A T H 



wliatever argument they can invent, by which they would 

 exclude God and Providence out of the world;, that very 

 ar;rument or hypothcfis, will of iiccefTitv lead them to this 

 conceffion. If they argue, that our notion of God arifts 

 not from nature and reafon, but from tiie art and contriv- 

 ance of politicians; that argument itfelf forces tliem to con- 

 fcfs, that it is manifeiUy for the interefl of human focietr, 

 that it (hould be believed there is a God. If they fuppofe 

 that the world was made by chance, and is every moment 

 fubject to be deftroyed by chance again ; no man can be fo 

 abfurd as to contend, that it is as comfortable and defirable 

 to live in fuch an uncertain ftate of things, and fo continually 

 liable to ruin, without any hope of renovation; as in a world 

 that were under the prefervation and conduft of a powerful, 

 wife, and good God. If they argue againil tlie being of 

 God, from the faults and defects wliich they imagine they 

 can find in the frame and conftitution of the vifible aad ma- 

 terial world; this fuppoiitiun obliges them to r.cknowledge, 

 that it would have been better the world had been made by 

 an intelligent and wife Being, who might have prevented all 

 faults and imperfcclions. If they argue againft Providence, 

 from the faultinefs and inequality which thev think they 

 difcover in the management of the moral world; this is a 

 plain confcfTion, that it is a tiling more fit and defirable in 

 itlclf, that the world fliould be governed by a juft and tjood 

 Being, than by mere chance or unintelligent neceffity. 

 JL.aftly, if they fuppofe the world to be eternally and necef- 

 farily felf-exillent, and confequently that ever)' thing in it is 

 eflablifhed by a blind and eternal fatality; no rational man 

 can at the fame time deny, but that liberty and choice, or 

 a free power of acling, is a more eligible Hate, than to be 

 determined thus in all our actions, as a ftone is to move 

 downward, by an abfolute and inevitable fate. In a word, 

 which way foever they turn themfelves, and whatever 

 hypothefis they make, concerning the original and frame of 

 things, nothing is fo certain aiid undeniable, as that man, 

 confidcred without the protection and conduct of a fupeiior 

 Being, is in a far worfe cafe; than upon fuppofition of the 

 being and government of God, and of men's being under 

 his peculiar conduct, protection, and favour. Ncverthelefs, 

 abfurd and joylefs as is the fyftem of atheifm, Diagoras 

 and Theodoruo among the ancients, and Vanini among the 

 moderns, have been reckoned martyrs for it. Mr. Bayle 

 has pretended to prove, that it is better to be an atheilt 

 than an idolater; or in other words, that it is lefs dangerous 

 to have no religion at all than a bad one. " I had rather," 

 faid he, " it (hould be faid of nie, that I had no txiftence, 

 than that I am a villain." This, as Montelquieu (Sp. of 

 Laws, vol. ii. p. 145.) juftly obferves, is only a fophilm, 

 founded on 'this, that it is of no importance to the human 

 race to believe that a certain man exills, whereas it is ex- 

 tremely ufeful for tiiem to beheve the exiitence of a God. 

 From the idea of his non-exiilence, immediately follows that 

 of our independence; but if we cannot c"onceive this idea, 

 that of difobedience. To fay that religion is not a re- 

 ftrainiiig motive, becaufe it does not always reflrain, is 

 equully abfu.id as to iay that the civil laws are not a re- 

 ftraining motive. It is a falfe way of rcafoning againil 

 religion, to coHeft in a large work a long detail ot the 

 evils it has produced, if we do not give at the fame time an 

 enumeration of the ad<'antagcs whicli have flowed from it. 

 Was it of no advantage for fubjeds to have rtligion, it 

 would Hill be (jf fome if princes had it, and if they whitened 

 with foam the only rein which can reftraiii thofe who tear 

 not human laws. A prince who loves and tears religion is a 

 lion, who Itoops to the hand that llrokes, or the voice that 

 appeafes him. He uho ieurs and hates religion is like the 

 Vol. III. 



A T II 



favage bead that growls and bites the chain wliich preventt 

 his flying on the palTenger. He who has no religion at all 

 is that terrible animal, who perceives his liberty cnly when he 

 tears in pieces, and when he devours. The queftion is not to 

 know, whether it would h" better that a certain man or a cer- 

 tain people had no religion, than to abufe what thev have; but 

 toknowwhieh is the kaft evil, thatreijgion be fometime* abuf- 

 ed, or that there be no fuch rcllrairt as religion on ma-kind. 

 Cicero reprefents it as a probable opinion, that they who 

 apply themfeh-es to the lludy of pliilofophy believe there 

 are no gods. — This mult, doubtlcfs, be meant of the aca- 

 demic philofophy, to which Cicero himfcif was attached, and 

 which doubted of every thing: on the contrary, the New- 

 tonian philofophers are continually recurring to a Deity, 

 whom they always find at the end of their chain in natural 

 caufes. Some foreigners have even charged them with 

 making too much ufe of the notion of a God in philofophy, 

 contrary to the rule of Horace — 



"Nee Deus interfit, nili dignus vindice nodus." 

 Among us, the philofophers have been the principal ad- 

 vocates for the exiitence of a Deity. Witncfs the writ- 

 ings of fn- Ifaac Newton, Boyle, Ray, Cheyne, Nieuwentvt, 

 S;c. To which may be added divers others, who, though 

 of the clergy (?s was alfo Ray}, yet have dillingaiihcd 

 thtmfelves by their philolophical pieces, in behalf of the 

 exiitence of a God; e. gr. Derham, Bentley, Whifton, 

 Samuel and John Clarke, Fenclon, &c. So true is that 

 faying of lord Bacon, that though a fmattcring of philo- 

 fophy may lead a man into atheilm, a deep draught will 

 certainly bring him back again to the behef of a God 

 and Providence. See God, Providence, and Religion. 

 ATHEI^ING, among our Saxon ancellors, was a title 

 of honour properly belonging to the eldelt fon of t"he reign- 

 ing prince, or the prelumptive heir of the crown. 



The word is formed from the Saxon (rthelin^, of irfliel, 

 nolle. It is fometimes alfo written, adehng, edhng, ethling, 

 and etheling. 



King Edward the ConfelTor, being without ifTue, and in- 

 tending to make Edgar, to whom he was great uncle by the 

 mother's fide, his heir, firft gave him the honourable appcU 

 lation of athcUng. 



Antiquaries obferve, that it was frequent among the Sax- 

 ons to annex the word I'mg, or ing, to a Chrillian name, to 

 denote the fon, or younger ; as Edmundl'mg, for the fon of 

 Edmund; Edgar'w.g, for the fon of Edgar; and, accord- 

 ingly, fome have thought atbelwg might primarily import 

 the fon of a nobleman, or prince : and fir Henry Spelman 

 obferves, that all nobleintn had anciently been called Ad.-- 

 hvg't: however, from a padage in the laws afcribed to Ed- 

 waid the Confeflbr, it appears, that in his times, and for at 

 lead a century afterwards, this word was appropriated to 

 the royal family by the Englilh. In reality, athd'mg, when 

 applied to the heir of the crowfl, feems rather to denote a 

 perfon endowed with nobler qualities than the fon of a no- 

 bleman ; and correfponds to the nobilis Cefar among the 

 Romans. 



ATHELNEY, IJle of, in Geogrc^p'.y, a fpot of rifing 

 ground, on the north fide of Stanmoor, in the county of 

 Somerfct, about one mile E. N. E. of Taunton, bounded 

 on the norlh-wetl by the river Tone ; over which is a wooden 

 bridge, Hill c.illed Atlielney bridge. The name given by 

 the Saxons to this illand was .Efclinjia '\^7^e, or the illc of 

 nobles, win net was derived, by contniitioi;, Athelney.- It 

 was formerly furrounded by almott impalfable marflies and 

 morafl'es. and will be for ever memorable for the retreat of 

 king Alfred from the fury of the Danes, when they had 

 ovenuu the caflern pari of his domiuions. Having bravely 

 B b encountered 



