1809.] 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine, 
SIR, 
™  Y attention was atcracted by an ar- 
M ticle in the “Jixtracts from thePorte 
folio of a May of Letters” in your last 
number, relative to the Pere Bouhours, of 
critical celebrity. Your correspondent 
stated, that he had written fives of 
Saint lgnatius and Saint Navier, in Which 
he had compared the one to Cwsar, and 
the other to Alexander. 
If your correspondent. will take ips 
trouble to consult the “Manidre de bie 
Penser dans les Ouvrayes d’Lesprit, par le 
Pere Bouhcurs.” Ed. Paris, 2435, D. 
145, he will find that the remark does 
not belong to Bouhours, but to the great 
Prince de Condé, of Mea is said 1 the 
same work, ‘ Qu’il étoit de ces hommes 
extraordimaires en qui esprit & lascience 
ne cedeut point a la valeur heroique.”— 
Ilis expression was this: “St.Ignace, c’est 
Cesar qui ne fait jamais rien que pour de 
bonnes raisons : St. Xavier, c'est Alexan- 
dre que son couraye empore quelque fois.’ 
There follow several observations upon 
the propriety of this comparison, by 
hich, I am inclined to think, the absur- 
dity which your correspondent fancied 
he had discovered, will be entirely re- 
moved. The arguments, which are ex- 
tremely neat and ingemous, are too much 
at lenath to be inserted here. 
The learning and abilities of the Pere 
Bouhours were held in great estimation 
during the reign of Louis SIV. jand it is 
no inconsiderable testimony in his favour, 
that Lord Chesterfield had the highest 
opinion of his taste and judgment, 
which appears in many of his Lordship’s 
letters to Mr. Stanhope. 
Yow's, ce. ke: S.S: 
. en 
Lo the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
he is my intention inthis and a sub- 
sequent letter to trouble you with 
some reflections on the prevailing SYS- 
tem of met: whysical reasoning; L mean 
the material or modern phi! usophy, as it 
has been called. According to this phi- 
losophy, as [ understand it, cul thought 1s 
to be resolved into sensation, all mora- 
lity i into the love of pleasure, and all ac- 
tion into mechanical eee These 
three propositions taken together,embrace 
almost every question relating to the hu- 
man mind: and in their diferent’ ramifi- 
cations and intersections forma net, not 
unlike that used by the enchanter Le old, 
which whosoever has once fairly thrown, 
ever lin, will find all further efforts vain 
Pere Bouhours.— New System of Metaphysics. 
1) 
and his attempts to reason upon any sub- 
ject, iu which his own nature is concern= 
ed, batiled and confounded in every direc- 
tion, This false system of philosophy 
has been gradually srowing up to its pre- 
sent height ever since the time of Lord 
Bacon, from a wrong interpretation of 
die’ wird experience; confining it to a 
knowledge of things withont us, whereas 
it im fact includes all knowledge, rela- 
ting to objects either within or out of the 
mind, of which we have any direct and 
positive evidence, Physical experience 
Is indeed the foundation and the test of 
that part of philosophy, which relates to 
physical objects: farther, physical ana- 
logy is the only rule by which we can 
extend and apply our immediate know- 
ledge, or reason on the nature of the dif- 
ferent substances around us. But to say 
that physical experiment is either the 
test, or source, or guide, of that other 
part of philosophy, which relates to our 
internal perceptions, that we are to look 
Inexternal nature for the form, the sub- 
stance, the colour, the very life and being 
of whatever exists in our own minds, or 
that we can only infer the laws which ree 
gulate the phenomena of the mind, from 
those which regulate the phenomena of 
matter, 1s to confound two things essen- 
tially distinct. Our knowledge of men- 
tal phenomena from consciousness, reflec- 
tion, and observation of others, 1s the 
true basis of metaphysical inquiry, as the 
knowledge of facts 1s the only solid basis 
of natural philosophy. To argue other- 
wise, is to assert that the best method 
of ascertaining the propertics of air is 
_ by making experiments on mineral sub- 
stances. It is assuming the very point 
in dispute, namely the strict analogy be- 
tween mind and matter (insomuch that 
we may always judge of the one by the 
other) on no betier a foundation than a 
mean and palpable play of words. 
Lord Bacon was undoubtedly a great 
man, indeed one of the greatest that 
have adorned this orany other country. 
Tle was a man of aclear and active spirit, 
of amost fertile genus, of vast designs, 
of general knowledge, and of prof fia 
icdonn He was inone sense what Plato. 
was among the ancients, and what Burke 
wasiil our awn times; or he united the 
powers of imagination and understanding 
(as they are generally called)in a greater 
degree than any other man, except 
them. These three are perhaps the 
strongest instances of men, who by 
the rare privilege of their nature 
were at once poets and Si 
and, 
