Chapter I: Part 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects. Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_.

Please consult the end notes for a discussion of the handling of textual notes, and any other issues that arose during the preparation of this transcription.

MEMOIRS

OF THE LIFE

OF

DAVID RITTENHOUSE, LLD. F.R.S.

LATE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, &c.

INTERSPERSED WITH

VARIOUS NOTICES OF MANY DISTINGUISHED MEN:

WITH

AN APPENDIX,

CONTAINING

SUNDRY PHILOSOPHICAL AND OTHER PAPERS,

MOST OF WHICH HAVE NOT HITHERTO BEEN PUBLISHED.

BY WILLIAM BARTON, M. A.

COUNSELLOR AT LAW;

Member of the American Philosophical Society, the Mass. Hist. Society,
and the Royal Economical Society of Valencia, in Spain.

--------------

_PHILADELPHIA_:

PUBLISHED BY EDWARD PARKER, NO. 178, MARKET-STREET.

W. Brown, Printer, Church-Alley.

1813.

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO WIT:

BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the ninth day of October, in the thirty-eighth year of the independence of the United States of America, A. D. 1813, William Barton of the said district, hath deposited in this office the Title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Author, in the words following, to wit:

“Memoirs of the Life of David Rittenhouse, L. L. D. F.R.S, late
President of the American Philosophical Society, &c. Interspersed with
various notices of many distinguished men: with an Appendix,
containing sundry philosophical and other papers, most of which have
not hitherto been published. By William Barton, M. A. Counsellor at
Law; Member of the American Philosophical Society, the Mass. Hist.
Society, and the Royal Economical Society of Valencia, in Spain.”

In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, intituled, “An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned.”—And also to the act entitled, “An act supplementary to an act, entitled, “An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned,” and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints.”

D. CALDWELL,
Clerk of the District of Pennsylvania.

PREFACE.

Agreeably to the plan on which the following memoirs have been conducted, it will be perceived, that they contain a great variety of matter; of which, some particulars have a remote, others merely an incidental connexion, with the chief object of the work. There may perhaps be some readers, to whom the introduction of such matters as the _University of Pennsylvania_ and the _Medical School_ connected with it, the _Pennsylvania Hospital_, the _Philadelphia Library_, and the like, into the _Life of Rittenhouse_, will, on a cursory view, seem to have little or no affinity to that object. But when it is considered, that this work is designed to comprehend Memoirs, not only of Rittenhouse personally, but of several literary, scientific, and other public institutions, as well as of many eminent men, with which his individual history and the annals of his time were in various ways associated, it is presumed, that the slight sketches which have been taken of those matters, in passing along, will neither prove foreign to the nature of the present undertaking, nor uninteresting in themselves. As a citizen of Pennsylvania; as an inestimable public and private character; as a distinguished son of science, of great probity and extensive usefulness in society; in all these points of view, the History of Dr. Rittenhouse may be contemplated, as holding a relationship with almost every object connected with science and the arts, in his day, that could in any wise contribute to the well being of mankind in general, and his native country in particular. Conspicuous and eminently meritorious as he was, yet an insulated account of his talents, his virtues, and his personal services,—a bare specification of such qualities and merits as he possessed, abstracted from a due consideration of the state of society and circumstances resulting from it, taken in connexion with them, during the same period,—would not be equally intelligible and instructive; and, consequently, must prove less useful. For these reasons, the Memorialist has pursued that course which he conceives to be perfectly congenial with the main design of his work; as best calculated to promote its general usefulness, and most suitably adapted to render it interesting, even to those who read for amusement solely.

In the adoption of this plan, the writer has been chiefly influenced by a desire to illustrate the history, genius and character of the times, which his Memoirs embrace; together with the progress and improvement of literature, science and the arts, within the same compass, more especially in this country; and this consideration has obviously led him to introduce, in conjunction with those objects, as well as with the Life of the great American Philosopher, various notices of many persons distinguished for their talents and merit, not only in our own time, but at different periods in the annals of science. He has thought it right to rescue from oblivion—to commemorate in this way, if not to consecrate, the names of some men in this country, more especially, who deserve to be ranked among the worthies of America. All this the writer has done, too, in conformity to the mode prosecuted by some of the most judicious biographers and memorialists, together with other writers of the same class: It is believed to be a manner of treating the interesting subjects, on which the pens of such authors have been employed, which, while it renders their works more pleasing, greatly increases their usefulness.—If, therefore, some of the matter which has been introduced into the present work should, at first sight, appear irrelative, and even unimportant, the Memorialist nevertheless flatters himself, that, on reflection, nothing will be deemed really so, how remotely soever it may seem, on a transient view of the subject, to be connected with the principal design of the undertaking; provided it has a tendency to illustrate the great objects he was desirous of accomplishing.[I1]

-----

Footnote I1:

The biographer of RITTENHOUSE entirely coincides with the compilers of
the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, in opinion, respecting the utility and
propriety of giving an account, in such Memoirs as the present, of
_things_ as well as _persons_, connected in various ways with the main
object of the work.

In the preface to that useful dictionary of arts, sciences and
miscellaneous literature, are the following observations: the
consideration they merit; is submitted to the good sense of the
reader.

“While one part of our readers,” say the encyclopedists, when
referring to the _biographical_ department of their work, “will regret
that we have given no account of their favourite philosopher, hero, or
statesman, others may be disposed to remark, that we have dragged from
obscurity the names of many persons who were no proper objects of such
public regard. To these we can only reply, that, with the greatest
biographer of modern times, we have long thought that there has rarely
passed a life, of which a faithful narrative would not be useful; and
that in the lives of the most obscure persons, of whom we have given
any account, we saw something either connected with recent discoveries
and public affairs, or which we thought capable of affording a lesson
to great multitudes in similar circumstances.”—“Between eminent
achievements and the scenes where they were performed, there is a
natural and necessary connexion. The character of the warrior is
connected with the fields of his battles; that of the legislator, with
the countries which he civilized; and that of the traveller and
navigator, with the regions which they explored. Even when we read of
the _persons_ by whom, and the occasions on which, any particular
branch of knowledge has been improved, we naturally wish to know
something of the _places_ where such improvements were made.”

-----

The diversity of the materials which are, by these means, blended with the biographical account of Dr. Rittenhouse, in the Memoirs now presented to the world, made it expedient, in the opinion of the writer, to have recourse to the free use of notes, for the purposes of illustration, reference, and explanation. In a work of such a complexion—constituting a book composed of very various materials, designed to elucidate and inform, as well as to please—it became, in fact, necessary to throw a large portion of that matter into the form of notes; in order to avoid, by numerous digressions on subjects arising out of the primary object of the work, too much disjointing of the text. There are persons, no doubt, by whom this course will be disapproved. The able and learned author of the _Pursuits of Literature_ has been accused by _some critics_—while others, who have no pretensions to those qualifications which entitle a man to exercise the functions of a critic, have even affected to laugh at him—for the multiplicity, the variety, and the length of the notes, which he has appended to that poem. But its being a _satirical_ poem, is the circumstance to which may be fairly attributed the censorious cavils which his work excited: his satire was felt; and it roused the spleen of those who were its objects, and their partizans. The present work, however, is far from being intended to _satirise_ any one; its author has no such object in view: for, although he has, in some instances, expressed his disapprobation of certain principles, theories, and even measures, which he believes to be not only repugnant to true science, but destructive of both private and social happiness—he has refrained as far as possible from personal censure;—he would much rather be engaged in the functions of an eulogist, than those of a censor. The numerous notes the Memorialist has employed—many of them, too, pretty long—will not therefore, he presumes, be objected to, on the ground of personality or supposed ill-humour. He has introduced them into his Memoirs, because he believed them to be not only useful, but peculiarly well adapted to a work of this nature, and suited to answer the general scope of its design. The author may then say, in the words of the poetical writer just mentioned—as an apology for the frequency and copiousness of the notes annexed to these Memoirs;—“I have made no allusions which I did not mean to explain. But I had something further in my intention. The notes are not always explanatory; they are of a structure rather peculiar to themselves: many of them are of a nature between an essay and an explanatory comment. There is much in a little compass, suited to the exigency of the times. I expatiated on the casual subject which presented itself; and when ancient or modern writers expressed the thoughts better than I could myself, I have given the original languages. No man has a greater contempt for the parade of quotation (as such) than I have. My design is not to quote words, but to enforce right sentiments in the manner which I think best adapted to the purpose, after much reflection.”

The method of disposing of the notes, in this work, may be thought by some to impair the symmetry of the page: but so trivial a defect as this may be, in the typographical appearance of the book, will, it is supposed, be amply compensated by the convenience the reader will experience, in having the annotations, almost always, on the same pages with their respective references.

In the arrangement of the Memoirs, the author has placed the incidents and circumstances relating to the Life of Dr. Rittenhouse, in their chronological order, as nearly as could be conveniently done.

An APPENDIX,—containing sundry letters and other papers, which could neither be incorporated with propriety into the text, nor inserted in marginal notes,—is placed after the conclusion of the Memoirs. In this part of the work the reader will find, among other interesting documents, Dr. Rittenhouse’s _Oration_ on the subject of Astronomy, pronounced before the American Philosophical Society, in the year 1775. The addition of this treatise to the Life of our Philosopher, was rendered the more proper,—independently of the intrinsic merit of the performance,—by reason of the pamphlet having had, originally, a very limited circulation, and its being now out of print. The Notes, added to this little tract, as well as to some other papers in the Appendix, by the Memorialist, are designated by the initials of his name; in order to distinguish the annotations from either the notes originally attached to them,—or from other matter, in the Text, not written by himself.

The author has embellished his work with an elegantly engraved likeness of Dr. Rittenhouse, executed by an able artist, from a portrait painted by Mr. C. W. Peale, in-the year 1772,[I2] when our Philosopher was forty years of age. At that time he wore a wig,—and was so represented in the picture: but afterwards, when he resumed the wearing of his own hair, (and which he continued to do during the remainder of his life,) the portrait was altered accordingly, by Mr. Peale. The original picture (now in the possession of Mrs. Sergeant,) bore a strong resemblance to Dr. Rittenhouse, at that period of his life in which it was taken; and the engraving, prefixed to these Memoirs, is an excellent copy.

-----

Footnote I2:

Mr. C. W. Peale painted at the same time another portrait of him, for
himself; which is likewise altered from the original painting. It has
a place in Mr. Peale’s Gallery of Portraits. There is a third, by the
same hand, in the possession of the American Philosophical Society.

Another good picture of Dr. Rittenhouse was also then made, by Mr.
James Peale, for the Rev. Mr. Barton. This (which represents him with
a wig) is now in the possession of John Moore White, Esq. of
New-Jersey, who married Mr. Barton’s youngest daughter.

A pretty good mezzotinto, in a large size,—done from Mr. C. W. Peale’s
painting of our Philosopher,—was executed by Mr. E. Savage, in the
winter of 1796: and since that time, some small engravings have been
made from different pictures of him; but these do not so well preserve
the likeness.

-----

To a portion of the readers of this work, some of the matter it contains may be thought superfluous,—because already familiar to _them_: and, to men of extensive learning and research, much of the information herein collected may really be so. But to persons of less erudition and science, the knowledge thus communicated it may be presumed, will prove in some degree useful; and the writer indulges a confident belief, that the greater number of his readers will derive both instruction and gratification, from a perusal of the Memoirs now offered to their attention.

The favours which the Memorialist has received, in the communication of sundry papers and some information for this work, demand his thankful acknowledgments to the contributors. Among these,—besides those gentlemen occasionally mentioned in the Memoirs,—the writer returns his thanks to his worthy relatives, Mrs. Sergeant, Mrs. Waters, and Dr. Benjamin Smith Barton; and also to the Rt. Rev. Bishop White, Andrew Ellicott, Esq. John Vaughan, Esq. the Rev. Dr. Samuel Stanhope Smith, Charles Smith, Esq. and the Rev. Mr. Cathcart. To the friendship and politeness of these very respectable characters, he holds himself indebted, on this occasion.[I3]

-----

Footnote I3:

Some interesting information was likewise communicated by the late
Professor Rush. The death of that gentleman having occurred since the
completion of the present work, the author has inserted a concise
biographical notice of him, in the Appendix, in place of the mention
originally made of his name in this preface.

-----

It has been the earnest desire of the writer, to adhere strictly to Truth, in every part of his narrative: he has not, therefore, introduced into his work any thing, as a matter of Fact, which he did not believe to be well founded. Wherever he has ventured to express an Opinion of his own, on any subject of importance, it must be left to the judgment and candour of others to determine, what weight it may be entitled to.—In the various quotations which appear in his Memoirs, the writer has endeavoured to observe the utmost fidelity, with respect to the originals; and all his translations into the English, from other languages, have been made with a like scrupulous attention to correctness.—Some errors and inaccuracies have nevertheless, it may be readily supposed, found their way into the following work; though the writer trusts they are neither numerous nor very important: and, as they are wholly unintentional, of whatever description they may be, he hopes it will not be deemed presumptuous in him, to claim for them the indulgence of a candid, liberal, and discerning public.

LANCASTER, in Pennsylvania,
April 11, 1813.

INTRODUCTION.

The individuals in society, who present to the view of their cotemporaries, and transmit to posterity, Memorials of illustrious men,—more especially those of their own country,—discharge thereby a debt of gratitude: because every man is, directly or indirectly, interested in the benefits conferred on his species, by those who enlarge the sphere of human knowledge, or otherwise promote the happiness of mankind.

But the biographer of an highly meritorious character aims at more than the mere performance of that duty, which a grateful sense of obligation exacts from him, in common with every member of the community, in commemorating the beneficence of the wise and the good: he endeavours to excite in great and liberal minds, by the example of such, an ambition to emulate their talents and their virtues;—and it is these, that, by their union, constitute true greatness of character.

The meed of applause which may be sometimes, and too often is, bestowed on meretricious worth, is ever unsteady and fleeting. The pseudo-patriot may happen to enjoy a transient popularity; false philosophy may, for a while, delude, if not corrupt, the minds of an unthinking multitude; and specious theories in every department of science,—unsupported by experience and untenable on principles of sound reason,—may give to their projectors a short-lived reputation: But the celebrity which is coveted by the man of a noble and generous spirit,—that estimable species of fame, which alone can survive such ephemera of error as are often engendered by the vanity of the individual and nurtured by the follies or vices of the many,—must ever rest on the permanent foundation of truth, knowledge and beneficence.

Virtue is essentially necessary to the constitution of a truly great character. For, although brilliant talents are sometimes found combined with vicious propensities,[1]—the impulse given to men of this description, often renders their great abilities baneful to society: they can seldom, if ever, be productive of real public good. Should eminent talents, possessed by a man destitute of virtue, even take a right direction in their operation, by reason of some extraordinary circumstance,—such an event ought never to be calculated on: It is not the part of common sense,—much less of a cautious prudence, acquired by a knowledge of mankind,—to expect praise-worthy conduct from any one, whose predominating passions are bad, however great may be his capability of doing good.

-----

Footnote 1:

Hence, in conformity to this sentiment, Mr. Pope says, when
animadverting on the insufficiency of talents, alone, for acquiring an
honourable fame and meriting a character truly great,—

“If parts allure thee, think how Bacon shin’d,
The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind;
Or, ravish’d with the whistling of a name,
See Cromwell damn’d to everlasting fame.”
[ESSAY ON MAN.]

-----

While, therefore, the mind may view, with a sort of admiration, the achievements of a magnanimous soldier, it turns with indignation from the atrocities of a military tyrant: and at the same time that it may be induced to contemplate even with complacency, at the first view, the plausible, yet groundless speculations of ingenious theorists, in matters of science,—still the fallacy of their systems, when developed by experience, strips them of all their tinseled glare of merit. Thus, too, the applause which the world justly attaches to the character of a patriot-hero, deserts the unprincipled ruffian-warrior, however valiant and successful he may prove: In like manner, reason and experience expose to the censure of the good and the derision of the wise, the deleterious doctrines of metaphysical statesmen and philosophers.[2] Such estimable qualities as they may possess, in either character, are merged in the mischievous or base ones, with which they are combined: thus, infamy or contempt eventually become the merited portion of crime or of folly, as either one or the other may prevail. A Cæsar,[3] a Cromwell and a Robespierre, with other scourges of mankind, of like character, will therefore be viewed as objects of execration by posterity, while the memories of an Alfred, a Nassau, and a Washington—a Chatham, a Burke, and an Ames,—will be venerated, to the latest posterity.

-----

Footnote 2:

The miserable consequences which have resulted to the civilized world,
from the mode of reasoning _abstractly_, and from the mere
_synthetical_ plan of philosophising, are too apparent to need much
comment. Even some _geometricians_ of great name have been seduced, by
such means, into monstrous absurdities in physics; and into the
maintenance of doctrines, alike subversive of religion and morals, as
destructive of the foundations of civil society. Such were Descartes,
Leibnitz and Spinoza, of the seventeenth century: and such have been,
and even now are, too many of that class of modern philosophers, as
well in this country as on the continent of Europe,—whose metaphysical
notions of religion and government, (although some of them may,
perhaps, be pretty correct on the subject of physics, alone,) have
been the means of inundating the world with scepticism; and, after
overturning regular, orderly, and peaceable states, of establishing
despotism and misery on the ruins of rational government, in many of
the fairest portions of the old world.

Even Voltaire, who had, himself, been instrumental in corrupting the
mind of the great Frederick of Prussia, and, thus, of furnishing the
means for the subsequent overthrow of that once powerful monarchy;
even _this infidel_ could not help exclaiming, in a moment of sober
reflection, “Who could have believed, that _geometricians_ have been
wild enough to imagine, that, in the exaltation of the soul, we may
possess the gift of divination; yet more than one philosopher took it
into their heads, by the example of _Descartes_, to put themselves
into God’s place, and create a world with a word! But now, all _these
philosophical follies_ are reproved by the wise; and even their
fantastical edifices, overthrown by reason, have left in their ruins,
materials, of which reason has made some use.—A like extravagance has
infected the _moral_ world: there have been some understandings so
blind as to undermine the very foundation of society, at the time they
thought to reform it. They have been mad enough to maintain that the
distinctions of _meum & tuum_ are criminal, and that one ought not to
enjoy the fruits of one’s own labour; that not only all mankind are
upon a level, but that they have perverted the order of nature, in
forming societies; that men are born to be separated from each other,
like wild beasts; and that amphibious animals, with bees and ants,
confound the eternal laws, by living in common! These impertinences,
worthy of an hospital of madmen,” continues Mr. de Voltaire,
sarcastically, “have been for some time in fashion, just as it is
customary to lead apes to dance, at fairs.” [See THE AGE OF LOUIS XV.
ch. 39.]

But although it cannot be doubted; that the society of Voltaire
contributed to support, if not to generate, the deistical principles
of Frederick II. other foreigners, whom he had patronized and
cherished in his own capital, and with whom he associated, most of
them Frenchmen, did much towards debauching his mind, in regard to
religion. The Prince de Ligne, a distinguished Austrian field-marshal,
has verified this remark. In a letter written to the king of Poland,
in the year 1785, the prince narrates some particulars of a
conversation which took place between the Prussian monarch and
himself, in the year 1770; and observes, that the king expressed his
libertine sentiments too freely, even making a boast of his
irreligion. The prince de Ligne, on this occasion, charges
freethinkers with a want of candour, in promulgating opinions fraught
with infidelity, while many of them heartily dread the consequences of
what they affect to renounce. But this, he remarks, is not their only
fault: “they are also apt,” says he, “to make a parade of
free-thinking; which betrays, at least, a want of taste. It was,”
continues the prince, “from having been surrounded by men of bad
taste, such as D’Argens, Maupertuis, La Beaumelle, La Mettrie, the
Abbé de Brades, and some clumsy infidels of his academy, that the king
had contracted the habit of abusing religion, and talking of dogmas,
Spinozism, the court of Rome, &c.”

LETTERS AND REFLEXIONS OF THE PRINCE DE LIGNE.

Footnote 3:

However Cæsar may be admired as an accomplished gentleman and
scholar,—or even as a great and gallant soldier,—he ought ever to be
reprobated as an usurper and a tyrant.—Dr. Adam Ferguson remarks, that
“Julius Cæsar possessed the talent of influencing, of gaining, and
employing men to his purpose, beyond any other person that is known in
the history of the world: but it is surely not for the good of
mankind,” continues this able writer, “that he should be admired in
other respects. To admire even his clemency, is to mistake for it
policy and cunning.” [See Ferguson’s _Hist. of the Progress and
Termination of the Roman Republic_, vol. 5. ch. 36.]

Indeed our admiration of the great _military_ talents of such a man as
Cæsar, may carry us too far. Mr. Hume, in his History of England (ch.
47.) very justly observes—that “The unhappy prepossession which men
commonly entertain in favour of ambition, courage, enterprise, and
other warlike virtues, engages generous natures,—who always love
fame,—into such pursuits as destroy their own peace, and that of the
rest of mankind.”

-----

Much of the glory of a nation results from the renown of illustrious men, among its citizens: a country which has produced many great men, may justly pride itself on the fame which those individuals had acquired. The community to which we belong is entitled to such services as we can render to it: these the patriot will cheerfully bestow; and, in promoting the honour and prosperity of his country, a large portion of the lustre which the exertion of his talents shall have shed upon it, are again reflected on himself.[4]

-----

Footnote 4:

Mr. Fontenelle in his _Eloge_ on Sir Isaac Newton (published by the
Royal Academy of Sciences, at Paris,) mentions particularly the great
honours that were paid him, by his countrymen, as well during his life
as after his decease. “The English,” says he, “are not apt to pay the
less regard to great abilities, for being of their native growth; but
instead of endeavouring to lessen them by injurious reflexions, or
approving the envy which attacks them, they all join together in
striving to advocate them,”—“They are sensible that a great genius
must reflect honour upon the state; and whoever is able to procure it
to their country, is upon that account infinitely dear to
them.”—“Tacitus,” says he, “who has reproached the Romans with their
extreme indifference towards the great men of their own nation, would
have given the English quite a different character.”—And, after
describing the almost princely magnificence, in the manner of Newton’s
interment in Westminster Abbey, Mr. Fontenelle remarks, that we must
almost go back to the ancient Greeks, if we would find a like instance
of so great a veneration paid to learning.

The following epitaph, in classical Latin, is inscribed on the noble
monument erected to the memory of Newton, in the Abbey Church of
Westminster:

H. S. E.
Isaacus Newton, Eques Auratus,
Qui vi animi prope divinâ
Planetarum motus, figuras,
Cometarum semitas, Oceanique æstus,
Sua mathesi facem præferente,
Primus demonstravit.
Radiorum lucis dissimilitudines,
Colorumque inde nascentium proprietates
Quas nemo antea vel suspicatus erat, prevestigavit,
Naturæ, Antiquitatis, S. Scripturæ,
Sedulus, sagax, fidus interpres,
Dei Opt. Max. majestatem philosophiâ asseruit,
Evangelii simplicitatem moribus expressit,
Sibi gratulentur mortales, tale tantumque exstitisse,
Humani Generis Decus.
Natus XXV. Decemb. MDCXLII. Obiit XX. Mart.
MDCCXXVI.

-----

The cultivator of those branches of natural science which constitute practical and experimental philosophy;—equally with the teacher of religion and morals,—extends the beneficial effects of his researches and knowledge beyond the bounds of his particular country. Truth is every where the same; and the promulgation of it tends, at all times and in all places, to elevate to its proper station the dignity of man. The more extensively, then, true science can be diffused, the greater will be the means—the fairer will be the rational prospect, of enlarging the sphere of human happiness. The philosopher may, pre-eminently, be considered as a citizen of the world; yet without detracting in any degree from that spirit of patriotism, which ever stimulates a good man to contribute his primary and most important services to his own country. There are, indeed, some species of aids, which are exclusively due to a community, by all its citizens; and, consequently, such as they are bound to withhold from other national communities, in certain contingencies and under peculiar circumstances. But a knowledge of those truths which lead to the acquisition of wisdom and practice of virtue, serves to meliorate the condition of mankind generally, at all times, and under all circumstances;—inasmuch as they greatly assist in banishing error, with its frequent concomitant, vice, not only from the more civilized portions of the world, but also by their inherent influence, from among nations less cultivated and refined.

The truths promulgated by means of a natural and sublime philosophy—corresponding, as this does, with the dignity of an enlightened spirit—must ever emanate from a virtuous heart as well as an expanded intellect. Hence, the real philosopher,—he whose principles are unpolluted by the sophisticated tenets of some modern pretenders to the appellation,—can scarcely fail to be a _good man_. Such was the immortal Newton; such were a Boyle, a Hale and a Barrow,—a Boerhaave, a Stephen Hales and a Bradley; with many worthies equally illustrious,—whose glories will, for ever, retain their primitive splendour.

Even the most celebrated sages of antiquity, extremely imperfect as we know the philosophy of the early ages to have been, elucidated, by the purity of their lives and the morality of their doctrines, the truth of the position,—that the cultivation of natural wisdom, unaided as it then was by the lights of revelation, encreased every propensity to moral virtue. Such were Socrates, Plato his disciple, and Anaxagoras; who flourished between four and five centuries before the Christian era.

The life of Socrates, who is styled by Cicero _the Father of Philosophers_, afforded a laudable example of moderation, patience, and other virtues; and his doctrines abound with wisdom. Anaxagoras and Plato united with some of the nobler branches of natural science, very rational conceptions of moral truth. Both of them had much higher claims to the title of philosophers, than Aristotle, who appeared about a century afterwards. This philosopher, however,—for, as such, he continued for many ages to be distinguished in the schools,—was, like Socrates, more a metaphysician than an observer of the natural world. His morality is the most estimable part of his works; though his conceptions of moral truths were much less just than those of Anaxagoras and Plato:[5] for his physics are replete with notions and terms alike vague, unmeaning and obscure.[6] The intimate connexion that subsists between the physical and moral fitness of things, in relation to their respective objects, was more evidently known to Anaxagoras and Plato, than to either Socrates or Aristotle: and the reason is obvious;—both of the former cultivated the sublime science of _Astronomy_.

-----

Footnote 5:

Aristotle is supposed, by some, to have imbibed the best and most
rational of his notions from his master Plato; to whom,
notwithstanding, he seems to have been greatly inferior as a moral
philosopher.

His opinions respecting government, abound in good sense. As a
general outline of his sentiments on this subject, it may serve to
mention, that he distinguished civil government into two kinds; one,
in which the general welfare is the great object; the other, in
which this is not at all considered.[5a] In the first class, he
places the limited monarchy—the aristocratical form of
government—and the republic, properly so called. In the second, he
comprehends tyranny—oligarchy—and democracy; considering these as
corruptions of the three first. Limited monarchy, he alleges,
degenerates into despotism, when the sovereign assumes to himself
the exercise of the entire authority of the state, refusing to
submit his power to any controul;[5b] the aristocracy sinks into an
oligarchy, when the supreme power is no longer possessed by a
reasonable proportion of virtuous men,—but by a small number of
rulers, whose wealth alone constitutes their claim to authority; and
the republican government is debased into a democracy, when the
poorest class of the people have too great an influence in the
public deliberations.[5c]

In Physics, Aristotle scarcely deserves the name of a Philosopher.—As
to his metaphysical opinions, in the common acceptation of the
term,—it is impossible to ascertain, with certainty, what they really
were. It was not until eighteen centuries after his death, that his
philosophy—such as it was then promulgated, anew—began to be generally
known and studied. After the sacking of Constantinople by the Turks,
in the year 1453, some fugitive Greeks, who had escaped the fury of
the Ottoman arms, brought from that city into the west of Europe many
of the writings of the Stagyritish philosopher: But, although some of
his treatises were previously known, they were such as had passed
through the hands of the Arabs, in translations into their tongue;
done by men who, it may be fairly presumed, very imperfectly
understood the author’s language; consequently not capable, even if
they were disposed, to do justice to the sense of the original.
Subsequent translations of those writings, from the Arabic, probably
occasioned, in the same way, further departures from the meaning of
the original Greek. Thus varying, as may be supposed, from the
opinions taught by Aristotle himself,—the philosophy of the schoolmen,
engrafted upon his systems, was neither entirely that of the
Stagyrite, nor altogether different. His writings, nevertheless, gave
birth to what is termed the Scholastic Philosophy,—“that motley
offspring of error and ingenuity,” as it is called by Mr. Mallet.[5d]
“To trace at length,” says this writer, “the rise, progress, and
variations of _this philosophy_, would be an undertaking not only
curious, but instructive; as it would unfold to us all the mazes in
which the force, the subtlety, the extravagance of human wit, can lose
themselves: till not only profane learning, but Divinity itself, was
at last, by the refined frenzy of those who taught both, subtilized
into mere notion and air.”[5e]

Footnote 5a:

Aristot. de Rep.—lib, 3. cap. 6.

Footnote 5b:

Id. Rhet.—lib. 1. cap. 8.

Footnote 5c:

Id. de Rep.—lib. 3. cap. 7.

Footnote 5d:

In his _Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon_.

Footnote 5e:

Ibid.

Footnote 6:

Baron Bielfeld (in his _Elements of Universal Erudition_) observes,
that the fondness for Aristotle’s reveries began about the twelfth
century. It was then, that the _scholastic_ philosophy was formed.
This was partly borrowed from the writings of the Arabs, who were
always attached to the theories of Aristotle: they were initiated into
a subtile, ambiguous, abstract and capricious mode of reasoning; by
which they never hit the truth, but constantly went on the one side,
or beyond the truth. Toward the end of the fourteenth century,
continues the learned Baron, this absurd system arrived to a great
height. It became a mere jargon, a confused heap of unintelligible
ideas.

The celebrated Mr. Boyle, the great successor of Lord Verulam (St.
Albans) in experimental philosophy, is said to have declared against
the Philosophy of Aristotle, as having in it more of words than
things; promising much and performing little; and giving the
Inventions of Men for indubitable proofs, instead of building upon
observation and experiment. He was so zealous for, and so scrupulous
about, this true method of learning by experiment, that, though the
_Cartesian_ philosophy then made a great noise in the world, yet he
would never be persuaded to read the works of _Descartes_; for fear he
should be amused, and led away, by plausible accounts of things
founded on conjecture, and merely hypothetical. (See Art. _Boyle_, in
the New and General Biography.)—This great and excellent man was born
the same year in which Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, died.

Epicurus, the disciple of Democritus, and follower of the Philosophy
of Aristotle, was engaged, although unsuccessfully enough, in the
labyrinth of Metaphysics, as well as in Physics. He adopted the system
of _Atoms_, which Democritus first propagated; and hence appears to be
derived Descartes’s equally preposterous doctrine of the _Plenum_ and
of _Vortices_.

-----

To this cause, then, may be fairly attributed the half-enlightened notions of the Deity,[7] and of a future state, entertained by these pagan searchers after truth. To the same cause may be traced the sentiment that dictated the reply made by Anaxagoras,—when, in consequence of his incessant contemplation of the stars, he was asked, “_if he had no concern for his country?_”—“_I incessantly regard my country_,” said he, pointing to Heaven.

-----

Footnote 7:

“Nulla gens tam fera, quæ non sciat Deum habendum esse, quamvis
ignoret qualem habere deceat.”

CIC. de Naturâ Deorum.

-----

Plato’s attention to the same celestial science unquestionably enlarged his notions of the Deity, and enabled him to think the more justly of the moral attributes of human nature. According to Plato—whose morality, on the whole, corresponds with the system maintained by Socrates,[8]—the human soul is a ray from the Divinity. He believed, that this minute portion of infinite Wisdom, Goodness and Power, was omniscient, while united with the Parent stock from which it emanated; but, when combined with the body, that it contracted ignorance and impurity from that union. He did not, like his master Socrates, neglect natural philosophy; but investigated many principles which relate to that branch of knowledge:—and, according to this philosopher, all things consisted of two principles,—_God_ and _matter_.

-----

Footnote 8:

While Plato followed the morals of Socrates, he cultivated the
metaphysical opinions of Pythagoras. He is said to have founded his
physics on the notions of Heraclitus: it may be presumed,
nevertheless, that he derived that branch of his system from a better
source.

-----

It is evident that Plato believed in the immortality of the soul of man; but he had, at the same time, very inadequate conceptions of the mode or state of its existence, when separated from the body. It seems to have been reserved for the Christian dispensation, to elucidate this great _arcanum_, hidden from the most sagacious of the heathen philosophers.[9] It was the difficulty that arose on this subject, the incapability of knowing how to dispose of the soul, or intellectual principle in the constitution of our species, after its disentanglement from the body; a difficulty by which all the philosophers, antecedent to the promulgation of Christianity, were subjected to unsurmountable perplexities;—it was this, that rendered even the expansive genius of Anaxagoras utterly incompetent to conceive of the possibility that the soul should exist, independent of some union with matter. He therefore invented the doctrine of the _Metempsychosis_; in order to provide some receptacle of organised matter for that imperishable intellectual principle attached to our nature here, after its departure from the human frame; and to which new vehicle of the vital spirit of its original but abandoned abode, the extinguished corporeal man, its union with it should impart the powers and faculties of animal life.

-----

Footnote 9:

“_Reason_, tho’ taught by sense to range on high,
To trace the stars and measure all the sky;
Tho’ fancy, memory, foresight fill her train,
And o’er the beast he lifts the pride of man;
Yet, still to _matter_, _form_ and _space_ confin’d,
Or moral truths or laws that rule mankind,
Could ne’er, _unaided_, pierce the mental gloom,
Explore _new_ scenes _beyond the closing tomb_,
Reach with _immortal_ hope the blest abode,
Or raise one thought of _spirit_ or of GOD.”
_Vision of Columbus_, book VIII.

-----

Cultivating, as Plato did, the mind-expanding science of Astronomy, faintly even as the true principles of this branch of science were then perceived,[10] this philosopher could not fail to derive, from the vastness, beauty and order, manifested in the appearances and revolutions of the heavenly bodies, a conviction of the perpetual existence of a great intelligent First Cause. It was, indeed, as the Abbé Barthelemy justly remarks, the order and beauty apparent through the whole universe, that compelled men to resort to a First Cause:[11] This, he observes, the early philosophers of the Ionian school (which owed its origin to Thales) had acknowledged. But Anaxagoras[12] was the first who discriminated that First Cause from matter; and not only this distinguished pupil of Thales,[13] but Anaximander, who, antecedently to him, taught philosophy at Athens, with Archelaus the master of Socrates, all treated in their writings of the formation of the universe, of the nature of things, and of geometry and astronomy.

-----

Footnote 10:

“An inordinate desire to explain and generalise, without facts and
observations, led the ancient philosophers to the most absurd and
extravagant notions; though, in a few cases, they have displayed the
most wonderful ingenuity, and sagaciously anticipated the discoveries
of modern times.”

_New Edinb. Encyclop._ tit. Astronomy.

Footnote 11:

“If the petty motions of us mortals afford arguments for the being of
a God, much more may those greater motions we see in the world, and
the phænomena attending them: I mean, the motions of the planets and
heavenly bodies. For these must be put into motion either by one
common mighty Mover, acting upon them immediately, or by causes and
laws of His appointment; or by their respective movers, who, for
reasons to which you can by this time be no stranger,” (referring his
reader to preceding arguments), “must depend upon some Superior, that
furnished them with the power of doing this. And granting it to be
done either of these ways, we can be at no great distance from a
demonstration of the existence of a Deity.”—Wollaston’s _Rel. of Nat.
delineated_, sect. v. head 14th.

Footnote 12:

A disciple of Anaximenes, and preceptor to Socrates. He died 428 years
B. C. in the seventy-second year of his age.

Footnote 13:

Thales, of Miletus in Ionia, was one of the seven sages of Greece: he
was born about six hundred and forty years before the Christian era.
After travelling into other countries, he returned to his own, and
there devoted himself exclusively to the study of nature. Being the
first of the Greeks who made any discoveries in _Astronomy_, he is
said to have astonished his countrymen, by predicting a solar eclipse;
and he instructed them, by communicating the knowledge of geometry and
astronomy, which he had acquired while in Egypt. He died in the
ninety-sixth year of his age,—544 years B. C.

-----

According to Mr. Gibbon, the philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature of man, rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, as we are informed by this very ingenious historian, on the Divine Nature, as a most curious and important speculation; and, in the profound enquiry, they displayed both the strength and the weakness of the human understanding. The Stoics and the Platonists endeavoured to reconcile the interests of reason with their notions of piety. The opinions of the Academicians and Epicureans, the two other of the four most celebrated schools, were of a less religious cast: But, continues Mr. Gibbon, whilst the modest science of the former induced them to doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny, the providence of a Supreme Ruler.

Cicero[14] denominated the God of Plato the _Maker_, and the God of Aristotle the _Governor_, of the world.[15] It is somewhere observed, that it is no reflection on the character of Plato, to have been unable, by the efforts of his own reason, to acquire any notion of a proper creation; since we, who have the advantage of his writings, nay of writings infinitely more valuable than his, to instruct us, find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conceive how any thing can first begin to have an existence. We believe the fact, on the authority of Revelation.

-----

Footnote 14:

Marcus Tullius Cicero—the same that has been already mentioned. He
was, himself, not only one of the most learned and eloquent men, but
one of the greatest philosophers, of antiquity. This illustrious Roman
(whose death occurred forty-three years before the Christian era)
firmly believed in the being of a God. He was likewise a decided
advocate for the doctrine of the soul’s immortality; concerning which,
some fine reasoning will be found in his book on _Old Age_;—a
doctrine, however, by no means confined to Cicero alone, but one
maintained by many of the most eminent among the heathen philosophers,
in the early ages. Plato appears to have been the first who supported
that opinion upon sound and permanent arguments, deduced from truth
and established principles.

Footnote 15:

Cicero himself says, “If any one doubt, whether there be _a God_, I
cannot comprehend why the same person may not as well doubt, whether
there be a sun or not.” [_De Naturâ Deorum_, 2. 2.]

It is observed by Dr. Turnbull, in his annotations on Heineccius’s
_System of Universal Law_, that Polybius as well as Cicero, and indeed
almost all the ancient philosophers, have acknowledged, that a public
sense of Religion is necessary to the well-being and support of civil
society: and such a sentiment of Religion is inseparable from a
reasonable conception of the being and attributes of the Deity.
“Society,” says Dr. Turnbull very truly, “can hardly subsist without
it: or, at least, it is the most powerful mean for restraining from
vice; and for promoting and upholding those virtues by which society
subsists, and without which every thing that is great and comely in
society must soon perish and go to ruin.”—“With regard to private
persons,” continues this learned writer, “he who does not often employ
his mind in reviewing the perfections of the Deity, and in consoling
and strengthening his mind by the comfortable and mind-exalting
reflexions, to which meditation upon the universal providence of an
all-perfect mind, naturally, and as it were, necessarily lead,
deprives himself of the greatest joy, the noblest exercise and
entertainment, the human mind is capable of; and whatever obligations
there may to virtue, he cannot be so firm, steady, and unshaken in his
adherence to it, as he, who, being persuaded of the truth just
mentioned, is daily drawing virtuous strength and comfort from it.”
[See the Annotator’s remark on ch. v. b. i. of _Heineccius_.]

-----

Great were, undoubtedly, the improvements in astronomy, made by the Greek philosophers of early ages, on such of its rudiments as were handed down to them from those nations by whom it was first cultivated:[16] Yet it can scarcely be conceived, that, until the celebrated Euclid of Alexandria,[17] and his followers, had reduced the mathematics of Thales and others of those philosophers, into regular systems of arithmetical and geometrical science, the true principles of astronomy could be ascertained. In fact, seventeen centuries and an half had elapsed, from the time of that great geometrician, before Copernicus appeared: when this wonderful genius, availing himself of such remnants of the ancient philosophy, as the intervening irruptions of the barbarous nations of the north upon the then civilized world had left to their posterity, opened to the view of mankind the real system of the universe.[18]—So vast was the chasm, during which the nobler branches of physics remained uncultivated and neglected, that, from the age of Euclid, fourteen centuries passed away, before Roger Bacon, an English Franciscan friar, began his successful enquiries into experimental philosophy.—This extraordinary man is said to have been almost the only _astronomer_ of his age; and he himself tells us, that there were not, then, more than three or four persons in the world who had made any considerable proficiency in the _mathematics_!

-----

Footnote 16:

The Greeks derived their knowledge of astronomy from the Egyptians and
Chaldeans. According to Plutarch, the sciences began to unfold
themselves about the time of Hesiod, the Greek poet, who flourished
upwards of nine centuries before the Christian era; but their progress
was very slow, until the time of Thales, which was about three
centuries later. And although this celebrated philosopher of antiquity
rendered himself famous by foretelling an eclipse of the sun, he only
predicted the _year_ in which it was to happen. Even this, it is
remarked by Mr. Vince (in his invaluable work, entitled, _A Complete
System of Astronomy_,) he was probably enabled to do by the _Chaldean
Saros_, a period of 223 lunations; after which, the eclipses return
again nearly in the same order. Philolaus, a disciple of Pythagoras,
lived about four hundred and fifty years before Christ, and is said to
have taught the true solar system,—placing the sun in the centre, with
the earth and all the planets revolving about it; a system which, it
is believed, Pythogaras himself had conceived, and was inclined to
adopt.

However, Hipparchus, who lived between one hundred and twenty-five and
one hundred and sixty years before the Christian era, and whom Mr.
Vince styles “the Father of Astronomy,” was the first person that
cultivated every part of that science. His discoveries, together with
those of Ptolemy, are preserved in the Μεγαλη Σύνταξις, or _Great
Construction_,—Ptolemy’s celebrated work on Astronomy, named by the
Arabs the _Almagest_, and now usually so called.

Footnote 17:

This great philosopher of antiquity, so justly entitled to celebrity
for his mathematical works, flourished three hundred years before the
Christian era. Care should be taken not to confound him with Euclid of
Megara, who lived a century earlier. The latter, as the Abbé
Barthelemi observes, being too much familiarized with the writings of
Parmenides and the Elean school, had recourse to abstractions; “a
method,” says the Abbé, “often dangerous, oftener unintelligible.”
Just after, he adds: “The subtleties of metaphysics calling to their
aid the quirks of logic, _words_ presently took place of _things_, and
students acquired nothing in the schools but a spirit of acrimony and
contradiction.” _Travels of the younger Anacharsis_, vol. iii. chap.
37.

Footnote 18:

That the sun is at rest, and that the planets revolve round him, is an
opinion that appears to have been received of old, by Philolaus,
Aristarchus of Samos, and the whole sect of the Pythagoreans. It is
probable, as Mr. Rowning[18a] observes, that this notion was derived
from them, by the Greeks: But the opinion that the sun stood still in
the centre, while the whole heavens moved around it, was the
prevailing one, until Copernicus, by the establishment of his system,
restored the ancient astronomy of the Pythagorean school.

Footnote 18a:

In his _Compendious System of Natural Philosophy_.

-----

But after the appearance of Copernicus,[19] succeeded by the ingenious Tycho Brahe[20] and sagacious Kepler,[21] arose the learned physiologist Bacon, Viscount of St. Albans,—one of the most illustrious contributors to the yet scanty stock of experimental philosophy.[22] And soon after, in the same age and nation, was manifested to the world, in the full glory of meridian splendour, that great luminary of natural science, who first enlightened mankind by diffusing among them the rays of well-ascertained truths; clearly exhibiting to all, those fundamental principles of the laws of nature, by which the grand, the stupendous system of the material universe is both sustained and governed:—

“Nature and Nature’s Laws lay hid in night;
God said, Let NEWTON be,—and all was Light.”

Finally, it was reserved for our own age and country to derive dignity and fame, from having given birth to an illustrious successor and disciple of that immortal man, in the person of the yet recently-departed RITTENHOUSE.

-----

Footnote 19:

Nicholas Copernic (usually latinized, by adding the terminating
syllable, us,) that celebrated astronomer, “whose vast genius,
assisted by such lights as the remains of antiquity afforded him,
explained the true system of the universe, as at present
understood,”[19a] was born at Thorn in Royal Prussia, the 19th of
January, 1442. He was alike distinguished for his piety and innocence,
as for his extraordinary genius and discoveries. He died in the
seventy-seventh year of his age.

Footnote 19a:

_Ritt. Orat._

Footnote 20:

This great man was a native of Knudsturp, a province of Scania in
Denmark, and born the 18th of December, 1546, of an illustrious
family. He was the first, who, by the accuracy and number of his
observations, made the way for the revival of astronomy among the
moderns; although, “in theory,” as Rittenhouse has expressed it, “he
mangled the beautiful system of Copernicus.”[20a]—Brahé (for this is
the family-name) died at the age of fifty-five years.

Footnote 20a:

Ibid.

Footnote 21:

John Kepler, a native of Wiel in the duchy of Wirtemberg, in Germany,
became as celebrated for the consequences he drew from the
observations of Tycho, as the latter was for the vast mass of
astronomical materials he had prepared. This eminent, though somewhat
“whimsical”[21a] astronomer, was born the 27th of December, 1571, and
died at the age of fifty-nine years.

Footnote 21a:

_Ritt. Orat._

Footnote 22: