§ 34. From this time onward, christendom was divided by two distinguished sects of philosophers; who, though they had little dispute about things of most practical utility in human life, were much at variance respecting the starting points in all philosophical reasonings, or the foundations of all human knowledge. The one may not improperly be called the metaphysical sect, and the other the mathematical; nor would the leaders in these schools probably reject these appellations. The former trod in the footsteps of des Cartes; the latter preferred the method of Gassendi. That supposed, truth was to be discovered by reasoning; this, rather by experiments and observation. That placed little dependence on the senses, and trusted more to reflection and ratiocination; this placed less dependance on reasoning, and relied more on the senses and the actual inspection of things. That deduced from the precepts of metaphysics a long list of dogmas; by which it affirmed a way was opened for acquiring a certain and precise knowledge of the nature of God, of souls, of bodies, and of the entire universe: this did not indeed reject the principles of metaphysics, but it denied their sufficiency for constructing an entire system of philosophy; and contended, on the contrary, that long experience, a careful inspection of things, and experiments often repeated, were the best helps to the attainment of solid and useful knowledge. That boldly soars aloft to examine the first cause and source of truth and the natures and causes of all things; and returning with these discoveries, descends to explain by them the changes that take place in nature, the purposes and the attributes of God, the character and duties of men, and the constitution and fabric of the universe: this, more timid and more modest, first inspects, most attentively, the objects which meet the eye, and which lie as it were at our feet; and then ascends to inquiries into the nature and causes of things. That supposes very much to be perfectly well understood; and therefore is very ready to attempt reducing its knowledge into the form of a regular and complete system: this supposes innumerable things to elude our grasp; and instructs its followers to suspend all judgment, on numberless points, until time and experience shall throw more light upon them; and lastly, it supposes that the business of making out

complete systems, as they are called, either entirely exceeds the ability of mortals, or must be left to future generations, who shall have learned far more from experience than we have. This disagreement respecting the first principles of all human knowledge and science has produced much dissension respecting subjects of the greatest importance, such as the character of God, the nature of matter, the elementary principles of matter, the laws of motion, the mode of the divine government or providence, the constitution of the universe, the nature and mutual relations of souls and bodies: and the wise, who reflect upon the subject matter of these disputes and the habits and dispositions of human minds, are fearful that these controversies will continue and be perpetual'. At the same time good men would be less troubled about these contests, if the parties would show more moderation, and would not each arraign the other as chargeable with a grievous offence against God, and with subverting the foundations of all religion ‘.

§ 35. All those who either embraced the sentiments of des Cartes, or adopted his rules of philosophizing, endeavoured to elucidate, confirm, amend, and perfect the metaphysical method

3 Voltaire published, a few years since: La Métaphysique de Neuton, ou parallèle des sentimens de Neuton et de Leibnitz, Amsterd. 1740, 8vo. which little book, though not so accurately written as it should be, nor a complete treatise on the subject, will yet be not a little serviceable to those, who wish to know how much these philosophic schools disagree.

It is well known, that des Cartes and his followers, the metaphysical philosophers, were formerly accused by vast numbers, and they are still accused, of subverting all religion and piety. In the list of Atheists unmasked, by Jo. Harduin, ((Eurres mêlées, p. 200, &c.) René des Cartes, with his principal and most noble followers, Anthony le Grand and Silvanus Regis, hold a conspicuous place. Nor is the name of Frane, Nich. Malebranche, though many think him nearer allied to the fanatics, excluded from this black catalogue, (See vol. iii. p. 126.) It is true, that Harduin very often talks like one delirious; but he does not

here follow his own genius, but adopts the views of the Peripatetic and Mathematical sects, who more fiercely than others assailed the Cartesian philosophy. And even very recently, Voltaire, though he is much more moderate, yet not obscurely assents to these accusations. (Métaphysique de Neuton, cap. i. p. 3, &c.) Nor were the Metaphysical philosophers more temperate towards their adversaries. Long since, Anthony Arnauld considered Gassendi, in his dispute against des Cartes, as subverting the immortality

of the soul. And Godfr. Wilh. Leibnitz added, that the whole of natural religion was corrupted and shaken by him. See Maizeaux, Recueil des diverses Pièces sur la Philosophie, tom. ü. p. 166. Nor does Leibnitz hesitate to declare, that, Isaac Newton and his adherents, rob God of his best attributes and perfections, and rip up the foundations of natural religion. And most of the writings of both parties, quite down to our times, are full of such criminations.

in philosophy. And these persons were very numerous in this century, especially in Holland and France. But, as some of this description, not obscurely, undermined religion and the belief of a God, of which class Benedict de Spinoza was the ringleader; and others of them abused the precepts of their master to pervert and overthrow certain doctrines of religion, as e. g. Balthazar Becker, hence the whole school, in various places, became extremely odious. There were none who pursued the metaphysical method more wisely, and at the same time more acutely, than Francis Nicholas Malebranche and Godfrey William Leibnitz; the former, a Frenchman, and one of the Fathers of the Oratory, a man equally eloquent and acute; the latter, a German, to be ranked with the first genius of any age. Neither of them, indeed, received all the dicta of des Cartes, but adopted his general method of philosophizing, added many opinions of his own, altered and improved many things, and confirmed others with more solid arguments. Malebranche yielded too much to his very fertile imagination; and therefore often inclined towards those who are agreeably deceived by the visions of their own creation. Leibnitz depended entirely on his reason and judgment.

§ 36. The mathematical philosophy, already mentioned, had a much smaller number of followers and friends: the causes of which will readily occur to those disposed to inquire for them. But it found a new country affording it protection, namely, Great Britain; the philosophers of which perceiving in its infantile and unfinished features a resemblance of the great Francis Bacon, lord Verulam, took it into their arms, cherished it, and to our times have given it fame. The whole royal society of London, which is almost the public school of the

5 Concerning Malebranche, the author of the interesting work, Search after Truth [Recherche de la Vérité, Paris, 1673. 3 vols. 12mo. also translated into English, in 1 vol. fol. Tr.] and of other metaphysical works; see Fontenelle, Eloges des Académi ciens de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, tom. i. p. 317, &c. For what is reprehensible in his philosophy, see Jo. Harduin's Atheists unmasked, in his Euvres mêlées, p. 43, &c. The life and doctrines of Leibnitz are described

by the same Fontenelle, loc. cit. tom. ii. p. 9. But his history, and his philosophy, are the most copiously described, by Charles Gunther Ludovici, in his History of the Leibnitian Philosophy, written in German, 2 vols. Lips. 1737. 8vo. The genius of this great man, may be the most satisfactorily learned, by reading his Epistles, published by Christ. Kortholt, in 3 vols. 8vo. Leipsic; and afterwards by others. Nor is it necessary I should here draw his portrait.

nation, approved of it; and with no less expense than pains and patience, improved and extended it. In particular, it is indebted for its progress very much to those immortal men, Isaac Barrow, John Wallis, John Locke, and him who should have been named first, Robert Boyle, a very religious gentleman, much noted among other things for his very learned works. The theologians also of that country,-a class of men whom philosophers are wont to charge with violently opposing their measures,deemed it not only sound and harmless, but likewise most useful to awaken and to cherish feelings of reverence for the deity, and to support and defend religion, and most consonant with the decisions of the holy Scriptures and the primitive church. And hence, all those who publicly assailed the enemies of God and religion, in the Boylian lectures, descended into the arena clad in its armour, and wielding its weapons. But by the ingenuity and diligence of no one have its increase and progress been more aided than by those of Isaac Newton; a man of the highest excellence, and venerable even in the estimation of his opposers: for he spent the whole of his long life in digesting, correcting, amplifying, and demonstrating it, both by experiments and by computations; and with so much success, that from being only silver, it seemed to become gold in his hands. The English say that the excellence and the superior value of this philosophy may be learned from this fact, that all those who have devoted themselves wholly to it, have left behind them bright examples of sanctity and solid piety; while, on the other hand, many of the metaphysical philosophers have been entirely estranged from God and his worship, and teachers and promoters of the greatest impiety.

$37. But although these two illustrious schools had deprived the ancient ones of their pupils and their reputation, yet all the philosophers would not join themselves to one or the other of them. For liberty of thinking for themselves being obtained, some men of superior genius and acumen, and some also whose imaginations were stronger than their judgments, ventured to

This great man's Elementa Philosophia Mathemetica, often printed, and his other writings, philosophical and mathematical, and also theological, are of great notoriety. His life and merits are elegantly described by Fontenelle;

Eloges des Académiciens de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, tom. ii.p. 293–323. Add Biblioth. Angloise, tom. xv. pt. ii. p. 545. and Biblioth. Raisonnée, tom. vi. pt. ii. p. 478.

point out new ways for coming at truth lurking in obscurity. But nearly all of them failed of obtaining many followers; so that it will be sufficient to just glance at the subject. There were some whose mediocrity of talents, or whose native indolence of character, deterred them from the difficult and laborious task of investigating truth by the efforts of their own minds, and who therefore attempted to collect, and to compact into a kind of system, the best and most satisfactory principles admitted by the schools. These are commonly denominated Eclectics. And finally, from these very disagreements and contests of the philosophers, some very acute men took occasion to despair of finding the truth, and for again opening the long closed school of the Sceptics. Among these, the more distinguished were Francis Sanches, a physician of Toulouse', Francis de la Mothe le Vayer, Peter Daniel Huet, bishop of Avranches, and some others. It is common, and not altogether without reason, to place among this class Peter Bayle'; who acquired high reputation in the latter part of this century by various works, rich in matter, and elegant in style.

7 There is a celebrated work of his, entitled: De eo, quod nihil scitur; which, with his other tracts, and his Life, was published at Toulouse, 1636. 4to. See Bayle's Dictionnaire, tom. iii. p. 2530. and Peter de Villemandy's Scepticismus debellatus, cap. iv. p. 32.

See Bayle's Dictionnaire, tom. iv. art. Vayer, p. 2780, &c.

• His book, On the Weakness of Human Reason, was published after his death, both in French, Amsterd. 1723. 8vo. and recently in Latin. But it appears, that, long before this book was either published or written, Huet had recommended the mode of philosophizing adopted by the sceptics; and thought this alone best suited to establish the christian religion. See his Commentarius de rebus ad eum pertinentibus, lib. iv. p. 230. and his Demonstratio Erangelica, Preface, § iv. p. 9. where he approves the measures of those, who first enervate all philosophy, and expel it from the mind, by sceptical arguments, before they proceed to the doubting the truth of chris

tianity. We are aware that the Jesuits, to whom Huet was much inclined, formerly adopted with success, and do still adopt, this very hazardous artifice, in order to draw over protestants to the Romish community.

1 Who, at this day, can be unacquainted with Bayle? His Life, copiously written, in two volumes, 8vo. by Peter des Maizeaux, was published at the Hague in 1732, [and is prefixed to the fifth edition of his Dictionnaire Hist. et Critique; Basle, 1738. 4 tomes, fol.] His scepticism was most clearly shown, and confuted with great dexterity, by Jo. Peter de Crousaz, in a very copious French work [Examen du Pyrrhonisme]; a neat abridgment of which was made by Sam. Formey, [Le Triomphe de l'Evidence,] and translated from French into German, by Alb. Haller, Gotting. 1756. 8vo. [See also Bayle's own answer to this and other charges brought against him, subjoined to the fifth edition of his Dictionnaire, tom. iv. p. 616, &c. Tr.]