had begun to spread among the literary circles at Edinburgh; and Lord Kames and Mr. Hume being the only perfons who had ventured to commit their philofophical tenets to writing, were confidered as the grand apoftles of infidelity." It was not, however, till the year 1755, that notice was taken of this fubject in the general affembly of the church; and the matter then proceeded no further than an unanimous declaration of the abhorrence in which fuch impious and infidel principles were held by the church, and an exhortation to all its minifters to exert their utmoft vigilance and zeal, to preferve thofe under their charge from the contagion of these abominable tenets. On the next meeting of the affembly, a twelvemonth afterwards, it was moved in a committee to take notice of the infidel writings lately published, and in particular to inquire into, and animadvert upon, some of thofe of David Hume, because he had publicly avowed the moft obnoxious of his doctrines by prefixing his name. After a long and warm debate, this propofition was overruled, and confequently was never fubmitted to the decifion of the affembly. A fimilar fate attended a motion afterwards made in the prefbytery of Edinburgh, to cite the printers and bookfellers of the tracts afcribed to Lord Kames, in order that they might be compelled to name the author of the obnoxious doctrines. The majority in both courts were of opinion, and perhaps with reafon, that it tended more to edification to drop this inquiry, than to inflict the cenfures of the church, in fuch a cafe, however merited they might be.

When Hume returned from Paris for the laft time, he brought with him to England the celebrated Rouffeau, who was then in fearch of an afylum from the perfecutions, real or imaginary, to which he was fubjected in France, and other parts of the continent. Hume feems warmly to have interefted himself for this eccentric character; and with fome difficulty at length fucceeded in fixing him at an agree able country retreat, and procuring him an annual allowance, more than fufficient for his wants. At firft nothing could exceed the gratitude of Rouffeau, and his letters to Hume are expreffive of the utmost enthusiasm of attachment. His reftlefs and fufpicious temper, however, foon began to fhow itfelf, and his benefactor became the object at first of diftruft, and afterwards of the most rooted averfion. A detailed account of the whole connection between Hume and Rouffeau was published at Paris, under the infpection of D'Alembert and other literary friends of Hume, to whom he communicated the original letters and other materials. It is a very

L4

fingular

fingular document, but having been now fo long before the public, cannot be confidered as a fit fubject for prefent criticifm. Mr. Ritchie, however, has not only incorporated the whole of this document into the body of his work, in an English drefs, but has alfo printed it as an appendix in the original French; a proceeding which we think scarcely fair to his readers, who may be thus made to pay a fecond time for what they already poffefs. A production of the American prefs has lately fallen into our hands, which contains fome information refpecting Rouffeau, while he was under the protection of Hume, that fufficiently marks his eccentric, and in many refpects frivolous character. It is entitled "Letters from London, written during the years 1802 and 1803, by William Auftin." Printed at Bofton in 1804. Its author ftates, that having vifited Dr. Griffiths, the original editor of the Monthly Review, then at Turnham-green, he was informed by that gentleman, that both Hume and Rouffeau had spent many an hour in the room where they then

were.

"I afked the doctor," fays Mr. Austin," how Rousseau fpent his time when he vifited him? As little like a philofopher, he replied, as you can imagine. He had a little fagacious dog, called Cupid, which always followed him, and whenever he was urged to converfe on fubjects either difagreeable or fatiguing to him, he would begin to fing; at the fame moment Cupid would begin to dance; and thus he would frequently fpend two hours together, excepting thofe fhort intervals when Cupid would make a blunder, and then Rouffeau would fall a laughing. In this manner would the philofopher of Ermenonville fpend many an hour in that window-feat, while he refided in this town with Hume,''

The laft letter which Rouffeau wrote to Hume, in answer, to the demand to explain the grounds of his unreasonable fufpicions, is one of the most extraordinary productions that ever feil from the pen of a philofopher. It occupies nearly forty of Mr. Ritchie's pages, and details with much minutenefs all the grievances of which it complains, which are even more trivial than those which are fabled to give rife to the jealoufy of a lover. They were however fufficient to fatisfy Rouffeau, (whofe ftrong understanding was completely fubjected to his morbid temperament) that his pretended benefactor was a principal agent in that grand confpiracy which the whole human race had entered into against the fame, tranquillity, and perfonal fafety of the philofopher of Geneva. With all its abfurdity, however, and unjustifiable

virulence, there is an eloquence and perverse ingenuity in this performance which marks it as the production of the author of Emile and the Nouvelle Heloife.

Moft of the letters of Hume which are printed in this volume are, like the hiftory of his intercourfe with Rouffeau, already well known to the public; and therefore improper for extracting. There are, however, two letters of the Scotch philofopher, on the fubject of the Effay on Miracles, which, we believe, are now first published; and which are the more important, as, in the first of them, which is addreffed to Dr. Blair, Hume departs from the refolution which he declares he had very early formed, of never anfwering any attacks that might be made upon his writings. These letters were occafioned by Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen, having tranfmitted. a copy of his "Differtation on Miracles," previous to its publication, to Dr. Blair, of Edinburgh, with a request, that after perufing it he would communicate it to Mr. Hume, whofe fceptical tenets on that fubject it was intended to refute. Hume returned the performance to Dr. Blair, with a letter, which is given by Mr. R. at p. 144, and contains feveral replies to Dr. Campbell.

This learned writer was candid enough to expunge or soften many of the expreflions in his Differtation, which were reprefented to him as fevere or offenfive; at the fame time that he availed himself of the remarks both of his friend and his opponent, in order to obviate every objection that might be made to his arguments. When his Differtation, thus corrected and improved, was about to iffue from the prefs, he fent a copy to Hume, from whom he received the following letter, which contains feveral ftriking marks of cha racter :

"DEAR SIR,

January, 7, 1762.

"It has fo feldom happened that controverfies in philofophy, much more in theology, have been carried on without producing a perfonal quarrel between the parties, that I muft regard my prefent fituation as fomewhat extraordinary, who have reason to give you thanks for the civil and obliging manner, in which you have conducted the difpute against me, on fo interesting a subject as that of miracles. Any little fymptoms of vehemence, of which I formerly used the freedom to complain, when you favoured me with a fight of the manufcript, are either removed or explained away, or atoned for by civilities, which are far beyond what I have any title to pretend to. It will be natural for you to imagine, that I will fall upon fome fhift to evade the force of your arguments, and to retain my former opinion in the point controverted between us; but it is impoffible for me not to fee

the

the ingenuity of your performance, and the great learning which you have difplayed against me.

"I confider myself as very much honoured in being thought worthy of an answer by a perfon of fo much merit; and as I find, that the public does you justice with regard to the ingenuity and, good compofition of your piece, I hope you will have no reason to repent engaging with an antagonist, whom perhaps, in ftrictnefs, you might have ventured to neglect. I own to you, that I never felt fo violent an inclination to defend myself as at prefent, when I am thus fairly challenged by you, and I think I could find fomething fpecious at leaft to urge in my defence; but as I had fixed a refolution, in the beginning of my life, always to leave the public to judge between my adverfaries and me, without making any reply, I muft adhere inviolably to this refolution, otherwife my filence on any future occafion would be conftrued an inability to anfwer, and would be matter of triumph againft

me.

"It may, perhaps, amuse you to learn the first hint, which fuggefted to me that argument, which you have fo ftrenuously attacked. I was walking in the clo'fters of the Jefuits' College of La Fleche, a town in which I paffed two years of my youth, and engaged in a converfation with a Jefuit of fome parts and learning, who was relating to me, and urging fome nonfenfical miracle performed lately in their convent, when I was tempted to difpute against him; and as my head was full of the topics of my Treatife of Human Nature, which I was at that time com. pofing, this argument immediately occurred to me, and I thought it very much gravelled my companion; but at last he obferved to me, that it was impoffible for that argument to have any folidity, because it operated equally against the Gofpel as the Catholic miracles;-which obfervation I thought proper to admit as a fufficient anfwer. I believe you will allow, that the freedom at leaft of this reafoning makes it fomewhat extraordinary to have been the produce of a convent of Jefuits; though perhaps you may think the fophiftry of it favours plainly of the place of its birth.

"I beg my compliments to Mrs. Campbell, and am with great regard, Sir, &c." P. 149.

Mr. Ritchie concludes his biographical memoir with an analysis of Mr. Hume's literary character, which he contemplates under four diftinct afpects. 1. He confiders him as a metaphyfician: 2. As a moralift: 3. As a writer on general polity: and, 4. As a hiftorian. There is nothing either very profound or very original in what he has advanced under thefe heads; and we do not confider it as incumbent on us to attempt to fupply the deficiencies in this critical analyfis. The metaphyfical fophiftries of Hume have now been re

peatedly

The

peatedly expofed, by various able writers; and his merits and defects as a politician and hiftorian appreciate, with all the accuracy of candid criticifm. His metaphyfics appear to us more characterized by bold and undaunted affumption than by ingenious or abftrufe reasoning, although of these laft qualities they doubtlefs have a confiderable fhare. fource of fallacy will generally be found in the premiles, which are affumed as felf-evident, although often the most re pugnant to every principle of reafon and common fense; but which, if admitted, neceffarily lead to the moft fceptical and paradoxical conclufions. By affuming that every object of human thought or feeling may be refolved into what he calls impreffions and ideas, he proves that it is very doubtful whether there is any fuch thing as mind or matter in the universe. By affuming that we know nothing of the connection between caufe and effect, he proves that we have no rational foundation for the belief in a God; and by affuming that our belief in teftimony depends upon our perfonal experience, he proves that no man can admit the truth of the Chriftian religion, but by the operation of a perpetual miracle. Should we, however, in all thefe inftances de y his premises, which on examination are found to be completely fallacious, his conclufions of courfe muft fall to the ground.

It is as an hiftorian and political writer that Hume will probably be best known to pofterity; and it is in thefe capacities that he can be read with the greatest pleasure and advantage by the friends of found morals and fincere religion. Yet even as an hiftorian Hume has many faults; he does not fcruple to difguife facts from party motives, and he never lofes an opportunity of throwing out his cool fceptical sneer at what he calls fanaticifm, and fuperftition; by which we are to understand a reverence for the doctrines of Cariftianity. In the eyes of Mr. Ritchie, however, he feems to be held altogether faultlefs in his hiftorical capacity, and is confi dered as having driven from the field every adversary who ventured to oppose the conclufions which he was led by his researches to maintain.

But this is not the only particular in which we widely differ from Mr. Ritchie, in his eftimate of the character and acquirements of Hume. Though the biographer is far from defending all the metaphyfical fophifms of his hero, he passes over without any reprobation his infidious attacks on the caufe of revelation; and never even blames him for attempting to undermine the belief in a deity, We are far, however, from infinuating that Mr. Ritchie is fo greatly enlight, ened as to be an advocate for this fublime tepet of the modern fchool of philofophy, and limit our charges against him to

rather