Within the following few months, four reviews of Hume's Dialogues
appeared, each of which confirmed Blair's initial reaction. The
first review to appear was the lead article in the Critical
Review journal. The review opened noting that "neither the
friends of religion have any occasion to be alarmed, nor her
enemies to triumph. Freedom of enquiry can never be injurious to
the cause of truth." The reviewer concludes with only mild
criticism arguing that "If the objections advanced by Philo had
been produced with modesty, and answered by Cleanthes as fully as
the nature of the question would have allowed, the author would
have been applauded by every sensible and discerning reader. But
when they are proposed with an air of triumph and defiance, this
work assumes a more disadvantageous form, the aspect of
infidelity." (September 1779, Vol. 48, pp. 161-172). The second
review of the Dialogues which appeared in the London Review  was
more flattering. The review expresses hope that  "it will prove
no unacceptable present to the orthodox" and concludes that
"...in our opinion, whoever carefully peruses these Dialogues
will not readily be infected with either of the two greatest
corruptions of religion, enthusiasm or superstition"   (1779,
Vol. 10, pp. 365-373).

     Finally, William Rose's review in the Monthly Review opens
noting that the Dialogues are "written with great elegance; in
the true spirit of ancient dialogue; and, in point of
composition, is equal, if not superior, to any of Mr. Hume's
other writings. Nothing new, however, is advanced upon the
subjects." Rose concludes, though, on a more negatively. For
Rose, if Hume is right that God does not exist, then "the wicked
are set free from every restraint but that of the laws... the
world we live in is a fatherless world; we are chained down to a
life full of wretchedness and misery; and we have no hope beyond
the grave." Rose notes that "Hume had been long floating on the
boundless and pathless ocean of scepticism..." and Hume should
have desired a more secure peace at the end of his life. "But his
love of paradox, his inordinate pursuit of literary fame,
continued..." and, for Rose, this formed Hume's motive for
publishing the Dialogues. Rose acknowledges that Hume lived a
virtuous life, and suggests that Hume's natural good temper,
education, and fortune overcame the negative effects of his
philosophy. But if his philosophy was let loose among humankind,
Rose asks, "Will those who think they are to die like brutes,
ever act like men?" Rose believes that even the best political
system needs to be supplemented with fear of divine punishment to
curb immortality within the law. Nevertheless, Rose concedes that
philosophically minded readers will not be harmed by the
Dialogues, although the Dialogues "may serve, indeed, to
confirm... the unprincipled in their prejudices...." (November
1779, Vol. 61, pp. 343-355)

     INTERPRETIONS OF THE DIALOGUES. In Hume's day, as now, the
two key interpretive questions of the Dialogues were (1) Which
character, if any, represents Hume?, and (2) What are the views
of that character? Given its literary style, the Dialogues
involve a complex web of concealment, and, accordingly, Hume's
contemporaries took greater pains to understand the hidden
meaning of the Dialogues. Virtually all early commentators on the
Dialogues attempted to identify Philo as Hume's mouthpiece, as
Rose does below in his review when declaring Philo the hero:

                                

     Cleanthes... defends a good cause very feebly, and is by no

     means entitled to the character of an accurate philosopher.

     Demea supports the character of a sour, croaking divine,

     very tolerably; but P/HILO\ is the hero of the piece; and it

     must be acknowledged, that he urges his objections with no

     inconsiderable degree of acuteness and subtlety.

                                
The London Review also made this clear from the outset of their
review:

                                

     The following sentiments, which are represented as the

     genuine opinions of Philo, or Hume himself, seem to us so

     important as to deserve insertion as a specimen of the

     whole.

                                
For the reviewer, the representative sections of Philo's views
are the first half of Part XII of the Dialogues in which Philo
reduces the conflict between atheism and theism to a verbal
dispute. The reviewer concludes that "This reconciliation of
these two seemingly most distant opponents, is of more service to
true religion than volumes of divinity...." The reviewer is
reflecting the editorial slant of the London Review as a whole,
which tended to be religiously skeptical.

     Thomas Hayter made efforts to establish clearly that Philo,