ERRATA. Page 66, 90 for Fuller read Dupin. 203 9 for destruction read distinction. ARTICLE I. OF FAITH IN THE HOLY TRINITY. THERE IS BUT ONE LIVING AND TRUE GOD, EVERLASTING, WITHOUT BODY, PARTS, OR PASSIONS, OF INFINITE POWER, WISDOM, AND GOODNESS, THE MAKER AND PRESERVER OF ALL THINGS, BOTH VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, AND IN THE UNITY OF THIS GODHEAD THERE ARE THREE PERSONS OF ONE SUBSTANCE, POWER, AND ETERNITY, THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY GHOST. THIS article may be considered as stating, I. The leading doctrine of natural religion, and II. The leading doctrine of revealed religion. I. In order to explain the doctrines of natural religion, it will be necessary to establish, 1st. The existence of God. 2d. The unity of God. 3d. His nature. 4th. His attributes, and 5th. His works. 1st. We proposed to consider the existence of God.a The arguments for the existence of God are of two kinds. 1. Arguments a priori, by which the question is proved by consi B This may be satisfactorily demonstrated by the following arguments: 1. The consent of all nations to its reality. 2. The origin of the visible world, which cannot otherwise be accounted for, and 3. The fact that miracles have been performed. 1. The consent of all nations to the reality of the existence of God, proves that existence. If All nations of every age and language, have been found (with few exceptions) impressed with the idea of an infinitely perfect Being, and professing their belief in his existence. there be no God this circumstance is unaccountable. But if there be, it is reasonable to suppose, he would have implanted such an idea in the nature of men, and that they, being descended for a common stock, would have had this belief handed down among them from one gene and 2. derations drawn only from the nature of the subject itself; Arguments a posteriori, by which we conclude from observed effects to an adequate cause of those effects. The latter are more popular, and are those produced by Bishop Burnet. The former are more abstruse, and by many considered inapplicable to the proof of this point. Some attempts, however, have been made to render them conclusive. See Locke's Essay on the Understanding, B. 4. c. 10, Dr. Clarke on the Being and Attributes of a God, and Bishop Hamilton on the same. b I have here taken the liberty of omitting an argument mentioned by Bishop Burnet, derived from the fact, that all men have an idea of God impressed on their minds. This, however, it may It is be seen, is implied in the first of those stated in the text. the theory of which the latter is the practical effect. ration to another. It is also worthy of remark, that this consent is not confined to any particular state of civilization, since if received in polite nations only, it might be supposed to have been effected by their rulers, in order to their better government; or if in barbarous ones, the consequence of fear and ignorance. Its being professed in both indiscriminately, precludes either conclusion. To this argument two objections have been made: 1. Some nations (for instance, Soldania, Formosa, and parts of America) have been discovered, which acknowledged no Deity. This objection may be refuted by observing: (1.) The supposition originated in the ignorance of travellers. Later writers have assured us, that these countries are not quite devoid of all sense of religion, which warrants us in concluding, that the first travellers gave a too hasty account. (2.) The objection itself implies, that the impression of the Being of a God, is absolutely necessary to the welfare of man. For if the only nations that can be found to form exceptions to this universal consent, are those which are most sunk in barbarism, it appears, that where the belief of a God does not exist, there those blessings are at the same time wanting, which alone render life valuable. Thus |