504 
Mr. Pinkerton might have done more 
than he is blamed for not doing. : 
There may, hewever, be fome latent 
information on this fubjeét, as well as 
evidence to fhew that Scheuizer’s Englith 
‘Tranflation from the Sloanian manufcript 
is incomplete, which it would be defirable 
that the Edinburgh Critics fhould lay be- 
fore the public on fome future occafion. 
21 ft Nov. 1803. D. 
3 ee : % 
Jo the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
oe the difference between Mr. Zouch, - 
a. 
or his Vindicator, and myfelf, ra- 
ther concerns matter of opinion than of 
faét, a very few, words will ferve for re- 
ply to the obfervations in your lai num- 
ber. 
yr. } fill think that when Mr. Zouch 
pointed out Mr. Wakefield as having 
amproperly cenfured’ Hooker, it was in. 
cumbent upon him to have confidered the 
ground cf-his cenfure, and not merely 
condemn him by an exclamation. Hooker's" 
obfervation appears to me, though not 
malicious, yet uncandid, and rather be- 
donging tothe controve:fialif, than to the 
enquirer after truth. 
2. 1 fee not the leaf Hane to alter 
my opinion of Laud, as a proud, narrow 
bigot, capable of cruelty and malignity 
towards his opponents : how far this is 
Giant fromthe charaéter of malicious, I 
leave your readers to determine. 
3. If Mr. Zouch, whom I believe to 
be a very worthy man, is, upon reflection, 
fatisfied with himfelf for Qlepping entirely 
out of his way, at a moment of party-exa!- 
peration, to repeat: another’s virulent abufe 
of Dr. Price, I have noth ing further to fay 
on the fabjee Dr. Price will live in the 
memory of thofe who knew him, as one 
of the moft excellent and benevolent cf 
men. I wifh, indeed, he had been fooner 
fenfible of the atrocious charaéter the 
French revolution was afluming ; but he 
was mifled by thinking and hoping too 
well of mankind, and relying tco much 
upon his owa views of the defigns of Pro- 
vidence. 
. Your's, &c. 
OrRTHOPHILUS. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
Nthe Life of Dr. Reid, publifhed by that 
ornament to the profefleria) cnair, Mr. 
Dogald Stewart, I met with the following 
flatement of the prizcaple of credulity, 
which Dr. Reid afierts, and Dr. Pricttley 
denics, to be an inflinctive principle im- 
7 
Reply of Orthophilos-— Remarks cn Dr. Reid, 
‘6 Put on Henry’s 
foundation of his principle of credulity. 
hae 1 
planted in our nature; and, therefore 
like many other inftin&ts, igtived by Dr. 
Reid and his followers, incapable of being 
traced to any more general law of nature, _ 
* << TF credulity (fays Dr. Reid) were the 
effect of reafon and experience, it mutt 
grow up and gather ftrength in the fame 
proportion as reafon and experience do. 
But if it is the gift of nature, it will be 
the ftrongeft in childhood, and limited and 
refirained by experience ; and the moft fu- 
perficial view of human life fhews, that 
this laft is the cafe, and not the firft.”? 
Mr. Stewart adds, that * to his own 
judgment this argument carries complete 
conviction ; and that Dr. Smith acquielces 
in it in his Theory of Meral Sentiments.” 
The reafoning is fpecious, and it may 
feem unreafonable not to be convinced by 
an argument which has fatisfied the dil- 
criminating and philofophic mind ef Mr. 
Stewart : yet 1 cannet help thinking, that, 
if examined, it will be found fallacious, 
and that the propenfity to believe thofe , 
about them, fhewn by children, may be» 
abundantly accounted for by the common 
procefles their miads pafs through, with. 
out recurring tothe laft refource of philo- 
fophical in veltigation, a new general law, 
which, like the fupernatural “interference 
calied in by the poet, fhould never be al- 
lowed but when the knot can be loofened 
no other way. 
Now it appears to me, that children do 
gain this principle of belief or credulity, 
precitely as they gain other things, by 
reafon and experience. Long before the 
infant can fpeak, founds are uttered to 
attraét his attention ; along with thefe 
founds, certain ovjects, of which they are 
the arbitrary fign, are prefented to him. 
~ By this means he is accuftomed to expect 
the prefence of the one, when he perceives 
the prefence of the Seen: Thus the nurfe or 
the mother fays, ‘* Come to the window ;__ 
Look at the moon;”’fat the fame time taking 
the child to the window, and thewing him 
themoon. ‘* Come, fit in mama’s lap ;” 
at the fame time taking him upon her tag 
hat, and let him. MA 
abroad ;*’ at the fame time putting on 
his bias and taking him abroad, By this. 
confiant affociation of the fiot with the 
thing fignified it is that he learns the ule 
of words ; ard it is to be obferved- that 
in no cther way can he poffibly learn the 
ufe of them; and along with the, knaow- 
ledge of words he neceffarily imbibes that 
propenfity to expeét the thing along with 
the name cf the thing, which lays the 
i} 
* Dr, Stewart’ sLifeot Reid, p. 132 
Bor 
