bodies as in ours. They have the same organs of sense, organs of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. In their internal organization, there is a surprising conformity. As they have teeth to seize, cut, and masticate their food, so they are furnished with a stomach in which it is lodged and digested, and with vessels for conveying the nutriment to the various parts of the body, by means of the blood with which it is incorporated, and which is circulated in the same manner as in the body of man. When the end is the same, and the contrivance for accomplishing it is the same, we cannot reasonably doubt that the Artificer is the same. Birds which fly in the air are very different from quadrupeds which walk upon the earth, and fishes which swim in water are different from both; but while their respective forms are adapted to the elements in which they are destined to move, they resemble each other in their internal organization, so far as their different kinds of life will permit, in so much that it may be confidently affirmed, that the same intelligence which contrived the quadruped, contrived also the fowl and the fish.

The analogy is not so striking in the case of vegetables; but still there are so many points of resemblance as to justify the introduction of them in the present argument. They do not possess life, as implying sensation and consciousness; but they are said to live, because they are nourished and grow like animals, and like them are subject to disease, the effects of old age, and dissolution. Fixed to the soil, they are provided with the means of drawing nutriment from it and from the surrounding atmosphere, by their roots and leaves. They are also furnished with vessels, corresponding to those in animated beings, for conveying the nourishment received by the roots to the extremities. The juices flow in them as the blood flows in our bodies; and, according to the opinion of some naturalists, circulates like the blood. The leaves serve the same purpose which lungs serve to us, by taking in and giving out air, which is necessary to the health and life of the vegetable. Lastly, all vegetables are endowed, as well as animals, with the power of propagating their kind. Hitherto we have pursued the argument throughout all living nature. We see one Spirit working in all. When we pass to the consideration of the terraqueous globe, the proofs of the unity of God multiply upon us. Of animated beings, some are fitted to move on a solid surface, others are capable of pursuing their course in the air, while others can live only in water. To provide for this variety, the globe consists of dry land and of sea, and is surrounded by an atmosphere. Thus the habitation is accommodated to the inhabitants, and both have evidently been contrived by one Mind. The argument is precisely the same, if we suppose, as was actually the case, the globe to have been first formed, and then its inhabitants. The adaptation, in either case, suggests the same original, unless we give way to imagination, and absurdly fancy that the globe was created by one Being, and that another, finding it a useless solitude, produced a variety of creatures to fill up its vacant spaces; an idea not more probable, than it would be to say, that one generation of men built houses without any object in view, and another, discovering that they would serve admirably for dwellings, took possession of them, and furnished them.

Throughout its whole extent, our globè exhibits proof of its having been formed by the same almighty hand. Every where the dry land is composed of the same materials, and the sea has the same properties. "New countries," says Dr. Paley, "are continually discovered, but the old laws of nature are always found in them; new plants perhaps, or animals, but always in company with plants or animals which we already know, and always possessing many of the same general properties. We never get amongst such original, or totally different modes of existence, as to indicate that we are come into the province of a different Creator, or under the direction of a different will. In truth, the

same order of things attends us wherever we go. The elements act upon one another; electricity operates, the tides rise and fall, the magnetic needle elects its position in one region of the earth and sea, as well as in another. One atmosphere invests all parts of the globe, and connects all; one sun illuminates; one moon exerts its specific attraction upon all parts.'

But the argument is not confined to this globe, which constitutes a very minute part of the universe. The Being whose existence we have demonstrated, is the Author of nature in its wide extent, and proofs of his unity are furnished by the most distant regions to which our observation extends. We know but little of them; but we discover enough to convince us that they are sustained and governed by the same power which superintends the affairs of the earth. There can be no doubt, that there is one Author of the great system to which our globe belongs, since it is found to be a part of the system, a wheel in the mighty machine; for surely, it will not be supposed that it was introduced by one Being among the works of another. While it performs its annual revolution around the sun, there are other bodies revolving at the same time in their orbits, and for the same purposes, at once to enjoy his light, and to experience a vicissitude of seasons. Now, the same law which retains our earth, retains them in their respective paths, namely, the law of gravitation; and to a reflecting mind, what is gravitation but the power of God? His power then, acts from Mercury to Uranus or the Georgium Sidus; it is one Being who exerts his energy throughout this mighty portion of space. It will strengthen this conclusion to reflect, that some at least of the planets are known to be surrounded with an atmosphere as our globe is; and that the same expedient has been adopted to relieve the tedium of the night, by the provision of satellites or moons which accompany them, and supply light in the absence of the sun. The eye extends beyond our system, immense as it seems, and perceives many brilliant points, which we know to be bodies of great magnitude, that resemble the sun in being sources of light, and probably also of heat. We can hardly do any thing more than form conjectures concerning them. One thing, however, we certainly know, that the light proceeding from them is subject to the same laws with the light flowing from the sun, or from any luminous body on the surface of the earth. It is perceived by our eyes in the same manner, moves with the same velocity, is reflected and refracted like any other rays. Farther our knowledge does not extend; but here we have a proof, that he who made the sun made the stars also. This induction of particulars, we have been told, serves only to establish a unity of design; and, notwithstanding the uniformity of nature, it is possible that it is the work of more agents than one, who perfectly concurred in counsel and operation. It may be that what has been said, does not amount to a strict demonstration; but it cannot be denied, that it amounts to a high degree of probability, and even to moral certainty. It is evidence which fully justifies us in confidently drawing the conclusion, that there is one God. It does not leave the slightest ground for suspecting that there are more than one. The mere possibility that there are more, can have no effect upon the question. The possibility is lighter than a feather in the scale, is a mere nonentity, while it is presented to the mind as only a possibility, without even an attempt to prove its reality. With respect to every contingent fact, there is a possibility that it might have been different; but this possibility does not in any degree weaken our belief of it, when it is fully attested. And why should we be one whit more influenced by the statement, that the uniformity of nature proves only a unity of design? especially when, in every other case, from the unity of design we infer the unity of the Agent or Author. In a composition of great extent, and embracing a variety of topics, if we perceive the same spirit, the same train of sentiment, and the same style, supported

*Paley's Theology, chap. xxv.

from beginning to end, no man would suppose it to be the production of different persons. The critic who should give a hint that after all it might be the work of several individuals, would gain little credit by his conjecture. There is not more wisdom in telling us, that all that can be inferred from the appearances around us, is a unity of design. Sound reason concludes, without hesitation, that as nature is one, so its Author is one.

But this is not the only argument by which the Divine unity is evinced. First, an argument is drawn from necessary existence. Necessity is simple, uniform, and universal, without any possible difference, deformity, or variety; and all variety or difference of existence must arise from an external cause, be dependent upon, and proportionable to, the efficiency of that cause. Necessity cannot, therefore, be the ground of existence of a number of beings, however similar and agreeing; because without any other difference, even number itself is a manifest deformity or inequality of efficiency or causality. This is the argument of Dr. Clarke, to which he adds, "that to suppose two or more beings existing of themselves, necessarily and independently of each other, implies this plain contradiction, that each of them being independent on the other, they may either of them be supposed to exist alone, so that it will be no contradiction to imagine the other not to exist; and consequently, neither of them will be necessarily existing. Whatsoever, therefore, exists necessarily, is the one simple essence of the self-existent being."*

Again, it is affirmed, that the existence of more gods than one is impossible. Let there be two, it has been said, and let them be called Jupiter and Mars. Neither of them can be acknowledged to be God, unless both be acknowledged to be infinitely perfect. Does then Jupiter possess the same numerical perfections which Mars possesses, or not? If you deny that he does, you do not acknowledge Jupiter to be infinitely perfect, since there are infinite perfections without him, which he cannot claim. It is necessary, if Jupiter is God, that he possess all possible perfections, and consequently those which are in Mars. But how is this possible, unless he be the same Deity with Mars, and consequently there are not two Gods; or unless Jupiter contain in himself, as the cause, the perfections of Mars, and have communicated them to him. But by this supposition, the independence, and therefore the divinity of Mars is destroyed. Hence it appears, that it is not less contradictory to assert, that there are two beings infinitely perfect, than that there are two infinite extensions. But as these could not be without mutually penetrating each other, that is, unless they be in reality one, or neither of them be true extension, so two infinitely perfect beings cannot be conceived, unless the perfections of the one be contained in the other; and consequently, they are in fact, not two, but one, or neither of them is infinitely perfect.

Further, the idea of God is exclusive of participation; it is appropriated to an individual, and does not admit of application to more than one. He is not God, who has any thing above himself, or any thing besides himself, which is not dependent upon him. What do we mean by God, but a Being infinitely perfect, who comprehends in his essence every conceivable excellence, in whom all the attributes of which the human mind has acquired an idea by reflecting upon itself, or by observing other objects, are united and subsist without limit or change? He is not only the First and the Best, but the Greatest of beings, and consequently stands alone in the universe; and when he surveys it from one end to another, can say, "Is there a God besides me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any." The moment you suppose more than one, you degrade them all, whether few or many, from the rank of divinity. We could conceive a being greater than any of them, a being who had no equal, and was the Supreme Lord of all things in heaven and earth; and to him we should * Clarke's Discourse concerning the Being of God, p. 47. + Is. xliv. 8.

Q

transfer our admiration and reverence. Two equal Gods are a chimera; the equality which is intended to preserve their divinity, would destroy it. There may be more kings than one, because royalty only implies, that each is invested in sovereign authority in his own dominions; but there cannot be a plurality of Gods, because from the nature of things, only one can be possessed of all possible perfection.

In the next place, the unity of God may be proved from this consideration, that the supposition of more than one deprives them all of independence, and, consequently, none of them would accord with the idea which we necessarily form of God as the uncontrolled Ruler of the universe. If there were two Gods, they would be possessed of equal power; for the slightest inequality on the part of either of them, would exclude him from the rank of Deity. It would be impossible, therefore, for the one to act without the consent of the other; or if he should proceed to act according to his own will, he would be immediately opposed by power as great as his own. If it be said, that as both would be perfect in wisdom, they would always concur in their views, all that follows is, that there would be no struggle between them; but still it would be owing to this concert, that either of them could act; and therefore, both would be dependent, each upon the will of the other. How different are such beings from the true God, whose will is the supreme law, who takes counsel only with his own wisdom, who does not wait for opportunities, but acts when he pleases, and sees all his orders readily and punctually obeyed!

In the last place, the unity of God may be maintained on this ground, that there is nothing to lead us to the supposition of a plurality of Gods. Nature, as we have seen, appears to be the production of one almighty Agent; and for all the effects which we observe, one such Agent was sufficient. It is a principle of science, that "more causes of natural things are not to be admitted, than are both true and sufficient for explaining their phenomena;" and if this rule holds good in the investigations of philosophy, it is of equal authority in Theology. Having ascertained that there exists one Being possessed of infinite perfection, why should we think of another? The existence of another would throw no light upon the system of things, explain no appearance, account for no effect. It would introduce confusion into our thoughts, as we should be unable to tell how the constitution of the universe gave notice of only one, although there were in reality two; and we should be at a loss to know, without special information, to whom we owed our existence, and the tribute of gratitude and obedience. The power of one all-perfect Being was sufficient to create the heavens and the earth; the wisdom of one Being whose understanding is infinite, is sufficient to govern them; the goodness of one Being whose resources are inexhaustible, is sufficient to supply the wants of all animated creatures. One Being possessed of these attributes is sufficient to conduct us in the path of life, to protect us from evil, to excite and realize our most elevated hopes. Another God would be superfluous and useless.

To the doctrine of the divine unity, there are opposed polytheism, dualism, and, in the opinion of some, the doctrine of the Trinity.

First, the divine unity is opposed to the opinion of heathens, ancient and modern, who, with much diversity in their respective systems, have agreed in the belief of a multiplicity of gods. Whether idolatry began before the flood, we have no means of determining from the brief history which Moses has given of the antediluvian world; but we know that it made its appearance not very long after that event, for the family of Abraham were worshippers of strange gods, at the time when he was called to leave his country and his kindred. Of its origin, or the manner in which it arose, we have no particular account. It is one of the singular opinions of Hume, that "polytheism was the primary religion of men. Mankind, in the early ages, were incapable of

such reasoning as would have led them to the belief of one Supreme Being: and when, leaving the works of nature, they traced the footsteps of invisible power in the various and contrary events of human life, they necessarily fell into polytheism, and the acknowledgment of several limited and imperfect Deities." His hypothesis is founded, as we might expect, upon a total disregard of the authority of Scripture; and assumes, according to the dream of some philosophers which is fit only to amuse children, that the human race originally existed in a savage state, without reason as well as without revelation; and arrived step by step at the knowledge which they at present possess. On the contrary, we believe that Theism was the primary religion of men, and that the various forms of idolatry which were gradually introduced, were so many corruptions of it. It is probable that, dazzled by the splendour of the heavenly bodies, men began to do homage to them as visible representatives of the Deity, and that from their real or apparent motions, they came to conceive them to be animated, and ascribed divinity to them. This kind of idolatry had commenced in the days of Job. "If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand, this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the God that is above." Imagination thus awakened, and freed from the control of reason, was active in peopling every region of the earth with its own shadowy productions. The various operations of nature were no longer understood to be the various operations of one almighty Agent, but to be carried on by a multiplicity of agents, who were distinguished by peculiar attributes, and had different provinces and offices assigned to them. One launched the thunderbolt, and another governed the winds; one ruled the sea, and another the dry land; woods, mountains, springs, rivers, gardens, fields, had all their tutelar gods. Poets, who may be called the theologians of heathenism, enlarged and embellished the system by their elegant fictions. Great additions were made to the catalogue of deities by mistaken admiration and gratitude. Those who had been distinguished by eminent talents, illustrious achievements, and actions honourable and beneficial to their respective countries, were after their death not only celebrated in songs and by festivals, but were elevated to the celestial regions, and invested with authority over the affairs of this lower world. The heaven of the ancient heathens was filled with heroes, legislators, and the inventors of useful arts.

Men not willing to retain God in their knowledge, became vain in their imaginations, and proceeded to worship and serve the creature instead of the Creator. The true God was invisible, and they wished a God whom they could see. Hence they adored the heavenly bodies, the sun, the bright ruler of the day, and the moon, the planets and the stars, whose lustre cheered the darkness of the night. But as these deities were too distant from them in nature and in place, their weakness and wants led to a greater degradation; and gods were devised who more nearly resembled themselves, corporeal gods in human shape, who were nourished with food and drink, occasionally mingled with mortals, and were actuated by the same passions which distinguished the meanest of their worshippers.

It is unnecessary to produce a single argument in refutation of heathen idolatry. It has been banished from every country, where reason has been restored to its proper authority by the aid of revelation; and subsists under various modifications, only among those nations in which gross ignorance prevails.

It is worthy of attention, that amidst the errors of the heathen world, some traces are discovered of the original belief, in the notion which generally obtained of a Supreme Deity. Even by the vulgar, who had sunk into the * See his Natural History of Religion. † Job xxxi. 26-28.