Is it natural to suppose, that the first Person who found a _Lark's_ Nest, and in it several of the Female's Eggs, should have any Apprehensions of finding none in the _Nightingale's_, only because he had never seen one before, I believe the most illiterate Person of the earliest Ages, who had Curiosity enough for such a Search, would be greatly disappointed in such a Case, and far from concluding that the _Nightingale_ had none. Farther, should any one who had seen several Sorts of Fish taken out of the River _Thames_, or out of the _Nyle_, have any sort of Suspicion that he should find no such Creatures in the _Seine_ or the _Ganges_, though it should be allowed that he had never seen any such Creatures that were known to come from thence. Ocular Demonstration, in such a Case, would sure be unnecessary, and an Evidence of the first, I believe would be abundantly sufficient to convince us of what we ought to look for at least in the last: But then the Fishes of different Seas, and of Rivers are not of the same Species you'll say; but as it were infinitely diversified through all the aqueous World, this is, and must be granted, and alike Variety of _Species_ must also be granted, in the former Case of the Birds: But no Objection can possibly arise from any such Diversity, since we don't pretend to say, nor is it at all necessary, that the Beings in the sidereal Planets should be every where the same with these of our solar System, a Variety must every where be admitted, and will always be admired, where the Work is Nature's, and the Design God's. All then that I here pretend to argue for, is a Universality of rational Creatures to people Infinity, or rather such Parts of the Creation, as from the Analogy and Nature of Things, we judge to be habitable Seats for Beings, not unlike the mortal human. Every Animal, and every Vegetable, that, as it were, naturally exists by the Virtues, Properties, or Laws of the mineral Kingdom, has something of a secondary Nature, depending upon it as a Principle; and to say that the Stars, which are a certain visible sort of Cotemporaries in Space with the Sun, have no like planetary Bodies with ours moving round them, because we cannot possibly see them, is no less absurd and ridiculous, than to argue, that we can have no Reason to expect to find, in the proper Season, Grapes upon every Vine--Figs upon every Tree--Roses upon every Bush--only because some of them are at such a Distance, that neither Rose, Fig or Grape, can be discovered by the Eye.