only conceal their notions under that name, while they are really to be numbered among the Atheists. I have before expreffed my reasons, why I cannot embrace this opinion. It is true, indeed, that most of the Deifts maintain a particular friendship with the Atheists, are pleased with their loofe and impious conversation, and appear very tender of their credit and esteem. They are charitable in crying up their fhining qualities, and in concealing, excufing, or lef fening, their immoral actions; while at the fame time they fhew an affectation in expofing the faults and follies of the Chriftians, especially thofe who are the moft ftrict and regular in their manners, and appear to be moft in earneft. It is likewife remarkable, that thefe gentlemen exprefs no zeal for the extirpation of irreligious principles: they have never, as fas as I know, written any thing against them; nor are they pleafed in company to declare their deteftation of fuch impious maxims, or to produce arguments to confute them; while at the fame time they take great pains, and fhow a warm zeal, to weaken the belief of the Chriftian religion, and to expofe the pretended errors of its different profeffors; which feems, indeed, strange, fince he that owns a God and his providence fhould in reafon look upon thofe who believe neither to be infinitely more oppofite to him, than those who agree with him in the belief of a God, and differ only in the point of revealed religion.

Befides, it is obfervable that the prefent Deifts have not drawn and published any fcheme of religion, or

catalogues

catalogues of the duties they are obliged to perform, or whence fuch obligations arife. They do not tell us, that they look on man as an accountable creature; nor if they do, for what, and to whom, or when, that account is to be made, and what rewards and punishments will attend it. I do not affirm they have no fuch scheme in their thoughts; but, fince they will not let us know their creed, and in the mean time deride and triumph over that of the Chriftians, I cannot defend them from those who say they are justly to be fufpected.

And that the Deift may clear himself from the fufpicion of being an Atheist, or at least a friend and favourer of their principles; I could wish he would in public affert and demonstrate the being of a God and his providence, and declare his abhorrence of the principles of those who difbelieve them.

It would likewife give great fatisfaction, and remove the objections of those that charge them with direct irreligion, if they would please to give some account of their belief: Whether they look upon God as one who governs mankind by laws to be difcovered by the light of reafon, which reftrain our inclinations and determine our duty; that they would tell us what thofe laws are, and what fanctions do enforce them; and until this be done, they cannot well discharge themfelves from the fufpicion before-mentioned.

And here I would addrefs myself to the irreligious gentlemen of the age and I defire them not to take up prejudices against the exiftence of a God, and run

away

away with impious maxims, until they have exercifed their confideration, and made an impartial enquiry into the grounds and reasons that fupport the belief of a Divine Eternal Being. In order to fuch a réafonable examination, it is but just and decent they should be in earneft, and hear the arguments we offer with temper and patience; that they fhould inure themselves to think, and weigh the force of those arguments, as becomes fincere enquirers after truth. The being of a God, and the duties that result from that principle, are fubjects of the greatest excellence and dignity in themselves, and of the greatest concern and importance to mankind; and, therefore, fhould never be treated in mirth and ridicule. Generals of armies and counsellors of ftate, fenators, and judges, in the great and weighty affairs that come before them, do not put on the air of jefters and buffoons, and, inftead of grave and folemn debates, aim at nothing but fallies of wit, and treat their subjects and one another only with raillery and derifion : yet the bufinefs propofed to the confideration of the perfons I speak to is, in every refpect, infinitely fuperior to any of theirs before-mentioned.

Are they fure there is no God, and therefore no religion? If they are not, what a terrible rifque do they run! If their reasons amount only to a probability, the contrary opinion may be true, and that may be is enough to give them the moft frightful apprehenfions, and disturb them amidst all the pleasures they enjoy. But if they fay they are affured, and paft doubt, there

a

is no God; let them confider, confidence in an opinion is not always the effect of certainty and demonftration. Their predeceffors, the Atheists of former ages, were as certain, that is, as confident, they reafoned right, as they can be. They cannot pretend to clearer light, and greater affurance of the truth of their maxims, than Epicurus and Lucretius did; or infult their adverfaries with greater contempt than thofe have done : : yet thefe men themselves, at leaft many of them, allow thofe philofophers were grofsly mistaken, and' will by no means truft to the Epicurean scheme, as the foundation of their opinions. If these great mafters, notwithstanding their unexampled confidence, have been mistaken, why may not their fucceffors be fo?

If they fet up Ariftotle's fcheme, and think they fecure their principles by making the world to be eternal, and all effects and events the refult of fuch a fatal ncceffity, and an indiffoluble concatenation of causes, as render it impoffible, that things that are fhould not be, or that they fhould be otherwife than they are; let them confider, that the greatest affertors of impiety, I mean, Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus, and' Lucretius, oppofed this as an idle and incoherent fyftem; and that indeed it is fo, fhall be after demonftrated and fhould not this fhake their confidence, that all their friends in the Epicurean schools, who were fufficiently delivered from the prejudices of education and fuperftitious impreffions, could not fee the leaft probability in the fcheme of the Fatalifts, on

:

which these gentlemen are pleased to rely in a matter of

the highest importance?

Will they confide in Mr. Hobbes? has that philofofopher faid any thing new? does he bring any stronger forces into the field, than the Epicureans did before him? Will they derive their certainty from Spinosa? can fuch an obfcure, perplexed, unintelligible author create such certainty, as leaves no doubt or distrust? if he is indeed to be understood, what does he alledge more than the ancient Fatalists have done, that should amount to demonstration?

Befides, if, as they pretend, they are established beyond poflibility of deception in the truth of their maxims, why are they fo very fond of thofe authors, that fet up any new doctrine? and why do they einbrace with fo much pleasure their new fchemes of irreligion? They are very glad to hear of any great genius, that can invent fresh arguments to itrengthen their opinions; and does not this betray a fecret diffidence, that demands further light and confirmation?

But further: fince these gentlemen fhew so much induftry in propagating their opinions, and are fo fond of making profelytes to Atheism; fince they affect a zeal in countenancing, applauding, and preferring, thofe whom they have delivered from religious prejudices, and reformed and refined with their free, large, and generous principles; how comes it to pass, that they neglect to inform and improve their neareft relations? are they careful to instruct their wives and daughters, that they nee ere the imaginary phantom of a God;