Newton in those points in which he was superior-that we should think the second more reasonably to be expected than the first. Wherever Halley laid his hand, to do work cut out by himself, he left the mark of the most vigorous intellect, the soundest judgment, the most indomitable courage against difficulties. His share in the production of the 'Principia,' as explained in our Memoir of Newton,' entitles us to say that but for him, in all human probability, that work would not have been thought of, nor when thought of written, nor when written printed. Halley was a mathematician of the first order, called off by a love of application from the enlargement of the bounds of the exact sciences; but carrying away with him a power in those sciences which never, that we know of, failed him in his need, except in the great question, the solution of which was reserved for Newton. And here his character is distinctly seen. Instead of expending his force upon this one subject, and withdrawing himself from all his various objects of pursuit, he proceeded to inquire among those who were likely to have considered the subject, what degrees of success they had obtained. Possibly he had it in his mind to try, in the event of his finding nothing, what he could have done himself: and we know enough of his power over the incipient methods, which were organized by Newton and Leibnitz, to think it tolerably certain that he would have had some success. But there would have been no one Principia written by one man. Halley would have thrown his first results among the mathematicians, and would have proceeded, in conjunction with others, to build up by degrees the edifice of which Newton never even spoke about the foundation till he had almost erected the superstructure. But the moment Halley found the man who could do what was wanted, he gave up the idea of being his fellowlabourer, and almost made him do it. He armed himself with the influence of the Royal Society, a body which contributed most powerfully to the result: indeed, without such a force at his command, it is difficult to see how even Halley, with all his management, could have kept a sufficient hold upon the timid and retired student, who would rather his transcendant powers should be useless, than be subject to the common lot of all greatness, envy and opposition. There is not so curious a spectacle in the history of science, as Halley and Paget appointed a Committee by the Royal Society (a unit before a cipher) "to keep Mr. Newton in mind of his promise.' We have before spoken of the opinions of Halley on religion, as a matter of recent* investigation. On the one hand, there is the statement of Whiston, which we have cited. In answer to this, it is fully shown that the point on which Halley's orthodoxy was suspected, lay in *See a pamphlet (printed by the Ashmolean Society at Oxford), the substance of which is from the papers of the late Professor Rigaud, written by his son, the Rev. Stephen Rigaud, entitled A Defence of Halley against the charge of Religious Infidelity,' Oxford, 1844, 8vo. Also, a letter in the monthly notices of the Astronomical Society, vol. vi., page 204. Mr. Rigaud, jun., considering it a duty to believe, whether the mind is convinced or not by the evidence, or else taking for granted that all professed unbelief is hypocrisy, naturally proceeds as in defending a criminal, and gives circumstances their weight as against a grave charge, instead of in support of one side of a simple historical fact. To us, who claim no right to charge any honest opinion whatever with criminality (not even Mr. Rigaud's opinion upon what constitutes crime) as long as the holder of it respects the rights of his fellow-men, and behaves as a man ought to do, these same circumstances are by no means so convincing as to him. And though we are gravely informed at the end of the pamphlet, that, in the author's opinion, none but minds "rejoicing in iniquity can still admit this "charge" to be true, we will not be moved even by this curious preimputation upon ourselves, to say that the maker of it, who we have no doubt is honest, has committed a crime. But we must smile for all that. The Ashmolean Society, which printed the pamphlet, has prefixed the usual caveat, stating that they "desire it to be understood that they are not answerable as a body for any facts, reasonings, or opinions, advanced in papers printed by them." We have much pleasure in complying with their desire and understanding accordingly. his supposed belief that the material world was from all eternity, a belief from the imputation of which his writings show he was desirous to clear himself. We have no doubt that Bentley made the statement to Whiston; but seeing in our own day that people will constantly affirm others to be no believers in Christianity, upon a standard of doctrine formed in their own minds, with which those whom they speak of will have nothing to do, we can conceive it to be just as possible that Halley, in his conference with Bentley, came out one of Bentley's unbelievers. And if they got into a controversy, all who know the character of Bentley will remember that he cared little for any aspersion. Mr. Rigaud brings forward the certificate given to Halley by his own College, when he was a candidate for the Professorship, bearing testimony to his "genius, probity, sobriety, and good life," and asks whether these words could be used of a professed sceptic. If the word piety had been there, it would have been more to the purpose; to us the words seem evasive. We pass over minor testimonies, such as that of Sir William Browne, that Halley attended church when he was a student at Oxford, and so on, to come to the point which we think has not been, and cannot be, got over. In 1734, Dr. Berkeley, afterwards Bishop of Cloyne, published his famous tract called The Analyst, or a Discourse addressed to an Infidel Mathematician.' All the world knew that Halley was the person intended; and the pamphlet raised a controversy which, from first to last, produced nearly thirty pamphlets or reviews. Berkeley's object was to show that mathematicians admitted in fluxions mysteries as great as those which, as he asserted, many of them rejected in theology. There is cited from the second edition of the Biographia Britannica, a story, to the effect that Garth excused himself for not believing Christianity, and cited Halley as his leader and authority: and that Addison told this story to Berkeley. On this story Mr. Rigaud observes, "It must be acknowledged that if it had the authority of Berkeley, there would be no escaping from the conclusion which it involves." Now, it has the authority of Berkeley. In his answer to an opponent, entitled 'A Defence of Freethinking in Mathematics,' London, 1735, 8vo. page 10, speaking of Addison, whom he names, Berkeley says, "He [Addison] assured me that the infidelity of a certain noted mathematician, still living, was one principal reason assigned by a witty man of those times for his being an infidel." And his opponent, Dr. Jurin (under the name of Philalethes Cantabrigiensis), a man likely to be well informed on the current topics of his day, has nothing to answer as to Addison or Halley, but only says of the disciple, "Surely this witty man is in jest; at least he was no wise man." We agree with Mr. Rigaud that there is no escaping from the conclusion. We heartily wish that this attack and defence of religion and religions, by means of authoritative names, were done and over; but as long as it is continued, it must be done correctly. There is no shade of feeling, from perfect indifference to grovelling superstition, no kind of doctrine, from atheism to the extreme of submission to church authority, which may not boast the support of some names of powerful intellect. And we have always observed, that in propor tion as these names are relied on, evidence and argument are abandoned. We agree with Dr. Jurin, that the witty man above mentioned was no wise one; but he has plenty of imitators in all sects and all churches. ALEXANDER POPE was born in London, one account says in Lombard Street, another in the Strand, another in Cheapside; according to his own statement in Spence's Anecdotes on the 21st, according to Warton and Johnson on the 22nd of May, 1688. Notices of his parentage occur in various parts of his writings. In his Letter to a Noble Lord' (Lord Hervey), published in 1733, after mentioning that his father was a younger brother, he adds:-"He was no mechanic, neither a hatter, nor. ... a cobbler, but in truth of a very tolerable family; and my mother of an ancient one." And in his Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot' (otherwise entitled the 'Prologue to the Satires'), which appeared in 1734, he says, speaking of himself, "Of gentle blood (part shed in honour's cause |