But is the atheist to be permitted to maintain his position that any given arrangement is imperfect? Are we to concede to Laplace that he can improve the mechanism of the solar system? By no means. We may not be able to prove the absolute perfection of the arrangement, but we can shew the probability that the caviller is far more likely to be at fault, than that there should be a defect in the machine. A skilful mechanician may, on examining the works of a watch, say, without presumption, that the scapement is imperfect, and that he could suggest an improvement; and the reason simply is, that the tools formed by man for useful purposes have their object clearly defined. It is easy to see what the one requirement of a good scapement, for example, is, and there is no presumption in suggesting how this one well-defined object is to be attained in a more satisfactory manner. But the instruments of nature are not like human tools. The extent of their uses cannot be defined. All nature is one great whole; and it would require omniscience itself to say whether any given arrangement is the best possible for the innumerable uses it may subserve. To give light is one use of the moon, but we know not the many other uses it may serve. It is not, however, necessary to discover all these uses in order to maintain the position that it is ordained to give light, and we are not entitled to criticise its efficiency till we know all its functions.
