their assent attends them in every step, proportioned to the evidence
which they meet with. They are even obliged to acknowledge, that the most
abstruse and remote objects are those which are best explained by
philosophy. Light is in reality anatomised. The true system of the
heavenly bodies is discovered and ascertained. But the nourishment of
bodies by food is still an inexplicable mystery. The cohesion of the
parts of matter is still incomprehensible. These sceptics, therefore, are
obliged, in every question, to consider each particular evidence apart,
and proportion their assent to the precise degree of evidence which
occurs. This is their practice in all natural, mathematical, moral, and
political science. And why not the same, I ask, in the theological and
religious? Why must conclusions of this nature be alone rejected on the
general presumption of the insufficiency of human reason, without any
particular discussion of the evidence? Is not such an unequal conduct a
plain proof of prejudice and passion?

Our senses, you say, are fallacious; our understanding erroneous; our
ideas, even of the most familiar objects, extension, duration, motion,
full of absurdities and contradictions. You defy me to solve the
difficulties, or reconcile the repugnancies which you discover in them. I
have not capacity for so great an undertaking: I have not leisure for it:
I perceive it to be superfluous. Your own conduct, in every circumstance,
refutes your principles, and shows the firmest reliance on all the
received maxims of science, morals, prudence, and behaviour.

I shall never assent to so harsh an opinion as that of a celebrated
writer [L'Arte de penser], who says, that the Sceptics are not a sect of
philosophers: They are only a sect of liars. I may, however, affirm
(I hope without offence), that they are a sect of jesters or raillers.
But for my part, whenever I find myself disposed to mirth and amusement,