queftion: In both controverfies that ftate is deduced from the moral attributes: only with this difference. In the difpute with Atheists, the demonftration of thofe attributes is made; in the difpute with Deifts, it is allowed. The final purpose against Atheism is to prove the BEING AND ATTRIBUTES of God; the final purpose against Deism is to prove a FUTURE STATE: For neither natural nor revealed Religion can fubfift without believing that God is, and that he is a REWARDER of them that seek him*. Thus, we fee, the question, in each controversy, being different; the premisses, by which each propofition was to be proved, muft needs be different. The differ ence is here explained; the premiffes, in the argument against Atheists, were the moral attributes; the premiffes, in the argument against Deists, were the unequal diftribution of good and evil. What Enemy to Religion now, could ever hope to see a Calumny either thrive or rife on fo unpromifing a ground? or flatter himself with the expectation of an Advocate bold enough to tell the World, that this conduct of the DIVINES was a CONFEDERACY WITH ATHEISTS, to decry God's Providence; to blot out his Attributes of goodness and justice; to combat his Government; and to deny his very Exiflence? The RIGHT HONOURABLE Author does all this: And more;-he expects to be believed. It is true, this is a fine believing age: Yet I hardly think he would have carried his confidence in our credulity fo far, had he seen his way clear before him.-His Lordship is always fublime, and therefore often cloudy; commonly, at too great a distance to look into the detail of things, or to enter ~ into their minuteness: (for which, indeed, he is perpetually felici. tating his Genius.) So that, in his general view of Theologic matters, he has jumbled these two Controverfies into one; and, in the confusion, hath commodiously flipped in one Fact for another. He, all the way, reprefents Divines as making a future State THE PROOF of God's moral attributes: Whereas, we now fee, on the very face of the controversy, that they make the moral attributes A PROOF of a future State. Let us confider how the dispute stands with the Atheift. Thefe men draw their argument against a God, from the condition of the moral world: The Divine answers, by demonstrating God's Being and Attributes: and, on that demonstration, satisfies the objection. Confider how it ftands with the Deift. Here, God's Being and Attributes is a common principle: And on this ground the Divine stands, to deduce a future ftate from the unequal diftribution of things -But his mifreprefentation was to fupport his flander of a CONFEDERACY: there was no room to pretend that God's Being was made precarious by proving a future ftate from his Attributes; but could he get it be believed, that Divines proved the Attributes from a future ftate, he would easily find credit with his kind Reader, for all the rest. Well then, the whole amount of his CHIMERICAL CONFEDERACY comes to this, That Divines and Atheists hold a principle in common; but, in common too with all the reft of mankind; namely, that there are irregularities in the diftribution of good and evil here below. And did any thing forbid Divines to employ this common principle, in fupport of Religion against Atheism and Deifm! But whatever his Lordship might think proper to disguise in this reasoning, there is one thing, the most careless Reader will never overlook; which is, that, under all this pomp of words and folemnity of accufation, you fee lurking that poor fpecies of a Bigot's calumny, which, from one principle held in common with an obnoxious Party, charges his Adverfary, with all the follies or impieties which have rendered that Party odious. This miferable artifice of imposture, had now been long hiffed out of learned controverfy, when the noble Lord took it up; and, with true political skill, worked it into a SHAM PLOT; to make RELIGION distrust it's best Friends, and take refuge in the FIRST PHILOSOPHY. CONTENTS CONTENTS O F THE FIRST BOOK. THE introduction, the nature of internal evidence; the occafion of OF the original of civil fociety; the causes of its defective plan: that this defect can be only supplied by religion: that religion, under the pre- fent difpenfation of providence, cannot fubfift without the doctrine of a future fate of rewards and punishments; therefore that doctrine ne- SECT IV. and V. Mr. Bayle, the great defender of this paradox in his apology for atheism, examined. His arguments collected, methodized, and confuted. In the course of this difputation, the true foundation of morality enquired into, and fhewn to be neither the effential difference of things, nor the moral sense, but the will of God. The causes of the contrary errors fhewn: and the objections against morality's being founded in the will of God, answered, p. 74-112. THE Author of the Fable of the Bees, who contends that it is Vice, and not Virtue, that is useful to fociety, examined, expofed, and confuted, p. 112-124. BOOK HA AVING now proved the first PROPOSITION, That inculcating the doctrine of a future ftate of rewards and punishments is neceffary to the well-being of Society, by confiderations drawn from the nature of Man, and the genius of civil Society; and cleared it from the objections of licentious Wits; I proceed to the Second; which is, THAT ALL MANKIND, ESPE CIALLY THE MOST WISE AND LEARNED NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY, HAVE CONCURRED IN BELIEVING AND TEACHING, THAT THIS DOCTRINE WAS OF SUCH USE TO CIVIL SOCIETY. This I fhall endeavour to prove, 1. From the conduct of Lawgivers, and Inftitutors of civil policy. II. From the opinions of all the Learners and Teachers of wifdom in the schools of ancient philofophy. I. FROM THE CONDUCT OF LAWGIVERS, AND INSTITUTORS OF CIVIL POLICY: who never omitted to propagate and confirm Religion, where-ever they established Laws; RELIGION, I say, which was always first in their view, and laft in their execution. They used it as the instrument to collect a body politic; and they applied it as the bond to tye and keep that body together: they taught it in civilizing man; and established it to prevent his return to barbarity and a favage life. In a word, fo infeparable, in the ancient World, |