For how a man can be faid to have knowledge before he knows, how ideas can exift in the mind without and before perception, I muft own is too difficult for me to comprehend. That a man is born with a faculty or capacity to know, though as yet without any actual knowledge; and that, as the eye has a native difpofition and aptitude to perceive the light, when fitly offered, though as yet it never exercifed any act of vifion, and had no innate images in the womb; fo the mind is endued with a power and faculty to know and perceive the truth of this propofition, THERE IS A GOD, as foon as it fhall be reprefented to it; all this is clear and intelligible; but any thing more is, as I have faid, above any reach. In this opinion, which I had many years ago entertained, I was afterwards confirmed by the famous author of the Effay of Human Understanding. Nor can I fee, that by this doctrine the argument for the existence of a Deity, drawn from the general affent of all nations (excepting perhaps fome few, who are fo barbarous that they approach very near the condition of brute animals), is at all invalidated. For fuppofing there is no inbred knowledge of a God; yet if mankind generally affent to it, whether their belief proceeds from their reflection on themselves, or on the vifible creation about them, it will be certainly true, that the exiftence of a Deity carries with it the cleareft and moft uncontrolable evidence; fince mankind fo readily and fo univerfally perceive and embrace it. It deferves confideration, that St. Paul upon this argument does not appeal to

the

the light within, or to any characters of the Divine Being originally engraven on the heart, but deduces the caufe from the effect, and from the creation infers the Creator.

It is very probable that those who believe an innate idea of a Divine Being, unproduced by any operation of the mind, were led by this to another opinion, namely, that there never was in the world a real Atheist in belief and fpeculation, how many foever there may have been in life and practice. But, upon due examination, this opinion, I imagine, will not abide the teft, which I fhall endeavour to make evident.

But, before I enter upon this fubject, it feems proper to take notice of the apology, which feveral perfons of great learning and candour have made for many famous men, and great philofophers, unjustly accused of impiety.

Whoever fhall fet about to mend the world, and re form men's notions, as well as their manners, will.certainly be the mark of much fcandal and reproach; and will effectually be convinced, that it is too poffible the greatest lovers and benefactors of mankind may be reprefented by the multitude, whofe opinions they contradict, as the worst of men. The hardy undertakers, who exprefs their zeal to rectify the fentiments of a prejudiced people in matters of religion, who labour to ftem the tide of popular error, and friké «at ̧ the foundations of any ancient, eftablished superstition, muft themselves expect to be treated as pragmatical aněl infolent innovators, difturbers of the public peace,

and the great enemies of religion. The obfervation of all ages confirms this truth; and, if any man who is doubtful of it would try the experiment, I make no queftion he will very foon be thoroughly convinced.

It is no wonder, therefore, that Anaxagoras, though he was the first philofopher who plainly afferted an Eternal Mind by whofe power the world was made, for oppofing the public worship at Athens, whofe refined wits were plunged in the most fenfelefs idolatry, and particularly for denying the divinity of the Sun, fhould be condemned for irreligion, and treafon against the Gods; and be heavily fined and banished the city. It is no wonder, after fo fharp a perfecution of this Zealous reformer, that Socrates, the next fucceffor but one to Anaxagoras, and the laft of the Ionic fchool, for oppofing their fcandalous rabble of deities, and afferting one Divine Being, should be condemned for Atheism, and put to death, by blind fuperftition and implacable bigotry.

Some have been condemned by their antagonifts for impiety, who maintain pofitions, which thofe from whom they diffent imagine have a tendency to the difbelief of a Deity. But this is a manifeft violation of juftice, as well as candour, to impute to any man the remote confequences of his opinion, which he himfelf disclaims and detefts, and who, if he saw the connexion of his principles with fuch conclufions, would readily renounce them. No man can be reafonably charged with more opinions than he owns; and if this justice were observed in polemical difcourfes,

as

as well of theology as philofophy, many perfons had efcaped thofe hard names, and terrible cenfures, which their angry antagonists have thought fit to fix upen them. No one therefore is to be reputed an Atheift, or an enemy to religion, upon the account of any erroneous opinion, from which another may by a long chain of fequels draw that conclufion; much lefs for holding any doctrines in philosophy, which the common people are not able to examine or comprehend, who, when they meddle with fpeculations, of which they are unqualified to judge, will be as apt to cenfure a philofopher for an Atheift, as an astronomer for a magician.

I would fain too in this place make some apology for the great numbers of loofe and vicious men, who laugh at religion, and seem in their conversation to difclaim the belief of a Deity. I do not mean an apology for their practice, but their opinion. I hope thefe unhappy perfons, at least the greateft part, who have given up the reins to their paffions and exorbitant appetites, are, rather than Atheists, a careless and stupid fort of creatures, who, either out of a fupine temper, or for fear of being difturbed with remorfe in their unwarrantable enjoyments, never foberly confider with themfélves, or exercife their reafon on things of the highest importance. Thefe perfons never examine the arguments that enforce the belief of a Deity, and the obligations of religion: but take the word of their ingenious friends, or fome atheistical pretender to philofophy, who affures them there is no God, and there

fore no religion. And notwithstanding all Atheifts: have leave given them by their principles to become libertines, yet it is not true that all libertines are Atheifts. Some plainly affert their belief of a God; and others, who deny his existence, yet do not deny it upon any principles, any fcheme of philosophy which they have framed, and by which they account for the exiftence and duration of the world, in the beautiful order in which we fee it, without the aid of a Divine Eternal Mind.

But there are two forts of men, who without injuflice have been called Atheists; those who frankly and in plain terms have denied the being of a God; and thofe who, though they afferted his being, denied thofe attributes and perfections, which the idea of a God includes; and fo, while they, acknowledged the name, fubverted the thing. Thefe are as real Atheists as the former, but lefs fincere. If any man fhould declare he believes a Deity, but affirms that this Deity is of human shape, and not eternal; that he derives his being from the fortuitous concourfe and complication of atoms; or, though he allowed him to be eternal, fhould maintain, that he fhewed no wisdom, defign, or prudence, in the formation, and no care or providence in the government, of the world; that he never reflects on any thing exterior to his own being, nor interefts himfelf in human affairs; does not know, or does not attend to, any of our actions: fuch a perfon is, indeed, and in effect, as much an Atheist as the former. For though he owns the appellation, yet his defeription is deftructive