An essay on the nature and immutability of truth, in opposition to sophistry and scepticism (7th ed., corr.).

Beyond sympathy: Smith’s rejection of Hume’s moral theory

“…On the historical side, the most important upshot is that Hume's foundational moral theory turns out to have been answered in his own lifetime by a powerful and accurate philosophical interlocutor, one who both understood and accurately engaged Hume's positions, not just piecemeal but systematically and in the round. Although Hume's moral theory was subsequently subjected to attack by James Balfour (1753) and James Beattie (1770), as well as (somewhat) less splenetically by Thomas Reid (1783), their engagements do not address the true nature of Hume's arguments, but concentrate fire on caricatures and misreadings, generating little of philosophical substance. Smith, by contrast, understood Hume's theory very precisely, and constructed a response that was a serious and profound challenge to its viability.…”

Was David Hume a racist? Interpreting Hume's infamous footnote (Part II)

“…James Beattie was perhaps most renowned for his criticism of Hume. Beattie's Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth (1770) was largely a criticism of Hume's metaphysical scepticism, but he devoted a few pages to Hume's footnote on race. In this digression, Beattie first ties the footnote to Aristotle's argument for natural slavery.…”

“…I aim at no paradoxes; my prejudices (if certain instinctive suggestions of the understanding may be so called) are all in favour of truth and virtue; and I have no principles to support, but those which seem to me to have influenced the judgment of a great majority of mankind in all ages of the world. (1770, pp. 1–2; emphasis added)…”

Lies, Damned Lies and Literature: George Orwell and ‘The Truth’

“…7Hume was savagely attacked by his contemporary James Beattie (1996) in his Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth in Opposition to Sophistry and Scepticism . Beattie's faith in evidential truth based upon the reliability of the senses, unlike Hume's scepticism, has not stood the test of time.…”