fuppofed to be animated, or at least to be inhabited by angels, or glorious fpirits, whom they called gods.

66

Other of their deities were accounted much inferior to thefe, being fuppofed to be the fouls of their deceas'd heroes; who, for their great and worthy deeds when they lived upon earth, were fuppofed after death to be tranflated into the number of their gods; and these were called femidei and deaftri; that is, "half gods, and fort of gods." And as the other were celeftial, fo thefe were δαίμονες ἐπιχθόνιοι, a kind of terreftrial fpirits, that were prefidents and procurators of human affairs here below; that is, a middle fort of divine powers, that were mediators and agents between God and men, and did carry the prayers and fupplications of men to God, and bring down the commands and blessings of God to

a

men.

But in the midst of all this crowd and confufion of deities, and the various fuperftitions about them, the wifer Heathen, as Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Ariftotle, Tully, Plutarch, and others, preferved a true notion of one fupreme God, whom they defined, "An in- ̈ "finite Spirit, pure from all matter, and free from all "imperfection" and all the variety of their worship was, as they pretended in excuse of it, but a more particular owning of the various reprefentations of the divine power and excellencies which manifefted themfelves in the world, and of the feveral communications of bleffings and favours by them imparted to men. And Tertullian (adverfus Marcionem, 1. 1. c. 10.) obferves, that even when idolatry had very much obfcured the glory of the fovereign Deity, yet the greater part of mankind did ftill, in their common forms of fpeech, appropriate the name of God in a more especial and peculiar manner to one, faying, "If God grant, If God please," and the like.

So that there is fufficient ground to believe, that the unity of the divine nature, or the notion of one fupreme God, creator and governor of the world, was the primitive and general belief of mankind; and that polytheism and idolatry were a corruption and degeneracy from the original notion which mankind had concerning God; as the fcripture-history doth declare and testify.

And

And this account which I have given of the Heathen idolatry doth by no means excufe it. For whatever may be faid by way of extenuation in behalf of fome few of the wifer and more devout among them, the generality were grofsly guilty both of believing more gods, and of worshipping falfe gods.

And this must needs be a very great crime, fince the fcripture every where declares God to be particularly jealous in this cafe, and that he will not give his glory to another, nor his praife to graven images: nay, we may not fo much as make use of fenfible images to put us in mind of God; left devout ignorance, feeing the worship which wife men paid towards an idol, fhould be drawn to terminate their worship there, as being the very Deity itfelf; which was certainly the cafe of the greatest part of the Heathen world.

:

And furely thofe Chriftians are in no lefs danger of idolatry, who pay a veneration to images, by kneeling down and praying before them and in this they are much more inexcufable, because they offend against a much clearer light and yet when they go about to juftify this practice, are able to bring no other nor better pleas for themselves than the Heathen did for their worfhipping of images, and for praying to their inferior deities, whom they looked upon as mediators between the gods in heaven and men upon earth.

There is but one objection, that I know of, against the general confent of mankind concerning the unity of God; and it is this, That there was an ancient doctrine of fome of the most ancient nations, that there were two firft caufes or principles of all things; the one the cause of all good, and the other of all the evil that is in the world: the reason whereof feems to have been, that they could not apprehend how things of fo contrary a nature, as good and evil, could proceed from one and the fame caufe.

And these two principles in feveral nations were called by feveral names. Plutarch fays, that among the Greeks the good principle was called God, and the evil principle Aaier, or the devil. In conformity to which ancient tradition, the Manichees, a fect, which called themselves Chriftians, did advance two principles; the

one

one infinitely good, which they fuppofed to be the original caufe of all the good which is in the world; the other infinitely evil, to which they afcribed all the evils that are in the world.

But all this is very plainly a corruption of a much more ancient tradition concerning that old ferpent the devil, the head of the fallen angels, who, by tempting our first parents to tranfgrefs a pofitive and exprefs law of God, brought fin firft into the world, and all the evils confequent upon it; of which the fcripture gives us a moft exprefs and particular account.

And as to the notion of a being infinitely evil, into which this tradition was corrupted, after idolatry had prevailed in the world; befides that it is a contradiction, it would likewife be to no purpose, to affert two oppofite principles, of infinite, that is, of equal force and power; for two infinites mult of neceffity be equal to one another; because nothing can be more or greater than infinite and therefore, if two infinite beings were poffible, they would certainly be equal, and could not be otherwife.

Now, that the notion of a principle infinitely evil is a contradiction, will be very plain, if we confider, that what is infinitely evil, muft, in ftrict reafoning, and by neceffary confequence, be infinitely imperfect, and therefore infinitely weak; and for that reafon, though never fo malicious and mischievous, yet, being infinitely weak and foolish, could never be in capacity either to contrive mischief, or to execute it.

But if it fhould be admitted, that a being infinitely mifchievous could be infinitely knowing and powerful, yet it could effect no evil; because the oppofite principle of infinite goodnefs being alfo infinitely wife and powerful, they would tie up one another's hands. So that, upon this fuppofition, the notion of a Deity must fignify juft nothing; becaufe, by virtue of the eternal oppofition and equal conflict of these two principles, they would keep one another at a perpetual bay; and being juft an equal match to one another, the one having as much mind and power to do good, as the other to do evil; instead of being two deities, they would be but two idols, able to do neither good nor evil.

And

And having, I hope, now fufficiently cleared this objection, I fhall proceed to fhew how agreeable this principle, That there is but one God, is to the common reafon of mankind, and to the clearest and most effential notions which we have of God. And this will appear these two ways.

1. By confidering the most effential perfections of the divine nature.

2. From the repugnancy and impoffibility, the great abfurdity and inconvenience of fuppofing more gods than

one.

I. By confidering the most effential perfections of the divine nature. Abfolute perfection, which we afcribe to God, as the most effential notion which mankind hath always had concerning him, does neceffarily fuppofe u-nity; because this is effential to the notion of a being that is abfolutely perfect, that all perfection meets, and is united in fuch a being: but to imagine more gods, and fome perfections to be in one, and fome in another, does deftroy the most effential notion which men have of God; namely, that he is a being abfolutely perfect; that is, as perfect as is poffible. Now, to fuppofe fome perfections in one god, which are not in another, is to fuppofe fome poffible perfection to be wanting in God; which is a contradiction to the most natural and the most eafy notion which all men have of God, that he is a being in whom all perfections do meet and are united: but if we fuppofe more gods, each of which hath all perfections united in him, then all but one would be fuperfluous and needlefs; and therefore, by juft and neceffary confequence, not only may, but of neceffity must be fuppofed not to be, fince neceffary existence is effential to the Deity and therefore if but one God be neceffary, there can be no more.

II. From the repugnancy and impoffibility, the great abfurdity and inconvenience of the contrary. For fuppose there were more gods, two, for example; and if there may be two, there may be a million, for we can ftop no where I fay, fuppofe two gods; either these two would be in all perfections equal and alike, or unequal and unlike: if equal and alike in all things, then, as I faid before, one of them would be needlefs and fuperfluous

perfluous; and if one, why not as well the other? they being fuppofed to be in all things perfectly alike; and then there would be no neceffity at all of the being of a God and yet it is granted on all hands, that neceffary existence is effential to the notion of a God: but if they be unequal, that is, one of them inferior to and lefs perfect than the other, that which is inferior and lefs perfect could not be God, because he would not have all perfection. So that, which way foever we turn the thing, and look upon it, the notion of more gods than one, is by its own repugnancy and felf-contradiction deftructive of itself.

Before I come to apply this doctrine of the unity of God, I must not pafs by a very confiderable difficulty, which will most certainly arife in every man's mind, without taking particular notice of it, and endeavouring to remove it, if I can. And it is the doctrine of the bleffed Trinity, or of three real differences or distinct perfons in one and the fame divine nature.

And though this be not a difficulty peculiar only to the Chriftian religion, as by the generality of those who urge this objection against Christians hath been inconfiderately thought; for it is certain, that long before Chriftianity appeared in the world, there was a very ancient tradition, both among Jews and Heathen, concerning three real differences or diftinctions in the divine nature, very nearly resembling the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; as I fhall have occafion more fully to fhew by and by: yet it cannot be denied, but that this difficulty doth in a more especial manner affect the Chriftian religion; the generality of Chriftians, who do most firmly believe the Trinity, believing likewife, at the fame time, more ftedfaftly, if it be poffible, that there is but one God: To us, (faith St. Paul, 1 Cor. viii. 6.), that is, to us Chriftians, there is but one God. But how can this poffibly confist with the common doctrine of Chriftians concerning the Trinity, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to each of whom they attribute, as they verily believe the fcripture does, the moft incommunicable properties and perfections of the divine nature? And what is this less in effect than to fay, that there are three gods?

For