were constantly opposed by the genius of the Mahometan faith.

The improvement itself, which they made, was not great.

Too much prodi

gality of praise has been lavished upon the literature of the Saracens. The munificence and splendour of the Caliphate have operated as a charm to bewitch and mislead the readers of their history. The celebrated Gibbon confesses, that they were copyists, or imitators, and invented nothing, excepting the science of chemistry. His testimony on this subject is conclusive, as it respects the literary glory of the Saracen empire; for he was more friendly to the claims of Mahomet than to those of Christ not because he believed the pretensions of the former, but because he hated the religion of the latter. With respect to his statement about chemistry, if he means by science merely the arrangements of a system, it is true; but, if he includes elementary principles as constituting a part of the

;

e Gibbon Decl. and Fall of the Rom. Hist. vol. 6. chap. 52. Americ. ed. See also on the literature of the Arabs, Berrington's Literary History of the Middle Ages. Harris's Philological Inquiries.

system, he is incorrect: for some of these principles were unquestionably known to the Jews. The Saracens, therefore, merely made some improvements of previous inventions, and these improvements themselves were only transient. Their prophet, in his Koran, acknowledges the authority of Christ, but rejects the atonement through his blood. These two things satisfactorily account for the improvement on the one hand, and the short time in which this improvement existed.

Another objection springs from the learning and excellence of Socinians, and other nominal Christians, who reject the doctrine of righteousness by a Redeemer. But we must not forget, that these persons, being born in countries where the doctrine of righteousness by a Redeemer is inculcated, received their first impressions from this doctrine; and spite of their exertions, they have never been able to counteract the impulse given to them by these impressions. Besides this, give these persons a place and a sphere in which the influence of right

f This was the case with Dr. Priestley. Mr. Belsham was educated a Calvinist.

rocco.

eousness as explained, shall not operate, and they will soon be like the Mahometans, with whom in the reign of Charles II. those in England claimed affinity, in a letter addressed to the ambassador of the Emperor of MoAs yet they never have given a peculiar religious character to any nation, because no nation has embraced their tenets. They flourished for a while in Poland and Transylvania, and furnished some highly respectable specimens of literary excellence". In the present day, however, much of the learning of these men is pretence. They lay down a proposition, but do not prove it; and uniformly praise their own writers, whilst they as uniformly condemn and abuse writers of another faith'. Boldness

g Magee on the Atonement, vol. i. p. 133. note 3d. Lond. ed. See also Reflections on Mahometanism and Socinianism, in a work entitled, “ Four Treatises concerning the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Mahometans," printed in London, 1712, for B. Lintot. The Reflections deserve to be reprinted, together with Leibnitz's letter to the author.

h The Fratres Poloni in particular, to whom, Doddridge says, Tillotson and Clarke are largely indebted. Besides these Polish Socinians, Crellius, Grotius, and Locke, ought not to be forgotten, as supporters of Socinianism.

i Dr. Ryland's Reply to the Rev. Mr. Rowe's Letter, Belsham's Sermon on the Death of Priestley, and Letters, Am. ed. Magee on the Atonement, vol. ii. Appendix.

passes current with them for talent, assertion for argument, metaphysical speculation for fact.

The last objection demanding our notice, is that which skepticism makes. She arrogates to herself the exclusive patronage of science. Her pretensions, however, are contradicted by facts. It is under the auspices of revealed religion, that the most important discoveries have been made in the different departments of human knowledge. Το whom are we indebted for a correct view of the solar system, demonstrated upon geometrical principles? To Copernicus, a believer in revelation. Who established the present system of philosophising by induction? It was Bacon, a believer. Did not Newton carry the science of natural philosophy to its greatest perfection, demonstrating the motions and figures of the planets, the paths of comets, and the causes of tides, discovering the origin of colours to be in the refrangibility of the rays of light? And yet Newton was a believer. What was our knowledge of the human mind, till Locke arose? a man of superior understanding, yet a believer. Need I enlarge? Time

would fail me to enumerate the believers who have added to the information of mankind, by their talents and erudition. And though such men as Newton and Locke have denied the doctrine of righteousness, as has been explained; yet it ought to be recollected, that they were formed under the influence of this doctrine. The literature of skeptics, whatever it may be, owes its greatness to the labours of these men. How base then in them to brand revealed religion as the foster-mother of ignorance! Examine their works, and see what improvements they have made in science. One has discovered that we are mere ideas. Another, that we are of the same nature with brutes, only prouder. Another, that man originally was a mass of matter formed as we are, but without any power or faculty in exercise; that weariness of lying impelled him to rise; hunger, to seek for food; that thus his different powers and faculties unfolded, and in this manner he will go on unfolding them, till he attains perfection. Such, brethren, is the erudition of skeptics, when they deviate from the principles of those who believe in the Scriptures. It is in