and the great enemies of religion. The observation of all ages confirms this truth; and, if any man who is doubtful of it would try the experiment, I make no queftion he will very foon be thoroughly convinced.

It is no wonder, therefore, that Anaxagoras, though he was the firft philofopher who plainly afferted an Eternal Mind by whose power the world was made, for oppofing the public worship at Athens, whose refined wits were plunged in the most fenfelefs idolatry, and particularly for denying the divinity of the Sun, thould be condemned for irreligion, and treafon against the Gods; and be heavily fined and banished the city. It is no wonder, after fo fharp a perfecution of this zealous reformer, that Socrates, the next fucceffor but one to Anaxagoras, and the laft of the Ionic fchool, for opposing their scandalous rabble of deities, and afferting one Divine Being, fhould be condemned for Atheism, and put to death, by blind fuperftition and implacable bigotry.

Some have been condemned by their antagonists for impiety, who maintain pofitions, which thofe from whom they dillent imagine have a tendency to the disbelief of a Deity. But this is a manifeft violation of justice, as well as candour, to impute to any man the remote confequences of his opinion, which he himelf difclaims and detefts, and who, if he faw the connexion of his principles with fuch conclufions, would readily renounce them. No man can be rea49nably charged with more opinions than he owns; and if this juice were obferved in polemical difcourfes,

as

as well of theology as philofophy, many perfons had escaped these hard names, and terrible cenfures, which their angry antagonists have thought fit to fix upon them. No one therefore is to be reputed an Atheist, or an enemy to religion, upon the account of any erroneous opinion, from which another may by a long chain of fequels draw that conclufion; much less for holding any doctrines in philofophy, which the common people are not able to examine or comprehend,' who, when they meddle with fpeculations, of which they are unqualified to judge, will be as apt to cenfure a philofopher for an Atheift, as an astronomer for a magician.

I would fain too in this place make fome apology for the great numbers of loose and vicious men, who laugh at religion, and feem in their converfation to difclaim the belief of a Deity. I do not mean an apology for their practice, but their opinion. I hope thefe unhappy perfons, at least the greatest part, who have given up the reins to their paffions and exorbitant appetites, are, rather than Atheists, a carclefs and ftupid fort of creatures, who, either out of a fupine temper, or for fear of being difturbed with remorfe in their unwarrantable enjoyments, never foberly confider with themselves, or exercife their reafon on things of the highest importance. Thefe perfons never examine the arguments that enforce the belief of a Deity, and the obligations of religion: but take the word of their ingenious friends, or fome atheiftical pretender to philofophy, who affures them there is no God, and there

1

fore no religion. And notwithstanding all Atheists have leave given them by their principles to become libertines, yet it is not true that all libertines are Atheifts. Some plainly affert their belief of a God; and others, who deny his exiftence, yet do not deny it upon any principles, any fcheme of philofophy which they have framed, and by which they account for the exiftence and duration of the world, in the beautiful order in which we fee it, without the aid of a Divine Eternal Mind.

But there are two forts of men, who without injuftice have been called Atheists; thofe who frankly and in plain terms have denied the being of a God; and those who, though they afferted his being, denied thofe attributes and perfections, which the idea of a God includes; and fo, while they acknowledged the name, fubverted the thing. These are as real Atheists as the former, but lefs fincere. If any man fhould.declare he believes a Deity, but affirms that this Deity is of human shape, and not eternal; that he derives his being from the fortuitous concourfe and complication of atoms; or, though he allowed him to be eternal, should maintain, that he fhewed no wisdom, defign, or prudence, in the formation, and no care or providence in the government, of the world; that he never reflects on any thing exterior to his own being, nor interefts himfelf in human affairs; does not know, or does not attend to, any of our actions: fuch a perfon is, indeed, and in effect, as much an Atheift as the former. For though he owns the appellation, yet his description is deftructive

deftructive of the idea of a God. I do not affirm, that the idea of a God implies the relation of a Creator: but, fince in the demonftration of the existence of a God we argue from the effect to the caufe, and proceed from the contemplation of the creature to the knowledge of the Creator, it is evident we cannot know there is a God, but we muft know him to be the Maker, and, if the Maker, then the Governor and Benefactor of the world. Could there be a God, who is entirely regardless of things without him, who is perfectly unconcerned with the direction and government of the world, is altogether indifferent whether we worship or affront him, and is neither pleased nor displeased with any of our actions; he would certainly to us be the fame as no God. The log in the fable would be altogether as venerable a Deity; for if he has no concern with us, it is plain we have none with him: if we are not fubject to any laws he has made for us, we can never be obedient or disobedient, nor can we need forgiveness, or expect reward. If we are not the subjects of his care and protection, we can owe him no love or gratitude; if he either does not hear or difregards our prayers, how impertinent is it to build temples, and to worship at his altars! In my opinion, fuch notions of a Deity, which lay the axe to the root of all religion, and make all the expreffions of it idle and ridiculous; which deftroy the diftinction of good and bad, all morality of our actions, and remove all the grounds and reasons of fear of punishment, and hope of reward; will juftly denominate a man an

Atheist,

Atheist, though he ever fo much disclaims that ignominious title.

Thales the founder of the Ionic fchool, and the philofophers who fucceeded him, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Diogenes Apollionates, Anaxagoras, and Archelaus, are cenfured by Aristotle as disbelievers of a Deity; the reafon he gives is, that thefe philofophers, in treating of the principles of the world, never introduce the Deity as the efficient caufe. But if it be confidered, that natural fcience was then in its infancy, and that those primitive philofophers only undertook to account for the material principle out of which the world was made, which one atferted to be water, one fire, another air; though this may prove that they formed but a lame and unfinished scheme of philofophy, yet it does not evince, that they denied the being of a God, or that they did not believe him to be the efficient caufe of all things. It is indeed a convincing evidence that their philofophy was imperfect, as at first it might well be; but from their filence or omission of him in their systems, when they defigned to treat only of the material caufes of things, it is unreasonable to affirm that they denied his being: and it is certain Anaxagoras taught, that, befides matter, it was abfolutely neceffary to affert a Divine Mind, the Contriver and Maker of the world; and for this religious principle, as was faid before, he was at Athens an illuftrious confeffor.

After the death of Socrates, the Ionic fchool was foon divided into various fects and philofophical parties of the Cyrenaic fchool, Theodorus and Dion Bo ifthenites,