The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-04-15


rity Of some writers against Alr. II. We are
told that il he erred, IN erred in common
with Plato, .7ristesie, Pgihagorus, Ltibnitz,
Des- Carries, Berkeley, Hobbs, .nolebranehe,
Locke, and even tine great Newton HIM.
self" | think, with all humility, that the
gentleman who made this remark has Gu
tirely mistaken the state ofthe controversy.
II is true the authorizations of these great
men If I'll Of them deserve that appellation)
may be- produced rs proof of the weakness
of human nature IN her best estate but
never heard a charge Of this KIND brought
against Mr.. Hume /: believe lac is general
" considered too daringly consistent in
pushing his philosophical researches far
beyond their legitimate bounds IA or
der to crafty a propensity for sceptcal
conclusions which attended him through
life. Render unto Car ar the things that
are Caesars is very fair motto, and
should b. practised.
There IS another way, however, in which
the opponents of Mr.. Hame's sentiments
may meet this argument If It be one, and
il is this We do not Judge of mans SEN
timents 30 much by the principles he lays
down, as from the conclusions he draws
from them. This, TO be sure, implies a
eensure on the human intellect; but no
thinking person, am persuaded, will doubt
the correctness of it, Notwithstanding. As
proof of this, | need only remark, that
Berkeley would have shuddered 10 draw
seeptical conclusions from the premises he
had adopted, while Hume considered these
very premises as the foundation of all
seeptical deduction, and embraced them
as such. | will Illustrate my remark by IA
ease IN another department of philosophy
President Edwards, many years ago, pub
lished a treatise on the Freedom of the
WILL in which he maintained that the acts
OF the will are always governed by the die
tates of the understanding or, IN other
words, follow the greatest apparent good
Goodwin, from this hint, or some other like
it, pushed the matter farther, aud contend
ed that as this was the case, mems acts are
all necessary, physically necessary, he
meant )-and that he is not therefore ac-
countable for them. On this account. the
eloquent Robert Hall inveighs severely IA
ginsl the good President, for cutting out
materials from which deiatlcal system
could be formed. Bu Edwards has never
been charged with a prediction to delsm,
on that account; neither does II prove
Goodwin te be less an inlidcl. II is further
said that the opinions of Mr.. Hume on the
subject of cause and effect, though they
were rejected in his day, have since become
into great repute with the Scottish meta
physicians Reed aud Stewart but | think
II ought to appear 10 the gentleman who
made the remark, on the 2d ult that it was
too premature ; since DIR. Beasley. an able
metaphysIrian of our own day, has strcnu-
ously contested this point against Hume,
Reed and Stewart and if | were To cx-
press an opinion, should say, that with
such men as Bacon, Locke, Newton and
others at his back, he has very good
chance for victory. At any rate, | think
II extremely inmodest TO ascribe so much
profound" infalIiblity 10 one side of a
question, until il is entirely given up on
the other. BE this, however as it may:
repeat that am not so much in quest Of
premises as conclusions. am certain oi
one thing, that if a plain man We're 10 hold
ball Of wax TO a fire, he would never
think of questioning whether the beat of
wax. And If the optics of Reed and Stew
art were not penetrating enough 10 discover
hop the fire cxerted its influence on the
wax, the misfortune is al their own. For
my own part, can trust the subject in
their hands, view it which way they please.
But cannot repose 50 much confidence
in Mr.. Hume, for he will dbuse il, in con.
sequence of his strong propensity To uni
yersal doubling.
In the Virglnian of the i2th ult. appear
ed "A communication signed "P." one para
graph of which concludes as follows =
: In the full possession of his faculties, in
the midst Of his friends, discomsing to the
last on the great subjects which had ever
tiIed hsmind, he met withindincrcnce that
death he knew he could not avoid, aud con
emplaied with satisfaction his removal in
10 that world where his duration would be
etcrnai, his spcculatiops range in immeusi
~, and his study be God" The rhetoric
OF this sentence, as well rs several that
precede II, IS beautiful; but,--lct us hra
both sides. have already quoted from the
Edinburgh Encyclopedia. The compiIers
III that work have, IN my opinion, treated
the character Of their tewnsman, Mr.
Hume, with as much indulgence as the ma
ture OF Il c case would admit. On the
subject before US, they make the following
remarks; and | may venture to add that
no persons can be Supposed 10 possess bet.
ter means of Information. In connection
with seme other things, they say alt is
evident that he did not entertain a belief
m any future state" Again "The cen
sure which we have expressed is most of
all applicable to two tracts, published after
ms death, one on the immortality of the
soul, and the other on suicide. The for
mer is little more than compression OF
doctrines which he had advanced, or to
which he had at least pointed in his other
works, but expressed in more dogmatica