lidate the general rule. Truths that may be called properly the judgments of nature, because they are conformable to the nature of things, and have been deduced from thence by a process of reasoning in every step of which the mind has had intuitive knowledge, cannot be removed, they must be confirmed by time, the nature of things, and the reason of men continuing the same. But these very truths may be so disguised by opinions which are thought to be compatible with them, which muffle them up, and which cling to them, though they be parts of them no more than clothes are parts of body, that the same principle of real knowledge professed by different people, or at different times, appears to be a different principle. If Diagoras, or Theodorus, or Vanini, or any other particular atheist, for a community of atheists never existed out of Mr. Bayle's head, had been asked, whether it is not the interest of every individual to submit to government, and to promote the good of society; or if any theist had been asked, whether this be not the duty, as well as interest of every individual, they would all have answered in the affirmative, and have assented to these first principles of public and private morality. Notwithstanding this, what a variety of opinions has there not been about this interest and this duty? They have been so various, as well as the practice of men consequent from them, that whoever considers his own, or past ages, may be tempted to think, that in some countries the obligation of submitting to government is esteemed unconditional, and illimited; and in others, no obligation at all; or that, as he sees no country wherein the common duties of society are enough observed, so there are others wherein every man deems himself an individual, independent by nature, and disavows any such duty. Suppose now that in one of these countries liberty be established on a system of law, equally distant from tyranny, and from licentiousness. Suppose that in another such a reformation of manners be wrought, no matter by what means, that the duties of morality are practised in it universally, and with the utmost exactness, shall we conclude from these examples, that in the former case the principles of public, and in the latter those of private morality, were never known, or had been lost, and were then demonstrated anew? Shall we not rather conclude, according to the truth of things, that these principles have been always known, and that the new establishment, and the new reformation, do nothing more than strip them of the false opinions which were so complicated with them, that men derived their institutions and notions, not from the sure judgments of nature, but from the false comments of opinion?*

*N. B. There is a passage in Polybius worth being turned to on this oc

Thus again, the existence of one Supreme, self-existent and all-perfect Being, the first intelligent cause of all things, was acknowledged, as we discern more or less clearly by almost all our ancient traditions, in those nations who had any pretence to be esteemed civilised, and most directly and explicitly in those that were the most enlightened by knowledge. But yet this bright and luminous truth, this judgment of nature, was clouded by such a multitude of superstitious notions, that it appeared dubiously, and that something which seemed repugnant to it might have been objected to every nation who professed it in their outward, or even in their secret doctrine. An orthodox Israelite was scandalised, no doubt, when he beheld among his heathen neighbors their deceased kings and heroes erected into divinities, and adored as such. But we may assure ourselves, that an inhabitant of Thebes in Egypt, who acknowledged no god but the unborn eternal Kneph, or even a polytheist, who worshiping many gods, that is, inferior divinities, acknowledged still one Supreme Being, the monarch of gods and men, was not less scandalised when he saw this Being, of whom he had the sublimest conceptions that the mind of man can frame, degraded into the rank of a local tutelary divinity, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of one family, and one nation, of a family who had strolled into Egypt for bread, of a nation who had been long slaves in that country. In vain would the learned priests of all sides have explained their symbolical rites, and mystic doctrines. The Israelite would have remained convinced, that the one true God was unknown to the heathen; and the heathen, that he was unknown to the Israelite. It fared with this principle of knowledge, as Plutarch observes in one of his miscellaneous tracts, in the manner that it fares with the virtues. The prudence of Ulysses appeared different from that of Nestor, and the justice of Cato from that of Agesilaus. The same principle of knowledge, derived from the same use of reason, took various appearances from the various opinions that were complicated with it in the minds of men, much as the same virtue took a different hue, according to the different tempers, characters, and circumstances of those who professed and practised it.

This seems to have been the state of things till the coming of Christ. Whether the knowledge and the worship of the one true God were taught by revelation, or by reason, that which is affirmed concerning them cannot be true. In the first case, they must have been known from the beginning by all the people of

casion. It is in the thirteenth book. He observes there how truth is disguised or concealed by the false opinions of men; but he insists, that these last for a time only, and that truth prevails always.

the earth, and long before the Israelites grew up to be a nation. In the second case, the man who should assert, that Abraham, or any other of the patriarchs, was alone able to make these discoveries by dint of reason, and philosophical reflection, would not deserve a serious answer. Nay further, if we go upon the first supposition, that of revelation, if we take the words of some divines, that this belief and worship could be communicated no other way to mankind, and that this sacred deposite was trusted to a people chosen to preserve it till the coming of the Messiah, this assumption will appear as little conformable to the reason of things, as several others are which the same men advance to be parts of the divine economy, and for which they appeal to the reason of mankind. Reason will pronounce, that no people was less fit than the Israelites to be chosen for this great trust on every account. They broke the trust continually, and the miracles that were wrought to preserve it, notwithstanding their apostacies, would have preserved it at least as well all over the the world. Besides, the revelations made to them were "shut up in a little corner of the world, amongst a people, by that very law which they received with it, excluded from a commerce and communication with the rest of mankind," as Mr Locke* observes very truly; a people so little known, and contemned, and thought vilely of by those nations that did know them, were therefore very "unfit, and unable to propagate the doctrine of one God in the world."

But wherefore, then, was this deposite made to them? It was of no use to other nations before the coming of Christ, nor served to prepare them for the reception of his gospel; and after his coming, it was in this great respect of little use, if of any, to the Jews themselves. They believed universally one God, but they were not universally disposed to believe in his son. Monotheism might indispose them to the gospel, as well as their attachment to the law of Moses. The expectation of the Messiah did not clash with monotheism. But they might imagine, that the belief of God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost did so very manifestly; the trinity not having been early reconciled to the unity of God. Other nations seemed to be better prepared by philosophy, by that of Plato in particular, and by the polytheistical notions of divine natures, some in the godhead, and some out of it, for the reception of the gospel, or of the theology which the preachers of the gospel taught. Accordingly we find, that when Christ came, and threw down the wall of partition, if he did throw it down, and not St. Paul, the miracles wrought to propa

*Reas. of Chris.

gate Christianity had greater effect out of Judea than in it. On the whole matter, it is impossible to conceive, on grounds of human reason, to what purpose a divine eccnomy, relative to the coming of Christ, should have confined the knowledge of the true God to the Jews, and have left the rest of mankind without God in the world. On the other side, if men discovered the Creator of all things by their observations and their reasonings, things must have passed much as the memorials of ancient times give us grounds to believe that they did pass. The knowledge of the true God must have been uncertainly propagated, and uncertainly maintained; it must have been never lost, but always liable to be darkened by too much ignorance and stupidity in some, and too much imaginary knowledge, and the endless refinements of opinion in others.

That our Savior found the whole world in a state of error concerning this first principle of natural religion, though not of absolute darkness, is allowed; and that the spreading of Christianity has contributed to destroy polytheism and idolatry is true. But that which Mr. Locke advances to have been the consequence of this great event is not true. It is not true, that God has been made known to the world by this revelation, with such evidence and energy, that polytheism and idolatry have been no where able to withstand it. On the contrary, orthodox theism has not prevailed in some countries where it has been taught. In others, Christianity has been established on the ruins of polytheism and idolatry, and has been rooted up again in its turn. Revelation has not better success than reason. Neither has been able to preserve the purity of the doctrines they taught, nor a uniformity in the practice they prescribed. Nay Mahometism, a religion instituted by an Arabian free booter, who imposed himself for a prophet of God, and composed that extravagant rhapsody of superstition and enthusiasm the Koran, has been further propagated than Christianity and that not by the sword alone, no more than Christianity. Mahomet and the first caliphs established their religion by the success and terror of their arms. But since that time it has been extended by spiritual conquests, and not only the conquered, but the conquerors, for such the Turks were, have embraced it. Christ, his apostles, and the first preachers of Christianity, established this religion by their miracles, and by their sufferings. But since that time it has been propagated and preserved by violence as great at least, as that which the Saracens employed to establish the other. But however and by what means soever, these religions have been extended, that of Mahomet has taught the unity of God in terms so clear, and so precise, as to leave no

room for any opinions that may be so much as strained into polytheism; and has so effectually banished all kinds of images, that the most gross and superstitious of the vulgar cannot have the least occasion of sliding into idolatry.

Christ found the world in darkness and error. But if he was to come again, would he not find it in the same state? Would he find even the religion he came to establish, either practised, or even taught in its genuine purity? Would he not find the decalogue shortened, and the creed lengthened, by some Christians? Would he not find the creed shortened by others, who left the decalogue of the same size, even by Mr. Locke himself? Christianity has been from the institution of it in a perpetual flux, not relatively to certain opinions alone, that may be deemed indifferent, or not quite essential; but relatively to fundamental articles, on which the whole system leans. Let me produce one instance, which will illustrate, and confirm, what has been said against those who take so much pains to make us believe, that polytheism and idolatry prevailed among the nations of the world from the beginning. Arianism had very nearly prevailed in the Christian church. It was all that intrigue could do to check, and all that wars and persecutions, wherein millions perished, could do to extirpate this heresy. Let us suppose now that these salutary methods had proved ineffectual, and that the orthodox faith was at this time creeping about in corners, as the Arian faith actually is, and was preserved only by a few rational and thinking men, who were fain, in their outward profession and worship, to go with the herd, and to keep to the religion established by law: I ask, would it be fair to conclude, that the orthodox faith had never been the faith of the Christian church, and that this abominable heresy had been established from the beginning? It would not be so most certainly. To recapitulate therefore, and to conclude: I think it plain, that the knowledge and worship of the one true God must have been the religion of mankind for a long time, if the Mosaical history be authentic, and was not therefore confined from the beginning to the family of Sem, nor to the Israelites who pretended to be of it. I think it plain, that the assumed confinement of this orthodox faith and worship could answer no imaginable design of a divine economy, preparatory to the coming of Christ; since the Jews, who had it, were not better prepared than the Gentiles, who are said not to have had it, to receive and embrace the gospel; and since this doctrine was propagated much more by heathen philosophers than by Jewish doctors. I think it plain, that if we suppose the unity of God to have been discovered by reason, and to have been propagated by human authority merely, the belief of it