A man may, assuredly, be a profound astronomer; he may be eminently skilled in other branches of natural science, or in the doctrines of morals; he may be well versed in the polite arts; and yet may not understand either Greek or Latin. Nevertheless, an intimate and classical acquaintance with these languages cannot diminish the powers of his mind, or render him less capable of excelling in other departments of human knowledge. Bacon, Newton, Boyle, and Maclauren, with a multitude of others, the most distinguished for genius, science and learning, received an academical education; they were masters of the Greek and Latin languages; and were also instructed, without doubt, even in the formation of syllogisms:[339] yet these great men were not the less eminent as philosophers. It is to be presumed, that, while at their several schools and colleges, they were employed in acquiring the more solid and useful parts of learning; as well as the ornamental and polite. Both are taught in all the higher seminaries; and to the Universities of the United States, as well as of Europe, are attached Professorships[340] for such instruction. ----- Footnote 339: Although Mr. T. Cooper (before quoted) admits, that the “strict adherence to the syllogistic mode of reasoning,” that which he calls “playing tricks with syllogisms,” together with “the legerdemain of words without ideas,” was carried much too far by some late metaphysical writers of eminence; yet he is of opinion, that “in modern times, this invention of Aristotle is abandoned more than it deserves to be: For,” continues Mr. Cooper, “no man can so skilfully analyse the argument of another, as one who is well acquainted with the rules of scholastic logic, and accustomed to apply them. Good reasoners there are and will be, who know nothing of these rules, but better reasoners who do.” Mr. Cooper doubts, whether metaphysical lectures should be delivered, at all, in colleges; but thinks, that if metaphysics were to be there taught, the writings of Beattie, Oswald and Gregory, would be unworthy of notice. Much as the Writer of these Memoirs respects the talents and ingenuity of the learned Professor of Chemistry, he can by no means concur in this opinion: and he regrets, that he feels himself obliged to differ still more widely, from a gentleman of such acknowledged abilities, respecting the propriety of his recommending to youth the study of the works of Hobbes, Leibnitz and Collins. Now, what the complexion and tendency of the tenets of Hobbes, Leibnitz, and other philosophers of the same class are, may be learnt from the following passages, translated from a French work, entitled, “_De la Philosophie de la Nature, ou Traité de Morale pour l’Epece Humaine, tire de la Philosophie et fonde sur la Nature_;” a work which, though anonymous in respect to its author, had passed through three editions in the year 1777. The writer thus says: