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 principles.

PART 7

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 defective.

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 it.

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,