Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

by David Hume


To read this work in Microsoft Reader, Click Here.

To Download Microsoft Reader for free, Click Here.





It has been remarked, my HERMIPPUS, that though the ancient philosophers conveyed most of their instruction in the form of dialogue, this method of composition has been little practised in later ages, and has seldom

succeeded in the hands of those who have attempted it. Accurate and

regular argument, indeed, such as is now expected of philosophical

inquirers, naturally throws a man into the methodical and didactic

manner; where he can immediately, without preparation, explain the point

at which he aims; and thence proceed, without interruption, to deduce

the proofs on which it is established. To deliver a SYSTEM in

conversation, scarcely appears natural; and while the dialogue-writer

desires, by departing from the direct style of composition, to give a

freer air to his performance, and avoid the appearance of Author and

Reader, he is apt to run into a worse inconvenience, and convey the

image of Pedagogue and Pupil. Or, if he carries on the dispute in the

natural spirit of good company, by throwing in a variety of topics, and

preserving a proper balance among the speakers, he often loses so much

time in preparations and transitions, that the reader will scarcely

think himself compensated, by all the graces of dialogue, for the order,

brevity, and precision, which are sacrificed to them.

There are some subjects, however, to which dialogue-writing is peculiarly

adapted, and where it is still preferable to the direct and simple method

of composition.

Any point of doctrine, which is so obvious that it scarcely admits of

dispute, but at the same time so important that it cannot be too often

inculcated, seems to require some such method of handling it; where the

novelty of the manner may compensate the triteness of the subject; where

the vivacity of conversation may enforce the precept; and where the

variety of lights, presented by various personages and characters, may

appear neither tedious nor redundant.

Any question of philosophy, on the other hand, which is so OBSCURE and

UNCERTAIN, that human reason can reach no fixed determination with regard

to it; if it should be treated at all, seems to lead us naturally into

the style of dialogue and conversation. Reasonable men may be allowed to

differ, where no one can reasonably be positive. Opposite sentiments,

even without any decision, afford an agreeable amusement; and if the

subject be curious and interesting, the book carries us, in a manner,

into company; and unites the two greatest and purest pleasures of human

life, study and society.

Happily, these circumstances are all to be found in the subject of

NATURAL RELIGION. What truth so obvious, so certain, as the being of a

God, which the most ignorant ages have acknowledged, for which the most

refined geniuses have ambitiously striven to produce new proofs and

arguments? What truth so important as this, which is the ground of all

our hopes, the surest foundation of morality, the firmest support of

society, and the only principle which ought never to be a moment absent

from our thoughts and meditations? But, in treating of this obvious and

important truth, what obscure questions occur concerning the nature of

that Divine Being, his attributes, his decrees, his plan of providence?

These have been always subjected to the disputations of men; concerning

these human reason has not reached any certain determination. But these

are topics so interesting, that we cannot restrain our restless inquiry

with regard to them; though nothing but doubt, uncertainty, and

contradiction, have as yet been the result of our most accurate


This I had lately occasion to observe, while I passed, as usual, part of

the summer season with CLEANTHES, and was present at those conversations

of his with PHILO and DEMEA, of which I gave you lately some imperfect

account. Your curiosity, you then told me, was so excited, that I must,

of necessity, enter into a more exact detail of their reasonings, and

display those various systems which they advanced with regard to so

delicate a subject as that of natural religion. The remarkable contrast

in their characters still further raised your expectations; while you

opposed the accurate philosophical turn of CLEANTHES to the careless

scepticism of PHILO, or compared either of their dispositions with the

rigid inflexible orthodoxy of DEMEA. My youth rendered me a mere auditor

of their disputes; and that curiosity, natural to the early season of

life, has so deeply imprinted in my memory the whole chain and connection

of their arguments, that, I hope, I shall not omit or confound any

considerable part of them in the recital.







After I joined the company, whom I found sitting in CLEANTHES’s library,

DEMEA paid CLEANTHES some compliments on the great care which he took of

my education, and on his unwearied perseverance and constancy in all his

friendships. The father of PAMPHILUS, said he, was your intimate friend:

The son is your pupil; and may indeed be regarded as your adopted son,

were we to judge by the pains which you bestow in conveying to him every

useful branch of literature and science. You are no more wanting, I am

persuaded, in prudence, than in industry. I shall, therefore, communicate

to you a maxim, which I have observed with regard to my own children,

that I may learn how far it agrees with your practice. The method I

follow in their education is founded on the saying of an ancient, "That

students of philosophy ought first to learn logics, then ethics, next

physics, last of all the nature of the gods." [Chrysippus apud Plut: de

repug: Stoicorum] This science of natural theology, according to him,

being the most profound and abstruse of any, required the maturest

judgement in its students; and none but a mind enriched with all the other

sciences, can safely be entrusted with it.

Are you so late, says PHILO, in teaching your children the principles of

religion? Is there no danger of their neglecting, or rejecting altogether

those opinions of which they have heard so little during the whole course

of their education? It is only as a science, replied DEMEA, subjected to

human reasoning and disputation, that I postpone the study of Natural

Theology. To season their minds with early piety, is my chief care; and

by continual precept and instruction, and I hope too by example, I

imprint deeply on their tender minds an habitual reverence for all the

principles of religion. While they pass through every other science, I

still remark the uncertainty of each part; the eternal disputations of

men; the obscurity of all philosophy; and the strange, ridiculous

conclusions, which some of the greatest geniuses have derived from the

principles of mere human reason. Having thus tamed their mind to a proper

submission and self-diffidence, I have no longer any scruple of opening

to them the greatest mysteries of religion; nor apprehend any danger from

that assuming arrogance of philosophy, which may lead them to reject the

most established doctrines and opinions.

Your precaution, says PHILO, of seasoning your children’s minds early

with piety, is certainly very reasonable; and no more than is requisite

in this profane and irreligious age. But what I chiefly admire in your

plan of education, is your method of drawing advantage from the very

principles of philosophy and learning, which, by inspiring pride and

self-sufficiency, have commonly, in all ages, been found so destructive

to the principles of religion. The vulgar, indeed, we may remark, who are

unacquainted with science and profound inquiry, observing the endless

disputes of the learned, have commonly a thorough contempt for

philosophy; and rivet themselves the faster, by that means, in the great

points of theology which have been taught them. Those who enter a little

into study and study and inquiry, finding many appearances of evidence in

doctrines the newest and most extraordinary, think nothing too difficult

for human reason; and, presumptuously breaking through all fences,

profane the inmost sanctuaries of the temple. But CLEANTHES will, I hope,

agree with me, that, after we have abandoned ignorance, the surest

remedy, there is still one expedient left to prevent this profane

liberty. Let DEMEA’s principles be improved and cultivated: Let us become

thoroughly sensible of the weakness, blindness, and narrow limits of

human reason: Let us duly consider its uncertainty and endless

contrarieties, even in subjects of common life and practice: Let the

errors and deceits of our very senses be set before us; the insuperable

difficulties which attend first principles in all systems; the

contradictions which adhere to the very ideas of matter, cause and

effect, extension, space, time, motion; and in a word, quantity of all

kinds, the object of the only science that can fairly pretend to any

certainty or evidence. When these topics are displayed in their full

light, as they are by some philosophers and almost all divines; who can

retain such confidence in this frail faculty of reason as to pay any

regard to its determinations in points so sublime, so abstruse, so remote

from common life and experience? When the coherence of the parts of a

stone, or even that composition of parts which renders it extended; when

these familiar objects, I say, are so inexplicable, and contain

circumstances so repugnant and contradictory; with what assurance can we

decide concerning the origin of worlds, or trace their history from

eternity to eternity?

While PHILO pronounced these words, I could observe a smile in the

countenance both of DEMEA and CLEANTHES. That of DEMEA seemed to imply an

unreserved satisfaction in the doctrines delivered: But, in CLEANTHES’s

features, I could distinguish an air of finesse; as if he perceived some

raillery or artificial malice in the reasonings of PHILO.

You propose then, PHILO, said CLEANTHES, to erect religious faith on

philosophical scepticism; and you think, that if certainty or evidence be

expelled from every other subject of inquiry, it will all retire to these

theological doctrines, and there acquire a superior force and authority.

Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we

shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: We shall then see,

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 popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more

fallacious experience. And this consideration, DEMEA, may, I think,

fairly serve to abate our ill-will to this humorous sect of the sceptics.

If they be thoroughly in earnest, they will not long trouble the world

with their doubts, cavils, and disputes: If they be only in jest, they

are, perhaps, bad raillers; but can never be very dangerous, either to

the state, to philosophy, or to religion.

In reality, PHILO, continued he, it seems certain, that though a man, in

a flush of humour, after intense reflection on the many contradictions

and imperfections of human reason, may entirely renounce all belief and

opinion, it is impossible for him to persevere in this total scepticism,

or make it appear in his conduct for a few hours. External objects press

in upon him; passions solicit him; his philosophical melancholy

dissipates; and even the utmost violence upon his own temper will not be

able, during any time, to preserve the poor appearance of scepticism. And

for what reason impose on himself such a violence? This is a point in

which it will be impossible for him ever to satisfy himself, consistently

with his sceptical principles. So that, upon the whole, nothing could be

more ridiculous than the principles of the ancient PYRRHONIANS; if in

reality they endeavoured, as is pretended, to extend, throughout, the

same scepticism which they had learned from the declamations of their

schools, and which they ought to have confined to them.

In this view, there appears a great resemblance between the sects of the

STOICS and PYRRHONIANS, though perpetual antagonists; and both of them

seem founded on this erroneous maxim, That what a man can perform

sometimes, and in some dispositions, he can perform always, and in every

disposition. When the mind, by Stoical reflections, is elevated into a

sublime enthusiasm of virtue, and strongly smit with any species of

honour or public good, the utmost bodily pain and sufferings will not

prevail over such a high sense of duty; and it is possible, perhaps, by

its means, even to smile and exult in the midst of tortures. If this

sometimes may be the case in fact and reality, much more may a

philosopher, in his school, or even in his closet, work himself up to

such an enthusiasm, and support in imagination the acutest pain or most

calamitous event which he can possibly conceive. But how shall he support

this enthusiasm itself? The bent of his mind relaxes, and cannot be

recalled at pleasure; avocations lead him astray; misfortunes attack him

unawares; and the philosopher sinks by degrees into the plebeian.

I allow of your comparison between the STOICS and SKEPTICS, replied

PHILO. But you may observe, at the same time, that though the mind

cannot, in Stoicism, support the highest flights of philosophy, yet, even

when it sinks lower, it still retains somewhat of its former disposition;

and the effects of the Stoic’s reasoning will appear in his conduct in

common life, and through the whole tenor of his actions. The ancient

schools, particularly that of ZENO, produced examples of virtue and

constancy which seem astonishing to present times.


Vain Wisdom all and false Philosophy.

Yet with a pleasing sorcery could charm

Pain, for a while, or anguish; and excite

Fallacious Hope, or arm the obdurate breast

With stubborn Patience, as with triple steel.


In like manner, if a man has accustomed himself to sceptical

considerations on the uncertainty and narrow limits of reason, he will

not entirely forget them when he turns his reflection on other subjects;

but in all his philosophical principles and reasoning, I dare not say in

his common conduct, he will be found different from those, who either

never formed any opinions in the case, or have entertained sentiments

more favourable to human reason.

To whatever length any one may push his speculative principles of

scepticism, he must act, I own, and live, and converse, like other men;

and for this conduct he is not obliged to give any other reason, than the

absolute necessity he lies under of so doing. If he ever carries his

speculations further than this necessity constrains him, and

philosophises either on natural or moral subjects, he is allured by a

certain pleasure and satisfaction which he finds in employing himself

after that manner. He considers besides, that every one, even in common

life, is constrained to have more or less of this philosophy; that from

our earliest infancy we make continual advances in forming more general

principles of conduct and reasoning; that the larger experience we

acquire, and the stronger reason we are endued with, we always render our

principles the more general and comprehensive; and that what we call

philosophy is nothing but a more regular and methodical operation of the

same kind. To philosophise on such subjects, is nothing essentially

different from reasoning on common life; and we may only expect greater

stability, if not greater truth, from our philosophy, on account of its

exacter and more scrupulous method of proceeding.

But when we look beyond human affairs and the properties of the

surrounding bodies: when we carry our speculations into the two

eternities, before and after the present state of things; into the

creation and formation of the universe; the existence and properties of

spirits; the powers and operations of one universal Spirit existing

without beginning and without end; omnipotent, omniscient, immutable,

infinite, and incomprehensible: We must be far removed from the smallest

tendency to scepticism not to be apprehensive, that we have here got

quite beyond the reach of our faculties. So long as we confine our

speculations to trade, or morals, or politics, or criticism, we make

appeals, every moment, to common sense and experience, which strengthen

our philosophical conclusions, and remove, at least in part, the

suspicion which we so justly entertain with regard to every reasoning

that is very subtle and refined. But, in theological reasonings, we have

not this advantage; while, at the same time, we are employed upon

objects, which, we must be sensible, are too large for our grasp, and of

all others, require most to be familiarised to our apprehension. We are

like foreigners in a strange country, to whom every thing must seem

suspicious, and who are in danger every moment of transgressing against

the laws and customs of the people with whom they live and converse. We

know not how far we ought to trust our vulgar methods of reasoning in

such a subject; since, even in common life, and in that province which is

peculiarly appropriated to them, we cannot account for them, and are

entirely guided by a kind of instinct or necessity in employing them.

All sceptics pretend, that, if reason be considered in an abstract view,

it furnishes invincible arguments against itself; and that we could never

retain any conviction or assurance, on any subject, were not the

sceptical reasonings so refined and subtle, that they are not able to

counterpoise the more solid and more natural arguments derived from the

senses and experience. But it is evident, whenever our arguments lose

this advantage, and run wide of common life, that the most refined

scepticism comes to be upon a footing with them, and is able to oppose

and counterbalance them. The one has no more weight than the other. The

mind must remain in suspense between them; and it is that very suspense

or balance, which is the triumph of scepticism.

But I observe, says CLEANTHES, with regard to you, PHILO, and all

speculative sceptics, that your doctrine and practice are as much at

variance in the most abstruse points of theory as in the conduct of

common life. Wherever evidence discovers itself, you adhere to it,

notwithstanding your pretended scepticism; and I can observe, too, some

of your sect to be as decisive as those who make greater professions of

certainty and assurance. In reality, would not a man be ridiculous, who

pretended to reject NEWTON’s explication of the wonderful phenomenon of

the rainbow, because that explication gives a minute anatomy of the rays

of light; a subject, forsooth, too refined for human comprehension? And

what would you say to one, who, having nothing particular to object to

the arguments of COPERNICUS and GALILEO for the motion of the earth,

should withhold his assent, on that general principle, that these

subjects were too magnificent and remote to be explained by the narrow

and fallacious reason of mankind?

There is indeed a kind of brutish and ignorant scepticism, as you well

observed, which gives the vulgar a general prejudice against what they do

not easily understand, and makes them reject every principle which

requires elaborate reasoning to prove and establish it. This species of

scepticism is fatal to knowledge, not to religion; since we find, that

those who make greatest profession of it, give often their assent, not

only to the great truths of Theism and natural theology, but even to the

most absurd tenets which a traditional superstition has recommended to

them. They firmly believe in witches, though they will not believe nor

attend to the most simple proposition of Euclid. But the refined and

philosophical sceptics fall into an inconsistence of an opposite nature.

They push their researches into the most abstruse corners of science; and

their assent attends them in every step, proportioned to the evidence

which they meet with. They are even obliged to acknowledge, that the most

abstruse and remote objects are those which are best explained by

philosophy. Light is in reality anatomised. The true system of the

heavenly bodies is discovered and ascertained. But the nourishment of

bodies by food is still an inexplicable mystery. The cohesion of the

parts of matter is still incomprehensible. These sceptics, therefore, are

obliged, in every question, to consider each particular evidence apart,

and proportion their assent to the precise degree of evidence which

occurs. This is their practice in all natural, mathematical, moral, and

political science. And why not the same, I ask, in the theological and

religious? Why must conclusions of this nature be alone rejected on the

general presumption of the insufficiency of human reason, without any

particular discussion of the evidence? Is not such an unequal conduct a

plain proof of prejudice and passion?

Our senses, you say, are fallacious; our understanding erroneous; our

ideas, even of the most familiar objects, extension, duration, motion,

full of absurdities and contradictions. You defy me to solve the

difficulties, or reconcile the repugnancies which you discover in them. I

have not capacity for so great an undertaking: I have not leisure for it:

I perceive it to be superfluous. Your own conduct, in every circumstance,

refutes your principles, and shows the firmest reliance on all the

received maxims of science, morals, prudence, and behaviour.

I shall never assent to so harsh an opinion as that of a celebrated

writer [L’Arte de penser], who says, that the Sceptics are not a sect of

philosophers: They are only a sect of liars. I may, however, affirm

(I hope without offence), that they are a sect of jesters or raillers.

But for my part, whenever I find myself disposed to mirth and amusement,

I shall certainly choose my entertainment of a less perplexing and abstruse

nature. A comedy, a novel, or at most a history, seems a more natural

recreation than such metaphysical subtleties and abstractions.

In vain would the sceptic make a distinction between science and common

life, or between one science and another. The arguments employed in all,

if just, are of a similar nature, and contain the same force and

evidence. Or if there be any difference among them, the advantage lies

entirely on the side of theology and natural religion. Many principles of

mechanics are founded on very abstruse reasoning; yet no man who has any

pretensions to science, even no speculative sceptic, pretends to

entertain the least doubt with regard to them. The COPERNICAN system

contains the most surprising paradox, and the most contrary to our

natural conceptions, to appearances, and to our very senses: yet even

monks and inquisitors are now constrained to withdraw their opposition to

it. And shall PHILO, a man of so liberal a genius and extensive

knowledge, entertain any general undistinguished scruples with regard to

the religious hypothesis, which is founded on the simplest and most

obvious arguments, and, unless it meets with artificial obstacles, has

such easy access and admission into the mind of man?

And here we may observe, continued he, turning himself towards DEMEA, a

pretty curious circumstance in the history of the sciences. After the

union of philosophy with the popular religion, upon the first

establishment of Christianity, nothing was more usual, among all

religious teachers, than declamations against reason, against the senses,

against every principle derived merely from human research and inquiry.

All the topics of the ancient academics were adopted by the fathers; and

thence propagated for several ages in every school and pulpit throughout

Christendom. The Reformers embraced the same principles of reasoning, or

rather declamation; and all panegyrics on the excellency of faith, were

sure to be interlarded with some severe strokes of satire against natural

reason. A celebrated prelate [Monsr. Huet] too, of the Romish communion,

a man of the most extensive learning, who wrote a demonstration of

Christianity, has also composed a treatise, which contains all the cavils

of the boldest and most determined PYRRHONISM. LOCKE seems to have been the

first Christian who ventured openly to assert, that faith was nothing but

a species of reason; that religion was only a branch of philosophy; and

that a chain of arguments, similar to that which established any truth in

morals, politics, or physics, was always employed in discovering all the

principles of theology, natural and revealed. The ill use which BAYLE and

other libertines made of the philosophical scepticism of the fathers and

first reformers, still further propagated the judicious sentiment of Mr.

LOCKE: And it is now in a manner avowed, by all pretenders to reasoning

and philosophy, that Atheist and Sceptic are almost synonymous. And as it

is certain that no man is in earnest when he professes the latter

principle, I would fain hope that there are as few who seriously maintain

the former.

Don’t you remember, said PHILO, the excellent saying of LORD BACON on

this head? That a little philosophy, replied CLEANTHES, makes a man an

Atheist: A great deal converts him to religion. That is a very judicious

remark too, said PHILO. But what I have in my eye is another passage,

where, having mentioned DAVID’s fool, who said in his heart there is no

God, this great philosopher observes, that the Atheists nowadays have a

double share of folly; for they are not contented to say in their hearts

there is no God, but they also utter that impiety with their lips, and

are thereby guilty of multiplied indiscretion and imprudence. Such

people, though they were ever so much in earnest, cannot, methinks, be

very formidable.

But though you should rank me in this class of fools, I cannot forbear

communicating a remark that occurs to me, from the history of the

religious and irreligious scepticism with which you have entertained us.

It appears to me, that there are strong symptoms of priestcraft in the

whole progress of this affair. During ignorant ages, such as those which

followed the dissolution of the ancient schools, the priests perceived,

that Atheism, Deism, or heresy of any kind, could only proceed from the

presumptuous questioning of received opinions, and from a belief that

human reason was equal to every thing. Education had then a mighty

influence over the minds of men, and was almost equal in force to those

suggestions of the senses and common understanding, by which the most

determined sceptic must allow himself to be governed. But at present,

when the influence of education is much diminished, and men, from a more

open commerce of the world, have learned to compare the popular

principles of different nations and ages, our sagacious divines have

changed their whole system of philosophy, and talk the language of


ACADEMICS. If we distrust human reason, we have now no other principle to

lead us into religion. Thus, sceptics in one age, dogmatists in another;

whichever system best suits the purpose of these reverend gentlemen, in

giving them an ascendant over mankind, they are sure to make it their

favourite principle, and established tenet.

It is very natural, said CLEANTHES, for men to embrace those principles,

by which they find they can best defend their doctrines; nor need we have

any recourse to priestcraft to account for so reasonable an expedient.

And, surely nothing can afford a stronger presumption, that any set of

principles are true, and ought to be embraced, than to observe that they

tend to the confirmation of true religion, and serve to confound the

cavils of Atheists, Libertines, and Freethinkers of all denominations.







I must own, CLEANTHES, said DEMEA, that nothing can more surprise me,

than the light in which you have all along put this argument. By the

whole tenor of your discourse, one would imagine that you were

maintaining the Being of a God, against the cavils of Atheists and

Infidels; and were necessitated to become a champion for that fundamental

principle of all religion. But this, I hope, is not by any means a

question among us. No man, no man at least of common sense, I am

persuaded, ever entertained a serious doubt with regard to a truth so

certain and self-evident. The question is not concerning the being, but

the nature of God. This, I affirm, from the infirmities of human

understanding, to be altogether incomprehensible and unknown to us. The

essence of that supreme Mind, his attributes, the manner of his

existence, the very nature of his duration; these, and every particular

which regards so divine a Being, are mysterious to men. Finite, weak, and

blind creatures, we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence;

and, conscious of our frailties, adore in silence his infinite

perfections, which eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, neither hath it

entered into the heart of man to conceive. They are covered in a deep

cloud from human curiosity. It is profaneness to attempt penetrating

through these sacred obscurities. And, next to the impiety of denying his

existence, is the temerity of prying into his nature and essence, decrees

and attributes.

But lest you should think that my piety has here got the better of my

philosophy, I shall support my opinion, if it needs any support, by a very

great authority. I might cite all the divines, almost, from the foundation

of Christianity, who have ever treated of this or any other theological

subject: But I shall confine myself, at present, to one equally celebrated

for piety and philosophy. It is Father MALEBRANCHE, who, I remember, thus

expresses himself [Recherche de la Verite. Liv. 3. Chap.9]. "One ought not

so much," says he, "to call God a spirit, in order to express positively

what he is, as in order to signify that he is not matter. He is a Being

infinitely perfect: Of this we cannot doubt. But in the same manner as

we ought not to imagine, even supposing him corporeal, that he is clothed

with a human body, as the ANTHROPOMORPHITES asserted, under colour that

that figure was the most perfect of any; so, neither ought we to imagine

that the spirit of God has human ideas, or bears any resemblance to our

spirit, under colour that we know nothing more perfect than a human mind.

We ought rather to believe, that as he comprehends the perfections of

matter without being material.... he comprehends also the perfections of

created spirits without being spirit, in the manner we conceive spirit:

That his true name is, He that is; or, in other words, Being without

restriction, All Being, the Being infinite and universal."

After so great an authority, DEMEA, replied PHILO, as that which you have

produced, and a thousand more which you might produce, it would appear

ridiculous in me to add my sentiment, or express my approbation of your

doctrine. But surely, where reasonable men treat these subjects, the

question can never be concerning the Being, but only the Nature, of the

Deity. The former truth, as you well observe, is unquestionable and self-

evident. Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this

universe (whatever it be) we call God; and piously ascribe to him every

species of perfection. Whoever scruples this fundamental truth, deserves

every punishment which can be inflicted among philosophers, to wit, the

greatest ridicule, contempt, and disapprobation. But as all perfection is

entirely relative, we ought never to imagine that we comprehend the

attributes of this divine Being, or to suppose that his perfections have

any analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature. Wisdom,

Thought, Design, Knowledge; these we justly ascribe to him; because these

words are honourable among men, and we have no other language or other

conceptions by which we can express our adoration of him. But let us

beware, lest we think that our ideas anywise correspond to his

perfections, or that his attributes have any resemblance to these

qualities among men. He is infinitely superior to our limited view and

comprehension; and is more the object of worship in the temple, than of

disputation in the schools.

In reality, CLEANTHES, continued he, there is no need of having recourse

to that affected scepticism so displeasing to you, in order to come at

this determination. Our ideas reach no further than our experience. We

have no experience of divine attributes and operations. I need not

conclude my syllogism. You can draw the inference yourself. And it is a

pleasure to me (and I hope to you too) that just reasoning and sound

piety here concur in the same conclusion, and both of them establish the

adorably mysterious and incomprehensible nature of the Supreme Being.

Not to lose any time in circumlocutions, said CLEANTHES, addressing

himself to DEMEA, much less in replying to the pious declamations of

PHILO; I shall briefly explain how I conceive this matter. Look round the

world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be

nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of

lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond

what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various

machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other

with an accuracy which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever

contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all

nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of

human contrivance; of human designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence.

Since, therefore, the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer,

by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the

Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed

of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which

he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this argument

alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity

to human mind and intelligence.

I shall be so free, CLEANTHES, said DEMEA, as to tell you, that from the

beginning, I could not approve of your conclusion concerning the

similarity of the Deity to men; still less can I approve of the mediums

by which you endeavour to establish it. What! No demonstration of the

Being of God! No abstract arguments! No proofs a priori! Are these, which

have hitherto been so much insisted on by philosophers, all fallacy, all

sophism? Can we reach no further in this subject than experience and

probability? I will not say that this is betraying the cause of a Deity:

But surely, by this affected candour, you give advantages to Atheists,

which they never could obtain by the mere dint of argument and reasoning.

What I chiefly scruple in this subject, said PHILO, is not so much that

all religious arguments are by CLEANTHES reduced to experience, as that

they appear not to be even the most certain and irrefragable of that

inferior kind. That a stone will fall, that fire will burn, that the

earth has solidity, we have observed a thousand and a thousand times; and

when any new instance of this nature is presented, we draw without

hesitation the accustomed inference. The exact similarity of the cases

gives us a perfect assurance of a similar event; and a stronger evidence

is never desired nor sought after. But wherever you depart, in the least,

from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the

evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is

confessedly 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 MAEVIUS. But from its circulation in frogs and

fishes, it is only a presumption, though a strong one, from analogy, that

it takes place in men and other animals. The analogical reasoning is much

weaker, when we infer the circulation of the sap in vegetables from our

experience that the blood circulates in animals; and those, who hastily

followed that imperfect analogy, are found, by more accurate experiments,

to have been mistaken.

If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty,

that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that

species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species

of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a

resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a

similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The

dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is

a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how

that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider.

It would surely be very ill received, replied CLEANTHES; and I should be

deservedly blamed and detested, did I allow, that the proofs of a Deity

amounted to no more than a guess or conjecture. But is the whole

adjustment of means to ends in a house and in the universe so slight a

resemblance? The economy of final causes? The order, proportion, and

arrangement of every part? Steps of a stair are plainly contrived, that

human legs may use them in mounting; and this inference is certain and

infallible. Human legs are also contrived for walking and mounting; and

this inference, I allow, is not altogether so certain, because of the

dissimilarity which you remark; but does it, therefore, deserve the name

only of presumption or conjecture?

Good God! cried DEMEA, interrupting him, where are we? Zealous defenders

of religion allow, that the proofs of a Deity fall short of perfect

evidence! And you, PHILO, on whose assistance I depended in proving the

adorable mysteriousness of the Divine Nature, do you assent to all these

extravagant opinions of CLEANTHES? For what other name can I give them?

or, why spare my censure, when such principles are advanced, supported by

such an authority, before so young a man as PAMPHILUS?

You seem not to apprehend, replied PHILO, that I argue with CLEANTHES in

his own way; and, by showing him the dangerous consequences of his

tenets, hope at last to reduce him to our opinion. But what sticks most

with you, I observe, is the representation which CLEANTHES has made of

the argument a posteriori; and finding that that argument is likely to

escape your hold and vanish into air, you think it so disguised, that you

can scarcely believe it to be set in its true light. Now, however much I

may dissent, in other respects, from the dangerous principles of

CLEANTHES, I must allow that he has fairly represented that argument; and

I shall endeavour so to state the matter to you, that you will entertain

no further scruples with regard to it.

Were a man to abstract from every thing which he knows or has seen, he

would be altogether incapable, merely from his own ideas, to determine

what kind of scene the universe must be, or to give the preference to one

state or situation of things above another. For as nothing which he

clearly conceives could be esteemed impossible or implying a contradiction,

every chimera of his fancy would be upon an equal footing; nor could he

assign any just reason why he adheres to one idea or system, and rejects

the others which are equally possible.

Again; after he opens his eyes, and contemplates the world as it really

is, it would be impossible for him at first to assign the cause of any

one event, much less of the whole of things, or of the universe. He might

set his fancy a rambling; and she might bring him in an infinite variety

of reports and representations. These would all be possible; but being

all equally possible, he would never of himself give a satisfactory

account for his preferring one of them to the rest. Experience alone can

point out to him the true cause of any phenomenon.

Now, according to this method of reasoning, DEMEA, it follows, (and is,

indeed, tacitly allowed by CLEANTHES himself,) that order, arrangement,

or the adjustment of final causes, is not of itself any proof of design;

but only so far as it has been experienced to proceed from that

principle. For aught we can know a priori, matter may contain the source

or spring of order originally within itself, as well as mind does; and

there is no more difficulty in conceiving, that the several elements,

from an internal unknown cause, may fall into the most exquisite

arrangement, than to conceive that their ideas, in the great universal

mind, from a like internal unknown cause, fall into that arrangement. The

equal possibility of both these suppositions is allowed. But, by

experience, we find, (according to CLEANTHES), that there is a difference

between them. Throw several pieces of steel together, without shape or

form; they will never arrange themselves so as to compose a watch. Stone,

and mortar, and wood, without an architect, never erect a house. But the

ideas in a human mind, we see, by an unknown, inexplicable economy,

arrange themselves so as to form the plan of a watch or house.

Experience, therefore, proves, that there is an original principle of

order in mind, not in matter. From similar effects we infer similar

causes. The adjustment of means to ends is alike in the universe, as in a

machine of human contrivance. The causes, therefore, must be resembling.

I was from the beginning scandalised, I must own, with this resemblance,

which is asserted, between the Deity and human creatures; and must

conceive it to imply such a degradation of the Supreme Being as no sound

Theist could endure. With your assistance, therefore, DEMEA, I shall

endeavour to defend what you justly call the adorable mysteriousness of

the Divine Nature, and shall refute this reasoning of CLEANTHES, provided

he allows that I have made a fair representation of it.

When CLEANTHES had assented, PHILO, after a short pause, proceeded in the

following manner.

That all inferences, CLEANTHES, concerning fact, are founded on

experience; and that all experimental reasonings are founded on the

supposition that similar causes prove similar effects, and similar

effects similar causes; I shall not at present much dispute with you. But

observe, I entreat you, with what extreme caution all just reasoners

proceed in the transferring of experiments to similar cases. Unless the

cases be exactly similar, they repose no perfect confidence in applying

their past observation to any particular phenomenon. Every alteration of

circumstances occasions a doubt concerning the event; and it requires new

experiments to prove certainly, that the new circumstances are of no

moment or importance. A change in bulk, situation, arrangement, age,

disposition of the air, or surrounding bodies; any of these particulars

may be attended with the most unexpected consequences: And unless the

objects be quite familiar to us, it is the highest temerity to expect

with assurance, after any of these changes, an event similar to that

which before fell under our observation. The slow and deliberate steps of

philosophers here, if any where, are distinguished from the precipitate

march of the vulgar, who, hurried on by the smallest similitude, are

incapable of all discernment or consideration.

But can you think, CLEANTHES, that your usual phlegm and philosophy have

been preserved in so wide a step as you have taken, when you compared to

the universe houses, ships, furniture, machines, and, from their

similarity in some circumstances, inferred a similarity in their causes?

Thought, design, intelligence, such as we discover in men and other

animals, is no more than one of the springs and principles of the

universe, as well as heat or cold, attraction or repulsion, and a hundred

others, which fall under daily observation. It is an active cause, by

which some particular parts of nature, we find, produce alterations on

other parts. But can a conclusion, with any propriety, be transferred

from parts to the whole? Does not the great disproportion bar all

comparison and inference? From observing the growth of a hair, can we

learn any thing concerning the generation of a man? Would the manner of a

leaf’s blowing, even though perfectly known, afford us any instruction

concerning the vegetation of a tree?

But, allowing that we were to take the operations of one part of nature

upon another, for the foundation of our judgement concerning the origin

of the whole, (which never can be admitted,) yet why select so minute, so

weak, so bounded a principle, as the reason and design of animals is

found to be upon this planet? What peculiar privilege has this little

agitation of the brain which we call thought, that we must thus make it

the model of the whole universe? Our partiality in our own favour does

indeed present it on all occasions; but sound philosophy ought carefully

to guard against so natural an illusion.

So far from admitting, continued PHILO, that the operations of a part can

afford us any just conclusion 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 reasonable ground to conclude,

that the inhabitants of other planets possess thought, intelligence,

reason, or any thing similar to these faculties in men? When nature has

so extremely diversified her manner of operation in this small globe, can

we imagine that she incessantly copies herself throughout so immense a

universe? And if thought, as we may well suppose, be confined merely to

this narrow corner, and has even there so limited a sphere of action,

with what propriety can we assign it for the original cause of all

things? The narrow views of a peasant, who makes his domestic economy the

rule for the government of kingdoms, is in comparison a pardonable


But were we ever so much assured, that a thought and reason, resembling

the human, were to be found throughout the whole universe, and were its

activity elsewhere vastly greater and more commanding than it appears in

this globe; yet I cannot see, why the operations of a world constituted,

arranged, adjusted, can with any propriety be extended to a world which

is in its embryo state, and is advancing towards that constitution and

arrangement. By observation, we know somewhat of the economy, action, and

nourishment of a finished animal; but we must transfer with great caution

that observation to the growth of a foetus in the womb, and still more to

the formation of an animalcule in the loins of its male parent. Nature,

we find, even from our limited experience, possesses an infinite number

of springs and principles, which incessantly discover themselves on every

change of her position and situation. And what new and unknown principles

would actuate her in so new and unknown a situation as that of the

formation of a universe, we cannot, without the utmost temerity, pretend

to determine.

A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very

imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively

concerning the origin of the whole?

Admirable conclusion! Stone, wood, brick, iron, brass, have not, at this

time, in this minute globe of earth, an order or arrangement without

human art and contrivance; therefore the universe could not originally

attain its order and arrangement, without something similar 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 small part a rule for the universe?

Is nature in one situation, a certain rule for nature in another

situation vastly different from the former?

And can you blame me, CLEANTHES, if I here imitate the prudent reserve of

SIMONIDES, who, according to the noted story, being asked by HIERO,

What God was? desired 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 description? Could you even blame me, if I had

answered at first, that I did not know, and was sensible that this

subject lay vastly beyond the reach of my faculties? You might cry out

sceptic and railler, as much as you pleased: but having found, in so many

other subjects much more familiar, the imperfections and even

contradictions of human reason, I never should expect any success from

its feeble conjectures, in a subject so sublime, and so remote from the

sphere of our observation. When two species of objects have always been

observed to be conjoined together, I can infer, by custom, the existence

of one wherever I see the existence of the other; and this I call an

argument from experience. But how this argument can have place, where the

objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without

parallel, or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain. And will

any man tell me with a serious countenance, that an orderly universe must

arise from some thought and art like the human, because we have

experience of it? To ascertain this reasoning, it were requisite that we

had experience of the origin of worlds; and it is not sufficient, surely,

that we have seen ships and cities arise from human art and contrivance...

PHILO was proceeding in this vehement manner, somewhat between jest and

earnest, as it appeared to me, when he observed some signs of impatience

in CLEANTHES, and then immediately stopped short. What I had to suggest,

said CLEANTHES, is only that you would not abuse terms, or make use of

popular expressions to subvert philosophical reasonings. You know, that

the vulgar often distinguish reason from experience, even where the

question relates only to matter of fact and existence; though it is

found, where that reason is properly analysed, that it is nothing but a

species of experience. To prove by experience the origin of the universe

from mind, is not more contrary to common speech, than to prove the

motion of the earth from the same principle. And a caviller might raise

all the same objections to the Copernican system, which you have urged

against my reasonings. Have you other earths, might he say, which you

have seen to move? Have...

Yes! cried PHILO, interrupting him, we have other earths. Is not the moon

another earth, which we see to turn round its centre? Is not Venus

another earth, where we observe the same phenomenon? Are not the

revolutions of the sun also a confirmation, from analogy, of the same

theory? All the planets, are they not earths, which revolve about the

sun? Are not the satellites moons, which move round Jupiter and Saturn,

and along with these primary planets round the sun? These analogies and

resemblances, with others which I have not mentioned, are the sole proofs

of the COPERNICAN system; and to you it belongs to consider, whether you

have any analogies of the same kind to support your theory.

In reality, CLEANTHES, continued he, the modern system of astronomy is

now so much received by all inquirers, and has become so essential a part

even of our earliest education, that we are not commonly very scrupulous

in examining the reasons upon which it is founded. It is now become a

matter of mere curiosity to study the first writers on that subject, who

had the full force of prejudice to encounter, and were obliged to turn

their arguments on every side in order to render them popular and

convincing. But if we peruse GALILEO’s famous Dialogues concerning the

system of the world, we shall find, that that great genius, one of the

sublimest that ever existed, first bent all his endeavours to prove, that

there was no foundation for the distinction commonly made between

elementary and celestial substances. The schools, proceeding from the

illusions of sense, had carried this distinction very far; and had

established the latter substances to be ingenerable, incorruptible,

unalterable, impassable; and had assigned all the opposite qualities to

the former. But GALILEO, beginning with the moon, proved its similarity

in every particular to the earth; its convex figure, its natural darkness

when not illuminated, its density, its distinction into solid and liquid,

the variations of its phases, the mutual illuminations of the earth and

moon, their mutual eclipses, the inequalities of the lunar surface, &c.

After many instances of this kind, with regard to all the planets, men

plainly saw that these bodies became proper objects of experience; and

that the similarity of their nature enabled us to extend the same

arguments and phenomena from one to the other.

In this cautious proceeding of the astronomers, you may read your own

condemnation, CLEANTHES; or rather may see, that the subject in which you

are engaged exceeds all human reason and inquiry. Can you pretend to show

any such similarity between the fabric of a house, and the generation of

a universe? Have you ever seen nature in any such situation as resembles

the first arrangement of the elements? Have worlds ever been formed under

your eye; and have you had leisure to observe the whole progress of the

phenomenon, from the first appearance of order to its final consummation?

If you have, then cite your experience, and deliver your theory.







How the most absurd argument, replied 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 necessary for Copernicus and his first

disciples to prove the similarity of the terrestrial and celestial

matter; because several philosophers, blinded by old systems, and

supported by some sensible appearances, had denied this similarity? but

that it is by no means necessary, that Theists should prove the

similarity of the works of Nature to those of Art; because this

similarity is self-evident and undeniable? The same matter, a like form;

what more is requisite to show an analogy between their causes, and to

ascertain the origin of all things from a divine purpose and intention?

Your objections, I must freely tell you, are no better than the abstruse

cavils of those philosophers who denied motion; and ought to be refuted

in the same manner, by illustrations, examples, and instances, rather

than by serious argument and philosophy.

Suppose, therefore, that an articulate voice were heard in the clouds,

much louder and more melodious than any which human art could ever reach:

Suppose, that this voice were extended in the same instant over all

nations, and spoke to each nation in its own language and dialect:

Suppose, that the words delivered not only contain a just sense and

meaning, but convey some instruction altogether worthy of a benevolent

Being, superior to mankind: Could you possibly hesitate a moment

concerning the cause of this voice? and must you not instantly ascribe it

to some design or purpose? Yet I cannot see but all the same objections

(if they merit that appellation) which lie against the system of Theism,

may also be produced against this inference.

Might you not say, that all conclusions concerning fact were founded on

experience: that when we hear an articulate voice in the dark, and thence

infer a man, it is only the resemblance of the effects which leads us to

conclude that there is a like resemblance in the cause: but that this

extraordinary voice, by its loudness, extent, and flexibility to all

languages, bears so little analogy to any human voice, that we have no

reason to suppose any analogy in their causes: and consequently, that a

rational, wise, coherent speech proceeded, you know not whence, from some

accidental whistling of the winds, not from any divine reason or

intelligence? You see clearly your own objections in these cavils, and I

hope too you see clearly, that they cannot possibly have more force in

the one case than in the other.

But to bring the case still nearer the present one of the universe, I

shall make two suppositions, which imply not any absurdity or

impossibility. Suppose that there is a natural, universal, invariable

language, common to every individual of human race; and that books are

natural productions, which perpetuate themselves in the same manner with

animals and vegetables, by descent and propagation. Several expressions

of our passions contain a universal language: all brute animals have a

natural speech, which, however limited, is very intelligible to their own

species. And as there are infinitely fewer parts and less contrivance in

the finest composition of eloquence, than in the coarsest organised body,

the propagation of an Iliad or Aeneid is an easier supposition than that

of any plant or animal.

Suppose, therefore, that you enter into your library, thus peopled by

natural volumes, containing the most refined reason and most exquisite

beauty; could you possibly open one of them, and doubt, that its original

cause bore the strongest analogy to mind and intelligence? When it

reasons and discourses; when it expostulates, argues, and enforces its

views and topics; when it applies sometimes to the pure intellect,

sometimes to the affections; when it collects, disposes, and adorns every

consideration suited to the subject; could you persist in asserting, that

all this, at the bottom, had really no meaning; and that the first

formation of this volume in the loins of its original parent proceeded

not from thought and design? Your obstinacy, I know, reaches not that

degree of firmness: even your sceptical play and wantonness would be

abashed at so glaring an absurdity.

But if there be any difference, PHILO, between this supposed case and the

real one of the universe, it is all to the advantage of the latter. The

anatomy of an animal affords many stronger instances of design than the

perusal of LIVY or TACITUS; and any objection which you start in the

former case, by carrying me back to so unusual and extraordinary a scene

as the first formation of worlds, the same objection has place on the

supposition of our vegetating library. Choose, then, your party, PHILO,

without ambiguity or evasion; assert either that a rational volume is no

proof of a rational cause, or admit of a similar cause to all the works

of nature.

Let me here observe too, continued CLEANTHES, that this religious

argument, instead of being weakened by that scepticism so much affected

by you, rather acquires force from it, and becomes more firm and

undisputed. To exclude all argument or reasoning of every kind, is either

affectation or madness. The declared profession of every reasonable

sceptic is only to reject abstruse, remote, and refined arguments; to

adhere to common sense and the plain instincts of nature; and to assent,

wherever any reasons strike him with so full a force that he cannot,

without the greatest violence, prevent it. Now the arguments for Natural

Religion are plainly of this kind; and nothing but the most perverse,

obstinate metaphysics can reject them. Consider, anatomise the eye;

survey its structure and contrivance; and tell me, from your own feeling,

if the idea of a contriver does not immediately flow in upon you with a

force like that of sensation. The most obvious conclusion, surely, is in

favour of design; and it requires time, reflection, and study, to summon

up those frivolous, though abstruse objections, which can support

Infidelity. Who can behold the male and female of each species, the

correspondence of their parts and instincts, their passions, and whole

course of life before and after generation, but must be sensible, that

the propagation of the species is intended by Nature? Millions and

millions of such instances present themselves through every part of the

universe; and no language can convey a more intelligible irresistible

meaning, than the curious adjustment of final causes. To what degree,

therefore, of blind dogmatism must one have attained, to reject such

natural and such convincing arguments?

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

and which gain the affections, and animate the imagination, in opposition

to all the precepts of criticism, and to the authority of the established

masters of art. And if the argument for Theism be, as you pretend,

contradictory to the principles of logic; its universal, its irresistible

influence proves clearly, that there may be arguments of a like irregular

nature. Whatever cavils may be urged, an orderly world, as well as a

coherent, articulate speech, will still be received as an incontestable

proof of design and intention.

It sometimes happens, I own, that the religious arguments have not their

due influence on an ignorant savage and barbarian; not because they are

obscure and difficult, but because he never asks himself any question

with regard to them. Whence arises the curious structure of an animal?

From the copulation of its parents. And these whence? From their parents?

A few removes set the objects at such a distance, that to him they are

lost in darkness and confusion; nor is he actuated by any curiosity to

trace them further. But this is neither dogmatism nor scepticism, but

stupidity: a state of mind very different from your sifting, inquisitive

disposition, my ingenious friend. You can trace causes from effects: You

can compare the most distant and remote objects: and your greatest errors

proceed not from barrenness of thought and invention, but from too

luxuriant a fertility, which suppresses your natural good sense, by a

profusion of unnecessary scruples and objections.

Here I could observe, HERMIPPUS, that PHILO was a little embarrassed and

confounded: But while he hesitated in delivering an answer, luckily for

him, DEMEA broke in upon the discourse, and saved his countenance.

Your instance, CLEANTHES, said he, drawn from books and language, being

familiar, has, I confess, so much more force on that account: but is

there not some danger too in this very circumstance; and may it not

render us presumptuous, by making us imagine we comprehend the Deity, and

have some adequate idea of his nature and attributes? When I read a

volume, I enter into the mind and intention of the author: I become him,

in a manner, for the instant; and have an immediate feeling and

conception of those ideas which revolved in his imagination while

employed in that composition. But so near an approach we never surely can

make to the Deity. His ways are not our ways. His attributes are perfect,

but incomprehensible. And this volume of nature contains a great and

inexplicable riddle, more than any intelligible discourse or reasoning.

The ancient PLATONISTS, you know, were the most religious and devout of

all the Pagan philosophers; yet many of them, particularly PLOTINUS,

expressly declare, that intellect or understanding is not to be ascribed

to the Deity; and that our most perfect worship of him consists, not in

acts of veneration, reverence, gratitude, or love; but in a certain

mysterious self-annihilation, or total extinction of all our faculties.

These ideas are, perhaps, too far stretched; but still it must be

acknowledged, that, by representing the Deity as so intelligible and

comprehensible, and so similar to a human mind, we are guilty of the

grossest and most narrow partiality, and make ourselves the model of the

whole universe.

All the sentiments of the human mind, gratitude, resentment, love,

friendship, approbation, blame, pity, emulation, envy, have a plain

reference to the state and situation of man, and are calculated for

preserving the existence and promoting the activity of such a being in

such circumstances. It seems, therefore, unreasonable to transfer such

sentiments to a supreme existence, or to suppose him actuated by them;

and the phenomena besides of the universe will not support us in such a

theory. All our ideas, derived from the senses, are confessedly false and

illusive; and cannot therefore be supposed to have place in a supreme

intelligence: And as the ideas of internal sentiment, added to those of

the external senses, compose the whole furniture of human understanding,

we may conclude, that none of the materials of thought are in any respect

similar in the human and in the divine intelligence. Now, as to the

manner of thinking; how can we make any comparison between them, or

suppose them any wise resembling? Our thought is fluctuating, uncertain,

fleeting, successive, and compounded; and were we to remove these

circumstances, we absolutely annihilate its essence, and it would in such

a case be an abuse of terms to apply to it the name of thought or reason.

At least if it appear more pious and respectful (as it really is) still

to retain these terms, when we mention the Supreme Being, we ought to

acknowledge, that their meaning, in that case, is totally

incomprehensible; and that the infirmities of our nature do not permit us

to reach any ideas which in the least correspond to the ineffable

sublimity of the Divine attributes.







It seems strange to me, said CLEANTHES, that you, DEMEA, who are so

sincere in the cause of religion, should still maintain the mysterious,

incomprehensible nature of the Deity, and should insist so strenuously

that he has no manner of likeness or resemblance to human creatures. The

Deity, I can readily allow, possesses many powers and attributes of which

we can have no comprehension: But if our ideas, so far as they go, be not

just, and adequate, and correspondent to his real nature, I know not what

there is in this subject worth insisting on. Is the name, without any

meaning, of such mighty importance? Or how do you mystics, who maintain

the absolute incomprehensibility of the Deity, differ from Sceptics or

Atheists, who assert, that the first cause of all is unknown and

unintelligible? Their temerity must be very great, if, after rejecting

the production by a mind, I mean a mind resembling the human, (for I know

of no other,) they pretend to assign, with certainty, any other specific

intelligible cause: And their conscience must be very scrupulous indeed,

if they refuse to call the universal unknown cause a God or Deity; and to

bestow on him as many sublime eulogies and unmeaning epithets as you

shall please to require of them.

Who could imagine, replied DEMEA, that CLEANTHES, the calm philosophical

CLEANTHES, would attempt to refute his antagonists by affixing a nickname

to them; and, like the common bigots and inquisitors of the age, have

recourse to invective and declamation, instead of reasoning? Or does he

not perceive, that these topics are easily retorted, and that

Anthropomorphite is an appellation as invidious, and implies as dangerous

consequences, as the epithet of Mystic, with which he has honoured us? In

reality, CLEANTHES, consider what it is you assert when you represent the

Deity as similar to a human mind and understanding. What is the soul of

man? A composition of various faculties, passions, sentiments, ideas;

united, indeed, into one self or person, but still distinct from each

other. When it reasons, the ideas, which are the parts of its discourse,

arrange themselves in a certain form or order; which is not preserved

entire for a moment, but immediately gives place to another arrangement.

New opinions, new passions, new affections, new feelings arise, which

continually diversify the mental scene, and produce in it the greatest

variety and most rapid succession imaginable. How is this compatible with

that perfect immutability and simplicity which all true Theists ascribe

to the Deity? By the same act, say they, he sees past, present, and

future: His love and hatred, his mercy and justice, are one individual

operation: He is entire in every point of space; and complete in every

instant of duration. No succession, no change, no acquisition, no

diminution. What he is implies not in it any shadow of distinction or

diversity. And what he is this moment he ever has been, and ever will be,

without any new judgement, sentiment, or operation. He stands fixed in

one simple, perfect state: nor can you ever say, with any propriety, that

this act of his is different from that other; or that this judgement or

idea has been lately formed, and will give place, by succession, to any

different judgement or idea.

I can readily allow, said CLEANTHES, that those who maintain the perfect

simplicity of the Supreme Being, to the extent in which you have

explained it, are complete Mystics, and chargeable with all the

consequences which I have drawn from their opinion. They are, in a word,

Atheists, without knowing it. For though it be allowed, that the Deity

possesses attributes of which we have no comprehension, yet ought we

never to ascribe to him any attributes which are absolutely incompatible

with that intelligent nature essential to him. A mind, whose acts and

sentiments and ideas are not distinct and successive; one, that is wholly

simple, and totally immutable, is a mind which has no thought, no reason,

no will, no sentiment, no love, no hatred; or, in a word, is no mind at

all. It is an abuse of terms to give it that appellation; and we may as

well speak of limited extension without figure, or of number without


Pray consider, said PHILO, whom you are at present inveighing against.

You are honouring with the appellation of Atheist all the sound, orthodox

divines, almost, who have treated of this subject; and you will at last

be, yourself, found, according to your reckoning, the only sound Theist

in the world. But if idolaters be Atheists, as, I think, may justly be

asserted, and Christian Theologians the same, what becomes of the

argument, so much celebrated, derived from the universal consent of


But because I know you are not much swayed by names and authorities, I

shall endeavour to show you, a little more distinctly, the inconveniences

of that Anthropomorphism, which you have embraced; and shall prove, that

there is no ground to suppose a plan of the world to be formed in the

Divine mind, consisting of distinct ideas, differently arranged, in the

same manner as an architect forms in his head the plan of a house which

he intends to execute.

It is not easy, I own, to see what is gained by this supposition, whether

we judge of the matter by Reason or by Experience. We are still obliged

to mount higher, in order to find the cause of this cause, which you had

assigned as satisfactory and conclusive.

If Reason (I mean abstract reason, derived from inquiries a priori) be

not alike mute with regard to all questions concerning cause and effect,

this sentence at least it will venture to pronounce, That a mental world,

or universe of ideas, requires a cause as much, as does a material world,

or universe of objects; and, if similar in its arrangement, must require

a similar cause. For what is there in this subject, which should occasion

a different conclusion or inference? In an abstract view, they are

entirely alike; and no difficulty attends the one supposition, which is

not common to both of them.

Again, when we will needs force Experience to pronounce some sentence,

even on these subjects which lie beyond her sphere, neither can she

perceive any material difference in this particular, between these two

kinds of worlds; but finds them to be governed by similar principles, and

to depend upon an equal variety of causes in their operations. We have

specimens in miniature of both of them. Our own mind resembles the one; a

vegetable or animal body the other. Let experience, therefore, judge from

these samples. Nothing seems more delicate, with regard to its causes,

than thought; and as these causes never operate in two persons after the

same manner, so we never find two persons who think exactly alike. Nor

indeed does the same person think exactly alike at any two different

periods of time. A difference of age, of the disposition of his body, of

weather, of food, of company, of books, of passions; any of these

particulars, or others more minute, are sufficient 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 adjustment of springs and principles.

How, therefore, shall we satisfy ourselves concerning the cause of that

Being whom you suppose the Author of Nature, or, according to your system

of Anthropomorphism, the ideal world, into which you trace the material?

Have we not the same reason to trace that ideal world into another ideal

world, or new intelligent principle? But if we stop, and go no further;

why go so far? why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy

ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what

satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the

story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more

applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon

a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so

on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the

present material world. By supposing it to contain the principle of its

order within itself, we really assert it to be God; and the sooner we

arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step

beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humour which it

is impossible ever to satisfy.

To say, that the different ideas which compose the reason of the Supreme

Being, fall into order of themselves, and by their own nature, is really

to talk without any precise meaning. If it has a meaning, I would fain

know, why it is not as good sense to say, that the parts of the material

world fall into order of themselves and by their own nature. Can the one

opinion be intelligible, while the other is not so?

We have, indeed, experience of ideas which fall into order of themselves,

and without any known cause. But, I am sure, we have a much larger

experience of matter which does the same; as, in all instances of

generation and vegetation, where the accurate analysis of the cause

exceeds all human comprehension. We have also experience of particular

systems of thought and of matter which have no order; of the first in

madness, of the second in corruption. Why, then, should we think, that

order is more essential to one than the other? And if it requires a cause

in both, what do we gain by your system, in tracing the universe of

objects into a similar universe of ideas? The first step which we make

leads us on for ever. It were, therefore, wise in us to limit all our

inquiries to the present world, without looking further. No satisfaction

can ever be attained by these speculations, which so far exceed the

narrow bounds of human understanding.

It was usual with the PERIPATETICS, you know, CLEANTHES, when the cause

of any phenomenon was demanded, to have recourse to their faculties or

occult qualities; and to say, for instance, that bread nourished by its

nutritive faculty, and senna purged by its purgative. But it has been

discovered, that this subterfuge was nothing but the disguise of

ignorance; and that these philosophers, though less ingenuous, really

said the same thing with the sceptics or the vulgar, who fairly confessed

that they knew not the cause of these phenomena. In like manner, when it

is asked, what cause produces order in the ideas of the Supreme Being;

can any other reason be assigned by you, Anthropomorphites, than that it

is a rational faculty, and that such is the nature of the Deity? But why

a similar answer will not be equally satisfactory in accounting for the

order of the world, without having recourse to any such intelligent

creator as you insist on, may be difficult to determine. It is only to

say, that such is the nature of material objects, and that they are all

originally possessed of a faculty of order and proportion. These are only

more learned and elaborate ways of confessing our ignorance; nor has the

one hypothesis any real advantage above the other, except in its greater

conformity to vulgar prejudices.

You have displayed this argument with great emphasis, replied CLEANTHES:

You seem not sensible how easy it is to answer it. Even in common life,

if I assign a cause for any event, is it any objection, PHILO, that I

cannot assign the cause of that cause, and answer every new question

which may incessantly be started? And what philosophers could possibly

submit to so rigid a rule? philosophers, who confess ultimate causes to

be totally unknown; and are sensible, that the most refined principles

into which they trace the phenomena, are still to them as inexplicable as

these phenomena themselves are to the vulgar. The order and arrangement

of nature, the curious adjustment of final causes, the plain use and

intention of every part and organ; all these bespeak in the clearest

language an intelligent cause or author. The heavens and the earth join

in the same testimony: The whole chorus of Nature raises one hymn to the

praises of its Creator. You alone, or almost alone, disturb this general

harmony. You start abstruse doubts, cavils, and objections: You ask me,

what is the cause of this cause? I know not; I care not; that concerns

not me. I have found a Deity; and here I stop my inquiry. Let those go

further, who are wiser or more enterprising.

I pretend to be neither, replied PHILO: And for that very reason, I

should never perhaps have attempted to go so far; especially when I am

sensible, that I must at last be contented to sit down with the same

answer, which, without further trouble, might have satisfied me from the

beginning. If I am still to remain in utter ignorance of causes, and can

absolutely give an explication of nothing, I shall never esteem it any

advantage to shove off for a moment a difficulty, which, you acknowledge,

must immediately, in its full force, recur upon me. Naturalists indeed

very justly explain particular effects by more general causes, though

these general causes themselves should remain in the end totally

inexplicable; but they never surely thought it satisfactory to explain a

particular effect by a particular cause, which was no more to be

accounted for than the effect itself. An ideal system, arranged of

itself, without a precedent design, is not a whit more explicable than a

material one, which attains its order in a like manner; nor is there any

more difficulty in the latter supposition than in the former.







But to show you still more inconveniences, continued PHILO, in your

Anthropomorphism, please to take a new survey of your principles. Like

effects prove like causes. This is the experimental argument; and this,

you say too, is the sole theological argument. Now, it is certain, that

the liker the effects are which are seen, and the liker the causes which

are inferred, the stronger is the argument. Every departure on either

side diminishes the probability, and renders the experiment less

conclusive. You cannot doubt of the principle; neither ought you to

reject its consequences.

All the new discoveries in astronomy, which prove the immense grandeur

and magnificence of the works of Nature, are so many additional arguments

for a Deity, according to the true system of Theism; but, according to

your hypothesis of experimental Theism, they become so many objections,

by removing the effect still further from all resemblance to the effects

of human art and contrivance. For, if LUCRETIUS[Lib. II. 1094], even

following the old system of the world, could exclaim,

Quis regere immensi summam, quis habere profundi Indu manu validas potis est moderanter habenas? Quis pariter coelos omnes convertere? et omnes Ignibus aetheriis terras suffire feraces? Omnibus inque locis esse omni tempore praesto?

If TULLY [De. nat. Deor. Lib. I] esteemed this reasoning so natural,

as to put it into the mouth of his EPICUREAN:

"Quibus enim oculis animi intueri potuit vester Plato fabricam illam

tanti operis, qua construi a Deo atque aedificari mundum facit? quae

molitio? quae ferramenta? qui vectes? quae machinae? qui ministri tanti

muneris fuerunt? quemadmodum autem obedire et parere voluntati architecti

aer, ignis, aqua, terra potuerunt?"

If this argument, I say, had any force in former ages, how much greater

must it have at present, when the bounds of Nature are so infinitely

enlarged, and such a magnificent scene is opened to us? It is still more

unreasonable to form our idea of so unlimited a cause from our experience

of the narrow productions of human design and invention.

The discoveries by microscopes, as they open a new universe in miniature,

are still objections, according to you, arguments, according to me. The

further we push our researches of this kind, we are still led to infer

the universal cause of all to be vastly different from mankind, or from

any object of human experience and observation.

And what say you to the discoveries in anatomy, chemistry, botany?...

These surely are no objections, replied CLEANTHES; they only discover new

instances of art and contrivance. It is still the image of mind reflected

on us from innumerable objects. Add, a mind like the human, said PHILO. I

know of no other, replied CLEANTHES. And the liker the better, insisted

PHILO. To be sure, said CLEANTHES.

Now, CLEANTHES, said PHILO, with an air of alacrity and triumph, mark the

consequences. First, By this method of reasoning, you renounce all claim

to infinity in any of the attributes of the Deity. For, as the cause

ought only to be proportioned to the effect, and the effect, so far as it

falls under our cognisance, is not infinite; what pretensions have we,

upon your suppositions, to ascribe that attribute to the Divine Being?

You will still insist, that, by removing him so much from all similarity

to human creatures, we give in to the most arbitrary hypothesis, and at

the same time weaken all proofs of his existence.

Secondly, You have no reason, on your theory, for ascribing perfection to

the Deity, even in his finite capacity, or for supposing him free from

every error, mistake, or incoherence, in his undertakings. There are many

inexplicable difficulties in the works of Nature, which, if we allow a

perfect author to be proved a priori, are easily solved, and become only

seeming difficulties, from the narrow capacity of man, who cannot trace

infinite relations. But according to your method of reasoning, these

difficulties become all real; and perhaps will be insisted on, as new

instances of likeness to human art and contrivance. At least, you must

acknowledge, that it is impossible for us to tell, from our limited

views, whether this system contains any great faults, or deserves any

considerable praise, if compared to other possible, and even real

systems. Could a peasant, if the Aeneid were read to him, pronounce that

poem to be absolutely faultless, or even assign to it its proper rank

among the productions of human wit, he, who had never seen any other


But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain

uncertain, whether all the excellences of the work can justly be ascribed

to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of

the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and

beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a

stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a

long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections,

deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving? Many

worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere

this system was struck out; much labour lost, many fruitless trials made;

and a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in

the art of world-making. In such subjects, who can determine, where the

truth; nay, who can conjecture where the probability lies, amidst a great

number of hypotheses which may be proposed, and a still greater which may

be imagined?

And what shadow of an argument, continued PHILO, can you produce, from

your hypothesis, to prove the unity of the Deity? A great number of men

join in building a house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing a

commonwealth; why may not several deities combine in contriving and

framing a world? This is only so much greater similarity to human

affairs. By sharing the work among several, we may so much further limit

the attributes of each, and get rid of that extensive power and

knowledge, which must be supposed in one deity, and which, according to

you, can only serve to weaken the proof of his existence. And if such

foolish, such vicious creatures as man, can yet often unite in framing

and executing one plan, how much more those deities or demons, whom we

may suppose several degrees more perfect!

To multiply causes without necessity, is indeed contrary to true

philosophy: but this principle applies not to the present case. Were one

deity antecedently proved by your theory, who were possessed of every

attribute requisite to the production of the universe; it would be

needless, I own, (though not absurd,) to suppose any other deity

existent. But while it is still a question, Whether all these attributes

are united in one subject, or dispersed among several independent beings,

by what phenomena in nature can we pretend to decide the controversy?

Where we see a body raised in a scale, we are sure that there is in the

opposite scale, however concealed from sight, some counterpoising weight

equal to it; but it is still allowed to doubt, whether that weight be an

aggregate of several distinct bodies, or one uniform united mass. And if

the weight requisite very much exceeds any thing which we have ever seen

conjoined in any single body, the former supposition becomes still more

probable and natural. An intelligent being of such vast power and

capacity as is necessary to produce the universe, or, to speak in the

language of ancient philosophy, so prodigious an animal exceeds all

analogy, and even comprehension.

But further, CLEANTHES: men are mortal, and renew their species by

generation; and this is common to all living creatures. The two great

sexes of male and female, says MILTON, animate the world. Why must this

circumstance, so universal, so essential, be excluded from those numerous

and limited deities? Behold, then, the theogony of ancient times brought

back upon us.

And why not become a perfect Anthropomorphite? Why not assert the deity

or deities to be corporeal, and to have eyes, a nose, mouth, ears, &c.?

EPICURUS maintained, that no man had ever seen reason but in a human

figure; therefore the gods must have a human figure. And this argument,

which is deservedly so much ridiculed by CICERO, becomes, according to

you, solid and philosophical.

In a word, CLEANTHES, a man who follows your hypothesis is able perhaps

to assert, or conjecture, that the universe, sometime, arose from

something like design: but beyond that position he cannot ascertain one

single circumstance; and is left afterwards to fix every point of his

theology by the utmost license of fancy and hypothesis. This world, for

aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior

standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who

afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance: it is the work

only of some dependent, inferior deity; and is the object of derision to

his superiors: it is the production of old age and dotage in some

superannuated deity; and ever since his death, has run on at adventures,

from the first impulse and active force which it received from him. You

justly give signs of horror, DEMEA, at these strange suppositions; but

these, and a thousand more of the same kind, are CLEANTHES’s

suppositions, not mine. From the moment the attributes of the Deity are

supposed finite, all these have place. And I cannot, for my part, think

that so wild and unsettled a system of theology is, in any respect,

preferable to none at all.

These suppositions I absolutely disown, cried CLEANTHES: they strike me,

however, with no horror, especially when proposed in that rambling way in

which they drop from you. On the contrary, they give me pleasure, when I

see, that, by the utmost indulgence of your imagination, you never get

rid of the hypothesis of design in the universe, but are obliged at every

turn to have recourse to it. To this concession I adhere steadily; and

this I regard as a sufficient foundation for religion.







It must be a slight fabric, indeed, said DEMEA, which can be erected on

so tottering a foundation. While we are uncertain whether there is one

deity or many; whether the deity or deities, to whom we owe our

existence, be perfect or imperfect, subordinate or supreme, dead or

alive, what trust or confidence can we repose in them? What devotion or

worship address to them? What veneration or obedience pay them? To all

the purposes of life the theory of religion becomes altogether useless:

and even with regard to speculative consequences, its uncertainty,

according to you, must render it totally precarious and unsatisfactory.

To render it still more unsatisfactory, said PHILO, there occurs to me

another hypothesis, which must acquire an air of probability from the

method of reasoning so much insisted on by CLEANTHES. That like effects

arise from like causes: this principle he supposes the foundation of all

religion. But there is another principle of the same kind, no less

certain, and derived from the same source of experience; that where

several known circumstances are observed to be similar, the unknown will

also be found similar. Thus, if we see the limbs of a human body, we

conclude that it is also attended with a human head, though hid from us.

Thus, if we see, through a chink in a wall, a small part of the sun, we

conclude, that, were the wall removed, we should see the whole body. In

short, this method of reasoning is so obvious and familiar, that no

scruple can ever be made with regard to its solidity.

Now, if we survey the universe, so far as it falls under our knowledge,

it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organised body, and seems

actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual

circulation of matter in it produces no disorder: a continual waste in

every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived

throughout the entire system: and each part or member, in performing its

proper offices, operates both to its own preservation and to that of the

whole. The world, therefore, I infer, is an animal; and the Deity is the

SOUL of the world, actuating it, and actuated by it.

You have too much learning, CLEANTHES, to be at all surprised at this

opinion, which, you know, was maintained by almost all the Theists of

antiquity, and chiefly prevails in their discourses and reasonings. For

though, sometimes, the ancient philosophers reason from final causes, as

if they thought the world the workmanship of God; yet it appears rather

their favourite notion to consider it as his body, whose organisation

renders it subservient to him. And it must be confessed, that, as the

universe resembles 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 seems juster in favour

of the ancient than the modern theory.

There are many other advantages, too, in the former theory, which

recommended it to the ancient theologians. Nothing more repugnant to all

their notions, because nothing more repugnant to common experience, than

mind without body; a mere spiritual substance, which fell not under their

senses nor comprehension, and of which they had not observed one single

instance throughout all nature. Mind and body they knew, because they

felt both: an order, arrangement, organisation, or internal machinery, in

both, they likewise knew, after the same manner: and it could not but

seem reasonable to transfer this experience to the universe; and to

suppose the divine mind and body to be also coeval, and to have, both of

them, order and arrangement naturally inherent in them, and inseparable

from them.

Here, therefore, is a new species of Anthropomorphism, CLEANTHES, on

which you may deliberate; and a theory which seems not liable to any

considerable difficulties. You are too much superior, surely, to

systematical prejudices, to find any more difficulty in supposing an

animal body to be, originally, of itself, or from unknown causes,

possessed of order and organisation, than in supposing a similar order to

belong to mind. But the vulgar prejudice, that body and mind ought always

to accompany each other, ought not, one should think, to be entirely

neglected; since it is founded on vulgar experience, the only guide which

you profess to follow in all these theological inquiries. And if you

assert, that our limited experience is an unequal standard, by which to

judge of the unlimited extent of nature; you entirely abandon your own

hypothesis, and must thenceforward adopt our Mysticism, as you call it,

and admit of the absolute incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature.

This theory, I own, replied CLEANTHES, has never before occurred to me,

though a pretty natural one; and I cannot readily, upon so short an

examination and reflection, deliver any opinion with regard to it. You

are very scrupulous, indeed, said PHILO: were I to examine any system of

yours, I should not have acted with half that caution and reserve, in

starting objections and difficulties to it. However, if any thing occur

to you, you will oblige us by proposing it.

Why then, replied CLEANTHES, it seems to me, that, though the world does,

in many circumstances, resemble an animal body; yet is the analogy also

defective in many circumstances the most material: no organs of sense; no

seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In

short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an

animal, and your inference would be so far inconclusive in favour of the

soul of the world.

But, in the next place, your theory seems to imply the eternity of the

world; and that is a principle, which, I think, can be refuted by the

strongest reasons and probabilities. I shall suggest an argument to this

purpose, which, I believe, has not been insisted on by any writer. Those,

who reason from the late origin of arts and sciences, though their

inference wants not force, may perhaps be refuted by considerations

derived from the nature of human society, which is in continual

revolution, between ignorance and knowledge, liberty and slavery, riches

and poverty; so that it is impossible for us, from our limited

experience, to foretell with assurance what events may or may not be

expected. Ancient learning and history seem to have been in great danger

of entirely perishing after the inundation of the barbarous nations; and

had these convulsions continued a little longer, or been a little more

violent, we should not probably have now known what passed in the world a

few centuries before us. Nay, were it not for the superstition of the

Popes, who preserved a little jargon of Latin, in order to support the

appearance of an ancient and universal church, that tongue must have been

utterly lost; in which case, the Western world, being totally barbarous,

would not have been in a fit disposition for receiving the GREEK language

and learning, which was conveyed to them after the sacking of

CONSTANTINOPLE. When learning and books had been extinguished, even the

mechanical arts would have fallen considerably to decay; and it is easily

imagined, that fable or tradition might ascribe to them a much later

origin than the true one. This vulgar argument, therefore, against the

eternity of the world, seems a little precarious.

But here appears to be the foundation of a better argument. LUCULLUS was

the first that brought cherry-trees from ASIA to EUROPE; though that tree

thrives so well in many EUROPEAN climates, that it grows in the woods

without any culture. Is it possible, that throughout a whole eternity, no

EUROPEAN had ever passed into ASIA, and thought of transplanting so

delicious a fruit into his own country? Or if the tree was once

transplanted and propagated, how could it ever afterwards perish? Empires

may rise and fall, liberty and slavery succeed alternately, ignorance and

knowledge give place to each other; but the cherry-tree will still remain

in the woods of GREECE, SPAIN, and ITALY, and will never be affected by

the revolutions of human society.

It is not two thousand years since vines were transplanted into FRANCE,

though there is no climate in the world more favourable to them. It is

not three centuries since horses, cows, sheep, swine, dogs, corn, were

known in AMERICA. Is it possible, that during the revolutions of a whole

eternity, there never arose a COLUMBUS, who might open the communication

between EUROPE and that continent? We may as well imagine, that all men

would wear stockings for ten thousand years, and never have the sense to

think of garters to tie them. All these seem convincing proofs of the

youth, or rather infancy, of the world; as being founded on the operation

of principles more constant and steady than those by which human society

is governed and directed. Nothing less than a total convulsion of the

elements will ever destroy all the EUROPEAN animals and vegetables which

are now to be found in the Western world.

And what argument have you against such convulsions? replied PHILO.

Strong and almost incontestable proofs may be traced over the whole

earth, that every part of this globe has continued for many ages entirely

covered with water. And though order were supposed inseparable from

matter, and inherent in it; yet may matter be susceptible of many and

great revolutions, through the endless periods of eternal duration. The

incessant changes, to which every part of it is subject, seem to intimate

some such general transformations; though, at the same time, it is

observable, that all the changes and corruptions of which we have ever

had experience, are but passages from one state of order to another; nor

can matter ever rest in total deformity and confusion. What we see in the

parts, we may infer in the whole; at least, that is the method of

reasoning on which you rest your whole theory. And were I obliged to

defend any particular system of this nature, which I never willingly

should do, I esteem none more plausible than that which ascribes an

eternal inherent principle of order to the world, though attended with

great and continual revolutions and alterations. This at once solves all

difficulties; and if the solution, by being so general, is not entirely

complete and satisfactory, it is at least a theory that we must sooner or

later have recourse to, whatever system we embrace. How could things have

been as they are, were there not an original inherent principle of order

somewhere, in thought or in matter? And it is very indifferent to which

of these we give the preference. Chance has no place, on any hypothesis,

sceptical or religious. Every thing is surely governed by steady,

inviolable laws. And were the inmost essence of things laid open to us,

we should then discover a scene, of which, at present, we can have no

idea. Instead of admiring the order of natural beings, we should clearly

see that it was absolutely impossible for them, in the smallest article,

ever to admit of any other disposition.

Were any one inclined to revive the ancient Pagan Theology, which

maintained, as we learn from HESIOD, that this globe was governed by

30,000 deities, who arose from the unknown powers of nature: you would

naturally object, CLEANTHES, that nothing is gained by this hypothesis;

and that it is as easy to suppose all men animals, beings more numerous,

but less perfect, to have sprung immediately from a like origin. Push the

same inference a step further, and you will find a numerous society of

deities as explicable as one universal deity, who possesses within

himself the powers and perfections of the whole society. All these

systems, then, of Scepticism, Polytheism, and Theism, you must allow, on

your principles, to be on a like footing, and that no one of them has any

advantage over the others. You may thence learn the fallacy of your








But here, continued PHILO, in examining the ancient system of the soul of

the world, there strikes me, all on a sudden, a new idea, which, if just,

must go near to subvert all your reasoning, and destroy even your first

inferences, on which you repose such confidence. If the universe bears a

greater likeness to animal bodies and to vegetables, than to the works of

human art, it is more probable that its cause resembles the cause of the

former than that of the latter, and its origin ought rather to be

ascribed to generation or vegetation, than to reason or design. Your

conclusion, even according to your own principles, is therefore lame and


Pray open up this argument a little further, said DEMEA, for I do not

rightly apprehend it in that concise manner in which you have expressed


Our friend CLEANTHES, replied PHILO, as you have heard, asserts, that

since no question of fact can be proved otherwise than by experience, the

existence of a Deity admits not of proof from any other medium. The

world, says he, resembles the works of human contrivance; therefore its

cause must also resemble that of the other. Here we may remark, that the

operation of one very small part of nature, to wit man, upon another very

small part, to wit that inanimate matter lying within his reach, is the

rule by which CLEANTHES judges of the origin of the whole; and he

measures objects, so widely disproportioned, by the same individual

standard. But to waive all objections drawn from this topic, I affirm,

that there are other parts of the universe (besides the machines of human

invention) which bear still a greater resemblance to the fabric of the

world, and which, therefore, afford a better conjecture concerning the

universal origin of this system. These parts are animals and vegetables.

The world plainly resembles more an animal or a vegetable, than it does a

watch or a knitting-loom. Its cause, therefore, it is more probable,

resembles the cause of the former. The cause of the former is generation

or vegetation. The cause, therefore, of the world, we may infer to be

something similar or analogous to generation or vegetation.

But how is it conceivable, said DEMEA, that the world can arise from any

thing similar to vegetation or generation?

Very easily, replied PHILO. In like manner as a tree sheds its seed into

the neighbouring fields, and produces other trees; so the great

vegetable, the world, or this planetary system, produces within itself

certain seeds, which, being scattered into the surrounding chaos,

vegetate into new worlds. A comet, for instance, is the seed of a world;

and after it has been fully ripened, by passing from sun to sun, and star

to star, it is at last tossed into the unformed elements which every

where surround this universe, and immediately sprouts up into a new


Or if, for the sake of variety (for I see no other advantage), we should

suppose this world to be an animal; a comet is the egg of this animal:

and in like manner as an ostrich lays its egg in the sand, which, without

any further care, hatches the egg, and produces a new animal; so...

I understand you, says DEMEA: But what wild, arbitrary suppositions are

these! What data have you for such extraordinary conclusions? And is the

slight, imaginary resemblance of the world to a vegetable or an animal

sufficient to establish the same inference with regard to both? Objects,

which are in general so widely different, ought they to be a standard for

each other?

Right, cries PHILO: This is the topic on which I have all along insisted.

I have still asserted, that we have no data to establish any system of

cosmogony. Our experience, so imperfect in itself, and so limited both in

extent and duration, can afford us no probable conjecture concerning the

whole of things. But if we must needs fix on some hypothesis; by what

rule, pray, ought we to determine our choice? Is there any other rule

than the greater similarity of the objects compared? And does not a plant

or an animal, which springs from vegetation or generation, bear a

stronger resemblance to the world, than does any artificial machine,

which arises from reason and design?

But what is this vegetation and generation of which you talk? said DEMEA.Can you explain their operations, and anatomise that fine internal structure on which they depend?

As much, at least, replied PHILO, as CLEANTHES can explain the operations

of reason, or anatomise that internal structure on which it depends. But

without any such elaborate disquisitions, when I see an animal, I infer,

that it sprang from generation; and that with as great certainty as you

conclude a house to have been reared by design. These words, generation,

reason, mark only certain powers and energies in nature, whose effects

are known, but whose essence is incomprehensible; and one of these

principles, more than the other, has no privilege for being made a

standard to the whole of nature.

In reality, DEMEA, it may reasonably be expected, that the larger the

views are which we take of things, the better will they conduct us in our

conclusions concerning such extraordinary and such magnificent subjects.

In this little corner of the world alone, there are four principles,

reason, instinct, generation, vegetation, which are similar to each

other, and are the causes of similar effects. What a number of other

principles may we naturally suppose in the immense extent and variety of

the universe, could we travel from planet to planet, and from system to

system, in order to examine each part of this mighty fabric? Any one of

these four principles above mentioned, (and a hundred others which lie

open to our conjecture,) may afford us a theory by which to judge of the

origin of the world; and it is a palpable and egregious partiality to

confine our view entirely to that principle by which our own minds

operate. Were this principle more intelligible on that account, such a

partiality might be somewhat excusable: But reason, in its internal

fabric and structure, is really as little known to us as instinct or

vegetation; and, perhaps, even that vague, indeterminate word, Nature, to

which the vulgar refer every thing, is not at the bottom more

inexplicable. The effects of these principles are all known to us from

experience; but the principles themselves, and their manner of operation,

are totally unknown; nor is it less intelligible, or less conformable to

experience, to say, that the world arose by vegetation, from a seed shed

by another world, than to say that it arose from a divine reason or

contrivance, according to the sense in which CLEANTHES understands it.

But methinks, said DEMEA, if the world had a vegetative quality, and

could sow the seeds of new worlds into the infinite chaos, this power

would be still an additional argument for design in its author. For

whence could arise so wonderful a faculty but from design? Or how can

order spring from any thing which perceives not that order which it


You need only look around you, replied PHILO, to satisfy yourself with

regard to this question. A tree bestows order and organisation on that

tree which springs from it, without knowing the order; an animal in the

same manner on its offspring; a bird on its nest; and instances of this

kind are even more frequent in the world than those of order, which arise

from reason and contrivance. To say, that all this order in animals and

vegetables proceeds ultimately from design, is begging the question; nor

can that great point be ascertained otherwise than by proving, a priori,

both that order is, from its nature, inseparably attached to thought; and

that it can never of itself, or from original unknown principles, belong

to matter.

But further, DEMEA; this objection which you urge can never be made use

of by CLEANTHES, without renouncing a defence which he has already made

against one of my objections. When I inquired concerning the cause of

that supreme reason and intelligence into which he resolves every thing;

he told me, that the impossibility of satisfying such inquiries could

never be admitted as an objection in any species of philosophy. "We must

stop somewhere", says he; "nor is it ever within the reach of human

capacity to explain ultimate causes, or show the last connections of any

objects. It is sufficient, if any steps, so far as we go, are supported

by experience and observation." Now, that vegetation and generation, as

well as reason, are experienced to be principles of order in nature, is

undeniable. If I rest my system of cosmogony on the former, preferably to

the latter, it is at my choice. The matter seems entirely arbitrary. And

when CLEANTHES asks me what is the cause of my great vegetative or

generative faculty, I am equally entitled to ask him the cause of his

great reasoning principle. These questions we have agreed to forbear on

both sides; and it is chiefly his interest on the present occasion to

stick to this agreement. Judging by our limited and imperfect experience,

generation has some privileges above reason: for we see every day the

latter arise from the former, never the former from the latter.

Compare, I beseech you, the consequences on both sides. The world, say I,

resembles an animal; therefore it is an animal, therefore it arose from

generation. The steps, I confess, are wide; yet there is some small

appearance of analogy in each step. The world, says CLEANTHES, resembles

a machine; therefore it is a machine, therefore it arose from design. The

steps are here equally wide, and the analogy less striking. And if he

pretends to carry on my hypothesis a step further, and to infer design or

reason from the great principle of generation, on which I insist; I may,

with better authority, use the same freedom to push further his

hypothesis, and infer a divine generation or theogony from his principle

of reason. I have at least some faint shadow of experience, which is the

utmost that can ever be attained in the present subject. Reason, in

innumerable instances, is observed to arise from the principle of

generation, and never to arise from any other principle.

HESIOD, and all the ancient mythologists, were so struck with this

analogy, that they universally explained the origin of nature from an

animal birth, and copulation. PLATO too, so far as he is intelligible,

seems to have adopted some such notion in his TIMAEUS.

The BRAHMINS assert, that the world arose from an infinite spider, who

spun this whole complicated mass from his bowels, and annihilates

afterwards the whole or any part of it, by absorbing it again, and

resolving it into his own essence. Here is a species of cosmogony, which

appears to us ridiculous; because a spider is a little contemptible

animal, whose operations we are never likely to take for a model of the

whole universe. But still here is a new species of analogy, even in our

globe. And were there a planet wholly inhabited by spiders, (which is

very possible,) this inference would there appear as natural and

irrefragable as that which in our planet ascribes the origin of all

things to design and intelligence, as explained by CLEANTHES. Why an

orderly system may not be spun from the belly as well as from the brain,

it will be difficult for him to give a satisfactory reason.

I must confess, PHILO, replied CLEANTHES, that of all men living, the

task which you have undertaken, of raising doubts and objections, suits

you best, and seems, in a manner, natural and unavoidable to you. So

great is your fertility of invention, that I am not ashamed to

acknowledge myself unable, on a sudden, to solve regularly such

out-of-the-way difficulties as you incessantly start upon me: though I

clearly see, in general, their fallacy and error. And I question not, but

you are yourself, at present, in the same case, and have not the solution

so ready as the objection: while you must be sensible, that common sense

and reason are entirely against you; and that such whimsies as you have

delivered, may puzzle, but never can convince us.







What you ascribe to the fertility of my invention, replied PHILO, is

entirely owing to the nature of the subject. In subjects adapted to the

narrow compass of human reason, there is commonly but one determination,

which carries probability or conviction with it; and to a man of sound

judgement, all other suppositions, but that one, appear entirely absurd

and chimerical. But in such questions as the present, a hundred

contradictory views may preserve a kind of imperfect analogy; and

invention has here full scope to exert itself. Without any great effort

of thought, I believe that I could, in an instant, propose other systems

of cosmogony, which would have some faint appearance of truth, though it

is a thousand, a million to one, if either yours or any one of mine be

the true system.

For instance, what if I should revive the old EPICUREAN hypothesis? This

is commonly, and I believe justly, esteemed the most absurd system that

has yet been proposed; yet I know not whether, with a few alterations, it

might not be brought to bear a faint appearance of probability. Instead

of supposing matter infinite, as EPICURUS did, let us suppose it finite.

A finite number of particles is only susceptible of finite transpositions:

and it must happen, in an eternal duration, that every possible order or

position must be tried an infinite number of times. This world, therefore,

with all its events, even the most minute, has before been produced and

destroyed, and will again be produced and destroyed, without any bounds

and limitations. No one, who has a conception of the powers of infinite,

in comparison of finite, will ever scruple this determination.

But this supposes, said DEMEA, that matter can acquire motion, without

any voluntary agent or first mover.

And where is the difficulty, replied PHILO, of that supposition? Every

event, before experience, is equally difficult and incomprehensible; and

every event, after experience, is equally easy and intelligible. Motion,

in many instances, from gravity, from elasticity, from electricity,

begins in matter, without any known voluntary agent: and to suppose

always, in these cases, an unknown voluntary agent, is mere hypothesis;

and hypothesis attended with no advantages. The beginning of motion in

matter itself is as conceivable a priori as its communication from mind

and intelligence.

Besides, why may not motion have been propagated by impulse through all

eternity, and the same stock of it, or nearly the same, be still upheld

in the universe? As much is lost by the composition of motion, as much is

gained by its resolution. And whatever the causes are, the fact is

certain, that matter is, and always has been, in continual agitation, as

far as human experience or tradition reaches. There is not probably, at

present, in the whole universe, one particle of matter at absolute rest.

And this very consideration too, continued PHILO, which we have stumbled

on in the course of the argument, suggests a new hypothesis of cosmogony,

that is not absolutely absurd and improbable. Is there a system, an

order, an economy of things, by which matter can preserve that perpetual

agitation which seems essential to it, and yet maintain a constancy in

the forms which it produces? There certainly is such an economy; for this

is actually the case with the present world. The continual motion of

matter, therefore, in less than infinite transpositions, must produce

this economy or order; and by its very nature, that order, when once

established, supports itself, for many ages, if not to eternity. But

wherever matter is so poised, arranged, and adjusted, as to continue in

perpetual motion, and yet preserve a constancy in the forms, its

situation must, of necessity, have all the same appearance of art and

contrivance which we observe at present. All the parts of each form must

have a relation to each other, and to the whole; and the whole itself

must have a relation to the other parts of the universe; to the element

in which the form subsists; to the materials with which it repairs its

waste and decay; and to every other form which is hostile or friendly. A

defect in any of these particulars destroys the form; and the matter of

which it is composed is again set loose, and is thrown into irregular

motions and fermentations, till it unite itself to some other regular

form. If no such form be prepared to receive it, and if there be a great

quantity of this corrupted matter in the universe, the universe itself is

entirely disordered; whether it be the feeble embryo of a world in its

first beginnings that is thus destroyed, or the rotten carcass of one

languishing in old age and infirmity. In either case, a chaos ensues;

till finite, though innumerable revolutions produce at last some forms,

whose parts and organs are so adjusted as to support the forms amidst a

continued succession of matter.

Suppose (for we shall endeavour to vary the expression), that matter were

thrown into any position, by a blind, unguided force; it is evident that

this first position must, in all probability, be the most confused and

most disorderly imaginable, without any resemblance to those works of

human contrivance, which, along with a symmetry of parts, discover an

adjustment of means to ends, and a tendency to self-preservation. If the

actuating force cease after this operation, matter must remain for ever

in disorder, and continue an immense chaos, without any proportion or

activity. But suppose that the actuating force, whatever it be, still

continues in matter, this first position will immediately give place to a

second, which will likewise in all probability be as disorderly as the

first, and so on through many successions of changes and revolutions. No

particular order or position ever continues a moment unaltered. The

original force, still remaining in activity, gives a perpetual

restlessness to matter. Every possible situation is produced, and

instantly destroyed. If a glimpse or dawn of order appears for a moment,

it is instantly hurried away, and confounded, by that never-ceasing force

which actuates every part of matter.

Thus the universe goes on for many ages in a continued succession of

chaos and disorder. But is it not possible that it may settle at last, so

as not to lose its motion and active force (for that we have supposed

inherent in it), yet so as to preserve an uniformity of appearance,

amidst the continual motion and fluctuation of its parts? This we find to

be the case with the universe at present. Every individual is perpetually

changing, and every part of every individual; and yet the whole remains,

in appearance, the same. May we not hope for such a position, or rather

be assured of it, from the eternal revolutions of unguided matter; and

may not this account for all the appearing wisdom and contrivance which

is in the universe? Let us contemplate the subject a little, and we shall

find, that this adjustment, if attained by matter of a seeming stability

in the forms, with a real and perpetual revolution or motion of parts,

affords a plausible, if not a true solution of the difficulty.

It is in vain, therefore, to insist upon the uses of the parts in animals

or vegetables, and their curious adjustment to each other. I would fain

know, how an animal could subsist, unless its parts were so adjusted? Do

we not find, that it immediately perishes whenever this adjustment

ceases, and that its matter corrupting tries some new form? It happens

indeed, that the parts of the world are so well adjusted, that some

regular form immediately lays claim to this corrupted matter: and if it

were not so, could the world subsist? Must it not dissolve as well as the

animal, and pass through new positions and situations, till in great, but

finite succession, it falls at last into the present or some such order?

It is well, replied CLEANTHES, you told us, that this hypothesis was

suggested on a sudden, in the course of the argument. Had you had leisure

to examine it, you would soon have perceived the insuperable objections

to which it is exposed. No form, you say, can subsist, unless it possess

those powers and organs requisite for its subsistence: some new order or

economy must be tried, and so on, without intermission; till at last some

order, which can support and maintain itself, is fallen upon. But

according to this hypothesis, whence arise the many conveniences and

advantages which men and all animals possess? Two eyes, two ears, are not

absolutely necessary for the subsistence of the species. Human race might

have been propagated and preserved, without horses, dogs, cows, sheep,

and those innumerable fruits and products which serve to our satisfaction

and enjoyment. If no camels had been created for the use of man in the

sandy deserts of AFRICA and ARABIA, would the world have been dissolved?

If no lodestone had been framed to give that wonderful and useful

direction to the needle, would human society and the human kind have been

immediately extinguished? Though the maxims of Nature be in general very

frugal, yet instances of this kind are far from being rare; and any one

of them is a sufficient proof of design, and of a benevolent design,

which gave rise to the order and arrangement of the universe.

At least, you may safely infer, said PHILO, that the foregoing hypothesis

is so far incomplete and imperfect, which I shall not scruple to allow.

But can we ever reasonably expect greater success in any attempts of this

nature? Or can we ever hope to erect a system of cosmogony, that will be

liable to no exceptions, and will contain no circumstance repugnant to

our limited and imperfect experience of the analogy of Nature? Your

theory itself cannot surely pretend to any such advantage, even though

you have run into Anthropomorphism, the better to preserve a conformity

to common experience. Let us once more put it to trial. In all instances

which we have ever seen, ideas are copied from real objects, and are

ectypal, not archetypal, to express myself in learned terms: You reverse

this order, and give thought the precedence. In all instances which we

have ever seen, thought has no influence upon matter, except where that

matter is so conjoined with it as to have an equal reciprocal influence

upon it. No animal can move immediately any thing but the members of its

own body; and indeed, the equality of action and reaction seems to be an

universal law of nature: But your theory implies a contradiction to this

experience. These instances, with many more, which it were easy to

collect, (particularly the supposition of a mind or system of thought

that is eternal, or, in other words, an animal ingenerable and immortal);

these instances, I say, may teach all of us sobriety in condemning each

other, and let us see, that as no system of this kind ought ever to be

received from a slight analogy, so neither ought any to be rejected on

account of a small incongruity. For that is an inconvenience from which

we can justly pronounce no one to be exempted.

All religious systems, it is confessed, are subject to great and

insuperable difficulties. Each disputant triumphs in his turn; while he

carries on an offensive war, and exposes the absurdities, barbarities,

and pernicious tenets of his antagonist. But all of them, on the whole,

prepare a complete triumph for the Sceptic; who tells them, that no

system ought ever to be embraced with regard to such subjects: For this

plain reason, that no absurdity ought ever to be assented to with regard

to any subject. A total suspense of judgement is here our only reasonable

resource. And if every attack, as is commonly observed, and no defence,

among Theologians, is successful; how complete must be his victory, who

remains always, with all mankind, on the offensive, and has himself no

fixed station or abiding city, which he is ever, on any occasion, obliged

to defend?







But if so many difficulties attend the argument a posteriori, said DEMEA,

had we not better adhere to that simple and sublime argument a priori,

which, by offering to us infallible demonstration, cuts off at once all

doubt and difficulty? By this argument, too, we may prove the infinity of

the Divine attributes, which, I am afraid, can never be ascertained with

certainty from any other topic. For how can an effect, which either is

finite, or, for aught we know, may be so; how can such an effect, I say,

prove an infinite cause? The unity too of the Divine Nature, it is very

difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to deduce merely from

contemplating the works of nature; nor will the uniformity alone of the

plan, even were it allowed, give us any assurance of that attribute.

Whereas the argument a priori ...

You seem to reason, DEMEA, interposed CLEANTHES, as if those advantages

and conveniences in the abstract argument were full proofs of its

solidity. But it is first proper, in my opinion, to determine what

argument of this nature you choose to insist on; and we shall afterwards,

from itself, better than from its useful consequences, endeavour to

determine what value we ought to put upon it.

The argument, replied DEMEA, which I would insist on, is the common one.

Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence; it being

absolutely impossible for any thing to produce itself, or be the cause of

its own existence. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we

must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate

cause at all; or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that

is necessarily existent: Now, that the first supposition is absurd, may

be thus proved. In the infinite chain or succession of causes and

effects, each single effect is determined to exist by the power and

efficacy of that cause which immediately preceded; but the whole eternal

chain or succession, taken together, is not determined or caused by any

thing; and yet it is evident that it requires a cause or reason, as much

as any particular object which begins to exist in time. The question is

still reasonable, why this particular succession of causes existed from

eternity, and not any other succession, or no succession at all. If there

be no necessarily existent being, any supposition which can be formed is

equally possible; nor is there any more absurdity in Nothing’s having

existed from eternity, than there is in that succession of causes which

constitutes the universe. What was it, then, which determined Something

to exist rather than Nothing, and bestowed being on a particular

possibility, exclusive of the rest? External causes, there are supposed

to be none. Chance is a word without a meaning. Was it Nothing? But that

can never produce any thing. We must, therefore, have recourse to a

necessarily existent Being, who carries the REASON of his existence in

himself, and who cannot be supposed not to exist, without an express

contradiction. There is, consequently, such a Being; that is, there is a


I shall not leave it to PHILO, said CLEANTHES, though I know that the

starting objections is his chief delight, to point out the weakness of

this metaphysical reasoning. It seems to me so obviously ill-grounded,

and at the same time of so little consequence to the cause of true piety

and religion, that I shall myself venture to show the fallacy of it.

I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in

pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any

arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies

a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a

contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as

non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a

contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is

demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am

willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.

It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent being; and this

necessity of his existence is attempted to be explained by asserting,

that if we knew his whole essence or nature, we should perceive it to be

as impossible for him not to exist, as for twice two not to be four. But

it is evident that this can never happen, while our faculties remain the

same as at present. It will still be possible for us, at any time, to

conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to exist; nor

can the mind ever lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain

always in being; in the same manner as we lie under a necessity of always

conceiving twice two to be four. The words, therefore, necessary

existence, have no meaning; or, which is the same thing, none that is


But further, why may not the material universe be the necessarily

existent Being, according to this pretended explication of necessity? We

dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter; and for aught

we can determine, it may contain some qualities, which, were they known,

would make its non-existence appear as great a contradiction as that

twice two is five. I find only one argument employed to prove, that the

material world is not the necessarily existent Being: and this argument

is derived from the contingency both of the matter and the form of the

world. "Any particle of matter," it is said[]Dr. Clarke, "may be conceived

to be annihilated; and any form may be conceived to be altered. Such an

annihilation or alteration, therefore, is not impossible." But it seems

a great partiality not to perceive, that the same argument extends

equally to the Deity, so far as we have any conception of him; and that

the mind can at least imagine him to be non-existent, or his attributes

to be altered. It must be some unknown, inconceivable qualities, which

can make his non-existence appear impossible, or his attributes

unalterable: And no reason can be assigned, why these qualities may not

belong to matter. As they are altogether unknown and inconceivable, they

can never be proved incompatible with it.

Add to this, that in tracing an eternal succession of objects, it seems

absurd to inquire for a general cause or first author. How can any thing,

that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a

priority in time, and a beginning of existence?

In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by

that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is

the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the

uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct

countries into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is

performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on

the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each

individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think

it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of

the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause

of the parts.

Though the reasonings which you have urged, CLEANTHES, may well excuse

me, said PHILO, from starting any further difficulties, yet I cannot

forbear insisting still upon another topic. It is observed by

arithmeticians, that the products of 9, compose always either 9, or some

lesser product of 9, if you add together all the characters of which any

of the former products is composed. Thus, of 18, 27, 36, which are

products of 9, you make 9 by adding 1 to 8, 2 to 7, 3 to 6. Thus, 369 is

a product also of 9; and if you add 3, 6, and 9, you make 18, a lesser

product of 9. To a superficial observer, so wonderful a regularity may

be admired as the effect either of chance or design: but a skilful

algebraist immediately concludes it to be the work of necessity, and

demonstrates, that it must for ever result from the nature of these

numbers. Is it not probable, I ask, that the whole economy of the

universe is conducted by a like necessity, though no human algebra can

furnish a key which solves the difficulty? And instead of admiring the

order of natural beings, may it not happen, that, could we penetrate into

the intimate nature of bodies, we should clearly see why it was

absolutely impossible they could ever admit of any other disposition? So

dangerous is it to introduce this idea of necessity into the present

question! and so naturally does it afford an inference directly opposite

to the religious hypothesis!

But dropping all these abstractions, continued PHILO, and confining

ourselves to more familiar topics, I shall venture to add an observation,

that the argument a priori has seldom been found very convincing, except

to people of a metaphysical head, who have accustomed themselves to

abstract reasoning, and who, finding from mathematics, that the

understanding frequently leads to truth through obscurity, and, contrary

to first appearances, have transferred the same habit of thinking to

subjects where it ought not to have place. Other people, even of good

sense and the best inclined to religion, feel always some deficiency in

such arguments, though they are not perhaps able to explain distinctly

where it lies; a certain proof that men ever did, and ever will derive

their religion from other sources than from this species of reasoning.







It is my opinion, I own, replied DEMEA, that each man feels, in a manner,

the truth of religion within his own breast, and, from a consciousness of

his imbecility and misery, rather than from any reasoning, is led to seek

protection from that Being, on whom he and all nature is dependent. So

anxious or so tedious are even the best scenes of life, that futurity is

still the object of all our hopes and fears. We incessantly look forward,

and endeavour, by prayers, adoration, and sacrifice, to appease those

unknown powers, whom we find, by experience, so able to afflict and

oppress us. Wretched creatures that we are! what resource for us amidst

the innumerable ills of life, did not religion suggest some methods of

atonement, and appease those terrors with which we are incessantly

agitated and tormented?

I am indeed persuaded, said PHILO, that the best, and indeed the only

method of bringing every one to a due sense of religion, is by just

representations of the misery and wickedness of men. And for that purpose

a talent of eloquence and strong imagery is more requisite than that of

reasoning and argument. For is it necessary to prove what every one feels

within himself? It is only necessary to make us feel it, if possible,

more intimately and sensibly.

The people, indeed, replied DEMEA, are sufficiently convinced of this

great and melancholy truth. The miseries of life; the unhappiness of man;

the general corruptions of our nature; the unsatisfactory enjoyment of

pleasures, riches, honours; these phrases have become almost proverbial

in all languages. And who can doubt of what all men declare from their

own immediate feeling and experience?

In this point, said PHILO, the learned are perfectly agreed with the

vulgar; and in all letters, sacred and profane, the topic of human misery

has been insisted on with the most pathetic eloquence that sorrow and

melancholy could inspire. The poets, who speak from sentiment, without a

system, and whose testimony has therefore the more authority, abound in

images of this nature. From Homer down to Dr. Young, the whole inspired

tribe have ever been sensible, that no other representation of things

would suit the feeling and observation of each individual.

As to authorities, replied DEMEA, you need not seek them. Look round this

library of CLEANTHES. I shall venture to affirm, that, except authors of

particular sciences, such as chemistry or botany, who have no occasion to

treat of human life, there is scarce one of those innumerable writers,

from whom the sense of human misery has not, in some passage or other,

extorted a complaint and confession of it. At least, the chance is

entirely on that side; and no one author has ever, so far as I can

recollect, been so extravagant as to deny it.

There you must excuse me, said PHILO: LEIBNIZ has denied it; and is

perhaps the first [That sentiment had been maintained by Dr. King and some

few others before Leibniz; though by none of so great a fame as that

German philosopher] who ventured upon so bold and paradoxical an opinion;

at least, the first who made it essential to his philosophical system.

And by being the first, replied DEMEA, might he not have been sensible of

his error? For is this a subject in which philosophers can propose to

make discoveries especially in so late an age? And can any man hope by a

simple denial (for the subject scarcely admits of reasoning), to bear

down the united testimony of mankind, founded on sense and consciousness?

And why should man, added he, pretend to an exemption from the lot of all

other animals? The whole earth, believe me, PHILO, is cursed and

polluted. A perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures.

Necessity, hunger, want, stimulate the strong and courageous: Fear,

anxiety, terror, agitate the weak and infirm. The first entrance into

life gives anguish to the new-born infant and to its wretched parent:

Weakness, impotence, distress, attend each stage of that life: and it is

at last finished in agony and horror.

Observe too, says PHILO, the curious artifices of Nature, in order to

embitter the life of every living being. The stronger prey upon the

weaker, and keep them in perpetual terror and anxiety. The weaker too, in

their turn, often prey upon the stronger, and vex and molest them without

relaxation. Consider that innumerable race of insects, which either are

bred on the body of each animal, or, flying about, infix their stings in

him. These insects have others still less than themselves, which torment

them. And thus on each hand, before and behind, above and below, every

animal is surrounded with enemies, which incessantly seek his misery and


Man alone, said DEMEA, seems to be, in part, an exception to this rule.

For by combination in society, he can easily master lions, tigers, and

bears, whose greater strength and agility naturally enable them to prey

upon him.

On the contrary, it is here chiefly, cried PHILO, that the uniform and

equal maxims of Nature are most apparent. Man, it is true, can, by

combination, surmount all his real enemies, and become master of the

whole animal creation: but does he not immediately raise up to himself

imaginary enemies, the demons of his fancy, who haunt him with

superstitious terrors, and blast every enjoyment of life? His pleasure,

as he imagines, becomes, in their eyes, a crime: his food and repose give

them umbrage and offence: his very sleep and dreams furnish new materials

to anxious fear: and even death, his refuge from every other ill,

presents only the dread of endless and innumerable woes. Nor does the

wolf molest more the timid flock, than superstition does the anxious

breast of wretched mortals.

Besides, consider, DEMEA: This very society, by which we surmount those

wild beasts, our natural enemies; what new enemies does it not raise to

us? What woe and misery does it not occasion? Man is the greatest enemy

of man. Oppression, injustice, contempt, contumely, violence, sedition,

war, calumny, treachery, fraud; by these they mutually torment each

other; and they would soon dissolve that society which they had formed,

were it not for the dread of still greater ills, which must attend their


But though these external insults, said DEMEA, from animals, from men,

from all the elements, which assault us, form a frightful catalogue of

woes, they are nothing in comparison of those which arise within

ourselves, from the distempered condition of our mind and body. How many

lie under the lingering torment of diseases? Hear the pathetic

enumeration of the great poet.


Intestine stone and ulcer, colic-pangs,

Demoniac frenzy, moping melancholy,

And moon-struck madness, pining atrophy,

Marasmus, and wide-wasting pestilence.

Dire was the tossing, deep the groans: despair

Tended the sick, busiest from couch to couch.

And over them triumphant death his dart

Shook: but delay’d to strike, though oft invok’d

With vows, as their chief good and final hope.


The disorders of the mind, continued DEMEA, though more secret, are not

perhaps less dismal and vexatious. Remorse, shame, anguish, rage,

disappointment, anxiety, fear, dejection, despair; who has ever passed

through life without cruel inroads from these tormentors? How many have

scarcely ever felt any better sensations? Labour and poverty, so abhorred

by every one, are the certain lot of the far greater number; and those

few privileged persons, who enjoy ease 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 almost (and who can be free from every one?) nay often

the absence of one good (and who can possess all?) is sufficient to

render life ineligible.

Were a stranger to drop on a sudden into this world, I would show him, as

a specimen of its ills, a hospital full of diseases, a prison crowded

with malefactors and debtors, a field of battle strewed with carcasses, a

fleet foundering in the ocean, a nation languishing under tyranny,

famine, or pestilence. To turn the gay side of life to him, and give him

a notion of its pleasures; whither should I conduct him? to a ball, to an

opera, to court? He might justly think, that I was only showing him a

diversity of distress and sorrow.

There is no evading such striking instances, said PHILO, but by

apologies, which still further aggravate the charge. Why have all men, I

ask, in all ages, complained incessantly of the miseries of life?...

They have no just reason, says one: these complaints proceed only from

their discontented, repining, anxious disposition...And can there

possibly, I reply, be a more certain foundation of misery, than such a

wretched temper?

But if they were really as unhappy as they pretend, says my antagonist,

why do they remain in life?...

Not satisfied with life, afraid of death.

This is the secret chain, say I, that holds us. We are terrified, not bribed to the continuance of our existence.

It is only a false delicacy, he may insist, which a few refined spirits

indulge, and which has spread these complaints among the whole race of

mankind. . . . And what is this delicacy, I ask, which you blame? Is it

any thing but a greater sensibility to all the pleasures and pains of

life? and if the man of a delicate, refined temper, by being so much more

alive than the rest of the world, is only so much more unhappy, what

judgement must we form in general of human life?

Let men remain at rest, says our adversary, and they will be easy. They

are willing artificers of their own misery. . . . No! reply I: an anxious

languor follows their repose; disappointment, vexation, trouble, their

activity and ambition.

I can observe something like what you mention in some others, replied

CLEANTHES: but I confess I feel little or nothing of it in myself, and

hope that it is not so common as you represent it.

If you feel not human misery yourself, cried DEMEA, I congratulate you on

so happy a singularity. Others, seemingly the most prosperous, have not

been ashamed to vent their complaints in the most melancholy strains. Let

us attend to the great, the fortunate emperor, CHARLES V, when, tired

with human grandeur, he resigned all his extensive dominions into the

hands of his son. In the last harangue which he made on that memorable

occasion, he publicly avowed, that the greatest prosperities which he had

ever enjoyed, had been mixed with so many adversities, that he might

truly say he had never enjoyed any satisfaction or contentment. But did

the retired life, in which he sought for shelter, afford him any greater

happiness? If we may credit his son’s account, his repentance commenced

the very day of his resignation.

CICERO’s fortune, from small beginnings, rose to the greatest lustre and

renown; yet what pathetic complaints of the ills of life do his familiar

letters, as well as philosophical discourses, contain? And suitably to

his own experience, he introduces CATO, the great, the fortunate CATO,

protesting in his old age, that had he a new life in his offer, he would

reject the present.

Ask yourself, ask any of your acquaintance, whether they would live over

again the last ten or twenty years of their life. No! but the next

twenty, they say, will be better:


And from the dregs of life, hope to receive

What the first sprightly running could not give.


Thus at last they find (such is the greatness of human misery, it

reconciles even contradictions), that they complain at once of the

shortness of life, and of its vanity and sorrow.

And is it possible, CLEANTHES, said PHILO, that after all these

reflections, and infinitely more, which might be suggested, you can still

persevere in your Anthropomorphism, and assert the moral attributes of

the Deity, his justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude, to be of the

same nature with these virtues in human creatures? His power we allow is

infinite: whatever he wills is executed: but neither man nor any other

animal is happy: therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom

is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But

the course of Nature tends not to human or animal felicity: therefore it

is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human

knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than

these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the

benevolence and mercy of men?

EPICURUS’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil,

but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he

malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

You ascribe, CLEANTHES (and I believe justly), a purpose and intention to

Nature. But what, I beseech you, is the object of that curious artifice

and machinery, which she has displayed in all animals? The preservation

alone of individuals, and propagation of the species. It seems enough for

her purpose, if such a rank be barely upheld in the universe, without any

care or concern for the happiness of the members that compose it. No

resource for this purpose: no machinery, in order merely to give pleasure

or ease: no fund of pure joy and contentment: no indulgence, without some

want or necessity accompanying it. At least, the few phenomena of this

nature are overbalanced by opposite phenomena of still greater importance.

Our sense of music, harmony, and indeed beauty of all kinds, gives

satisfaction, without being absolutely necessary to the preservation and

propagation of the species. But what racking pains, on the other hand,

arise from gouts, gravels, megrims, toothaches, rheumatisms, where the

injury to the animal machinery is either small or incurable? Mirth,

laughter, play, frolic, seem gratuitous satisfactions, which have no

further tendency: spleen, melancholy, discontent, superstition, are pains

of the same nature. How then does the Divine benevolence display itself,

in the sense of you Anthropomorphites? None but we Mystics, as you were

pleased to call us, can account for this strange mixture of phenomena, by

deriving it from attributes, infinitely perfect, but incomprehensible.

And have you at last, said CLEANTHES smiling, betrayed your intentions,

PHILO? Your long agreement with DEMEA did indeed a little surprise me;

but I find you were all the while erecting a concealed battery against

me. And I must confess, that you have now fallen upon a subject worthy of

your noble spirit of opposition and controversy. If you can make out the

present point, and prove mankind to be unhappy or corrupted, there is an

end at once of all religion. For to what purpose establish the natural

attributes of the Deity, while the moral are still doubtful and


You take umbrage very easily, replied DEMEA, at opinions the most

innocent, and the most generally received, even amongst the religious and

devout themselves: and nothing can be more surprising than to find a

topic like this, concerning the wickedness and misery of man, charged

with no less than Atheism and profaneness. Have not all pious divines and

preachers, who have indulged their rhetoric on so fertile a subject; have

they not easily, I say, given a solution of any difficulties which may

attend it? This world is but a point in comparison of the universe; this

life but a moment in comparison of eternity. The present evil phenomena,

therefore, are rectified in other regions, and in some future period of

existence. And the eyes of men, being then opened to larger views of

things, see the whole connection of general laws; and trace with

adoration, the benevolence and rectitude of the Deity, through all the

mazes and intricacies of his providence.

No! replied CLEANTHES, No! These arbitrary suppositions can never be

admitted, contrary to matter of fact, visible and uncontroverted. Whence

can any cause be known but from its known effects? Whence can any

hypothesis be proved but from the apparent phenomena? To establish one

hypothesis upon another, is building entirely in the air; and the utmost

we ever attain, by these conjectures and fictions, is to ascertain the

bare possibility of our opinion; but never can we, upon such terms,

establish its reality.

The only method of supporting Divine benevolence, and it is what I

willingly embrace, is to deny absolutely the misery and wickedness of

man. Your representations are exaggerated; your melancholy views mostly

fictitious; your inferences contrary to fact and experience. Health is

more common than sickness; pleasure than pain; happiness than misery. And

for one vexation which we meet with, we attain, upon computation, a

hundred enjoyments.

Admitting your position, replied PHILO, which yet is extremely doubtful,

you must at the same time allow, that if pain be less frequent than

pleasure, it is infinitely more violent and durable. One hour of it is

often able to outweigh a day, a week, a month of our common insipid

enjoyments; and how many days, weeks, and months, are passed by several

in the most acute torments? Pleasure, scarcely in one instance, is ever

able to reach ecstasy and rapture; and in no one instance can it continue

for any time at its highest pitch and altitude. The spirits evaporate,

the nerves relax, the fabric is disordered, and the enjoyment quickly

degenerates into fatigue and uneasiness. But pain often, good God, how

often! rises to torture and agony; and the longer it continues, it

becomes still more genuine agony and torture. Patience is exhausted,

courage languishes, melancholy seizes us, and nothing terminates our

misery but the removal of its cause, or another event, which is the sole

cure of all evil, but which, from our natural folly, we regard with still

greater horror and consternation.

But not to insist upon these topics, continued PHILO, though most

obvious, certain, and important; I must use the freedom to admonish you,

CLEANTHES, that you have put the controversy upon a most dangerous issue,

and are unawares introducing a total scepticism into the most essential

articles of natural and revealed theology. What! no method of fixing a

just foundation for religion, unless we allow the happiness of human

life, and maintain a continued existence even in this world, with all our

present pains, infirmities, vexations, and follies, to be eligible and

desirable! But this is contrary to every one’s feeling and experience: It

is contrary to an authority so established as nothing can subvert. No

decisive proofs can ever be produced against this authority; nor is it

possible for you to compute, estimate, and compare, all the pains and all

the pleasures in the lives of all men and of all animals: And thus, by

your resting the whole system of religion on a point, which, from its

very nature, must for ever be uncertain, you tacitly confess, that that

system is equally uncertain.

But allowing you what never will be believed, at least what you never

possibly can prove, that animal, or at least human happiness, in this

life, exceeds its misery, you have yet done nothing: For this is not, by

any means, what we expect from infinite power, infinite wisdom, and

infinite goodness. Why is there any misery at all in the world? Not by

chance surely. From some cause then. Is it from the intention of the

Deity? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention?

But he is almighty. Nothing can shake the solidity of this reasoning, so

short, so clear, so decisive; except we assert, that these subjects

exceed all human capacity, and that our common measures of truth and

falsehood are not applicable to them; a topic which I have all along

insisted on, but which you have, from the beginning, rejected with scorn

and indignation.

But I will be contented to retire still from this entrenchment, for I

deny that you can ever force me in it. I will allow, that pain or misery

in man is compatible with infinite power and goodness in the Deity, even

in your sense of these attributes: What are you advanced by all these

concessions? A mere possible compatibility is not sufficient. You must

prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present

mixed and confused phenomena, and from these alone. A hopeful

undertaking! Were the phenomena ever so pure and unmixed, yet being

finite, they would be insufficient for that purpose. How much more, where

they are also so jarring and discordant!

Here, CLEANTHES, I find myself at ease in my argument. Here I triumph.

Formerly, when we argued concerning the natural attributes of

intelligence and design, I needed all my sceptical and metaphysical

subtlety to elude your grasp. In many views of the universe, and of its

parts, particularly the latter, the beauty and fitness of final causes

strike us with such irresistible force, that all objections appear (what

I believe they really are) mere cavils and sophisms; nor can we then

imagine how it was ever possible for us to repose any weight on them. But

there is no view of human life, or of the condition of mankind, from

which, without the greatest violence, we can infer the moral attributes,

or learn that infinite benevolence, conjoined with infinite power and

infinite wisdom, which we must discover by the eyes of faith alone. It is

your turn now to tug the labouring oar, and to support your philosophical

subtleties against the dictates of plain reason and experience.







I scruple not to allow, said CLEANTHES, that I have been apt to suspect

the frequent repetition of the word infinite, which we meet with in all

theological writers, to savour more of panegyric than of philosophy; and

that any purposes of reasoning, and even of religion, would be better

served, were we to rest contented with more accurate and more moderate

expressions. The terms, admirable, excellent, superlatively great, wise,

and holy; these sufficiently fill the imaginations of men; and any thing

beyond, besides that it leads into absurdities, has no influence on the

affections or sentiments. Thus, in the present subject, if we abandon all

human analogy, as seems your intention, DEMEA, I am afraid we abandon all

religion, and retain no conception of the great object of our adoration.

If we preserve human analogy, we must for ever find it impossible to

reconcile any mixture of evil in the universe with infinite attributes;

much less can we ever prove the latter from the former. But supposing the

Author of Nature to be finitely perfect, though far exceeding mankind, a

satisfactory account may then be given of natural and moral evil, and

every untoward phenomenon be explained and adjusted. A less evil may then

be chosen, in order to avoid a greater; inconveniences be submitted to,

in order to reach a desirable end; and in a word, benevolence, regulated

by wisdom, and limited by necessity, may produce just such a world as the

present. You, PHILO, who are so prompt at starting views, and

reflections, and analogies, I would gladly hear, at length, without

interruption, your opinion of this new theory; and if it deserve our

attention, we may afterwards, at more leisure, reduce it into form.

My sentiments, replied PHILO, are not worth being made a mystery of; and

therefore, without any ceremony, I shall deliver what occurs to me with

regard to the present subject. It must, I think, be allowed, that if a

very limited intelligence, whom we shall suppose utterly unacquainted

with the universe, were assured, that it were the production of a very

good, wise, and powerful Being, however finite, he would, from his

conjectures, form beforehand a different notion of it from what we find

it to be by experience; nor would he ever imagine, merely from these

attributes of the cause, of which he is informed, that the effect could

be so full of vice and misery and disorder, as it appears in this life.

Supposing now, that this person were brought into the world, still

assured that it was the workmanship of such a sublime and benevolent

Being; he might, perhaps, be surprised at the disappointment; but would

never retract his former belief, if founded on any very solid argument;

since such a limited intelligence must be sensible of his own blindness

and ignorance, and must allow, that there may be many solutions of those

phenomena, which will for ever escape his comprehension. But supposing,

which is the real case with regard to man, that this creature is not

antecedently convinced of a supreme intelligence, benevolent, and

powerful, but is left to gather such a belief from the appearances of

things; this entirely alters the case, nor will he ever find any reason

for such a conclusion. He may be fully convinced of the narrow limits of

his understanding; but this will not help him in forming an inference

concerning the goodness of superior powers, since he must form that

inference from what he knows, not from what he is ignorant of. The more

you exaggerate his weakness and ignorance, the more diffident you render

him, and give him the greater suspicion that such subjects are beyond the

reach of his faculties. You are obliged, therefore, to reason with him

merely from the known phenomena, and to drop every arbitrary supposition

or conjecture.

Did I show you a house or palace, where there was not one apartment

convenient or agreeable; where the windows, doors, fires, passages,

stairs, and the whole economy of the building, were the source of noise,

confusion, fatigue, darkness, and the extremes of heat and cold; you

would certainly blame the contrivance, without any further examination.

The architect would in vain display his subtlety, and prove to you, that

if this door or that window were altered, greater ills would ensue. What

he says may be strictly true: The alteration of one particular, while the

other parts of the building remain, may only augment the inconveniences.

But still you would assert in general, that, if the architect had had

skill and good intentions, he might have formed such a plan of the whole,

and might have adjusted the parts in such a manner, as would have

remedied all or most of these inconveniences. His ignorance, or even your

own ignorance of such a plan, will never convince you of the

impossibility of it. If you find any inconveniences and deformities in

the building, you will always, without entering into any detail, condemn

the architect.

In short, I repeat the question: Is the world, considered in general, and

as it appears to us in this life, different from what a man, or such a

limited being, would, beforehand, expect from a very powerful, wise, and

benevolent Deity? It must be strange prejudice to assert the contrary.

And from thence I conclude, that however consistent the world may be,

allowing certain suppositions and conjectures, with the idea of such a

Deity, it can never afford us an inference concerning his existence. The

consistence is not absolutely denied, only the inference. Conjectures,

especially where infinity is excluded from the Divine attributes, may

perhaps be sufficient to prove a consistence, but can never be

foundations for any inference.

There seem to be four circumstances, on which depend all, or the greatest

part of the ills, that molest sensible creatures; and it is not

impossible but all these circumstances may be necessary and unavoidable.

We know so little beyond common life, or even of common life, that, with

regard to the economy of a universe, there is no conjecture, however

wild, which may not be just; nor any one, however plausible, which may

not be erroneous. All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep

ignorance and obscurity, is to be sceptical, or at least cautious, and

not to admit of any hypothesis whatever, much less of any which is

supported by no appearance of probability. Now, this I assert to be the

case with regard to all the causes of evil, and the circumstances on

which it depends. None of them appear to human reason in the least degree

necessary or unavoidable; nor can we suppose them such, without the

utmost license of imagination.

The first circumstance which introduces evil, is that contrivance or

economy of the animal creation, by which pains, as well as pleasures, are

employed to excite all creatures to action, and make them vigilant in the

great work of self-preservation. Now pleasure alone, in its various

degrees, seems to human understanding sufficient for this purpose. All

animals might be constantly in a state of enjoyment: but when urged by

any of the necessities of nature, such as thirst, hunger, weariness;

instead of pain, they might feel a diminution of pleasure, by which they

might be prompted to seek that object which is necessary to their

subsistence. Men pursue pleasure as eagerly as they avoid pain; at least

they might have been so constituted. It seems, therefore, plainly

possible to carry on the business of life without any pain. Why then is

any animal ever rendered susceptible of such a sensation? If animals can

be free from it an hour, they might enjoy a perpetual exemption from it;

and it required as particular a contrivance of their organs to produce

that feeling, as to endow them with sight, hearing, or any of the senses.

Shall we conjecture, that such a contrivance was necessary, without any

appearance of reason? and shall we build on that conjecture as on the

most certain truth?

But a capacity of pain would not alone produce pain, were it not for the

second circumstance, viz. the conducting of the world by general laws;

and this seems nowise necessary to a very perfect Being. It is true, if

everything were conducted by particular volitions, the course of nature

would be perpetually broken, and no man could employ his reason in the

conduct of life. But might not other particular volitions remedy this

inconvenience? In short, might not the Deity exterminate all ill,

wherever it were to be found; and produce all good, without any

preparation, or long progress of causes and effects?

Besides, we must consider, that, according to the present economy of the

world, the course of nature, though supposed exactly regular, yet to us

appears not so, and many events are uncertain, and many disappoint our

expectations. Health and sickness, calm and tempest, with an infinite

number of other accidents, whose causes are unknown and variable, have a

great influence both on the fortunes of particular persons and on the

prosperity of public societies; and indeed all human life, in a manner,

depends on such accidents. A being, therefore, who knows the secret

springs of the universe, might easily, by particular volitions, turn all

these accidents to the good of mankind, and render the whole world happy,

without discovering himself in any operation. A fleet, whose purposes

were salutary to society, might always meet with a fair wind. Good

princes enjoy sound health and long life. Persons born to power and

authority, be framed with good tempers and virtuous dispositions. A few

such events as these, regularly and wisely conducted, would change the

face of the world; and yet would no more seem to disturb the course of

nature, or confound human conduct, than the present economy of things,

where the causes are secret, and variable, and compounded. Some small

touches given to CALIGULA’s brain in his infancy, might have converted

him into a TRAJAN. One wave, a little higher than the rest, by burying

CAESAR and his fortune in the bottom of the ocean, might have restored

liberty to a considerable part of mankind. There may, for aught we know,

be good reasons why Providence interposes not in this manner; but they

are unknown to us; and though the mere supposition, that such reasons

exist, may be sufficient to save the conclusion concerning the Divine

attributes, yet surely it can never be sufficient to establish that


If every thing in the universe be conducted by general laws, and if

animals be rendered susceptible of pain, it scarcely seems possible but

some ill must arise in the various shocks of matter, and the various

concurrence and opposition of general laws; but this ill would be very

rare, were it not for the third circumstance, which I proposed to

mention, viz. the great frugality with which all powers and faculties are

distributed to every particular being. So well adjusted are the organs

and capacities of all animals, and so well fitted to their preservation,

that, as far as history or tradition reaches, there appears not to be any

single species which has yet been extinguished in the universe. Every

animal has the requisite endowments; but these endowments are bestowed

with so scrupulous an economy, that any considerable diminution must

entirely destroy the creature. Wherever one power is increased, there is

a proportional abatement in the others. Animals which excel in swiftness

are commonly defective in force. Those which possess both are either

imperfect in some of their senses, or are oppressed with the most craving

wants. The human species, whose chief excellency is reason and sagacity,

is of all others the most necessitous, and the most deficient in bodily

advantages; without clothes, without arms, without food, without lodging,

without any convenience of life, except what they owe to their own skill

and industry. In short, nature seems to have formed an exact calculation

of the necessities of her creatures; and, like a rigid master, has

afforded them little more powers or endowments than what are strictly

sufficient to supply those necessities. An indulgent parent would have

bestowed a large stock, in order to guard against accidents, and secure

the happiness and welfare of the creature in the most unfortunate

concurrence of circumstances. Every course of life would not have been so

surrounded with precipices, that the least departure from the true path,

by mistake or necessity, must involve us in misery and ruin. Some

reserve, some fund, would have been provided to ensure happiness; nor

would the powers and the necessities have been adjusted with so rigid an

economy. The Author of Nature is inconceivably powerful: his force is

supposed great, if not altogether inexhaustible: nor is there any reason,

as far as we can judge, to make him observe this strict frugality in his

dealings with his creatures. It would have been better, were his power

extremely limited, to have created fewer animals, and to have endowed

these with more faculties for their happiness and preservation. A builder

is never esteemed prudent, who undertakes a plan beyond what his stock

will enable him to finish.

In order to cure most of the ills of human life, I require not that man

should have the wings of the eagle, the swiftness of the stag, the force

of the ox, the arms of the lion, the scales of the crocodile or

rhinoceros; much less do I demand the sagacity of an angel or cherubim. I

am contented to take an increase in one single power or faculty of his

soul. Let him be endowed with a greater propensity to industry and

labour; a more vigorous spring and activity of mind; a more constant bent

to business and application. Let the whole species possess naturally an

equal diligence with that which many individuals are able to attain by

habit and reflection; and the most beneficial consequences, without any

allay of ill, is the immediate and necessary result of this endowment.

Almost all the moral, as well as natural evils of human life, arise from

idleness; and were our species, by the original constitution of their

frame, exempt from this vice or infirmity, the perfect cultivation of

land, the improvement of arts and manufactures, the exact execution of

every office and duty, immediately follow; and men at once may fully

reach that state of society, which is so imperfectly attained by the best

regulated government. But as industry is a power, and the most valuable

of any, Nature seems determined, suitably to her usual maxims, to bestow

it on men with a very sparing hand; and rather to punish him severely for

his deficiency in it, than to reward him for his attainments. She has so

contrived his frame, that nothing but the most violent necessity can

oblige him to labour; and she employs all his other wants to overcome, at

least in part, the want of diligence, and to endow him with some share of

a faculty of which she has thought fit naturally to bereave him. Here our

demands may be allowed very humble, and therefore the more reasonable. If

we required the endowments of superior penetration and judgement, of a

more delicate taste of beauty, of a nicer sensibility to benevolence and

friendship; we might be told, that we impiously pretend to break the

order of Nature; that we want to exalt ourselves into a higher rank of

being; that the presents which we require, not being suitable to our

state and condition, would only be pernicious to us. But it is hard; I

dare to repeat it, it is hard, that being placed in a world so full of

wants and necessities, where almost every being and element is either our

foe or refuses its assistance ... we should also have our own temper to

struggle with, and should be deprived of that faculty which can alone

fence against these multiplied evils.

The fourth circumstance, whence arises the misery and ill of the

universe, is the inaccurate workmanship of all the springs and principles

of the great machine of nature. It must be acknowledged, that there are

few parts of the universe, which seem not to serve some purpose, and

whose removal would not produce a visible defect and disorder in the

whole. The parts hang all together; nor can one be touched without

affecting the rest, in a greater or less degree. But at the same time, it

must be observed, that none of these parts or principles, however useful,

are so accurately adjusted, as to keep precisely within those bounds in

which their utility consists; but they are, all of them, apt, on every

occasion, to run into the one extreme or the other. One would imagine,

that this grand production had not received the last hand of the maker;

so little finished is every part, and so coarse are the strokes with

which it is executed. Thus, the winds are requisite to convey the vapours

along the surface of the globe, and to assist men in navigation: but how

oft, rising up to tempests and hurricanes, do they become pernicious?

Rains are necessary to nourish all the plants and animals of the earth:

but how often are they defective? how often excessive? Heat is requisite

to all life and vegetation; but is not always found in the due

proportion. On the mixture and secretion of the humours and juices of the

body depend the health and prosperity of the animal: but the parts

perform not regularly their proper function. What more useful than all

the passions of the mind, ambition, vanity, love, anger? But how oft do

they break their bounds, and cause the greatest convulsions in society?

There is nothing so advantageous in the universe, but what frequently

becomes pernicious, by its excess or defect; nor has Nature guarded, with

the requisite accuracy, against all disorder or confusion. The

irregularity is never perhaps so great as to destroy any species; but is

often sufficient to involve the individuals in ruin and misery.

On the concurrence, then, of these four circumstances, does all or the

greatest part of natural evil depend. Were all living creatures incapable

of pain, or were the world administered by particular volitions, evil

never could have found access into the universe: and were animals endowed

with a large stock of powers and faculties, beyond what strict necessity

requires; or were the several springs and principles of the universe so

accurately framed as to preserve always the just temperament and medium;

there must have been very little ill in comparison of what we feel at

present. What then shall we pronounce on this occasion? Shall we say that

these circumstances are not necessary, and that they might easily have

been altered in the contrivance of the universe? This decision seems too

presumptuous for creatures so blind and ignorant. Let us be more modest

in our conclusions. Let us allow, that, if the goodness of the Deity (I

mean a goodness like the human) could be established on any tolerable

reasons a priori, these phenomena, however untoward, would not be

sufficient to subvert that principle; but might easily, in some unknown

manner, be reconcilable to it. But let us still assert, that as this

goodness is not antecedently established, but must be inferred from the

phenomena, there can be no grounds for such an inference, while there are

so many ills in the universe, and while these ills might so easily have

been remedied, as far as human understanding can be allowed to judge on

such a subject. I am Sceptic enough to allow, that the bad appearances,

notwithstanding all my reasonings, may be compatible with such attributes

as you suppose; but surely they can never prove these attributes. Such a

conclusion cannot result from Scepticism, but must arise from the

phenomena, and from our confidence in the reasonings which we deduce from

these phenomena.

Look round this universe. What an immense profusion of beings, animated

and organised, sensible and active! You admire this prodigious variety

and fecundity. But inspect a little more narrowly these living

existences, the only beings worth regarding. How hostile and destructive

to each other! How insufficient all of them for their own happiness! How

contemptible or odious to the spectator! The whole presents nothing but

the idea of a blind Nature, impregnated by a great vivifying principle,

and pouring forth from her lap, without discernment or parental care, her

maimed and abortive children!

Here the MANICHAEAN system occurs as a proper hypothesis to solve the

difficulty: and no doubt, in some respects, it is very specious, and has

more probability than the common hypothesis, by giving a plausible

account of the strange mixture of good and ill which appears in life. But

if we consider, on the other hand, the perfect uniformity and agreement

of the parts of the universe, we shall not discover in it any marks of

the combat of a malevolent with a benevolent being. There is indeed an

opposition of pains and pleasures in the feelings of sensible creatures:

but are not all the operations of Nature carried on by an opposition of

principles, of hot and cold, moist and dry, light and heavy? The true

conclusion is, that the original Source of all things is entirely

indifferent to all these principles; and has no more regard to good above

ill, than to heat above cold, or to drought above moisture, or to light

above heavy.

There may four hypotheses be framed concerning the first causes of the

universe: that they are endowed with perfect goodness; that they have

perfect malice; that they are opposite, and have both goodness and

malice; that they have neither goodness nor malice. Mixed phenomena can

never prove the two former unmixed principles; and the uniformity and

steadiness of general laws seem to oppose the third. The fourth,

therefore, seems by far the most probable.

What I have said concerning natural evil will apply to moral, with little

or no variation; and we have no more reason to infer, that the rectitude

of the Supreme Being resembles human rectitude, than that his benevolence

resembles the human. Nay, it will be thought, that we have still greater

cause to exclude from him moral sentiments, such as we feel them; since

moral evil, in the opinion of many, is much more predominant above moral

good than natural evil above natural good.

But even though this should not be allowed, and though the virtue which

is in mankind should be acknowledged much superior to the vice, yet so

long as there is any vice at all in the universe, it will very much

puzzle you Anthropomorphites, how to account for it. You must assign a

cause for it, without having recourse to the first cause. But as every

effect must have a cause, and that cause another, you must either carry

on the progression in infinitum, or rest on that original principle, who

is the ultimate cause of all things...

Hold! hold! cried DEMEA: Whither does your imagination hurry you? I

joined in alliance with you, in order to prove the incomprehensible

nature of the Divine Being, and refute the principles of CLEANTHES, who

would measure every thing by human rule and standard. But I now find you

running into all the topics of the greatest libertines and infidels, and

betraying that holy cause which you seemingly espoused. Are you secretly,

then, a more dangerous enemy than CLEANTHES himself?

And are you so late in perceiving it? replied CLEANTHES. Believe me,

DEMEA, your friend PHILO, from the beginning, has been amusing himself at

both our expense; and it must be confessed, that the injudicious

reasoning of our vulgar theology has given him but too just a handle of

ridicule. The total infirmity of human reason, the absolute

incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, the great and universal misery,

and still greater wickedness of men; these are strange topics, surely, to

be so fondly cherished by orthodox divines and doctors. In ages of

stupidity and ignorance, indeed, these principles may safely be espoused;

and perhaps no views of things are more proper to promote superstition,

than such as encourage the blind amazement, the diffidence, and

melancholy of mankind. But at present...

Blame not so much, interposed PHILO, the ignorance of these reverend

gentlemen. They know how to change their style with the times. Formerly

it was a most popular theological topic to maintain, that human life was

vanity and misery, and to exaggerate all the ills and pains which are

incident to men. But of late years, divines, we find, begin to retract

this position; and maintain, though still with some hesitation, that

there are more goods than evils, more pleasures than pains, even in this

life. When religion stood entirely upon temper and education, it was

thought proper to encourage melancholy; as indeed mankind never have

recourse to superior powers so readily as in that disposition. But as men

have now learned to form principles, and to draw consequences, it is

necessary to change the batteries, and to make use of such arguments as

will endure at least some scrutiny and examination. This variation is the

same (and from the same causes) with that which I formerly remarked with

regard to Scepticism.

Thus PHILO continued to the last his spirit of opposition, and his censure

of established opinions. But I could observe that DEMEA did not at all

relish the latter part of the discourse; and he took occasion soon after,

on some pretence or other, to leave the company.







After DEMEA’s departure, CLEANTHES and PHILO continued the conversation

in the following manner. Our friend, I am afraid, said CLEANTHES, will

have little inclination to revive this topic of discourse, while you are

in company; and to tell truth, PHILO, I should rather wish to reason with

either of you apart on a subject so sublime and interesting. Your spirit

of controversy, joined to your abhorrence of vulgar superstition, carries

you strange lengths, when engaged in an argument; and there is nothing so

sacred and venerable, even in your own eyes, which you spare on that


I must confess, replied PHILO, that I am less cautious on the subject of

Natural Religion than on any other; both because I know that I can never,

on that head, corrupt the principles of any man of common sense; and

because no one, I am confident, in whose eyes I appear a man of common

sense, will ever mistake my intentions. You, in particular, CLEANTHES,

with whom I live in unreserved intimacy; you are sensible, that

notwithstanding the freedom of my conversation, and my love of singular

arguments, no one has a deeper sense of religion impressed on his mind,

or pays more profound adoration to the Divine Being, as he discovers

himself to reason, in the inexplicable contrivance and artifice of

nature. A purpose, an intention, a design, strikes every where the most

careless, the most stupid thinker; and no man can be so hardened in

absurd systems, as at all times to reject it. That Nature does nothing in

vain, is a maxim established in all the schools, merely from the

contemplation of the works of Nature, without any religious purpose; and,

from a firm conviction of its truth, an anatomist, who had observed a new

organ or canal, would never be satisfied till he had also discovered its

use and intention. One great foundation of the Copernican system is the

maxim, That Nature acts by the simplest methods, and chooses the most

proper means to any end; and astronomers often, without thinking of it,

lay this strong foundation of piety and religion. The same thing is

observable in other parts of philosophy: And thus all the sciences almost

lead us insensibly to acknowledge a first intelligent Author; and their

authority is often so much the greater, as they do not directly profess

that intention.

It is with pleasure I hear GALEN reason concerning the structure of the

human body. The anatomy of a man, says he [De formatione foetus], discovers

above 600 different muscles; and whoever duly considers these, will find,

that, in each of them, Nature must have adjusted at least ten different

circumstances, in order to attain the end which she proposed; proper

figure, just magnitude, right disposition of the several ends, upper and

lower position of the whole, the due insertion of the several nerves,

veins, and arteries: So that, in the muscles alone, above 6000 several

views and intentions must have been formed and executed. The bones he

calculates to be 284: The distinct purposes aimed at in the structure of

each, above forty. What a prodigious display of artifice, even in these

simple and homogeneous parts! But if we consider the skin, ligaments,

vessels, glandules, humours, the several limbs and members of the body;

how must our astonishment rise upon us, in proportion to the number and

intricacy of the parts so artificially adjusted! The further we advance

in these researches, we discover new scenes of art and wisdom: But descry

still, at a distance, further scenes beyond our reach; in the fine

internal structure of the parts, in the economy of the brain, in the

fabric of the seminal vessels. All these artifices are repeated in every

different species of animal, with wonderful variety, and with exact

propriety, suited to the different intentions of Nature in framing each

species. And if the infidelity of GALEN, even when these natural sciences

were still imperfect, could not withstand such striking appearances, to

what pitch of pertinacious obstinacy must a philosopher in this age have

attained, who can now doubt of a Supreme Intelligence!

Could I meet with one of this species (who, I thank God, are very rare),

I would ask him: Supposing there were a God, who did not discover himself

immediately to our senses, were it possible for him to give stronger

proofs of his existence, than what appear on the whole face of Nature?

What indeed could such a Divine Being do, but copy the present economy of

things; render many of his artifices so plain, that no stupidity could

mistake them; afford glimpses of still greater artifices, which

demonstrate his prodigious superiority above our narrow apprehensions;

and conceal altogether a great many from such imperfect creatures? Now,

according to all rules of just reasoning, every fact must pass for

undisputed, when it is supported by all the arguments which its nature

admits of; even though these arguments be not, in themselves, very

numerous or forcible: How much more, in the present case, where no human

imagination can compute their number, and no understanding estimate their


I shall further add, said CLEANTHES, to what you have so well urged, that

one great advantage of the principle of Theism, is, that it is the only

system of cosmogony which can be rendered intelligible and complete, and

yet can throughout preserve a strong analogy to what we every day see and

experience in the world. The comparison of the universe to a machine of

human contrivance, is so obvious and natural, and is justified by so many

instances of order and design in Nature, that it must immediately strike

all unprejudiced apprehensions, and procure universal approbation.

Whoever attempts to weaken this theory, cannot pretend to succeed by

establishing in its place any other that is precise and determinate: It

is sufficient for him if he start doubts and difficulties; and by remote

and abstract views of things, reach that suspense of judgement, which is

here the utmost boundary of his wishes. But, besides that this state of

mind is in itself unsatisfactory, it can never be steadily maintained

against such striking appearances as continually engage us into the

religious hypothesis. A false, absurd system, human nature, from the

force of prejudice, is capable of adhering to with obstinacy and

perseverance: But no system at all, in opposition to a theory supported

by strong and obvious reason, by natural propensity, and by early

education, I think it absolutely impossible to maintain or defend.

So little, replied PHILO, do I esteem this suspense of judgement in the

present case to be possible, that I am apt to suspect there enters

somewhat of a dispute of words into this controversy, more than is

usually imagined. That the works of Nature bear a great analogy to the

productions of art, is evident; and according to all the rules of good

reasoning, we ought to infer, if we argue at all concerning them, that

their causes have a proportional analogy. But as there are also

considerable differences, we have reason to suppose a proportional

difference in the causes; and in particular, ought to attribute a much

higher degree of power and energy to the supreme cause, than any we have

ever observed in mankind. Here then the existence of a DEITY is plainly

ascertained by reason: and if we make it a question, whether, on account

of these analogies, we can properly call him a mind or intelligence,

notwithstanding the vast difference which may reasonably be supposed

between him and human minds; what is this but a mere verbal controversy?

No man can deny the analogies between the effects: To restrain ourselves

from inquiring concerning the causes is scarcely possible. From this

inquiry, the legitimate conclusion is, that the causes have also an

analogy: And if we are not contented with calling the first and supreme

cause a GOD or DEITY, but desire to vary the expression; what can we call

him but MIND or THOUGHT, to which he is justly supposed to bear a

considerable resemblance?

All men of sound reason are disgusted with verbal disputes, which abound

so much in philosophical and theological inquiries; and it is found, that

the only remedy for this abuse must arise from clear definitions, from

the precision of those ideas which enter into any argument, and from the

strict and uniform use of those terms which are employed. But there is a

species of controversy, which, from the very nature of language and of

human ideas, is involved in perpetual ambiguity, and can never, by any

precaution or any definitions, be able to reach a reasonable certainty or

precision. These are the controversies concerning the degrees of any

quality or circumstance. Men may argue to all eternity, whether HANNIBAL

be a great, or a very great, or a superlatively great man, what degree of

beauty CLEOPATRA possessed, what epithet of praise LIVY or THUCYDIDES is

entitled to, without bringing the controversy to any determination. The

disputants may here agree in their sense, and differ in the terms, or

vice versa; yet never be able to define their terms, so as to enter into

each other’s meaning: Because the degrees of these qualities are not,

like quantity or number, susceptible of any exact mensuration, which

may be the standard in the controversy. That the dispute concerning

Theism is of this nature, and consequently is merely verbal, or perhaps,

if possible, still more incurably ambiguous, will appear upon the

slightest inquiry. I ask the Theist, if he does not allow, that there is

a great and immeasurable, because incomprehensible difference between the

human and the divine mind: The more pious he is, the more readily will he

assent to the affirmative, and the more will he be disposed to magnify

the difference: He will even assert, that the difference is of a nature

which cannot be too much magnified. I next turn to the Atheist, who, I

assert, is only nominally so, and can never possibly be in earnest; and I

ask him, whether, from the coherence and apparent sympathy in all the

parts of this world, there be not a certain degree of analogy among all

the operations of Nature, in every situation and in every age; whether

the rotting of a turnip, the generation of an animal, and the structure

of human thought, be not energies that probably bear some remote analogy

to each other: It is impossible he can deny it: He will readily

acknowledge it. Having obtained this concession, I push him still further

in his retreat; and I ask him, if it be not probable, that the principle

which first arranged, and still maintains order in this universe, bears

not also some remote inconceivable analogy to the other operations of

nature, and, among the rest, to the economy of human mind and thought.

However reluctant, he must give his assent. Where then, cry I to both

these antagonists, is the subject of your dispute? The Theist allows,

that the original intelligence is very different from human reason: The

Atheist allows, that the original principle of order bears some remote

analogy to it. Will you quarrel, Gentlemen, about the degrees, and enter

into a controversy, which admits not of any precise meaning, nor

consequently of any determination? If you should be so obstinate, I

should not be surprised to find you insensibly change sides; while the

Theist, on the one hand, exaggerates the dissimilarity between the

Supreme Being, and frail, imperfect, variable, fleeting, and mortal

creatures; and the Atheist, on the other, magnifies the analogy among all

the operations of Nature, in every period, every situation, and every

position. Consider then, where the real point of controversy lies; and if

you cannot lay aside your disputes, endeavour, at least, to cure

yourselves of your animosity.

And here I must also acknowledge, CLEANTHES, that as the works of Nature

have a much greater analogy to the effects of our art and contrivance,

than to those of our benevolence and justice, we have reason to infer,

that the natural attributes of the Deity have a greater resemblance to

those of men, than his moral have to human virtues. But what is the

consequence? Nothing but this, that the moral qualities of man are more

defective in their kind than his natural abilities. For, as the Supreme

Being is allowed to be absolutely and entirely perfect, whatever differs

most from him, departs the furthest from the supreme standard of

rectitude and perfection.

It seems evident that the dispute between the Skeptics and Dogmatists

is entirely verbal, or at least regards only the degrees of doubt and

assurance which we ought to indulge with regard to all reasoning; and such

disputes are commonly, at the bottom, verbal, and admit not of any precise

determination. No philosophical Dogmatist denies that there are

difficulties both with regard to the senses and to all science, and that

these difficulties are in a regular, logical method, absolutely

insolvable. No Skeptic denies that we lie under an absolute necessity,

notwithstanding these difficulties, of thinking, and believing, and

reasoning, with regard to all kinds of subjects, and even of frequently

assenting with confidence and security. The only difference, then, between

these sects, if they merit that name, is, that the Sceptic, from habit,

caprice, or inclination, insists most on the difficulties; the Dogmatist,

for like reasons, on the necessity.

These, CLEANTHES, are my unfeigned sentiments on this subject; and these

sentiments, you know, I have ever cherished and maintained. But in

proportion to my veneration for true religion, is my abhorrence of vulgar

superstitions; and I indulge a peculiar pleasure, I confess, in pushing

such principles, sometimes into absurdity, sometimes into impiety. And

you are sensible, that all bigots, notwithstanding their great aversion

to the latter above the former, are commonly equally guilty of both.

My inclination, replied CLEANTHES, lies, I own, a contrary way. Religion,

however corrupted, is still better than no religion at all. The doctrine

of a future state is so strong and necessary a security to morals, that

we never ought to abandon or neglect it. For if finite and temporary

rewards and punishments have so great an effect, as we daily find; how

much greater must be expected from such as are infinite and eternal?

How happens it then, said PHILO, if vulgar superstition be so salutary to

society, that all history abounds so much with accounts of its pernicious

consequences on public affairs? Factions, civil wars, persecutions,

subversions of government, oppression, slavery; these are the dismal

consequences which always attend its prevalency over the minds of men. If

the religious spirit be ever mentioned in any historical narration, we

are sure to meet afterwards with a detail of the miseries which attend

it. And no period of time can be happier or more prosperous, than those

in which it is never regarded or heard of.

The reason of this observation, replied CLEANTHES, is obvious. The proper

office of religion is to regulate the heart of men, humanise their

conduct, infuse the spirit of temperance, order, and obedience; and as

its operation is silent, and only enforces the motives of morality and

justice, it is in danger of being overlooked, and confounded with these

other motives. When it distinguishes itself, and acts as a separate

principle over men, it has departed from its proper sphere, and has

become only a cover to faction and ambition.

And so will all religion, said PHILO, except the philosophical and

rational kind. Your reasonings are more easily eluded than my facts. The

inference is not just, because finite and temporary rewards and

punishments have so great influence, that therefore such as are infinite

and eternal must have so much greater. Consider, I beseech you, the

attachment which we have to present things, and the little concern which

we discover for objects so remote and uncertain. When divines are

declaiming against the common behaviour and conduct of the world, they

always represent this principle as the strongest imaginable (which indeed

it is); and describe almost all human kind as lying under the influence

of it, and sunk into the deepest lethargy and unconcern about their

religious interests. Yet these same divines, when they refute their

speculative antagonists, suppose the motives of religion to be so

powerful, that, without them, it were impossible for civil society to

subsist; nor are they ashamed of so palpable a contradiction. It is

certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural honesty and

benevolence has more effect on men’s conduct, than the most pompous views

suggested by theological theories and systems. A man’s natural

inclination works incessantly upon him; it is for ever present to the

mind, and mingles itself with every view and consideration: whereas

religious motives, where they act at all, operate only by starts and

bounds; and it is scarcely possible for them to become altogether

habitual to the mind. The force of the greatest gravity, say the

philosophers, is infinitely small, in comparison of that of the least

impulse: yet it is certain, that the smallest gravity will, in the end,

prevail above a great impulse; because no strokes or blows can be

repeated with such constancy as attraction and gravitation.

Another advantage of inclination: It engages on its side all the wit and

ingenuity of the mind; and when set in opposition to religious

principles, seeks every method and art of eluding them: In which it is

almost always successful. Who can explain the heart of man, or account

for those strange salvos and excuses, with which people satisfy

themselves, when they follow their inclinations in opposition to their

religious duty? This is well understood in the world; and none but fools

ever repose less trust in a man, because they hear, that from study and

philosophy, he has entertained some speculative doubts with regard to

theological subjects. And when we have to do with a man, who makes a

great profession of religion and devotion, has this any other effect upon

several, who pass for prudent, than to put them on their guard, lest they

be cheated and deceived by him?

We must further consider, that philosophers, who cultivate reason and

reflection, stand less in need of such motives to keep them under the

restraint of morals; and that the vulgar, who alone may need them, are

utterly incapable of so pure a religion as represents the Deity to be

pleased with nothing but virtue in human behaviour. The recommendations

to the Divinity are generally supposed to be either frivolous

observances, or rapturous ecstasies, or a bigoted credulity. We need not

run back into antiquity, or wander into remote regions, to find instances

of this degeneracy. Amongst ourselves, some have been guilty of that

atrociousness, unknown to the Egyptian and Grecian superstitions, of

declaiming in express terms, against morality; and representing it as a

sure forfeiture of the Divine favour, if the least trust or reliance be

laid upon it.

But even though superstition or enthusiasm should not put itself in

direct opposition to morality; the very diverting of the attention, the

raising up a new and frivolous species of merit, the preposterous

distribution which it makes of praise and blame, must have the most

pernicious consequences, and weaken extremely men’s attachment to the

natural motives of justice and humanity.

Such a principle of action likewise, not being any of the familiar

motives of human conduct, acts only by intervals on the temper; and must

be roused by continual efforts, in order to render the pious zealot

satisfied with his own conduct, and make him fulfil his devotional task.

Many religious exercises are entered into with seeming fervour, where the

heart, at the time, feels cold and languid: A habit of dissimulation is

by degrees contracted; and fraud and falsehood become the predominant

principle. Hence the reason of that vulgar observation, that the highest

zeal in religion and the deepest hypocrisy, so far from being

inconsistent, are often or commonly united in the same individual


The bad effects of such habits, even in common life, are easily imagined;

but where the interests of religion are concerned, no morality can be

forcible enough to bind the enthusiastic zealot. The sacredness of the

cause sanctifies every measure which can be made use of to promote it.

The steady attention alone to so important an interest as that of eternal

salvation, is apt to extinguish the benevolent affections, and beget a

narrow, contracted selfishness. And when such a temper is encouraged, it

easily eludes all the general precepts of charity and benevolence.

Thus, the motives of vulgar superstition have no great influence on

general conduct; nor is their operation favourable to morality, in the

instances where they predominate.

Is there any maxim in politics more certain and infallible, than that

both the number and authority of priests should be confined within very

narrow limits; and that the civil magistrate ought, for ever, to keep his

fasces and axes from such dangerous hands? But if the spirit of popular

religion were so salutary to society, a contrary maxim ought to prevail.

The greater number of priests, and their greater authority and riches,

will always augment the religious spirit. And though the priests have the

guidance of this spirit, why may we not expect a superior sanctity of

life, and greater benevolence and moderation, from persons who are set

apart for religion, who are continually inculcating it upon others, and

who must themselves imbibe a greater share of it? Whence comes it then,

that, in fact, the utmost a wise magistrate can propose with regard to

popular religions, is, as far as possible, to make a saving game of it,

and to prevent their pernicious consequences with regard to society?

Every expedient which he tries for so humble a purpose is surrounded with

inconveniences. If he admits only one religion among his subjects, he

must sacrifice, to an uncertain prospect of tranquillity, every

consideration of public liberty, science, reason, industry, and even his

own independency. If he gives indulgence to several sects, which is the

wiser maxim, he must preserve a very philosophical indifference to all of

them, and carefully restrain the pretensions of the prevailing sect;

otherwise he can expect nothing but endless disputes, quarrels, factions,

persecutions, and civil commotions.

True religion, I allow, has no such pernicious consequences: but we must

treat of religion, as it has commonly been found in the world; nor have I

any thing to do with that speculative tenet of Theism, which, as it is a

species of philosophy, must partake of the beneficial influence of that

principle, and at the same time must lie under a like inconvenience, of

being always confined to very few persons.

Oaths are requisite in all courts of judicature; but it is a question

whether their authority arises from any popular religion. It is the

solemnity and importance of the occasion, the regard to reputation, and

the reflecting on the general interests of society, which are the chief

restraints upon mankind. Custom-house oaths and political oaths are but

little regarded even by some who pretend to principles of honesty and

religion; and a Quaker’s asseveration is with us justly put upon the same

footing with the oath of any other person. I know, that POLYBIUS

[Lib. vi. cap. 54.] ascribes the infamy of GREEK faith to the prevalency of

the EPICUREAN philosophy: but I know also, that Punic faith had as bad a

reputation in ancient times as Irish evidence has in modern; though we

cannot account for these vulgar observations by the same reason. Not to

mention that Greek faith was infamous before the rise of the Epicurean

philosophy; and EURIPIDES [Iphigenia in Tauride], in a passage which I

shall point out to you, has glanced a remarkable stroke of satire against

his nation, with regard to this circumstance.

Take care, PHILO, replied CLEANTHES, take care: push not matters too far:

allow not your zeal against false religion to undermine your veneration

for the true. Forfeit not this principle, the chief, the only great

comfort in life; and our principal support amidst all the attacks of

adverse fortune. The most agreeable reflection, which it is possible for

human imagination to suggest, is that of genuine Theism, which represents

us as the workmanship of a Being perfectly good, wise, and powerful; who

created us for happiness; and who, having implanted in us immeasurable

desires of good, will prolong our existence to all eternity, and will

transfer us into an infinite variety of scenes, in order to satisfy those

desires, and render our felicity complete and durable. Next to such a

Being himself (if the comparison be allowed), the happiest lot which we

can imagine, is that of being under his guardianship and protection.

These appearances, said PHILO, are most engaging and alluring; and with

regard to the true philosopher, they are more than appearances. But it

happens here, as in the former case, that, with regard to the greater

part of mankind, the appearances are deceitful, and that the terrors of

religion commonly prevail above its comforts.

It is allowed, that men never have recourse to devotion so readily as

when dejected with grief or depressed with sickness. Is not this a proof,

that the religious spirit is not so nearly allied to joy as to sorrow?

But men, when afflicted, find consolation in religion, replied CLEANTHES.

Sometimes, said PHILO: but it is natural to imagine, that they will form

a notion of those unknown beings, suitably to the present gloom and

melancholy of their temper, when they betake themselves to the

contemplation of them. Accordingly, we find the tremendous images to

predominate in all religions; and we ourselves, after having employed the

most exalted expression in our descriptions of the Deity, fall into the

flattest contradiction in affirming that the damned are infinitely

superior in number to the elect.

I shall venture to affirm, that there never was a popular religion, which

represented the state of departed souls in such a light, as would render

it eligible for human kind that there should be such a state. These fine

models of religion are the mere product of philosophy. For as death lies

between the eye and the prospect of futurity, that event is so shocking

to Nature, that it must throw a gloom on all the regions which lie beyond

it; and suggest to the generality of mankind the idea of CERBERUS and

FURIES; devils, and torrents of fire and brimstone.

It is true, both fear and hope enter into religion; because both these

passions, at different times, agitate the human mind, and each of them

forms a species of divinity suitable to itself. But when a man is in a

cheerful disposition, he is fit for business, or company, or

entertainment of any kind; and he naturally applies himself to these, and

thinks not of religion. When melancholy and dejected, he has nothing to

do but brood upon the terrors of the invisible world, and to plunge

himself still deeper in affliction. It may indeed happen, that after he

has, in this manner, engraved the religious opinions deep into his

thought and imagination, there may arrive a change of health or

circumstances, which may restore his good humour, and raising cheerful

prospects of futurity, make him run into the other extreme of joy and

triumph. But still it must be acknowledged, that, as terror is the

primary principle of religion, it is the passion which always

predominates in it, and admits but of short intervals of pleasure.

Not to mention, that these fits of excessive, enthusiastic joy, by

exhausting the spirits, always prepare the way for equal fits of

superstitious terror and dejection; nor is there any state of mind so

happy as the calm and equable. But this state it is impossible to

support, where a man thinks that he lies in such profound darkness and

uncertainty, between an eternity of happiness and an eternity of misery.

No wonder that such an opinion disjoints the ordinary frame of the mind,

and throws it into the utmost confusion. And though that opinion is

seldom so steady in its operation as to influence all the actions; yet it

is apt to make a considerable breach in the temper, and to produce that

gloom and melancholy so remarkable in all devout people.

It is contrary to common sense to entertain apprehensions or terrors upon

account of any opinion whatsoever, or to imagine that we run any risk

hereafter, by the freest use of our reason. Such a sentiment implies both

an absurdity and an inconsistency. It is an absurdity to believe that the

Deity has human passions, and one of the lowest of human passions, a

restless appetite for applause. It is an inconsistency to believe, that,

since the Deity has this human passion, he has not others also; and, in

particular, a disregard to the opinions of creatures so much inferior.

To know God, says SENECA, is to worship him. All other worship is indeed

absurd, superstitious, and even impious. It degrades him to the low

condition of mankind, who are delighted with entreaty, solicitation,

presents, and flattery. Yet is this impiety the smallest of which

superstition is guilty. Commonly, it depresses the Deity far below the

condition of mankind; and represents him as a capricious DEMON, who

exercises his power without reason and without humanity! And were that

Divine Being disposed to be offended at the vices and follies of silly

mortals, who are his own workmanship, ill would it surely fare with the

votaries of most popular superstitions. Nor would any of human race merit

his favour, but a very few, the philosophical Theists, who entertain, or

rather indeed endeavour to entertain, suitable notions of his Divine

perfections: As the only persons entitled to his compassion and

indulgence would be the philosophical Sceptics, a sect almost equally

rare, who, from a natural diffidence of their own capacity, suspend, or

endeavour to suspend, all judgement with regard to such sublime and such

extraordinary subjects.

If the whole of Natural Theology, as some people seem to maintain,

resolves itself into one simple, though somewhat ambiguous, at least

undefined proposition, That the cause or causes of order in the universe

probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence: If this

proposition be not capable of extension, variation, or more particular

explication: If it affords no inference that affects human life, or can

be the source of any action or forbearance: And if the analogy, imperfect

as it is, can be carried no further 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 case, what can the most

inquisitive, contemplative, and religious man do more than give a plain,

philosophical assent to the proposition, as often as it occurs, and

believe that the arguments on which it is established exceed the

objections which lie against it? Some astonishment, indeed, will

naturally arise from the greatness of the object; some melancholy from

its obscurity; some contempt of human reason, that it can give no

solution more satisfactory with regard to so extraordinary and

magnificent a question. But believe me, CLEANTHES, the most natural

sentiment which a well-disposed mind will feel on this occasion, is a

longing desire and expectation that Heaven would be pleased to dissipate,

at least alleviate, this profound ignorance, by affording some more

particular revelation to mankind, and making discoveries of the nature,

attributes, and operations of the Divine object of our faith. A person,

seasoned with a just sense of the imperfections of natural reason, will

fly to revealed truth with the greatest avidity: While the haughty

Dogmatist, persuaded that he can erect a complete system of Theology by

the mere help of philosophy, disdains any further aid, and rejects this

adventitious instructor. To be a philosophical Sceptic is, in a man of

letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound,

believing Christian; a proposition which I would willingly recommend to

the attention of PAMPHILUS: And I hope CLEANTHES will forgive me for

interposing so far in the education and instruction of his pupil.

CLEANTHES and PHILO pursued not this conversation much further: and as

nothing ever made greater impression on me, than all the reasonings of

that day, so I confess, that, upon a serious review of the whole, I

cannot but think, that PHILO’s principles are more probable than DEMEA’s;

but that those of CLEANTHES approach still nearer to the truth.