tract.

side, or the other, can no ways affect the design of reciting them. On the whole, I hope what this author has said with respect to the influence of Christianity on the sciences, and the improvement of the human mind, is made sufficiently to appear to be wholly founded in an entire disregard to truth; and this opinion, I can see no reason to reBefore concluding this number I will add one thought, which appears to me of considerable moment on this subject, and that is, that one principal impediment to the progress of philosophical knowledge, arose from one of the most celebrated of the ancients, I mean Aristotle. The respect which was paid to his writings, as oracular on science, prevented both Christians and others, from exerting their own talents, and thinking for themselves. The moment men lost their implicit confidence in this great man, and began to strike out a path for themselves, science began to shew its consonancy with reason, and the dawn of true philosophy emitted its first rays upon the world. ARTEMAS.

Remarks on the Age of Reason, No. IX.

I HOPE my readers will excuse me, if I trouble them with a few more sentences respecting the sciences, before we leave the subject. "The event that served more than any other to break the first

link in this long chain of despotic ignorance, iş that known by the name of the Reformation by Luther. From that time, though it does not appear to have made any part of the intention of Luther, or of those who are called Reformers, the sciences began to revive, and liberality, their natural associate, began to appear. This was the only public good the Reformation did; for with respect to religious good, it might as well not have taken place."-P. 99, 100. That it was an immediate and favorite part of the intention of the Reformers, to promote true science and philosophy, is a fact as little to be questioned, as almost any other in history. "Perceiving that the understanding was clouded, and the freedom of enquiry restrained, by the forms of the schools, and that nothing contributed so much to perpetuate superstition and error in the church, as false philosophy, these great and able men concluded, that the disease admitted of no palliative; that, in order to produce any great or lasting effect, it was not sufficient barely to lop off the heads of the tares which had sprung up in the church, but that it was become necessary to tear them up by the roots. They therefore, with a degree of magnanimity which entitles them to immortal honor, made a bold and open attack at once upon the corruption of philosophy and theology; laying open the numerous evils which the scholastic mode of philoso

*

phising had introduced into religion; shewing by what puerile arts, and with how much injury to truth, both natural and divine, it had maintained its authority; and exhorting young men to leave such faithless guides, and give themselves up wholly to the direction of reason and revelation.”*

If it was no part of their intention to promote science, how came they assiduously to teach and recommend it to their followers; and by what means did the sciences and liberality revive; Their labors and the fruits of them sufficiently indicate their intention. On any other supposition, they must have acted a most senseless and unaccountable part. As to the reformation doing no "religious good," on our author's own favorite and leading principle, that it is from science we learn the true theology, the revival of the sciences was the greatest religious good that could have happened; and in the same degree as the Reformers made their pupils good philosophers, they made them true theologians-and with this I dismiss the subject.

As a sort of preface to his observations on revelation, he makes these remarks: "It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and pro

History of Philosophy.

stituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every crime."-P. 10. This is quite as modest and candid, as could be expected from the man; but, on the supposition that every man who professes to believe the Christian doctrines, is guilty of "mental lying," and "prepared for the commission of every crime," there is nothing too severe in the remark. "Mental lying" is, indeed, very injurious to the person who is guilty of it; but, if I am not mistaken, verbal lying is productive of much greater mischief to society; and there is something which comes very near to it, if it is not the thing itself; I mean, deliberate misrepresentation, of which this book has a very sufficient number of examples.

Speaking of revelation, he says, "it is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call any thing a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally, or in writing, Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication."-P. 13. Supposing any thing supernaturally communicated to an individual, which could not have been otherwise known, and it is communicated from him to others, the thing itself is as much a matter of revelation to the millionth person who is instructed in it, as to the first. It is with respect as well to their eminent rank, as being above the power of

reason to discover, as the extraordinary circumstances attending their discovery, that certain truths are said to be revealed, and their particular character, as such, is not in the least affected, by the frequency of their communication.

And

When Jeremiah foretold to the Jews their cap tivity by the Babylonians, it was as much revealed, or uncovered to them, as it was to him. the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, as made known to the world, in a manner over and above the reach of human reason, are to us now, and will be to the last generation of men, as truly a matter of revelation, or discovery immediately from God himself, as they were to the first man to whom they were disclosed; and this shall serve as a full answer to his remark.

"As to the account of the creation, with which the book of Genesis opens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition which the Israelites had among them before they came into Egypt." P. 36. That they might have had some tradition respecting the creation, is in itself very probable; but that they had the same account of it which is given by Moses, is in the highest degree improbable. One circumstance alone is sufficient entirely to discredit such an opinion; which is, that it was impossible a true account of it could have come by, tradition. Man was the last of creatures made; and supposing Adam to have been capable of