mere cavils and fophifms; and that we cannot then imagine how it was ever poffible for us to lay any ftrefs on them. But there is no view of human life, he tells us, from which, without the greatest violence, we can infer the moral attributes, or learn infinite benevolence, conjoined with infinite power and infinite wifdom, which we must discover by the eyes of faith alone. He thinks it extremely unreasonable to form our ideas of the Author of Nature from our experience of the nar. row productions of human defign and invention, and says that it is impoffible for us to tell, from our limited views, whether the present system of things deferves any confiderable praise, if compared to other poffible, and even real systems.

⚫ Could a peasant, fays he, if the ENEID were read to him, pronounce that poem to be abfolutely faultless, or even affign to it its proper rank among the productions of human wit, he, who had never feen any other production ?

But were this world ever fo perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellencies of the work can juftly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea muft we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter, who framed so complicated, ufeful, and beautiful a machine! And what furprize muft we feel, when we find him a ftupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long fucceffion of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and contro. verfies, had been gradually improving! Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this fyftem was ftruck out: much labour loft: many fruitlefs trials made and a flow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world making. In fuch fubiects, who can determine, where the truth, nay, who can conjecture where the probability, hies, amidst a great number of hypothefes which may be propofed, and a ftill greater number, which may be imagined?

In a word, CLEANTHES, a man, who follows your hypothesis, is able, perhaps, to affert, or conjecture, that the univerfe, fome. time, arofe from fomething like defign: but beyond that pofition he cannot ascertain one fingle circumitance, and is left afterwards to fix every point of his theology, by the utmost licence of fancy and hypothefis. This world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a fuperior ftandard; and was only the first rude effay of fome infant Deity, who afterwards abandoned it, alhamed of his lame performance: it is the work only of fome dependent, inferior Deity; and is the object of derifion to his fuperiors: it is the production of old age and dotage in fome fuperannuated Deity; and ever fince his death, has run on at adventure, from the first impulfe and active force, which it received from him. You justly give figns of horror, DEMEA, at thefe ftrange suppositions: but thefe, and a thousand more of the fame kind, are CLEANTHES'S fuppofitions, not mine.

There occurs to me another hypothefis, which muft acquire an air of probability from the method of reafoning fo much infifted on

by

by CLEANTHES. That like effects arife from like caufes : this principle he supposes the foundation of all religion. But there is another principle of the fame kind, no lefs certain, and derived from the fame fource of experience; that where feveral known circumstances are obferved to be fimilar, the unknown will alfo be found fimilar. Thus, if we see the limbs of a human body, we conclude, that it is alfo attended with a human head, though hid from us. Thus, if we fee, through a chink in a wall, a small part of the fun, we conclude, that were the wall removed, we should fee the whole body. In short, this method of reafoning is fo obvious and familiar, that no fcruple can ever be made with regard to its folidity.

Now if we furvey the universe, so far as it falls under our knowledge, it bears a great refemblance to an animal or organized body, and feems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it produces no diforder; a continual walte in every part is inceffantly repaired: the clofet fympathy is perceived throughout the entire fy item; and each part or member, in performing its proper offices, operates both to its own prefervation and to that of the whole. The world then, I infer, is an animal, and the Deity is the SOUL of the world, actuating it, and a&uated by it..

Were I obliged to defend any particular fyftem (which I never willingly fhould do), I esteem none more plausible, than that which afcribes an eternal, inherent principle of order to the world; though attended with great and continual revolutions and alterations. This at once folves all difficulties; and if the folution, by being fo general, is not entirely complete and fatisfactory, it is, at least, a theory, that we muft, fooner or later, have recourse to, whatever fyftem we embrace.

Our friend CLEANTHES afferts, that fince no queftion of fact can be proved otherwise than by experience, the existence of a Deity admits not of proof from any other medium. The world, fays he, resembles the works of human contrivance: therefore its caufe mult also resemble that of the other. Here we may remark, that the operation of one very fmall part of nature, to wit man, upon another very small part, to wit, that inanimate matter lying within his reach, is the rule, by which CLEANTHES judges of the origin of the whole; and he measures objects, fo widely difproportioned, by the fame individual ftandard. But to wave all objections drawn from this topic; I affirm that there are other parts of the universe (besides the machines of human invention) which bear ftill a greater refemblance to the fabric of the world, and which therefore afford a better conjecture concerning the univerfal origin of this fyftem. These parts are animals and vegetables. The world plainly refembles more an animal or a vegetable, than it does a watch or a knitting loom. Its caufe, therefore, it is more probable, resembles the caufe of the former. The caufe of the former is generation or vegetation. The caufe, therefore, of the world, we may infer to be fomething fimilar or analogous to generation or vegetation.

But how is it conceivable, faid DEMEA, that the world can arife from any thing fimilar to vegetation or generation? Very easily, re

plied PHILO. In like manner as a tree fheds its feed into the neighbouring fields, and produces other trees; fo the great vegetable, the world, or this planetary fyftem, produces within itself certain feeds, which, being fcattered into the furrounding chaos, vegetate into new worlds. A comet, for inftance, is the feed of a world; and after it has been fully ripened, by paling from fun to fun, and ftar to far, it is at laft toft into the unformed elements, which every where furround this univerfe, and immediately sprouts up into a new fyftem.

I have all along afferted, and ftill affert, that we have no data to establish any fyttem of cofmogony. Our experience, so imperfe&t in itself, and fo limited both in extent and duration, can afford no probable conje&ure concerning the whole of things. But if we muft needs fix on fome hypothefis; by what rule, pray, ought we to determine our choice? Is there any other rule than the greater fimilarity of the objects compared? And does not a plant or an animal, which fprings from vegetation or generation, bear a ftronger refemblance to the world, than does any artificial machine, which arifes from reafon and defign?-

In this little corner of the world alone, there are four principles, Reason, Infint, Generation, Vegetation, which are fimilar to each other, and are the causes of similar effects. What a number of other principles may we naturally fuppofe in the immenfe extent and variety of the univerfe, could we travel from planet to planet, and from fyftem to fyltem, in order to examine each part of this mighty fabric? Any one of thefe four principles above mentioned (and a hundred others which lie open to our conjecture) may afford us a theory, by which to judge of the order of the world; and it is a palpable and egregious partiality, to confine our view entirely to that principle, by which our own minds operate. Were this principle more intelligible on that account, fuch a partiality might be fomewhat excufable; but reafon, in its internal fabric and structure, is really as little known to us as inftinct or vegetation; and perhaps even that vague, undeterminate word, Nature, to which the vulgar refer every thing, is not at the bottom more inexplicable. The effects of thefe principles are all known to us from experience: but the principles themfelves, and their manner of operation are totally unknown nor is it lefs intelligible, or lefs conformable to experience to fay, that the world arofe by vegetation from a feed fhed by another world, than to say that it arofe from a divine reafon or con. trivance, according to the fenfe in which CLEANTHES understands it.

That vegetation and generation, as well as reafon, are experienced to be principles of order in nature, is undeniable. If I rest my fyftem of cofmogony on the former, preferably to the latter, 'tis at my choice. The matter feems entirely arbitrary. And when CLEANTHES afks me what is the caufe of my great vegetative or generative faculty, I am equally intitled to afk him the caufe of his great reafoning principle. Thefe questions we have agreed to forbear on both tides; and it is chiefly his intereft on the prefent occa⚫ fion to tick to this agreement. Judging by our limited and imper

fect

fect experience, generation has fome privileges above reafon: for we fee every day the latter arife from the former, never the former from the latter."

PHILO proceeds to inform us that he could, in an inftant, propofe various other fyflems of cofmogony, which would have fome faint appearance of truth; though it is a thoufand, a million to one, he fays, if any one of them were the true fyftem.-Motion, we are told, in many infances, from gravity, from elafticity, from electricity, begins in matter, without any known voluntary agent, and to fuppofe always, in thefe cafes, an unknown voluntary agent, is mere hypothefis; and hypothefis attended with no advantage; the beginning of motion in matter itself being as conceivable a priori as its communication from mind and intelligence.

All religious fyftems, it is confeffed, fays he, are fubject to great and infuperable difficulties. Each difputant triumphs in his turn; while he carries on an offenfive war, and exposes the abfurdities, barbarities, and pernicious tenets of his antagonist. But all of them, on the whole, prepare a complete triumph for the Sceptic; who tells them, that no fyftem ought ever to be embraced with regard to fuch fubjects: for this plain reason, that no abfurdity ought ever to be affented to with regard to any subject. A total fufpenfe of judgment is here our only reasonable refource. And if every attack, as is commonly obferved, and no defence, among theologians, is fuccefsful; how complete must be his victory, who remains always, with all mankind, on the offenfive, and has himself no fixed ftation or abiding city, which he is ever, on any occafion, obliged to defend ?'

PHILO, in a word, is of opinion, that as no fyftem of cofmogony ought ever to be received from a flight analogy, fo neither ought any to be rejected on account of a small incongruity; fince that is an inconvenience, from which we can justly pronounce no one to be exempted.

The object of that curious artifice and machinery, which nature has difplayed in all animals, PHILO tells us, is the prefervation alone of individuals and propagation of the fpecies. It feems enough for her purpose, he fays, if fuch a rank be barely upheld in the univerfe, without any care or concern for the happiness of the members that compofe it. No refource. for this purpose: no machinery, in order merely to give pleafure or ease; no fund of pure joy and contentment: no indulgence without fome want or neceffity, accompanying it. leaft, the few phenomena of this nature, we are told, are overbalanced by oppofite phenomena of ftill greater importance.

Allowing, fays he, what never will be believed, at least, what can never poibly be proved, that animal, or at leaf, human hap、 pinefs in this life exceeds its mifery; we have yet done nothing; for this is not, by any means, what we expect from infinite power, infinite wildom, and infinite goodnefs. Why is there any mifery at

all

all in the world? Not by chance furely. From fome caufe then. is it from the intention of the Deity? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention? But he is almighty. Nothing can shake the folidity of this reafoning, fo fhort, fo clear, fo decifive; except we affert, that these subjects exceed all human capacity, and that our common measures of truth and falfehood are not applicable to them; a topic, which I have all along infifted on, but which you have, from the beginning, rejected with scorn and indignation.

But I will be contented to retire ftill from this intrenchment: for I deny, CLEANTHES, that you can ever force me in it: I will allow, that pain or mifery in man is compatible with infinite power and goodness in the Deity, even in your fenfe of these attributes: what are you advanced by all these conceffions? A mere poffible compatibility is not fufficient. You must prove these pure, unmixt, uncontrollable attributes from the prefent mixt and confused phenomena, and from thefe alone. A hopeful undertaking! Were the phenomena ever fo pure and unmixt, yet being finite, they would be infufficient for that purpofe. How much more, where they are alfo fo jarring and difcordant?'

There seem to be four circumstances, PHILO fays, on which depend all, or the greatest part of the ills, that moleft fenfible creatures, none of which appear to human reason, in the leaft degree, neceffary or unavoidable; nor can we fuppofe them fuch, without the utmoft licence of imagination.

The first circumftance which introduces evil, we are told, is that contrivance of economy or the animal creation, by which pains as well as pleafures are employed to excite all creatures to action, and make them vigilant in the great work of selfprefervation. Now pleasure alone, in its various degrees, feems to human understanding fufficient to this purpofe.-The fecond circumftance is, the conducting of the world by general laws; and this feems no way neceffary to a very perfect being.The third circumftance is, the great frugality, with which all powers and faculties are diftributed to every particular being. Nature, 'tis faid, feems to have formed an exact calculation of the neceffities of her creatures; and like a rigid mafter, has afforded them little more powers or endowments, than what are strictly fufficient to fupply thofe neceffities. An indulgent parent would have bestowed a large ftock, in order to guard against accidents, and fecure the happiness and welfare of the creature, in the most unfortunate concurrence of circumftances. Every course of life would not have been so furrounded with precipices, that the leaft departure from the true path, by mistake or neceffity, muft involve us in mifery and ruin. Some reserve, fome fund would have been provided to enfure happiness; nor would the powers and the neceffities have been adjusted with fo rigid an economy.

The fourth circumftance, whence arifes the evil and mifery of the universe, is the inaccurate workmanship of all the fprings