PREFACE.

IT has been the opinion of many persons of great sense and learning, that the knowledge of a God, as well as fome other felf-evident and uncontested notions, is born with us, and exists antecedent to any perception or operation of the mind. They exprefs themselves on this subject in metaphorical terms, altogether unbecoming philofophical and judicious enquiries, while they affert, that the knowledge of a God is interwoven with our conftitution, that it is written, engraven, stampt, and imprinted in clear and difcernible characters on the heart; in which manner of speecli they affect to follow the great orator of the Romans.

By these unartful phrases they can mean nothing but this, that the propofition, THERE IS A GOD, is actually exiftent in the mind, as foon as the mind has its being; and is not at first acquired, though it may he afterwards confirmed, by any act of reason, by any argument or demonstration. I must confefs my inability to conceive this inbred knowledge, these original indépendent ideas, that owe not their being to the ope ration of the understanding, but are, I know not how, congenite and co-exiftent with it.

For how a man can be faid to have knowledge before he knows, how ideas can exist in the mind without and before perception, I must 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 exercised any act of vision, 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 shall be represented to it; all this is clear and intelligible; but any thing more is, as I have faid, above my reach. In this opinion, which I had many years ago entertained, I was afterwards confirmed by the famous author of the Essay 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 so 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 visible creation about them, it will be certainly true, that the existence of a Deity carries with it the clearest and most uncontrolable evidence; fince mankind fo readily and so univerfally perceive and embrace it. It deserves 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 cause 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 speculation, 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 shall endeavour to make evident.

But, before I enter upon this subject, it seems 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 accufed of impiety.

Whoever shall fet about to mend the world, and reform men's notions, as well as their manners, will certainly be the mark of much scandal and reproach; and will effectually be convinced, that it is too poffible the greatest lovers and benefactors of mankind may be represented by the multitude, whose opinions they contradict, as the worst of men. The hardy undertakers, who express their zeal to rectify the sentiments of a prejudiced people in matters of religion, who labour to stem the tide of popular error, and strike at the foundations of any ancient, established superstition, must themselves expect to be treated as pragmatical and infolent innovators, disturbers of the public peace,

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

It is no wonder, therefore, that Anaxagoras, though he was the first philosopher who plainly asserted an Eternal Mind by whose power the world was made, for oppofing the public worship at Athens, whose refined wits were plunged in the inost senseless idolatry, and particularly for denying the divinity of the Sun, should be condemned for irreligion, and treason against the Gods; and be heavily fined and banished the city. It is no wonder, after so sharp a perfecution of this zealous reformer, that Socrates, the next fuccessor but one to Anaxagoras, and the last of the Ionic school, for opposing their scandalous 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 antagonists for impiety, who maintain positions, which those fron whom they diffent imagine have a tendency to the difbelief of a Deity. But this is a manifest violation of juftice, as well as candour, to impute to any man the remote confequences of his opinion, which he himfelf disclaims and detests, and who, if he saw the connexion of his principles with fuch conclufions, would readily renounce them. No man can be reatonably charged with more opinions than he owns; and if this justice were observed in polemical discourses,

as well of theology as philosophy, many persons had escaped those hard names, and terrible censures, which their angry antagonists have thought fit to fix upon them. No one therefore is to be reputed an Atheitt, or an enemy to religion, upon the account of any erroneous opinion, from which another may by a long chain of sequels draw that conclufion; much lefs for tholding any doctrines in philosophy, which the common people are not able to examine or comprehend, who, when they meddle with speculations, of which they are unqualified to judge, will be as apt to cenfure a philosopher for an Atheift, as an aftronomer for a magician.

I would fain too in this place make some apology for the great numbers of loose and vicious men, who laugh at religion, and seem in their conversation to disclaim the belief of a Deity. I do not mean an apology for their practice, but their opinion. I hope these unhappy perfons, at least the greatest 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 supine temper, or for fear of being disturbed with remorse in their unwarrantable enjoyments, never foberly confider with themselves, or exercise their reason on things of the highest importance. These 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 some atheistical pretender to philofophy, who afsures them there is no God, and there