to have contented himself with the institutions of the ancient legislators, without examining their tendency or justice. He has been compared to Zoroaster, Mohammed, and Socrates. He is inferior to the first as a legislator, to the second as a religious teacher, and to Socrates as a metaphysician and dialectician; but, as a moral teacher, he has generally no superior among the legions of philosophers who appeared before the time of our Saviour.

A valuable edition of the works of Confucius was published at Serampore, 1809-11, in quarto, by Dr. Marshman, a Baptist Missionary, in Chinese and English. Dr. M. also published a translation of the Ta-Hyok, as an appendix to his Clavis Sinica, 1814, in elephant quarto.

Dr. Wilhelm Schott has given to the world a German version of the works of Confucius and his' disciples (Halle, vol. 1, 1826); and a translation of the Book of Meng appeared at Paris, in 1824, in Latin, from the pen of Stanislaus Julien.

INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION.

THE System of Morals by Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, is a very small work, if we respect the number of pages which compose it; but it is doubtless very great, if consideration be had to the importance of the things therein contained.

We may say that the Morals of this philosopher are infinitely sublime, and at the same time pure, sensible, and drawn from the purest fountains of natural reason. Certainly, a reason destitute of the lights of divine revelation has never appeared with so much illumination and power. And as there is not any duty omitted by Confucius, so there is not any besides those here mentioned. He greatly extends his Morals, but not farther than needs must; his judgement ever telling him how far he must go, and where he must stop. In which he has a very considerable advantage, not only over a great number of pagan writers that have treated of things of this nature, but likewise over several Christian authors, who abound with so many false or over-subtle thoughts; who almost every where surpass the bounds of their duty, and

who give themselves up to their own fancy or ill humour ; who almost always digress from that just mean where virtue ought to be placed; who by their false portraitures render it impossible to our practice, and consequently make few virtuous

men.

We shall here see moral essays which are master-pieces. Every thing herein is solid; because that right reason, that inward verity, which is implanted in the soul of all men, and which our philosopher incessantly consulted without prejudice, guided all his words. Thus the rules which he prescribes, and the duties to which he exhorts, are such that there is no person who does not immediately give his approbation thereunto. There is nothing of falsity in his reasonings, nothing extreme, none of those frightful subtleties which are observed in the moral treatises of most modern metaphysicians,* that is to say, in discourses where simplicity, clearness, and perspicuity, ought to prevail throughout, and make themselves sensible to minds of the lowest rank.

We shall perhaps find this maxim a little relaxed, where Confucius saith that there are certain persons whom it is lawful to hate. Nevertheless, if the thing be closely considered, we shall find the thought to be just and reasonable. Virtue, indeed, commands us to do good to all men, as Confucius

* See the Traité de Morale, by the author of La Recherche de la Vérité.

states it; but it requires not that we should effectually have friendship for all sorts of persons. There are some so odious, that it is absolutely impossible to love them: for, after all, we can love only good; we naturally have an aversion for what appears extremely wicked and defective. All that charity obliges us to do on this account, is to show kindness to a person when it is in our power, as if we loved him notwithstanding the vices, malice, and great defects, which are discovered in him.

Seeing that opportunity offers, we shall take notice that the duty of loving our enemies, which Jesus Christ so much recommends in his Gospel, is generally too much stretched. This duty is very difficult to perform in its just extent, without our rendering it yet harder, or rather impossible to practise, and capable of casting us into despair, and of making us fall into an entire relaxation. The generality of those that explain this duty speak as if we were obliged to retain in our hearts a tender amity for all our enemies, how wicked and abominable soever they be. Yet this is not precisely that which the Son of God requires at our hands, because he demands not things absolutely impossible. His aim is to excite us to behave ourselves towards our enemies, whoever they be, as we do to them that we love. Indeed the Scriptures, in several places, by to love signify to do good, almost in the same manner as we do to those for whom we have a great affection. If this were a fit occasion, we might verify this with several