“Of what importance to me are the names of Carneades, of Lysander, of

Hobbes, and the author of _The System of Nature_, names unhappily

celebrated, which the apostle of the moral indifference of human

actions alleges in favour of this atrocious extravagance?” (the

doctrines of Fatality, Moral Scepticism, &c.) “Carneades was an

arrogant Pyrrhonian, who doubted of every thing, excepting the

superiority of his own logic. Hobbes had the audacity to write a book

against the everlasting truths of geometry. Lysander, the enemy of the

liberty of Sparta, and the corrupter of the oracles of Delos and

Ammon, was one of those spirits of spleen and filth, who strive to

acquire a name by reducing wickedness to a system. As for the

anonymous Writer, whose licentious pen vents so much blasphemy on

Nature, in disavowing the existence of GOD, he has purchased the right

to deny that of Morality. He is equally silly with Salmonius, in

braving the thunderbolt destined to stifle the stings of conscience.”

Speaking of Leibnitz, in another place, this French Moralist observes,

that “the Philosopher of Leipsick made of the soul a monad, and

explained all the phænomena of its union with matter by a

pre-established harmony. One portion of Europe believed him; because

he set up a new system! and what is it but a metaphysical theory,

without system?” And again: “What names have we to oppose to those of

Descartes, Leibnitz, Pascal and Malbranch? The suffrage of NEWTON,

alone, is sufficient to crush their Materialism; if, in the humble

materials for the examination of human reason, the suffrage of one

great man is competent to balance a syllogism.”

Footnote 340:

The professorships, all well supported and endowed, which are

established at Oxford and Cambridge, (and, probably, there are similar

institutions in the universities of Scotland and Ireland,) are in the

following departments of literature and science: viz. Divinity,

Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Modern Languages, History (general,) Modern

History, Civil Law, Common Law, Physic, Anatomy, Botany, Chemistry,

Natural Philosophy, Experimental Philosophy, Astronomy, Mathematics,

Geometry, Moral Philosophy, Casuistry, Music.

-----

The able and learned editor of “The American Review of History and

Politics”[341] remarks, that, “for very obvious reasons it could not be

expected, that Philology would be duly appreciated, or cultivated to any

extent, by the American public in general. The state of society in this

country, so admirable under many points of view, renders this

impossible. We should not be surprised or discouraged at a general

ignorance of, and an almost universal indifference about the learned

languages: but this is not all; the public feeling is not confined to

mere apathy: it borders on hostility. Numbers are not wanting, persons

even of influence in the community, who industriously proclaim, not

simply the utter insignificance, but the pernicious tendency of

classical learning; and who would proscribe it as idle in itself, and as

dangerous to republicanism. At the same time, our progress in this

pursuit is far from being in a natural ratio with our advances in other

respects. Philology is in fact, even worse than stationary among us;

from what cause, whether from the influence of the extraordinary notions

just mentioned, or from the absence of all external excitements, we will

not now pretend to determine.”

-----

Footnote 341:

See the editorial review, in that work, of an “Historical Report upon

the progress of History and ancient Literature, since the year 1789,

and upon their actual condition,” &c. vol. iii. No 1.

-----

Should these judicious remarks of the respectable Reviewer be considered

as containing an indirect censure on such “persons of influence” as he

may be supposed to allude to, who “proclaim” the “pernicious tendency of

classical learning,”—it is much to be lamented by the friends of

literature and science, that there should be any just grounds for its

support.

Dr. Rittenhouse understood the German[342] and Low Dutch languages,

well; and had acquired a sufficient knowledge of the French, to enable

him to comprehend astronomical and other works written in that tongue.

These acquisitions, it has been observed, “served the valuable purpose

of conveying to him the discoveries of foreign nations, and thereby

enabled him to prosecute his studies with more advantage in his native

language.”[343]

-----

Footnote 342:

In the year 1789, Dr. Rittenhouse translated from the German of Mr.

Lessing, director of the theatre at Hamburg, a tragedy called _Lucia

Sampson_; which translation was printed; in the same year, by Mr.

Charles Cist, of Philadelphia. In the preface to it, the translator

says:—“This translation was attempted at the request of a friend; and

the many virtuous sentiments and excellent lessons of morality it

contains, will apologize for its being offered to the public. To young

ladies it may afford useful instruction, and will, from the nature of

the distress, be particularly useful to them: an elegant writer well

acquainted with the human heart, has observed, that the affection of a

father to his daughter unites extreme sensibility with the utmost

delicacy; and this sentiment is, no doubt, in a great degree

reciprocal.”

Footnote 343:

See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

-----

But these were not the whole of his philological attainments. By the

dint of genius, and by that spirit of perseverance which he manifested

in every thing he undertook, he overcame in a great degree the

difficulties of the Latin tongue.[344] This he did for the same valuable

purpose that he had in view, in learning the German, Low Dutch and

French.

-----

Footnote 344:

The memorialist undertakes to say, on the authority of his father (the

late Rev. Mr. Barton,) that our philosopher was sufficiently well

versed in the Latin, to have read Newton’s _Principia_ in that

language, besides studying it in his native tongue: and further, that,

although he was very imperfectly acquainted with the grammatical

construction of the Greek language, he had so far familiarized himself

to a knowledge of its written characters and words, as enabled him to

consult a lexicon; which he frequently did, for the purpose of

ascertaining the true etymology of many of those technical terms,

derived from the Greek, that are in common use in our language,

particularly in relation to his favourite sciences.

-----

The reading of our Philosopher was extensive. It embraced every

department of polite literature, as well as many branches of what is

called, by way of distinction, useful knowledge. He appears to have been

more particularly attached to history, voyages and travels, and to the

poetick muse:[345] but the drama, ingenious productions of the

imagination, and other works of taste and fancy, likewise engaged a

portion of his attention.[346] Dr. Rush asserts, that he had early and

deeply studied most of the different systems of theology.[347] On this

head, no further information can be given by the writer of these

Memoirs: yet he thinks he has good reason for believing,—and such as are

independent of Dr. Rittenhouse’s known liberality, with respect to

various modes of faith and worship, that he never gave a very decided

preference to any one regular society of Christians, over others; he

loved that sort of Christianity, which inculcates sound morals: his

charity, in regard to theological opinions and other concerns of

religion, was great; and he felt no disposition to observe any thing

like a scrupulous adherence to such tenets or rites, as he deemed less

essential to the well-being of mankind. It was, in fact, the liberal

manner (and this alone) in which he sometimes expressed himself on

subjects of this nature, influenced by sentiments of the purest

benevolence, that induced some persons of more rigid principles, and

perhaps less candour, to doubt the soundness of his faith in revealed

religion: but the whole tenor of his life, and the religious sentiments

he had publicly and repeatedly avowed, shew how ill-founded such

suspicions were.[348] A mind so contemplative as his, so devoted to the

pursuit of truth, so boundless in its views, and so ardently attached to

virtue, would naturally lead him to an investigation of the principles

of Christianity; and it is evident from some passages in his Oration,

and also in his familiar letters to his friends, that he believed in the

fundamental articles of the Christian faith,[349] however he may have

doubted respecting some of the more abstract and less important tenets

of the church.

-----

Footnote 345:

In Hill’s Life of Dr. Barrow, it is remarked, that this great

Mathematician (as well as learned Divine) “was always addicted to

poetry, and very much valued that part of it which consists of

description.” In like manner, Dr. Rittenhouse delighted in poetic

effusions of genius and science. His Eulogist observes, that “the muse

of Thomson charmed him most:” indeed, an astronomer, and a man of

virtue and taste, could not but be charmed by the chaste and glowing

descriptions of that fascinating poet, blended, as they are, with

philosophical reflections. Our philosopher, however, greatly admired

Milton also: so that these two celebrated votaries of the muses seemed

to be his favourites. Why should not these partialities of Rittenhouse

be noticed?—when similar observations have been made respecting the

characters of other men, eminent in science; as, for example, that the

favourite author of Erasmus and the younger Scaliger, was Terence, and

that Grotius was an admirer of Terence, Lucan and Horace.

Footnote 346:

_Nec lusisse pudet_, is an observation which has, in particular

instances, been applied to the occasional conduct and disposition of

some of the wisest, best, and even gravest characters. Dr. Warton, in

remarking on this line of Mr. Pope, viz.

“Unthought-of frailties cheat us in the wise,”—

says; “Who could imagine that Locke was fond of romances; that Newton

once studied astrology; that Dr. Clarke valued himself for his

agility, and frequently amused himself, in a private room of his

house, in leaping over the tables and chairs; and that our author

himself (Mr Pope) was a great epicure.”

In our own country, the sage Franklin abounded in anecdote and humour,

and thought it not unwise to recreate his mind, at times, with the

game of chess: the conversation of Judge Hopkinson was replete with

sprightly wit, and he admired well written novels of no immoral

tendency; as did also the late Judge Wilson: the illustrious

Washington, in his earlier years, enjoyed the pleasures of the festive

board, in the society of men of understanding and worth: and no man

delighted more in cheerful conversation, and in reading works of fancy

and taste, than the philosophic Rittenhouse. The almost universal

tendency, in persons of all classes, to an occasional playfulness of

temper, even in cases which may sometimes be considered as bordering

on weakness, has given the force of a maxim to the observation of the

latinists—_Nemo omnibus horis sapit_. Indeed, as a biographer of the

celebrated Dr. Clarke has remarked, “to be capable of drawing

amusement from trivial circumstances, indicates a heart at ease, and

may generally be regarded as the concomitant of virtue.”

Footnote 347:

See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

Footnote 348:

Sir Isaac Newton, it is well known, was thoroughly persuaded of the

Truth of Revelation: yet he did not escape the imputation of being an

Arian, Mr. Whiston having represented him as such. It is equally a

matter of notoriety, that similar opinions have prevailed respecting

Dr. Rittenhouse’s religious creed: nay, further, that doubts were

entertained by some, whether he believed at all in the fundamental

principles of the Christian religion. In one instance, indeed, a

virulent party-writer[348a] had the hardiness, one might say folly, to

proclaim him an “Atheist!” The publication in which this false and

shameful accusation was made, appeared about the time of Dr.

Rittenhouse’s death, and, it is believed, shortly after that event.

As a Biographer of such a man as Rittenhouse, the Author of these

Memoirs would do great injustice to his memory, did he not lay before

his readers, in a full and undisguised manner, that sort of testimony

concerning our Philosopher’s religious sentiments, which it is

presumed will eradicate every doubt or suspicion, that has heretofore

existed in the minds of some, on the subject. He is aware of the

influence, which the opinions of eminently wise and good men (or, of

such sentiments as are sometimes attributed to them,) have, in their

operation on society; and, in every point of view, he fully estimates

the importance of representing them to the world, in a strict

conformity to truth.

These considerations have induced the Memorialist to devote a larger

portion of his work to an elucidation of Dr. Rittenhouse’s real

opinions on the all-important subject of Religion, than he should have

thought proper, under other circumstances, to appropriate to that part

of his character.

Under these impressions, then, the Memorialist could not think it

consistent with his duty, to withhold from the public a letter

addressed to him by the Rev. Mr. Cathcart, a clergyman of much

respectability and pastor of a presbyterian congregation in the

borough of York. This letter (which will be found in the Appendix)

contains what may be fairly deemed conclusive evidence, even if such

had been before wanting, that Dr. Rittenhouse was “a firm Believer in

Christianity.” Bishop White had communicated to the Memorialist, in

conversation, the interesting facts stated in Mr. Cathcart’s letter;

the knowledge of which, the Bishop had derived, verbally, from that

gentleman: his letter was written in answer to one which the

Memorialist addressed to him, on the occasion, at the instance of the

Right Rev. Prelate.

Footnote 348a:

Mr. William Cobbett.

Footnote 349:

“Astronomy, like the Christian religion, if you will allow me the

comparison,” said our Philosopher, “has a much greater influence on

our knowledge in general, and perhaps on our manners too, than is

commonly imagined. Though but few men are its particular votaries, yet

the light it affords is universally diffused among us; and it is

difficult for us to divest ourselves of its influence so far, as to

frame any competent idea of what would be our situation without it.”

See _Ritt. Orat._

In another part of his Oration, is this passage: “Our Religion teaches

us what Philosophy could not have taught: and we ought to admire, with

reverence, the great things it has pleased Divine Providence to

perform, beyond the ordinary course of nature, for man, who is,

undoubtedly, the most noble inhabitant of this globe:” &c.

And in addition to these sentiments, uttered and published by our

Philosopher himself, let the testimony of Dr. Rush, who had long and

intimately known him, be quoted from the learned Professor’s Eulogium.

“He believed in the Christian Revelation,” says the Doctor: and then

subjoins, “Of this he gave many proofs; not only in the conformity of

his life to the precepts of the Gospel, but in his letters and

conversation.”

-----

As Dr. Rittenhouse never attached himself to the distinguishing dogmas

of any one sect of Christians; so, on the authority of a letter

addressed to the Memorialist by Mr. B. Rittenhouse, soon after his

brother’s decease, it may be asserted, that our Philosopher “was never

joined in communion with any particular religious society; though he

esteemed good men of all sects.” In his youth, it is probable he was

bred a Baptist; the sect to which his father (and, it is believed, his

mother also,) belonged: at subsequent periods, he entertained favourable

opinions of the church of England, and of the principles of the quakers

(so called.) In some of the latter years of his life, he and his family

pretty frequently attended divine service in a presbyterian

congregation, of which a very respectable and worthy gentleman then was

the pastor and until very lately continued to officiate as such.[350]

That church is situated in the same street wherein Dr. Rittenhouse

dwelt; and its then minister was one of many clergymen, belonging to

different churches, whom he personally esteemed.

-----

Footnote 350:

The Rev. Ashbel Green, D. D. This gentleman succeeded the Rev. Dr.

Sproat, an aged clergyman, of amiable disposition and unaffected

piety, for whose character our Philosopher entertained a great esteem,

and, during the latter part of whose ministry in that church, he first

attended it. Dr. Green has lately become President of the College of

New-Jersey, in consequence of the resignation of the learned and

eloquent Samuel Stanhope Smith, D. D.

-----

Some of his letters to his confidential friends testify, nevertheless,

that he by no means embraced some of the doctrines of Calvinism: nor

did he, probably, approve of others, in their more rigid

interpretation.[351] In one of those letters, addressed to the Rev.

Mr. Barton, (an Episcopalian, of the English church,) from

Philadelphia, so early as September, 1755, he wrote thus: “I have been

here several days, and am fatigued and somewhat indisposed. You know

my spirits are never very high, and will therefore expect a melancholy

letter from me at present. I should be glad of opportunities to

receive letters from you, and to write to you oftener:—indeed, I am

desirous of disclosing to you some of my most serious thoughts.” It

can scarcely be doubted, from the complexion of this paragraph and the

character of the person to whom our then young philosopher was

writing, that these “most serious thoughts,” which he wished so much

to disclose to his clerical friend, related to some points in

divinity. After subjoining, in the same letter, some reflexions, of

such a cast as shew that his spirits were depressed by fatigue and

indisposition, as was usually the case with him, he proceeded thus: “I

assure you, notwithstanding, I am no misanthrope; but think good

society one of the greatest blessings of life. Whatever is said of

original sin, the depravity of our nature, and our propensity to all

evil; though men are said to be wolves to men; yet, think, I can see

abundance of goodness in human nature, with which I am enamoured. I

would sooner give up my interest in a future state, than be divested

of humanity;—I mean, that good-will which I have to the species,

although one half of them are said to be fools, and almost the other

half knaves. Indeed I am firmly persuaded that we are not at the

disposal of a Being who has the least tincture of ill-nature, or

requires any in us. You will laugh at this grave philosophy, or my

writing to you on a subject you have thought of a thousand times. But,

can any thing that is serious, be ridiculous? Shall we suppose Gabriel

smiling at Newton, for labouring to demonstrate whether the earth

moves or not, because the former plainly sees it move?”

-----

Footnote 351:

The following extract of a letter, which Professor Rusk was so

obliging as to address to the writer of these memoirs, in the spring

of the year 1812, in answer to some questions proposed by the

memorialist, favours the presumption, that our philosopher in some

points dissented from the opinions of very respectable Calvinistic

Divines, on the subject of religion. “I understood from the Rev. Dr.

Green,” says the learned Professor, that his late colleague, the Rev.

Dr. Sproat, had informed him, that in a visit he once paid to Dr.

Rittenhouse, they were led accidentally to converse upon a religious

subject, on which they held different opinions. Dr. Sproat, in

defending his opinions, quoted several texts of scripture; but

observed, after doing so; “Perhaps, Mr. Rittenhouse, you do not admit

of the validity of arguments derived from the bible.” “Pardon me,

Sir,” (said Mr. Rittenhouse,) “I admit the divine authority of the

contents of that book.” Another fact stated by Dr. Rush, at the same

time, and which was also communicated to the memorialist, by a very

near and dear friend of the deceased, is thus related by the Doctor:

“His late worthy companion, Mrs. Rittenhouse, informed me, that the

last sourse from whence he derived intellectual and moral pleasure,

was Dr. Price’s excellent sermon upon the _Goodness of God_, which she

read to him, at his request, on the two successive days before he

died.” It may not be thought unworthy of being remarked on this

occasion, that Mr. T. Dobson, of Philadelphia, republished Price’s

Sermons, in the year 1788, and that Mrs. Rittenhouse’s name appears in

the list of subscribers to that edition.

In Dr. Rush’s letter, just quoted, he introduces the subject in these

terms. “In answer to your question, relative to the religious opinions

of your late uncle and my excellent friend, Dr. Rittenhouse, I am

happy in being able to inform you, that I have no doubt of his having

been a sincere believer in the most essential doctrines of the

Christian religion: the ground upon which I formed this opinion, were

derived not only from many incidental remarks in its favour, that fell

from him in our conversations upon other subjects, but from the

testimony of persons upon whose correctness I have the fullest

reliance.”

Upon the whole it appears, that although our philosopher was, most

probably, not strictly Calvinistical in his religious creed, he was

nevertheless a pious man, and a sincere Christian in the fundamental

articles of his faith.

-----

This extract (the latter part of which constitutes a note to Dr. Rush’s

Eulogium,) expresses, in the concluding sentence, a beautiful and apt

allusion, in reference to the subject. It likewise contains a

finely-turned compliment to the superior knowledge he presumed Mr.

Barton to possess, on theological subjects; without its seeming to have

been intended, that it should comprehend himself also,—otherwise than as

he might be considered, for a moment, to be personating that branch of

science which he most assiduously cultivated. The compliment, so far as

it appeared to apply to himself, was unquestionably due to him; but his

modesty would have forbidden his using it, even to a brother-in-law,

could he have imagined at the instant of penning it, that a portion of

it might be referred to himself, personally.

The whole scope of the passage, just quoted, “shews,” however, as his

Eulogist has observed, “how early and deeply the principles of universal

benevolence were fixed in his mind.” And in his Oration, composed when

he was in the full meridian of life, our Philosopher has plainly

indicated, that the same philanthropic spirit, that species of

benevolence which is the basis of true religion, and that warmed his

youthful breast, continued to animate it with unabated fervency: “That

Being,” said he, “before whose piercing eye all the intricate foldings

and dark recesses of the human heart become expanded and illuminated, is

my witness, with what sincerity, with what ardour, I wish for the

happiness of the whole race of mankind; how much I admire that

disposition of lands and seas, which affords a communication between

distant regions, and a mutual exchange of benefits; how sincerely I

approve of those social refinements which really add to our happiness,

and induce us with gratitude to acknowledge our great Creator’s

goodness; how I delight in a participation of the discoveries made from

time to time in nature’s works, by our philosophic brethren in Europe.”

In the opinion of our Philosopher, “every enlargement of our faculties,

every new happiness conferred upon us, every step we advance towards the

perfection of the Divinity, will very probably render us more and more

sensible of his inexhaustible stores of communicable bliss, and of his

inaccessible perfections.”[352] He supposed, that, even in this world,

“wherein we are only permitted ‘_to look about us and to die_,’ there is

ample provision made for employing every faculty of the human mind; even

allowing its powers to be constantly enlarged through an endless

repetition of ages;” but admitting, at the same time, “that there is

nothing in it capable of satisfying us.”

-----

Footnote 352:

Dr. Rittenhouse had no more faith in the notion entertained by some

visionary men, of the attainment of the perfection of virtue, in this

life, than he had in the fantastic opinion, maintained also by some,

of the perfectibility of human reason. He supposed that we are

capable, by a progressive “enlargement of our faculties,” to “advance

towards the perfection of the Divinity;” not like those pretenders to

philosophy, who, as Mr. Voltaire expresses it, “took it into their

heads, by the example of Descartes, to put themselves into God’s

place, and create a world with a word!” Our philosopher knew, that

pure virtue and perfect reason do not belong to human nature.

-----

Similar indications of his extensive benevolence, and of the high sense

he entertained of the dignity of human nature, as well as of the

attributes of the Deity, are found every where in his writings; and the

“elegant and pious extract” (as it is termed by Dr. Rush, in his

Eulogium,) from a letter to one of his friends, quoted in another place,

affords a striking instance of the prevalence of that disposition in the

towering mind of Rittenhouse.

If “he believed political, as well as moral, evil, to be intruders into

the society of men,”[353] he was certainly too well acquainted with the

moral constitution of man and the evident nature of humanity, to

suppose, “that a time would come, when every part of our globe would

echo back the heavenly proclamation of universal peace on earth and good

will to man.”[354] Possessing a most benevolent disposition, he did

believe, “that a conduct in this life, depending on our choice, will

stamp our characters for ages yet to come.” He was so far from expecting

any thing like perfectibility here, that he thought, that man as a free

agent, in darkening his faculties by an unworthy application of them

here on earth, might “degrade himself to some inferior rank of being,”

hereafter; while, on the other hand, by “the exercise of virtue, and a

rational employment of those talents we are entrusted with,”—“we shall,

in a few years, be promoted to a more exalted rank among the creatures

of God—have our understandings greatly enlarged—be enabled to follow

Truth in all her labyrinths, with an higher relish and more facility;

and thus lay the foundation for an eternal improvement in knowledge and

happiness.” Our Philosopher acknowledged, that he was “not one of those

sanguine spirits who seem to think, that, when the withered hand of

death hath drawn up the curtain of eternity, almost all distance between

the creature and the creator, between finite and infinite, will be

annihilated.”[355] Yet, the Writer of these Memoirs has no hesitation in

expressing an opinion, with which a long and intimate acquaintance with

Dr. Rittenhouse has forcibly impressed his own mind; that this virtuous

man was inclined to believe, or rather, actually did believe, (with the

distinguished author of the Dissertation on the Prophecies,)[356] in a

final restitution of all things to harmony and happiness in another

state of existence.

-----

Footnote 353:

Dr. Rush’s Eulogium.

Footnote 354:

Ibid.

Footnote 355:

This quotation and the other passages, before which inverted commas

are placed in the margin, in the two last paragraphs of the text, are

extracted from Dr. Rittenhouse’s Oration.

Footnote 356:

Dr. Thomas Newton, Bishop of Bristol.

-----

The learned Eulogist of our Philosopher, whom his present biographer has

already so often quoted with much interest and pleasure, (although he

is, on some points, so unfortunate as to be compelled to dissent from

him,) has remarked, that Dr. Rittenhouse “was well acquainted with

practical metaphysics.” He had, without doubt, attentively studied those

branches, at least, of this science, which embrace moral philosophy,

connected, as it is, with a rational system of natural religion:

probably, too, he had investigated its more abstruse and less useful

departments: and, perhaps, he had also directed his all-inquisitive

mind, in some degree, to a contemplation of those mental vagaries of the

modern philosophy, as it is termed, which neither subserve the purposes

of ethics or of natural theology: a system, if it deserve that

appellation, made up of such incongruous materials, such visionary

notions, as by their falsity alone, independently of their mischievous

operation in society, seem calculated to dishonour the name of

philosophy, and to depreciate the highly meritorious services rendered

to mankind by the votaries of true science. If, however, Dr. Rittenhouse

ever did condescend to employ any considerable portion of his valuable

time, in making himself acquainted with the delusive principles of this

multifarious sect of pseudo-philosophers, it has been already manifested

with what sentiments of disapprobation, if not of abhorrence, he

regarded their doctrines.[357]

-----

Footnote 357:

A late learned philosopher and eloquent divine, after adverting to the

irrational and infatuated notions of men of the class above referred

to, contrasted with doctrines founded in truth, and the awful gloom,

destitute of every ray of consolation, that must necessarily accompany

their reflections upon their own principles, addresses to them this

short but serious invocation: “When these things are fairly weighed,

as in nature they exist, I call on you, nay I challenge you, ye

boasting philosophists! to comfort yourselves, and be easy under your

dreary doctrine, or notion of being safe after death, in a state of

annihilation or future nothingness! I call on you, ye wise Illuminati!

of upstart name, to weigh these things seriously; and try whether you

can comfort yourselves, and remain easy, in considering, and striving

to make others consider, Death, as only an “everlasting Sleep,” from

which they will never be awakened, nor their ashes disturbed!” See

Sermon V. in _The Works of William Smith, D. D. late Provost of the

College and Academy of Philadelphia_.

In no instance have the impious and absurd doctrines of the

“Philosophists” and the “Illuminati,” of our times, been carried to

such a height of extravagance, as by the revolutionists of modern

France. These infatuated people undertook, in the year 1793, to

abolish by Law, a Futurity of Existence; having then decreed, that no

such state existed! They also decreed, that in every cemetery there

should be erected a figure representing Sleep, pointing towards the

tombs; and this Sleep of Death, the decree declared to be eternal!! It

is to this sort of wickedness and folly that an allusion is made, in

the foregoing quotation; as well as in the following lines, copied

from the _Pursuits of Literature_:

“Systems which laugh to scorn th’avenging rod,

And hurl defiance at the throne of GOD;

Shake pestilence abroad with madd’ning sweep,

And grant no pause—but everlasting Sleep!”

-----

It being presumed, therefore, that our Philosopher was, in the words of

his Eulogist, “well acquainted with practical metaphysics,” an inference

may thence be fairly made, that, with respect to metaphysical

deductions, “he could use them,” as has been said of Maclaurin, “with as

much subtlety and force as any man living; but”—also like that

celebrated philosopher—“he chose rather, in his conversation as well as

his writings, to bring the matter to a short issue, in his own way.”

Certain it is, however, that Dr. Rittenhouse reprobated, as did his

eminent predecessor just named, that subtile, vague and inconclusive

kind of ratiocination, the mode of reasoning, in matters of abstract

science, from causes to effects,[358] which so much characterize that

“cobweb philosophy,”[359] of which the mass of mere metaphysical systems

is made up. Rittenhouse was a practical philosopher: he held in contempt

the obscurity of mysticism, in every object of rational enquiry; viewing

it as being, always, either the parent or the offspring of error. He

loved “sober certainty,”[360] in philosophy; and therefore he pursued

Truth, in all his scientific researches, in that practical and rational

mode of philosophizing, which he deemed conformable to the nature of

truth itself, and best adapted to the construction and faculties of the

human mind.[361]

-----

Footnote 358:

“Let others creep by timid steps, and slow,

On plain experience, lay foundations low;

By common sense, to common knowledge bred;

And lost to nature’s cause through nature led:

All-seeing in thy mists, we want no guide,

Mother of Arrogance and source of pride!

We nobly take the high priori road,

And reason downward, till we doubt of GOD.”

_Pope’s Dunciad_, b. IV. l. 455.

The following observation, in the form of a note, is referred to, from

the lines above quoted, in a work which contains that extract, viz.

“Those, who, from the effects in this visible world, deduce the

eternal power and Godhead of the first cause, though they cannot

attain to an adequate idea of the Deity, yet discover so much of him,

as enables them to see the end of their creation and the means of

their happiness: whereas they who take “the high priori road,” as

Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, and some better reasoners, for one that

goes right, ten lose themselves in “mists,” or ramble after visions,

which deprive them of all sight of their end, and mislead them in the

choice of wrong means.”

Mr. Pope had put the above poetical lines into the mouth of one of his

Dunces, when addressing himself to the goddess Dullness. And as the

great Dr. Samuel Clarke had previously endeavoured to shew,[358a] that

the Being of a God may be demonstrated by arguments deduced _â

priori_, the Doctor conceived himself to be struck at, among those

“better reasoners” alluded to, in the note above mentioned.

Footnote 358a:

In his work entitled, “A Discourse concerning the Being and Attributes

of a God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and the truth and

certainty of the Christian Revelation; in answer to Mr. Hobbes,

Spinoza, the Author of the Oracles of Reason, and other deniers of

natural and revealed Religion.”

Footnote 359:

See Ritt. Orat.

Footnote 360:

Ibid.

Footnote 361:

“Other systems of Philosophy have ever found it necessary to conceal

their weakness and inconsistency, under the veil of unintelligible

terms and phrases, to which no two mortals, perhaps, ever affixed the

same meaning. But the philosophy of Newton disdains to make use of

such subterfuges; it is not reduced to the necessity of using them,

because it pretends not to be of nature’s privy council, or to have

access to her most inscrutable mysteries; but, to attend carefully to

her works, to discover the immediate causes of visible effects, to

trace those causes to others more general and simple, advancing by

slow and sure steps towards the Great First Cause of all things.”

Ritt. Orat.

-----

What was the general bias of Dr. Rittenhouse’s opinions on the subject

of government, no one who knew him could doubt; and they are likewise

deducible, not only from his writings, but from the uniform course of

his public and official conduct. He was, in fact, from the dawn of the

American controversy with the government of the mother-country to the

year 1775, a whig, in his political principles. From the commencement of

hostilities in that year, his feelings, as a native of America,

prejudiced him strongly against the administration of the British

government; and the prejudices thus imbibed, were transferred, soon

after, from those men who administered that government—as well as their

measures, to the nature and form of the government itself. And finally,

on the establishment of the national independence of the United States,

in 1776, his opinions settled down, very decidedly, in favour of the

governmental system of a representative and elective republic.

But, until the arrival of that important epocha, when thirteen

North-American colonies of Great Britain solemnly announced to the world

their separation from the parent-state, Rittenhouse thought and acted,

in relation to political affairs, pretty much as his countrymen did.

“Previous to the American revolution,” as Ramsay the historian has

remarked, “the inhabitants of the British colonies were universally

loyal:” and another American writer[362] of respectability has

correspondently observed, that the proceedings of the first congress

were “cool, deliberate and loyal, though marked with unanimity and

firmness.” Indeed many months elapsed, after the appeal to arms was

actually made, before the strong attachment to the mother-country, which

the American colonists had always manifested, generally subsided. But,

after the middle of the year 1775, “the prejudices in favour of a

connexion with England and of the English constitution,” (to use the

words of Chief-Justice Marshall,[363] “gradually, but rapidly wore off;

and were succeeded by republican principles, and wishes for

independence.”

-----

Footnote 362:

Dr. Morse, the Geographer.

Footnote 363:

See his _Life of George Washington_.

-----

Such then, it is confidently believed, was the progress of political

sentiments in their operation upon the mind of Rittenhouse, in common

with a large majority of the American people.

The information must therefore have been wholly erroneous, upon which

Dr. Rush was induced to ground his assertion, that “the year of the

declaration of Independence, which changed our royal governments into

republics, produced no change in his (Rittenhouse’s) political

opinions,—for,” continues the Doctor, “he had been educated a republican

by his father.” The very reason which the able and zealous Eulogist has

here assigned for Dr. Rittenhouse’s political principles having

undergone no change in consequence of the American revolution, being

predicated upon an assumed but mistaken fact, it serves to invalidate

that allegation; and it would never have been made, had not Dr. Rush

been led into the error by misinformation on the subject. Because, those

who were personally acquainted with our Philosopher’s father, (Mr.

Matthias Rittenhouse,) must well know, that the old gentleman was

remarkable for his quiet, unoffending principles and conduct; that he

meddled very little, if at all, with public affairs; and that, although

a man of good judgment, he had never turned his attention to political

controversies or speculations on the science of government. He was in

truth a pious man, of great industry, plain manners and unambitious

temper; and he uniformly approved himself a peaceable and faithful

subject of that monarchy under which he lived seventy-three years, until

1776. On the other hand, the theory of government was a subject upon

which the son had, doubtless, thought and read much. It cannot,

therefore, be reasonably concluded, that Dr. Rittenhouse was “educated a

republican by his father.”

It is asked: “How could he (Rittenhouse) behold the beauty and harmony

of the universe as the result of universal and mutual dependance, and

not admit that Heaven intended Rulers to be dependant upon those, for

whose benefit, alone, all government should exist? To suppose the

contrary,” it is added, “would be to deny unity and system in the plans

of the great Creator of all things.”[364] But, with all due deference to

the genius and talents of the highly respectable gentleman here quoted,

the writer cannot persuade himself, that our Astronomer could have drawn

such inferences as the results of analogical reasoning, from the beauty

and harmony of the Universe, as those which the foregoing extract would

seem to impute to him. For, who are those, “for whose benefit, alone,

all government should exist?” The People: And in such a republic as the

United States—where there cannot exist, _constitutionally_, “a

privileged order of men”—the Rulers are, surely, a part of the People.

What, then, is the nature of this mutuality of dependence between Rulers

and People? If government should exist for the benefit of the People,

that is, all the members of the community, as most assuredly it ought to

do; then it should be conducted for the benefit of the Rulers, as well

as of those who are ruled; the former being a component part of the

entire community, under the comprehensive denomination of the People. It

is therefore conceived, that, on republican principles, the People and

their Rulers cannot be so contradistinguished as separate bodies of men,

as that the former, alone, should be dependant on the latter; but that

there ought to be between them, as constituting jointly and collectively

the People, that “mutual dependance,” of which the ingenious Eulogist

speaks: otherwise, a privileged order of men must be considered as

actually existing among us. Yet, even in the monarchical republic of

Great Britain,[365] the business of government is not wholly “limited”

to “a privileged order of men:”[366] One branch of the legislative body

is popular; and one branch, also, of the judicial department of that

government, the institution of juries, is purely republican.

-----

Footnote 364:

See the Eulogium on Rittenhouse.

Footnote 365:

The names ordinarily used to distinguish things, do not always truly

denote the nature of the things they are designed to signify: and it

is very evident, that any misapplication of a name, to which a

specific meaning has been appropriated, cannot alter or otherwise

affect the essence or inherent quality of the thing itself to which it

is wrongly applied.

A nation may be a republic, notwithstanding its chief executive

magistrate be denominated a king. A kingly government may be

essentially republican, provided the people be governed by known laws,

and their king be limited in his prerogative, by the constitution of

the state; not such a monarch as is vested with uncontrouled power. In

this sense, the British government may, as some modern writers have

shewn, be called a commonwealth, or republic: and under a similar

impression, Sir Thomas Smith, even in the reign of so rigid a prince

as Henry VIII. wrote his book _De Republicâ Anglicanâ_. The republic

of Poland was long governed by elective kings; and Shakespeare, (nay,

even the leveller Godwin,[365a]) appears to have considered Monarch,

King and President, as synonymous terms.

Footnote 365a:

The Memorialist can truly say, with the author of the _Pursuits of

Literature_:—“I have given some attention to Mr. Godwin’s work on

_Political Justice_, as conceiving it to be the code of improved

modern ethics, morality, and legislation. I confess I looked not for

the Republic of Plato, or even for the Oceana of Harrington; but for

something different from them all. I looked, indeed, for a

superstructure raised on the revolutionary ground of Equality, watered

with the Guillotine; and such I found it.” See _Pursuits of

Literature_, Dial. the third, note p. of the seventh Lond. edit.

Footnote 366:

“It belongs to monarchies,” says Dr. Rush, “to limit the business of

government to a privileged order of men.” See _Eulog._

-----

The learned professor, here referred to, is nevertheless an highly

estimable citizen of the American Republic, as his numerous and

important public services fully evince. In his “Address to the People of

the United States,” published shortly before the sitting of the Federal

Convention, he has pointed out two “errors or prejudices on the subject

of government in America, which,” as he very justly observes, “lead to

the most dangerous consequences.” The correctness of his sentiments on

the subject of those errors, does him honour: such of his observations

as are more particularly applicable to the present subject, are

contained in the following passages.

“It is often said, that ‘the sovereign power and all other power is

seated in the people.’ This idea is unhappily expressed. It should

be—‘all power is derived from the people.’ They possess it only on the

days of their elections. After this, it is the property of their Rulers;

nor can they exercise or resume it, unless it is abused. It is of

importance to circulate this idea, as it tends to order and good

government.” And again:

“The people of America have mistaken the meaning of the word

Sovereignty: hence, each State pretends to be sovereign. In Europe, it

is applied only to those states, which possess the power of making war

and peace, of forming treaties, and the like. As this power belongs only

to Congress, they are the only sovereign power in the United States.”

The Memorialist is persuaded, that Dr. Rittenhouse would have fully

concurred in this construction of the nature of sovereignty, in an

elective government: and he has been the more diffuse on this subject,

in order both to prevent and remove, as much as possible, any

misconceptions respecting the political opinions of our Philosopher.

An unostentatious simplicity and strict integrity, with a due proportion

of dignity and firmness, in the administration of the public affairs; a

judicious economy, in the management and expenditure of the public

revenues; a zealous attention to the public interests and the happiness

of the people; a wise and faithful administration of justice among the

various members of the community, without any invidious distinctions; a

strict observance of good faith, in all relations with foreign states; a

sincere attachment to peace with its concomitant blessings, and

consequently, an abhorrence of unnecessary wars, whether provoked, or

undertaken, by means of the cupidity or the ambition of rulers; these

have been usually considered, in theory, as characteristics of

republican governments. Greatly is it to be desired, that they may

always prove to be so, in fact.

That both the Rittenhouses, father and son, should be attached to an

order of things in the commonwealth, established and conducted on the

principles just mentioned, may be readily conceived from a knowledge of

their characters. To a system of civil polity, productive of such

substantial benefits to all those under its immediate operation, Dr.

Rittenhouse would naturally have been inclined: his habits, manners and

principles, would so dispose him. Hence, after having indulged, for a

moment, the pleasing but fanciful hypothesis, that if the inhabitants of

the other planets resemble man in their faculties and affections; if,

like him, they were created liable to fall, though some of them might be

presumed to retain their original rectitude; he proceeds with supposing,

“that they are wise enough to govern themselves according to the

dictates of that reason which God has given them, in such manner as to

consult their own and each other’s happiness, upon all occasions. But

if, on the contrary,” said he, “they have found it necessary to erect

artificial fabrics of government, let us not suppose they have done it

with so little skill, and at such an enormous expence, as to render them

a misfortune, instead of a blessing. We will hope,” continues the

philanthropic Rittenhouse, “that their statesmen are patriots, and that

their kings, if that order of beings has found admittance there, have

the feelings of humanity.” He next deplores, in terms which evince the

strength of his feelings on the occasion, the folly as well as iniquity

of holding the Africans in bondage among us; national rapacity; the

scourges of war, then recently inflicted on the north of Europe; and,

finally, he deprecates in very impressive language, the inroads of

“luxury, and her constant follower, tyranny.”[367]

-----

Footnote 367:

See Ritt. Orat. before the Am. Philos. Soc. in 1775.

-----

Dr. Rittenhouse having entertained such sentiments as these, at the time

he penned his Oration, and it will be recollected, that this was only

two or three months before hostilities had actually taken place between

Great-Britain and her North-American Colonies, he was naturally enough

induced to believe, that many of the political evils which were, about

that period, experienced in civil society by a large portion of mankind,

arose from the nature of their respective governments. And, the

principal states of Europe, with the exception of the Dutch

commonwealth, were then governed under the monarchical form.

In the American continental colonies of Great-Britain, generally, it was

the prevalent opinion of the people at the commencement of the

revolution, that the grievances complained of by the colonists,

originated, almost as a matter of necessity, from the monarchical spirit

of the mother-country: consequently, many of those great public evils

which sprung from the genius, habits and pursuits, of the people

themselves, in the great monarchies of the old world, were generally

attributed to some peculiar vices inherent in that species of

government. It was the universality, almost, of these opinions; which

soon after obtained throughout the United Colonies, that produced a

determination in the people to establish, for themselves, republican

forms of government, as independent states. Such were accordingly

established; and the American people have long experienced their

efficiency in promoting the prosperity of the country.

Should it, nevertheless, unfortunately happen at any future period, that

the now existing national constitution should, by any means, be

perverted from its original design; should a system of government so

well planned—“in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,

insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, and secure

the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;”[368] should

this well-defined Charter of American freedom, by means of

mal-administration or otherwise, eventually frustrate the patriotic

intentions of its illustrious framers; then, indeed, will the noblest

effort ever made by any people to institute a rational system of free

government, blast the best hopes of the advocates of republicanism. In

such event—which, may heaven avert! the often quoted couplet would be

too fatally verified, wherein the poet says:

“For forms of government let fools contest;

Whate’er is best administer’d, is best.”[369]

Pope’s _Essay on Man_.

-----

Footnote 368:

See the ordaining clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Footnote 369:

Mr. Pope was not singular in the opinion here expressed: one of the

most illustrious legislators and best practical statesmen the world

has ever known, appears to have entertained the same sentiment, when

he penned the following passages: they are extracted from the _Frame

of Government_ originally designed by William Penn, for Pennsylvania:

published in the year 1682.

“Any government is free to the people under it (whatever be the

frame,) where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws;

and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, and confusion.”

“There is hardly one frame of government in the world so ill designed

by its first founders, that, in good hands, would not do well enough;

and story tells us, the best, in ill ones, can do nothing that is

great or good.” “I know,” continues Penn, “some say, Let us have good

laws, and no matter for the men that execute them: but let them

consider, that though good laws do well, good men do better: for good

laws may want good men, and be abolished or evaded by ill men; but

good men will never want good laws, nor suffer ill ones. It is here,

good laws have some awe upon ill ministers; but that is where they

have not power to escape or abolish them, and the people are generally

wise and good: but a loose and depraved people (which is to be the

question) love laws and an administration like themselves. That,

therefore, which makes a good constitution, must keep it, viz. men of

wisdom and virtue; qualities that, because they descend not with

worldly inheritances, must be carefully propagated by a virtuous

education of youth.”

-----

Dr. Rittenhouse was, undoubtedly, among those who entertained the most

sanguine expectations, that the political institutions in the United

States, formed as they are according to the republican model, would tend

to meliorate the condition of the people, and “promote the general

welfare.” He may at some time have even “believed political, as well as

moral evil, to be intruders into the society of men.”[370] But some

passages in his Oration plainly shew, that, as has been already

observed, he had no faith in the perfectibility of human reason,[371] in

this life. He was also too sound a philosopher not to know, that if, by

the best rules of philosophical ratiocination, many well known phænomena

in the natural world could not be reached, with respect to their nature

and causes, in such manner as to render these susceptible of

demonstrative proof,—nothing like certainty in the result, much less

perfection, could be calculated on, in putting the theories of a

science, such as government, to the test of experiment.

-----

Footnote 370:

See Dr. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

Footnote 371:

About the middle of January, 1813, the Memorialist passed a very

pleasant evening, in company with an agreeable party of friends, at

the house of Dr. Rush. Among various subjects, which were then

discussed with much ingenuity and good humour, Redhefer’s pretended

discovery of what is called the Perpetual Motion, a thing which had

then, very recently, attracted a good deal of the public attention,

was brought upon the tapes: when Dr. Rush, addressing himself to the

Writer, who had just expressed his opinion decidedly against the

projector’s theory, as being utterly incompatible with established

principles of physics and well-known laws of the material world, said

quite emphatically; “Sir, I entirely agree with you: and let me

observe, there are four things, concerning which I have always been

completely sceptical, as I am sure your good uncle[371a] also was;

that is to say, the perfectibility of human reason; the possibility of

transmuting base metals into silver and gold; a panacea, in the

healing art; and a power, in any mortal, to give perpetuity of motion

to matter.” These were, substantially, the sentiments expressed by Dr.

Rush, on the occasion; and the Writer believes he is pretty accurate

in his recollection of the very words which the Doctor used.

Footnote 371a:

Dr. Rittenhouse.

-----

If it be asked: ‘Where are the _Works_ of Rittenhouse?’ a ready and

satisfactory answer to the question is at hand. Although he published no

ponderous volumes, he has left behind him great and honourable memorials

of his genius, his science and his skill; such as will long remain, as

Monuments of the extraordinary extent of his practical usefulness in his

day, and of his well-earned fame. “He has not indeed made a world,” as

Mr. Jefferson, in speaking of his Orrery, emphatically expresses

himself; “but he has, by imitation, approached nearer its Maker, than

any man who has lived from the creation to this day.”[372] As long, too,

as the geographical boundaries of Pennsylvania, connected in part with

those of the neighbouring states, shall continue to define the

respective jurisdictions of their local sovereignties and rights,

considered as members of a great confederated nation; so long will they

serve to distinguish the name of Rittenhouse.[373] Nay, some of the

rivers and canals, even some principal roads, in the country of his

nativity, bear testimony to his talents, his public spirit and his

industry. His inventions and improvements, in various specimens of

mechanism, conceived and executed by himself, fully manifest, that, “as

an artist, he has exhibited as great a proof of mechanical genius as the

world has ever produced.”[374] And, as a man of extensive and profound

science, his various philosophical papers, but more especially those

relating to his astronomical observations, justify Mr. Jefferson’s

remark, that he was “second to no Astronomer living,”—that he was, “in

genius the first, because self-taught.”[375]

-----

Footnote 372:

See _Notes on Virginia_.

Footnote 373:

All the boundary-lines, mentioned above, were determined by

astronomical observations. The manner in which the work was performed,

with an account of the instruments used on those occasions, will be

found in the fourth volume of the Transactions of the American

Philosophical Society. Some of Dr. Rittenhouse’s associates, in those

arduous undertakings, were men of high reputation in the same

departments of science; but his talents were principally relied on.

Footnote 374:

See _Notes on Virginia_.

Footnote 375:

Ibid.

-----

Such, then, were the “Works” of this truly great man. And it appears

that they were, in general, not only arduous in their execution, and

highly beneficial in their uses and effects; but that they were likewise

the productions of a lofty, penetrating and active genius, great

knowledge and skill, and the most indefatigable perseverance.[376]

-----

Footnote 376:

It will, perhaps, have occurred to the reader, that besides such of

the WORKS of Dr. Rittenhouse, as are referred to in the text, in some

of which, the blended effects of genius, philosophical science and

mechanical skill, were equally conspicuous, he put the Mint into

operation. In the language of his worthy successor in the direction of

that institution, “his lofty and correct mind, capable alike of

ascending to the sublimest heights of science, and of condescending to

regulate the minute movements of mechanical machinery, organized the

Mint, and created the workmen and the apparatus.” His agency in

directing the construction, and arranging the operative departments,

of this important establishment, though less indicative of

extraordinary mechanical genius than many of his other works, was

nevertheless an arduous undertaking: it was conducted, as Mr. De

Saussure very justly observed, “amidst complicated difficulties, from

which the most persevering minds might have shrunk without dishonour.”

-----

But though Dr. Rittenhouse published no great systematic literary work,

he communicated to others by his conversation, and by such of his

writings as have been given to the world, much valuable philosophical

information. He instructed, liberally, such persons as were desirous of

acquiring knowledge from a social intercourse with him. The elevated

station his character maintained, both for wisdom and integrity,

exhibited him to his cotemporaries as an example worthy of being

imitated:[377] and thus, in reality, his high reputation operated as a

powerful incitement upon many of his countrymen, to pursue similar

objects of science, inspiring them with a taste to cultivate the true

philosophy.

-----

Footnote 377:

Dr. Rush, in his Eulogium on Rittenhouse, has introduced a short

invocation, which aptly applies in this place: it is in these words;

“Come, and learn by his example to be good, as well as great. His

virtues furnish the most shining models for your imitation; for they

were never obscured by a single cloud of weakness or vice.”

-----

The reputation of this distinguished man, as a mathematician and

astronomer, was pre-eminently great, in every civilized part of the

western world. Perhaps no man’s philosophical talents were ever held in

higher estimation, nor more deservedly so, by those qualified to form a

proper judgment of them, wherever his name was known; not excepting

those of Newton himself. His celebrity was far from being confined

within the limits of his native country: his Orrery, with the

proceedings and results of the Observation of that phænomenon which so

greatly interested the principal astronomers of both hemispheres, the

Transit of Venus in 1769, had rendered him justly celebrated in Europe

as well as America, as a philosopher of the highest grade, at the age of

thirty-seven years.

The peculiar circumstances of his Life, which have been amply detailed

in these Memoirs, were of such a nature as to preclude him, in a great

measure, from opportunities of carrying on a correspondence with men of

science and letters, abroad: the extremely delicate, and oftentimes

infirm state of his general health, in addition to his numerous

avocations, his long continued, various, and important employments in

the public service, left him little leisure for literary pursuits of any

kind. Indeed, nothing less than the wonderful energy of his mind, and

his extraordinary industry, could have enabled him to write as much as

he has done.[378]

-----

Footnote 378:

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall makes an observation, in reference to

General Washington, which applies with equal force to Dr. Rittenhouse.

“To estimate rightly his worth, we must contemplate his difficulties:

we must examine the means placed in his hands, and the use he made of

those means.” Pref. to Marshall’s _Life of Washington_.

-----

Dr. Rittenhouse never attempted to amuse the world with any hypothetical

system of philosophy, or with opinions, merely speculative, on any

subject. The great objects of his pursuits, through life, were Certainty

and Truth: hence, he never advanced an opinion, concerning any thing

whatever, which he did not consider as being either susceptible of

verification by experiment and the evidence of our senses, or, where the

nature of the subject did not admit of such proof, capable of being

tested by the soundest principles of human reason. Yet, though this

profound investigator of nature viewed “sober certainty” as the great

desideratum in philosophy, he was by no means a dogmatist; even with

respect to that portion of natural science which is capable of

demonstration. Notwithstanding the opinion he entertained of the vast

extent to which the faculties of the mind may be enlarged by a proper

improvement of them, he was fully aware that its powers are limited.

Like his great predecessor, Maclaurin, “the farther he advanced in the

knowledge of geometry and of nature, the greater his aversion grew to

perfect systems, hypotheses, and dogmatizing: without peevishly

despising the attainments we can arrive at, or the uses to which they

serve, he saw there lay infinitely more beyond our reach.” Like him,

also, he considered “our highest discoveries as being but a dawn of

knowledge, suited to our circumstances and wants in this life; which,

however, we ought thankfully to acquiesce in, for the present, in hopes

that it will be improved in a happier and more perfect state.”[379]

Rittenhouse never supposed, that, (to use the words of Maclaurin’s

biographer[380]), “because demonstrative evidence is the most perfect,

it should be—as, by some, it has been—taken for granted, there is no

other.” On the contrary, our philosopher believed that there are many

truths, natural as well as moral, which are beyond the reach of

demonstration; consequently, not to be rejected, solely by reason of

their insusceptibility of this kind of proof. Hence, in his Oration he

says, “Our Religion teaches us what Philosophy could not have taught;

and we ought to admire, with reverence, the great things it has pleased

Divine Providence to perform, beyond the ordinary course of nature, for

man, who is undoubtedly the most noble inhabitant of this globe. But,”

continues this truly good man, “neither Religion nor Philosophy forbid

us to believe, that infinite Wisdom and Power, prompted by infinite

Goodness, may, throughout the vast extent of creation and duration, have

frequently interposed in a manner quite incomprehensible to us, when it

became necessary to the happiness of created beings of some other rank

or degree.”

-----

Footnote 379:

Mr. Maclaurin having noticed that the Author of Nature has made it

impossible for us to have any communication, from this earth, with the

other great bodies of the universe, in our present state; and after

remarking on some phænomena in the planetary system, makes the

following just reflections, which correspond with those expressed by

Dr. Rittenhouse, in the concluding pages of his Oration:—“From hence,

as well as from the state of the moral world and many other

considerations, we are induced to believe, that our present state

would be very imperfect without a subsequent one; wherein our views of

nature, and of its great Author, may be more clear and satisfactory.

It does not appear to be suitable to the wisdom that shines throughout

all nature, to suppose that we should see so far, and have our

curiosity so much raised concerning the works of God, only to be

disappointed in the end. As man is undoubtedly the chief being upon

this globe, and this globe may be no less considerable, in the most

valuable respects, than any other in the solar system, and this

system, for ought we know, not inferior to any other in the universal

system; so, if we should suppose man to perish, without ever arriving

at a more complete knowledge of nature, than the very imperfect one he

attains in his present state; by analogy, or parity of reason, we

might conclude, that the like desires would be frustrated in the

inhabitants of all the other planets and systems; and that the

beautiful scheme of nature would never be unfolded, but in an

exceedingly imperfect manner, to any of them. This, therefore,

naturally leads us to consider our present state as only the dawn or

beginning of our existence, and as a state of preparation or probation

for farther advancement: which appears to have been the opinion of the

most judicious philosophers of old. And whoever attentively considers

the constitution of human nature, particularly the desires and

passions of men, which appear greatly superior to their present

objects, will easily be persuaded that man was designed for higher

views than of this life. Surely, it is in His power to grant us a far

greater improvement of the faculties we already possess, or even to

endow us with new faculties, of which, at this time, we have no idea,

for penetrating farther into the scheme of nature, and approaching

nearer to Himself, the First and Supreme Cause.”

The striking coincidence of the foregoing sentiments, with those

expressed by Dr. Rittenhouse; in addition to the sublimity of the

conceptions; the cogency of the argument; and the weight of the

concurring opinions of two so great astronomers and mathematicians, on

a subject of such high importance to mankind; all plead an apology for

the length of this extract, from Maclaurin’s Account of Sir Isaac

Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.

Footnote 380:

Patrick Murdoch, M.A.F.R.S.

-----

Such were the pious reflections of a Christian Philosopher; the sublime

sentiments of an eminently distinguished Astronomer.

Should it be enquired: What was the system of Philosophy, to which Dr.

Rittenhouse adhered? though such a question can scarcely be anticipated,

after what has been already said; the answer may be furnished in a few

words: He was a thorough and zealous disciple of the Newtonian school.

He early embraced, and perseveringly cultivated, “the Philosophy of

Newton;” which “disdains to make use of subterfuges,” which “is not

reduced to the necessity of using them, because it pretends not to be of

nature’s privy council;” while “other systems of philosophy have ever

found it necessary to conceal their weakness and inconsistency, under

the veil of unintelligible terms and phrases, to which no two mortals

perhaps ever affixed the same meaning.”[381]

-----

Footnote 381:

The words between inverted commas, in the above paragraph, are quoted

from Rittenhouse’s Oration.

Notwithstanding the fanciful theories introduced into physics by

Descartes, concerning his _materia subtilis_ and _vortices_, and his

doctrine of a _plenum_, which were prostrated by the general adoption

of the Newtonian system, the improvements that had been made in the

mathematical sciences and some other branches of physics, by the

Cartesian system, produced a great revolution in the species of

philosophy which till then prevailed. The philosophy of Descartes,

erroneous and defective as, in some particulars, it was found to be,

triumphed, by its superior energy, over the crude and feeble systems

of the schools. The peripatetic doctrines which had revived in Europe,

after she emerged from the barbarism and gloom that succeeded the

final declension of the Roman empire, continued from that period to be

the prevailing philosophy; and tinctured, also, the whole mass of the

scholastic theology: but the systems of Descartes first dissipated

most of the useless subtleties of the schoolmen; while the truths

brought to light by the philosophy of Newton, still further exposed

their absurdities. According to Dr. Reid (in his _Essays on the

intellectual and active powers of Man_,) even the most useful and

intelligible parts of the writings of Aristotle himself had, among

them, become neglected; and philosophy was reduced to an art of

speaking learnedly and disputing subtilely, without producing any

invention of utility in the affairs of human life. “It was,” to use

the language of Dr. Reid, “fruitful in words, but barren of works; and

admirably contrived for drawing a veil over human ignorance, and

putting a stop to the progress of knowledge, by filling men with a

conceit that they knew every thing. It was very fruitful also in

controversies; but, for the most part, they were controversies about

words, or things above the reach of the human faculties.”

-----

With Newton, too, our Philosopher entertained the most exalted

conceptions of the Deity. He did not imagine, as his illustrious

predecessor was unjustly charged with having done, that infinite space

is an attribute of the Deity; that He is present in all parts of space,

by diffusion;[382] but, like that great man, he did believe, that the

Deity endures from eternity to eternity, and is present from infinity to

infinity; yet that He is not eternity or infinity, space or duration.

For, says Dr. Rittenhouse, “Nothing can better demonstrate the immediate

presence of the Deity in every part of space, whether vacant or occupied

by matter, than Astronomy does. It was from an Astronomer St. Paul

quoted that exalted expression, so often since repeated, ‘In God we

live, and move, and have our being.’”[383]

-----

Footnote 382:

The celebrated Dr. Samuel Johnson has remarked, that “Leibnitz

persisted in affirming that Newton called Space, _Censorium Numinis_,

notwithstanding he was corrected, and desired to observe that Newton’s

words were, QUASI _Censorium Numinis_. See Boswell’s _Journal of a

Tour to the Hebrides_.

Footnote 383:

This concise, yet beautiful and expressive sentence, is contained in

St. Paul’s address to the Athenians, cited in the 17th chapter of the

Acts of the Apostles.

-----

The terms of profound veneration, in which our Philosopher spoke, on all

occasions, of the character of Newton, demonstrate most clearly his

complete and undeviating attachment to the Principles of that

astonishing man.[384] Indeed, he appears to have taken him as his model;

and, certainly, he resembled him much, in many points of character.

Parallels have often been drawn between distinguished men; and in

comparatively a few instances, a strong resemblance has been discovered,

in some prominent features of character, between two or more persons.

Yet the infinite variety of talent, that appears throughout the human

race; the almost incredible difference in the grades of intellectual

endowment, distinguishing the sons of men from each other; and the

adventitious circumstances peculiar to each individual, which either

direct or controul his conduct, and seem to mark his destiny in life;

all these, taken together, produce such an endless diversity of

character in the species, as to render it impracticable, if not

absolutely impossible, to find any two men who greatly resemble each

other in many particulars.

-----

Footnote 384:

A strong proof of this veneration will be found in Dr. Rittenhouse’s

Oration, wherein he expresses himself in these remarkable words:—“It

was, I make no doubt, by a particular appointment of Providence, that

at this time the immortal Newton appeared.”

-----

There are, nevertheless, so many circumstances founded on natural

causes, that indicate an extraordinary similitude in the genius,

disposition and principles of Rittenhouse, and his great Prototype; so

many, moreover, of a singular nature, connected with events purely

adventitious, wherein the condition, occupations and pursuits of these

philosophers, with other eventual relations depending wholly on

accident, resembled each other; that an interesting parallel, between

them, might be attempted with no inconsiderable share of success.

In the course of these Memoirs, the Biographer of RITTENHOUSE has

endeavoured to furnish a faithful representation of the Philosopher and

of the Man. He was desirous of delineating his true character, in both

points of view; that the world may be enabled to make a just estimate of

the genius, the principles, and the conduct of a person, so celebrated

in name. But, in order that the more correct judgment might be formed of

his virtues and talents, and of the services he has rendered to society,

it became necessary to describe the sphere in which he moved; so far, at

least, as to present to view occasional sketches of the complexion of

the Times in which he lived, and of some of the more prominent

Characters who were his compatriots. The Memorialist has therefore

conveyed to the mind of his reader some idea of the moral, political,

and literary state of society, more particularly in the country of our

Philosopher’s residence, within the same period. This rendered it proper

to notice the rise, nature, and progress of certain Institutions, upon

which science and the arts, with many of the benefits of civil polity,

greatly depend; such as tend to diffuse useful knowledge throughout the

community, to promote the general weal, and to meliorate the condition

of the great family of mankind.

It has been already observed, that every individual in society is more

or less closely connected with it, in various ways: and it is obvious,

that an eminent citizen, one, especially, standing in relations of a

public nature in the community of which he is a member, usually has his

history and character so interwoven with those of his own times, that it

is difficult to understand the former thoroughly, without possessing a

competent knowledge of the latter. The Life of such a man as RITTENHOUSE

could not, therefore, in many respects, be either well comprehended or

duly estimated, unless there had been connected with it some account of

men and things, to which his private pursuits and public employments

were, directly or indirectly, related.

In whatever light, then, a retrospective view of Dr. RITTENHOUSE’S

character may be taken, it will be found to present a model worthy of

imitation. The mild and amiable virtues of domestic life, and similar

dispositions in the intercourses of private society, decorated his whole

deportment, as a man and as a citizen; the more stern qualities of the

patriot equally distinguished him as the friend of his native country,

in all his public relations; while the principles of genuine

philanthrophy impressed his heart with feelings of the most extended

benevolence. In all these respects, nevertheless, some have equalled,

though few, if any, have surpassed him. But when, united to virtues and

dispositions, such as these, the powerful genius, the extensive

philosophical talents and attainments, the self-acquired and

extraordinary mechanical skill of Dr. RITTENHOUSE, shall also have been

considered; it will be acknowledged, that the Memoirs of his Life,

commemorate a Man truly great. They recal to his surviving countrymen,

and to their posterity, a remembrance of his excellence and usefulness;

presenting to them such a specimen of worth and abilities, as is highly

deserving of being emulated. At the same time, they exhibit to the world

a faithful portrait of a Man, whose character had early acquired the

well-earned respect of the wise and good in other nations. During his

life, the name of RITTENHOUSE received due homage from some of the most

illustrious Philosophers of Europe. In his own country, that name cannot

cease to be venerated, so long as genius, science, and virtue, shall be

held in the high estimation to which they are entitled.

It has been observed by a noble author[385] of the present day, “that

the decline of public spirit in matters of Taste, is a certain

indication of political decay.” To whatever degree the justness of this

observation may extend, it will apply still more forcibly to any

country, wherein a disregard, consequently a declension of learning,

science and moral virtue, is perceived. RITTENHOUSE lived in an eventful

age. During a long period of his life, he witnessed a comparative

simplicity of manners and much integrity of character, among his

countrymen. He beheld a progressive course of useful knowledge, and an

advance in those arts and refinements of polished society, which

minister as well to the rational enjoyments as to the conveniences of

human life; and these he saw accompanied by almost every species of

public improvements, promoted by the liberal spirit of the people and

fostered by the benign genius of the government. Our Philosopher

himself, one-and-twenty years before his death, in speaking of the rapid

progress his countrymen had then made in almost every species of social

refinements, made this remark: “We have made most surprising, I had

almost said unnatural, advances towards the meridian of glory.”[386] But

this good man dreaded even at that time, what he always most earnestly

deprecated, that Luxury would, ere long, follow in the train of an

highly cultivated state of manners and too sumptuous a style of living:

for, he considered an excess of such refinements as leading to that

depravity of morals which often accompanies “Luxury,” and, as he has

expressed it, “her constant follower, Tyranny.”

-----

Footnote 385:

Lord Strangford, in his _Remarks on the Life and Writings of Camoens_.

Footnote 386:

See his Oration.

-----

The gloomy anticipations, which he sometimes entertained, of a future

depression of the interests of learning in his native country, from such

causes, he lived not to see realized. There is, indeed, ground on which

a reasonable hope may be founded, that, notwithstanding the operation of

some inauspicious circumstances, in these times, occasioned by the

present distracted state of the political world, literature, science and

the arts, will yet be successfully cultivated in the United States of

America. Dr. RITTENHOUSE had the good fortune to live in an age when

virtue and talents were honoured; when abilities to serve the country,

and an honest attachment to its best interests, were the surest

passports to the public confidence and esteem. In the latter years of

his life, it was a source of great gratification to him to know that his

country was prosperous; it being then in the full enjoyment of all the

arts of peace, and other blessings of a well-ordered society. He was

greatly respected and esteemed by his illustrious compatriot,

WASHINGTON; whose magnanimity taught him to spurn with disdain all petty

considerations, arising from such mere difference of opinion in the

speculations of politics, as could neither undermine the principles of a

Patriot, nor affect the fidelity of an honest Man. Very many

distinguished men, besides, were his contemporaries; and by persons of

this description, almost universally, as well as by all his countrymen

of every class, to whom his person or character was known, he was held

in the highest estimation: indeed, few men ever enjoyed a larger share

of the public regard.

Some years after the decease of Dr. Rittenhouse, it was judged expedient

to transfer his perishable remains from their first place of sepulture,

to another: they were accordingly removed; and interred in the cemetery

adjoining the Presbyterian church in Pine-street, Philadelphia, near the

body of his son-in-law, Mr. Sergeant. The grave of the celebrated

American Astronomer is enclosed, under a plain slab of marble, thus

inscribed: