When we see a fine machine, we say there is a good machinist, and that he has an excellent understanding. The world is assuredly an admirable machine; therefore there is in the world, somewhere or other, an admirable intelligence. This argument is old, but is not therefore the

worse.

ists exist? I consider that a distinction must be made between the people, properly so called, and a society of philosophers above the people. It is true that, in every country, the populace require the strongest curb; and that if Bayle had had but five or six hundred peasants to govern, he would not have failed to announce to them a rewarding and aveng- All animated bodies are composed of ing God. But Bayle would have said levers and pullies, which act according nothing about him to the Epicureans, who to the laws of mechanics; of liquors, were people of wealth, fond of quiet, cul- which are kept in perpetual circulation by tivating all the social virtues, and friend- the laws of hydrostatics; and the reflecship in particular, shunning the dangers tion that all these beings have sentiment and embarrassments of public affairs-which has no relation to their organisaleading, in short, a life of ease and inno- tion, fills us with wonder. cence. The dispute, so far as it regards policy and society, seems to me to end here.

As for people entirely savage, they can be counted neither among the theists nor among the atheists. To ask them what is their creed, would be like asking them if they are for Aristotle or Democritus. They know nothing; they are no more atheists than they are peripatetics.

But it may be insisted that they live in society, though they have no God; and that therefore society may subsist without religion.

In this case I shall reply, that wolves live so; and that an assemblage of barbarous cannibals, as you suppose them to be, is not a society. And further, I will ask you if, when you have lent your money to any one of your society, you would have neither your debtor, nor your attorney, nor your notary, nor your judge, believe in a God?

SECTION II.

Modern Atheists.-Arguments of the
Worshippers of God.

We are intelligent beings; and intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a blind, brute, insensible being; there is certainly some difference between a clod and the ideas of Newton. Newton's intelligence, then, came from some other intelligence.

The motions of the stars, that of our little earth round the sun-all is operated according to the laws of the profoundest mathematics. How could it be that Plato, who knew not one of these laws-the eloquent but chimerical Plato, who said that the foundation of the earth was an equilateral triangle, and that of water a right-angled triangle-the strange Plato, who said there could be but five worlds, because there were but five regular bodies-how, I say, was it that Plato, who was not even acquainted with spherical trigonometry, had nevertheless so fine a genius, so happy an instinct, as to call God the Eternal Geometrician-to feel that there exists a forming Intelligence? Spinosa himself confesses it. It is impossible to controvert this truth, which surrounds us and presses us on all sides.

Argument of the Atheists.

I have, however, known refractory individuals, who have said that there is no forming intelligence, and that motion alone has formed all that we see and all that we are. They say boldly-the combination of this universe was possible because it exists; therefore it was possible for motion of itself to arrange it. Take four planets only-Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the Earth: let us consider them only in the situations in which they now are; and let us see how many proabilities

telligence; it is the basis of his system. You have not read him; but you must read him. Why would you go further than he, and, through a foolish pride, plunge into the abyss where Spinosa dared not to descend? Are you not aware of the extreme folly of saying, that it is owing to a blind cause that the square of the re

we have that motion will bring them again to those respective places. There are but twenty-four chances in this combination: that is, it is only twenty-four to one, that these planets will not be found in the same situations with respect to each other. To these four globes add that of Jupiter; } and it is then only a hundred and twenty to one that Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mer-volution of one planet is always to the cury, and our globe, will not be placed in the same positions in which we now see them.

squares of the others, as the cube of its distance is to the cubes of the distances of the others, from the common centre? Either the planets are great geometricians, or the Eternal Geo netrician has arranged the planets.

Lastly, add Saturn; and there will then be only seven hundred and twenty chances to one against putting these planets in their present arrangement, according to But where is the Eternal Geometrician? their given distances. It is, then, demon- Is he in one place, or in all places, withstrated, that once at least, in seven hun-out occupying space? I know not. Has dred and twenty casts, chance might place these planets in their present order.

he arranged all things of his own substance? I know not. Is he inmense, without quantity and without quality? I know not. All I know is, that we must adore him and be just.

Then take all the secondary planets, all their motions, all the beings that vegetate, live, feel, think, act, on all these globes; you have only to increase the number of chances: multiply this numNew Objection of a Modern Atheist. ber to all eternity-to what our weakness Can it be said that the conformation of calls infinity-there will still be an unit animals is according to their necessities? in favour of the formation of the world, What are those necessities? self-preservasuch as it is, by motion alone: therefore tion and propagation. Now, is it astonit is possible that, in all eternity, the mo- ishing that, of the infinite combinations tion of matter alone has produced the produced by chance, those only have subuniverse as it exists. Nay, this combi-sisted which had organs adapted for their nation must, in eternity, of necessity hap-nourishment and the continuation of their pen. Thus, say they, not only it is pos- species? Must not all others necessarily sible that the world is as it is by motion { have perished? alone, but it was impossible that it should not be so after infinite combinations.

Answer.

All this supposition seems to me to be prodigiously chimerical, for two reasons: the first is, that in this universe there are intelligent beings, and you cannot prove it possible for motion alone to produce understanding. The second is, that by your own confession the chances are infinity to unity, that an intelligent forming cause produced the universe. Standing alone against infinity, an unit makes but a poor figure.

Again, Spinósa himself admits this in

Answer.

This argument, taken from Lucretius, is sufficiently refuted by the sensation given to animals and the intelligence given to man. How, as has just been said in the preceding paragraph, should combinations produced by chance produce this sensation and this intelligence? Yes, doubtless, the members of animals are made for all their necessities with an incomprehensible art; and you have not the boldness to deny it. You mention it not. You feel that you can say nothing in answer to this great argument which Nature brings against you. The disposition

cf the wing of a fly, or of the feelers of a snail, is sufficient to confound you.

An Objection of Maupertuis.

crimes. This is quite another question: it is that of physical and moral evil. It has long been asked, Why are there so many serpents, and so many wicked men worse than serpents? If flies could reason, they would complain to God of the existence of spiders; but they would, at the same time, acknowledge what Minerva confessed to Arachne in the fable, that they arrange their webs in a wondermanner.

The natural philosophers of modern times have done nothing more than extend these pretended arguments; this they have sometimes done even to minuteness and indecency They have found God in the folds of a rhinoceros' hide; they might, with equal reason, have denied his exist-ful ence on account of the tortoise's shell.

Answer.

We cannot, then, do otherwise than acknowledge an ineffable Intelligence, which Spinosa himself admitted. We must own that it is displayed as much in the meanest insect as in the planets. And with regard to moral and physical evil, what can be done or said? Let us console ourselves by the enjoyment of physical and moral good, and adore the Eternal Being, who has ordained the one and per

What reasoning! The tortoise and the rhinoceros, and all the different species, prove alike in their infinite varieties the same cause, the same design, the same end, which are preservation, generation, and death. Unity is found in this immense variety; the hide and the shell bear equal testimony. What! deny God, be-mitted the other. cause a shell is not like a skin! And One word more on this topic. Athejournalists have lavished upon this cox-ism is the vice of some intelligent men, combry praises which they have withheld and superstition is the vice of fools. from Newton and Locke, both worship- And what is the vice of knaves?—Ilypopers of the Divinity from thorough exa-crisy. mination and conviction!

Another of Maupertuis's Objections.

Of what service are beauty and fitness in the construction of a serpent? Perhaps, you say, it has uses of which we are ignorant. Let us then at least be silent, and not admire an animal which we know only by the mischief it does.

Answer.

Be you silent also, since you know no more of its utility than myself; or acknowledge that, in reptiles, everything is admirably proportioned. Some of them are venomous; you have been so too. The only subject at present under consideration is, the prodigious art which has formed serpents, quadrupeds, birds, fishes, and bipeds. This art is evident enough. You ask, Why is not the serpent harmless? And why have you not been harmless? Why have you been a persecutor? which, in a philosopher, is the greatest of

SECTION III.

Unjust Accusation.—Justification of
Vunini.

Formerly, whoever was possessed of a secret in any art, was in danger of passing for a sorcerer; every new sect was charged with murdering infants in its mysteries; and every philosopher who departed from the jargon of the schools, was accused of atheism by knaves and fanatics, and condemned by blockheads.

Anaxagorus dares to assert, that the sun is not conducted by Apollo, mounted in a chariot and four: "he is condemned as an atheist, and compelled to fly.

Aristotle is accused of atheism by a priest; and not being powerful enough to punish his accuser, he retires to Chalcis. But the death of Socrates is the greatest blot on the page of Grecian history. Aristophanes-he whom commentators admire because he was a Greek, forgetting that Socrates was also a Greek

Aristophanes was the first who accustomed the Athenians to regard Socrates as an atheist.

This comic poet, who is neither comic nor poetical, would not amongst us have been permitted to exhibit his farces at the fair of St. Lawrence. He appears to me to be much lower and more despicable than Plutarch represents him. Let us see what the wise Plutarch says of this buffoon: "The language of Aristophanes bespeaks his miserable quackery; it is made up of the lowest and most disgusting puns; he is not even pleasing to the people; and to men of judgment and honour he is insupportable: his arrogance is intolerable; and all good men detest his malignity."

This, then, is the jack-pudding whom Madame Dacier, an admirer of Socrates, ventures to admire! Such was the man who indirectly prepared the poison by which infamous judges put to death the most virtuous man in Greece.

Does our high-chancellor, De L'Hôpital declare against persecution? He is immediately charged with atheism"Homo doctus, sed vetus atheus." There was a Jesuït, as much beneath Aristophanes as Aristophanes is beneath Homer -a wretch, whose name has become ridiculous even among fanatics-the Jesuit Garasse, who found atheists everywhere. He bestows the name upon all who are the objects of his virulence. He calls Theodore Beza an atheist. It was he too that led the public into error concerning Vanini.

The unfortunate end of Vanini does not excite our pity and indignation like that of Socrates, because Vanini was only a foreign pedant, without merit : however, Vanini was not, as was pretended, an atheist; he was quite the contrary.

He was a poor Neapolitan priest, a theologian and preacher by trade, an outrageous disputer on quiddities and universals, and " utrùin chimæra bombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas intentiones." But there was nothing in him tending to atheism. His notion of God is that of the soundest and most approved theology." God is the begin

The tanners, coblers, and sempstresses of Athens applauded a farce in which Socrates was represented lifted in the air in a hamper, announcing that there was no God, and boasting of having stolen a cloak while he was teaching philosophy. A whole people, whose government sanc-ning and the end, the father of both withtioned such infamous licences, well deserved what has happened to them, to become slaves to the Romans, and subsequently to the Turks. The Russians whom the Greeks of old would have called barbarians, would neither have poisoned Socrates, nor have condemned Alcibiades to death.

We pass over the ages between the Roman commonwealth and our own times. The Romans, much more wise than the Greeks, never persecuted a philosopher for his opinions. Not so the barbarous nations which succeeded the Roman empire. No sooner did the Emperor Frederick II. begin to quarrel with the Popes, than he was accused of being an atheist, and being the author of the book of the Three Impostors conjointly with his chancellor De Vincis.

out need of either, eternal without time, in no one place, yet present everywhere. To him there is neither past nor future; he is within and without everything; he has created all, and governs all; he is immutable, infinite without parts; his power is his will," &c. This is not very philosophical, but it is the most approved theology.

Vanini prided himself on reviving Plato's fine idea, adopted by Averroës, that God had created a chain of beings from the smallest to the greatest, the last link of which was attached to his eternal throne; an idea more sublime than true, but as distant from atheism as being from nothing.

He travelled to seek his fortune and to dispute; but, unfortunately, disputation leads not to fortune: a man makes him

self as many irreconcilable enemies as he finds men of learning or of pedantry to argue against. Vanini's ill fortune had no other source. His heat and rudeness in disputation procured him the hatred of some theologians; and having quarelled with one Franconi, this Franconi, the friend of his enemies, charged him with being an atheist and teaching atheism.

Franconi, aided by some witnesses, had the barbarity, when confronted with the accused, to maintain what he had advanced. Vanini, on the stool, being asked what he thought of the existence of a God, answered that he, with the Church, adored a God in three persons. Taking a straw from the ground, This," said he, "is sufficient to prove that there is a creator." He then delivered a very fine discourse on vegetation and motion, and the necessity of a Supreme Being, without whom there could be neither motion nor vegetation.

In order to justify this execution, it was necessary to charge the unfortunate man with the most enormous of crimes. The grey friar-the very grey friar Marsenne, was so besotted as to publish_that “Vanini set out from Naples, with twelve of his apostles, to convert the whole world to atheism." What a pitiful tale! How should a poor priest have twelve men in his pay? How should he persuade twelve Neapolitans to travel at great expence, in order to spread this revolting doctrine at the peril of their lives? Would a king himself have it in his power to pay twelve preachers of atheism? No one before Father Marsenne had advanced so enormous an absurdity. But after him it was repeated; the journals and historical dictionaries caught it, and the world, which loves the extraordinary, has believed the fable without examination.

a

Even Bayle, in his Miscellaneous Thoughts (Pensées Diverses), speaks of The president Grammont, who was Vanini as of an atheist. He cites his exthen at Toulouse, repeats this discourse ample in support of his paradox, that “ in his history of France, now so little society of atheists might exist:" he assures known; and the same Grammont, through us, that Vanini was a man of very regular some unaccountable prejudice, asserts morals, and that he was a martyr to his that Vanini said all this “through vanity, philosophical opinions. On both these or through fear, rather than from inward points he is equally mistaken. Vanini conviction." informs us, in his Dialogues, written in On what could this atrocious rash judg-imitation of Erasmus, that he had a misment of the president be founded? It is {tress named Isabel. He was as free in evident, from Vanini's answer, that he his writings as in his conduct; but he was could not but be acquitted on the charge not an atheist. of atheism. But what followed? This unfortunate foreign priest also dabbled in medicine: there was found in his house a large live toad, which he kept in a vessel of water; he was forthwith accused of being a sorcerer. It was maintained that this toad was the god which he adored. An impious meaning was attributed to several passages of his books, a thing which is very common and very easy, by taking objections for answers, giving some bad sense to a loose phrase, and pervert-Vanini's fate was not theirs. ing an innocent expression. At last, the faction which oppressed him forced from his judges the sentence which condemned him to die.

A century after his death, the learned La Croze, and he who took the name of Philaletes, endeavoured to justify him. But as no one cares anything about the memory of an unfortunate Neapolitan, scarcely any one has read these apologies.

The Jesuit Hardouin, more learned and no less rash than Garasse, in his book entitled Athei Detecti, charges the Descartes, the Arnaulds, the Pascals, the Mallebranches, with atheism. Happily,

SECTION IV.

A word on the question in morals, agitated by Bayle, "Whether a society of