4 defigns of our Creator, without them; perhaps, too, the dif covery of them has been owing to a fecondary neceffity, the confequence of our moral degeneracy, and of the fatal lofs of our original integrity. The progrefs that has been made in them has required great expence of time and repeated efforts. This was not the cafe with those arts and sciences, without which men could neither preserve their lives, nor live agreeably with each other. As beings endowed with life, food was neceffary for them; as reasonable beings, endowed with freedom and fentiment, called to action, and capable of diversifying their actions a thoufand different ways, and of finding, in the confequences of them, either pleasure or pain, the art of acting well, or the fcience of morals, was neceffary to them as foon as they exifted. Thus, whether it was owing to intereft, to reasoning, or to the fupernatural inftruction of their Creator, thefe two arts, viz. that of living and acting, were fufficiently known to them, to be able, when occafion required, to act in the propereft manner, and to answer the defigns of their origi nal Former. But it would be a ftrange mistake to imagine, that men, in thofe early ages, even those who rendered themfelves illuftrious by the perfection of their virtue, were philofophers, properly fo called; that is to fay, men of learning, who went through a regular course of study, and taught what they knew in an accurate manner. The fcience of morals, the art of living, which they taught, was not like what we now call a regular fyftem, a courfe of moral philofophy, a body of natural law. Such complete and fcientific fyftems are of modern date. In the first ages of the world, men were under the direction of a much furer guide than all our treatifes and differtations. Certain facts well afcertained, certain truths, confidered as unquestionable, and frequently confirmed by new facts, were to them evident principles, axioms, upon which fophiftry had not as yet tried her fkill, nor a counterfeit philofophy rendered doubtful. From thefe principles, as from a fruitful fource, each individual, without the aid of reafoning, and as it were, by a fingle glance, drew certain confequences, which his foul felt the force and juftnefs of, and formed to himfelf fure rules of conduct for every particular exigence. A father, without the affiftance of philofophy, gave virtuous precepts to his children, and the leader of a people to those whom he governed. All their morality confifted in thefe precepts, which were expreffed with fimplicity, brevity, and perfpicuity, in the form of inconteftible axioms, which every one thought himself obliged to obferve. Without proving the existence of God, which nobody queftioned, they faid, it was neceffary to reverence him; without reafoning upon his authority and and his rights, they faid, it was neceffary to obey him; without enquiring what confcience was, they obeyed its dictates; without entering into any difcuffion in regard to justice and injustice, they never confounded them; they esteemed and recommended the one as the will of God, they blamed and forbid the other, as difobedience to the fupreme Being; without difputing upon the immortality or immateriality of the foul, a future ftate, or the nature of rewards and punishment, they were afraid of offending that God who abhors wickedness, and will not fail to punish it and were convinced of the neceffity of practising virtue, which was fure of obtaining the approbation and bleffing of heaven. Such was, in general, the method of the earliest Writers, whether infpired or uninfpired: and fuch is the idea which they give us of the morality of their own, and of the preceeding times. Their principles are, the existence of one God, a providence which interefts itself in the affairs of men, a fovereign authority which lays men under an obligation of obedience, a divine will which enjoins virtue and forbids vice, divine juftice which fooner or later rewards the one and punishes the other, together with a fufficient share of knowlege in all men to dif tinguish between vice and virtue upon every occafion. They make ufe of thefe principles as of fo many mathematical axioms, which there is no occafion to demonftrate, as they are fuppofed to be known and admitted by every body. Their morality confifted in practical precepts or rules of conduct, without any speculative or philofophical reafonings to explain or illuftrate them; they were contented with enforcing them by motives drawn from the fear of God, and from prefent utility. It is fufficient to read the facred books of the Old Teftament, to be convinced of the truth of what I have faid, and to acknowlege that we must not expect to find in these divine productions, either a connected treatife, or regular fyftem according to the fcientific method of modern philofophers; in a word, that we muft not look for a philofopher among the authors of thefe Writings. They addrefs themselves to the memory only, for facts; to confcience for precepts; and to fentiment, for motives; without entering into any difcuffion, enquiry, or fpeculative dispute. The fame may be faid in this refpect, of thofe Authors who were not infpired. None of the hiftorians, poets or moralifts, before the foundation of the philofophic fchools in Greece, have given us a regular treatife of morals. We find in them, however, all the foundations of the art of living, all the principles of morality, all the real motives to virtue, and the 3 greatest greatest part of the effential precepts of a regular and useful life. Homer and Hefiod, the oldeft poets, whofe works have reached us, furnifh an example, in regard to uninspired Authors, which confirms the idea I have given of the flate of morality before the eftablishment of the philofophic fchools in Greece. According to them, the laws of juftice had God for their author. His authority gave thefe laws their obligatory force, and the diftributive juftice of heaven was the motive to obedience. Such too was the ftate of morality among the Indians, Perfians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, Gauls, Latines, and every other nation under heaven. The notion of a future life, wherein the virtuous were to be rewarded, and the wicked punifhed, prevailed univerfally. Orpheus, we are told, brought this notion from Egypt into Greece, and Homer adopted it. It would be endlefs to repeat all that is to be found upon this fubject in the writings of the poets, who were, for many ages, the only teachers of morality, and who carefully preferved in their works the notions and ideas of former times. • Morality loft this useful fimplicity, when the philofophers, as they were called, begun to treat of it. A curiofity, pufhed too far, made them enter into the difcuffion of feveral curious queftions in relation to thofe clear and efficacious principles, which had been fufficient in former times; and the pride of explaining every difficulty became a dangerous fpur to this curiofity. What was formerly a practical art, became now a fpeculative fcience, a fubject of controverfy. Different fyftems were erected, and warm contentions arofe in fupport of them. Some attacked, others defended, all were eager for victory, and all contended earnestly for or against propofitions, as they were or were not favourable to their feveral schemes: first principles were rendered doubtful, nay they even went fo far as to deny them abfolutely; and criminal paffions, impatient of being reftrained by the precepts and laws of virtue, found their intereft in darkning or even rejecting the truth, and, accordingly, availed themselves of thefe diforders and increased them. The voice of confcience was ftifled in many perfons by every kind of fophiftry. New enquiries, and profounder ftudies were neceffary, to form a judgment of thofe controverfies, and after much labour and application, they ftill found themfelves in a ftate of uncertainty in many respects. Happily for mankind, the bulk of the people were incapable of entering into thofe difputes, left them to the philofophers, and continued to follow the dictates of conscience, and to reverence antient maxims, when no violent pasfion intervened. There were fome wife philofophers too, who en endeavoured to ftrengthen the laws of virtue, rather than fupport their own fyftems.' The profeffor now proceeds to give a fhort account of the principal moral writers, and their fyftems, from Pythagoras down to Mr. Hutchinfon of Glafgow. This part of the work cannot fail of being agreeable both to the learned Reader, and the young ftudent. ftudent. But we must not enlarge, and fhall conclude this article with acquainting our Readers, that the work now before us contains only the principles of natural law. FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE. To the AUTHORS of the MONTHLY REVIEW. GENTLEMEN, IN your Review for you were pleafed a able account of the book which Mr. Wynne has tranflated under the title of The Principal Truths of Natural Religion,' and to recommend it to the public. It must flatter me, as the Author of it, to have got the approbation of Gentlemen, who have long eftablished, by their judicious criticisms, a great reputation for learning, penetration and taste. As to the book which Mr. Wynne has published, I will not deny, that in the main it contains the fubftance of my thoughts; I'll allow alfo, that Mr. W. has had a very good intention in printing it. But, as he has frequently tranfgreffed the bounds of a faithful tranflator, he really has done no good fervice to the book nor to the Author; of which I must beg the favour of you to give notice to the Public Wr. Wynne, in tranflating, did not make ufe of the German origi nal, but had a good and faithful Dutch tranflation before him, done by Mr. Jo. Fred. Fortmeyer, and which the learned Profeffor Lulofs not only caused to be published, but enriched it alfo by feveral of his own remarks, at Leiden, 1758, in 8vo. Mr. W. might have feen hereby, that other men of judgment did not think the Notes to be fuperfluous. They are partly designed to let every one read the very words of ancient and modern authors, and thence to judge by himself, whether their meaning be well expreffed in the text, and whether those who are refuted have been treated with juftice. Other notes, and the greateft part of them, contain fome illustrations of the matters from natural hiftory, or farther explications and proofs of the arguments: both which ought not to have been withheld from a book which draws its arguments from the contemplation of nature. But Mr. W. befides omitting moft of the notes, often maims the text fo much, by abridging and contracting my ten differtations into nine, that the arguments are thereby made obfcure, enervate, or are even quite misreprefented. My preface seemed also superfluous to him: yet an author takes this occafion, to declare to the Reader his defign, the plan, the bounds and the use of his work. The index too is omitted, though often required in works of this kind. As to the tranflation itself, fome fmall mistakes which Mr. W. has fallen into may be easily excufed. For intance, p. 47, from his perhaps not knowing of any other Wolff, he reprefents the baron of that name, the celebrated philofopher and mathematician, as author of the the Bibliotheca Hebræa, which however lies entirely out of his province. -To illuftrate the argument, that lifeless matter can have no enjoyment from its being or peculiar properties, I mentioned, among other productions of art, Mr. Vaucanfon's artificial human figure playing an air upon the flute, which thereby does not (1 fay) please its own ear, but that of others. Mr. W. from not having heard any thing of Mr. Vaucanfon's invention, omits this name, p. 1ozi and makes a real living musician of it: thus (fays he) a mufician does not play to entertain bimfelf, but the company. This destroys the fenfe entirely, mifreprefents the intention of the argument, and is in fact partly falfe.I don't know what may be his meaning, p. 229. where he fays of the filkworm, it fpins its coque in the form of a cone for such a form of spinning I never heard of.-But thefe inftances I only mention by the way: feve ral others may occur, which a candid reader won't, I hope, impute to the author of the work. For, there are many other paffages, where, I obferved, that my meaning is not at all well expreffed, and which, if Mr. Wynne or the bookfeller had a mind to publish a more accurate tranflation, I could point out to them. But, what I would principally ask Mr. Wynne, whether in the cha racter of a tranflator or abbreviator, is, how he took the liberty of his own accord, to add these words to the title?wherein the objections of Lucretius, Buffon, Maupertuis, Rousseau, La Mettrie and other ancient and modern followers of Epicurus are confidered and their doctrines refuted.' This I did not write, nor is it to be found in the title of the original German edition, nor in that of the accurate Dutch translation. I also profefs, that it is injurious to the honour of these three gentlemen, whom I esteem for their merits, and is contrary to what I have expreffed in my work, to call them followers of Epicurus, and to arrange them in the fame clafs with La Mettrie. Indeed I difpute Mr. Maupertuis's and Mr. Buffon's opinion, where they reject the final caufes in the creas tion, and think the general principles of truth to be of no ufe. But this has also been the fentiment of Bacon and of Des Cartes, though they were no followers of Epicurus. I had spoke to the advantage of Mr. Maupertuis's religion in Diff. iv. §. 9. note 6. of the German edition, but this note is omitted by Mr. W. I fhewed, that Mr. Buffon, rejecting the design or final caufes, and endeavouring to explain the inftinct of brutes, and particularly the oeconomy of bees, in a mechanical way, gives no fatisfactory or true explication of the matter: and this is all I faid against him. But Mr. W. has also entirely left out, both of the text and the notes, all this argumentation. Of Mr. Rouffeau I faid, in Diff. vii. §. 4. that probably his fingular humour only made him argue against a social state, and against the unequal conditions of men. No other imputation is uttered: but even this paffage I do not find in Mr. Wynne's tranflation. Whence then did he form fuch an injurious opinion of these three gentlemen, who have declared fufficiently by their writings, that they differ widely from Epicurus, and that they have much better fentiments of religion and why did he lay it to my charge in the title-page, and in fuch a manner as if the whole book had been wrote to this end? Mr. W. I believe had not fo bad an intention by taking this liberty, but only thought to fix the attention of the reader, and to procure a better fale of the book. Yet this fhould not be done at the expence of the well-merited reputation of others, whofe partifans being thus |