Biographical Sketch 
wow a vaft populace of Jacobis) con- 
cluded, that therefore all philofopby ter- 
minates in the grofleft Spinofiifm; and 
that we can only extricate ourfelves from 
the labyrinth of metaphyfics by fubmit- 
ting our clear-eyed reafon to be led along 
every dark paflage by the blindeft faith. 
May we not reply to this monitrous ex- 
travagance of FAITH in the following 
manner? It is agrecd, that metaphytics 
often prefent us only with an uninteili- 
gible jargon, or with uncertain evidence 
formed on loofe analogies; but if the 
fyftem of faith prefents us with equal 
jargon, and with finular evidence, what 
motive can induce an intellectual being 
to chufe one in. preference to the other? 
That man believes a variety of dogmas 
contradictory to human reafon; but he 
is led to this by the immenfity .of his 
faith. Zhsis man believes in a variety 
of opinions which appear not lefs wild, 
and which he dignifies by the name of a 
philofophical fyitem, The true philo- 
fopher rejects both; becaufe one unin- 
telligible thing is not more valuable than 
another unintelligible thing. Here there 
is No motive to preference, and therefore no 
aétion of the mind. The true. philofopher 
is modett and refigned; he believes nething 
but what he comprehends: the fanatic 
is impious, for he dares to penetrate into 
the concealment the Author of nature has 
diffufed around; he feems to afpire to an 
equality with God. Mendelffohn replied 
to the letter of Jacobi, to explain and to 
exculpate the fentiments of his departed 
friend. A’ correfpondence was induftri- 
oufly purfued by Jacobi. This man had 
written the firft volume of a romance, 
and the public was not willing to receive 
its continuation. Suddenly, from a 
bdlafted and arid imagination he plunged 
into the aweful depth of metaphyfics. 
This tyro m thefe fublime {peculations 
could not even comprehend the letters 
which a great matter addreffed to him. 
With the temerity and vanity of his age, 
he ventured to publith this private cor- 
refpondence. “The modeft arid the timid 
Mendelfighn experienced agonies of fen- 
fibility. He was again menaced by a 
theological controverly: and the reputa- 
tion of Lefiing was cherifhed by him as 
his wn. It was in vain to complain of 
the treachery and the ignorance of the ac- 
eufer: he refuted Jacobi; he ftruck one 
annihilating blow; he avenged Leffing; 
but with that effort his taculties ex- 
pired * 
_ ¥ Icis worth while to obferve, that Ja- 
- 


of Mofes Mendelffohn. 4 
All Germany knows, and I have heard 
it from men of letters of that country, 
that his death was occafioned by the agi- 
tation of his mid on this controvertly. 
It exhaufted his feeble and-too fenfitive 
frame.. His whole character was oo 
fubtile a compofition of fenfibility ; his 
whole life was a malady; his every day 
feeimed to be his laft. Zimmerman, who, 
well knew him, acquaints us, that his 
whole nervous fyftem was deranged in an 
almoft inconceivable manner. Kefigna- 
tion and docility tempered his infirmities. 
He was placid in pain; but, whenever 
this great philofopher protraéted his ftu- 
dies to an unufual hour, or when deeply 
engaged in a profound difcuflion, a ftrong 
fainting ft was the confequence of his 
intellectual exertion. He would fome- 
times retire fuddenly from fuch conver- 
{ations to avoid the danger of fainting. 
<¢ Inthefe mements,”’ fays Zimmerman, 
“€ it was his cuitom to neglect all ftudy, 
to banifh thought entirely from his mind.”’ 
A phyfician afked him how he employed 
his time, it he did not think * ** I retire,” 
faid Mendelffohn, « to the window of my 
chamber, and count the tiles upon the 
roof of my neighbour's lLoufe.” 
I imagine he has defcribed his own 
charagter in that of Apollodorus, who is 
fuppofed to be prefent at the laft inter- 
view of the friends of Socrates. Phzdon 
fays, © Alternate fenfations of grief and 
joy agitated the minds of all who were 
prefent, but appeared ftill more ftrongly 
marked in our countenances. Sometimes 
we laughed, and fometimes we wept; a 
fmile was often on our lips, and warm 
moifture in our eyes. But Apollodorus 
exceeded us all. You know him, and 
his fenfibility of temper. His emotions 
were the moft fingular; every word and 
look of Socrates penetrated his foul; 
what made us only fimile, frequently 
threw him into rapture; and while drops 
were but gathering upon our fight, the 
eyes of Apollodorus appeared fwimming 
with tears. We were almoft as much at- 
fe&ted at the fight of him, as with the 
contémplation of our dying triend.”” 
He died the 4th of January, 1735. 
cobi, who could not be taught filence by de- 
feat, attempted to defend himfelf by veering 
to a new point, and giving a new explanation 
of the term faith. , Such is the ufual progreis 
of thefe abfurd inquiries! On this event, very 
unfeelingly, Denina fays, that after his death 
the controverfy did not clofe: all Germany 
was defirous of knowing the religious fen‘i- 
ents of a poor clerk to a Jewith manu- 
facturer ! 
F 2 {s 
