the works of the Almighty through three hundred and sixty-four pages together.

TOм. I cannot but still think there is something of partiality and self-love in the business. "Suppose "there were a planet wholly inhabited by spiders (which is very possible), they would probably as"sert, with the Bramins, that the world arose from "an infinite spider, who spun this whole compli"cated 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. This "inference would there appear as natural and irre"fragable as that which in our planet ascribes the

origin of all things to design and intelligence. To "us indeed it appears ridiculous, because a spider is "a little contemptible animal, whose operations we "are never likely to take for a model of the whole "universe"."

TIM. Possibly not; but I should take that "lit"tle contemptible animal" for an exact model of a sceptical philosopher :

"It spins a flimsy web, its slender store;

"And labours till it clouds itself all o'er."

And were there a planet wholly inhabited by these same philosophers, I doubt not of their spinning a cosmogony worthy an academy of spiders. And so, Tom, the voluntary humility, which discovered itself at your setting out, ends at last in degrading man to a spider; and reason is either exalted to the

VOL. IV.

Dialogues, p. 142.

2 c

stars, or depressed to the earth, as best serves the cause of infidelity. In this particular, however, you are at least as bad as the parsons'. But let us proceed. What have you more to say against the argument of the house?

Том.

І

TOM. I say that arguments concerning facts are founded on experience.

I have seen one house

planned and erected by an architect, and therefore I conclude the same with regard to others. But "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 "."

TIM. Truly I know not how that can well be; for worlds are not made every day. I have heard of the production of none since our own, and man could not see that made, because he himself was made after it; and he could not exist before he was made. The contrary supposition was indeed once ventured on by the master of a Dutch puppetshow. Whether he were a metaphysician I never heard. In the beginning of this ingenious drama, Mr. Punch posting over the stage in a very large pair of jack-boots, and being asked whither be was going at so early an hour, replies, I am going to be created. His evidence, if you can procure it, is very much at the service of scepticism, and may go near to determine the matter. In the mean time, I

r

Dialogues, p. 37.

• Ibid. p. 66.

shall presume my argument to be still good, that, if a house must be built by thought and design, a world cannot have been built without; though I have seen the one, and never was so fortunate as to see the other. Let me add farther, that if in the general contrivance and construction of the world there be evident demonstration of consummate wisdom, that demonstration cannot be set aside by seeming or real inconveniences in some parts, which, for good reasons, were either originally designed, or may have been since introduced, for the trial or punishment of its inhabitants, or for other purposes, unknown to us. This is the plain conclusion formed by common sense, and surely ten times more rational than to talk of eggs, and seeds, and spiders, and the necessity of seeing the world made, in order to know that it had a maker.

LETTER V.

I SHALL not pursue any farther, at present, the wild ramblings of the spirit of scepticism in the Dialogues on Natural Religion. If your disorder should return hereafter, dear sir, we may take another handful or two of the hasty-pudding. Let us advert in the mean time to something more mischievous than the Dialogues, because more intelligible to the generality of readers, I mean an Essay on Suicide, in which that practice is vindicated, and recommended to his Majesty's liege subjects, not only as lawful and innocent, but as containing and comprehending, in many cases, almost the whole duty of

man.

The Essay opens with a panegyric on philosophy as the only remedy for superstition. But may not the remedy prove worse than the discase? A young gentleman, some years ago, suffered himself to be seduced to popery. His friends sent him to the sage of Ferney for a cure; and a most effectual one indeed was wrought. He came home a confirmed infidel, and has employed himself ever since in writing against Christianity. Popery may be bad; but irreligion is not better.

Pag. 1. Mr. Hume laments that "men endow"ed with the strongest capacity for business and af

fairs, crouch all their lives under slavery to the grossest superstition."

Superstition surely is not the failing of the present age in Great Britain. We have reason to wish there was a little more of it than there is; since by "the grossest superstition," philosophers often mean neither more nor less than the Christian religion.

Pag. 2. "The fair sex feel many of their joys "blasted by this importunate intruder.”

And lo, Mr. Hume, in his panoply of "sound philosophy," sallies forth as their champion, to slay the giant, and deliver the captive damsels. But of what kind are the female "joys" here alluded to? Innocent ones are heightened by religion, and those that are otherwise ought to be "blasted." Mr. Hume, we have been told, delighted much in the company of women that were modest, though the system of morals, with which he favoured the world, was by no means calculated to make or to keep them such. If they were edified by his conversation, I am heartily glad of it: "I do rejoice, yea, and "will rejoice."

Ibid. "Superstition being founded on false opi"nion must immediately vanish, when true philosophy has inspired juster sentiments of superior powers."

But where is this same "inspiring true philoso"phy" to be found? In the writings of the ancient heathens? Assuredly not. They were not agreed whether there were many Gods, one God, or no