Chapter XVI: Part 16

A man may, assuredly, be a profound astronomer; he may be eminently skilled in other branches of natural science, or in the doctrines of morals; he may be well versed in the polite arts; and yet may not understand either Greek or Latin. Nevertheless, an intimate and classical acquaintance with these languages cannot diminish the powers of his mind, or render him less capable of excelling in other departments of human knowledge. Bacon, Newton, Boyle, and Maclauren, with a multitude of others, the most distinguished for genius, science and learning, received an academical education; they were masters of the Greek and Latin languages; and were also instructed, without doubt, even in the formation of syllogisms:[339] yet these great men were not the less eminent as philosophers. It is to be presumed, that, while at their several schools and colleges, they were employed in acquiring the more solid and useful parts of learning; as well as the ornamental and polite. Both are taught in all the higher seminaries; and to the Universities of the United States, as well as of Europe, are attached Professorships[340] for such instruction.

-----

Footnote 339:

Although Mr. T. Cooper (before quoted) admits, that the “strict
adherence to the syllogistic mode of reasoning,” that which he calls
“playing tricks with syllogisms,” together with “the legerdemain of
words without ideas,” was carried much too far by some late
metaphysical writers of eminence; yet he is of opinion, that “in
modern times, this invention of Aristotle is abandoned more than it
deserves to be: For,” continues Mr. Cooper, “no man can so skilfully
analyse the argument of another, as one who is well acquainted with
the rules of scholastic logic, and accustomed to apply them. Good
reasoners there are and will be, who know nothing of these rules, but
better reasoners who do.”

Mr. Cooper doubts, whether metaphysical lectures should be delivered,
at all, in colleges; but thinks, that if metaphysics were to be there
taught, the writings of Beattie, Oswald and Gregory, would be unworthy
of notice. Much as the Writer of these Memoirs respects the talents
and ingenuity of the learned Professor of Chemistry, he can by no
means concur in this opinion: and he regrets, that he feels himself
obliged to differ still more widely, from a gentleman of such
acknowledged abilities, respecting the propriety of his recommending
to youth the study of the works of Hobbes, Leibnitz and Collins.

Now, what the complexion and tendency of the tenets of Hobbes,
Leibnitz, and other philosophers of the same class are, may be learnt
from the following passages, translated from a French work, entitled,
“_De la Philosophie de la Nature, ou Traité de Morale pour l’Epece
Humaine, tire de la Philosophie et fonde sur la Nature_;” a work
which, though anonymous in respect to its author, had passed through
three editions in the year 1777. The writer thus says:

“Of what importance to me are the names of Carneades, of Lysander, of
Hobbes, and the author of _The System of Nature_, names unhappily
celebrated, which the apostle of the moral indifference of human
actions alleges in favour of this atrocious extravagance?” (the
doctrines of Fatality, Moral Scepticism, &c.) “Carneades was an
arrogant Pyrrhonian, who doubted of every thing, excepting the
superiority of his own logic. Hobbes had the audacity to write a book
against the everlasting truths of geometry. Lysander, the enemy of the
liberty of Sparta, and the corrupter of the oracles of Delos and
Ammon, was one of those spirits of spleen and filth, who strive to
acquire a name by reducing wickedness to a system. As for the
anonymous Writer, whose licentious pen vents so much blasphemy on
Nature, in disavowing the existence of GOD, he has purchased the right
to deny that of Morality. He is equally silly with Salmonius, in
braving the thunderbolt destined to stifle the stings of conscience.”
Speaking of Leibnitz, in another place, this French Moralist observes,
that “the Philosopher of Leipsick made of the soul a monad, and
explained all the phænomena of its union with matter by a
pre-established harmony. One portion of Europe believed him; because
he set up a new system! and what is it but a metaphysical theory,
without system?” And again: “What names have we to oppose to those of
Descartes, Leibnitz, Pascal and Malbranch? The suffrage of NEWTON,
alone, is sufficient to crush their Materialism; if, in the humble
materials for the examination of human reason, the suffrage of one
great man is competent to balance a syllogism.”

Footnote 340:

The professorships, all well supported and endowed, which are
established at Oxford and Cambridge, (and, probably, there are similar
institutions in the universities of Scotland and Ireland,) are in the
following departments of literature and science: viz. Divinity,
Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Modern Languages, History (general,) Modern
History, Civil Law, Common Law, Physic, Anatomy, Botany, Chemistry,
Natural Philosophy, Experimental Philosophy, Astronomy, Mathematics,
Geometry, Moral Philosophy, Casuistry, Music.

-----

The able and learned editor of “The American Review of History and Politics”[341] remarks, that, “for very obvious reasons it could not be expected, that Philology would be duly appreciated, or cultivated to any extent, by the American public in general. The state of society in this country, so admirable under many points of view, renders this impossible. We should not be surprised or discouraged at a general ignorance of, and an almost universal indifference about the learned languages: but this is not all; the public feeling is not confined to mere apathy: it borders on hostility. Numbers are not wanting, persons even of influence in the community, who industriously proclaim, not simply the utter insignificance, but the pernicious tendency of classical learning; and who would proscribe it as idle in itself, and as dangerous to republicanism. At the same time, our progress in this pursuit is far from being in a natural ratio with our advances in other respects. Philology is in fact, even worse than stationary among us; from what cause, whether from the influence of the extraordinary notions just mentioned, or from the absence of all external excitements, we will not now pretend to determine.”

-----

Footnote 341:

See the editorial review, in that work, of an “Historical Report upon
the progress of History and ancient Literature, since the year 1789,
and upon their actual condition,” &c. vol. iii. No 1.

-----

Should these judicious remarks of the respectable Reviewer be considered as containing an indirect censure on such “persons of influence” as he may be supposed to allude to, who “proclaim” the “pernicious tendency of classical learning,”—it is much to be lamented by the friends of literature and science, that there should be any just grounds for its support.

Dr. Rittenhouse understood the German[342] and Low Dutch languages, well; and had acquired a sufficient knowledge of the French, to enable him to comprehend astronomical and other works written in that tongue. These acquisitions, it has been observed, “served the valuable purpose of conveying to him the discoveries of foreign nations, and thereby enabled him to prosecute his studies with more advantage in his native language.”[343]

-----

Footnote 342:

In the year 1789, Dr. Rittenhouse translated from the German of Mr.
Lessing, director of the theatre at Hamburg, a tragedy called _Lucia
Sampson_; which translation was printed; in the same year, by Mr.
Charles Cist, of Philadelphia. In the preface to it, the translator
says:—“This translation was attempted at the request of a friend; and
the many virtuous sentiments and excellent lessons of morality it
contains, will apologize for its being offered to the public. To young
ladies it may afford useful instruction, and will, from the nature of
the distress, be particularly useful to them: an elegant writer well
acquainted with the human heart, has observed, that the affection of a
father to his daughter unites extreme sensibility with the utmost
delicacy; and this sentiment is, no doubt, in a great degree
reciprocal.”

Footnote 343:

See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

-----

But these were not the whole of his philological attainments. By the dint of genius, and by that spirit of perseverance which he manifested in every thing he undertook, he overcame in a great degree the difficulties of the Latin tongue.[344] This he did for the same valuable purpose that he had in view, in learning the German, Low Dutch and French.

-----

Footnote 344:

The memorialist undertakes to say, on the authority of his father (the
late Rev. Mr. Barton,) that our philosopher was sufficiently well
versed in the Latin, to have read Newton’s _Principia_ in that
language, besides studying it in his native tongue: and further, that,
although he was very imperfectly acquainted with the grammatical
construction of the Greek language, he had so far familiarized himself
to a knowledge of its written characters and words, as enabled him to
consult a lexicon; which he frequently did, for the purpose of
ascertaining the true etymology of many of those technical terms,
derived from the Greek, that are in common use in our language,
particularly in relation to his favourite sciences.

-----

The reading of our Philosopher was extensive. It embraced every department of polite literature, as well as many branches of what is called, by way of distinction, useful knowledge. He appears to have been more particularly attached to history, voyages and travels, and to the poetick muse:[345] but the drama, ingenious productions of the imagination, and other works of taste and fancy, likewise engaged a portion of his attention.[346] Dr. Rush asserts, that he had early and deeply studied most of the different systems of theology.[347] On this head, no further information can be given by the writer of these Memoirs: yet he thinks he has good reason for believing,—and such as are independent of Dr. Rittenhouse’s known liberality, with respect to various modes of faith and worship, that he never gave a very decided preference to any one regular society of Christians, over others; he loved that sort of Christianity, which inculcates sound morals: his charity, in regard to theological opinions and other concerns of religion, was great; and he felt no disposition to observe any thing like a scrupulous adherence to such tenets or rites, as he deemed less essential to the well-being of mankind. It was, in fact, the liberal manner (and this alone) in which he sometimes expressed himself on subjects of this nature, influenced by sentiments of the purest benevolence, that induced some persons of more rigid principles, and perhaps less candour, to doubt the soundness of his faith in revealed religion: but the whole tenor of his life, and the religious sentiments he had publicly and repeatedly avowed, shew how ill-founded such suspicions were.[348] A mind so contemplative as his, so devoted to the pursuit of truth, so boundless in its views, and so ardently attached to virtue, would naturally lead him to an investigation of the principles of Christianity; and it is evident from some passages in his Oration, and also in his familiar letters to his friends, that he believed in the fundamental articles of the Christian faith,[349] however he may have doubted respecting some of the more abstract and less important tenets of the church.

-----

Footnote 345:

In Hill’s Life of Dr. Barrow, it is remarked, that this great
Mathematician (as well as learned Divine) “was always addicted to
poetry, and very much valued that part of it which consists of
description.” In like manner, Dr. Rittenhouse delighted in poetic
effusions of genius and science. His Eulogist observes, that “the muse
of Thomson charmed him most:” indeed, an astronomer, and a man of
virtue and taste, could not but be charmed by the chaste and glowing
descriptions of that fascinating poet, blended, as they are, with
philosophical reflections. Our philosopher, however, greatly admired
Milton also: so that these two celebrated votaries of the muses seemed
to be his favourites. Why should not these partialities of Rittenhouse
be noticed?—when similar observations have been made respecting the
characters of other men, eminent in science; as, for example, that the
favourite author of Erasmus and the younger Scaliger, was Terence, and
that Grotius was an admirer of Terence, Lucan and Horace.

Footnote 346:

_Nec lusisse pudet_, is an observation which has, in particular
instances, been applied to the occasional conduct and disposition of
some of the wisest, best, and even gravest characters. Dr. Warton, in
remarking on this line of Mr. Pope, viz.

“Unthought-of frailties cheat us in the wise,”—

says; “Who could imagine that Locke was fond of romances; that Newton
once studied astrology; that Dr. Clarke valued himself for his
agility, and frequently amused himself, in a private room of his
house, in leaping over the tables and chairs; and that our author
himself (Mr Pope) was a great epicure.”

In our own country, the sage Franklin abounded in anecdote and humour,
and thought it not unwise to recreate his mind, at times, with the
game of chess: the conversation of Judge Hopkinson was replete with
sprightly wit, and he admired well written novels of no immoral
tendency; as did also the late Judge Wilson: the illustrious
Washington, in his earlier years, enjoyed the pleasures of the festive
board, in the society of men of understanding and worth: and no man
delighted more in cheerful conversation, and in reading works of fancy
and taste, than the philosophic Rittenhouse. The almost universal
tendency, in persons of all classes, to an occasional playfulness of
temper, even in cases which may sometimes be considered as bordering
on weakness, has given the force of a maxim to the observation of the
latinists—_Nemo omnibus horis sapit_. Indeed, as a biographer of the
celebrated Dr. Clarke has remarked, “to be capable of drawing
amusement from trivial circumstances, indicates a heart at ease, and
may generally be regarded as the concomitant of virtue.”

Footnote 347:

See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

Footnote 348:

Sir Isaac Newton, it is well known, was thoroughly persuaded of the
Truth of Revelation: yet he did not escape the imputation of being an
Arian, Mr. Whiston having represented him as such. It is equally a
matter of notoriety, that similar opinions have prevailed respecting
Dr. Rittenhouse’s religious creed: nay, further, that doubts were
entertained by some, whether he believed at all in the fundamental
principles of the Christian religion. In one instance, indeed, a
virulent party-writer[348a] had the hardiness, one might say folly, to
proclaim him an “Atheist!” The publication in which this false and
shameful accusation was made, appeared about the time of Dr.
Rittenhouse’s death, and, it is believed, shortly after that event.

As a Biographer of such a man as Rittenhouse, the Author of these
Memoirs would do great injustice to his memory, did he not lay before
his readers, in a full and undisguised manner, that sort of testimony
concerning our Philosopher’s religious sentiments, which it is
presumed will eradicate every doubt or suspicion, that has heretofore
existed in the minds of some, on the subject. He is aware of the
influence, which the opinions of eminently wise and good men (or, of
such sentiments as are sometimes attributed to them,) have, in their
operation on society; and, in every point of view, he fully estimates
the importance of representing them to the world, in a strict
conformity to truth.

These considerations have induced the Memorialist to devote a larger
portion of his work to an elucidation of Dr. Rittenhouse’s real
opinions on the all-important subject of Religion, than he should have
thought proper, under other circumstances, to appropriate to that part
of his character.

Under these impressions, then, the Memorialist could not think it
consistent with his duty, to withhold from the public a letter
addressed to him by the Rev. Mr. Cathcart, a clergyman of much
respectability and pastor of a presbyterian congregation in the
borough of York. This letter (which will be found in the Appendix)
contains what may be fairly deemed conclusive evidence, even if such
had been before wanting, that Dr. Rittenhouse was “a firm Believer in
Christianity.” Bishop White had communicated to the Memorialist, in
conversation, the interesting facts stated in Mr. Cathcart’s letter;
the knowledge of which, the Bishop had derived, verbally, from that
gentleman: his letter was written in answer to one which the
Memorialist addressed to him, on the occasion, at the instance of the
Right Rev. Prelate.

Footnote 348a:

Mr. William Cobbett.

Footnote 349:

“Astronomy, like the Christian religion, if you will allow me the
comparison,” said our Philosopher, “has a much greater influence on
our knowledge in general, and perhaps on our manners too, than is
commonly imagined. Though but few men are its particular votaries, yet
the light it affords is universally diffused among us; and it is
difficult for us to divest ourselves of its influence so far, as to
frame any competent idea of what would be our situation without it.”
See _Ritt. Orat._

In another part of his Oration, is this passage: “Our Religion teaches
us what Philosophy could not have taught: and we ought to admire, with
reverence, the great things it has pleased Divine Providence to
perform, beyond the ordinary course of nature, for man, who is,
undoubtedly, the most noble inhabitant of this globe:” &c.

And in addition to these sentiments, uttered and published by our
Philosopher himself, let the testimony of Dr. Rush, who had long and
intimately known him, be quoted from the learned Professor’s Eulogium.
“He believed in the Christian Revelation,” says the Doctor: and then
subjoins, “Of this he gave many proofs; not only in the conformity of
his life to the precepts of the Gospel, but in his letters and
conversation.”

-----

As Dr. Rittenhouse never attached himself to the distinguishing dogmas of any one sect of Christians; so, on the authority of a letter addressed to the Memorialist by Mr. B. Rittenhouse, soon after his brother’s decease, it may be asserted, that our Philosopher “was never joined in communion with any particular religious society; though he esteemed good men of all sects.” In his youth, it is probable he was bred a Baptist; the sect to which his father (and, it is believed, his mother also,) belonged: at subsequent periods, he entertained favourable opinions of the church of England, and of the principles of the quakers (so called.) In some of the latter years of his life, he and his family pretty frequently attended divine service in a presbyterian congregation, of which a very respectable and worthy gentleman then was the pastor and until very lately continued to officiate as such.[350] That church is situated in the same street wherein Dr. Rittenhouse dwelt; and its then minister was one of many clergymen, belonging to different churches, whom he personally esteemed.

-----

Footnote 350:

The Rev. Ashbel Green, D. D. This gentleman succeeded the Rev. Dr.
Sproat, an aged clergyman, of amiable disposition and unaffected
piety, for whose character our Philosopher entertained a great esteem,
and, during the latter part of whose ministry in that church, he first
attended it. Dr. Green has lately become President of the College of
New-Jersey, in consequence of the resignation of the learned and
eloquent Samuel Stanhope Smith, D. D.

-----

Some of his letters to his confidential friends testify, nevertheless, that he by no means embraced some of the doctrines of Calvinism: nor did he, probably, approve of others, in their more rigid interpretation.[351] In one of those letters, addressed to the Rev. Mr. Barton, (an Episcopalian, of the English church,) from Philadelphia, so early as September, 1755, he wrote thus: “I have been here several days, and am fatigued and somewhat indisposed. You know my spirits are never very high, and will therefore expect a melancholy letter from me at present. I should be glad of opportunities to receive letters from you, and to write to you oftener:—indeed, I am desirous of disclosing to you some of my most serious thoughts.” It can scarcely be doubted, from the complexion of this paragraph and the character of the person to whom our then young philosopher was writing, that these “most serious thoughts,” which he wished so much to disclose to his clerical friend, related to some points in divinity. After subjoining, in the same letter, some reflexions, of such a cast as shew that his spirits were depressed by fatigue and indisposition, as was usually the case with him, he proceeded thus: “I assure you, notwithstanding, I am no misanthrope; but think good society one of the greatest blessings of life. Whatever is said of original sin, the depravity of our nature, and our propensity to all evil; though men are said to be wolves to men; yet, think, I can see abundance of goodness in human nature, with which I am enamoured. I would sooner give up my interest in a future state, than be divested of humanity;—I mean, that good-will which I have to the species, although one half of them are said to be fools, and almost the other half knaves. Indeed I am firmly persuaded that we are not at the disposal of a Being who has the least tincture of ill-nature, or requires any in us. You will laugh at this grave philosophy, or my writing to you on a subject you have thought of a thousand times. But, can any thing that is serious, be ridiculous? Shall we suppose Gabriel smiling at Newton, for labouring to demonstrate whether the earth moves or not, because the former plainly sees it move?”

-----

Footnote 351:

The following extract of a letter, which Professor Rusk was so
obliging as to address to the writer of these memoirs, in the spring
of the year 1812, in answer to some questions proposed by the
memorialist, favours the presumption, that our philosopher in some
points dissented from the opinions of very respectable Calvinistic
Divines, on the subject of religion. “I understood from the Rev. Dr.
Green,” says the learned Professor, that his late colleague, the Rev.
Dr. Sproat, had informed him, that in a visit he once paid to Dr.
Rittenhouse, they were led accidentally to converse upon a religious
subject, on which they held different opinions. Dr. Sproat, in
defending his opinions, quoted several texts of scripture; but
observed, after doing so; “Perhaps, Mr. Rittenhouse, you do not admit
of the validity of arguments derived from the bible.” “Pardon me,
Sir,” (said Mr. Rittenhouse,) “I admit the divine authority of the
contents of that book.” Another fact stated by Dr. Rush, at the same
time, and which was also communicated to the memorialist, by a very
near and dear friend of the deceased, is thus related by the Doctor:
“His late worthy companion, Mrs. Rittenhouse, informed me, that the
last sourse from whence he derived intellectual and moral pleasure,
was Dr. Price’s excellent sermon upon the _Goodness of God_, which she
read to him, at his request, on the two successive days before he
died.” It may not be thought unworthy of being remarked on this
occasion, that Mr. T. Dobson, of Philadelphia, republished Price’s
Sermons, in the year 1788, and that Mrs. Rittenhouse’s name appears in
the list of subscribers to that edition.

In Dr. Rush’s letter, just quoted, he introduces the subject in these
terms. “In answer to your question, relative to the religious opinions
of your late uncle and my excellent friend, Dr. Rittenhouse, I am
happy in being able to inform you, that I have no doubt of his having
been a sincere believer in the most essential doctrines of the
Christian religion: the ground upon which I formed this opinion, were
derived not only from many incidental remarks in its favour, that fell
from him in our conversations upon other subjects, but from the
testimony of persons upon whose correctness I have the fullest
reliance.”

Upon the whole it appears, that although our philosopher was, most
probably, not strictly Calvinistical in his religious creed, he was
nevertheless a pious man, and a sincere Christian in the fundamental
articles of his faith.

-----

This extract (the latter part of which constitutes a note to Dr. Rush’s Eulogium,) expresses, in the concluding sentence, a beautiful and apt allusion, in reference to the subject. It likewise contains a finely-turned compliment to the superior knowledge he presumed Mr. Barton to possess, on theological subjects; without its seeming to have been intended, that it should comprehend himself also,—otherwise than as he might be considered, for a moment, to be personating that branch of science which he most assiduously cultivated. The compliment, so far as it appeared to apply to himself, was unquestionably due to him; but his modesty would have forbidden his using it, even to a brother-in-law, could he have imagined at the instant of penning it, that a portion of it might be referred to himself, personally.

The whole scope of the passage, just quoted, “shews,” however, as his Eulogist has observed, “how early and deeply the principles of universal benevolence were fixed in his mind.” And in his Oration, composed when he was in the full meridian of life, our Philosopher has plainly indicated, that the same philanthropic spirit, that species of benevolence which is the basis of true religion, and that warmed his youthful breast, continued to animate it with unabated fervency: “That Being,” said he, “before whose piercing eye all the intricate foldings and dark recesses of the human heart become expanded and illuminated, is my witness, with what sincerity, with what ardour, I wish for the happiness of the whole race of mankind; how much I admire that disposition of lands and seas, which affords a communication between distant regions, and a mutual exchange of benefits; how sincerely I approve of those social refinements which really add to our happiness, and induce us with gratitude to acknowledge our great Creator’s goodness; how I delight in a participation of the discoveries made from time to time in nature’s works, by our philosophic brethren in Europe.”

In the opinion of our Philosopher, “every enlargement of our faculties, every new happiness conferred upon us, every step we advance towards the perfection of the Divinity, will very probably render us more and more sensible of his inexhaustible stores of communicable bliss, and of his inaccessible perfections.”[352] He supposed, that, even in this world, “wherein we are only permitted ‘_to look about us and to die_,’ there is ample provision made for employing every faculty of the human mind; even allowing its powers to be constantly enlarged through an endless repetition of ages;” but admitting, at the same time, “that there is nothing in it capable of satisfying us.”

-----

Footnote 352:

Dr. Rittenhouse had no more faith in the notion entertained by some
visionary men, of the attainment of the perfection of virtue, in this
life, than he had in the fantastic opinion, maintained also by some,
of the perfectibility of human reason. He supposed that we are
capable, by a progressive “enlargement of our faculties,” to “advance
towards the perfection of the Divinity;” not like those pretenders to
philosophy, who, as Mr. Voltaire expresses it, “took it into their
heads, by the example of Descartes, to put themselves into God’s
place, and create a world with a word!” Our philosopher knew, that
pure virtue and perfect reason do not belong to human nature.

-----

Similar indications of his extensive benevolence, and of the high sense he entertained of the dignity of human nature, as well as of the attributes of the Deity, are found every where in his writings; and the “elegant and pious extract” (as it is termed by Dr. Rush, in his Eulogium,) from a letter to one of his friends, quoted in another place, affords a striking instance of the prevalence of that disposition in the towering mind of Rittenhouse.

If “he believed political, as well as moral, evil, to be intruders into the society of men,”[353] he was certainly too well acquainted with the moral constitution of man and the evident nature of humanity, to suppose, “that a time would come, when every part of our globe would echo back the heavenly proclamation of universal peace on earth and good will to man.”[354] Possessing a most benevolent disposition, he did believe, “that a conduct in this life, depending on our choice, will stamp our characters for ages yet to come.” He was so far from expecting any thing like perfectibility here, that he thought, that man as a free agent, in darkening his faculties by an unworthy application of them here on earth, might “degrade himself to some inferior rank of being,” hereafter; while, on the other hand, by “the exercise of virtue, and a rational employment of those talents we are entrusted with,”—“we shall, in a few years, be promoted to a more exalted rank among the creatures of God—have our understandings greatly enlarged—be enabled to follow Truth in all her labyrinths, with an higher relish and more facility; and thus lay the foundation for an eternal improvement in knowledge and happiness.” Our Philosopher acknowledged, that he was “not one of those sanguine spirits who seem to think, that, when the withered hand of death hath drawn up the curtain of eternity, almost all distance between the creature and the creator, between finite and infinite, will be annihilated.”[355] Yet, the Writer of these Memoirs has no hesitation in expressing an opinion, with which a long and intimate acquaintance with Dr. Rittenhouse has forcibly impressed his own mind; that this virtuous man was inclined to believe, or rather, actually did believe, (with the distinguished author of the Dissertation on the Prophecies,)[356] in a final restitution of all things to harmony and happiness in another state of existence.

-----

Footnote 353:

Dr. Rush’s Eulogium.

Footnote 354:

Ibid.

Footnote 355:

This quotation and the other passages, before which inverted commas
are placed in the margin, in the two last paragraphs of the text, are
extracted from Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration.

Footnote 356:

Dr. Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol.

-----

The learned Eulogist of our Philosopher, whom his present biographer has already so often quoted with much interest and pleasure, (although he is, on some points, so unfortunate as to be compelled to dissent from him,) has remarked, that Dr. Rittenhouse “was well acquainted with practical metaphysics.” He had, without doubt, attentively studied those branches, at least, of this science, which embrace moral philosophy, connected, as it is, with a rational system of natural religion: probably, too, he had investigated its more abstruse and less useful departments: and, perhaps, he had also directed his all-inquisitive mind, in some degree, to a contemplation of those mental vagaries of the modern philosophy, as it is termed, which neither subserve the purposes of ethics or of natural theology: a system, if it deserve that appellation, made up of such incongruous materials, such visionary notions, as by their falsity alone, independently of their mischievous operation in society, seem calculated to dishonour the name of philosophy, and to depreciate the highly meritorious services rendered to mankind by the votaries of true science. If, however, Dr. Rittenhouse ever did condescend to employ any considerable portion of his valuable time, in making himself acquainted with the delusive principles of this multifarious sect of pseudo-philosophers, it has been already manifested with what sentiments of disapprobation, if not of abhorrence, he regarded their doctrines.[357]

-----

Footnote 357:

A late learned philosopher and eloquent divine, after adverting to the
irrational and infatuated notions of men of the class above referred
to, contrasted with doctrines founded in truth, and the awful gloom,
destitute of every ray of consolation, that must necessarily accompany
their reflections upon their own principles, addresses to them this
short but serious invocation: “When these things are fairly weighed,
as in nature they exist, I call on you, nay I challenge you, ye
boasting philosophists! to comfort yourselves, and be easy under your
dreary doctrine, or notion of being safe after death, in a state of
annihilation or future nothingness! I call on you, ye wise Illuminati!
of upstart name, to weigh these things seriously; and try whether you
can comfort yourselves, and remain easy, in considering, and striving
to make others consider, Death, as only an “everlasting Sleep,” from
which they will never be awakened, nor their ashes disturbed!” See
Sermon V. in _The Works of William Smith, D. D. late Provost of the
College and Academy of Philadelphia_.

In no instance have the impious and absurd doctrines of the
“Philosophists” and the “Illuminati,” of our times, been carried to
such a height of extravagance, as by the revolutionists of modern
France. These infatuated people undertook, in the year 1793, to
abolish by Law, a Futurity of Existence; having then decreed, that no
such state existed! They also decreed, that in every cemetery there
should be erected a figure representing Sleep, pointing towards the
tombs; and this Sleep of Death, the decree declared to be eternal!! It
is to this sort of wickedness and folly that an allusion is made, in
the foregoing quotation; as well as in the following lines, copied
from the _Pursuits of Literature_:

“Systems which laugh to scorn th’avenging rod,
And hurl defiance at the throne of GOD;
Shake pestilence abroad with madd’ning sweep,
And grant no pause—but everlasting Sleep!”

-----

It being presumed, therefore, that our Philosopher was, in the words of his Eulogist, “well acquainted with practical metaphysics,” an inference may thence be fairly made, that, with respect to metaphysical deductions, “he could use them,” as has been said of Maclaurin, “with as much subtlety and force as any man living; but”—also like that celebrated philosopher—“he chose rather, in his conversation as well as his writings, to bring the matter to a short issue, in his own way.” Certain it is, however, that Dr. Rittenhouse reprobated, as did his eminent predecessor just named, that subtile, vague and inconclusive kind of ratiocination, the mode of reasoning, in matters of abstract science, from causes to effects,[358] which so much characterize that “cobweb philosophy,”[359] of which the mass of mere metaphysical systems is made up. Rittenhouse was a practical philosopher: he held in contempt the obscurity of mysticism, in every object of rational enquiry; viewing it as being, always, either the parent or the offspring of error. He loved “sober certainty,”[360] in philosophy; and therefore he pursued Truth, in all his scientific researches, in that practical and rational mode of philosophizing, which he deemed conformable to the nature of truth itself, and best adapted to the construction and faculties of the human mind.[361]

-----

Footnote 358:

“Let others creep by timid steps, and slow,
On plain experience, lay foundations low;
By common sense, to common knowledge bred;
And lost to nature’s cause through nature led:
All-seeing in thy mists, we want no guide,
Mother of Arrogance and source of pride!
We nobly take the high priori road,
And reason downward, till we doubt of GOD.”
_Pope’s Dunciad_, b. IV. l. 455.

The following observation, in the form of a note, is referred to, from
the lines above quoted, in a work which contains that extract, viz.
“Those, who, from the effects in this visible world, deduce the
eternal power and Godhead of the first cause, though they cannot
attain to an adequate idea of the Deity, yet discover so much of him,
as enables them to see the end of their creation and the means of
their happiness: whereas they who take “the high priori road,” as
Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, and some better reasoners, for one that
goes right, ten lose themselves in “mists,” or ramble after visions,
which deprive them of all sight of their end, and mislead them in the
choice of wrong means.”

Mr. Pope had put the above poetical lines into the mouth of one of his
Dunces, when addressing himself to the goddess Dullness. And as the
great Dr. Samuel Clarke had previously endeavoured to shew,[358a] that
the Being of a God may be demonstrated by arguments deduced _â
priori_, the Doctor conceived himself to be struck at, among those
“better reasoners” alluded to, in the note above mentioned.

Footnote 358a:

In his work entitled, “A Discourse concerning the Being and Attributes
of a God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and the truth and
certainty of the Christian Revelation; in answer to Mr. Hobbes,
Spinoza, the Author of the Oracles of Reason, and other deniers of
natural and revealed Religion.”

Footnote 359:

See Ritt. Orat.

Footnote 360:

Ibid.

Footnote 361:

“Other systems of Philosophy have ever found it necessary to conceal
their weakness and inconsistency, under the veil of unintelligible
terms and phrases, to which no two mortals, perhaps, ever affixed the
same meaning. But the philosophy of Newton disdains to make use of
such subterfuges; it is not reduced to the necessity of using them,
because it pretends not to be of nature’s privy council, or to have
access to her most inscrutable mysteries; but, to attend carefully to
her works, to discover the immediate causes of visible effects, to
trace those causes to others more general and simple, advancing by
slow and sure steps towards the Great First Cause of all things.”
Ritt. Orat.

-----

What was the general bias of Dr. Rittenhouse’s opinions on the subject of government, no one who knew him could doubt; and they are likewise deducible, not only from his writings, but from the uniform course of his public and official conduct. He was, in fact, from the dawn of the American controversy with the government of the mother-country to the year 1775, a whig, in his political principles. From the commencement of hostilities in that year, his feelings, as a native of America, prejudiced him strongly against the administration of the British government; and the prejudices thus imbibed, were transferred, soon after, from those men who administered that government—as well as their measures, to the nature and form of the government itself. And finally, on the establishment of the national independence of the United States, in 1776, his opinions settled down, very decidedly, in favour of the governmental system of a representative and elective republic.

But, until the arrival of that important epocha, when thirteen North-American colonies of Great Britain solemnly announced to the world their separation from the parent-state, Rittenhouse thought and acted, in relation to political affairs, pretty much as his countrymen did. “Previous to the American revolution,” as Ramsay the historian has remarked, “the inhabitants of the British colonies were universally loyal:” and another American writer[362] of respectability has correspondently observed, that the proceedings of the first congress were “cool, deliberate and loyal, though marked with unanimity and firmness.” Indeed many months elapsed, after the appeal to arms was actually made, before the strong attachment to the mother-country, which the American colonists had always manifested, generally subsided. But, after the middle of the year 1775, “the prejudices in favour of a connexion with England and of the English constitution,” (to use the words of Chief-Justice Marshall,[363] “gradually, but rapidly wore off; and were succeeded by republican principles, and wishes for independence.”

-----

Footnote 362:

Dr. Morse, the Geographer.

Footnote 363:

See his _Life of George Washington_.

-----

Such then, it is confidently believed, was the progress of political sentiments in their operation upon the mind of Rittenhouse, in common with a large majority of the American people.

The information must therefore have been wholly erroneous, upon which Dr. Rush was induced to ground his assertion, that “the year of the declaration of Independence, which changed our royal governments into republics, produced no change in his (Rittenhouse’s) political opinions,—for,” continues the Doctor, “he had been educated a republican by his father.” The very reason which the able and zealous Eulogist has here assigned for Dr. Rittenhouse’s political principles having undergone no change in consequence of the American revolution, being predicated upon an assumed but mistaken fact, it serves to invalidate that allegation; and it would never have been made, had not Dr. Rush been led into the error by misinformation on the subject. Because, those who were personally acquainted with our Philosopher’s father, (Mr. Matthias Rittenhouse,) must well know, that the old gentleman was remarkable for his quiet, unoffending principles and conduct; that he meddled very little, if at all, with public affairs; and that, although a man of good judgment, he had never turned his attention to political controversies or speculations on the science of government. He was in truth a pious man, of great industry, plain manners and unambitious temper; and he uniformly approved himself a peaceable and faithful subject of that monarchy under which he lived seventy-three years, until 1776. On the other hand, the theory of government was a subject upon which the son had, doubtless, thought and read much. It cannot, therefore, be reasonably concluded, that Dr. Rittenhouse was “educated a republican by his father.”

It is asked: “How could he (Rittenhouse) behold the beauty and harmony of the universe as the result of universal and mutual dependance, and not admit that Heaven intended Rulers to be dependant upon those, for whose benefit, alone, all government should exist? To suppose the contrary,” it is added, “would be to deny unity and system in the plans of the great Creator of all things.”[364] But, with all due deference to the genius and talents of the highly respectable gentleman here quoted, the writer cannot persuade himself, that our Astronomer could have drawn such inferences as the results of analogical reasoning, from the beauty and harmony of the Universe, as those which the foregoing extract would seem to impute to him. For, who are those, “for whose benefit, alone, all government should exist?” The People: And in such a republic as the United States—where there cannot exist, _constitutionally_, “a privileged order of men”—the Rulers are, surely, a part of the People. What, then, is the nature of this mutuality of dependence between Rulers and People? If government should exist for the benefit of the People, that is, all the members of the community, as most assuredly it ought to do; then it should be conducted for the benefit of the Rulers, as well as of those who are ruled; the former being a component part of the entire community, under the comprehensive denomination of the People. It is therefore conceived, that, on republican principles, the People and their Rulers cannot be so contradistinguished as separate bodies of men, as that the former, alone, should be dependant on the latter; but that there ought to be between them, as constituting jointly and collectively the People, that “mutual dependance,” of which the ingenious Eulogist speaks: otherwise, a privileged order of men must be considered as actually existing among us. Yet, even in the monarchical republic of Great Britain,[365] the business of government is not wholly “limited” to “a privileged order of men:”[366] One branch of the legislative body is popular; and one branch, also, of the judicial department of that government, the institution of juries, is purely republican.

-----

Footnote 364:

See the Eulogium on Rittenhouse.

Footnote 365:

The names ordinarily used to distinguish things, do not always truly
denote the nature of the things they are designed to signify: and it
is very evident, that any misapplication of a name, to which a
specific meaning has been appropriated, cannot alter or otherwise
affect the essence or inherent quality of the thing itself to which it
is wrongly applied.

A nation may be a republic, notwithstanding its chief executive
magistrate be denominated a king. A kingly government may be
essentially republican, provided the people be governed by known laws,
and their king be limited in his prerogative, by the constitution of
the state; not such a monarch as is vested with uncontrouled power. In
this sense, the British government may, as some modern writers have
shewn, be called a commonwealth, or republic: and under a similar
impression, Sir Thomas Smith, even in the reign of so rigid a prince
as Henry VIII. wrote his book _De Republicâ Anglicanâ_. The republic
of Poland was long governed by elective kings; and Shakespeare, (nay,
even the leveller Godwin,[365a]) appears to have considered Monarch,
King and President, as synonymous terms.

Footnote 365a:

The Memorialist can truly say, with the author of the _Pursuits of
Literature_:—“I have given some attention to Mr. Godwin’s work on
_Political Justice_, as conceiving it to be the code of improved
modern ethics, morality, and legislation. I confess I looked not for
the Republic of Plato, or even for the Oceana of Harrington; but for
something different from them all. I looked, indeed, for a
superstructure raised on the revolutionary ground of Equality, watered
with the Guillotine; and such I found it.” See _Pursuits of
Literature_, Dial. the third, note p. of the seventh Lond. edit.

Footnote 366:

“It belongs to monarchies,” says Dr. Rush, “to limit the business of
government to a privileged order of men.” See _Eulog._

-----

The learned professor, here referred to, is nevertheless an highly estimable citizen of the American Republic, as his numerous and important public services fully evince. In his “Address to the People of the United States,” published shortly before the sitting of the Federal Convention, he has pointed out two “errors or prejudices on the subject of government in America, which,” as he very justly observes, “lead to the most dangerous consequences.” The correctness of his sentiments on the subject of those errors, does him honour: such of his observations as are more particularly applicable to the present subject, are contained in the following passages.

“It is often said, that ‘the sovereign power and all other power is seated in the people.’ This idea is unhappily expressed. It should be—‘all power is derived from the people.’ They possess it only on the days of their elections. After this, it is the property of their Rulers; nor can they exercise or resume it, unless it is abused. It is of importance to circulate this idea, as it tends to order and good government.” And again:

“The people of America have mistaken the meaning of the word Sovereignty: hence, each State pretends to be sovereign. In Europe, it is applied only to those states, which possess the power of making war and peace, of forming treaties, and the like. As this power belongs only to Congress, they are the only sovereign power in the United States.”

The Memorialist is persuaded, that Dr. Rittenhouse would have fully concurred in this construction of the nature of sovereignty, in an elective government: and he has been the more diffuse on this subject, in order both to prevent and remove, as much as possible, any misconceptions respecting the political opinions of our Philosopher.

An unostentatious simplicity and strict integrity, with a due proportion of dignity and firmness, in the administration of the public affairs; a judicious economy, in the management and expenditure of the public revenues; a zealous attention to the public interests and the happiness of the people; a wise and faithful administration of justice among the various members of the community, without any invidious distinctions; a strict observance of good faith, in all relations with foreign states; a sincere attachment to peace with its concomitant blessings, and consequently, an abhorrence of unnecessary wars, whether provoked, or undertaken, by means of the cupidity or the ambition of rulers; these have been usually considered, in theory, as characteristics of republican governments. Greatly is it to be desired, that they may always prove to be so, in fact.

That both the Rittenhouses, father and son, should be attached to an order of things in the commonwealth, established and conducted on the principles just mentioned, may be readily conceived from a knowledge of their characters. To a system of civil polity, productive of such substantial benefits to all those under its immediate operation, Dr. Rittenhouse would naturally have been inclined: his habits, manners and principles, would so dispose him. Hence, after having indulged, for a moment, the pleasing but fanciful hypothesis, that if the inhabitants of the other planets resemble man in their faculties and affections; if, like him, they were created liable to fall, though some of them might be presumed to retain their original rectitude; he proceeds with supposing, “that they are wise enough to govern themselves according to the dictates of that reason which God has given them, in such manner as to consult their own and each other’s happiness, upon all occasions. But if, on the contrary,” said he, “they have found it necessary to erect artificial fabrics of government, let us not suppose they have done it with so little skill, and at such an enormous expence, as to render them a misfortune, instead of a blessing. We will hope,” continues the philanthropic Rittenhouse, “that their statesmen are patriots, and that their kings, if that order of beings has found admittance there, have the feelings of humanity.” He next deplores, in terms which evince the strength of his feelings on the occasion, the folly as well as iniquity of holding the Africans in bondage among us; national rapacity; the scourges of war, then recently inflicted on the north of Europe; and, finally, he deprecates in very impressive language, the inroads of “luxury, and her constant follower, tyranny.”[367]

-----

Footnote 367:

See Ritt. Orat. before the Am. Philos. Soc. in 1775.

-----

Dr. Rittenhouse having entertained such sentiments as these, at the time he penned his Oration, and it will be recollected, that this was only two or three months before hostilities had actually taken place between Great-Britain and her North-American Colonies, he was naturally enough induced to believe, that many of the political evils which were, about that period, experienced in civil society by a large portion of mankind, arose from the nature of their respective governments. And, the principal states of Europe, with the exception of the Dutch commonwealth, were then governed under the monarchical form.

In the American continental colonies of Great-Britain, generally, it was the prevalent opinion of the people at the commencement of the revolution, that the grievances complained of by the colonists, originated, almost as a matter of necessity, from the monarchical spirit of the mother-country: consequently, many of those great public evils which sprung from the genius, habits and pursuits, of the people themselves, in the great monarchies of the old world, were generally attributed to some peculiar vices inherent in that species of government. It was the universality, almost, of these opinions; which soon after obtained throughout the United Colonies, that produced a determination in the people to establish, for themselves, republican forms of government, as independent states. Such were accordingly established; and the American people have long experienced their efficiency in promoting the prosperity of the country.

Should it, nevertheless, unfortunately happen at any future period, that the now existing national constitution should, by any means, be perverted from its original design; should a system of government so well planned—“in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;”[368] should this well-defined Charter of American freedom, by means of mal-administration or otherwise, eventually frustrate the patriotic intentions of its illustrious framers; then, indeed, will the noblest effort ever made by any people to institute a rational system of free government, blast the best hopes of the advocates of republicanism. In such event—which, may heaven avert! the often quoted couplet would be too fatally verified, wherein the poet says:

“For forms of government let fools contest;
Whate’er is best administer’d, is best.”[369]
Pope’s _Essay on Man_.

-----

Footnote 368:

See the ordaining clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Footnote 369:

Mr. Pope was not singular in the opinion here expressed: one of the
most illustrious legislators and best practical statesmen the world
has ever known, appears to have entertained the same sentiment, when
he penned the following passages: they are extracted from the _Frame
of Government_ originally designed by William Penn, for Pennsylvania:
published in the year 1682.

“Any government is free to the people under it (whatever be the
frame,) where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws;
and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, and confusion.”

“There is hardly one frame of government in the world so ill designed
by its first founders, that, in good hands, would not do well enough;
and story tells us, the best, in ill ones, can do nothing that is
great or good.” “I know,” continues Penn, “some say, Let us have good
laws, and no matter for the men that execute them: but let them
consider, that though good laws do well, good men do better: for good
laws may want good men, and be abolished or evaded by ill men; but
good men will never want good laws, nor suffer ill ones. It is here,
good laws have some awe upon ill ministers; but that is where they
have not power to escape or abolish them, and the people are generally
wise and good: but a loose and depraved people (which is to be the
question) love laws and an administration like themselves. That,
therefore, which makes a good constitution, must keep it, viz. men of
wisdom and virtue; qualities that, because they descend not with
worldly inheritances, must be carefully propagated by a virtuous
education of youth.”

-----