Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 at tempt 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, 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."

Panoplist, p. 245.

[ocr errors]

"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. Finley'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.

POETRY.

We have lately met with the following Reckoning with Time,' with 'Time's Answer,' from the pen of George Colman, and as both the wit and manner, are pleasing; as the author's merits "challenge much respect" and as the tendency of the productions, is rather to ridicule the modern absurdities of the drama, we think no other apology is necessary for our offering them to our readers. If any captious person, however, should demand a further excuse, we have only to say, that the compositions are not easily procured, and that we could not readily discover any thing more appropriate for our poetical department.

* Ibid. p. 246.

How many votaries of the muse,
My sand, as blotting-pa er use:
With politicks some fill me;
While at a sing-song house, I'm told,
Where foreign notes are chang'd for gold,
Some beat and others kill me.

Thou know'st my little winning ways,
I live by eating modern plays ;
A milk and water diet:

But thou wouldst starve me, selfish man,
Go gnaw thy pen; I never can,
'Twould break my teeth to try it.
When wilt thou write like other men?
Observe your brethren of the pen,
How scornfully I treat 'em ;
Like oysters, (sorrowful to tell)
Their plays no sooner quit the shell,
Than, presto, pass, I eat 'em.

While others in oblivion waste
Time, the Ithuriel spear of taste,
Shall still thy dramas treasure;
They're one and all so truly good,
That though they never give me food,
They always give me pleasure.

Thus sailing down life's eddying pool
My wings shall fan thy passions cool;
Psha! cease this idle pother:

My eyes grow dim, give me your hand,
One half my glass is choak'd with sand,
Let's fill with wine the other!

Long may'st thou flourish, wisely gay,
Till
my own fore-lock turns to grey;
And when old Pluto's raven
Shall croak thee to thy narrow room,
The passenger, upon thy tomb

Shall read these lines engraven : "Within this monumental bed, Appolo's favourite rests his head;

Ye mourners cease your grieving :
A son, the father's loss supplies;
Be comforted, though COLMAN dies,
His ' Heir at Law' is living !”

[blocks in formation]

It is not the disorder, but the physician; it is not a casual concurrence of calamitous circumstances; it is the pernicious hand of government, which alone can make a whole people desperate.

JUNIUS.

REVIEW of Mr. Giles's first Speech in the Senate of the United States, on the Resolution of Mr. Hillhouse to repeal the Embargo Laws.

Continued from page 39.

THE result of our investigation of Mr. Giles's defence of the administration is conclusive of its inadequacy to protect the objects which the continuance of the Embargo is obviously intended to promote. It seems clear, that the measure is neither coercive nor precautionary; but on the contrary, is advantageous to one belligerent, and satisfactory to another. Mr. Giles's arguments rest wholly upon this basis, and we think cannot be maintained, unless visionary notions are to overthrow the tests of calculation and the propositions of experience. There are some other considerations, in relation to this subject, which have occurred to us in the progress of our analysis, which may further conduce to determine its injustice as well as its impolicy.

If the Embargo is to be viewed abroad, as a measure of hostility and coercion, it is manifestly unjust in its operation, because it affects those friendly powers with whom we have been in the habits of commercial intercourse. Sweden, for example, has a right to be offended with the coercion of this measure. Her trade with us, is considerably extensive, and we evidently deprive her of many advantages, in consequence of our perseverance in the policy. What answer can we give to her, should she feel, herself injured and claim redress? Why, probably we should say it is merely a municipal regulation, which every country has an undoubted right to adopt. In this case we hold out the double language of hypocrisy; at home, we talk of coercing foreign nations; abroad, the Embargo is merely a measure of precaution and internal regulation with which no nation has a right or pretension to interfere. If it be an internal regulation, all the objects which it Vol. 1.

G

was, as such, designed to be produced by it, are already and long ago affected; and may be taken off because it is unnecessary, or rather, because its present effects are the very reverse of precaution. But government cannot raise it, it is contended, without obvious disgrace, they have pledged themselves to the world, and cannot recede from the position they have taken, without an acknowledgment of their inability. Government cannot urge this as a plea for not removing a measure intrinsically and constitutionally wrong. It cannot be met like another question of national policy. If the administration have committed a most palpable and egregious blunder, are the people first to suffer, and then support them in their perversity and errour? This argument, howeyer, is entirely inconclusive, for if the Embargo be merely municipal, how can government be disgraced by removing it? Those persons who urge such objections, confound themselves in evident contradictions. In order to palliate the complaints made by those nations who are friendly to us, we call the measure simply a municipal regulation; and when it is shewn, that in that aspect it is nugatory in its operation, and ought to be removed; it then changes into a coercive policy, operating so powerfully upon foreign nations as is calculated to obtain great concessions in our favour. So much contrariety of result cannot have justice for its basis; the same propositions cannot without false reasoning produce opposing conclusions. Viewed however, in both the lights in which the administration have contemplated it, we are equally convinced of the impolicy of the measure, and of the treachery of govern

ment.

A policy, which if it were ever so necessary, would be oppressive, must be shewn to be necessary before it will be allowed to be just. If it should prove ineffectual by experience, it is of necessity tyrannical. Considered in this aspect, it is not only intrinsically despotick, but it can be enforced only by tyranny. This enforcement seems to be a consequence of its constituent formation. The act is oppressive and unnecessary; it is consequently tyrannical in itself, and implies tyranny in its execution. It is therefore repugnant to the constitution, not only because its object could not peaceably be obtained, without invading undoubted rights; but because, in carrying it into forcible effect, other rights equally valuable must be overthrown. If therefore, government persist in the policy, the people may possibly resist. If they resist, what is to become of the constitution? It is evident we fought for civil libererty, and our bill of rights expresses those blessings which it was its intention to secure. But if any unjust and unnecessary law invade those most inestimable rights; there is some danger arising to the constitution itself, which was established for the preservation of those rights. Such a state of things should produce extreme caution in the minds of our rulers; especially if it be considered, that the constitution must depend for its permanency on the will of those who erected it; and

« PreviousContinue »