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.

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 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 of Orthodoxy so desperately shaken, as they are now by that

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

event!" And, at p. 9, he speaks of the "particular circumstances of this event" as "increasing the aggregate of our consternation!"

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 blotted 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.

At the close of the Address, he tells me that, “after accurately examining my Letter, and carefully reconsidering the whole subject of the preceding 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 shew, upon the best authority,

that he was earnest in what he 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."

But, surely, if the principles are not to be defended; if they are, as they have been represented, sceptical and atheistical; does the man, who propagated them during his life, and took the requisite measures that they should be propagated after his death-does such a man deserve commendation, because he was in earnest? An Apology of this kind may be offered in behalf of every felon executed at Tyburn, provided only that by dying hard, he make precept and practice go hand in hand together. And the apologist very judiciously observes as much.

66

Page 10. Many, indeed, will think, that this, however perspicuously proved, will be doing him no real honour; since, in proportion to the clearness of the evidence upon this matter, it will only show his impiety and obstinate infidelity the plainer; thereby, in the end, incurring upon him a more general disgrace."

Truly he has hit the mark. This is the very objection, which caused a friend of mine, on reading his book, to say, he should think it a less misfortune, to have the disgrace of hanging incurred upon him, than to have such an apologist. And yet, in the case before us, he had a reason for making this Apology, namely, that there was no other to be made. The only question is, whether it might not have been better, if he had said nothing, and suffered things to take their chance? However, it is now too late. The objection is fairly stated, and we all stand, arrectis auribus, in expectation of the answer. Lo, it comes:

"I am of a different opinion. The terms infidelity, impiety, and atheism, should not be lavishly trusted from the lip." Such a sentence (by the way) should not have been lavishly trusted from the pen. "We should not presume

"To deal damnation round the land

On each we deem our foe."

Sir, your very humble servant. I most heartily wish you a good night. Here was the jugulum causa, the precise point to be argued, over which I hoped to have had the honour of his good company for the evening; when, in the

twinkling of an eye, he slips through my hands, like an eel, and is out of sight in the mud.

We are not about to deal damnation on any man. But are there not such things as infidelity, impiety, and atheism? And are not the writings of Mr. Hume justly chargeable with them? These are the question.

The apologist knows, as well as I do, that Mr. Hume's Essays contain arguments downright Epicurean against the being of a God. Some of them are mentioned in the Summary, at the end of the Letter to Dr. Smith, and no notice is taken of the matter. In the Natural History of Religion, Dr. Hurd thought our philosopher was approaching towards the borders of theism. But I never could find that he penetrated far into the country. These same arguments stand to this hour unretracted; the Essays, which contain them, are published and republished with the rest; whether, at the hour of death, he thought there was a God, or thought there was none, we have not a single hint given us; and concerning his posthumous papers *, the apologist informs us, in his Dedication, "there is every reason to believe they turn upon similar researches with such as have been already printed; or, as it is more likely, they may carry his philosophy still nearer to THAT POINT, which he might not think it DISCREET to push too vigorously in his life-time." New discoveries in irreligion then, it seems, still remain to be made. They, who have duly considered the vigour displayed by Mr. Hume in his life-time, are rather at a loss to conceive, what THAT POINT may be, to which, by posthumous efforts, his philosophy is to be carried. It must lie somewhere

Beyond the realms of Chaos and old Night!

Discretion is, undoubtedly, as Sir John Falstaff says, the better part of valour; but really, in these days of freedom, there is scarce a possibility of its ever being called for. Something, however, is to come, which the apologist supposes will occasion more CHRISTIAN clamour. When we are so severely pinched, he imagines we shall cry out. Certainly, it cannot be thought we are lavish of the terms in

These have since been published.