The very inferior aid of the sheep and the goat. Take them away; and nearly every thing, or every thing, is gone. From torrid climates, take away the camel; and you leave them equally at a loss as to a prime article of nutriment. Then with respect to the speedy conveyance of man from place to place, and the commodious transportation of his burthens. From one clime, remove the horse; from another the camel and the dromedary; from another the lama; from another the elephant and in what state, as to these nts? points, do you leave the inhabitants? Then, with regard to clothing. From tropical lands, withdraw cotton; from countries exterior to the ecliptic, subduct hemp and flax: and where are the general materials for garments? According to a kindred analogy, though there is one species of earth, generally to be found, which, when spontaneously hardened into stone, may be burned into a fit ingredient for mortar; there is one species only. Again, were the oak non-existent; how would Britain construct the bulls of her navies? Remove the fir and the kindred larch; and how would she supply the bulls with masts? Again, were iron absent, labour, and art, and science would be paralysed by the total want of tools and implements; and the business of the manufactory, and the enterprises of commerce would be at an end. In all these instances, and in others which might be adduced, the supply granted to man by his Creator is not a mere prison allowance, scantily sustaining life, and barely meeting the demands of ordinary necessities. Neither is it the luxuriant profusion natural, it so we may presume to speak, to the hand of perfect yet unoffended beneficence. It is a supply bearing the character of a grant to sinners from a God of mercy and of wisdom: a supply by mercy made so ample, as not only to relieve wants, but to superadd moderate comforts and enjoyments; by wisdom so limited, as to render man sen sible how important is the blessing, and how unworthy is the being on whom it is bestowed. pp. 132-134.

From these indications of the displeasure of God, towards man, seen in the productions of the earth, it is natural to look into its mineral contents, its internal structure, and the varieties of its surface, and observe at once the traces of indignant, disapprobation, and the tokens of mercy towards offending man. This part of the subject occupies a large portion of our author's pages. It is recommended to our attention by the enthusiasm with which geological studies have been pursued, for a few years

past, and by the recent discoveries which this study has brought to light, not hitherto considered in their application to Natural Theology. It is probably for these reasons that the author has placed these facts at the commencement of his work, that if possible, they might engage the attention of readers desirous only of novelty and amusement, although in their relative importance and applicability to his argument, they naturally come last under consideration. It would be difficult to make satisfactory extracts from this part of the volume, within the limits prescribed to us in this article. The facts are chiefly the following. It is discovered that the strata of the earth, to an unknown depth, are broken up and inverted, in a manner which indicates that the whole surface of the earth, within a few thousand years, has suffered the greatest degree of violence. Sea and earth seem to have been mingled together in vast confusion. Living beings on the surface of the earth were destroyed, and transported miles from the region they naturally to remote parts of it, many thousand inhabited. The bottom of the sea was raised to the surface, and even elevated to mountains, and it is not improbable that the former inhabited surface of the earth is now covered by the deepest waters of the ocean. Such facts Mr. Gisborne thinks the student of Natural Theology, would attribute to the displeasure of God with man, the only moral agent on the earth, and of course the only being that could provoke his indignation. However this may be, we who are acquainted with the word of God, cannot but see the coincidence of such facts, with the general declarations of the scriptures, and especially with the Mosaic record of the universal deluge. We cannot but feel a degree of triumph that uncontroverted arguments in favour of the scriptural history are now drawn from an investigation of those very subjects, which, but a few years since, were supposed by infidels to furnish unanswerable objections to

revelation. It is but a short time, since the deluge, especially, was a subject of ridicule, among scoffers, as a fact in its nature impossible, and in view of all the facts connected with the natural history of the earth, improbable. Now, however, the marks of such a deluge are so evident, that even infidel philosophers admit its reality, though they cannot account for it, and adopt it as a part of their creed, although they cannot conceive how Moses should be the only historian who has transmitted an accurate account of it. It is surely a matter of triumph that the weapons of our assailants are thus put into our hands. The very facts by which they would destroy our faith, are found, on further investigation, to support it, so as even to force upon our adversaries, the belief of what they lately considered the most objectionable parts of our creed. Let us believe that increasing knowledge may yet convince the world, that the objections of infidels are all founded in ignorance and pride, while the declarations of the Bible, are connected with the most enlightened views of philosophy. Some christians seem afraid of the bold investigations of modern philosophy. We ought always to oppose the rash and unfounded conclusions of that theoretical speculation which is philosophy falsely so called, and which is ever opposed to the Gospel; but the humble christian has nothing to fear from the progress of knowledge. It was an observation of Newton, that the boundaries of moral philosophy, would be enlarged with the discoveries of natural philosophy. Experience has ever proved the justness of this, as well as of almost every deliberate opinion of that truly great mau. It is equally certain that the evidences of the truth of revelation will be multiplied, and that the objections to it will be diminished, exactly in proportion to the progress and the accuracy of natural knowledge. Mr. Gisborne has brought together many facts, and succeeding philosophers

will collect many more, which will eventually silence, if they do not convince infidelity.

The manner of our author, certainly suffers by a comparison with that of Doct. Paley, when treating of similar subjects. There was in the mind of Paley a peculiar simplicity and originality of thought, which were admirably fitted to the nice and delicate reasonings of moral philosophy. There is also a modesty in his conclusions, which when compared with the point and irresistible force of his arguments, gives to the whole the power of demonstration. Mr. Gisborne is far less happy in disposing the parts of an argument, and bringing the whole to bear on the mind of his reader; at the same time he goes beyond expectation in his conclusions, which he states with more strength and confidence than his arguments seem to warrant. Some of this imperfection in his reasonings we are disposed to ascribe to his endeavour to make natural theology teach more than it is capable of teaching. He would make it usurp the province of revelation, and being himself previously convinced of the results to which he would lead his reader, and doubting not that his reader is also convinced of them, his arguments seem to his mind to have more force than an unbeliever would attribute to them. But we do not think that his habits of thought, and his manner of communicating his ideas, are admirably fitted to the subject he is discussing. When he has seized an important fact he does not present it with sufficient distinctness, nor in its various aspects until it produces its full effect on the mind. His manner also is too rhetorical. It has not the simplicity which is required in the disquisitions of moral philosophy. That his taste prompts him to write in an eloquent and impressive manner, the extracts we have already made sufficiently evince; that he is able to write with elegance when the subject admits it, the following passage, in which he describes the beautiful variety left on the sur

which I have made respecting the numerical unity of the Godhead, may lead the majority of readers to suppose, that I have precluded the possibility of a distinction in it; and that, when laying down a general principle of exegesis, I have not so expressed it, as to preclude the possibility of my opponent's escaping its application. (pp. 131, 132.) Since reading these remarks, I have turned my attention, occasionally, to the subjects of them. May I be indulged in communicating the result of my reflections?

IN RESPECT TO THE UNITY OF GOD. In the discussion of any subject, it is of fundamental importance to obtain, if possible, clear and distinct ideas of the terms which we use. The proposition that God is one, has no certain meaning, unless we first understand what we mean by one. What I mean, I shall now endeavour to show.

There are three senses, in which the word one may be used. First, There is a figurative or secondary sense; meaning united; having the same views; being intent upon promoting the same objects or designs. Thus our Saviour (John 17. 21), prays that the disciples may be one in him and the Father, even as he is in the Father and the Father in him: i. e. that they may participate of the same spirit, and seek the same objects; or, as Peter expresses it, be "made partakers of the same divine nature." The oneness of Christ and the Father in this respect, even our Unitarian opponents will easily admit; but we believe that another oneness may be predicated of them, although we fully admit this.

Secondly. There is a unity or oneness, which Theologians denominate specific. The meaning of this may be best illustrated by an example. Two men belong to the same species; i. e. they have one common nature, which is human, although they constitute two different individuals. In this sense, not a few of the ancient Fathers, and some modern Theologians, have held the Father and Son to be one. They have a unity of na

ture, or the same common divine nature. In other words, each by himself is divine; or to speak in the technical language of logic, they are both individuals of the same species. I take it, that the Nicene Fathers meant to disclaim their belief in such a unity, when they declared Christ to be uooudios (of the SAME substance) with the Father, and not merely qu oudios (of the LIKE substance) with him. I am aware, indeed, that they have been differently understood by many; but I must think without good reason. Omitting, however, the discussion of this point, I would only suggest as an insuperable objection to the doctrine of a merely specific unity in the Godhead, that Tritheism is not at all excluded by it. Three men have one common nature, and yet are three distinct individuals, i. e. three men. Why may not three divine beings have one common nature. and in a similar way constitute three Gods?

The admission therefore of a mere specific unity, can never prevent Trinitarians from being exposed to the charge of Tritheism; for such an admission is perfectly consistent with a belief in three Gods; and if consistency be preserved, necessarily leads to it. On such an hypothesis in what sense can it be said, that God is one, unless we use the word God, as merely designating a superior order of beings, or a nature merely of the most elevated rank? Analogous to this, would be the use of the word man, te designate our species; or human nature, to designate our rank, or our attributes.

Thirdly. To avoid being understood as asserting merely figurative unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; or as asserting merely spe cific unity, when affirming that God is one; orthodox writers have made use of the term NUMERICAL UNITY, as applied to the Godhead, to shew that the oneness which they meant to assert, was intended to apply to num ber, and not merely to unity of design, action, or rank. It is in this

sense, as I apprehend, that the Scriptures assert the unity of God, when they say "Jehovah is one." This doctrine or proposition is opposed to the polytheism of the heathen. God is one can mean nothing more, than that he is not two or more Gods. In asserting this, surely the sacred writers have no respect to any mode of metaphysical or physical unity, by itself considered. But more of this hereafter.

I am well aware, indeed, that the reasonings of most Unitarians, whom I have read, seem to imply, that the Scriptures not only intend to assert a physical, or perhaps metaphysical unity of the Deity, but that the subject of divine unity is so obvious, as scarcely to need any explanation. I have often tried to understand what this matter is, which is so very plain, (as one might think from the familiar manner in which they speak of it,) that it must be one of those things which the mind receives by intuition, or by reasoning a priori: but, as yet, I am unable to effect it.

By the light of nature, or to speak more correctly, independently of the Scriptures, we can do nothing more than to render the unity of God probable. And all that renders it probable, is the unity of design, which we infer from observing the order and harmony of the Creation. I am very happy, in being able to resort for confirmation of this sentiment, to a passage in the moral philosophy of Dr. Brown, late Professor in this depart ment of science, at the University of Edinburgh. The passage may be found in the 4th Vol. of his Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind. "The manifest order of the universe," says this most consummate of all intellectual Philosophers, "in the relation of parts to parts, and of their joint results to the joint results of other parts, is a proof then of some designing power, from which all this magnificent order took its rise; and the great Being, to whom, in discovering design, we ascribe the designing power, is the Being whom we denominate God. The harmony which

is the proof of design is itself a proof of the relative unity of that design. This designing power is one then, in the only sense in which we are entitled to speak either of divine unity or plurality, as indicated by the forms of nature before us-for it is only from the phenomena of the universe, that we are capable of inferring the existence of any higher being whatever; and, therefore, as we have no traces of any other being than the universe, directly or indirectly, exhibits to us,-the designing power is not to our reason more than one; since in every thing which we behold, there is unity of that design, from which alone we have any reason to infer a designer.

"The laws of motion which prevail, on our earth, prevail equally wherever we are capable of discovering motion. On our own earth, where our observation is so ample, in the infinity of objects around us, there is no irregularity or opposition of contrivances, but all have proportions or analogies, which mark them as the result of one harmonious design. There may be many spiritual beings of greater or less excellence, though there is no evidence of them in nature; for where there is no evidence whatever, it is absurd to deny absolutely as to affirm. But there is, as I have said, no evidence of any such beings; and the designing power then, as marked to us by all which we perceive in nature, is one, in the only sense in which the unity of the Supreme Being can be demonstrable or even at all conceivable by us. The power of which we speak exists to our reason only as the author of the design which we trace; and the design which we trace, various as it may be in the parts to which it extends, is all one harmonious contri

vance.

"This designing unity, that is relative to what we see, is all, however, which we are logically entitled to infer from the phenomena; for the absolute and necessary unity of the Divine Power, as attempted to be proved by metaphysical arguments a pri