He speaks in very high terms of the celebrated Mr. Locke, as the most able advocate for the fame opinion. He opposes the authority of Lord Bolingbroke to the arguments of Mr. Woolafton, and remarks that this great man fpeaks better • upon the foul (as he does on feveral other fubje&s) than almost any one. His eloquence feems fcarcely inferior to that of Cicero. It is really, as that orator fays, the eloquentiam abundan-' • tem fonantibus verbis, uberibufque fententiis.’——— He pays a compliment to the great learning of Dr. Cudworth; but for this, confidering the connection in which it is introduced, the Doctor's real admirers may not think themselves much obliged to him. The Doctor perhaps may be accused of inclining to the Mahometan principle, that heaven confifts chiefly in the pleasures of the body.-As a good Poet says, -Hali's fons Fabled a paradife of mirth and love, Banquets, and blooming nymphs. I do not mean any difrefpect to the Chriftian religion' (good Chriftians are much obliged to you, Sir) for i have the autho⚫rity of Dr. Cudworth to juftify me; but I really am of opinion that there can be no heaven without woman. If there is one without her, I fhall not envy thofe who go there.' To the arguments in proof of the foul's immortality contained in that justly admired paper of the Spectator, No. 111, our Author replies, The arguments here urged are, in my opinion, very trifling. In the first argument there is only an affertion that the foul has been evinced almoft to a demonstration to be immaterial, and confequently must be immortal. Even allowing what is only begged, it proves nothing. For, as we have faid before, the immateriality and immortality of the foul are two different queftions. In regard to the fecond argument it may be faid, that the love of existence and horror of an• nihilation are entirely factitious. The fweet fatisfaction which the foul finds in the practice of virtue, which is urged here, has nothing to do with the point.-Thirdly, it is faid, that • proofs of the immortality of the foul may be deduced from the nature of the Supreme Being, whofe juftice, goodness, wildom and veracity are all concerned in this point. Abfurd and impertinent vanity (as my Lord Bolingbroke fays of the author of the Intellectual Syftem) to cali in queftion all the attributes of the Deity, if this hypothefis fhould not prove true! The most ⚫ that can rationally be urged from this head is, that the Deity will grant us a future exiftence on account of the unequal diftribution of rewards and punifhments.-But to say that he is neither juft, good, wife or true. if our fouls are not in their natures immortal, eternal, and unperishable, is puerile, ariogant, and abfurd. It is arguing more like a fchool boy than a 'philofopher, Ff4 philofopher. I cannot see much either in the last argument here. It is faid, that the foul must be immortal, because it is • capable of fuch immenfe perfections, and of receiving improvement to all eternity. It is faid, that the faculties of the human foul are never full blown and are never incapable of farther enlargements, and therefore that it can never fall away infenfibly and drop at once into a ftate of annihilation.-Were it certainly fact what this author only imagines, it would not be ⚫ of much service to him for the proof of his propofition. But the cafe is diametrically oppofite to what he imagines. For I will moft ftrenuously maintain, that the foul has fometimes all its faculties full blown, and is incapable of farther improvements. 'Do we not very often fee old men who return to a fecond childhood, nay to fomething worfe than a fecond childhood? A child may be taught to understand several propofitions of which an old man is incapable. We fee this degeneracy more in men of genius than in others: I mean with men whofe genius confifts in the frength and liveliness of their imagination. Swift, they fay, became an idiot fome years before he died. But this is allo ' obfervable in men, whofe genius confifts in a ftrength of judgment and a patience of thought. It is faid of that great man*, Sir Ifaac Newton, that when he was requested for the demonftra"tion of fome propofitions in his book, in his late years, that he was wont to reply, that he had then forgotten the demonftrations, but that they were in his book, and that he was confident they were there to be found right. The foul therefore, we may say in contradiction to the Spectator, is fometimes incapable of receiving improvement. His argument must con We must beg leave on the authority of Dr. Pemberton, who was intimate with Sir I. N. in the last years of his life, and whofe teftimony therefore cannot be called in queftion, to difpute this fact. He fays of him, in his preface to his View of Sir I. N.'s philofophy; Though his memory was much decayed, I found he perfectly underflood his own writings, contrary to what I had frequently heard in difcourfe from many perfons. This opinion of theirs might arife perhaps from his not being always ready at fpeaking on these subjects, when it might be expected he fhould. But as to this, it may be obferved, that great geniuses are frequently liable to be abfent, not only in relation to common life, but with regard to fome of the parts of fcience they are the best informed of. Inventors feem to treasure up in their minds what they have found out, after another manner than those do the fame things, who have not this inventive faculty. The former, when they have occafion to produce their knowledge, are in fome meafure obliged immediately to investigate part of what they want. For this they are not equally fit at all times; fo it has often happened, that fuch as retain things chiefly by a very strong memory, have appeared off-hand more expert than the d:fcoverers themieives.' * fequently fequently fall to the ground. The foul, in fhort, seems to be ⚫ a concomitant of the body through all the ftages of life, and to be very fenfibly affected with any alterations in it. It is born, it grows, and perishes with it. It is the nature of all things to decay. We lament the diffolution of fuch an exalted thing as the foul. We lament alfo the diffolution of a fine building, and of many other beautiful things in Nature.' In this fummary way does our Author vanquish all difficulties. His replies to Dr. Clarke, Dr. Hartley, and Malbranche, are of the fame kind with those we have already produced and his compliment to Voltaire is a flagrant proof of his partiality. But it is high time to bring this article to a conclufion; and, as Mr. C feems defirous, in more places than one, of obviating the fufpicion that he is an enemy to Chriftianity (an inference which moft of his Readers will be very ready to make from the general ftrain and tendency of his reafoning) we shall give him an opportunity of declaring his own fentiments on this head. Whether fome may not, after all, remain incredulous, is not for us to determine. My Reader, he fays, at the clofe of his work, has no more right to fay that I am inclined to Deifm, becaufe I have not mentioned the Chriftian religion more than I have in this book, than he has to accufe the undergraduates at Cambridge, who dispute in the schools, where it is the custom to speak of philofophical fubjects, without at all confidering the Chriftian religion. They do not speak of it, but they do not mean to throw any reflection upon it by not mentioning it. Independent of the Chriftian religion, I muft fay, that there is not any author to be found, who advances one convincing proof of a future ftate: Imuft fay the Chriftian religion plainly de⚫nies the immortality of the foul: that I think the foul to be a quality, and not a diftinct substance: and that I find no reluctance (independent of the Christian religion) in concluding with Lucretius Neve aliquid noftri poft mortem poffe relinqui, With respect to the language and ftyle of this differtation, we think the Writer entitled to few compliments. The young man is certainly poffcffed of fome parts, more reading, and a tolerable fhare of claffical learning; but his judgment is borne away by the spring-tide of his vanity. One thing, however, we hope, may be fuggefted in his favour. As he is far from being deficient in natural understanding, the time may arrive. when he will be fufficiently grown in grace to become afhamed of this unadvifed, illiberal, and indecent performance. Since the foregoing Article was fent to the Prefs, a fecond Edition of this book came to our hands; but we have not yet had an opportunity of looking into it. R-S. ART. ART. V. The Scripture Theory of the Earth, throughout all its Revolu tions and all the, Periods of its Existence, from the Creation to the final Renovation of all Things. By the Author* of, An Essay on Redemption. 8vo. 6s. bound. Rivington. 1773. ANY attempts have been made to frame a juft theory of MAN the earth, equally reconcilable with the records of scripture and with the true principles of philofophy. Much learning and ingenuity have been difplayed in the investigation of this fubject; and great praife is due to thofe who have diftinguifhed themselves in this enquiry, though it has not been attended with all the fuccefs we could with. Many difficulties ftill remain to be unravelled, and many objections may be urged against the most perfect hypothefis that has yet been offered. There is reafon to regret that genius and invention have had 100 great a fhare in this bufinefs, and that the authentic evidence of history has been applied to, rather in fupport of a preconceived fyftem, than, as the ground of its formation. It would be eafy to mention more inftances than one, in which a great profufion of learning and eloquence has been difplayed in dref fing up an agreeable fiction, whilst the unornamented history of fact has been too much neglected. With respect to the laborious philofophical researches of fkilful NATURALISTS, it must be acknowledged that many curious and important inferences have been drawn from them, and that many more are perhaps in a fair way of being produced. The time, perhaps, is not far diftant, when the learned world will be astonished at the fuccefs of those profound and indefatigable enquirers who have been, for many years paft, employed in digging deep for TRUTH, which has long been fuppofed to lie hid in the bowels of the earth +. The prefent attempt (fays the learned and laborious Author of the work before us) hath this to plead in its behalf, that it is not built upon hypothefis, but ftands on much furer grounds, the unerring word of God: whether the superstructure doth in any measure correspond with the foundation, or whether it be only mere bay and fubble, the Reader will judge.' ' Dr. Worthington begins, where the most ancient and genuine hiftory commences, with an account of the creation : but he differs from many other ingenious writers on this fubject, in fuppofing that this hiftory extends to the whole material creation. The account he gives of the production of light, on the first day, in the Mofaic hiftory, whilft, on his hypothefis, the fun, which is the only fountain of light in our fyftem, was • Dr. William Worthington. Or, as it hath been proverbially expreffed, " In the bottom of a well." not not created till the fourth day, feems liable to a vaft number of objections; and, for our own part, we rather incline to adopt the folution which Mr. Whifton has given us of this difficulty. In explaining the feparation of the waters from the dry land, he has, in our opinion, ftrangely mifapplied the principles of true philofophy;-but let our learned Readers judge: 6 The motion requifite for this purpose, I apprehend, to have been that of the earth's circumvolution on its axis.Now when this rotatory motion was imprelied on the earth, the folid particles, being fpecifically heavier than the fluid ones, having fubfided, or funk down towards the centre of gravity, by virtue of what is called the centripetal force; the earth's rotation on its axis produced another force, called the centrifu gal; by the action of which, in oppofition to the former, the terrene particles were dislodged from about the centre, and moved upwards towards the furface of the globe. The force with which the feveral particles would recede from the centre would be in proportion to their weight, and the velocity of their motion; and the direction of the whole would be in Átrait lines, and at right angles with the earth's axis. As the greatest distance from the axis is in the middle of the globe, or under the equator; where the largest circle would be formed by the centrifugal force, and where it would be greatest; the heaviest bodies would fly thither, and in proportion to their weight and folidity, would there remain; being arrested and counterba lanced by the centripetal force; whereby the lighter and more fluid parts would be forced to give way, and recede from the equator to that degree, that if the earth could be fuppofed, upon this circular motion being given to it, to fall immediately into the form of a perfect fpheroid; I apprehend the case would be, that all the folid parts would fo crowd about the equator and to as great a distance from it as their bulk would require space to occupy, that there would be no room left in thofe parts for any of the lighter fluid particles: for the terrene particles would maintain their ground, not only by their weight and folidity; but there is another principle which would operate to the fame end; for as all matter gravitates towards all matter, so all homogeneous parts of matter gravitate ftill more powerfully towards each other, whereby they are more clofely united and compacted together, according to their specific textures. Each therefore would affort themselves, and affemble with their kinds refpectively. The terrene particies therefore, fuppofing the earth to have affumed the form of a perfect fpheroid, would unite into one compact body, and would not admit of any mixture of water with it, which being of a looser texture, would be quite detached from it into fome other region. |