of such speculations, is that of taking enlarged views, cleared from the obscurity of prejudice and ignorance. It is urged, that the human mind, enlightened by science in physical things, must be guided by analogy and congruity, and depend upon its own resources in the research after religious truth; and that if, by the united voice of nature, the existence of a Deity is proclaimed, and if the probability of his making a revelation of his will to his creatures be conceded, or at least if the Bible be justly entitled to veneration for its contents, still we must interpret its doctrines in such a way as shall reduce them to the simplest principles, and make them comformable to the dictates of reason, and consistent with general analogy and congruity. Such is always the language of the Unitarian writers, and thus it is that they bring their real or supposed philosophic attainments to bear on questions, with which, I am inclined to maintain, philosophy has little or nothing to do; or at least that its application is not to be found in the adoption of such views as those alluded to.

In accordance with these remarks, it may not be uninteresting to inquire a little into the philosophic pretensions of the Unitarian school; as well as to take a cursory view of the religious opinions of some of the most distinguished philosophers, besides those whose sentiments have already been examined.

When we look at the list of philosophical names which the Unitarian school can fairly claim, we cannot assign to it any very high degree of scientific reputation. The greatest philosopher whom this catalogue can have to boast of is Priestley: and among the host of inferior pretenders, many names are heralded forth which no really scientific list would own. The train is swelled by some who have denied or misunderstood the most obvious truths of physical science, and others who have committed not less glaring absurdities in their rational views of other branches of inquiry *.

To return, however, to their great champion, Priestley. Those who are at all acquainted with his chemical and physical works, while they are disposed to allow him all the credit justly due to his discoveries, will hardly assign him any very high rank for those intellectual powers and acquirements which are necessary to constitute a philosopher in the true sense of the word. It is, of course, not to be denied that he ascertained several facts of considerable value and importance respecting pneumatic chemistry: but it must be remembered, that to be successful in experiments, is far from proving a man to be a profound or accurate thinker. Without entering further into the detail of these subjects, which would be hardly suitable to our present purpose, I would only refer the reader to his "Disquisitions on Matter, Spirit," &c. 8vo. (1777) in order to obtain a satisfactory idea of the character and complexion of his philosophy, as applied to speculations of a moral and religious kind. In that treatise he distinctly avows his fundamental principle to be, that he can find no truth in any system

For some striking specimens of the profound scientific acquirements of some leading Unitarian philosophers, the reader is referred to Archbishop Magee, Vol. III. Notes, p. 95, 135, &c. Their logic and metaphysics are also shewn to be in a similar style of excellence. Notes, p. 274, 280.

which does not generalize our views on these subjects; and give such a connected account of our moral and spiritual nature and relations, as shall recommend itself by its intrinsic evidence and reasonableness. Descending from this principle, he came to consider the doctrines of Materialism, Socinianism, and philosophical necessity, as essential parts in one great system. This he conceived to be derivable from a just observation of nature, and that consequently Scripture ought to be interpreted in a rational way, so as to conform to these principles.

That such views are utterly at variance with all true philosophy, will be evident to any one who is in the slightest degree acquainted with its rules and legitimate objects. And if they want authority to confirm them in this opinion, I refer them to the testimony of one who will not be suspected of any hostility on religious grounds, and whose opinion, as a philosopher, must possess the greatest weight: I allude to a short account of Dr. P. and his opinions, given by the late Professor Playfair :—when, after allowing him all due credit for his experiments, and having stated his religious opinions, he observes:

"These absurdities and inconsistencies will perhaps deprive him of the name of a philosopher, but he will still merit the name of an useful and diligent experimenter."-Playfair's Works, Vol. I. Biographical Account, p. lxxxviii.

Such, then, is the philosophic sanction which the Socinian creed derives from its greatest luminary: and where it can find any more powerful, I am at a loss to discover. The authority of a living mathematician of some eminence might, indeed, be cited, who, with a consistency rarely displayed by those of this school, denies, upon the ground of incomprehensibility, not only the mysteries of religion, but the power of gravitation; and rejects not only the New Testament, but Newton's Principia. (See Frend's Evening Amusements, passim.)

To shew the extreme emptiness of all such pretensions to philosophize on religious subjects, I think the following admission will be regarded as of some weight, because it is from a man of considerable mathematical attainments, and who, at the same time, has by many been regarded as far from orthodox in his opinions.

"It is somewhat remarkable, that the deepest enquirers into nature have ever thought with most reverence, and spoken with most diffidence, concerning those things which in revealed religion may seem hard to be understood. They have ever avoided that self-sufficiency of knowledge which springs from ignorance, produces indifference, and ends in infidelity."-Bishop Watson's Apology for Christianity, p. 212.

This remark, it is to be recollected, comes from one against whom insinuations of something nearly allied to Socinianism have been often thrown out, and who, at all events, was no enemy to freedom of speculation on these subjects. Again, the same writer observes,"The most undecided men, on doubtful points, are those often who have bestowed most time in the investigation of them. It is safer to continue in doubt than to decide amiss.'

It is hardly necessary to remark, how totally at variance these ideas are with the conceits of the Unitarian system. Nor will the philosophical character of that system require many comments, when its

principles are correctly exhibited and divested of their specious embellishments.

Nothing can be in itself more unphilosophical, or a stronger proof of a mind not thoroughly instructed by philosophic studies, than the expectation, that we shall be able to attain a full explanation of every part of a given subject: to suppose, that it must be really resolvable into certain elementary ideas of a very simple description, or to assume, that it must be ultimately reducible to a congruity with some preconceived system. The inquirer, who should set about any investigation in science on such principles, would soon find himself, and sooner display to others, that he understood nothing of the fundamental rule of induction, by which the triumphs of modern science have been achieved.

In the physical sciences, we are, unquestionably, to a considerable extent, guided by analogy; there are limits, beyond which it would be reasonable to distrust any apparent new result on the ground of incongruity; but, if all chance of error should be excluded, we must then make congruity give way to fact; or rather must remodel our ideas of congruity in accordance with fact. Analogy, though a very useful guide in indicating the path of research, is not the absolute rule of truth. We may admit, that there must be some universal principles of harmony pervading the whole of nature. The difficulty lies in fixing the standard of such congruity, and pointing out what those principles are. If, then, even in this case, we are not to make matter of fact bend to preconceived ideas of uniformity, much less are we warranted in doing so in subjects beyond the reach of physical laws; in things confessedly, and in their very nature, beyond all analogy.

Positively to deny, displays as much presumption as positively to assert, upon subjects beyond the reach of our powers to investigate; and when any discovery is unfolded to us from competent authority, the presumption is all on the side of the denial. Nothing can be more just, or more truly philosophical, than the censure expressed on those who "intrude into those things which they have not seen; vainly puffed up in their fleshly mind." The spirit evinced by such inquirers of believing only in accordance with theory, would not be likely to tend to the improvement of science, and is decidedly at variance with the spirit in which the search into religious truth ought to be conducted.

When the inquirer directs his attempts to reduce the inscrutable mysteries of scripture to some standard erected by his own imagination, how much does he often leave behind untouched, which it would be much more becoming, and much more profitable, to have made the subject of examination! It is not the profound investigator of nature, who can withdraw his thoughts from the enchaining interest of physical research, where certainty attends his labours, and truth crowns his endeavours, to enter upon the uncertain field of misapplied metaphysics. It is not the man of really elevated philosophical views, who will think it a point of philosophy to dispute against the terms in which a doctrine of revelation may be couched. He who has been accustomed to range through the vast expanse of the material universe, and who has felt himself com

pelled to admit deductions, irrefragably certain, yet involving ideas which the mind in vain attempts to grasp, will not see those difficulties which only arise to the confined apprehensions in receiving the sublime doctrines of revelation.

But to pass from speculations to facts, let us take a cursory survey. of the state of religious opinions among real and undoubted philosophers.

It is not to be denied, that some scientific men, like numbers of unscientific men, have been more or less maintainers of opinions hostile to religion. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain, that the greater number, and among them the greatest names, are found as the supporters of religion. Nor of these, can it be said, that they were merely believers in natural theology ;-merely acknowledging the existence and attributes of a supreme and intelligent cause as the author of nature;-merely admitting such conclusions as reason alone could deduce from the contemplation of the fabric of the universe, without regarding revelation, there are numerous instances to the contrary: and this is, in fact, the point with which our present argument is more immediately concerned. If we can produce only one instance of a man of real philosophic eminence, who implicitly. received revelation as the ground-work of his religious belief and practice, then it will most certainly follow, that the rejection of revealed religion cannot possibly be a necessary part or consequence of true philosophy. But the slightest acquaintance with scientific biography will suffice to render it obvious, that the instances, so far from being solitary, are, in fact, more numerous, and certainly far more weighty, than those of an opposite character.

The opinions of Bacon and of Newton upon religious subjects are so universally known, that it would be trite to quote them, and superfluous even to mention them. It is sufficient to observe, that the deepest reverence for the volume and contents of scripture, whole, entire, and unsophisticated, was the distinguishing feature of their religious views.

Where shall we find stronger examples of moderation, and a prudent submission to the authority of divine truth, than in such men as Kepler, the morning star to Newton;-Hooke, than whom none came nearer to that illustrious genius;-Boyle, the most liberal, yet firm maintainer of Christianity ;-Barrow, its most strenuous, eloquent, and sound advocate, a man in every way worthy of Newton as his pupil of this eminent man, it would be superfluous to add more : of the two last-mentioned examples, a further remark may not be misplaced.

Boyle was far from a mere speculative believer in natural theology: he was a constant and devout adherent to the worship of the Church. Yet his profession was not of such a nature as to be at all incompatible with a reasonable liberality of sentiment. It well accorded with his mild and amiable disposition to be averse from all contracted views of religion; and he exemplified that which, to the bigot and the fanatic, always appears a paradox,-the influence of a sincere conviction in his own mind, without the least wish to force that conviction upon others; a firm persuasion in his own conscience, without pre-, suming to judge the consciences of other men.

The name of Hooke can never be mentioned, without conveying associations with the highest efforts of science at the period in which he lived. To mention that he was one of the first to attempt the investigation of the parallax of the fixed stars, and that he made the nearest approach to the discovery of the laws of gravitation, before they were developed by Newton, will be sufficient for exhibiting his claim to philosophic honours of the first rank.

That such a man should constantly feel and express the deepest veneration for the eternal First Cause of all things, would not be remarkable, and his written and recorded sentiments bear ample testimony to the sincerity of this feeling. But what we have now more especially to remark is, that he, in like manner, displayed a similar respect for the Holy Scriptures ;-that he felt no inclination on philosophical grounds to cavil at or reject any part of them. He regularly studied them in the original, and received their instructions with the humility of true wisdom, as the entire rule both of his practice and his belief.

It would be easy to swell the catalogue with the distinguished names of Gassendi, De Moivre, Ozanam, Pascal, and other ornaments, at once of science and of the religion they professed; men untainted with any desire to reduce the mysteries of heaven to the confined standard of human ideas.

Indeed, if we look at the facts, it would appear, that mathematicians, when they have turned their attention to the examination of Scripture, have been prone rather to carry the literal interpretation to too great a length, than to neglect it, or be led away by imaginary ideas of simplifying and rationalizing the contents of the sacred volume. This has been before exemplified in the instance of Newton. And we may cite another case equally strong in that of Napier of Merchiston, the celebrated inventor of logarithms. This distinguished man, who appeared with an invention so important, and displaying such unquestionable mathematical talents, in 1614, came before the public some years earlier, (in 1590,) as the author of a work on a theological subject: this was entitled, "A plain Discoverie of the whole Revelation of St. John; set down in two treatises, the one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof,-the other applying the same paraphrasticallie and historicallie to the Texte." From the style of this title, the nature of the work may readily be inferred; and to whatever excess of over minute interpretation the author may gone, yet the circumstance itself is certainly curious: it shews, that a taste for scriptural research, carried even to an injudicious extreme, is perfectly compatible with the most eminent endowments, and assiduous labours of a mathematical kind.

have

One important, and indeed beautiful testimony, I must extract from the writings of a mathematician of the very highest celebrity. It is to be observed, that he was engaged in controversy with Newton, whom he considered to be greatly in error on the point in dispute.

"Tous les jours que je vois de ces esprits forts, qui critiquent les vérités de notre religion; et s'en moquent même avec la plus impertinente suffisance, je pense, chetifs mortels! combien et combien des choses sur lesquelles vous raisonnez si légérement sont elles plus