GOD. 



fame timo they acquire new rirength and luftrc from tlie dif- 

 coveri'?3 of tlic learnca. Tin- Deity's atting and interpofiiig 

 in the luiivcrfe (liew that he governs it as well as formed it ; 

 and the depth of his counfels, even in conducing the material 

 univerle, of wliich a gruat part furpades our knowledge, 

 tends to preferve an inward veneration and awe of this great 

 being, and diipolcs us to receive what may be otherwifc re- 

 veal'd to us concerning him. His effence, as well as that of 

 all other iubllanccs, is beyond the reach of all our difcoveries ; 

 but his attributes clearly appear in his admirable works. We 

 know that the higheft conceptions we are able to form of 

 them are ftill beneath his real perfedtior.s ; but his domi- 

 nion over us, and our duty towards him, are manifeft. See 

 Maclaurin's Account of Sir I. Newton's Phil.Difc. book iv. 

 chap. 9. 



Thofe who wifli to fee tlie argument, which has been now 

 fliclched out in fome of its leading outlines, more fully 

 illulh-atedand urged, may confult tlie works of Ray, Nieu- 

 weiilyt, Baxter in his Matho, Derham, De la Pluche in his 

 Nature diiplayed, &;c. ; and more cfpecially archdeacon 

 Pak-y in his " Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Ek- 

 illcncc and attribiites of the Deity, coUefted from the ap- 

 pearances ot Nature." This admirable work, if our limits 

 would allow it, would enable us very much to enrich this 

 article. One atheillic way, fays this much approved and 

 popular writer, of replying to our obfcrvations upon tiie 

 works of Nature, and to the proofs of a Deity wiiieh we 

 think that we perceive in them, is to tell us, that all which 

 we fee mull neceffarily have had fome form, and that it 

 might as well be i 1 its prefent form as any. Let us now 



apply this anfwcr to the eye " Something or otl-.er muft 



have occupied that place in the animal's head ; muft have 

 tilled up, we will fay, that focket ; we will fay alfo, that 

 it mud have been of that fort of fubftance, which we call 

 animal fubllance, as flefh, bone, membrane, cartilage, &c. ; 

 but that it Should have been an eye, knowing as we do 

 what an eye comprehends, I'k. that it fliould have confifted, 

 iirft, of a feries of tranfparent lenfes, (very different, by the 

 bye, even in their fubllances from the opaque materials of 

 which the reft of the body is, in general at leaft, com- 

 pofed ; and with which the whole of its furface, this fmgle 

 portion of it excepted, is covered) : fecondly, of a black 

 .loth or canvas (the only membrane of the body which is 

 black) Ipread out behind thefe lenfes, fo as to receive the 

 image formed by pencils of light tranfmitted through tliem ; 

 and placed at the precife geometrical diltance at which, and 

 at which alone, a diftinit image could be formed, namely, 

 at the coticourfe of the refraded rays ; thirdly, of a large 

 nerve communicating between this membrane and the brain ; 

 without which the aclion of light upon the membrane, 

 however modified by the organ, would be lolt to the pur- 

 poles of fenfation. That this fortunate conformation of the 

 parts fhould have been the lot, not of one individual out of 

 many ihouland individuals, like the great prize in a lottery, 

 or like fome Angularity in nature, but the happy chance of 

 a whole fpecies ; nor of one fpecics out of many thoufand 

 fpecies, with which we are acquainted ; but of by far the 

 greatelt number of all that exift, and that under varieties, 

 not cafual or capricious, but bearing marks of being fuited 

 to their refpeftive exigences ; that all this fhould have taken 

 place, merely bccaufe fomething muft have occupied thefe 

 poiiils in every animal's forehead ; or that, all this fhould be 

 thought to be accounted for by the (hort anfwcr, " that 

 whatever was there mufl have had fome form or other," is too 



ablurd to be mademorefo by any argumentation." <■ Nor docs 



it mend tiie anfwer to add, with refpeft to the fingularity of 

 the conformation, that, after the event, it is no longer to be 



computed what the chances were againft it This is always 

 to be computed, when the queflion is, whether an ufeful or 

 imitative conformation be the produce of chance or not. I 

 defire no greater certainty in reafoning than that by which 

 chance is excluded from the prefent dilpoiition of the natural 

 world. Univerfal experience is againft it. What does 

 chance ever do for us ? In the hunian body, for initancc, 

 chance, /, e. the operation of caufes without delign, may 

 produce a wen, a wart, a mole, a pimple, but never an eye. 

 Among inanimate fubftances,a clod, a pebble, a liquid drop, 

 might be ; but never was a watch, a telefcope, or organized 

 body of any kind, aafwerir.g a valuable purpofe by a com- 

 phcnted mechanilm, tlie effedl ot chance. In no aflignable in- 

 ftance hath fuch a thing exilted, without intention, fomewhere." ' 

 Some have faid " that the eye, ihe animal to which it belongs, 

 every otlier anin-.al, every plant, and every organized body 

 which we fee, are only fo many out of the polhble varieties 

 and combinationG of being, which the lapfe of inlinite ages 

 has brought into cxiftence ; and that the prefent world is the 

 relicl of that variety.'' — But "there is no foundation whatever 

 for this conjefture in any thing which we oblerve in the 

 works of nature : no fuch experiments are going on at pre- 

 fent ! No fuch energy operates as that which is here fup- 

 pofed, and which fliould be conflantly pulliing into exiftence 

 new varieties of beings ; nor are there any appeaiances to 

 fupport an opinion that every pofTible combination of vegeta- 

 ble or animal flrufture iias formerly been tried." Should it 

 be laid that the parts of animal bodies " were not intended 

 for the ufe, but that the ufe arofe out of the parts ; this 

 diftinftion is intelligible." — But " there is little place for it 

 in the works of nature. When roundly and generally affirm- 

 ed of them, as it has fometimes been, it amounts to fuch an- 

 other ftretch of alTertion, as it would be to fay, that all the 

 implements of the cabinet-maker's workftiop, as well as his 

 fifli-flvin, were fubllances accidentally coniiguiated, which 

 he had picked up and converted to his ufe ; that Jiis adzes, 

 faws, planes, and gimlets, were not made, as we fuppofe, to 

 hew, cut, fmooth, fhapc-out, or bore wood with ; but, that 

 thefe things being made, no matter with what defign, or 

 whether with any, the cabinet-maker perceived that they 

 were applicable to his purpofe, and turned them to account." 

 If this kind of folution " be applied to thofe parts of ani- 

 mals, the aftion of which does not depend upon the will of 

 the animal, it is fraught with ftill more evident abfurdity. Is 

 it poffible to believe that the eye was formed without any 

 regard to vifion, that it was the animal itfelf which found out, 

 that though formed with no fuch intention, it would lervc to 

 fee with; and that the ufe of the eye, as an organ of fight, 

 rcfulted from this difcovery, and the animal's application of 

 it ? The fame queftion may be aflvcd of the ear : the fame 

 of all the fenfes," none of which depend upon the elcftion of 

 the animal ; nor confequcntly upon his fagaeity or experience. 

 " Others have cholen to refer every thing to ?i principle of 

 order in nature. A principle of order is the word ; but 

 what is meant by a principle of order, as different from aii 

 intelligent creator, has not been explained either by defini- 

 tion or example ; and without fuch explanation, it fliould 

 fcem to be a mere fubilitution of words for realuns, names 

 for caufes." — " Was a watch ever produced by a principle 

 of order ; and why might not a watch be fo produced as well as 

 an eye ?" — " The confidence,'' continues the- author now 

 cited, '< which we place ia our obfcrvations upon the works 

 of nature, in the marks which we difcover of contrivance, 

 choice, and defign, and in our reafoning upon the proofs 

 afforded us, ought not to be fliaken, as it is fometimes at- 

 tempted to be done, ' y bringing forward to our view 

 our own ignorance, or rather the general imperfedlion of 



ov:r 



I 



