are thought to concern, religion, that we have not ourselves examined, and how inexcufable it is to do this in cafes wherein we may be able, with a little pains, to judge for ourselves.

The first article of natural theology, in which the heathen were deficient according to Mr. Locke, was the knowledge of one God, maker of all things. He admits, at the fame time, that the works of nature, in every part of them, fufficiently evidenced a deity; and that, by the impreffions of himself, God was eafy to be found. These affertions do not feem very confiftent, and therefore it is added, that the world made fo little use of their reason, that they faw him not ---- fenfe and luft blinded their minds. But the rational, and thinking part of mankind, he confeffes, found the one fupreme, invifible God, when they fought after him. If this be true now, as it is most certainly, the heathen world made as good ufe of their reason, for ought I can fee, as the chriftian world. In this, it is not the irrational and unthinking, but the rational and thinking part of mankind who feek, and find the true God; and just fo we are told, that it was in the other. Befides, if this be true, it follows, that this great and fundamental article of natural theology is discoverable by a due ufe of human reafon; and Mr. Locke acknowledges accordingly again, that God was found by the wife and virtuous, which is a limitation of no great fignificancy to his purpose, fince the vicious would have fought him in no state of mankind, nor the foolish have found him. fays this writer, the wife and virtuous had never authority enough to prevail on the multitude, and to perfuade the focieties of men, that there was but one God. If he had proved, as well as affirmed this, he would only have proved, what no man denies, that fufficient means to reclaim men from polytheism and idolatry, and to establish the belief of

But

one

one God, appear to have been wanting in general, and to a great degree, as far as the memorials we have of antient nations can fhew. He would not have proved, that the light of nature was fufficient, nor that the religion of nature was defective in this refpect. He would not have proved, what he had in view to establish, that the belief and worship of one God was the national religion of the Ifraelites alone, and that it was their particular privilege, and advantage, to know the true God, and the true worship of him; whilft all other nations from the beginning, adored the hoft of heaven, as Eufebius afferts very confidently, though he is far from proving it.

Eufebius took much pains, and used much art, I might fay artifice, to fpread an opinion that this knowledge, and all good theology were derived from the Jews, and from their fcriptures; nay that the philology, and philofophy of the whole learned world were purloined from thence, and the heathen were plagiaries, who lighted their candles at the fire of the fanctuary, as fome modern Eufebius or other, Gale, I think, expreffes himself. JoSephus had gone before Eufebius in the fame defign: for thus far Jews and Chriftians made their cause common, and he had begun to falfify chronology, that he might give his nation a furprising antiquity. Eufebius did the fame, and without taking the trouble of defcending into particulars, many of which are acknowledged by learned and orthodox writers, I may fay, that from that time to this, or to the time when by the revival of letters, and the invention of printing, which made the knowledge of antiquity more eafy and common, much the fame practice was continued with much the fame fuccefs. Antient memorials have been forged and altered for this particular purpose, mere affumptions have been delivered as facts, and nothing has been neglected to

give not only antiquity, but illuftration, to a nation that never had much of the latter out of their own writings, and thofe of christianity. As the hiftory of the Jews was committed to the care of their fcribes; fo the propagation of every learned fyftem that could tend to the confirmation of it, by reconciling anachronifms, and by coloring improbabilities, has been the charge of a particular order of men among Chriftians, who had the monopoly of learning for many ages, and who have had a great fhareof it fince. This has been imposed on the bulk of mankind, prepared by their prejudices to acquiefce under the authority of great names, and frightened from examining by the enormous piles of greek, and latin, and eaftern languages, in which fuch authors feem to entrench themselves.

Notwithstanding this, I will fay, and, if I know any thing, I fay it on knowledge, that thefe entrenchments are not tenable. They cannot be battered down always, perhaps, by the fame arms by which they are defended, but fure I am they may be undermined, and he who fearches their foundations will find that they are laid on fand. Jofephus, and Eufebius will be of great ufe to him, against themselves. Their writings are repertories of valuable fragments, and of fuch as would be more fo, if more credit could be given to the fidelity of thofe who cite them. I have fometimes thought, that we might apply properly enough to the Jew, and the chriftian author, what La Bruyere fays, in his characters, of Perault, that he quoted fo many paffages from antient writers, whilft he attempted to prove the fuperiority of the moderns, that his works were read for the fake of thefe paffages.

Thinking in this manner, I could not fail to be furprised when I found fuch affertions, as are mentioned above, in a treatife writ by Mr. Locke. The common herd of writers copy one another in every

point that makes for their common cause, about which alone, and not about truth, they feem to be concerned. They affirm over and over fo pofitively, and fo long, things deftitute of proof, or evident falfities, that even the laft grow into belief, according to the practice of the court of Rome, as father Paul reprefents it, in her ufurpations. I fhould not have eafily fufpected Mr. Locke of fuch a proceeding, nor of affirming dogmatically what he had not fufficiently examined. But he has writ below himself in this inftance, by going out of his way, and has affumed the spirit of those who write on the fame. subject, much like Sir Ifaac Newton, who loft himself in the vague probabilities of chronology, after having purfued with fo much fuccefs the certainty of mathematical demonftration.

I meddle not here with any thing that is faid concerning that clear knowledge of their duty, which was wanting to mankind, as Mr. Locke affirms very untruly, before the coming of Chrift, nor with the theological part of this treatise. I confiné myself to thefe propofitions, that all the heathen were in a state of darknefs, and ignorance of the true God, and confequently that the belief and worfhip of one God was the national religion of the Ifraelites alone. Now here I obferve a want of that precifion, which this great man is fo careful to keep in all his other writings. As he does not distinguish enough the want of a fufficient knowledge of natural religion and the want of fufficient means to propagate it, which he rather confounds in all he fays about them, fo he uses these two expreffions, the true God, and one God, as if they were exactly fynonymous; whereas they are not really fo, and the explanation, and justification of the diftinction, in the prefent difpute, will fet the matter on a very different foot. It is not unity alone that conftitutes the complex idea, or notion of the true God. There is, there can be but one fuch Being, and yet a monotheist VOL. IV.

N

may

may be as far from the knowledge of the true God as the rankeft, and moft fuperftitious polytheift. I have taken notice, in the precedent effay, how the belief of one God, and of many, was reconciled in the heathen theology feveral ways; and what I have touched tranfiently, may be feen made out fully in the intellectual fyftem. A polytheift, who believes one felf-exiftent Being, the fountain of all existence, by whofe immediate or communicated energy all things were made, and are governed, and who looks on all thofe other beings whom he calls gods, that is, beings fuperior to man, not only as inferior to the Supreme, but as beings all of whom proceed from him in feveral fubordinate ranks, and are appointed by him to the various ufes and fervices for which he defigned them in the whole extent of the divine œconomy; fuch a polytheift, I fay, will approach nearly to true theifm, by holding in this manner nothing that is abfolutely inconfiftent with it: whilft the monotheift, who believes that there is but one God, and afcribes to this God, whom he fhould conceive as an all-perfect Being, the very worst of human imperfections, is most certainly ignorant of the true God, and as oppofite to true theifm as the Atheist, nay he is more injuriously fo. Mr. Locke would have done like himself, if he had made these reflections before he had joined in the common cry; and he might have thought, perhaps, in that cafe, that the coming of Christ was neceffary to give the Jews true notions of God, as well as to convince the Gentiles of his unity.

Inftead of this, he takes the common opinion for granted, fuppofes what is in queftion, and does not fo much as attempt a proof. He fays indeed, that "there was no part of mankind that had a

greater light of reafon, or that followed it farther "in all forts of fpeculations, than the Athenians; "and yet we find, he adds, but one Socrates amongst "them that oppofed and laughed at their polythe

“ iẩm