Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/586

570 of the relation of the passions to the reason suggests the same influence. In his metaphysical thought relative to the existence of the material world and the freedom of the will, he follows the arguments of Descartes and the Occasionalists, while his basal idea of "moral perception" is assimilated to Locke's definition of knowledge.

In Chapter III, which is devoted to the exposition of Clarke's ethical theory, the author points out the influence of the current belief in a mathematically exact science of ethics, criticises Clarke's peculiar doctrine of the differences and the fitness of things, and notes the inconsistencies in his treatment of motives. Clarke did not attempt to establish a complete system of ethics apart from religion. On the contrary, he believed that revelation alone could reconcile the apparent contradictions within the moral sense and offer a supreme end in which virtue and happiness should be inseparable. This characteristic of Clarke's ethics is emphasized again in the conclusion, where, under the heading, "Further Development of Clarke's Ideas," mention is made of later discussions of "the moral faculty" and "the moral standard." Here Dr. Le Rossignol finds that the utilitarian sources of the feeling of obligation are incomplete, and notes sympathetically Clarke's claim that no explanation of the facts of the moral consciousness is possible which does not assume a future life. But he does not indicate whether he regards this solution of difficulties as having any other interest than the historical one assigned to Clarke's system in the preface.

.

Although this book has for its ultimate aim the solution of a problem which is theological, it deals with ethical questions to such an extent and in such a manner as to be a fit object for criticism in this place. It is, indeed, a peculiar production, displaying a scientific spirit and a full appreciation of the results of modern philosophical thought, and yet, at times, adhering to notions that science as such must reject. But, with whatever suspicion we may regard the author's enterprise, we must at least give him ample credit for the purely scientific way in which he approaches the subject. The preface, it is true, gives no promise of this merit, but formulates a problem which, in my opinion, does not confront philosophy at all, unless we return to the intellectual practices of scholasticism. The question, How can the Christian faith that God revealed himself in Jesus Christ be reconciled with the scientific fact