David Hume's The Natural History of Religion is a landmark study of the phenomenon of religious belief. First published in 1757, it is among the earliest works to examine religious belief purely as a manifestation of human nature without presupposing belief in the existence of God. This introduction will focus on the background and early reception of the Natural History.

David Hume was born in 1711 to a moderately wealthy family from Berwickshire Scotland, near Edinburgh. His background was politically Whiggish and religiously Calvinistic. As a child he faithfully attended the local Church of Scotland pastored by his uncle. Hume was educated by his widowed mother until he left for the University of Edinburgh at the age of eleven. Hume's letters describe how as a young student he took religion seriously and obediently followed a list of moral guidelines taken from The Whole Duty of Man, a popular Calvinistic devotional.

Leaving the University of Edinburgh at around age fifteen to pursue his education privately, he was encouraged to consider a career in law, but his interests turned to philosophy. During these years of private study he began raising serious questions about religion, as he recounts in the following letter:
 

Tis not long ago that I burn'd an old Manuscript Book, wrote before I was twenty; which contain'd, Page after Page, the gradual Progress of my Thoughts on that head [i.e. religious belief]. It begun with an anxious Search after Arguments, to confirm the common Opinion: Doubts stole in, dissipated, return'd, were again dissipated, return'd again.⁽²⁾

Although his manuscript book was destroyed, several pages of Hume's study notes survive from his early twenties. These show a preoccupation with the subjects of proof of God's existence and atheism, particularly as he read on these topics in classical Greek and Latin texts and in Pierre Bayle's skeptical Historical and Critical Dictionary. It is in these study notes that we find Hume first interested in the origins of religion.⁽³⁾

During these years of private study Hume composed his three-volume Treatise of Human Nature, which was published anonymously in two installments before he was thirty (1739, 1740). Although scholars today recognize it as a philosophical masterpiece, Hume was disappointed with the minimal interest his book spawned. The Treatise explores several philosophical topics such as space, time, causality, external objects, the passions, free will, and morality, offering original and often skeptical appraisals of these notions. Although religious belief is not the subject of any specific section of the Treatise, it is a recurring theme.⁽⁴⁾ For example, some passages imply that the moral nature of the creator cannot be determined through either experience or intuition. His approach to religious issues in these passages was guarded, and, accordingly, he notes in a letter his hope that the clergy would not "find any great Matter of Offence" in his work.⁽⁵⁾ Hume had good reason to be cautious. Though he lived in a period that is often called "enlightened," that is, when the physical sciences and human sciences were just becoming secularized, the changes were slow and cautious. In 1619, Italian atheist Lucilio Vanini was condemned to death in France for spreading his views in that country. His tongue was cut out and then he was burned. Even less extravagant claims could have unfortunate consequences. In 1696 John Toland fled his country of Ireland to avoid imprisonment for suggesting that reason superseded Christianity. As late as 1763, 70-year-old Peter Annet was sentenced to a year of hard labor for attacking the miracle accounts in the Old Testament. The fate of these thinkers sent a clear message to anyone who attempted to write against conventional religious views. Hume had no interest in becoming a martyr for the cause of secularization, and his private letters reveal a constant effort at self-censorship.

In spite of his restraint, the question of religious belief was a running theme throughout Hume's life, and his skeptical conclusions could not be easily hidden. Even his delicately handled discussions in the Treatise came under attack. An early anonymous reaction feared that the Treatise might have a "mischievous effect upon the opinions or morals of mankind."⁽⁶⁾ Another reaction criticized that the Treatise's account of causality had "quite erased the Argument a Priori for the Divine Existence."⁽⁷⁾

In 1741 and 1742 Hume published his two-volume Essays, Moral and Political. The essays were written in a popular style and met with better success than the Treatise. Two of the twenty-seven essays in these volumes contained tactful critiques of religion. "Of Superstition and Enthusiasm" shows that religious superstitions and fanaticism are corruptions of true religion, but fanaticism is more congenial to civil liberties. "Of Parties in General" explains how religious wars in Christendom arose from unjustified intolerance and from excessively precise formulation of doctrines. Hume's criticism of religion soon became more direct and, consequently, his writings became more controversial. In 1748 he added to the above collection an essay titled "Of National Characters." In a lengthy footnote to this piece, Hume attacks the character of the clergy, accusing this profession of being motivated by ambition, conceit, and revenge. This footnote became a favorite target of attack by the clergy.

Given the success of his Essays, Hume was convinced that the poor reception of his Treatise was caused by its style rather than by its content. In 1748 he published his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, a more popular rendition of Book I of his Treatise. The Enquiry also includes two sections not found in the Treatise and which, again, contain fairly direct attacks on religious belief. The section "Of Miracles" presents Hume's classic philosophical argument against belief in miracles. Here Hume argues that the overwhelming evidence supporting laws of nature makes belief in any reported miracle irrational. The negative reactions to this essay were voluminous, and, more than any other of his writings, "Of Miracles" established Hume's fame as well as his reputation as the Great Infidel. Hume once commented on the number of published attacks against his essay, and suggested that if any one had been satisfactory, the others would have been judged superfluous.⁽⁸⁾ The Enquiry's second attack on religious belief was a dialogue titled "Of a Particular Providence and of a Future State." In this Hume and a friend argue about natural theology and present several arguments against a generally accepted proof for God's existence.

In 1751 Hume published his Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, which recasts in a very different form parts of Book III of his Treatise. Although this work does not attack religion directly, it does so indirectly by establishing a system of morality on utility and human sentiments alone, and without appeal to divine moral commands. Critics such as James Balfour noticed this gap and accordingly criticized it for being Godless.⁽⁹⁾ However, by the end of the century Hume was recognized as the founder of the moral theory of utility.⁽¹⁰⁾ Utilitarian political theorist Jeremy Bentham acknowledges Hume's direct influence upon him.⁽¹¹⁾ The same year Hume also published his Political Discourses, which drew immediate praise and influenced economic thinkers such as Adam Smith, Godwin, and Thomas Malthus.

In 1752 Hume's employment as librarian of the Advocate's Library in Edinburgh provided him with the resources to pursue his interest in history. There he wrote much of his highly successful six-volume History of England (published from 1754 to 1762). The first volume was unfavorably received, partially for its defense of Charles I, and partially for two sections which attack Christianity. In one passage Hume notes that the first Protestant reformers were fanatical or "inflamed with the highest enthusiasm" in their opposition to Roman Catholic domination. In the second passage he labels Roman Catholicism a superstition which "like all other species of superstition... rouses the vain fears of unhappy mortals." The most vocal attack against Hume's History came from Daniel MacQueen in his 300 page Letters on Mr. Hume's History. MacQueen combs through Hume's first volume of the History, exposing all the allegedly "loose and irreligious sneers" Hume makes against Christianity. Ultimately, this negative response led Hume to delete the two controversial passages from succeeding editions of the History.⁽¹²⁾

At about this time Hume also wrote his two most substantial works on religion: The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Natural History of Religion. The Natural History appeared in 1757, but, on the advice of friends who wished to steer Hume away from religious controversy, the Dialogues remained unpublished until 1779, three years after his death. The two works must be understood together. Hume opens the Natural History by noting two distinct accounts one can give of religious belief: people may be led to religious belief by rational arguments, or by psychological factors quite apart from any rational foundation, such as fear. Hume examines the possibility of a rational source for religious belief in the Dialogues, which presents a debate between two theists and a religious skeptic. The skeptic virtually destroys all arguments for God's existence (such as the design argument, according to which the presence of design in the world implies the existence of a divine designer). In the Natural History he examines the anthropological and psychological (i.e., "natural") basis for this kind of belief, and again finds religious belief lacking an objective foundation. Thus, taken together, the Dialogues and Natural History constitute a complete rejection of religious belief.

Although these works contain Hume's most candid attacks on religious belief, he nevertheless avoided being too forthright. In particular, the literary style of the Dialogues makes it difficult to determine Hume's aim. In the Natural History, Hume claims on numerous occasions that God's existence can be proven rationally, yet his other writings and correspondence suggest that he did not believe this.

The Natural History aroused controversy even before it was made public. In 1756 a volume of Hume's essays titled Five Dissertations was printed and ready for distribution. The essays included (1) "The Natural History of Religion," (2) "Of the Passions," (3) "Of Tragedy," (4) "Of Suicide," and (5) "Of the Immortality of the Soul." The latter two essays made direct attacks on common religious doctrines by defending a person's moral right to commit suicide and by criticizing the idea of life after death. William Rose explains in the Monthly Review the reaction to these final two essays, and the pressure exerted on Hume's publisher Andrew Millar:
 

...before the day fixed for publication, several copies were delivered to some of the Author's friends, who were impatient to see whatever came from his pen; that a noble Lord, still living, threatened to prosecute Mr. Millar, if he published the essays [on suicide and immortality]... that the Author, like a bold veteran in the cause of infidelity, was not in the least intimidated by this menace, but that the poor bookseller was terribly frightened, to such a degree, indeed, that he called in all the copies he had delivered, cancelled the two essays, and, with some difficulty prevailed upon Mr. Hume to substitute some other pieces in the room of those objected to by the noble Lord....⁽¹³⁾

The printed copies of Five Dissertations were then physically altered, with a new essay "Of the Standard of Taste" inserted in place of the two removed essays. Hume also took this opportunity to alter two particularly offending paragraphs in the Natural History.⁽¹⁴⁾ The essays were then bound with the new title Four Dissertations and distributed in January, 1757.

In the years following Four Dissertations, Hume completed his last major literary work, The History of England. His remaining years were spent revising and refining his published works, as he settled into a more quiet life. In 1776, at age 65, he died from an internal disorder which had plagued him for many months.

After his death, Hume's name took on new significance as several of his previously unpublished works appeared. The first was a brief autobiography, My Own Life, which many have praised as the best short autobiography in English. Even this unpretentious work aroused religious controversy. As Hume's friends, Adam Smith and S.J. Pratt, published affectionate eulogies describing how he died with no concern for an afterlife, religious critics responded by condemning this unjustifiable admiration of Hume's infidelity. Two years later, in 1779, Hume's Dialogues appeared. Again, the response was mixed. Admirers of Hume considered it a masterfully written work, while religious critics branded it as dangerous to religion. Finally, in 1782, Hume's two suppressed essays on suicide and immortality were published. Their reception was almost unanimously negative, as the following from the Critical Review illustrates:
 

The principles, which Mr. Hume attempts to support, are mean and malignant, having a tendency to loosen the bands of society, to subvert the foundation of religion, to debase human nature, to extinguish all noble emulation, to cast a gloom over the whole creation, and to frustrate our sublimest views and expectations.⁽¹⁵⁾

Although the reviewer most certainly overreacted, responses such as this have made Hume's name almost synonymous with religious skepticism.

Hume's arguments in the Natural History are part of a long tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth-century writings on the history of religion, paganism, and superstition. The seventeenth-century produced many general and informative works on the subject, such as voyagers' accounts of religious practices, comparative religious studies, etymological works, and translations of Greek, Latin and Eastern religious texts. For example, Thomas Hyde's Historia Religionis Veterum Persarum (1700) was a highly respected study of ancient Persian religions, which contained religious texts, commentaries, and discussions of religious practices. Hume was particularly influenced by Hyde, and drew on his Historia several times in the Natural History.

However, the new facts discovered by explorers raised questions for those who accepted Judeo-Christianity as a religion with a privileged status. Several works appeared specifically to justify Christianity. Gerardus Joannes Vossius's three-volume De Theologia Gentili (1641), perhaps the most influential of these works, offered a new way of justifying the special status of Judaism and Christianity in view of polytheistic religions. Vossius's book is a major attempt to trace backwards from polytheism to original monotheistic religion. His work was highly successful, and was the basis of further studies in this area.

Other seventeenth-century explanations of polytheism and pagan religions were reactions against medieval views which often appealed to the existence of demons who would seduce primitive humans into worshiping them. Some writers argued that pagan religions were supported by politicians who preyed on the superstitious vulnerabilities of the masses.⁽¹⁶⁾ Again, though, the motive for such works was to defend Christianity.

The most sympathetic accounts of the history of religion came from the eighteenth-century English deists. The deists held three principles: the existence of God could be proven through nature, God is not involved in human affairs, and the Bible or other sacred books do not contain God's special revelation. The deists did not dismiss pagan religious beliefs, but instead argued that they could teach us much about religious belief in general. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, father of English deism, argues in his De Religione Gentilium (1663) that ancient pagan religions held five "common notions" which he believed formed the basis of religion: a supreme God, the worship of God, virtue, penitence, and future rewards and punishments. Herbert adds, though, that priests corrupted this original religion by adding polytheistic practices which were more financially profitable. Other English deists followed Herbert's basic religious intuition. In Letters to Serena (1704) John Toland argues that ancient Greek and Middle Eastern religions were in accord with the simplicity of the divine nature. Eventually, Matthew Tindal argued in his Christianity as Old as Creation (1730) that pagan religions embodied the essential elements of true Christianity.

Hume's Natural History is at the end of this line of reasoning which traces back through the deists to Vossius. But Hume's account differs significantly from even the most ambitious of these works and in effect overturns that whole school of reasoning. For Hume's essay is a reversal of a major form of religious apologetics as he does not analyze polytheism to defend Christianity. The title of Hume's essay itself reveals his unique approach to the subject. First, he is presenting a natural history of religion, as opposed to a history guided by religious presuppositions. Second, Hume is giving a natural history of religion, as opposed to a natural history of paganism or idolatry (such as John Trenchard's The Natural History of Superstition, 1709). By treating common religious belief (including Christianity) as a mere product of human nature, Hume was questioning religion more fundamentally than had his predecessors.

Hume has three main objectives in the Natural History, the first of which is to establish that polytheism, and not monotheism, was the first religion of humankind. Here Hume opposes a view which extends back before Vossius to the early Christian era. Until the sixteenth-century, discussions on the origin of polytheism (or idolatry, as it was then called) were based on Chapters 13-15 of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha. There it is stated that monotheism was the first religion and idolatry was a corruption of that, since the existence of a single God can be clearly seen from the design of nature. During the Enlightenment, the Wisdom of Solomon was less frequently cited as an authority on the origin of religion, especially among Protestants.⁽¹⁷⁾ Nevertheless, deists and orthodox theologians alike ultimately arrived at the same conclusion: that monotheism must have been the first religion in that God's existence is revealed to all people through nature. Hume challenges this view in Sections I and IV of the Natural History.

Hume's second objective in the Natural History is to establish "What those principles are, which give rise to the original belief [in religion], and what those accidents and causes are, which direct its operation." Hume's aim is to develop a psychology of religion, which occupies Sections II, III, V, VI, VII and VIII. Again, Hume enters into a long debate about the causes of religious belief. English deists were content with the explanation that religious belief arises from contemplating natural design. However, other writers on the history of religion proposed less rationally based explanations. There were three favorite theories. One view held that religion results from fear of natural calamity.⁽¹⁸⁾ A second theory held that the pagan gods were originally heroic humans who became deified after death.⁽¹⁹⁾ The third theory suggested that the pagan gods emerged as allegories for human experiences.⁽²⁰⁾

Hume adopts all of these theories, although for Hume each of these tendencies derives from an instinct of human nature, and together constitutes a complete explanation of religious belief. His discussion here closely resembles his philosophical approach in the Treatise. In that work he examines several philosophical beliefs (such as belief in objective time, external objects, causality, personal identity, and free will), and then offers psychological explanations of how these beliefs arise in the human imagination. All of his explanations appeal to instinctive principles (or natural propensities) which regulate our thoughts on these notions. Even our erroneous beliefs (such as belief in an external necessary connection) may be traced back to one or more instinctive principles. In the Natural History Hume extends this approach to religious belief by uncovering the instinctive principles responsible for those notions, some of which are: instinctively produced fear, the instinct to anthropomorphize, and the instinct to praise excessively.

Hume's third and final objective in the Natural History is to compare polytheism with monotheism and show that neither is superior to the other (sections IX-XV). Each have their own advantages and disadvantages. If anything, polytheism is to be preferred since it does not produce the contradictions, bigotry, or cruelty that monotheism does. Hume's claim was not only inventive in his day but also strikes against some analyses of the sociology of religion today.⁽²¹⁾ Although Hume amasses evidence in support of his comparison between monotheism and polytheism, there are questions about his sincerity. One might view it as a genuinely impartial analysis of a sensitive issue. However, it has also been suggested that Hume had a hidden agenda when comparing monotheism and polytheism, hoping simply to undermine the former by setting it up against the latter.⁽²²⁾ More importantly, in these latter sections Hume drives a wedge between religious belief and morality, arguing in effect that atheism is morally preferable to theism.⁽²³⁾

Upon its publication, the Natural History was reviewed by three British literary journals. The Monthly Review, the best-selling and most influential review journal of the eighteenth-century, begins by praising Hume's literary ability. However, William Rose, the reviewer, regrets the way Hume weakens the authority of religion "by oblique hints, and artful insinuations" which only fill "the mind with the uncomfortable fluctuations of scepticism, and the gloom of infidelity."⁽²⁴⁾ The review closes noting that the Natural History,
 

...abounds with shrewd reflections, and just observations, upon human nature: mixed with a considerable portion of that sceptical spirit, which is so apparent in all his works; and with some insinuations, artfully couched, against the Christian religion.

The Critical Review, a newly created rival of the Monthly, opens noting that the Natural History was "written with a greater degree of cautious circumspection" than expected, but it "sufficiently discovers that sceptical dissent from received opinions." The reviewer warns that "authors of acknowledged and distinguished abilities as Mr. Hume, are always to be read with care and caution, more especially on subjects of this nature, because wherever there is a power to please and to persuade, there is also a power to mislead and to betray." The review concludes with the following reservation:
 

...we do not meet with that novelty, or force of argument which we expected from an author of such distinguished abilities: Nor can we indeed perceive quo tendit, to what use or purpose this dissertation was written. A deficiency in our author's arrangement of his notions, and a want of method and connection is also visible throughout the whole, occasioned perhaps by some castration of the original.⁽²⁵⁾

This review may be partially responsible for Hume's efforts at organizing the Natural History in later editions, as suggested in the following letter by Hume to his printer, William Strahan:
 

I find it has been often objected to My natural History of Religion, that it wants order. That I may obviate that Objection, I am resolv'd to prefix the enclosd Contents to it.... These are the Titles of the several Sections. I should likewise desire, that the Title of each Section be prefixed to the Section. This will help the Reader to see the Scope of the Discourse.⁽²⁶⁾

Finally, the Literary Magazine, which remained in operation for only two years, also displayed reservations:

It must be observed that this Author, upon other occasions new and singular, and generally so with propriety, has in this discourse offer'd few or no positions, that are not to be found in other writers on this subject. That Polytheism was the natural religion of the unenlightened heathen world, it is very certain, and has often been advanced.

The reviewer argues that Hume's psychological account of the development of religion is "exhibited in a very probable light." However, the reviewer concludes that Hume's talents could have been better used in the service of religion:
 

First, because if he were so much in the secret as to know us all to be under a delusion... [then] to undeceive us certainly would introduce anarchy and confusion. Secondly, because the Christian Religion inculcates such a scheme of Benevolence and Virtue, as cannot fail of being comfortable to us as individuals, and to render us more acceptable to each other as social beings.⁽²⁷⁾

Other criticisms of the Natural History soon appeared in books and pamphlets, implying that the Natural History was both more novel and controversial than indicated in the review journals. A common target was Hume's claim that polytheism was the original religion. Thomas Stona's Remarks upon the Natural History of Religion by Mr. Hume (1758) begins by suggesting that Hume's work goes beyond the limits of free expression. He continues by attacking Hume's contention that the ancients were too unsophisticated to develop a concept of monotheism from natural design. Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary (1764) argues against Hume that people "began worshipping only one God, and that afterwards human weakness adopted several others."⁽²⁸⁾ Duncan Shaw in his A Comparative View (1776) argues that since Adam could deduce a single creator from natural design, as Hume himself seems to acknowledge in the first Section of the Natural History, then a position of original monotheism is most reasonable.⁽²⁹⁾

Other aspects of the Natural History were discussed more tangentially. Caleb Fleming's postscript to his Three Questions Resolved (1757) criticizes Hume's contention that religion is founded on principles of the imagination, as opposed to rational proofs of a single Creator. Interestingly, Fleming takes seriously Hume's claim of belief in God, and concludes that, "Notwithstanding these sophisms, Mr. Hume has finely exposed superstition... and so far as he is a theist, he cannot be an enemy to genuine christianity."⁽³⁰⁾ James Chelsum in his Remarks on the two last chapters of Mr. Gibbon's History (1778) attacks Hume in the Natural History for being "an open advocate for the reasonableness and even probability of the Systems of the antient Heathen Mythology."⁽³¹⁾ Henry Edward Davis's Reply to Mr. Gibbon's Vindication (1779) draws parallels between Hume's Natural History and Gibbon's "True Genius of Polytheism" in his Decline and Fall, and accordingly accuses Gibbon plagiarism.⁽³²⁾

One early published response deserves particular attention. Within months after the appearance of the Natural History, William Warburton published his Remarks on Mr. David Hume's Essay on the Natural History of Religion. Warburton was one of the leading theologians of his day and, to Hume's frustration, he was also one of Hume's most perceptive and uninhibited critics.⁽³³⁾ Warburton's interest in Hume began in 1749 when he considered publishing an attack on Hume's essay on miracles.⁽³⁴⁾ The attack never appeared, a brief critique of Hume's essay is among Warburton's unpublished manuscripts.⁽³⁵⁾ His Remarks, published almost a decade later, is the most thorough critique of Hume's Natural History to date.

The background of Warburton's Remarks is conveyed by his close friend and follower Reverend Richard Hurd. Hurd notes that Warburton obtained a copy of the Natural History, and was provoked "by its uncommon licentiousness, to enter on the margin as he went along, such remarks as occurred to him.... In this state the book was shewn to me... merely as matter of curiosity, and to give me an idea of the contents, how mischievous and extravagant they were." Hurd was impressed by Warburton's marginal comments and suggested that Warburton publish them as a reply to Hume. Warburton eventually consented, providing that Hurd would himself transcribe the marginal comments and work them together into an organized pamphlet. Warburton writes to Hurd that,
 

I propose it bear something like this title--'Remarks on Mr. Hume's late Essay, called, The Natural History of Religion, by a Gentleman of Cambridge, in a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Warburton.'--I propose the address should be with the dryness and reserve of a stranger.... The address will remove it from me; the author, a gentleman of Cambridge, from you; and the secrecy of printing from us both.⁽³⁶⁾

As proposed, Hurd organized the material and had the work published anonymously.

Warburton writes sarcastically that the purpose of his Remarks is to give a specimen of Hume's "philosophic virtues, his reasoning, his consistency, his knowledge, his truth, his candour, and his modesty, as they promiscuously appear in the Natural History of Religion." For Warburton, Hume fails on all of these accounts. He attacks Hume's impartiality by showing that he ignores the history of religion given by Moses. He accuses Hume of misrepresenting passages he quotes from Rutilius, Machiavelli, and Ramsay. In several instances he finds inconsistencies in Hume's discussion. Most interestingly, Warburton questions the sincerity of Hume's polite concessions toward Christian belief: "We see what the man [i.e., Hume] would be at, through all his disguises. And, no doubt, he would be much mortified, if we did not...." In addition to his substantive comments, Warburton's Remarks contain the contemptuous and ridiculing attacks for which he was well known.

In his autobiography, Hume discusses both the reception of his Natural History in general and Warburton's Remarks in particular:
 

In this interval, I published at London my Natural History of Religion, along with some other small pieces; its public entry was rather obscure except only that Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet against it, with all the illiberal petulance, arrogance, and scurrility, which distinguish the Warburtonian school. This pamphlet gave me some consolation for the otherwise indifferent reception of my performance.

Hume's synopsis is interesting for two reasons. First, Hume knew that Hurd was not the true author of the pamphlet. "I am positively assurd," he tells his publisher, "that Dr. Warburton wrote that Letter [i.e. pamphlet] to himself... and indeed the style discovers him sufficiently."⁽³⁷⁾ Perhaps Hume respected Warburton's identity since he felt that anonymously published responses were an acceptable means of critical dialogue, and clergymen in particular "have got a license to practice them."⁽³⁸⁾

Second, and more importantly, it is simply false that the Natural History made an obscure entrance with an indifferent reception. The three reviews of the Natural History appeared within two months. According to eighteenth-century reviewing practice, works of obscurity and indifference received only single paragraph and sometimes single-sentence reviews. But each journal devoted several pages to Hume's work. Further, as seen above, Warburton's Remarks was only one of several books and pamphlets which responded to the Natural History. The replies by Warburton, Stona, and Shaw were each reviewed in several journals, and this carried discussion of the Natural History to a tertiary level. Hume's disappointment in the reception of the Natural History possibly reflects his hope that the work would generate as many immediate reactions as followed from his essay on miracles.

Eighteenth-century reactions, such as Warburton's, to Hume's Natural History were mostly negative. As the nineteenth-century saw fundamental changes in our understanding of science and religion, reactions to Hume's writings also changed. In 1865, J.H. Stirling argued that "Hume is our Politics, Hume is our Trade, Hume is our Philosophy, Hume is our Religion."⁽³⁹⁾ Accordingly, the Natural History began to have a more positive impact on readers. Charles Darwin was particularly taken by the fact that Hume's Natural History accounts for religion's "origin in the Human mind."⁽⁴⁰⁾ Thomas Huxley argued that the Natural History "anticipated the results of modern investigation" in accounting for early religion.⁽⁴¹⁾ John Tyndall cited the Natural History as an authority on our early ancestors' anthropomorphic views of nature.⁽⁴²⁾

In 1863 Warburton's biographer John Shelby Watson wrote that "Warburton flattered himself that he had crushed Hume into insignificance... but how much higher a place in literature does Hume now hold than Warburton!"⁽⁴³⁾ Since Watson's time the gap between Hume and his early critics has only widened. New editions of Hume's writings appear almost annually, while the writings of his opponents are to be found only in rare book rooms. An almost endless list of modern thinkers could be compiled from the names of those who have been influenced in some way by Hume. It seems that time itself is a skeptic.

1. I wish to thank Tom Beauchamp, David Fate Norton, and Manfred Kuehn for their suggestions and comments.

2. Hume to Gilbert Elliot of Minto, March 10, 1751, in J.Y.T. Greig's Letters of David Hume, Oxford: 1932.

3. One entry in particular anticipates Hume's argument that polytheism was the original religion: "Tho the Antients speak often of God in the singular Number, that proves not they believd in his Unity, since Christians speak in the same manner of the Devil. Baile." See "Hume's Early Memoranda," ed. E.C. Mossner, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 9, p. 500.

4. Hume originally planned to include within his Treatise some "Reasonings concerning Miracles," although he decided against this for fear of giving offense. For a discussion of how this might have appeared in the Treatise see John O. Nelson's "The Burial and Resurrection of Hume's Essay "Of Miracles," Hume Studies, 1986, Vol. 12, pp. 57-76. For a discussion of the religious content and implications of the Treatise, see Paul Russell's "Skepticism and Natural Religion in Hume's Treatise," Journal of the History of Ideas, 1988, Vol. 49, pp. 247-265.

5. Letter of March 4, 1740 to Francis Hutcheson.

6. Letter to the editor in Common Sense: or the Englishman's Journal, 1940, Saturday, July 5, pp. 1-2.

7. Review of the Treatise, in The history of the works of the learned, 1739, Vol. 2, pp. 353-404.

8. In Richard Kirwan's Remarks on some sceptical positions in Mr. Hume's Inquiry, Dublin: 1801. In this anecdote Hume specifically says that 22 replies had appeared.

9. James Balfour, A Delineation..., Edinburgh: 1753, especially Section 4.

10. See William Belsham, Essays, philosophical, historical, and literary, London: 1789-1791, Essay 10; see also Robert Blakey, History of Moral Science, London: 1833, who writes, "No theory of moral action has undergone a more rigid and extended inquiry, than that with which the name of Mr. Hume is now generally connected, namely utility" (Vol. 2, Chapter 18, pp. 62-97).

11. Jeremy Bentham, A Fragment on Government, in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. John Bowring, New York: 1962, Vol. 1, p. 268.

12. These suppressed passages are reprinted in Volume I of the Liberty Classics edition of Hume's History of England, Indianapolis: 1983, xiv-xvii.

13. William Rose, Monthly Review, 1784, Vol. 70, pp. 427-428.

14. It is important to recognize that Hume's removal and substitution of these passages were the result of self-censorship, politically motivated, and not for merely stylistic reasons. First, only two passages were removed, both of which involve unorthodox discussions of the God of the Old Testament. The substituted passages express the same points, but in a more ambiguous and concealed manner. Secondly, external evidence suggests both that Hume's alteration of the Natural History was well known, and that it was for reasons of avoiding religious controversy. Warburton in his Remarks expresses wonder at the trouble Hume's "friends gave him, of refining his natural history from the grosser fa^eces of Atheism, before it was presented to the world" (Works, 1788, Vol. 7, p. 885). A similar observation is made in the review of the Natural History in the Critical Review which notes a deficiency in the arrangement of Hume's notions "occasioned perhaps by some castration of the original" (1757, Vol. 3, pp. 97-107).

15. Review of Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul, in Critical Review, 1783, Vol. 57, p. 475.

16. See, for example, Pierre Bayle, Pensees diverses sur la comete (1683); Bernard Fontenelle, De l'origine des fables (1724); Antonius Van Dale, Dissertationes de Origine ac Progressu Idololatrae et Superstitionum (1696). Other continental European works on paganism are Balthasar Bekker, De betoovert Wereld (1691); Pierre Jurieu, Histoire critique des dogmes et des cultes (1704); and Dom A. Calmet, Dissertation sur l'orgine de l'idolatrie in Dissertations (1720).

17. For a discussion of the influence of the Wisdom on early histories of religion see Francis Schmidt, "Naissance des Polytheismes (1624-1757)," Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religions, 1985, Vol. 59, pp. 77-90.

18. This argument is classically given by Lucretius and later by Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, and Denis Diderot.

19. Proponents of this view include the ancient Greek poet Euhemerus, Isaac Newton, Abbe Banier, and Nicolas Freret.

20. This view was argued by Giambattista Vico, Court de Geblin, and Charles Dupuis.

21. For example, Robert Brow in The World's Religions (Grand Rapids: 1982, p. 33) claims that "It is a fact of history that polytheism has always weakened a nation, whereas monotheism invigorates and unifies."

22. Christopher J. Wheatley, "Polemical Aspects of Hume's Natural History of Religion," Eighteenth-Century Studies, 1986, Vol. 19, 502-514.

23. See David Fate Norton, "Hume, Atheism, and the Autonomy of Morals," in Hume's Philosophy of Religion, 1986, pp. 97-144.

24. William Rose, review of Four Dissertations, in Monthly Review, 1757, Vol. 16, pp. 122-139

25. Critical Review, 1757, Vol. 3, pp. 97-107.

26. Letter of May 20, 1757 to William Strahan.

27. Literary Magazine or Universal Review, 1757, Vol. 2, pp. 32-35.

28. Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, "Religion." Voltaire does not directly identify Hume as his target, but begins noting "Another man of learning, and a much greater philosopher, who is one of the profoundest metaphysicians of the day, advances very strong arguments to prove that polytheism was the primitive religion of mankind...." This is certainly a reference to Hume's Natural History and one which Voltaire's contemporaries recognized. For example, Francois Xavier Swediaur in his own Philosophical Dictionary (1786) cites this passage by Voltaire, but takes liberties with his translation by directly identifying Hume: "David Hume, in his natural history of religion, produces strong reasons to prove that the first religion was Polytheism...." ("Polytheism, Not the Primary Religion of Mankind").

29. Duncan Shaw, A Comparative View of the Several Methods of Promoting Religious Instruction, London: 1776, Vol. 2, Appendix 2, pp. 268-302.

30. Caleb Fleming, Three Questions Resolved... with a Postscript on Mr. Hume's Natural History of Religion, London: 1757, pp. 50-56.

31. James Chelsum, Remarks on the two last chapters of Mr. Gibbon's History, Oxford: 1788, p. 50. A similar attack appears in the anonymous "The Progress of Infidelity," Quarterly Review, 1823, Vol. 28, p. 493.

32. Henry Edward Davis, A Reply to Mr. Gibbon's Vindication, London: 1779, p. 157.

33. Hume's long standing dislike for Warburton is expressed in several letters. For example, he writes to William Strahan, "I remember Lord Mansfield said to me that Warburton was a very opposite man in company to what he is in his Books; then replyd I, he must be the most agreeable Companion in Europe, for surely he is the most odious Writer."

34. Warburton writes in a letter to Richard Hurd, "I have a great mind to do justice on his arguments against miracles, which I think might be done in a few words. But does he deserve notice? Is he known amongst you? Pray answer me these questions. For if his own weight keeps him down, I should be sorry to contribute to his advancement to any place but the pillory," Letters from a Late Eminent Prelate to One of his Friends, Boston: 1806, p. 10.

35. Warburton's manuscript against Hume's essay eventually appeared in Francis Kilvert's A Selection from Unpublished Papers of the Right Reverend William Warburton, London: 1841, pp. 311-315.

36. Thomas Hurd, Life of Warburton in Warburton's Works, London: 1811, pp. 65-69.

37. Letter of September 3, 1757 to Andrew Millar.

38. Letter of June 1757 to William Strahan. Hurd writes in his Life of Warburton that Hume "...was much hurt [by the anonymous pamphlet] and no wonder, by so lively an attack upon him, and could not help confessing it in what he calls his own Life; in which he has thought fit to honour me with greater marks of his resentment, than any other of the writers against him: nay the spiteful man goes so far as to upbraid me with being a follower... of the Warburtonian school." Upon the publication of Hume's Autobiography, Horace Walpole wrote to William Mason that Hume "speaks of your friend, Bishop Hurd, with a freedom that I dare to say the whole Court will profess to his Lordship they think monstrous rudeness."

39. J. H. Stirling, The Secret of Hegel, London: 1865, Introduction.

40. Undated manuscript of 1839 as appears in William B. Huntley, "David Hume and Charles Darwin," Journal of the History of Ideas, 1972, Vol. 33, pp. 457-470.

41. Thomas Huxley, Hume, London: 1879, p. 184.

42. See an analysis of Tyndall's statement from his "Presidential Address" in "Modern Scientific Materialism," Blackwood's Magazine, 1874, Vol. 106, pp. 519-524.

43. John Selby Watson, The Life of William Warburton, London: 1863, p. 482.