Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

SERM. tion properly is concerning the original Cause

V.

of things, and the monarchy of the world; whether there be one fupreme intelligent Being, to whom all other Beings owe their existence and all their powers, and who has an abfolute dominion over all, the fountain of being, of understanding and power; or whether there be a variety of partial, independent, unmade caufes of the universe, and all its appearances?

This laft is most properly called Polytheism, but it has been exploded by the generality of men who have thought on this fubject with any tolerable degree of attention. And indeed, the idea of a Deity, as it is explain'd both by those who affert and oppofe his exiftence, naturally leads us to attribute fingularity to him; to appropriate that character to one, and exclude all others from a partnership in his perfections and prerogatives. For the notion of God is of an abfolutely perfect, uncaus'd, and therefore neceffarily existent Being, on whom all things depend, by his intelligence directing, and by his powerful will producing whatever actually is, the whole frame of nature with all the kinds and degrees of order and perfection which it contains. Now the true fubject of controversy between us and Atheists, is concerning the existence of

fuch

fuch a Being: We believe that the phæno- SERM. mena of the world cannot otherwise be ac- V. counted for; they maintain the contrary. But there is no appearance of reafon for a plurality; the doctrine of Theifm does not require it; for the Being of one God, abfolutely perfect, is fully fufficient to all its purposes. The Atheistical scheme opposes the unity of God; in fact the arguments of the Atheists are levell'd against it; and in reason, a multitude of independent agents ununited in defign and operation, fo diminishes the idea of abfolute perfection, and fo diffipates and enervates the ruling counsel of the universe, as to fap the foundations of religion, and leave Atheism little to quarrel with. Epicurus himself, a violent adversary to the Being of the true God, the Maker of all things, yet imagin’d a multitude of independent Deities; consistently enough with his principles, excepting in one circumftance, that he said they were incorruptible, which can never be reconcil'd to his hypothefis, that all things, and even the Gods were generated by the cafual encounter of atoms. But of what fort were these Deities? Only idle unactive beings, who liv'd in pleasure, without any fhare in the formation of the world, or in prefiding over it. And the truth is, to fuppofe a plurality of partial independent

K 3

SERM. pendent caufes, under no common direction, V. almost leaves the origin of things in the fame confufion, and fignifies as little to the purposes of religion as the fiction of Epicurus

The Polytheism of the Gentiles seems to be a ftrong argument against what I have faid. It is notoriously known, that before the times of Christianity, mankind universally, all but the Jews, worshipped many Gods and many Lords; and not only the ignorant vulgar, but even the most eminent philofophers. How then can it be alledged that there has been any thing like an agreement, among the wife themselves, in believing the unity of God? I answer,

If it fhould be fuppofed, that there may poffibly be a plurality of eternal independent beings, the makers of the world, to whom the characters of neceffary existence and abfolute perfection belong, and confequently, who must be united in all their counfels and operations; for that infinitely perfect intellectual powers fhould differ, is a manifest abfurdity: This hypothefis is imagin'd without any neceffity, (all appearances being at least, as well accounted for on the contrary fuppofition of unity ;) and supported by no argument. Befides, as multiplicity, at leaft poffible, naturally accompanies the idea of effects, whofe contingent existence and limited perfection are determined by the power and will of the defigning Cause: fo the idea of neceffary existence and unlimited perfection seems to exclude all diverfity of being. And how can it be thought that a plurality of independent, infinitely perfect beings, effentially immenfe, all-powerful, and all-knowing, fhould divest themselves of thefe perfections, or the exercise of them, by dividing among them the formation and government of the world, for which every one fingly is allowed to be fufficient. But as no fuch opinion is maintain'd, fo far as I know, by any adverfaries of religion, nor would at all ferve their purpofes; I fhall not infift any farther upon it, but endeavour to prove unity of defign in the frame and government of the world, which is the just foundation of our pious affectionate regards to the Deity.

answer, that upon a careful inquiry into the SERM. history of ancient times, it appears indeed that ¡V learned men complied with the fuperftition of their feveral countries; but at the fame time ftrenuously argued for, and profefs'd to believe one fupreme Being, the abfolute Lord of all ; infomuch, that if we except the Epicureans, there is not one philofopher of note, who afferted a multitude of independent gods. There are clear authentic teftimonies, ftill remaining, which fully prove that the most celebrated authors among the Perfians, the Greeks, and even the Egyptians, the most idolatrous of all nations, afferted that there is one unoriginated, felf-existent Cause, to whom they gave the characters of the GREATEST and the BEST, the Maker of all things, the Father of gods and men. The poets themselves, the great depravers of the Pagan theology, filling it with fables, yet plainly and frequently declar'd this truth.

[ocr errors]

There are various accounts given of the Heathen Polytheism, or worshipping a plurality of gods, whereby it appears to be confiftent with the acknowledgment of one fupreme, undivided Monarchy of the universe. As First, That the one eternal and felf-exiftent Deity was the ultimate Object of their adoration, under different names. Thus Pan,

[blocks in formation]

SERM. and Janus, and Jupiter, and Calus, and Saturn, and Pluto, and Apollo, and Minerva,

V.

these and other Deities, fo called, (however the true notion of them may be disguised by the fabulous inventions of the poets, and even pretended hiftories given of their originals and acts, which reprefent them as fo many derived and temporary beings,) yet the teftimonies collected by Chriftian writers, who have fearch'd accurately into this matter, from the most fenfible Pagans, plainly shew that these several names did not fignify different gods: For that they had each the characters of the univerfal Numen afcrib'd to them, though the fuperftitious and credulous vulgar imagin'd a diverfity, which falfe imagination was induftrioufly cherish'd among them for political reasons. Nor is it an argument of any weight to the contrary, that fome of the names were also used to denote particular parts of the vifible world, as the heavens, the fun, the earth and the fea. For this only fhews that their theology was obfcured, as it certainly was by a multitude of ambiguous words used in it; not that the wifest among them did not intend by these very words, that their devotion fhould terminate on the great God, the Creator of heaven and earth, which themfelves exprefly fay they did.

« VorigeDoorgaan »