Chapter 24

317. See his Oration.

318. In the year 1756, he made an eight-day clock, for his brother-in-law, Mr. Barton; over the dial-plate of which, was engraven this mementory motto—Tempus fugit; and underneath, this blunt but too often necessary precept—Go about your business.On one description of the continental bills of credit, issued by congress during the American war, were represented a sundial and a meridian sun over it: above, the word “Fugio;” and beneath, these words—“Mind your Business.” And on the reverse of a copper one cent piece, struck in the year 1787, in pursuance of a resolve of congress of the 6th of July in that year, are impressed the same device and mottoes as those last mentioned; corresponding with those adopted by our Philosopher, when only twenty-four years of age: a circumstance that shews, how early in life he had formed a just estimate of the value of time.It may not be improper here to observe, that the various devices affixed to the continental money, as it was called, were much admired for their appropriate significancy; and that they were generally supposed to be the production of the late ingenious Judge Hopkinson, an intimate friend of Mr. Rittenhouse.

On one description of the continental bills of credit, issued by congress during the American war, were represented a sundial and a meridian sun over it: above, the word “Fugio;” and beneath, these words—“Mind your Business.” And on the reverse of a copper one cent piece, struck in the year 1787, in pursuance of a resolve of congress of the 6th of July in that year, are impressed the same device and mottoes as those last mentioned; corresponding with those adopted by our Philosopher, when only twenty-four years of age: a circumstance that shews, how early in life he had formed a just estimate of the value of time.

It may not be improper here to observe, that the various devices affixed to the continental money, as it was called, were much admired for their appropriate significancy; and that they were generally supposed to be the production of the late ingenious Judge Hopkinson, an intimate friend of Mr. Rittenhouse.

319. See Eulog. on Ritt.

320. An eulogy of this great astronomer, celebrated for his discovery of the aberration and nutation, will be found in the History of the French Academy, for the year 1762. He was born in 1692; and died at Greenwich, in 1762, at the age of seventy years.

321. See the Memorial of the Society to the General Assembly, dated the 6th of March, 1775; introduced in the foregoing pages.

322. Observatories are indispensably necessary to the cultivation of astronomical science. There are many celebrated institutions of this kind, in various parts of Europe; and of these, the British isles may justly boast of possessing a large proportion in number, admirably fitted up with all the necessary apparatus. Some account of these will be found in other parts of this work.Besides the liberal and honourable provision made for eminent astronomers in Great-Britain, many of the most distinguished men of the same class, on the continent of Europe, have experienced the bounty of their respective princes and states. Such, among others, were the celebrated C. Mayer, Astronomer to the Elector Palatine and duke of Bavaria, at Manheim; Zach, Astronomer to the Duke of Saxe-Gotha, at Gotha; and Lalande, Professor of Astronomy and Inspector of the College of France, at Paris. These great philosophers have had splendid astronomical establishments provided for them, by their sovereigns; as is more particularly noticed in other parts of these memoirs. And the extensive work of Mr. de Zach, entitled,Tabulæ Motuum Solis novæ et correctæ, &c. (a large quarto volume in the Latin language,) was printed under the patronage and at the expense of the Duke of Saxe-Gotha, in the year 1792, and distributed gratis among many of the learned of the old and new world; an example of munificence worthy of imitation by all sovereign princes and states, who know how to estimate, as they deserve, such importantly useful productions of men eminent in science.The time, in which the transcendent talents of such philosophers as have been here named, was employed, together with the products of their labours, were rightfully, under such patronage, the property of the public; while the time of our astronomer was with equal justice his own, and consequently the fruits of his time, genius, and labour, were, at least primarily, due to himself and his family.

Besides the liberal and honourable provision made for eminent astronomers in Great-Britain, many of the most distinguished men of the same class, on the continent of Europe, have experienced the bounty of their respective princes and states. Such, among others, were the celebrated C. Mayer, Astronomer to the Elector Palatine and duke of Bavaria, at Manheim; Zach, Astronomer to the Duke of Saxe-Gotha, at Gotha; and Lalande, Professor of Astronomy and Inspector of the College of France, at Paris. These great philosophers have had splendid astronomical establishments provided for them, by their sovereigns; as is more particularly noticed in other parts of these memoirs. And the extensive work of Mr. de Zach, entitled,Tabulæ Motuum Solis novæ et correctæ, &c. (a large quarto volume in the Latin language,) was printed under the patronage and at the expense of the Duke of Saxe-Gotha, in the year 1792, and distributed gratis among many of the learned of the old and new world; an example of munificence worthy of imitation by all sovereign princes and states, who know how to estimate, as they deserve, such importantly useful productions of men eminent in science.

The time, in which the transcendent talents of such philosophers as have been here named, was employed, together with the products of their labours, were rightfully, under such patronage, the property of the public; while the time of our astronomer was with equal justice his own, and consequently the fruits of his time, genius, and labour, were, at least primarily, due to himself and his family.

323. The famous English Observatory near Greenwich Hospital, and in the immediate vicinity of the town of Greenwich in Kent, (erected, on a commanding eminence one hundred and sixty feet above the level of the river Thames, in the year 1676, by order of King Charles II.) is still called Flamstead-House; Mr. Flamstead having been the first person appointed Regius Professor there.

324. It is said of the celebrated Roger Cotes, by his friend and patron, the learned Dr. Richard Bentley, in his inscription upon the tomb of that great philosopher, at Cambridge, that—“Pauca quidem Ingenii sui pignora reliquit,Sed egregia, sed admiranda:”In like manner, though the writings of Dr. Rittenhouse are neither numerous nor extensive, some of his works are, nevertheless, so excellent and admirable in their nature, they exhibit such proofs of transcendent genius, that they will immortalize his name. And, as Cotes was prematurely taken away by death, or, as expressed in his epitaph,“Immaturâ Morte præreptus;”—so, the actual term of Rittenhouse’s life may be considered as having been much shortened by sickness. Franklin, who lived twenty years longer than our astronomer, published little in philosophy; yet this circumstance does not derogate from his claims to the character of a philosopher.

324. It is said of the celebrated Roger Cotes, by his friend and patron, the learned Dr. Richard Bentley, in his inscription upon the tomb of that great philosopher, at Cambridge, that—

“Pauca quidem Ingenii sui pignora reliquit,Sed egregia, sed admiranda:”

“Pauca quidem Ingenii sui pignora reliquit,

Sed egregia, sed admiranda:”

In like manner, though the writings of Dr. Rittenhouse are neither numerous nor extensive, some of his works are, nevertheless, so excellent and admirable in their nature, they exhibit such proofs of transcendent genius, that they will immortalize his name. And, as Cotes was prematurely taken away by death, or, as expressed in his epitaph,

“Immaturâ Morte præreptus;”—

so, the actual term of Rittenhouse’s life may be considered as having been much shortened by sickness. Franklin, who lived twenty years longer than our astronomer, published little in philosophy; yet this circumstance does not derogate from his claims to the character of a philosopher.

325. A second edition of the first volume was published in the year 1789, in consequence of the extraordinary demand for that book, by reason of the very important papers respecting the Transit of Venus, contained in it.

326. Some further remarks respecting this comet, than those contained in Dr. Rittenhouse’s communication, here referred to, will be found in an extract which has already been given, of his letter to the Rev. Mr. Barton, under the date of July 30, 1770.

327. Mr. Francis de Zach (Astronomer to the duke of Saxe-Gotha,) in the explanation and use of his table, No. 38, entitled,“Correctio horæ meridianæ prodeuntis ex altitudinibus correspondentibus Solis,”says—“Tradit ClarissimusDav. Rittenhouse,in Transactionibus Americanis(vol. 1. p. 155. edit. 2.),Methodum novum correctionis horæ meridianæ, absque tabulis, ex solâ observatione deducendæ; sed requiruntur, ad hoc, duorum dierum subsequentium altitudines quatuor æquales: id est, sub eadem altitudine manè et vesperi factæ, ad assequendam ex his, correctiones meridiei, Regulæ Clariss. Authoris sunt sequentes:”Mr. de Zach then lays down Dr. Rittenhouse’s Rules, which will be found in the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, already referred to; and adds—“Exempla hoc perspicuum reddent:”he next states two examples, from which he deduces proofs of the accuracy of Dr. Rittenhouse’s method. See“Tabulæ Motuum Solis, novæ et correctæ, ex Theoriâ Gravitatis et Observationibus recentissimis erutæ, &c. auctore Francisco de Zach:”printed at Gotha, in 1792.

328. This Comet was observed by John Lukens, Esq. of Philadelphia, on the 20th of January, 1784. This respectable practical astronomer communicated his discovery of it to Dr. Rittenhouse the next day, on the evening of which, (“assisted by Mr. Lukens and Mr. Prior,”) he ascertained the then apparent place of this comet. Dr. Rittenhouse’s communication to the society, on this subject, gives also the apparent place of the comet on the 17th of February, being the last time the weather permitted him to see it: the result of his intermediate observations is also stated.

329. These observations were made in Philadelphia, by Dr. Rittenhouse, at sundry times in the years 1784, 1785, and 1786, on the new planet, or Georgium Sidus; and on the Transit of Mercury over the Sun’s disk, on the 12th of November, 1782. The same communication also states the geocentric places of the Georgium Sidus, at several different dates between the 1st of April, 1762, and the 14th of March, 1784, both included; as observed by Mr. James Six, at the city of Canterbury in England.

330. This eclipse was observed by Andrew Ellicott, Esq. at the city of Washington, as follows; viz.{6.h39′.1″,25{Annulus completed{April 3d.6.43.15,25Do. brokenM. Time.7.55.37,75End of Eclipse.A letter from the celebrated French Astronomer, Lalande, to Dr. Rittenhouse, on the same subject, has been already given.

330. This eclipse was observed by Andrew Ellicott, Esq. at the city of Washington, as follows; viz.

A letter from the celebrated French Astronomer, Lalande, to Dr. Rittenhouse, on the same subject, has been already given.

331. In this letter, Dr. Rittenhouse merely informs Mr. Patterson, in general terms, of the time when he first observed this comet, its then place, and its course through several of the constellations, until the 8th of February; on the evening of which day, he saw it for the last time. It is presumed that Dr. Rittenhouse’s state of health, at that period, would not admit of his making more definite observations on this comet.

332. Thisdesideratumin astronomical science had long engaged Dr. Rittenhouse’s attention; and it is confidently said by one of his intimate friends, that, in the latter part of his life, he had actually written much on the subject of Pendulums; intended, probably, for publication. But, unfortunately, the manuscript-book, which contained what he had thus written, can not now be found.In the paper mentioned in the text, he remarks, that “the invention and construction of time-keepers may be reckoned among the most successful exertions of human genius. Pendulum-clocks especially,” says he, “have been made to measure time with astonishing accuracy; and, if there are still some causes of inequality in their motions, the united efforts of mechanism, philosophy and mathematics, will probably, in time, remove them.”Indeed no man has done more, none perhaps so much, towards removing the imperfections in chronometers, to which he alludes, as this great mechanician himself. His admirable time-piece, now in the possession of the Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, constructed by him, on an improved plan of his own, affords ample proof of the “astonishing accuracy” (as he expresses it) to which the pendulum-chronometer may be brought. A description of the mechanism of this extremely accurate time-piece, as well as of the principles on which its superior correctness depends, is inserted in the Appendix.

In the paper mentioned in the text, he remarks, that “the invention and construction of time-keepers may be reckoned among the most successful exertions of human genius. Pendulum-clocks especially,” says he, “have been made to measure time with astonishing accuracy; and, if there are still some causes of inequality in their motions, the united efforts of mechanism, philosophy and mathematics, will probably, in time, remove them.”

Indeed no man has done more, none perhaps so much, towards removing the imperfections in chronometers, to which he alludes, as this great mechanician himself. His admirable time-piece, now in the possession of the Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, constructed by him, on an improved plan of his own, affords ample proof of the “astonishing accuracy” (as he expresses it) to which the pendulum-chronometer may be brought. A description of the mechanism of this extremely accurate time-piece, as well as of the principles on which its superior correctness depends, is inserted in the Appendix.

333. The appropriate location of “The American Philosophical Society” is the city of “Philadelphia,” where their meetings must be held in conformity to their charter. Monticello, Mr. Jefferson’s residence in Virginia, is situated at the distance of about two hundred and seventy miles from the capital of Pennsylvania.

334. It is difficult for a sound and contemplative mind to form any conception of the character of a philosopher, according to the true meaning of the term, more especially of an astronomer, of a man observant of the works of nature and acquainted with her laws; and yet wanting in a due sense of religion. And hence Dr. Young has declared, that—“An undevout Philosopher is mad.”Instances, however, of this kind of mania, are known to have existed; produced by that presumptuous pride, which is too often engendered by a sophistication of true philosophy with the wild fantasies of some modern metaphysical sects, affecting extraordinary illumination. By thus engrafting a bad scion upon a good stock, pernicious fruit is propagated: or, to drop metaphorical allusions, by attempting to blend into one system, principles so discordant in their nature, as those of the experimental philosopher and the visionary theorist who deals in abstract speculations and reasoningsâ priori, the appropriate powers of the mind are weakened, while its moral faculty is at the same time, and by the same means, greatly deteriorated.An extraordinary but deplorable instance of this kind was exhibited to the world by the justly celebrated astronomer Lalande, in his own conduct and character, towards the concluding part of a long life. These are so well portrayed in the very interestingLetters on France and England, published inThe American Review of History and Politicks, that the writer of the present memoirs cannot forbear presenting to his reader the following extract from Letter III.“Lalande, if not the most profound and original, was certainly the most learned astronomer of France, and the principal benefactor of the science to which he was so passionately devoted. He was remarkable for the most egregious vanity, and for the broadest eccentricities of character, and almost equally eminent for the most noble virtues of the heart. By a very singular perversion of intellect, he became a professed atheist, about the commencement of the revolution; pronounced, in the year 1793, in the Pantheon, a discourse against the existence of a God, with the red cap upon his head; and displayed, on this subject, the most absolute insanity, during the rest of his life. This monstrous infatuation betrayed him into the most whimsical acts of extravagance, and particularly into the publication of a Dictionary of Atheists, in which he enregistered not only many of “the illustrious dead,” but a great number of his cotemporaries, and among these, some of the principal dignitaries of the empire.“This circumstance led to an occurrence in the Institute, which that body will not soon forget. At an extraordinary sitting of all the classes, convoked for the purpose, when Lalande was present, a letter from the Emperor was announced and read aloud, in which it was declared, that Mr. Lalande had fallen into a state of dotage, and was forbidden to publish, thereafter, any thing under his own name. The old astronomer rose very solemnly, bowed low, and replied, that he would certainly obey the orders of his majesty. His atheistical absurdities deserved, no doubt, to be repressed; but, besides the singularity of this form of interdiction, there was an unnecessary degree of severity in it, as the end might have been attained without so public a humiliation. Lalande was notoriously superannuated, and not therefore a fit object for this species of punishment. Some consideration, moreover, was due to his many private virtues, to his rank in the scientific world, and to the large additions which he had made to the stock of human knowledge. His atheistical opinions arose, not from any moral depravity, but from a positive alienation of mind on religious topics. He was not the less conspicuous for the most disinterested generosity; for warm feelings of humanity; for the gentleness of his manners; for the soundness of his opinions on questions of science, and for a certain magnanimity with regard to the merits of his rivals and detractors. The extravagance of his opinions and his manners during his dotage, rendered him an object of almost universal derision in Paris, and subjected him to the most cruel and indecent mockery. It became fashionable, even among those who had derived their knowledge from his lessons and experienced his bounty, to depreciate his merits both as an astronomer and as a man. Lalande had the misfortune of living to see a maxim verified in his own regard, which has been exemplified in every age and country, that some disciples may become superiour to their masters. But he was, nevertheless, at all times among the luminaries of science; and to him astronomy was indebted for more substantial and unremitted services, than to any one of his cotemporaries.”This very Mr. Lalande, in the preface to the third edition of his inestimable work entitledAstronomie, published at Paris so late as the year 1792, shews, that astronomy furnishes most powerful proofs of the being of a God. Yet this same man, in one year after, when in his “dotage,” with a mind enfeebled by age, and corrupted by the delusions of the new philosophy of his countrymen, became an object of “derision,” and of “mockery,” even among Frenchmen; for his absurdities, and his endeavours to set himself up as a champion of atheism! Is it necessary to furnish the rational part of mankind with a more striking, and at the same time a more lamentable proof, of the deleterious effects produced by those illusions, which, under the assumed name of “Philosophy,” have been conjured up by some modern Theorists and Political Speculators? Certainly, it is not. The instance, here adduced, may stand as a monument of the folly and depravity of the Philosophy of the Gallican School.

“An undevout Philosopher is mad.”

Instances, however, of this kind of mania, are known to have existed; produced by that presumptuous pride, which is too often engendered by a sophistication of true philosophy with the wild fantasies of some modern metaphysical sects, affecting extraordinary illumination. By thus engrafting a bad scion upon a good stock, pernicious fruit is propagated: or, to drop metaphorical allusions, by attempting to blend into one system, principles so discordant in their nature, as those of the experimental philosopher and the visionary theorist who deals in abstract speculations and reasoningsâ priori, the appropriate powers of the mind are weakened, while its moral faculty is at the same time, and by the same means, greatly deteriorated.

An extraordinary but deplorable instance of this kind was exhibited to the world by the justly celebrated astronomer Lalande, in his own conduct and character, towards the concluding part of a long life. These are so well portrayed in the very interestingLetters on France and England, published inThe American Review of History and Politicks, that the writer of the present memoirs cannot forbear presenting to his reader the following extract from Letter III.

“Lalande, if not the most profound and original, was certainly the most learned astronomer of France, and the principal benefactor of the science to which he was so passionately devoted. He was remarkable for the most egregious vanity, and for the broadest eccentricities of character, and almost equally eminent for the most noble virtues of the heart. By a very singular perversion of intellect, he became a professed atheist, about the commencement of the revolution; pronounced, in the year 1793, in the Pantheon, a discourse against the existence of a God, with the red cap upon his head; and displayed, on this subject, the most absolute insanity, during the rest of his life. This monstrous infatuation betrayed him into the most whimsical acts of extravagance, and particularly into the publication of a Dictionary of Atheists, in which he enregistered not only many of “the illustrious dead,” but a great number of his cotemporaries, and among these, some of the principal dignitaries of the empire.

“This circumstance led to an occurrence in the Institute, which that body will not soon forget. At an extraordinary sitting of all the classes, convoked for the purpose, when Lalande was present, a letter from the Emperor was announced and read aloud, in which it was declared, that Mr. Lalande had fallen into a state of dotage, and was forbidden to publish, thereafter, any thing under his own name. The old astronomer rose very solemnly, bowed low, and replied, that he would certainly obey the orders of his majesty. His atheistical absurdities deserved, no doubt, to be repressed; but, besides the singularity of this form of interdiction, there was an unnecessary degree of severity in it, as the end might have been attained without so public a humiliation. Lalande was notoriously superannuated, and not therefore a fit object for this species of punishment. Some consideration, moreover, was due to his many private virtues, to his rank in the scientific world, and to the large additions which he had made to the stock of human knowledge. His atheistical opinions arose, not from any moral depravity, but from a positive alienation of mind on religious topics. He was not the less conspicuous for the most disinterested generosity; for warm feelings of humanity; for the gentleness of his manners; for the soundness of his opinions on questions of science, and for a certain magnanimity with regard to the merits of his rivals and detractors. The extravagance of his opinions and his manners during his dotage, rendered him an object of almost universal derision in Paris, and subjected him to the most cruel and indecent mockery. It became fashionable, even among those who had derived their knowledge from his lessons and experienced his bounty, to depreciate his merits both as an astronomer and as a man. Lalande had the misfortune of living to see a maxim verified in his own regard, which has been exemplified in every age and country, that some disciples may become superiour to their masters. But he was, nevertheless, at all times among the luminaries of science; and to him astronomy was indebted for more substantial and unremitted services, than to any one of his cotemporaries.”

This very Mr. Lalande, in the preface to the third edition of his inestimable work entitledAstronomie, published at Paris so late as the year 1792, shews, that astronomy furnishes most powerful proofs of the being of a God. Yet this same man, in one year after, when in his “dotage,” with a mind enfeebled by age, and corrupted by the delusions of the new philosophy of his countrymen, became an object of “derision,” and of “mockery,” even among Frenchmen; for his absurdities, and his endeavours to set himself up as a champion of atheism! Is it necessary to furnish the rational part of mankind with a more striking, and at the same time a more lamentable proof, of the deleterious effects produced by those illusions, which, under the assumed name of “Philosophy,” have been conjured up by some modern Theorists and Political Speculators? Certainly, it is not. The instance, here adduced, may stand as a monument of the folly and depravity of the Philosophy of the Gallican School.

335. “If,” (says a late anonymous writer,) “from the advantages of sound learning to the state, we turn to its influence on the characters of individuals, we will find its effects to be no less striking. We will find, that although, without much learning, man may become useful and respectable, yet that he cannot, without it, become polished, enlightened and great; he cannot ascend to that grade in the scale of his Creator’s works, to which his powers are intended to exalt him. If to this rule, a Franklin, a Rittenhouse, and a Washington present exceptions, they are to regarded as mere exceptions, and therefore do not amount to an infraction of the rule. They were prodigies; which necessarily implies a departure from, and an ascendency over common principles.” See anAccount of Dickinson College, Carlisle, in thePort Folio, for March, 1811; supposed to be written by Professor Cooper.

336. Three years before Dr. Rush expressed these opinions, so generally unfavourable to classical learning and an academic education, he seems to have thought these necessary qualifications for aphysicianat least. In his Lecture on the Character ofDr. Sydenham, delivered in Dec. 1793, is this passage: “From the short records of his life, which have been published by the different editors of his works, it appears that his education in academical learning and medicine, was perfectly regular. He became a scholar at Oxford, and a doctor of medicine at the university of Cambridge. I mention these facts,” adds our learned Professor, “in order to refute an opinion which has been introduced by some lazy and illiterate practitioners of physic, that he was indebted wholly to intuition for all his knowledge of medicine. Men may become wise and distinguished by meditation or observation, in the science of morals and religion; but education and study are absolutely necessary to constitute a great physician.”With all due deference to the abilities and judgment of the Professor, the Memorialist presumes, that if “education and study are absolutely necessary to constitute a great physician,” they are equally requisite in the formation of a great astronomer: because a knowledge of geometry and optics can no more be attained by intuition, than that of anatomy and the materia medica; yet these sciences are, respectively, indispensable in the formation of the two characters, to which they severally relate.Still, adds Dr. Rush, “It is true Dr. Sydenham did not adopt, or follow, the errors of the schools in which he had been educated; but, by knowing them thoroughly, he was able, more easily, to examine and refute them.” Here, then, is an admission, that even an intimate knowledge of such errors is eminently useful, by enabling a man of a sound and cultivated mind to refute them: for, the refutation of existing errors, affords a most important aid to the advancement of true science.Sydenham, it appears, received his collegiate education at both the English universities. It may not therefore be improper, on this occasion, to introduce a quotation from an invaluable elementary work;[336a]in order to shew, what was the opinion entertained by a learned and distinguished German, of the English Universities—on the models of which, the higher seminaries of learning in the United States are formed. “Of all the Universities of Europe,” says Baron Bielfeld, “those of Oxford and Cambridge in England appear at present to approach the nearest to perfection: The great men they produce, are a better proof than any other argument.[336b]We could wish,” adds this highly enlightened foreigner, “always to see an university a real city of learning, a place consecrated entirely to the muses and their disciples; that the Greek and Latin languages were there predominant; and that every thing were banished from thence, which could cause the least dissipation in those who devote themselves to letters.” “The man who confines himself to his closet,”—says our author, in another place,—“is but rarely visited by the sciences, the arts and the belles lettres: to acquire their intimate acquaintance, he must seek them in those places where Minerva, Pallas, Apollo, and the Muses, have fixed their residence. Emulation, that strong impulse in the career of all our pursuits, should constantly attend the man of letters from his early youth to the last period of his life; in the school, at college, at the university, in those employments to which his knowledge may lead him, or in those academies of science to which he may be admitted. Emulation is an animating faculty, that results from society: and few there are, to whom nature has given a genius sufficiently strong to attain an extensive erudition in solitude; who are provided with wings that can bear them, without guides, without models, without companions or supports, to the lofty regions of the empyrean.”

With all due deference to the abilities and judgment of the Professor, the Memorialist presumes, that if “education and study are absolutely necessary to constitute a great physician,” they are equally requisite in the formation of a great astronomer: because a knowledge of geometry and optics can no more be attained by intuition, than that of anatomy and the materia medica; yet these sciences are, respectively, indispensable in the formation of the two characters, to which they severally relate.

Still, adds Dr. Rush, “It is true Dr. Sydenham did not adopt, or follow, the errors of the schools in which he had been educated; but, by knowing them thoroughly, he was able, more easily, to examine and refute them.” Here, then, is an admission, that even an intimate knowledge of such errors is eminently useful, by enabling a man of a sound and cultivated mind to refute them: for, the refutation of existing errors, affords a most important aid to the advancement of true science.

Sydenham, it appears, received his collegiate education at both the English universities. It may not therefore be improper, on this occasion, to introduce a quotation from an invaluable elementary work;[336a]in order to shew, what was the opinion entertained by a learned and distinguished German, of the English Universities—on the models of which, the higher seminaries of learning in the United States are formed. “Of all the Universities of Europe,” says Baron Bielfeld, “those of Oxford and Cambridge in England appear at present to approach the nearest to perfection: The great men they produce, are a better proof than any other argument.[336b]We could wish,” adds this highly enlightened foreigner, “always to see an university a real city of learning, a place consecrated entirely to the muses and their disciples; that the Greek and Latin languages were there predominant; and that every thing were banished from thence, which could cause the least dissipation in those who devote themselves to letters.” “The man who confines himself to his closet,”—says our author, in another place,—“is but rarely visited by the sciences, the arts and the belles lettres: to acquire their intimate acquaintance, he must seek them in those places where Minerva, Pallas, Apollo, and the Muses, have fixed their residence. Emulation, that strong impulse in the career of all our pursuits, should constantly attend the man of letters from his early youth to the last period of his life; in the school, at college, at the university, in those employments to which his knowledge may lead him, or in those academies of science to which he may be admitted. Emulation is an animating faculty, that results from society: and few there are, to whom nature has given a genius sufficiently strong to attain an extensive erudition in solitude; who are provided with wings that can bear them, without guides, without models, without companions or supports, to the lofty regions of the empyrean.”

336a. The Elements of Universal Erudition, containing an analytical abridgment of the Sciences, Polite Arts, and Belles Lettres; by Baron Bielfeld. In three 8vo. volumes; translated from a Berlin edition, by W. Hooper, M. D. and printed in London, in the year 1770.

336b. The three great Universities of England and Ireland enjoy the right, in addition to many other important privileges, of sending, each, two members to represent them in parliament, Would to heaven! that there were something like a representation of the interests of learning and science, in the legislative bodies of our own country.

337. Bacon (the celebrated Viscount of St. Albans and Baron of Verulam) published his great philosophical work, theNovum Organum, in the year 1620. The learned and sagacious professor Cooper remarks, that “Lord Bacon” (whom the honourable Mr. Walpole considers as the Prophet of the Arts, whichNewtoncame to reveal,) “was the first among the moderns, who pointed out the way by which real knowledge was to be obtained, and turned the minds of the learned from playing tricks with syllogisms, and the legerdemain of words without ideas; and taught them to rest theory upon the basis of experiment alone.” See the Introductory Lecture of Thomas Cooper, Esq. Professor of Chemistry at Carlisle College, Pennsylvania.

338. The Greek and Latin are called by way of pre-eminence, the learned languages. Baron Bielfeld enumerates the advantages resulting from a knowledge of the former; among which he notices that important one, of its enabling us more readily and clearly to comprehend the meaning of that almost boundless list of terms in the arts and sciences, used in modern languages and styled technical, which are either altogether Grecian, or derived from that language. He then makes this remark: “From all that has been said, it is apparent how much utility attends the study of the Greek tongue; and how much reason the English have, for applying themselves to it, from their early youth.” “But,” observes this learned and discriminating writer, “that which has given the Latin an advantage over the Greek itself, that has rendered it indispensable to every man of letters, and has made it the basis of erudition, is, that during the middle age, and in general in all modern times, the learned of all Europe have made it their common and universal language; so that the Latin forms, if we may use the expression, the natural language of the sciences.”Elem. of Univ. Erud.

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 ofThe 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 ofGod, 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 ofNewton, 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.”

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 ofThe 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 ofGod, 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 ofNewton, 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.”

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.

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.

342. In the year 1789, Dr. Rittenhouse translated from the German of Mr. Lessing, director of the theatre at Hamburg, a tragedy calledLucia 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.”

343. See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

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’sPrincipiain 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.

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.

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.”

“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.”

347. See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

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.

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.

348a. Mr. William Cobbett.

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.” SeeRitt. 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.”

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.”

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.

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 theGoodness 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.

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.

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.

Back to Index Next