upon which the philosophers built, confessedly came from another quarter; but the reasoning was all their own. Those facts can easily be traced to the Bible:* the reasoning, such as it is (and it is precisely of the same sort with that adopted by this enlightened school), is certainly their own; and its object was, just like that of our favoured divines, to reduce to the common operations of nature and of reason, these facts, which had been taken as matters of faith by their more wise, but less sophisticated, forefathers. From the abundant remains of ancient philosophy still preserved, we can have no possible doubt as to its real character. Of the vanity of its theological researches and conclusions we are not only convinced by the deductions of sound reason, but Scripture itself in the most positive terms informs us, that it was a system of error and darkness, of vice and abomination, of cruelty and woe; and yet it had the advantage of all that human reason could invent, display, recommend, or enforce. In its favour, the noblest efforts of intellect which the world ever witnessed were called forth, exhibited, and reduced to practice; and yet a few unlearned men, descended from illiterate forefathers and born in an illiterate nation, have not only condemned the system, but exposed its fallacies.† To Jews as rightly collected from the Old Testament, contained a large admixture of paganism; and that upon this Christianity was built, with such alterations only as the spirit of the times called for. "Nihilo minus ea (religio per Jesum Christum et Apostolos tradita), quippe non una eademque forma positiva a singulis ejus auctoribus et tradita et sancita, ingenio seculi, quo primum innotuit, Judaicisque opinionum commentis accommodata, et mythis.... traditionibusque implicata fuit, omnique tempore a genio seculi variisque eam fingendi conatibus pependit." (Ib. p. 53.) A first draught of all this will be found in Spinoza, pp. 37, 53, 58, 81, 89, 90, 136, &c. * In pp. 21, 22, we have a note on the probable origin of monotheism, &c. The fact appears to be, that a belief in one supreme Deity was universal among the ancient heathens; and it certainly is so now wherever heathenism prevails. Besides, all the primary facts upon which heathenism is built are clearly the facts of the Bible; which is easily enough accounted for, because the Bible exhibits, beyond all question, the older documents: all the rest is the work of pure rationalism. See Van Dale de Origine et Progressu Idololatriæ, and my Observations on the Origin of Heathenism, &c. in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature. See also Lactantius de Origine Erroris, &c.; Arnobius adversus Gentes; Justin Martyr ; Clemens Alexandrinus, and the ancient apologists generally. See the quotation from Theodoret at the end of this work. the soundness of their conclusions, the excellency of their morality, and the undeviating tenor of their exemplary lives, even the philosophers of Germany afford their testimony. Now, I may ask, Is it not marvellous that these unscientific men should, without the aids of philosophy, abstraction, &c. have arrived at conclusions of this sublime and overpowering nature? How has it possibly come to pass, that the fisherman Peter, the tent-making and Judaizing Paul, the meek and mild-hearted John, who could scarcely write Greek, have conspired to recommend such truths, morality, faith, and heavenly-mindedness, as Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, and the rest of this dazzling cohort, never thought of? But this is not all; they actually set up for reformers and controversialists; and, what is still more marvellous, they succeeded; for we find, both in the court of the Areopagus and of the Cæsars, some of the able and pious partisans of these poor and illiterate men. We are told, however, that, after all, they were philosophers, and so were all the prophets. The only difference discoverable between these and people generally was, that they had more fervour, more moral feeling, poetical zeal, and so on:* and the same was the case with the philosophers of Greece and Rome. If this * "Atque hæc revelationis opinio (i. e. supernaturalis), cui sæpissime adjunctum fuit de certa theocratia commentum, multis modis hominibus profuit, sive ad res publicas constituendas legibusque vinciendas, sive ad notionem officiorum propagandam; siquidem ratio humana sine institutionis alienæ et auctoritatis externæ beneficio vix satis excoli posse videtur." (Weg. p. 27.) For the purpose of recommending this notion, on the origin and authority of the Hebrew polity, we have a citation from Diodorus Siculus, shewing that Minos made some such claim, in order to recommend his laws to the people of Crete; Mneuis, to recommend his to the Egyptians; Lycurgus, his to the Lacedæmonians, and so of others: and the inference to be made is, that just as much reliance may be placed upon the one as the other. And again: "Quemadmodum Judæi, æque ut aliæ priscæ gentes, efficacium virium animo a natura insitarum haud probe dignoscentes, animi motus sensusque acriores atque insolitos et cogitationes subito menti injectas a quodam numinis afflatu, s. inspiratione. . . . repetebant: ita illi jam inde a secundo ante Christum natum seculo, ad scripta sua sacra inspirationis opinionem transtulerunt," &c. Then, in order to identify the whole with pure heathenism, we have in the note (a), "Apud Græcos et Romanos poetæ, vates, philosophi, et alii divino quodam afflatu vel numine ipso hominem penitus occupante excitari dicebantur, quod respondet Hebraico by ma Ezech. i. 5, et by na'n ma ¬ i. 3, iii. 14, 22, (≈vsuμaropógos apud LXX. Hos. ix. 8, φερόμενος ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου. 2 Pet. i. 21). Hinc Θεοδίδακτοι, Θεοφόροι, &c. was the fact, I should like to be informed how it came to pass, that these prophets, philosophers, &c. never had philosophy enough to find this out? How could they possibly have been so blind, as never to have discovered that they were carrying on only a war of words? There certainly was no want of opportunity: and, the fact is, notwithstanding all these favourable circumstances, both parties deliberately declared, that light and darkness were not more opposed to one another, than these systems were, both in principle and in effect. We have, therefore, the most positive testimonies of the sacred writers, on subjects which they must have understood, that "the world by wisdom knew not God"--that they had not even retained the knowledge of him which they once had possessed; but had become darkened in their understandings, and their foolish hearts hardened. And what, let me ask, have we now opposed to all this? Has any new knowledge on this interesting subject been discovered? Has modern science made out any thing explanatory? No such thing the fact only is, that a number of gentlemen, who call themselves philosophers, have trumped up an old and exploded system of pure infidelity; and, upon the strength of it, they persist in affirming that revealed religion cannot be credited, because philosophy, i. e. philosophical ideas, assure them, convince them, and confirm them in this conviction, that the facts of the case were far otherwise; and that all who do not like this conclusion, they believe themselves justified in pronouncing the friends of darkness.* I will only remark, that all this may be very convincing to some ... divino numine afflati, inspirati, furentes, &c. appellati sunt," ib. p. 147: all of which may be found, delivered in words not very different, in the first, second, and third chapters of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus of the notorious Spinoza. # Neque vero dubitari potest, quin in rebus gravissimis, quæ ad religionem et honestatem tuendam pertinent, itemque in præceptis artis logica, omnes philosophorum scholæ mirifice inter se conveniant; et inter ipsos scriptores sic dictos profanos, quos injuste aversantur ac calumniantur tenebrarum patroni." Ib. p. 42. Perhaps we may take for granted, that Paul the Apostle was quite as well acquainted with the philosophers and profane authors of the heathen world as Dr. Wegscheider, or any of his school, may now be the following is his unqualified testimony respecting them: "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were minds, and may appear to be very enlightened and liberal to others; but to mine it seems to be destitute of every thing that deserves the name of science, philosophy, or reason. If this is Rationalism, I can only say, it certainly has nothing reasonable in it-nothing scientific, enlightened, or liberal to recommend it. I shall now leave this first principle, believing I have said quite enough about it, and proceed to consider another position, namely, That a connection with philosophy is most necessary for the welfare of religion. SECTION II. ON THE CONNECTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH RELIGION. FROM what has already been advanced, I think it must be plain, that I have nothing whatever to urge against the legitimate use of right reason, good philosophy, and real science, in questions relating to religion; but, I do think, and I believe I have shewn, that there are points in which reason, philosophy, and science, can determine nothing; I mean in questions where these cannot be legitimately applied. Reason, for example, cannot act where it has no data to act upon; philosophy can obtain no result where there is no subject. matter; nor can science make any observation upon things with which it is not conversant. To apply this: The fundamentals of religion are conversant about the will of the Deity, provisions for the soul, another state of being, and the like. On these subjects, I say, neither reason, philosophy, nor thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was hardened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools; and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:" and so on to the end of the chapter. (Rom. i. 21, &c.) But, the truth of this testimony can be abundantly proved from the profane authors themselves, as Mr. Wegscheider ought to have known. Paul, therefore, if he was a friend of darkness, certainly was not a friend of falsehood; but there is no reason whatever for supposing either, if we except the waking dreams of rationalism. That heathenism was a mere corruption of revealed religion, may justly be inferred from St. Paul's words just cited. science, can afford us any real knowledge. All they can advance must originate in conjecture, and can amount only to low probabilities. Such probabilities alone, particularly if they be in some respects discordant (and this has always been the case), can lay claim to the faith of no one. Reason and science can indeed judge of religion, when that has once been made known, and this they ought to do; but they can go no farther they can never rise to the question of its first facts these must necessarily be derived from a higher source. Besides, elements as such, as it is the case in every science, can never be reduced to the scrutiny of human reason. They are data, upon which reason may and ought to act; but which it can never analyse, much less prescribe in the first instance. Now, the elements proposed by the sacred writers are exactly of the sort just described; they go to points on which we have no knowledge; and on which, consequently, we can offer no opinion. They are, nevertheless, in strict analogy with the rest of the operations of the Deity, which indeed the sacred writers teach, and which reason can abundantly attest. Every subsequent particular, as, the exalted character of God, his dealings with men, the morality inculcated, and the faith urged, are such as to be fit matter for the exercise of reason, of fear, of gratitude, and of love. These will afford a scope for the reasonable soul, in all respects worthy of its high character and destinies; and while they forbid inquiry into its secrets, and into which inquiry has always proved useless, they invite and encourage the most sedulous, scientific, and rigid investigation of all those its parts, which can properly fall under the observation of the limited powers of man. So far, then, the connection of learning with religion is legitimate and praiseworthy; and very greatly it is to be regretted, that so little real learning is at this day bestowed upon it. But when we come to assert, that reason must regulate its elements, its facts, and what in every science must be taken as postulates; we make a demand as unreasonable as it is unusual, and as absurd as it is impossible in the nature of things to satisfy, and evince a disposition as destitute of candour and of knowledge, as it is arrogant, foolish, and presuming. But sound reason, real philosophy, and great human |