[160] Ritchie’s Life of Hume, 1807, pp. 52–81; Tytler’s Life of Lord Kames, 2nd ed. 1814, i, ch. v; Burton’s Life of Hume, i, 425–30. [↑]
[161] Ritchie, as cited, p. 57. [↑]
[162] McCulloch, Life of Smith prefixed to ed. of Wealth of Nations, ed. 1839, p. ii. [↑]
[163] Ramsay of Ochtertyre, Scotland and Scotsmen in the Eighteenth Century, 1888, i, 462–63. Mr. Rae doubts the story, Life of Adam Smith, 1895, p. 60. [↑]
[164] Ramsay, as last cited. [↑]
[165] Ramsay, passage cited. [↑]
[166] Theory of Moral Sentiments, pt. iii, ch. ii, end. [↑]
[167] Cp. Rae, pp. 427–30. Mr. Rae thinks the deletion stood for no change of opinion, and cites Smith’s own private explanation (Sinclair’s Life of Sir John Sinclair, i, 40) that he thought the passage “unnecessary and misplaced.” But this expression must be read in the light of Smith’s general reticence concerning established dogmas. Certainly he adhered to his argument—which does not claim to be a demonstration—for the doctrine of a future state. [↑]
[168] Bk. v, ch. i, pt. iii, art. 3. [↑]
[169] Smith’s admiration for Voltaire might alone indicate his mental attitude. As to that see F. W. Hirst, Adam Smith (Eng. Men of Letters ser.), pp. 127–28. But the assertion of Skarzinski, that Smith, after being an Idealist under the influence of Hume, “returned a materialist” from his intercourse with Voltaire and other French freethinkers, is an exhibition of learned ignorance. See Hirst, p. 181. [↑]