EARLY COMMENTARIES ON HUME'S WRITINGS "Postscript on Mr. Hume's Natural History of Religion" from Caleb Fleming 1757 5/5/95 Copyright 1995, James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu). See end note for details on copyright and editing conventions. This is a working draft; please report errors.[1] Editor's note: Caleb Fleming (1689-1779) was a dissenting Protestant clergyman whose views were antitrinitarian and deistic. He was a prolific pamphleteer with over a hundred religious and political titles to his credit, most written anonymously. Fleming's was published anonymously in 1757. The complete title of the pamphlet, which summarizes its contents, is (London: A. Henderson, 1757). In the Postcript, Fleming criticizes Hume's contention that religion is founded on principles of the imagination, as opposed to rational proofs of a single creator. He also criticizes hume for identifying the history of superstition with that of true religion. He concludes on a positive note, though, that, "Notwithstanding these sophisms, Mr. has finely exposed superstition... and so far as he is a theist, he cannot be an enemy to genuine christianity." The comments generally about the pamphlet that "We have here some just sentiments on religion in general, and on the Christian religion in particular, delivered with the utmost freedom" (1757, Vol. 16, pp. 470-472). Biographies and bibliographies on Fleming are in Walter Wilson's , (London: 1862), Vol. II 283-290, and the . Only the Postscrtipt to the pamphlet is presented here, and is from the 1757 and only edition of . * * * {50} Mr. David Hume, in , allows its foundation in reason to be most obvious. "For no rational enquirer can, after serious reflexion, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine theism and religion." But then he thinks it more difficult to shew, "its origin in human nature."[2] On these principles he grounds his enquiry. But what can he mean by religion admitting the clearest solution, concerning the foundation it has in reason; yet, not so concerning its origin in human nature? May reason then be separated from human nature in the religion of mankind? Is this possible? How shall it be done, when no rational enquirer can, after serious reflexion, suspend his belief one moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine theism and religion. To secure his distinctions, "Polytheism or idolatry was, and necessarily must have been the first and most ancient religion of mankind. For, the most ancient records of the human race still present us with Polytheism as the popular and established system."[3] Does it not seem more natural to conclude, that from the creation mankind clearly saw the invisible things of {51} God? But that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, became wanton in their imaginations, and so corrupted the primary principles of pure theism. If the history of be authentic, men degenerated from true theism to idolatry; and by their debaucheries brought on the destructive deluge. The primary religion of the new world, peopled by and his family, surely could not be polytheism and idolatry. And certain we are, superstition, polytheism or idolatry could not be the primary profession of christians. Especially since Mr. Hume has said, "nothing indeed would prove more strongly the divine origin of any religion, than to find, (and happily this is the case with christianity) that it is free from a contradiction, so incident to human nature."[4] Whatever was his design, this is the true character of genuine christianity, untouched by the over-officious fingers of men. And to which, this elegant writer seems much indebted for that charming description of theism, "a system which supposes one sole deity, the perfection of reason and goodness, which if justly prosecuted, will banish every thing frivolous, unreasonable, or inhuman from religious worship, and set {52} before men the most illustrious example, as well as the most commanding motives of justice and benevolence."[5] It must be allowed a fine copy of the Gospel original; and could be taken from no other system. This lively writer makes some very uncommon observations. "Men have a natural tendency to rise from idolatry to theism, and to sink again from theism into idolatry." And he concludes, "that religion and idolatry have one and the same origin." See his 8th section. But in his 10th, "the corruption of the best things give rise to the worst."[6] Of this we have some conception. Not so of theism and polytheism having one origin. Nor of the natural tendency in men to rise from idolatry to theism. And we should be inclined to ask some proof, how it comes to pass, that in this natural tendency to both extremes, we see not the mechanical vibrations of the pendulum equal, or nearly equal? How can we read over Mr. HUME's , and give him credit, if this observation has any truth in it? Why such an universal polytheism, if there be this natural tendency in man to rise from idolatry to theism?[7] There is another discovery made by this {53} Philosopher, and that is, "the origin of idolatry or polytheism, is, the active imagination of men, incessantly imployed, in cloathing the conception they have of objects, in shapes more suitable to its natural comprehension."[8] Which if conclusive, then religion and idolatry, theism and polytheism are equally natural to man; and have alike a very fanciful origination. But in truth, his idea of the religion of mankind, does not intend more, than the superstition which has arisen from depravity. For, sais he, "one may safely affirm, that all popular theology, especially the scholastic, has a kind of appetite for absurdity and contradiction. If that theology went not beyond reason and common sense, her doctrines would appear too easy and familiar. Amazement must of necessity be raised: mystery affected: darkness and obscurity sought after: and a foundation of merit afforded the devout votaries, who desire an opportunity of subduing their rebellious reason, by the belief of the most unintelligible sophism."[9] Is not this , a fair specimen of what he means by the religion of mankind? But could this be the first and most ancient religion of mankind? Does he not explicitely own it could not?[10] "In short, all virtue, when men are reconciled to it by ever so {54} little practice, is agreeable: all superstition is for ever odious and burthensome."[11] And again, "after the commission of crimes, there arise remorses and secret horrors, which give no rest to the mind, but make it have recourse to religious rites and ceremonies, as expiations of its offences. Whatever weakens or disorders the internal frame, promotes the interests of superstition: and nothing is more destructive to them than a manly, steady virtue, which either preserves us from disastrous, melancholy accidents, or teaches us to bear them. During such calm sun-shine of the mind, these spectres of false divinity never make their appearance. On the other hand, while we to the undisciplined suggestions of our timid and anxious hearts, every kind of barbarity is ascribed to the supreme Being, from the terror with which we are agitated; and every kind of caprice, from the methods which we embrace, in order to appease him."[12] I would not mistake this writer, and therefore produce another of his descriptions of the popular religions; in which he is very express in shewing, that these superstitions have not their origin in human nature. "And that it may safely be affirmed, many popular religions are really, in the conception of {55} these more vulgar votaries, a spirit of Daemonism; and the higher the deity is exalted in power and knowledge, the lower of course is he frequently depress'd in goodness and benevolence; whatever epithets of praise may be bestowed on him by his amazed adorers. Amongst idolaters, the words may be false, and belie the secret opinions: but amongst more exalted religionists, the opinion itself often contracts a kind of falsehood, and belies ; but the judgment dares not but pronounce them perfect and adorable. aggravates all the other terrors, by which these unhappy victims to superstition are for ever bounded."[13] From this citation, I would ask, whether Mr. has not acknowledged, that idolatry and superstition are not natural to man? And that consequently, the principles of genuine theism and religion, must have their origin in human nature. Superstition, the gloomy dread of deity, is no primary principle in the heart of man.[14] The opinion belies the inward sentiment: there is a secret detestation of it in the heart! I presume to make the following conclusions. {56} Mr. 's fundamental principles are manifestly wrong. He has called the superstition of the world, . He has affirmed, a natural tendency in man to rise out of idolatry into religion. He has strangely declared, that religion and superstition, theism and polytheism have one and the same origin; and this no better than the imagination. Whereas, religion and reason in man, are inseparable. Religion could not arise out of superstition, theism out of polytheism. The universal spread of idolatry, by his own history, [just] as universally confronts the proposition: and will not suppose it to have the least foundation in nature. For superstition has its origin in the disordered passions and imaginations of mankind; religion has its origin in a natural sovereignty which the reason of man exercises over these faculties. And from the nature of the thing, idolatry or polytheism could not be the primary profession of mankind; but must have been a corruption of pure theism and religion. Notwithstanding these sophisms, Mr. has finely exposed superstition and popery: professeth himself an advocate of pure theism. And so far as he is a theist, he cannot be an enemy to genuine christianity. [1][COPYRIGHT: (c) 1995, James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu), all rights reserved. Unaltered copies of this computer text file may be freely distribute for personal and classroom use. Alterations to this file are permitted only for purposes of computer printouts, although altered computer text files may not circulate. Except to cover nominal distribution costs, this file cannot be sold without written permission from the copyright holder. This copyright notice supersedes all previous notices on earlier versions of this text file. When quoting from this text, please use the following citation: , ed. James Fieser (Internet Release, 1995). EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS: letters between slashes (e.g., H/UME\) designate small capitalization. Letters within angled brackets (e.g., ) designate italics. Note references are contained within square brackets (e.g., [1]). Original pagination is contained within curly brackets (e.g., {1}). Spelling and punctuation have not been modernized. Printer's errors have been corrected without note. Bracketed comments within the end notes are the editor's. This is a working draft. Please report errors to James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu).] [2]P. 1 [pagination follows Hume's , (London: 1757)]. [3]P. 3. [4]P. 50. [5]P. 59 [6]Also p. 63. . [7]Also p. 63. . [8]P. 55. [9]P. 70. [10]P. 55. [11]P. 106. [12]P. 109. [13]P. 98. [14]Though it is affirmed to be so in the 13th Proposition.