LET. Atheism? And are not the writings.

of Mr. H. juftly chargeable with them? These are the questions.

The A. knows, as well as I do, that Mr. H-'s Effays 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 philofopher was approaching towards the borders of Theifm. But I never could find that he penetrated far into the country. These fame arguments stand to this hour unretracted; the Effays which contain them are published and republished with the reft; whether, at the hour of death, he thought there was a God, or thought there was none, we have

not

I.

not a fingle hint given us; and con- LET. cerning his pofthumous papers, the A. informs us, in his dedication, "there is every reason to believe they "turn upon fimilar refearches with "fuch as have been already printed; or, as it is more likely, they may

66

carry his philofophy ftill nearer to "THAT POINT, which he might not "think it DISCREET to push too vigor

ously in his life time." New difcoveries in irreligion, then, it seems, ftill remain to be made. They who have duly confidered the vigour difplayed by Mr. H. in his life time, are rather at a lofs to conceive, what THAT POINT may be, to which, by pofthumous efforts, his philofophy is to be carried. It must lie fomewhere

*These have been fince published.

Beyond

LET.

I.

Beyond the realms of Chaos and old Night! Difcretion is, undoubtedly, as Sir John Falstaffe fays, the better part of valour ; but really, in these days of freedom, there is fcarce a poffibility of it's ever being called for. Something, however, is to come, which the A. fuppofes will occafion more CHRISTIAN clamour. When we are fo feverely pinched, he imagines we shall cry out.-Certainly, it cannot be thought we are lavish of the terms Infidelity, Impiety, and Atheism, when we apply them to fuch proceedings as thefe. What other terms can we apply, or would he himself wish us to apply? And he gravely apologizes for their author, by telling us, he was confiftent, he was in earneft, he died as he lived, and left blafphemies to be published after his death

I.

death, which he dared not to publish LET: while he was yet alive. Whom fhall we most admire, the Philofopher or his Apologist?

LET.

II.

Ο

LETTER II.

UR A. obferves, Dear Sir, p. IJ. "Whatever might be the "force of Mr. H-'s faith, no one, "it is conjectured, will charge him "with having neglected good works. "I do not pretend (adds he) to fay "how far thofe are, or are not fuffi"cient."

Indeed I believe there will be no abfolute neceflity, upon this occafion, of going deep into the controversy concerning faith and works. The character in which Mr. H. principally appeared, and on which he chiefly valued himself, was that of an author.

He