London journal,' in 1728, subscribed 'Philaretus,' gave occasion to the Fourth Treatise (on the Moral Sense); the answer given to them in these weekly papers bore too visible marks of the hurry in which they were wrote, and therefore the author declined to continue the debate that way, choosing to send a private letter to Philaretus to desire a more private correspondence on the subject of our debate.He was soon after informed that his death disappointed the author's great expectations from so ingenious a correspondent." Philaretus turned out to be Gilbert Burnet (second son, I believe, of the bishop), and the correspondence was published in 1735, with a postscript written by Burnet shortly before his death.Burnet examines Hutcheson from the stand-point of Clarke, and fixes on some of the weak points of the new theory.
At this time there was a keen controversy in Ulster as to whether the Presbyterian Church should require an implicit subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and this issued in those who refused to subscribe forming themselves into a separate body called the Antrim Presbytery, the members of which published a " Narrative of the Proceedings of the Seven Synods," which led to their separation.The work of replying to this document was committed to Mr.Hutcheson, of Armagh, whose paper, however, was not published till after his decease, which took place in February, 1729.The old man had anxieties about his son, lest he should be tempted by the flattering attentions paid him in Dublin to conform to the Established {58} Church, and wrote a letter expressing his fears.We have the reply of the son, of date Aug.4, 1726.In this he avows that he did not regard the "government or externals of worship so determined in the gospel as to oblige men to one particular way in either:" that he looks upon the established form as an "inconvenient one;" that he reckons the dissenters' cause "in most disputed points the better;" that he believes the original of both civil and ecclesiastical power is from God;he denounces those religious penal laws which "no magistrate can have a right to make;" but he would not blame any man of his own principles who did conform, if the "ends proposed were such as would over-balance the damage which the more just cause would sustain by his leaving, particularly if he had any prospect of an unjust establishment being altered,"of which, he confesses, he does not see the least probability.He says, that both Lord Cathcart and the Bishop of Elphin had professed their desire to have him brought over " to the Church, to a good living; " that he kept his mind "very much to him self in these matters, and resolved to do ," but that he had no intention whatever to depart from his present position, and that he would feel it his duty continually to promote the cause of dissenters.Irather think that this frank but expediency letter would not altogether satisfy the good old father, who had stood firm on principle in trying times.I have referred to these transactions, because they exhibit the struggles which were passing in many a bosom in those times of transition from one state of things to another.Hutcheson never conformed, as his contemporary Butler did, to the Church.His Presbyterian friends were soon relieved from all anxieties in this direction by his being appointed, after be had been seven or eight years in Dublin, to an office altogether congenial to his tastes, in Glasgow University, where, however, he exercised a religious influence which his father, provided he had been spared to witness it, would have viewed with apprehension and disapproval.
He was chosen to succeed Carmichael, Dec.19, 1729, by a majority of the Faculty, over Mr.Warner, favored at first by the principal, and over Mr.Frederick Carmichael, son of Gershom, supported by five of the professors.His appointment could be justified on the ground of merit; but he owed it mainly {59} to family connections, who gained Lord Isla, the great government patron of the day, before whom the principal had to give way. In October, 1730, twenty English students have come to the college, expecting Mr.Hutcheson -- whose " Inquiry " and work on the "Passions " were already well known -- to " teach morality Professor Loudon, however, insisted that he had a right to take the chair of Moral Philosophy, whereupon the English students gave in a paper declaring that, if Mr.Hutcheson, who had not yet come over from Ireland, did not teach them morality, they would set off to Edinburgh, and Mr.Loudon had to yield.On November 30, he was publicly admitted, and delivered, in a low tone and hurried manner, as if awed and bashful, an inaugural discourse, "De Naturali Hominum Socialitate," in which he expounds, in a clear and pleasant manner, and in good Latin, his favorite doctrine as to man having in his nature disinterested affections.He maintains, in opposition to the "very celebrated" Locke, that man has something natural, but admits that it requires time and circumstances to bring it forth; and in opposition to Hobbes and Puffendorff, that man can be swayed by other motives than self-love.He represents the conscience as the to which all our nature ought to be subjected, and to which it had been subjected in our entire state; but admits that our nature is fallen, weakened, and corrupted, in many ways.Hutcheson lectured five days a week on his proper course, which embraced Natural Religion, Morals, jurisprudence, and Government; and at another hour he read three days of the week, with his students, some of the finest writers of antiquity, Greek and Latin, on the subject of morals; interpreting both the language and sentiment.
