Life and Correspondence of David Hume, Volume 2

by John Hill Burton

In his "Natural History of Religion," published in 1757, he used the same offensive expressions, and spoke of the ceremonies and essential doctrines of the church of Rome, in a tone which no sincere member of that church can encounter without painful feelings. In this respect he certainly did not act up to the character of a true philosopher, though his expressions are no doubt in harmony with the general tone of his mind. He certainly had no wish to insult any man's creed, but he never dreamed that, among his readers, there might be some who sympathized deeply with the catholic spirit of the gothic ages, or with the independent temper of the covenanters. One whose mind revolted so nervously against whatever was not stamped with the character of profound philosophy, or of brilliant intellect, could see nothing to admire in the adaptation of the catholic system to the dark ages in which it flourished; and would have little respect for such achievements as it gained in the war with barbarous minds and brutal passions.[6:1]

In Scotland, the Episcopal Church was at that time barely tolerated; and many an outcry against

this toleration, as one of the sins of the time, made its adherents daily fear that their freedom of conscience

might be made still more narrow. For the Roman Catholics there was no toleration in the proper acceptation of the term. Had their priesthood

mingled in the ordinary society of Edinburgh, and had Hume become acquainted with them as he afterwards was with the clergy of France, he would perhaps have blushed to write as he did, of the creed of learned and accomplished men. In his subsequent editions, he carefully cleansed his History of these offensive expressions, substituting in general the word "creed" or "religion," instead of superstition.

The coincidence of his metaphysical opinions, with those of a considerable portion of the Presbyterians, has already been noticed; and his desire to strip religion of all forms and symbols, would seem to point out the Presbyterian system as that with which he should naturally have had the greatest sympathy. But he disliked enthusiasm or zeal, whatever were the opinions of the zealots; and therefore he invariably marks with censure the extreme views of that religious party. In the English church, on the other hand, he met with a larger proportion of learned, accomplished, and gentlemanlike men. Among persons, too, many of whom were tempted to assume the sacerdotal character by its emoluments, not by its duties, he found a tolerable portion of that philosophical indifference, which it is to be feared he looked upon as no blemish in a clergyman's character. In the Church of England, his sympathies were thus with the insincere.[9:1] Where

there was sincere belief, but not to the extent of enthusiasm, the clergy of the Church of Scotland would have the largest share of his confidence. Accordingly, we find that he had formed a warm intimacy with many of the members of the "moderate" party in that church. His own good taste and sense of colloquial politeness, would suggest to him the propriety of avoiding, whether in correspondence or conversation, all forms of expression or enunciations of opinion, such as it would be unbecoming in a clergyman to hear without reproving. On the other hand, his correspondence with the clergy bears traces of his having made it part of the understanding on which their intercourse was to be based, that they were not to make him a subject for the exercise of their calling; and that they were to abstain from all efforts of conversion, and all discussion of religious subjects. Hence, although there are many observations on church politics in his correspondence with his reverend friends, religion is a matter never mentioned.

Before he published his second volume, Hume felt conscious of the impropriety of the tone he had adopted in the first, towards religious creeds. In a letter to Dr. Clephane, he says,—"I am convinced that whatever I have said of religion should have received some more softenings. There is no passage in the History

which strikes in the least at revelation. But as I run over all the sects successively, and speak of each of them with some mark of disregard, the reader, putting the whole together, concludes that I am of no sect; which to him will appear the same thing as the being of no religion. With regard to politics and the character of princes and great men, I think I am very moderate. My views of things are more conformable to Whig principles; my representations of persons to Tory prejudices. Nothing can so much prove that men commonly regard more persons than things, as to find that I am commonly numbered among the Tories."[11:1]

The following paper is evidently a draft of a preface, which, in the consciousness that some apology was called for in connexion with this subject, he intended to prefix to the second volume. He afterwards published a great part of the substance of it in a note towards the end of the volume: but there is sufficient difference in the contents of the two papers to make the following a distinct object of interest.