consist, were parts of the great system of the
universe, and parts, too, productive of the
most important effects. Whatever human
reason could either conclude or conjecture
concerning them, made, as it were, two
chapters, though no doubt two very important
ones, of the science which pretended to give
an account of the origin and revolutions of
the great system of the universe. But in
the universities of Europe, where philosophy
was taught only as subservient to theology, it
was natural to dwell longer upon these two
chapters than upon any other of the science.
They were gradually more and more extended,
and were divided into many inferior chapters;
till at last the doctrine of spirits, of
which so little can be known, came to take up
as much room in the system of philosophy as
the doctrine of bodies, of which so much can
be known. The doctrines concerning those
two subjects were considered as making two
distinct sciences. What are called metaphysics,
or pneumatics, were set in opposition
to physics, and were cultivated not only as
the more sublime, but, for the purposes of a
particular profession, as the more useful
science of the two. The proper subject of
experiment and observation, a subject in
which a careful attention is capable of making
so many useful discoveries, was almost
entirely neglected. The subject in which,
after a very few simple and almost obvious
truths, the most careful attention can discover
nothing but obscurity and uncertainty, and
can consequently produce nothing but subtleties
and sophisms, was greatly cultivated.
When these two sciences had thus been set
in opposition to one another, the comparison
between them naturally gave birth to a third,
to what was called ontology, or the science
which treated of the qualities and attributes
which were common to both the subjects of
the other two sciences. But if subtleties and
sophisms composed the greater part of the
metaphysics or pneumatics of the schools,
they composed the whole of this cobweb
science of ontology, which was likewise sometimes
called metaphysics.
Wherein consisted the happiness and perfection
of a man, considered not only as an
individual, but as the member of a family, of
a state, and of the great society of mankind,
was the object which the ancient moral philosophy
proposed to investigate. In that philosophy,
the duties of human life were treated
of as subservient to the happiness and perfection
of human life. But when moral, as
well as natural philosophy, came to be taught
only as subservient to theology, the duties of
human life were treated of as chiefly subservient
to the happiness of a life to come. In
the ancient philosophy, the perfection of virtue
was represented as necessarily productive,
to the person who possessed it, of the most
perfect happiness in this life. In the modern
philosophy, it was frequently represented as
generally, or rather as almost always, inconsistent
with any degree of happiness in this
life; and heaven was to be earned only by
penance and mortification, by the austerities
and abasement of a monk, not by the liberal,
generous, and spirited conduct of a man.
Casuistry, and an ascetic morality, made up,
in most cases, the greater part of the moral
philosophy of the schools. By far the most
important of all the different branches of philosophy
became in this manner by far the most
corrupted.
Such, therefore, was the common course of
philosophical education in the greater part of
the universities in Europe. Logic was taught
first; ontology came in the second place;
pneumatology, comprehending the doctrine
concerning the nature of the human soul and
of the Deity, in the third; in the fourth followed
a debased system of moral philosophy,
which was considered as immediately connected
with the doctrines of pneumatology,
with the immortality of the human soul, and
with the rewards and punishments which,
from the justice of the Deity, were to be expected
in a life to come: a short and superficial
system of physics usually concluded the
course.
The alterations which the universities of
Europe thus introduced into the ancient course
of philosophy were all meant for the education
of ecclesiastics, and to render it a more
proper introduction to the study of theology.
But the additional quantity of subtlety and
sophistry, the casuistry and ascetic morality
which those alterations introduced into it, certainly
did not render it more for the education
of gentlemen or men of the world, or more
likely either to improve the understanding or
to mend the heart.
This course of philosophy is what still continues
to be taught in the greater part of the
universities of Europe, with more or less diligence,
according as the constitution of each
particular university happens to render diligence
more or less necessary to the teachers.
In some of the richest and best endowed universities,
the tutors content themselves with
teaching a few unconnected shreds and parcels
of this corrupted course; and even these
they commonly teach very negligently and superficially.
The improvements which, in modern times,
have been made in several different branches
of philosophy, have not, the greater part of
them, been made in universities, though some,
no doubt, have. The greater part of universities
have not even been very forward to
adopt those improvements after they were
made; and several of those learned societies
have chosen to remain, for a long time, the
sanctuaries in which exploded systems and obsolete
prejudices found shelter and protection,
after they had been hunted out of every other