1 SOS .] 3Iathematica! Trqfejfor in the Tlnk^rfily of Edinburgh . A 5> 



Mr. Lellie is impugned in tl)c Exami- 

 nation of his Pamphlet, by a minifter of 

 Edinburgh. 



Mr. Stewart contends, that when Mr. 

 Leliie's ottenfue note " is compared with 

 the paflage in the text vvliich it profefles 

 to iliultrate, it is evident, to a denion- 

 fi ration, that it was of plitjiccd caufes 

 alone that Mr. Lcflie could be l"u|jpoled to 

 fpeak;" iiiVuniJnrr, that thefubjeCtolanote 

 is confined to tliat of the text precifcly. 

 But the rainifter ihews, to niy fatisfaftion, 

 tliat this is not always the cafe. Indeed, 

 if Mr. Lellie had not folemnly declared 

 that he referred only to phyiical or na- 

 tural caufes, we llionld have fuppofcd 

 that he mennt all thofe caufes, all that 

 caufation of which Mr. Hume fpeaks. 



A philofophical corrofpondcnt of Mr. 

 Stewart's, in London, anirHadvcrts on that 

 part of the prclbytery's criticifm on Mr. 

 Leliie's note which charges him with de- 

 nyine; all that necrljari/ connexion hctucen 

 taufe. and effect, as implies an operating 

 principle in- t/ie canj'e, as follows: "The 

 principle then is diiiinct from the caufe, 

 and neccflarily refults from it. It is the 

 principle that operates, and not the 

 caufe. What is a caide tliat operates 

 not by itfelf, but by a principle in it ?" 

 &c. 'Ibis the miniller faii'ly ihews is a 

 mere cavilling about words, " If I fay 

 that in a father I iiave a protector and a 

 friend, does it follow that the protc:6tor 

 or the friend is diiiinct from the father.'" 

 Mr. Stewart retorts the charge of 

 fttheifin on the miniilers, or at leaft of 

 n tendency of their dodrine, on the fub- 

 ject of caufation, by atheifm. The mi- 

 nifters lloutly deny that they arc atheills, 

 or that their doctrine has any tendency 

 to atheifm. But for this controvery I 

 inuft refer your readers, if chey have 

 any curiolity about the mattei-, to Mr. 

 Stewart's pamphlet, and that of his 

 Exajniner 



The Exaiiiiner obferves, p. Pi, " that 

 tlic UuTS of human thought do not per- 

 mit the natural philofopher to re2.aid the 

 <)bje6ts around him as altogether joo^e 

 and tmcoimei-ted. lie certainly rcjuires 

 more than jlt/nincc to coiiltitutc the re- 

 lation of caufe and elfett. lie does not 

 conlider day as the caufe of night, nor 

 the riux of the tide as the canfe of its 

 reflux, nor the tippearance of fwallows 

 as the caufe of the budding of trees ; 

 though there has been, in thefe and a 

 tlioufand finiilar infiances, a coridant and 

 invariable fefjuence from the beginning 

 j^l' lii* aoild CO lh« prefent d;>v." 



But the natural philofopher, by th« 

 very nature of his ftudies or puriuits, 

 fuppofes that there is fuch a thing a« 

 power or necclfary conn-csion betweeu 

 tilings in nature, whan he enquires into 

 the L.4WS OF NATVUE ; though he cannot 

 penetrate into eiticient caufes, or, u.ora 

 properly lpcakin<i', the great efficiext 

 cat;»e. ' Mr. Leliie fays, that " the un- 

 fophifticatcd fentiments of mankind ar« 

 in perfect uaifou with the dcduttions of 

 lo^ic, and imply nothing more, at bot- 

 tom, in the relation of caitfe and eileCt, 

 than a conltant and invariable feijucnce." 

 Mr. Lellie may l;e underllood to affirm, 

 not that there is nothing more at the 

 bottom of the iimvcrj'e, which has no bot- 

 tom, but only that there is nothing mors 

 at the bottom of men's coace]5tions cf 

 caufe and etf'eCt. And even if Mr. Lefl;« 

 were to extejid his reafoning from na- 

 tural to metaphylical fubjetts, to things 

 w itiiin as well as to things without ths 

 foul, to the operations of the mii>d, it 

 does not nccellaiily follow that he is ail 

 atheil't, or that he denies the agency of 

 one firft and great caufe ; although all 

 that we can know of tlie works and 

 ways of that lirll caufe, by the mera 

 exercife of reafon, is f oin experiment 

 and obfcrvation ou the fucceillon of ideas 

 and of objects. But, whatever mighc 

 liave been conjettured concerning Mr. 

 Leliie's meaning or intentions, his own 

 declaration on that point lliould be ac- 

 counted futiicieut. It is not found ec- 

 cleliaftical policy in the miniilers of 

 Edinburgh, to betray fuch invincible fuf- 

 picions that ^Ir. Lellie is not a chrillian. 

 The truth of Chriltianity is demonftra- 

 ble, and it is^a very palatable doctrine. 

 But Lellie is capable of following any 

 argument or demonftration ; and, I 

 prefuuie, likes good things as vvell as his 

 neighbours, cJ'pcciaUj/ when they cq/i no* 

 thing. Mr. Lellie is as capable of 

 weighing evidence as they are ; and tha 

 joys of the futui'e hfe mult naturally 

 awaken a dclire in his bread to partake 

 of them, as well as in theirs. It', after 

 all, any whirligig has got into his head, 

 as happens not unfrequently to men of 

 genius, though rlsey may entertain doubts 

 of his fmcerity, thry llunild not e.^prefs 

 them. The apolUo Paul, fomewhere, 

 fays, " If thou halt faith, have it to thy- 

 I'elf." Me would doubtlefs, in like man- 

 ner, have laid, and f<).r a like reafon, to 

 the minilters of E linbiirgh, " If ye liava 

 .(loults, ha\o thcin t<i vourfehei." I 

 Jjuvc a great rcfpcCt Jbr ihc cojuli.ii 'if 

 y M 2 IM 



