vm THEISM; EVOLUTION OF THEOLOGY 177 



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 anthropomoirphsm, the ideal 

 world in which you trace the material ? Have we not the 

 same reason to trace the ideal world into another ideal world, 

 or new intelligent principle ? But if we stop and go no 

 farther ; 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 pro- 

 gression ? 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 natures, is really to talk without any precise mean- 

 ing. 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?" 

 (II. pp. 4614.) 



VOL. VI N 



