75
“ANECDOTES OF INFIDEL MORALITY,” Robinson’s Magazine, A weekly Repository of Original Papers; and Selections from the English Magazines, vol. 2, no. 11 (13 March 1806), pp. 164–8; selection from pp. 164–5, 167–8.
[John Watkins]
Robinson’s Magazine was a weekly miscellany, published and printed in Baltimore from July 1818 to June 1819. Edited by Joseph Robinson, it reprinted most of its contents from British periodicals, showing a special interest in things Scottish. The essay from which a selection is reprinted below was written by John Watkins (fl. 1792–1831) and published originally in The New Monthly Magazine for February 1817. On Robinson’s Magazine see API, p. 194; BAP, p. 147.
———————————————
MR. EDITOR,
WHILE the zeal of believers in revealed religion is on the alert to spread its truths from one hemisphere to the other, the craft of infidelity is no less active in endevouring to undermine the influence of christianity at home. Hence obsolete tracts are dragged forth from the dormitory where they have been suffered to lie for years; and being newly vamped with other names, are obtruded upon the world as unanswerable performances. The old cant of philosophical morality is assumed for this attempt to rob men of their creed, and the maxims of Epicurus, and the doctrines of Mohammed, are put upon an equal footing with the laws of Christ! But though I trust there is no great danger to be apprehended from such miserable efforts to disseminate Deism, I think it right that the publick should be guarded against the poison now vending under the specious appellation of philosophy. “By their fruits, ye shall know them,” was the monition of Him who was wiser than men, when speaking of the arts of deceivers. If, therefore, the writers on the side of infidelity are better guides than Christian teachers, the excellence of their principles must be apparent in their conduct. Let us then examine the characters of these luminaries, and observe what chance of moral improvement there is in exchanging the Old Testament for the Shaster, the proverbs of Solomon for the precepts of Confucius, or the doctrines of the Gospel for the injunctions of the Koran. With this view I send you some anecdotes of leading infidel writers, purposing to follow them with others at a future time, if you should deem the present collection deserving a place in your Magazine.
W.J.
. . .
Hume.
When this subtle metaphysician and self-deceiving sceptick, published his first work, he at the same time printed a pamphlet for the purpose of exciting general attention to his book. The title of this tractate, is “An abstract of a book lately published, entituled, a Treatise of Human Nature, &c. wherein the chief argument of that book is farther illustrated and explained.” London, printed for C. Borbet, (it should be Corbet) at Addison’s head, over against St. Dunstan’s church, in Fleet-street: price, six-pence.”
The pamphlet consisting of two octavo sheets, is in fact, an abridgment of the work which it recommends; and in the preface are these modest remarks: “The book seemed to me to have such an air of singularity and novelty as claimed the attention of the publick; especially if it be found, as the author seems to insinuate, that were his philosophy received, we must alter, from the foundation, the greatest part of the sciences. Such bold attempts are always advantageous in the republick of letters, because they shake off the yoke of authority, accustom men to think for themselves, give new limits, which men of genius may carry further, and by the very opposition illustrate points wherein no one before suspected any difficulty.
“The author must be contented to wait with patience for some time before the learned world can agree in their sentiments of his performance. ’Tis his misfortune that he cannot make an appeal to the people, who in all matters of common reason and eloquence are found so infallible a tribunal. He must be judged by the FEW whose verdict is more apt to be corrupted by partiality and prejudice, especially as no one is a proper judge in these subjects, who has not often thought of them; and such are apt to form to themselves systems of their own, which they resolve not to relinquish. I hope the author will excuse me for intermeddling in this affair, since my aim is only to increase his auditory, by removing some difficulties which have kept many from apprehending his meaning.”
This may be called critical puffing, but as reviews were not then in request, the effects produced by it must have been inconsiderable.
It is not generally known that Hume out of vanity and enmity to religion, caused two pamphlets, compiled from Spinosa’s Tractatus Politico Theologicus, to be reprinted at London in 1763. The first is entituled, “Tractatus de Miraculis auctore spectatissimo,” and the second, “Tractatus de primis duodecim Vet.”
Both pieces are in Latin; but the first has an English dedication to David Hume, “the most accomplished man, the noblest and most acute philosopher of this age!” It is very remarkable, however, that both pamphlets, though taken from two obscure octavo volumes of miscellanies, printed at Amsterdam, are passed off as entirely original articles. Such is the honesty of moral philosophers, who take upon them to dispel the clouds of superstition, and to purge the visual organs of man’s understanding.
Hume has been cried up by his admirers as a man of benevolence, and of the most equable temper, which he is said to have shewn most exemplarily in the prospect of dissolution. This sort of apathy, however, is of little value, and will hardly be any recommendation of Deism, when we see so many instances of a total want of feeling at the gallows. What must that man’s sensibility have been, who first undermined his mother’s faith in the doctrines of the Gospel; and when at the last she wanted the solace of his presence, and the comforts of his philosophy, to smooth the path of death, denied her both the one and the other? — Yet such was David Hume, who artfully made a convert of his parent, and then avoided her sight when she stood in need of his consolation! How different was this from the conduct of Melancthon, whose mother asking him what she should believe amidst the religious divisions of the age, at the same time repeating her old prayers, the pious son cheered her by desiring that she would go on in the same course, and leave questions to disputants.
Gray the poet, in a letter to Dr. Beattie, has given the following discriminating opinion of this celebrated writer: —
“I have always thought David Hume a pernicious writer, and believe he has done as much mischief here as he has in his own country. A turbid and shallow stream often appears to our apprehensions very deep. A professed sceptick can be governed by nothing but his passions, (if he has any) and interests: and to be masters of his philosophy we need not his books or advice, for every child is capable of the same thing without any study at all. That childish nation, the French, have given him vogue and fashion, and we, as usual, have learned from them to admire him at second hand.”