صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

have enriched his understanding by a knowlege of the world, and the theory of moral duties; he might be a compleat master 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 stupidity 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 should enforce habits of action; and in striving to enforce habits of thought when they should 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 almost entirely fubdues thofe paffions, which are deaf to the loudest voice of reason.

With regard to the superior advantages which man is fupposed to enjoy in his folitary or favage ftate, our Author very justly obferves 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 defcription given of them by Don George Juan and Don Antonio de Ulloa, in their excellent relation. These are men in a ftate of nature, they live only for themselves, 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 frequently refufe to do the most trifling fervice for the greatest reward.

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 pofture, in order to conduct him one ftep. The only thing they never refufe 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 or 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 Cónditions? Yet thefe men, who have not been spoiled by civil

[ocr errors]

Several recent inftances, indeed, might be given of men, of whom it might be justly said, in the words of the fatirift, that they ne ver faid a foolish thing, nor ever did a wife one.

education,

If we

education, thefe 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. 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 badness of the climate, and I have not the leaft doubt, but that it may, in part, be afcribed to this caufe.

It is equally unreafonable 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 respect novel, mankind being never at a lofs 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

nation.

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 thofe of Quito were not more ignorant and ftupid than those of the Vallies, or of Lima, nor thefe laft more intelligent than those of Chili or Arauca. Yet what a difference of climate is there amongst all these 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 those who enjoy the advantages of it, though the nation they spring 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 progress of philofophy. Rouffeau had objected against public inftitutions for the purpofes of education, as being of no ufe. Thefe, fays our Author, are diftinguifhed into three feveral departments, namely, that of letters to form the mind, that of philosophy to form

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

the

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

First, because philofophy is above the capacity of the multitude. 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 fome 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, becaufe philofophy is eafily depraved in those who only fkim the furface of it. This is an obfervation of the Lord Chancellor Bacon; found philofophy is, therefore, limited tó 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 fpreads itself through every order of fociety.

Of what ufe is it to a flate, to have twenty thousand idle citizens with a fuperficial knowlege in aftronomy? The knowJége 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 num-' ber of true aftronomers, the rest 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 taste 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 alfo that business is so 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 seen many veils of ignorance removed fince his time, and God forbid it fhould be in the power of any Barnabite to perfuade us to fpread them again, and to fit down contented in darkness. He fays, three or four great philofophers may be of ufe to a ftate, but a great number of fmatterers cannot. Pray,

good

[ocr errors]

good Father Gerdil, who are the state? To be of use to the itate, properly speaking, is to be useful to the individuals compofing that state. And is not every thing that contributes to the rational gratification of those 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 fupport of the administration? Is nothing of use to a flate, 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 wisdom of God in the wonderful works of the creation? And is this pleasure to be denied to all but a few philofophers 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 eclipses?- -But the diffusion of knowlege is diametrically oppofite to the inte-, refts of popery. The grand object of the church of Rome is to keep the laity in darkness. 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?

[ocr errors]

But after all, it does not appear that this learned Barnabite knows 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 respects, there are as many systems as there are heads.

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

44

We cannot help, in this place expreffing our with, that English bookfellers and tranflators would be more confientious, and more fcrupulous of diffeminating, as they do, in this country, the principles of foreign popifh 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 protestant religion.

ternal

ternal authority; others, from exprefs, or tacit conventions. Mr. Rouffeau requires, befides, that the fuffrages should 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.

6

• Mr. de Montefquieu 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 necessary 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 should 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 Defpotifm" 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 difhonours the Christian by prefuming to affert, that true Chriftians are not capable of forming a ftate which could fubfift: this paradox is refuted by Mr. de ont quia

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 reprefents 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 neceflary to a state, and that they cause it to flourish. One exclaims against the indiffolubility of the marriage knot, others, again, justify 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 popish priest. For our own part, we have heard of systems of philosophy, but never before heard that philosophy was a fyftem, much less an inconfiftent farrago of different and difcordant opinions. Philofophy is the love of truth, attended with a difinterested zeal for inveftigating it, a determined refolution to embrace it wherever found, and a fincere and liberal defire for its universal propagation. A philofopher is not like a fectary. It is by no means neceflary that all philofophers fhould be of the fame opinion:

4

they

« السابقةمتابعة »