prepared the way for their succession to his power, as thoroughly as Mahomet had done for that of Abubeker, Omar, and Othman. Yet these various wants defeated all their efforts, and rendered all his preparations fruitless. Fleetwood was a frank enthusiast, without parts or capacity; Lambert a cool contriver, without fanaticism; and Sir Harry Vane, who had great parts, and as great enthusiasm, yet had them, and used them, in so preposterous an order as to do him no kind of service. For the history of those times informs us, that he began a sober and sedate plotter: But, when now come in view of the goal, he started out the wildest and most extravagant of Fanatics: In a word, he ended just where his MASTER began: so that we need not wonder his fortune proved so different. But this was a Course as rare as it appears to be retrograde. The affections naturally keep another Order. And the reason is evident. Enthusiasm is a kind of ebullition, or critical ferment of the Mind; which a vigorous nature can work through; and, by slow degrees, be able to cast off. Hence the most successful Impostors, as we say, have set out in all the blaze of Fanaticism, and completed their schemes amidst the cool depth and stillness of Politics. Though this be common to them all, yet I don't know any who exemplifies it so strongly as the famous IGNATIUS LOIOLA. This illustrious personage, who confirms the observation of one who came after him,* and almost equalled him in his trade, "that a man never rises so high as when he does not know whither he is going," began his extasies in the mire: and completed his schemes with the direction and execution of Councils, that, even in his own life-time, were ready to give the law to Christendom. Yea, the same spirit of Enthusiasm so regulated and conducted is no less serviceable to Nations and to Bodies of Men than it is to particulars. This built up old and new ROME. Prophane history tells us, that when the City had not six miles of dominion beyond it's Walls, it indulged the dream of UNIVERSAL MONARCHY; and we learn by the ecclesiastical, that when the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome extended not beyond a small Diocese, they entertained the celestial vision of a POPEDOM. And it was this spirit, which, in defiance, and to the destruction, of Civil Policy and Religion, made the fortune of Both.

But these things belong rather to the History of the human Mind than to the work I have in hand: and besides, would keep me too long from the conclusion of the volume,† to which I am now hastening. I will only observe, that this high Enthusiasm was so conspicuous in the character of ancient Heroism, and so powerful in making easy the most difficult undertakings, that the learned Varro scruples not to say, "It is of great advantage to Society, that

• CROMWELL.

†The second volume of the edition in 8vo. 1766.

Heroes should believe themselves the offspring of the Gods, whether indeed they be so or not. That by this means, the mind, confiding in its divine original, may rise above Humanity; so as more sublimely to project, more boldly to execute, and more happily to establish the grand schemes it labours with, for the service of mankind." Hence it appears, that if Religion were a cheat, the LEGISLATORS themselves were among the first who fell into the deceit.

On the whole then we see, That of all these mediums, whereby our adversaries would infer that Religion is false, because invented by Statesmen, the third, which is most to their purpose, proves nothing: While, of the other two, the first is a high presumption of its truth ; and the second, a demonstration of it.

I have said, that it was (I don't know how) taken on all hands for granted, that the invention of Religion by Politicians inferred its falshood. But, on second thoughts, I am persuaded, the too great facility in agreeing to this conclusion arose from hence; The popular argument of the innate idea of God, had been for many ages esteemed a demonstration of his Being and Attributes: And the political origin of Religion overthrowing that argument, it was too hastily concluded that it overthrew the truth of Religion in general: For prejudice had established this consequence, If no innate idea of God, Then no God at all.

II.

But now, although (as hath been proved) the granting this infidel pretence doth not at all affect the truth of NATURAL RELIGION; yet it doth by accident, and by accident only, affect the truth of REVELATION: Because Holy Scripture hath given us a different account of the origin of divine worship.

I shall shew therefore, in the next place, that the Notion is as false and visionary, as it is vain and impertinent; first, by examining the circumstances from which its pretended truth is inferred; and secondly, by producing plain matter of fact to the contrary.

I. The first of these circumstances is, That the Lawgiver employed his utmost pains and labour in teaching, propagating, and establishing Religion. But what can be inferred from this but that he employed his pains from a full conviction of its utility? And how should he come by that conviction but from observing the effects of its influence on the actions of men? Which must needs suppose him to have found, and not to have invented Religion.

If this argument against Religion hath any weight, we must conclude the Magistrate was not only the inventor of natural RELIGION,

"Utile est civitatibus, ut se viri fortes, etiamsi falsum sit, ex diis genitos esse credant, ut eo modo animus humanus, velut divinæ stirpis fiduciam gerens, res magnas aggrediendas præsumat audacius, agat vehementius, et ob hoc impleat ipsa securitate felicius."-Apud AUGUST. Civ. Dei, lib. iii. cap. 4.

but of natural JUSTICE likewise; for he took the same pains in teaching, propagating, and establishing both. But will any one pretend to say, that men, in a state of nature, had no ideas of justice? Indeed, both one and the other had lost much of their efficacy, when men applied to the civil Magistrate for relief: And this explains the reason why, on their entering into Society, the Legislator was always so intent upon RELIGION; namely, that he might recover it from the powerless condition, to which it was then reduced.

It will be said, perhaps, that the Atheist doth, in fact, contend, that natural justice was an invention of Politicians, as well as Religion. We have seen, indeed, a Countryman of our own, who hath made this proposition the foundation of his Philosophy, that Just and Unjust arose from the Civil Magistrate. But then, he never supposed, that men, before Society, had no idea of these things: All he would contend for was, that the idea (when and wherever got before) was merely fantastic.

II. The other, and more peculiar circumstance from which our adversaries infer their paradox, is, that the first and original idolatry was the worship of DEAD MEN: And these being Lawgivers, Magistrates, and public Benefactors, Religion appears to have been a political Institution. So among the Ancients. EUHEMERUS, surnamed the Atheist, wrote a treatise to prove that the first gods of Greece were dead men; which, Cicero, who saw his drift, rightly observed, tended to overturn all religion.* And so, amongst the Moderns, TOLAND, the pious author of the PANTHEISTICON, with the same design, wrote a pamphlet, intitled, Of the origin of Idolatry, and reasons of Heathenism. It is not unpleasant to observe the uniform conduct of this noble pair of writers, which one never fails to find in authors of a like character, how distant soever in time or country. Euhemerus pretended his design was only to expose the popular religion of Greece; and Toland, that his great learning was only pointed against Pagan idolatry, while the real end of both was the destruction of Religion in general.

It must be owned, that this circumstance, of the first and original idolatry, hath a face (but a very false one) of plausibility; being manifestly founded on this sophism, That the first idolatry, and the first religious worship, are one and the same thing. Whereas, it is not only possible that the worship of the first Cause of all things should be prior to any Idol worship; but, in the highest degree, probable that it was: Idol worship having none of the marks of an original practice; and all the circumstances attending a depraved and corrupt Institution.

But it being utterly false that the worship of dead men was the

• Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 42.

primitive Idolatry, We shall endeavour to convince these men of a FACT they are so unwilling to see or acknowledge.

I was pleased to find a book, like this of Toland's, written professedly on the subject; being in hopes to meet with something like argument or learning, that would justify an examination of it: For an answer to a licentious writer arrests the attention of common readers, better than general reasoning, though this goes more directly to the fact, and determines the question with greater precision. But I had the mortification to find nothing there but an indigested heap of common-place quotations from the Ancients; and an unmeaning collection of common-place reflexions from modern infidels; without the least seasoning of logic or criticism, to justify the waste of time to the Reader, or to make the labour supportable to one's self. the authority of the man, which is nothing, could not engage me to any farther notice of his book. But another, whose name stands justly highest in the learned world, and whose heart was as unlike this writer's as his head, seems to be of the same opinion concerning the primitive idolatry. It is the incomparable NEWTON in his Chronology of the Greeks. His words are these: "Eacus the son of Ægina, who was two generations older than the Trojan war, is by some reputed one of the first who built a temple in Greece. Oracles came first from Egypt into Greece about the same time, as also did the custom of forming the images of the gods with their legs bound up in the shape of the Egyptian mummies: For IDOLATRY began in Chaldæa and Egypt, and spread thence, &c.—The countries upon the Tigris and the Nile being exceeding fertile, were first frequented by mankind, and grew first into kingdoms, and therefore began first to adore their dead kings and queens."* This great man, we see, takes it for granted, that the worship of dead men was the FIRST kind of idolatry: And so only insinuates a reason for this supposed fact, namely, that the worship of dead men introduced image worship: For, the Egyptians first worshipped dead men in person, that is, in their mummies; † which when lost, consumed, or destroyed, were worshipped by representation, under an image made with its legs bound up, in likeness of the mummies. The reader now will be curious to know how this infers the other, that the worship of dead men was the primitive idolatry? All I can say to it is, that the excellent person seems to have put the change upon himself, in supposing image worship inseparably attendant on idolatry in general; when it was but commonly attendant on Hero-worship; and rarely upon the Elementary. As to the elementary, Herodotus tells us that the Persians, who worshipped the celestial bodies, had no statues of their

"Chronology of ancient Kingdoms," p. 160.

fig. 1, 2, and 3, compared together.

† See book IV. plate IX.

Gods at all: And as to Hero-worship, we are assured by Dionysius Halicarnasseus, that the Romans, whose Gods were dead men deified, worshipped them, during some ages, without statues.

But to come closer to the point: Our Adversaries overturn their position, on the very entrance on the question. The grand symbol of the Atheistic school is, that FEAR FIRST MADE GODS:

"Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor."

And yet, if we will believe them, these first gods were dead men, deified for their PUBLIC BENEFITS to their country or mankind: "Not only" (says Toland) "kings and queens, great generals and legislators, the patrons of learning, promoters of curious arts, and authors of useful inventions, partook of this honour; but also such private persons, as by their virtuous actions had distinguished themselves from others." *

But to pass this over. Their great principle of FEAR is every way destructive of their System: For those very ages of the world, in which FEAR most prevailed, and was the predominant passion of mankind, were the times BEFORE civil society; when every man's hand was against his brother. If fear then was the origin of Religion, Religion, without question, was BEFORE civil Society.

But neither to insist upon this: Let us hear what the ancient Theists thought of the matter. They said it was LOVE, and not FEAR, which was the origin of Religion. Thus Seneca: "Nec in hunc furorem omnes mortales consensissent alloquendi surda numina et inefficaces deos; nisi nossent illorum BENEFICIA nunc ultro oblata, nunc orantibus data; magna, tempestiva, ingentes minas interventu suo solventia. Quis est autem tam miser, tam neglectus, quis tam duro fato, et in pœnam genitus, ut non tantam deorum munificentiam senserit? Ipsos illos complorantes sortem suam, et querulos circumspice, invenies non ex toto beneficiorum cœlestium expertes; neminem esse, ad quem non aliquid ex illo BENIGNISSIMO FONTE manaverit."+

But as HOPE and FEAR, LOVE and HATRED, are the cardinal hinges, on which all human actions and cogitations turn, I suppose it was neither one nor other of these passions alone, but both of them together, which opened to those early Mortals (whose uncultivated reason had not yet gained the knowledge, or whose degenerate manners had now lost the tradition of the TRUE GOD) the first idea of superior Beings.

I. Such men, in a state of nature, whose subsistence was immediately to be supplied by the product of the earth, would be exact observers of what facilitated or retarded those supplies: So that of

• "Letters to Serena," Tract of the Origin of Idolatry, p. 73. lib. iv. cap. 4.

† De Benef.