^{Page 1 note 1} Hume, David, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Smith, Norman Kemp (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1947).Google Scholar All page references to the Dialogues appear within parentheses in the text.

^{Page 2 note 1} Smith, Norman Kemp, ed., Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, esp. pp. 57–75.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 2} Pike, Nelson, ed., Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970), esp. pp. 204–238.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 3} Wollheim, Richard, ed., Hume on Religion (New York: World Publishing Company, 1963).Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 4} Nathan, George J., ‘Hume's Immanent God’, Hume, ed. Chappell, V. C. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966).Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 5} Noxon, James, ‘Hume's Agnosticism’, The Philosophical Review, LXXIII (1964), pp. 248–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{Page 2 note 6} Hendel, Charles W., Studies in the Philosophy of David Hume (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963). chaps. X–XII.Google Scholar

^{Page 3 note 1} Smith, Kemp, pp. 58–59.Google Scholar

^{Page 3 note 2} Pike, , p. 235.Google Scholar

^{Page 3 note 1} Smith, Kemp, p. 63.Google Scholar

^{Page 4 note 1} Hume, David, Enquiries concerning the Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), pp. 149–165.Google Scholar

^{Page 8 note 1} Pike, , pp. 207–224.Google Scholar

^{Page 8 note 2} Pike's, defence of this interpretation is on pp. 224–238.Google Scholar In fairness to Pike it should be noted that he proposes the present interpretation with some hesitation: ‘I might say at the outset that I am not convinced that the interpretation we are about to review is correct. I am convinced, however, that it is worth very careful consideration.’ (p. 224)

^{Page 10 note 1} Pike does not discuss Cleanthes's second curious example, that of the vegetating library. It is clear, however, that Philo could object to it as well in ways similar to those just discussed.

^{Page 12 note 1} Wollheim, , op. cit., p. 16.Google Scholar

^{Page 13 note 1} Hume, David, My Own Life, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Smith, Norman Kemp, p. 239.Google Scholar Cf. p. 233 where Hume says: ‘A passion for literature…has been the ruling passion of my life.’

^{Page 13 note 2} Ibid., p. 235.

^{Page 14 note 1} The Letters of David Hume, ed. Greig, J. Y. T. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), I, 223.Google Scholar

^{Page 14 note 2} Ibid., II, 334. Kemp Smith, referring frequently to this remark (pp. 66, 70, 91), takes ‘artful’ to be equivalent to, say, ‘cunning’ or ‘deceitful’. Read in this way, Hume's remark to Adam Smith lends some support to Kemp Smith's view that Hume, covering his tracks, is disguising his meaning when he has Philo make his more theistic comments. I would suggest, however, that it is certainly not clear that Hume was using ‘artful’ in this way. It is at least equally possible that he was using this term in the sense of ‘done with (artistic) skill,’ as I suggest in the body of the text. In Johnson's Dictionary both meanings, among others, are assigned to this and cognate terms. Thus, Johnson's fourth definition of ‘art’ is ‘artfulness; skill; dexterity’, while his fifth definition is ‘cunning’. Similarly, though somewhat more ambiguously, his first definition of ‘artful’ is ‘performed with art’, while his third is ‘cunning; skilful; dexterous’. ‘Artfully’ is defined, simply, as ‘with art; skilfully; dexterously’. The first meaning of ‘artfulness’ is ‘skill’, the second ‘cunning’. Curiously enough, even ‘cunning’ is not unambiguous. Johnson's second definition of the adjective ‘cunning’ is ‘performed with skill; artful’, while his third definition is ‘artfully deceitful; sly; designing; trickish; full of fetches and stratagems; subtle; crafty; subdolous’. Clearly, Kemp Smith's reading of ‘artful’ is at least questionable; typically, in Johnson's Dictionary, Kemp Smith's meaning is listed after that which I employ in the text. See Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (London: W. Strahan, 1755)

^{Page 15 note 1} Hume criticises Cicero himself on the grounds that Atticus, one of the characters in his dialogues, ‘receives his instructions, with all the deference which a scholar owes to his master’. Hume, David, ‘Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences’, Essays, Literary, Moral and Political (London: Ward, Lock and Company, n.d.), p. 74.Google Scholar

^{Page 15 note 2} Letters, I, 154.

^{Page 15 note 3} Letters, I, 155.