63
“Letters to the Editor,” Christian Observer and Advocate, vol. 1 (October 1802), pp. 650–51.
“S.P.”
The Christian Observer and Advocate was a London monthly that was reprinted in a number of American cities including Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. On the Christian Observer see Gaylord P. Albaugh, History and Annotated Bibliography of American Religious Periodicals and Newspapers (Worcester, 1994), vol. 1, pp. 199–208; API, p. 58.
———————————————
To the Editor of the Christian Observer.
SIR,
I HAVE somewhere read that Mr. Hume, being in France, passed a day in the society of certain French atheistical philosophers, with whom he had much conversation, but to whose confident denial of the existence of a supreme intelligence he hesitated to accede. On his quitting their company, the discourse turned on the character of the British sage, who, in his own land, as your readers know, was esteemed to be at the very head of the sceptics and unbelievers. One French atheist observed (and some of the others agreed in the sentiment) that their visitor was unquestionably a considerable philosopher, but that it was greatly to be regretted that he was so much of a FANATIC.
The story serves to shew the fruitlessness of attempting to exempt ourselves from that charge of fanaticism, or in other words, of a puritanic twist, a taste for methodism, a leaning towards enthusiasm, &c. &c. which is continually brought by less religious against more religious persons. By some, to believe in the influence of the Holy Spirit, to any practical purpose, is deemed fanaticism. Unless the doctrine be so modified (vide the writings of Mr. Fellowes and many others) as to render faith the sole effect of reason, and all holy dispositions the mere result of the exercise of our own powers, the assertor of the doctrine is termed by some an enthusiast. But Mr. Fellowes also appears tinctured with enthusiasm in the eyes of Dr. Priestly, and others of the same class, and they in their turn would be deemed fanatics by Mr. Hume. But alas, poor Hume! He also, when in France, is something of a fanatic! He shares in our disgrace when he crosses the channel, though he merely ventures to intimate a doubt respecting the possibility of the existence of him, “in whom we live, and move, and have our being.”
It would be wrong to infer from this story that there is no such thing as fanaticism and enthusiasm. Undoubtedly these evils of the mind not only exist, but have an extensive prevalence, and they ought to be carefully guarded against. But we may learn from it not to be ashamed of our principles, merely because in the estimation of certain persons they are visionary or methodistical. We ought to satisfy ourselves that the opinions we hold are strictly conformable to the word of God; but having done so, let us not concede to irreligious men any one truth of the Gospel, for besides the folly and wickedness of such a conduct, there is great danger, and experience proves the truth of the observation, that that man will at length become an atheist, who sets out upon the plan of being accounted a rational and philosophic Christian.
S.P.