think of, to strengthen that Side of the Argument, will be

     most acceptable to me. Any Propensity you imagine I have to

     the other Side, crept in upon me against my Will ... I have

     often thought, that the best way of composing a Dialogue,

     wou'd be for two Persons that are of different Opinions

     about any Question of Importance, to write alternately the

     different Parts of the Discourse, & reply to each other. By

     this Means, that vulgar Error woud be avoided, of putting

     nothing but Nonsense into the Mouth of the Adversary: And at

     the same time, a Variety of Character & Genius being upheld,

     woud make the whole look more natural & unaffected. Had it

     been my good Fortune to live near you, I shou'd have taken

     on me the Character of Philo, in the Dialogue, which you'll

     own I coud have supported naturally enough: And you woud not

     have been averse to that of Cleanthes. I believe, too, we

     coud both of us have kept our Temper very well; only, you

     have not reach'd an absolute philosophical Indifference on

     these Points. What Danger can ever come from ingenious

     Reasoning & Enquiry? The worst speculative Sceptic ever I

     knew, was a much better Man than the best superstitious

     Devotee & Bigot. I must inform you, too, that this was the

     way of thinking of the Antients on this Subject. ...  I

     cou'd wish that Cleanthes' Argument coud be so analys'd, as

     to be render'd quite formal & regular. The Propensity of the

     Mind towards it, unless that Propensity were as strong &

     universal as that to believe in our Senses & Experience,

     will still, I am afraid, be esteem'd a suspicious

     Foundation. Tis here I wish for your Assistance. ... The

     Instances I have chosen for Cleanthes are, I hope, tolerably

     happy, & the Confusion in which I represent the Sceptic

     seems natural. [March 10, 1751]

Three things are particularly noteworthy in the above passage.
First, from the start Hume tries to portray Cleanthes as the
"hero" or winner of the dialog. Second, Hume notes his conscious
attempt to present all sides of the dispute in their strongest
light, and thereby elevate the literary quality of the piece.
Third, Hume argues that no public harm will result from
considering Philo's skeptical arguments.

     Between 1751 and 1761 Hume worked on and further circulated
his manuscript; however, at least one friend discouraged him from
publishing it, presumably for political reasons. Hume thus set
the project aside, and took it up again in 1776 when he found
himself terminally ill. To secure its publication, Hume included
in his Will the following request to Adam Smith:

     To my friend Dr Adam Smith, late Professor of Moral

     Philosophy in Glasgow, I leave all my manuscripts without

     exception, desiring him to publish my Dialogues concerning

     Natural Religion, which are comprehended in this present

     bequest; but to publish no other papers which he suspects

     not to have been written within these five years, but to

     destroy them all at his leisure. And I even leave him full

     power over all my papers, except the Dialogues above

     mentioned; and though I can trust to that intimate and

     sincere friendship, which has ever subsisted between us, for

     his faithful execution of this part of my will, yet, as a