So that a confinement of him somewhere, was thought | nor would it answer any valuable end or purpose to revive altogether necessary.

Secondly, And then, with the same pretence of great observance and respect, it is judged too great a trouble to him, and inconsistent with the felicity of his nature and being, that he should have given himself any diversion or disturbance, by making the world; from the care and labour whereof he is with all ceremony to be excused, it being too painful and laborious an undertaking for an immortal and a happy being. Besides that he was altogether destitute of instruments and utensils requisite to so great a performance.b

Whence also, Thirdly, He was with the same reason to be excused of all the care and encumbrance of government; as indeed, what right or pretence could he have to the government of a world that chose him not, which is not his inheritance, and which he never made? But all is very plausibly shadowed over with a great appearance of reverence and veneration, with magnificent elogies of his never-interrupted felicity; whence also it is made a very great crime not to free even the divine nature itself from business though yet the true ground and root of this Epicurean faith doth sometime more apparently discover itself, even an impatiency of the divine government, and a regret of that irksome bondage which the acknowledgment of a Deity, that were to be feared by men, would infer upon them.

:

the mention of such horrid opinions, or tell the world what such a one said or thought two thousand years ago; if their grave had been faithful to its trust, and had retained their filthy poisonous savour within its own unhallowed cell.

But since (against what were so much to have been desired, that their womb might have been their grave) their grave becomes their womb, where they are conceived, and formed anew, and whence by a second birth they spring forth afresh, to the great annoyance of the world, the debauching and endangering of mankind; and that it is necessary some remedy be endeavoured of so mortal an evil, it was also convenient to run it up to its original, and contend against it as in its primitive state and vigour. Wherefore this being a true (though it be a very short) account of the Epicurean god, resulting all into this shorter sum, That he is altogether unconversable with men, (and such therefore as cannot inhabit their temple, and for whom they can have no obligation or rational design to provide any,) it will be requisite in reference hereto, and suitable to our present scope and purpose, severally to evince these things:-1. That the existence of such a being as this were impossible ever to be proved unto men, if it did exist-2. That being supposed without any good ground, it is equally unimaginable that the supposition of it can intend any valuable or good end-3. That this supposed being cannot be God, and is most abusively so called; as hereby, the true God, the Cause and Author of all things, is intended to be excluded-4. That it belongs to, and may be deduced from, the true notion of God which hath been given, (and proved by parts of a really existent Being,) that he is such as can converse with men.

And therefore, Fourthly, He is further expressly asserted to be such as need not be feared, as cares not to be worshipped, as with whom neither anger nor favour hath any place. So that nothing more of duty is owing to him than a certain kind of arbitrary veneration, which we give to any thing or person that we apprehend to excel us, and to be in some respect better than ourselves: an observance merely upon courtesy. But obedience and subjection to For the first, That there is no way to prove the existence his government, fear of his displeasure, expectation of his of such a being, is evident. For what ways of proving it favour and benefits, have no place left them. We are not can be thought of, which the supposition itself doth not obliged to worship him as one with whom we have any forbid and reject? Is it to be proved by revelation? But concern, and do owe him no more homage than we have that supposes converse with men, and destroys what it to the Great Mogul, or the Cham of Tartary, and indeed should prove, that such a being, having no converse with are less liable to his severity, or capable of his favours, men, doth exist. And where is that revelation? Is it than theirs; for of theirs, we are in some remote possi- written or unwritten; or who are its vouchers? Upon bility, of his, in none at all. In one word, all converse what authority doth it rest? Who was appointed to inform between him and man, on his part by providence, and on the world in this matter? Was Epicurus himself the ours by religion, is quite cut off. Which evidently appears common oracle? Why did he never tell men so? Did he (from what hath been already collected out of his own ever pretend to have seen any of these his vogued gods? words, and theirs who pretended to speak that so admired No, they are confessed not to be liable to our sense, any author's mind and sense) to be the scope and sum of the more than the inane itself. And what miracles did he ever Epicurean doctrine, in this matter; and was indeed ob- work to confirm the truth of his doctrine in this matter? served to be so long ago, by one that we suppose to have Which sure was reasonably to be expected from one who had better opportunity and advantages to know it, than would gain credit to dictates so contrary to the common we: who, discoursing that a man cannot live pleasantly, sentiments of the rest of mankind, and that were not to according to the principles of Epicurus; and that accord-be proved any other way. And what other way can be ing to his doctrine beasts are more happy than men ; devised? Can it admit of rational demonstration? What plainly gives this reason why he says so, viz. that the shall be the medium? Shall it be from the cause? But Epicureans took away providence, and that the design of what cause can (or ever did) he or his followers assign of their discoursing concerning God was, that we might not God? Or from effects? And what shall they be, when the fear him. matter of the whole universe is supposed ever to have been of itself, and the particular frame of every thing made thereof, to have resulted only of the casual coalition of the parts of that matter, and no real being is supposed besides? Or shall it be that their idea, which they have of God, includes existence, as so belonging to him that he cannot but exist? But by what right do they affix such an idea to their petite and fictitious deities? How will they prove their idea true? Or are we bound to take their words for it? Yea it is easily proved false, and repugnant esset. Intelligitur enim a beata immortalique natura, et iram et gratiam se gregan. Quibus remotis, nullos a superis impendere motus, &c. Sect. 1. cap 3. An et mundum fecit, et in mundo homines ut ab bominibus coleretur? At quid Deo cultus hominum confert, beato, et nulla re indigenti. Sect. 2. cap. 3.

Unto which purpose also much more may be seen in the same author elsewhere, when he more directly pleads (among divers more philosophical subjects) on behalf of religion against the Epicurean doctrine, which he saith they leave to us in word and show, but by their principles take away indeed, as they do nature and the soul, &c.

It is then out of question, that the doctrine of Epicurus utterly takes away all intercourse between God and man. Which yet were little worth our notice or consideration,

b η θεία φύσις προς ταύτα μηδαμη προσαγέσθω, αλλα αλειτούργητος διατηρείσθω, και εν της πάσης μακαριότητι. Laertius, 1. 10. Qua molitio, quæ ferramenta, qui vectes, quæ machinæ, qui ministri tanti muneris fuerunt? Vell. apud Cicer. de Natura Deorum.

c Nihil beatins, nihil omnino bonis omnibus affluentius excogitari potest. Nihil enim agit, nullis occupationibus est implicatus. &c. Id. Orav, rny Occaν với un droopytov atokvwow. Laert. ibid. Itaque imposuistis cervicibus nostris sempiternum dominum, quem, dies et noctes, timeremus. Quis enim non timeat omnia providentem, et cogitantem, et animadvertentem, et omnia ad se pertinere putantem, curiosum et plenum negotii Deum. Vell ubi supra Humana ante oculos fede cum vita jaceret. In terris oppressa gravi sub religione Primum Graius homo (meaning Epicurus, the first champion of irreligion.) Lucret Το which purpose besides what we have in Laert. Το μακάριον και αφθαρτον, ουτέ αυτό πραγματα έχει, ούτε άλλως παρέχει ωςε ούτε opyais, ourε xapioi ovvexetai ev aσlevεi yap Taν TO TOLOνtov, 1. 10. Much more is collected in the Syntagm. Nam et præstans Deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum æterna esset et beatissima. Habit enim veneraonem justam quicquid excellit. Et metus omnis, a vi atque ira Deorum pulsus

4 Και τοι ει μεν εν της προλήψει του θεού την προνοιαν απελίτον, εφαίνοντο αν έλπισι χρήσαις πλέον έχοντες οι φρονιμοί των θηρίων προς το πλέως ζην; έπει δε τέλος ην του περί θεών λόγου, το μη φοβείσθαι θεοι, αλλά παύσασθαι πραττομένους, βεβαιοτερον οίμαι τούτο, &c. Plut.

• Adversus Colotem. Πως ουν απολείπουσι φυσιν και ψυχην και ζωον ; ως όρκον, ως ευχήν, ως θυσίαν, ως προσκύνησιν, ρηματι και λόγων, και των φαναι και προσποιείσθαι και ονομάζειν, α ταις αρχαίς και τοις δόγμασιν avaipovoi. Unto which purpose is that also in Tully. At etiam de sanctitate, de pietate adversus Deos libros scripsit Epicurus. Ad quomodo in his loquitur? ut Coruncanium aut Scævolam Pontifices maximos te audire dicas non cum, qui subtulerit omnem funditus religionem: Nec manibus ut Xerxes, sed rationibus Templa Dcorum et aras everterit. De Natura Deorum

to itself, while they would have that to be necessarily | prompted, become thus ignorantly officious to these idle, existent (as they must if they will have it existent at all, voluptuary godlings; and should so effectually take course unto which, in the meantime, they deny the other perfec- they might be known to the world, who no way ever tions which necessary existence hath been proved to include. obliged it, nor were ever like to do! But to regress a But how vain and idle trifling is it, arbitrarily and by a little, fain I would know what is this thing they call narandom fancy to imagine any thing what we please, and ture? Is it any thing else than the course and inclination attributing of our own special grace and favour necessary of conspiring atoms, which singly are not pretended to existence to it, thence to conclude that it doth exist, only bear any such impression; but as they luckily club and because we have been pleased to make that belong to the hit together, in the composition of a human soul, by the notion of it? What so odd and uncouth composition can merest and strangest chance that ever happened? But we form any conception of, which we may not make exist, would we ever regard what they say whom we believe to at this rate? speak by chance? Were it to be supposed that characters But the notion of God is not arbitrary, but is natural, and words serving to make up some proposition or other, proleptical, and common to men, impressed upon the minds were by some strange agitation of wind and waves impressed of all: whence they say it ought not to be drawn into con- and figured on the sand; would we, if we really believed troversy. What! the Epicurean notion of him? We the matter came to pass only by such an odd casualty, shall inquire further into that anon. And in the mean- think that proposition any whit the truer for being there, time need not doubt to say, any man might with as good or take this for a demonstration of its truth, any more than pretence imagine the ridiculous sort of gods described in if we had seen it in a ballad? Because men have casuCicero's ironical supposition, and affirm them to exist, as ally come to think so, therefore there are such beings, (to they those they have thought fit to feign, and would impose be called gods,) between whom and them there never was upon the belief of men. And when they have fancied or shall be any intercourse or mutual concern. It follows these to exist, is not that a mighty proof that they indeed as well, as that because the staff stands in the corner, the do so? But that which for the present we allege, is, that morrow will be a rainy day. The dictates of nature are supposing their notion were ever so absolutely universal indeed most regardable things taken as expressions of his and agreeing with the common sentiments of all other men, mind, or emanations from him, who is the Author and God they have yet precluded themselves of any right to argue, of nature: but abstracted from him, they are and signify from its commonness, to the existence of the thing itself. as much as a beam cut off from the body of the sun; or a Nor can they upon their principles form an argument person that pretends himself an ambassador, without crehence, that shall conclude or signify any thing to this pur- dentials. pose. None can be drawn hence, that will conclude immediately, and itself reach the mark, without the addition of some further thing, which so ill sorts with the rest of their doctrine, that it would subvert the whole frame. That is, it follows not, that because men generally hold that there is a God, that therefore there is one; otherwise than as that consequence can be justified by this plain and irre- | fragable proof-That no reason can be devised of so general an agreement, or of that so common an impression upon the minds of men, but this only; that it must have proceeded from one common cause, viz. God himself; who having made man so prime a part of his creation, hath stamped with his own signature this nobler piece of his workmanship, and purposely made and framed him to the acknowledgment and adoration of his Maker.

But how shall they argue so, who, while they acknowledge a God, deny man to be his creature, and will have him and all things to be by chance, or without dependence on any Maker? What can an impression infer to this purpose, that comes no one can tell whence or how; but is plainly denied to be from him, whose being they would argue from it?

The observation of so common an apprehension in the minds of men, might (upon their supposition) beget much wonder, but no knowledge; and may perplex men much, how such a thing should come to pass, without making them any thing the wiser; and would infer astonishment, sooner than a good conclusion, or than it would solidly prove any important truth. And do they think they have salved the business, and given us a satisfying account of this matter, by telling us, This impression is from nature, as they speak? It were to be wished some of them had told us, or could yet tell us, what they meant by nature. Is it any intelligent principle, or was it guided by any such? If yea, whence came this impression, but from God himself? For surely an intelligent Being, that could have this universal influence upon the minds of all men, is much liker to be God than the imaginary entities they talk of, that are bodies, and no bodies, have blood, and no blood, members, and no members, are some where, and no where; or if they be any where, are confined to some certain places remote enough from our world; with the affairs whereof, or any other, they cannot any way concern themselves, without quite undoing and spoiling their felicity. If they say No, and that nature, which put this stamp upon the minds of men, is an utterly unintelligent thing, nor was ever governed by any thing wiser than itself-strange! that blind and undesigning nature should, without being

f Deos, Strabones, patulos, nævum habentes, silos, flaccos, frontones, capitones.-De Natura Deorum, l. 1.

Indeed, (as is imported in the words noted from that graves pagan a little before,) the principles of these men destroy quite nature itself, as well as every thing of religion; and leave us the names and show of them, but take away the things themselves. In sum, though there be no such impression upon the minds of men as that which they talk of, yet if there were, no such thing can be inferred from it, as they would infer; their principles taking away all connexion between the argument, and what they would argue by it.

2. We have also too much reason to add, That as the supposition of such a being, or sort of beings, can have no sufficient ground; so it is equally unconceivable that it can be intended for any good end. Not that we think the last assertion a sufficient sole proof of this; for we easily acknowledge that it is possible enough, men may harmlessly and with innocent intentions attempt the building very weighty and important truths upon weak and insufficient foundations; hoping they have offered that as a support unto truth, which proves only a useless cumber. Nor were it just to impute treachery, where there is ground for the more charitable censure, that the misadventure proceeded only from want of judgment and shortness of discourse. But it is neither needful nor seemly, that charity which can willingly wink in some cases, should therefore be quite blind; or that no difference should be made of well-meant mistakes, and mischief thinly hid and covered over with specious pretences. And let it be soberly considered, what can the design be, after the cashiering of all solid grounds for the proving of a Deity, at length to acknowledge it upon none at all? As if their acknowledgment must owe itself not to their reason, but their courtesy. And when they have done what they can to make the rest of men believe they have no need to own any God at all, and they can tell how all that concerns the making and governing the world may well enough be despatched without any, yet at last they will be so generous as to be content there shall be one, however. What, I say, can the design of this be, that they who have contended with all imaginable obstinacy against the most plain and convincing evidences, that do even defy cavil; have quite fought themselves blind, and lost their eyes in the encounter; so that they are ready to swear the sun is a clod of dirt, and noon-day light is to them the very blackness of darkness? They cannot see a Deity encircling them with the brightest beams, and shining upon them with the most conspicuous glory through every thing that occurs, and all things that encompass them on every side. And

g Plutarch

supposing, and taking for granted as a matter out of question, that (even in their own sense) if such a being as we have described do exist, it is most properly God; and that they will not go about to call it by another name; or that they will not pretend this name agrees to any other thing so fitly as to him. And because we have already proved this Being doth exist, and that there can be but one such, it plainly follows theirs is in propriety of speech (even though he did exist) no God; and that much less should he appropriate the name, and exclude the only true God. For since the high and dignifying eulogies, which they are wont to bestow upon their feigned deity, do plainly show they would have it thought they esteem him the most excellent of all existent beings; if we have proved a really existent Being to be more excellent than he, it is evident, even upon their own grounds, that this is God. Hither the Deity must be deferred, and theirs must yield, and give out; inasmuch as we cannot suppose them so void of common sense, as to say the less excellent being is God, and the more excellent is no God. But if they should be so, (whereas the controversy is not about the name,) we have our main purpose, in having proved there is a Being actually existent, that hath all the real excellences which they ascribe to their deities, and infinitely more. And as concerning the name, who made them dictators to all the world, and the sole judges of the propriety of words? or with what right or pretence will they assume so much to themselves, so as, against the rest of the world, to name that God, from which they cut off the principal perfections wont to be signified by that name? And if we speak of such perfections as tend to infer and establish religion and providence, who but themselves, did ever call that God in the eminent sense, that they supposed could not hear prayers, and thereupon dispense favours, relieve the afflicted, supply the indigent, and receive suitable acknowledgments? They indeed (saith a famed writers of Roman history) that exercise themselves in the atheistical sorts of philosophy, (if we may call that philosophy,) as they are wont to jeer at all appearances of the gods, whether among the Greeks or the Barbarians, will make themselves matter of laughter of our histories, not thinking that any God takes care of any man.-Let the story he there tells shift for itself; in the meantime it appears they escaped not the infamy of atheists, who (whatever deities they might imagine besides) did deny God's presence, and regard to men. Which sort of persons he elsewhere of ten animadverts upon. But do we need to insist, that all the rest of the world acknowledged no gods, whom they did not also worship? What meant their temples and altars, their prayers and sacrifices? Or did they take him for God, whom they believed to take no care of them, or from whom they expected no advantage? Even the barbarous Scythians themselves understood it most inseparable to belong to a deity, to be beneficent; when they upbraidingly tell Alexander, That if he were a god, (as they it seems had heard he vogued himself,) he should bestow benefits upon men, and not take from them what was their own.

And by the way, it is observable how contradictious and repugnant the Epicurean sentiments are in this, even to themselves: that speaking of friendship,k (of which they say many generous and brave things,) they gallantly profess (as Plutarch testifies of them) that it is a more pleasant thing to benefit others than to receive benefits oneself. They yet, while they seem so greatly concerned that their gods be every way most perfectly happy, deny to them this highest and most excellent part of felicity. That a virtuous man may a great deal more benefit the world than they, and consequently have more pure and lively relishes of a genuine and refined pleasure.

Upon the whole, it is manifest they so maim the notion of God, as to make it quite another thing. And if they think to wipe off any thing of the foul and odious blot wherewith their avowed irreligion hath stained their name and memory, by the acknowledgment of such a God; they effect the like thing by it, and gain as much to the reputation of their piety as he should of his loyalty, who being