this philofophical fyftem, of every thing having been produced by way of emanation from the divine effence, and being absorbed into it again, it is only this; that there cannot be two eternal principles, and therefore every thing that exifts, muft have been derived, immediately or mediately, from one, and this one must have been the fpiritual and intelligent principle. But will any modern philofopher admit the validity of fuch an argument as this, and adopt the conclufion? It is univerfally rejected with contempt.

As to the effence, or fubftance, of the Supreme Being, from which they say that all things were derived, it is a question of no moment; fince all that we have to do with are his attributes, as thofe of power, wisdom, and benevolence, in whatever it be that may be faid to refide. But according to our apprehenfions, there is fomething degrading in the idea of his being of the fame nature with all other beings, as he must be, if every thing was produced by mere protrufion from his fubftance. Zeno, however, supposed that both "the active and paffive principles "in nature," that is, both God, and matter, were alike corporeal, only that the former

66

"was a pure ether, or fire, occupying the "external furface of the heavens, that is, a "more attenuated kind of matter." And Epicurus, conceiving the human form to be the most perfect, faid that," though the gods were of an ethereal fubftance, they "were fhaped like men.'

3. Both the claffes of philofophers, whose opinions I have now defcribed, admitted a principle of intelligence in the universe, and a real diftinction between God and matter. But in later times this was by many denied, and fome philofophers even proceeded fo far as not to admit the exiftence of any fuch being as God, in any fenfe of the word. Sanchoniatho, explaining the philofophical system of the Phoenicians, fays, that "the universe "arofe from the neceffary energy of an eter"nal principle, active but without intelli

gence, upon the eternal paffive chaotic "mafs." This is fuppofed to have been advanced in oppofition to the principles of Mofes; but certainly thefe will not fuffer any thing by the comparison. If there be no marks. of intelligence, that is, of defign, in the univerfe, where fhall we find them? not furely in the works of men. How much more just

and

and noble are the fentiments and language of the Pfalmift, Pfalm civ. 24, O Lord, how manifold are thy works; in wisdom haft thou made them all.

Aristotle did not in words deny the being of a God, but he fuppofed the universe to have existed from all eternity, independent of any wisdom of contrivance of his. He only confidered him as " the main fpring of the whole "machine, and therefore properly a part of "it, employed in fome inexplicable manner, "in communicating motion to it." Strato of Lampfacus, a difciple of Ariftotle, held that "the world was neither formed by the agency "of the deity, diftinct from matter, nor by any intelligent animating principle, but that "it arofe from a force innate in matter, ori

66

66

66

ginally excited by accident, and fince continuing to act according to the pecu"liar qualities of natural bodies. He neither "denied nor afferted the existence of a divine

63

nature, but, in excluding all idea of a deity "from the formation of the world, he indirectly excluded him from his system.”

Thefe atheistical doctrines were not confined to a single philofopher, or his disciples; many of them, and thofe of the greatest eminence, entertained

M 2

entertained the fame, or fimilar, fentiments. Democritus held that "the first principles of

all things were atoms and a vacuum, in "which, by a natural neceffity, or fate, they perpetually move, and that from their com"binations arife all the forms of things." Pythagoras, alfo had held that "motion is the ef"fect of a power effential to matter." Protagoras, in one of his books, faid concerning the gods; "I am unable to determine whether

66

they have any existence, or not. For the "weakness of the human understanding, and "the fhortness of human life, with many "other causes, prevent us from attaining this knowledge." But Diagoras openly denied the existence of a deity. Heraclitus "made "ufe of the term God, but not to denote a "diftinct being of a peculiar nature, but "merely a natural force in that primary fire, "from which he fuppofed all things to have "proceeded, and by means of which he fup

pofed that its particles had been in eternal "motion, and at length to have united, to "form the present system of nature. To this "force, confidered as diftinct from matter, ou "which it acts, he applied the term god." Epicurus admitted a deity into his system,

but

but it was chiefly to avoid popular odium. For he maintained that "the universe always "exifted, and will always continue to exist; "for that there is nothing by which it can be

changed. There is nothing, he faid, in na"ture, nor can there be conceived to be any thing, befides body and space; that the atoms, from which all things were composed, are not only all the materials of which "bodies are made, but that the energy, or principle of motion, which effentially belongs "to them, is the fole agent in the operations. "of nature."

66

As the Oriental philofophers fuppofed that all things would be refolved into the divine effence, from which they originally sprung, Epicurus fuppofed that they would be refolved into their original atoms. "The world," he faid, "is preferved by the fame mechanical "caufes by which it was framed, and. from "the fame caufes it will at last be diffolved. "The inceffant motion of the atoms which

produced the world is continually operating "towards its diffolution. For nothing is folid " and indiffoluble befides atoms; whence it may be concluded, that the time will come