THE FOLLY OF ATHEISM,

AND (WHAT IS NOW CALLED)

DEISM,

EVEN WITH RESPECT TO

THE PRESENT LIFE.

SERMON I.

Preached March the 7th, 169.

PSALM xiv. verse 1.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

I SHALL not now make any inquiry about the time and occasion and other circumstances of composing this Psalm; nor how it comes to pass, that, with very little variation, we have it twice over, both here the 14th, and again number the 53d. Not that these and such like are not important considerations in themselves; but that I think them improper now, when we are to argue and expostulate with such persons as allow no divine authority to our text, and profess no greater, or, it may be they will say, less veneration for these sacred hymns, than for the profane songs of Anacreon or Horace. So that although I myself do really believe, that all such as say in their hearts, There is no God, are foolish and corrupt, both in understanding and will, because I see* [see; 1st ed. "see that."-D.]

Infinite Wisdom itself* has pronounced them to be so; nevertheless this argument would at present have no force upon these men, till in due time and method we have evinced the sufficient authority of holy Scripture. But, however, there are other books extant, which they must needs allow of as proper evidence; even the mighty volumes of visible nature, and the everlasting tables of right reason; wherein, if they do not wilfully shut their eyes, they may read their own folly written by the finger of God, in a much plainer and more terrible sentence than Belshazzar'sa was by the hand upon the wall.

And as the impious principles of these persons do preclude any argumentation from the revealed word of God, so they prevent us also from speaking at present to the second part of the text. The whole verse hath apparently two propositions: the one denoting the folly of Atheism; The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God: the second declaring the corruption and flagitiousness of life which† naturally attend it; they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Now, this latter part to a genuine Atheist is mere jargon, as he loves to call it; an empty sound of words without any signification. He allows no natural morality, nor any other distinction of good and evil, just and unjust, than as human institution and the modes and fashions of various countries denominates them. The most heroical actions or detestable villanies are in the nature of things indifferent to his approbation, if by secrecy they are alike concealed from rewards or punishments, from ignominy or applause. So that, till we have proved, in its proper place, the eternal and essential difference between virtue and vice, we must forbear to urge Atheists with the corruption and abominableness of their principles. But I presume the first part of the text, the folly and sottishness

of Atheism (which shall be the subject of this discourse) will be allowed to come home to their case, since they make such a noisy pretence to wit and sagacity; and I believe several of them first engage in that labyrinth of nonsense and folly, out of an absurd and preposterous affectation of seeming wiser than their neighbours.

But, before I proceed any farther, it will be necessary to clear and vindicate this expression of the Psalmist, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. For I know not any interpreters that will allow it to be spoken of such as flatly deny the being of God; but of them that, believing his existence, do yet seclude him from directing the affairs of the world, from observing and judging the actions of men. I suppose they might be induced to this from the commonly received notion of an innate idea of God, imprinted upon every soul of man at their creation, in characters that can never be defaced. Whence it will follow, that speculative Atheism does only subsist* in our speculation; whereas really human nature cannot be guilty of the crime: that, indeed, a few sensual and voluptuous persons may for a season eclipse this native light of the soul; but can never so wholly smother and extinguish it, but that at some lucid intervals it will recover itself again, and shine forth to the conviction of their consciences.† And therefore they believed, that the words would not admit of a strict and rigorous interpretation; but ought to be so tempered and accommodated to the nature of things, as that they may describe those profane persons, who, though they do not, nor can,‡ really doubt in their hearts of the being of God, yet§ openly deny his providence in the course of their lives. Now, if this be all that is meant by the text, I do not see how we can defend, not only the fitness and propriety, but the very truth of the expression. As to that natural and indelible signature of God, which human souls in their first origin are supposed to be

[* does only subsist; 1st ed. "doth subsist only."--D.] [t consciences; 1st ed. "conscience."―D.]

[ can; 1st ed. "cannot."-D.]

[§ yet; 1st ed. "yet do."-D.]

stamped with, I shall shew, at a fitter opportunity, that it is a mistake, and that we have no need of it in our disputes against Atheism. So that, being free from that prejudice, I interpret the words of the text in the literal acceptation, which will likewise take in the expositions of others. For I believe that the royal Psalmist in this comprehensive brevity of speech, There is no God, hath concluded all the various forms of impiety; whether such as excludes the Deity from governing the world by his providence, or judging it by his righteousness, or creating it by his wisdom and power; because the consequence and result of all these opinions is terminated in downright Atheism. For the divine inspection into the affairs of the world doth necessarily follow from the nature and being of God. And he that denies this doth implicitly deny his existence: he may acknowledge what he will with his mouth, but in his heart he hath said, There is no God. A God, therefore a Providence, was a general argument of virtuous men, and not peculiar to the Stoics alone. And again, No Providence, therefore no God, was the most plausible reason, and the most frequent in the mouths of atheistical men. So that it seems to be agreed on all hands, that the existence of God and his government of the world do mutually suppose and imply one another.

There are some infidels among us that not only disbelieve the Christian religion, but oppose the assertions of† Providence, of the immortality of the soul, of an universal judgment to come, and of any incorporeal essence; and yet, to avoid the odious name of Atheists, would shelter and screen themselves under a new one of Deists, which is not quite so obnoxious. But I think the text hath cut them short, and precluded this subterfuge; inasmuch as it hath declared, that all such wicked principles are coincident and all one in the issue with the rankest Atheism: The fool, that doth exempt the affairs of the world from the ordination and disposal of God, hath said in his heart, There is no God at all. It was

[* such; 1st ed. " of such."-D.]

[ oppose the assertions of; 1st ed. " impugn the assertion of a."-D.]

the opinion of many of the ancients, that Epicurusb introduced a Deity into his philosophy, not because he was persuaded of his existence, (for, when he had brought him upon the stage of nature, he made him only muta persona, and interdicted him from bearing any part in it,) but purely that he might not incur the offence of the magistrate. He was generally, therefore, suspected* verbis reliquisse Deum, re sustulisse; to have framed on purpose such a contemptible paltry hypothesis about him, as indeed left the name and title of God in the world, but nothing of his nature and power. Just as a philosophere of our own age gave a ludicrous and fictitious notion about the rest of the earth, to evade the hard censure and usage which Galileo had lately met with. For my own part, as I do not exclude this reason from being a grand occasion of Epicurus's owning a God,† so I believe that he and Democritus too were compelled to it likewise by the necessity of their own systems. For seeing they explained the phenomena of vision, imagination, and thought itself, by certain thin fleeces of atoms, that flow incessantly from the surfaces of bodies, and by their subtilty and fineness penetrate any obstacle, and yet retain the exact figures and lineaments of the several bodies from which they proceed; and in this manner insinuating themselves through the pores of human bodies into the§ contexture of the soul, do there excite|| sensation and perception of themselves in consequence of¶ this hypothesis they were obliged to maintain, that we could have no fancy, or idea,** or conception of any thing, but what did really subsist either entire or in its several parts. Whence it followed, that mankind

b Posidon. apud Ciceron. Plutarch. &c.

[* magistrate. He was generally, therefore, suspected; 1st ed. "governWherefore he was generally suspected."-D.]

ment.

Mr. Des Cartes.

[t owning a God; 1st ed. " Deism."-D.]

[ penetrate; 1st ed. "do penetrate."-D.]

[§ through the pores of human bodies into the; 1st ed. " into the eyes and

the."-D.]

[ there excite; 1st ed. "there produce and excite."-D.]

[¶ of; 1st ed. " therefore of."—D.]

[** fancy, or idea; 1st ed. "phantasic, idea."--D.]