i5\ 



Controversy/ relative to the Election of a ^- [Dec. f j 



The different candidates had enjoyed 

 ill op^joi'tunity of colle£tiii<; whatever 

 tellimonies they could, when Mr. John 

 Lellie, author of an Experimental En- 

 qutit-y concerning H^■at, was clc6(:ed into 

 the mathematical chair, Mr. Playfair 

 licing tranflated to that of natural phi- 

 lofophy. Reports had already been jno- 

 pagated agamlt Mi-. Leflic's rcii5;;ious 

 principles, by the friends of Mr. 5lac- 

 knight and their faction in tlie preibytery 

 oi' Ediaburwh. And a day or two be- 

 foi-e the elettion, a difcovery was made 

 of a dangerous doctrine inculcated in a 

 rote fubjoined to his " Enquiry :" a 

 note, it was faid, which involved all tlie 

 afhciftical principles of Jlr. Hume's phi- 

 Jofopliy. Tlie palfago is this : 



" Mr. Hume is the Mi, as far as I 

 know, who has treated caufation in a 

 truly philofophical manner. His Eliay on 

 neccffary Connexion ftenis a clear model 

 of accurate rcufonint;. But it was want- 

 ed only to difpel the cloud of myftery 

 which had fo loni; darkened tliat impor- 

 tant fubjctt. The unfophifticated fenti- 

 incnts of mankind ara in perfect unifon 

 ■with the deductions of lojric, and imply 

 nothinfr, more, at bottom, in the relation 

 of caufe and efle^f, than a conjiant and 

 invariable fcfjueiice. This will diiiintily 

 appear from a critical examination of 

 language." 



0\\ this Mr. Stewart olifcrvcs, that " if 

 Mr. Lellie had qualilied the iirft fen- 

 tpiice of his extract by faying, that I\Ir. 

 Hume's Eiihy on necciTary Connexion 

 (i"o far as it relates to j)liylical caufes and 

 cifetts merely) is a model of clear and 

 accurate rcafoniui;, the fiightefiobje6tion 

 eould not be made to Ins affertion : but 

 it was of phyfical caufes alone tliat Mj-. 

 Ledie could be fuppofcd to fpeak. His 

 ;irj;uuif nt is direfted iigainft the unphi- 

 lofophical fuppofition of the agency of 

 lljuiCjinvifible iwrr.it.Mii'.Di a, to account 

 for tlie phenomena of gravitation ; a 

 f appyStion, by the way, wliicli lisis al- 

 ways been confidcred hitherto as one of 

 the raofl dangerous weapons of atbeifyn." 



,Mr. Lellie, the moment he received 

 intelligence of an intended meeting of 

 the miniiters (^f Edinbun;h to oppofe lus 

 dertion, irunfmitted a letter to the Rev. 

 Dr. Hunter, profeiTor of divinity in tie 

 imiverfity of Edinburgh ; in which he 

 declares that the note in queftion, above- 

 fi-ated, referred entirely to the relation 

 between caufc and effect, confidcred as 

 aji objc-.-tof phyfical liivefti^atioa, Prtj- 

 £ii^i' liuator mup «aiibbt<i. 



Rit the minillers of Edinbuigh rc« 

 monllrated againft tlie election of a pro- 

 feiTor of mathematics, till the ad\ice of 

 the preibytery of Edinburgh Ihould b« 

 regularly received ; allei^ing that they, a^ 

 the legal fuperintendants of the univer- 

 fity, poillifed, in the election of profef* 

 fors, a right of avij'umrntian ; and thej 

 particularly remouftrated and protefted, 

 in the luolb folemn manner, againft the 

 elcttion of Mr. Lellie, who had avouched 

 to the woild, and endeavijured to fup-' 

 port by arguments, an opinion calculated 

 to undermine the foundation of all re!i« 

 gion, both natural and revealed. Mr,. 

 Lellie, they faid, having with Mr. Huma 

 denied ail fucli neceljary connexion bC' 

 tzceen canfe <ind .effcit as im})lies an ope- 

 rating principle in the caufe, had, of 

 courl'e, laid a foundation for reletting all 

 the argument that is derived from the 

 works of God, to prove either his being 

 or attributes. 



The general fubjeft of this Edinburgh 

 Controverfy, as it has l)cen called, may 

 be divided into three heads ; under one- 

 or other of which all that is any wife 

 important may be comprehended. 



I'irfl, does the doctrine maintained by 

 Mr. Lellie, refpecting the relation be- 

 tween cuufc andcffcSt, lead toatheifm? 



Secondly, is it for the interefts of the 

 univeriity of Edinburgh, that profeftor- 

 iliips ihould be united with church liy-. 

 ings.' 



Thirdly, were the minifters of Edin- 

 burgh, in their oppofition to Mr. Lellie, 

 adtuated folely by a regard to what thej 

 conceived to be the interells of religion 

 and their minilierial duty. Of by private 

 and fa6tii)us motives .' 



On the fiill of thcfe heads, Mr. Leili* 

 is defended with great learning, meta- 

 phylical acumen, and animated elo- 

 quence, by Mr. Stewart; thtjugh in a 

 very proper application of his learning 

 to the lubjeft in hand, he unavoidably 

 expofes Mr. Lelhe's unacquaintancc with 

 a very important matter of fatt in th» 

 hnlory of pjiilofophy. Having (hewa 

 that there is a uniform connexion be- 

 tvveen wliat we call caufes and ei7e6ts, 

 but no necc[f<iry connexion, in fupport of 

 the fyilem which rejects all invilible in- 

 termedio, as vibratiots, allien, Ike:, Mr. 

 Stewart produces the authority of Lord 

 Bacon, and a whole cohort of EngliHi 

 divines cf the h^heft celebrity as philo- 

 fophcrs ; to whom he might have added 

 the ilkifli-ioui phynciaii, Sydenhmi. 



lii". Stewart* raaibniiig iit defence of 

 Mr. 



