IT may be supposed that in any collections of facts with reference to the determination of a general law, the manner in which they express or exhibit that law will vary. Some will seem to direct us immediately to its consideration, while others will lead us by a route more or less circuitous. This variety in the modes by which facts communicate their teaching, gives rise to a number of precepts applicable to particular cases, which we call the Canons of the Inductive Method, or the rules to be observed in treating the various forms and conditions of the instances from which the induction is to be made. Of course, therefore,, it will not be expected that these canons will all be involved in every case, any more than all the rules of syntax in the analysis of every sentence. Their application is determined by the necessity that calls for them. In the prosecution of our plan, the reasons for which have already been given, we shall express and illustrate these canons in the language of Sir John Herschel, compared, as occasion may require, [240] with Mr. Mill, while we seek to point out cases in biblical studies in which they will severally be applicable.

      It is deemed proper to remark, in this place, that although the phraseology of some of the following canons may at first appear difficult of comprehension to those who have not been accustomed to the use of philosophical and scientific language, such difficulty will disappear, it is believed, after a little thought and patience, particularly if the main point in the rule be traced out in the illustrations which accompany it, and in others, parallel to those, which can hardly fail to suggest themselves. And it should be remembered that a little pains bestowed in mastering these canons, in connection with the principles already developed, will put the reader in possession of the key which not only unlocks the storehouses of natural and revealed truth, but which is able also to introduce him into every department of knowledge. While it is our special object to show that the method of science is also the method of revelation, it is equally true that the same principles are the open sesame to law, to medicine, to politics, and to " every inquiry in which man can engage."

      "If in our group of facts there be one in which any assigned peculiarity, or attendant circumstance, is wanting or opposite, such peculiarity cannot be the cause (or explanation) we seek."

      This is equivalent to the axiom of Mr. Mill: [241] "Whatever circumstance can be excluded, without prejudice to the phenomenon, or can be absent notwithstanding its presence, is not connected with it in the way of causation." In an inquiry into the cause of dew, the fact that the under side of certain objects is, in some instances, bedewed, proves that dew does not fall from the sky. We may suppose that all the balance of the facts seem to point to this falling from the sky, as the explanation of the phenomenon of dew; but even in that case, the presence of this one fact in which the " assigned peculiarity" is "wanting or opposite," proves that such explanation cannot be correct. This canon, it will be perceived, is not so useful in conducting us to truth as in preserving us from error.

      It applies particularly to those cases in which we have been accustomed, or are likely, to make a false and hasty induction. In biblical studies men frequently overlook the fact that words are sometimes used to comprehend or imply more than is contained in their strict definition; which enlargement of meaning must be ascertained by a comparison of Scripture with Scripture. The word faith, for example, besides its proper sense, sometimes comprehends also the whole gospel; sometimes more particularly what we understand by repentance; while repentance frequently implies faith. But if, overlooking this fact, we should take the word faith in passages where it is used in an enlarged sense, and predicate salvation of it in its restricted and proper sense alone, our first canon would enable us to perceive the mistake. To illustrate more particularly, let us suppose that from the words of the commission, "he [242] that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and from kindred passages, we induce or lead off the conclusion that simply to believe, in the restricted and proper sense of that word, and to be baptized, are the only antecedents of salvation. Now, if there be "one case" in which this assigned effect, i. e. salvation, is "wanting," notwithstanding the presence of its assigned antecedents, namely, belief and baptism, it will follow that these are not alone the "cause or explanation" of the effect. Such a case we have in the history of Simon Magus, Acts, viii. He believed and was baptized, and yet, so far from being saved, he was "in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." How shall we account for this? By saying his was not the right kind of faith? This is a mere assumption. The Scriptures know nothing of different kinds of faith. Besides, the Holy Spirit says that "then Simon himself believed also," which is a clear declaration that, so far as the mere act of believing was concerned, he believed just as the others in Samaria did. If they had the right kind of faith, he had also the right kind of faith. What, then, was the deficiency? Evidently this: he was destitute of true repentance, which was embraced in the term "believe," as given in the commission,¹ but which was not embraced in the term, as applied to Simon. The words of the commission remain, therefore, as they forever will, true without exception, when taken in that comprehensive meaning which a sound induction shows to have been intended. [243]

      Again, many well-meaning persons have concluded, from the numerous Scriptures which commend sincerity and condemn hypocrisy, that sincerity alone will secure our acceptance with God. Hence the expression so constantly repeated, and which one is expected to look upon as an evidence of the most enlightened charity, that "it makes no difference what you believe if yon are but sincere." To say nothing of the pernicious influence of a sentiment which equalizes falsehood with truth, let us, in obedience to canon first, take the single case of Saul of Tarsus, who, actuated by religious sincerity, became the "chief of sinners," to show that the conclusion is wholly erroneous.

      "Any circumstance in which all the facts without exception agree, MAY be the cause in question, or, if not, at least a collateral effect of the same cause; if there be but one such point of agreement, this possibility becomes a certainty; and, on the other hand, if there be more than one, they nay be concurrent causes."

      Or, in the language of Mr. Mill: "If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon."

      The illustration of the above canon is also drawn from investigations on the phenomenon of dew. "Now here," says our author, " we have analogous phenomena in the [244] moisture which bedews a cold metal or stone when we breathe upon it; that which appears on a glass of water fresh from the well in hot weather; that which appears on the inside of windows when sudden rain or hail chills the external air; that which runs down our walls when, after a long frost, a warm moist thaw comes on,--all these instances agree in one point, the coldness of the object dewed, in comparison with the air in contact with it."

      In the Scriptures we have numerous cases of conversion, all slightly varying in their attendant circumstances. Those converted on the day of Pentecost were Jews, charged with the guilt of betraying and murdering their Messiah; others were Samaritans, guilty, w e may presume, of such sins as are common to men; others again were devout and pious proselytes, as the eunuch and Cornelius; others still were heathen idolators. Some of the converts were learned, noble, polite; while some were slaves, poor, despised, and ignorant; some of the cases are reported in connection with miracles, others with ordinary instrumentalities alone; but, notwithstanding the variety of circumstances, they all agree in one point--the exhibition of an obedient faith. If, now, we are seeking to learn what constitutes scriptural conversion, so far as the act of the persons converted is concerned, we are required, by the second canon, to determine, in the first place, that an obedient faith MAY be the constitution of such conversion; and if, upon farther inquiry, we find that there is no other circumstance in which all the facts without exception agree, then the possibility becomes a certainty; but if, upon this inquiry, we should [245] find another point in which all the facts agreed, then we should unite that also to the obedient faith as a "concurrent cause," or as forming a part of the elements that entered into the constituency of conversion, regarded as the act of the creature.

      The above illustration we look upon as being so apt and perspicuous, that we will not withdraw the attention from it by furnishing others.

      "We are not to deny the existence of a cause in favor of which we have a unanimous agreement of strong analogies, though it may not be apparent how such a cause can produce the effect, or even though it may be difficult to conceive its existence under the circumstances; in such cases we should rather appeal to experience when possible, than decide a priori against the cause, and try whether it cannot be made apparent."

      In illustration of the application of this canon, Sir John Herschel returns to the subject of dew: "Is it a fact that the object dewed is colder than the air? Certainly not, one would at first be inclined to say; for what is to make it so? But the analogies are cogent and unanimous; and, therefore, pursuant to Rule 3, we are not to discard their indications; and, besides, the experiment is easy; we have only to lay a thermometer in contact with the dewed substance, and hang one a little distance above it out of the reach of its influence. The experiment has been made; [246] the question has been asked, and the answer has been invariably in the affirmative. Whenever an object collects dew, it is colder than the surrounding air."

      From a large number of biblical questions to which this canon is applicable, we will select a single one, and leave the reader to apply it to others as occasion may require. The question selected is this: Is Christian baptism for the remission of sins? Certainly not, one would at first be inclined to say; for what could make it so? How is it possible that any connection can exist between an external act and the remission of sins? But the analogies are cogent and unanimous; and therefore, pursuant to canon third, we are not to discard their indications. We will mention some of these analogies:--

      The eating of the forbidden fruit was an external act of very trifling moment, in itself considered; but, in consequence of the divine law which it violated, it was an act of incalculable importance.

      Naaman the Syrian's dipping of himself in the Jordan for the cure of leprosy, would have excited the just ridicule of men, if it had been viewed as a simple external act, apart from the authority that enjoined it. How can the water which touches but the surface remove a disease? What virtue is there in it? The idea is preposterous, and the act absurd. But he was cured, notwithstanding!

      An infidel or skeptic Jew, bitten by a fiery serpent, might have asked with the same shallow plausibility, How can my looking upon the brazen serpent remove the poison from my veins? The cause is not adequate to the effect. But [247] still, if he looked, he lived; and if he refused to look, he died!

      Again, it may be asked, Why is faith held to be necessary to pardon? It is a mere act of the creature. God cannot exercise faith for any one. Besides, we are expressly taught that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin; and as this blood was shed for all, all will therefore be saved, whether they have or have not faith. But, notwithstanding this popular logic, he that believeth not shall be condemned!

      By the same sort of transparent sophistry, we can set aside repentance, a change of heart, the love of God, the love of man, good works, and everything that God has required; and thus establish Universalism, upon the basis of infidelity!

      The analogies, therefore, are cogent and unanimous, that whatever God appoints, with reference to a certain end, is effectual, when obeyed, and necessary for the attainment of that end. As, therefore, in every single instance in the New Testament where the design of Christian baptism is spoken of, it is declared to be "for the remission of sins," either in these identical words, or in others clearly equivalent in meaning, and as this is supported by the uniform analogy of all Scripture, we cannot feel at liberty to discard such testimony.

      The author will take this occasion to say, that he looks upon baptism as being the smallest part of Christianity. Still it is a part, and, in its place, an essential part; and hence he cannot but regret that Protestants, in their anxiety to get as far as possible from Rome on this point, [248] have nearly all, in his judgment, gone beyond Jerusalem. If the day has not passed when we might reasonably hope to see this much-controverted question settled upon the sure basis of Scripture, it might be interesting and profitable to point out some of the aberrations which have been made from the Bible. And if the reader will take this in the spirit in which it is offered, the author will just indicate, in a few sentences, some of the inconsistencies into which the different divisions have been betrayed.

      1. First, then, they have all so heartily repudiated the doctrine of Rome, that the baptism of a subject without faith, repentance, or any preparation of mind or heart, secures salvation, that they have been led to reject the Scripture doctrine also, which is, that the baptism of a believer who heartily repents, and who puts all his trust in Christ, is "for the remission of sins."

      2. One large division of Protestants, while insisting upon the utter uselessness, and non-essentiality of the ordinance, feel aggrieved at those who would have them withhold it from their children; and contend earnestly for the right of dedicating their offspring to the Lord, and of securing for them his covenant blessings in baptism.

      3. Another and opposite division, sensitive concerning their orthodoxy, are equally earnest in disclaiming any good that is to result from the institution, and especially the promised blessing of remission, while they contend, with a zeal that is at least worthy of a blessing and a reward, for the right "mode," and a "believing subject."

      If inconsistencies so glaring can continue for scores of [249] years in the midst of the most searching criticism and incessant debate, we confess that the prospect of a final agreement on the truth is by no means flattering. Still, if Protestants will only bring themselves to the determination really to stand and fall by their own principles, all these difficulties will seem speedily to evaporate like the dew of morning. For not one of them has sprung from the Bible; and when we go back to that, and that alone, the subject will stand out in its own clear light, with not a word said on the "modes" of baptism, or about "dedicating our children to the Lord by baptism." It will be, in fact, when stripped of its extraneous matter, a new subject. We shall then see a word and circumstances telling us, beyond doubt, that a certain specific action is baptism; while the "mode" in which that action is to be performed is left to the convenience or taste of every individual. Any other action, whatever it might in subsequent ages be named, we should sot regard as a "mode" of Bible baptism, but a different thing altogether. And then, when that specific action, whatever we should discover it to be, was performed by those whom the Scriptures positively and directly require to perform it, we should assure them, in the language of Scripture, of "the remission of sins." We might or might not understand how or why the benefit of Christ's blood, which alone is efficacious for the cleansing of sin, should first be fully assured to the individual in that action; but still we could and should receive it as a matter of faith, even without its philosophy. And thus it seems to us that this, the most difficult and involved of all the questions in [250] controversy, might be put forever at rest, by returning practically to the true foundation of Protestantism, and then interpreting the Bible according to the principles of induction, or common sense.

      "Contrary or opposing facts are equally instructive for the discovery of causes with favorable ones."

      An example of the above brief but valuable canon, in its application to natural inquiries, is also found by Sir John Herschel in the prolific investigation of the phenomenon of dew. "Among the negative instances," he says, "it is observed that dew is never copiously deposited in situations much screened from the open sky, and not at all in a cloudy night. A clear view of the cloudless sky, then, is an essential condition, or, what comes to the same thing, clouds or surrounding objects act as opposing causes."

      One or two examples will show the application and importance of the above canon in biblical questions. In the inquiries which have been made into the causes, or the immediate and essential antecedents of human salvation, many have concluded that faith was a mere accidental concomitant, increasing perhaps the degree of enjoyment, but not an essential condition of salvation; and all those passages of Scripture which speak of the effect and importance of faith have been somehow explained in harmony with this supposition. To test the correctness of such a position as this, the negative instances are most valuable. [251] "He that believeth not shall be condemned." "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed," etc. These instances, and others like them, show that faith is not merely a general accompaniment of salvation, but an essential condition precedent. As when the sky is not clear there is no dew, proves that a clear sky is essential to its formation; so these cases, where there is no faith there is no salvation, prove faith to be essential to salvation. But let us discriminate: a clear shy is not the cause of dew; it is but a condition necessary to the effectual operation of the cause. The real cause of dew is the cooling of the dewed surface by radiation of heat faster than its heat can be restored to it by communication with the ground, or by counter-radiation, so as to become colder than the air, and thereby to cause a condensation of its moisture. Clouds, by this counter-radiation, replace the whole or a great part of the heat radiated away, and thus act as opposing causes. While their removal does not, then, furnish a cause of dew, it takes away the obstacle which neutralizes the cause. Precisely so it is with faith. It is not the cause of our salvation, but a condition necessary to the effectual operation of the cause, which is the love of God in Christ. Or--for it amounts to the same thing--infidelity is an obstacle which throws off the saving influences of the gospel, and prevents them from affecting the heart.

      By the same canon we may be assured of the necessity of obedience conjoined with, or rather springing out of, [252] faith. If, from the various texts which speak of the importance of faith as an essential condition of salvation, we should conclude that there was no other one, and that the cause of salvation could effectually operate without the concurrence of any other state of mind, disposition of heart, subordination of will, or consecration of life, than what is implied in the mere fact of believing, negative instances or opposing causes, if such exist, will at once settle the matter and close the argument.

      We read, that "among the chief rulers, also, many believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God."--John, xii. 42. "Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"--James, ii. 19. "God will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honor, and immortality, eternal life; but unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish."--Romans, ii. 6. "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."--2 Thes. i. 7. [253]

      Such Scriptures as these make it evident that faith without obedience is not sufficient for salvation; and that hence, in those cases where faith is spoken of without mentioning obedience, it is nevertheless clearly and necessarily implied. For, if a man is justified by faith, and condemned for disobedience, it amounts to demonstration that justifying faith must include obedience; otherwise a man might be both in a state of justification and of condemnation at the same time, which is absurd.

      It is much to be regretted that, in the reaction from the system of works alone, as the meritorious cause of salvation, Protestants should have run to the other extreme, and attached to the Bible doctrine of "justification by faith" the unscriptural addition of the word "alone," thus excluding as concurrent conditions the commandments of God. The intention in this was simply to exclude them as causes, with the implied idea of merit in those who obeyed them. But a moment's consideration would have shown, one would think, that, as the exercise of faith is itself an act of obedience, it falls necessarily into the same predicament with all other scriptural requirements; and, consequently, if they are to be excluded from the prerequisites of salvation, in order to avoid the idea of merit, it, as it belongs to the same category, must also be excluded with the others; and this forces us to predicate salvation without faith or obedience, which is Universalism--provided it be true that "God is no respecter of persons." But if we regard faith and obedience alike, not as causes of salvation, and, therefore, wanting the idea of merit, but [254] as conditions necessarily precedent to the effectual operation of the true cause, the subject is instantly relieved of all difficulty; everything falls into its appropriate place; and all of practical Christianity is beautifully harmonized.

      "Causes will frequently become obvious, by a mere arrangement of our facts in the order of intensity in which some peculiar quality subsists; though not of necessity, because counteracting or modifying causes may be at the same time in action."

      "Sound consists in impulses communicated to our ears by the air. If a series of impulses of equal force be communicated to it at equal intervals of time, at first in slow succession, and by degrees more and more rapidly, we hear at first a rattling noise, then a low murmur, and then a hum, which, by degrees, acquires the character of a musical note, rising higher and higher in acuteness, till its pitch becomes too high for the ear to follow. And from this correspondence between the pitch of the note and the rapidity of succession of the impulse, we conclude that our sensation of the different pitches of musical notes originates in the different rapidities with which their impulses are communicated to our ears."

      It is of very great practical importance in Christianity, to determine the proximate cause of faith. How is it produced? What influences or forces are necessary to generate it? The solution of this problem will furnish a [255] beautiful example of the application of the above canon. We have a series of characters, beginning with those who have no faith, proceeding to those who have but little, then to those who have more, and to others who have still more, till finally we reach a class who have attained to the full assurance of faith. And now, in all this series, we notice one circumstance which varies precisely as the degree of faith varies. This circumstance we may consider in both its historical development and in its individual reception.

      First, then, there are nations of the earth who have no testimony concerning Jesus; and these have no faith in him. Next, if we trace the history of the world, we discover that those who had a partial revelation of him, had a faith which was measured by the testimony communicated. As the testimonies were multiplied, or as the communications of truth were increased, the measure of faith was proportionally enlarged. Finally, we come down to the complete manifestation of the divine nature, and revelation of the divine will, when faith attains its utmost perfection, and the system of truth is designated by pre-eminence as the faith. This historical summary discloses to us the varying limits of possible faith--as measured by the amount of testimony. But in each of these historical periods, the amount or degree of faith actually exercised by individuals was proportional, not to the amount of testimony communicated, but to that personally and heartily received. Hence, in the last dispensation, as in all others, there are degrees of faith. Some are strong and others weak in the faith, according to the testimony which each one appreciates; [256] while in no single case is the faith greater than the testimony, as no Christian can believe more than he is required and authorized to believe by the word of God; or if he does, the excess is not Christian faith, but a profitless opinion. It is to be lamented that so few give that earnest and hearty attention to the word of God which would result in a proper measure of faith in Christ, in his infinite love, his tireless goodness, his tender compassion, his long-suffering patience and forbearance; and rest satisfied with the elements of the doctrine of Christ. And it is equally to be deplored that so many run wild with phrensy and fanaticism, presumptuously rushing where angels would fear to tread, and disturbing the peace and prosperity of the faithful by insisting upon the acceptance, as articles of faith, of matters clearly beyond the record.

      The mere arrangement of the facts, therefore, "in the order of intensity in which some peculiar quality subsists," leads to the establishment of the conclusion, that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God;" or, that faith is produced by testimony.

      Or course, no one will infer that this truth could only be established or reached by observing the above canon; for the same result will be obtained by applying the second canon to the facts involved. In that case we should take such recorded instances or declarations as the following: "These are written that ye might believe;" "in whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth;" "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God;" the Bereans "searched the Scriptures," and "many of them [257] therefore believed;" with all the cases recorded in the Acts, where faith is produced; and as in all this array of facts there is agreement in one point--the circumstance of testimony preceding and causing faith--that circumstance clearly points to the conclusion reached above. And now, if we pleased, we might strengthen and verify this conclusion according to canon third, by showing the unanimous concurrence of analogies in its favor. It is thus when we get on the highway to truth, we see other roads coming in at different angles, but all finally becoming one; and any of these, if we had found it necessary or convenient to have started in them, would have conducted us to the same goal.

      "Counteracting or modifying causes may subsist unperceived, and annul the effects of the cause we seek, in instances which, but for their action, would have come into our class of favorable facts; hence, exceptions may often be made to disappear by removing or allowing for such counteracting causes."

      "Thus in chemistry, the alkaline quality of the alkaline and earthy bases is found to be due to the presence of oxygen combined with one or other of a peculiar set of metals. Ammonia is, however, a violent outstanding exception, such as has been alluded to, being a compound of azote [nitrogen] and hydrogen; but there are almost certain indications that this exception is not a real one, but [258] assumes that appearance in consequence of some modifying cause not understood."

      Infidel objections, based on the seeming opposition of certain texts, have forced the church to employ the above canon more frequently, perhaps, than any other known to science. As its application is thus familiar to every one who has encountered an apparent discrepancy in revelation, and as we have already given an example of it in our previous induction concerning the establishment of the Christian kingdom, it is not deemed necessary to dwell upon it in this place. Numerous instances in the history of polemic theology will suggest themselves, in which it had been well if the cautions of this principle had been heeded. For want of it, Luther was led to reject the Epistle of James from the canon of Scripture. He saw that his doctrine--which he thought was also that of Paul--of "justification by faith alone," and that of James, that a man "is not justified by faith only," were, as they still are, irreconcilably opposed. If he had, in obedience to the above rule, held his mind in abeyance until he had weighed all the circumstances connected with the language of the two Apostles, he might have been led to modify his own doctrine to make it scriptural, but he would have seen, as we have elsewhere proved, that the Scriptures are perfectly consistent in their doctrine on the subject. [259]

      "If we can, find two instances which agree exactly in all but one particular, and differ in that one, its influence in producing the phenomenon, if it have any, must thereby be rendered sensible."

      "Two pieces of iron exposed of an evening to a cloudless sky--the one rough and the other smooth--are found to contract unequal quantities of dew. Now, the two cases agree exactly in every respect except the quality of the exposed surface, and hereby its influence in the production of dew is determined."

      Of the many examples which might be given of the application of this canon to the Scriptures, we will select but a single one. The conversions recorded in the Acts, of the jailer and his household, (chap. xvi.,) and of "many of the Corinthians," (chap. xviii.,) agree exactly in all but one particular--the earthquake and its attendant circumstances. Now, in deriving the general law of conversion, or the conditions which are essential in any given case, from these two instances, the influence of the earthquake, in so far as it was special, must be estimated by comparing it with tine case where there was no earthquake. Whatever was specially the effect of the earthquake in that particular case, must be left out of a general law which does not expect that particular influence. We, therefore, compare the two cases, and find them agreeing exactly in the following particulars: 1. Hearing; 2. Faith; 3. Baptism. Here is the [260] end of the particulars in which they agree; and from these compared, of course, with other cases--we must draw the general conclusion as to what elements enter necessarily into the constituency of conversion.

      But, now, as the earthquake is left out of this induction, what shall we do with it? This is provided for by the next canon.

      "Complicated phenomena, in which several causes concurring, opposing or quite independent of each other, operate at once, so as to produce a compound effect; may be simplified by subducting the effect of all the known causes, and thus leaving, as it were, a RESIDUAL PHENOMENON to be explained."

      When the law of universal gravitation "came to be verified by deducing from it the exact motions of the planets and satellites, which ought to take place if it were true, there were found some small deviations in those of the planets, and some very considerable ones in that of the moon and other satellites, still unaccounted for; residual phenomena, which still remained to be traced up to causes."

      We were careful in remarking, while on the subject of classification, that objects were grouped, preparatory to induction, not with reference to all their circumstances, but to those only in which they were alike; and that those circumstances which were unlike, would remain as residual [261] phenomena after the induction; and that they must be re-classified with others like themselves.

      Hence, the earthquake, in the illustration under the previous canon, being a residual phenomenon remaining after the induction from the points of agreement has been made, must be now classified with these providential or miraculous influences which concur in preparing the mind for the reception of the word which produces faith. And from this point of view, it will be seen to agree with the providential circumstances that surrounded Crispus and the Corinthians; and, if we pleased, we might take these and other facts and learn from them what may be known on that particular subject.

      We have now completed the exhibition of the canons of induction, given in the language of Sir John Herschel,² with examples of their application to the facts of Scripture. And we think that the reader will agree that there is nothing stiff, or forced, or unnatural in this application; and that it seems to be just as appropriate, as necessary, and as conclusive in the Bible as in nature. With reference to the points we have chosen as examples, we have confined ourselves almost exclusively to the great subject of conversion in its different aspects; in this we have been influenced by what seemed to be weighty considerations 1. This subject is the most important to the world of all others, and, at the same time, the most interesting. 2. The [262] facts involved in its discussion are better and more generally known than others. 3 There is more difference of opinion and practice on this subject than on most others. 4. It is believed that agreement on this subject would lead most speedily and directly to agreement on others.

      As to the conclusions themselves which we have reached upon those points, though we are aware that they differ in some important particulars from those of others for whose discrimination and learning we have the very highest respect, still, as we do most religiously believe that they rest upon a basis of immovable principles, they are submitted in firm but humble confidence to the examination and judgment of our fellow-Christians. At the same time, we should be unfaithful to our own principles, if we did not avow our perfect readiness and willingness to abandon those conclusions the moment they are shown to be untenable. [263]

[TOOS 240-263]