judgment the steps which they trod before him, but of carrying his
researches to greater extent into the most difficult regions of
philosophy. This too he had the merit to perform, neither in the station
of a private citizen, nor in the leisure of academic retirement, but in
the bustle of public life, amidst the almost constant exertions of the
bar, the employment of the magistrate, the duty of the senator, and the
incessant cares of the statesman; through a period likewise chequered
with domestic afflictions and fatal commotions in the Republic. As a
philosopher, his mind appears to have been clear, capacious, penetrating,
and insatiable of knowledge. As a writer, he was endowed with every
talent that could captivate either the judgment or taste. His researches
were continually employed on subjects of the greatest utility to mankind,
and those often such as extended beyond the narrow bounds of temporal
existence. The being of a God, the immortality of the soul, a future
state of rewards and punishments, and the eternal distinction of good and
evil; these were in general the great objects of his philosophical
enquiries, and he has placed them in a more convincing point of view than
they ever were before exhibited to the pagan world. The variety and
force of the arguments which he advances, the splendour of his diction,
and the zeal with which he endeavours to excite the love and admiration
of virtue, all conspire to place his character, as a philosophical
writer, including likewise his incomparable eloquence, on the summit of
human celebrity.

The form of dialogue, so much used by Cicero, he doubtless adopted in
imitation of Plato, who probably took the hint of it from the colloquial
method of instruction practised by Socrates. In the early stage of
philosophical enquiry, this mode of composition was well adapted, if not
to the discovery, at least to the confirmation of moral truth; especially
as the practice was then not uncommon, for speculative men to converse
together on important subjects, for mutual information. In treating of
any subject respecting which the different sects of philosophers differed
(64) from each other in point of sentiment, no kind of composition could
be more happily suited than dialogue, as it gave alternately full scope
to the arguments of the various disputants. It required, however, that
the writer should exert his understanding with equal impartiality and
acuteness on the differen