God; that religion is the creature of a timorous and fuperftitious mind, or of crafty priests, and cunning politicians; that therefore they are free from all restraints of virtue and confcience, and may prostitute their perfons in the moft licentious manner, without any remorse, or uneafy reflection; that it is idle to fear any divine punishment hereafter; and as to the fhame and difhonour that may attend the liberties they take, in cafe they become public, that fcandal proceeds from the grofs mistakes of people perverted with religion, and mifguided by a belief of a Divine Being, and of rewards and punishments in an imaginary life after this?

Do they take pains to inform their eldest fons, that they owe them no gratitude or obedience that they may use an uncontroled freedom in indulging all their appetites, paffions, and inclinations? that, if they are willing to poffefs their father's honour and estate, they may, by poifon or the poinard, take away his life; and, if they are careful to avoid the punishment of the magiftrate by their fecret conduct, they may be fully fatisfied of the innocence of the action; and as they have done themselves much good, fo they have done their father no injury, and therefore may enjoy in perfect tranquillity the fruits of their parricide? Whatever they may affirm among their loofe friends, I cannot conceive they can be guilty of fo much folly, as to propagate thefe opinions in their own families, and inftru&t their wives and children in the boundless liberties, which, by the principles of Atheism, are their undoubted

right for in all actions, where religion does not interpose and restrain 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 destroy their neighbours abroad, fhould think themfelves free from all divine obligations, and therefore too from the restraints of oaths and folemn contracts; thefe fences and fecurities removed, what a deluge of calamities would break in upon the world! what oppreffion, what violence, what rapine, what devastation, 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 pleasure to their paffions, or their intereft, what truft, what confidence, could be fupported between neighbour potentates! and without this, what confufion and diftraction muft of neceffity enfue!

On the other hand, if fubjects were univerfally Atheifts, and looked on themfelves as under no divine obligation to pay any duty or obedience to the fupreme

magistrate;

magiftrate; if they believed that, when they took their oaths of allegiance, they swore by nothing, and invocated a power not in being; that therefore thofe oaths oblige them no longer than they think it fafe, and for their intereft, to break them; should fuch principles obtain, would not the thrones of princes be moft precarious? would not ambition, revenge, resentment, or intereft, continually excite fome or other to betray or affault 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 escape, I ask the Atheist, if he has in the least an ill opinion of them for being engaged in fuch an execrable undertaking? If he says he has not, then the point is gained, and an Atheist is what I have represented. If he says he has, I next afk 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 Jaw enforces fuch obedience? does their guilt confist in the breach of their duty to their prince and their oaths of allegiance? still the fame question recurs, what duty can a subject 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 happiness of mankind fo much depends; and therefore it is not poffible to conceive how there can be a greater disturber of the public peace, or a greater enemy to his prince and country, than a profest 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 leaft ftrength 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, fee the unreafonablenefs 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.

SUMMARY ACCOUNT of the following POEM, and of what is contained in each Book.

THE 'HE defign of this work is to demonftrate the exiftence of a Divine Eternal Mind.

The arguments ufed for this end are taken from the various marks of wifdom and artful contrivance, which are evident to obfervation 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 GOD, from the celeftial 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 established 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 Aristotelians, who make the world to be eternal, is confidered and fubverted.

In the fixth, the argument of the two first books is refumed, and the exiftence of God demonstrated from