The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-03-25
L,NcnBuRG, MARCH %, 1ees.
roR TIL NInaihIAN

cd ia the Nnginian few days ago
Ii was a well written communication
and as such deserving of attention.
Besides, IL possessed an additional mer-
it, al the ground, that IL tended TO divert
the mind from The monOtonons sound oil
common place newspaper topics. 1t Is
true there are not many who take any in
terest IN metaphysical di-eussions yet il is
10 be- hoped there Is here aud there one
who think II not altogether an Improbable
pursuit IL is not metaphysics alone, how
ever that is concerned here morality aud
religion are deeply Interested. A great
dead of interest is identified with the name
of Hame. That he stands, amongst the
ioremt st On the isl Of good historians, no
body doubts bnt thal he deser, ed all the
CLUTTER of encomum bestowed on him in
The article alluded 10 rs an onlol0gst, IS
what cannot coneede, notwithstanding
ihc highest yencratinn for his literary emit
ncnee. Ii is also possible to hold a mans
moral character in the highest estimation,
aud AT the same time regard some OF his u
pini0us on speculative points with utter de-
icstation. Few men possessed more active
lenesolence than BfEkLfY, yet his theory
would lead us IL believe that there was not
human body for indeed any other body
10 endure distress in the universe Ano-
males Of this hind may sometimes exist,
but surely they are not fit subjects 10 be
produced as proofs Of a general point. My
object is not 10 enquire whether Hume ful-
filed all the dnties of life with proprlety,
which, indeed, is not of much importance,
but whether there was not lurking mis-
chief IN his sentiments, which, If he WAS
aware of, must constitute him very bad
man aud, il he was moi, must prove linn
not To have been great philosopher. What
Is philosopher? tits a person who en-
ploys his REASON in Investigating and eN
planning nature aud natures laws. He de-
lights IN tracing effects 10 their causes, and
IN inlerrIng the former FROM the latter; and
IL is on the infallibie connection between
them that lac rests for ultimate success, for
this IL the sole foundation of his stately ST.
perstruetnrc. ARISTOTLE, BACON, NEw-
Toa and Lock- acquired THEN deathless
fame in this way. do not apprehend that
am contending with person who doubts
that these men were great philosophers. |
must ENORMOUSLY confess that cannot dis
cover wherein the "Godl,ke attempt of
Hume lany further than he followed the
example OF these great mem is worthy Of
so much admiration. Ii is true he forsoolx
their path, and in 81 doing he was most
unfortunate For when a man turns his
back su the works oi nature, he has no
more use for his REASON, and certainly is not
worthy the name of a philosopher. If
were 10 walk ont ON n clear day, NJ noon,
and meeting a neghbor, should tell him
The sdn shone, he most probably would be
heYe me though he would, at the same
time, think gave him a very unnecessary
piece OF information. lie might, however,
enquire how knew the gun shnne2 Ii is
true he would say, believe YOU are very
sincere IN what you assert, but it may after
all be nothing more than an illusion of the
Inauguration there may be- no reality in il.
You mag be very right, would reply, for
aught can convince you To the contrary /;
tof can produce no evidence that viii
make It more evident TO you than il WAS
before, Such man may leave me with Il
very high opinion his own superior know
ledge, and possibly look down with good
deal Of contempt on my daplcty, mas
much ae had made an assertion which |
coald DOT prove, Eur he ought 10 have
known that the veriest clown would, with
greater justice, either laugh ut him for
fool or suspect him of some bad design
Now should this hypothetical case furnish
true representation of the boosted efforts
OF Hune's mind in philosophical pursuits,
does he merit such high encomiums as were
ld'lshed on INN In the communication al
iuded 10, especially as IN this case he does
not possess the merit of originality F? Two
questions here present themselves. Ist
Was Hume of this opinion ? I'd. If he was,
does IT moi prove him to be Il sseptic Ia the
most eXtensiuc sense of the word, or, in
other words, an atheist ? Whether Hume
Was sceptic in philosophy as we'll as re-
H5ion, lei the following language determine:
hen We think We perceive our mind
acting on matter, or one piece of matter
upon another, we do ia fact only perceive
two objects, or events, contiguous and suc
cessl'e,fhe second of which is always found
IN experience TO follow the first; but that
we never perceive either by external sense
or by consciousness, that power, energy or
effcacy which connects the one event with
the other. BY observing that the two e.
vents do always accompany each other.
Tue imagination acquires a habit of readily
going from the FIRST To the second, or f,om
the second TO the first; aud here we are
led to conceive a kind OF necessary con.
neefion between them; but in fact there is
neither necessity nor power in the objects
we consider,eb ui IN tie mind that considers
HEN, and even in the mind this power of
necessity is nothing but determ ination of
the fancy, acquired By habit, 10 pass from
The idea of one object to that Of its usual
attendant" Again: CAS- the necessity
which makes two times two equal to four,
or three angles of triangle equal to two
r'sht onss, lies enlS in the act of the un-
derstanding, by which we consider and
compare these ideas in like manner, the
Necessity or power which unites causes
aud effects, lies in the determination of the
mind to pass from the one to the other