"

ing of, fuch as a man of honour, a great and generous mind, a friend, a grateful perfon, is fuppofed to think himfelf obliged to, thefe are fuch as are not regulated by municipal laws, and therefore men are at liberty whether they will act by what they call a principle of honour or not, and can juftly incur no cenfure or reproach, fhould they have no regard to that pompous and founding word; for if their actions are not morally determined, either by human or divine laws, they may very juftly, and honourably too, act with unlimited freedom in these matters. Befides, whoever believes himself free from the obligations of divine precepts, cannot look on himself as bound by any human laws. He may indeed, from the apprehenfion of punishment, forbear an action thus forbidden, and it is his interest so to do: but, if he thinks no divine authority makes it his duty to submit to the magiftrate, and obey the laws of his country, he is at liberty, as to any guilt, whether he will obey or no. If he ventures the punishment, he efcapes the fin. If an Atheist fwears fidelity to his prince, what controling power is he under, which affects the mind, not to betray him, if he think it fit and fafe to do it? If he lets his parents, or his patron, or his friend perish, what iniquity is he accountable for ?

The exiftence of a God has been already cleared, and abundantly demonftrated, by many pious and learned authors; whence this attempt may be cenfured as impertinent and unnecellary. But all thofe excellent performances being writ in, profe, and the greatest part

in the learned languages, or at least in a fcholaftic manner, are ill-accommodated to great numbers not of a learned education; and many who have more knowledge, and greater genius, will not undergo the trouble of reading and confidering the arguments expressed in a manner to them obfcure, dry, and difagreeable. I have therefore formed a poem on this great and important fubject, that I might give it the advantages peculiar to poetry, and adapt it more to the general apprehenfion and capacity of mankind. The harmony of numbers engages many to read and retain what they would neglect if written in profe; and I perfuade myself the Epicurean philofophy had not lived fo long, nor been fo much esteemed, had it not been kept alive and propagated by the famous poem of Lucretius.

I have chofen to demonftrate the existence of a God from the marks of wisdom, defign, contrivance, and the choice of ends and means, which appear in the univerfe. Out of the various arguments that evince the truth of this propofition, "There is a God," I have felected this as the most evident and intelligible.

I may with reafon prefume, that I fhall not incur any cenfure for not employing new arguments to prove the being of a God; none but what have been produced before by many writers, even from the eldeft days of philofophy. It was never objected to Lucretius, that, in his applauded poem, he has not invented a new system of philofophy, but only recited in poetical numbers the ancient doctrines of Democritus and Nor can it with reafon be fuppofed, that

curus.

the arguments by which he fupports their opinions were not long before in the fchools of Greece. Nor have modern writers on this fubject invented, but purfued the demonftration of a God, from the evident appearance of contrivance and wifdom in the vifible world, which they have done with more clearnefs and strength, than thofe who went before them. And while thefe have attempted to evince the existence of a God only from the contemplation of corporeal nature, I have carried the argument on to the actions of living, fenfitive, and intelligent beings, fo far as we are acquainted with them; believing that brighter and more noble ftrokes of wisdom and defign appear in the principles of life, fenfation, and reafon, than in all the compafs of the material world.

I have endeavoured to give the fubject yet greater degrees of perfpicuity, more variety of argument, as well as eafy and familiar expreffion, that, the style being more pleasing, and the demonftration more readily apprehended, it may leave a deeper impreffion, and its effects and usefulnefs may become more extenfive. In order to this, I have rarely used any term of art, or any phrafe peculiar to the writing and converfation of learned men. I have attempted, as Monfieur Fontenelle has done with great fuccefs in his Plurality of Worlds, to bring philofophy out of the fecret receffes of the fchools, and ftrip it of its uncouth and myfterious dress, that it may become agreeable, and admitted to a general converfation.

I take it for granted, that no judicious reader will expect, in the philosophical and argumentative parts of this poem, the ornaments of poetical eloquence. In this case, where metaphor and description are not admitted left they fhould darken and enfeeble the argument, if the reasoning be close, strong, and easily apprehended, if there be an elegant fimplicity, purity, and propriety of words, and a just order and connexion of the parts, mutually supporting and enlightening one another, there will be all the perfection which the ftyle can demand.

I may fafely conclude, that no man will expect that in this poem I should borrow any embellishments from the exploded and obfolete theology of the ancient idolaters of Greece or Rome: that I should addrefs any rapturous invocations to their idle deities, or adorn the style with allufions to their fabulous actions. I have more than once publickly declared my opinion, that a Christian poet cannot but appear monftrous and ridiculous in a Pagan drefs: that though it fhould be granted, that the heathen religion might be allowed a place in light and loose fongs, mock heroic, and the lower lyric compofitions; yet, in christian poems of the fublime and greater kind, the mixture of the Pagan theology muft, by all who are mafters of reflection and good fenfe, be condemned, if not as impious, at least as impertinent and abfurd. And this is a truth fo clear and evident, that I make no doubt it will by degrees force its way, and prevail over the contrary practice. Should Britons recover their virtue, and

reform

reform their taste, they would no more bear the heathen religion in verse, than in profe. Christian poets, as well as Chriftian preachers, the business of both being to inftruct the people, though the last only are wholly appropriated to it, should endeavour to confirm and fpread their own true religion. If a divine should begin his fermon with a folemn prayer to Bacchus, or Apollo, to Mars, or Venus, what would the people think of their preacher? And is it not as really, though not equally, abfurd, for a poet in a great and serious poem, wherein he celebrates fome wonderful and happy event of Divine Providence, or magnifies the illuftrious inftrument that was honoured to bring the event about, to address his prayer to falfe: deities, and cry for help to the abominations of the heathen?

The defign of this poem is to demonftrate the felf-exiftence of an Eternal Mind from the created and dependent exiftence of the universe, and to confute the hypothefis of the Epicureans and the Fatalifts, under whom all the patrons of impiety, ancient or modern, of whatfoever denomination, may be ranged. The first of whom affirm the world was in time caused by chance`; and the other that it exifted from eternity without a caufe. It is true, as before mentioned, both these acknowledged the existence of Gods; but, by their abfurd and ridiculous defcription of them, it is plain they had nothing else in view, but to avoid the obnoxious character of Atheistical philofophers.

This likewife has been often objected to the Deifts of the prefent times, that at leaft a great part of them

only