he was exalting one attribute at the expenſe of another, equally neceſſary to divine perfection.
Reared on a falſe hypotheſis his arguments in favour of a ſtate of nature are plauſible, but unſound. I ſay unſound; for to aſſert that a ſtate of nature is preferable to civilization, in all its poſſible perfection, is, in other words, to arraign ſupreme wiſdom; and the paradoxical exclamation, that God has made all things right, and that evil has been introduced by the creature, whom he formed, knowing what he formed, is as unphiloſophical as impious.
When that wiſe Being who created us and placed us here, ſaw the fair idea, he willed, by allowing it to be ſo, that the paſſions ſhould unfold our reaſon, becauſe he could ſee that preſent evil would produce future good. Could the helpleſs creature whom he called from nothing break looſe from his providence, and boldly learn to know good by practiſing evil, without his permiſſion? No.—How could that energetic advocate for immortality argue ſo inconſiſtently? Had mankind remained for ever in the brutal ſtate of nature, which even his magic pen cannot paint as a ſtate in which a ſingle virtue took root, it would have been clear, though not to the ſenſitive unreflecting wanderer, that man was born to run the circle of life and death, and adorn God's garden for ſome purpoſe which could not eaſily be reconciled with his attributes.
But, if, to crown the whole, there were to be rational creatures produced, allowed to riſe in excellence by the exerciſe of powers implanted for that purpoſe; if benignity itſelf thought fit to
