Posted on 01/13/2007 8:03:44 AM PST by AlbionGirl
To Benjamin Vaughan
October 24, 1788.------ Having now finished my term in the Presidentship, and resolving to engage no more in public affairs, I hope to be a better correspondent for the little time I have to live. I am recovering from a long continued gout, and am diligently employed in writing the History of my Life, to the doing of which the persuasions contained in your letter of January 31, 1783, have not a little contributed. I am now in the year 1756 just before I was sent to England. To shorten the work, as well as for other reasons, I omit all facts and transactions that may not have a tendency to benefit the young reader, by showing him from my example, and my success in emerging from poverty, and acquiring some degree of wealth, power, and reputation, the advantages of certain modes of conduct which I observed, and of avoiding the errors which were prejudicial to me. If a writer can judge properly of his own work, I fancy on reading over what is already done, that the book may be found entertaining, interesting, and useful, more so than I expected when I began it. If my present state of health continues, I hope to finish it this winter: when done you shall have a manuscript copy of it, that I may obtain from your judgment and friendship, such remarks as may contribute to its improvement.
(Excerpt) Read more at franklinpapers.org ...
A bit of background on Dr. Priestly, is right here for those who are interested.
This is such a great piece of history to me! My "red blood does run true blue."
I will post the agnostic, Volney's reply to Dr. Priestly's criticism of his Ruins of Empire in full.
Dr. Priestly, I believe denied the Lord's Divinity, and the agnostic Volney or perhaps the atheist Volney conducts himself like a Christian in his reply to Priestly's criticism of his book. And so the old adage goes, better an atheist who acts like a Christian than a Christian who acts like an atheist.
The Ruins of Empire
By C. F. Volney
VOLNEY'S ANSWER TO DR. PRIESTLY1 SIR. -- I received in due time your pamphlet on the increase of infidelity, together with the note without date which accompanied it.
2 My answer has been delayed by the incidents of business, and even by ill health, which you will surely excuse: this delay has, besides, no inconvenience in it. The question between us is not of a very urgent nature: the world would not go on less well with or without my answer as with or without your book. I might, indeed, have dispensed with returning you any answer at all; and I should have been warranted in so doing, by the manner in which you have stated the debate, and by the opinion pretty generally received that, on certain occasions, and with certain persons, the most noble reply is silence. You seem to have been aware of this yourself, considering the extreme precautions you have taken to deprive me of this resource; but as according to our French customs, any answer is an act of civility, I am not willing to concede the advantage of politeness -- besides, although silence is sometimes very significant, its eloquence is not understood by every one, and the public which has not leisure to analyze disputes (often of little interest) has a reaonable right to require at least some preliminary explanations; reserving to itself, should the discussion degenerate into the recriminative clamors of an irritated self-love, to allow the right of silence to him in whom it becomes the virtue of moderation.
I have read, therefore, your animadversions on my Ruins, which you are pleased to class among the writings of modern {212} unbelievers, and since you absolutely insist on my expressing my opinion before the public, I shall now fulfill this rather disagreeable task with all possible brevity, for the sake of economizing the time of our readers. In the first place, sir, it appears evidently, from your pamphlet, that your design is less to attack my book than my personal and moral character; and in order that the public may pronounce with accuracy on this point, I submit several passages fitted to throw light on the subject.
You say, in the preface of your discourses, p. 12, "There are, however, unbelievers more ignorant than Mr. Paine, Mr. Volney, Lequino, and others in France say," &c.
Also in the preface of your present observations, p. 20. "I can truly say that in the writings of Hume, Mr. Gibbon, Voltaire, Mr. Volney -- there is nothing of solid argument: all abound in gross mistakes and misrepresentations." Idem, p. 38 -- "Whereas had he (Mr. Volney) given attention to the history of the times in which Christianiy was promulgated. ... he could have no more doubt ... &c., it is as much in vain to argue with such a person as this, as with a Chinese or even a Hottentot."
Idem, p. 119 -- "Mr. Volney, if we may judge from his numerous quotations of ancient writers in all the learned languages, oriental as well as occidental, must be acquainted with all; for he makes no mention of any translation, and yet if we judge from this specimen of his knowledge of them, he cannot have the smallest tincture of that of the Hebrew or even of the Greek."
And, at last, after having published and posted me in your very title page, as an unbeliever and an infidel; after having pointed me out in your motto as one of those superficial spirits who know not how to find out, and are unwilling to encounter, truth; you add, p. 124, immediately after an article in which you speak of me under all these denominations--
"The progress of infidelity, in the present age, is attended with a circumstance which did not so frequently accompany it in any former period, at least, in England, which is, that unbelievers in revelation generally proceed to the disbelief of the being and providence of God so as to become properly Atheists." So that, according to you, I am a Chinese, a Hotten- {213} tot, an unbeliever, an Atheist, an ignoramus, a man of no sincerity; whose writings are full of nothing but gross mistakes and misrepresentations. Now I ask you, sir, What has all this to do with the main question? What has my book in common with my person? And how can you hold any converse with a man of such bad connexions? In the second place, your invitation, or rather, your summons to me, to point out the mistakes which I think you have made with respect to my opinions, suggest to me several observations.
The rest, which is really worth reading, can be found here.
If by one of these caprices, I am induced to think it may be useful, sometimes, to publish my reflections, I do it without obstinacy or pretension to that implicit faith, the ridicule of which you desire to impart to me, p. 123. My whole book of the Ruins which you treat so ungratefully, since you thought it amusing, p. I22, evidently bears this character. By means of the contrasted opinions I have scattered through it, it breathes that spirit of doubt and uncertainty which appears to me the best suited to the weakness of the human mind, and the most adapted to its improvement, inasmuch as it always leaves a door open to new truths; while the spirit of dogmatism and immovable belief, limiting our progress to a first received opinion, binds us at hazard, and without resource, to the yoke {218} of error or falsehood, and occasions the most serious mischiefs to society; since by combining with the passions, it engenders fanaticism, which, sometimes misled and sometimes misleading, though always intolerant and despotic, attacks whatever is not of its own nature; drawing upon itself persecution when it is weak, and practising persecution when it is powerful; establishing a religion of terror, which annihilates the faculties, and vitiates the conscience: so that, whether under a political or a religious aspect, the spirit of doubt is friendly to all ideas of liberty, truth, or genius, while a spirit of confidence is connected with the ideas of tyranny, servility, and ignorance.
My goodness, what a repository of great minds and souls is this blessed Country of ours. Free: free to think, what a gift of immeasureable value.
This is the correct address for a summary of Priestly.
To Benjamin Vaughan (unpublished)
October 24, 1788—Having now finished my term in the Presidentship, and resolving to engage no more in public affairs, I hope to be a better correspondent for the little time I have to live. I am recovering from a long continued gout, and am dilligently employed in writing the History of my Life, to the doing of which the persuasions contained in your letter of January 31, 1783, have not a little contributed. I am now in the year 1756 just before I was sent to England. To shorten the work, as well as for other reasons, I omit all facts and transactions that may not have a tendency to benefit the young reader, by showing him from my example, and my success in emerging from poverty, and acquiring some degree of wealth, power, and reputation, the advantages of certain modes of conduct which I observed, and of avoiding the errors which were prejudicial to me. If a writer can judge properly of his own work, I fancy on reading over what is already done, that the book may be found entertaining, interesting, and useful, more so than I expected when I began it. If my present state of health continues, I hope to finish it this winter: when done you shall have a manuscript copy of it, that I may obtain from your judgment and friendship, such remarks as may contribute to its improvement.
The violence of our party debates about the new constitution seems much abated, indeed almost extinct, and we are getting fast into good order. I kept out of those disputes pretty well, having wrote only one little piece, which I send you inclosed.
I regret the immense quantity of misery brought upon mankind by this Turkish war; and I am afraid the King of Sweeden may burn his fingers by attacking Russia. When will princes learn arithmetick enough to calculate if they want pieces of one another’s territory, how much cheaper it would be to buy them, than to make war for them even though they were to give an hundred years purchase? But if glory cannot be valued, and therefore the wars for it cannot be subject to arithmetical calculation so as to show their advantage or disadvantage, at least wars for trade, which have gain for their object may be proper subjects for such compensation; and a trading nation as well as a single trader ought to calculate the probabilities of profit and loss, before engaging in any considerable adventure. This however nations seldom do, and we have had frequent instances of their spending more money in wars for acquiring or securing branches of commerce, that an hundred years’ profit or the full empjoyment of them can compensate.
Remember me affectionately to good Dr. Price and to the honest heretic Dr. Priestly. I do not call him honest by way of distinction; for I think all the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They have the virtue of fortitude or they would not venture to own their heresy; and they cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or justify them. Do not, however mistake me. It is not to my good friend’s heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, ’tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic. I am ever, my dear friend, yours sincerely,
B. Franklin
You are aware that although holding membership in a Presbyterian Church, that Franklin's personal theology was actually more akin to Deism than Christianity aren't you?
There are a few people that I feel the same about, one is John Lennon. He was an ego-hog to the enth (sp?) degree, else he wouldn't have compared the Beatles popularity and societal impact -the valor of which he viewed as a mirror in which he could admire himself- to Christ. It was a ludicrous statement: nobody then or now expects the bifurcation of time to be based on the birth of the Beatles. Anno Beatles!?, get real John.
But, he also penned "I'm a loser, and I'm not what I appear to be." He wasn't 'utterly' depraved. It is just my hope that like Franklin and all of the Founding Fathers, the Lord called John to Him. I have no idea whether he did or didn't, but my Hope lies in the Lord and His glorious display of Love through His Son.
I have a sense of assurance through Christ, and I hope for that assurance even for people who outwardly display signs of being outside the perimeter of Salvation. If that makes me a sentimental, theological light-weight, a heretic, a misfit, so be it.
P.S. Lennon also had a really good sense of humour. In his last interview, he was asked some question that somehow led to his commenting that at one point during his career he needed to come out of his 'fat Elvis' period. Isn't that funny?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.