right for in all actions, where religion does not interpofe and reftrain us, we are perfectly, as has been faid, free to act as we think beft for our profit and pleasure. Befides, to what a deplorable condition would mankind be reduced, fhould thefe opinions be univerfally embraced! If fo many kings and potentates, who yet profefs their belief of a God, and of rewards and punishments in a life to come, do notwithstanding, from boundless ambition and a cruel temper, opprefs their fubjects at home, and ravage and deftroy their neighbours abroad, fhould think themfelves free from all divine obligations, and therefore too from the refiraints of oaths and folemn contracts; thefe fences and fecurities removed, what a deluge of calamities would break in upon the world! what oppreflion, what violence, what rapine, what devaftation, would finish the ruin of human nature! for, if mighty princes are fatisfied that it is impoffible for them to do any wrong, what bounds are left to infatiable avarice and exorbitant thirst of "power! if monarchs may without the leaft guilt violate their treaties, break their vows, betray their friends, and facrifice their truth and honour at pleafure to their paffions, or their intereft, what truft, what confidence, could be fupported between neighbour potentates! and without this, what confufion and diftraction must of neceflity enfue! On the other hand, if fubjects were univerfally Atheists, and looked on themselves as under no divine obligation to pay any duty or obedience to the fupreme magiftrate; magiftrate; if they believed that, when they took their oaths of allegiance, they fwore by nothing, and invocated a power not in being; that therefore those oaths oblige them no longer than they think it fafe, and for their intereft, to break them; fhould fuch principles obtain, would not the thrones of princes be most precarious? would not ambition, revenge, refentment, or intereft, continually excite fome or other to betray or alfault the lives of their fovereigns? and why fhould they be blamed by the Atheist for doing it? why are traitors, affaffins, haters of their princes, and enemies to their country, branded with the odious names of ruffians and villains, if they lie under no obligations to act otherwife than they do? Should confpirators, who affaffinate their lawful fovereign, have the good fortune to make their eícape, I ask the Atheist, if he has in the leaft an ill opinion of them for being engaged in fuch an execrable undertaking? If he fays he has not, then the point is gained, and an Atheift is what I have reprefented. If he fays he has, I next ask him, why? Let him tell me in what their guilt confifts? Is it in the breach of any divine law? that cannot be, for he owns none. Is it the tranfgreffion of any human law? tell me, what obligation he is under to obey any human law, if no divine law enforces fuch obedience? does their guilt consist in the breach of their duty to their prince and their oaths of allegiance? ftill the fame question recurs, what duty can a fubject owe to a prince which divine laws do not conftitute and determine? and how can an oath of alle giance bind but by virtue of fome divine command, that obliges us not to violate our vows? By this it appears that an Atheist must be the worst of fubjects; that his principles fubvert the thrones of princes, and undermine the foundations of government and fociety, on which the happinefs of mankind fo much depends; and therefore it is not poffible to conceive how there can be a greater difturber of the public peace, or a greater enemy to his prince and country, than a profeft Atheist, who propagates with zeal his deftructive opinions. I have proved, in the following poem, that no hypothefis hitherto invented in favour of impiety has the least strength or folidity, no not the leaft appearance of truth to recommend it. A man must be deferted of Heaven, and inflexibly hardened, that cannot, or rather will not, fée the unreasonablenefs of irreligious principles. I demand only a candid temper in the reader, and a mind pleased with truth, and delivered from the prejudices of atheistical converfation. A SUMMARY ACCOUNT of the following POEM, and of what is contained in each Book. THE HE defign of this work is to demonftrate the exift-. ence of a Divine Eternal Mind. The arguments ufed for this end are taken from the various marks of wisdom and artful contrivance, which are evident to observation in the feveral parts of the material world, and the faculties of the human foul. The first book contains the proof of a Deity, from the inftances of defign and choice, which occur in the ftructure and qualities of the earth and fea. The fecond purfues the proof of the fame propofition, THERE IS A Gon, from the celestial motions, and more fully from the appearances in the folar fyftem and the air. In the third, the objections, which are brought by Atheistical philofophers against the hypothefis eftablished. in the two preceding books, are answered. In the fourth, is laid down the hypothefis of the Atomifts or Epicureans, and other irreligious philofophers, and confuted. In the fifth, the doctrine of the Fatalifts, or Ariftotelians, who make the world to be eternal, is confidered and fubverted. In the fixth, the argument of the two firft books is. refumed, and the existence of God demonftrated from the prudence and art difcovered in the feveral parts of In the feventh, the fame demonftration is carried on from the contemplation of the inftin&ts in brute animals, and the faculties and operations of the foul of man. The book concludes with a recapitulation of what has been treated of, and a Hymn to the Creator of the World. CREA |