Calamities And Quarrels Of Authors Part 53

I will give Hobbes's own justification, after the Restoration of Charles II., when accused by the great mathematician, Dr. Wallis, a republican under Cromwell, of having written his work in defence of Oliver's government. Hobbes does not deny that "he placed the right of government wheresoever should be the strength." Most subtilely he argues, how this very principle "was designed in behalf of the faithful subjects of the king," after they had done their utmost to defend his rights and person. The government of Cromwell being established, these found themselves without the protection of a government of their own, and therefore might lawfully promise obedience to their victor for the saving of their lives and fortunes; and more, they ought even to protect that authority in war by which they were themselves protected in peace. But this plea, which he so ably urged in favour of the royalists, will not, however, justify those who, like Wallis, voluntarily submitted to Cromwell, because they were always the enemies of the king; so that this submission to Oliver is allowed only to the royalists--a most admirable political paradox! The whole of the argument is managed with infinite dexterity, and is thus unexpectedly turned against his accusers themselves. The principle of "self-preservation" is carried on through the entire system of Hobbes.--_Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty, &c., of Mr. Hobbes._

[354] The pa.s.sage in Hobbes to which I allude is in "The Leviathan,"

c. 32. He there says, sarcastically, "It is with the _mysteries of religion_ as with wholesome pills for the sick, which, swallowed whole, have the virtue to cure; but, chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect." Hobbes is often a wit: he was much pleased with this thought, for he had it in his _De Cive_; which, in the English translation, bears the t.i.tle of "Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society," 1651. There he calls "the wholesome pills,"

"bitter." He translated the _De Cive_ himself; a circ.u.mstance which was not known till the recent appearance of Aubrey's papers.

[355] Warburton has most acutely distinguished between the intention of Hobbes and that of some of his successors. The bishop does not consider Hobbes as an enemy to religion, not even to the Christian; and even doubts whether he has attacked it in "The Leviathan." At all events, he has "taken direct contrary measures from those of Bayle, Collins, Tindal, Bolingbroke, and all that school. They maliciously endeavoured to show the Gospel was _unreasonable_; Hobbes, as reasonable as his admirable wit could represent it: they contended for the most unbounded _toleration_, Hobbes for the most rigorous _conformity_." See the "Alliance between Church and State,"

book i. c. v. It is curious to observe the n.o.ble disciple of Hobbes, Lord Bolingbroke, a strenuous advocate for his political and moral opinions, enraged at what he calls his "High Church notions." Trenchard and Gordon, in their _Independent Whig_, No. 44, that libel on the clergy, accuse them of _Atheism_ and _Hobbism_; while some divines as earnestly reject Hobbes as an Atheist! Our temperate sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction which he had raised, must, however, have sometimes smiled both on his advocates and his adversaries!

[356] The odious term of _Atheist_ has been too often applied to many great men of our nation by the hardy malignity of party. Were I to present a catalogue, the very names would refute the charge. Let us examine the religious sentiments of Hobbes. The materials for its investigation are not common, but it will prove a dissertation of facts. I warn some of my readers to escape from the tediousness, if they cannot value the curiosity.

Hobbes has himself thrown out an observation in his "Life of Thucydides" respecting Anaxagoras, that "his opinions, being of a strain above the apprehension of the vulgar, procured him the estimation of an _Atheist_, which name they bestowed upon all men that thought not as they did of their ridiculous religion, and in the end cost him his life." This was a parallel case with Hobbes himself, except its close, which, however, seems always to have been in the mind of our philosopher.

Bayle, who is for throwing all things into doubt, acknowledging that the life of Hobbes was blameless, adds, One might, however, have been tempted to ask him this question:

Heus age responde; minimum est quod scire laboro; _De Jove quid sentis?_--PERSIUS, Sat. ii. v. 17.

Hark, now! resolve this one short question, friend!

_What are thy thoughts of Jove?_

But Bayle, who compared himself to the Jupiter of Homer, powerful in gathering and then dispersing the clouds, dissipates the one he had just raised, by showing how "Hobbes might have answered the question with sincerity and belief, _according to the writers of his life_."--But had Bayle known that Hobbes was the author of all the lives of himself, so partial an evidence might have raised another doubt with the great sceptic. It appears, by Aubrey's papers, that Hobbes did not wish his biography should appear when he was living, that he might not seem the author of it.

Baxter, who knew Hobbes intimately, ranks him with Spinosa, by a strong epithet for materialists--"The _Brutists_, Hobbes, and Spinosa." He tells us that Selden would not have him in his chamber while dying, calling out, "No Atheists!" But by Aubrey's papers it appears that Hobbes stood by the side of his dying friend. It is certain his enemies raised stories against him, and told them as suited their purpose. In the Lansdowne MSS. I find Dr. Grenville, in a letter, relates how "Hobbes, when in France, and like to die, betrayed such expressions of repentance to a great prelate, from whose mouth I had this relation, that he admitted him to the sacrament.

But Hobbes afterwards made this a subject of ridicule in companies."--_Lansdowne MSS._ 990--73.

Here is a strong accusation, and a fact too; yet, when fully developed, the result will turn out greatly in favour of Hobbes.

Hobbes had a severe illness at Paris, which lasted six months, thus noticed in his metrical life:

Dein per s.e.x menses morbo dec.u.mbo propinque Accinctus morti; nec fugio, illa fugit.

It happened that the famous Guy Patin was his physician; and in one of these amusing letters, where he puts down the events of the day, like a newspaper of the times, in No. 61, has given an account of his intercourse with the philosopher, in which he says that Hobbes endured such pain, that he would have destroyed himself--"_Qu'il avoit voulu se tuer._"--Patin is a vivacious writer: we are not to take him _au pied de la lettre_. Hobbes was systematically tenacious of life: and, so far from attempting suicide, that he wanted even the courage to allow Patin to bleed him! It was during this illness that the Catholic party, who like to attack a Protestant in a state of unresisting debility, got his learned and intimate friend, Father Mersenne, to hold out all the benefits a philosopher might derive from their Church. When Hobbes was acquainted with this proposed interview (says a French contemporary, whose work exists in MS., but is quoted in Joly's folio volume of Remarks on Bayle), the sick man answered, "Don't let him come for this; I shall laugh at him; and perhaps I may convert him myself." Father Mersenne did come; and when this missionary was opening on the powers of Rome to grant a plenary pardon, he was interrupted by Hobbes--"Father, I have examined, a long time ago, all these points; I should be sorry to dispute now; you can entertain me in a more agreeable manner. When did you see Mr. Ga.s.sendi?" The monk, who was a philosopher, perfectly understood Hobbes, and this interview never interrupted their friendship. A few days after, Dr.

Cosin (afterwards Bishop of Durham), the great prelate whom Dr. Grenville alludes to, prayed with Hobbes, who first _stipulated_ that the prayers should be those authorised by the _Church of England_; and he also received the sacrament with reverence. Hobbes says:--"Magnum hoc erga disciplinam Episcopalem signum erat reverentiae."--It is evident that the conversion of Father Mersenne, to which Hobbes facetiously alluded, could never be to Atheism, but to Protestantism: and had Hobbes been an Atheist, he would not have risked his safety, when he arrived in England, by his strict attendance to the _Church of England_, resolutely refusing to unite with any of the sects. His views of the national religion were not only enlightened, but in this respect he showed a boldness in his actions very unusual with him.

But the religion of Hobbes was "of a strain beyond the apprehension of the vulgar," and not very agreeable to some of the Church. A man may have peculiar notions respecting the Deity, and yet be far removed from Atheism; and in his political system the Church may hold that subordinate place which some Bishops will not like. When Dr. Grenville tells us "Hobbes ridiculed in companies" certain matters which the Doctor held sacred, this is not sufficient to accuse a man of Atheism, though it may prove him not to have held orthodox opinions. From the MS. collections of the French contemporary, who well knew Hobbes at Paris, I transcribe a remarkable observation:--"Hobbes said, that he was not surprised that the Independents, who were enemies of monarchy, could not bear it in heaven, and that therefore they placed there three G.o.ds instead of one; but he was astonished that the English bishops, and those Presbyterians who were favourers of monarchy, should persist in the same opinion concerning the Trinity. He added, that the Episcopalians ridiculed the Puritans, and the Puritans the Episcopalians; but that the wise ridiculed both alike."--_Lantiniana MS._ quoted by Joly, p. 434.

The _religion_ of Hobbes was in _conformity_ to _State and Church_. He had, however, the most awful notions of the Divinity. He confesses he is unacquainted with "the nature of G.o.d, but not with the _necessity_ of the existence of the Power of all powers, and First Cause of all causes; so that we know that G.o.d is, though not what he is." See his "Human Nature," chap. xi. But was the G.o.d of Hobbes the inactive deity of Epicurus, who takes no interest in the happiness or misery of his created beings; or, as Madame de Stael has expressed it, with the point and felicity of French ant.i.thesis, was this "an Atheism with a G.o.d?" This consequence some of his adversaries would draw from his principles, which Hobbes indignantly denies. He has done more; for in his _De Corpore Politico_, he declares his belief of all the fundamental points of Christianity, part i. c. 4, p. 116. Ed.

1652. But he was an open enemy to those "who presume, out of Scripture, by their own interpretation, to raise any _doctrine to the understanding_, concerning those things which are incomprehensible;" and he refers to St. Paul, who gives a good rule "_to think soberly, according as G.o.d hath dealt to every man_ the measure of faith."--Rom. xii. 3.

[357] This he pictures in a strange engraving prefixed to his book, and representing a crowned figure, whose description will be found in the note, p. 440. It is remarkable that when Hobbes adopted the principle that the _ecclesiastical_ should be united with the _sovereign_ power, he was then actually producing that portentous change which had terrified Luther and Calvin; who, even in their day, were alarmed by a new kind of political Antichrist; that "Caesarean Popery" which Stubbe so much dreaded, and which I have here noticed, p. 358.

Luther predicted that as the pope had at times seized on the political sword, so this "Caesarean Popery," under the pretence of policy, would grasp the ecclesiastical crosier, to form a _political church_. The curious reader is referred to Wolfius _Lectionum Memorabilium et reconditarum_, vol. ii. cent. x. p.

987. Calvin, in his commentary on Amos, has also a remarkable pa.s.sage on this _political church_, animadverting on Amaziah, the priest, who would have proved the Bethel worship warrantable, because settled by the royal authority: "It is the king's chapel." Amos, vii. 13. Thus Amaziah, adds Calvin, a.s.signs the king a double function, and maintains it is in his power to transform religion into what shape he pleases, while he charges Amos with disturbing the public repose, and encroaching on the royal prerogative. Calvin zealously reprobates the conduct of those inconsiderate persons, "who give the civil magistrate a sovereignty in religion, and dissolve the Church into the State." The supremacy in Church and State, conferred on Henry VIII., was the real cause of these alarms; but the pa.s.sage of domination raged not less fiercely in Calvin than in Henry VIII.; in the enemy of kings than in kings themselves. Were the _forms_ of religion more celestial from the sanguinary hands of that tyrannical reformer than from those of the reforming tyrant? The system of our philosopher was, to lay all the wild spirits which have haunted us in the chimerical shapes of _nonconformity_. I have often thought, after much observation on our Church history since the Reformation, that _the devotional feelings_ have not been so much concerned in this bitter opposition to the National Church as the rage of dominion, the spirit of vanity, the sullen pride of sectarism, and the delusions of madness.

[358] Hobbes himself tells us that "some bishops are content to hold their authority from _the king's letters patents_; others will needs have somewhat more they know not what of _divine rights_, &c., _not acknowledging the power of the king_. It is a relic still remaining of the venom of popish ambition, lurking in that _seditious distinction and division_ between the power _spiritual_ and _civil_. The safety of the State does not depend on the safety of the clergy, but on the _entireness of the sovereign power_."--_Considerations upon the Reputation, &c., of Mr. Hobbes_, p. 44.

[359] This royal observation is recorded in the "Sorberiana." Sorbiere gleaned the anecdote during his residence in England. By the "Aubrey Papers," which have been published since I composed this article, I find that Charles II. was greatly delighted by the wit and repartees of Hobbes, who was at once bold and happy in making his stand amidst the court wits. The king, whenever he saw Hobbes, who had the privilege of being admitted into the royal presence, would exclaim, "Here comes the bear to be baited." This did not allude to his native roughness, but the force of his resistance when attacked.

[360] See "Mr. Hobbes's State of Nature considered, in a Dialogue between Philautus and Timothy." The second dialogue is not contained in the eleventh edition of Eachard's Works, 1705, which, however, was long after his death, so careless were the publishers of those days of their authors' works. The literary bookseller, Tom Davies, who ruined himself by giving good editions of our old authors, has preserved it in his own.

[361] "A Discourse Concerning Irony," 1729, p. 13.

[362] Men of very opposite principles, but aiming at the same purpose, are reduced to a dilemma, by the spirit of party in controversy. Sir Robert Filmer, who wrote against "The Anarchy of a Limited Monarchy," and "Patriarcha," to re-establish _absolute power_, derived it from the scriptural accounts of the patriarchal state. But Sir Robert and Hobbes, though alike the advocates for supremacy of power, were as opposite as possible on theological points. Filmer had the same work to perform, but he did not like the instruments of his fellow-labourer. His manner of proceeding with Hobbes shows his dilemma: he refutes the doctrine of the "Leviathan,"

while he confesses that Hobbes is right in the main. The philosopher's reasonings stand on quite another foundation than the scriptural authorities deduced by Filmer. The result therefore is, that Sir Robert had the trouble to confute the very thing he afterwards had to establish!

[363] It may be curious to some of my readers to preserve that part of Hobbes's Letter to Anthony Wood, in the rare tract of his "Latin Life," in which, with great calmness, the philosopher has painfully collated the odious interpolations. All that was written in favour of the morals of Hobbes--of the esteem in which foreigners held him--of the royal patronage, &c., were maliciously erased. Hobbes thus notices the amendments of Bishop Fell:--

"Nimirum ubi mihi tu ingenium attribuis _Sobrium_, ille, deleto _Sobrio_, subst.i.tuit _Acri_.

"Ubi tu scripseras _Libellum scripsit de Cive_, interposuit ille inter _Libellum_ et _de Cive, rebus permiscendis natum_, de _Cive_, quod ita manifeste falsum est, &c.

"Quod, ubi tu de libro meo _Leviathan_ scripsisti, prim, quod esset, _Vicinis gentibus notissimus_ interposuit ille, _publico d.a.m.no_. Ubi tu scripseras, _scripsit librum_, interposuit ille _monstrosissimum_."

A n.o.ble confidence in his own genius and celebrity breaks out in this Epistle to Wood. "In leaving out all that you have said of my character and reputation, the dean has injured you, but cannot injure me; for long since has my fame winged its way to a station from which it can never descend." One is surprised to find such a Miltonic spirit in the contracted soul of Hobbes, who in his own system might have cynically ridiculed the pa.s.sion for fame, which, however, no man felt more than himself. In his controversy with Bishop Bramhall (whose book he was cautious not to answer till ten years after it was published, and his adversary was no more, pretending he had never heard of it till then!) he breaks out with the same feeling:--"What my works are, he was no fit judge; but now he has provoked me, I will say thus much of them, that neither he, if he had lived, could--nor I, if I would, can--extinguish the light which is set up in the world by the greatest part of them."

It is curious to observe that an idea occurred to Hobbes, which some authors have attempted lately to put into practice against their critics--to prosecute them in a court of law; but the knowledge of mankind was one of the liveliest faculties of Hobbes's mind; he knew well to what account common minds place the injured feelings of authorship; yet were _a jury of literary men_ to sit in judgment, we might have a good deal of business in the court for a long time; the critics and the authors would finally have a very useful body of reports and pleadings to appeal to; and the public would be highly entertained and greatly instructed. On this attack of Bishop Fell, Hobbes says--"I might perhaps have an action on the case against him, if it were worth my while; but juries seldom consider the Quarrels of Authors as of much moment."

[364] Bayle has conjured up an amusing theory of apparitions, to show that Hobbes might fear that a certain combination of atoms agitating his brain might so disorder his mind that it would expose him to spectral visions; and being very timorous, and distrusting his imagination, he was averse to be left alone.

Apparitions happen frequently in dreams, and they may happen, even to an incredulous man, when awake, for reading and hearing of them would revive their images--these images, adds Bayle, might play him some unlucky trick! We are here astonished at the ingenuity of a disciple of Pyrrho, who in his inquiries, after having exhausted all human evidence, seems to have demonstrated what he hesitates to believe!

Perhaps the truth was, that the sceptical Bayle had not entirely freed himself from the traditions which were then still floating from the fireside to the philosopher's closet: he points his pen, as aeneas brandished his sword at the Gorgons and Chimeras that darkened the entrance of h.e.l.l; wanting the admonitions of the sibyl, he would have rushed in--

_Et frustra ferro diverberet umbras._

[365] The papers of Aubrey confirm my suggestion. I shall give the words--"There was a report, and surely true, that in parliament, not long after the king was settled, some of the bishops made a motion to have the good old gentleman burned for a heretique; which he hearing, feared that his papers might be searched by their order, and he told me he had burned part of them."--p. 612. When Aubrey requested Waller to write verses on Hobbes, the poet said that he was afraid of the Churchmen. Aubrey tells us--"I have often heard him say that he was not afraid of _Sprights_, but afraid of being knocked on the head for five or ten pounds which rogues might think he had in his chamber." This reason given by Hobbes for his frequent alarms was an evasive reply for too curious and talkative an inquirer. Hobbes has not concealed the cause of his terror in his metrical life--

"Tunc venit in mentem mihi Dorislaus et Ascham, Tanquam proscripto terror ubique aderat."

Dr. Dorislaus and Ascham had fallen under the daggers of proscription. [The former was a.s.sa.s.sinated in Holland, whither he had fled for safety.]

[366] It is said that Hobbes completely recanted all his opinions; and proceeded so far as to declare that the opinions he had published in his "Leviathan," were not his real sentiments, and that he neither maintained them in public nor in private.

Wood gives this t.i.tle to a work of his--"An Apology for Himself and his Writings," but without date. Some have suspected that this Apology, if it ever existed, was not his own composition. Yet why not? Hobbes, no doubt, thought that "The Leviathan" would outlast any recantation; and, after all, that a recantation is by no means a refutation!--recantations usually prove the force of authority, rather than the force of conviction. I am much pleased with a Dr. Pocklington, who hit the etymology of the word _recantation_ with the spirit.

Accused and censured, for a penance he was to make a recantation, which he began thus:--"If _canto_ be to sing, _recanto_ is to sing again:" so that he _re-chanted_ his offensive principles by his _recantation_!

I suspect that the apology Wood alludes to was only a republication of Hobbes's Address to the King, prefixed to the "Seven Philosophical Problems," 1662, where he openly disavows his opinions, and makes an apology for the "Leviathan." It is curious enough to observe how he acts in this dilemma. It was necessary to give up his opinions to the clergy, but still to prove they were of an innocent nature. He therefore acknowledges that "his theological notions are not his opinions, but propounded with submission to the power ecclesiastical, never afterwards having maintained them in writing or discourse." Yet, to show the king that the regal power incurred no great risk in them, he laid down one principle, which could not have been unpleasing to Charles II.

He a.s.serts, truly, that he never wrote against episcopacy; "yet he is called an Atheist, or man of no religion, because he has made the authority of the Church depend wholly upon the regal power, which, I hope, your majesty will think is neither Atheism nor Heresy." Hobbes considered the _religion_ of his country as a subject of _law_, and not _philosophy_. He was not for _separating_ the Church from the State; but, on the contrary, for _joining them_ more closely. The bishops ought not to have been his enemies; and many were not.

[367] In the MS. collection of the French contemporary, who personally knew him, we find a remarkable confession of Hobbes. He said of himself that "he sometimes made openings to let in light, but that he could not discover his thoughts but by half-views: like those who throw open the window for a short time, but soon closing it, from the dread of the storm." _"Il disoit qu'il faisoit quelquefois des ouvertures, mais qu'il ne pouvoit decouvrir ses pensees qu'a-demi; qu'il imitoit ceux qui ouvrent la fenetre pendant quelques momens, mais qui la referment promptement de peur de l'orage."_--Lantiniana MSS., quoted by Joly in his volume of "Remarques sur Bayle."

[368] Could one imagine that the very head and foot of the stupendous "Leviathan" bear the marks of the little artifices practised for self by its author? This grave work is dedicated to Francis G.o.dolphin, a person whom its author had never seen, merely to remind him of a certain legacy which that person's brother had left to our philosopher. If read with this fact before us, we may detect the concealed claim to the legacy, which it seems was necessary to conceal from the Parliament, as Francis G.o.dolphin resided in England. It must be confessed this was a miserable motive for dedicating a system of philosophy which was addressed to all mankind. It discovers little dignity. This secret history we owe to Lord Clarendon, in his "Survey of the Leviathan," who adds another. The postscript to the "Leviathan," which is only in the English edition, was designed as an easy summary of the principles: and his lordship adds, as a sly address to Cromwell, that he might be induced to be master of them at once, and "as a p.a.w.n of his new subject's allegiance." It is possible that Hobbes might have antic.i.p.ated the sovereign power which the _general_ was on the point of a.s.suming in the _protectorship_. It was natural enough, that Hobbes should deny this suggestion.

[369] The story his antagonist (Dr. Wallis) relates is perfectly in character. Hobbes, to show the Countess of Devonshire his attachment to life, declared that "were he master of all the world to dispose of, he would give it to live one day." "But you have so many friends to oblige, had you the world to dispose of!" "Shall I be the better for that when I am dead?"

"No," repeated the sublime cynic, "I would give the whole world to live one day." He a.s.serted that "it was lawful to make use of ill instruments to do ourselves good," and ill.u.s.trated it thus:--"Were I cast into a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, I would take hold of it to be drawn out by it." It must be allowed this is a philosophy which has a chance of being long popular; but it is not that of another order of human beings! Hobbes would not, like Curtius, have leaped into a "deep pit" for his country; or, to drop the fable, have died for it in the field or on the scaffold, like the Falklands, the Sidneys, the Montroses--all the heroic brotherhood of genius! One of his last expressions, when informed of the approaches of death, was--"I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at." Everything was seen in a little way by this great man, who, having reasoned himself into an abject being, "licked the dust"

through life.

[370] In our country, Mandeville, Swift, and Chesterfield have trod in the track of Hobbes; and in France, Helvetius, Rochefoucault in his "Maxims," and L'Esprit more openly in his "Fausette des Vertus Humaines." They only degrade us--they are polished cynics! But what are we to think of the tremendous cynicism of Machiavel? That great genius eyed human nature with the ferocity of an enraged savage. Machiavel is a vindictive a.s.sa.s.sin, who delights even to turn his dagger within the mortal wound he has struck; but our Hobbes, said his friend Sorbiere, "is a gentle and skilful surgeon, who, with regret, cuts into the living flesh, to get rid of the corrupted." It is equally to be regretted that the same system of degrading man has been adopted by some, under the mask of religion.

Yet Hobbes, perhaps, never suspected the arms he was placing in the hands of wretched men, when he furnished them with such fundamental positions as, that "Man is naturally an evil being; that he does not love his equal; and only seeks the aid of society for his own particular purposes." He would at least have disowned some of his diabolical disciples. One of them, so late as in 1774, vented his furious philosophy in "An Essay on the Depravity and Corruption of Human Nature, wherein the Opinions of Hobbes, Mandeville, Helvetius, &c. are supported against Shaftesbury, Hume, Sterne, &c. by Thomas...o...b..ien M'Mahon." This gentleman, once informed that he was _born wicked_, appears to have considered that wickedness was his paternal estate, to be turned to as profitable an account as he could. The t.i.tles of his chapters, serving as a string of the most extraordinary propositions, have been preserved in the "Monthly Review," vol. lii. 77. The demonstrations in the work itself must be still more curious. In these axioms we find that "Man has an _enmity_ to all beings; that had he _power_, the first victims of his revenge would be his wife, children, &c.--a sovereign, if he could reign with the _unbounded authority_ every man _longs for_, free from apprehension of punishment for misrule, would slaughter all his subjects; perhaps he would not leave one of them alive at the end of his reign." It was perfectly in character with this wretched being, after having quarrelled with human nature, that he should be still more inveterate against a small part of her family, with whom he was suffered to live on too intimate terms; for he afterwards published another extraordinary piece--"The Conduct and Good-Nature of Englishmen Exemplified in their charitable way of Characterising the Customs, Manners, &c.

of Neighbouring Nations; their Equitable and Humane Mode of Governing States, &c.; their Elevated and Courteous Deportment, &c. of which their own Authors are everywhere produced as Vouchers," 1777. One is tempted to think that this...o...b..ien M'Mahon, after all, is only a wag, and has copied the horrid pictures of his masters, as Hogarth did the School of Rembrandt by his "Paul before Felix, designed and _scratched_ in the true Dutch taste." These works seem, however, to have their use. To have carried the conclusions of the Anti-social Philosophy to as great lengths as this writer has, is to display their absurdity. But, as every rational Englishman will appeal to his own heart, in declaring the one work to be nothing but a libel on the nation; so every man, not dest.i.tute of virtuous emotions, will feel the other to be a libel on human nature itself.

[371] "Human Nature," c. ix.