708 
nature of matter and mind, subjects wholly unknown, 
and on which-no opinion can be said to exist. The 
practical evils complained of seem to-arise from a par- 
ticular mode of employing words, tending to discourage 
all elevated conceptions, and thus generate in some in- 
dividuals a degree of indignation, while its plausibility 
seduces others, and insensibly mars their love of moral 
order, An inordinate propensity to dwell on analytical 
views, sometimes withdraws the attention of the mind 
from the acknowledgment of magnificent objects, When 
the phenomena of mind are minutely dissected, and 
shown to consist of the same materials with others of a 
trivial nature, such as the puncture of a pin, or the ti- 
tillation of a feather, all the pleasure arising from the 
novel exercise of acuteness implied in the tracing of 
these general analogies is of short duration, and the. ut- 
most circumspection is afterwards necessary, to resist an 
exclusive lemicaicy to cherish detached sensibilities, and 
degenerate into a mean direction of sentiment and con 
duct. Persons thus influenced, consider all differences 
betwixt higher and meaner objects as depending on 
differences of arrangement, without duly acknowledg- 
ing the importance of that principle of arrangement 
which deserves their veneration much more than minor 
insulated objects. The error of not acknowledging the 
importance of differences, merely because we are plea~ 
sed with the generalization implied in the discernment 
of analogies, is also a radical fault in the use of the in- 
tellectual powers tending to the same moral confusion. 
It is not the mere pointing out of ‘such analogies that 
does harm, but the undue rank that is assigned to them. 
To say that virtuous and vicious actions are-equally ex- 
plicable on the principle of self-interest, has an apparent 
tendency to smooth over the difference between them. 
Our previous sense of their difference renders us averse 
to consider ther as possessing any thing in common. 
But if any person should think it worthy of mention, 
that these two sets of phenomena agree in possessing 
the essential quality of activity, re § are reducible to 
the varied motions of the human organs, no dangerous 
consequences could be apprehended, beeause such a po- 
sition never could make a prominent figure in a moral 
treatise, so as to distract the mind from distinctions of 
essential importance. 
Even a general test of morality is not ‘sufficient to 
obviate the noxious effects of magnifying such analogies. 
The annunciation of this summary doctrine, that public 
utility, or the promotion of the greatest sum of pleasure, 
is the ultimate end of virtue, is even productive of some 
disadvantage. Although it may have been tacitly ac- 
knowledged, those who are averse to innovation feel in 
it something different from what they have considered 
as a definition of virtue; while those who are dazzled 
with it as an important discovery, satisfy themselves 
with vague appeals to this general test, in cases which 
require more minute discrimination, or perhaps the spi- 
rit of morality evaporates amidst the interminable dis- 
putes which those who trust in the all-sufficiency of 
that principle maintain about its particular applications. 
Some launch into an ocean of the wildest confusion, and 
merely because they associate their actions with the ac- 
knowledgment of this generalizing principle, imagine 
that they are men of superior virtue. This mode of 
thinking has proved a frequent source of imprudence, 
unhappiness, and misanthropy. 
The works‘of Helvetius‘are probably less read now 
than formerly. “This may be ‘partly the effect of the 
influence of indiscriminate acrimonious censure ; and, 
although their merit is not of the highest order, it may 
HELVETIUS. 
Helvetius. dencies arose from any metaphysical opinions on the 
in a short time give way, among 
cxuilly Anidiacrtgninase admiration. It is therefore use- 
ful to be aware of some of their tendencies, which must, 
on consideration, be allowed to be injurious by men of 
all varieties of theoretic opinion. One of the most un-« 
tenable of the opinions of Helvetius was, that any difs 
ferences in the original endowments of men are of no ac« 
count in giving origin to the differences between mind 
and mind which appear on the great theatre of the 
world. 
The conflict which took place between the sentiments 
of this author and those of the age in which he lived, 
only afforded a specimen of a scene of hostility in moral 
literature, which was much more extensive; and, when 
we consider the spirit of mutual defiance in which both 
parties indulged, we cannot wonder at the antipathies 
which it created, and the dismal political dissensions 
which flowed from it as soon as the restraints imposed 
by existing institutions were withdrawn. 
The works of Helvetius were, through the influence 
of the French clergy, condemned by the Roman inqui- 
sition; but they were universally read and much ad~ 
mired in Italy and the whole of Europe. Even the 
dignitaries of the church, among whom was Cardinal 
Passionei, wrote complimentary letters to thank the au« 
thor for the fund of instruction and delight which he 
had afforded them. 
The tide of sentiment, however, was so 
adverse to him in France, that he found it prudent 
to leave that country for a time. He visited England, 
and was much pleased with some favourable features in 
the state of English society as contrasted with that of 
France, particularly the happiness and contentment of 
the lower orders, the prevalent warmth of parental af- 
fection, and he even construed the want of free associa- 
tion among adults to their exemption from ennui, and 
from all dependence on frivolous amusements. He also 
visited Prussia, where he was received with greet at- 
tention by the king, lodged in his palace, and freely ad- 
mitted into his familiar parties. 
When the storm raised against him in France had 
subsided, he returned home, and prosecuted his studies 
at his estate of Voré. He net himself in extend- 
ing the doctrines of his first work, in a “ Treatise on 
Man, his Faculties and Education ;” but had the pru- 
dence to give nothing more on the subject to the pub« 
lic. Being attacked with the gout in his stomach, he 
died in December 1771. ey 
The private character of Helvetius was distinguished 
by great humanity. He was a most indulgent landlord ; 
and Madame Helvetius and he concurred in the execu- 
tion of continual plans of beneficence. His lands being 
infested by poachers, he sometimes was provoked to 
punish them ; but the slightest appearance of suffering 
produced instant reconciliation, and awakened all his 
benignity. 
A this decease, his poem De Bonheur, on which 
he had long laboured, was given to the public. The 
object of this poem is to recommend literary improve- 
ment as the only source of true enjoyment. For this 
he has been blamed as restricting happiness to the pos- 
session of advantages which are confined to a small 
part of mankind. But, when we consider the life which 
he recommends as opposed to gross sensuality, vulga 
ambition, and the pursuit of wealth, we shall find his 
poem to contain much valuable truth. It is equally 
true that, if we withdraw our attention from these li- 
mited contrasts, and leave out of view the interests of 
persons who, in consequence of indulging in an inor« 
dinate passion for particular objects, have become the 
some readers, to an Helvetiu 
