in the relation of cause and effect, than a conftant and inva riable fequence, and experience proves to us, that there is that fequence, and reafon convinces us, that it must have had its origin in an intelligent principle. But here we say, the chain of caufes muft have proceeded from a primary in telligent cause, not because we are acquainted with a principle in any cause, which neceffarily connects it with its effect, but because we are capable of perceiving fitness, order, harmony, and defign, in the fucceffion of natural phenomena. We know of nothing in the efficient cause, which renders it neceffarily efficient; while we continually fee the reason of things happening, as they do, in the causes, which we obferve to be final. We cannot discover any inevitable destiny in the course of events; we cannot diftinguish any neceffarily operating principle in any cause; we cannot understand the nature of power, nor know how it produces change: but we perceive diftinctly, that the universe has been formed with beauty, and that it is governed in wisdom, and, therefore, we trace it to that divine origin, which all mankind adore, if not from common inftinct, at least from common reason.

Our readers must have undoubtedly obferved, that the minifters of Edinburgh accufe Mr. Leflie of Atheism, for "having denied all fuch NECESSARY connexion between cause and effect, as implies an operating principle in the caufe." It is this charge, which renders Mr. Leflie's cafe fo generally interefting. Every man, who makes the fame denial with him, (and, we believe, every man, who understands the fubject, will do fo,) ftands accused by the minifters of Edinburgh of the fame guilt. Now when the facred office of thefe gentlemen is confidered; when their authority in the church to which they belong, and their influence over the people among whom they live, are recollected; no perfon will pretend, that a decree fo folemnly pronounced by them, upon a queftion of faith, is to be paffed lightly over, and without animadverfion. Stewart probably felt, that he himself had taught and publifhed opinions, which might expofe him, not lefs than Mr. Leflie, to the charge, "of having denied all fuch necef fary connexion between caufe and effect, as implies an ope. rating principle in the caufe." The great object, therefore, of his publication appears to have been, to vindicate his own fentiments and thofe of his friend. He has proved, that fimilar fentiments have been maintained, not only by the moft eminent philofophers of modern times, but by the foundeft divines, who have adorned the Church of Eng. land. What Bacon, Price, and Reid, thought to be true

Mr.

in philofophy; and what Barrow, Butler, Clarke, and Berkeley, held to be orthodox in divinity; Mr. Stewart did not expect to have heard condemned as irreligious, and anathematized as atheistical.

We must acknowledge, we never read any fentence with more aftonishment, than this excluding decree of the minifters of Edinburgh. It peremptorily fhuts out every perfon from the pale of the Chriftian church, who does not implicitly fubfcribe to one of the most extraordinary meta. phyfical enunciations, which was ever advanced by the rafh nefs of fpeculative philofophy. We fhall give this dogma a fhort examination; nor do we mean to withhold that chaf tifement from its authors, which we think their temerity deferves.

If there be a neceffary connexion between caufe and effect, implying an operating principle in the cause, then every thing happens as it does, without the poffibility of its being otherwife. This is a doctrine, which we can never allow, because we believe, that the order of events has been at all times dependent on the will of God. We say, that God, who was the Creator, was the cause of the existence of the univerfe; but we will not fay, that the connexion was neceflary between the cause and the effect, because we hold, that the act of creation was not an act of neceffity, but of choice, Neither can we admit, that there is an ope rating principle in the caufe, to be implied from the neceffary connection between the caufe and the effect. We afcribe the being of man to God, as the caufe; but we recognife no operating principle in the caufe, which is diftinct from it, and which neceffarily connects it with the effect. We believe all the actions of the Deity to be fpontaneous: we hold God to be the primary caufe, or principle, of all exiftence; we, therefore, neither allow, that there is any principle in God, operating of neceffity, and neceffarily connecting him as a caufe with the effects, which in his infinite wisdom he has produced; nor do we choose, while we confider the Deity as the primordial principle of all exiftence, to fhock common fenfe, and to offend against com. mon language, by talking of a principle in a principle,

There is another objection, which we take against the dogma under confideration. If it be true, that there is an operating, that is an active, principle, in every material caufe; and this principle operates of neceffity; how shall we trace the active and operating principle beyond the payfical caufe, in which you fay it is? The caufe, the prin ciple, and the effect, are neceffarily bound together. The

Pringle

principle must be in the caufe, and the effect must refult from the operation of the principle; for the connexion is neceffary, and no power can break a connexion, which is neceffary. Active principles are thus attributed to material caufes; and phyfical effects are reprefented as being neceffarily produced by the operation of thefe active principles. Now this appears to us to be the very pith and marrow of Spinoffm. It is a doctrine, which has been fpread over thousands of fhallow pages by modern materialifts; and which we muft, therefore, admire to fee cómpreffed into the fize of an apophthegm, and adopted as an article of faith, by the orthodox denouncers of Mr. Leflie's atheism.

The enemies of revealed religion have always ftrenuously infifted upon the neceffary connexion between phyfical caufes and effects, and one of their reafons for fo doing, was to deftroy all belief in miracles. It muft, indeed, be confeffed, that if every effect be neceffarily produced by an operating principle in the caufe, it would be difficult to underftand what could be meant by a miracle. For, if there be a neceffary connexion between phyfical caufes and effects, it is impoffible that that connexion could in any inftance have been broken. What Mr. Leflie calls a conftant fequence, would be an unalterable fucceffion. No power could change that fucceffion; and there could be no miracle to alter the courfe, or difturb the reign of Nature.

It is faid, that there is fuch neceffary connexion between cause and effect, as implies an operating principle in the caufe. Now we cannot conceive, how any phyfical effect can be faid to be neceffarily connected with any thing else than a phyfical caufe; and fince there is an operating principle in the caufe, the phyfical caufe is fufficient to produce the phyfical effect. All phyfical effects then must be, and muft have been, produced by operating principles in physical caufes. We can never conceive, how they could have been neceffarily produced otherwife. We, who deny the dogma, contend that the primary cause of all things is an intelligent Being, and that the effects produced by him refulted from his power, guided by his will; but if we admit, that all effects are neceffarily connected with their caufes, then we muft acknowledge, that we can never conceive, how phyfical effects could be produced by any thing elfe than phyfical caufes.

Such being the light, in which we have found ourselves compelled to view the doctrine of these metaphyfical minifters, we cannot hefitate to pronounce it to be contrary, not only to the cleareft principles in philofophy, but to the

truths

truths of religion itself. We have always been, and shall ever continue, the. firm defenders of thofe truths. Still, however, we think it our duty to resist error and intolerance upon one fide, while we repel infidelity on the other. We are very far from entertaining any fufpicion of wrong motives, or of irreligious opinions, having dictated the fentence, which we have been confidering; though we think we can fcarcely enough blame the temerity, which has fo haftily adopted it. We cannot approve of metaphyfical dogmas, and of fcholaftic fubtleties, being introduced into the pure and fimple creed of the Chriftian believer. We object to all decrees and anathemas, which are not authorised by the plain meaning of the Scriptures. This doctrine of neceffary connexion, is no where taught in the inspired writings, and is in no manner to be deduced from any thing contained in them. If, therefore, we even thought it lefs objectionable than we do, we should not confent to receive it as an article of faith. But when we reflect upon the nature and confequences of this doctrine, when we confider that it has been the ftalking horfe of every materialist fince the days of Spinofa, we cannot but exprefs our furprife at the accufation, which has been brought forward by the minifters of Edinburgh against Mr. Lellie. How came they to affert, that in denying fuch a doctrine, he had laid a foundation for rejecting all the argument, that is derived from the works of God, to prove either his being, or his attributes? What can be faid in extenuation of their intemperate conduct, when it is known, that Mr. Leflie has incurred this terrible cenfure, only because he denied, what muft appear unintelligible to many; falfe and unfounded to fome; and pernicious and even atheistical to others? We .fincerely believe, that the minifters were not aware of the meaning of their dogma, and were ignorant of the mifchievous ufe that has been made of it; but they ought to have reflected well, before they rafhly branded any man with the guilt, which they have indifcriminately flung upon every author, who may think differently from themselves concerning caufation. We have heard of fimilar language held concerning other works. We know not how to appreciate fuch language. But if these minifters really thought Mr. Leflie an atheist, what fhall be faid for their confenting to ceafe their proceedings against him, provided he would only cancel a few leaves in his book? What! Thefe honeft defenders of religion-these spirits warmed with apoftolic zeal-thefe theological fabricators of metaphyfical creeds-could they be fatished, that an Atheist should pafs without further reproof,

C 4

that

that, he should fill a diftinguished place in the university, that he fhould become a public inftructor of youth, and that he fhould be put in the way of advancing to the highest academical honours, provided only a few pages were expunged from his book! In what fpirit this compromife was offered, we fhall leave to our readers to judge. Was it propofed in the meeknefs of Chriftian charity; or was it made by defeated pride, ftill grafping at the fhadow of victory ?

When the minifters of religion abide by the truths of revelation, they have nothing to fear from the attacks of the infidel. It is, therefore, to be deeply regretted, when they quit the authority of the facred writings, to wrangle about fpeculative queftions in metaphyfics. They, who would hazard the very exiftence of religion on the iffue of a metaphyfical difpute, neither confult its true interefts, nor know the firm bafis on which it ftands. It is not becoming in thofe, who preach the word of God, to found the alarm, as if it were in danger of being fet afide, every time a fceptic perplexes himself with a doubt, or a dialectician chooses to amufe himself with playing at his game of puzzles. It is ftill more improper to fet up obfcure dogmas as articles of faith which are unauthorized either by the words of our Saviour, or by the writings of his apofiles. It is yet more blame ble to perfecute as criminals, and to ftigmatife as atheists, thofe men, who controvert, or deny, these obfcure dogmas. In concluding this article, we feel ourselves again obliged to exprefs our regret, that the minifters of Edinburgh fhould have acted with fo little caution. We wish they had left the philofophical doctrine of neceffity untouched, and had not attempted to eftablifh the belief in it, as a teft of religious faith. Since, however, they chose to give fuch publicity to ignorance, and fuch notoriety to their intemperance, we cannot but thank Mr. Stewart for having expofed the one, and reproved the other.

ART. V. Sermons preached on particular Occafions, to which are added three original Difcourfes, taken in Short-hand, and a Funeral Oration delivered at the Interment of Mrs. S. Birley. By Robert Robinson. 8vo. 286 pp. 6s. Edwards.

1803.

TH

HE Preface of the Editor ftates, that "these Sermons are of fufficient worth to entitle them to the attention of all lovers of religious truth;" and that "the writings of

Robinfon