iods 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 anthropomorphism, 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 progression? 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 meaning. 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. 461-4.)

Cleanthes, in replying to Philo's discourse, says that it is very easy
to answer his arguments; but, as not unfrequently happens with
controversialists, he mistakes a reply for an answer, when he declares
that--

"The