THE

NATURAL HISTORY

OF

RELIGION.

INTRODUCTION.

As every enquiry, which regards religion, is

of the utmost importance, there are two questions in particular, which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature. Happily, the first question, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious, at least, the cleareft folution. The whole frame of nature befpeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after ferious reflection, fufpend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theifin and Religion. But the other question, concerning the origin of religion in human nature, is expofed to fome more difficulty. The belief of invifible, intelligent power has been very generally diffufed over the human race, in all places and in all ages; but it has VOL. II. Dd neither

neither perhaps been fo univerfal as to admit of no exception, nor has it been in any degree, uniform in the ideas, which it has fuggefted. Some nations have been discovered, who entertained no fentiments of Religion, if travellers and hiftorians may be credited; and no two nations, and fcarce any two men, have ever agreed precisely in the fame fentiments. It would appear, therefore, that this preconception fprings not from an original instinct or primary impreffion of nature, fuch as gives rife to felf-love, affection between the fexes, love of progeny, gratitude, resentment; fince every inftinct of this kind has been found abfolutely universal in all nations and ages, and has always a precife determinate object, which it inflexibly purfues. The firft religious principles must be secondary; fuch as may easily be perverted by various accidents and caufes, and whose operation too, in fome cafes, may, by an extraordinary concurrence of circumftances, be altogether prevented. What those principles are, which give rife to the original belief, and what those accidents and caufes are, which direct its operation, is the fubject of our prefent enquiry.

Sect. I. That Polytheism was the primary Religion of Men.

It appears to me, that, if we confider the improvement of human fociety, from rude beginnings to a ftate of greater perfection, polytheifm or idolatry was, and neceffarily muft have been, the first and moft ancient religion of mankind. This opinion I fhall endeavour to confirm by the following arguments.

It is a matter of fact incontestable, that about 1700 years ago all mankind were polytheifts. The doubtful and fceptical principles of a few philofophers, or the theifin, and that too not en

tirely pure, of one or two nations, form no objection worth regarding. Behold then the clear teftimony of history. The farther we mount up into antiquity, the more do we find mankind plunged into polytheifm. No marks, no fymptoms of any more perfect religion. The most ancient records of human race ftill prefent us with that fyftem as the popular and established creed. The north, the fouth, the eaft, the west, give their unanimous teftimony to the fame fact. What can be opposed to fo full an evidence?

As far as writing or hiftory reaches, mankind, in ancient times, appear univerfally to have been polytheifts. Shall we affert, that, in more ancient times, before the knowledge of letters, or the discovery of any art or fcience, men entertained the principles of pure theifm? That is, while they were ignorant and barbarous, they difcovered truth: But fell into error, as foon as they acquired learning and politenefs.

But in this affertion you not only contradict all appearance of probability, but also our prefent experience concerning the principles and opinions of barbarous nations. The favage tribes of America, Africa, and Afia are all idolaters. Not a fingle exception to this rule. Infomuch, that, were a traveller to transport himself into any unknown region; if he found inhabitants cultivated with arts and fcience, though even upon that fuppofition there are odds against their being theifts, ́yet could he not fafely, till farther inquiry, pronounce any thing on that head: But if he found them ignorant and barbarous, he might beforehand de-. clare them idolaters; and there fcarcely is a poffibility of his being mistaken.

It feems certain, that, according to the natural progrefs of human thought, the ignorant multitude muft first entertain fome groveling and familiar no

1

tion of fuperior powers, before they ftretch their conception to that perfect Being, who bestowed order on the whole frame of nature. We may as reasonably imagine, that men inhabited palaces before huts and cottages, or ftudied geometry before agriculture; as affert that the Deity appeared to them a pure fpirit, omnifcient, omnipotent, and omniprefent, before he was apprehended to be a powerful, though limited being, with human pafGons and appetites, limbs and organs. The mind rifes gradually, from inferior to fuperior: By abftracting from what is imperfect, it forms an idea of perfection: And flowly diftinguishing the nobler parts of its own frame from the groffer, it learns to transfer only the former, much elevated and refined, to its divinity. Nothing could disturb this natural progrefs of thought, but fome obvious and invincible argument, which might immediately lead the mind into the pure principles of theifin, and make it overleap, at one bound, the vast interval which is interpofed between the human and the divine nature. But though I allow,' that the order and frame of the univerfe, when accurately examined, affords fuch an argument; yet I can never think, that this confideration could have an influence on mankind, when they formed their first rude notions of religion.

The caufes of fuch objects, as are quite familiar to us, never strike our attention or curiofity; and however extraordinary or surprising these objects in themfelves, they are paffed over, by the raw and ignorant multitude, without much examination, or enquiry. Adam, rifing at once, in paradife, and in the full perfection of his faculties, would naturally, as reprefented by Milton, be aftonished at the glorious appearances of nature, the heavens, the air, the earth, his own organs and members; and would be led to afk, whence this wonderful fcene arofe. But a barbarous, neceffitous animal (such as

a man

a man is on the firft origin of fociety), preffed by fuch numerous wants and paflions, has no leifure to admire the regular face of nature, to make enquiries concerning the cause of thofe objects, to which from his infancy he has been gradually accustomed. On the contrary, the more regular and uniform, that is, the more perfect nature appears, the more is he familiarized to it, and the lefs inclined to fcrutinize and examine it. A monftrous birth excites his curiofity, and is deemed a prodigy. It alarms him from its novelty; and immediately fets him a trembling, and facrificing, and praying. But an animal, compleat in all its limbs and organs, is to him an ordinary fpectacle, and produces no religious opinion or affection. Afk him, whence that animal arofe; he will tell you, from the copulation of its parents. And thefe, whence? From the copulation of theirs. A few removes fatisfy his curiofity, and fet the object at fuch a distance, that he entirely lofes fight of them. Imagine not, that he will fo much as ftart the queftion, whence the first animal; much lefs, whence the whole fyftem or united fabric of the univerfe arofe. Or, if you ftart fuch a question to him, expect not, that he will employ his mind with any anxiety about a subject, fo remote, fo uninterefting, and which fo much exceeds the bounds of his capacity.

But farther, if men were at firft led into the belief of one Supreme Being, by reafoning from the frame of nature, they could never poffibly leave that belief, in order to embrace polytheifm; but the fame principles of reason, which at firft produced and diffufed over mankind, fo magnificent an opinion, must be able, with greater facility, to preferve it. The first invention and proof of any doctrine is much more difficult than the fupporting and retaining of it.

There