70
“The Contrast ‘Between the Death of a Deist and the Death of a Christian’,” The Ordeal (21 January 1809), pp. 42–5.
Anonymous
The Ordeal: a critical journal of politicks and literature was published in Boston and edited by Joseph T. Buckingham (1779–1861). It was a weekly and survived only from 7 January 1809 to 1 July 1809. On Buckingham see Evert A. Duyckinck and George L. Duyckinck, eds., Cyclopaedia of American Literature (reprinted Philadelphia, 1965), vol. 2, pp. 12–13. On The Ordeal see API, p. 172; BAP, p. 129.
———————————————
If the temper with which some good christians enter into controversies in speculative doctrines, bore any proportion in point of moderation, to that which is generally discovered among sceptical writers, we should stand a much better chance of discovering through the mist of errour and dispute, the great object of our enquiry. But unhappily there is a kind of intolerant zeal, and enthusiastick rage, operating in the minds of some orthodox people of really good intentions, and well disposed views, which counteract the beneficial tendencies of their virtues, their principles, and their actions. They have such an abhorrence of heresy, that they think they can discover it on the most common occasions; and a man is almost denounced by them, as an absolute infidel, who will not fully believe the doctrine of the natural corruption of human nature, and the depravity of all actions and habits previous to conversion: who will not readily admit the necessity of special regeneration, the belief of election, and of course, everlasting punishment, by means of hell-fire. In a periodical work, published in Boston, entitle “The Panoplist,” the paroxysms of zeal, which we have just referred to, are frequently very violent, and seem almost to choak the authors with their wrathful effects. Sometimes they exhibit themselves in philipicks against people “who call themselves christians;” at other times in a profuse, and we had almost said, impious use of the language of the sacred scriptures, upon trivial topicks, and an indiscriminate mixture of the inspired phraseology, with the tiresome, stale and trite expressions of the editors. A most ridiculous cant in style and sentiment, equally removed from genuine piety and good taste, affords another indication of the existence of these zealous effusions.
We are not now disposed to enter at large into the tedious and unprofitable discussion, which an examination of the general merits of this work, would necessarily produce; nor should we have been induced to notice it all, if its reputation had rested solely on its intrinsick worth: but we are induced to make a few remarks on a particular article which has attracted our attention, as well because we think its tendendency is far from being beneficial to the cause of religion, which it undertakes to espouse, as because the work which contains it, astonishing as it may seem, has a very extensive circulation. We cannot but regret that these violent overboilings of the spirit which we so peculiarly distinguish it, are likely to quench the very fire of devotion, by which they were at first set in motion.
The article to which we allude, is contained in “The Panoplist” of last November, entitled “a contrast between the death of a deist, and the death of a christian; being a succinct account of that celebrated infidel David Hume, Esq. and of that excellent minister of the Gospel, Samuel Finley, D.D. in their last moments.” This contrast, however, was written, it seems by the Rev. Dr. Mason, of New-York, and published in the Christian’s Magazine, from which the editors of the Panoplist have extracted it, “first, to benefit their readers,” and “secondly, to make them acquainted with a periodical work,” which they affirm “is edited with peculiar ability, and does honour to our country.” We shall not be justly chargeable with unrelenting severity in making some animadversions on this article, as a part of the Panoplist, after the full and complete panegyrick the editors have lavished upon it, which we think, quite sufficient to make them responsible for all the absurdities which it may be found to contain.
We would by no means be understood to step forward as vindicators of the deistical character of Hume; we trust we hold his works to be as dangerous, as the most enthusiastick bigot can imagine them to be; but we do say, that the manner of the death of that great writer, makes nothing for or against the doctrines of christianity, and that the attempt of Doctor Mason, to torture language into ambiguities of meaning to suit his purposes, is inconsistent with the dignity of the christian character, and not in any respect calculated to extend the diffusion of truth. Much less is the ridiculous account which is given of the death of Doctor Finley advantageous to the cause of religion. There is no rational man but must consider his language and conduct, in the light of incoherent jargon, and visionary delusion.
The death of Mr. Hume is related by Dr. Adam Smith, in a letter to William Strathan [sic], Esq. in which he very plainly, and feelingly informs him of the circumstances which led to, and followed his dissolution; of the conduct of Mr. Hume, under his disease, the cheerfulness of his deportment, his agreeable conversation with his friends; and concludes by giving an estimate of the value of his moral and intellectual character. There is nothing throughout this account, which has a tendency to prove the christian religion either better or worse; it is a mere isolated fact, and has no bearing whatever on the truth or falsehood of the religious systems in the world.
The account of Dr. Finley’s decease, on the contrary, seems evidently prepared for the object, it is by no means likely to promote, a more general enthusiasm in religious opinions. The style of his conversation generally absurd, is often impious, and frequently ridiculous; and we are astonished that Dr. Mason, and the editors of the Panoplist, could not dispose of their talents in any more profitable way, than in making comparisons, which, if they have any effect whatever, are more calculated to defeat, than promote the interests which they so warmly espouse. We have said the language of Dr. Finley was often incoherent jargon, absurd, and frequently impious and ridiculous; we think the following expressions will warrant our assertions.
Being asked by the Rev. Mr. Treat, who had visited him for the purpose of prayer, “what he should pray for,” he answered, “beseech God that he would make me feel just as I did at that time when I first closed with Christ, at which time I could scarce contain myself out of heaven!”* This is absurd enough, if not impious.
One said, “you will soon be joined to a blessed society; you will ever converse with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with the spirits of just men made perfect; with old friends, and many old fashioned people.” “Yes sir,” he replied, with a smile, “but they are most polite people now.”† Now if this is not ridiculous, and joking with sacred things, language cannot convey meaning. He would sometimes cry out, “the Lord Jesus take care of his cause in this world.” Why? why clearly, because Mr. Finley was about to leave it; what is this but arrogance and presumption? Waking this morning, “Oh! what a disappointment have I met with; I expected this morning to have been in heaven!” In one place he says with a strong voice; “Oh I shall triumph over every foe! The Lord hath given me victory! I exult! I triumph! Now I know that it is impossible that faith should not triumph over earth and hell!” And yet directly underneath, he felt qualms of conscience, and desired Mr. Spencer to “pray that God would preserve him from evil, and keep him from dishonouring his great name at this critical hour.” What is this but incoherence? And to crown the whole, he is celebrated for his politeness and gentlemanly behaviour, as a special trait of christian faith and resignation. “His truly polite behaviour continued to the last, and manifested itself whenever he called for a drop of drink to wet his lips. Every one around him was treated with the same sweetness.”
This is the last peculiarity, which in our opinion, could fairly be produced to determine the superiority of a christian to an infidel at the hour of dissolution. From what has already been extracted, we think our readers may be able to form some opinion of the value of Mr. Finely’s death, to the cause of rational religion. We shall notice in our next number, some of the inferences which the Rev. Dr. Mason, unwarrantably draws from the circumstances attending the deaths both of Mr. Hume and Dr. Finley, and shall use our endeavours to dissipate the thick cloud of superstition by which they are enveloped.
*Panoplist, p. 245.
†Ibid. p. 246.