nor any perfection." Ogilvie argues that it would please us "much
better to think that this world was formed by a fortuitous
concourse of atoms... rather than to view it as framed by an
intelligent Mind to be an immense Lazar-house, crowded with the
victims of disease...." Given Philo's view of the intelligent
mind, Ogilvie asks that we

                                

     ...judge whether he who looks up to such a Being can

     seriously worship Him with 'profound adoration.' I repeat,

     therefore, that I construct his contradictory assertions

     most favourably when I consider 'a blind nature' as the

     object of his belief, rather than such a cause of all things

     as being entitled to his homage.

                                
Ogilvie concludes by focusing on Philo's concession of thanks to
the creator "that Atheists are rarely to be met with." Ogilvie
asks,

                                

     To whom, Sir, let me ask, are your thanks addressed upon

     this occasion? Are they offered to that Intelligence who

     "involves individuals in ruin and misery?" Are they due to

     the "coarse Artificer, the Author of physical and moral

     evil, &c. &c. &c.?" With much more reason may you thank Him

     for having so framed His work, as that His miserable

     creatures by denying His existence, may turn from objects

     that cannot be viewed with other feelings than those of

     horror and detestation.

                                
This feature of double concealment was also recognized by George
Horne in his Letters on infidelity (1784). In that work Horne
presents "A dialogue between Thomas and Timothy on philosophical
skepticism" which exposes Hume's literary device. Horne's
dialogue opens,

                                

     Tim. ... Where art [you] going this morning?

     Tom. I am going to be made a Christian.

     Tim. The very last thing I should have dreamed of. But pray,

          who is to make you one?

     Tim. David Hume.

     Tom. David Hume? Why, I thought he was an Atheist.

     Tim. The world never was more mistaken about any one man,

          than about David Hume. He was deemed a sworn foe to

          Christianity, whereas his whole life was spent in its

          service. His works compose altogether a complete

          Praeparatio Evangelica. They lead men gently, and

          gradually, as it were to the Gospel... here is chapter

          and verse for you. Dialogues concerning Natural

          Religion, p. 263, "To be a philosophical sceptic, is,

          in a man of letters, the first and most essential step

          towards being a sound believing Christian." (pp. 49-50)

                                
Horne's dialogue proceeds farcically with Timothy and Thomas each
producing evidence from Hume's Dialogue in defense of their
respective interpretations of Hume. Horne, of course, did not
believe that Hume's life was spent in service of Christianity (as
Timothy does in Horne's dialog).

     In recent years there has been an even greater diversity of
interpretations of the Dialogues and many commentators argue that
Hume was not as critical of natural religion as his reputation
would have us believe. Here is a sample of some of the recent
interpretations of Hume, beginning with the most "moderate."
Nicholas Capaldi argues that Hume outright accepted the design