as the fource of all Divinity, the Father of the gods. They had no notion of his being an artificer in brafs or iron; or indeed any artificer at all. We must not therefore judge of the ancient theology from that of the Greeks and Romans; especially from the defcriptions of their poets. To bring one more inftance. Among all their demon-herd, who is fo odious, fo contemptible as Priapus? His hideous figure was used only to frighten children, and drive away birds from fruit trees. Yet this fearecrow was reverenced by the Egyptians as the principal god. This wretched divinity of the Romans was looked upon by these as the Soul of the world; the firft principle, which brought all things into being, filed in the Orphic Hymus, "The firft-born of the world, from whom all the immortals and mortals were defcended." It may be farther remarked concerning Grecian etymologies; the Greeks miftook temples for deities, and places for perfons.. They changed every foreign term to fomething fimilar in their own language, fimilar in found, though quite different in fenfe. They conftantly mistook titles for names, and hereby mul tiplied their gods and heroes. All the common departments of the deities are fables. Pollux was really a Judge; Ceres a Law-giver; Bacchus, the god of the year: Neptune was a Physician, and Efculapius the god of thunder. Colonies always went out under the patronage of fome god, who was in after-times fuppofed to be the real Leader. Frequently the whole of the tranfaction was imputed to him. Hence, instead of one person, we must put a people. E. G. "Hercules did this:" i. e. the Army conducted by him, or confecrated to him. [To be continued.] An An Extract from a Book entitled, FREE THOUGHTS on the BRUTE-CREATION: by John Hilldrop, D. D. 19. TELL [Continued from page 261.] ELL me not that God may do this by an arbitrary act of his Will, and be no more unjuft in ftriking them out of the lift of beings, than in bringing them into it; that he may refume a grant that he had freely given them; and who fhall prefume to flop his hand, or limit his power, and fay what doeft thou? This is arguing from the principles of human weakness and ignorance. The counfels of God are not arbitrary in the human fenfe of that word, but founded on the immutable principles of infinite wisdom, goodness, and truth, and therefore without variableness or fhadow of changing, James i. 17. His counfels, like his nature, are the fame yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Heb. xiii. 8. It would be the highest presumption to pretend to limit the power of the Almighty; yet all agree in this, that Omnipotence itself can do nothing that implies a contradiction. But is it not a manifeft contradiction to infinite wifdom, to make and unmake, to create and deftroy? The fame infinite wif dom and power that brought them into being, muft of neceffity (pardon the expreffion) preferve them in it, unless we could fuppofe that he, who from eternity faw through all the poffibilities of being, in whom every part of the creation lives, and moves, and has its being, should tee a reason for creating at one time, and deftroying at another, the works of his own hands. 20. Indeed Mr. Locke, in his Controverfy with the Bishop of Worcester, page 148, makes a kind of objettion to what has been here advanced. I take liberty to obferve, that if your Lordship allows brutes to have fenfation, it will follow either that God can and does give to fome portions of matter a power of perception and thinking; or that all animals have immaterial, and confequently, according to your Lordship, immortal fouls. And to fay that fleas and mites, have immortal fouls, will poffibly be looked on as going a great way. Many Writers fince his time have improved this thought, in order to ridicule the immateriality of the Soul, by mentioning the Eels in Vinegar, the numberless nations, which to the naked eye appear as the blue of a plum, but are discovered by the Microscope, to be the proper inhabitants of that particular orb, But let them try the utmoft ftrength of the objection; and what will it prove, but the ignorance and prefumption of thofe that make it? Is it not a more surprising inftance of the almighty power of God, to form fo wonderful, fo beau, tiful, a piece of mechanism in one of these minute Animals, than in an Ox or a Horse, a Whale or an Elephant? What lefs than infinite Wisdom and Power, could form a little por tion of matter, too fmall to be viewed by the naked eye, into that almost infinite variety of parts, that are necessary to form an organical body? Do but confider, how inexpressibly fine, and delicate, muft the feveral parts be, that are neceffary to form the organs, to proportion the flructure, to direct the machinery, and preferve and fupply the vital and animal action in one of these imperceptible animals! Yet every part that is neceffary to animal life, is as truly found in one of them, as in Behemoth and Leviathan. I doubt whether any wifdom but that which framed them, can comprehend the Structure, the fymmetry, the beauties of this almoft impercep tible generation, and think it must needs exceed any finite understanding to conceive, much lefs to explain, how fuch an infinite variety of parts, and exercife of powers, could be contained or exerted within fo narrow a fpace. First, the Heart, the fountain of life; then the Mufcles neceffary to produce motion; the Glands for the fecretion of juices; the Ventricle Ventricle and Inteftines for digefting their nourishment, and numberless other parts which are neceffary to form an orga nical body. This knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for any human understanding, and it may reafonably be doubted, whether the angels themselves are able to explain and comprehend it. But when we further confider, that each of thofe members are themselves alfo organical bodies, that they confift of Fibres, Membranes, Coats, Veins, Arteries, Nerves, and numberless Springs, Tubes, and Pullies, too fine for imagination itself to conceive, try in the next place whether you can form the leaft guefs, how infinitely fine muft the parts of those Fluids be, that circulate through these Tubes, as the Blood, and animal Spirits, which in the largest Animals are fo exquifitely fine, as no imagination can conceive. Can any wif dom, any power, lefs than infinite, produce fuch wonderful effects and appearances as these? Infinite Wisdom is as wonderfully displayed in the smallest, as in the greatest works of the creation, and nothing lefs than the fame Wisdom that formed the univerfal Syftem, could poffibly produce the fmalleft and moft contemptible being in nature. I fay then, that all thefe effects of infinite Wifdom were intended to answer fome end, to ferve fome purpose, or they were not: they contributed fomething to the beauty and harmony of the whole, or they did not they were either useful and necessary in their feveral ranks and orders, or fuperfluous and useless: take which fide of the dilemma you pleafe, and fee what confequences will follow. It vou fay they were made for fome end, to answer fome purpose, that they contributed to the beauty and har mony of the whole, it will neceffarily follow, that they do fo still, unless you will venture to say, that what was once neceffary is not fo now; which would be an abfurd and blaf. phemous imputation upon infinite Wifdom. [To be continued.] An * **** An Anfwer to Mr. Madan's Treatife, on Polygamy and Marriage: in a Series of Lellers to the Rev. J. Welley: by Mr. J. Benson. 20. BUT [Continued from page 264.] UT I have not yet done with thefe fcriptures: Mr. Madan thinks them full proofs that "the business of marriage was left by Mofes as (he fays) it was firft ordained, to the one fimple act of union," that confequently "nothing elle, no form or ceremony whatfoever, is of divine inftitution;" that "nothing elfe is effential to conftitute a mar. riage in the fight of God; but that this is," page 24. Now I am fo far from being of his mind, that I think them full proofs of the contrary. What marriage was at its firft inflitution, I fhall confider by and by: at prefent I fhall obferve that these very paffages, on which he lays fo much firefs, and makes the pillars of his fcheme, not only fuppofe that after the fimple act he speaks of had taken place, the parties were ftill unmarried, not yet man and wife, but they both exprefsly enjoin (as he himself allows, vol. ii. p. 56, 57,) a particular form or ceremony. For they command in exprefs words, that the man who had defiled the virgin (as in Exodus) fhould endow her; or (as in Deuteronomy) fhould give unto the damfel's father fifty fhekels of filver, and this in order to his having her as a wife, as fibi in Now in the former paffage uxorem. for a wife to him. he is commanded to pay money according to the dowry of virgins, and as in the latter paffage the fum is fpecified, fifty fhekels of filver, it appears, by comparing the two paffages together (as Mr. Madan himfelf fays,) that this was the ufual dowry of virgins. It follows therefore that this whole matter was a ceremony or form of marriage appointed for a wife end, viz. that a young couple might not huddle up a match |