have enriched his understanding by a knowlege of the world, and the theory of moral duties; he might be a compleat mafter, of the theory of human life, and yet difcover himself to be very weak in his actions. Men judge of things from their underftanding; but they act from their paffions: and hence it is that many blockheads pafs through life, without betraying any want of fenfe by their actions, while men of genius frequently betray, as much ftupidity and folly by their conduct, as they display ingenuity and fagacity in their writings. This confideration alone ought to convince modern preceptors how much they are in the wrong, in their endeavours to inftill theories of morals, when they fhould enforce habits of action; and in ftriving to enforce habits of thought when they fhould cultivate the faculty of thinking. A man's conduct is of much more importance to fociety, than his mode of thinking; and it is notorious that, habit almoft entirely fubdues thofe paffions, which are deaf to the loudest voice of reason,

With regard to the fuperior advantages which man is fuppofed to enjoy in his folitary or favage ftate, our Author very justly ob ferves they are altogether chimerical.

It is fcarcely poffible (fays he) to educate men more for themselves, and lefs for others, than are the Indians in the province of Quito, according to the description given of them by. Don George Juan and Don Antonio de Ulloa, in their excellent relation. Thefe are men in a state of nature, they live only for themfelves, and are fubjected only to natural wants.

They have fo little ambition, that an Indian will receive, with the fame indifference, the office of alcaid, or that of a hangman. Intereft has no fway over them, for they will fre quently refufe to do the moft trifling fervice for the greatest ree,

ward.

The Indian, feated by his little fire-fide, undisturbed, fees his wife at work. The traveller, who has loft his way, will never be able to perfuade him to quit that posture, in order to conduct him one step. The only thing they never refuse is, to divert themselves, but then they must have plenty of liquor When they are drunk, they lie all together without diftinction, men and women, giving themselves little concern whether they are by the fide of another man's wife, or their own fifter ord daughter; on thefe occafions every duty is forgot.

Would not one imagine that these were the men in a state of nature, mentioned in his treatife on the Inequality of Conditions? Yet these men, who have not been spoiled by civil

Several recent instances, indeed, might be given of men, of whom it might be justly faid, in the words of the fatirift, that they never faid a foolish thing, nor ever did a wife one,

education,

education, these men formed by the hand of nature alone, by the gradual opening of their mental faculties, according to the account of our learned Spaniards, juft mentioned, poffefs no fuperior advantages confidering them merely as men. "If we look upon them, fay they, as men, the extent of their underftanding feems to fall fhort of the excellence of the foul, and their weakness is fo apparent, that, in certain cafes, we can fcarcely have any other idea of them, than we have of the beafts of the field."

This depraved state of the inhabitants will probably be attributed to the badriefs of the climate, and I have not the leaft doubt, but that it may, in part, be afcribed to this cause.

It is equally unreasonable to afcribe the whole as nothing to the climate. It is only of late we have fallen into these two extremes, and the difpute is in no other refpect novel, mankind being never at a loss how to judge in fuch matters. However, let the influence of the climate on the difpofitions of the Indians of Peru be as great as it may, it will always afford a proof of the power a civil education has to correct it.

The above mentioned authors have obferved, that the children of the Indians of this fame province of Quito, when they are brought up in the towns, become as reasonable as other men, and appear of a nature quite different from the reft of the

rration.

On the other hand, they have alfo remarked, that in the various and vaft provinces through which they paffed, the uncivilized Indians differed no ways one from the others; that those of Quito were not more ignorant and ftupid than those of the Vallies, or of Lima, nor these last more intelligent than those of Chili or Arauca. Yet what a difference of climate is there amongst all thefe people? It is, therefore, very evident, that the want of a civil education has an equal influence on entire nations which inhabit very different climates, and that in the fame climate education has the power of civilizing thofe who enjoy the advantages of it, though the nation they fpring from fhould be totally barbarous.'

We fhall not trouble our Readers with any of the commonplace and hackney'd arguments, with which father Gerdil combats the minuter novelties of Mr. Rouffeau's fyftem. But we, cannot pafs over his remonftrance against the progrefs of philofophy. Rouffeau had objected against public inftitutions for the purposes of education, as being of no ufe. Thele, fays our Author, are diftinguished into three feveral departments, namely, that of letters to form the mind, that of philofophy to form

The Author should have faid the rhetorician; for how is mind diftinguished from citizen and Chriftian? Have not each of thefe minds?

the

the citizen, and that of religion to form the Chriftian. He objeas, however, to the fecond; and is inclined to think, that if we pretend to form citizens by philofophy alone, we shall find ourselves deceived. No. Like a true Barnabite, he will have nothing to be done without religion. His reafons are these :

First, because philofophy is above the capacity of the mul titude. Talk philofophy to farmers and artizans, and you speak to them in an unknown language. People of business have their time too much taken up to attend wholly to philofophy, yet in thefe does the bulk of citizens confift. It is, therefore, neceffary to have some other principle, befides philofophy, to form the greatest part of the citizens, and as this principle fhould be univerfal, it ought of courfe to form all the citizens.

Secondly, because philofophy is eafily depraved in those who only kim the furface of it. This is an obfervation of the Lord Chancellor Bacon; found philofophy is, therefore, limited to a small number. If it is ever of ufe to a state, it is more likely to prove fo by the good which three or four great philofophers may be able to do, than by that vifible and fuperficial diffufion of philofophy, which every day gains ground, and Spreads itself through every order of fociety.

Of what ufe is it to a ftate, to have twenty thousand idle citizens with a fuperficial knowlege in aftronomy? The knowlege of these people will never ferve either to regulate the calendar, or to perfect the theories which may be of ufe to fociety. The ftate derives advantage from the labours of a certain number of true aftronomers, the reft is all pure lofs. Yet there is this difference between aftronomy and philofophy; namely, that a fuperficial knowlege in aftronomy is of no injury to him who has it; but, on the contrary, ferves to embellifh his mind, and give him a tafte for good things, whereas, if philofophy does no good, it fcarcely ever fails doing harm.'

Never, furely, was there any thing more abfurd than the above pofitions. We know not what idea this Writer has of philofophy, or of the capacities and leifure of men of business; but this we know, that fome of the greatest philofophers in Europe are men of the greatest bufinefs in it. We know also that bufinefs is fo far from incapacitating the minds of men, that it renders them acute and difcerning; while indolence too frequently leads to inattention, and floth to ftupidity. It must be owned, indeed, that, in the time of Lord Bacon, a proficiency in philofophy was not fo eafily attained as it is at prefent: but we have feen many veils of ignorance removed fince his time, and God forbid it should be in the power of any Barnabite to perfuade us to spread them again, and to fit down contented in darkness. He fays, three or four great philofophers may be of pfe to a state, but a great number of finatterers cannot. Pray,

good

good Father Gerdil, who are the state? To be of use to the tate, properly fpeaking, is to be useful to the individuals compofing that ftate. And is not every thing that contributes to the rational gratification of thofe individuals, of ufe to the state? Do they live only for the fake of their governors? Do they exift merely to eat, drink, and pay taxes for the support of the administration? Is nothing of ufe to a state, but what ferves to aggrandize magiftrates and princes? to fupport them in their fplendour and luxury, and to feed the fatnefs of a parcel of ftall-fed priests, to tyrannize over the fouls, as the former do over the bodies of their fubjects? Is there any thing, on this fide heaven, equal to the gratification of knowing and contemplating the wifdom of God in the wonderful works of the crea tion? And is this pleasure to be denied to all but a few philo fophers and priests, who would become the tools of tyranny to keep the people in ignorance, and fet them on a level with the brutes? May not an honeft plain man be aftronomer enough to enjoy this fatisfaction, this fupreme delight, without being capable of making almanacks and calculating eclipfes ? —But the diffufion of knowlege is diametrically oppofite to the interefts of popery. The grand object of the church of Rome is to keep the laity in. darknefs. But what business have we to be troubled with encomiums on the utility of ignorance? or, indeed, what need have we for the affiftance of popifh writers, to defend us against reputed infidels? Did the officious Tranflator* of these reflections conceive an incapacity in the writers of our own religion and country, to combat openly fo doughty a champion as Rouffeau, or to produce an antidote against any latent poifon that might be couched in his writings?

..

But after all, it does not appear that this learned Barnabiteknows what philofophy is. Philofophy (fays he) is only an affemblage of different fyftems, the work of different brains, which perpetually contradict each other, either in their principles or their confequences. In fact, there is nothing in which philofophers agree, but in the mere term philofophy; in other refpects, there are as many fyftems as there are heads.

Hobbes confounds right with ftrength, an idea fhocking in the opinion of Mr. de Montefquieu, and ftrongly opposed by Mr. Rouffeau. Some derive the origin of politic right from pa

We cannot help, in this place expreffing our with, that English bookfellers and tranflators would be more confcientious, and more fcrupulous of diffeminating, as they do, in this country, the principles' of foreign popish writers, by tranflations of their works; for certainly this is a point that deferves the attention of every true friend to the freedom of the human mind, every fincere well-wisher to the proteftant re-ligion.

ternal..

ternal authority; others, from exprefs, or tacit conventions. Mr. Rouffeau requires, befides, that the fuffrages fhould be unanimous. The author of the "Effay on the Understanding" acknowledges no probity that has relation to all mankind, no moral intrinfic difference betwixt virtue and vice.

• Mr. de Montesquieu establishes this difference on instances of juftice and equity anterior to all pofitive law. On the other hand, Mr. de Montefquieu pretends that virtue is not neceffary in monarchies: Mr. de Voltaire facetiously fays, in fome part of his works, that it would be too great a misfortune to the world, if he fhould happen to be right in this opinion; and Mr. Rousseau openly condemns it. However, Mr. de Montefquieu admits, that virtue is neceffary to republics; on the contrary, the "Author of the Enquiries into the Oriental Despotifm" fays, that virtue has been injurious to certain ancient republics. Mr. de Montefquieu attributes much to the climate; Mr. Helvetius will have nothing attributed to it. Bayle pretends, that fociety might fubfift without religion; and after having abused all religions, he dishonours the Christian by prefuming to affert, that true Chriftians are not capable of forming a state which could fubfift: this paradox is refuted by Mr. de Montefquieu.

The author of the "Code of Nature" ventures to fay, that no one has hitherto understood the true principles of legiflation or morality, and establishes the community of property as the bafis both of the one and the other.

Many are of opinion, that the life which children receive from their father and mother does not require any return of duty. Mr. Rouffeau would not have obedience exift amongst men. One excufes fuicide, another apologizes for duelling; a third represents luxury as the fource of profperity in a ftate; a fourth thinks this is derived from the restraint which men are under in great monarchies. Mr. D'Alembert feems abfolutely to condemn it. Some think even vices neceffary to a ftate, and that they caufe it to flourish. One exclaims against the indiffolubility of the marriage knot, others, again, juftify the temporary union of free parties.'

Is not this a mighty pretty picture of philofophy? Our Readers, however, will not forget that the painter is a popifh prieft. For our own part, we have heard of fyftems of philofophy, but never before heard that philofophy was a fyftem, much lefs an incon fiftent farrago of different and difcordant opinions. Philofophy is the love of truth, attended with a difinterested zeal for invef tigating it, a determined refolution to embrace it wherever found, and a fincere and liberal defire for its univerfal propaga tion. A philofopher is not like a fectary. It is by no means neceflary that all philofophers fhould be of the fame opinion:

4

they