LETTERS ON INFIDELITY.

INTRODUCTORY LETTER.

DEAR SIR,

TO W. S. ESQ.

You express your surprise that, after the favourable

manner in which the Letter to Dr. Smith was received by the public, and the service which, as you are pleased to say, was effected by it, nothing farther should have been attempted; especially as an Apology for the Life and Writings of David Hume, Esq. made its appearance soon afterwards; and some posthumous tracts of that philosopher have been since published to complete the good work he had so much at heart; not to mention other productions on the side of Infidelity. A few strictures on the nature and tendency, the principles and reasonings of such performances, thrown out, from time to time, in a concise and lively way, you observe, are better calculated to suit the taste and turn of the present age, than long and elaborate dissertations; and you see no reason why a method practised by Voltaire (and so much commended by D'Alembert) against religion, should not be adopted by those who write for it. In

compliance with these hints, and that you may not think me desirous of leading an idle life, when there is so much work to be done, I have formed a resolution to look over my papers, and address what I may happen to find among them to yourself in a series of letters; a species of composition much in vogue, and which has these two advantages to recommend it, that it admits of matter however miscellaneous, and may be continued or broken off at pleasure.

375

LETTER I.

I BEGIN, dear sir, with a few observations on the Apology for the Life and Writings of David Hume, Esq. drawn up soon after that work came out, but reserved in expectation of Mr. Hume's posthumous

tracts.

With difficulty I am able to persuade my friends, that this author and myself have not written in concert; for his Apology and my Letter fit each other like two tallies". In his dedication, he expresses his apprehension, that "the CHRISTIAN clamour "would be raised afresh." A clamour is accordingly raised by "one of the people called CHRISTIANS.' Elsewhere he intimates his expectation that Mr. Hume's "affectionate Dr. Smith" would come in for his share. A letter is accordingly written to that very doctor.

You see, dear sir, how I have done my best to fulfil his predictions. Let us now inquire, whether he may not have returned the favour, and been equally kind to me.

In my advertisement I ventured to suppose that, by a late publication, the admirers of Mr. Hume

a The apology was written before the publication of the Letter, though sent into the world after it.

imagined religion to have received its coup de grace, and that the astonished public was utterly at a loss to conceive," what they, who believed in God, "could possibly have to say for themselves." To convert my supposition into matter of fact, he opens his Apology with a kind of funeral oration, most solemnly pronounced over Christianity as a breathless corpse, about to be for ever interred in the grave of Mr. Hume.

"David Hume is dead! Never were the pillars ແ of Orthodoxy so desperately shaken, as they are now by that event!" And, at p. 9, he speaks of "the particular circumstances of this event" as "increasing the aggregate of our consternation!"

66

Here the distempered imagination of the apologist sees Mr. Hume, like another Samson, bowing himself with all his might between the pillars, and slaying more at his death, than all that he slew in his life. He sees the believing world aghast, the Church tottering from its foundations, and Christians assembling in an upper chamber, with the doors shut, for fear of the philosophers. What may be the state of religion upon earth, before the end shall come, we cannot tell. We have reason to think it will be very bad. But let us hope, notwithstanding all which has happened in Scotland, that the Gospel will last our time.

Thus, again: I scrupled not to assert, that the end proposed, in giving an account of Mr. Hume's life and death, was to recommend his sceptical and atheistical notions. Dr. Smith indeed was wary and modest. He gave us a detail of circumstances,

and then only added, that, "as to his philosophy, men would entertain various opinions, but, to be sure, all must allow his conduct was unexceptionable," &c. But the apologist has blurted it all out at once-David Hume's life was right, and therefore his system cannot be wrong. My friend Dr. Smith will take him to task for this, as sure as he is alive.

And now for another piece of complaisance on my side. P. 9. He "wishes only out of curiosity "to know the unaffected state of our feelings," on perusing the account given by Dr. Smith. As if I had been privy to his thoughts, the wish was no sooner formed than gratified by my Letter, which communicated to him, and to the public, the state of our feelings, and in a manner, I do assure him, perfectly unaffected. But it is a difficult matter to please him; for now he hath seen me, he doth not like me.

1

At the close of the Address, he tells me that, "after accurately examining my Letter, and care

66

fully reconsidering the whole subject of the pre"ceding Apology, in consequence of it, he sees no "occasion to alter a single sentence." Let us therefore take a view of the Apology, which is pronounced to be unaffected by it.

Page 11." It is less the design of these papers to "defend Hume's principles, than to show, upon the "best authority, that he was earnest in what he વહે wrote; and that, through every part of his life, "even to the very moment of his death, he made “precept and practice go hand in hand together.”