Part I. in the Cky. AT 10"^. 51 



to them : So that we are in the main agreed, 

 differing chiefly about the Agent that executes 

 thofe Laws, which he holds to be God himfelf 

 immediately, we a Plaftick Nature ; for the 

 Reafons aliedg'd by Dr. Cudworthy in his Sy- 

 ftem, pag. 149. which are, Firft, Becaufe the 

 former, according to vulgar Apprehenfion, would 

 render the Divine Providence operofe, folicitous, 

 and diftraftious ; and thereby make the Belief 

 of it entertained with greater Difficulty, and 

 give Advantage to Atheifts. Secondly, It is not 

 fo decorous in Refpefl: of God, that he £hould 

 cLvrcvpyeiv cvnxvroLy fet his own Hand, as it were, to 

 every Work, and immediately do all the mean- 

 eft and trifling'ft Things himfelf drudgingly, 

 without making Ufe of any inferior or fubordi- 

 nate Minifter. Thefe two Reafons are plauflble, 

 but not cogent j the two following are of 

 greater Force. Thirdly, The flow and gradual 

 Procefs that is in the Generation of Things, which 

 would feem to be a vain and idle Pomp, or tri- 

 fling pormality, if the Agent were omnipotent. 

 Fourthly, Thcfe aV^pT>i/>6ara, as Arijiotle calls 

 them, thofe Errors and Bungles which were com- 

 mitted when the Matter is inept, or contumacious, 

 as in Monfters, &c, which argue the Agent not 

 to be irreflftible ; and that Nature is fuch a Thing 

 as is not altogether uncapable, as well as human 

 Art, of being fometimes fruftrated. and difap- 

 pointed by the Indifpofition of the Matter: 

 Whereas an omnipotent Agent would always do 

 its Work infallibly and irrefiftibly, no Inepti- 

 tude, or Stubbornefs of the Matcer^ being ever. 



E 2 able 



