verbal metaphysicians have been reputed philofophers, and men of genius. Doubtlefs a man of genius may, by the fashion of the times, be feduced into thefe ftudies: but that particular caft of mind which fits a man for them, and recommends them to his choice, is not genius, but a minute and feeble understanding; capable indeed of being made, by long practice, expert in the management of words; but which never did, and never will, qualify any man for the discovery or illuftration of fentiment. For what is genius? What, but found judgement, fenfibility of heart, and a talent for accurate and extenfive observation? And will found judgement prepare a man for being impofed on by words? will fenfibility of heart render him infenfible to his own feelings, and inattentive to thofe of other men? will a talent for accurate and extenfive obfervation, make him ignorant of the real phenomena of Nature, and, confequently, incapable of detecting what is falfe or equivocal in the reprefentation of facts? And yet, when facts are fairly and fully reprefented; when human fentiments are ftrongly felt, and perfpicuously described; and when the meaning of words is afcertained, and the fame word has always the fame idea annexed to it, there is an end of metaphyfic. - A body is neither vigorous nor beautiful, in which the fize of fome members is above, and that of others below, their due propor tion every part must have its proper fize and strength, otherwise the refult of the whole will be deformity and weakness. Neither is real genius confiftent with a difproportionate ftrength of the reafoning powers above thofe of tafte and imagination. Those minds in whom all the faculties are united in their due proportion, are far fuperior to the puerilities of metaphyfical fcepticism. They trust to their own feelings, which are ftrong and decifive, and leave no room for hesitation or doubts about their authenticity. They fee through moral subjects at one glance; and what they fay carries both the heart and the understanding along with it. When one has long drudged in the dull and unprofitable pages of metaphyfic, how pleafing the tranfition to a moral writer of true genius! Would you know what that genius is, and where it may be found? Go to Shakespeare, to Bacon, to Johnson, to Montefquieu, to Rouffeau *; and when you * As feveral perfons, highly refpectable both for their talents and principles, have defired to know my reafons for joining Rouffeau's name to thofe of Bacon, Shakespeare, Johnfon, and Montefquieu, I beg leave to take this opportunity of explaining my fentiments in regard to that celebrated author. It is because I confider Rouffeau as a moral writer of true genius, that I mention his name in this place. Senfibility of heart, a talent for extenfive and accurate obfervation, livelinefs and ardour of fancy, and a style copious, nervous, and elegant, beyond that of any other French you have ftudied them, return, if you can, to HUME, and HOBBES, and MALEBRANCHE, -- and French writer, are his diftinguishing characteristics. In argument he is not always equally fuccefsful, for he often mistakes declamation for proof, and hypothefis for fact; but his eloquence, when addreffed to the heart, overpowers with force irresistible. A greater number of important facts relating to the human mind are recorded in his works, than in all the books of all the fceptical philofophers, ancient and modern. And he appears in general to be a friend to virtue, to mankind, to natural religion, and fometimes to Christianity. Yet none even of his beft works are free from abfurdity. His reasonings, on the effects of the sciences, and on the origin and progrefs of human fociety, are diffufe, inaccurate, and often weak; much perverted by theories of his own, as well as by too implicit an admittance of the vague affertions of travellers, and of the fyftems and doctrines of fome favourite French philofophers and he feems, in thefe, and frequently too in his other writings, to confider animal pleasure and bodily accomplishments as the happiness and perfection of man. His plan of education, though admirable in many parts, is in fome injudicious and dangerous, and impracticable as a whole. The character of Julia's lover is drawn with a masterly hand indeed, and well conducted throughout; but the lady has two characters, and thofe incompatible; the wife of Wolmar is quite a different perfon from the miftrefs of St Preux. Wolmar himself is an impoffible character; deftitute of principle, yet of rigid virtue; deftitute of feeling, yet capable of tenderness and attachment; delicate in his notions of honour, yet not afhamed to marry a woman whom hẹ knew to be to all intents and purposes devoted to ano ther. Some of this author's remarks on the fpirit of Chriftianity, and on the character of its Divine Founder, are not only excellent, but tranfcendently fo; and I believe no Christian ever read them without feeling his heart 2 warmed, and LEIBNITZ, and SPINOSA. If, while you learned wifdom from the former, your heart warmed, and his faith confirmed. But what he fays, of the abfurdities which he fancies to be contained in the facred history, of the impropriety of the evidence of miracles, of the analogy between thofe of Jefus Chrift and the tricks of jugglers, of the infignificancy and impertinence of prayer, of the fufficiency of human reafon for difcovering a complete and comfortable fcheme of natural religion, of the difcouraging nature of the terms of falvation offered in the gofpel,of the measure of evidence that ought to accompany divine revelation, (which, as he ftates it, would be incompatible with man's free agency and moral probation), - what he fays of these, and of several other theological points of great importance, betrays a degree of ignorance and prejudice, of which, as a philofopher, as a fcholar, and as a man, he fhould have been utterly afhamed. He appears to be diftreffed with his doubts; and yet, without having ever examined whether they be well or ill founded, fcruples not to exert all his eloquence on purpose to infuse them into others: a conduct which 1 muft ever condemn, as illiberal, unjust, and cruel. Had Rouffeau ftudied the fcripture, and the writings of rational divines, with as much care as he feems to have employed in reading the books, and liftening to the converfation, of French infidels, and in attending to the unchriftian practices and doctrines warranted by fome ecclefiaftical establishments; I may ven ture to affure him, that his mind would have been much more at ease, his works much more valuable, and his memory much dearer to all good men. Rouffeau is, in my opinion, a great philofophical ge. nius, but wild, irregular, and often felf contradictory; difpofed, from the fashion of the times, and from his defire of being reputed a bold speaker and free thinker, to adopt the doctrines of infidelity; but of a heart too tender, and an imagination too lively, to permit him to become a thorough-paced infidel. Had he lived in an VOL. I. 3 E age heart exulted within you, and rejoiced to contemplate the fublime and fuccefsful efforts of human intellect; perhaps it may now be of use, as a leffon of humility, to have recourse to the latter, and, for a while, to behold the picture of a foul wandering from thought to thought, without knowing were to fix; and from a total want of feeling, or a total ignorance of what it feels, mistaking age lefs addicted to hypothefis, he might have diftinguished himself as a moral philofopher of the firft rank. What pity, that a proper fenfe of his fuperiority to his cotemporaries upon the continent, could not preferve him from the contagion of their example! For, though now it is the fashion for every French declaimer to talk of Bacon and Newton, I queftion, whether, in any age fince the days of Socrates, the building of fanciful theories was fo epidemical as in the prefent. If the men of learning formerly employed their ingenuity in defending the theories of that philofopher by whose name they were ambitious to be diftinguished; they are now no lefs induftrious in devifing and vindicating, each man a theory of his own. To conclude: The writings of this author, with all their imperfections, may be read by the philofopher with advantage, as they often direct to the right obfervation and interpretation of nature; and by the Chriftian without detriment, as the cavils they contain against religion are too flight and too paradoxical to weaken the faith of any one who is tolerably inftructed in the principles and evidence of Chriftianity. To the man of taste they can neIver fail to recommend themfelves, by the charms of the compofition. The improprieties in Rouffeau's late conduct appear to me to have arifen rather from bodily infirmity than from moral depravation, and confequently to render him an object of forbearance and pity rather than of perfecution or ridicule. names |