ignorant, that this is the very essence of the system of Spinosa; a system which has always been regarded by the best judges as one of the most dangerous modifications of Atheism. For, if physical cause and effect be connected together necessarily, that is, by a succession which no power human or divine can alter, the operation of the Deity must be necessarily set aside. This system, accordingly, although it acknowledges in name the existence of the Deity, is yet, by means of this very doctrine, really subversive of that fundamental principle of religion. It is impossible, in- . deed, in Christian charity, to suppose that this could actually be the doctrine of the ministers of Edinburgh, yet it seems equally impossible to annex to their words any other signification. Mr Leslie had indeed been invited to come to the presbytery, and give an explanation of his language; that is, to enter into a metaphysical disputation with ten persons who had shewn a determined resolution to misinterpret every word he could say. Besides, observe the situation of Mr Leslie. He was well aware, that nothing less would satisfy bis adversaries, than his implicitly subscribing the metaphysical dogma above examined: yet this it was impossible to do without really becoming what at present he was only accused of. He had been assured by the first lawyers and philosophers of this country, that the explanation he had given left no reasonable ground for further objection. His own cha. racter had been publicly aspersed. Insult after insult had been offered to the University, to which he now be longed, and whose members had given him their cordial support. Crude and contradictory notions had been started, on subjects the most important that can occupy human reason; while persecution was preparing, as of old, to display her banners, in de fence of an inconsistent jargon of metaphysical words, which waged war with the human understanding. If it was no longer safe, when a work contained in it exceptionable doctrines, to express satisfaction with any part of it; if a man must be answerable for all the inferences which the ignorance or ingenuity of his adversaries could draw from his opinions; there was an end of all freedom of debate, and the truth of any principle was no longer sufficient to give it currency in the world. There seemed to be every reason to wish, that some resistance was made to this wretched and disgraceful system: and an appeal, on so important an occasion, to the supreme judicature of the church, seemed, on every account, to be adviseable. This appeal was made, and the result was in the highest degree honourable to that supreme court, and satisfactory to the friends of Mr Leslie. The party by whom he was supported, had usually been found in the minority, but many of the most zealous supporters of the opposite in terest, hesitated not, on this question, to come over to a side, where they saw, indeed, the men whom they had been accustomed to oppose, but where they, at the same time, perceived the measures which they had been accustomed to support. Among the supporters of Mr Leslie were found men of the most opposite political principles: the decision was produced therefore by no interference whatever from without. The assertion that it was so, is both false in itself, and highly injurious to the su preme judicature of the church. About the same time with Mr Stewart's, appeared a small anonymous pamphlet, afterwards avowed by Dr Thomas Brown, who had already made himself known to the public as the successful opponent of the fanciful theories of Dr Darwin. According to this writer, the lan guage sures, is perceived innumerable times of the sun above the horizon that is Dr Brown is by no means dispo. sed to admit the system which considers mind as the sole agent in every change. In these changes we see only the same sequence as in those produced by material agents. In the voluntary motions of the body, we see only desire followed by the immediate attainment of its object. A man may indeed take a nauseous draught, which he dislikes; but still, from a conviction of its necessity, he desires that motion of his hand which is to carry it to his lips. With regard to the disposition to personify material objects, and to refer to mind all their unaccustomed changes, the author conceives merely, that whereever there appears no visible agent; mind is resorted to as the only unknown and invisible one. In consequence of these speculations, Dr Brown considers the distinction between physical and efficient causes as altogether nugatory. The obvious objection to this system is, that many things follow each other constantly, without our ever ascribing to them the relation of cause and effect: thus upon such a supposition, night would be the cause of day, and day of night. But, according to Dr Brown, that only is the invariable antecedent, which never appears without being immediately followed by its consequent. Now, "how often, during a long and sleepless night, does the sensation of dark- The grand question remains, how ness exist, without being followed is this system connected with the by the sensation of light! We per- great truth of the existence of the ceive the gloom; we feel our own Deity? By the constitution of our position in bed, or some bodily and nature we are irresistibly led to bemental pain which prevents repose; lieve, that every change is invariably innumerable thoughts arise, at inter- connected with circumstances immedivals, in our mind, and with these the ately prior. This law must equally perception of gloom is occasionally apply to that greatest of all changes, mingled, without being followed by which consists in beginning exis. the perception of light. At last tence. And, from the wisdom dislight is perceived, and, as mingled played throughout nature, we are led with all our occupations and plea- to infer that the antecedent of this great great event, must have been the will of an intelligent being. The will to modify, to alter, or to destroy the universe, must, in like manner, be followed by its object. "It is not necessary to the purity of theism, that we should suppose something divine and incomprehensible to be interposed, amid all those obvious and Legular changes which we observe : it is sufficient that we be fully im. pressed with the necessity of a Creator, and trace the universe, with all its regularity and beauty, as one great effect to the almighty source of being." In our highest contemplations of his power, we believe only, that when he willed creation, a world arose, and that, in all future time, his will to create cannot exist without being followed by the rise of worlds: that his will to destroy will be in like manner followed by destruction; and his will to vary the course of things by miraculous appearances. The will is the only necessary previous change; and that being has almighty power whose every will is immediately and invariably followed by the existence of its object." Dr Brown then exposes, at considerable length, the errors which Mr Hume had mingled with this doctrine, and which alone render it exceptionable. Upon the whole, to such as are not deterred by the ab. struseness of the subject, we would recommend, instead of this imperfect analysis, a perusal of the treatise itself, which deserves attention, not merely from its temporary applica. tion, but from the new theory it contains on this important branch of metaphysical science. Some time after, another pamphlet appeared by the same author, entit. led, "A Short Criticism of the Terms of the Charge against Mr Leslie." This is founded on the explanation of the clergy, that in using the word cause, they meant only efficient causes; and takes for granted May 1806. the old distinction between these and physical causes. When therefore Mc Leslie is accused of denying a "necessary connection between cause and effect," he is supposed to admit the existence of efficient causes and their effects, and to deny only a certain relation between them. But, if we admit the existence of efficient causes, we admit all, for which, as essential to theism, the most zealous assertors of that distinction contend. Again, since " necessary connection," and "operating principle," are both synonymous with efficiency; and since cause, when repeated in the sentence without any qualifying term, must be understood both times to have the same meaning; Mr Leslie therefore is accused of denying " all such efficiency in efficient causes, as implies efficiency in efficient causes." Dr Brown therefore insists that the clergy have no cause to wonder, if, before explanation, Mr Stewart thought this an unlikely interpretation. We proceed now to the arguments brought forward on the other side of the question. The ministers of Edinburgh never entered into any combination. The allusions to it are false and groundless. It was solemnly disavowed by one of them at the bar of the general assembly; and it was expected that some degree of credit would be thought due to his public declaration upon a subject, in regard to which it was impossible that he could be mistaken. Although the ministers of Edinburgh. had joined in favouring Mr Macknight, and had given him their united advice against resigning his ecclesiastical charge, perhaps their conduct might not by some have been thought very iniquitous. But so it is, that they did neither. As no evidence whatever has been attempted on the other side, they must either rest in simple denial, or undertake the unreasonable task of proving a nega tive; tive; yet even this they do not decline. Had the ministers of Edinburgh, as is alleged, united, as a party, in support of that direful measure which they are said to have so much at heart, surely all or most of them would have taken some steps for attaining their object. They had the satisfaction of living in habits of intimacy with many individual members of the Town Council; and as they reckoned in their number the Principal and several Professors of the university, their title to recommend might perhaps be equal to that of Mr Stewart and Mr Playfair. Yet the fact is, that only one, or at most two, ever solicited an individual for Mr Macknight. And as the one particularly referred to was the colleague of Mr Macknight's most respectable father, he may well be sup posed to have been actuated solely by personal motives. The rest not only did not apply, but when Mr Macknight requested from them certificates, on which he understood great stress had been laid in the case of other candidates, they absolutely declined complying with his wishes in this particular, unless they should be called upon for advice. they said, and they still maintain, that the doctrine which he has advanced, leads necessarily to Atheism. It is said that Mr Leslie's expressions could only be supposed to refer to physical causes. But it seems impossible to discover in them any such restriction. They praise Mr Hume's essay as "a model of clear and accurate reasoning." Now, of 20 pages, to which this essay extends, there is little more than one, which relates to physical causes; the rest is entirely metaphysical. Mr. Leslie is said to extend his praise only to Mr Hume's premises. But does not the general approbation of an essay include both premises and conclusion? It has been clearly shewn by the opposite party, that Mr Hume's doctrine, so far as it relates to physical causes, was by no means new; for this part therefore no peculiar applause was due to him. It is the metaphysical part only which was new or peculiar to Mr Hume; and it is that part which has drawn the attention of his most distinguished adversaries. There seem. ed reason therefore to suspect, that this might be the part which Mr Leslie had peculiarly in view. The subject of the work is indeed physical, and so is the passage to which the note refers. But it by no means follows, that a note must be on the very same subject with the passage to which it is appended. On the contrary, a note naturally supposes some change, some difference of subject, otherwise there could be no reason for not incorporating it into the body of the work. We have on It has been said, that Mr Macknight's not resigning his ecclesiastical charge, was in consequence of the ministers having openly avowed their determination to that effect. But, that after having shewn no disposi tion to promote the views of Mr Macknight, they should yet adopt and publish a determination by which his conduct should be implicitly rely to look into any book which congulated, is certainly one of those propositions which carry their falsehood in gremio, and accordingly no evidence has been brought to support it. The ministers of Edinburgh are falsely accused of representing Mr Leslie as an Atheist. They never said so. They do not think so. But tains a number of notes, in order to be satisfied, that they relate as often to different topies as to that of which the book itself treats. Or, supposing the proceeding not to be strictly regular, was there no ground to suspect an intentional deviation? Lastly, this interpretation is rendered still more difficult by the etymological argu ment ment, in which it is attempted to be proved, that all those words by which we denote cause and effect express nothing more than mere priority. It is evident, that this applies equally to every kind of cause; of which we either have no idea at all, or at least such as no one ever thought of expressing in words. Of this Mr Leslie's defenders seem sensible, as they have studiously shunned taking any notice of this part of the discus sion. Mr Leslie's letter is by no means satisfactory. He has grossly misrepresented the opinions of Dr Reid, whose object it was to reply to Hume's premises, from which he justly concluded, that sceptical conclusions flowed unavoidably. Far from retracting, far even from making the slightest apology, for the very excep. tionable language he had used, he merely engages, in case his book should come to a second edition, to shew how grossly and injuriously he has been misrepresented. Is this the language of explanation or apology? According to every appearance, we have to expect a virulent attack on the ministers of Edinburgh, instead of a calm and satisfactory explanation. As, however, Mr Leslie, in his letter, complains of want of time, the Presbytery, willing to make every allowance for this disadvantage, afforded him afterwards repeated opportunities of coming and making the most full explanation. Here then we find a strange inconsistency in the conduct of this gentleman. He first complains of want of time, and afterwards, when the most ample time is afforded him, he makes no use of it. Finally, the letter was not regularly before the presbytery, nor even before the meeting of the ministers. It was addressed, not to the moderator of that meeting, but to an individual member of it. However satisfactory then the letter might have been, it was not official, nor one which could be regularly laid before any church court. With regard to not producing Mr Leslie's letter at the council board, this never could have occurred to them as an act of justice to that gen. tleman, since they were, from the first, unanimous in thinking that let-ter, in some respects, an aggravation of the original offence. Even had they been so disposed, they could never with propriety have presented Dr Hunter's letter, without his own permission, which they have reason to believe they would not have obtained. The insinuation, however, that Mr Leslie's interest was likely to suffer by the concealment of the letter, are wholly groundless; for the letter was one of the subjects of conversation at the council board. As soon as the ministers entered, it was introduced by the Lord Provost. The Presbytery, it is said, ought to have summoned Mr Leslie as a party; but by the act of Parliament, the Presbytery could not do so; he did not lie within their jurisdiction. To have summoned him as a Professor, which he had become in the face of a protest, would have been prejudging the case against themselves, To the General Assembly it belonged, should they see cause, to summon Mr Leslie to their bar; and that this did not take place, was owing to the measures of the opposite party. An attempt has been made to retort upon the ministers themselves the accusation of Atheism. This is no uncommon manoeuvre with those who are labouring in the defence of error, and who wish to withdraw the attention of the reader from the ne rits of the question. But never was it attempted on slenderer grounds than on the present occasion. founded entirely on the restriction of their meaning to physical causes; whereas in papers previously published, they had expressly excluded these causes. They had confined their cen It is |