r^

t

Given By

,^/u^ ..-&<i^. (f?> . C^:<yi^^^c4Jky

^

^

DIALOGUE

CONCERNING

NATURAL RELIGION.

f

Entered m Stationers^Hall^ according to. Ail oj Parliaments

DIALOGUES

C O N C E R N I N G

NATURAL RELIGION.

B Y

DAVID HUM E, Esq^

^^

THE SECOND EDITION.

LONDON

M.DCC.LXXiX.

tut) fh L-\'^0-r<'m

-^■

)-'

t • • « •

DIALOGUES

CONCERNING

Natural Religion*

PAMPHILUS to HeRMIPPUS.

T has been remarked^ tny Hermip-«

PUS, that though the ancient phi-

lofophers conveyed mod of their

in{lru£lion in the form of dialogue, this

method of compofitiou has been little

A ^ praclifed

Dialogues concerning

pradifed in later ages, and has feldoni Succeeded in the hands of thofe who have attempted it. Accurate and regu- lar argument, indeed, fuch as is now expe(fled of philofophical inquirers, na-^ turally throws a man into the methodi- cal and didadlic ma;nner ; where he can immediately, without preparation, ex- plain the point at which he aims; and thence proceed, without interruptiony to deduce the proofs on which it is eftablilhed. To deliver a SYSTEM in converfation^ fcarcely appears natural } and while the dialogue- writer defires ^ by departing from the diredl ftyle of / compoiition, to give a freer air to his performance, and avoid the appearance of Author and Reader ^ he is apt to run into a worfe inconvenience^ and convey the image of Pedagogue and PupiL Or if he carries on the difpute in the natu- ral fpirit of good company, by throw- ing in a variety of topics, and prefer- ving a proper balance among the Speak- ers ;

Natural Religion.

ers ; he often lofes fo much time in preparations and transitions , that the reader will fcarcely think himfelf com-

penfated, by all the graces of dialogue, for the order, brevity, and precifion, which are facrificed to them*

There are fome fubje6ls, however, to which dialogue-writing is peculiarly adapted, and where it is iliir preferable to the diredl and iimple method of com- poiition*

AKy point of do(5lrine, which is fb obvious that it fcarcely admits of dif- pute, but at the fame time fo important that it cannot be too often inculcated, feems to require fome fuch method of handling it; where the novelty of the manner may compenfate the tritenefs of the fubjedl; where the vivacity of con- verfation may enforce the precept ; and where the variety of lights, prefented by various perfonages and charadlers, A 2 may

Dialogues concerning

may appear neither tedious nor redun- dant.

Any queftion of philofophy, on the other hand, which is fo obfcure and un-- certa'm^ th^t human reafon can reach no fixed determination with regard to it ; if it fliould be treated at all, feems to lead us naturally into the ftyle of dialogue and converfation. Reafonable men may be allowed to differ, where no one can reafonably be pofitive : Oppofite fenti- ments, even without any decifion, af- ford an agreeable amufement: arid if the fubjedi be curious and interefting^ the book carries us, in a manner, in- to company; and unites the two great- ^ft and pureft pleafures of human lifc^ ftudy and fociety.

Happily, thefe circumftances are all to be found in the fubjedl of NATU- RAL RELIGION. What truth fo ob- vious, fo certain, as the being of a

Gody

Natural Religion. 5

God, which the moft ignorant ages have acknowledged, for which the moft re- fined genuifes have ambitioufly ftriven to produce new proofs and arguments ? What truth fo important as this, which is the ground of all our hopes, the fureft foundation of morality, the firmeft fup- port of fociety, and the only principle which ought never to be a moment ab^- fent from our thoughts and medita- tions? But in treating of this obvious and important truth ; what obfcure queftions occur, concerning the na- ture of that divine Being; his attri- butes, his decrees, his plan of provi- dence? Thefe have been always fubjec- ted to the difputations of rnen: Con- cerning thefe, human reafon has not reached any certain determination : But thefe are topics fo interefting, that we cannot reftrain our reftlefs inquiry with regard to thein ; though nothing but idpubt, uncertainty, and contradiction, A 3 have

10 Dialogues concePvNing

have as yet been the refult of our nioft accurate refearches.

This I had lately occafion to obferve, while I pafled, as ufnal, part of the fum- mer-feafon with CLEANTHES, and was prefent at thofe converfations of his with PHILO and DEMEA, of which I gave you lately fome imperfedl ac- count. Your curiofity, you then told me, was fo excited, that I muft of ne- ceffity enter into a more exadt detail of their reafqnings, and difplay thofe va- rious fyftems which they advanced with regard to fo delicate a fubjecfl as that of Natural Religion. The remarkable con- trail in their characters ftill farther rai- fed your expectations ; while you oppo- fed the accurate philofophicai turn of Cleanthes to the carelefs fcepticifm of Philo, or compared either of their diipofitions with the rigid inflexible or^ thodoxy of Demea. My youth ren^ dered me a mere auditor of their dif-^

putes I

Natural Religion. ii

putes ; and that curioiity natural to the early feafon of life, has fo deeply im- printed in my memory the wh6le chain and connection of their arguments, that, I hope, I fhall not omit or con- found any confidcrable part of them in the recitals

4 PART

PART I.

FTER I joined the company, wliom Part

I.

I found fitting in Cleanthes's library, Demea paid Cleanthes fome compliments, on the great care which he took of my education, and on his unwearied perfeverance and conftancy in all his friendfhips. The father of Pamphilus, faid he, was your intimate friend : The fon is your pupil; and may indeed be regarded as your adopted fon, were we to judge by the p.ains which you beftow in conveying to him every ufeful branch of literature and fcience. You are no more w^anting, I am per- fuaded, in prudence than in induftry, I fliall, therefore, communicate to you

a

14 Dialogues concerning

'^^^^ a maxim which I have obferved with v-xw-f regard to my own children, that I may learn how far it agrees with your prac- tice. The method I follow in their e- ^ ducation is founded on the faying of an ancient, " That Jiudents of philofophy *' ought frjl to Itarn Logics^ then Ethics^ *' next Phyftcs^ lajl of all the Nature of " the Gods'^y This fcience of Natural Theology, according to him, being the moft profound and abftrufe of any, re- quired the maturefl judgment in its ftu- dents ; and none but a mind, enriched with all the other fciences, can fafely be entrufted with it.

Are you fo late, fays Philo, in teach- ing your children the principles of re- ligion ? Is there no danger of their ne- glefting, or rejedling altogether, thofc opinions, of which they have heard fo little during the whole courfe of their , education ? It is only as a fcience, re- plied

* Chryfippus apud Plat, de repug. Stolcorunip

Natural Religion. 15

plied Demea, fubjecled to human rea- j^'^ Ibning and difputation, that I poftpone '^^^v the ftudy of Natural Theology. To fea- Ibn their minds v/ith early piety, is my chief care ; and by continual precept and inftruclion, and I hope too by ex- ample, I imprint deeply on their tender minds an habitual reverence for all the principles of religion. While they pais through every other fcience, I ftill re- mark the uncertainty of each part; the eternal difputations of men ; the obfcu- rity of all philofophy; and the flrange, ridiculous conclufions, which forne of the greateft geniufes have derived from the principles of mere -human reafon. Having thus tamed their mind to a pro- per fubmiffion and felf-diffidence, I have no longer any fcruple of opening to them the greateft myfteries of reli- gion ; nor apprehend any danger from that afliiming arrogance of philofophy, which may lead them to reje6l the moft eftabliflied doftrines and opinions. /

Your

i6 Dialogues concerning

Fart Your precaution, fays Philo, of fea- ^-'-rv^ foiling your childrens minds early with piety, is certainly very reafonable ; and no more than is requifite in this pro- fane and irreligious age. But what I chiefly admire in your plan of educa- tion, is your method of drawing advan- tage from the very principles of philo- fophy and learning, which, by inlpi- fing pride and felf-fufiiciency, have commonly, in all ages, been found fo , deftru<5live to the principles of religion. The vulgar, indeed, we may remark, who are unacquainted with fcience and profound inquiry, obferving the end^ lefs difputes of the learned, have com- monly a thorough contempt for Philo-- lofophy ; and rivet themfelves the fafter, by that means, in the great points of theology which have been taught them^ Thofe who enter a little into fludy and inquiry, finding many appearances of evidence in dodlrines the neweft and luoll extraordinary, tliink nothing too

difficult

Natural Religion. 17

. dijOBcult for human reafon; and, pre- ^^^"^ fumptuoufly breaking thro' all fences, v-orv# profane the inmoft fan6luaries of the temple. But Cleanthes will, I hope, agree with me, that^ after we have a- bandoned ignorance, the fureft remedy, there is ftill one expedient left to pre- vent this profane liberty. Let Demea's principles be improved and cultivated : Let us become thoroughly fenfible of the weaknefs, blindnefs, and narrow limits, of human reafon: Let us duly confidcr its uncertainty and endleft contrarieties, even in fubje(5ls of com- mon life and pracflice: Let the errors and deceits of our very fenfes be fet * before us 5 the inluperable difficulties which attend firft principles in all fy- ftems ; the contradictions which ad- here to the very ideas of matter, caufe and efFedl, extenfion, fpace, time, mo- tion ; and, in a word, quantity of all kinds, the objedl of the only fcience ^at can fairly pretend to any certainty

or

C'-v>J

18 Dialogues concerninc^

Part q^ evidence. When thefe topics are dip I, ...

played in their full light, as they are by

fome philofophers and almofl all di- vines ; v^ho can retain fuch confidence in this frail faculty of reafon as to pay any regard to its determinations in points fo fublime, fo abfttufe, fo re-^ mote from common life and experience ? When the coherence of the parts of a ftone, or even that compofition of parts which renders it extended; vehen thefe familiar objects, I fay, are fo inexpli- cable, and contain circumflances fo repugnant and contradidlory ; with what affurance can we decide concern- cerning the origin of worlds, or trace their hiftory from eternity to eternity?

While Philo pronounced thefe words, I could obferve a fmile in the countenance both of Demea and Cle^ ANTHEsi That of Demea feemed to imply an unreferved fatisfacflion in the dodrines delivered: But, in Clean-

THES'S

Natitral Religion. 19

THEs's features, I could diftinguifli an ^^^"^ air of fincffe ; as if he perceived fome v^v-^ raillery or artificial malice in the rea- fonings of Philo.

You propofe then, Philo, faid Cle- A NT HE s, to eredl religious faith on phi- lofophical fcepticifm; and you think, that if certainty or evidence be expelled from every other fubjecl of inquiry, it will all retire to thefe tlieological doc- trines, and there acquire a fiiperior force and authority. Whether your fcepti- cifm be as abfolute and fincere as you pretend, we ftiall learn by and by, when the company breaks up : We fliall then fee, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt, if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to po- pular opinion, derived from our falla- cious fenfes, and more fallacious expe- rience. And this confideration, Deme A, may, I think, fairly ferve to abate our

ill-

^o Dialogues conckrninc^^

^^^^ ill-will to this humorous fe6l of the ^•^^>r^ fceptics. If they be thoroughly iu earneft, they will not long trouble the world with their doubts, cavils, and diiputes : If they be only in jeft, they are, perhaps, bad raillers; but. can ne-- ver be very dangerous, either to the ftate, to philofophy, or to religion.

Ik reality, Philo, continued he, it feems certain^ that though a man, in a flufh of humour, after intenfe reflexion on the many contradictions and imper- feclions of human reafon, may entirely renounce all belief and opinion; it is impoffible for him to perfevere in this total fcepticilin, or make it appear in his conducft for a few hours. External objedls prefs in upon him: Paffions fo- licit him : His philofophical melancholy diffipates ; and even the utmoft vio- lence upon his own temper will not be able, during "any time, to preferve the poor appearance of fcepticifm* And for

what

Natural Religion. 21

wiiat reafon impofe on hinxfelf fuch a ^^^"^ violence? This is a point in which it '^^-tnj will be impofTible for him ever to fatis- fy himfelf, confiftently with his fcepti- cal principles : So that upon the whole nothing could be more ridiculous than the principles of the ancient Pyrrho- NX ANS ; if in reality they endeavoured, as is pretended, to extend, throughout, the fame fcepticifm, which they had learned from the declamations of their fchools, and which they ought to have confined to them.

In this view, there appears a great refemblance between the fedls of the Stoics and Pyrrhoni ANS, though per- petual antagonifts: and both of them feem founded on this erroneous maxim. That what a man can perform fome- times, and in fome difpofitions, he can perform always, and in every difpofitiono When the mind, by Stoical refledlions, is elevated into a fublime enthuiiafm of

B virtue,

22 Dialogues concerning

Part virtue, and ftrongly fmit with any Z^^- v^>rvj cies of honour or pubhc good, the ut- moft bodily pain and fufferings will not prevail over fuch a high fenfe of duty ; and it is poilible, perhaps, by its means, even to fmile and exult in the midft of tortures. If this fome- times may be the cafe in fadl and rea- lity, much more may a philofopher, in his fchool, or even in his clofet, work himfelf up to fuch an enthufiafm, and fupport in imagination the acuteft pain or moft calamitous event which he can poffibly conceive. But how fliall he fupport this enthufiafm itfelf? The bent of his mind relaxes, and cannot be re- called at pleafure: Avocations lead him aftray: Misfortunes attack him un- avfares: And the philofopher finks by degrees into the plebeian,

I ALLOW of your comparifon between the Stoics and Sceptics, replied Phi- LO. But you may obferve, at the fame

timej

Natural Religion. 23

time, that though the miiid cannot, in ^^'^ Stoicifm, fupport the higheft flights of v-^^r^-/ philofophy ; yet, even when it finks low- er, it fliil retains fomewhat of its former difpofition ; and the efFedls of the Stoic's reafoning will appear in his condudl in common life, and through the whole tenor of his actions . The ancient fchools, particularly that of Zeno, produced ex- amples of virtue and conftancy which feem aftoniihing to prefent times.

Vain Wifdom all and falfe Philfophy. Yet with a pleafing forcery could charm Pain, for a while, or anguifh ; and excite Fallacious Hope, or arm the obdurate breaft With ftubborn Patience, as with triple fteel.

In like manner, if a man has accuftom- ed himfelf to fceptical confiderations on the uncertainty and narrow limits of reafon, he will not entirely forget them when he turns his refleclion on other fubjedls ; but in all his philofophical principles and reafoning, I dare not fay in his common condudl, he will be found

B 2 different

24 Dialogues concerning

Part difFerent from thofe, who either never wn> formed any opinions in the cafe, or have entertained fentiments more fa- vourable to human reafon.

To whatever length any one may pufh his fpeculative principles of fcep- ticifm, he muft a6t, I own, and live, and converfe, like other men ; and for this condudl he is not obliged to give any other reafon, than the abfolute ne- cefTity he lies under of fo doing. If he ever carries his fpeculations farther than this neceffity conftrains him, and phi- lofophifes either on natural or moral £iibjedls, he is alhired by a certain plea- fvire and fatisfa6lion which he finds in employing himfelf after that manner. He confiders befides, that every one, even in common life, is conflrained to have more or lefs of this philofophy; that from our earlieft infancy we make con- tinual advances in forming more gene- ral principles of condudl and reafon-

ing;

Natural Religion. 25

ing; that the larger experience we ac- ^^^^ quire, and the ftronger reafon we are wn^ endued with, we always render our principles the more general and com- prehenfive; and that what we call phi- lofophy is nothing but a more regular and methodical operation of the fame kind. To philofophife on fuch fubjedls is nothing effentially different from rea- foning on common life; and we may only expe(5l greater {lability, if not great- er truth, from our philofophy, on ac- count of its exa6ler and more fcrupu- lous method of proceeding.

But when we look beyond human affairs and the properties of the fur- rounding bodies : When we carry our fpeculations into the two eternities, be- fore and after the prefent ftate of things ; into the creation and formation of the univerfe; the exiftence and properties of fpirits ; the powers and operations of one univerfal Spirit, exifting without B 3 beginning

^6 - Dialogues concerning^

Part beginning and without end; onmipo^ '^^vNj tent, omnifcient, immutable, infinite, and incbitiprehenfible : We muft be far removed from the fmalleft tendency to fcepticifm not to be apprehenfive, that we have here got quite beyond the reach of our faculties. So long as we confine our fpeculations to trade, or morals, or politics, or criticifm, we make appeals^ every moment, to com-^ mon fenfe and experience, which ftreng- then our philofophical conclufions, and remove (at leaft, in part) the fufpicion which we fo juftly entertain with regard to every reafoning that is very fubtile and refined. But, in theological rea- fonings. We have not this advantage; while at the fame time we are employ- ed upon objects, which, we mufl be fenfible, are too large for our grafp, and, of all others, require molt to be familiarifed to our apprehenfion. We are like foreigners in a ftrange country, to whom every thing muft feem fufpi-

cious.

Natural Religion. 27

cious, and who are in danger every ^^^"^ moment of tranfgrelTmg againfl the laws ^^v-nj and ciiftoms of the people with whom they live and converfe. We know not how far we ought to truft our vulgar methods of reafoning in fuch a fubjedt ; fince, even in common life, and in that province which is peculiarly appro- priated to them, we cannot account for them, and are entirely guided by a kind of inftincSl or necefTity in employing them.

- All fceptics pretend, that, if reafon be confidered in an abftradl view, it furnifhes invincible arguments againfl itfelf ; and that we could never retain any convidlion or alTurance, on any fubjedl, were not the fceptical reafon- ings fo refined and fubtile, that they are not able to counterpoife the raore folid and more natural arguments de- rived from the fenfes and experience. But it is evident, whenever our argu-

B 4 ments

^8 Dialogues concerning

Part ments lofe this advantage, and run WN-^ wide of common life, that the moft re- fined fcepticifm comes to be upon a footing with them, and is able to op- pofe and counterbalance them. The one has no more weight than the other. The mind muft remain in fufpenfe be- , tween them; and it is that very fu-- fpenfe or balance, which is the triumph of fcepticifm.

But I obferve, fays CleantheSj with regard to you, Philo, and all fpe- culative fceptics, that your do(5lrine and pradlice are as much at variance in the moft abftrufe points of theory as in the condudt of common life. Where-ever evidence difcoyers itfelf, you adhere to it, notwithftandiiig your pretended fcepticifm ; and I can obferve, too, fom^ of your fedl to be as decifive as thofe who make greater profefTions of cer- tainty and aflurance. In reality, would not a man be ridiculous, who pretended

to

Natural Religion. 29

to reje<5l Newton's explication of the ^^^^ wonderful phenomenoii of the rainbow, ^^-v^ becaufe that explication gives a minute anatomy of the rays of light ; a fubj^edl, forfooth, too refined for human com- preheniion ? And what would you fay to one, who having nothing particular to objeifl to the arguments of Copernicus and Galileo for the motion of the earth, fhould with-hold his aflent, on that general principle, That thefe fub- je6ts were too magnificent and remote to be explained by the narrow and fal- lacious reafon of mankind ?

There is indeed a kind of brutifh and ignorant fcepticifm, as you well obferved, which gives the vulgar a ge- neral prejudice againfl what they do not eafily underftand, and makes them reject every principle which requires elaborate reafoning to prove and efla- blifh it. This fpecies of fcepticifm is fatal to knowledge, not to religion;

fince

3t> Dial6gues concerning ^

^'^^'^ fince we find, that thofe who make

v^v^ greatefl profeffion of it, give often their ] aflent, not only to the great truths of Theifm and natural theology, but even

to the moft abfurd tenets which a tra- >

- -I

ditional fuperftition has recommend- I

ed to them. They firmly believe in \

witches ; though they will not believe {

nor attend to the moft fimple propofi- |

tion of Euclid. But the refined and j

philofophical fceptics fall into an incon- ]

fiftence of an oppofite nature. They \

pufh their refearches into the moft ab- ' { ftrufe corners of fcience; and their

aflent attends them in every ftep, pro- \

portioned to the evidence which they ] meet with. They are even obliged to

acknowledge, that the moft abftrule and \

remote objedts are thofe which are beft -l

explained by philofophy. . Light is in j

reality anatomized : The true fyftem i

of the heavenly bodies is difcovered and j afcertained. But the nourifliment of

bodies by food is ftill an inexplicable I

myfteryr I

Natural Religion* 31

myftery : The cohelion of the parts of ^^^^ matter is ftiil incomprehenfible. Thefe v.^-^^ fceptics, therefore, are obUged, in e- very queftion, to confider each parti- cular evidence apart, and proportion their aflent to the precife degree of evi- dence which occurs. This is their prac- tice in all natural, mathematical, moral, and political fcience. And why not the fame, I afl^, in the theological and religious ? Why muft conclufions of this nature be alone rejected on the general pfefumption of the infuiEciency of human reafon, without any parti- cular difcuffion of the evidence? Is not fuch an unequal condu6l a plain proof of prejudice and paffion ?

Our fenfes, you fay, are fallacious; our underftanding erroneous ; our ideas even of the moil familiar objedts, ex- tenfion, duration, motion, full of ab- furdities and contradictions . You defy me to folve the difEculties, or reconcile

the

32 Dialogues concerning

^AR"^ the repugnancies, which you difcover y^^^n^j in them. I have not capacity for fb great an undertaking : I have not leifure for it: I perceive it to be fuperfluous. Your own condu6l5 in every circum- fiance, refutes your principles ; and fliows the firnieft reliance on all the re- ceived ndaxims of fcience, morals, pru- dence, and behaviour.

I SHALL never affent to fo harfli an opinion as that of a celebrated writer *, who fays, that the fceptics are not a fe£l of philofophers : They are only a fedl of liars. I may, however, affirm, (I hope, without offence) that they are a fe6l of jeflers or railers. But for my part, whenever I find myfelf difpofed to mirth and amufement, I fhall certainly chufe my entertainment of a lefs per^ plexing and abftrufe nature. A comedy, a novel, or at mofl a hiftory, feems a

more

* L'art de penfer.

Natural Religion. 33

more natural recreation than flich me- ^^^'^ taphyfical fubtilties and abftradlions. v-^-^nj

In vain would the fceptic make a di- ftindlion between fcience and common life, or between one fcience and ano- ther. The arguments employed in all, if jufl, are of a fimilar nature, and con- tain the fame force and evidence. Or if there be any difference among them, the advantage lies entirely on the fide of theology and natural religion. Many principles of mechanics are founded on very abftrufe reafoning ; yet no man who has any pretenfions to fcience, even no fpeculative fceptic, pretends to en- tertain the leaft doubt with regard to them. The Copernican fyftem con- tains the moft furprifing paradox, and the moft contrary to our natural con- ceptions, to appearances, and to our very fenfes: yet even monks and inquifitors are now conftrained to withdraw their oppofition to it. And fhall Philo, a

man

34 Dialogues concerning

P^^^ man of fo liberal a genius, and exten- v.^>^N>» five knowledge, entertain any general undiftinguiihed fcruples with regard to the religious hypothelis, which is found- ed on the fimpleft and moil obvious ar- guments, and, unlefs it meets with artificial obflacles, has fuch eafy ac- cefs and admifhon into the mind of man?

And here we may obferve, con- tinued he, turning himfelf towards Demea, a pretty curious circumflance in the hiftory of the fciences. After the union of philofophy with the popular religion, upon the iirft eflablifhment of Chriftianity, nothing was more ufua!, among all religious teachers; than de- clamations againfl reafon, againft the fenfes, againfl every principle derived merely from human refearch and in- quiry. All the topics of the ancient A- cademics were adopted by the Fathers; and thence propagated for feveral ages

in

Natural Religion. ^^s

in every fchool and pulpit throughout ^^^'^ Chriftendom. The Reformers embraced ^^^^^n-^ the fame principles of reafoning, or ra- ther declamation ; and all panegyrics on the excellency of faith were fure to be interlarded with fome fevere ftrokes of fatire againft natural reafon. A ce- lebrated prelate too*, of the Romifti communion, a man of the moft exten- five learning, who wrote a demonftra- tion of Chriftianity, has alfo compofed a treatife, which contains all the cavils of the boldeft and moft determined Pyrrhonism. Locke feems to have been the firft Chriftian, who ventured openly to after t, th^it faith was nothing but a fpecies of reafon; that religion was only a branch of philofophy; and that a chain of arguments, fimilar to that which eftablilhed any truth in morals, politics, or phyfics, was always employ- ed in difcovering all the principles of theology, natural and revealed. The ill

ufe

* Monf. HuET.

^6 Dialogues concerniko

Part ufewhich Bayle and other libertines ^^-v^ made of the philofophical fcepticifm of tke fathers and firft reformers, ftill far- ther propagated the judicious fentiment of Mr Locke: And it is now, in a man-- ner, avowed, by all pretenders to rea-* i foning and philofophy, that Atheift and Sceptic are almoft fynonymons. And as it is certain, that no man is in earneft when he profeffes the latter principle; I would fain hope, that there are as few who ferioufly maintain the former.

Don't you remember, faid Philo, the excellent faying of Lord Bacon on this head? That a little philofophy, re- plied Cleanthes, makes a man an Atheift: A great deal converts him to religion. That is a very judicious re- mark too, faid Philo. But what I have in my eye is another pafTage, where, having mentioned David's fool, who faid in his heart there is no God, this great philofopher obferves, that the A-

theifts

Natural Religion. 37

theifts now-a-days have a double fliare ^^^"^ of folly : for they are not contented to ow fay in their hearts there is no God, but they alfo utter that impiety with their lips ; and are thereby guilty of multi- plied indifcretion and imprudence. Such people, though they were ever fo much in earneft, cannot, methinks, be very formidable.

But though you fliould rank me in this clafs of fools, I cannot forbear com- municating a remark that occurs to me from the hiftory of the religious and irreligious fcepticifm with which you have entertained us. It appears to me, that there are ftrong fymptoms of prieft- craft in the whole progrefs of this af- fair. During ignorant ages, fuch as thofe which followed the diiTolution of the ancient fchools, the priefts percei- ved, that Atheifm, Deifm, or herefy of any kind, could only proceed from the prefumptuous queftioning of received

C opinions^

38 Dialogues concerning

Part opinions, and from a belief that human Wvj reafon was equal to every thing. Edu- cation had then a mighty influence over the minds of men, and was almofl equal in force to thofe fnggeftions of the fenfes and' common iinderftanding, by which the moil determined fceptic muft allow himfelf to be governed. But at prefent, when the influence of edu- cation is much diminiilied, and men, from a more open commerce of the world, have learned to compare the po- pular principles of different nations and ages, our fagacious divines have chan- ged their whole fyflem of philofophy, and talkf the language of S t o i c s , Pl a - TONisTS, and Peripatetics, not that of Pyrrhonians and Academics. If we diftrufl human reafon, we have now n6 other principle to lead us into reli^ gion. Thus, fceptics in one age, dog-^ matills in another; whichever fyflem befl fuits the purpofe of thefe reverend gentlemen, in giving them an afcendant

over

Natural Religion/ 39

, -over mankind, they are fure to make it ^^^^ their favourite principle, and eflabliflied ^.^ tenet.

It is very natural, faid Cleanthes^ for men to embrace thofe principles, by v^hich they find they can bed defend their dotftrines ; nor need we have any recourfe to prieftcraft to account for fo reafonable an expedient. And furely, nothing can afford a ftronger prefump- tion, that any fet of principles are true, and ought to be embraced, than to ob- ferve that they tend to the confirma- tion of true religion, and ferve to con- found the cavils of Atheifls, Libertines, and Freethinkers of all denominations^

C 2 PART

I

PART IL

MUST own, Cleanthes, faid Part

II. Demea, that nothing can more v^^r^

furprife me, than the hght in which you have all along put this argument* By the whole tenor of your difcourfe, one would imagine that you were main- taining the Being of a God, againft the cavils of Atheifts and Infidels ; and were necellitated to become a champion for that fundamental principle of all religion* But this, I hope, is not, by any means, aqueftionamongus. No man; no man, at lead, of common fenfe^ I am perfua-* ded, ever entertained a ferious doubt with regard to a truth fo certain and ftlf-evident. The queftion is not con- C 3 cerning

42 Dialogues concerning

Part cemiiig the BEING, but the NATURE^ *w-vv^ of GOD. This I aiErm, from the in- firmities of human underftanding, to be altogether incomprehenlible and un- known to us. The effence of that Su- preme Mind,, his attributes, the manner of his exiftence, the very nature of his duration; thefe,, and every particular which regards fo divine a Being, are niyfterious to men. Finite, weak, and blind creatures, we ought to humble ourfelves in his auguft prefence^ and, confcious of our frailties, adore in fi- lence his infinite perfe6lions, which eye hath not feen, ear hath not heard, nei- ther hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. They are covered in a deep cloud from human curiofity : It is profanenefs to attempt penetrating thro* thefe facred obfcurities : And next to the impiety of denying his exiftence, is the temerity of prying into his nature and effence, decrees and attributes.

But

Natural Religion. 43

But left you iliould think, that my ^^^'^ piety has here got the better of iny phi- ^^^-^t^j lojrjphy^ I ihall iupport my opinion, if it needs any fupport, by a very great au- thority. I might cite all the divines, al- mofl, from the foundation of Chriftia- nity, who have ever treated of this or any other theological fubjedl: But I ihall confine myfelf, at prefent, to one equally celebrated for piety and philo- fophy. It is Father Malebranche^ who, I remember, thus expreffes him- felf *. '^ One ought not fo much (fays " he) to call God a fpirit, in order to " exprefs pofitively what he is, as in or- " der to fignify that he is not matter. ^' He is a Being infinitely perfect : Of " this we cannot doubt. But in the " fame manner as we ought not to ima- " gine, even fuppoling him corporeal, " that he is clothed with a human body, " as the Anthropomorphites aflert- ** ed, under colour that that figure was

C 4 the

■*" Recherche de la Verite, \\^. 3. cap. 9,

44 Dialogues concerning

Part « the moft pcrfed of any; fo neither^

v.^>rO " ought we to imagine, that the Spirit

" of God has human ideas, or bears

any refemblance to our fpirit; under

colour that we know nothing more

perfedl than a human mind. We

" ought rather to believe, that as he

*' comprehends the perfeftions of mat-

" ter without being material

he comprehends alfo the perfections of created fpirits, without being fpi- rit, in the manner we conceive fpi- rit: That his true name is, He that is; or, in other words. Being without re- '' ftricftion, All Being, the Being infi- *' finite and univerfal."

After fo great an authority, De me a, replied Philo, as that which you have produced, and a thoufand more which* you might produce, it would appear ri- diculous in me to add my fentiment, or exprefs my approbation of your doc- trine. But furely, where reafonable

men

u

Natural Religion. 45

men treat tliefe fubjedls, the queflion ^^^'^ can never be concerning the Beings but ^•-rvj only the Nature^ of the Deity. The for- mer truth, as you well obferve, is un- queftionable and felf-evident. Nothing exifts yt^ithout a caufe ; and the original caufe of this univerfe (whatever it be) we call God ; and pioufly afcribe to him every fpecies of perfedlion. Whoever fcrviples this fundamental truth, de- ferves every punifhment which can be inflidled among philofophers, to wit, the greatefl ridicule, contempt, and difap- probation. But as all perfeiflion is en- tirely relative, we ought never to ima- gine that we comprehend the ^^ttri- butes of this divine Being, or to fup- pofe that his perfecflions have any ana- logy or likenefs to the perfedlions of a human creature. /Wifdom, Thought, Delign, Knowledge ; thefe we juftly a- fcribe to him ; becaufe thefe words are honourable among men, and we have no other language or other conceptions

by

Dialogues CONCERNING \

Part by whicli we can exprefs our adoration 1

y^,,^ of him. But let us beware, left we think^ j

that our ideas any wife correipond to | his perfections, or that his attributes have any refemblance to theie qualities , ]

among men. He is infinitely luperior I

to our limited view and compreheniion ; ; and is more the object of worfliip in the

the temple, than of difpucation in the \

ichools. 1

r

In reality, Cleanthes, continued |

he, there is no need of having recourfe i

to that affedled Icepticifin, fb dilpleafing ' j

to you, in order to come at this deter- . i

mination. Our ideas reach no farther \

than our experience: We have no expe- j

rience of divine attributes and opera- \

tions : I need not conclude my {j\lo-^ '\

gifm: You can draw the inference your- \

lelf. And it is a pleafiire to me (and I hope to you too) that juft reafoning and \

found piety here concur in the fame conclufion, and both of them eftablifh

the

Natural Religion. 47

the adorably myfterious and incompre- ^^^^"^

henfible nature of the Supreme Being.

V-'-V-nV

Not to lofe any time in circumlocu- tions, faid Cle ANTHEs, addr effing him- fdf to Demea, much lefs in replying to the pious declamations of Philo ; I fhall briefly explain how I conceive this matter. Look round the world: con- template the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great niachine, fubdivided into an infi- nite number of leiTer machines, which again admit of fubdivifions to a degree beyond what human fenfes and facul- ties can trace and explain. All thefe various machines, and even their moft minute parts, are adjufled to each other with an accuracy, which ravifhes into admiration all men who have ever con- templated them. The curious adapting - of means to ends, throughout all na- ture, refembles exadlly, though it much exceeds, the produilions of human con- trivance;

48 Dialogues concerning Part triyaiice ; of human delign, thought^

J. -!•

v.-v-^ wifdom, and intelligence. Since there- fore the effedls refemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of ana- logy, that the caufes alfo refemble; and that the Author of Nature is fomewhat fimilar to the mind of man; though pofleiTed of much larger faculties, pro- portioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed. By' this argu- ment a pojlerior'i^ and by this argument alone, do we prove a't once the exift- ence of a Deity, and his limilarity to human mind and intelligence.

I SHALL befo free, CLEANTHES,faid De ME A, as to tell you, that from the be- ginning I could not approve of your conclufion concerning the limilarity of the Deity to men ; ftill lefs can I ap- prove of the mediums by which you endeavour to eftablifli it. What ! No demonftration of the Being of God! No abftrad arguments ! No proofs a priori!

Are

Natural Religion. 49

Are thefe, which have hitherto been fo Part much iniifled on by philofophers, all ^^.^ fallacy, all fophifm? Can we reach no farther in this fubjecl than experience and probability ? I will not fay, that this is betraying the caufe of a Deity : But furely, by this affected candor, you give advantages to Atheifts, which they ne- ver could obtain by the mere dint of argument and reafoning.

What I chiefly fcruple in this fub- jecS:, faid Philo, is not fo much that, all religious arguments are by Cl e an- te Es reduced to experience, as that they appear not to be even the moft certain and irrefragable of that inferior kind. That a ftone will fall, that fire will burn, that the earth has folidity, we have obferved a thoufand and a thoufand times ; and when any new inftance of this nature is prefented, we draw without hefitation the accuftomed inference. The exad fimilarity of the

cafes

50 Dialogues concerning

Part cafcs givcs US a perfe6l aflurance of a <^->r>^ fimilar event ; and a ftronger evidence is never defired nor fought after. But where-ever you depart, in the leaft, from the fimilarity of the cafes, you di- minifti proportionably the evidence ; and may at laft bring it to a very v^eak analogy^ v^hich is confelTedly liable to error and uncertainty. After having experienced the circulation of the blood in human creatures, we make no doubt that it takes place in Titius and Mjevi- us : But from its circulation in frogs and fifties, it is only a prefumption, though a ftrong one, from analogy, that it takes place in men and other animals. The analogical reafoning is much weak- er, when we infer the circulation of the fap in vegetables from our experi- ence that the blood circulates in ani- mals ; and thofe, who haftily followed that imperfeft analogy, are found, by more accurate experiments, to have been miftaken.

If

Natural Religion. 51

If we fee a houfe, Cleanthes, we Part conclude, with the greateft certainty, ^..v^ that it had an architect or builder ; be- eaufe this is precifely that fpecies of effecft which we have experienced to proceed from that fpecies of caiife. But furely you will not afErm, that the univerfe bears fuch a refemblance to a houfe, that we can with the fame cer- tainty infer a limilar caufe, or that the analogy is here entire and perfecfl. The diilimilitude is fo ftriking, that the ut- moft you can here pretend to is a guefs, a conje(!?i:ure, a prefumption concern- ing a fimilar caufe ; and how that pre- tenfion will be received in the world, I leave you to coniider.

It would furely be very ill received, replied Cleanthes ; and I fhould be defervedly blamed and detefted, did I allow, that the proofs of a Deity a- iTiOunted to no more than a guefs or conjecture. But is the whole adjuft-

ment

52 . Dialogues concerning

^^^"^ merit of means to ends in a houfe and in 'o-^-v^ the univerfe fo flight a refemblance ? The oeconomy of final canfes ? The order, proportion, and arrangement of every part ? Steps of a ftair are plainly contrived, that human legs may nfe them in mounting ; and this inference is certain and infallible. Human legs are alfo contrived for walking and mounting; and this inference, I allow, is not altogether fo certain, becaufe of the diffimilarity which .you remark; but does it, therefore, deferve the name only of prefumption or conjedlure ?

Good God! cried Demea, inter- rupting him, where are we ? Zealous defenders of religion allow, that the proofs of a Deity fall fhort of perfedl evidence! And you, Philo, on whofe affiftance I depended in proving the adorable myfterioufnefs of the Divine Nature, do you affent to all thefe extra- vagant opinions of Clea:^thes ? For

what

Natural Religion. 53

what other name can I eive them ? Or ^^^'^

' ^ . IL

why fpare my cehfure, when fuch prin- v.<v>-/

ciples are advanced, fupported by fiich

an authority, before fo young a man as

Pamphilus ?

You feem not to apprehend, repUed Philo, that I a.rgiie with Cleanthes in his ovv^n way ; and by fhowing him the dangerous confequences of his te- nets, hope at lail to reduce him to our opinion. But what flicks moft with you, I obferve, is the reprefentation which Cleantkes has made of the argument a pojleriori ; and finding that that argument is hkely to efcape your hold "and vanifli into air, you think it fo difguifed, that you can fcarcely be- lieve it to be fet in its true light. Now, however much I may dilTent, m other refpedls, from the dangerous principles of Cleanthes, I muft allov^r, that he has fairly reprefented that argument ; and I fliall endeavour fo to ftate the

D matter

54 ' Dialogues concerning.

Part niattei to yoUj that you will entertain -c-v^ no farther fcruples with regard to it.

Were a man to abftrac5l from every thing which he knows or has feen, he would be altogether incapable, merely from his own ideas, to determine what kind of fcene the univerfe muft be, or to give the preference to one (late or ^ fituation of things above another. For as nothing which he clearly conceives could be efteemed impoffible or imply- ing a contradiffion, every chimera of his fancy would be upon an equal foot- ing ; nor could he aflign any juft rea- fon, why he adheres to one idea or fyftem, and rejecls the others which are equally poffible.

Again ; after he opens his eyes, and contemplates the world as it really is, it would be impoffible for him^ at firft, to affign the caufe of any one event, much lefs of the whole of things or of

the

Natural Religion. 55

the" univerfe. He might fet his Fancy ^^J a rambhng ; and Ihe might bring him v-^-^-^ in an infinite variety of reports and re- prefentations. Thefe would all be pof- fible ; but being all equally poflible, he would never, of himfelf, give a fatis- fadtory account for his preferring one - 6f them to the reft. Experience alone call point out to him the true caufe of any phenomenon.

Now according to this method of reafoning, Demea, it follows (and is, indeed, tacitly allowed by Cleanthes himfelf), that order, arrangement, or the adjuftment of final caufes, is not, of itfelf, any proof of defign ; but only fo far as it has been experienced to pro- ceed from that principle. For aught we can know a priori^ matter may con- tain the fource or fpring of order ori- ginally, within itfelf, as well as mind does; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving, that the feveral elements,

D 2 from

56 Dialogues concerning

Part fj-Q^i an internal nnknown eanfe, may ^.^vxj fall into the moft exquifite arrangement^ than to conceive tha.t their ideas, in the great, iiniverfal mind, from a like in- ternal Unknown caufe, fall into that arrangement. The equal poffibility of both thefe fuppofitions is allowed. But , by experience we find, (according to Cleanthes), that there is a difference between them. Throw feveral pieces of fteel together, without fliape or form ; they will never- arrange themfelves fo as to compofe a watch. Stone, and mor- tar, and wood^ without an architect, never erecfl a houfe. Bm the ideas in a human mind, we fee, by ah un- known, inexplicable oeconomy, arrange themfelves fo as to form the plan of a watch or houfe. Experience, therefore^ proves, that there is an original prin-^ ciple of order in mind, not in mat- ter. From limilar effedls we infer li- milar caufes. The adjuftmeht of means to ends is alike in the univerfe, as in a

machine

Natural Religion. 57

machine of human contrivance. The ^^^ '^ caufes, therefore, miift be refembUng. ^^^-y^

I WAS from the beginning fcanda- lifed, I mnft own, with this refem- blance, which is aflerted, between the Deity- and human creatures ; and mull conceive it to imply fuch a degradation of the Supreme Being as no found Theifl could endure. With your '^aili- ftance, therefore, Demea, I fliall en- deavour to defend what you jullly call the adorable myfterioufnefs of the Di vine Nature, and ftiall refute this rea- foning of Cleanthes ; provided he allows, that I have made a fair repre-' fentation of it^

When Cleanthes had aflented, Philo, after alhortpaufe, proceeded in the following manner.

That all inferences, ClEx^nthes, > concerning fail, are founded on expe-

D 3 rience ;

Dialogues c o n c e r n i isr Cx

Part rience ; and that all experimental rea- v-orvj fbnings are founded on the fuppofition^ that {imilar caufes prove fimilar efFecfls, andiimilar efFedis fimilar caufes; I (hall not, at prefent, much difpute with you. But obferve, I intreat you, with what extreme caution all juft reafoners pro- ceed in the transferring of experiments to fimilar cafes* Unlefs the cafes be exactly fimilar, they repofe no p^rfedl confidence in applying their paft obfer- vation to any particular phenomenon. Every alteration of circumftances oc- cafions a doubt concerning the event; and it requires new experiments to prove certainly, that the new circum- fiances are of no moment or niipor- tance. A change in bulk, fituation, arrangement, age, difpofition of the air, or furrounding bodies ; any of thefe particulars may be attended with the moft unexpedled confequences : And xmlefs the objedls be quite familiar to us, it is the highefl temerity to expefl: with

affurance,

Natural Religion, 59

alllirance, after any of thefe changes, an '^^^'^ event iimilar to that which before fell ^^^ under onr obfer^^ation. The ilow and dehberate fteps of philofophers, here, if any where, are diftinguiflied from the ' precipitate march of the vulgar, who, hurried on by the fmalleft fimilitude, are incapable of all difcernment or con- iideration.

But can you think, Cleanthes, that your uflial phlegm and philofophy have been preferved in lb wide a ftep as you have taken, when you compared to the univerfe, houfes, fhips, furniture, machines ; and from their fimilarity in fome circumftances inferred a fimilari- ty in their caufes ? Thought, defign, intelligence, flich as we difcover in men an4 other animals, is no more than one of the fprings and principles of the uni- verfe, as well as heat or cold, attraction or repulfion, and a hundred others, which fall under daily obfervation. It

D 4 is

6o Dialogues concernikg

^Y^ is an a6live caufe, by which fome par- ^-^v^ ticular parts of nature, we find, pro- duce alterations on other parts. But can a conclufion, with any propriety, be transferred from parts to the whole ? Does not the great difproportion bar ail comparifon and inference ? From ob~ ferving the growth of a hair, can we learn any thing concerning the gene^ ration of a man ? Would the manner of a ' leaf's blowing, even though perfectly known, afford us any inftruclion con- cerning the vegetation of a tree ?

But allowing that we were to take the operations of one part of nature up- on another for the foundation of our judgment concerning the origin of the whole, (which never can be admitted) ; yet why feleA fb minute, fo weak, fo bounded a principle as the reafon and delign of animals is found to be upon this planet? What peculiar privilege has this little agitation of the brain which

we

Natural Religion. , 6i . ;

i

we call thought^ that we mull thus make ^^^^ ;

it the model of the whole univerfe ? ^^-^^ J Our partiality in our own favour does ' I

indeed prefent it on all occafions ; but j found philofophy ought carefully to

guard againft fo natural an illuiion. I

So far from admitting, continued

Philo, that the operations of a part can ' | afford us any juft conclulion concerning the origin of the whole, I will not allow any one part to form a rule for another

part, if the latter be very remote from - ;

the former. Is there any reafonable j

ground to conclude, that the inhabi- ' tants of other planets poffefs- thought, , I

intelligence, reafon, or any thing limi- ]

lar to thefe faculties in men ? When \

nature has fo extremely diverfified her '\

manner of operation in this imall globe ; '

can we imagine, that fhe inceffantly co- '

pies herfelf throughout fo immenfe a i

univerfe? And if thought, as we may ;

well fuppofe, be confined merely to this ,

narrow

62 DiALOGUESCONCERNiNG

II.

Part narrow corner, and has even there fb Umited a fphere of adlion ; with what propriety can we affign it for the ori- ginal caufe of all things ? The narrow views of a peafant, who makes his do- nieftic oeconomy the rule for the go- vernment of kingdoms, is in compari- fon a pardonable fophifm.

But were we ever fo much alfured, that a thought and reafon, refembling the human, were to be found through- out the whole univerfe, and were its ac- tivity elfewhere vaftly greater and more commanding than it appears in this globe ; yet I cannot fee, why the opera- tions of a world conftituted, arranged, adjufted, can with any propriety be extended to a world which is in its embryo-ftate, and is advancing towards that conftitution and arrangement. Bv obfervation, we know fomewhat of the oeconomy, aflion, and nouriiliment of a finifhed animal ; but we muft tranf-

fer

Natural Religion. 63

fer with ereat caution that obfervation Part

. II.

to the growth of a fetus in the womb, ^^-^

and ftill more to the formation of an animalcule in the loins of its male pa- rent. Nature, we find, even from our limited experience, pofFefTes an infinite number of fprings and principles, which incefTantly difcover themfelves on every change of her polition and fituation. And what new and unknown princi- ples would adluate her in fo new and unknown a fituation as that of the for- mation of a univerfe, we cannot, with- out the utmofl temerity, pretend to de- termine.

A VERY fmall part of this great fy- ftem, during a very fhort time, is very imperfecftly difcovered to us ; and do we thence pronounce decifively concern- ing the origin of the whole ?

Admirable conclufion! Stone, wood, brick, iron, brafs, have not, at this

time.

64 Dialogues concerning

Part time, in this minute globe of earth, an V-.-VXJ order or arrangement without human art and contrivance : therefore the uni- verfe could not originally attain its or- der and arrangement, without fome- thing fimilar to human art. But is a part of nature a rule for another part very wide of the former ? Is it a rule for the whole? Is a very fmall part a rule for the univerfe ? Is nature in one fitua- tion, a certain rule for nature in ano- ther fituation vaftly different from the former ?

And can you blame me, Cle anthes, if I here imitate the prudent referve of SiMONiDES, who, according to the no- ted flory, being afbed by Hieko^ JVhat God ivas ? defired a day to think of it, and then two days more; and after that manner continually prolonged the term, without ever bringing in his definition or defcription ? Could you even blame me, if I had anfwered at firft, that I did

not

Natural Religion. 65

not knozv^ and was fenfible that this fub- ^-^^^ je6l lay vaftly beyond the reach of my <.^^ faculties ? You might cry out .fceptic and rallier, as much as you pleafed: but having found, in fo many other fub- je6ls much more familiar, the imper- fections and even contradictions of hu- man reafon, I never lliould expe6l any fuccefs from its feeble conjectures, in a fubject fo fublimCj and fo remote from the fphere of our obfervation. When tv^^o fpec'ies of objects have always been obferved to be conjoined together, I can hifer^ by cuftom, the exiftence of one wherever \Jee the exiftence of the other: and this I call an argument from expe- rience. But how this argument can have place, where the objecfts, as in the prefent cafe, are lingle, individual, with- out parallel, or fpecific refemblance, may be difficult to explain. And will any man tell me with a ferious counte- nance, that an orderly univerfe muft a-

rife froin feme thought and .nrt, like

the

66 Dialogues coNc^irning

Part the huinan ; becaufe we have experi- ^^-v^ ence of it? To afcertain this reafoning, it were requifice, that we had experience of the origin of worlds ; and it is not fuflScient, fnrely, that we have feen fhips and cities arife from human art and contrivance.

Philo was proceeding in this vehe- ment manner, fomewhat between jeft and earneft, as it appeared to me ; when he obferved fome figns of impatience in Cleanthes, and then immediately flopped fliort. What I had to fnggeft, faid Cleanthes, is only that you would not abufe terms, or make ufe of popular exprelTions to fubvert philofo- phical reafonings. You. know, that the vulgar often diftinguifli reafon from ex- perience, even where the queftion re- lates only to matter of faft and exifl- ence; though it is found, where that reafon is properly analyzed, that it is no- thing but a Ipecies of experience. To

prove

Natural Religion. 67

prove by experience tlie origin of the . ^^^'^ iiniverfe from mind, is not more con- ^^-^r^ trarjr to common fpeech, than to prove the motion of the earth from the fame principle. And a caviller might raife all the fame obj eft ions to the Co per- nio an fyftem,, which you have urged againft my reafonings. Have you other earths, might he fay, w^hich you have feen to move ? Have , ,

Yes! cried Philo, interrupting him, we have other earths. Is not the moon a.nother earth, which we fee to turn round its centre ? Is not Venus another earth, where we obferve the fame phe- nomenon? Are not the revolutions of the fun alfo a confirmation, from ana- logy, of the fame theory? Allthe pla- nets, are they not earths, which revolve about the fun? Are not the fatellites moons, which move round Jupiter and Saturn, and along with thefe primary planets round the fun ? Thefe analogies

and

68 Dialogues concerniks^

■^Yt^"^ ^i^d refemblances, with others which I '^--N'v^ have not mentioned, are the fole proofs of the CoPERNiCAN fyftem: and tQ you it belongs to confider, whether you have any analogies of the fame kind to fupport your theory*

In reality, Cl e a NT hes, continued he, the modern fyflem of aftronomy is now fo much received by all inquirers, and has become fo effential a part even of our earlieft education, that we are not commonly very fcrupulous in examin- ing the reafons upon which it is found- ed. It is now become a matter of mere curiofity to ftudy the firft writers on that fubjedl, who had the full force of prejudice to encounter, and were obli- ged to turn their arguments on every fide in order to render them popular and convincing. But if we perufe Ga~ LiLJEo's famous Dialogues concerning - the fyftem of the world, we Ihall find, that that great genius, one of the fub- ^ limeft

Natural Religion. 69

limeft that ever exiifled, firft bent all ^^^^'^ his endeavours to prove, that there s.^vxj was no foundation for the diftinc- tion commonly made between elemen- tary and celeflial fubftances. The fchools, proceeding from the illuiions of fenfe, had carried this diftindtion very far; and had eftabliihed the latter fub- ilances to be ingenerable, incorruptible, unalterable, impaffible; and had af- figned all the oppolite qualities to the former. But Galiljeo, beginning with the moon, proved its fimilarity in every particular to the earth; its convex fi- )' gure, is natural darknefs when not il- luminated, its denfity, its diftincflion in-* to folid and liquid, the variations of its phafes, the mutual illuminations of the earth and moon, their mutual eclipfes, the inequalities of the lunar furface, &c. After many inilances of this kind, with regard to all the planets, men plainly faw that thefe bodies became proper ob- jects of experience ; and that the fimi-

E laritv

yo Dialogues concerning

^^^'^ larity of their nature enabled ns to ex- ^v>w^ tend the fame arguments and pheno- mena from one to the other.

In this cautious proceeding of the aftronomers, you may read your own condemnation, Cleanthes; or rather may fee, that the fubjecft in which you are engaged exceeds all human reafon and inquiry. Can you pretend to fhow any fuch fimilarity between the fabric of a houfe, and the generation of a uni- verfe? Have you ever feen Nature in any fuch fituation as refembles the firft arrangement of the elements? Have worlds ever been formed under your eye ; and have you had leiftire to ob- ferve the whole progrefs of the pheno- menon, from the firft appearance of order to its final confiimmation ? If you have^ then cite your experience, and deliver your theory.

PART

PART III.

'-^y^W

TTOW the moft abfurd argument, re- ^^^'^

plied Cleanthes, in the hands of a man of ingenuity and invention, may acquire an air of probability ! Are you not aware, Philo, that it became necefTary for Copernicus and his fir ft difciples to prove the fimilarity of the terreftrial and celeftial matter ; becaufe feveral philofophers, blinded by old fy- ftems, and fupported by fome fenfible appearances, had denied this fimilarity? but that it is by no means neceflary, that Theifts fhould prove the fimilarity of the works of Nature to thofe of Art; becaufe this fimilarity is felf-evident and undeniable? The fame matter, a

E 2 like

1

V

72 Dialogues concerning

Part i\^q form: what more is requlfite to III. t

«w-v-^ fliow an analogy between their caufes,

and to afcertain the origin of all things from a divine purpofe and intention ? Your objedlions, I muft freely tell yon, are no better than the abflrufe cavils of thofe philofophers who denied motion; and ought to be refuted in the fame manner, by illuftrations, examples, and inftances, rather than by ferious argu- ment and philofophy.

Suppose, therefore, that an articu- late voice were heard in the clouds, much louder and more melodious than any which human art could ever reach : Suppofe, that this voice were extended in the fame inftant over all nations, and {poke to each nation in its own lan- guage and dialed: Suppofe, that the words delivered not only contain a juft fenfe and meaning, but convey fome inftru(ftion altogether worthy of a be- nevoicnt Being, fuperior to mankind :

Could

Natural Religion. 73

Could you podibly helitate a moment ^^^"^ concerning the caufe of this voice? and v,^>r%^ mnft you not inftantly afcribe it to fome defign or purpofe ? Yet I cannot fee but all the fame objec^tions (if they merit that appellation) which lie againfl the fyftem of Theifm, may alfo be produ- ced asrainil this inference.

Might you not fay, that all conclu- fions concerning fac5l were founded on experience: that when we hear an arti- culate voice in the dark, and thence in- fer a man, it is only the refemblance of the effects which leads us to conclude that there is a like refemblance in the caufe : but that this extraordinary voice, by its loudnefs, extent, and flexibility to all languages, bears fo little analogy to any human voice, that wc have no reafon to fuppofe any analogy in their caufes ," and confequently, that a ra- tional, wife, coherent fpeech proceeded, you knew not whence, from fome ac- E 3 cidental

74 Dialogues coNCERNiNa

Part cidcntal whiftling of the winds, not i>-y^ from any divine reafon or intelligence? You fee clearly your own objedlions in thefe cavils ; and I hope too, you fee clearly, that they cannot poffibly have more force in the one cafe than in the other.

But to bring the cafe ftill nearer the prefent one of the univerfe, I fliall make two fuppolitions, which imply not any abfurdity or impoffibility. Suppofe, that there is a natural, univerfal, inva- riable language, common to every in- dividual of human race; and that books are natural produ(flions, which perpe- tuate themfelves in the fame manner with animals and vegetables, by defcent and propagation. Several expreffions of our paffions contain a univerfal lan- guage : all brute animals have a natural Ipeech, which, however limited, is very intelligible to their own fpecies. And fis there are infinitely fewer parts ai)id

left

Natural Religion. 75

lefs contrivance in the fineft compoli- ^^^"^ tion of eloquence, than in the coarfeft k..^ organized body, the propagation of an Iliad or ^neid is an eafier fuppolition than that of any plant or animal.

Suppose, therefore, that you enter into your library, thus peopled by na- tural volumes, containing the moft re- fined reafon and mofl exquifite beauty : could you poflibly open one of them, and doubt, that its original caufe bore the ftrongeil analogy to mind and in- telligence? When it reafons and dif- courfes ; when it expoftulates, argues, and enforces its views and topics ; when it applies fome times to the pure intel- ledl, fometimes to the afFedlions ; when it colle6ls, difpofes, and adorns every confideration fviited to the fubjeA: could you perlift in alTerting, that all this, at the bottom, had really no meaning ; and that the firfl formation of this volume in the loins of its original pa-

E 4 rent

y6 Dialogues concepvNing

Part Ycnt proceeded not from thought and

^.^-rv deiign ? Your obftinacy, I know, reaches

not that degree of firmnefs : even your

fceptical play and wantonnefs would be

abalhed at fo glaring an abfurdicy.

But if there be any difference, Philo, between this fuppofed cafe and the real one of the univerfe, it is all to the ad^ vantage of the latter. The anatomy of an animal affords many ftronger in- ftances of defign than the perufal of LiVY or Tacitus: and any objeftion which you ftart in the former cafe, by carrying me back to fo unufual and ex- traordinary a fcene as the firfl forma- tion of worlds, the fame objection has place on the fuppofition of our vegeta- ting library. Chufe, then, your party, Philo, without ambiguity or evafion: affert either that a rational volume is no proof of a rational caufe, or admit of .a iimilar caufe to all the works of nature,

Let

Natural Religion. 77

Let me here obferve too, continued ^^^'^ Cleanthes, that this rehgious argu- <^^v<^ ment, inftead of being weakened by that fcepticifm fo much affected by you, rather acquires force from it, and becoiues more firm and undifputed. To exclude all argument or reafoning of every kind, is either affe6lation or mad- nefs. The declared profelTion of every reafonable fceptic is only to rejeA ab- ftrufe, remote, and refined arguments ; to adh-ere to common fenfe and the plain inftin6ls of nature ; and to affent, where- ever any reafons ftrike him with fo full a force, that he cannot, without the greateft violence, prevent it. Now the arguments for Natural Religion are plainly of this kind ; and nothing but the moft perverfe, obftinate metaphyfics can reject them. Confider, anatomize the eye ; furvey its ftru6lure and con- triva.nce ; and tell me, from your own feeling, if the idea of a contriver does not immediately flow in upon you with

a

78 Dialogues concerning

Part a force like that of fenfation. The moft \,^>rLf obvious conclufion, furely, is in favour delign ; and it requires time, refledlion, and ftudy, to funiinon up thofe frivo- lous, though abftrufe objedlions, which can fupport Infidelity. Who can be- hold the male and female of each fpecies, the correfpondence of their parts and in- ftin(5ls, their paffions, and whole courfe of life before and after generation, but muft be fenfible, that the propagation of the fpecies is intended by Nature? Millions and millions of fuch inftances prefent themfelves through every part of the univerfe; and no language can convey a more intelligible, irrefiftible meaning, than the curious adjuftment of final caufes. To what degree, there- fore, of blind dogmatifm muft one have attained, to rejedl fuch natural and fuch convincing argu.ments ?

Some beauties in writing we may meet with, which feem contrary to

rules^

' Natural Religion. 79

rules, and which gain the aiEFedlions, ^^^"^ and animate the imagination, in oppo- s^v^ fition to all the precepts of criticifm, and to the authority of the eftabliflied mafters of art. And if the argument for Theifm be, as you pretend, contra- dictory to the principles of logic ; its univerfal, its irrefiftible influence proves clearly, that there may be arguments of a like irregular nature. Whatever ca- vils may be urged ; an orderly world, as well as a coherent, articulate Ipeech, will ftill be received as an inconteftable proof of defign ar d intention.

It fometimes happens, I own, that the religious arguments have not their due influence on an ignorant favage and barbarian; not becaufe they are ob- fcure and difiicult, but becaufe he ne- ver aflcs himfelf any quefliion with re- gard to them. Whence arifes the cu- rious ftrudlure of an animal? From phe copulation of its parents. And

thefe

8o Dialogues concerning

Part tliefe whencc ? From their parents ? A \.,.-v->^ few removes fet the objefls at fucli a diftance, that to him they are loft in darknefs and confufion ; nor is he ac- tuated by any curioiity to trace them farther. But this is neither dogma- tifin nor fcepticifm, but ftupidity ; a ftate of mind very different from your fifting, inquifitive difpofition, my in- genious friend. You can trace caufes from effecSls : You can compare the moft diftant and remote objefls : and your greateft errors proceed not from barren- nefs of thought and invention; but from too luxuriant a fertility, w^hich fiippreffes your natural good fenfe, by a profulion of unnecefTary fcruples and objeclions.

Here I could obferve, Hermippus, that Philo was a little embarrafled and confounded s But while he heiitated in delivering an anfwer, luckily for

him.

Natural R.eligion; 8i

»

him, Demea broke in upon the dif- ^^^"^ courfe, and faved his countenance. ^^^-^o

. Your inftance, Cleanthes, faid he, drawn from books and language, being famihar, has, I confefs, fo much more farce on that account : but is there not fome danger too in this very circum- ftance; and may it not render us pre- fumptuous, by making us imagine "we x:omprehend the Deity, and have fome adequate idea of his nature and attri- butes? When I read a vohime, I enter into the mind and intention of che au- thor: I become him, in a manner, for the inftant; and have an immediate feeling and conception of thofe ideas which revolved in his imagination while employed in that compoiition. But fo near an approach we never furely can. make to the Deity. His ways are not our vvays. His attributes are perfecfl, but incomprehenlible. And; this vo- lume of Nature contains a g:reat and in-

fo^

explicable

82 Dialogues concerning

Part explicable riddle, more than any intel« v^^ ligible difcourfe or reafoning.

The ancient Platonists, you know, were the moil religious and devout of all the Pagan philofophers : yet many of them, particularly Plotinus, ex- prefsly declare, that intelle(fl or under- {landing is not to be afcribed to the Deity ; and that our inofl perfect wor- fliip of him confifts, not in a6ts of ve- neration, reverence, gratitude, or love ; but in a certain myfterious felf-annihi- lation, or total extindlion of all our fa- culties. Thefe ideas are, perhaps, too far ftretchcd; but ftill it mufl be ac- knowledged, that, by reprefenting the Deity as fo intelligible and compre- henfible, and fo fimilar to a human . mind, we are guilty of the groffeft and moll narrow partiality, and make our- felves the model of the whole univerfe.

Ai.L xhefentiments of the human mind,

gratitude^

Natural Religion. 83

gratitude, refentmtot, love, friendftiip, ^^^'^ approbation, blame, pity, emulation, x..^ envy, have a plain reference tq the ftate and fituation of man, and are calcula- ted for preferving the exiilence and promoting the adlivity of a fuch a be- ing in fuch circumftances. It feems therefore unreafonable to transfer fuch fentiments to a fupreme exiftence, or to llippofe him adluated by them ; and the phenomena, befides, of the univerfe w^ill not fupport us in fuch a theory. All our ideas derived from the fenfes arc confefTedly falfe and illufive; and can- not, therefore, be fuppofed to have place in a fupreme intelligence: And as th,e ideas of internal fentiment, added to thofe of the external fenfes, compofe the whole furniture of human underftand- ing, we may conclude, that none of the materials of thought are in any refpedl limilar in the human and in the divine intelligence. Now as to the manner of thinking ; how can we make any com- .

parifon

84 Dialogues concerning

Part parifon between them, or luppofe them \^^^ any wife refembling? Our thought is flu6luating, uncertain, fleeting, fuccef- five, and compounded ; and were we to remove thefe circumftances, we abfo- lutely annihilate its efTence, and it would in fuch a cafe be an abufe of terms -to apply to it the name of thought or rea- fon. At leaft, if it appear more pious and refpedlful (as it really is) ftill to retain thefe terms, when we mention the Supreme Being; we ought to acknow- ledge, that their meaning, in that cafe, is totally incomprehenflble ; and that the infirmities qf our nature do not permit us to reach any ideas which in the leaft correfpond to the ineffable fublimity of the divine attributes.

PART

PART IV.

TT feems ftrange to me, faid Clean- P^^t THES, that you, Demea, who are v.,.^ fo fincere in the caufe of rehgion, fliould ftill raaintain the myfterious, incom- prehenfible nature of the Deity, and Ihould infift fo ftrennoufly that he has no manner of likenefs or refemblance to human creatures. The Deity, I can readily allow, pofTeiTes many powers and attributes j of vv^hich we can have no comprehenfion : But if our ideas, fo far as they go, be not juft, and adequate, and correfpondent to his real nature, I know not what there is in this fubjedl worth infifting on. Is the name, with- out any meaning, of fuch mighty im-

F portance?

86 Dialogues concerning

Part IV.

portance? Or how do you MysTicSy who maintain the abfokite incompre- henfibiHty of the Deity, differ from Sceptics or Atheifts, who affert, that the firft caufe of all is unknown and unintelligible? Their temerity muft be very great, if, after rejedling the pro- du6lion by a mind ; I mean, a mind refembling the human, (for I know of no other), they pretend to affign, with certainty^ any other fpecific intelligible caufe: And their confcience muft be be very fcrupulous indeed, if they re- fufe to call the univerfal, unknown caufe a God or Deity j and to beftow on him as many fublime eulogies and unmean- ing epithets as you Ihall pleafe to re- quire of them.

"Who could imagine, replied Deme a, that Cleanthes, the calm, philofophi- cal Cleanthes, would attempt to re- fute his antagonifts, by affixing a nick- name to them ; and, like th^ common

bigots

Natural Religion. 87

bigots and inquifitors of the age, have ^^f^ recourfe to inveflive'and declamation, \...-v>^ ' inftead of reafonlng? Or does he not perceive, that thefe topics are ealily re- torted, and that Anthropomorphite is an appellation as invidious, and im- plies as dangerous confequences, as the epithet of Mystic, with which he has honoured US? In reality, Cleanthes, confider what it is you affert when you reprefent the Deity as fimilar to a hu- man mind and underftanding. What is the foul of man? A compolition of various faculties, paffions, fentiments, ideas ; united, indeed, into one felf or perfon, but flill diftinc?!: from each other. When it reafons, the ideas, which are the parts of its difcourfe, arrange them^ felves in a certain form or order ; which is not preferved entire for arrnoment, but immediately gives place to another arrangement. New opinions, new paf- iions, new aftecftions, new feelings arife, which continually diveriify the mental

F 2 fcene,

88 Dialogues concerning

^^^"^ fcene, and produce in it the greateft va- v^^ riety and inoft rapid fucceffion imagin- able. How is this compatible with that perfect immutability and fimplicity which all true ~Theifts afcribe to the. Deity? By the fame a6l, fay they, he fees paft, prefent, and future: His love and hatred, his mercy and juftice, are one individual operation: He is entire in every point of fpace ; and complete in every inftant of duration. No fuc- ceffion, no change, no acquifition, no diminution. What he is implies not in it any Ihadow of difl:in(5tion or diverfity. And what he is, this moment, he ever has been, and ever will be, without any new judgment, fentiment, or operation. He ftands fixed in one fimple, perfed: ftate : nor can you ever fay„ with any propriety, that this ad: of his is different . from that other ; or that this judgment or idea has been lately formed, and will give place, by fucceffion, to any differ- ent judgment or idea,

I

Natural Religion. 89

I CAN readily allow, faidCLEANTHEs, ^^^^ that thofe who maintain the perfedl fim- )g^-r^ plicity of the Supreme Being, to the ex- tent in which you have explained it, are complete Mystics, and chargeable with all the confequences which I have drawn from their -opinion. They are, in a word. Atheists, without knowing it. For though it be allowed, that the Deity pofTelTes attributes of which we have no comprehenfion ; yet ought we never to afcribe to him any attributes which are abfolutely incompatible with that intelligent nature efTential to him. A mind, whofe a6ls and fentiments and ideas are not diftindl and fucceilive ; one, that is wholly fimple, and tot^^lly immutable; is a mind, v/hich has no thought, no reafon, no will, no fenti- ment, no love, no hatred ; or in a word, is no mind at all. It is an abufe of terms to give it that appellation; and we may as well fpeak of limited exten-

F 3 , lion

go Dialogues concerning

Part {^q^ without figure, or of number with- w-vx-f out compofition.

Pray confider, faid Philo, whom you are at prefent inveighing againfto .You are honouring with the appellation of Atheijl all the found, orthodox di- vines, almoft, who have treated of this lubjedl ; and you will at laft be, your- felf, found, according to yovir reckon- ing, the only found Theift in the world. But if idolaters be Atheifts, as, I think, may juftly be afferted, and Chriftian Theologians the fame ; what becomes of the argument, fo much celebrated, derived from the univerfal confent of mankind t

But becaufe I know you are not much fwayed by names and authorities, I fhall endeavour to ftiow you, a little more diflin6lly, the inconveniencies of that Anthropomorphifm, which you have embraced ; and fhall prove, that

there

Natural Religion, 91

there is no ground to fuppofe a plan of ^^^ the world to be formed in the divine v^-r>-' mind, confifting of diftindl ideas, dif- ferently arranged ; in the fame manner as an architect forms in his head the plan of a hovife which he intends to execute.

It is not eafy, I own, to fee what is gained by this fuppoiition, whether we judge of the matter by Reafon or by Experience, "We are ftill obliged to mount liigher, in order to iind the caufe of this caufe, which you had af- figned as fatisfacftory and conclufive.

If Reafon (I mean abftrafl: reafon, derived from inquiries a priori) be not alike mute with regard to all queftioiis concerning caufe and effedl ; this fen- tence at leaft it will venture to pro- nounce, That a mental world, or uni- verfe of ideas, requires a caufe as much, as does a material world, or univerfe of

F 4 obje(fts;

92 Dialogues conceknin6

Part objects ; and, if fimilar in its arrange- v-oTN-/ ment, mnft require a fimilar caufe. For what is there in this fubjed:, which Ihould occalion a different conclufion or inference? In an abftracl view, they are entirely alike ; and no difEculty at- tends the one fuppoiition, which is not common to both of them.

Again, when we will needs force Experience to pronounce fome fentence, even on thefe fnbjedls, which lie beyond her fphere; neither can fhe perceive any material difference in this particu- lar, between thefe two kinds of worlds ; but finds them to ht governed by fimi- lar principles, and to depend upon an. equal variety of caufes in their opera- tions. We have fpecimens in minia- ture of both of them. Our own mind refembles the one : A vegetable or ani* m.al body the other. Let Experience, therefore, judge from thefe famples. Nothing feems more delicate, wiih re- gard

Natural Religiok. 93

gard to its caufes, than thought ; and as ^^^'^ thefe caufes never operate in two per- v^^w fons after the fame manner, fo we never find two perfons who think exa<5lly a- like. Nor indeed does the fame perfon think exa6lly ahke at any two different periods of time. A difference of age, of the difpofition of his body, of wea- ther, of food, of company, of books, of pafllons ; any of thefe particulars, or others more minute, are fufficient to alter the curious machinery of thought, and communicate to it very different movements and operations. As far as we can judge, vegetables and animal bodies are not more delicate in their motions, nor depend upon a greater variety or more curious adjuflment of fprings and principles.

How therefore fhall we fatisfy our- felves concerning the caufe of that Be- ing, whom you fuppofe the Author of Nature, or, according to your fyftem

of

94 Dialogues concerning

"^^v^ of AnthropomorpKifm, the ideal world, V--WJ into which you trace the material ? Have we not the fame reafon to trace that ideal world into another ideal world, or new intelligent principle ? But if we flop, and go no farther ; why go fo far ? Why not flop at the material world ? How can we fatisfy ourfelves without going on in infnitiim? And after all, what fatisfa(5lion is there in that infinite progreffion ? Let us remember the ftory of the Indian philofopher and his ele- phant. It was never more applicable than to the prefent fubjedl. If the ma- terial world refts upon a fimilar ideal world, this ideal world mufl: reft upon fome other ; and fo one, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the prefent material world. By fuppofing it to contain the principle of its order within itfelf, we really affert it to be God; and the fooner we arrive at that divine Being, fo much the better. When you go one ftep beyond the mun-r

dane

Natural PvEligion.

95

dane fyftem, you only excite an inqui- ^^^'^ fitive humour, which it is impoffible c-v^ ever to fatisfy.

To fay, that the diiFerent ideas, which compofe the reafon of the Supreme Be-- ing, fall into order, of themfelves, and by their own nature, is really to talk without any precife meaning. If it has a meaning, I would fain know, why it is not as good fenfe to fay, that the parts of the material world fall into order, of themfelves, and by their own nature. Can the one opinion be intelligible^ while the other is not fo ?

We have, indeed, experience of ideas, which fall into order, of themfelves, and without any knoivn caufe : But, I am fure, we have a much larger expe- rience of matter, which does the fame ; as in all inftances of generation and ve- getation, where the accurate analyfis of the caiife exceeds all humaii compre-

henfion.

g6 Dialogues concerning

^^•^T henfion. We have alfo experience of c^vN^ particular fyftems of thought and of matter, which have no order: of the firft, in madnefs ; of the fecond, in corruption. Why then Ihould we think, that order is more eflential to one than the other ? And if it requires a caufe in both, what do we gain by your fy item, in tracing the univerfe of objects into a fimilar univerfe of ideas ? The firft ftep, which we make, leads us on for ever. It were, therefore, wife in us, to limit all our inquiries to the prefent world, without looking farther. No fatisfac- tion can ever be attained by thefe {pe- culations, which fo far exceed the nar- row bounds of human underftanding.

It was ufual with the Peripate- tics, you know, Cleanthes, when the caufe of any phenomenon was de- manded, to have recotirfe to their Jhcul-- ties or occult qualities ; and to fay, for inftance, that bread nourifhed by its nu- tritive

Natural Religion, 97

tritive faculty^ and fenna purged by ^^'^ its purgative : But it has been difco- «w^>rv> vered, that this fubterfuge was nothing but the difguife of ignorance ; and that thefe philofophers, though lefs inge- nuous, really faid the fame th^ing with the fceptics or the vulgar, who fairly confelFed, that they knew not the caufe ' of thefe phenomena. In like manner, when it is a&ed, what caufe produces order in the ideas of the Supreme Be- ing ; can any other reafon be affigned by you, Anthropomorphites, than that it is a rational faculty, and that fuch is the nature of the Deity? But why a fimilar anfwer will not be equally fatis- fadtory in accounting for the order of the world, without having recourfe to any fuch intelhgent creator .as you in- fill on, may be difficult to determine. It is only to fay, xhdxfuch is the nature of material objedls, and that they are all originally polfeffed of a faculty of order and proportion. Thefe are only^

more

g8 Dialogues concernikg

Part morc learned and elaborate ways of IV. .

^.^^ confeffing our ignorance ; nor ^has the

onehypotheiis any real advantage above the other, except in its greater confor- mity to vulgar prejudices.

You have difplayed this argumenf with great emphafis, replied Clean- THES : You feem not fenfible, how eafy it is to anfwer it. Even in common life, if I affign a caufe for any event ; is it any objecftion, Philo^ that I can- not affign the caufe of that caufe, and anfwer every new queftion which may incelFantly be flarted ? And what phi- lofophers could poffibly fubmit to fo ri- gid a rule ? philofophers, who confefs ultimate caufes to be totally unknown ; and are fenfible, that the moft refined principles, into which they trace the phenomena, are ftill to them as inexpli- cable as thefe phenomena themfelves are to the vulgar. The order and ar- rangement of nature, the curious ad-

juftment

Natural Religion. 99

juftment of final caufes, the plain ufe P^^^ and intention of every part and or- v.^^^^ organ; alLthefe befpeak in the clear- ell language an intelligent caufe or author. The heavens and the earth join in the fame teftimony : The whole chorus of Nature raifes one hymn to the praifes of its Creator: You alone, or al- ' moft alone, dlfturb this general har- mony. You ftart abftrufe doubts, ca- vils, and objedlions : You aflc me, v^hat is the caufe of this caufe ? I know not ; I care not ; that concerns not me. I have found a Deity; and here I flop my inquiry. Let thofe go farther, who are wifer or more enterprifing.

I PRETEND to be neither, replied Philo : and for that very reafon, I Ihould never perhaps have attempted to go fo far; efpecially when I am fen- fible, that I mufl at lafl be contented to fit down with the fame anfwer, which, without farther trouble, might

have

loo Dialogues coNcFRisfii'Ta P^^T have fatisfied me from the beginning.

JL V •.

v^^TN-* If I am ftill to remain in utter igno- rance of caufes, and can abfolutely give ' an explication of nothing, I fhall never efteem it any advantage to fhove off for a moment a difficulty, v^hich, you acknowledge, muft immediately, in its full force, recur upon me* Naturalifts indeed very juftly explain particular effedls by more general caufes ; though thefe general caufes themfelves fliould remain in the end totally inexplicable : but they never furely thought it fatis- fadlory to explain a particular effecfl by a particular caufe, which was no more to be accounted for than the eflFe<5l it- felf. An ideal fyftem, arranged of it^ felf, without a precedent defign, is not a whit more explicable than a material one, which attains its order in a like manner; nor is there any more difficul- ty in the latter fuppofition than in the former.

PART

I 'I ~ i' ■-■'— r r- Ti

PART V.

T>UT to fiiow you ftill more incon^ ^^^'^ veniencieS) continued PhilO, in w->o^ your Anthropomorphifin ; pleafe to take a new fiirvey of your principles* Like effeSls pronje like caufes, . This is the experimental argument ; and thisj you fay too, is the fole theological ar- gument. Now it is certain^ that the liker, the effed:s are which are feen^ and the liker the caufes which are in- Ferredj the ftronger is the .argument. Every departure on either fide dimi- nilhes the probability, and renders the experiment lefs conclufive. You can- not doubt of the principle : neither ought yoii tQ reje(5l its confequences.

Q Al5,

102 Dialogues concerning

^^y All the new difcoveries in aflro- v-VN^ nomy, which prove the immenfe gran- deur and magnificence of the works of Nature, are fo many additional argu- ments for a Deity, according to the true fyftem of Theifm: but, according to your hypothefis of experimental Theifm, they become fo many objedlions, by re- moving the efiFedl ftill farther from all refemblance to the effedls of hiuiian art and contrivance. For if Lucretius *, even following the old fyftem of the world, could exclaim,

Quis regerc iflimenii fummam, quis habere profundi Indu manu validas potis eft moderanter habenas? Quis pariter ccelbs omnes convertere ? et omnes Ignibus aetheriis terras fuffire fcraces? Omnibus in que locis cfTe 00:^111 tempore prasfto?

If TuLLY f efteemed this reafoning fo natural as to put it into the mouth of his Epicurean : ^libus enm ocidis a- nimi intueri potuit ^ejler Plato fahricaju illam tanti opens ^ qua conjlrui a Deo atqiie

cedijicar't * Lib. xi. I094» f Be n^t. Deor. HB-L

Natural Religioh. 103

df^difcari mundinnfacit? qii£ molitio? quts Part fcrrmiiaiia? qui ve^es? quce machin(e? y^^-^ qui miniftri tanti muneris fueriint? quem'^ admodiun autefii obedire et pafere 'uolun" tati arch'itecli aer^ ignis ^ aqiia^ terra po-^ tiicnint? If this argument^ I fay, had silly force In former ages ; how much greater muil it have at prefent ; when the bounds of Nature are fo infinitely enlarged, and fuch a magnificent fcene is opened to us? It is ftill more unrea- fonable to form our idea of fo unlimit- ed a caufe from ovir experience of th^ narrow producSlions of human defign and invention^

THE'difcoveries by microfcopes, as they open a new univerfe in miniature^ are ftill objeftions, according to you, arguments, according to me. The far- ther we pufli our refearches of this kind, we are ftill led to infer the univerfal eaufe of all to be vaftly diiFerent from ■ G a man-

i04 Dialogues concerning

y'^ mankind, or from any objed of human experience and obfervation.

ViO^V^

And what fay you to the difcoveries in anatomy, chemiflry, botany? ---- Thefe furely are no objecflions, repHed Cleanthes: they only difcover new inftanccs of art and contrivance. It is ftill the image of mind reflecSled on us from innumerable objedls. Add, a mind like tJoe human^ faid Philo. I know of no other, replied Cleanthes. And the liker the better, infifted Philo. To be fure, faid Cleanthes.

Now, Cleanthes, faid Philo, with an air of alacrity and triumph, mark the confequences. Firji^ By this me- thod of reafoning, you renounce all claim to infinity in any of the attributes of the Deity. For as the caufe ought only to be proportioned to the efFedl; and the effe<5l, fb far as it falls under our coguifance, is not infinite; what pre-

tenfions,

Natural Religion. 105

j

tenfions have we, upon your fuppofi- ^^^

tions, to afcribe that attribute to the di- ^-^^^^

vine Being ? You will ftill infift, . that,

by removing him fo much from all fi~

milarity to human creatures, we give |

into the moft arbitrary hypothefis, and j

at the fame time weaken all proofs of |

his exiftence. ]

Secondly^ You have no reafon, on your I theory, for afcribing perfe<5lion to the Deity, even in his finite capacity; or for

fuppofing him free from every error, mi- ^

ftake, or incoherence, in his underta- !

kings. There are many inexplicable dif- j ficulties in the works of Nature, which, if we allow a perfeiS: author to be proved

a priori^ are eafily folved, and become \

only feeming difficulties, from the nar- \

row capacity of man, who cannot trace ;

infinite relations. But according to your !

method of reafoning^ thefe difficulties \ become ail real; and perhaps will be

infifled on, as new inftances of likenefs '

G 2> ^'^ j

to6 Dialogues concerning

■t^'^ to human art and contrivance. At leaft, y .

^'OTN-^ you muft acknowledge, that it is impoi- fible for us to tell, from our limited views, whether this fyjftem contains any great faults, or deferves any conlider- able praife, if compared to other pof- fible, and even real fyftems. Could a peafant, if the jEneid were read to him, pronounce that poem to be abfolutely faultlefs, or even affign to it its proper Xank among the produ(5lions of human wit ; he, who had never feen any qther produdlion?

But were this world ever fo perfecfl a production, it muft ftill remain un- certain, whether all the excellencies of the work can juftly be afcribed to the workman. If we furvey a fliip, what an f xalted idea muft we form of the inge- nuity of the carpenter who framed fo complicated, ufeful, and beautiful a ma- ichine ? And w^hat furprife muft we feel, f!/hen we find him a ftupid mechanic,

who

Natural Religion. 107

^w-lio imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long fucceffion of ages, after multiplied trials, miftakes, cor- reclions, deliberations, and controver- fies, had been gradually improving ? Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this fyftem was ftruck out; much labotir loft; many fruitlefs trials made; and a flow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making. In fuch fubjecls, who can determine, where the truth; nay, who can conje<5lure where the pro- bability, lies ; amidft a great number of hypothefes which may be propofed, and a ftill greater number which may be imagined?

And what fliadow of an argument, continued Philo, can you produce, from your hypothefis, to prove the unity of the Deity? A great number of men join in btiilding a houfe or fhip, in rear-

G 4 ing

Part V.

to8 Dialogues conceknikg

Fart {^1^ ^ city, in framing a commonwealth ;

t.^*^^ why may not feveral -deities combine in contriving and framing a world ? This is only fo much greater fimilarity to human affairs. By fliaring the work among feveral, we may fo much far^ ther limit the attributes of each, and get rid of that e^tenfive power and know- ledge, which muft be fuppofed in one deity, and which, according to you, can only ferve to weaken the proof of his cxiftence. And if fuch foolilh, fuch vi- cious creatures as man can yet often unite in framing and executing one plan ; how much more thofe deities or daemons, whom we may fuppoft feveral degrees more perfedlf

To multiply caiifes, without necef^ fity, is indeed contrary to true philofo- phy: but this principle applies not to the prefeiit cafe. Were one deity ante- cedently proved by your theory^ who were pofleflT^d of every attribute requi-

fite

Natural Religion. 109

^te to the produdlion of the univerfe ; I'art k woiildbe needlefs, I own, (though not s^^y^ abfurd), to fuppofe any other deity ex- iftent. But while it is ftill a queftion. Whether all thefe attributes are united in one fubjedl, or difperfed among fe- veral independent beings ; by what phe- nomena in nature can we pretend to de- cide the controverfy ? Where we fee a body raifed in a fcale, we are ftire that there is in the oppofite fcale, however concealed from fight, fome counterpoi- fing weight equal to it: but it is ftill al- lowed to doubt, whether that weight be an aggregate of feveral diftindl bo- dies, or one uniform united mafs. And if the weight requifite very much ex- ceeds any thing which we have ever fcen conjoined in any fingle body, the former fuppofition becomes ftill more probable and natural. An intelligent being of fuch vaft pov^er and capacity as is necelTary to produce the univerfe, «>r, to ipeak in the language of ancient

philofophy^^

no Dialogues concerning

Part philofophy, fo prodigious an animal^ ^^'^r>J exceeds all analogy, and even compre- heniion.

But farther, Cleanthes: Men are mortal, and renew their fpecies by ge- neration ; and this is common to all li- ving creatures. The two great fexes of male and female, fays Milton, animate the world. Why muft this circumftance, fo univerfal, fo effential, be excluded from thofe numerous and limited dei- ties ? Behold, then, the theogeny of ancient times brought back upon us.

And why not become a perfect An- thropomorphite ? Why not affert the deity or deities to be corporeal, and to have eyes, a nofe, mouth, ears, &c. ? E- PicuRUS maintained, that no man had ever feen reafon but in a human figure; therefore the gods muft have a human figure. And this argument, which is de- fervedly fo much ridiculed by Cicero,

becomes,

Natu-ral Religion. m

feecomes, according to you, folid and ^^^^ philofophical.

In a word, Cleanthes, a man, who follows your hypothefis, is able, per- haps, to affert, or conjedlnre, that the imiverfe, fometiine, arofe from fome- thing like defign : but beyond that po- iition he cannot afcertain one iingle cir- cumftance ; and is left afterwards to fix every point of his theology, by the nt- moft licenfe of fancy and hypothefis. This world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfecfl, compared to a fu- perior ftandard ; and was only the firft rude eflay of fome infant deity, who af- terwards abandoned it, afhamed of his lame performance: it is the work only of fome dependent, inferior deity ; and is the objedl of derifion to his fuperiors: it is the producflion of old age and dotage in fome fuperannuated deity ; and ever fince his death, has run on at adven- irdvts^ from the firft impulfe and adlive

force

ri2 Dialogues concerning

Part forcc which it received from him. You* t,orL^ juftly give figns of horror, Demea, at thefe ftrange fuppofitions ; but thefe, and a thoufand more of the fame kind, are Cleanthes's fuppofitions, not mine* From the moment the attributes of the Deity are luppofed finite, all thefe have place. And I cannot, for my part, think, that fo wild and unfettled a fy- ftem of theology is, in any refpedl, pre- ferable to none at all.

" These fiippofitions I abfolutely dif- own, cried Cle anthes : they ftrike me, however, with no horror; efpecially, when propofed in that rambling way in which they drop from you. On the contrary, they give me pleafiire, when I fee, that, by the utmoft indulgence of your imagination, you never get rid of the hypothefis of defign in the univerfe; but are obliged at every turn to have ^ _ r^ecourfe to it. To this conceffion I ad- here fteadily ; and this I regard as a fuf- ficient foundation for religion.

PART VI.

TT muft be a flight fabric, indeed, faid ^^^^ Demea, which can be eredled on fo o-v-s^ tottering a foundation. While we are uncertain, whether there is one deity or many ; whether the deity or dei- ties, to whom we owe our exiflence, be perfe<5l or imperfedl, fubordinate or fu- preme, dead or ahve ; What truft or con- fidence can we repofe in them ? What devotion or worfhip addrefs to them ? What veneration or obedience pay them ? To all the purpofes of life, the theory of religion becomes altogether ufelefs : and even with regard to ipeculative confe- qucnces, its imcertainty, according to

ydu,

114 DlALeOUES CONCERNING

^ rr^ you, mufl: render it totally precarious w-om/ and unfatisfa(5lory.

To render it ftill more unfatisfaflory, faid Philo, there occurs to me another hypothelis, which mud acquire an air of probability from the method of rea- foning fo much inlifted on by Clean- THES. That like effedls arife from like caufes ; this principle he fuppofes 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 feve- ral known circumftances are obferved to be fimilar, the unknown will alfo be found fimilar. Thus, if we fee the limbs of a human body, we conclude, that it is alio attended with a human head, though hid from us. Thus, if we fee, through a chink in a wail, a fmall part of the fun, we conclude, that, were the wall removed, we Ihould fee the whole body. In fliort, this

method

Natural Religion. 115

method of reafoning is fo obvious and Part familiar, that no fcruple can ever be ^^^ made with regard to its folidity.

Now if we ilirvey the nniverfe, fo 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 wafte in every part is inceffantly re- paired: the clofeft fympathy is per- ceived throughout the entire fyftem : and each part or member, in perform- ing its proper offices, operates both to its own prefervation and to that of the whole. The world, therefore, I infer, is an animal; and the Deity is the SOUL of the world, adiuating it, and a(5luated by it.

You have too much learning, Cle- ANTHEs, to be at all furprifed at this

opinion,

ti6 Dialogues concehnikg

Part opinion, which, you know, was main-* v:.^^^ tained by almoft all the Theifls of anti- quity, and chiefly prevails in their dif- courfes and reafonings. For though fometimes the ancient philofophers rea.- fdn from final caufes, as if they thought the world the workmanlhip of God ; yet it appears rather their favourite no- tion to confider it as his body, whofe organization renders it fubfervient to him. And it muft be confefTed, that as the univerfe refembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance; if our limited analogy could ever, with any propriety, be extended to the whole of nature, the inference feems jufler in favour of the ancient than the modern theory.

There are many other advantages, too, in the former theory, which re- commended it to the ancient Theolo- gians. Nothing more repugnant to all Itheir notions, becaufe nothing more

repugnant

Natural Religion. 117

repugnant to common experience, than ^^^"^ mind without body ; a mere fpiritual >^^w fubftance, which fell not under their fenfes nor comprehenlion, and of which they had not obferved one fingle in- ftance throughout all nature. Mirid and body they knew, becaufe they felt both: an order, arrangement, organi- < zation, or internal machinery, in both, they likewife knew, after the fame man- ner : and it could not but feem reafon- able to transfer this experience to the univerfe; and to fuppofe the divine mind and body to be alfo coeval, and m- to have, both of them, order and ar- rangement naturally inherent in them, and infeparable from them.

Here, therefore, is a new fpecies of Anthropomorphifm^ Cleanthes, on which you may deliberate ; and a the- ory which feems not liable to any confiderable difficulties. You are too much fuperior, furely, to fyjiematical

H prejii"

ii8 Dialogues concerning

Part prejudices^ to find any more difficulty in v.,v-L fuppofing an animal body to be, origi- nally, of itfelf, or from unknown caufes, poffefred of order and organization, than in fuppofing a firnilar order to belong to mind. Bnt the 'vulgar prejudice^ that body and mind ought always to accom- pany each other, ought not, one fliould think, to be entirely negleiled ; fince it is founded on ^vulgar experience^ the only guide which you profefs to. follow in all thefe theological inquiries. And if you affert, that our limitefi experi- ence is an unequal ftandard, by which to judge of the unlimited extent of na- ture ; you entirely abandon your own hypothefis, and muft thenceforward adopt our Myfticifin, as you call it, and admit of the abfolute incompre- henfibility of the Divine Nature.

This theory, I own, replied Clean- THES, has never before occurred to me, though a pretty natural one ; ^nd 1

cannot

Natural Religion. 119

cannot readily, upon fo fliort an ex- ^^"^ ainination and reflecftion^ deliver any ^^-r^j opinion with regard to it. You are very fcrupuloiis, indeed, faid Philo : w^ere I to examine any fyftem of yours, I fhould not liaye acfled with half that caution and referve, in ftarting objec- tions and difficulties to it. Hbwever, if any thing occur to you, you will oblige us by propofing it.

Why then, replied Cleanthes, it feeiTLs to me, that, though the world does, in many circumflances, refem- ble an animal body; yet is the analogy alfo defe(ftive ■ in many circumftances, the moft material : no organs of fenfe ; no feat of thought or reafon; no one precife origin of motion and adlion. In fhort, it feems to bear a ftronger refem- blance to a vegetable than to an ani- mal, and your inference would be fo far inconclufive in favour of the foul of the world.

H 2 But

I20 Dialogues concerning

Part But in the next place, your theory ^.--^rv^ feems to iinply the eternity of the world ; and that is a principle, which, I think, can be refuted by the flrongeft reafons and probabilities. I fhall fuggeft an argument to this purpofe, which, I be- lieve, has not been infilled on by any writer. Thofe, who reafon from the late origin of arts and fciences, though their inference wants not force, may perhaps be refuted by confiderations derived from the nature of human fb- ciety, which is in continual revolution, between ignorance and knowledge, li- berty and jflavery, riches and poverty; fo that it is impoflible for us, from our limited experience, to foretell with af- furance what events may or may not be expelled. Ancient learning and hi- ftory feem to have been in great danger of entirely perifhing after the inunda- tion of the barbarous nations ; and had thefe convulGons continued a little long- er, or" been a little mor^ violent, we

Ihould

Natural Religion. 121

fliould not probably have now known ^:^Y what pafled in the world a few cent\iries v.^^>-» before us. Nay, were it not for the fu- perftition of the Popes, who prefer ved a little jargon of Latin, in order to fupport the appearance of an ancient and univerfal church, that tongue muft have been utterly loft : in which cafe, the Weftern world, being totally bar- barous, would not have been in a fit difpofition for receiving the Greek language and learning, which was con- veyed to them after the facking of Con- stantinople. When learning and books had been extinguiftied, even the mechanical arts would have fallen con- fiderably to decay ; and it is eafily ima- gined, that fable or tradition might afcribe to them a much later origin than the true one. This vulgar argu- ment, therefore, againft the eternity of the world, feems a little precarious.

But here appears to be the founda- H 3 tion

122 Dialogues concerning

^A^T tion of a better argument. Lucullus ^-^^-^ was the hrft that brought cherry-trees from Asia to Europe ; though that tree thrives fo well in many European climates, that it grows in the woods without any culture. Is it poflible, that, throughout a whole eternity, no Euro- pean had ever paffed into Asia, and thought of tranfplanting fo delicious a fruit into his own country? Or if the tree was once tranfplanted and propa- gated, how could it ever afterwards pe- rifh ? Empires may rife and fall ; liberty and flavery fucceed alternately; igno- rance and knowledge give place to each other; but the cherry-tree will ftill re- main in the woods of Greece, Spain, and Italy, and will never be afFefted by the revolutions of human fociety.

It is not two thoufand years fince vines were tranfplanted into France; though there is no climate in the world more favourable to them. It is not three

centuries

Natural Religion. • 123

centuries fince horfes, cows, (heep, fwine, ^^^ dogs, coriij were known in America, ^^^^-^t-j Is it poflible, that, during the revolu- tions of a whole eternity, there never arofe a Columbus, who might open the communication between Europe and and that continent? We may as well imagine, that all men would wear {lock- ings for ten thoufand years, and never have the fenfe to think of garters to tie rhem. All thefe feem convincing proofs of the youth, or rather infancy, of the v/orld; as being founded on the ope-^ ration of principles more conftant and fleady than thofe by which human fo- ciety is governed and direcfted. No- thing lefs than a total convuliion of the elements will ever deftroy all the Fu- ' ropean animals and vegetables which . are now to be found in the Weftern world.

And what argument have you againft fuch convulfions, replied Philo. Strong

H 4 and

124 Dialogues ^CONCERNING Part and almoft inconteftable proofs may be

VI r V

v.,^^ traced over the whole earth, that every part of this globe has contijiued for many ages entirely covered with water. And though order were fuppofed infe- parable from matter, and inherent in it ; yet may matter be fufceptible of - many and great revolutions 5 through the endlefs periods of eternal duration. The inceflant changes, to which every part of it is fubjedl, feem to intimate fome fuch general transformations ; tho' at the fame time it is obfervable, that all the changes and corruptions of which we have ever had experience, are but paffages from one ftate of order to an- other ; nor can matter ever reft in total deformity and confuiion. What we fee in the parts, we may infer in the whole ; at leaft, that is the method of reafoning on which you reft your whole theory. And were I obliged to defend any par- ticular fyftem of this nature (which I never willingly fliould do) , I efteem none

, more

Natural Religion. 125

more plaufible than that which afcribes ^^^"^ . . . VI.

an eternal inherent principle of order ^.^^^^

to the world ; though attended with great and continual revolutions and al- terations. This at once folves all diffi- culties ; and if the folution, by being fo general, is not entirely complete and fatisfaclory, it is at lead a theory that we niuft, fooner or later, have recourfe to, whatever fyftem we embrace. How:^ could things have been as they are, were there not an original, inherent principle of order fomewhere, in thought or in matter? And it is very indifferent to which of thefe we give the preference. Chance has no place, on any hypothefis, fceptical or religious. Every thing is farely governed by fteady, inviolable laws. And were the inmoft elTence of things laid open to us, we ihould then difcover a fcene, of which, at prefent, we can have no idea. Inflead of admi- ring the order of natural beings, we flioujd qlearly fee, that it was abfolutely

impoffible

126 Dialogues concerning

Part impoffible for them, in the fmalleft ar- t.^-wv' tide, ever to admit of any other difpo- fition.

Were any one incUned to revive the ancient Pagan Theology, which main-^ tained, as we learn from Hefiod, that this globe was governed by 30,000 dei- ties, who arofe from the unknown powers of nature : yon wonld naturally objedt, Cleanthes, that nothing is gained by this hypothefis; and that it is as eafy to fuppofe all men and ani^ mals, beings more numerous, but lefs perfedl, to have fprung immediately from a like origin. Pulh the fame in- ference a ftep farther ; and you will find a numerous fociety of deities as expli- cable as one univerfal deity, who pojPr felTes, within himfelf, the powers and perfections of the whole fociety. All thefe fyftems, then, of Scepticifm, Poly- theifm, and Theifm, you muft allow, on your principles, to be on a like foot- ings

Natural Religion. 127

ing, and that no one of them has any ^^^^ advantage over the others. You may <.^>rij thence learn the fallacy of your prin- ciples.

PART

B

PART VIL

UT here, continued Philo, in ex- Part

. VII.

amming the ancient fyftem of the c^-w-;

foul of the world, there ftrikes me, all on a fudden, a new idea, which, if juft, mull go near to fubvert all your rea- fonihg, and deftroy even your firft in- ferences, on which you repofe fuch con- fidence. If the univerfe bears a greater likenefs to animal bodies and to vege- tables, than to the works of human art, it is more probable, that its cauf^ re- fembles the caufe of the former than that of the latter, and its origin ought rather to be afcribed to generation or vegetation than to reafon or defign. Your conclufion, even according to your

own

130 Dialogues concerning

Part qy^h principles, is therefore lame ar\c! v.-v^ defecftive.

Pray open up this argument a little farther, faid Demea. For I do not rightly apprehend it, in that eoncife manner in which you have exprelTed it.

y

Our friend Cleanthes, replied Philo, as you have heard, aiferts, that lince no queftion of fadl can be proved otherwife than by experience, the exifl- ence of a Deity admits not of proof from any other medium. The world, fays he, refembles the works of human contrivance: Therefore its caiife muft alfo refemble that of the other. Here we may remark, that the operation of one very fmall part of nature, to wit man, upon another very fmall part, to wit that inanimace matter lying within his reach, is the rule by which Clean- thes judges of the origin of the whole;

and

NatuRx^l Religiok. 131

and he meafures objedls, fo widely dif- ^^y proportioned, by the fame individual ^y^w^ ftandard. But to wave all objeilions drawn from this topic; I affirm, that there are other parts of the univerfe (beiides the machines of huihan inven- tion) which bear ftill a greater refem-r blance to the fabric of the world, and which therefore afford a better conjec- ture concerning: the univerfa.1 ori^rin of this fyftem. Tliefe parts are animals and vegetables. The world plainly re- fembles more an animal or a vegetable, than it does a watch or a knitting-loom. Its caufe, therefore, it is more probable, refembles the caufe of the former. The caufe of the former is generation or ve- getation. The caufe, therefore, of the world, we may infer to be fomething ii- milar or analogous to generation or ve- getation.

But how is it conceivable, faid De- MEA, that the world can, arife from any

thing

t^2 Dialogues concerning

VII.

ART tiling fimilar to vegetation or genera- tion?

Very eafily, replied Philo. In like manner as a tree Iheds its feed into the neighbouring fields, and produces otl;ier trees ; fo the great vegetable^ the world, or this planetary fyftem, produces with-' in itfelf certain feeds, which, being fcat-^ tered into the furrounding chaos, vege-^ tate into new worlds. A comet, for in- ftance, is the feed of a world ; and after it has been fully ripened, by palling from fun to fun, and ftar to ftar, it is at laft toffed into the unformed elements which every where furround this uni- verfe, and immediately fprout^up into a new fyftem.

Or if, for the fake of variety (for I fee no other advantage), we fhould fup- pofe this world to be an animal; a co- met is the egg of this animal : and in like manner as an oftrich lays its egg

Natural RELiGiONi 133

Part \^^ ^^^ fand^ which, without any far- ' v^^o ther care, hatches the egg^ and produces anew animal; fo ..... . I underftand

you, fays De ME A: But what wild, ar- bitrary fuppofitions are thefe? What data have you for fuch extraordinary conclufions ? And is the flighty imagl- \ liary refemblance of the world to a ve-* getable or an animal fufficient to efta- blifl.1 the fame inference with regard to both ? Objedls, which are in general fo widely different ; ought they to be a (landard for each other ?

Right, cries Philo : This is the topic on Vvrhich I have all along inflfted. I hate flill afferted, that we hiave no data to eftablifh any fyftem of cofino- gony. Our experience, fo imperfecfl in itfelf) and fo limited both in extent and duration, can afford us no probable conjecture concerning the whole of things. But if we mufl needs fix on fome hypothefis ; by what rule, pray,

i ought;

134 Dialogues concerning

Part ought wc to determine our choice ? Is K^^ there any other rule than the greater fimilarity of the objedls compared ? And does not a plant or an animal, which fprings from vegetation or gene- ration, bear a ftronger refemblance to the world, than does any artificial ma- chine, which arifes from reafon and defign?

But what is this vegetation and generation of which you talk, faid Demea? Can you explain their opera- tions, and anatomize that fine internal flru<flure on which they depend?

As much, at leafl, replied Philo, as Cleanthes can explain the opera- tions of reafon, or anatomize that in- ternal flru(5lure on which it depends. But without any fuch elaborate difqui- j&tions, when I fee an animal, I infer, that it fprang from generation ; and that with as great certainty as you con- clude

Natural Religion. 135

chide a houfe to have been reared by ^y" defign. Thefe words, generation^ rea- ^^^^r^j fon^ mark only certain powers and energies in nature, whofe efFecfts are known, but whofe eflence is incompre- henfibie ; and one of thefe principles, more than the other, has no privilege for being made a ftandard to the whole of nature.

In reality, Demea, it may reafofi- ably be expected, that the larger the views are which we take of things, the better will they condudl us in our con- clufions concerning fuch extraordinary and fuch magnificent fubjecfts. In this little corner of the world aloTie, there are four principles, Reafon^ InJiinSl^ Ge^ Iteration^ Vegetation^ which are fimilar to each other, and are the caufes of fi- milar effeifts. What a number of other principles may we naturally fiippofe in the immenfe extent and variety of the univerfe, could we travel from planet

I 2 to

1^6 Dialogues concerning

^^^^ to planet and from fyftem to fyftem, c.'-^v^ in order to examine each part of this mighty fabric ? Any one of thefe four principles above mentioned (and a hun- dred others, which lie open to our eon- jecSrUre) may afford us a theory, by which to judge of the origin of the world ; an4 it is a palpable and egre- gious partiality, to confine our view entirely to that principle by w^hich our own minds operate. 'Were this prin- ciple more intelligible on that account, fuch a partiality might be fomewhat excvifeable : But reafon, in its internal febric and ftrudlure, is really as little known to \is as inftindl or vegetation ; and perhaps even that vague, undeter- m.inate word. Nature^ to which the vulgar refer every thing, is not at the bottom more inexplicable. The efFed:s of thefe principles are all knowA to us from experience: But the principles themfelves, and their manner of opera- tion, are totally unknown: Norisitlefs

intelligible,

Natural Religion. 137

intelligibk, or lefs conformable to ex- ^^^^^ perieiicCj to fay, that the world arofe by v-.v>^ vegetation from a feed ihed by another world, than to fay that it arofe from a divine reafon or contrivance, according t6 the fenfe in which Cleanthes un- derft^nds it.

But methinks, faid Demea, if the world had a vegetative quality, and could fow the feeds of new worlds into the infinite chaos, this power would be ftill an additional arguriaent for deligii in its author. For whence could arife fo wonderful a faculty but from defign ? Or how can order fpring from any thing which perceives not that order which it beftows ?

You need only look around you, re-^ plied Philo, to fatisfy yourfelf with regard to this queftion. A tree beftows order and organization oh that trfee which fprings from it, without know-^

I 3 i^S

138 Dialogues congbrning

■^y ing the order : an animal, in the fame ^-'N-o manner, on its offspring ; a bird, on its neft : and inftances of this kind are even more frequent in the world, than thofe of order, which arife from reafon and contrivance. To fay that all this order in animals and vegetables proceeds ultimately from delign, is begging the queftion : nor can that great point be afcertained otherwife than by proving, afriori^ both that order is, from its na- ture, infeparably attached to thought ; and that it can never, of itfelf, or from original unknown principles, belong to matter*

But farther, Beme A; this objedion, which you urge, can never be made ufe of bv Cleanthes, without re~ nouncing a defence which he has al- ready made againft one of my objec- tions. When I inquired concerning the caufe of that fupreme reafon^ and intelligence, into which he refolves e-

v^erv

m*

\.,^ryr^'

Natural Religion. 139

very thing ; he told me, that the im- ^^rt poflibihty of fatisfying fuch inquiries could never be admitted as an objec- tion in any fpecies of philofophy. We mujijiopjome'wherey fays he ; ntjr is it e^uer ivithin the reach of human capacity to ex- plain ultimate caiijes^ or fhoiv the laji con- nections of any objeSis^ It is fiifficient^ if thejleps^ fo far as nve go^ are fupported by experience and ohjer^ation. Now, that vegetation and generation, as well as reafon, are experienced to be principles of order in nature, is undeniable. If I reft my fyftem of cofmogony on the former, preferably to the latter^ it is at my choice. The matter feems entirely arbitrary. And when Cleanthes alks me what is the caufe of my great vege- tative or generative faculty, I am equal- ly intitled to afk him the caufe of his great reafoning principle. Thefe que- ftions we have agreed to forbear on both fides ; and it is chiefly his intereft on the prefent occafion to ftick to this

I 4 agree-

%j^o Dialogues cqncerniks

■^^T^^ agreement. Judging by our' limited ^^or^ and imperfed: experience^ generation

has foKie privileges above reafon : For

■we fee every day the latter arife from.

the former, never the former from the

latter,

Compare, I befeech you, the confe-r quences on both fides. The world, fay I, refembles an animal; therefore it is . an animal, therefore it arofe from gene- ration. The fleps, I confefs, are wide; yet there is fome fmall appearance of analogy in each ftep. The v^orld, fays Cleanthes, refembles a machine^ therefore it is a machine, therefore it arofe from defign. The fleps here are equally w^ide, aad the analogy lefs ftrir king. And if he pretends to carry on my hypothefis a ftep farther, and to in- fer defign or reafon from the great prinr ciple of generation, on v^'hich I infift; I may, v^ith better authority, ufe the fanae freedom to pufh farther his hy-

pothefis,^

Natural Religion. 141

pothefis, and infer a divine generation ^^Y* or theogeny from his principle of rea- ^.^ntsji fon. I have at leaft fome faint Ihadow of experience, which is the utmoft that can ever be attained in the prefent fub- jecft. Reafon, in innumerable inftances^ is obferved to arife from the principle of generation, and never to arife. from any other principle.

-i.HESiOD, and all the ancient Mytho-* logifts, were fo ftruck with this analogy^ that they univerfally explained the ori- gin of nature from an animal birth, and copulation. Plato too, fo far as he is intelligible, feems to have adapted fmM fuch nptibn in his Tim^us, - •

The Bramins affert, that the world arofe from an infinite fpider, who fpun this whole complicated mafs from his bowelsy and annihilates afterwards the whole or any part of it, by abforbing it again, and refolving it into bis owtk

effencct

?

14^ Dialogues concerning

Part effence. Here is a fpecies of cofmogony, ^..vO which appears to ns ridiculous ; becaufe a fpider is a little contemptible animal, whofe operations we are never likely to take for a model of the whole univerfe. But ftill hereis a new fpecies of analogy, even in our globe. And were there a planet wholly inhabited by fpiders, (which is very pofTible), this inference would, there appear as natural and irre- fragable as that which in our planet a- fcribes the origin of all things to defign and intelligence, as explained by Cle- ANTHES. Why an orderly fyflem may not be fpun from the belly as well as fr0m the brain, it will be difficult'cfer him to give a fatisfaclory reafon»

I MUST confefs, Philo, replied Cle- ANTHES^ that of all men living, the taflc which you have undertaken, of railing doubts and objeftions, fuits you beft, and feems, in a manner, natural and un- avoidable to you. So great is your fer- - : tility

Natural Religion. ' 143

tility of invention, that I am not aftia- ^^^ med to acknowledge myfelf unable, on o-rv^ a fudden, to folve regularly fuch out- of-the-way difficulties as you inceflantly ftart upon me : though I clearly fee, in general, their fallacy and error. And I queftion not, but you are y otirfelf, at pre- fent, in the fame cafe, and have not the folution fo ready as the objecfhion: while you muft be fenlible, that common fenfe and reafon are entirely againft you; and that fuch whimfies as you have deli- vered, may puzzle, but never can con«- vince us.

PART

PART VIIL

T^HAT you afcribe to the fertility Part of my invention, replied Philo, ^^ is entirely owing to the nature of the fubjecfl. In fubjects, adapted to the nar- row compafs of human reafon, there is commonly but one determination, which Caries probability or convi<5lion with it; and to a man of found judgment, all other fuppofitions, but that one, ap*- pear entirely abfurd and chimericaL But in fuch queftions as the prefent, a hi;indred contradi6lory views may pre- ferve a kind of imperfecfl analogy ; and invention has here full fcope to ex* ert itfelf. Without any great effort of thought, I believe that I could, in an in-

ftant,

Dialogues concerning

^^^^ ftant, propofe other fyftems of cofmo- '--^^.gony, which would have fome faint ap- pearance of truth ; though it is a thou- fand, a raiUion to one, if either yours or any one of mine be the true lyftem.

For inftance ; what if I fliould revive the old Epicurean hypotheiis ? This is commonly, and I believe juftly, e- fteemed the mofl abfurd fyftem that has yet been propofed ; yet, I know not, whether, with a few alterations, it might nbt! be brought to bear a faint appear- ance of probability. Inftead of luppo- £ng matter infinite, as Epicurus did; let us fuppofe it finite. A finite num-- ber of particles is only fufceptible of fi- nite tranfpofitions : and it muft happen, in an eternal duration, that every pof- fible order or pofition muft be tried an infinite number of times. This world, therefore, with all its events, even the moft minute, has before been produced and deftroyed, and will again be produ^

ced

Natural Religion. 147

ced and deftroyed, without any bounds ^^ ^ and limitations. No one, who has a con- v-^-v-w caption of the powers of infinite, in com- parifon of finite, will ever fcruple this determination.

But this fuppofes, faid Demea, that matter can acquire motion, without any voluntary agent or firft mover.

And where is the difiiculty, replied Philo, of that fuppofition? Every event, before experience, is equally difiicult and incomprehenfible ; and every event, after experience, is equally eafy and in- telligible; Motion, in many inftances, from gravity, from elafticity, from e- ledlricity, begins in matter, without any known voluntary agent: and to fup- pofe always, in thefe cafes, an unknown voluntary agent, is mere hypothefis 5 and hypothefis attended with no advan- tages. The beginning of motion in matter itfelf is as conceivable a priori as

its

148 Dialogues concerning

^^^"T its communication fx'om mind and in*^ ^^--vnv telligence.

Besides ; why may not motion have _^^_ been propagated by impulfe through all eternity; and the fame (lock of it, or nearly the fame, be ftill upheld in the univerfe? As much as is loft by the compofition of motion, as much is gain- ed by its refolution. And whatever the caufes are, the fadl is certain, that mat- ter is, and always has been, in continual agitation, as far as human experience or tradition reaches. There is not proba- bly, at prefent, in the whole univerfe, one particle of matter at abfolute reft.

And this very confideration too, con- tinued Philo, which we have ftumbled on in the courfe of the a,rgument, fug- gefts a new hypothefis of cofmogony, that is not abfolutely abfurd and im- probable. Is there a fyftem, an order^ an oeconomy of things, by which mat- ter

Natural Religion. ^49

ter can preferve that perpetual agita- ^'^jj^ tion which feems effential to it, and ^■"v-' yet maintain a conftancy in the forms which it produces ? There certainly is fuch an oeconomy : for this is a6lually the cafe with the prefent world. The continual motion of matter, therefore^ in lefs than infinite tranfpoiitions, muft produce this oeconomy or order; and by its very nature, that order, vv^hen once eftablilhed, fupports itfelf, for many ages, if not to eternity* But where- ever matter is fo poized, arranged, and adjufted, as to continue in perpetual mo- tion, and yet preferve a conftancy in the forms, its fituation muft, of neceffity, have all the fame appearance of art and contrivance v/hich we obferve at pre- fent. All the parts of each form muft have a relation to each other, and to the whole: and the whole itfelf iiiuft have a relation to the other parts of the uni- verfe; to the element, in which the form -fubfifts ; to the materials, with

K , which

150 Dialogues concerning

Part whicli it repairs its wafte and decay;

^-'^N-^ and to every other form, which is ho- ftile or friendly. A defeat in any of thefe particulars deftroys the form ; and the matter, of which it is compofed, is again fet loofe, and is thrown into irre- gular motions and fermentations, till it unite itfelf to fome other regular form. If no fuch form be prepared to receive it, and if there be a great quantity of this corrupted matter in the univerfe, the univerfe itfelf is entirely difordered ; whether it be the feeble embryo of a world in its fir ft beginnings that is thus , deftroyed, or the rotten carcafe of one languifhing in old age and infirniity. In either cafe, a chaos enfues; till finite, though innumerable revolutions pro- duce at laft fome forms, vfhofe parts arid organs are fo adjufted as to fupport the forms amidft a contimied fuccef- fion of matter.

S u p p o s E 5 (for we fhall endeavour to vary

the

Natural Religion.* 151

tlie expreffion) that matter were thrown Part

. . VIII

into any pofition, by a bhnd, unguided v.^^^

force; it is evident, that this firft pofi- tion muft in all probability be the moft confufed and moft dfiforderly imagin- able, without any refemblance to thofe works of human contrivance, which, a^ long with a fymmetry of parts, difcover an adjuftment of means to ends, and a tendency to felf-prefervation. If the ac-* tuating force ceafe after this operation, matter muft remain for ever in diforder^ and continue an immenfe chaos, with-* out any proportion or acclivity. But fuppofe, that the actuating force, what- ever it be, ftill continues in matter, this firft pofition will immediately give place to a fecond, which will likewife in all probability be as diforderly as the firft, and fo on through many fiiccefiions of changes and revolutions. No particular order or pofition ever continues a mo-? ment unaltered. The original force, ftill remaining in adlivity, gives a per^

K 2 petual

152 Dialogues concerning

Kjj7- perual reftlefTnefs to matter. Every pojp v^>-v^ fible fituation is produced, and inftantly dellroyed. If a glimpfe or dawn of or- der appears for a moment, it is inftantly hurried away, atfei confounded, by that never-cealing force which adluates e- very part of matter.

Thus the univerfe goes on for many ages in a continued fucceffion of chaos and diforder. But is it not poflible that it may fettle at laft, fo as not to lofe its motion and adlive force (for that we have fiippofed inherent in it), yet fo as to preferve an uniformity of appearance, amidft the continual motion and fluc- tuation of its parts ? This we find to be the cafe with the univerfe at prefent. Every individual is perpetually chan- ging, and every part of every indivi- dual; and yet the whole remains, in ap- pearance, the fame. May we not hope for fuch a pofition, or rather be allured of it, from the eternal revolutions of

unguided

- <

Natural Religion. 153

unguided matter; and may not this ac- |^^^y count for all the appearing wifdom and wv-^ contrivance which is in the univerfe ? Let lis contemplate the fubjedl a little, and we Ihall find, that this adjuftment, if attained by matter, of a feeming {la- bility in the forms, with a real and per- petual revolution or motion of parts, affords a plaufible, if not a true folution of the difficulty.

It is in vain, therefore, to infifl upon the ufes of the parts in animals or ve- getables, and their curious adjuftment to each other. I would fain know, how an animal could fubfift, unlefs its parts were fo adjufled? Do we not find, that it immediately periflies whenever this adjuftment ceafes, and that its matter corrupting tries fome ne\y form ? It hap- pens, indeed, that the parts of the world are fo well adjufted, that fome regular form impaediately lays claim to this cor- rupted matter: and if it were not fo, K 3 could

154 Dialogues concerning

^^ Y could the world fubfift ? Muft it not uorv^ diflblve as well as the animal, and pafs

through new pofitions and iituations ;

till in a great, but finite fucceffion, it

fall at laft into the prefent or fome fuch

order?

It is well, replied Cleanthes, you told us, that this hypothefis was fug- gefted on a fudden, in the courfe of the argument. Had you had leifure to ex- amine it, you would foon have percei- ved the infuperable objedlions to which it is expofed. No form, you fay, can fubfift, unlefs it poflefs thofe powers and organs requifite for its fubfiftence : fome new order or oeconomy muft be tried, and fo on^ without intermiflSon ; till at laft fome order, which can fupport and maintain itfelf, is fallen upon. But ac- cording to this hypothefis, whence arife the many conveniencies and advantages which men and all animals pofiTefs ? Two eyesj two ears, are not abfolutely necef-

fary

Natural Religion. 155

fary for the fubfiftence of the fpecies. ^^^^ Human race might have been propaga- ^^-rv^ ted and preferved, without horfes, dogs, cows, ftieep, and thofe innumerable fruits and produAs which ferve to our fatisfadlion and enjoyment. If no ca- mels had been created for the ufe of man in the fandy deferts of Africa and x\rabia, would the world have been diffolved? If no loadftone had been fra- med to give that wonderful and ufeful diredlion to the needle, would human fociety and the human kind have been immediately extinguilhed ? Though the maxims of Nature be in general very frugal, yet inftances of this kind are far from being rare ; and any one of them is a fufficient proof of defign, and of a benevolent defign, which gave rife to the order and arrangement of the uni- verfe.

At leaft, you may fafely infer, faid Philo, that the foregoing hypothefis is

K 4 fo

156 Dialogues concerning

^^Y fo far incomplete and impcrfecl; which v--v^ I fhall not fcruple to allow. But can we ever reafonably exped; greater fuccefs in any attempts of this nature? Or can we ever hope to eredl a fyftem of cofmo- gony, that will be liable to no except tions, and will contain no circumftance repugnant to our limited and imperfed: experience of the analogy of Nature? Your theory itfelf cannot furely pretend to any fuch advantage ; even though you have run into Anthropomorphifm^ the bet- ter to preferve a conformity to common experience. Let us once more put it to trial. In all inftances which we have ever feen, ideas are copied from real ob« jedls, and are edlypal^ not archetypal, to exprefs myfelf in learned terms : You reverfe this order, and give thought the precedence. In all inftances which we have ever feen, thought has no influ- ence upon matter, except v/here that xnatter is ^o conjoined with it as to have an equal reciprocal infliience upon it.

No

Natural Religion, 157

No animal can move immediately any ^^^^ thing but the members of its own body ; ^..-^^ and indeed, the equality of a(5lion and re-a(5lion feems to be an univerfal law of Nature: But your theory implies a contradidlion to this experience. Thefe inftances, with ma.ny inore, which it were eafy to colled:, > (particularly the fuppofition of a mind or fyftem of thought that is eternal, or, in other words, an animal ingenerable and im- mortal) ; thefe inftances, I fay, may teach all of us fobriety in condemning each other ; and let us fee, that as no fyftem of this kind ought ever to be received from a flight analogy, fo neither ought any to be reje<5led on account of a fmall incongruity. For that is an inconve- nience from which we can juftly pro- nounce no one to be exempted.

All religious fyftems, it is confefled, are fubjecl to great and infuperable dif- ficulties. Each difputant triumphs in

his

15? Dialogues concerning

Part his turn ; while he carries on an ofFen-*

VIII.

^.^-v^ five war, and expofes the abfurdities,

barbarities, and pernicious tenets, of his antagonift. But all of them, on the whole, prepare a complete triumph for the Sceptic; who tells them, that no fy- ilem ought ever to be embraced with regard to fuch fubjedls : For this plain reafon, that no abfurdity ought ever to be affented to with regard to any fub- je(5l. A total fufpenfe of judgment is here our only reafonable refource. And if every attack, as is commonly obfer- ved, and no defence, among Theolo- gians, is luccefsful; how complete muft be j6/j" victory, who remains always, with all mankind, on the ofFenfive, and has himfelf no fixed ftation or abiding city, which he is ever, on any occafion, ob- liged to defend ?

PART

PART IX.

BUT if fo many diiScukies attend the ^ ^^' axguvatnt a po/terion^ laid De me A; ^^-y^ had we not better adhere to that fimple and fubhme argument a priori^ which^ by offering to us infaUible demonftra- tion, cuts off at once all doubt and dif- ficulty? By this argument, too, we may prove the INFINITY of the divine at- tributes ; which, I am afraid, can never be afcertained with certainty from any other topic. For how can an effedl, which either is finite, or, for aught we know, may be fo ; how can fuch an ef- / fe6l, I fay, prove an infinite caufe ? The^ unity too of the Divine Nature, it is very diflScult, if not abfolutely impof-

fible.

\

i6o Dialogues concerning

Part flble^, to deducc merely from contem- <^-^r^-f plating the works of nature; nor will the uniformity alone of the plan, even were it allowed, give us any alTurance of that attribute. Whereas the argument a priori

• • • »

You feem to reafon, Demea, inter- pofedCLEANTHFS, as if thofe advan- tages and conveniencies in the abftracfl argument were full proofs of its folidity. But it is firft proper, in my opinion, to detemaine what argument of this na- ture you choofe to infift on ; and we fliall afterwards, from itfelf, better than from its iifeful confequences, endeavour to determine what value we ought to put upon it.

The argument,repliedDEME a, which I would infift on, is the common one. Whatever exifts, muft have a caufc or reafon of its exiftence; it being abfo- lutely impoflible for any thing to pro- duce

Natural Religion. i6i

duce itfelf. or be the caufe of its own P^^*^

IX. cxiftence. In mounting up, therefore, .^.^r^

from effedls to caufes, we mufl either go on in tracing an infinite fucceflion, without any ultimate caufe at all ; or muft at laft have recourfe to fome ulti- mate caufe, that is necejfarily exiftent: Now that the firft fuppofition is abfurd, may be thus proved. In the infinite chain or fucceffion of caufes and efFe6ts, each fingle eifec?!: is determined to exift by the power and efficacy of that caufe which immediately preceded ; but the whole eternal chain or fucceffion, taken together, is not determined or caufed by any thing ; and yet it is evident that it requires a caufe or reafon, as much as any particular object which begins to exift in time. The queftion is ftill reafonable. Why this particular fucceffion of caufes exifted from eterni- ty, and not any other fucceffion, or no fucceffion at all. If there be no ne- ceffarily-exiftent being, any fuppofition

which'

1 62 Dialogues concerning

Part which Can be formed is equally pof- k.^^ fible ; nor is there any more abfurdity in Nothing's having exifted from eter- nity, than there is in that fucceffion of caufes which conftitutes the uni- verfe. What was it, then, which de- termined Something to exift rather than Nothing, and bellowed being on a par- ticular poffibility, exclufive of the reft ? External caufes^ there are fuppofed to be none. Chance is a word without a mLcaning. Was it Nothing? But that can never produce any thing. We muft, therefore, have recourfe to a ne~ ceffarily-exiftent Being, who carries the REASON of his exiftence in himfelf ; and who cannot be fuppofed not to exift, without an exprefs contradidlion. There is confequently fuch a Being ; that is, there is a Deity,

I SHALL not leave it to Philo, faid Cleanthes, (though I know that the ft ar ting objediions is his chief delight)

to

Natural PvEligion. 163

to point out the weaknefs of this meta- Part

. IX.

phyfical reafoning. It feems to me fo o-vO

obvioufly ill- grounded, and at the fame

time . of fo little confequence to the

caufe of true piety and religion, that I

Ihall myfelf venture to fhow the fallacy

of it.

I SHALL begin with obferving, that there is an evident abfurdity in pretend- ing to demonftrate a matter of fadl, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonftrable, unlefs the contrary implies a contradi6lion. No- thing, that is diftindtly conceivable, im- plies a contradidlion. Whatever we conceive as exiftent, we can alfo con-^ ceive as non-exiftent. There is no being, therefore, whofe non-exiflence implies a contradiction . Confequently there is no being, whofe exiftence is demonftrable. I propofe this argument as entirely decifive, and am willing to reft the whole controverfy upon it.

It

164 Dialogue;^ conceuning

Part i^ is pretended that the Deity is a v,-ro neceflarily-exiftent being; and this ne- ceffity of his exiftence is attempted to be explained by aflerting, that, if we knew his whole effence or nature, we fliould perceive it to be as impoflible for him not to exift as for twice two not to be four. But it is evident, that this can never happen, while our faculties re- main the fame as at prefent. It will ftill be pofTible for us, at any time, to conceive the non-exiftence of what we formerly conceived to exift; nor can the mind ever lie under a neceffity of fuppofing any obje6l to remain always in being; in the fame manner as we He vmder a neceflity of always conceiving twice two to be four. The words, therefore, necejfary exiftence^ have no meaning ; or, which is the fame thing, none that is confiftent.

But farther: Why may not the ma- terial univerfe be the neceflarily-exif- tent

Natural Religiok. 165

tent Being, acording to this pretended ^^^"^ explication of neceffity? We dare not v.^-y-^ affirm that we know all the qualities of matter ; and for aught we can deter- mine, it may contain fome qualities, which, were they known, would make its non-exiftence appear as great a con- tradidlion as that twice two is five. I find only one argument employed to prove, that the material world is not the neceffarily-exiftent Being ; and this argument is derived from the contin* gency both of the matter and the form of the world. " Any particle of mat- ter," it is faid *, " may be conceived to ^' be annihilated ; and any form may " be conceived to be altered. Such an *' annihilation or alteration, therefore, " is not impoflible." But it feems a great partiality not to perceive, that the fame argument extends equally to the Deity, fo far as we have any concep- tion of him; and that the mind can at

L leaft

* jDr Clarke.

i66 Dialogues concerning

Part }^^f]- imagine him to be non-exiftent, IX. " .

v^X/ or his attributes to be altered. It muft

be fome unknown, inconceivable qua- lities, which can make his non-exif- tence appear impoflible, or his attri- butes unalterable : And no reafon can be affigned, why thefe qualities may not belong to matter. As they are al- together unknown and inconceivable, they can never be proved incompatible with it. *

Add to this, that in tracing an eter- nal fucceffion of objects, it feems ab- furd to inquire for a general caufe or firft author. How can any thing, that exifts from eternity, have a caufe; fince that relation implies a priority in time, and a beginning of exiftence ?

In fuch a chain, too, or fucceffion of objedls, each part is caufed by that which preceded it, and caufes that which fucceeds it. Where then is the

difficulty ?

Nat'ural RjEtiGioisr. 167

difficulty ? But the WHOLE, you fay, ^^^^ wants a caufe. I aniwer^ that the uni- v-^-y^^ ting of thefe parts into a whole, like the Uniting of feveral diftindl counties int^ one kingdom, of feveral diftincSl mem- bers into one body, is performed mere- ly by an arbitrary a6l of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I fliow you the particular caufes of e.ach individualin a collefhion of twenty particles of matter, I fliould think it very unreafonable, fhould you after* wards afk me, what w^as the caufe of the whole twenty* That is fitfficiently ex-- plained in explaining the caufe of the parts*

Though the reafonings which you have urged, Cleanthes, may w^ell excufe me, faid Philo, from ftarting any farther difficulties ; yet I canpot forbear infifting ftill tipom another to*- pic. It is obferved by arithmeticians^ that the products of 9 coinpofe always

L 2 ^ either

l68 DlAIiOGUES CONCERNING

Part eitkcr 9, or fome leffer produdl of 9 ; i£ u<^N-/ you add together all the charafters, of which any of the former products is compofed. Thus, of 18, 27, 36, which are produc5ls of 9, you make 9 by ad- ding I to 8, 2 to 7, 3 to 6. Thus, of 369 is a product alfo of 9 ; and if you add 3, 6, and 9, you make 18, a leffer produ6l of 9 *. To a fuperficial ob~ ferver^ fo wonderful a regularity may be admired as the effedl either of chance or defign : but a fldlful algebraift im« mediately concludes it to be the work of neceflity ; and demonftrates, that it muft for ever refult from the nature of thefe numbers* Is it not probable, I aflc, that the whole oeconomy of the univerfe is condu(!^ed by a like necef- fity, though lio human algebra can furnifh a key which folves the difficul- ty? And inftead of admiring the order of natural beings, may it ijot happen, that, could we penetrate into the inti- mate

* Republfqiie des Lettres, Aout. 1685.

Natural Religion. 169

mate nature of bodies, we fhould clear- ^^^'^ ly fee why it was abfolutely impoflible ^.^^ they could ever admit of any other dif- pofition? So dangerous is it to intro- duce this idea of neceflity into the pre- fent queftion ! and fo naturally does it afford an inference diredlly oppofite to the religious hypothefis !

But dropping all thefe abftracftions, continued Philo ; and confining our- felves to more familiar topics ; I fhall venture to add an obfervation, that the argument a priori has feldom been found very convincing, except to peo- ple of a rtietaphyfical head, who have acciiflomed themfelves to abflradl rea- foning, and who finding from mathe- matics, that tlie underflanding fre* quently leads to truth, through ob- fcvirity, and contrary to firfl appear- ances, have transferred the fame habit of thinking to fubjecls where it ought aot to have place. Other people, even

la X of

17^ Dialogues concerning

F.\RT q£ good fenfe and the bed inclined to ^--w/ religion^ feel always fome deficiency in fuch Jirgiiments, though they are not perhaps able to explain diftinelly wh^re it lies. A certain proof, that men ever did, and ever will, derive their religion from other fources than from this fpe-- cies of reafonine.

PART

I

ir jfi. Xv J j\^

is my opinion, I own, replied ^^^"^ Demea, that each man feels, in a ^-^W

manner, the truth of religion within his own bread ; and from a confciouf- nefs of his imbecillity and mifery, ra- ther than from any reafoning, is led to feek prote6lion from that Being, on whom he and all nature is dependents So anxious or fo tedious are even the beft fcenes of life, that futurity is ftill the objedl of all our hopes and fears. We inceflantlv look forward, and en- deavour, by prayers, adoration and fa- crifice, to appeafe thofe unknown powers^ whom we find, by experience, fo able to afflid: and opprefs us-

L 4 Wretched

172 Dialogues concerning

Part Wretched creatures that we are ! what 1-.-V-0 refource for us amidft the innumerable ills of life, did not religion fuggeft fome methods of atonement, and ap- peafe thole terrors with which we are inceflantly agitated and tormented ?

I AM indeed perfuaded, faid Philo, that the beft, and indeed the only, method of bringing every one to a dvte fenfe of religion^ is by juft reprefenta- tions of the mifery and wickednefs of meii. And for that purpofe a talent of eloquence and llrong imagery is more requilite than that of reafoning and ar- gument. For is it neceffary to prove, what every one feels within himfelf ? It is only neceffary to make us feel it, if poffible, more intimately and fen-^ fibly.

The people, indeed, replied De me a, are fufEciently convinced of this great and melancholy truth. The miferies

of

Natural Religion. 173

of life ; the unhappinefs of man ; the Part general corruptions of our nature ; the ^.^^ unfatisfadlory enjoyment of pleafures, riches, honours ; thefe phrafes have become almoft proverbial in all lan- guages. And who can doubt of what all men declare from their own imme- diate feeling and exerience ?

In this point, faid Philo, the learn- ed are perfedlly agreed with the vulgar; and in all letters, facred and profane^ the topic of human mifery has been in- fifted on with the moft pathetic elo- quence that forrow and melancholy could infpire. The poets, who ipeak from fentiment, without a fyftem, and whofe teftimony has therefore the more authority, abound in images of this nature. From Homer down to Dr Young, the whole infpired tribe have ever been fenfible', that no other re- prefentation of things would fuit the

feeling

174 Dialogues concerning

Part feeling and obfervatioii of each indivi- \.^-y>-^ dual.

As to anthorities, replied Demea, you need not feek them. Look round this library of Cleanthes. I Ihall venture to affirm, that, except authors of particular fciences, fuch as chy- miflry or botany, who have no occaiion to treat of Vaman life, there is fcarce one of thofe innumerable writers, from whom the fenfe of human mifery has not, in fome paffage or other, extorted a complaint and confeffion of it. At lead, the chance is entirely on that fide; and no one author has ever, fo far as I can recolle(Sl, been fo extrava- gant as to deny it.

There you muft excufe me, faid Ph|lo: Leibnitz has denied it; and is perhaps the firft * who ventured

upon

* That fentiment had been maintained by Dr King, and fome few others, before Leibnitz ; though by none of fo great fame as that German philofopher.

Natural:. Religion. 175

upon fo bold and paradoxical an opi- Part nion; at leaft, the firfl who made it >^^ cflential to his philofophical fyftem.

And by being the firfl, replied De- MEA, might he not have been fenfible of his error ? For is this a fubjed: in whidi philofophers can propofe to make difcoveries, efpecially in fo late an age ? And can any man hope by a fimple denial (for the fubjedl fcarcely admits of reafoning) to bear down the united teftimony of mankind, founded on fenfe and confcionfnefs ?

And v/hy Ihould man, added he, pretend to an exemption from the lot of all other animals ? The whole eartli, ^ believe me, Philo, is cnrfed and pol- luted. A perpetual war is kindled a- mongft all living creatures. Neceffity, hunger, v^^ant, ftimulate the ftrong and courageous: Fear, anxiety, terror, a- gitate the vv^eak an<J infirm. The firft

entrance

ijS Dialogues concerning

Part entrance into life gives ajiguilh to the

^..^ new-born infant and to its wretched

parent: Weaknefs, impotence, diftrefs,

attend each ftage of that hfe: and it is

at lall finiftied in agony and horror.

Observe too, fays Philo, the cu- rious artifices of Nature in order to embitter the hfe of every hving being. The ftronger prey tipon the weaker, and keep them in perpetual terror and anxiety. The weaker too, in their turn, often prey upon the ftronger, and vex and moleft them without re- laxation. Confider that innumerable race of infecfhs, which eitner are bred on the body of each animal, or flying about infix their ftings in him. Thefe infefts have others ftill lefs than themfelves, which torment them. And thus on each hand, before and behind, above and below, every animal is furround- ed with enemies, which inceflantly feek his mifery and deftruftion.

.-Man ■

Natural Religion. 177

Man alone, faid Demea, feems to ^^^"^ be, in part, an exception to this rule. ^.^^ For by combination in fociety, he can ealily mafler lions, tygers, and bears, whofe greater ftrength and agility na- turally enable them to prey upon him.

On the contrary, it is here chiefly, cried Philo, that the uniform and equal maxims of Nature are moft ap- parent. Man, it is true, can, by com- bination, furmount all his real enemies, and become mafler of the whole ani- mal creation : but does he not immedi- ately raife up to himfelf imaginary ene- mies, the dsemons of his fancy, who haunt him with fuperftitious terrors, and blaft every enjoyment of life? His pleafure, as he imagines, becomes, in their eyes, a crime: his food and repofe give them umbrage and offence : his very fleep and dreams furnifh new ma- terials to anxious fear: and even death, his refuge from every other ill, prefents

only

D I A L O G U E S CONCERNING

Part only the dread of endlefs and innume-

wv^ rable woes. Nor does the wolf moleft

more the timid flock, than fuperftition

does the anxious breaft of wretched

mortals.

Besides, confider,DEME A: This very fociety, by which we furmount thofc wild beafts, our natural enemies ; what new enemies does it not raife to us ? What wo and mifery does it not occa- fion ? Man is the greatefl enemy of man , Oppreflion, injuftice, contempt, con-^ tumely, violence, fedition, war, ca- lumny, treachery, fraud; by thefe they mutually torment each other : and they would foon dilTolve that fociety which they had formed, were it not for the dread of ftill greater ills, which mufl attend their feparation.

But though thefe external inflilts, faid Demea, from animals, from men, from all the elements, which aflault us,

form

Natural Religion. 179

form a frightful catalogue of woes, they ^^"^ are nothing in comparifon of thofe v-^-rv^ which arife within ourfelves, from the diftempered condition of our mind and body. How many lie under the linger-r ing torment of difeafes ? Hear the pa- thetic enumeration of the great poet.

Inteftine ftone and ulcer, colic-pangs, Daemoniac frenzy, moping melancholy. And moon-ftruck madnefs, pining atrophy, Marafmus, and wide-wafting peftilence. Dire was the tofling, deep the groans : DESPAIR Tended the fick, bufieft from couch to couch. And over them triumphant DEATH his dart Shook'; but delay'd to ftrike, tho' oft invoked With vows, as their chief good and final hope.

The diforders of the mind, continued Demea, though more fecret, are not per- haps lefs difmal and vexatious. Re- morfc, (hame, anguifh, rage, difappoint- ment, anxiety, fear, dejedlion, defpair; who has ever pafTed through life with- out cruel inroads from thefe tormen- tors ? How many have fcarcely ever felt any better fenfations? Labour and po- verty.

i8o Dialogues concerning

Part ycFty, fo abhorred by every one, are the ^---N^' certain lot of the far greater number : and thofe few privileged perfons, who enjoy eafe and opulence, never reach contentment or true felicity. All the goods of life. united would not make a very happy man : but all the ills united "would make a wretch indeed ; and any

^ one of them almoft (and who can be free from every one?) nay often the ab- fence of one good (and who can pof- fefs all?) is fufficient to render life in- eligible.

Were a ftranger to drop, on a fud- den, into this world, I would fliow him, as a fpecimen of its ills, an hofpital full of difeafes, a prifon crowded with ma- lefactors and debtors, a field of battle flrowed with carcafes, a fleet founder- ing in the ocean, -a nation languifhing under tyranny, famine, or peftilence. To turn the gay fide of life to him, and give him a notion of its pleafures ; whi- ther

Natural Religion. i8i

ther Ihould I condudl him? to a ball. Part

X. to an opera, to court? He might juftly ^^^.^

think, that I was only fhowing him a

diverfity of diftrefs and forrow. .

There is no evading fiich ftriking inftances, faid Philo, but by apologies, which ftill farther aggravate the charge. Why have all men, I all?:, in all ages, complained inceflantly of the miferies of life ? - - - They have no juft reafon, fays one : thefe complaints proceed only from their difcontented, repining, anxi- ous difpofition. And can there pof^

fibly, I reply, be a more certain foun- dation of mifery, than fuch a wretched temper ?

But if they were really as unhappy as they pretend, fays my antagonift, %vhy do they remain in life ?

Not fatisfied with life, afraid of death.

M This

tSz Dialogues coxVcerning

Part This IS the feeret clxain, fay I, that holcl^ u-^x^- lis. ^ We are terrified, not bribed to the continuance of our exiftence.

It is only a falfe delicacy, he may in- fill, which a few refined fpirits indulge, and which has fpread thefe complaints

among the Vvdiole race of mankind.

And what is this delicacy, I afk, which you blame ? Is it any thing but a greater feniibiiity to all the pleafiires and pains of life ? and if the- man of a delicate, refined temper, by being fo much more alive than the reft of the world, is only fo much more unhappy; what judg- ment muft we form in general of hur man life ?

Let. men remain at reft, fays our ad- verfary ; and they will be eafy. They are willing artificers of their own mi- fery . No ! reply I : an anxious lan- guor follows their repofe; difappoint-

ment^

Natural Religion. 183

ment, vexation, trouble, their adlivity ^^^'^ and ambition. v>-<-^

I CAN obferve feme thing Hke what you mention in fome others, repUed Cleanthes I but I confefs^ Lfeel little or nothing of it in myfelf ; and hope that it is not fo common as you repre« fent it.

If. you feel not human mifery your- felf, cried Demea, I congratulate you on fo happy a lingularity. Others, feem- ingly the itioft profperous, have not been afliamed to vent their complaints in the moft melancholy drains. Let us attend to the great, the fortunate emperor, Charles V. when, tired with human grandeur, he refigned all his exteniive dominions into the hands of his fon. In the laft harangue, which he m^ade on that memorable occalion^ he publicly avowed, th^it the great ej} profptrities ^vhich be had ever enjoyed^ bad been mixed

M a %vith

184 Dialogues concerning

Part \ji)ith fo many adverfities^ that he anight \^-^ truly fay he had ne'ver enjoyed any fatis- faBion or contentment. But did the reti- red life, in which he fought for fhelter, aflFord him any greater happinefs ? If we may credit his fon's account, his repent- ance commenced the very day of his re- fignation.

Cicero's fortune, from fmall begin- nings, rofe to the greateft luftre and re- nown ; yet what pathetic complaints of the ills of life do his familiar letters, as well as philofophical difcourfes, con- tain? And fuitably to his own experi- ence, he introduces Cato, the great, the fortunate Cato, protefting in his old age, that had he a new life in his offer, he would rejecfl the prefent.

Ask yourfelf, afk any of your ac- quaintance, whether they would live over again the lafl: ten or twenty years

of

Natural Religion. 185

of their life. No ! bat tn-e next twenty, Part they fay, will be better: ^'

v^-v>«;

And from the dregs of life, hope to receive What the firft fprightly running could not give.

Thus at laft they find (ftich is the great- nefs of human mifery; it reconciles even contradidlions) that they complain, at once of the Ihortnefs of life, and of its vanity and forrow.

And is it poffible, Cleanthes, faid Philo, that after all thefe refledlidns, and infinitely more, which might be fuggefted, you can ftill perfevere in your Anthropomorphifm, and affert the moral attributes of the Deity, his ju- ftice, benevolence, mercy, and redli- tude, to be of the fam.e nature with thefe virtues in human creatures ? His power we allow infinite : whatever he wills is executed : but neither man nor any other animal is happy : therefore he does not will their happinefs. His

wifdom is infinite : he is never iniftaken

M 3 in

0

lt6 Dialogues concerning

^^'^ in chooiing tlic means to any end : but w^-vN-r the courfe of Nature tends not to human or animal felicity : therefore it is not eftablifhed for that purpofe. Through the whole compafs of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and Infallible than thefe. In what re- fpe(5l, then, do his benevolence and mercy refemble the benevolence and mercy of men ?

Epicurus's old queftions are yet un- anfwered.

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not fable ? then, is he impotent. Is he able, I but not willing ? then is he malevolent.

Is he both able and willing ? whence

then is evil ?

You afcribe, Clean^thes, (and I believe juftly) a purpofe and intention to Nature, But what,< I befeech you, is the objed: of that curious artifice and

machinery^

Natural Religion. 187

macliineiy, which fhe has difplayed in ^''-^'^ .-1.-. ■^*

all animals ? The prefervation alone ^^v-o?

of individuals, and propagation of the fpecies. It feems enough for her pur- pofe, if fuch a rank be barely upheld in the univerfe, without any care or con- cern for the happinefs of the members that compofe it. No refource for this purpofe : no machinery, in order mxcre- ly to give pleafure or cafe : no fund of pure joy and contentment : no indul- gence, without fome want or neceility accompanying it. At lead, the few phenomena of this nature are over- balanced by oppoiite phenomena of ftill greater importance.

Our fcnfc of muiic, harmony, and indeed beauty of all kinds, gives fatis-- facftion, without being abfolutely nc- ceiTary to the prefervation and propa- gation of the fpecies. But what rack- ing pains, on the other hand, arife from gouts, gravels, megrims, tooth-

M 4. achs.

i88 Dialogues co^iSrCERNiNG

^^^"^ achs, rheumatifms ; where the injury i-^*^v^ to the animal-machinery is either fmall or incurable? Mirth, laughter, play, frolic, feem gratuitous fatisfadlions, which have no farther tendency : fpleen, melancholy, difcontent, fuperftition, are pains of the fame nature. How then does the divine benevolence dif- play itfelf, in the fenfe of yoti An- thropomorphites ? None but we Myf- tics, as you were pleafed to call us, can account for this flrange mixture of phenomena, by deriving it from attri- butes, infinitely perfe(5l, but incompre- henfible.'

And have you at laft, faid Clean- THES fmiling, betrayed your inten- tions, Philo ? Your long agreement with Demea did indeed a little furprife me ; but I find you were all the while eredling a concealed battery againft me. And I mufl confefs, that you have now fallen upon a fiibjecS worthy of your

noble

Natural RELioioi^r. 189

noble fpirit of oppofition and contro- ^^rt verfy. If you can make out the prefent ^...^y point, and prove mankind to be un- happy or corrupted, there is an end at once of all religion. For to what pur- pofe eftablilh the natural attributes of the Deity, while the moral are ftill doubtful and uncertain ?

You take umbrage very ealily, re- plied Demea, at opinions the moft in- nocent, and the moft generally received even amongft the religious and devout themfelves ; and nothing can be more furpriling than to find a topic like this, concerning the wickednefs and mifery of man, charged with no lefs than Atheifm and profanenefs. Have not all pious divines and preachers, who have indulged their rhetoric on fo fertile a fubjedl ; have they not eafily, I fay, given a folution of any difficulties which may attend it ? This world is but a point in comparifon of the

univerfe ;

190 Dialogues concerning

Part uiiverfe ; this life but a moment in

X. .

K.^^ comparifon of eternity. The prefent

evil phenomena, therefore, are rec- tified in other regions, and in fome future period of exiftence. And the eyes of men, being then opened to larger views of things, fee the whole connexion of general laws ; and trace, with adoration, the benevolence and re6litude of the Deity, through all the mazes and intricacies of his providence.

No! replied Cleanthes, No! Thefe arbitrary fuppolitions can never be ad- mitted, contrary to matter of fail, vi- fible and uncontroverted. Whence can any caufe be knov^rn but from its knov^n efFedls ? Whence can any hypothefis be proved but from the apparent pheno- mena ? To eftablifli one hypothefis up- on another, is building entirely in the air ; and the utmoft we ever attain, by thefe conjecftures and fictions, is to af- certain the bare poffibility of our opi- nion %

Natural Religion. iqi

nion ; but never can we, upon fuch Part terms, eftabliili its reality. ^ v^^

The only method of fupporting di- vine benevolence (and it is v^hat I will- ingly embrace) is to deny abfolutely the mifery and wickednefs of man. Your rep.refentations are exaggerated; your melancholy views moftly ficfli- tious ; your inferences contrary to fa(5l and experience. Health is more com- mon than ficknefs ; pleafure than pain ; happinefs than mifery. And for one vexation which we m.eet with, we at- tain, upon computation, a hundred en^- joyments.

Admitting your pofition, replied Philo, which yet. is extremely doubt- ful ; you muft, at the fame time, allow, that, if pain be lefs frequent than plea- fure, it is infinitely more violent and durable. One hour of it is often able to outweigh a day, a week, a month of

our

192 t)lALOG0£S CONCERNING

^^^^ our comiTLon infipid enjoyinents: And e^->ro how many days, weeks, and months, are pafTed by feveral in the moft acute tor- ments ? Pleafure, fcarcely in one in- ftance, is ever able to reach ecftafy and rapture: And in no one inftance can it continue for any time at its higheft pitch and altitude. The fpirits evaporate ; the nerves relax ; the fabric is difordered ; and the enjoyment quickly degenerates into fatigue and uneafinefs. But pain often, good God, how often! rifes to torture and agony; and the longer it continues, it becomes ftill more genuine agony and torture. Patience is exhauft- ed ; courage languifhes ; melancholy feizes us ; and nothing terminates our mifery but the removal of its caufe, or another event, which is the fole cure of all evil, but which, from our natural folly, we regard with ftill greater hor- ror and confter nation.

But not to infift upon thefe topics,

con-

Natural Religion. 193

continued Phil o, though moft obvious, Part certain, and important; I mull ufe the ^.^-v-v^ freedom to admonifli you, Cleanthes, that you have put the controverfy upon a moft dangerous ilTue, and are unaw^ares introducing a total Scepticifm into the moft effential articles of natural and re- vealed theology. What ! no method of fixing a juft foundation for religion, unlefs we allow the happinefs of human life, and maintain a continued exiftence even in this world, with all our prefent pains, infirmities, vexations, and follies, to be eligible and defirable ! But this is contrary to every one's feeling and ex- perience : It is contrary to an authority fo eftablifhed as nothing can fubvert: No decifive proofs can ever be produced againft this authority; nor is it polTiblc for you to compute, eftimate, and com- pare, all the pains and all the pleafures in the lives of all men and of all ani- mals ; And thus by your refting the whole fyftem of religion on a point,

which,

194 DiALOGlTES CONCERNING

P-^^^T* which, from its very nature, muft for vv-^v> ever be uncertain, you tacitly confefs,, that that fyftem. is equally uncertain.

But allowing you, v^hat never will be believed ; at lead, what you never poffibly can prove;; that animal, or at lead human happinefs, in this life, ex-^ ceeds 'its mifery ; you have yet done nothing : For this is not, by any means ^ what we expe6l from infinite power, infinite wifdom, and infinite goodnefs. Why is there any mifery at all in the world ? Not by chance furely. From feme caufe then. Is it from the inten- tion of the Deity? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his inten- tion ? But he IS almighty. Nothing can Ihafce the folidity of this reafoning, fo fhort, fo clear, fo decifive: except we affert, that thefe fubjefts exceed all hu- ; man capacity, and that our common I meafures of truth and falfehood are not I applicable to them ; a topic, which I ^ have

Natural Religion. igj

have all along infifted on, but which Part you have from the beginning rejected ^^^ with fcorn and indignation.

But I will be contented to retire ftill from this intrenchment, for I deny that you can ever force me in it: I will al- low, that pain or mifery in man is com- fatihle with infinite power and good- nefs in the Deity, even inryour fenfe of thefe attributes : What are you advan- ced by all thefe conceiTions ? A mere pof- fible compatibility is not fufficient. You muft prove thefe pure, unmixt, and un- controllable attributes from the prelent mixt and confufed phenomena, and frbm thefe alone. A hopeful underta- king ! Were the phenomena ever fo pure and unmixt, yet being finite, they would be infufficient for that purpoie. JIow much more, where they are alfo fo jar- ring and difcordant ?

Here, Cleanthes, I find myfelf at

eafe

19^

Dialogues c o n c e r n iis- g

Part eafc ill Hiy argument. Here I triumph.

w>^ Formerly, when we argued concerning the natural attributes of inteUigence and defign, I needed all my fceptical and metaphyfical fubtilty to elude your grafp. In many views of the univerfe, and of its parts, particularly the latter, the beauty and fitnefs of final caufes ftrike us with fuch irrefiftible force, that all objedlions appear (what I believe they really are) mere cavils and fo~ phifms; nor can we then imagine how it was ever poflible for us to repofe any weight on them. But there is no view of human life, or of the condition of mankind, from which, without the greateft violence, we can infer the mo- ral attributes, or learn that irifinite be- nevolence, conjoined with infinite power and infinite wifdom, which we muft difcover by the eyes of faith alone. It is your turn now to tug the labouring oar, and to fupport your philofophical fubtilties againft the didates of plaia reafon and experience.

PART XL

Scruple hot to allow, faid Clean- ^ARf i

XL ' J

THES, that I have been apt to fu- v^^v^ '

fpecl the frequent repetition of the word ^ infnite^ which we meet with in all theo- logical writers, to favour more of pa- { negyric than of philofophy; and that , any purpofes of reafoning, and even of | religion, would be better ferved, were i we to reft contented with more accu- rate and more moderate expreffions* \ The terms, admirable^ excellent^ fuperla- \ tively great ^ uuife^ and holy ; thefe fufE- ciently fill the imaginations of men; ■ and any thing beyond, befides that it leads into abfurdities, has no influence I on the afFeflions or fentiments. Thus, j

N ' - in

igS Dialogues concerning

Part [^ |-]^g prcfcnt fubjcdl, if we abandon w.'^rx-/ all human analogy, as feems your inten- tion, Demea, I am afraid we abandon all religion, and retain no conception of the; great objedl of our adoration. If we prefer ve human analogy, we muft for ever find it impoffible to reconcile any " mixture of evil in the nniverfe with in- finite attributes ; much lefs, can we ever prove the latter from the former. But fuppofing the Author of Nature to be finitely perfe6l, though far exceeding mankind ; a fatisfacflory account may then be given of natural and moral evil, and every untoward phenomenon be ex- plained and adjufted. A lefs evil may then be chofen, in order to avoid a greater: Inconveniencies be fubmitted to, in order to reach a defirable endi And in a word, benevolence, regulated by wifdom, and limited by neceffity, may produce juft fuch a world as the prefent. You, Philo, who are fo prompt at ftarting views, and refledlions, and

analogies;

NATUR.AL Religion, 199

aaaiogies ; I would gladly hear, at length, ^^'^ without interruption, your opinion of o^r-s^ this new theory ; and if it deferve our attention, we may afterwards, at more leiflire, reduce it into form*

?viY fen timents J replied Philo, are PxOt worth being made a myftery of; and therefore, without any ceremony, I ihall deliver what occurs to me with regard to the prefent fubjecl. It muft^ I think^ be allowed, that^ if a very li- mited intelligence, v^hom we Ihall fup- pofe utterly unacquainted with the uni- verfe, were afTured, that it w^ere the production of a very good, wafe, and powerful Being, however finite, he would, from his conjedlures, form be-^ forehand a different notion of it from what we find it to be by experience; nor would he ever imagine, merely from thefe attributes of the caufe, of which he is informed, that the effect could be fo full of vice and mifery and

N 2 diforder.

200 Dialogues concerning

P^RT diforder, as it appears in this life. Sup- ^--w/ poiing now, that this perfon were brought into the world, ftill afflired that it was the workmanihip of fuch a fublime and benevolent Being ; he might, perhaps, be furprifed at the dis- appointment ; but would never retra6l his former belief, if founded on any very folid argument ; fince fuch a li- mited intelligence mull be fenlible of his own blindnefs and ignorance, and muft allow, that there may be many folutions of thofe phenomena, which will for ever efcape his comprehenlion. But fuppofing, which is the real cafe with regard to man, that this creature is not antecedently convinced of a fupreme intelligence, benevolent, and powerful, but is left to gather fuch a belief from the appearances of things ; this entirely alters the cafe, nor will he ever find any reafbn for fuch a conclu- fion. He may be fully convinced of the narrow limits of his underftanding |

but

Natural Religion. 201

but this will not help him in forming ^^y an inference concerning the goodnefs «^v-v^ of fuperior powers, fince he mud form that inference from what he knows, not from what he is ignorant of. The more you exaggerate his weaknefs and ignorance, the more difQdent you ren- der him, and give him the greater fufpi- cion that fuch fubjecfls are beyond the reach of his faculties. You are obliged , therefore, to reafon with him merely from the known phenomena, and to drop every arbitrary fuppofition or con- je6lure.

Did I fliow you a houfe or palace, where there was not one apartment convenient or agreeable ; where the windows, doors, fires, pafTages, flairs, and the whole oeconomy of the build- ing, were the fource of noife, confu- fion, fatigue, darknefs, and the ex- tremes of heat and cold j you would certainly blame the contrivance, with-

N 3 out

202 Dialogues concerning

Part q^^ n^^ij farther examination. The ar- w.-vrC chitedl would in vain difplay his fub- tilty, and prove to you, that if this door or that window were altered, greater ills would enfne. What he fays may be flriclly true : The alteration of one particular, while the other parts of the building remain, may only augment theinconveniencies. But ftill you would aflert in general, that, if the archi-^ te6l had had ildll and good intentions, he might have formed fuch a plan of the whole, and might have adjufled the parts in fuch a manner, as would have remedied all or moft of thefe incon- veniencies. Kis ignorance, or even your own ignorance of fuch a plan, will never convince you of the iiiipoffi- bility of it. If you find many incon- veniencies and deformities in the build-^ ing, you will always, without entering into any detail, condemn the archi-r? te(5l.

In

Natural Religion. 203

In fliort, I repeat the queftion: Is ^^^'^ the world, conlidered in general, and v^v^ as it appears to us in this life, different from what a man, or fuch a limited being, would, beforehand^ expedl from a very powerful, wife, and benevolent Deity ? It muft be ftrange prejudice to affert the contrary. \ And from thence I conclude, that, however confiftent the world may be, allowing certain fuppo- fitions and conjectures, with the idea of fuch a Deity, it can never afford us an inference concerning his exiftence. The confiflence is not abfolutely denied, only the inference. Conjedlures, efpe- cially where infinity is excluded from the divine attributes, may, perhaps, be fufficient to prove a confiflence ; but can never be foundations for any in- ference.

There feem to htfour circumflances,

on which depend all, or the greateft

part of the ills, that molefl fenfible

N 4 creatures;

4o'4 Dialogues concerning

Part creatures ; and it is not impoffible but wv>^ all thefe circlimftances may be neceffary and unavoidable. We know fo little be- . yond common life, or even of common life, that, with regard to the oeconomy of a univerfe, there is no conjecture, v however wild, which may not be juft ; nor any one, however plaufible, which may not be erroneous. (^All that be- longs to human under {landing, in this deep ignorance and obfcurity, is to be fceptical, or at leaft cautious ; and not to admit of any hypothefis whatever ; much lefs, of any which is fupported by no appearance of probability. ) Now this I alTert to be the cafe with regard to all the caufes of evil, and the cir- cumftances on which it depends. None of them appear to human reafon, in the leaft degree, neceffary or una- voidable ; nor can we fuppofe them fuch, without the utinoft licenfe of [ imagination.

The

Natural Religion. 205

The fir ft clrcumftance which intro- ^^^'^ . . . XI.

duces evil, is that contrivance or oeco- v^-^

nonay of the animal creation, by which pains, as well as pleafures, are employ- ed to excite all creatures to action, and make them, vigilant in the great work of felf-prefervation. Now pleafure alone, in its various degrees, feems to human underftanding fuiEcient for this pur- pofe. All animals might be conftantly in a ftate of enjoyment: but when urged by any of the neceilities of na- ture, fuch as thirft, hunger, w'eari- nefs ; inftead of pain, they might feel a diminution of pleafure, by which they might be prompted to feek that objed: which is necefTary to their fub- fiftence.vMen purfue pleafure as eager- ._ ly as they avoid pain ; at lead, might have been fo conftituted. It feems, therefore, plainly poffible to carfy on the bufinefs of life without any pain. Why then is any animal ever rendered lufceptible of fuch a fenfation ? If ani-

mals

2o6 Dialogues concerning

^^^ mals can be free from it an hour, they •--vN-/ might enjoy a perpetual exemption from it ; and it required as particular a con- trivance of their organs to produce that feeling, as to endow them with fight, hearing, or any of the fenfes. Shall we conjedlure, that fuch a contrivance was neceffary, without any appearance of reafon ? and fliall we build on that conjedlure, as on the moft certain truth?

But a capacity of pain would not alone produce pain, were it not for the fecond circumftance, 'uiz.^ the conduct- ing of the world by general laws ; and this feems no wife neceffary to a very perfedl Being. It is true ; if every thing were condudled by particular volitions, the courfe of iiatvire would be perpetually broken, and no man could employ his reafon in the condu6l of life. But might not other parti- cular volitions remedy this inconveni- ence ?

Natural Religion. 207

ence? Iii fliort, might not the Deity Part exterminate all ill, where-ever it were ^^-r^ ta be found ; and produce all good, without any preparation or long pro- grefs of caufes and eflFe(3:s ?

Besides, v/e muft confider, that, according to the prefent oeconomy of the world, the courfe of Nature, though fuppofed exactly regular, yet to us ap- pears not fo, and many events are un- certain, and many difappoint our ex- peclations. Health and iicknefs, calm and tempeft, with an infinite number of other accidents, whofe caufes are un- known and variable, have a great in- fluence both oh the fortunes of parti- cular perfons and on the profperity of public focieties : and indeed all human life, in a manner, depends an fuch ac- cidents. A being, therefore, who knows the fecret fprings of the univerfe, might ealily, by particular volitions, turn all ihefe accidents to the good of mankind,

and

2o8 Dialogues concerning

Part and render the whole world happy, ^^.^ without difcovering himfelf in any ope- ration. A fleet, whofe pnrpofes were falutary to fociety, might always meet with a fair wind: Good princes enjoy y^ found health and long life : Perfons born to power and authority, be fram- ed with good tempers and virtuous dif- pofitions. A few fuch events as thefe, regularly and wifely conducfted, would change the face of the world ; and yet would no more feem to difturb the courfe of ^Nature, or confound human conducl, than the prefent oeconomy of things, where the caufes are fecret, and variable, and compounded. Some finall touches, given to Caligula's brain in his infancy,^ might have converted him into a Trajan : one wave, a little higher than the reft, by burying C-ESAR and his fortune in the bottom of the ocean, might have reftored liberty to a confiderable part of mankind* There may, for aught we know, be good rea-

fons.

Natural Religion. 209

fons, why Providence interpofes not in ^^^"^ this manner ; bnt they are unknown to ^.--^ us : and though the mere fuppofition, that luch reafons exift, may be fuiE- cient to fave the conclufion concerning the divine attributes, yet furely it can never be fufEcient to eftahliflo that con- ckifion.

If every thing in the univerfe be con- ducfled by general laws, and if animals be rendered fufceptible of pain, it fcarce- ly feems poflible but fome ill muft arife in the various ftiocks of matter, and the various concurrence and oppofition of general laws : But this ill would be very ^ rare, were it not for the third circum- ftance, which I propofed to mention, 'viz, the great frugality with which all powers and faculties are diftributed to every, particular being. So well adjufted are the organs and capacities of all ani- mals, and fo well fitted to their prefer- vatlon, that, as far as hiftory or tradi-

^ tion

^

^lo Dialogues concerning

Part tion reaches, there appears not to be any t^.-^^ fingle fpecies which has yet been extln- guiihed in the univerfe. Every animal has the requifite endowments; but thefe endowments are beftow^ed with fo fcru- pulous an oeconomy, that any confide- rable diminution mud entirely deftroy the creature. Wherever one power is increafed, there is a proportional abate- ment in the others. Animals, which ex- cel in Iwiftnefs, are commonly defec- five in force. Thofe which poffefs both, are either imxperfecl in fome of their fenfes, or are opprefTed with the moil craving wants. The human fpecies, whofe chief excellency is reafon and fa- gacity, is of all others the moft neceffi- tous, and the moft deficient in bodily advantages ; without clothes, without arms, without food, without lodging, without any convenience of life, except what they owe to their own lldll and induftry. In fliort, Nature feems to have formed an exad calculation of the

neceffitiei^

Natural Religion. 211

neceflities of her creatures : and, like a ^^^'^

XI.

rigid majler\ has afforded them little (^..-v^ more powers or endowments than what are ftridlly fiifficient to fupply thofe " necefTities. An indulgent parent would _--^ have beftowed a large flock, in order to guard againfl accidents, and fecure the happinefs and welfare of the creature in the mofc unfortunate concurrence of circumflances. Every courfe of life would not have been fo furrounded with precipices, that the leafl departure from the true path, by miftake or neceflity, ~ mufl involve us in mifery and ruin. Some referve, fome fund, would have been provided to enfure happinefs; nor would the powers and the necefTities have been adjufted with fo rigid an oeco- nomy. The Author of Nature is incon- ceivably powerful: his force is luppofed great, if not altogether inexhauflible : nor is there any reafon, as far as we can judge, to make him obferve this flridl frugality in his dealings with his crea- tures.

212 Dialogues concerning

Pa

/

^^^ tares. It would have been better, were "I.

his power extremely limited, to have

created fevv^er animals, and to have en- do v/ed thefe with more faculties for their happinefs and prefer vation. A builder is never efteemed prudent, who under- takes a plan beyond what his ftock will enable him to finifh.

In order to cure moft of the ills of human life, I require not that man fhould have the wings of the eagle, the fwiftnefs of the flag, the force of the ox, the arms of the lion, the fcales of the crocodile or rhinoceros ; much lefs do I demand the fagacity of an angel or che- rubim. I am contented to take an in- creafe in one fingle power or faculty of his foul. Let him be endowed with, a greater propenfity to induftry and la- bour ; a more vigorous fpring and ac- tivity of mind; a more conflant bent to bufinefs and application. Let the whole fpecies poiTefs naturally an equal dili- gence

^3ATURAL Religion. 213

gence with that which many individuals ^^^^ are able to attain by habit and reflec- c^-^vv tion ; and the moft beneficial confe- quences, without any allay of illj is the immediate and neceffary refult of this endowment. Almoft all the moral^ as well as natural evils of human life arife from idlenefs ; and were our fpecies, by the original conftitution of their frame, exempt from this vice or infirmity, the perfed: cultivation of land, the improve- ment of arts and manufactures, the exa6l execution of every office and duty, immediately follow; and men at once may fully reach that ftate of fociety, which is fo imperfectly attained by the beft-regulated government. Blit as in- duftry is a power, and the moft valu- able of any. Nature feems determined, iuitably to her ufual maxims^ to beftow it on men with a very fparing hand ; and rather to punifh him feverely for his de- ficiency in it, than to reward him for his attainments. She has fo cantrived his

O frame,

214 Dialogues concernikg

Part frame, that nothins: but th^ moft vio-* ^v-o lent neceility can oblige him. to labour; and ftie employs all his other wants to overcome, at leaft in part, the want of diligence, and to endow him with Ibme fhare of a faculty,- of which flie has thought fit naturally to bereave him- Here our demands mav be allowed very humble, and therefore the more reafonable. If we required the en- dowments of fuperior penetration and judgment, of a more delicate tafte of beauty, of a nicer fenfibiliiy to bene- volence and friendfhip ; we might be told, that we impiouily pretend to break the order of Nature; that we want to exalt ourfelves into a higher rank of be- ing ; that the prefents which we require, not being liiitable to our ftate and con- dition, would only be pernicious to us. — But it is hard ; I dare to repeat it, it is _ hard, that being placed in a world fo full of wants and neceffities, where al- m.oft every being and element is either

our

Natural Religion. I15

our foe or refufes its afTiftance we ^^^"^

fhould alfo have our own temper to ^^v->-^ ftruggle with, and fhould be deprived of tha.t faculty which can alone fence againft thefe multiplied evils.

The fourth circumftance, whence a- rifes the mifery and ill of the univerfe, is the inaccurate workmanfhip of all the fprings and principles of the great ma- chine of nature. It muft be acknow- ledged, that there are few parts of the univerfe, which feem not to ferve fome purpofe, and v^^hofe r^emoval would not produce a vifible defedl and diforder in the whole. The parts hang all toge- ther ; nor can one be touched without affedling the reft, in a greater or lefs degree. But at the fame time, it muft be obferved, that none of thefe parts or principles, however ufeful, are fo ac- curately adjufted, as to keep precifely within thofe bounds in which their uti- lity conGfts ; but they are, all of them,

O 2 apt,

X

2i6 Dialogues concerning/

Part apt, Oil evcTj occafion, to run into the w-'-Zj one extreme or the other. One would imagine, that this grand prodticflion had not received the laft hand of the maker ; fo little finiftied is every part, and fo coarfe are the ftrokes with which it is executed. Thus, the winds are requi- lite to convey the vapours along the furface of the globe, and to aflift meii in navigation : but how oft, rifing up to tempefls and hurricanes, do they be-* come pernicious ? Rains are neceflary to nourilh all the plants and animals of the earth : but how often are they de- fedlive ? how often exceiTive ? Heat h requilite to all life and vegetation ; but is not always found in the due propor- *tion. On the mixture and fecretion of the humours and juices of the body de- pend the health and profperity of the animal : but the parts perform not re- gularly their proper funcftion. What more ufeful than all the paffions of the mind, ambition, vanity, love, anger ?

Natural Religion,

217

But how oft do they break their bounds, Part

> XT

and caufe the greatefl convulfions in v.^v^l^ fociety ? There is nothing fo advan- tageous in the univerfe, but what fre- quently becomes pernicious, by its ex- cefs or defecfl ; nor has Nature guarded, with the requilite accuracy, againft all diforder or confufion. The irregula- rity is never, perhaps, fo great as to ' deftroy any fpecies ; but is often fuffi- cient to involve the individuals in ruin and mifery.

On the concurrence, then, of thei!e faur circumftances, does all or the greatefl part of natural evil depend. Were all living creatures incapable of pain, or were the world adminiftered by particular volitions, evil never could have found accefs into the tiniverfe : and were animals endowed with a large flock of powers and faculties, beyond what flridl neceflity requires ; or were the feveral fprings and principles of the O 3 univerfc

2i8 Dialogues concerning

Part univerfe fo accurately framed as to pre- v-^— Iv ferve always the jufl temperament and medium; there mull have been very little ill in comparifon of what we feel at prefent. What then fliall we pronounce on this occafion? Shall we fay, that thefe circumftances are not necelTary, and that they might eaiily have ' been altered in the contrivance of the uni- verfe ? This decifion feems too prq- fumptuous for creatures fo blind and ignorant. Let us be more modefl in our conc]uiions. Let us allow, that, if the goodnefs of the Deity (I mean a goodnefs like the human) could be efta- blifhed on any tolerable reafons a priori^ thefe phenomena, however untoward, would not be fufficient to fubvert that principle ; but might eafily, in fome unknown manner, be reconcilable to it. But let us ftill affert, that as this good-^ nefs is not antecedently eftabliflied, but muft be inferred from the phenomena, there can be no grounds for fuch an

inference.

Natural Religion. 219

inference, while there are fo many ills ^^Y in the univerfe, and while thefe ills o-^^ might fo eafily have been remedied, as far as hmnan nnderflanding can be allowed to judge on fuch a fubjed:. I- am Sceptic enough to allow, that the bad appearances, notwithftanding all my reafbnings, may be compatible with fuch attributes as you fuppofe : But furely they can never prove thefe attri- butes. Such a conclulion cannot refult from Scepticifm ; but muft arife from the phenomena, and from our confi- dence in the reafonings which w€ de- duce from thefe phenomena.

Look round this univerfe. What an immenfe profufion gf beings, ani- mated and organized, fenfible and ac- tive ! You admire this prodigious vari- ety and fecundity. But infpedt a little more narrowly thefe living exiftences, the only beings worth regarding. How hoflile and deftrudlive to each other !

O 4 How

^2o Dialogues concerning

^^Y How infuiBcient all of them for their ^->sro own happinefs ! Hovxr contemptible or odious to the fpc&intoY ! The whole prefents nothing but the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivify- ing principle, and -pouring forth from Jh.er lap, without difcernment or pa- rental care, her maimed and abortive children.

Here the Manich^an fvftem oc- curs as a proper hypothefis to folve the difficulty : and no doubt, in fome re- fpedls, it is very fpecious, and has more probability than the common hypothe- fis, by giving a plaufible account of the ftrange mixture of good and ill which appears in life. But if we conflder, on the other hand, the perfect uniformity and agreement of the parts of the uni-- , verfe, we ftiall not difcover in it anv marks of the combat of a malevolent with a benevolent being. There is in- deed an oppofition of pains and plea- fur es

Natural Religion. 221

fares in the feelings of fenlible crea- P^^' tures : but are not all the operations of v.^ Nature carried on by an oppofition of principles, of hot and cold, moift and dry, light and heavy ? The true conclu- fion is, that the original Source of all things is entirely indifferent to all thefe principles; and has no more regard to good above ill, than to heat above cold, or to drought above moifture, or to light above heavy.

There may four hypothefes be fra- med concerning the firft caufes of the univerfe: that they are endowed with perfedl goodnefs ; that they have per- fedl malice; /A j/ they are oppofite, and have both goodnefs and malice; that they have neither goodnefs nor malice. Mixt phenomena can never prove the two former unmixt principles. And the uniformity and fteadinefs of general laws feem to oppofe the third. The

fourth,

222 Dialogues concerning

Part fourth, therefore, feems by far the moft y^srL; probable.

What I have faid concerning natu- ral evil v^ill apply to moral, with little or no variation ; and we have no more reafon to infer, that the redlitude of the Supreme Being refembles human re6li- / ' tude than that his benevolence refembles the human. Nay, it will be thought, that we have ftill greater caufe to ex- clude from him moral fentiments, fuch as we feel them; fince moral evil, in the opinion of many, is much more predo^ nainant above moral good than natural evil above natural good.

But even though this fliould not be allowed ; and though the virtue, which is in mankind, Ihould be acknowledged m.uch fuperior to the vice ; yet fo long as there is any vice at all in the uni- verfe, it will very much puzzle you An«- thropomorphites, how to account for it.

You

Natural Religion. 223

You rnuft affign a caufe for it, without ^J"^ having recourfe to the firft caufe. But *-^v>>j as every efFed: muft have a caufe, and that caufe another ; you muft either carry on the progrefTion in infnitiim^ or reft on that original principle, who is the ultimate caufe of all things

Hold! Hold! cried Demea: Whi- ther does your imagination hurry you ? I joined in alliance with you, in order to prove the incompreheniible nature of the Divine Being, and refute the prin- ciples ofCLEANTHES, who would mca- fure every thing By a human rule and ftandard. But I now find you running into all the topics of the greateft liber- tines and infidels ; and betraying that holy caufe, which you feemingly efpou- fed. Are you fecretly, then, a more dangerous enemy than Cleanthes himfelf?

And are you fo late in perceiving it?

replied

224 Dialogues concerning

Part replied Cleanthes. Believe me, De- v-,-y^ ME A; your friend Philo, from the be- ginning, has been amuling himfelf at. both our expence; and it mufh be con- feffed, that the injudicious reafoning of our vulgar theology has given him but too juft a handle of ridicule. The total infirmity of human reafon, the abfolute ^^ incomprehenfibility of the Divine Na- ture, the great and univerfal mifery and ftill greater wickednefs of men; thefe are ftrange topics, furely, to be fo fondly cheriflied by orthodox divines and doc- tors. In ages of ftupidity and igno-- rarice, indeed, thefe principles may fafe- }y be efpoufed ; and, perhaps, no views of things are inore proper to promqte fuperilition, than fiich as encourage the blind amazement, the diffidence, and melancholy of mankind. But at pre-? fent ......

Blame not fo much, interpofed Phi- LO, the ignorance of thefe reverend gen- tlemen.

Natural Religion. 225

'demen. They know liow to change their ^^^"^ ftyle with the times. Formerly it , was a mofl popular theological topic to main- tain, that human life was vanity and mifery, and to exaggerate all the ills and pains which are incident to men. But of late years, divines, we find, begin to retradl this polition; and maintain, though ftill with fome hefitation, that there are more goods than evils, more pleafures than pains, even in this life. When religion flood entirely upon tem- per and education, it was thought pro- per to encourage melancholy ; as indeed, mankind never have recourfe to fupe- f ior powers fo readily as in that difpo- fition. But as men have now learned to form principles, and to draw confe- quences, it is neceflary to change the batteries, and to make ufe of fuch ar- guments as will endure at leaft fome fcrutiny and examination. This varia- tion is the fame (and from the fame

caufes)

226 Dialogues concerning

Part caufes) With that which I formerly re-* u-^^ marked with regard to Scepticifm.

Thus Philo continvied to the laft his fpirit of oppolition, and his cenfiire of eftabhfhed opinions. But I could ob- ferve, that Demea did not at all relifh. the latter part of the difcourfe ; and he took occafion foon after, on fome pre- tence or other, to leave the company.

PART

P A R T XIL

AFTER Demea's departure, Clean- ^^^^ . XII.

THES and Philo continued the ^^^-^

converfation in the following manner. Our friend, I am afraid, faid Clean- THES, will have little inclination to re- vive this topic of difcourfe, while you are in company ; and to tell truth, Philo, I ihould rather wifli to reafon with either of you apart on a fiibjedl fo fublime and interefting. Your fpirit of controverfy, joined to your abhor- rence of vulgar fuperftition, carries you flrange lengths, when engaged in an ar- gument ; and there is nothing fo facred and venerable, even in your own eyes, which you fpare on that qccafion.

I

^2§ Dialogues concerning

Part J MUST confcfs, replied Philo, that

XII. .

I am lefs cautious on the fubjecl of Na- tural Religiou than on any other ; both becaufe I know that I can never, on that head, corrupt the principles of any man of common fenfe ; and becavife no one, I am confident, in whoft eyes I appear a man of common fenfe, will ever mif- take my intentions. You in particular, Cleanthes, with whom I live in un- referved intimacy ; you are fenfible, that, notwithftanding the freedom of my converfation, and my love of fingu- lar arguments, no one has a deeper fenfe of religion impreffed on his mind, or pays more profound adoration to the Divine Being, as he difcovers hlmfelf to reafon, in the inexplicable contrivance and artifice of Nature. A purpofe, an intention, a defign, fli-ikes every where the moll (^arelefs, the mofl ftupid thinker; and no man can be fo harden-*- ed in abfiird fyftems, as at all times to reje6l it, 77:?^^ Nature does nothing in

vain.

Natural Religioi^. ^29

^jain, is a maxhn eftabliflied in all the ^jj^ fchoolSj merely from the contemplation ^-"^^^ of the works of Nature, without any re- ligious purpofe ; and, from a firm con- \aclion of its truth, an anatomift, who had obferved a new organ or canal, would never be fatisfied till he had alfo difcovered its ufe and intention. One great foundation of the Copernican fyjfiem is the maxim. That Nature aBx by the fimplejl methods^ and choojes the mojl proper raeans to a?iy end ; and aftrono- mers often, without thinking of it, lay this ftrong foundation of piety and re- ligion. The fame thing is obfervable in other parts of philofophy : And thus all the fciences almoft lead us infenfibly to acknowledge a firft intelligent Author; and their authority is often fo much the greater, as they do not diredlly profefs that intention.

It is with pleafure I hear Galen reafon concerning the ftructure of the

P human

230 Dialogues concerning

^Y l^^^i^an body. The anatomy of a man, K.-y^ fays he *, difcovers above 600 different mufcles ; a,nd whoever duly confiders thefe, will find, that in each of them Nature mufl have adjufled at leaft ten different circumflances, in order to at- tain the end which fhe propofed ; pro- per figure, juft magnitude, right difpo- fition of the feveral ends, upper and lower pofition of the whole, the due in- fertion of the feveral nerves, veins, and arteries : So that, in the mufcles alone, above 6000 feveral views and intentions mull have been formed and executed. The bones he calculates to be 284: The diflindl purpofes, aimed at in the ftruc- ture of each, above forty. What a pro- digious difplay of artifice, even in thefe fimple and homogeneous parts ? But if we confider the fkin, ligaments, veffels, glandules, humours, the feveral limbs and members of the body ; how mull

our

* De formatione fgetu&.

Natural Religion. 231

our ailomfhment rife -apon uS) in pro- ^^Y portion to the number and intricacy of v-or>> the parts fo artificially adjufted ? The farther we advance in thefe refearches, we difcover new fcenes of art and wif- dom: But defcry ftill, at a diftancCj far- ther fcenes beyond our reach; in the fine internal flruAure of the parts, in ^ the oeconomy of the brain, in the fa.bric of the feminal veifels. All thefe artifices are repeated in every different fpecies of animal, with wonderful variety, and with exa.61 propriety, fuited to the. dif- ferent intentions of Nature in framing each fpecies. And if the infidelity of Galen, even when thefe natural fci- ences were ftill imperfecl, could not withftand fiich ftriking appearances ; to what pitch of pertinacious obftinacy mufl a phitofopher in this age have at- tained, who can now doubt of a Supreme Intelligence ?

Could I meet with one of thxis fpe- P 2 cies

23^ Dialogues concerning

^^"^ cies (who, I thank God, are very rare) i--vrv^ I would afk hira : Suppofing there were a God, who did not difcover himfelf immediately to onr fenfes ; were it pof- fible for him to give ftronger proofs of his exiftence, than what appear on the whole face of Nature ? What indeed could fuch a Divine Being do, but copy the prefent (economy of things ; render many of his artifices fo plain, that no ftupidity could miftake them; afford glimpfes of ftill greater artifices, which demonftrate his prodigious fuperiority above our narrow apprehcnfions ; and conceal altogether a great many from fuch imperfedl creatures ? Now, accord- ing to all rules of juft reafoning, every fadl muft pafs for undifputed, when it is fiipported by all the arguments which its nature admits of; even though thefe arguments be not, in themfelves, very numerous or forcible : How much more, in the prefent cafe, where no human imagination can compute their number,

and

Natural Religion. 233

and no underftanding eflimate their ^'^^ cogency ? i^>r^ j

I SHALL farther add, faid Clean- THES, to what you have fo well urged, that one great advantage of the prin- j

pie of Theifm, is, that it is the only fy- ' >

ftem of cofmogony which can be ren- dered intelligible and complete, and yet ] can throughout preferve a ftrong ana- logy to what we every day fee and ex- perience in the world. The comparifon of the univerfe to a machine of huanan ; contrivance is fo obvious and natural, and is juftified by fo many inftances of j order and deiign in Nature, that it mufl \ immediately ftri^e all unprejudiced ap^ 1 prehenfions^ and procure univerfal ap- v .; probation. Whoever attempts to weaken ■ this theory, cannot pretend to fucceed by eftablilhing in its place any other , that is precife and determinate: It is ; fufficient for him, if he ftart doubts and i

difficulties : and by remote and abftra£l !

i

P 3 views \

234 Dialogues concerning

Part yiews of things, reach that fufpenfe of ^^>rsj judgment, which is here the utmoil boundary of his wifties. But beijdes that this flate of mind is in itfelf unfa- tisfadlory, it can never be fteadily main- tained againft fuch ftriking appearances as continually engage us into the reli^, gious hypotheiis. A falfe, abfurd fy- ftem, human nature, from the force of prejudice, is capable of adhering to with obftinacy and perfeverance : But no fy- ftem at all, in oppofition to a theory fupported by ftrong and obvious rea- fon, by natural propeniity, and by early education, I think it abfolutely impofr fible to maintain or defend,

So little, replied Philo, do I efteem this fufpenfe of judgment in the pre- fent cafe to be pofTible, that I am apt to fufpefb there enters fomewhat of a dlf- pute of words into this controverfy, more than is ufually imagined. That the works of Nature bear a great ana- logy

Natural Religion.

^2>5

logy to the produdlions of art, is evident; Part and according to sill the rviles of good .^0 reafoning, we ouglxt to infer, if we argue at all concerning them, that their caufes have a proportional analogy. But as there are alfd confiderable differences, we have reafon to fuppofe a proportional difference in the caufes ; and in parti- cular ought to attribute a much higher degree of power and energy to the fu- preme caufe than any we have ever ob- ferved in mankind. Here then the ex- iflence of a DEITY is plainly afcertain- ed by reafon : and if we make it a que-^ ftion, whether, on account of thefe ana- logies, we can properly call him a mind or intelligence^ notwithftanding the vaft difference which may reafonably be fuppofed between him and human minds; what is this but a mere verbal controverfy ? No man can deny the analogies between the effedls: To re- ftrain ourfelves from inquiring con- cerning the caufes, is fcarcely pofTible: P 4 From

236 Dialogues concerning

Part pj^oxn this inquiry, the legitimate con- corN^ cluiion is, that the caufes have alfo an analogy : And if we are not contented with calling the firft and fnpreme caiif e a QOD or DEITY, but defire to vary the expreffion; what can we call him. but MIND or THOUGHT, to vv^hich he is juftly luppofed to bear a confi- derable refemblance?

All men of found reafon are dif- gufted with verbal difputes, which a- bound fo much in philofophical and theological inquiries ; and it is found, that the only rernedy for this abufe muft arife from clear definitions, from the precifion of thofe ideas which en- ter into any argument, and from the flri(?i: and 'uniform ufe of thofe terms v/hich are employed. But there is a fpecies of controverfy, which, from the very nature of language and of human ideas, is involved in perpetual am- biguity, and can never, by any pre- caution

Natural Religion. 237

caution or any definitions, be able to Part reach a reafonable certainty or pre- ^^^ cifion. Thefe are the controverfies con- cerning the degrees of any quaUty or circumftance. Men may argue ta all eternity, whether Hannibal be a great, or a very great, or a fuperlatively great man, what degree of beauty Cle- opatra polTeffed, what epithet of praife Livy or Thucidydes is intitled to, without bringing the controverfy to any determination. The difputants may here agree in their fenfe, and differ in the terms, or vice 'verfa ; yet never be able to define their terms, fo as to enter into each others meaning : Becaufe the degrees of thefe qualities are not, like quantity or number, fufceptible of any exadl menfuration, which may be the ftandard in the controverfy. That the difpute concerning Theifm is of this nature, and confequently is merely ver- bal, or perhaps, if pofTible, flill more incurably ambiguous, will appear upon

the

238 Dialogues concerning

Part the flightcft inquiry. I alk the Theift, <^^vsj if he does not allow, that there is a great and immeafurable, becanfe incompre- henlible, difference between the human and the dknne mind : The more pious he is, the more readily will he affent to the affirmative, and the more will he be difpofed to magnify the difference : He will even affert, that the difference is of a nature which cannot be too much magnified, I next turn to the Atheifl, who, I affert, is only nomi- nally fo, and can never poffibly be in earnell ; and I afk him, whether, from the coherence and apparent fympathy in all the parts of this world, there be not a certain degree of analogy among all the operations of Nature, in every fituation and in every age ; whether the rotting of a turnip, the generation of an animal, and the flru6lure of hu- man thought, be not energies that pro- bably bear fome remote analogy to each other : It is impoffible he can deny it :

He

Natural Religion. 239

He will readily acknowledge it. Ha- ^^^ ving obtained, this concefTion, I pufli v-.-r>-' him ftill farther in his retreat ; and I alk him, if it be not probable, that the principle which firft arranged, and ftill maintains, order in this univerfe, bears not alfo fome remote inconceivable a- nalogy to the other operations of Na- ture, and among the reft to the oeco- nomy of human mind and thought. However reludlant, he muft give his alTent. Where then, cry I to both thefe antagonifts, is the fubjedl of your difpute? The Theift allows, that the original intelligence is very different from human reafon : The Atheift al- lows, that the original principle of or- der bears fome remote analogy to it. Will you quarrel, Gentlemen, about the degrees ; and enter into a contro- verfy, which admits not of any precife rheaning, nor confequently of any de- termination t If you ftiould be fo ob- ftinate, I ftiould not be furprifed to

find

240 Dialogues concerning

^i^^ find you infenfiblv change fides ; while co^-v^ the Theift, on the one hand^ exaggerates the diflfimilarity between the Supreme Being, and frail, imperfedl, variable, fleeting, and mortal creatures ; and the Atheift, on the other, magnifies the a- nalogy among all the operations of Na- ture, in every period, every fituation, and every pofition. Confider then, . where the real point of controverfy lies ; and if you cannot lay afide your dif- putes, endeavour, at leaft, to cure your- felves of your animofity. '

And here I mufl alfo acknowledge, Cleanthes, that, as the works of Na- ture have a much greater analogy to the effecfls of our art and contrivance, than to thofe of our benevolence and juftice; we have reafon to infer, that the natural attributes of the Deity have a greater refemblance to thofe of men, than his moral have to human virtues. But what is the confequence ? Nothing

but

Natural Religion. a^i

but this, that the moral qualities of ^^^'^ man are more defe6live in their kind ^.^w than his natural abilities. For as the Supreme Being is allowed to be abfo- lutely and entirely perfedl; whatever differs moft from him, departs the far- theft from the f^ipreme ftandard of rec- titude and perfe(5lion ^.

These,

* It feems evident, that the difpute between the Sceptics and Dogmatifts is entirely verbal ; or at leaft regards only the degrees of doubt and aflurance, which we ought to indulge with regard to all reafoning : And fuch difputes are commonly, at the bottom, verbal, and admit not of any precife determination. No philofophi- cal Dogmatift denies, that there are diificulties both with regard to the fenfes and to all fcience ; and that thefe difficulties are in a regular, logical method, abfo- lutely infolveable. No Sceptic denies, that we lie under an abfolute neceffity, notwithftanding thefe difficulties, ©f thinking, and believing, and reafoning, with regard to all kinds of fubjeAs, and even of frequently alTenting with confidence and fecurity. The only difference, then, between thefe fe6ls, if they merit that name, is, that the Sceptic, from habit, caprice, or inclination, infifti moft on the difficulties j the Dogmatift,. for like reafion^, on the neceffity.

^4^ Dialogues concerning

Part These, Cleanthes, are my un- ^^^>r^ feigned fentiments on this fubje6l ; and thefe fentiments J you know, I have ever cherilhed and maintained. But in proportion to my veneration for true reUgion, is my abhorrence of vulgar fuperftitions ; and I indulge a peculiar pleafure, I confefs, in pulhing fiich principles, fometimes into abfurdity, fometimes into impiety. And you are fenfible, that all bigots, notwithftand- ing their great averfion to the latter a- bove the former, are cominonly equally guilty of both.

My inclination, replied Cleanthes, lies, I own, a contrary way. Religion, however corrupted, is ftill better than no religion at all. The dodlrine of a future ftate is fo ftrong and neceffary a fecurity to morals, that we never ought to abandon or negledl it. For if finite and temporary rewards and puniih- ments have fo great an eflFed:, as we

^ daily

Natural Religion. , 243

daily find ; how much greater muft be P^ ^ expected from fuch as are infinite and c^v^ eternal ?

How happens it then, faid Philo, if vulgar fuperftition be fo falutary to fociety, that all hiftory abounds fo much with accounts of its pernicious confequences on public affairs ? Fac- tions, civil wars, perfecutions, fubver- lions of government, oppreflion, flave- ry; thefe are the difmal confequences which always attend its prevalency over the minds of men. If the religious fpirit be ever mentioned in any hiftori- cal narration, we are fure to meet after- wards with a detail of the miferies which attend it. And no period of time can be happier or more profperous, than thofe in which it is nevei regarded or heard of.

The reafon of this obfervation, re- plied Cleanthes, is obvious. The

proper

244 Dialogues concerning

Fart proper office of religion is to regulate v.^vO the heart of men, humanize their con- duft, infufe the fpirit of temperance, order, and obedience ; and as its ope- ratioipi is filent, and only enforces the motives of morality andjuftice, it is in danger of being overlooked, and con- founded with thefe other motives. "When it diftinguiflies itfelf, and acts as a feparate principle over men, it has de- parted from its proper fphere, and has become only a cover to faction and am-* bition.

And fo will all religion, faid Philo, except the philofophical and rational kind. Your reafonings are more eafily eluded than my facls. The inference is not juft, becaufe finite and tempo- rary rewards and punifhments have fo great influence, that therefore fiich as are infinite and eternal mufl have fo much greater. Confider, I befeech you, the attachment which we have to pre-

fent

Natural Religion. 245

fent things, and the Uttle concern which ^j^^ we difcover for objedls fo remote and ^-^-^r-^ uncertain. When divines are declaim- ing againft the common behaviour and condudl of the world, they always re- prefent this principle as the flrongeft imaginable, (which indeed it is) ; and defcribe almofk all human kind as lying under the influence of it, and funk into the deepeft lethargy and unconcern a- bout their religious interefts* Yet thefe fame divines, when they refute their fpeculative antagonifts, fuppofe the mo- tives of religion to be fo powerful, that, without them, it were impoffible for civil fociety to fublift ; nor are they a- fliamed of fo palpable a contradi(5lion. It is certain, from experience, that the fmalleft grain of natural honefty and benevolence has more effedl oh mens eonducl, than the moft pompous views fuggefted by theological theories and fyftems. A man's natural inclination works inceflantly upon him ; it is for

Q^ ever

246 Dialogues concerning

Part q^q^ prcfeiit to the mind ; and mingles u^w itfelf with every view and confidera- tion : whereas rehgious motives, where they a6l at all, operate only by ftarts and bounds ; and it is fcarcely poffible for them to become altogether habitual to the mind. The force of the greateft gravity, fay the philofophers, is infinite- ly fmall, in comparifon of that of the leaft impulfe: yet it is certain, that the fmalleft gravity will, in the end, pre- vail above a great impulfe ; becaufe ^o flrokes or blows can be repeated with fuch conftancy as attradlion and gravi- tation.

Another advantage of inclination: It engages on its fide all the wit and in- genuity of the mind ; and when fet in oppofition to religious principles, feeks every method and art of eluding them : In which it is almoft always fuccefsfuL Who can explain the heart of man, or account for thofe ftrange falvos and ex-

cufes,

Natural RELiGtON. 247

i^ufes, with which people fatisfy them- ^^ ielves^ when they follow their inclina- ^..^-^^^ tions in oppofition to their religions duty ? This is well underftood in the world ; and none but fools ever repofe lefs truft in a man, becaufe they hear, that, from ftudy and philofophy, he has entertained fome fpeculative doubts with regard to theological fubjedls- And when we have to do with a man, who makes a great profeffion of reli- S:ion and devotion ; has this anv other effecfl upon feveral, who p^fs for jpru- dent, than to put them on their guard, left they be cheated and deceived by him? /

We muft farther confider, that phi- lofophers, who cultivate reafon and re- flexion, ftand lefs in need of ftich mo- tives to keep theiii under the reftraint of morals : and that the vulgar, who alone may need them, are utterly inca- pable of fo pure a religion as reprefents

Q 2 thg-

248 Dialogues concerning

Part XIL

the Deity to be pleafed with nothing but virtue in human behaviour. The re- commendations to the Divinity are ge- nerally fuppofed to be either frivolous obfervances, or rapturous ecftafies, or a bigotted credulity. We need not run back into antiquity, or wander into re- mote regions, to find inftances of this degeneracy. Amongfl ourfelves, fome have been guilty of that atrocioufnefs, unknown to the Egyptian and Gre- cian luperftitions, of declaiming, in exprefs termj, againfl: morality ; and re- prefenting it as a fure forfeiture of the divine favour, if the leaft trufl or reli- ance be laid upon it.

But even though fuperftition or en- thufiafm fhould not put itfelf in diredl oppoiition to morality ; the very di- verting of the attention, the railing up a new and frivolous fpecies of merity the prepofterous diftribution which it makes of praife and blame, muft have

the

Natural Religion. 249

the moft pernicious confequences, and ^^^ weaken extremely mens attachment to ^^--r-j the natural motives of juftice and hu- manity.

Such a principle of adlion like wife, not being any of the familiar motives of human conducfl, adls only by inter- vals on the temper; and muft be rouzed by continual efforts, in order to render the pious zealot fatisfied with his own conducfl, and make him fulfil his devo- tional talk. Many religious exercifes are entered into with feeming fervour, where the heart, at the time, feels cold and languid: A habit of diflimulation is by degrees contracfled : and fraud and falfehood become the predominant principle. Hence the reafon of that vulgar obfervation, that the higheft zeal in religion and the deepeft hypocrify, fo far from being inconfiftent, are often or commonly united in the fame indi- vidual characfler.

0^3 The

a^o Dialogues concerning ^Y The- bad efFedls of fuch habits^ even

All,

^-^^-^N-^'in common life, are eafily imagined; but where the interefts of religion are concerned, no morality can be forcible enough to bind the enthufiaftic zealot. The facrednefs of the caufe fandlifies every meafure v/hich can be made nfe of tp promote it.

The fteady attention alone to fo im- portant an intereft as that of eternal ' falvation, is apt to extinguifh the bene- volent afFed:ions, and beget a narrow, contracted felfiftmefs. And when fuch a temper is encouraged, it eaiily eludes all the general precepts of charity and benevolence.

Thus the motives of vulgar fuperfti- tion have no great influence on general conduifl ; nor is their operation very fa- vourable to morality, in the inftances where they predominate,

^ ■ ' u

Natural Religion. 251

Is there any maxim in politics more ^^-^'^ eertain and infallible, than tliat both ^^^ the number and authority of priefts fhould be confined within very narrow limits; and that the civil magiftrate ought, for ever, to keep his fcifces and axes from fuch dangerous hands ? But if the fpirit of popular religion were fo falutary to fociety, a contrary m^axinx ought to prevail. The greater number of priefts, and their greater authority and riches, will always augment the re- ligious fpirit. And though the priefts have the guidance of this fpirit, why may we not expeA a fuperior fanclity of life, and greater benevolence and moderation, from perfons who are fet apart for religion, who are continually inculcating it upon others, and who muft themfelves imbibe a greater {hare of it? Whence comes it then, that, in fadl, the utmoft a wife magiftrate can propofe with regard to popular reli^^ gions, is, as far as poffible, to make a 0^4 faving

^5^ Dialogues concerning

^^^ faving game of it, and to prevent their *--^r^ pernicious confequences with regard to fociety ? Every expedient w^hich he tries for £0 humble a purpofe is furrounded with inconveniencies. If he admits only one religion among bis fubjedls, he mull facrifice, to an uncertain profpecl of tranquillity, every conlideration of pub- lic liberty, fcience, reafon, induftry, and even his own independency. If he gives indulgence to feveral fedls, which i&the wifer maxim, he muft prefer ve a very philofophical indifference to all of them, and carefully reftrain the pretenfions of the prevailing fedl ; otherwife he can expedl nothing but endlefs difputes, quarrels, fadlions, perfecvitipns, and gi-^ vil commotions.

True religion, I allow, has no fuch pernicious confequences : but we muft treat of religion, as it has commonly been found in the world ; nor have I any thing to do with that fpeculative

tenet

Natural Religion, 253

tenet of Theifm, which, as it is a fpe- I*art

XII. cies of philofophy, mtift partake of the ^^w

beneficial influence of that principle, and at the fame time muft lie under a like inconvenience, of being always con- fined to very few perfons.

Oaths are requifite in all courts of judicature; but it is a queflion whether their authority arifes from any popular religion. It is the folemnity and im- portance of the occafion, the regard to reputation, and the reflefling on the general interefts of fociety, which arc the chief reftraints upon mankind. Cuftom-houfe oaths and political oaths are but little regarded even by fome who pretend to principles of honefty and religion ; and a Quaker's aiTevera- tion is with us juftly put upon the fame footing with the oath of any other per- fon. I know, that Polybius '^ afcribes the infamy of Greek faith to the pre-

valencv

* Lib, vi. cap. 54.

254 Dialogues concerning

Part valcncy of the Epicurean philofophy: w^^^j but I know alfo, that Punic faith had as bad a reputation in ancient times, as Irish evidence has in modern; though we cannot account for thefe vulgar ob- fervations-by the fame reafbn* Not to mention, that Greek faith was infa- mous before the rife of the Epicurean philofophy; and Euripides f, in apaf- fage which I fhall point out to you, has glanced a rernarkable flroke of fatire againft his nation, with regard to this circumftance, '

Take care, Philo, replied Clean- THES, take care: pufli not matters too far: allow not your zeal againft falfe religion to undermine your veneration for the true. Forfeit not this principle, the chief, the only great comfort in life ; and our principal fupport amidft all the attacks of adverfe fortune. The moft agreeable refleiftion, which it is poffible

for

f Iphigcnia in Tauride.

Natural Religion. 2^^

for liuman imagination to fuggeft, is ?^^^' that of genuine Theifm, which repre- ^^.^ fents US as the workmanfhip of a Being perfedlly good, wife, and powerful; who created us for happinefs ; and who, having implanted in us immeafurable delires of good, will prolong our exift- ence to all eternity, and will transfer us into an infinite variety of fcenes, in or- der to fatisfy thofe defires, and render our felicity complete and durable. Next to fuch a Being himfelf (if the compa- rifon be allowed), the happieft lot which we can imagine, is that of being under his guardianship and prote6lion.

These appearances, faid Philo, are 'moft engaging and alluring ; and with n^gard to the true philofopher, they are more than appearances. But it happens here, as in the former cafe, that, with regard to the greater part of mankind, rhe appearances are deceitful, and that

the

256 Dialogues concerning

Part tJig terrors of religion commonly pre- s.^^>rsj vail above its comforts.

It is allowed, that men never have recourfe to devotion fo readily as when deje6led with grief or deprelTed with iicknefs. Is not this a proof, that the religious fpirit is not fo nearly allied to joy as to forrow ?

But men, when afflicfted, find con- folation in religion, replied Cleanthes. Sometimes, faid Philo; but it is natu- ral to imagine, that they will form a notion of thofe unknown beings, fviit- ably to the prefent gloom and melan- choly of their temper, when they betake themfelves to the contemplation of them. Accordingly, we find the tremendous images to predominate in all religions; and we ourfelves, after having employ- ed the moft exalted expreffion in our . defcriptions of the Deity, fall into the flatteft contradidlion, in affirming, that

the

Natural Religion. 257

the damned are infinitely fuperior in ^^y number to the eledl. ^^-^^

I SHALL venture to aflSrm, that there never was a popular religion, which re- prefented the Hate of departed fouls in fuch a light, as would render it eligible for human kind, that there fhould be fuch a ftate. Thefe fine models of reli- gion are the mere producfl of philofo- phy. For as death lies between the eye and the profpedl of futurity, that event is fo fhocking to Nature, that it muft throw a gloom on all the regions which lie beyond it ; and fuggeft to the gene- rality of mankind the idea of Cerberus and Furies ; devils, and torrents of fire and brimftone*

It is true, both fear and hope enter into religion ; becaufe both thefe paf- fions, at different times, agitate the hu- man mind, and each of them forms a fpecies of divinity fuitable to itfelf. But

when

258 Dialogues concernikg

pARt when a man is in a cheerful difpofition^ ,,^,^ he is fit for bufinefs, or company, or entertainment of any kind; and he na- turally applies himfelf to thefe, and thinks not of religion. When melan- choly and dejedled, he has nothing to do but brood upon the terrors of the invifible world, and to plunge himfelf ftill deeper in affliction. It may, indeed, happen, that after he has, in this man- ner, engraved the religious opinions deep into his thought and irtiagination, there may arrive a change of health or circumftances, which may reftore his good-humour, and railing cheerful pro-- ipecfts of futurity, make him run into the other extreme of joy and triumph* But ftill it muft be acknowedged, that, as terror is the primary principle of re-^ ligion, it is the paffion which always predominates in it, and admits but of fhort intervals of pleafure.

Not to mention, that thefe fits of

' , _ exceffive^

Natural Religion. 259

exceflive, enthufiaftic joy, by exliauft- ^^J" ing the fpirits, always prepare the way ^.^v->-» for equal fits of fuperftitious terror and dejeilion ; nor is there any ftate of mind fo happy as the calm and equable. But this ftate it is impoffible to fupport, where a man thinks, that he lies, in fuch profound darknefs and uncertainty, be- tween an eternity of happinefs and an eternity of mifery. No wonder, that fuch an opinion disjoints the ordinary frame of the- mind, and throws it into the utmoft confufion. And though that opinion is feldom fo fteady in its ope- ration as to influence all the adlions ; yet is it apt to make a confiderable breach in the temper, and to produce that gloom and melancholy fo remark- able in all devout people.

It is contrary to common fenfe to entertain apprehenfions or terrors upon account of any opinion whatfoever, or to imagine th^t we run any ri£k here- after

26o Dialogues concerning

^ART after, by the freeft ufe of our reafon.

XII.

v-^w Such a fentiment implies both an abfur-

dity 2ind an incon/i/lencj. It is an abfur- dity to believe that the Deity has hu- nnah paflions, and one of the loweft of human paflions, a reftlefs appetite for applaufe. It is an inconfiftency to be- lieve, that, fince the Deity has this hu- man paflion, he has not others alfo ; and in particular, a difregard to the opi- nions of creatures fo much inferior.

71? knoTif God^ fay3 Seneca, is to ivor^ JJdip him. All other worfhip is indeed abfurd, fuperftitious, and even impious. It degrades him to the low condition of mankind, who are delighted with in-r treaty, folicitation, prefents, and flat- tery. Yet is this impiety the fmalleft of which fuperflition is guilty. Com- monly, it deprefles the Deity far below the condition of mankind ; and repre- fents him as a capricious dsemon, who exercifes his power without reafon and

without

Natural Religion. ^6i

without humanity! And were that Di- ^^^"^

XII-

vine Being difpofed to be offended at ^-v->^ the vices and follies of filly mortals, who are his own workmanfhip ; ill would it furely fare with the votaries of mofh popular fuperftitions. Nor would any of human race merit his^^- ijour^ but a very few, the philofophical Theifls, who entertain, or rather indeed^^l^ endeavour to entertain, ftiitable notions of his divine perfe6lions: As the only perfons, intitled to his compajjion and indulgence^ would be the philofophical Sceptics, a fedl almofl equally rare, who, from a natural diffidence of their own capacity, fufpend, or endeavour to fuf- pend, all judgment with regard to fuch lublime and fuch extraordinary fub- je6ls.

I If the whole of Nar^ral Theology, as fome people feem to maintain, refolves itfelf into one fimple, though fome- what ambiguous, at leafl undefined pro-

R pofition.

262 Dialogues concerning

Part pofition, That thecaufe or caiifes of order v^.^,r>j lyi the univerfe probably bear fome remote analogy to human intelligence : If this propolition be not capable of extenfion, variation, or more particular explica- tion : If it affords no inference that affedls human life, or can be the fource of any adlion ^ or forbearance : And if the analogy, imperfedl as it is, can be carried no farther than to the human intelligence ; and cannot be transferred, with any appearance of probability, to the other qualities of the mind : If this really be the cafe, what can the moft inquilitive, contemplative, and religious man do more than give a plain, philo- fophical affent to the propolition, as often as it occurs ; and believe that the arguments on which it is eflablilhed, exceed the objedlions which lie againft it ? Some aftonifhment indeed will na- turally arife from the greatnefs of the object ; fome melancholy from its ob- fcurity ; fome contempt of human rea-

fon.

Natural Religion. 263

fon, that it can give no folution more ^J^J" fatisfacflory with regard to fo extrabr- v^n-^ dinary and magnificent a queftion. But believe me, Cleanthes, the mod na- tural fentiment, which a well- difpo fed mind will feel on this occafion, is a long- ing deiire and expedlation, that heaven would be pleafed to diiSpate, at l^^ft^g^^ alleviate, this profound ignorance, hy^ffl affording fome more particular revela- tion to mankind, and making difcove- ries of the nature, attributes, and ope- rations, of the divine obje(!?l: of our faith. A perfon, feafoned with a juft fenfe of the imperfeAions of natural reafon, will fly to revealed trvith with the greateil avidity: While the haughty Dogmatift, perfuaded that he can eredl a complete fyftem of Theology by the mere help of philofophy, difdains any farther aid, and rejecls this adventi- tious inftrudlor. To be a philofophi- cal Sceptic is, in a man of letters, the firft and moft effential ftep towards be- ing

264 Dialogues concerning

^Y ing a found, believing Chriftian; a v-^rvl propofition, _which I would willingly recommend to the attention of Pam- PHiLUS : And I hope Cleanthes will forgive me for interpofing fo far in the education and infl:ru(5lion of his pupil.

Cleanthes and Philo purfued not this converfation much farther : and as nothing ever made greater impref- lion on me, than all the reafonings of that day ; fo, I confefs, that, upon a ferious review of the whole, T cannot but think, that Philo's principles are more probable than Ddmea's ; but that thofe of Cleanthes approach ftill , nearer to the truth.

fl-. JL ^ « JL KJ»

^^^ ^u mr>