Introduction to an Essay on the Method of Studying Natural Hiftory; being as Oration delivered to the Societas Naturæ Studioforum, at Edinburgh, in the year 1784. By Richard Kentish, M. D. F. A. S. Ed. Prefident of the Society, and Member of feveral Literary Societies, Sc. Sc. I GENTLEMEN, CANNOT enter on the exercife of that office to which you have eected me, without thanking you for the honour which fuch a choice has conferred upon me. I now feel the want of thofe talents which I have fo often admired in others. Oratory is an acquifition, which I now would wish to poffefs. But the art of fpeaking is not to be acquired in a moment. Nature has not been alike bountiful in her gifts of fpeech. To fpeak well in public affemblies is an accomplishment not dependent on the natural Powers alone. Cuftom and habit give confidence to the fpeaker, and thoughts and words, like mechanical operations, are facilitated by ufe, and improved by culture. Eloquence is not, however, the diftinguishing mark of a philofopher; to think accurately, to fpeak juftly, and reafon rightly, are objects of his attention. The flowers of rhetorick and the ornaments of speech he ftudies not. Though he admires them in others, he is apt to difregard them as useless and often prejudicial to philofophy. To improve the heart and inftruct the head, are objects of his attention. You, Gentlemen, as a Society of Philofophers, will therefore, I trust, excufe the want of eloquence in your Prefident; you will hearken to what he may fay with readiness, and listen to the matter, regardless of the manner. To thank you for the honour I have received is not fufficient; unprovided therefore as I am with a rich "wardrobe of words," unadorned as my argument may appear, I fhall attempt to compenfate for this defect by calling your attention for a few moments to objects worthy of your confideration. As an original Member of this Society, you will pardon me, if I pre fume to lay before you the History of this now refpectable Inftitution Your Society, Gentlemen, dates its origin from the year 1782. A year diftinguished for the number of inge nious and learned men in this Univerfity. The Students were, indeed, not fo numerous as at prefent, but the names of men, who that year adorned the Lift, and particularly affifted in the formation of this Society, will long be remembered with pleasure, and men tioned with refpect. A fet of gentlemen from various parts of the world, whofe parental climes differed more than their opinions, united for the purpofe of mutu al improvement in the different branches of natural hiftory. Botany and Mineralogy were their chief purfuits, and to procure fpecimens of the dif ferent plants and minerals their intention. For this purpose they met, and unanimoufly went in queft of their refpective objects. Having for fome time continued to amufe themfelves in this manner, fome circumstances occurred which made them defirous of meeting for the purpose of imparting their difcoveries: accordingly they met at each others rooms, and each in his turn entertained the rest with his fuccefs in collecting. The most curious fpecimens were produced and the ge neral opinions received. We did not long continue this mode of meeting before we attracted the notice of the moft eminent naturalists in Edinburgh. The Profeffors of the University, with that liberality which marks their character, offered every affiftance to our enquiries. The college mufeum was tendered to our ufe, the profeffor of natural history entertained us with the choiceft fpecimens of his cabinets, entered his name upon our lift of ordinary members, and became a con ftant tant attendant on our debates: how great the improvement we now receive from fuch attention, you all know. After this acquifition to our number, our fame went abroad, genalemen of the moft diftinguished talents affociated with us, our illuftrious profeffors of chemiftry and botany took their feats in this fociety, its attendant members increased, regulations were found neceffary, and a code of laws, fimple but efficient, were established. Every member in his turn gave in papers for difcuffion; a Calendarium Floa was kept, obfervations from different quarters were received, we were no longer a fociety of young uninformed students, gentlemen of the first abilities and diftinction honoured us with their remarks, and nobility itself added dignity to our lift of members. Such is the hiftory of our first feffion. In the year 1783 our meetings were fafhioned into a regular fociety, officers were appointed, prefidents were elected, and ́our numbers increased. The prefent feffion has confirmed the utility of fuch an inftitution; and I trust, gentlemen, your foundation is now too firm ever to fall. When I reflect on the fmall beginning and rapid improvement of this fociety, I cannot help congratulating its members on the profpects before them. The hiftories of few focieties rife with fuch rapidity towards perfection; the ftate you have now attained, and the number of illuftrious characters that adorn your lift of members augurs profperity. Your fociety, I prefume to hope, will flourish, and its name go abroad. At this feat of fcience it will prove a fruitful feminary of natural knowledge, and as its members diffeminate, they will fpread its fame. To attempt an eulogy on the objects of your meetings, will appear fuperfluous, I must content myself therefore with faying a few words on the study of Natural Hiftory. Such of my hearers as are already advanced far on the fcale of fcience, will, I truft, pardon the liberty I take in addreffing myself to the younger Members of this Society. To them I would obferve, that Natural History now makes a part of polite education, and the man who is ignorant of it will frequently be deprived of one of the greateft fources of felfamusement. It would be no difficult matter to fhew the utility, fublimity, and importance of that fcience which "vindicates the ways of God to man," but I truft that none of my hearers will stand in need of arguments or logical reafoning, to convince them of the rank which the ftudy of nature holds.aamongst the fciences. Every branch of Natural History is now become an important part of literature, it is cultivated by the highest orders of fociety, even princes themfelves have laboured in the extenfive field which it opens to their view, and their refearches have been attended with fuccefs. The encouragement given to this study is of very ancient date. Alexander the Great allowed Arif totle a confiderable fum, to enable him to purfue this knowledge, and large fums of money have been expended in our own and other countries of Europe, in the formation of thofe collections, which do honour to the taste of a refined people, and mark the munificence of an enlightened age. The attention of foreigners has been conftantly attracted by these repofitories of curiofities; and though the greater part of travellers are admitted but to gaze with wonder on the strange appearances prefented to their view, yet to a philofophical inquirer the effect is widely different. When he beholds the productions of different climates, and fees the varied form of nature; when he finds himself furrounded with the inhabitants of different elements, and divers countries; when he traces the variety of fpecies, and infinitude of products; when he examines the contraft in fize and shape of animals, the wonderful economy of vegetables, Remarks on Dr Prieftly's Correfpondence with the Jews. vegetables, and the properties of the Mineral kingdom, he is led into a thoufand fpeculations on the appear ances of life, the methods made ufe of to fuftain the living principle, and the wonderful extent and diverfity of organized and unorganized matter. The arranged collection of art is not however the fource from which the greateft knowledge is derived. The whole fyftem of nature is to the Philofopher grand Museum, and the properties of its contents the fit fubject of his contemplation. It is by fuch purfuits that the human intellect afferts its native dignity, and claims the afcendancy which it poffeffes. Every fubordinate species of the animal creation acts contented in a leffer fphere, and performs the part affigned it with inftinctive quietude, but man contemplates on the things around him, furveys, examines, and admires; his capacity is adapted to complex inquiries, he is not fatisfied with the bare inspection of facts; he marks effects, and dares to afk the caufe. The aptitude of his mind is fuch, that the most complicated inveftigation is within the compafs of his intelligence, and ideas the most 339 abstract are comprehended with fimple facility. He taftes the pleasures of an imagination too fine for the grofs conception of other animals, and pervades the fecret paths of Nature. To every order of fociety the ftudy of nature cannot fail of being interefting: it is in a peculiar manner connected with the avocations, of fome men; it is the pedeftal of philofophy, and the fole foundation of all her difcoveries. The practical profeflions of mankind are frequently infeparable from the ftudy of nature. The fcience of Medicine is a striking inftance of this kind; the connection is fo intimate, that we find the names of phyficians conftantly enrolled amongst the moft eminent naturalifts. The fciences of Chemistry, Botany, and Anatomy, which form the most material branches of medical education, cannot be attained without a partial knowledge of Natural Hiftory; and although a minute acquaintance with the multiplied objects of each department is tedioufly laborious, yet a general one is eafy, ufeful, and neceflary to the character of a polité fcholar. Remarks on Dr Prieftly's Correfpondence with the Jews. HIS learned Author, in the abundance of his zeal for his new-modelled fyftem of Chriftianity, has lately addreffed an Epiftle to the Hebrews, inviting them to accede to it. In the arguments which he has employed for this purpose, he avails himfelf of their mutual agreement in opinion with refpect to many points which have hitherto been the principal objections of the Jews against the gofpel. "I do not wonder, faith he in his concluding letter, part II. p. 53. that your controverfies with Chriftians in all ages have iffued in confirming your prejudices against Chriftianity. In all VOL. VI. No 35% of them the Chriftians have infifted upon topics, with refpect to which it was impoffible that you should come to an agreement; especially the divinity of Chrift, and the doctrine of the Trinity, that abfurd and corrupt té net, as Mr Levi properly calls it." To remove thefe obftacles to conciliation, this new Apoftle of the cir cumcifion has not failed in the article of conceffion to " become to the Jews as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews." Are they worshippers of the Godhead in one perfon only? fo is he. Do they hold Chrift to have been no more than the fon of the carpenter and of Tt his his wife Mary? Dr Prieftly equally re- A ferious answer to these arguments has been attempted by David Levi, author of Lingua Sacra, the Ceremonies of the Jews, &c. We do not think this writer a very able apologift for his religion. The grounds of defence which he has chofen are manifeftly untenable. He denies that miracles are proofs of a divine mission, that our Lord ever prophefied in the proper fenfe of that term. This is deplorable ignorance of reafon and of the gofpel. But the chief point which he has laboured to establish is, that the famous prophecy of Daniel, concerning the feventy weeks, has not the moft diftant reference to the coming of the Meffiah. "Daniel," faith he, judging that the fins of his nation would be done away by the feventy years captivity at Babylon, the angel informs him, that their fin would not be atoned for by the feventy years, but verily as to Ifrael, he would not ,ואין, It may easily be imagined that such grofs blunders in point of reasoning, hiftory, and criticifm, would not-efcape the detection of a writer fo a cute and learned as Dr Prieftly. He has accordingly expofed them very fuccefsfully in a fecond feries of Letters addreffed to the Jews, occafioned by this reply of Mr Levi. But Dr Prieftly has met with a very different kind of adverfary from Mr Levi, under the name of Solomon de A. R. This writer, perfonating (as we fuppofe) a Jew, attacks the Doctor on a fide where he is manifeftly vulnerable, and paints the ridiculous inconfiftency of his becoming a champion for Chriftianity, who him felf Remarks on Dr Priestly's Correspondence with the Jews. felf denies by far the greater part of the doctrines by which that religion is distinguished. It is impoffible to do juftice to a production profeffedly ironical, except by inferting an extract. "In your fifth letter, you thus addrefs us: Some of you may perhaps fay, that you cannot enter into any difcuffion concerning the evidences of Christianity, till the different profeffors of it fhall agree among themfelves, and tell you what it really is. If, perhaps, fome of us fhould fo fay, it would only be in anfwer to you perfonally, in conformity with the directions of our wife king, who hath advised us in what manner to give an anfwer to perfons of a certain defcription. We do not want the different profeffors to tell us what Christianity really is; nor need we any union of fentiments among them to enable us to understand what it is. Your book, which you call the New Teftament, is plain and explicit enough without the aids of any of the different profeffors of Chrif tianity. Whatever their opinions may be, Christianity will ftill be the fame. Christianity, if we understand any thing, is the religion of your New Teftament: just as our religion is the religion inculcated by our great lawgiver Mofes. Do the different opinions among us at all affect the law of our great legiflator? do our opinions make it to be a different thing from what it is? No more do your differing opinions make the religion of Jefus a different thing from what it is. You fay the gofpels of Matthew and Luke contain things that are not true; and that the whole of the New Teftament has fome things borrowed from the heathens. We do not pretend to difpute this with you; but only one thing we defire of you to obferve, that we think we have as good authority to reject the whole, as you have to reject any part of the New Teftament. If you have any authority to chufe 339 for yourself what part of it you will receive and believe, we certainly have as good authority to chufe for ourfelves, and whether we will receive and believe any of it. Affuredly you have acted a very unwife part in inviting us to be of a religion which does not appear you have adopted yourself, and in recommending us to be governed by a book, to which, in the moft material articles of it, you profeffedly give no kind of credit." In the fequel of his letter, this facetious writer makes an ironical propofal to Dr Prieftly, of accommodating matters upon a different plan, viz. that, inftead of the Jews receiving his creed, he fhould come over to theirs, and haften to the fynagogue to receive the initiating rite of the covenant made with Abraham. After advancing feveral ludicrous confiderations to encourage him against the fear or fhame that might deter him from fubmitting to this operation, he, with feeming earneftnefs, repeats the request, that he may lofe no time in having the rite accomplished. "And when it is," adds he, " and you fhall publish your complete and fatisfactory analy fis, which the world will then expect from you, you will be enabled to add to the number of your titles, Nunc demum curtus inter Judæos; and your title-page will announce that it is written by Jofeph Priestly, L. L. D. F. R. S. ac. Imp. Petrop. R. Paris, Holm Taurin. Aurel. Med. Paris, Haarlem, Cantab. Americ. et Philad Socius et Dem. Curt. int. Jud. This irony is not more fevere than, merited. A more abfurd or ridicu lous fcheme never entered into the brain of man, than to perfuade a peo, ple to renounce a religion confeffedly revealed to them from heaven, and to accept, inftead of it, the wild and inconfiftent reveries of a fpeculative individual. Natural fcience has certainly been enlarged by Dr Priestly's refearches; but without meaning to de grade |