and not Cleanthes, speaks for Hume. The introductory comments to
his Remarks focus exclusively on this issue. After quoting
Pamphilius' portrayal of the three characters, Hayter argues,

                                

     From this representation one might at first be led to look

     for Mr. H/UME\ himself under the mask of C/LEANTHES\, and to

     expect from the mouth of C/LEANTHES\ the celebrated

     Metaphysician's own sentiments. Let us consider however that

     Mr. H/UME\, after the great nominal superiority attributed

     to C/LEANTHES\, could not possibly, without appearance of

     vanity, have appointed C/LEANTHES\ his representative. The

     fact indeed indisputably is, that P/HILO\, not C/LEANTHES\,

     personates Mr. H/UME\. C/LEANTHES\ assumes at times (p. 242

     and 244) the tone of D/EMEA\: while P/HILO\  possesses in

     general the sole exclusive privilege of retailing the

     purport of Mr. H/UME\'s former Philosophical productions. --

     Every remarkable trait and feature of those productions may

     be traced in the parts of the Dialogue assigned to P/HILO\.2

                                

     Other critics attempted to expose a deeper concealment on
Hume's part. Joseph Milner in his Gibbon's account of
Christianity considered argues that Hume is insincere when
pronouncing Cleanthes the victor of the debate:

                                

     In his dialogues concerning natural religion, we have the

     substance of all his sceptical essays; and notwithstanding

     his declaration at the close in favour of Cleanthes, the

     natural religionist, it is evident from the whole tenour of

     the book, and still more so from the entire scepticism of

     his former publications, that Philo is his favourite.

     Sincerity constitutes no part of a philosopher's virtue.

                                
He continues that Hume's aim is to "reduce Polytheism, Spinozism,
Christianity, and all sorts of views of the divinity to the same
level of evidence, or rather of no evidence; and on the ruin of
all, to establish his horrible universal scepticism."3

     Perhaps the most penetrating analysis of Philo was given by
John Ogilvie in his Inquiry into the causes of the infidelity and
scepticism of the times. Like his contemporaries, Ogilvie argues
that Philo is Hume's mouthpiece.4 However, Ogilvie charges
further that even Philo's concessions cannot be taken at face
value:

                                

     ...Philo expresseth, in very strong terms, his belief of a

     Deity, such as he represents him. He even thanks this Being,

     or Mind, or Thought, that atheists are very rare. And,

     notwithstanding his love of singular argument, he professeth

     to pay to him profound adoration. P. 232. But, as Philo's

     declarations upon this subject are contradictory, I

     construct his notions most favourably, when I consider him

     as excluding a Deity from the universe.

                                
For Ogilvie, Hume is involved in double concealment. First, he
conceals his views behind the veil of the character of Philo.
Second, Philo himself is concealing his true views by making
empty concessions toward God's existence. Ogilvie's discussion of
Philo's concealment is particularly relevant in view of the 20th
century commentators, noted above, who take Philo's concessions
as sincere.

     Ogilvie continues that, for Philo, the options for believing
in the creation of the universe are between "a blind nature" or
"an Omnipotent Tyrant, having neither wisdom, justice, goodness,