a pure fpeculation, and that either fide may be adopted without impiety. To me it appears more fimple and more natural to hold it to be a work of creation, than to be felf-existent, and confequently independent of the Almighty either to create or to annihilaté. I chearfully make the former an article of my Creed; but without anathemifing those who adopt the latter. I would however have it understood, that I limit my conceffion to matter in its origi nal rude ftate. I cannot poffibly carry my complaifance fo far as to comprehend the world in its prefent perfection. That immenfe machine compofed of parts without number fo artfully combined as to fulfil the intention of the maker, must be the production of a great being, omnifcient as well as omnipotent. To affign blind fatality as the caufe, is an infufferable abfurdity.

Many grofs and abfurd conceptions of Deity that have prevailed among rude nations, are urged by fome writers as an objection against a fenfe of Deity. That objection fhall not be overlooked; but iç will be answered to better purpose, after these gross and absurd conceptions are ex

amined in the chapter immediately following.

The proof of a Deity from the innate fense here explained, differs materially from what is contained in effays on morality and natural religion (a). The proof there given is founded on a chain of reafoning, altogether independent on the innate fenfe of Deity. Both equally produce conviction; but as sense operates intuitively without reafoning, the sense of Deity is made a branch of human nature, in order to enlighten those who are incapable of a long chain of reasoning; and to fuch, who make the bulk of mankind, it is more convincing, than the most perspicuous reasoning to a philofopher.

(a) Part 2. fect. 7.

CHAP.

CHA P. II.

Progress of Opinions with respect to Deity.

THE

HE fenfe of Deity, like many other delicate fenfes, is in favages fo faint and obfcure as eafily to be biaffed from truth. Among them, the belief of many fuperior beings, is univerfal. And two caufes join to produce that belief. The first is, that being accustomed to a plurality of vifible objects, men, mountains, trees, cattle, and fuch like, they are naturally led to imagine a like plurality in things not visible; and from that flight bias, flight indeed but natural, is partly derived the system of Polytheism, univerfal among favages. The other is, that favages know little of the connection between causes and effects, and still less of the order and government of the world: every event that is not familiar, appears to them fingular and extraordinary; and if fuch event exceed human power, it is

without

without hesitation afcribed to a fuperior being. But as it occurs not to a savage, nor to any person who is not a philosopher, that the many various events exceeding human power and feemingly unconnected, may all proceed from the fame caufe; they are readily afcribed to different beings. Pliny afcribes Polytheifin to the consciousness men have of their imbecillity: "Our powers are confined within

narrow bounds: we do not readily con"ceive powers in the Deity much more "extenfive: and we fupply by number "what is wanting in power *." Polytheism, thus founded, is the first stage in the progress of theology; for it is embraced by the rudest savages, who have neither capacity nor inclination to pierce deeper into the nature of things.

This ftage is diftinguishable from others, by a belief that all fuperior beings are malevolent. Man, by nature weak and helpless, is prone to fear, dreading

*Plurality of heads or of hands in one idol, is fometimes made to fupply plurality of different idols. Hence among favages the grotefque figure of fome of their idols.

every new object and every unusual event. Savages, having no protection against ftorms, tempefts, nor other external accidents, and having no pleasures but in gratifying hunger, thirft, and animal love; have much to fear, and little to hope. In that disconfolate condition, they attribute the bulk of their distresses to invifible beings, who in their opinion must be malevolent. This feems to have been the opinion of the Greeks in the days of Solon; as appears in a converfation between him and Crofus King of Lydia,"mentioned by Herodotus in the first book of his history. "Crofus, faid Solon, you ask me "about human affairs; and I answer as

one who thinks, that all the gods are "envious and disturbers of mankind.' The negroes on the coast of Guinea, dread their deities as tyrants and oppreffors: having no conception of a good deity, they attribute the few bleffings they receive, to the foil, to the rivers, to the trees, and to the plants. The Lithuanians continued Pagans down to the fourteenth century; and worshipped in gloomy woods, where their deities were held to refide. Their worship probably was prompted by fear, VOL. IV. which

Ee