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 must 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 difobedient, nor can we need forgivenefs, or expect reward. If we are not the fubjects 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 expreflions of it idle and ridiculous; which deftroy the diftinction of good and bad, all morality of our actions, and remove all the grounds and reafons of fear of punishment, and hope of reward; will justly denominate a man an

Atheift,

Atheist, though he ever so 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 Ariftotle as difbelievers of a Deity; the reafon he gives is, that these philofophers, in treating of the principles of the world, never introduce the Deity as the efficient caufe. But if it be confidered, that natural science was then in its infancy, and that thofe primitive philofophers only undertook to account for the material principle out of which the world was made, which one afferted 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 firft it might well be; but from their filence or oimiffion of him in their fyftems, when they defigned to treat only of the inaterial caufes of things, it is unreafonable to affirm that they denied his being and it is certain Anaxagoras taught, that, belides matter, it was abfolutely necetlary to affert a Divine Mind, the Contriver and Maker of the world; and for this religi ous 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 Boifthenites,

Borifthenites, were reputed Atheists, contemners of the Gods, and deriders of religion. Yet fince it does not appear, that they had formed any impious fcheme of philofophy, or maintained their irreligion by any pretended principles of reafon, it is not improbable that thefe men were rather abandoned libertines, without confideration and reflection, than speculative and philofophical Atheists.

The Italic fchool, to its great difhonour, was more fertile in impiety, and produced a greater number of thefe irreligious philofophers. The mafters, who fuc ceeded their famous founder Pythagoras, foon degenerated from his noble and pious principles, and not only corrupted the purity of his doctrine, but became downright apoftates, renouncing the belief of a God, and fubverting the foundations of religion. Leucippus, Democritus, Diagoras, and Protagoras, were justly reckoned in this rank; who afferted, that the world was made by the cafual combination of atoms, without any affiftance or direction of a Divine Mind. They taught their followers this doctrine, fupported it with arguments, and fo were Atheists on pretended principles of reafon. But among all the ancient obdurate Atheists, and inveterate enemies of religion, no one feems more fincere, or more implacable, than Epicurus.

And though this perfon was perhaps of as dull an understanding, of as unrefined thought, and as little fagacity and penetration, as any man who was even complimented with the name of a philofopher; yet feve ral great wits, and men of diftinguished learning, in this

laft

laft age, have been pleased to give the world high encomiums of his capacity and superior attainments.

After a long night of ignorance had overfpread the face of Europe, many wife men, from a generous love of truth, refolved to exercise their reafon, and free themselves from prejudice, and a fervile veneration of great names, and prevailing authority; and, growing impatient of tyrannical impofitions, as well in philofophy as religion, to their great honour, feparated both from the church of Rome, and the fchool of Ariftotle. Thefe patriots of the commonwealth of learning combined to reform the corruptions, and redrefs the grievances, of philofophy; to pull down the Peripatetic monarchy, and fet up a free and independent ftate of fcience; and, being fully convinced of the weakness and unreasonablenefs of Ariftotle's fyftem, which confifted chiefly of words without any determined meaning, and of idle metaphyfical definitions, of which many were falfe, and many unintelligible; they in this cafe had recourse to the Corpufcularian hypothefis, and revived the obfolete and exploded fyftem of Epicurus.

á

Many of these noble leaders, who had declared against the Peripatetic ufurpation, and afferted the rights and liberties of human understanding, called in this philofopher, for want of a better, to depofe Ariftotle.

And though a general revolution did not follow, yet the defection from the prince of science, as he was once efteemed, was very great. When thefe Erft reformers of Ariftotle's fchool had efpoufed the intereft of Epicurus, and introduced his doctrines, that

his hypothefis might be received with the lefs oppofition, they thought it neceffary to remove the ignominis ous character of impiety, under which their philofopher had long lain. And it is indeed very natural for a man, who has embraced another's notions and principles, to believe well of his mafter, and to stand up in the defence of his reputation. The learned Gaffendus is eminent above all others for the warm zeal he had expreffed, and the great pains he has taken, to vindicate the honour of Epicurus, and clear his character from the imputation of irreligion.

After the unhappy fate of Anaxagoras and the great Socrates, it is no wonder that the philofophers, who fucceeded, fhould grow more cautious in propagating their opinions, for fear of provoking the magiftrate, and making themselves obnoxious to the laws of their country: and, if any had formed irreligious fchemes, it is to be fuppofed, they would take care to guard, as well as they could, against the punishment. to be inflicted on all who denied the Gods, and deri ded the, eftablished worship. An Atheist cannot be fuppofed to be fond of fuffering, when pain and death are what he chiefly abhors: and therefore Epicurus, who, if Cicero and Plutarch knew his opinion, was a downright profeffed Atheist, has not in terms denied, but indeed afferted, the being of the Gods; and fpeaks honourably of them, fo far as regards the excellence of their nature, and their happiness. But when he defcribes his Gods, and gives them a human face and limbs, and fays they are neither incorporcal nor cor

poreal,