ciently evinced that the former fuppofed ftate of these refpective bodies, could not have been true, in the poffible nature of things; as thought itfelf could hardly fly at the rate the fun muft do, to produce the phænomena of aftronomy.

[An ingenious Frenchman had no other way of accommodating the difficulty of the fun's rifing every morning in the eaft, after it had fet in the weft, but by fuppofing it to fteal flily back again to its former ftation, in the night. One of our F. R. S. in the Tranfactions, accounted as wifely for the difappearance of comets, bv faying that they retired to the Antipodes. This paragraph by the by.]

Thus then, after the conviction of our understanding, from the two particulars inftanced above, that our fenfes are liable to mistake, without the affiftance of art, and our apprehenfion fubject to error, unless inftructed by fcience; and thefe in the most common objects of nature, why do we remain fo fceptical ftill, in matters of faith, fuppofing the authority to be good, merely because they have not yet defcended among the fubjects of our fallible conceptions, and limited knowledge? And why give eafier credit to Lewenhoeck and Copernicus, than to Christ and St. Paul? Read the forty-five paradoxes, in Gordon's Geographical Grammar, rationally impoffible, and mathematically certain, and fufpect your own ignorance and prefumption.

It will be no answer, to fay that Deither Lewenhoeck nor Copernicus were credited, 'till after they had afforded demonftrations of their

affertions. Philofophy and religion are things of quite different natures. Any conviction stronger than a rational teftimony, founded on the external and internal evidences of Chriftianity, would deftroy the merits both of faith and good works, cancel free will, and leave us nothing worth rewarding.

Galilæo,Bacon, Boyle,and Newton fhone forth, like the milky way in the dark paths of fcience; and as much as reafon excels inftinct, fo far did the preternatural inftinet, if I may be allowed the distinction of thefe enlightened perfons, exceed the general faculties of the human mind.

The common powers of inveftigation or reflection could never have reached to fuch fublime heights without the affiftance of a certain afflatus divinus*, or fuperior impulfe, by fpecial grace conferred upon them; which had been withheld from other men of equal fenfe, and of more learning, and greater ftudy, perhaps.

"Spirits are not finely touched,

"But to fine iffues.".

Who deny this aphorifm, muft call' God's providence a lucky bit †.

Shall then the Deity exert an energy, to affift our temporal concerns only, and leave our eternal interefts without a guide! Are mathematical truths infpired, and religious ones left unrevealed! Shall the legislators of earthly ftates propofe rewards and punishments, for the government of the political world, and can the great Archon of mankind leave the moral one + Pope.

without.

without a fanction! I would call fuch fuppofitions by a name, if I knew whether to ftile them blafphemy or nonfenfe.

Galilæo was thrown into the inquifition, as an infidel, for reviving that herefy in aftronomy, of the fun's ftation, because it feemed to contradict a paffage in the fcripture, where its ftanding ftill, once, is recorded as a miracle. And philofophy, or rather prefumption and felf-fufficience, have, in their turn, erected an inquifition, alfo, against every article of faith, which does not fquare with our very incompetent experience in phyfics, and total ignorance of metaphyfics.

For, if we admit fpirit, either diftinct from, or connected with, matter, we muft, at the fame time, honeftly confefs, that we know not what its effence confifts in. And to deny fupernatural faculties or powers, to a fupernatural being, is fuch a ftupid folly, as almoft renders it one to argue against it. For nothing, furely, can be more unphilofophical, than to limit the author of all nature, by the media or data, of his own philofophy.

The schools that were formed in France in the beginning of this century, and in the end of the laft, for teaching the philofophy of Epicurus, are a ftriking proof of this truth. The followers of that philofophy did not come from the obfcurity of a college: they were all that was great, ingenious, polite, virtuous in the nation; men, who united elegance of taste with heroic virtue, fublime qualities with the focial accomplishments, and who knew how to join literary talents to thofe that fitted them for the field or the cabinet! Of this number were the eloquent Polignac and the wife Catinat.

Let us compare our limited education with the extent and fublimity of that of the ancients. A young man put hinfelf early under the care of a philofopher, who was often a ftatefman, or a general. Inftead of depreffing both his mind and foul by idle fpeculations and a timorous morality, the whole converfation with him turned upon the great and ufeful parts of the fciences. At the fame time that his mind was cultivated and enlightened, his heart was alfo formed by maxims enforced by examples. Strict care was taken of the purity of his morals, the ftrength of his body, and the state of his health. Nothing that was lazy or indolent entered into this education: the whole of it tended to an active life; to produce great men and good citizens.

Philofophers of the highest birth, the greatest reputation, and adorn ed with honours and employments, did not think it beneath them to affift in the education of youth. What does the frivolous age think on feeing Agefilaus educated by

Xenophon,

Xenophon, Dion by Plato, Alcibiades by Socrates, Phocion by Xenocrates, Philopæmon by Megalophanes, feveral illuftrious Romans by Cicero, Nero by Seneca, Trajan by Plutarch, Zenobia by Longinus! What would they fay if a Bacon, a Catinat, a Temple, a Shaftesbury, had imitated thofe great men? Place thofe names over-againftthofe of our governors, our preceptors, our profeffors, and then judge of the effects of that difference. Every one does not enjoy the happiness of a Shaftesbury; we are not all educated by a Locke.

To this depraved tafte in our education and univerfities there is added a mistake, in regard to the moft valuable kind of philofophy. Natural philofophy takes up too much of our time, and the practical is neglected. All the academies of fciences ring of nothing but phyfical experiments, obfervations upon natural hiftory: all our philofophers are but naturalifts, and, unfortunately, of the lower kind, taking up with trifles, mere curiofities, and nothing more.

We ought with gratitude to acknowledge all the advantageswhich we owe to phyfical researches and natural hiftory. They have given us new lights in arts and phyfic: We enjoy infinite conveniencies, which are the refult of application to thefe fciences. But, as men abufe every thing, phyfical inquiries carried too far, do hurt to philofophy.

There are branches of knowledge, which require rather time and labour than genius; fuch are natural history and particular parts of natural philofophy. One man cannot fee every thing; aided by VOL. XV.

the observations of others who have gone before him, he may be able to add or improve. We are neceffarily more learned in natural philofophy than the ancients.

This facility, real or imaginary, of furpafling the ancients, this hope of being able to ftrike out fomething new, induced our learned to apply to the natural fciences. A number of academicians, destined to cultivate them, kept up that ardour. But they have miffed the right way.

In examining the works of Ariftotle and Pliny one is aftonished at the extent of their knowledge and views one is furprized to find a genius prevail in them, which feems foreign to natural hiftory. Theophraftus's treatise of ftones fhewsus a fagacity greatly fuperior to the limited talents of our makers of experiments. Inftead of imitating thofe models, the moderns attend only to a fruitlefs detail. We fee nothing but methods, which have the fate of metaphyfical fyftems: one deftroys and fwallows up the other, like the ferpents of the magicians. Our natural history is but a vocabulary.

It degenerates even into trifles. An extenfive commerce enables us to pick up curiofities in the four quarters of the world. Cabinets are formed. But with what wretched ftuff are they not often filled? With what face dare we to laugh at a pedantic antiquarian, who hoards upan infignificant treafure of mouldy antiques, whilft we ourselves make it the business of our lives to hunt after and arrange butterflies, fhells, and figured ftones? Nicole, by way of reproaching Pafchal with having a trifling mind,

N

called

What would he fay of our runners about the fields, of our collectors of pebbles? Play-things fhould be only for children; and our pretended philofophers make them a ferious occupation.

Thefe reflections are not made with a view of depreciating the ftudy of natural philofophy and natural hiftory, the pleasure and ufe of which are acknowledged. All talents deferve esteem; but in different degrees: literary fanaticifm abfolutely excludes all knowledge different from its own. But the fair name of philofopher is debafed by lavishing it on the frivolous maker of experiments; upon the blood-befmeared anatomift, the bu. fily prying botanist, the footy chymift. A mafon is, without doubt, a neceffary man in building a palace; but he ought not to ufurp the name of architect; that name, and the regard due to it, belongs only to the genius that draws the plan, and directs the hands which work under him.

One may fee by this fhort comparison of the ancient philofophy with the modern, whether this laft deferves the contempt it has fallen into; and how miferably defective is the mode of our education.

that a republic can form pretenfions to be established upon virtue? In order to answer these questions, let us turn our eyes to a paffage on this fubject in a fmall pamphlet: books of fmall bulk are liable to be loft in a fhort time; but truth ought never to perifh; it ought therefore to be configned to pofte rity in books of larger fize. This writer fays,

"Republics certainly have ne ver been formed by a fuperior prevalence of virtue in the public; but rather because it was the selfintereft of each individual to oppofe the domination of any one perfon over the reft; the spirit of property and of ambition in all be. came a check to the spirit of ambition and rapine, which appeared in a fuperior degree in any one; the pride of each member of the com munity watched over the pride of his neighbour; and no one was willing to be the flave of another man's caprices: thefe have ever been the motives which established republics at firft, and preferved them afterwards. It is ridiculous then to imagine, that a free citizen of the Grizons has need of more virtue than a subject of Spain.

"And that honour is the fundamental principle of monarchies, more than of other forms of go

ment,

ment. True, but certainly not more in that than in other governments; for in the Roman republic alfo the citizens as eagerly de. manded of the people the pretor fhip, the confulfhip, ovations and triumphs; what are thefe but preferences and diftinctions, and fuch alfo as are much preferable to all the titles which in monarchies are often purchased at a fixed price?" Thefe remarks prove, in my opinion, that the book of Spirit of Laws, although fparkling with ingenuity, and highly recommendable for its love of law and juftice, and its hatred for fuperftition and rapine, is nevertheless entirely founded upon wrong principles. I may with truth add even farther, that it is principally in the courts of monarchies, that there has always been the greatest deficiency in honour. The author of Paftor Fido has faid juftly,

thousand years paft, And in truth it is chiefly in courts, that men of the leaft honour are able to arrive at high dignities and distinctions; for in republics, a citizen who has difhonoured himself by his actions, is never exalted by the people to public offices. The celebrated faying of the Duke of Orleans, the regent, is of itself fufficient to expofe the weak foundation of the Spirit of Laws: C'est un parfait. courtisan, il n'a ni humeur ni honneur; "He is a perfect courtier, he is all compliance, and no honour."

I

On Flattery; by the fame.

Have never met with any mo

nument of flattery in the most remote ages of antiquity; there is no flattery in Homer, or in Hefiod; their poems are never addreffed to a Greek elevated to fome high dig

furto,

each book of Thomfon's Seafons is dedicated to fome rich man, or as fo many other dedicatory epiftles in verfes now forgotten are addreẞed in England to men or ladies of fashion, with little encomiums, and the coat of arms of their patron or patronefs at the head of the work. Neither is there any flattery in Demofthenes. This method of begging alms harmoniously began, if I be not mistaken, with Pindar; no one can hold out their hand more emphatically.

Among the Romans, in like manner, grand flattery had its first date under Auguftus. Julius Cæfar had scarce time enough to be flattered. There is no example of higher date; we have no dedica

N 2

tory