laudable anxiety to find an enemy to the religion he professed, laid down the
following, as propositions which he would be enabled to prove were the avowed
opinions of Mr Hume: "1st, All distinction between virtue and vice is merely
imaginary 2nd, Justice has no foundation farther than it contributes to public
advantage 3d, Adultery is very lawful, but sometimes not expedient 4th,
Religion and its ministers are prejudicial to mankind, and will always be found
either to run into the heights of superstition or enthusiasm 5th, Christianity
has no evidence of its being a divine revelation 6th, Of all the modes of Christianity, popery is the best, and the reformation from thence was only the work of madmen and enthusiasts." The overture was rejected by the committee, and
the indefatigable vindicators of religion brought the matter under a different shape before the presbytery of Edinburgh, but that body very properly decided on several grounds, among which, not the least applicable was, "to prevent their
entering further into so abstruse and metaphysical a subject," that it "would be more for the purposes of edification to dismiss the process."
In 1759, appeared Dr Robertson's History of Scotland, and the similarity of the subjects in which he and Hume were engaged, produced an interchange of information, and a lasting friendship, honourable to both these great men. Hume was singularly destitute of literary jealousy; and of the unaffected welcome which he gave to a work treading on his own peculiar path, we could give many instances, did our limits permit. He never withheld a helping hand to any author who might be considered his rival, and, excepting in one instance, never peevishly mentioned a living literary author in his works. The instance we allude to, is a remark on Mr Tytler's vindication of queen Mary, and referring the reader to a copy of it below,[1] it is right to remark, that it seems more dictated by contempt of the arguments, than spleen towards the person of the author.
Any account of the literary society in which Hume spent his hours of leisure and conviviality, would involve us in a complete literary history of Scotland during that period, unsuitable to a biographical dictionary. With all the eminent men of that illustrious period of Scottish literature, he was intimately acquainted; as a philosopher, and as a man of dignified and respected intellect, he stood at the head of the list of great names ; but in the less calm employments in which literary men of all periods occupy themselves, he was somewhat shunned, as a person too lukewarm, indolent, and good-humoured, to support literary warfare. An amusing specimen of his character in this respect, is mentioned by M'Kenzie in his life of Home. When two numbers of a periodical work, entitled "The Edinburgh Review," were published in 1755, the bosom friends of Hume, who were the conductors, concealed it from him, because, "I have heard," says M'Kenzie, "that they were afraid both of his extreme good nature, and his extreme artlessness ; that, from the one, their criticisms would have been weakened, or suppressed, and, from the other, their secret discovered;" and it was not till Hume had repeated his astonishment that persons in Scotland beyond the
- ↑ "But there is a person that has written an Inquiry, historical and critical, into the evidence against Mary, queen of Scots ; and has attempted to refute the foregoing narrative. He quotes a single passage of the narrative, in which Mary is said simply to refuse answering; and then a single passage from Goodall, in which she boasts simply that she will answer; and he very civilly and almost directly, calls the author a liar, on account of this pretended contradiction. That whole Inquiry, from beginning to end, is composed of such scandalous articles; and from this instance the reader may judge of the candour, fair dealing, veracity, and good manners of the inquirer. There are, indeed, three events in our history, which may be regarded as touchstones of party-men. An English whig, who asserts the reality of the popish plot; an Irish Catholic who denies the massacre in 1641; and a Scottish Jacobite, who maintains the innocence of queen Mary, must be considered as men boyond the reach of argument or reason; and must be left to their prejudices."
