It has been remarked, my HERMIPPUS, that though the ancient
philosophers conveyed most of their instruction in the form of
dialogue, this method of composition has been little practised in
later ages, and has seldom succeeded in the hands of those who have
attempted it. Accurate and regular argument, indeed, such as is now
expected of philosophical inquirers, naturally throws a man into
the methodical and didactic manner; where he can immediately,
without preparation, explain the point at which he aims; and thence
proceed, without interruption, to deduce the proofs on which it is
established. To deliver a SYSTEM in conversation, scarcely appears
natural; and while the dialogue-writer desires, by departing from
the direct style of composition, to give a freer air to his
performance, and avoid the appearance of Author and Reader, he is
apt to run into a worse inconvenience, and convey the image of
Pedagogue and Pupil. Or, if he carries on the dispute in the
natural spirit of good company, by throwing in a variety of topics,
and preserving a proper balance among the speakers, he often loses
so much time in preparations and transitions, that the reader will
scarcely think himself compensated, by all the graces of dialogue,
for the order, brevity, and precision, which are sacrificed to
them.
There are some subjects, however, to which dialogue-writing
is peculiarly adapted, and where it is still preferable to the
direct and simple method of composition.
Any point of doctrine, which is so obvious that it scarcely
admits of dispute, but at the same time so important that it cannot
be too often inculcated, seems to require some such method of
handling it; where the novelty of the manner may compensate the
triteness of the subject; where the vivacity of conversation may
enforce the precept; and where the variety of lights, presented by
various personages and characters, may appear neither tedious nor
redundant.
Any question of philosophy, on the other hand, which is so
OBSCURE and UNCERTAIN, that human reason can reach no fixed
determination with regard to it; if it should be treated at all,
seems to lead us naturally into the style of dialogue and
conversation. Reasonable men may be allowed to differ, where no one
can reasonably be positive. Opposite sentiments, even without any
decision, afford an agreeable amusement; and if the subject be
curious and interesting, the book carries us, in a manner, into
company; and unites the two greatest and purest pleasures of human
life, study and society.
Happily, these circumstances are all to be found in the
subject of NATURAL RELIGION. What truth so obvious, so certain, as
the being of a God, which the most ignorant ages have acknowledged,
for which the most refined geniuses have ambitiously striven to
produce new proofs and arguments? What truth so important as this,
which is the ground of all our hopes, the surest foundation of
morality, the firmest support of society, and the only principle
which ought never to be a moment absent from our thoughts and
meditations? But, in treating of this obvious and important truth,
what obscure questions occur concerning the nature of that Divine
Being, his attributes, his decrees, his plan of providence? These
have been always subjected to the disputations of men; concerning
these human reason has not reached any certain determination. But
these are topics so interesting, that we cannot restrain our
restless inquiry with regard to them; though nothing but doubt,
uncertainty, and contradiction, have as yet been the result of our
most accurate researches.
This I had lately occasion to observe, while I passed, as
usual, part of the summer season with CLEANTHES, and was present at
those conversations of his with PHILO and DEMEA, of which I gave
you lately some imperfect account. Your curiosity, you then told
me, was so excited, that I must, of necessity, enter into a more
exact detail of their reasonings, and display those various systems
which they advanced with regard to so delicate a subject as that of
natural religion. The remarkable contrast in their characters still
further raised your expectations; while you opposed the accurate
philosophical turn of CLEANTHES to the careless scepticism of
PHILO, or compared either of their dispositions with the rigid
inflexible orthodoxy of DEMEA. My youth rendered me a mere auditor
of their disputes; and that curiosity, natural to the early season
of life, has so deeply imprinted in my memory the whole chain and
connection of their arguments, that, I hope, I shall not omit or
confound any considerable part of them in the recital.