The metaphyfical Reader will fee that this celebrated Writer gives a different turn to the doctrine of innate ideas, as laid down by Mr. Locke, and maintained by his followers. It is not for us, however, to fay how far the fentiments of these two great philofophers are reconcileable, or how far thofe of either are confiftent with truth. But we must not difmifs this fubject, without obferving that the doctrine of a moral inftinct, on which Hutchinson, Hume, and other late moralifts, have fo largely expatiated, is here fuggefted in the plaineft terms by Mr. Leib. nitz: although he does by no means impute fo great an influence to it as the author of De la Nature, and fome other writers, who have adopted it.

The next important point, on which the author of the fyftem of the pre-established harmony differs from Mr. Locke, relates to the nature and immateriality of the foul: which the former maintains to be conftantly thinking, and to be a fimple fubftance totally diftinct and different from matter. It is to the duration and prefence of this fubftance, alfo, that he imputes the perfonality or identity of the individual. Mr. Locke, it is true, differs from our Author in a great degree with regard to thefe particulars; we do not think, however, that the Leibnitzians do ftrict justice to our English philofopher, in imputing to him the notion that matter is capable of thinking. Mr. Locke indeed hath faid, that he faw no reason why the omnipotence of the deity might not fuperadd a capacity of thinking to matter: but this is not faying that he conceived matter could think. And indeed the whole difpute is a cavil about words, if there be no fuch thing in nature as thefe philofophers conceived matter to bc. At the fame time, we may challenge all the experimentalifts in Europe, to bring one phyfical proof, or even physical prefumption, that there is. It is indeed a little furprising to us, that a philofopher, who fhould ever think of accounting for the phenomenon of extenfion, from unextended atoms, as Leibnitz hath done, fhould afterwards adopt the Newtonian principles of impenetrable, extended elements. To thofe, indeed, who conceive the doctrine of the immateriality of the foul intimately connected with that of its immortality, Mr. Locke's fuppofition will doubtless appear exceptionable. But there is by no means any neceffary dependance or connexion between them. Mr. Locke fays, the great ends of religion and morality are fufficiently answered by the doctrine of the foul's immortality, without there being any neceffity to fuppofe its immateriality: and we may reverse the propofition, and fay for him, that, could it be proved that the foul was as material as the body really is, it would be no proof that it was not immortal, fo that the great ends of religion and morality dependant on that doctrine are equally fecured, be the problem determined either way.

It is to be obferved also, that, notwithstanding the apparent difference between the fyftems of Locke and Leibnitz, with regard to innate ideas, a very little matter of correction may perfectly reconcile them. For nothing can be plainer than that the latter means, by innate principles of thought, nothing more than an innate capacity of thinking. That the principles or motives of ratiocination, enabling the mind to draw regular conclufions from certain premises, are innate, cannot be doubted; nor did Mr, Locke ever deny it; he only denied that fuch conclufions exifted in the form of axioms already deduced. And thus geometrical truths are no more innate than moral, notwithstanding they are fo much more obvious and convincing. It feems as if the great perfpicuity and exactitude attending geometrical reasoning had led Mr. Leibnitz into this miftake: but we should reafon juft as well on any other subject or fcience, if the premises were equally clear. For we are not to conclude, because the mind reafons geometrically, that therefore it is originally furnished with geometrical knowlege. Even the obvious propofition, that two and two make four, is not a notion or idea, originally innate, notwithstanding its univerfality. It is true we find it impoffible to deny it; the mind revolting at so abfurd a negation: but this arifes from the mode of operation which it neceffarily purfues in all kinds of reafoning. This mode muft, indeed, be of course innate, because immediately depending on the frame and conftitution of the mind: but a very effential diftinction ought to be made between ideas themselves and our capacity for receiving them.

Of the other pieces contained in this volume we shall not trouble our Readers with any extract, they being all short, and little interesting to the generality of readers.

Lettre a Monfieur *** relative a Monfieur J. J. Rouffeau, &c.

Anecdotes relative to the Perfecution of J. J. Rouffeau by the Clergy in Switzerland; in a Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend; containing the Letters and Declarations of Mr. Rouffeau to the Affembly of the Clergy, the Confiftory of Elders, the Council of State, and the King's Attorney-general, on the Occafion. 12mo. 1765,

L

ITTLE as we are difpofed to pity those who seem to court perfecution, we cannot help thinking poor Rousseau hath had hard measure dealt him by his fellow-countrymen, and (as he even still seems defirous of calling them) fellow-chriftians.

Neceflity,

Neceffity, however, feems at length to have determined him to a final expatriation; in the melancholy fearch of a more hofpitable foil; where he may be permitted to die in peace. Hard, indeed to be denied the privilege of breathing his last in that air which he infpired at his birth but fuch is the rage of Fanaticifm, that the perfecutes with equal fury the child of her womb, and the offspring of the most diftant stranger.

Our Readers have, no doubt, been informed in general terms of Mr. Rouffeau's late fituation, after his having been obliged to retire from Geneva on account of the profecutions, or rather perfecution, carried on against him and his writings. The refuge he fought in the neighbouring principality of Neufchatel, hath, it feems, by no means answered his hopes and expectations, For, notwithstanding he was particularly honoured with the protection of the King of Pruffia, to whom that territory belongs, and no lefs favoured by the friendship of the Lord, Marshall, the governor; neither the influence of the fovereign, nor of the administration, was found fufficient to prevent his being perfecuted by the clergy, and infulted by the people. The government, it is true, appear to have had the power to prevent his being legally excommunicated and burnt at an Auto da fe: but, if we may credit the Author of this letter, he ran no little rifk of being torn to pieces by the populace; the most cruel and tyrannical of all human inftruments of vengeance!

The Author of the letter before us begins thus:

You defire of me, Sir, a particular account of the disturbance Mr. Rouffeau hath received and occafioned, in the new afylum he lately made choice of, in this principality. Indeed, I am not furprifed at your curiofity, nor to find you interest yourfelf fo greatly in the fituation of a writer, as famous for his misfortunes as celebrated for his merit. It would give too much pain, however, to an ingenuous mind, to enter minutely into the particular caufes of this difturbance; or to expofe the motives on which it is too juftly to be prefumed Mr. Rouffeau's enemies have proceeded. I fhall leave the recapitulation of thefe, therefore, to the fevere and cauftic pen of the fatirift; who may poffibly take a cruel pleasure in delineating a picture at once difgraceful to religion and humanity. From me you will receive only a faithful narrative of facts elucidated by a few annotations, and authenticated by copies of the original papers, which have appeared in the course of this extraordinary scene of inquifitorial profecution.'

The Letter-writer proceeds to inform us, that, about the latter end of the year 1764, Mr. Rouffeau had closed with a proposal, made to him for the publication of a compleat edition of his works: a circumftance which it is faid gave great offence, from Ferent motives, to many. About the fame time, alfo, came

out this Writer's Letters from the mountains; which laid the foundation for the perfecution that followed.

I need not tell you, Sir, with what avidity those letters were received by the public, nor that they were profcribed and burnt by the common executioner in various places. For our part, we remained very peaceable fpectators of thofe ridiculous bonfires, till about the end of February; when the zeal of our ecclefiaftics, which had so long lain fmothering in darkness, burst at once into a blaze. The aflembly of our clergy complained both to the adminiftration and the magiftracy, against the faid letters; representing them as impious, fcandalous and heretical; foliciting withal the immediate profcription of them, as also the fuppreffion of the projected edition, and of the Author's works in general.'

The adminiftration,' we are told, don't eafily take fire at fuch remonftrances, however overheated with the fury of inordinate zeal. The civil magiftrate, nevertheless, took the matterinto confideration, and fuppreffed the book; the officer entrusted with the business of crying it down, making a very whimfical blunder in the difcharge of his duty. The caufe of their prohi-. bition, as fpecified in the proclamation, was their having attacked every thing the moft refpectable in our holy religion: inftead of which the learned Mr. Town-clerk afferted that they attacked every thing the most reprehenfible in our holy religion. This unlucky mistake had a droll effect on the auditors; and was thought by fome to have very luckily amended an error in the proclamation. The affembly indeed thought otherwife; and. determined to proceed against the author; who, being advisedof the great disturbance which the fermentation of this venerable body might caule in the ftate, thought it his duty, as a good fubject, to endeavour to allay the ftorm. For this purpose, he tranfmitted the following declaration to Mr. Profeffor de Montmollin, the pastor of his church; in order to have it communicated to the affembly:'

"Out of the deference I owe to Profeffor de Montmollin, my paftor, and the refpect I bear to the venerable affembly of the clergy, I offer, if they will admit of it, to engage myself, by a writing figned with my own hand, never to publifh any new work relative to matters of religion; nor even to treat of religion, though ever fo curforily, in any new work, I may hereafter publish on other fubjects: promifing farther to continue, both in fentiment and conduct, to difplay the value I fet upon the happiness of being united to the church.Mr. Profeffor is defired to communicate this declaration to the venerable affembly. J. J. Rouffeau." This declaration, it feems, the affembly determined to keep a profound fecret, even from thofe of their own body, who did

not

not happen to be prefent at the time of its delivery. By fome means or other, however, it was foon made known to his Pruffran majesty at Berlin; in confequence of which the king's attorney-general at Neufchatel received the following letter, from the Lord Marshall:

The king is difpleafed that your fellow-countrymen fhould be irritated against a man whom he protects; and hath declared that he will highly resent any farther perfecution of Mr. Rouffeau. This I have from his Majefty's own lips; you may report it to whom you please.'

This intimation of the King's pleasure, in behalf of Mr. Rouffeau, although immediately made public, was difregarded by the Affembly of the Clergy; who precipitately proceeded, in open defiance of fuch intimation, as well as in direct oppofition to the laws and conftitution of this country, to pass fentence of excommunication upon him. They were prevented, however, from carrying their fentence into execution, by the remonftrance of one of their own body. The letter-writer inferts this remonftrance at length; we fhall only extract the latter part of it; from which our Readers may not only learn fomething of the legal jurisdiction of this clerical affembly; but alfo fome of the fecret motives for their proceedings.

The only point in this business, fays this remonftrant, in which the Affembly can with propriety interfere; is an exami nation into the works of the Writer; the difperfion and propagation of which, it is its duty to oppose, by prudent admonitions addreffed to the Author, by means of his paftor; exhorting him to write and publish no more; and alfo by making earnest remonftrances to the government, in order to obtain a repeal of the privilege granted for the projected edition of his works. If the affembly act prudentially they will infist no farther than to obtain these ends which will be very confiderable *. It is undoubtedly of dangerous confequence to extend the privilege of toleration indifcriminately to all foreigners that may accept of it as this would be, in a manner, to give an invitation to the authors of all pernicious books to feek an azylum in this country, and would rifk the making it a general rendezvous for thofe paultry fcribblers, whofe fceptical difpofitions principally induce them to make their attacks on the doctrines of religion and morality. There is yet another reason why the affembly, convened to deliberate on this business, should act with caution. It is publickly reported that the first-mover of all its proceedings, refides in a neighbouring capital, in the perfon of an apoftate ecclefiaftic; one whofe fole view in profe

Yet thefe, as the letter-writer remarks, Mr. Rouffeau had voluntarily offered, if they would have admitted of them,