When the matter is calmly inquired into, there appears no stronger reason for retaining mineralogy as a branch of chemistry than there was for perpetuating the connexion between the latter science and botany. In most works on chemistry, indeed, there is still a large space allotted to the vegetable kingdom, in which the author details, with much minuteness, the several ingredients which enter into the composition of plants, the saccharine principle, the mucus, the albumen, the gluten, the fibrin, the extractive, and the oils. This is no doubt within the proper limits of chemistry; and, as far as mere analysis is concerned, mineralogy will likewise continue to form a separate department of the same instructive science, But, as it would be extremely absurd to attempt a classification of plants according to the relative quantities of sugar or resin contained in them, so, upon the very same principle, we maintain that it is very unphilosophical to found a system of mineralogy upon the simple fact that one fossil substance contains more than another of a certain earth, and that a third combines in it a larger proportion of some acid than a fourth or a fifth is found to admit.

For, in the first place, a list of the ingredients in any given mineral does not present a more adequate idea of the appearance of that mineral than a list of the ingredients contained in a flower will afford of the figure, colours, and smell of that flower, When, for example, we are told, that a gem consists of so much silica and so much alumina mixed up with a little oxide of iron and a small portion of water, what notion can we form of the said gem? None whatever. It may turn out to be an amethyst or a topaz to adorn a lady's finger, or a piece of slate to roof a house. It is well known that the chemical ingredients of many minerals, which are the most unlike imaginable in external character, differ only by a little more or less in the proportions, insomuch that any candid chemist will acknowledge that, if he did not know the external properties of such bodies beforehand, he could not even guess at them from perusing their contents in a chemical analysis. It would be as easy for an anatomist to pronounce concerning the figure of an animal from seeing a catalogue of the earths and acids contained in its bones and muscles, as for the most expert analyst that ever presided over a retort or applied a test, to find out the genus or species of a fossil body from any process of decomposition. It is no doubt satisfactory to add the knowledge of the chemist to that of the mineralogist, as it is in like manner satisfactory for the botanist to know the constituent parts of the vegetable substances with which he is conversant; but we repeat, again and again, that to form a systematic arrangement of minerals upon a reference to

the number, kind, or proportion of the ingredients, is as absurd and positively impracticable as a similar attempt would be with plants and flowers.

But further, in the second place, it seems to be admitted on all hands, that chemical principles do not serve well to characterize the mineral species: indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to accomplish this object by the use of such means. The advocates for the chemical system demand no more than that the classes, orders, and genera, shall be determined according to their views; leaving the species, subspecies, and varieties, to be arranged according to the principle of external character, Wallerius followed this method in his Systema Mineralogicum, in which he was imitated by the celebrated Werner in his works on the characters of minerals, as well as in the lectures which he delivered to his pupils. The last mentioned author, however, regarded this mixed method as merely a temporary arrangement," being convinced of the utter impossibility of constructing a truly philosophical mineralogical system in which the external and chemical characters were to be conjoined." There is indeed something extremely unscientific to have the genera of a system determined on one principle, and the species on another directly opposed to it.

Nor do we, in the third place, see any force in the objection to the natural history method taken up by those who allege that we thereby separate widely a number of minerals which are connected together by certain natural alliances. Every thing, however, depends upon the principle according to which such alliances subsist. A man, a whale, a bat, and a seal, are not very closely allied either in form or function, and yet they are ranked by Linnæus in the same class. The same observation applies more or less to the collocation of plants in every botanical system; and hence it is admitted, that the natural history method is not always what would, prima facie, be called a natural method. Convenience in arranging an immense variety of similar productions has suggested the substitution of an artificial principle, or rather, perhaps, the generalization of some common property to such an extent as to appear artificial, in place of those more palpable qualities which connect individuals and subordinate groups in the eye of a common observer. In this way a metalliferous substance may happen to be classed with an earthy one, upon the ground of affinity in their external characters, as the man and the bat come together in the class mammalia, But this, objectionable as it may appear, is not so absurd, in a scientific point of view, as the practice pursued by some chemical mineralogists, of placing a species which contains no clay under an argillaceous genus, and one that contains no

silica under a genus denominated siliceous. In one word, in every system which admits both chemical and external characters as the basis of classification, the discrepancies must be great and irremediable; whereas, in a system of arrangement founded entirely on external character, the violent separations complained of will decrease in number as the principle becomes better understood, and as the properties of minerals shall have been more particularly noted and recorded.

Lastly, we object to the mixed method now so generally in use, inasmuch as it renders the knowledge of chemical science necessary to the student before he can enter upon mineralogy. There is no reason in the nature of things why this should be so. Botany may be learned without chemistry; so may zoology; and so may every other branch of natural history and it is entirely owing to the unphilosophical manner in which the study of oryctognosy has been hitherto pursued that the only approach to it must be sought through the intricate details of a science more difficult than itself. It signifies nothing to say that we cannot acquire a competent knowledge of minerals except by means of chemical analysis; for, as the knowledge here alluded to refers solely to the ingredients which enter into this composition, the same remark applies with equal force and justice to anatomy, to botany, and indeed to almost all the other studies which respect either body or mind. We hope, therefore, that Professor Jameson will persevere in his undertaking, assured that, whatever opposition he may encounter in the mean time from the ignorant or the prejudiced, he will ultimately succeed in placing his favourite study among the regular, complete, and independent sciences.

ART XVI.—Christianity pleading for the Patronage of the Civil Power, but protesting against the Aid of Penal Laws: considered in Three Sermons, preached in Essex-street Chapel, by the Rev. Thomas Belsham. 8vo. Hunter. London, 1820. THE object of the three attempts before us, is to illustrate and establish the two following propositions:

"I. That the Christian religion deserves and requires the support and patronage of the civil power. But,

"II. That Christianity utterly disclaims the aid and protection of civil penalties." (P. 3.)

What does our author mean, when he talks of Christianity's

requiring support and patronage? In other places he uses the word "need." "The favourable patronage of the civil power, which Christianity, in its present conflicting state, has need of." (Page 23.) A little before he talks of protecting and patronizing: "To protect and patronize the Christian religion:" (page 23) and, in the advertisement of protecting and encouraging. "The protection and encouragement of the Christian religion." (Page iv.) But we ask, what good did any government ever do to any Christian church by its protection, encouragement, or patronage? The fact is, it never was, and never will be a rule of governments to grant support unless, where something is to be gained, by the granting, to their own strength. Governments, therefore, will patronize Christianity where Christianity has established itself in the hearts of any large portion of the community. Nay, governments will endeavour to foster Christianity where there is danger of its declining, and that for their own sake. But govern ments will rarely help Christianity in its first beginnings, and while unable to go alone, Christianity has generally had to establish itself; neglected by government, often persecuted. But when it is strong in its own divine powers, then government steps forward, and offers the right hand of fellowship, ostensibly with the view of giving, but really with the view of receiving aid. We fear indeed that upon the subject of Christianity, the views of Mr. Belsham and of many governments nearly coincide.

"If the object of all civil institutions be protection from injustice and the preservation of the public peace, nothing would contribute more essentially, or more effectually, to promote that end, than the universal knowledge, faith, and practice of the Christian religion.” (P. 5.)

Mr. Belsham urges various arguments in support of his two propositions. Some of them, we confess, strike us as rather strange. In the favoured region of Europe

"We behold Christianity almost every where triumphant. In various forms indeed, some more and some less corrupt; and, in a few places, alas how few! in this happy land in particular," (meaning Essex-street chapel, &c.) "almost resplendent in its primitive purity and lustre. Whence originates this glorious distinction? Under Providence it is

ENTIRELY OWING TO THE PROTECTION AND PATRONAGE OF THE

CIVIL POWER. Had the Mahometan dynasty inundated the continent of Europe as it overwhelmed Africa and the East, the Christian religion in Europe, in Britain, would have been in a state as lamentable as the churches of Antioch, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem, now are." (P. 58.)

If we understand our author's meaning, of which we are not quite sure, his argument comes to this: that, because the continent of Europe has never been inundated by the Mahometan dynasty,

therefore, the triumph, and even the existence of Christianity in this quarter of the globe, is owing to the protection and patronage of the civil power. As well might we argue thus. Two and three do not make seven. Therefore, the sun moves round the earth. But, really, is it fair: we say, is it fair for a writer to put such arguments into a book, and then to charge the public two shillings and sixpence for it? And that writer a Unitarian too! A rational Christian! A man who kicks away the ladder of faith, and expects to soar to heaven, like Icarus, upon the waxen wings of his reasoning faculties!

But further. Surely in Mr. Belsham's two propositions there is a manifest inconsistency. If Christianity is to have the support of the civil power, how can it do without civil penalties? For instance, in illustration of the first proposition, Mr. Belsham observes that," The persons of those who profess the Christian religion, and of those who teach it, should be protected from injury and insult." (Page 6.) How, then, can they be protected but by the laws? And how can the laws protect them except by punishing those who injure or insult them? What does our author mean, then, when he says, that " Christianity utterly disclaims the aid and protection of civil penalties?" There cannot be one without the other. If Christianity pleads for protection, she pleads for penalties.

We note these imbecilities and inconsistencies, not because the subject is of vast importance, but because we wish our readers to form a just estimate of the reasoning powers of those who call themselves rational Christians. They boast their reason, and this is the specimen which they give us of it. In short, we have seldom met with any more remarkable instances of rambling speculation, inconclusive argument, or unprofitable discussion, than in the production before us. Such is "rational" Christianity.

Our author seems, however, to be mightily taken with the argument about Mahomet, for he dwells on it at considerable length. After certain inquiries after various churches which once were flourishing, he adds,

"In vain will you look through these immense continents for a body of Christians in any degree resembling those with which they were formerly crowded. The cross has everywhere yielded to the crescent, and the Christian temple is converted into a Mahometan mosque. Or, if here and there, you meet with a few who profess themselves Christians, their gross ignorance, their corrupt doctrine, their miserable superstition, and their desolate state, only serve to exhibit, in more glaring colours, the wretched degradation of the once prosperous and triumphant church." (P. 57, 58.)

Is Mr. Belsham in earnest? Does he really wish to know the

8