Part 87

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.

-----

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, which so much characterize that “cobweb philosophy,” 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,” 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.

-----

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, 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: