dress of fashion and the bloom of beauty-the other half is a skeleton, grim and horrible.

To show that I have not misrepresented this heap of confusion, I have brought together some of the heterogeneous fragments from the general mass.. The reader will perceive that the passages are selected without much attention to the connection in which they stand, as he can readily satisfy himself in this respect by turning to the paper itself, though the connection of mere abuse is certainly of very little importance.

As to the subject in dispute, I confess I do not feel disposed to go farther into it; I expressed my ideas as well as I was able in my first letter, and feel satisfied that, by turning to that letter, the reader will find a full and complete answer to all that "the Reflector" has said before or since. My argument remains untouched, and all that is left for me to do at present is, to notice some of the most material misapprehensions and misrepresentations of that argument on the part of "the Re

flector.'

"The Reflector" is wonderfully witty in representing me as a philosopher, a man of science, and moreover a connoisseur." He tells us, that it might naturally be expected that I am intimately acquainted with the fine arts; but he thinks I am nevertheless ignorant of the "rudiments of logic."-1 candidly confess that my knowledge of either the fine arts or logic is like "the Reflector's" philosophy, rather superficial; but still I have taste enough to admire the most those productions of the arts which approximate nearest to perfection. In sculpture, I think I have sufficient judgment to prefer the highly finished monument in the chapel of Blenheim by Rysbrack, in honour of the Marlborough family, to the hideous monsters, called angels, which sprawl round the shrine of the two gallant captains in St. Paul's. In painting, 1 can distinguish between the truth of nature delineated by the pencil of a Morland, and the miserable daubing of a country sign painter; and even in logic, 1 boast myself a sufficient adept to esteem the sober and dispassionate argumentation of Locke to the rhodomontade of " the Reflector." This is all I pretend to, and this is enough to justify me in the allusions I made as illustrative of my argument.

The first part worth noticing in point of argument, is where this writer tells us he had only affirmed " that men have been, are now, and it is most probable ever will be, the slaves of the passions, while existing on the surface of this terrestrial globe." This, though much softened down, is still the point at issue between us; 1 certainly have admitted that men in general are more influenced by their passions than their reason; but still 1 contend that it is most probable they will not ever remain so. A very partial survey of the history of the past, compared with the present condition of society, will convince us that reason has more influence over the actions of men in the present than in past ages; and have we not a right to expect that its influence will be more extensive over the men of future ages than of the present? But there are those who seem to derive considerable pleasure from believing that the world grows worse and worse; there is a class of philosophers who suppose that every thing moves in a retrograde motion, and, in the

teeth of all the improvements of the times, tell us, with" the Reflector"-" in the past there is much to admire, in the present there is much to bewail!"

"Foes to all living worth except their own,
And advocates for folly dead and gone."

"The Reflector" has found it convenient for his purpose to mutilate my argument on this part of the subject. Men ever have been (says he, page 36), and are now, the slaves of the passions; yet Saceto' takes a flying-leap over this, and loses himself in an absurd conjecture of what they may be; and yet modestly affirms that he intends not to indulge in theoretical speculations, unless they are bottomed in fact, and supported by experience." Here the writer has contrived to leave out three little words, which words were the very pivot on which the argument turned. Here is the sentence as it stands in my letter" I do not mean to indulge in theoretical speculations, unless they are in some way bottomed in fact, and supported by experience:" the meaning of which I should have thought sufficiently obvious. Were there no instances of men overcoming their passions, or of education rendering the human character amiable, then I certainly should have been indulging in theoretical speculations, unsupported by fact, and unfounded in experience; but with the knowledge of such instances, however few, I maintain, that my speculations were "in some way bottomed in fact, and supported by experience. But the reader must see, that by omitting these three words in the middle of the sentence, "the Reflector" has made my argument require general fact and general experience to support it; than which nothing could have been more contrary to my design, for in the very next paragraph 1 anticipate the objection of these being "particular instances." It is to be hoped, for the credit of "the Reflector," that this palpable omission is an error of the press.

In order to obviate the force of the objection contained in page 534, line 40, of the " Advice to young Men," this writer asks "Is vice, folly, or hypocrisy, to triumph with impunity? Is it to escape the honest lash of satire on account of the causes by which it is produced?" Certainly!! if his own hypothesis be true-if the passions cannot be controuled, satire can be of no avail--every motive to improvement is paralysed-every attempt at reformation is palsied-and as well might" the Reflector" utter a philippic against the sun for shining, or the seas for raging, as censure man for being" the slave of the passions."

The quibble upon my asking "what is meant by man's being the slave of the passions" is too trifling for explanation

no one could mistake my intention-not even "the Re

flector."

My candid antagonist sometimes makes free to break in upon my reasoning in the middle, and without the least ceremony leaves out all that has gone before, giving the conclusion without noticing the premises. Thus for example-" now (says Saceto) it follows by clear and positive deduction, if I amright in my conjecture, that man is not necessarily and essentially the slave of the passions. So after all that Saceto' has said; after cutting, maiming, hacking, and reviewing a position, he at last modestly concludes, if he is right in his conjecture, it is false." But what was the conjecture of Saceto? This may be seen by turning to page 535--" But does the writer mean to imply that the passions are always indulged improperly and to excess? If so, he is contradicted by facts, and I am willing to suppose it is not the case with himself;" that is, I am willing to suppose the Reflector" does not always indulge his passions improperly and to excess.

This was my

conjecture-it happened I was wrong in my conjecture, and so "the Reflector" seems to think; but he is rather severe in calling my reasoning" pitiful" on this account. My reasoning, I think, was good; though I certainly was unfortunate in choosing so pitiful an illustration.

This writer informs us, "that the standard be erected was perfectability, and to that standard he still proudly points." This is like erecting a finger-post for the assistance of the traveller, and pointing it to some opposite road from that implied in the direction. The way to perfection" the Reflector" writes up, and yet the road to which the finger points leads to imperfection. To talk to men about "perfectability," who are necessarily the slaves of the passions," is worse than ridiculous-it is adding insult to their already degraded condition.

"Was it weak, 'Saceto' (asks the Reflector), while pleading the omnipotence of education, to point to the genius of Franklin or not?" Franklin was not referred to as an instance of the power of education-Franklin was great without education, but surely he would have been greater with education -Franklin was not a perfect character--he was a good chemist, and a good economist, and a good politician; but the education for which 1 am contending is that which makes a GOOD MAN. It is not a system which merely fosters genius, but which also promotes virtue-a man may possess talent and understanding-he may have abilities as a writer-he may speak with the tongue of men and of angels-he may excel in all that flowery rhetoric which

"Plays round the head, but comes not to the heart,”

and yet be vain, overbearing, dogmatical, and even "the slave of his passions.'

There is one observation of "the Reflector's" which must not remain unnoticed, as it will prove that he has read the letter to which he pretends to reply, in the most hasty manner :"the Reflector, in asking if all men were born alike, did not certainly expect to be misunderstood or misrepresented ;" and I insist, that he was neither misunderstood or misrepresented. He adds, "None but an ideot would suppose, that he intended to deny that there was " a natural and necessary difference in man.' This blundering is really unaccountable; for who ever supposed that" the Reflector" did intend to deny this? Not "Saceto"-there is not a sentence, or a word in his letter, that can bear such a construction. "The Reflector," in this instance, seems determined to plunge through thick and thin, in order to run over "Saceto; but he will take hold of the bridle of his Pegasus, and gently lead him back again to the path of the record.

In his sixth paper (page 414)," the Reflector" asks, “are all men born alike," &c. And the affirmative of this he ima gined (though erroneously) to be the opinion of those who contend that" education makes the man." He occupies nearly a page in refuting this opinion, which might well have been spared, for it was merely beating the air-his adversaries believing just as he does, that there is a natural and necessary difference in man." Now then, when "Saceto" came to remark on this part of the argument-To the question of " the Reflector"-" are all men born alike, with equal passions, with equal genius, with minds equally tractable, capable of improvement, and susceptible of virtuous impressions?" he replies, "No, certainly not; who ever pretended they were?" "Saceto" then goes on to account for this "natural and necessary difference in man," and to shew that its admission does not destroy the truth of the position, that "education forms the man."-This is the simple state of the argument, and I am confident it was so understood by every reader-" the Reflector" excepted. How then am I astonished to find myself charged with supposing "that he (the Reflector) intended to deny that there was a natural and necessary difference in man!"-Let me suppose a Catholic and a Freethinking Christian disputing about transubstantiation-the Catholic should first ask this foolish question, in point of argu

ment

Catholic.-Pray do you mean to say that all bread and wine is the body, blood, and divinity of Jesus?

Freethinking Christian.-No, certainly not; who ever pretended any thing of the kind?..