136 



falls within the limits of this essay, to shew 1° that the exis- 

 tence of that state he so loudly vaunts, is perfectly imaginary 

 and groundless. 2dly, that even if it had existed, it would 

 be infinitely more destructive of happiness than a civilized 

 stale can, in any possible case, be supposed to be. 



And 1*^, that men originally existed in a savage state, is di- 

 rectly contrary to the express testimonies of Moses and San- 

 choniatho, both the most ancient, and the former the most 

 credible ancient historian now existing. Both agree that alt 

 men sprung from a single pair-, had a language, formed 

 families, and lived in a social state from their very origin. 



To this testimony our orator allows, that religion obliges 

 us to assent, but insists that it does not forbid us to form con- 

 jectures grounded on the nature of man, and of the beings 

 that surround us, if God had not intervened. This guarded 

 concession he evidently makes to avoid prosecution, for he 

 presently after throws off the mask, supposes his discpurse 

 addressed in Athens to Plato and Xenocrates, and roundly 

 asserts, " that his account of the original state of man is not 

 " taken from histories composed by men, who are lyars, but 

 " from nature, which never lies." 



I shall now briefly state the paradoxes which he imagines 

 to have read in the book of nature, and in brief remarks 

 on each, shew he has falsely interpreted it. 



He 



