The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-04-29

with Mr.. Hume, or each ether, m Tslationl
10 any one particular subject. Again ex
tfeme imalodesiy Is imputed te meby I,
because of my sanctlauius the doctrine of
cause and effect, as lnsinisin. d by Hume, |
Reid sud Stewart, IN Former tunes, not |
wiihssanding the redoubtade efforts of
Beas'ey, Gan eminent metapbysIcian OF
our own day." backed too by sci men
as Bacon, Locke, Newton and Others" TO
prove It's falIaey. With such " fearful
odds" on his side. " To declares he thinks
Mr.. Beasley e stand avery good chance fer
a victory" Now, ifit were nptan unimpar-
douable aggrayation Of my former immo
drsty, could aIledge, aud perhaps prove,
that " 4" has entirely mistaken the state OF
the controversy. The doctrine of cause 4
effect, as expounded by Hume, aud snbse-
qu"nily supported by Reid aud Stewart,
which exposes our inability to ascertain
the existence of necessary connections be-
tween physical events or to understand
the operation Of Efficient causaton in pro-
ducing the phenomena we observe, may be
truly sud To constitute the essence of those
rules of phosophising which the immor
/ tai Bacon laid down for the direction of
physical enquiry. The philosophers, who
| hOurIshed in the world anterior TO the time
of Lord Bacon, instead of endeavorlng TO
ascertain, by the only legitimate methods,
observation aud experiment, the laws
which regulate the succession Of physical
events, wasted their labor, aud involved
themselves IN endless subtleies, and the
intricate Mays OF drusve philosophy,
by attempting to deduce effects from their
causes by reasoning 9" a priori y " the i'm
possibility of doing which, Lord Bacon G.
very where strongly incnlcates." Now
wcre we able to ascertain in any instance
the manner in which "A Cause produces lis
effect we should be able To deduce the lat
ter from the former by reasoning a pro
ri !" which would at once destroy the roun-
dation Of the Baconian philosophy. SO
that Dugnd Stewart very justly and CON
clusiyely remarks, that although Lord
Bacon has no where formally stuffed the doc
trIne new under consideration, g. that from
The general scope of his writings, he is IN
cllned To believe his metaphpS,cat notions
on the subject were not very accurate I;
yet that he plainly took ii for granted in
all his reasonings on the method Of prose-
cutiug philosophical enquires.o The gen
doctrine, the close ofthe last century. may
be satisfactorily established, if reference
may be bad to the authority Of that true
philosopher, and splendid aud unpreudi-
ccd metaphyscan, the Industrious Stewart.
sit seemsnow To be pretty generally agreed
among philosophers, that there is no IL
stance in which we are able To perceive a
necessary connection between two success
sive events or to comprehend in what
manner the one proceeds from the other,
as its cause. From experience, indeed,wc
learn that there are many events which are
constantly cOnjoined, SO that the one inva-
riahly follows the Other: but il is possible
for any thing we kn " 10 the contrary, that
this connrNion, thougu constant one, 50
far as our observation has reached, may not
he IA necessary conncxiou nay, IT Is pos
slble that there may he no necessary con-
nexions among any ofthc phenomena we
see. and if there are any such connexions
existing, we may rest assured that we shall
never be able to discover them" The cx-
ertion of Mr.. Beaslcy's microscopic vision
to tire contrary Notwithstanding. Without
pretending to support or justify the infinite
variety of speculative opinions advanced
by Mr.. Hume in the boundless range of his
multlfarious enquiries, | shall make IA few
comments on the following remark by
ar" because the unSenerous inference
to which il leads '' 1t is a ia, orte senti-
ment with Mr.. Hume, that the principles
of virtue do not spring from animmntable
source, but grow out of considerations OF
cxpcdiency." Now, however monstrous
this sentiment may appear To the superb
cial, 1T has, nevertheless, had many able
and yirtuous advocates. The doctrine
that eypedency constitutes the rule OF
right" has many warm supporters at this
very day and is, ifmy recollection serves
me, recognised by the virtuons Paley, in
his Moral Philosophy. | am not, myself,
however, disposed to sanction the doctrine
To the extent to which it has been pushed.
But that consideration Of expediencys, al
though they may notconsttute the springs
of moral action, exercise an almost soyc-
reign sway over the moral faculty, Is, in
deed, strikngly exempiiied in the very
instance cited By At" from Hume, to
prove the faiacy and monstres,ty of the
doctrine. IN what other way, ask, than
by a qualified acceptation otthe doctrine in
question, shall we be enabled to explain
how il happens that single violation OF
chastity on the part OF a female, de6rades
her forever {; whereas ii man, whose power
10 resist the fascination of vice, may he con
sidered greatest, may indulge in habitual
debauchcry viii ont mourning intamy, or
even producing disgust In what other
way shall we account forthe infinite variety
of neral customs aud sentiments that che
quer the world even OF many of oar mos,
deeply engraven norM principles, under
the powerful and transforming operatiea
ofditIerett systems of education and forms
of government ? BUT let this be as il may,