"The

George Henry Law, D. D., (Lord Bishop of Chester,) Limit to our Inquiries with respect to the Nature and Attributes of the Deity." 1804, 4to. 1s. 6d.

Thomas LANGDON, "The Divine Being, a God that hideth himself; a Sermon, preached at Salem Chapel, Leeds.

12mo.

8

1804,

George CLARKE, ( of Surrey,) "Farther Evidences of the Exis-tence of the Deity; intended as a humble Supplement to Arch-deacon Paley's Natural Theology. 1806, 8vo. 2s.

Frederick SHOBERL, "Demonstration of the Existence of God from the wonderful Works of Nature; from the French of Cha-teaubriand; being an Extract from his Beauties of Christianity.”9 1.806, 8vo.

John Scott BYERLEY, "Leopold de Circe, or the Effects of Atheism; a Novel. 1807, 2 vols. 12mo.

Revd. Samuel VINCE, A. M., (Plumian Professor of Astrono-my, Archdeacon of Bedford,) "A confutation of Atheism from the Laws of the Heavenly Bodies; in four Discourses; preached before the University of Cambridge. Camb. 1807, 8vo.

Revd. David SAVILE, "Dissertation on the Existence, &c. of God, and 10 of the Deity; Character, &c. of his righteous sub-jects." Edin. 1807, 8vo.

-ley's arguments are chiefly anatomical, despite of the famous proverb "duo Medici, tres Athei. " Moreover, it is much to be lamented, that the confessedly best proof of a most wise (and consequently most beneficent) Being, must be derived from a disgusting and unnatural pursuit, which the laws of this country so strongly reprobate, that all our young surgeons are now obli-ged to study at Paris.

7 This title looks very much like an extinguisher.

8 What a horrible and shocking title! The Deity hide himself?— Why, what should he be ashamed of?

9 It is said, that Chateaubriand wrote his "Beauties of Christia-nity" at the suggestion of a Bookseller, who, when the Marquis presented for sale an irreligious MS., remarked that the popular tide now ran in the contrary direction.

10 Does Mr. Savile distinguish God from the Deity.

Revd. Christopher HODGSON, LL. B., "A Discourse on the Existence of God." 1808, 8vo.

-

[ANON.] "A New Argument for the Existence of God." Lond. Longman, 1808, cr. 8vo.

Revd. Robert ADAM, B. A., "The Religious World Display-ed, or a View of the four grand Systems, Judaism, Paganism, Christianity, and Mahomedanism; and of the various existing De-nominations, Sects, and Parties in the Christian World; to which is subjoined a View of Deism and Atheism." 1809, 3 vols. 8vo. 31s. 6d.

William ENFIELD, A. M., "Natural Theology; or a Demon-stration of the being and attributes of a God, from his works of Creation, arranged in a Popular Way for Youth." Lond. 1809, 12mo. 2s. 6d.

2

John GOLDIE Esq., "A Treatise upon the Evidences of a Deity." 1809.

William Lawrence BROWN, D. D., “An Essay on the Exis-tence of a Supreme Being possessed of Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Goodness; containing also the Refutation of the Objections urged against his Wisdom and Goodness. To which Mr. Bur-net's first prize of £1200 was adjudged.3 1816, 2 vols. 8vo. 21s.

I must protest against this title, as savouring of candour and heterodoxy for it is not dogmatical, but only historical and de-scriptive.

2 I do not like this Title. Adults reject every book "arranged in a Popular way for Youth." And then again: children believe in every thing, in which they suppose grown up people believe. And why should Schoolmasters (i. e. Stultifiers) excite Scepticism by attempting to prove what is assumed?

3 Dr. Brown seems therefore to have argued on the winning side of the question.

The above list is chiefly compiled from the references given in that most laborious and useful work the Bibliotheca Britannica.

I will now give the titles of some books, which Walchius, in his Bibliotheca Theologica (Vol. 1, p. 698--704 ), has very metho-dically arranged:

Fr. Hoffmann, as also Detharding, Heister, and Hebenstrein, have derived arguments in favour of a Deity from the inspection of the human frame. Other anatomico-theologians have been more minute. Sturmius, in 1678; and Thummigius, in 1725; prove a Deity from the eye: J. A. Schmidius, in 1694, from the ear; G. A. Hamberger, in 1709, from the heart; Chr. Donatus, in 1686, from the hand; J. F. Wucherer, in 1708, from the brain;1 and J. Timmius, in 1735, from the spine. Other anthropo-physico-theologians have proved the same grand problem, without being obliged to contemplate the horrors of a dissecting room. I allude to Feverlin's proofs from the human voice; Jenichen's from the external senses; Ries's from the union of the mind and body; Krømayer's and Weitzmann's from our passions.

Walchius next mentions the treatises, in which the Deity is proved from observations on irrational Animals. Zornius, in his Petinotheologie, argues from birds; Richter, in his Ichthyotheolo-gie, from fishes; C. S. Curio, and Ger. Meier, from spiders; Rathlef, in his Akridotheologie, from locusts; Lesser, in his Tes-taceotheologie, from shell-fish; and in his Insectotheologie, from insects. Even mice, ants, and silkworms, 3 have afforded excellent

3

2

1 Yet the physiologists, who, in latter times, have the most pro-foundly studied the brain, have been accused of establishing a system of materialism.

2 I think Mr. Rathlef ought to have reserved the locusts to prove the existence of the Devil, an essential part of the Christi-an Pneumatocracy, who, 'tho' of infinite use to the fathers of the church, has latterly fallen into most shocking and inconceivable neglect.

3 I have no doubt but silkworms were created in order that ladies might wear satins, and levantines, and gros-de-Naples, &c. &c. &c.

4

arguments; and have no doubt equally shown the ingenuity and the orthodoxy of the pious naturalists who condescended to in-vestigate their habits. Moreover, Andr. Murray, in 1724, has argued from the voice of animals; Leon. Bohner, in 1725, from the variety of the external forms of animals; and, in the same year, Reimarus proved "the existence of a most wise God" from the instinct of brutes.

Rational beings, and even Irrational, have thus proved the ex-istence of a being supremely rational; we need not therefore be surprised if we arrive at the same result from the consideration of beings, or rather things, yet lower in the scale of organization. The plants attest a Deity, according to the Phytotheologie of Jul. Bern. von Rohr, and various treatises of J. Christian Benemann. The Mountains are "witnesses of the Deity" in the opinion of Faverlinus; and Lesser, in his Lithotheologie, argues even from stones. These are German Treatises: of the English may be mentioned the " Metaphysical and Divine Contempla-tions on the Magnet" by that enlightened Witch-burner Sir Mathew Hale.

6

After mountains and stones, nothing more simple can be ima-gined than the elements; and even these unorganized substances evince the existence of a grand organizer: for that most laborious of scholars, Jo. Alb. Fabricius, proves a Deity, in his Hydrotheo-logie, from Water; and, in his Pyrotheologie, from Fire. It may be added, that the Water-argument must to a certain degree have been previously alluded to, in Meier's treatise on Rain,

8

The yelling of dogs, and the screeching of owls, I suppose, as instances of universal harmony.

I suppose Mr. Feverlin alludes to those mountains which skipped like rams and the little hills like lambs.

Yet Paley, in the very first page of his Natural Theology, seems to confess that no argument could be founded on a stone. But Mr. Lesser can scarcely allude to ordinary stones. Perhaps he proves the goodness of God from that agreeable disease the stone in the bladder.

7 Lond. 1695, 8vo.

8

The Bibl. Brit. says fol.

In his dissertation de Pluviâ, existentiâ Dei teste. Hamb. 1686, 4to.

and Leutwein's upon Snow; as the fire-argument may afterwards have been improved by the treatise upon Thunder and Lightning by von Seelen 1o, Zopf1, Rhyzel2, and Ahlwart3.

I will abridge no further from Walchius's 4th. §. of the 5th. sect. of his 5th. chapter: for Schwartzius with his demons, and Stengelius with his monstruosities 5, must I think have been, either secret ene-mies, or most unprofitable friends, to the grand cause which they proposed defending. Here therefore ends my catalogue; which, however, the transcription of a few more pages, from Walchius and Fabricius, would nearly have doubled.

The pious theiosebist must, I think, allow, after reflecting upon the multitude of books written upon the subject, that, if the

In his "Theologia Nivis physico-mystica dogmatico-practica; oder geistliche lehrschule vom Schnee." Nurimb. 1693, 8vo.

10 ❝de Tonitru, existentiæ Dei teste." 1722, & 1724.

1 ❝de providentiâ Dei fulminantis". 1728, 4to.

In his "Brontologia theologico-historica,"written in the Swed-ish language, 1721, 4to.

3 "Brontotheologie; oder vernunftigen und theologischen be-trachtungen über den Blitz und Donner; wodurch ---." 1746, 8vo. Let me here observe, that I wish the thunder-and-lightning argument were reserved for the Evil principle: the Good principle might, like Franklin, have drawn away the dangerous fluid with con-ductors. Electric explosions may indeed plead for false (antiquated, vanquished, or foreign) Gods. Petronius somewhere says:

"Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor, ardua cœlo

Fulmina cum caderent discussa que monia flammis." But Lucretius (B. 6, v.380—423) brings forward some plausible rea-sons against the divine origin of lightning. Sir William Drummond, in his "Odin", p. 113, when describing the principle of Evil, says: "He speaks in thunder

4" de usu et præstantiâ Dæmonum ad demonstrandam naturam Dei." Altorf. 1715.

5 "de Monstris et Monstrosis, quam mirabilis bonus et justus in mundo administrando sit Deus, monstrantibus." Ingolstad. 1647, 8vo.