Besides, an eternal succession of finite beings involves in it a contradiction, and is therefore plainly impossible. As the supposition is made to get quit of the idea of any one having existed from eternity, each of the beings in the succession must have begun in time; but the succession itself is eternal. Then, we have the succession of beings infinitely earlier than any being in the succession; or in other words, a series of beings running on, ad infinitum, before it reached any particular being, which is absurd.

From these considerations it is manifest there must be some eternal being, or nothing could ever have existed; and since the beings we behold bear in their whole structure evident marks of wisdom and design, it is equally certain that he who formed them is a wise and intelligent agent. That there are not many, but only one such being, is evident from the fact, that the notion of more than one author of nature is inconsistent with that harmony of design which pervades the universe.

Such are the proofs of the existence of that great and glorious being who is denominated by us, God; and it is not presumption to say, it is impossible to find another truth in the whole compass of morals which, according to the justest laws of reasoning, admits of such strict and rigorous demonstration. If there be a God, an all-wise mind or spirit by whom all things were created; and if man have mind or spirit, it is not impossible for that great and glorious being to reveal himself and his will to man. Our inability to describe or conceive of the manner in which this is done is no just argument against it, for that action of the spirit of God upon the mind of man, which is denoted by the word inspiration, is not more inconceivable than the ordinary action of the human mind upon the body; and if every thing be banished from the world which we cannot comprehend, there will be little or nothing left.

SECTION II.

THE Deists found an objection against the credibility of the Old Testament Scriptures on the ground that, in the Book of Genesis, Theism, or the worship of THE ONE GOD, is represented as having been the primary religion of mankind; whereas, say they, the first religion was, and necessarily must have been, Polytheism.

Mr. Hume, reasoning upon this subject, says, "It appears to me, that, if we consider the improvement of human society, from rude

beginnings to a state of greater perfection, polytheism or idolatry was, and necessarily must have been, the first and most ancient religion of mankind. This opinion I shall endeavor to confirm by the following arguments.

It is a matter of fact incontestible, that about 1700 years ago all mankind were polytheists. The doubtful and sceptical principles of a few philosophers, or the theism, and that too not entirely pure, of one or two nations, form no objection worth regarding. Behold then the clear testimony of history. The farther we mount up into antiquity, the more do we find mankind plunged into polytheism. No marks, no symptoms of any more perfect religion. The most ancient records of the human race still present us with that system as the popular and established creed. The north, the south, the east, the west, give their unanimous testimony to the same fact. What can be opposed to so full an evidence?

As far as writing or history reaches, mankind, in ancient times,. appear universally to have been polytheists. Shall we assert, that, in more ancient times, before the knowledge of letters, or the discovery of any art or science, men entertained the principles of pure theism? That is, while they were ignorant and barbarous, they discovered truth; but fell into error, as soon as they acquired learning and politeness.

1

But in this assertion you not only contradict all appearance of probability, but also our present experience concerning the principles and opinions of barbarous nations. The savage tribes of AMERICA, AFRICA, and ASIA, are all idolaters-not a single exception to this rule-insomuch, that, were a traveler to transport himself into any unknown region; if he found inhabitants cultivated, with arts and science, though even upon that supposition there are odds against their being theists, yet could he not safely, till farther inquiry, pronounce any thing on that head. But if he found them ignorant and barbarous, he might beforehand declare them idolaters; and there scarcely is a possibility of his being mistaken.

It seems certain, that, according to the natural progress of human thought, the ignorant multitude must first entertain some grovelling and familiar notion of superior powers, before they stretch their conception to that perfect Being, who bestowed order on the whole frame of nature. We may as reasonably imagine, that men inhabited palaces before huts and cottages, or studied geometry before agriculture; as assert that the Deity appeared to them a pure spirit, omniscient,

powerful, though limited being, with human passions and appetites, limbs and organs. The mind rises gradually, from inferior to superior: by abstracting from what is imperfect, it forms an idea of perfection: and slowly distinguishing the nobler parts of its own frame from the grosser, it learns to transfer only the former, much elevated and refined, to its divinity. Nothing could disturb this natural progress of thought, but some obvious and invincible argument, which might immediately lead the mind into the pure principles of theism, and make it overleap, at one bound, the vast interval which is interposed between the human and the divine nature. But though I allow, that the order and frame of the universe, when accurately examined, affords such an argument; yet I can never think, that this consideration could have an influence on mankind, when they formed their first rude notions of religion.

The causes of such objects, as are quite familiar to us, never strike our attention or curiosity; and however extraordinary or surprising these objects in themselves, they are passed over, by the raw and ignorant multitude, without much examination or inquiry. ADAM, rising at once, in paradise, and in the full perception of his faculties, would naturally, as represented by MILTON, be astonished at the glorious appearances of nature, the heavens, the air, the earth, his own organs and members; and would be led to ask, whence this wonderful scene arose? But a barbarous, necessitous animal (such as a man on the first origin of society), pressed by such numerous wants and passions, has no leisure to admire the regular face of nature, or make inquiries concerning the cause of those objects, to which from his infancy he has been gradually accustomed. On the contrary, the more regular and uniform, that is, the more perfect nature appears, the more is he familiarized to it, and the less inclined to scrutinize and examine it. A monstrous birth excites his curiosity, and is deemed a prodigy. It alarms him from its novelty; and immediately sets him a trembling, and sacrificing, and praying. But an animal, complete in all its limbs and organs, is to him an ordinary spectacle, and produces no religious opinion or affection. Ask him, whence that animal arose? he will tell you, from the copulation of its parents. And these, whence? From the copulation of theirs. A few removes satisfy his curiosity, and set the objects at such a distance, that he entirely loses sight of them. Imagine not, that he will so much as start the question, whence the first animal; much less, whence the whole system or united fabric of the universe arose. Or, if you start such a question to him, expect not, ཀ‚nlor his mind

ויי.

with any anxiety about a subject, so remote, so uninteresting, and which so much exceeds the bounds of his capacity.

But farther, if men were at first led into the belief of one supreme Being, by reasoning from the frame of nature, they could never possibly leave that belief, in order to embrace polytheism; but the same principles of reason, which at first produced and diffused over mankind, so magnificent an opinion, must be able, with greater facility, to preserve it. The first invention and proof of any doctrine is much more difficult than the supporting and retaining of it.

There is a great difference between historical facts and speculative opinions, nor is the knowledge of the one propagated in the same manner with that of the other. An historical fact, while it passes by oral tradition from eye-witnesses and contemporaries, is disguised in every successive narration, and may at last retain but very small, if any, resemblance of the original truth on which it was founded. The frail memories of men, their love of exaggeration, their supine carelessness; these principles, if not corrected by books and writing, soon pervert the account of historical events; where argument or reasoning has little or no place, nor can ever recall the truth, which has once escaped those narrations. It is thus the fables of HERCULES, THESEUS, BACCHUS, are supposed to have been originally founded in true history, corrupted by tradition. But with regard to speculative opinions, the case is far otherwise. If these opinions be founded on arguments so clear and obvious as to carry conviction with the generality of mankind, the same arguments which at first diffused the opinions will still preserve them in their original purity. If the arguments be more abstruse, and more remote from vulgar apprehension, the opinions will always be confined to a few persons; and as soon as men leave the contemplation of the arguments, the opinions will immediately be lost and be buried in oblivion. Whichever side of this dilemma we take, it must appear impossible, that theism could, from reasoning, have been the primary religion of the human race, and have afterwards, by its corruption, given birth to polytheism and to all the various superstitions of the heathen world. Reason, when obvious, prevents these corruptions: when abstruse, it keeps the principles entirely from the knowledge of the vulgar, who are alone liable to corrupt any principle or opinion.'

Mr. Hume's argument does not prove that theism, or the acknowledgment and worship of one God, was not the religion of the first

ages; it only shows, that it was not the mere result of their own reasonings, and therefore, if it obtained among them, it must have been owing to a divine revelation originally communicated to the first men. He supposes that it was impossible that men, in the first ages of the world, should, if left to themselves, in the circumstances they were in, have any other religion than idolatry. But a greater absurdity can hardly be conceived of, than for one who believes in the existence of a wise and good God, the creator of the human race, supposing that he would place mankind in such circumstances at their first formation, and for many ages afterwards, that they must either have no religion at ail, or a false one, so that it was absolutely impossible for them not to be idolators and polytheists. And the history of the ancient nations of the earth, give a united testimony that their original progenitors possessed a knowledge of the one true and living God, who was worshiped by them, and believed to be an infinite, self-existent and invisible Spirit; and this being established, must go far to prove that the first parents of mankind had a knowledge of religion in its main fundamental principles, communicated to them by God himself, at their first coming into the world, and to put them into a capacity for knowing and adoring their Creator, which it is conceded both by Mr. Hume and the advocates of Revelation, the first men could not acquire "by reasoning from the works of nature."

Mr. Hume appeals to fact, and asserts that "all mankind, a very few excepted, were idolators from the beginning, and continued so till 1700 (1800) years ago, and that the farther we mount up into antiquity, the more we find mankind plunged into idolatry; no marks or symptoms of a more perfect religion." If Mr. Hume intends to say that mankind, from the beginning, were absolutely without any knowledge of the one supreme God, and this certainly is his meaning, he is at war with himself where he says, "There is a consent of mankind, almost universal, in the belief that there is an invisible, intelligent power in the world." How came this general consent into the world? not from Revelation, for that he does not admit, nor by the power of reason, for that he denies. And if such a general consent of an invisible, intelligent power, obtained among mankind, how came it to pass that from the beginning, mankind, with a very few exceptions, were idolators? But his assertion is not true. Mankind were not idolators from the beginning, but worshiped the infinite and selfexistent Spirit, and a notion of this being continued for a long time among the idolatrous heathens themselves, and although it was greatly obscured, it was never entirely extinguished.