01.04a. Concerning Methods (2)

SEC. 36. THE INDUCTIVE METHOD.

(1.) What is it? A leading or drawing off a general fact from a number of instances, or summing up the result of observations and experiments. Roger Bacon, to whom we are largely, if not wholly, indebted for this method of philosophy, was less clear in the definition of terms than in the use of the method itself. Still, we can arrive at his meaning fairly well. This is what he had to say of it:

"In forming axioms, we must invent a different form of introduction from that hitherto in use; not only for the proof and discovery of principles (as they are called), but also of minor, intermediate, and, in short, every kind of axioms. The induction which proceeds by simple enumeration (enumerationem simplicem) is puerile, leads to uncertain conclusions, and is exposed to danger from one contradictory instance, deciding generally from too small a number of facts, and those only the most obvious. But a really useful induction for the discovery and demonstration of the arts and sciences, should separate nature by proper rejections and exclusions, and then conclude for the affirmative, after collecting a sufficient number of negatives." The thirteenth century was a little too early for such a philosopher to be well understood, and far too early for him to be appreciated. Still his views gained some support even then, and have been gaining ever since, and now they are quite extensively adopted. In the uses of this method of interpretation, all the facts are reported, and from them the conclusion is to be reached. Of course during the time of the collection of these facts, there will be incertitude as to whether some of them are facts or not. Still, judgment is to be formed as best it can, for the time. But when the whole number of facts are reported, it is probable that all the facts will stand approved as such, and the guesses that were incorrect will be found to be wanting in the necessary evidences, and will be easily thrown aside. After the pyramid shall have been built, it can be put into line, and whatever of material there gathered which will not harmonize with the whole amount will be readily refused as not being according to truth. Hence we may say that in the inductive method, we have necessarily the deductive. We will not only induce, or bring in all the facts, but we will reach conclusions as to truth from these.

(2.) The law of analogy.--Everything must be found to agree. Harmony is one of the first demands of truth. Two truths are never contradictory. It is impossible for contradiction to be found where there is truth in all concerned. Hence, when any fact has come to be known, and about it there can be no longer any doubt, whatever may be reported after this, which is contradictory thereof, is rejected at once as being certainly untrue. And yet this rule must not be employed so as to prevent investigation, for it is possible that we may be perfectly satisfied with an error. We have long regarded it as truth, and may make it the reason fir the rejection of facts that would be of great value. But if the new fact is admitted, then that which has been accepted must be displaced, for it is impossible for both to be correct. Hence no interpretation can be true which does not harmonize with all known facts.

(3.) This method demands that all facts shall be reported.--It assures all concerned that if all facts are reported, and they are permitted to speak for themselves, error will not be possible. But it is not always possible to obtain all facts that have bearing on any given subject. Indeed, it is very probable that complete success in this respect has never yet been attained. All the mighty works of Jesus were not reported; but enough were presented for the faith of all who were willing to believe. John said that He did many other signs beside those which he recorded, but that the record he made was sufficient. This method demands that when all the facts can not be had, as many shall be reported as possible. The falling of one apple would not be enough to prove the law of gravity, for there might have been something peculiar (1) in the then present condition of things; or (2) in the form of the falling body; or (3) in its contents; or (4) something present which had attraction for it and not for other bodies. On the other hand, it is not necessary that all bodies shall have been observed in their relation to each other; a large number will do, if they embrace the several kinds of material, and are tried in many circumstances--provided there is no opposing fact. One opposing fact will be enough to introduce an exception, at least, to the rule. Hence it would not be a universal law. Before reaching a conclusion, then, all facts attainable should be gathered.

(4.) To always heed this command is difficult.--Men have ever been ready to deduce without having properly induced. Sometimes a number of exceptions are reported as the rule. One man is an enemy to the Christian religion, and therefore he proves that it is of no value to the race, by finding a number of cases in which it has done no good, or, at least, it has not made the right kind of persons out of those who have professed it. The argument is augmented by finding a large number of men who are out of the church who are better persons. Now, this examination is very imperfect. It should be known (1) what they were before conversion, so that the life afterward might compared with what it was before. It ought to be known (2) what they probably would have been without this religion (3) On the other hand, too, it should be known if, the men who have been presented from the outside of the church are fair representatives of those who, have never made any profession of Christianity. (4) And again, it should be known what have been the effects of Christianity on them. It might be that although they had never been church members, the morality which made them so respectable was all obtained from that very religion. (5) Then again, on the other hand, it should be borne in mind that other influences than those of the religion under consideration may have controlled those church members, and that the religion is not so much to blame as the other forces that have controlled them. (6) Finally, it should be known whether the persons compared are fair representatives. If they have been the exceptionally bad on one side and the exceptionally good on the other, then there has not been an induction of facts, but an induction of falsehoods. Neither the inside nor the outside of the church has been properly reported. He who would pursue such a method would be about as truthful in his investigations as the man who undertook to prove that his neighbor’s ground was not as good as his. To do this, he went into his neighbor’s field and plucked ten ears of corn, of the smallest and smuttiest that he could find. He then went into his own field, and took the same number of the largest and best filled ears that he could find. Then he made a comparison. The same unfairness is exhibited sometimes in the examination of the results of temperance laws. A large number of exceptions are reported as the rule; hence the conclusion is reached that such laws are accomplishing no good. In order that all facts shall be considered, we should ask, (1) Are the statements made correct? or are they only part of the truth? or are they wholly false? (2) Has the law itself been what it ought to have been? or has it been full of flaws and weaknesses? (3) Is it a new law, and therefore not understood, or loyally accepted; as it contravenes longstanding customs? (4) Is the party in power in favor of the law, or is it opposed to it, and therefore will not enforce it? or (5) while the party in power wishes well to the law, is there a large number of its members on the other side, so that the leaders of the party are afraid to do anything in the way of enforcement, for fear of dividing the party? (6) Are other laws, under similar circumstances, disobeyed as much as those? I refer to these things because they are within easy reach of every one nowadays, and to show what I mean by the inductive method. But men have been no more rash in these matters than in many other things. In medicine, a cure is reported by a certain remedy, but the condition of the patient is not known; indeed, it may not have been properly diagnosed, and hence the report may have contained falsehoods instead of facts. Or, if the Condition has been made known, it may be that other assistance may have been received from other sources to which the recovery was in part due, and may be wholly due.

Experiments in science are conducted hastily, sometimes, and deductions made before the facts have been induced. If a deformed creature is found in some part of the earth, forthwith some one is ready to reach the conclusion that it is the representative of a race, and hence that the connecting link has been found. We might find a large number of hunchbacks and unfortunate creatures in this country, and we are at liberty to suppose that abnormal conditions have existed in other places; and hence, from such a partial introduction of facts we have really no report at all.

(5.) The inductive method has long been used in almost all departments of investigation except that of theology.

(a) I could quote many passages from the great jurists of the world, showing that in the interpretation of law they follow this method. One quotation, from Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. I. pp. 59-61, must suffice for the many we would like to give:

"To interpret law, we must inquire after the will of the maker, which may be collected either from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequences, or spirit and reason of the law. (1) Words are generally to be, understood in their usual and most known significance; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. . . . (2) If words happen still to be dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context, etc,; of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with laws that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point." This shows that in the mind of this jurist the great aim of all research in legal investigation was to arrive at all the facts in the case. Whether constitution, or code of legislative enactment was to be interpreted, the absolute intent of the maker was to be sought after, and any failure to get a right understanding of such purpose would result in a misapprehension of the enactment to be interpreted. And to know this aim of the law-making power, all facts that bear upon the subject should be employed. I know of no jurist or constitutional lawyer that differs from this opinion.

(b) When witnesses give in testimony in our common courts, they are sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." This demand is made upon the presumption that the only way of meting out justice to all concerned, is to render a decision according to all the facts. And as these must be gained by the testimony of witnesses they must make known to the court the whole of their knowledge relating to the question in hand. In the pleadings too, before the court, decision is to be according to the facts revealed in the trial. Indeed, the jurymen are sworn to render the decision according to the law and evidence. And all the arguments allowed in the case are to prevent the misunderstanding of either law or evidence. At least, such is the ostensible purpose of the pleading in the civil courts. Speculation as to the possible meaning of law is not tolerated, when the facts can be had by which the purpose of the law-makers can be known.

(c) The great teachers in the science of medicine have long held to this method of investigation. Medical associations have for their main object the increase of knowledge by the induction of facts. Hence, any one in the regular practice who knows of any special remedy, for any ailment of the human body, is in duty bound to give others the benefit of his discovery. The thought of all this is, that, in order to deal successfully with the enemies of human life and health, they are in great need of all the facts that can be had; that, when all these facts are revealed, the healing art will be perfected. It is not to be denied that there are theorizers in medicine as well as in theology, but it remains true that Medical Science presumes, at least, on the induction of facts, and by their light the men of healing are guided. Of course, every year they are discovering that some of the former decisions were not correct; but this is the method by which facts are finally reached.

(d) The things already said of law and medicine may be truly said of political economy, history, or any other science or study that engages the attention of man. Facts alone are supposed to guide men in forming their conclusions. Speculators there may be, but the science of investigation in any of these departments of thought, is supposed to be conducted in the light of the inductive method. When our historians gathered up the accounts of the last war, they did it that the whole truth might appear. In doing so, they found that many things which had been reported and had been believed by very intelligent men, were not true. During the war it would almost have been impossible for any historian to have written correctly of any battle. All the facts could not at that time be ascertained. Hence they had to wait patiently till they could be gathered and compiled, and a history, true to the facts, given to the people.

(e) The Bible recognizes the correctness of this method.--When Jesus appeared to the two disciples as they went into the country, he expounded to them all things found in the law and the prophets concerning himself, (Luk 24:1-53). He thus introduced all the facts from that divine source that would bear upon their minds, that they might understand the truth. When the apostles met with the elders and the whole church at Jerusalem, to consider the question of admitting the Gentiles into the church without circumcision or keeping the law, they first heard the testimony of Peter respecting the work of the Lord by him among the Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius. Afterwards they gave attention to Paul and Barnabas, while they recounted the things which the Lord had done by their hands during the missionary journey which had just closed. After this, James makes a speech to them reminding them of another witness which they had overlooked--the testimony of one of their prophets (Amo 9:11-12). Now, when all these facts were introduced, there was but one conclusion possible for them, which was that the Gentiles were under no such obligations as those Judaizing teachers had affirmed. When Moses wished to prepare Israel to go over into the land of Canaan, and inherit it according to the promise of the Lord, he made them three speeches, which constitute nearly the whole book of Deuteronomy. In these speeches he brings before their minds nearly all their history, with all the obligations that rested upon them to keep the commandments of the Lord. He does this, that they may have all the facts in the case before them, that they may be guided thereby. When Philip would convince the Ethiopian nobleman that Jesus was the Christ, and the only way of salvation, he began at the same Scripture which the man was then reading, and preached to him Jesus. Now, what he did was to make him understand the testimony of the Lord respecting His Son. Fact after fact was in that way presented to his mind, till he became convinced, and asked for admission into the service of the Son of God. Nothing more respecting the Scripture method need be said, for it is everywhere apparent that when the Lord would conduct an investigation on any subject, He did it by the inductive method. When the devil wished to gain a point, he did it by quoting a text for its sound. When the Jewish rulers condemned the Saviour, they affirmed well but proved nothing.

(6.) Inference may be used legitimately in the ascertainment of facts, and also in the conclusions reached from them.--Many do not seem to know what an inference is; they speak of it as if it were a kind of guess, and therefore never to be used either in induction or deduction. The truth is, it is the logical effort to know the facts in the case, and to ascertain the facts from phenomena. Certain things seem to have been done; were they done or not? may require the best effort of the mind to determine. This is done by associating the whole number of things which are known, and reaching conclusions, in a logical way, as to what else was done or said at the time, or in connection therewith. A few illustrations will help us to know the place of legitimate inference.

(a) Abraham went down from Canaan into Egypt; when he came out from that country Lot returned with him. Though it is not said that Lot went into Egypt with him, we infer it. They had journeyed from Haran together; the same wants were common to them both; they remained together for some time afterwards; hence, though we did not see them going together into that country, the mind naturally infers that they did. And we are about as certain of this fact as we are that Abraham went there.

(b) There were four kings who came from the east and fell upon the kings of the plain of the Jordan, and overcame them, and took away much goods. Abraham took his trained men, and, joining with his friends, followed the returning victors and overcame them, and returned, not only with the spoil, but with the family of Lot and the women. Here are persons said to be brought back, that have had no mention as being among the captured, but we infer that they were captured. And we are just as certain of that fact as we are of the facts that have been recorded.

(c) If we read in the book of Joshua that the conquering army of Israel did to certain kings just what they did to the king of Jericho, and we learn that they hanged those kings, though nothing be said about what they did to the king of Jericho at the time they took that city, yet we infer that they banged him. We have the necessary premises, and can not reach any other conclusion.

(7.) Things assumed in the Bible are to be regarded the same as those which have been stated. In the first verse of the Bible it is said that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It is not stated in this verse that God existed; that he had the wisdom and power to accomplish this work; but it is assumed, and, being assumed, no interpreter has the right to call it in question. Of course great caution should be had in the use of this rule, that we may not at any time be mistaken as to what has been assumed. Anything that God takes for granted is true; hence, anything which He has assumed or taken for granted, we are bound to regard as true. Illustrations:

(a) God has everywhere treated man as if he could repent.--(1) He has nowhere said that man could not repent. (2) He has commanded all men everywhere to repent. Here our ideas of divine knowledge and justice come in to help us in the solution of the case in hand. We say that God knew whether man could repent or not; that He would not have required man to repent if it had not been possible for him to do so. With all this in the mind when we hear an apostle: saying that He has commanded all men everywhere to repent, it is assumed that all men can repent, and that if they do not, the fault is their own; and if they are damned, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

(b) An honest heart is necessary to the reception of the truth.--It is never stated in so many words. And yet every attentive reader of the Scriptures recognizes the correctness of the statement at once. When the "sower went forth to sow," the seed must have found soil congenial, or there would have been no results whatever. And that which brought forth the thirty, sixty and a hundredfold, referred to those who received the word in a good and honest heart. The result of this condition of mind is seen in the difference between the people of Thessalonica and they of Berea, who "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, to see if these things were so." Therefore, many of them believed. On the day of Pentecost, those who "heard the word gladly," obeyed the requirement of the Holy Spirit made known by the apostle Peter. The honest-hearted Cornelius was in the right condition to receive the pure gospel of the grace of God. His good and honest heart was the right kind of soil in which to sow the divine seed, and from which there was an immediate and very large yield.

(c) Man’s general wants are assumed.--When God provides for man a teacher, sending the revelator before him to mate known to hire his duty, it is not thought to be necessary to announce that man is ignorant and needs an instructor. God’s treatment of His creatures is sufficient for that. When a sacrifice was required it was not preannounced that man was a sinner, and that for the sin he had committed his right to live had been forfeited, and that God would accept of a substitute. His treatment of men carried that thought, and the lesson was taught in that way as effectively as it could have been done by the use of words. God does not stop to inform man that he is weak and wayward, that he is in need of a government to control and protect him. It would be a waste of time. He simply gives him that government and protection, and furnishes the necessary instruction respecting man’s condition by the things He does for him. And yet the wants of the world are known just as well in this way as if Jehovah had written a systematic theology on the subject. It does not seem to be known that God can teach in any other way than that which men have employed to get their theologies before the minds of their fellows. The truth which God acts is just as valuable as that which He has revealed in any other way.

(8.) When a result is spoken of which is commonly attributed to several causes, though, in mentioning the result, at a given time, no cause should be assigned: they are understood. to be present.--It has first been determined that these causes are necessary to the result, hence if they had not been present the result would not have been reached. Since, then, their presence is necessary to the result, and the result has been reached, it follows beyond question that the causes were present. So with a part of these causes. If we find the result, and yet one or two of the causes are not mentioned, it is taken for granted that. they were present. They have been associated with the result as causes, and, though not mentioned in a given case, we assume that these unmentioned causes were present.

(9.) Religious truth may be gathered from approved precedent.--We learn from the authorized conduct of the children of God. If we can first be assured that what is done is approved, we can know certainly what we are at liberty to do under similar circumstances. Indeed, if the conduct. has been directed by men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we learn from the example what we ought to do. If the Scriptures are to be our guide from earth to heaven, then to be religiously right we must be scripturally right. Or the statement may be made stronger in this way: no one can be religiously right and scripturally wrong at the same time. Or, again: no one can be religiously wrong while lie is scripturally right. Now, if the will of God has undergone no change since the New Covenant was completed, what was His will then is His will yet. And if those men did that will, and we do the same now, we will be accomplishing His pleasure. But there is need of caution.--(1.) Because a man has been inspired for a given work or a single message, it does not follow that he is always under the direction of such wisdom. When Elijah directed the contest on the top of Carmel, and when he saw the plentiful rain in the little cloud, hanging over the Mediterranean, he was inspired. But when he was frightened at the threat of Jezebel, and fled to the Mount of God in the wilderness of Sinai, he acted on his own motion, for God does not approve of his course. When Peter spoke on the day of Pentecost, he did so as he was moved upon by the Holy Spirit, and when he went to the house of Cornelius and gave to them the way of salvation, his way and his speech were directed by the Lord. But when he went down from Jerusalem to Antioch, and ate with Gentiles till "certain came from James," and then withdrew from Gentile associations, he was doing things Peter’s way. Paul afterwards, writing by the inspiration of the Lord, says that he withstood Peter to the face, for he was to be blamed (Gal 2:11-14). (2.) We must also he careful not to confound mere incidents or accidents with the approved precedents. The disciples met together in an upper room in Jerusalem, and so they did at Troas, but that does not make it binding on the disciples of to-day to meet in upper rooms. These were accidents or conveniences. And to elevate them into divinely appointed rules for the service of the Lord, would be to miss the purpose of the record altogether. The Master took all his journeys on foot, but it does not follow that we are only at liberty to travel in that way. (3.) There are things which they did not do, yet which it would be perfectly right for us to do. But they belong to the same class. There are matters of propriety that would, under some circumstances, render some things improper, and, though there would be no harm in the act itself, yet, owing to the surroundings, it would not be well to do them. Customs being entirely different in another place or at another time, these very things may be well enough. The apostles built no church-houses or colleges, but this is not proof that the existence of these things is offensive to God. These things, too, they could have done, but they did not choose to do them. They were busily engaged in other work, which, for the time, was of more importance. But the question recurs, How shall we determine what is an approved precedent? How shall we be able to separate the many things done in the times of the apostles which are merely incidental, from those that were meant for our benefit, that we may know what to do? (1.) Those actions performed by the apostles or other disciples in their day, which have a divine approval, or, if done by an apostle, nothing has been said by inspiration in opposition thereto. (2.) Customs of the Church under the eye and sanction of apostles. For if, in an unguarded moment, an apostle should turn aside, he would not continue in that condition. And if it could be possible for one apostle to continue to err in his public character, it would not be so with all of them. A general custom is established in harmony with that which is allowed, taught, approved by the many. If we shall find the whole church engaged in a common custom in religious service, no matter how we may come to that intelligence, if we can certainly know that such was the custom everywhere among the disciples in the days of the apostles, such practice will show certainly what was the will of God.

(10.) To know the meaning of any statement, we should know what the author was trying to say.--The purpose before his mind will be a safe guide before the mind of the investigator in gathering the facts to put to record. We know intuitively that no man should be made to say what he does not intend to say.

(11.) In searching for causes, that upon which all facts agree is the cause, or one of the causes.--If any known fact denies that it was one of the causes, then it must be dismissed from such a responsible position. On the other hand, if any fact claims it as a cause, then it must be so enrolled. As there can be no opposing facts, we may experience a little difficulty in deciding between two supposed facts, one claiming it as a cause and the other denying it such an honorable place. In that case, we must continue to search till the mistake is discovered, then introduce the triumphant fact and listen to its decision. If it shall enroll any thing or act as a cause, it must be so regarded till there shall be some dispute, there being found some other fact, or supposed fact, which denies the conclusions already reached. When such questions arise, we are required to pass through the investigation again, and satisfy our minds as before.

(12.) We are not to reject a cause for the want of philosophical probability, when miracle is declared or assumed to be present.--When Israel was called out of Egypt, many things were commanded which philosophy would never have suggested. No one could have seen why they should sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the lintel of the door and the two door posts. Philosophy would have said: The angel now knows whether the inmates are Hebrews or not; and, knowing that, they are as safe without the blood as with it. When they came to cross the sea, Moses was told to stretch out the rod over the sea, and that its waters would divide. Philosophy would have said: There is nothing in such an act to bring the desired result. When they thirsted for fresh water in the wilderness, and Moses was told to go and smite the rock, or, as afterwards, to speak to the rock, philosophy would have seen no connection between the act commanded and the water that was promised. Afterwards, when they were in the land of Canaan, they were told how to take Jericho; to march around it once every day for six days, and then on the seventh day to march around it seven times; and as they marched they were to blow on trumpets made of ram’s horns, and, on completing the last round, they were to give a long, loud blast and a great shout. And the promise was that the wall of the city should fall, and they were to go up into the city, each from the point where he might happen to be. But if philosophy or military skill had directed the matter, the plan would have been different. We find a man from Syria, Captain Naaman, who was told by the prophet of the Lord to go and wash himself seven times in the river Jordan, in order that he might be cleansed from leprosy. At first he was insulted at the thought; but, when his servant reasoned with him, lie did what Elisha told him, and was healed.

We must remember, when we come to religious truth, that God is its author, and that it is His place to say what are to be the conditions of the reception of any grace or blessing. Our philosophies may be good in some things, but in the religion of the Bible they amount to but little. "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." This is the manner of God’s legislation. He has not asked the counsel of the wisest of His people, but held all authority in His own hands, and has, at all times, said what should and what should not be law. One single fact of divine statement must settle any controversy on which it speaks.

(13.) Contrary or negative facts may be used in the establishment of truth.--"He that believeth not shall be damned," is sufficient to show that faith is at least one of the conditions of pardon. Like this is the statement of the Master: "If ye believe not, ye shall die in your sins, and where I am ye can not come." This would have the same bearing. "Ye believe not, because ye can not hear my words," would be just like saying that hearing His word was one of the conditions of becoming a believer. "Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." His sheep heard His voice and followed Him. Hence, if they had listened to His teachings, and been in the company of those who followed Him, they too would have been believers. "For except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish." This is equal to saying "those who repent not shall perish." This is the negative form of saying that repentance is one of the conditions of salvation. We read of some who "rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John." This is saying in substance that if they had been baptized of John they would not have rejected the counsel of God against themselves. Hence we have it stated in this negative way that John’s baptism was the counsel of God, or, at least, a part of it. "No man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day." This is a plain declaration that those who were drawn of the Father could come to Him. This is carried out by the Saviour as He continues: "It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God; every man therefore that hath beard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me." So in this negative way we have opened to us the manner in which sinners could come to Christ, being drawn to Him by the truth of God, by having heard and having learned of the Father. When Jesus was approached by Nicodemus, who seemed to want to be admitted as a disciple without endangering his standing among his people, the Master told him that except a man be born again he could not see the kingdom of God. No teaching could be plainer to this Senator, that, though there might be other conditions of seeing the kingdom of God, beyond all question being born again was one of the conditions. And though he tried to break the force of the statement by his question, "How can a man be born when he is old?" he finds no way of escape, as the Lord turns upon him with the "Verily, verily, I say unto you except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." This is as emphatic as language could make it, and leaves no doubt respecting the requirement that men shall be born of water and the Spirit, in order to enter the kingdom of God. We might continue this form of affirmation till we should find every duty marked out in this way, both as to the manner of becoming Christians and also as to how to live the Christian life. Indeed, the negative form of the statement is frequently used as a means of emphasis. A wrong use of this principle is sometimes made by finding a negative, and arguing therefrom that no other quality or deed is demanded for a given purpose except the one implied in the one statement. To illustrate: it is said that "without faith it is impossible to please God:" from this it is contended that if faith is present, the possessor will please God. Nothing else is regarded as a necessity in order to please Him, simply because it is not referred to in the passage. This is the same blunder that takes it for granted, from an affirmative statement, that only the one thing there mentioned can be requisite to the desired blessing; that if it were any part of the cause, it would have been mentioned in that one text. This is not a weakness of this feature of the inductive method, but a mistake in its use. When a truth is taught by the use of the negative, it is the same as if that truth were taught by the use of a direct statement. All that can be found in it is that the cause named is necessary to the result; but it does not follow that it is the only cause. We are at liberty to pray, "give us this day our daily bread;" but if we shall depend upon prayer alone for bread, we shall go hungry. While we should pray for food, there are other conditions by which it shall be acquired-finding, then, that any act is for a certain end, is not finding that it is the only thing necessary to that purpose.

(14.) Causes will frequently become obvious by arranging the facts in the order of intensity. a. Illustrations of this rule.--Physicians sometimes are enabled to diagnose the case by the use of medicine. A small dose of medicine has a given result. The same remedy is increased, and the effect is increased; this is repeated several times, and the conclusion is fairly reached that a certain medicine has a certain result. And, as a certain condition of the system would be necessary in order that that medicine should have that result, the condition is determined upon, and the patient treated accordingly.

Any physician or scientist, finding that the increase of any chemical increased a certain result, would decide at once that such result was produced, at least in part, by that act, chemical, or medicine, as the case might be. b. If we find in the Scriptures that with the increase of testimony faith becomes stronger, we at once reach the conclusion that faith comes by the medium of testimony. If we find in Christian experience that just as the members of the Church increase their faithfulness in the worship, on the Lord’s day, their uprightness and integrity is made to grow, every one reasons from cause to effect, and from the effect back to the cause. c. On the other hand, if we find that as people have been deprived of the word of God, their faith becomes weak, we leer n by a negative rule that faith comes by the word of God. If, among the heathen, who have never heard of our Saviour, there are none who believe in Him, we conclude that, without this word, it is impossible to constitute people believers in Christ. d. A caution is needed.--We may increase the testimony and not increase the faith, for there may be modifying causes that will remove all disposition to believe, or that will turn away the people from hearing the word of the Lord. Hence, when we are looking fog causes by arranging the facts in the order of intensity, we must be sure that there are no modifying forces; at least, that there are no more of them than there were before increasing the supposed power.

(15.) A particular fact can not be learned from a general statement, when other than the cause mentioned might have produced the result.--If it is ascertained that a gentleman went to the city on a certain day, the fact that he went does not establish the manner of his going, for there are more ways than one by which he might have gone. A murder having been committed, no one man is to be hanged merely from that fact. Indeed, if it should be known that it must have been committed by one of two men, neither one is convicted by the general fact of murder, for it might have been done by the other. In the case of the conversion of Lydia (Acts 16:13-15), it is said that "the Lord opened her heart, that she attended to the things spoken of Paul." It is easy to jump to the conclusion that this opening of the heart of that woman was by a miracle, for it might have been done in that way. But we are not at liberty to reason so hastily. We must ask, Could her heart have been opened in any other way? And if it shall be determined that her heart could be opened by natural means, and that such force was present, it is not reasonable to conclude that the result was reached by a cause that was not necessary and that was not known to have been present. If the preaching of the word had been found to be sufficient to open the hearts of other men and women, so that they would accept the gospel of Christ and obey its requirements, and that power was present, then there is no reason for the supposition that the abstract power was present, or that it bad anything to do with the opening of the heart of that pious Jewish woman. Again, should it be argued that the word attend means to consider, give attention to, it will be in order to ask, Is that is necessary import? And if it is found to mean to do the things spoken of, then no more will be found in the passage than that, hearing the gospel of Christ from this messenger of the Lord, her heart was so enlarged that she was ready at once to accept of Christ in all His demands. This rule, however, does not interfere with the effort to find the meaning the word may have in any particular occurrence. This is a lawful and just procedure. All we notice in this place is the error of reasoning from a general statement to a particular conclusion.