respect, have written more appropriately than _LECT. I. they have actually done.

ment offen

wise men of

consequent

tw en philo

theology.

Still, however, to the wise men of this world, This treatit cannot fail to be offensive, that so little weight sive to the should thus be allowed to the decisions of their this world:cherished and adored philosophy;-nay, that divorce beits authority should even be entirely set aside, sophy and and its oracular voice silenced. And the offence, accordingly, has been taken, and has been shewn. The displeasure has been but ill-concealed by the affected contempt. It has been determined, that, if Theology will be thus exclusive, so shall Philosophy. If the latter must in no degree dictate to the former, neither shall the former to the latter. Each shall have its own department: and, if the divine interdicts the intrusion of the philosopher, the philosopher, with a jealousy no less peremptory, will prohibit the officious interference of the divine. The latter shall have the same legitimate title to hold as truth the results of his researches and processes of ratiocination, within his own province, as the former has to hold as truth the dictates of his accredited oracles.

ableness of

and unhappy

the interests

All this might be well enough, and there Unreasonmight, on such principles, be a treaty of mutual this divorce, forbearance, could the respective provinces be effe kept entirely distinct. But this is manifestly of truth. impracticable. To physical science, it is true, or natural philosophy, (in as far as its province of investigation is concerned) there is but little

LECT. I. in common with theology. The departments of

the two are more decidedly distinct; so that there is less danger of their coming into conflicting contact. Not, however, by any means, that they are without connexion. Their connexion is close and interesting. In one branch of theology, that which is usually designated natural religion,-physical science is a handmaid, whose services are of essential value. The discoveries and demonstrations of the natural philosopher either furnish the evidences, or place them in the clearest and most satisfactory light, from which we ascertain the fundamental article of all religion and morals, the existence of an intelligent and almighty Creator. In the visible universe, it is true, manifold are the proofs of this great truth, which it requires not the research of profound science to elicit. Were it otherwise, there would be a large proportion of mankind, of whom it could hardly with fairness be affirmed, that their ignorance of the true God was without excuse. But in very many particulars, philosophy throws a clearer and more determinate light upon the argument; inasmuch as the farther its investigations have extended, and the more rigid the scrutiny which, in these investigations, it has employed, the more demonstrative has the manifestation become of the unimprovable perfection of those works in which the skill of the great artificer is discovered. While physical science thus

supplies theology with argument, in laying the LECT. I. very foundation of her system, there is another relation between them, often too little regarded, but of great practical value. Besides furnishing and elucidating the evidences of natural religion, it ought to be the business of this philosophy to collect from the whole system of nature materials for devotion. Whatever philosophers themselves may think of it, there is not a more important end which science has it in its power to effect, than thus elevating the soul to its Divine Maker, in the sentiments and emotions of "reverence and godly fear," and of grateful adoration and praise. How deeply is it to be deplored, that science and devotion should so frequently have been disunited, and that philosophy, by busying the mind about the works of Deity, should, in so many instances, have induced forgetfulness of their Author, and have tended, instead of kindling, to quench the flame of piety! One of ourselves, a poet of our own, has said

"An undevout astronomer is mad."

-But what is devotion? We cannot consent that a man shall be regarded as devout, merely because he recognizes an almighty and intelligent Agent in the wonders which he discovers and describes. How very often does it happen, that, by such minds, Deity is contemplated and introduced (in terms, it may be, of elegant and enthusiastic eulogy) under no other character

LECT. I. than that of the first and greatest of artists ;an artist in whose incomparable skill the philosopher, with a conscious elation, almost feels himself a participant; inasmuch as he who discovers the secrets of a well-adjusted plan that lie hidden from the vulgar eye, regards himself as standing next in order to the inventor and framer of it; he who detects and unfolds the beautiful intricacies of an ingenious mechanism dividing the palm of ingenuity with its original constructor. Such views of Deity may be entertained, such eulogies of Deity may be pronounced, while there is no complacency in his moral excellencies,-no holy sympathy of heart with the purity of his nature, the righteousness of his government, or the grace of his gospel. And without this there is no true devotion. There is the admiration of the philosopher, but not the piety of the saint. The admiration is akin to the emotions of the musical amateur, when he is fixed in ecstasy by the full harmony of an oratorio of Handel: he fancies himself devout; and yet there is little, if anything, more than unwonted sensibility to the powers of sound -a sensibility which gives itself utterance, when the entrancing harmony has died away upon the ear, rather in terms of rapture at the inimitable skill of the composer, than in the adoration of the majesty and grace of Him whom the composition professes to extol.-Amongst philosophical men there have been, and there are, not a few

eminent exceptions to these remarks;-men, _LECT. I. in whom science has elevated piety, and piety has sanctified science. Our lamentation is, that a coalition so natural and seemly should ever be wanting.*

But it is not with natural philosophy, it is with moral science, that theology chiefly interferes. It is of these two that I have pronounced the provinces inseparable by any definite and mutually exclusive line of demarcation. There can be no boundary drawn for the philosophical moralist, that does not inclose a portion, far from inconsiderable, of the territory of the theologian. Their ground, on many points, is unavoidably common. Their lines of partition, therefore, are not so much determined by the subjects which they respectively embrace, as by their principles of argumentation, their sources of evidence, and the authorities to which each appeals and pays deference. The theologian exhibits the proofs of divine revelation; and, having established its authority, settles all questions in religion and morals by a direct appeal to its sacred lessons :-the philosopher carries on his own researches in his own way, in the spirit of independence of all such authority, and arrives at his own conclusions.-If, as may not unfrequently happen, the doctrines of the one and the decisions of the other are at variance, and that, not by a shade of difference merely,

*Notes and Illustrations. Note A.