Done. Tell me, then, and be damned to you, do you deny that the Gods exercise providence?

I do.

What, are all the events we see uncontrolled, then?

Yes.

And the regulation of the universe is not under any God's care?

No.

And everything moves casually, by blind tendency?

Yes.

Gentlemen, can you tolerate such sentiments? Stone the blasphemer.

What do you mean by hounding them against me? Who are you, that you should protest in the Gods’ name? They do not even protest in their own; they have sent no judgement on me, and they have had time enough to hear me, if they have ears.

They do hear you; they do; and some day their vengeance will find you out.

Pray when are they likely to have time to spare for me? They are far too busy, according to you, with all the infinite concerns of the universe on their hands. That is why they have never punished you for your perjuries and—well, for the rest of your performances, let me say, not to break our compact about abuse. And yet I am at a loss to conceive any more convincing proof they could have given of their Providence, than if they had trounced you as you deserve. But no doubt they are from home—tother side of Oceanus, possibly, on a visit to‘ the blameless Ethiopians.’ We know they have a way of going there to dinner, self-invited Sometimes.

What answer is possible to such ribaldry?

The answer I have been waiting for all this time 3 you can tell me what made you believe in divine Providence.

Firstly, the order of nature—the sun running his regular course, the moon the same, the circling seasons, the growth of plants, the generation of living things, the ingenious adaptations in these latter for nutrition, thought, movement, locomotion; look at a carpenter or a shoemaker, for instance; and the thing is infinite. All these effects, and no effecting Providence?

You beg the question; whether the effects are produced by Providence is just what is not yet proved. Your description of nature I accept; it does not follow that there is definite design in it; it is not impossible that things now similar and homogeneous have developed from widely different origins. But you give the name ‘order’ to mere blind tendency. And you will be very angry if one follows your appreciative catalogue of nature in all its variety, but stops short of accepting it as a proof of detailed Providence. So, as the play says, Here lurks a fallacy; bring me sounder proof.