greater, as they do not directly profess that 'intention. The farther we advance in ana'tomical researches, we discover new scenes ' of art and wisdom, and if the infidelity of 'Galen, even when these natural sciences were 'still imperfect, could not withstand such strik'ing appearances, to what pitch of pertinacious obstinacy must a philosopher in this age have attained, who can now doubt of a Su'preme Intelligence?' When Dr Chalmers' scheme of Christian Evidence has apparently escaped from his memory; after he has banished all idea of the fallacy and pernicious tendency of the internal evidence; and has betaken himself to the establishment of the authority of the Gospel, and the reasonableness of its doctrines, on the ground of experience of God,' and the conclusions of natural theology ;-he expresses himself after this fashion, • When I look abroad on the wondrous scene that is immediately before me,-and see that in every direction, it is a scene of the 'most various and unwearied activity,—and expatiate on all the beauties of that garniture by which it is adorned, and on all the prints of design and of benevolence which abound in it, and think that the same God, who holds ❝ the universe, with its every system, in the

hollow of his hand, pencils every flower, and "gives nourishment to every blade of grass, ' and actuates the movements of every living thing, and is not disabled by the weight of 'his other cares from enriching the humble ' department of nature I occupy, with charms ' and accommodations of the most unbounded 6 variety-then surely, if a message bearing 'every mark of authenticity, should profess 'to come to me from God, and inform me of his mighty doings for the happiness of our 6 species, it is not for me, in the face of all this evidence, to reject it as a tale of imposture, ' because astronomers have told me,' &c. 'It " is a wonderful thing that God should be so 'unincumbered by the concerns of a whole universe, that he can give a constant attention ' to every moment of every individual in this 'world's population. But wonderful as it is, 'you do not hesitate to admit it as true, on the

evidence of your own recollections. It is a 'wonderful thing that he whose eye is at every 'instant on so many worlds, should have peo'pled the world we inhabit with all the traces ' of the varied design and benevolence which a'bound in it. But, great as the wonder is, you 'do not allow so much as the shadow of impro'bability to darken it, for its reality is what

C you actually witness, and you never think of ' questioning the evidence of observation.' *

In these passages, our author, it will be observed, asserts that there are in nature numerous prints,' or 'traces' furnishing' evidence,' not merely of design,' or intelligence, but of benevolence' in the Deity. This is a point of some consequence; as it places the authority of Dr C. (when not writing systematically upon Christian Evidence) in opposition to that of certain infidel authors, who admitting that there are found in nature conclusive evidences of intelligence and power, deny that from any source accessible to human research, we can derive legitimate evidence of the moral character of the Deity. The admission, however, of the argument from final causes, as conclusive in regard to the natur al attributes of Deity, is fatal to the rejection of it in the case of his moral attributes †. The evidence is in principle precisely the same, and although in certain respects more abstruse and complex, is far from being inferior in amount. The premises are in both cases drawn from what we ‘experience,' either within us or without, and the process by which the conclusion is reached in

*Chal. Astrom. Disc. III.

+ See Warburton's Examination of Bolingbroke, Div. Leg. App. Vol. I.

both cases is strictly inductive. *—As Dr C. has mentioned the writings of Mr Stewart, as having' contributed much to bring the science ' of mind under the entire dominion of the in'ductive philosophy,'-these writings may be fairly referred to as furnishing evidence, regarding the consistency of the argument in favour of the moral perfections and government of the Deity, with the principles of that philosophy. Our ideas' then, (according to Mr S.) of the moral attributes of God must 'be derived from our own moral perceptions. "It is only by attending to these, that we can 'form a conception of what his attributes are ; ' and it is in this way that we are furnished with

*The term, a priori,' has been applied to reasonings of so different nature, that it is difficult to fix any definite character to it. It has become in the hands of Dr C. and of other writers, a term of reproach, denoting mere assumption or hypothesis.-Perhaps the mathematical form, in which arguments for the existence and attributes of the Deity, proceeding on data furnished chiefly by our intellectual and moral perceptions, have been. sometimes put,-has contributed to the continued use of this term. The same circumstance has, I conceive, been productive of a worse effect. By thus assuming a rank which they are not entitled to hold; and aiming at strict demonstration, an object they can never reach; arguments of this sort have lost, in general estimation, that sound and conclusive character which properly belongs to probable evidence of the highest class,— -a charac ter which they are in their own nature fully qualified to sustain.

L

the strongest proofs that they really belong 'to him.' 'The distinction between right and 'wrong, is apprehended by the mind to be eter'nal and immutable no less than the distinction between mathematical truth and false'hood. To argue, therefore, from our own 'moral judgments to the administration of the 'Deity, cannot be justly censured as a rash ex"tension to the divine nature, of suggestions resulting from the arbitrary constitution of our own minds.' The ultimate appeal must be always made to the moral sentiments ' and emotions of the human race.' The sen'timent of Publius Syrus, 'omne dixeris male“dictum, quum ingratum hominem dixeris,'

speaks a language which accords with every feeling of an unperverted mind; it speaks the language of nature, which it is the pro'vince of the moralist not to criticise, but to ' listen to. To act in conformity to our sense of rectitude, is plainly the highest ex'cellence which our nature is capable of at 'taining, nor can we avoid extending the same ❝ rule of estimation to all intelligent beings 'whatever. Besides these conclusions with C respect to the Divine attributes, (which seem 'to be implied in our very perception of moral distinctions,) there are others perfectly

6