Moreover--besides the utter inconsequence of such purely relative ideas as _often_ and _rare_--it is far more reasonable that an eternal, personal author of creation should watch over his work to shape and diversify it at his pleasure, than that, after a single act, he should relapse into _inertia_ like the Hindu Brahmin.

To concentrate the whole evidence of design in one original act, ages upon ages ago, with no opening for after interference, undermines belief in a personal designer, simply because it leaves him nothing to do."[4] Leaving these brutish among the people who assert the latter, to the enjoyment of their folly, let us ascertain what we can know of the great Creator of the heavens and the earth.

God refers the atheists of the Psalmist's days to their own bodies for proofs of his intelligence, to their own minds for proofs of his personality, and to their own observation of the judgments of his providence against evil-doers for proofs of his moral government.

Our text ascribes for him perception and intelligence: _He that planted the ear, shall he not hear?
He that formed the eye, shall he not see ?_ It does not say, he has an eye or an ear, but that he has the knowledge we acquire by those organs.

And the argument is from the designed organ to the designing maker of it, and is perfectly irresistible.