RELIGIOUS STATISTICS FOR THE WHOLE TWENTY-FOUR STATES. PRESBYTERIANS. 399,462 Mins. Chs. Coms. M's. Chs. Coms. Mins. | Chs. Coms. M's. Chs. Coms. M's. Chs. Cts. Mins. | Chs. Comts. 162 222 15,000|| 7 117 152 18,347 78 90 6,505 9 125 10,525 189 20,200 10 10 1,300 17 20 3,271 14 297,711 230 226 29,579 97 92 10,039 668 676 75,487|| 30 30 142 142 30,477 545 605 60,006 180 252 252 74,106 133 151 11,404|| 155 155 51,460 166 280 10,000 60 299 11,000 46 --- 74 81 1523433O Illinois 16 N. Carolina 18 Georgia 20 Mississippi Tennessee 106 144 8,300 308,000 30 39 1,816 215,000 109 144 10,000 Kentucky 140,000 688,000 70 92 7,160 5 9 420 55 213 339 19,000 19 37 60 20,035 201 139 139 49,000|| 23 34 50 74 47,000 201 273 28,000|| 13 16 700 89 Miscellaneous Denominations 9,554 11,858 1,305,351 1,525 2,653 200,551 * The Methodist Denomination do not divide their numbers in New England among the different States statistically, so that they are put in one number at the close of New York. DEDICATION. TO JOHN CHARLES EARL SPENCER. | could be obtained was devoted to this object, and to a careful revision of what had been written in a THE Composition of this Discourse was under- season less auspicious for such speculations. taken in consequence of an observation which I I inscribe the fruits of those studies to you, not had often made, that scientific men were apt to re- merely as a token of ancient friendship-for that gard the study of Natural Religion as little connect- you do not require; nor because I always have ed with philosophical pursuits. Many of the per- found you, whether in possession or in resistance sons to whom I allude, were men of religious habits of power, a fellow-laborer to maintain our common of thinking; others were free from any disposition principles, alike firm, faithful, disinterested-for towards skepticism, rather because they had not your known public character wants no testimony much discussed the subject, than because they had from me; nor yet because a work on such a subject formed fixed opinions upon it after inquiry. But needs the patronage of a great name-for it would the bulk of them relied little upon Natural Theolo-be affectation in me to pretend any such motive; gy, which they seemed to regard as a speculation but because you have devoted much of your time built rather on fancy than on argument; or, at any to such inquiries-are beyond most men sensible of rate, as a kind of knowledge quite different from their importance-concur generally in the opinions either physical or moral science. It therefore ap- which I profess to maintain-and had even formed peared to me desirable to define, more precisely the design of giving to the world your thoughts than had yet been done, the place and the claims of upon the subject, as I hope and trust you now will Natural Theology among the various branches of be moved to do all the more for the present address. human knowledge. In this view, your authority will prove of great value to the cause of truth, however superfluous the patronage of even your name might be to recom mend the most important of all studies. About the same time, our Society, as you may recollect, was strongly urged to publish an edition of Dr. Paley's popular work, with copious and scientific illustrations. We both favored this plan; Had our lamented friend Romilly lived, you are but some of our colleagues justly apprehended that aware that not even these considerations would the adoption of it might open the door to the intro- have made me address any one but him, with whom duction of religious controversy among us, against I had oftentimes speculated upon this ground. Both our fundamental principles; and the scheme was of us have been visited with the most severe afflicabandoned. I regarded it, however, as expedient tions, of a far nearer and more lasting kind than to carry this plan into execution by individual ex- even his removal, and we are now left with few ertion; and our worthy and accomplished colleague, things to care for; yet, ever since the time I followSir C. Bell-whose admirable treatise on Animal ed him to the grave, I question if either of us has Mechanics pointed him out as the fellow-laborer I read, without meditating upon the irreparable loss should most desire-fortunately agreed to share the we and all men then sustained, the words of the work of the illustrations. In these we have made ancient philosopher best imbued with religious opia very considerable progress; and I now inscribe nions-"Proficiscar enim non ad eos solum viros de this publication, but particularly the Preliminary quibus ante dixi, sed etiam ad Catonem meum, quo Discourse, to you. It was, with the exception of nemo vir melior natus est, nemo pietate præstanthe Third Section of Part I., and the greater por- tior; cujus a me corpus crematum est, animus vero tion of the Notes, written at the end of 1830, in non me deserens sed respectans, in ea profecto loca 1831, and the latter part of 1833, and a portion was discessit quo mihi ipsi cernebat esse veniendum; added in the autumn of 1834. In those days I held quem ego meum casum fortiter ferre visus sum, the Great Seal of this kingdom; and it was impos-non quod æquo animo ferrem; sed me ipse consosible to finish the work while many cares of another labar, existimans, non longinquum inter nos digreskind pressed upon me. But the first leisure that sum et discessum fore."* For the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. * De Senect. A DISCOURSE OF NATURAL THEOLOGY. INTRODUCTION. ARRANGEMENT OF SUBJECTS AND EXPLANATION OF THE words Theology and Religion are often used as synonymous. Thus, Natural Theology and Natural Religion are by many confounded together. But the more accurate use of the words is that which makes Theology the science, and Religion its subject; and in this manner are they distinguished when we speak of a "professor of theology," and a "sense of religion." There is, however, as regards Natural Theology, a more limited use of the word, which confines it to the knowledge and attributes of the Deity, and regards the speculation concerning his will, and our own hopes from and duties towards him, as another branch of the science, terined Natural Religion, in contradistinction to the former. Dr. Paley hardly touches on this latter branch in his book, there being only about one-sixtieth part devoted to it, and that incidentally in treating of the attributes. Indeed, though in the dedication he uses the word Religion as synonymous with Theology, the title and the arrangement of his discourse show that he generally employed the term Natural Theology in Its restricted sense. Bishop Butler, on the other hand, seems to have used Natural Religion in a sense equally restricted, but certainly little warranted by custom; for that portion of his work which treats of Natural Religion is confined to a future state and the moral government of God, as if he either held Natural Religion and Natural Theology to be two branches of one subject, or Natural Religion to be a branch of Natural Theology. The older writers, Clarke, Bentley, Derham, seem to have sometinies used the words indifferently, but never to have regarded Natural Religion in the restricted acceptation. The ancients generally used Religion in a qualified sense, either as connected with an obligation, or as synonymous with superstition. This Discourse is not a treatise of Natural The ology: it has not for its design an exposition of the doctrines whereof Natural Theology consists. But its object is, first, to explain the nature of the evidence upon which it rests-to show that it is a science, the truths of which are discovered by induction, like the truths of Natural and Moral Philosophy-that it is a branch of science partaking of the nature of each of those great divisions of human knowledge, and not merely closely allied to them both. Secondly, the object of the Discourse is to explain the advantages attending this study. The work, therefore, is a Logical ore. We have commented upon the use of the terms Theology and Religion. As it is highly desirable to keep scientific language precise, and always to use the same terms in the same sense, we shall now further observe upon the word "moral" in relation to science or faculties. It is sometimes used to denote the whole of our mental faculties, and in opposition to natural and physical, as when we speak of "moral science," "moral truths;""moral philosophy." But it is also used in contradistinction to "intellectual" or "mental," and in connection with or in re25* ference to obligation; and then it relates to rights and duties, and is synonymous with ethical. It seems advisable to use it always in this sense, and to employ the words spiritual and mental in opposition to natural and material; and psychological, as applied to the science of mind, in opposition to physical. Again, a distinction is sometimes made between the intellectual and moral powers or faculties the former being directly those of the understanding, the latter those of the will, or, as they are often called, the "active powers," that is, the passions and feelings. It seems better to use the word active for this purpose as opposed to intellectual. Thus, we shall have these general terms, spiritual or men tal, as applied to the immaterial part of the creation, and psychological, as applied to the science which treats of it. We shall next have a subdivision of the mental faculties into intellectual and active; both form the subjects of psychological science. Moral science, in its restricted sense, and properly so called, will then denote that branch which treats of duties, and of what is implied in those duties, their correlative rights; it will, in short, be ethical science. Thus, the science of mind-say Metaphysical science-may be said to consist of two great branches, the one of which treats of existences, the other of duties. The one accordingly has been termed, with great accuracy, Ontology, speaking of that which is; the other, Deontology, speaking of that which ought to be. The former, however, comprehends properly all physical, as well as mental science.The division which appears upon the whole most convenient is this: That metaphysical science, as contradistinguished from physical, is either psychological, which treats of the faculties both intellectual and active, but treats of existences only; or moral, which treats of rights and duties, and is distinguishable from psychological, though plainly connected with it nearly as corollaries are with the propositions from whence they flow. Then physical truths, in one respect, come under the same head with the first branch of metaphysical truths. Physical as well as psychological science treats of existences, while moral science alone treats of duties. According to a like arrangement, Natural Theology consists of two great branches, one resembling Ontology, the other analogous to Deontology. The former comprehends the discovery of the existence and attributes of a Creator, by investigating the evidences of design in the works of the creation, material as well as spiritual. The latter relates to the discovery of his will and probable intentions with regard to his creatures, their conduct, and their duty. The former resembles the physical and psychological sciences, and treats of the evidences of design, wisdom, and goodness exhibited both in the natural and spiritual worlds. The latter resembles rather the department of moral science, as distinguished from both physical and psychological. thus consider the science of Natural Theology as consisting, like all inductive science, of three compartments, Natural, Mental, and Moral; or, taking the Greek terms, Physical, Psychological, and Ethical. We may This classification is convenient, and its grounds 785 |