We  have  already  displayed  in  the  works  of  Mr. Hume  a
much  more  daring  and  gigantic  effort,  than  that  which  is  ascrib-
ed to  him  by  the  Professor. Not  contented  with  discovering
(if  he  has  done  so)  that  our  language  about  cause  and  effect,
is  merely  analogical,  we  find  him  endeavouring  by  one  great
exertion  to  break  the  chain  that  binds  his  race  and  all  created
nature  to  the  throne  of  the  Almighty. Like  the  Titans  of
old,  he  wages  impious  war  against  the  throne  and  govern-
ment of  God,  and  essays  to  obliterate  from  the  minds  of  men
a  belief  in  his  existence,  and  all  trust  in  his  providence. Let


92  Opinions  of  Professor  Stewart,

us  see,  however,  with  what  cool  indifference  and  philosophick
sang-froid,  a  modern  philosopher  can  allude  to  this  serious
and  atrocious  attempt  of  Mr. Hume. "  This  language,"
says  our  Professor,  "  has  even  been  adopted  by  philosophers,
and  by  atheists  as  well  as  theists. The  latter  have  represent-
ed natural  events  as  parts  of  a  great  chain,  the  highest  link
of  which  is  supported  by  the  Deity;  the  former  have  pretend-
ed that  there  is  no  absurdity  in  supposing  the  number  of
links  to  be  infinite."  This  it  must  be  confessed  is  a  very
polite  and  complacent  allusion  to  the  doctrine  of  a  perpetual
succession  of  causes,  upon  which  all  the  best  philosophers,both
of  ancient  and  modern  times,  have  agreed  in  setting  the  seal
of  their  reprobation,  and  the  absurdity  of  which  Dr. Clarke,
in  his  demonstration  of  the  being  and  attributes  of  God,  has
so  completely  exposed. For  our  part,  we  cannot  but  regret
to  say,  that  professor  Stewart,  popular  a  writer  as  he  has  ren-
dered himself  in  some  circles,  and  favourable  as  has  been  the
reception  with  which  his  works  have  generally  met;  in  our
estimation  as  the  advocate  of  virtue  and  religion,  assumes  a
very  questionable  shape. If  he  be  the  real  friend  of  virtue
and  religion,  and  have  at  heart  the  great  interests  of  truth
and  mankind,  could  he  refer  with  the  same  apparent  appro-
bation and  satisfaction  to  the  works  of  the  enemies  of  truth
and  its  abettors,  of  atheists  and  theists?  How  gently  does
he  touch  the  abominable  doctrines  of  Mr. 