parts of mankind who neither have, nor have bad the advantage of that much greater light and fafer guidance to boaft of? From what I have obferved, I think, it plainly appears, that religion has had a great band, (if I may fo fpeak) in forming the various and different characters of men.

If then, the religion of mankind in general has been, and still is fo various and contradictory, as in fact it has appeared, and still appears to be; and if the religion of Chriftians, (which comes more within our own notice and obfervation, and with refpect to which Chriftians think they have fufficient proof that it came from God,) is fo.confufed and contradictory as experience and fact has fhewn, and still shews it to be; and if the present happiness and mifery of mankind has been, and still is greatly affected by the various and oppofite religions that have, and do prevail in the world, which moft certainly is the truth of the cafe; then, from hence we are naturally, and almost unavoidably led to another enquiry, viz. whether religion has any folid foundation in nature; that is, whether there be in reality a right and wrong, a true and falfe religion in nature; and confequently, whether there be any certain obvious principles in nature or reafon by which a man may diftinguish these, and form a proper judgment in the prefent cafe, and which an honeft upright man may fafely and fecurely ftay his mind upon.

And,

And, that this question may be throughly difcuffed, I think, it will be proper in the first place to fuppofe that Religion has no foundation in nature; and then enquire how the cafe will ftand upon that fuppofition. By Religion's having no foundation in nature, I mean that in reality there is no natural difference in actions or things; that is, that one thing or action is not preferable to another in nature; that no action does of itself render the agent the proper object of the divine approbation or dislike, of the divine favour or difpleasure; and confequently, that no action or thing is of itself, and in it's own nature, religious or irreligious; that man is not, in the nature of the thing, an accountable creature; and that there is no foundation in nature for a future judgment and retribution.

If Religion has no foundation in nature, which is the prefent fuppofition, then, it must be either a creature of man's production; that is, it must be founded only on the opinions and fancies, or on the cunning and craftiness of men; or else it must be the creature of fome invifible agent, or agents, not divine; that is, it must have been introduced into the world by. the interpofition of fome invifible agent, or agents, who is not, nor are they that being whom we characterife by the term God; or else lastly, it must be founded only on the fovereign pleasure and arbitrary will of God; thefe being, I think, all the ways by which Religion could have been brought into being, C

fuppofing

fuppofing it to have no foundation in nature. And,

Firft, if we confider Religion as a creature of man's production, and that it has no other foundation than on the opinions and fancies, or on the cunning and craftiness of men, then, that great variety and contrariety of religious fentiments and practices which have taken place in the world is not to be wondered at; because then, it might well have been expected that mens religions would be as greatly various and oppofite as the different measures of their understandings, their different paffions and fancies, and as their various and oppofite interefts should incline or direct. And tho', in this view of the cafe, there would be in reality no fuch thing as true and false Religion, because all Religions would be true and false alike; yet thofe Religions would have the appearance of being true or false to every man, as his opinion or fancy led him to esteem them to be either. And tho' mens religion might have been fubfervient to their prefent happiness or misery; yet it could not affect them with regard to futurity; because it must then be the same to a man with regard to God's favour and dif pleasure, and with regard to a man's happiness or mifery in another world, whether he be of this, or that religion, or whether he be of any, or no religion. But this fuppofition, I think, is not admitted by the Religionists of any fect or party whatever, each party prefuming that they have arguments and reasons

proper

proper and fufficient to ground their respective religious principles and practices upon; and confequently, they do not admit that their Religion is founded only on opinion as aforefaid. Again,

If we fuppofe Religion to be the production of fome invisible agent, or agents, not divine, the cafe will not be greatly different from what it was upon the former fuppofition. I introduce this fuppofition, because it is interwoven with the schemes of moft Religionifts, who admit. that invifible agents not divine, have, and do operate upon this globe, and do intereft themJelves in the affairs of Religion; which invisible agents are usually characterised by thofe terms Demons, Angels, Devils, and the like. And tho' it is not admitted that these invifible agents, or any one of them is the founder, or founders of true Religion; yet most Religionists readily admit that the Devil, fome way or other, has had a hand in the introduction of all falfe Religions. And, as upon the present suppofition, there is no fuch thing as right and wrong in nature; fo it can be neither right nor wrong for invifible agents to interpofe and intereft themselves in human affairs; and therefore, one would think, it must be mere wantonness in them which must be the ground of fuch interpofition. And, this accounts for that great variety and contrariety of religious principles and practices which have taken place in the world; as thefe may well be fuppofed to bear a proportion to the number of such, C 2 invifible

invifible agents as have been concerned, or to that wanton fancy they may have indulged herein. And tho', upon the prefent fuppofition as upon the former, there will be no fuch thing as true and false Religion; yet every man's Religion will appear true to himself, and all other Religions will appear to him to be falfe, according as thofe arguments, by which his judgment is directed, appear to him to be conclufive, or otherwife. And tho', upon the prefent fuppofition, a man's Religion, let it be what it will, cannot affect him with regard to God's favour and the happiness of another world; yet it may very much affect himself and others with regard to their happiness or mifery in this, as it may engage him more or lefs to purfue, or neglect the one or the other. And,

Upon the prefent fuppofition, a question or two will naturally arife, viz. how, or in what way, invifible agents not divine can become the founders of Religion to mankind? And what kind of evidence they can produce to engage mens attention to, and belief of, it ? As to the firft of these questions the answer is eafy, if we admit a fuppofition which is admitted into the schemes of moft Religionists, viz. that invifible agents not divine, can, and do impress various and contrary images upon the minds of men. And, if this be admitted, then, we may easily perceive, not only that such agents have it in their power to become the founders of Religion to mankind; but also in what way

they