ter knowledge a grofs abfurdity. But I perceive no abfurdity nor inconfiftence in fuppofing that matwas brought into existence by Almighty power; and the popular expreffion, that God made the world out of nothing, has no other meaning. It is true, that in the operations of men nothing can be produced but from antecedent materials; and fo accustomed are we to fuch operations, as not readily to conceive how a thing can be brought into existence without antecedent materials, or made out of nothing, as commonly expreffed. But will any man in fober sense venture to fet bounds to Almighty power, where he cannot point out a clear inconsistence? It is indeed difficult to conceive a thing fo remote from common apprehenfion; but is there lefs difficulty in conceiving matter to exist without a caufe, and to be entitled to the awful appellation of felf-exiftent, like the Lord of the Universe, to whom a more exalted appellation cannot be given? Now, if it be within the utmost verge of poffibility for matter to have been created, I conclude with the highest probability, that it owes its exiftence to Almighty power. The neceffity of one felf-exiftent being is intuitively certain; but I perceive no neceffity, nor indeed probability, that there fhould be more than one. Difficulties about the creation of matter, testify our ignorance; but to argue from our ignorance that a thing cannot be, has always been held very weak reasoning. Our faculties are adapted to our pre fent fent ftate, and perform their office in perfection. But to complain. that they do not reach the origin of things, is no lefs abfurd than to complain that we cannot afcend to the moon in order to be acquainted with its inhabitants. At the fame time, it is a comfortable reflection, that the queftion, whether matter was created or no, is 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 self-existent, and confequently independent of the Almighty either to create or to annihilate. I cheerfully make the former an article of my Creed; but without anathematifing those who adopt the latter. I would however have it understood, that I limit my conceffion to matter in its original rude state. I cannot poffibly carry my complaifance fo far as to comprehend the world in its present perfection. That immenfe machine composed 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 cause, 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 sense of Deity. That objection fhall not be overlooked; but it will be answered to better purpose, after thefe these grofs and abfurd conceptions are examined in the chapter immediately following. The proof of a Deity from the innate sense here explained, differs materially from what is contained in effays on morality and natural religion *. The proof there given is founded on a chain of reasoning, altogether independent on the innate fense of Deity. Both equally produce conviction; but as sense operates intuitively without reasoning, 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 perfpicuous reafoning to a philofopher. CHAP. II. Progress of Opinions with respect to Deity. HE fenfe of Deity, like many other delicate THE 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 *Part ii. fe&t. 72 is, is, that being accustomed to a plurality of visible 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 fyftem of Polytheism, univerfal among favages. The other is, that favages know little of the connection between caufes and effects, and ftill lefs 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 hefitation afcribed to a fuperior being. But as it occurs not to a favage, nor to any person who is not a philofopher, that the many various events exceeding human power and feemingly unconnected, may all proceed from the fame caufe; they are readily ascribed to different beings. Pliny afcribes Polytheifm to the consciousness men have of their imbecillity: "Our powers are confined within narrow bounds: we "do not readily conceive powers in the Deity "much more xtenfive: and we fupply by num"ber what is wanting in power *." Polytheism, thus founded, is the firft ftage in the progrefs of theology; for it is embraced by the rudeft favages, who have neither capacity nor inclination to pierce deeper into the nature of things. This *Plurality of heads or of hands in one idol, is fometimes. made to supply plurality of different idols. Hence among saTages the grotesque figure of fome of their idols. 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 every new object and every unufual event. Savages, having no protection against ftorms, tempefts, nor other external accidents, and having no pleafures but in gratifying hunger, thirst, and animal love; have much to fear, and little to hope. In that difconfolate condition, they attribute the bulk of their diftreffes 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 Craefus King of Lydia, mentioned by Herodotus in the firft book of his hiftory. "Crœfus, faid Solon, you afk me about human "affairs; and I anfwer as one who thinks, that` "all the gods are envious and difturbers of man"kind." The negroes on the coaft of Guinea, dread their deities as tyrants and oppreffors: ha-. ving 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, which is allied to gloominess. The people of Kamskatka acknowledge to this day many malevolent deities, having little or no notion of a good deity. They believe the |