necessarily leads 

 us beyond this Eternal Something. I do not perceive how the complex con- 

 clusions of the first paragraph of page 182 can be reached from " fundamental 

 conditions of thought " without many links of reasoning, which do not appear. 

 What is there in pure reason, so far, to lead us up to a Being (the idea of 

 whom cannot be separated from the attributes of Intellect and Will) rather 

 than the Something of the agnostics ? It is, however, an important step to 

 show, as Mr. Clarke has done, that the exclusiveness of reasoning in physical 

 science, and even the '' Antinomies" of Kant, do not render it unscientific to 

 replace an Infinite and Eternal Energy by an Infinite and Eternal Person. 

 However, it is certain that a true science will always demand an evidence 

 that it cannot subvert. And the only absolute evidence of the personality 

 of the eternal source of all things is in His revelation of Himself. On this 

 subject Mr. Clarke does not touch, as not necessary to the object of his paper. 

 But it has always seemed to me that the historical truth of God's revelation 

 of Himself to man is the only valid weapon against agnosticism. The 

 acceptance of the historical truth of the Bible is made easier by the clearing 

 away of philosophical difficulties, and here Mr. Clarke's paper is of great 

 value. The argument from ''the m.oral sensej" pp. 188 and 189, is, I think, 

 unanswerable. Is not the most forcible "pure reason " argument for the 

 personality of the " Infinite and Eternal Energy from which all things pro- 

 ceed" the analogy of mind ? Whence is the force that moves this pen over 

 the paper ? It certainly originates in mind. We know, in our own expe- 

 rience, mind as the only origin of the force which results in motion towards 

 final causes. The movements of matter towards final causes throughout the 

 universe speak of a Supreme Mind. Of course, we are met with the doctrine 

 that mind is, after all, only one of the attributes of matter. And this i.s 

 claimed, I believe, as the result of " pure reason." Perhaps, however, the 

 " common sense," that the late esteemed Dr. Carpenter spoke so often about, 

 will free us from any doubt on the question ; and the results of even " pure 

 reason " must be M'eigliod one against another. 



