ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

Page 25, line 3, for πporov read πрштоv.

51,

99,

105,

117,

134,

3, after incomprehensible, supply a note of interrogation.

3, supply the letter referring to note at the bottom of the page. 14, for inrectly read indirectly.

13, for the force of nature read the force of reason.

18, for even was read ever was.

136, for the reference (note 25) at bottom, read (note 26.)

I cannot conclude my corrections without expressing regret, that the paragraph which occupies from page 123 to 126 inclusive, should be submitted to the reader, in the very involved and immethodical state in which it appears. No part of the present work was originally planned with greater care; and if, in one part of it more than another, I should lament the fault of hasty execution, it is where I may have ventured to gainsay the opinion of any living author, or to deprive the recent and remembered dead of even unmerited praise. But, unfortunately, when this volume was preparing for press, some ill advised alterations and omissions were made in that intricate part, and, by the insertion of some links, and subtraction of others, the whole chain of reasoning has been materially injured in simplicity of structure, and in the consistency of its parts. Not only is obscurity to be complained of in the paragraph to which I allude, but even its meaning has, in some degree, suffered. In consequence of these unlucky accidents,-for which the author solely is responsible, he begs perinission to substitute the following paragraph, which he trusts in a some. what less objectionable form, adheres as closely as possible to the sense and meaning of the original.

"Whatever may have been the first occasion and origin of religious belief, its universal prevalence in the world proves it to be congenial to the mind of man; nor would the supposition of an original revelation, which has been long forgotten, be adequate to account for the phenomena, without the concurrent hypothesis of a natural tendency to religion in the heart.

For, "the direct arguments for an obsolete revelation being necessarily lost, and all mankind, with the exception of a few theologians led on by Dr. Magee, despising or neglecting the indirect and theoretical evidences of its existence, it seems to be a very harsh supposition, that a revelation, thus totally forgotten, should not only influence human opinion at the present day, but should have continued to be, for a number of centuries, the permanent and sole sufficient cause of those ceremonies, and doctrines, which universally prevailed. Even, therefore, if an original revelation, whereof the traces have been, for so long a time, so generally lost, did once exist; further, if even its existence be demonstrable by the theory of Magee, we must, it is manifest, still resort to another, and a different hypothesis, namely, to that of instinct (which alone remains) to account for the reception of religious doctrines by those who were totally unacquainted with, or rejected that theory. Nay, if, contrary to all that history relates, or reason acknowledges as probable, it will still be pertinaciously insisted, that the vulgar of all nations were thoroughly versed in these difficult speculations, for which the author of the Discourses on Sacrifice is celebrated, what, after all, is implied or supposed in this extravagant assertion, than that the intricate system and paradoxes of that author are not the result of wiredrawn sophistries and scholastic reasonings, but are among the innate and untutored truths which nature spontaneously suggests to the multitude? An absurd supposition, doubtless, but not more absurd than that from which it follows as a consequence, namely, that the theoretical arguments which are adduced in proof of an obsolete revelation, have influenced, to any great extent, the opinions of mankind."

I shall only add, that the paragraph which I am here the first to censure, the reader will find, may be omitted without material injury even to the particular collateral argument which it is adduced to fortify; and that the note annnexed to it at foot of page 125 may, I trust, be excepted from the general animadversion, which, on account of partial incorrectness and obscurity, I am content to pass upon those whole four pages of text,

INDEX.

The Word "Note" in this Index, refers to the bottom of the Page spe-
cified, not to the Collection of Notes which follows the Appendix.

Absent man, a paradox, 22.

A.

Abstraction, doctrine of, considered, 40-51. Extraordinary lan-
guage of Cudworth concerning it, 46-47. Singular exposition
of it, by Dr. Brown, 45 note. See the articles, "Berkeley,"
Brown," &c.

Affection between the sexes, instinct of, not invariable, universal,
or determinate, 218-219.
Antecedence, invariable, of events, equivocal use of the expres-
sion by Dr. Brown, 67-71, 243. Supposition of, not a
fundamental principle of belief, 61-62, 77. Absurdity of con-
founding power, with the mere antecedence of events, 245-
246, 269-270.

Arbuthnot, Dr., fine verses of, quoted, 201.

Argument "ad absurdum," remarks concerning the, 133 note,
283-284. 320. The "abscissio infiniti," considered, 283.
Articles, xxxix., obsolete among the members of the Established
Church, 297-298. See " Established Church.”

Assent, universal, what it proves. 109-114.
Atonement, doctrine of. See " Sacrifice."

Author of Nature, benevolence of the, 15-16, 309-311. His will
the source of moral duty, 7-8, 316. Impious paradox of Dr.
Brown concerning him, 85. Proofs of his existence doubt-

ful according to the principles of Brown, 85-91. And the
inference itself an impossibility, 91-92. These sceptical
principles animadverted upon and refuted, 89-91; 92-94;
Universal belief of his existence, 108, 273-275. See "Chris-
tianity." Personality of the, established, in opposition to
Mr. Hume's hypothesis of abstract necessity, or fate, being
the ruling principle of nature, 254-256. Prescience of the,
not the cause of its object, 269. See "Instinct," "Origin
of Evil."

B.

Bacon, Lord, asserts the existence of a religious instinct, 116,
130, 161-162.

Balguy, Archdeacon, an instance of the heterodoxy of the
clergy, his sentiments concerning the Eucharist, 301-302.
Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, his account of abstraction consider-
ed, 40-51, his metaphysics recommended, 97-99, 206, 271-
272. 289-291. Erroneous deduction of, from his system, 193.
Testimony of his opponents to the irrefragable evidence of his
tenets, 204-206, 290. His remark concerning the effects of
Christianity, quoted, 141 note. Ideal system of, maintained,
192-197, 240-243. His tenets not to be confounded with the
scepticism of Hume, 327-328.

Bolingbroke, Lord, a specimen of his style, 213, note.

Bossuet, detects the bigotry of Protestant sectarians,—his His-
tory &c. recommended to Protestants, 304, note.

Brougham, Lord, his observations upon the philosophical cha-
racter of Paley, 3 note. Asserts the immateriality of the mind,
184, et sequen.
His remarks upon the relation of cause and
effect recommended, 272. Similarity between his doctrine
and that of Crambe, 329-330.

Brown, Dr. Thomas, his exposition of the doctrine of abstrac-
tion, 45 note. His dogma respecting causation, 55. His re-
finement upon the doctrine of Hume considered, 56-59.
Inconsistency of his theory of causation with his opinions
concerning matter, 240-244. His doctrine of cause and
effect erroneous, 59-61. His equivocation in the use of the

terms "invariable antecedence," 67-70. Summary refutation
of his theory of power, 81-85. His extraordinary paradox
respecting the Deity, 85. Atheistic tendency of his system, 85-
94. General observations upon his system, and philoso-
phical character, 99-103. 243-244. His contempt of Dr. Reid,
and the other philosophers, 234. Misrepresents the opinions
of Hume concerning the relation of cause and effect, 231-
240. His admirable estimate of Mr. Hume's philosophical
genius, 239. Uses the term "substance" incorrectly, 245.
Holds the mirror up to extravagance and absurdity, 271.
Mistakes the system of Berkeley, 99, 193, 272-273.

Brutes, advantages of the nature of, 27-29, and notes. In what
respect worthy of man's imitation, ibid.

Buffon, exaggerated statements of, respecting the American
aborigines, 237.

Butler, Bishop, quoted, 133-134 note. An argument of respect-
ing the evidences of Christianity, amended, 161-166.

C.

Causation, opinions of Hume and Brown concerning, stated,
53-56. Extraordinary dogma of the latter, 55. The popu-
lar doctrine stated, 61-62, and defended 61-85, (and to the
end of Treatise II passim, with the incident notes.) Difficul-
ties concerning, stated, 63-70; and illustrated, 70-89. See
"Antecedence," "Second Causes,"
99 66 Hume," "Brown," &c.
Charro, Peter, his admirable advice concerning the method to
be pursued with infidels, quoted, 285.

Christianity, infidels indebted to, 113. Its excellent effects upon
the world, 141. Some excellencies of, enumerated, 140-150.
Theology of, compared with that of the philosophers, and
with the vulgar Pagan creeds, 144-149.

Chrysostom, St., his commentary upon a passage of St. Paul,
139 note.

Church, Established, of Ireland, assumes the Popish claim of
infallibility, 298-300. Maintains the doctrine of the real
presence in the Eucharist, 300-305, and note. See the arti-
cles, "Idolatry," "Polytheism," "Real Presence."

Consciousness, veracity of, not disproved by the fallaciousness of
the memory, 197-204. The arguments against consciousness
absurd and impious, 324-326.

D.

Dens, obscenity of, absurdly charged upon the Church of
Rome, 244.

Divine benevolence. See" Author of Nature.".

E.

Evidence, circumstantial, not to be rejected because inferior to
demonstration, 134. Mr. Hume's contempt of it, 210, and

note.

Experience, of past events, insufficient of itself to raise an expec-
tation concerning the future, 53-55.

F.

"Faith, only," misinterpretation of the words, 17-18 note.
Origin of the mistake, 318-319. Heterodoxy of the mem-
bers of the Established Church concerning it, 286, note.
Distinction between certainty and a reasonable faith, 284.
Falstaff, Sir John, a nominalist, 48.

Fitness of things, proposed by certain philosophers as a princi-
ple of morality, 5. Absurdity of such a rule, 316.

Free-will, of man, asserted, 26. Analogical proof of, 30. How
far brutes seem to be denied it, 26-28.

Future state, the universal belief of a, proves the truth of the
Christian revelation, 167-171. A future state of retribution,
disbelieved by the ancient philosophers, 128, 169-170. On
what grounds maintained by Socrates, 170.

G.

Gillies, Dr., his introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric, recom-
mended, 201, note.

Gratitude, instinct of, not invariable, universal, or determinate,