86
“ART. IV. — Lives of Men of Letters and Science, who flourished in the Time of George the Third. By HENRY, LORD BROUGHAM. Philadelphia: Carey & Hart. 1845. 12mo. pp. 295,” The North American Review, vol. 61, no. 129 (October 1845), pp. 383–421; selection from pp. 399–405.
[William Bourn Oliver Peabody]
William Bourn Oliver Peabody (1799–1847) was born in Exeter, N.H., and like his twin brother, Oliver William Bourn Peabody (1799–1848), was a Unitarian clergyman. W.B.O. Peabody was also a miscellaneous writer and an amateur naturalist. Peadbody contributed numerous essays to the North American Review. Authorship of the essay reprinted below, and the next item, is attributed to W.B.O. Peabody in William Cushing, Index to the North American Review (Cambridge, 1878), p. 142. Lord Brougham (1778–1868) was born in Edinburgh and educated at Edinburgh High School and Edinburgh University. He helped organize the Edinburgh Review, to which he was also a main contributor. On W.B.O. Peabody see George Harvey Genzmer, “William Bourn Oliver Peabody,” DAB, vol. 7, part 2, pp. 343–4.
———————————————
The next person who appears in the Chancellor’s gallery was distinguished, if any thing so common could be regarded as a distinction, by a quarrel with Rousseau. There may be a doubt, however, whether that could be called a quarrel, which was conducted by one party without the least assistance from the other. A quarrel seldom travels far upon one leg; and a feud with one so easy and kind-hearted as Hume must needs have proceeded in that inconvenient method, if it went on at all. How such a quarrel could arise appears from the history of the persecution suffered in Neuschâtel by the “self-torturing sophist,” who declared that a quarry of stones was thrown into his house at night, endangering his life and filling his household with alarm; while it was stated by one of his friends, that the instrument of this revenge, found upon the floor the next day, was one solitary flint, and this discovery appears to have been marked by the singular, though not wholly unaccountable, circumstance, that the stone itself was larger than the hole in the glass which it came through. Hume suffered much from his generosity to this “interesting solitary,” as he was called by his friends, who seem to have urged the historian to invite him to England, simply in order to keep him out of France. When he arrived, Hume found him a delightful place of retreat, and also procured him a pension. But a letter having been written by that mischief-making animal, Horace Walpole, purporting to be addressed by Frederic to Rousseau, pressing him to come to Berlin, and promising every blessing except those persecutions in which he so much delighted, the sophist, after mature deliberation, thought proper to ascribe this trick to a conspiracy on the part of Hume, and resented it with the utmost fury, even going so far as to throw up his pension, — an act of resignation, however, which he recalled with great expedition.
It is as an unbeliever in the Christian religion that Hume is generally remembered by those who hear his name; not only as a skeptic himself, but as the author of those doubts and suggestions, which, reproduced in various forms, still operate to prevent Christianity from finding admission into many minds. But the truth is, that religion, wherever it is found, has generally entered by the avenues of the heart; and a man of easy good-nature, prosperous in his circumstances, exempt from humiliating and sorrowful changes, honored by the great and esteemed by all around him, free from those relations and responsibilities in life from which our greatest distresses as well as blessings come, was not so likely as others, of different constitution and differently situated, to feel those wants of the soul which that religion is intended to supply. Never fiercely assailed by temptations, he was not compelled to resort to it for strength to resist them; having no tendency to passion or revenge, he felt no need of its restraining power; enjoying every moment of the present life as he did, his thoughts were seldom carried forward to another existence; and as men seldom resort to it till they feel their need of its supports and consolations, it is easy to see why it was that the subject was never brought home to his heart.
We can find in his temperament, then, the reason why he was so indifferent to Christianity, and so careless whether he undermined its foundations in men’s minds. For he was not a scoffer; though there was an occasional tone of bitterness, he never descended into buffoonery like that of Voltaire; but he evidently did not feel how much men need Christianity, what a blessing it is, and what a disastrous change the loss of its influence would be. He treats it as a subject of metaphysical discussion merely, nor could he understand the mighty argument for its truth which is found in its universal adaptation to the wants and sorrows of mankind. His doctrines are thus carried out as if nothing important was involved, and as if it was simply a gratification of curiosity to see how far they might be made to go. Having shown that miracles are not likely to take place, and that the error of falsehood of witnesses is more common than a departure from the usual order of things, he proceeds to infer that there can be no such thing as a miracle; which amounts to the assertion, that there is no such thing as Divine Providence, that the power which established is not competent to alter, and in fact excludes the Deity from all direct concern with the universe which he has made; — consequences of his argument, which, of themselves, would be enough to show that it could not possibly be true, since they represent the creature as mightier than its creator, and speak of a God whose hands are bound. Lord Brougham remarks, that, had Hume lived to see the late discoveries in fossil osteology, which make it clear that there was at some period an exertion of power to form man and other animals not previously existing, he must either have rejected the science, which would be absurd, or have admitted the interposition of creative power. But this is equally true of the whole universe; it must either be self-existent, or the time must have been when some power was exerted to bring it into being. Whoever, therefore, is neither atheist nor pantheist, if he admits that the usual order of things has once been suspended, cannot maintain that there is no power to depart from it again.
But without entering into the discussion on the subject of miracles, which has already, at various times and in divers manners, been more than sufficiently extended, considering that the evidence in their favor has convinced clear-headed men without number, while the doubters have been comparatively few, we would simply remark, that most of those who take the skeptical side of this subject, while they think that they get rid of miracles, leave untouched the great miracle of all; and that is, Christianity itself; whence did it come? In tracing the history of other opinions and reforms, we can follow them like rivers to the earthly fountains from which they spring; we can see the imperfect attempts which went before them, the influences and tendencies which led to them; their unformed elements may be distinguished long before their living action manifests itself to the world. But here was a religion suddenly breaking out from the midst of darkness, breathing peace in a wild and martial time, teaching the largest charity and freedom from prejudice among a most narrow and bigoted people, resisting the habits of thought and feeling which had always prevailed, and itself giving the first impulse towards that improvement in which it would lead the nations on from glory to glory. It is idle to speak of it as an effort of genius or a happy discovery; for these are results of efforts and progress previously made, and no such elements can be found in the ancient world. Now, as nothing can come of nothing, and to every thing must be assigned a cause adequate to produce it, we do not know where to. look for any explanation of the existence of this religion but that which regards it as a direct gift of God. The skeptic, then, if he discredits the miracles, by showing to his own satisfaction that they could never have been wrought, cannot deny that Christianity exists and prevails, and thus leaves himself embarrassed with a difficulty greater than that which he explains away.
The character of Hume has often been impeached in general terms, in consequence of his opinions, — Christians having always taken the liberty, in defending their religion, to break all its laws of love. Archbishop Magee, for example, speaks of his writings as “standing memorials of a heart as wicked and a head as weak as ever pretended to the character of a philosopher and moralist”; a remark, which, lacking the essential grace of truth, is of the number of those which bless him who takes considerably more than him who gives, and which rather enlighten us as to the good sense and manners of him who uses them, than of those to whom they are applied. But Lord Brougham has inserted a letter into the appendix to his Life, which gives a more unpleasant impression of Hume than we have received from any other quarter. It contains the expression of a wish, that some clerical friend should remain in his profession, which he desired to abandon; for, says the author of the “Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals,” —
“It is putting too great respect on the vulgar and on their superstitions to pique one’s self on sincerity with regard to them. Did ever one make it a point of honor to speak truth to children or madmen? If the thing were worthy being treated gravely, I should tell him that the Pythian oracle, with the approbation of Xenophon, advised every one to worship the Gods ‘according to the law of the city.’ I wish it were still in my power to be a hypocrite in this particular; the common duties of society usually require it; and the ecclesiastical profession only adds a little more to an innocent dissimulation, or rather simulation, without which it is impossible to pass through the world.”
Such loose talk as this, the recommendation to a friend to be a hypocrite, the wish to be one himself, and the suggestion that duty may sometimes require it, argues an extraordinary indifference on these subjects, which are commonly regarded as important, whatever may be men’s opinions in other respects. Lord Brougham does great injustice to Paley in connecting his doctrine of expediency with any such application of it as this. It is not easy to conceive of a man of any moral principle speaking in this manner while in possession of his reason; and it is not doing injustice to one who does, to regard it as a sign of certain deficiencies of moral constitution, which would prevent his mind from apprehending the worth and beauty of Christianity, and, to the same extent, forbid its welcome in the heart.
There is another respect in which the great historian is little beholden to his noble biographer. The impression has been, that Hume wrote with great rapidity; the harmonious and beautiful order of his narrative, and the free and manly grace of expression, indicate that it came from his pen with a swift and easy flow. This circumstance has been regarded as an explanation of many of his errors; for, admirable as his work is, and delightful to readers as it will ever be, it is wholly discredited as an authority; no one places the least reliance upon it; we resort to it for gratification, while we go to inferior writers to know the truth. But Lord Brougham gives the impression, that the act of composition to Hume was laborious and painful; his manuscripts still in existence are everywhere scored, interlined, and altered; indeed, he says himself, that he was slow, and not easily satisfied with what he wrote; a fact which deprives him of the apology, such as it is, which the extemporaneous manner of writing ascribed to him afforded for many of his errors. The Chancellor also declares, that, on some occasions, he sacrificed truth to effect, introducing striking circumstances without foundation, and altering statements from what he knew to be the correct version; and though these variations from the truth of history, so far as noticed, are not of any great importance, they are still sufficient to show, that his conscience was not strictly delicate, and that, acco[r]ding to the suggestion made to his clerical friend, he considered readers of history as among those inconsiderable persons to whom the truth needs not be told; either because he thought the article too rare and precious to be wasted, or that the invention of historical facts seemed a nobler and more inviting office than simply to record them.
This distinguished man is generally spoken of as a skeptic; but Lord Brougham shows that his views come as near to atheism as it is possible for a man not of unholy life to go. Hume contends, not that there are doubts on the subject of God’s existence and the immortality of the soul, but that we have no evidence of either, and therefore no ground for believing in God and immortality. And thus with respect to miracles; his argument maintains that they cannot be proved; that a divine interposition is a thing impossible; and of this there is a certainty which no amount of testimony can outweigh. It therefore leads, not to doubt, but to a conviction of the falsehood of the religion which professes to come from on high. Perhaps the reason why he has thus been regarded, as one whose mind was balanced between the two opinions, is, that he never, like Voltaire, entered into a blind and furious warfare against Christianity. His reasonings against it are grave and decent, seldom defiled by unworthy language or feeling. So unlike is this to the bearing of most other infidels, that it gives the impression of undecidedness and neutrality; when, perhaps, there never was any one to whom the religion could have been presented with so little hope of success, since his regular life, his steady temper, and prosperous circumstances, had prevented his feeling the need of it as most men do; and when the intellect, which in him was infinitely stronger than the affections, reported against it, no voice in its favor was lifted up by his heart. Even if his views on the subject of our faith had been at first mere speculations, as soon as he published his arguments against it, he came into sympathy with its opposers. Indifference was no longer possible, and it was as an antagonist of Christianity, if not of all religion, that he lived and died.
A statement was thrown out in the “Quarterly Review” many years ago, and we well remember the sensation it created, which represented the papers left by Hume as containing evidence that distinguished ministers of the gospel in Edinburgh were in full sympathy with him, practising on his suggestion with respect to deceiving the public, and having no more real faith than he had in the religion which they professed to preach. This incredible assertion, which doubtless proceeded from some narrow-minded bigot, who regarded false witness against another sect as a virtue, and charity as a mortal sin, was not corrected at the time; but Lord Brougham informs us, that he has caused the most exact search to be made, and, finding no confirmation of the story, he gives it an unqualified contradiction.*
*Notwithstanding this denial, and in full view of the evidence on which it is made, the charge is repeated in the last number of the “Quarterly Review,” apparently by the same writer who first brought it forward. He says, Lord Brougham “produces no evidence except as to the actual contents of the Hume papers. They came but lately into the hands of their present possessors; and we think it might have occurred to Lord Brougham as not altogether impossible (considering the late Mr. Baron Hume’s refusal to let any use be made of them during his own lifetime), that the learned judge purified the collection before he bequeathed it to the Royal Society of Edinburgh.” The reviewer also cites the passage, which we have already quoted, from Hume’s letter to Colonel Edmonstone, advising a clerical friend not to abandon his profession because he had become a skeptic, as affording “an inference in tolerable harmony with the rumor so magisterially dismissed.” Our readers will observe, however, that this grave charge, first made upon the authority of mere rumor, is here repeated as a matter of inference only; and though the reviewer, it appears, has “had access to some of Hume’s unpublished letters,” it does not appear that he found in them any direct evidence of the truth of the accusation.