the first inftitution of modern literary journals. The circumftances of things are changed with the times, and the fame degree of encouragement, neceflary to be given to writers in the infancy of literature, may be no longer expedient; nay, may even be prejudicial, if continued beyond the time of its exigence. We do not pretend that any of the arts and sciences are brought to that degree of perfection, as to stand no longer in net of farther cultivation; or that works of imagination are fo numerous and excellent, as to make it needlefs to fofter the tender plant and cherish the opening bud of rifing Genius. Certain, however, it is, that long after the revival of letters in Europe, the number of good books in the capital branches of fcientific and literary knowlege, was by no means great; the modern languages themfelves indeed were hardly arrived to a re effary degree of precifion and perfection. The state of the literary world refembled that of an infant colony, whose peofle required various grants and conceffions; to which in a more Fourishing and ftable fituation, they could fupport neither claim nor pretenfions. How different is the ftate of this republic at the prefent juncture! The writings of the ancients are not only made our own, by valuable and accurate tranflations; but a new temple of fcience hath been erected on a bafis far more extenfive than the ruins of the old. In the mean time, encouragement is fo far from being wanting to induce men of genius to profecute farther difcoveries and improvements in fcience, and literature, that fuch pursuits are a'moft infeparably attended with evident gain. An Author is no longer a Being dependent for precarious fubfiftence on the favour or caprice of individuals; literary property, a thing almost unheard of till the prefent century, is become an object of importance in our courts of law, and one of the most confiderable articles both of our domeftic and foreign commerce. What is the confequence? What, indeed, but that of being over-run with mercenary pretenders to genius and learning; who not only proffitute their petty talents for gain, but ufe a thousand little arts, and enter into as many illiberal fchemes and partial combinations to raise a literary reputation; in order only to fell that alfo to the beft bidder! Were there any of these arts practifed, these combinations entered into, in the days of Le Clerc? Did Writers at that time of day make an open traffic of their fame as well as their genius? The latter, indeed, may have been proftituted in all ages; but it was referved for this pecuniary-minded age, to arrive at that higheft fpecies of mercenary refinement, the making the most of a literary good name. At fuch a time and in fuch circumftances, therefore, ought not the tone of a literary Reviewer to be changed? Ought ic not to be very different to what it was an hundred years ago, when the conduct of Writers and their motives for becoming fuch, were fo totally different? When Authors were inspired only by Minerva, Apollo and the Muses; when their obedience to that inspiration was purely difinterefted; it was expedient, it 1 was laudible, to cherish with all imaginable tenderness, and give all poffible encouragement to fuch as employed their talents in the fervice of mankind; contenting themfelves with the reward conferred by Fame. But when folid pudding hath obtained fo great a fuperiority over empty praife; when open plagiarism is no longer a crime, and Fame is only made the procurefs of fortune, ought not both the feducer and the bawd, when difcovered, to be brought to condign punishment? To act otherways, would, in many cases, be to convert a tenderness for fome into cruelty toward others; and mercy in general into injustice. We have been led involuntarily into the above reflections, partly by fome infinuations thrown out in the foreign as well as domeftic prints, relative to this fubject; and partly by the pe rufal of the work before us, with the recommendation that accompanied it. We are ever ready to do justice, and to fhew mercy, particularly where the latter may not tend to increase the offence; but we cannot agree to fet mere book-makers upon the fame footing as original and genuine writers. It is for this reason we must run the hazard of offending a valuable correfpondent, by declining to give our fuffrage in behalf of the per formance before us; which, though it contain many fhrewd and ingenious remarks, on the effects of phyfical caufes on the characters and manners of mankind, appears to us, in a great meafure, to be taken from a work publifhed long fince entitled L'Efprit des Nations, and fome other performances of a fimilar nature; the real defign of which this Author doth not appear very well to comprehend. K. Recueil des Pieces relatives à la Perfecution fufcitée a Motier-Travers, contre M. J. J. Rouleau. A Collection of the most interesting Pieces that have been pub THE See Page 505 of this Appendix. 003 The The fecond piece in this mifcellany is entitled a Refutation of the preceeding libel; and is written by Profeffor de Montmollin, paftor of the churches of Motier-Travers and Bovereffe. In altercations that depend so much on matters of fact, as at prefent, it would be hypercritical to stand upon the punctilios of ftile, or to expect many of the graces of fine writing. Perhaps Mr. Rouffeau himself hath been fometimes deceived in fuppofing that deference paid to his judgment and opinions, which in fact proceeded only from the admiration excited by his method of delivering them. Certain it is that the pastor de Mont-mollin has greatly the difadvantage of Mr. Rousseau, and even of the letter-writer his friend, in point of diction What he wants in abilities, however, he feems determined to make up in acrimony. Not that he affects a farcaftical mode of expreffion, fo much as a malicious turn of fentiment; plainly endeavouring to throw a falfe or contemptible light on the most ingenuous and unexceptionable actions of his antagonift. As he does not invalidate however any material point of fact, advanced in Mr. Rouffeau's favour, we pass on to the next piece; being a fecond letter, by the Author of the first; who hath fubfcribed his name Du Peyrou, and hath addressed it to Lord Wemyfs, Baron Elcho. In this letter, the invidious reflections and malicious mifreprefentations of the above-mentioned paftor, are pointed out; and their Author_represented with no little feverity. But, as we doubt not our Readers will be better pleased to hear what Mr. Rouffeau himself hath to fay on the occafion; we fhall proceed therefore to make a few extracts from one of his own letters, contained among the pieces entitled juftificatives; and of which we have here no less than thirteen; confifting of refcripts from the King, arrets of council, declarations of the elders, and requests of the community that appeared during the course of this perfecution. It being reprefented that Mr. Rouffeau had greatly regretted his having bestowed a public encomium on his perfecutor, he begins his letter with taking notice of that circumftance, Motiers-Trayers, Aug. 8. 1765. No, Sir, never, whatever you may have heard, fhall I repent of having commended M. de Montmollin. I praised him for the merit I had experienced in him, his truly paftoral behaviour towards me. I never commended his character, as I knew nothing of it. I never prajfed his veracity, his candour or his fobriety. I muft even confefs that his perfon, looks, and behaviour were extremely difgufting to me; and I was aftonished to think fuch feeming kindnefs, humanity and virtue fhould be concealed under fo gloomy and forbidding an afpect. But checked this rifing antipathy; thinking it unjuft to judge of a man a man by those exterior figns, which his moral conduct so pafpably contradicted. Who could maliciously fufpect the fecret principle of that toleration to which he pretended? For my part, I deteft that cruel fubtilty which thus fullies the good actions of men; nor can I even entertain an idea of deducing fuch actions from evil motives. Hence the greater difguft I felt for Mr. de Montmollin, the more I endeavoured to conquer it, by reflecting on the obligations he had conferred' on me. At length this paftor hath thrown off the mafk, and difplays himself to be what he is; his former conduct being explained by his present behaviour. Nothing can be more evident than that the pretended toleration, which he gave up at a time when it was the most justifiable, arose from the fame fource as the cruel zeal which he fo fuddenly affumed or affected. What could be his motive then, or what it is now, I know not, but certainly it cannot be a good one. It was with the greatest honour he admitted and even preffed, my partaking of the Holy Communion; on every occafion foliciting my company, applauding, and appearing particularly pleased when I dropped any thing in converfation that feemed to be levelled at Christianity. And yet no fooner did I undertake to prove that I never really attacked Chriftianity, or at least that I had never fuch a defign, than he himself immediately attacks me with the utmost violence ; endeavours to excommunicate me, to profcribe me, inflames his parish against me, and pursues me with a degree of virulence bordering on madnefs. Can fuch inconfiftent behaviour be confiftent with his duty? No. Charity is not inconftant; virtue never contradicts itself; and there is no duplicity in the dictates of confcience. After having fhewn himself thus intolerant, it was too late for him to reaffume the garb of toleration; the affectation was too gross, and as it was impoffible for it to pafs on the world, he has done well to appear again in his natural form and difpofition. In deftroying his own work, and doing me more harm than he ever did me good, he hath effectually obliterated all obligation: all I owe him at prefent, is veracity; this I alfo owe to myself; and, fince he hath forced me to fpeak, I certainly fhall speak the truth. You defire, Sir, to know the real circumstances of this affair, Mr. de M. has published a narration quite in character, as an ecclefiaftic, artful enough to take all the advantages annexed to his profeffion. For my part, Sir, I fhall give you a fimple relation of the matter, in the common ftile of honour and probity. I am none of those perfons, thank heaven! to whom the world make their court while it defpifes them. On the contrary, I have the honour to be one of those who are efteemed and perfecuted. When I first took refuge in this 004 country. country, I brought no recommendations to any body; not even to my Lord Marthall*. I had no other than that fincerity, I always carry with me; and with my Lord Marshall no other was neceflary. About two hours after my arrival; and while I was writing to his excellency to inform him of it, and put myfelf under his protection, I was interrupted by the entrance of a stranger; who, acquainting me that he was the parfon of the parish, paid me a number of compliments; and, finding I was writing to the Lord Marshall, offered to add a few lines at the bottom of my letter, by way of recommendation. I did not accept his offer, but fent it away; and it had its defired fuccefs without fuch addition. Not expecting, in my circumtances, to find the paftor of a church fo very obliging, I then spoke of it, as an extraordinary example, to many persons, and among the reft to Colonel Roguin; whofe friendship and regard had induced him to accompany me to this place. Mr. de M. continued his civilities; of which at length I began to think I ought not to lofe the advantage; I therefore wrote to him, defiring to know if I might not be admitted to the enfuing communion? His anfwer, which he brought himself, was to affure me that, he was highly delighted with the step I was defirous of taking; that both he and his people thought themselves honoured by the offer; and that he flattered himielf fo unexpected a proceeding would afford great edification to the faithful. I must confefs to you, Sir, that I thought this moment one of the most agreeable I had ever experienced in my whole life. It is necefiary to have experienced all my misfortunes, to have undergone all the fufferings of a fufceptible mind, to be able to judge of the confolation I felt at the profpect of holding fociety with brethren, who might indemnify me for the loffes I had fuftained, and the distance of thofe whofe friendship I could no longer cultivate. It appeared to me that a fincere union with this little flock, in the exercife of affectionate and rational devotion, would help me to forget the malice and attempts of my enemies. With thefe fentiments my heart was fo greatly affected, that at first I often used to burst into tears of complacence in the midft of the congrega tion. Not having lived among Proteftants, I had formed an idea of their clergy, as of a kind of angels. The purity and fimplicity of their worship appeared to be what my foul panted after; it seemed peculiarly calculated to fupport the hope and refolution of the unhappy. The communicants feemed to me! as Chriftans without guile, united to each other by the tendereft ties of love and charity. How have they fince cured me of this agreeable delufion! This circumftance M. de Montmolin had endeavoured to represent in a difadvantageous light; as he alfo did the friendfhip and protection with which Mr. 1.o.ffeau was favoured by his excellency. Mr. |
