A T H E I S M. 



every supposition of design in things. For the same 

 v ' reason, no man can be cailed a theist, who is not uni- 

 formly and constantly convinced that an omnipo- 

 tent mind has produced the universe ; and, if this 

 language be admitted, we know not what name to 

 assign to those who fluctuate in their opinions con- 

 cerning the origin of the world. We cannot form a 

 conception of the incongruous combination which 

 his lordship calls a mixture of theism and atheism, 

 a co-operation of God and chance. 



The appellation Atheist mav, we think, be ap- 

 plied, with strict propriety, first, to those who pre- 

 tend that they arc unable to discover any evidences 

 of wise design in the formation of the universe ; se- 

 condly, to those, who not only withhold their assent, 

 but decidedly maintain, that there are no such evi- 

 dences ; and, thirdly, to those who undertake to ac- 

 count for the origin of things without having re- 

 course to the agency of mind. We would extend 

 the ttrm still farther : To those who have no idea of 

 God at all, if any such persons there be ; and also to 

 those whose notions of the creating or superintend- 

 ing mind, are completely incompatible with every 

 definition of Deity which has been given by enlight- 

 ened reason. He who admits that the world exhi- 

 bits marks of contrivance, and that inconceivable 

 power must have been exerted in bringing it into ex- 

 istence, but at the same time denies, or refuses to re- 

 cognise, the moral a ttr i bute* or the Supreme Being, 

 is to be accounted an atheist, inasmuch as he does 

 not believe in a Being possessed of those excellencies, 

 which are as essential to the idea of a Divinity as 

 eternity, ubiquity, and omnipotence. If there be 

 such an opinion as what has been Called perfect Dac- 

 monism, the belief in a malignant first prin cip le, we 

 hesitate not to rank it among the modifications of 

 ^ atheism. 



Though this is not the usual acceptation of the 

 word, it is sanctioned by many great authorities. 

 The ancient Stoics applied the name Atheists equally 

 to those who acknowledged no God, and to those 

 who thought or spoke in terms repugnant to the di- 

 vine perfection, t<<5 rt iyxtrtuf Sei Myt/nvti;. St 

 Paul, in writing to the Ephesian converts, formerly 

 the votaries of Diana, addresses them as having late- 

 ly been .W b t* Ktrftu, atheists in the world, be- 

 cause they had paid their adorations to beings who, in 

 ti.e characters ascribed to them, were devoid of eve- 

 ry attribute of divinity, toij (tti <pt/i o-jiri >soi;. To 

 the same purpose Dr Clarke expresses his opinion, 

 that all who deny the principal attributes of the di- 

 vine nature are to be numbered among the atheists. 

 In this particular, the language of Mr Hume coincides 

 with that of these Christian writers. All polytheists 

 and idolaters, he remarks, are to be considered as 

 superstitious atheists, because they acknowledged no 

 being who corresponds with our idea of Deity. The 

 fathers of the Christian church branded all the idol- 

 atrous Gentiles with this reproachful term ; and they, 

 in their turn, retorted the accusation, as Justin Mar- 

 tyr declares in his Apology, iBut Ka.Mf.&x, &c. 

 Both parties proceeded on the supposition, that the 

 objects of worship, to whom their adversaries render- 

 ed homage, were unworthy of the name of gods : the 

 former abhorring the heathen deities as vanities and 



5 



dumb idols; and the latter deriding the proselytes 

 of the new faith for setting up hot Satfuna, strange 

 and unheard of demons, because they spoke of JesiU 

 and Anastasis (the resurrection). 



Those who, in their moral conduct, give no evi- 

 dence of their belief in a superior power, or, in other 

 words, who act as if there were no God, are gene- 

 rally denominated practical atheists. In this sense, 

 Sophocles, Plato, and other ancient writers, apply 

 the term to those impious persons who neglect the 

 institutions of divine worship, and contemn the obli- 

 gations of morality. 



It has often been questioned, whether a specula- 

 tive or contemplative atheist ever existed ; and it is 

 generally admitted that the instances have been rare, 

 in which men have so completely divested themselves 

 of the original feelings of the mind, as to take refuge 

 in absolute atheism. Cicero says, that there never 

 was a man who constantly and absolutely denied a God. 

 If this assertion be well founded, there can be no 

 atheists, according to the definition of Shaftesbury 

 and others. All must be exempt from the charge, 

 in whose minds the opinion is not coeval with the 

 very dawn of intelligence, and all who, at the close 

 of life, may have been led, either by some undefined 

 terror, or by the importunity of others, to acknow- 

 ledge, that their belief was the same with that of other 

 men. Our opinion is, that, in strict propriety of 

 language, the term atheist must comprehend all who 

 are not theists, all who do not ascribe the forma- 

 tion and government of the world to an intelligent 

 power. In the whole compass of the Pagan history, 

 we find no unequivocal trace of what can, with any 

 degree of correctness, be named polytheism, or the 

 belief in a plurality of uncreated, self-existent beings, 

 the authors and preservers of the world. The opi- 

 nion of Zoraster and the Magi concerning a good and 

 an evil principle, commonly called the system of the 

 Manich-:ans, is the nearest approach to a scheme 

 of polytheism. But it appears to be universally admit- 

 ted, that the Pagan deities were never regarded by 

 their worshippers as the creators or governors of all 

 nature ; and indeed Aristotle proves the impossibi- 

 lity of conceiving a number of original self-existent 

 beings. These imaginary divinities were either the 

 animating spirits which impelled the heavenly bodies, 

 or they were the souls of good men and heroes de- 

 parted, or the invisible tutelary powers which watch- 

 ed over particular regions and individuals, or they 

 were abstract qualities personified, as health, tempe- 

 rance, fame, or last of all, they were merely a diver- 

 sity of appellations referring to the same object. 

 This last Cudworth calls Polyonomy. The religion 

 of the ancients consisted chiefly (or entirely, as Bry- 

 ant says,) in AuifrnxiXxT^ttK, the worship of deified 

 mortals, as mediators between heaven and earth ; and, 

 we may add, the invocation of the genii, the lares, or 

 penalcs, who may be considered in the same light. 

 Some of them believed, that these various divinities 

 were all subordinate to One Supreme. This was a 

 modification of theism. A great proportion, how- 

 ever, of the people could not be viewed as theists. 

 Addicted to idolatry, or rather to daemonolatry, they 

 rendered homage, and addressed their prayers, to be- 

 ings who had no concern in the creation of the world. 



