in painting for the church, was always in high esteem. It is only among Proteftants that players are beginning to be restored to their privileges as free citizens; and there perhaps never existed a historypainter more juftly esteemed, than Garrick, a player, is in Great Britain. Ariftarchus, having taught that the earth moves round the fun, was accufed by the Heathen priests, for troubling the repofe of their household-gods. Copernicus, for the fame doctrine, was accused by Chriftian priests, as contradicting the fcriptures, which talk of the fun's moving. And Galileo, for adhering to Copernicus, was condemned to prifon and penance: he found it neceffary to recant upon his knees. A bias acquired from Ariftotle, kept reason in chains for centuries. Scholaftic divinity in particular, founded on the philofophy of that author, was more hurtful to the reasoning faculty than the Goths and Huns. Tycho Braché fuffered great perfecution for maintaining, that the heavens were fo far empty of matter as to give free courfe to the comets; contrary to Ariftotle, who taught, that the heavens are harder than a diamond: it

was

was extremely ill taken, that a fimple mortal should pretend to give Ariftotle the lie. During the infancy of reafon, authority is the prevailing argument *.

- Reafon is eafily warped by habit. In the difputes among the Athenians about adjusting the form of their government, thofe who lived in the high country were for democracy; the inhabitants of the plains were for oligarchy; and the feamen for monarchy. Shepherds are all equal: in a corn-country, there are a few masters and many fervants: on shipboard, there is one commander, and all the rest fubjects. Habit was their adviser: none of them thought of confulting reafon, in order to judge what was the best form

* Ariftotle, it would appear, was lefs regarded by his cotemporaries than by the moderns. Some perfons having travelled from Macedon all the way to Perfia, with complaints against Antipater; Alexander obferved, that they would not have made. fo long a journey had they received no injury. And Caffander, fon of Antipater, replying, that their long journey was an argument against them, trufting that witneffes would not be brought from fuch a distance to give evidence of their calumny; Alexander, fmiling, faid, "Your argument is one of "Ariftotle's fophifins, which will ferve either fide. "equally."

upon

upon the whole. Habit of a different kind has an influence no lefs powerful. Perfons who are in the habit of reafoning, require demonftration for every thing: even a felf-evident propofition is not fuffered to escape. Such demonftrations occur more than once in the Elements of Euclid, nor has Ariftotle, with all his fkill in logic, entirely avoided them. Can any thing be more felf-evident, than the difference between pleafure and motion? Yet Ariftotle attempts to demonftrate, that they are different. No mo

"tion," fays he, " except circular mo

tion, is perfect in any one point of "time; there is always fomething want

ing during its course, and it is not per"fected till it arrive at its end. But plea→ "fure is perfect in every point of time;

being the fame from the beginning to "the end." The difference is clear from perception but instead of being clear from this demonftration, it fhould rather follow from it, that pleafure is the fame with motion in a circle. Plato alfo attempts to demonftrate a felf-evident propofition, that a quality is not a body. Every body," fays he, " is a fubject:

"quality is not a fubject, but an acci"dent; ergo, quality is not a body. A

gain, A body cannot be in a fubject: every quality is in a fubject; ergo, qua"lity is not a body." But Defcartes affords the moft illuftrious inftance of the kind. He was the greatest geometer of the age he lived in, and one of the greatest of any age; which infenfibly led him to overlook intuitive knowledge, and to admit no propofition but what is demonstrated or proved in the regular form of fyllogifm. He took a fancy to doubt even of his own existence, till he was convinced of it by the following argument. Cogito, ergo fum:

I think, therefore I exift. And what fort of a demonftration is this after all? In the very fundamental propofition he acknowledges his existence by the term 1; and how abfurd is it, to imagine a proof neceffary of what is admitted in the fundamental propofition? In the next place, How does our author know that he thinks? If nothing is to be taken for granted, an argument is no less necessary to prove that he thinks, than to prove that he exifts. It is true, that he has intuitive knowledge of his thinking; but has he

not

not the fame of his existing? Would not a man deserve to be laughed at, who, after warming himself at a fire, fhould imagine the following argument neceffary to prove its existence, "The fire burns, ergo "it exifts?" Listen to an author of high reputation attempting to demonstrate a felf-evident propofition. "The labour of

B cannot be the labour of C; because it "is the application of the organs and powers of B, not of C, to the effecting of fomething; and therefore the labour " is as much B's, as the limbs and faculties "made use of are his. Again, the effect

or produce of the labour of B, is not the "effect of the labour of C: and therefore this effect or produce is B's, not C's; as much B's, as the labour was B's, and

66

not C's: Becaufe, what the labour of "B causes or produces, B produces by "his labour; or it is the product of B

by his labour: that is, it is B's product, not C's or any other's. And if C fhould pretend to any property in that which B can truly call his, he would act contrary. to truth (a)."

In every subject of reasoning, to define

(a) Religion of Nature delineated, fect, 6. parag. 2. VOL. III.

P P

terms