than the author of the Eulogium, who died about A. 1366 †, one hun dred and fifty years after the fact; and therefore, though he speaks of an ordinance by the general chapter ‡, meaning, I fuppofe, of the whole order of Ciftercians, yet one knows not how to give him credit for it. At most, it only proves, that the ftory prevailed in after-times at Swinefhead, and was there believed; as probably it might, as well as in other places, and as many other ridiculous stories in thofe credulous ages were. Dr. Barcham, though he espouses and believes the poison, was aware of this; for he fays with caution, those monkish writers avow, at what time they wrote this, the monks in that abbey did fing, &c. And thus the appointment, of monks to pray for the affaffin's foul at Swineshead, in after-ages, poffibly may be true, and yet the fact, which was the ground of the appointment may not be fo. Parfons, the Jefuit, I oblerve, gives not one jot the more credit to the poison, on account of this chantry. "In short, it appears clear to me that king John died a natural death." Our antiquary thinks, after all, it may appear ftrange to fome, that fo many authors fhould affert with confidence and with fo many circumftances that king John was poifoned, if he really was not. For his own part, however, he conceives it, on the contrary, very natural that fuch an affertion should take place. John," fays he, "died at a critical time, of a fhort illness, contracted in an enemy's quarter; whence it would be very obvious for the vulgar to furmife that he was poifoned. Kings, and other great perfonages, feldom die fuddenly, witnefs the cafe of Wolfey abovementioned, but the like fancies and imaginations rife in peoples minds. It was furmife at firft, and then grew into an affertion, and this by degrees received circumstances and embellishments from the pens of certain idle monks that did not love the king's perfon. John was a bad man in various refpects, and the monks have not fpared him; they have loaded him with the reproaches he deserved. And I think it not improbable, that when he was with his back friends at Swinefhead, he might ufe fuch threatning difcourfe at table as is related above; which being afterwards reported by the monks, or other writers, might at length furnish a fpecious pretence, in conjuction with furmife, for the fictitious story of the poiton, and all the circumstances and particulars of it." We shall proceed to the other articles, contained in this curious volume, in our next Review. Dr. Barcham in Speed, p. 587. See alfo John Fox. S. M. Paris fpeaks of ejus infinita reprehenfibilia vitia. See M. Weftminfter, p. 276. Hemingburg, p. 560. Joh. Roffus, p. 198. And Dr. Barcham in Speed, p. 587. An Apology for the Life and Writings of David Hume, Efq. With a Parallel between him and the late Lord Cheferfield: 10 which is added an Addrefs to one of the People called Chriftians, by way of Reply to his Letter to Adam Smith, LL. D. "For modes of Faith, let graceless zealots fight, " РОРЕ. 12mo. 2s. 6d. Fielding and Walker. The hafty production of fome ingenious advocate for Mr. Hume, better qualified to imitate his eafe and brilliancy of ftile than to inveftigate the difficulty and profundity of his fentiments. He tells us, indeed, in his dedication to Mr. Strahan, that, tho' his thoughts have been thrown upon paper in hafte, they are by no means hafty thoughts." Either he muft have written, then, fometimes without thinking, or to what muft we impute fuch a frange fentence as the following? "The prostitution of Chriftianity, or, in other words, the Chriftian religion made use of as a cloak to cover the most irreligious purposes, is more fatal to the fupreme governor of the world, and to his fubordinate creatures, than much greater latitude of principle than was indulged by Mr. Hume*."What latitude of principle this writer would contend for, we know not; but we cannot conceive either latitude or longitude of principle, of either hypocrify or profligacy, however fatal it may provė to his fubordinate creatures, can be in any wife fatal to the fupreme governor of the Worla. This word, therefore, if not the thought, was thrown upon paper in too much hafte. Perhaps too much time in the compofition might be avoided left the delay fhould prove fatal to the publication. In thefe temporary and temporizing productions periculum eft in mora. Another quill-driver might be before-hand with him, and catch the penny out of his hand. It is well for him that he had his thoughts ready cut and dried for the occafion; he might otherwife not have been able to throw them on paper at any rate; fo that, all circumstances confidered, a hafty word or two, if not quite blafphemous, might be forgiven him. Our country readers, who are ftrangers to the prefs and the expeditious mode of manufacturing books and pamphlets in London, muft be frequently aftonished at the rapid fucceffion of literary publications. Nothing is more common, in town, than for a book to be published, or an event to happen, one day, and a long printed treatife on it to appear the next. It is, indeed, * Preliminary Address, page xi. not not unfrequent for the answer to a book to be written before the publication of the book itself, and obfervations on facts and events to be fabricated, like the dying fpeeches of condemned malefactors, before fuch events come to pafs, The truth is, the Literary grubs of this metropolis are in general not more ingenious than industrious. They differ alfo fo widely from the improvident feriblers of former times that they watch, with the utmost folicitude, every occafion for exercifing their induftry. Their Pegafus, like a post-horse, ftands ever ready faddled and bridled in the ftable. to be mounted as neceffity requires. The want of infpiration from a captious mufe they always guard againft, by having their ferutoires well lined with variety of materials, pro rê nata: so that they are never at a lofs even for impromptu's on the most fudden occafion. The death of David Hume afforded one of thefe opportunities, tho' not fo fudden as not to have been for fome time anticipated. Hence it appears that, hard as the prefent writer fpurred his Pegafus, one of the people called Chriftians whipped his Oxonian Bidet to town before him. Luckily the little Chriftian took a different fide of the question, and thence enabled our author to kill two birds with one ftone, by annexing an Anfwer to his Apology. But to come to the performance itself; which, tho evidently a catch-penny, hath more merit than ufually diftin guishes fuch productions. To proceed methodically, the Apologift has divided his tract into Sections: in the firft of which he treats of Mr. Hume's philofophical confiftency; telling us among other things, that it had been frequently prognofticated, by people profeffing themfelves Chriftians, to whom Mr. Hume's theory was obnoxious, that he would abjure it on his death-bed and die a penitent. In the difappointment of this prognoftication our apologift triumphs not a little; imputing it as a great merit to Mr. Hume that he died as he lived. It is to the honour," fays he, " of David Hume, then, that he was no hypocrite in philofophy; and that, unlike the many detected hypocrites in Chriftianity, he acted as he wrote, and wrote no more than, at all times, he actually felt. "This may be evidenced more accurately, when we run our eye over that pofthumous paper, which he hath, very characteristically, called, A Funeral Oration. Prior to this, I would just turn an old subject on a new fide: I would make a comment or two, on that shameful fpecies of delufion, which, arrayed in the fair and unfufpicious robes of orthodoxy, makes the most fatal depredations upon fociety; and, indeed, does infinitely more mischief than the most daring and declared infidelity." In his fecond Section, our author treats accordingly of Religious Hypocrify; which, he fays, is one of the diftinguishing features, by which we mark the prefent age. 3 This, This, fays he, is "that abominable prudery in Sentiment, which, from the lip outwards, deceives the fhallow multitude, who miflake it for the confcientious fcruples of moral fanctity. A philofopher, who looks into the heart, and can trace many of its manoeuvres to their fource; whofe acquaintance with life, and whofe skill in detecting the chicane of men, fees, clearly, at a fingle glance, that the whole appaatus of external appearance, is only a political veil thrown over the real feelings and propenfities of nature: this fallacy, to his penetrating eye, is fufficiently obvious; he detects the cheat in a moment, and, did he not know how eafily the major part of mankind were difpofed to favour that which fuits equally their own purposes of impofing upon each other (by which means the Hypocrify becomes general), he would wonder how thofe, who are fuppofed to stand at the top of rarefied and rationalized matter, could be fo conftantly the bubbles of imagination. Bubbles, however, they notorioufly are, in defiance of the very feelings which contradict their puritanical pretenfions. This duplicity hath ever exifted in life, and hath now crept into letters. There is a fet of writers, who affect a chastity of fentiment, and a kind of primitive precifenefs in ftyle, with a view of paffing upon the fuperficial part of the public (which is infinitely the larger part) as orthodox moralifts, and the most zealous promoters of Chriftian rectitude. Copious is the catalogue of authors, whose performances are read and relished, upon this very principle. "Hence it is, that literary reputation, like almost every other diftinction, is, in thefe times, merely empirical. It is, neverthelefs, not unamufing to a philofopher,-when he hath a mind to relieve himfelf from the labour of feverer thinking, with the petty concealments of the bufy and more vacant world,-to overturn, with a calmness peculiar to his collected character, the fuperficial fyftems of thefe ingenious impoftors." It is to be lamented that recent cafes have given too much reafon for the above reflection. We do not pretend to decide the long-difputed queftion, whether Hypocrify or Profligacy be moft hurtful to fociety; but we cannot forbear expreffing our regret at the proofs to be met with, among our moralifts, how frequently the character of the writer differs from that of the man. We think, however, that moral Hypocrify, or the affectation of moral fentiment as a covert to practical vice, is, rather than Religious Hypocrify, the diftinguishing feature in the character of the prefent age. Not but that many of our fentimental moralifts, particularly thofe of the Church, take Religion nominally by the hand. "Thus, our puritans of the prefs," as our apologift calls them, "take efpecial care to write very religioufly without any meaning at all; without, indeed, having any determinate idea of that delicate partition which divides one fpecific quality from another, without any fober system of either thinking, writing, or acting. I have been entertained with the ingenuities of men, (I call them ingenuities, because, fometimes, they really are fuch,) who have voluminously recommend ed ed a fomething, the practice of which was, to produce tranquillity and complacence; which was equally to defy diftemper, accident, and revo lution. This fomething, they recommend, without bringing one folid argument in its favour*. In their way, they reafon "about it and about it," till the original idea, if, indeed, they ever had any, is utterly annihilated. If therefore, their inifconceptions and blunders are thus manifeft in devotional subjects, it may be expected that they are not much more accurate or perfpicuous in the manufacture of writings adapted fimply to what is called the decencies and decorums of focial life. I fhall, however, as an inftance, confine myself to expose the futility of what they call, with most atrocious affectation, delicacy of fentiment; two words to which, divested of their popular hypocritical meaning, imply more actual groffnefs and downright fenfuality, than all that ever was written by Rochester, or any other licentious author, Rochester, indeed, "Shewed too much to raise defire." He made us delicate even from his indelicacy; we behold his dirty, illdifpofed, figures, in all their naftinefs and nudity; the mind takes part with the body and recoils from enjoyment. But it is otherwife with writers, that are eternally fhewing you the fentimental infamy of a perfonal trefpafs, to which nature (they own), with all her attractive force and vigour, inclines; while they condemn us to flame and faggot, if we yield to her dictates. It is the fault of these men that they too often remind us of agreeable error, they minutely discover the temptation, and point to the moft irrefiftible parts of it, yet charge us neither to touch nor to enjoy it. This is fhameful; but it is, notwithstanding, the bafis of many literary reputations." Our apologist appears to have in view here the high reputation of fome of our moft admired Novelifts. In Section 3, he treats of the natural dignity of the literary character, and the reafons which have brought it into contempt. "Let us now advert," fays he, "to another fpecies of Hypocrify, from which our Philofopher was totally exempt: to which, indeed, his temper was perfectly fuperior. Among the inftance of generous independency in David Hume, muft not be forgotten that manlinefs, which prevented him from wading through the prostituted puddle of fawning DEDICATION. To this magnanimity to this firmness it was owing, that, his feelings were never difgraced, nor his fpirit at any time weighed down by the burden of favours, ignominioufly beg The fuller proof of this matter, together with a free and fair enquiry into popular religions, and their regulating principles, is preparing for the prefs by the Author of this Apology, and will, it is hoped, clear from iubbish, or much-obftru&ted idea on facred fubjects t. We hope this apologist will take more time and deliberate more maturely, in making this free and fair enquiry. We will venture to say that, otherwife, he will leave more rubbish behind him than he is likely to clear away. Rev. ged, |