4 



tern of natural dependencies. Cotemporary pliasnoincna we 

 accustom ourselves either to- refer to one common principle 

 of causation, or to attribute to the one some degree of influ- 

 ence on the production of the other i we are naturally pleased 

 with this order of things to which we ourselves have given 

 existence, and we veil our rashness in instituting analogies^ 

 under the specious appellations of " love of simplicity," and 

 " a study to preserve unbroken the general harmony of na- 

 ture." An error of this kind has for a long time partially 

 prevailed relative to the subject proposed by the Academ}' 

 for discussion, arid though in itself it by no means requires 

 a formal refutation, yet from it's connection with our ques- 

 tion it derives at present a degree of adventitious import- 

 ance. 



It has been observed, that while science in these latter 

 ages has soared to a height not only inaccessible but incom- 

 prehensible to the ancients, Polite Literature still remains in 

 the neighbourhood of those regions where the remotest anti- 

 quity had placed her — that while the pensive brow of the 

 severer Muse has been gradually relaxing into a smile of 

 greater complacency, the votaries of her more graceful sister 

 have had but little reason to boast of any cncrease in her 

 partiality. Hence it has been concluded, that there is sonie 

 natural repugnance between the two pursuits, and that parti- 

 cular attachment to one must necessarily be attended by 

 inferiority in the other. Thus the grand cause of Learning 

 has been split into factions, and the two presiding deities 



