208 
our comprehenfion ; but that we ought to 
refigsn ourfelves with confidence to the 
means which are given us of acquiring 
knowledge, to the fentiments with which 
we are infpired for developing our moral 
and intellectual nature; and that we run 
the rifk of deftroying every thing by with- 
ing to explain every thing. Would it be 
fuppofed that there exifts a country in the 
world where a certain courage is required 
toaffert the reality of the univerfe ? lt was 
neceflary to fupport thefe fmple and an- 
cient ideas with a fubtle philofophy and 
learned refutations. It was neceffary to 
prove that all philofophy purely fpecula- 
tive leads us far aftray from truths the 
moft effential, and the moft evident to eyes 
that are not fafcinated; and that every 
explanation, every demonftration muft 
go back to fome axiom, to fome primitive 
faét which ferves for its Lafis, and which 
is itfelf incapable of demonilration, other- 
wife we mult aicend to infinity without 
ever being able to flatter ourfelves that we 
Should arrive at a point that would remove 
our doubts. Thefe axioms, thefe facts 
are given us, according to Jacobi, for ex- 
ternal objefis, by our fenfes and our rea- 
fon ; for moral truths, by our internal 
fentiments, by our con{cience, and our mo- 
ral nature. He fays, with Pafcal, that 
*¢ nature refutes the Pyrrhonians, and rea- 
fon the dogmatilts ; that we havean imbe- 
cillity invincible to all dogmatifm, and an 
idea of truthinvincible to all Pyrrhonifm.” 
He maintains that the ‘mott important 
truths, thofe which eftablifh the moral 
liberty of man, the reality of an immate- 
rial and immortal principle, the exiftence 
of a God, the Creator and Ruler of the uni- 
verfe, are not to be proved, but that 
they are felt, and are revealed by the heart. 
He has placed in a new light the inti- 
mate connection which exifis, independent 
of all pofitive and revealed religion, be- 
tween morality and religious fentiments. 
He has not been afraid to fay, that the 
{peculator, whohas proceeded fo far as to 
eradicate from his foul the belief in God, 
has thereby detached himéelf from nature 
and his own heart; that he has deftroyed 
ali that imparted an intereft and reality to 
his life, in order to lofe himfelf in a laby- 
rinth filled with phantoms and empty illu- 
fions. . 
Many men of genius have applauded 
thefe ideas, towards which an invincible 
fentiment, an inward want feems cenftantly 
to dire@t the mind. But Germany requires 
- a dogmatic philofophy, it requires a difh- 
cult and complicated fy%em upon which 
Reply to Scepticifin and Dogmatifin compared. 
Oa, 
the profeffors of philcfophy,may comment 
in their leétures and their works*, whofe 
myfterious language and conftant novelty 
of method may be imitated by thofe fpecu- 
lative minds which are occupied with other 
fciences. It it. neceflary that the adepts 
in this philofophy fhould rally and compofe: 
a kind of fe& or corporation feparated 
from the reft of mankind by their 
opinions and a particular language. Thus 
moft philofophers of the prefent day hold 
the language of Schelling; the few literati 
who have been formed in this fchool ap- 
propriate to themfelves his fingular, but 
fumetimes highly poetic ideas; and the 
majority of the younger fludents acknow- 
ledge no other mafter. This will doubt- 
lefs continue, till fome other head of a fect 
fhall lead them away by new, and per- 
haps more extravagant opinions than thofe 
which have been the fubject of the pres 
ceding obfervations. 
To the Editor of the. Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, . 
AM, with your Correfpondent M. D. 
fully aware, that the pages of the 
Monthly Magazine are by no means 
intended to be devoted to controverhal 
difcuffions; and that fuch difcuffions be- 
come particuliarly objectionable when 
they have any perfonal or profeffional re- 
ference. I cannot, however, refift the im- 
pulfe which urges me to requeft your in- 
dulgence, while I briefly animadvert on 
the ingenious communication of this cor- 
refpondent, which appeared in the laft 
number of vour Mitcellany. 
The paper which I allude to, is en- 
titled * Scepticifm and Dogmatifm com- 
pared,” and was profeficdly written in 
confequence of an obfervation of Dr. 
Reid, which appeared in his Medical Re- 
ports of July laft. 
I feel, Sir, extremely happy in the op- 
portunity now afforded me of giving my 
teftimony of unqualified approbation to 
the general obfervations contained in thefe 
reports. I have, for a long time, regard- 
ed them as forming one of the moft in- 
terefting articles in your valuable publi. 
cation. ‘They are indicative of much 
originality and boldnefs of conception, 
have the charaéteriftics of true genius, 
and may be corfidered as important con- 
tributions to the ftcck of philofophical 
* I have heard a German philofopher fay 
to one of his colleagues: ¢* You, whoare not 
a profeffor, may talk as you pleafe; but I, 
who ain to teach a fyftem, muft have one, 
let it be good or bad, 
2 and 
